Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2012, 03-27 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,March 27, 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 John Vanderwalker, Community of Christ Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2012 Transportation Improvement Plan—Steve Worley 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 03/09/2012 25364-25418; 305120008; 306120140 $310,719.22 03/09/2012 25419-25444 $34,570.20 03/16/2012 25493-25507 $51,960.08 GRAND TOTAL $397,249.50 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending March 15,2012: $280,481.88 c.Approval of Minutes of March 6,2012 Council Study Session Format Meeting d.Approval of Minutes of March 13,2012 Council Formal Format Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-012, Special Event Permits—Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Proposed Resolution Amending 2012 Transportation Improvement Plan —Steve Worley [public comment] 5.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations—Mark Calhoun [public comment] Council Agenda 03-27-12 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 6.Motion Consideration: STA Agreement, Sidewalk and Transit Accessibility Project#0154- Steve Worley [public comment] 7. Motion Consideration: Union Pacific Railroad Agreement for Pines Road Railroad Crossing Improvements—Steve Worley [public comment] 8.Motion Consideration: Safe Routes to School Call for Projects—Steve Worley [public comment] 9.Motion Consideration: Pavement Management Plan—Neil Kersten [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: 10.Funding Options,Pavement Management—Mark Calhoun,Mike Jackson 11. Sign Code Regulations—John Hohman,Lori Barlow 12.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY(will not be discussed or reported): 13. Department Reports 14.New Washington State,Department of Transportation Funding Program 15. Regional Toxics Task Force Agreement 16.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential/Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meetini'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 4th 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 03-27-12 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Draft Amended 2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2012-2017 Six Year TIP on June 28, 2011, Resolution #11-005; Approved Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) 2011 Call for Project applications on August 9, 2011; Approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications on October 25, 2011; Approved proceeding with Evergreen Rd Preservation Project — 16th to 32nd on February 7, 2012; Info RCA in Council's March 6, 2012 packet. Admin Report on March 20, 2012. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2012-2017 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2012-2017 TIP, staff submitted applications for a Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects and a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the following projects that were selected for funding: • Sprague Avenue Reconstruction #2 — Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd (TIB) • Sprague Avenue ADA ramps — Fancher Rd to Havana Street (CDBG) — pending approval from Spokane County • Wellesley Ave Sidewalk — Sullivan Rd to 150-ft east of Isenhart Rd and Adams Rd Sidewalk - Wellesley Ave. to Trent Ave (SR290) Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2012 TIP include the following: Carryover projects from 2011: • Pines/Mansfield (Railroad Crossing Improvements) • Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection • Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC Intersections • Green Haven STEP Paveback project Other projects approved by Council: • Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit • Sullivan Bridge Temporary repairs • Evergreen Road Rehabilitation — 16th Ave to 32nd Ave Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2012 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not completed in 2011 and have been carried over to the 2012 construction season, and those projects added to the 2012 construction season. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. Adoption of the Amended 2012 TIP is currently scheduled for March 27, 2012. OPTIONS: Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Public Hearing BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the draft Amended 2012 TIP are preliminary and will be adjusted prior to adoption to reflect 2011 year-end adjustments. There are sufficient capital project funds in the 2012 budget to cover the local match for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2012 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2012 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2012 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 79,000 $ 582,000 2 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 238,000 $ 1,775,000 3 0069 Park Road Project 2(RW/CN Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 20,000 $ 150,000 4 0115 Sprague Reconstruction#2 Evergreen Sullivan STP(P) $ 188,000 $ 1,394,000 5 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 96,000 $ 711,000 6 0133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS McDonald/Sprague Sullivan/I-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 253,000 7 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail(PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 372,000 8 0146 24th Avenue Sidewalk Project Adams Sullivan TIB-USP $ 132,000 $ 258,000 9 0148 Greenacres Trail(PE Only) Sullivan Hodges EECBG $ - $ 50,000 10 0149 Sidewalk Infill Project Various locations CMAQ $ 108,000 $ 539,000 11 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility Various locations FTA $ 63,000 $ 315,000 12 0155 Sullivan West Bridge#4508 Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 226,000 $ 1,128,000 13 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project(PE/RW Only) Pines(SR 27) Houk St. CMAQ $ 100,000 $ 738,000 14 0160 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study University 1-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 250,000 15 Broadway Ave Improvements Flora Barker TIB-UCP $ 151,000 $ 755,000 16 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 1-90 Wellesley STP(U) $ 27,000 $ 200,000 17 Sullivan Rd/UPRR Overpass Bridge Resurfacing Sullivan @UPRR Overpass BR $ 149,000 $ 746,000 $ 1,645,000 $ 10,216,000 Funded Projects Added Projects Planned Projects City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDED 2012 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 12-xxx,(Date) Primary City Total 2012 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0005 Pines/Mansfield Montgomery Pines(SR-27) City-303 $ 463,000 $ 463,000 2 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 145,000 $ 1,100,000 3 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 250,000 $ 1,850,000 4 0115 Sprague Reconstruction#2 Evergreen Sullivan TIB $ 858,000 $ 3,878,000 5 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 96,000 $ 711,000 6 0133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS Sprague Sullivan/l-90 CMAQ $ 104,000 $ 456,000 7 0141 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection(PE/RW only) Sullivan Euclid STP(U) $ 5,000 $ 40,000 8 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC Intersections(PE/RW only) Broadway @Argonne/Mullan STP(U) $ 37,300 $ 276,300 9 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail(PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 500,000 10 0146 24th Avenue Sidewalk Project Adams Sullivan TIB-USP $ 132,000 $ 258,000 11 0148 Greenacres Trail(PE Only)* Sullivan Hodges EECBG $ - $ 48,000 12 0149 Sidewalk Infill Project Various locations CMAQ $ 108,000 $ 539,000 13 0150 Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit Sullivan Bridge southbound DOE $ 79,100 $ 316,500 14 0151 STEP Paveback-Green Haven project Various locations City-310 $ 118,000 $ 118,000 15 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility Various locations FTA $ 37,000 $ 215,000 16 0155 Sullivan West Bridge#4508 Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 226,000 $ 1,128,000 17 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project(PE/RW Only) Pines(SR 27) Houk St. CMAQ $ 100,000 $ 738,000 18 0157 Sullivan Bridge Temporary Repairs Sullivan Bridge southbound City-311 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 19 0159 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study University 1-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 250,000 20 0160 Evergreen Road Rehabilitation 16th 32nd City-101 $ 611,000 $ 998,951 21 Sprague Avenue curb ramps Fancher Havana CDBG $ - $ 115,410 22 Wellesley Ave/Adams Rd.Sidewalk project Sullivan/Trent Isenhart/Wellesley SRTS $ 30,000 $ 691,000 $ 3,603,400 $ 14,890,161 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2011 Carry Over Projects *May be delayed pending ROW issues. C:\Documents and Settings\sworley\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YTQXEHVP\Draft Amended 2012 TIP.xlsx 3/14/2012 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2012 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 03/0920I2 25364-25418; 305120008; 306120140 $310,719.22 03/09/2012 25419-25444 $34,570.20 03/16/2012 25493-25507 $51,960.08 GRAND TOTAL $397,249.50 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist 03109/20/2 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 25364 25365 25366 25367 25368 25369 apbank Date Vendor 3/9/2012 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 3/9/2012 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 3/9/2012 001961 BUDANO, RANDY 3/9/2012 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC 3/9/2012 002562 CD'A METALS 3/9/2012 000101 CDW-G 25370 3/9/2012 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN Invoice 92957 542310 542454 EXPENSES M11062-3 427075 429262 F789185 F926860 G030655 G047551 G090188 G187072 G332721 G381740 G431830 606698568 606699499 606699540 606700406 606701349 606701393 606702278 Fund/Dept 101.000.000 001.013.015 001.058.050 001.032.000 303.303.112 101.000.000 101.000.000 Description/Account 001.058.050 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.013.015 001.090.000 001.090.000 001.090.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.042.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.042.000 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW COPIER COSTS: LEGA COPIER COSTS: CD Total : Total : PAVEMENT TRAINING:MOSES LAK Total : GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT#0 Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF COMPUTER SOFTWARE/HARDWAF Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : Amount 54.35 54.35 168.42 899.80 1,068.22 140.42 140.42 18,619.94 18,619.94 411.53 33.59 445.12 342.80 132.55 43.27 729.05 132.59 595.89 256.18 49.34 342.80 2,624.47 94.55 129.91 143.48 94.55 94.55 143.48 94.55 795.07 Page: 1 vchlist 03/09/2012 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 25371 3/9/2012 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 25372 3/9/2012 001888 COMCAST 25373 3/9/2012 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 25374 3/9/2012 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC 25375 3/9/2012 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 25376 3/9/2012 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 25377 3/9/2012 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 25378 3/9/2012 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 25379 3/9/2012 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 25380 3/9/2012 001232 FASTENAL CO 25381 3/9/2012 002975 FREEDOM SALES AND SUPPLY 25382 3/9/2012 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 40118 MARCH 2012 28707281 30 315483 315505 75590979 3213-2011-Qtr4 EXPENSES 4193565 1DLEW80755 IDLEW80794 2012090 Feb 121042 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.013.000 001.090.000 001.058.057 101.042.000 Amount 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.090.000 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET: CITY HALL Total : FEBRUARY 2012: FLEET FUEL BILL Total: MAINTENANCE CHARGES: MA1NT F Total : TRAFFIC SERVICES VI 2012 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SER1 Total : LEASE CONTRACT Total : 001.090.000 4TH QTR 2011:MLS CREDIT CARD Total : 001.013.015 WSAMA CONFERENCE:SPRING 2C 101.000.000 FEB 2012:OIL PRODUCTS FOR PL( Total : Total : 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.011.000 LOBBYIST SERVICES Total : Total: Total : 1,080.77 1,080.77 115.95 115.95 2,206.62 2,206.62 182.22 182.22 139.38 2,766.50 2,905.88 1,087.47 1,087.47 317.95 317.95 318.08 318.08 3,610.77 3,610.77 15.94 24.13 40.07 210.82 210.82 3,163.78 3,163.78 Page: 2 vchlist 03/09/2012 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 25383 3/9/2012 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 25384 3/9/2012 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS, [NC 25385 3/9/2012 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 25386 3/9/2012 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 62548 62641 62721 62981 62982 63055 63128 63325 775911 776051 14747 MARCH 2012 0074346 25387 3/9/2012 002676 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES F852286 25388 3/9/2012 002466 KENWORTH SALES 25389 3/9/2012 002915 KONKRIGHT, KELLY 25390 3/9/2012 001944 LANCER LTD 194505 194773 195621 195916 197839 972717 EXPENSES 0425206 Fund/Dept 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 Description/Account SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES:PW Total : 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.013.000 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE Total: 101.042.000 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Total : 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 101,000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 SUPPLIES&MAINT: SUPPLIES&MAINT: SUPPLIES&MAINT: SUPPLIES&MAINT: SUPPLIES&MAINT: SUPPLIES&MAINT: Total : Total : PLOWS PLOWS PLOWS PLOWS PLOWS PLOWS Total : 001.013.015 WSAMA CONFERENCE:SPRING 2C Total : 001.013.000 BUSINESS CARDS Total : Amount 715.17 132.58 399.68 34.11 34.11 7.92 64.90 357.19 1,807.04 383.37 3,936.07 615.84 615.84 300.00 300.00 4,445.01 4,445.01 497.34 497.34 339.36 679.40 283.53 28.39 46.52 226.52 1,603.72 248.86 248.86 33.97 33.97 Page: 3 vchlist 03/09/2012 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 25391 3/9/2012 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS 25392 3/9/2012 000258 MICROFLEX INC. 25393 3/9/2012 000662 NATL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 439 470 497 511 0020534 75539 25394 3/9/2012 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 20965 25395 3/9/2012 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 25396 25397 25398 3/9/2012 000058 OMA 3/9/2012 002243 ORB1TCOM 3/9/2012 000881 OXARC 25399 3/9/2012 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 25400 3/9/2012 002578 REBUILDING&HARDFACING INC 25401 3/9/2012 002616 ROADWISE, INC 1445555476 598718894001 A500163 00547462 R114591 S558548 SSS8733 SSS9431 154270 45114 54310 Fund/Dept 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.090.000 001.032.000 001.076.305 Description/Account 001.018.013 001.032.000 SUPPLIES:PW 001.018.016 PROF SVCS: HOLLYWOOD EROTIC AT&T MOBILE TAX REFUND PROFESSIONAL SVCS: HOLCIM PF SPOKANE VALLEY/MONTGOMERY Total : TAXTOOLS SOFTWARE RENTAL: Fl Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : SWITCHES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES:ADMIN Total : PHYSICAL EXAMS: NEW EMPLOYE 001.090.000 ETHERNET: FEBRUARY 2012 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 101,000.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW ICE CURB GUARD: PLOWS FEEZGARD ZERO:PW Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Amount 280.00 52.50 1,147.30 684.29 2,164.09 343.83 343.83 58.64 58.64 5,591.82 5,591.82 11.61 31.26 42.87 65.00 65.00 1,180,00 1,180.00 8528 19.12 5.85 60.77 171.02 1,304.65 1,304.65 1,210.92 1,210.92 5,349.13 Page: 4 vchlist 03/0912012 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: Voucher 25401 25402 25403 25404 25405 25406 25407 25408 25409 25410 25411 apbank Date Vendor 3/9/2012 002616 ROADWISE, INC 3/9/2012 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD 3/9/2012 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 3/9/2012 002835 SPOKANE COURIER SERVICES LLC 3/9/2012 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC_ 3/9/2012 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 3/9/2012 000311 SPRINT 3/9/2012 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3/9/2012 001472 TESTAMERICA LAB 3/9/2012 001060 TIMEMARK, INC. 3/9/2012 001464 TW TELECOM Invoice (Continued) 54311 70797069 Fund/Dept Description/Account FEBRUARY 2012 FEBRUARY 2012 2274 187862 188279 188823 191679 192264 300494 959698810-051 8021160998 59004284 113375 04689153 101.000.000 FEEZGARD ZERO:PW 101.000.000 FEEZGARD ZERO:PW 101.042.000 2012 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL Total : 001.058.056 RECORDING FEES 001.011.000 BROADCASTING SVCS. Total : Total : Total : 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.018.016 HR ADVERTISEMENT:ACCT#50865 Total : Total : 001.058.057 GPS PHONE 001.058.050 SUPPLIES Total : Total: 402.402.000 SWEEPING&CATCH BASIN DEBRI Total : 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.076.305 INTERNET/DATA LINES/PHONE LINI Total : Amount 5,353.71 13,588.32 24,291.16 1,375.00 1,375.00 443.00 443.00 75.00 75.00 67.64 143.89 51.74 63.29 43.64 370.20 257.00 257.00 71,57 71.57 908.42 908.42 125.00 125.00 174.06 174.06 1,274.37 Page: 5 vchlist 03/09/2012 9:52:34AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 25411 3/9/2012 001464 001464 TW TELECOM Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount (Continued) Total : 1,274.37 25412 3/9/2012 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRIZES L.L.0 2292012 25413 3/9/2012 002965 VERADALE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRI 2012 25414 3/9/2012 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 25415 3/9/2012 001321 WEST VALLEY CITY SCHOOL 25416 3/9/2012 001949 WILSON, SAYDEE 25417 3/9/2012 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC. 25418 3/9/2012 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 305120008 3/5/2012 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 1058434412 1058435230 1058437773 6698406926 001.011.000 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS F 2,282.70 Total : 2,282.70 303.303.115 BUILDING USEAGE FOR PUBLIC MI 200.00 Total : 200.00 001.016.000 AIR CARD FOR SHERIFF 43.01 001.016.000 AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTN 86022 101.042.000 FEB.2012-VERIZON CELL PHONE; 1,014.81 101.042.000 FEB 2012-WIRELESS DATA CARDS 620.83 Total : 2,538.87 CRYWOLF:3559258641 001.000.000 EXPENSES 73102 0249400952 FEBRUARY 2012 306120140 3/6/2012 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-26 57 Vouchers for bank code: apbank CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V40 165.00 Total : 165.00 001.018.014 WSCPA CONFERENCE REGISTRAT 260.00 Total : 260.00 101.042.000 WIRELESS TELEPHONE/INTERENT 84.95 Total : 84.95 001.090.000 MARCH 2012: INTERNET/DATA LINE 401.90 Total : 401.90 001.016.000 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 208,285.81 Total : 208,285.81 001.016.000 CRY WOLF CHARGES:JANUARY 2C 4,333.59 Total : 4,333.59 Bank total : 310,719.22 57 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 310,719.22 Page: 6 vchlist 03/09/2012 11:50:12AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 25419 3/9/2012 001081 ALSCO 25420 3/9/2012 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 25421 3/9/2012 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 25422 3/9/2012 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 25423 3/9/2012 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 25424 3/9/2012 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 25425 3/9/2012 002662 DAVID'S BRIDAL INC 25426 3/9/2012 002662 DAVID'S BRIDAL INC 25427 3/9/2012 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 25428 3/9/2012 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 25429 3/9/2012 002882 HOFFMAN MUSIC COMPANY 25430 3/9/2012 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LSPO1103926 LSPO1110774 INV007104 9307983 50026821 S0026872 March 2012 3820:100235 February 2012 5320-2 7014808 9306 March 2012 S I-194385 Feb 2012 FundlDept 001.058.057 001.058.057 Description/Account FLOOR MATS:BUILDING FLOOR MATS:BUILDING 001.016.000 JANITORIAL SVCS:FEB 2012 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.018.013 001.076.305 001.076.300 001.076305 001.076.305 001.076,305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 Total : Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY Total : PETTY CASH:7606 Total: COFFEE SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACI Total : UTILITIES: PARKS Total : JAN-DEC 2012 LICENSE:ACCT 53 Total: LICENSE FEE: DEC 2011 ACCT#5 Total: SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : EXHIBIT AT INNOVATION SHOW:CE Total : SOUND SYSTEM EQUIPMENT: CEN Total : SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE AND Cr Amount 33.22 33.22 66.44 2,165.23 2,165.23 95.24 13.75 288.33 397.32 12.36 12.36 60.97 60.97 67.23 67.23 1,925.00 1,925.00 175.00 175.00 195.01 195.01 300.00 300.00 18.92 18.92 548.45 Page: 1 vchlist 03/09/2012 11:50:12AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount 25430 25431 3/9/2012 000715 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (Continued) 3/9/2012 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 94202 101.042.000 25432 3/9/2012 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 February 2012 001.076.300 February 2012 101.042.000 25433 3/9/2012 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 259666 001.076.305 259667 001.076.305 25434 3/9/2012 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT February 2012 001.076.305 25435 3/9/2012 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW REC Postage 3-6-12 001.076.301 25436 3/9/2012 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 17878453 101.042.000 FEB 2012 001.076.302 25437 3/9/2012 001860 PLATT 1145655 001.076.305 1212925 001.076.305 25438 3/9/2012 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 4509396 4524984 4562553 4564896 4565049 25439 3/9/2012 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES March 2012 25440 3/9/2012 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 30773 001,076.300 101,042.000 001.016.000 001.016.000 001.016.000 UTILITIES:FEB 2012 PW UTILITIES: PARKS UTILITIES:PW Total: Total : Total : FEBRUARY 2012-CP CLEANING EVENT SVCS:FEBRUARY 2012 Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP Total : POSTAGE/MAILING FOR REC DEPT Total : UTILITIES: PW NOT ON MASTER Bl UTILITIES: PARKS Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : PARKS SUPPLIES 2012 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTI SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES: PREC CONTRACT MAINT: FEB 2012 PREC SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES: PREC Total : 001.076.302 SEWER CHARGES FOR MARCH Total: 001.016.000 FEBRUARY 2012 MONTHLY MAINT Amount 548.45 366.72 366.72 166.00 67.50 233.50 7,136.00 93.65 7,229.65 246.91 246,91 561.00 561.00 25.78 1,364.55 1,390.33 292.19 -84.57 207.62 196.48 542.71 434.80 346.75 326.10 1,846.84 1,944.64 1,944.64 553.60 Page: 2 vchlist 03/09/2012 11:50:12AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 25440 3/9/2012 001083 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTRI (Continued) 25441 3/9/2012 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION CP436 25442 3/9/2012 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 1429177-2681-2 1429178-2681-0 1429179-2681-8 25443 3/9/2012 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE Jan-Mar 2012 25444 3/9/2012 002651 WOODARD,ARNE Expenses 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 I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim, Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.016.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.011.000 Description/Account Total: EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAC Total : WASTE MGMT:CENTERPLACE WASTE MGMT:PRECINCT WASTE MGMT:MAINTENANCE FAC Total: 2012 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : Amount 553.60 108.70 108.70 758.04 292.64 178.12 1,228.80 12,585.00 12,585.00 134.96 134.96 34,570.20 34,570.20 Page: 3 :rchlist 03/16/2012 12:01:52PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 25493 3/16/2012 001081 ALSCO February 2012 001.016.000 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 40.78 Total : 40.78 25494 3/16/2012 000030 AVISTA February 2012 101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 26,825.61 February 2012 001.076.300 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,164.91 Total : 34,990.52 25495 3/16/2012 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9310016 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY CEN" 112.43 9312002 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY CEN- 228.06 S0026990 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY CEN" 38.13 S0027447 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY CEN" 34.38 S0027530 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY CEN" 165.64 Total : 578.64 25496 3/16/2012 000904 BRANCH, CAROLBELLE Expenses 001.018.013 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 35.71 Total : 35.71 25497 3/16/2012 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY March 2012 001.058.055 PETTY CASH:7607,7608,7609 19.42 Total: 19.42 25498 3/16/2012 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 314824 001.058.055 SPOKANE VALLEY PLAT REVIEW 2,192.50 Total: 2,192.50 25499 3/16/2012 002626 ELECTRIC CITY, INC. C12-6500 001.016.000 INSTALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING: PRE 3,225.13 Total : 3,225.13 25500 3/16/2012 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 9325 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 42.39 Total : 42.39 25501 3/16/2012 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO February 2012 101.042.000 UTILITIES:PW 5,353.05 Total : 5,353.05 25502 3/16/2012 000868 POWER CITY ELECTRIC CON. INC. 33392 001.076.305 GARBAGE DISPOSAL FOR CENTEF 529.23 Total : 529.23 25503 3/16/2012 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110644358 001.016.000 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 1,061.67 Page: 1 vchlist 03116/2012 12:01:52PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 25503 3/16/2012 000935 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO (Continued) Total : 1,061.67 25504 3/16/2012 000167 VERAWATER&POWER February 2012 101.042.000 UTILITIES: FEB 2012 2,717.04 Total: 2,717.04 25505 3/16/2012 000347 WORLEY,STEVE Expenses 001.032.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 76.00 Total : 76.00 25506 3/16/2012 000129 WRPA 12-114 001.076.305 CONFERENCE REGIST: CARTER& 598.00 Total : 598.00 25507 3/16/2012 001793 WWRC 03-07-12 001.076.000 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES: PAR 500.00 Total : 500.00 15 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 51,960.08 15 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 51,960.08 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: 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03-27-2012 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 March 15, 2012 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget/Financial impacts: Gross: $ 241,167.89 Benefits: $ 39,313.99 Total payroll $ 280,481.88 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 6,2012 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney 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 Kelly Konkright,Deputy City Attorney 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 Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. 1. Regional Animal Control — Commissioner Todd Mielke, and SCRAPS Operations Manager Nicole Montano Commissioner Mielke introduced Operations Manager Nicole Montano, and explained that he wanted to review some of the history of the animal shelter and of the opportunity they have for a regional animal shelter; he said this discussion began about three years ago when the City of Spokane asked to become part of their coalition; that the discussions stopped a few years ago to consider the idea of expansion and whether the current facility was large enough to accommodate the entire coalition. Commissioner Mielke went over his PowerPoint slides explaining the site evaluation criteria,which includes property containing four to seven acres, with about 43,000 square feet, located central to jurisdictions with available utilities and public access. Commissioner Mielke said that the first option explored was whether to remodel the current facility, but it was determined that was not a viable option as it has no sewer or fire hydrant, was not centrally located and had no visibility and poor public access.He explained that the facility is also not ADA compatible and could not meet any code standards; he said there are about fifty to seventy people in the building with one restroom. The second option they explored,he explained,was a new shelter on bare land. Mr. Mielke said that those figures were calculated in 2007 and at that time, the cost was estimated at $15 million. He said they wanted a less expensive option. Commissioner Mielke said another option discussed was to find an existing building and renovate it and said they thought they had found one off Havana for about $10 million, and said that was the proposal which went to voters last year, which measure failed. He explained that the current proposal is about $4.5 million and involves purchasing one of three different buildings. Mr. Mielke said all three buildings are about the same price, but the one on which they focused was the old Harley Davidson building on Trent. He mentioned the other two options were for a building formerly housing Sunshine Mattress, or a building formerly housing an electric building. Mr. Mielke explained that the building on Trent is about ten years old and is built to the latest energy standards and would be efficient to operate; it sits on 3.29 acres, and has been on the market for a little over a year with an asking price of$1.875 million. Commissioner Mielke explained the proposal to the partners as shown on the slide, based on estimated workload of a regional model and a three-way Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT partnership to co-purchase and co-own a building; and said before they can move further into their negotiation, they need to take a measurement of the partners, adding that he will present this same information to the City of Spokane Council March 15. So far, he explained, in speaking with their staff, they are not interested in ownership but would prefer to model their participation much like the evidence building for law enforcement,by an operations contract and another contract for depreciation./rent, spread out over the course of twenty years; that way they would not have an ownership stake in the building. Again,Mr.Mielke said they can't move further until he gets a sense of where the partners will be and said they are getting to the end of the life of the current building and have to do something. There was some discussion about the other two buildings, that the Trent building purchase would also include a second parcel; and mention by Mr. Mielke that they calculate an operational savings of about $196,000 annually; and that Spokane Valley's savings are approximately$64,000. Mr.Mielke also noted that the City of Spokane's rent would be the equivalent of a debt payment over twenty years; and said they would need an agreement that the partners will sign an interlocal agreement to split the costs over twenty years. Mayor Towey said that about a year ago, a coalition of stakeholders was formed which was meeting up until the ballot issue, and he asked if that group would re-form to move the current proposal forward; he said he feels we are in the same situation as last time where Spokane Valley is being asked to make a commitment before knowing all the details; he said he would also like to know how committed Spokane is; that he realizes such a facility would require all three entities' involvement; and asked about the possibility of having that group re-form to determine the details. Mayor Towey also stated that the last spreadsheet showed the City of Spokane's estimated percentage of workload at 60%, but the current estimate is 50%. Commissioner Mielke said the original number was about 60% for the City of Spokane, and they balked at that number; he said they were trying to merge data from two different systems; that Spokane City told him they represent about 40% of the population so how could that result in 60% of the workload. Mr. Mielke said he went back and found all the animal welfare organizations in this community and looked at their reported numbers to the ASPCA for this community, and it appears SpokAnimal's numbers were about 51-53% throughout that period of time, and said therefore they feel that 50% is a more realistic number; and again said that Spokane City is not looking at ownership; but wants a fixed fee contract where they agree on a fixed fee every year instead of going back at the end of the year for a settle and adjust. Further discussion included mention by Mr. Mielke that the County has been renting the current building from the County's enterprise fund; and explained that they have not been paying any rent and since this is an enterprise fund, the State Auditor said they must recoup those fees; adding that it is not the County's building to sell; and in response to a question about the kennels, said most of the kenneling is built into the building. In response to Councilmember Hafner's question of who is in the coalition, Commissioner Mielke said the coalition includes Spokane Valley, which he said is the biggest partner; Liberty Lake, Cheney, Spokane County, Millwood, at one time included Fairchild Air Force Base, and perhaps Airway Heights. He said the task force included himself, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, the Mayor of Liberty Lake, Nancy McLaughlin, and staff from each jurisdiction. He said the task force examined three questions: (1) can they still use the existing facility; and if not, (2)to look at used or new facilities; and (3) what is the cheapest cost; and he said the task force recommended that the current facility is not workable and they recommended finding the lowest cost for an existing building and to renovate the building; and said that was the proposal that went on the ballot, and that they have not reassembled that coalition, adding that the City of Spokane wanted to wait until their new council and mayor were seated. Again, Mr. Mielke said that Spokane Valley is the biggest partner in the coalition, and that they are not looking for direction tonight,but are trying to plant a seed for council's consideration. Commissioner Mielke said the County Commissioners looked at the property and feel the same as the coalition about the current property; and said they don't want to spend more money on the current facility; he also mentioned there will be an open house at the Trent property March 21, from 4 to 6 p.m. and he invited everyone to come look at the property and facility. Mr. Mielke said that the Board of County Commissioners wanted to look at other pieces of commercial real estate that meet the criteria, and they hired a real estate consultant to do an Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT inventory, and said they are adding properties as they come on the market; he said they have not had an appraisal done on the Trent property but did a market analysis to see if the asking price was reasonable, and said at the conclusion of the analysis, the Commission believes it is. Councilmember Woodard encouraged members of council and staff to go see that building; then schedule an executive session. City Manager Jackson said an executive session would be to discuss the terms of the purchase or confidential information regarding the price of the property. Councilmember Woodard asked if it would be held prior to the March 21 open house;and Mr. Jackson said he will see what we can do. Councilmember Grassel said the goal is to reduce costs to municipalities, and that she would like to see the current costs and future costs, and get more detail on the exact cost of the remodeling, and to split out the capital costs from the maintenance and operation, adding this council might need to consider the two contract concept; she said she can't commit to anything yet, she recognizes the need for the facility but can't make a decision without knowing how much it will cost the taxpayer. Commissioner Mielke said he has those documents and will give copies to the City Clerk for distribution to Council and staff. Mr. Mielke also mentioned that the average household in the Spokane region has 2.4 pets; and the goal is to provide the most efficient, effective service possible at the lowest cost possible, and do it well; he said they want to make sure they provide a worthwhile service; and that when people lose their pets, this will provide a one-stop shop. He said the national target for live release of pets,whether to return to the owner or adopt out, is 75%, and that their organization exceeds that for dogs with 85% live release; and said for cats the number is closer to 60%; he said they launched this year as the Year of the Cat and said there are a number of efforts to increase those live adoption rates. Mayor Towey commended Ms. Montano for her service and said he feels they have a "top notch" organization. Commissioner Mielke again announced the open house March 21, from 4 to 6 p.m., and said he will work with Mr. Jackson to make himself available for an executive session. Councilmember Hafner asked what the next steps are. Mr. Jackson said one of the things to consider is whether the task force should be reassembled; that it will be hard to meet this schedule; or he could have staff meet with County staff and get more information to bring back to council. Mayor Towey suggested our staff get together with County staff and work towards developing a larger coalition, and Commissioner Mielke agreed that those things can be done on a parallel track;he said within the next three weeks he'll brief the City of Spokane, hold the open house, then meet with staff and see about the executive session and look at putting the subcommittee back together; he said they are trying to find the lowest possible cost options and if they can spread the cost wider by expanding the coalition,it will open up more in-depth discussion; he said for the bigger discussion he'll need the task force together again; but the first thing is,it is time to replace the building, then determine who's going in on it. Mayor Towey thanked Commissioner Mielke and Ms.Montano for their discussion. 2.Franchise Ordinances—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said he wanted to introduce this topic to see if Council has questions; he explained that since incorporation, the City has entered into various franchises with utility providers for use of the City's rights-of-way, like Comcast or Bonneville Power; he said we inherited several franchises from Spokane County that have or will expire and staff is recommending we adopt an ordinance to standardize the terms of future franchise ordinances; he said the ordinance would provide the basic framework for each franchise that would be common to most if not all utility franchises; and said staff feels these basic terms should not be negotiable as they are within the police power of the City to protect the roadways; and he added that staff has attempted to draft these provisions in a way that is not overbearing. Mr. Driskell said specific franchises would have additional terms relating to the type of utility at issue. City Attorney Driskell also mentioned that staff sent copies of this draft to all known utility providers and requested their review and comment; and he estimated it would take a month to collect the comments and work through the draft ordinance. Mr. Driskell said the concern is with the public right-of-way, that we often do capital projects, and if an entity has facilities in there which appear to have been abandoned, it would be the public at large who would be asked to pay for the transfer; and that this ordinance includes Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT that no facility constructed or owned by a franchisee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City. There was no objection from Council to proceed with this ordinance. 3. Charitable Solicitations in the Right-of-Way—Cary Driskell,Chief VanLeuven City Attorney Driskell said the issue of charitable solicitation involves the panhandling provisions and more importantly, involves special events as per the City's Code; that according to our Code, a special event permit is required for groups to solicit donations within the City's right-of-way; he said this type of solicitation had been ongoing for quite a while without permission; particularly by the Muscular Dystrophy's Fill the Book campaign, which is conducted by enlisting the aid of members of the Firefighters Union, which is done by the Union members on their own time. City Attorney Driskell explained that when this City adopted the permit procedure,it mostly affected the Fill the Boot campaign, but over the years, more groups have been requesting the permit; and said this raises questions about traffic and pedestrian safety for those in the roadways soliciting donations, and to the cars and members of the public. Mr. Driskell said that initially traffic safety training was a requirement for obtaining such a permit, but that was changed to requiring flagger training; and said the organizations can only conduct this solicitation once a year, and that they must also show proof of $1 million insurance liability. Mr. Driskell said at least one group now has been conducting this solicitation without a permit, likely because they don't understand there is a requirement for one, and said the trend seems to be growing for these types of activities. Mr. Driskell said we cannot restrict regulations to just one group, and that he is here tonight to let council know that the various groups, with perhaps the one exception, don't appear to be meeting these safety concerns. Chief VanLeuven explained that this process was established for public safety but there are other, safer options for these events such as having cars pull off the road into a parking lot, with the owner's permission. He said it doesn't make sense to have an ordinance to keep people safe where we would encourage people to solicit from motoring traffic; he said we make sure the people have safety vests and tell them they can't stand in the medians; but voiced his concern that the groups don't understand the instructions although they appear to comply when an officer is present. Chief VanLeuven added that these intersections are the busiest,highest traffic intersections, and again said it doesn't make sense to do that in the roadway when there are other viable options for conducting these fundraisers. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked how this compares with those who get construction permits and City Attorney Driskell said utility companies do this on a daily basis and have the ability to close off an intersection,whereas the solicitors have a one-day training, and he said that doesn't prepare people to be in moving traffic, which he said, is a dangerous place to be. City Attorney Driskell said the process needs to be consistent with the panhandling ordinance whereby people cannot reach into the road. Councilmember Hafner suggested the Police Department come up with a strategy that will meet the safety needs, and said if we cannot meet those safety needs, we should get rid of it until we can. City Attorney Driskell asked Council to consider removing the special permit regulations, and said that a few jurisdictions are moving away from this type of permitting and making the solicitors for example,use a private parking lot. Chief VanLeuven stressed that it is not appropriate to stand on a six-inch median in traffic, and added that these events are not policeable; to which Councilmember Hafner replied,then we should not have it. Councilmember Grafos concurred and said if we permit it, we are telling people it's ok. There was discussion about insurance and liability; and giving the groups a second or third chance if they violate the process; but City Attorney Driskell said by doing that,we would be telling groups they could have some violations when clearly the groups have no right to raise money in the right-of-way and there are other avenues they can use that don't create a liability for the city or a safety issue for the citizens. City Attorney Driskell said based on Council comments, he will bring back an ordinance that suspends or removes this process, and Councilmembers appeared to concur. Mr. Driskell said he will work to bring this back for a first reading in about three weeks. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Sprague Avenue Property—Mike Jackson, Cary Driskell Mayor Towey said he asked for a briefing on the legal aspects of the Sprague Avenue property potential purchase as there has been some controversy and he would like Council to understand the legal implications. City Attorney Driskell explained that there has been some discussion about the nature of the relationship of the seller Mr. Pring and that some councilmembers received campaign contributions from Mr. Pring; and the question was raised whether that creates a conflict of interest. He said from a legal standpoint, if the contributions were legally made and reported to the PDC (Public Disclosure Commission) as required, they would not be considered a conflict of interest as citizens make campaign contributions and by recording those contributions as required, it satisfies the issue of transparency the PDC is looking for. Mr. Driskell further explained that from a broader context in looking at any potential conflict of interest, the question would be whether it would directly impact council, and said each councilmember must do an internal analysis and determine if the action can be determined in an unbiased way and that the councilmember could come to a decision that is not based on any potential benefit but based on the public's best interests as the public expects us to make decisions for the right reasons, i.e.,to benefit the community at large. Within that context, he said he would suggest council ask themselves the question if they can be unbiased, and if not, the councilmember should recuse themselves and not participate in the discussion or decision; or if they believe they can be unbiased, then it would be appropriate for the councilmember to participate. Mayor Towey said council has to ask those questions for each issue; he said he would like to disclosure that he received money from Mr. Pring in April 2009, and that it was duly recorded; he said this very complicated property issue is at the infant stage as information continues to be gathered, and said there are still some site issues like STA's (Spokane Transit Authority) ownership of a strip of the land. Councilmember Hafner read a prepared statement stating that he worked at one time for Jack Pring; that Mr. Pring gave him money for the campaign and that there are no ties whatsoever to this park or the library; he said the Spokesman Review article made it feel as if we were going back to the Salem witch- hunts; that council has one goal and that is the welfare of the city; he said there is no ulterior motive except to make this city a better one; said he takes exception to the underlying message and tone of the newspaper article and of its questioning his ethical standards and integrity by the questions it posed; said he and Mr. Pring's relationship began thirty-five years ago and said he has been involved with Mr. Pring in many ways over that time; and said he'll support a measure if it is good for the city, and won't if it isn't. Councilmember Woodard said that he received $300 from Mr. Pring and it was recorded and is open to the public through the PDC; said he has known Mr. Pring all his life and wants to do what is best for all the citizens of Spokane Valley and is offended when things are looked at shadily when something pertinent happens. Councilmember Grafos said that Mr. Pring gave money to him; that he knows he can be absolutely honest in his vote and won't be swayed by knowing Mr. Pring; said the issue is are we moving the city forward in a manner that will benefit the citizens; we lack many acres of parkland and said he will look at this from an economic standpoint, adding that the Library came to us; said the library will kick-start that area and said he doesn't believe Council is in any danger of committing any ethical lapse. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he had numerous donations for the 2009 campaign and that he never had any donor ask for anything that would benefit them; that he has been a member of this council since the City's incorporation, he has tried to be unbiased and will continue to do so. Councilmember Grassel said she received money from Mr. Pring for the 2009 election and that it won't bias her toward this decision;that this came to the council by the library and Council didn't approach Mr. Pring. City Manager Jackson gave the background of this proposal and of Mr. Hattenburg's presentation to council asking about our participation in this potential park property, and said staff from the library and city have been meeting frequently. After Mr. Jackson went over the packet materials, he said staff recommends we prepare two site plans, one with the library and another with all the park land in order to give council a good visual of what that park might look like; he said the City would purchase and hold title to the eight acres, and guarantee at least 2.5 acres for the library's purchase; and said all those details would be included in an interlocal agreement; said the STA owns a portion of the property and Mr. Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Driskell is working to clear up that ownership. Mr. Jackson said there will be some costs associated with developing a conceptual site plan as we will work with a landscape architect; or if council prefers,we can return with more information as well as return with a motion for council to consider authorizing the City manager to finalize a letter of intent to purchase the area; and said he would need time to negotiate with the owner on the terms. Mr. Jackson said funds from City Fund 310 could be used for the site plan; that it would cost about $5,000 to $7,500 and that we want an accurate depiction of that area; that if we move forward with the concept plan and bring that back, at some point in the near future we'll know if the settlement of that property is a constraint; and said ideally that will be cleared before moving forward with the purchase; and said those issues can move forward simultaneously. Mr. Jackson said the cost to develop the park would be about $150,000 to $200,000 an acre depending on the amount of landscaping, sidewalks, types of structures, etc., and that we would have to wait until the site plan is finished and he meets with the library, and then we will have to wait to see if the Library's future bond measure passes; and said maybe in the interim,the City could use the property for other events such as a farmer's market. Mayor Towey asked if there were any objections to having Mr. Jackson move forward with a site plan and letter of intent,and there were no objections. 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey. There were no suggested topics to add to the Advance Agenda. 6. Information Only Items The Community Development Monthly Report, Animal Shelter Zoning, Greater Spokane, Inc. Fourth Quarter Report of Activities and the Draft Amended 2012 Transportation Improvement Plan were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 7. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Mayor Towey said he attended a mayor's meeting last Friday where Spokane City Mayor Condon expressed his desire to have each jurisdiction send a letter of support to the Secretary of Transportation supporting TIGER funding for the North/South Freeway project. Mayor Towey said at the time he told Mayor Condon of our City's Sullivan Bridge project,which is competing for the same funds, and said he could not personally support that concept, but would bring this to the Council; and he asked Council for their feedback. Councilmembers concurred with Mayor Towey's viewpoint about not sending the letter of support. 8. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said regarding the legislative agenda, the SEPA regulations will be heard tomorrow, and he mentioned that Council received an e-mail from Lobbyist Taylor that the Senate passed their budget and proposed that liquor excise revenues be permanently swept into the general fund, which would be about a$500,000 loss to our city if that passed. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately ten minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:41 p.m. At approximately 8:52 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of Executive Session, and it was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed, to adjourn. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 03-06-12 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,March 13,2012 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 Kelly Konkright,Deputy City Attorney Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey 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 agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: explained he attended several STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meetings where they continue to discuss their reorganization plan; went to the Health Board Meeting where they discussed some budget cuts, and said nothing has been finalized yet. Councilmember Grassel: no report. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: reported that he attended an STA Committee meeting, as well as an SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council)meeting last week. Councilmember Grafos: said he went to the City's Finance Committee meeting where they discussed street preservation and of the idea of moving about $2 million from the general fund into road preservation, and of the idea of setting up a separate fund in the general fund with about a 6% match for road preservation, and said those things will be forth coming to full council; said he and Councilmember Grassel went to a Spokane Remodelers business meeting where they discussed permitting and what's happening in the City and how things have changed, and said the changes in permitting are very positive; attended the State of the County's presentation by Commissioner Mielke who mentioned their budget challenges,roads, and the proposal for a regional animal facility in Spokane Valley. Councilmember Wick: no report. Councilmember Woodard: said he participated in the "City Hall at the Mall" and said this is a good way to get access to the public, went to the HCDAC (Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee) meeting where they discussed CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds; and attended the Spokane Valley Chamber Transportation meeting at the Valley Hospital Education Center where the topic was economic development. Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Valley Chamber Government Action Committee meeting at the Spokane Valley Hospital, and said City Manager Jackson and Community Development Director Hohman did a terrific job presenting the economic future of Spokane Valley; he went to the Argonne Corridor Improvement Project Meeting where staff did a presentation on the Knox and Montgomery intersections improvements and said they heard from citizens concerned about neighborhood truck traffic on Knox; he attended Commissioner Mielke's County address which included an explanation of the governments of the various jurisdictions; and attended the Girl Scout Leadership 100th birthday. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Rick Scott, 7107 E 5th Avenue, Spokane Valley: said he is a member of the Power Coalition which is prevention outreach, and said next week they are submitting for a drug-free community support program grant; that last year this Council wrote a letter in support of their submittal of the grant application, and said he would like council to consider doing a letter again this year; and he mentioned some of the goals of the community drug-free program; and he apologized for the lateness of this request. In response to Mayor Towey's question concerning the time frame, Mr. Scott said they would like to mail their grant application by next Wednesday as it must be in Washington, D.C. by Thursday. Mayor Towey asked Council if they would concur to have Mr. Jackson draft such a letter for Mr. Scott and the Councilmembers concurred. Mr. Jackson said he would draft that letter. John Bury, 818 West Riverside Avenue, Spokane: said he speaks on behalf of three business owners, Peters Hardware,Dave's Bar& Grill, and Ichabods Sports&Grill; said Mr. Thompson has been traveling across the museum property since childhood; he said hundreds of people a day have passed across that museum property to get to those three businesses as the business entrances are on the back of the property; he said the Museum property was quit claimed by Spokane Valley City Council to the Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation in March,2004; and he asked Council to look at City Resolution 04-003 which contains reversionary clauses; and said after this property was deeded to the Museum, the Museum got upset with all the traffic driving through and put up a huge fence and concrete barricades and no one can get through. He said as a result of that,there was a trial asking the courts to open it up;he said these three business owners presented records showing that their business dropped 11 to 17% in gross sales the day those fences and barricades were installed and said Dave Thompson fired nine people from his restaurant because he didn't have the sales. Mr. Bury said a petition was signed by hundreds of people upset about the fence and that it creates an eyesore. Mr. Bury said they were upset that the Museum has taken on goods on consignment while "chopping off sales" to these three businesses; and then selling the articles and splitting the proceeds 50/50; he said this is a competing business and those three businesses got chopped off. He asked Council to re-examine the issue to see if it was Council's intent if the access could be blocked off to these three businesses. Mayor Towey asked Mr. Bury if they went to Court. Mr. Bury explained that they went to Superior Court with this issue, and the Judge decided that they had proven three of the five elements necessary to keep that open and he said those two items are now on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Patricia Leach, 12815 E. Maxwell, Spokane Valley: said she is a small daycare provider and has done childcare for about thirty years; she said that the State and DEL (Department of Early Learning) have created more rules and regulations in the State's WAC (Washington Administrative Code) and the changes create undue costs and create burdens that the daycare owners will never be able to satisfy; she said the new WACS go into effect March 31, 2012; and according to some of these regulations, her window is now eleven inches too high, although the height has been no problem for over twenty years; she said the legislature tried last January to sneak in a ten-year goal of putting children in the school system beginning in infancy; she said these regulations discourage daycares and the regulations are not fair to those providers like her who work eleven-hour days with no overtime, no health care, and no retirement; and said these regulations create undue stress. Councilmember Grassel asked for clarification of what Ms. Leach is asking, and she replied she is asking if there is any way this Council could work with the daycare operators in perhaps a letter, to help get these regulations postponed. In response to Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Woodard's question concerning whether the rules are building regulations, Ms. Leach said some of the rules are; and said they want some of the regulations changed. Mayor Towey said it is his understanding that these are replacement legislations instead of adding new rules which is explained in a ninety-page document; he said he has not seen the document yet and therefore couldn't say if he would or would not support this; but said Council could send a letter asking the DEL to re-evaluate their stance on this legislation and take into consideration the economic impact. Deborah Thurber, 7620 E. Maxwell: said she is the President of the Eastern Washington Family Child Care Association; that in Spokane Valley there are 51 in-home daycares and 29 centers; and said the Department of Early Learning is looking into re-writing the regulations for centers and daycares; she said some centers closed because they can't meet the current code; and said the regulations for the in-home daycares take effect the end of this month; she said one of the regulations is there must be nine inches of pea-gravel in the playgrounds, and said the schools don't even adhere to that regulation; and said each regulation means more expense. Councilmember Woodard asked if Council could get a report on the new regulations. Mr. Jackson said staff can forward the information to council; that the letter that has been suggested would probably be the best we can do in the given timeframe, but as an information item, could provide some information to Council; and said it is the Washington Administrative Code, and therefore,the best thing we can try to do is convince the Department of Early Learning to take a second look at this. Councilmember Woodard asked if there are building codes where to allow some discretion that would help some of these businesses while we are trying to get some postponement in the meantime. Mayor Towey asked if there was any objection in asking City Manager Jackson to draft a letter requesting the DEL to take another look at these regulations and consider the economic impact it would have throughout Washington; and councilmembers voiced no objection. Mary Jo Pascel, 11504 E. Frederick Avenue, Spokane Valley: said she is a director of a child care center; and they are having problems with the DEL concerning background checks; that the daycare provider must submit a background check every three years and the DEL rules have changed concerning what could disqualify someone to work in daycares; and said it appears old traffic fines are now something that would disqualify someone and she asked for assistance in informing the DEL what they can and cannot judge in this regard. City Attorney Driskell said this isn't something typically the City would get involved in; that this is overseen by the Department of Early Learning; and when they make a determination, the person at issue has an appeal right to an Administrative Law Judge, who acts in a review capacity to determine whether the DEL was acting outside the scope of their authority; and said that is where the remedy would lie. Ms. Pascel mentioned that her employee in this case has contacted a private attorney; and Mr. Driskell said it appears her legal counsel is helping her work through the legal issues; but that this is not an issue that this City has a right to be involved in legally. Michelle Lowell, 1623 S. Pines Road: said she has been in daycare business for twenty-seven years; she is licensed; and commented on the new regulations from DEL and that she cannot comply with those regulations; that she cannot have swings or climbing equipment; and said she is required to install a fire door at the bottom of the stairway to her home; which she said is a heavy door,would be a safety issue as the children would not be able to navigate the door, and said she would need the Fire Marshall to come out to her business, as well as the City's building code people; and said if she adhered to some of the regulations,it would actually put her in violation of some of her neighborhood covenants. Mayor Towey said he appreciates Ms. Lowell's comments and concerns, and he reiterated that Council just agreed to write a letter to DEL and said that will occur. Shannon Benn, 3424 E. Euclid, Spokane: she thanked Council for their support in the willingness to write the letter; and she said the childcare facilities are afraid;that they have three options: they can close,or try to come into compliance, or wait to be closed. She said if this Department closes a childcare facility, the Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT background would be disqualified, which would disqualify people from daycare jobs, nursing jobs, and possibly teaching in Church Sunday Schools or Church camps. Mayor Towey said he hopes Council's letter will do some good. Councilmember Hafner suggested sending copies of the letter to the Governor and others, and Councilmember Woodard suggested adding the County Commissioners to the list of those who would get a copy of the letter. Tim Benn, 3424 E. Euclid Avenue: said he has been in touch with thousands of providers over the last few months; he ran his own business; said it appears the State Department is completely violating the law and asking people for medical records in violation of the HIPPA Laws; and are closing down businesses even without the new WACS. Lynda Fralich, 4836 S. Progress Court,Veradale: said she wanted to address the unlimited advertising of alcohol establishments, and Mayor Towey said that issue will be forthcoming, and that she could comment at that time. Spencer Lowell, 4113 N. McDonald Road, Spokane Valley: said he is in support of the childcare providers as a casualty of the State Department they referenced; said he was a caregiver for Valley Pines Retirement Home,which was closed because he had a concealed gun permit;he said he had the necessary credentials and qualifications for that position and likewise to have the concealed gun permit; said the Department of Early Learning has given him a criminal background although he's never been arrested; he said "these people" can do whatever they want; that because of this situation, he has been banned from contact with the elderly or children, and said he can't get a job in Washington State, and that he will have to move from Washington state eventually;he said he doesn't know what this Council might be able to do as this is a State matter,but said he wanted Council to be aware of this; and said CPS has these powers as well and they help dispensed his concealed carry permit; and he pleaded for anyone's assistance as he doesn't have money for an attorney; and he encouraged Council to help the daycare people fight the Department of Early Learning. Debbie Moheit, 12225 E 18th Avenue, Spokane Valley: said she has been a licensed childcare provider in Spokane Valley for the last ten years and has been in the childcare business for the last thirty years; she commended Council for their support in the issues with DEL; said there is a strong undertow toward eliminating providers as the WAC regulations are fiscally impossible to adhere to. 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 02/17/2012 25208-25259; 214120075 $187,919.86 02/24/2012 25260-25286 $85,968.77 02/24/2012 25287-25320 $198,997.75 02/29/2012 5397-5400 $747.00 03/02/2012 25321-25335; 229120027 $1,524,691.52 03/02/2012 25336-25356 $19,579.22 03/06/2012 3841-3843; 3858; 3869; 25357-25362 $234,212.53 03/07/2012 25363 $38,416.84 GRAND TOTAL $2,290,533.49 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending February 29,2012: $373,873.68 c.Approval of Minutes of February 21, 2012 Special Joint Meeting with Planning Commission d.Approval of Minutes of February 28,2012 Formal Format Council Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-010, Signage and Sale of Alcohol—Kelly Konkright After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 12-010 adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.25 relating to alcohol beverage signing. Deputy City Attorney Konkright explained that this is the third time this has been before Council, and he gave a quick overview of the proposed changes; and said if council approves this ordinance, it will exempt those with liquor licenses within the City from the outdoor advertising restrictions. There were some questions from Council regarding the impact of this issue and Mr. Konkright said that this doesn't affect the City's other sign regulations; that this maintains the status quo of what was in effect before March 2010 when the Liquor Control Board introduced this new regulations; he said between March 2010 and now they have not been enforcing this, that the Board is in the process of educating the business owners, and will probably within the next few weeks begin to issue warnings, then proceed with citations. Mr. Konkright also explained that the initial policy's goal was to minimize youth access and exposure to alcohol advertising as a way to respond to prevention concerns from community members. In response to further Council questions, Planning Manager Kuhta said this addresses signs inside the building, and that the City's code does not regulate any signs within an establishment. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Lynda Fralich, 4836 S. Progress Court, Veradale: read her letter in regard to allowing unlimited advertising of alcohol; said she is a member of the Greater Spokane Substance Council, the Spokane County Substance Advisory Board and Youth Board; and said she has been a substance abuse prevention educator for over thirty years; she teaches decision making for minors and prevention, a class where twelve to twenty year olds are sent by the courts because of their involvement in substance abuse; and said part of that education includes dissecting advertising as it has been very influential; and said one of the reasons people get mixed messages is due to the saturation of product advertising; she said many schools are near businesses that sell alcohol and that the message to use alcohol is deliberately"out there" to be seen by kids who are product consumers; she said businesses profit from the advertising without consideration of where that money comes from; and she urged Council to consider the efforts of parents, schools and organizations which are being undermined by over advertising; and said the money spent on treatment and rehab is a direct result of those mixed messages; she challenged council to ask themselves how will this better the City of Spokane Valley, how will this be good for our kids and the community, and is this the new image Council wants for this city. She said the guidelines from prior to March 2010 are there for good reasons,and the saturation is for profit. Angela Smith, 1102 S, Raymond Road: said she is a representation of Complete Independent Youth, and is an intern at Day Break and works with adolescents trying to maintain sobriety from substances such as alcohol; and that she works in the elementary schools to educate them about the dangers of substance use; said she finds it difficult to educate the children when there are so many enticements to drink; and she gave some data on survey results of children and substance availability and use; and said allowing there to be no regulations on the amount of businesses advertising could increase substance abuse and increase crime; and said people are enticed by the advertisements as they are triggers for certain people, and mentioned the captivating neon signs. Hazel Hatcher, 10420 E. Cimarron, Spokane Valley: said for the last ten years the citizens have voted to enhance the valley by putting in new shrubbery; and said when you add beer or alcohol signs on the streets,it will deter from the goal of trying to make a beautiful city; said kids are attracted to signs and she voiced her concern about teen drivers; said the rule was put in because someone must have gotten carried away with too many signs; and said four signs is ample; and she urged council to vote in the best interests of the City. Linda Thompson, 10913 E. 46th Avenue: said she is with the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council; she said she works with the Liquor Control Board to advocate for limited signage as part of the effort to Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT stop the privatizing of alcohol in Washington, and as part of the effort to stop the normalization of alcohol; she said research shows how young people perceive drinking and the availability, and the signage is most often provided by the alcohol industry; she said research shows if we can limit advertising we can limit underage drinking; and she urged council not to pass this ordinance. Debbie Moheit, 12225 E. 18th Avenue: said she has two adult sons that have chosen alcohol in their life and that it never occurred to her that a sign might be a part of their choice; and she asked, how do we control all the things that people are attracted to; and she said hopefully people will be attracted to the sign of the cross. There were no further public comments. Council discussion included mention by Councilmember Hafner and Mayor Towey that they would not support the ordinance as signs are intended to support a product; with other councilmembers explaining they support Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council but feel alcohol is a choice and signs are a property rights issue. It was also mentioned this issue could always be re-addressed in the future. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, Wick and Woodard. Opposed: Mayor Towey and Councilmember Hafner. Motion carried. At 7:50 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a short recess; he reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-011 Amending Chapter 22.70,Landscaping—Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Ordinance 12-011 amending sections of Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.70. Standing in for Assistant Planner Kendall, Community Development Director Hohman explained the background of this ordinance; said some changes are to clarify language while others are to correct some errors such as in the clear view triangle issues; and other language increases flexibility such in the barbed wire regulations; and he went over the history of this and mentioned the numerous times this has come before the Planning Commission and the Council, including the opportunity for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and said the Planning Commission's recommendation is for approval. Mr. Hohman also stated that we inherited the existing code from the County, which allowed barbed wire in a few zones; said when the code was revised in 2007, use was restricted to industrial zones, but that staff realizes sometimes a barbed wire fence would be desired for security purposes. Mr. Hohman advised Council they need to be comfortable with this and said these regulations would apply to any current proposal and any new development. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Woodard said that several weeks ago he mentioned he had a nonconforming barbed wire fence,and said he doesn't have one that is accessible to the public; that he has to look at the issue on how has the public seen his views,that perception is a reality and therefore,he said he would abstain from any further discussion on the barbed wire issue and will abstain from voting on the issue, and he left the dais. Councilmember Grafos said the newspaper brought up this issue, and said his fence is not in nonconformance, and that he feels he can vote on this without an ethical lapse. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Schimmels, and Councilmembers Hafner, Grassel, Grafos, and Wick. Opposed:None. Motion carried. Councilmember Woodard returned to the room and to the dais. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Governance Manual Discussion—Chris Bainbridge,Mike Jackson City Clerk Bainbridge briefly went over some of the changes previously agreed to, and mentioned the latest changes per previous council discussion. Councilmember Wick suggested that the section on page 6 and on page 9 concerning making presentations to council be worded the same; and also asked about adding an ethics statement, policy or assumptions. Councilmember Grassel said she had no objection to adding a section on ethics, but would like to see some draft language to get a feel for what Councilmember Wick is suggesting. City Manager Jackson said he will get the Governance Committee together and discuss some draft language. It was Council consensus to add that draft language for council review, make the other recommended changes, and to bring this back as an action item on the March 27 council agenda. Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey For a future council meeting, Councilmember Grassel suggested a full review of the animal control contract and current proposal, including costs each year. Council concurred. Councilmember Grafos asked if the City Attorney would address the issue with the Museum to determine what the original intent was for the museum and for that access, and City Manager Jackson said staff will gather that information from a historical viewpoint and provide the information to Council. Mr. Jackson also mentioned the desire to form an economic development committee, and said he, Community Development Director Hohman, and Councilmembers Wick and Grassel met to discuss this issue including having a specific set of tasks for such a committee, and said within the next few weeks, will bring council a report on the process and what was discussed at that meeting. Councilmember Hafner asked about the road preservation budget topic and Mr. Jackson said the pavement management plan is slated to be brought to council in the near future, and immediately after that discussion, another discussion will follow on the finance committee's proposal to set aside some of our ending fund balance, adding that Mr. Calhoun will be leading that discussion. Mr., Jackson added that he will be pleased if we can keep our policies intact. Councilmember Grafos said he spoke with Mr. Jackson about council's approval of the claim vouchers, and that they would like more information on which department these claims are being charged to, and asked if the vouchers could be coded or sorted by department.Mr. Jackson said Finance Director Calhoun has been working on the financial reporting to improve our format even more; and said part of that depends on what the software will do for us; but that we are working to make those vouchers more informational. Councilmember Hafner suggested the Department Directors give an oral monthly or quarterly report to keep council and citizens informed. Mr. Jackson said that the Police Department is scheduled to do that at the April 10 meeting. There was council consensus to cancel the April 3 Council meeting. The tentative joint meeting with the City of Spokane was also mentioned, and City Clerk Bainbridge said she is still working to confirm the date and time. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked when Commissioner French was going to give a presentation on solid waste and Mr. Jackson said they are bringing the task force back together, as he understands they are still looking at several options. INFORMATION ONLY The (6) Union Pacific Railroad Agreement for Pines Road Crossing Improvement, and (7) Safe Routes to Schools Call for Projects were for information only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 03-13-2012 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-012 amending SVMC 5.15 relating to special events permits to engage in charitable solicitation in the rights-of-way GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 5.15 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption and subsequent amendments of SVMC 5.15 relating to special events permits in 2008. BACKGROUND: When the City adopted provisions for special events permits that allow charitable solicitation utilizing the roadway, there was only one known entity doing this, Muscular Dystrophy's Fill the Boot program. Recognizing that other groups may want to get such permits, the City put in requirements for obtaining at least one million dollars of insurance for each event, limiting the frequency to once per year per organization, requiring flagger training for any person entering the roadway, as well as other safety-based requirements. Since these provisions were adopted, the City has seen an increasing number of groups using the roadway for charitable solicitation. None of the groups who have received such permits have met all of the safety requirements, with the violations primarily related to who is allowed in the roadway, and being in the roadway when traffic is moving. These safety issues have been personally observed by City staff, members of the City Police Department, and reported to staff by citizens. Given the safety concerns, staff has recommended that the Council consider repealing the provisions of the Code that provide conditions under which a special event permit may be issued for charitable solicitation in the roadway. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance that would repeal SVMC 5.15.080J, which identifies requirements for obtaining such a permit. If the Council repeals SVMC 5.15.080J, then staff would no longer process or grant permits related to such activity. OPTIONS: (1) move proposed ordinance to a second reading; (2) request changes to the proposed ordinance; (3) do nothing, and the City staff will continue to process special event permits for charitable solicitation in the roadway subject to the Code. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we advance Ordinance 12-012 relating to special event permits, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief ATTACHMENTS: SVMC 5.15 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 12-012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.15.080 BY REPEALING SUBSECTION 5.15.080J RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS FOR CHARITABLE SOLICITATION IN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, in 2008,the City adopted Ordinance 08-013,which contained provisions relating to special event permit requirements in Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 5.15.080J for charitable solicitation in roadways; and WHEREAS, these special event permit requirements were intended to address safety concerns identified by City staff and by City law enforcement personnel; and WHEREAS, City staff and law enforcement have personally observed and received citizen comments regarding numerous instances of failure to comply with special event permit safety requirements from every organization which has obtained one for engaging in charitable solicitation in the roadways;and WHEREAS, the City does not have sufficient financial or personnel resources to monitor each such special event of charitable solicitation in the roadways to ensure compliance with Municipal Code requirements; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient means by which organizations may solicit funds within the City which do not include entry into roadways; and WHEREAS,with the amendment identified herein repealing provisions relating to special permit requirements, City staff will no longer approve such permits which seek permission to perform charitable solicitation in roadways; and WHEREAS, the City has a paramount duty to protect the life, health and safety of its citizens, including pedestrians and the motoring public. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as follows: Section 1. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 5.15.080 is hereby amended by repealing subsection 5.15.080J,as set forth below. 5.15.080 Permit—Issuance standards. The parks and recreation director shall not issue a special event permit if: A. The time,route,or size of the event will unreasonably disrupt the movement of traffic along streets; Ordinance 12-012 Amending Charitable Solicitation(Special Event Permits) Page 1 of 3 DRAFT B. The size or nature of the event requires supervision by a significant number of police officers that causes unreasonable expense or diversion of police duties; C. The applicant has failed to remit all fees,documents,or proof of bonds; D. The applicant has failed to conduct a previously authorized special event in accordance with law or the terms of a permit,or both; E. The police department or City traffic engineer fails to sign the permit due to traffic or other safety concerns; F. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient safety,health or sanitation equipment services, or facilities; G. The applicant has not provided sufficient off-site parking or shuttle service,or both,when required to minimize substantial adverse impacts on general parking and traffic circulation caused by the event; H. The special event will substantially interfere with any other special event for which a permit has already been granted or with the provision of City services in support of other scheduled special events or governmental functions; I. The special event would block traffic lanes or close streets during peak commuter hours on weekdays between 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. on streets designated as arterials by the City's public works department. J. Any of the following provisions for charitable solicitation in the rights of way occur: 1. The applicant or organization represented by the applicant has been granted a special event permit by the City to engage in charitable solicitation in the City rights of way within the preceding 12 months; 2. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all persons who will be entering the roadway in any manner related to the event have successfully completed the Spokane County Incident Traffic Control Program or its equivalent, including Washington State Department of Transportation Flagger Certification, and that certification is current; or 3. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that all persons who will be entering into the roadway in any manner related to the event are at least 18 years of age on the day of the event. Section 2. Remainder of SVMC 5.15 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC 5.15 are unchanged by this amendment. Ordinance 12-012 Amending Charitable Solicitation(Special Event Permits) Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 3. 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 of unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of ,2012. Mayor,Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 12-012 Amending Charitable Solicitation(Special Event Permits) Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Proposed Resolution 12-001: Draft Amended 2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2012-2017 Six Year TIP on June 28, 2011, Resolution #11-005; Approved Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) 2011 Call for Project applications on August 9, 2011; Approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications on October 25, 2011; Approved proceeding with Evergreen Rd Preservation Project — 16th to 32nd on February 7, 2012; Info RCA in Council's March 6, 2012 packet; Admin Report on March 20, 2012. Public hearing on proposed Amended 2012 TIP on March 27, 2012. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2012-2017 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2012-2017 TIP, staff submitted applications for a Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects and a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the following projects that were selected for funding: • Sprague Avenue Reconstruction #2 — Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd (TIB) • Sprague Avenue ADA ramps — Fancher Rd to Havana Street (CDBG) — pending approval from Spokane County • Wellesley Ave Sidewalk — Sullivan Rd to 150-ft east of Isenhart Rd and Adams Rd Sidewalk - Wellesley Ave. to Trent Ave (SR290) Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2012 TIP include the following: Carryover projects from 2011: • Pines/Mansfield (Railroad Crossing Improvements) • Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection • Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC Intersections • Green Haven STEP Paveback project Other projects approved by Council: • Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit • Sullivan Bridge Temporary repairs • Evergreen Road Rehabilitation — 16th Ave to 32nd Ave Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2012 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not completed in 2011 and have been carried over to the 2012 construction season, and those projects added to the 2012 construction season. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. Adoption of the Amended 2012 TIP is currently scheduled for March 27, 2012. OPTIONS: 1) Adopt the proposed Amended 2011 TIP, or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 12-001 adopting the Amended 2012 TIP as presented by staff. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the draft Amended 2012 TIP are preliminary and will be adjusted prior to adoption to reflect 2011 year-end adjustments. There are sufficient capital project funds in the 2012 budget to cover the local match for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 12-001, Amended 2012 TIP DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 12-001 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council did adopt by Resolution No. 11-005, the 2012- 2017 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS,changes in certain funding sources and project schedules have occurred; and WHEREAS,the attached Amended 2012 TIP incorporates said changes for year 2012; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the 2012 TIP are consistent with Spokane Valley's adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: The City Council hereby adopts the attached Amended 2012 TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the year 2012. The City Clerk is directed to file the Amended 2012 TIP with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation not more than 30 days after adoption of this Resolution. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 27th day of March,2012. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 12-001,Adopting Amended 2012 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2012 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2012 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 79,000 $ 582,000 2 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 238,000 $ 1,775,000 3 0069 Park Road Project 2(RW/CN Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 20,000 $ 150,000 4 0115 Sprague Reconstruction#2 Evergreen Sullivan STP(P) $ 188,000 $ 1,394,000 5 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 96,000 $ 711,000 6 0133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS McDonald/Sprague Sullivan/I-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 253,000 7 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail(PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 372,000 8 0146 24th Avenue Sidewalk Project Adams Sullivan TIB-USP $ 132,000 $ 258,000 9 0148 Greenacres Trail(PE Only) Sullivan Hodges EECBG $ - $ 50,000 10 0149 Sidewalk Infill Project Various locations CMAQ $ 108,000 $ 539,000 11 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility Various locations FTA $ 63,000 $ 315,000 12 0155 Sullivan West Bridge#4508 Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 226,000 $ 1,128,000 13 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project(PE/RW Only) Pines(SR 27) Houk St. CMAQ $ 100,000 $ 738,000 14 0160 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study University 1-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 250,000 15 Broadway Ave Improvements Flora Barker TIB-UCP $ 151,000 $ 755,000 16 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 1-90 Wellesley STP(U) $ 27,000 $ 200,000 17 Sullivan Rd/UPRR Overpass Bridge Resurfacing Sullivan @UPRR Overpass BR $ 149,000 $ 746,000 $ 1,645,000 $ 10,216,000 Funded Projects Added Projects Planned Projects City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDED 2012 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 12-xxx,(Date) Primary City Total 2012 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0005 Pines/Mansfield Montgomery Pines(SR-27) City-303 $ 463,000 $ 463,000 2 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 145,000 $ 1,100,000 3 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 250,000 $ 1,850,000 4 0115 Sprague Reconstruction#2 Evergreen Sullivan TIB $ 858,000 $ 3,878,000 5 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 96,000 $ 711,000 6 0133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS Sprague Sullivan/l-90 CMAQ $ 104,000 $ 456,000 7 0141 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection(PE/RW only) Sullivan Euclid STP(U) $ 5,000 $ 40,000 8 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC Intersections(PE/RW only) Broadway @Argonne/Mullan STP(U) $ 37,300 $ 276,300 9 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail(PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 500,000 10 0146 24th Avenue Sidewalk Project Adams Sullivan TIB-USP $ 132,000 $ 258,000 11 0148 Greenacres Trail(PE Only)* Sullivan Hodges EECBG $ - $ 48,000 12 0149 Sidewalk Infill Project Various locations CMAQ $ 108,000 $ 539,000 13 0150 Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit Sullivan Bridge southbound DOE $ 79,100 $ 316,500 14 0151 STEP Paveback-Green Haven project Various locations City-310 $ 118,000 $ 118,000 15 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility Various locations FTA $ 37,000 $ 215,000 16 0155 Sullivan West Bridge#4508 Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 226,000 $ 1,128,000 17 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project(PE/RW Only) Pines(SR 27) Houk St. CMAQ $ 100,000 $ 738,000 18 0157 Sullivan Bridge Temporary Repairs Sullivan Bridge southbound City-311 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 19 0159 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study University 1-90 CMAQ $ 34,000 $ 250,000 20 0160 Evergreen Road Rehabilitation 16th 32nd City-101 $ 611,000 $ 998,951 21 Sprague Avenue curb ramps Fancher Havana CDBG $ - $ 115,410 22 Wellesley Ave/Adams Rd.Sidewalk project Sullivan/Trent Isenhart/Wellesley SRTS $ 30,000 $ 691,000 $ 3,603,400 $ 14,890,161 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2011 Carry Over Projects *May be delayed pending ROW issues. C:\Documents and Settings\sworley\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YTQXEHVP\Draft Amended 2012 TIP.xlsx 3/14/2012 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2012 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: El consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Allocation of Lodging Tax Funds — 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 185,000 Museum 3,900 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, llSV-FS2lUserstmcalhounlBudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 03 27 RCA motion consideration Rnd 2 LTAC.docx 2 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 six applicants: 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 • Although the Spokane Valley Soccer Club applied for funding they did not make a presentation. • Although the Regional Golf Consortium applied for funding they were prohibited from advancing through the award process because they had not yet received notification of approval of their application for nonprofit (501(c)(3) or (6) from the IRS. • 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 Final Amount Brenda Doug I Peggy Lee Jeff Award Applicant Requested Grasses Kelley Doering Cameron Fiman Atierage Amount Valteytest 50,000 15,000 0 36,000 0 0 10,200 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Reg.C&V Bureau(Visit Spokane 275,000 268,800 275,000 200,000 275,000 275,000 258,760 0 Spokane Valley Arts Council 50,000 0 0 27,100 0 0 5,420 0 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 25,000 0 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 0 440,000 306,100 306,100 294,200 306,100 306,100 303,720 0 Contingent upon requiring that a meeting be held In Spokane Va ley between partners applying for lodging tax 294,200 in order to discuss Joint marketing opportunities. • The average of all Round 2 awards of individual Committee members was $303,720 but the Committee did not make a final award recommendation. 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlBudgets120121odging Tax12012 03 27 RCA motion consideration find 2 LTAC.docx 3 • Noteworthy here is that the 2012 Budget included an appropriation of$430,700 and that after deducting the $261,500 awarded in Round 1, there remains $169,200 of the initial budget for the Committee to award in Round 2. Based upon the 2012 Budget as adopted this would leave an estimated 2012 year end fund balance of $257,932. 2012 Budget 77? Initial Revised Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 430,000 430,000 Investment Interest 700 700 Subtotal revenues 430,700 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers -#001 CenterPlace 30,000 30,000 Tourism Promotion 400,700 535,220 Subtotal expenditures 430,700 565,220 over(under) expenditures 0 (134,520) Beginning fund balance 257,932 257,932 Ending fund balance 257,932 123,412 Round 1 Awards HUB 42,600 42,600 Sports Commission 185,000 185,000 Museum 3,900 3,900 CenterPlace 30,000 30,000 261,500 261,500 Round 2 Awards Remaining appropriation 169,200 303,720 * Total appropriation 430,700 565,220 * "Revised"figure of$303,720 reflects the average of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Round 2 recommendation and exceeds the initial appropriation by$134,520. • In both Rounds 1 and 2 the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee observed that the estimated fund balance at the end of 2012 was likely sufficient enough to allow an appropriation greater than the $430,700 included in the 2012 adopted budget and that the City could consider spending some of this down with 2012 awards. • Ultimately, if the City Council accepted the $303,720 average of the Committee's Round 2 awards, Fund #105 would have an estimated 2012 ending fund balance of $123,412, 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. 14SV-FS2lflserslmca lhounlEudgets120124Lodging Tax42012 03 27 RCA motion consideration Rnd 2 LTAC.docx 4 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to snake the following allocations of Lodging Tax Funds for calendar year 2012: 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 City Council were to award more than $169,200 then a future 2012 Budget amendment would be necessary. The fund balance in Fund 105 is sufficient to cover the Round 2 award average of the individual Committee members totaling $303,720. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: ▪ A one-page summary of Fund #105 revenues and expenditures from 2003 through the 2012 Budget. • Minutes of February 2, 2012, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. IISV-FS2lUserslmcalhounl6udgets120121Lodging Tax12012 03 27 RCA motion consideration Rnd 2 LTAC.docx \\5V-F52\Users\mcalhoun\Budgets\2012\Lodging Tax\2003 to 2012 actual and budget for 105 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Fund#105-Hotel I Motel Tax Fund Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Actual for 7003 through 2011 - 2012 Budget Actual 2003 I 2004 I 2005 1 2006 1 2007 2008 1 2009 1 _ 2010 I 2011 3/19/2012 2012 Budget o?a Initial Revised Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 257,143 363,444 387,829 417,084 461,578 467,089 423,978 448,544 457,603 430,000 430,000 Investment Interest 109 1,607 6,117 15,792 24,786 10,280 1,892 1,018 454 700 700 Subtotal revenues 257,252 365,051 393,946 432,876 486,364 477,369 425,870 449,562 458,057 430,700 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 CenterPlace 0 0 28,156 0 0 84,550 86,963 37,500 0 30,000 30,000 Tourism Promotion 35,425 450,383 250,014 296,912 483,506 525,021 375,202 362,302 472,481 400,700 535,220 Subtotal expenditures 35,425 450,383 278,170 296,912 483,506 609,571 462,165 399,802 472,481 430,700 565,220 Revenues over(under)expenditures 221,827 (85,332) 115,776 135,964 2,858 (132,202) (36,295) 49,760 (14,424) 0 (134,520) Beginning fund balance 0 221,827 136,495 252,271 388,235 391,093 258,891 222,596 272,356 257,932 257,932 Ending fund balance 221,827 136,495 252,271 388,235 391,093 258,891 222,596 272,356 257,932 257,932 123,412 Round 1 Awards HUB 42,600 42,600 Sports Commission 185,000 185,000 Museum 3,900 3,900 CenterPlace 30,000 30,000 261,500 261,500 Round 2 Awards Remaining appropriation 169,200 303,720 Total appropriation 430,700 565,220! "Revised"figure of$303,720 reflects the average of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Round 2 recommendation and exceeds the initial appropriation by$134,520. 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. 41St/FS21UserslmcalhounlBudgetsl20124Lodging 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 Final Amount Brenda Doug Peggy Lee Jeff Award Applicant Requested Gressel Kelley Doering Cameron Fiman Average Amount Valleyfest 50,000 15,000 0 36,000 0 0 10,200 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Reg.C&V Bureau(Visit Spokane 275,000 288,800 275,000 200,000 275,000 275,000 258,760 0 Spokane Valley Arts Council 50,000 0 0 27,100 0 0 5,420 0 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 25,000 0 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 0 440,000 306,100 306,100 294,200 306,100 306,100 303,720 0 Contingent upon requiring that a meeting be held In Spokane Valley between partners applying for lodging tax 294,200 in order to discuss joint marketing opportunities. After further discussion Ms. Grassel 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. • Run notices of the award process through the latter part of August to early September. • Receive applications by the middle of September. 115 V-FS21UsersimcathounWWudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 02 LTAC meeting minutes.docx 3 • 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. Grassel 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. 41SV-FS24Userslmcalhounl6udgets420121Lodging Tax12012 02 02 LTAC meeting minutes.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: STA Agreement - Sidewalk and Transit Accessibility Project #0154 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This item was part of the Admin Report for 2011 New Freedom Call for Projects brought before council on February 8, 2011. Council gave consensus to submit New Freedom Applications to SRTC. On February 14, 2012 an Info RCA was provided in council's packet. On March 20, 2012 an Admin report was given to council. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2011 the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) issued a New Freedom Call for Projects for allocation of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5317 funding. STA is the designated recipient for FTA funds. The funding level for Spokane County was approximately $252,000. Project applications were due February 15th, 2011. New Freedom funds are targeted towards projects and programs that provide new or enhanced public transportation and public transportation alternatives for individuals with disabilities in both rural and urban areas. Eligible capital projects include sidewalks, accessible bus stops and shelters. Although these federal funds (available through STA) and the City matching funds, do not help our street preservation efforts, this project will improve access to several public transit routes and provide opportunities for bus shelters, which benefit many of our citizens. Staff evaluated the New Freedom grant criteria and identified projects that have the highest potential to receive funding and greatest benefit to pedestrians and bus riders and submitted the grant application. The project was selected for funding. City employees coordinated with STA and FTA developing site plans and receiving a categorical exclusion on the environmental impacts of the project. FTA and STA approved the authorization of funding for improvements set forth in the grant application. However, STA later learned that the total amount of funds available was $178,790; less than originally anticipated. Attached is the agreement between STA and Spokane Valley for the use of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds. Public Works and Legal staff reviewed the agreement and provided comments to STA. All comments from Spokane Valley were relatively minor and have been incorporated into the attached agreement. 1 OPTIONS: 1) Authorize City Manager to execute the STA Agreement for the Sidewalk and Transit Stop Accessibility Project #0154 or 2) Provide additional direction to staff RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the STA Agreement allowing the City to utilize New Freedom Funds for the Sidewalk and Transit Stop Accessibility Project #0154. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required match on New Freedom funded projects is 20%. With a total grant amount of $178,790, the city's match is $44,698. The total project budget is therefore $223,488. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, AIA— Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) February 2012 Agreement with STA for New Freedom Funds, 2) Project Vicinity Map. 2 Grant Management Agreement Designated Recipient/Grant Manager Grant Recipient Spokane Transit Authority City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 1229 W. Boone Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Spokane,WA 99201 Contact: Gordon Howell (509) 325-6058 Contact: Steve Worley (509) 720-5014 Project Costs Federal Funds $ 178,790 State Funds $ 0 Subrecipient Funds $ 44,698 Total Funds $ 223,488 Grant Number: Scope of Project: As set forth in Exhibit I, Scope of WA-57-X014—"Sidewalk& Transit Access" - Project and Budget, attached and incorporated by this FTA New Freedom Grant reference. Term of Project: 8/10/2011 through the Service Area: City of Spokane Valley, Washington estimated completion date of 6/30/2013. THIS GRANT AGREEMENT, hereinafter "AGREEMENT", is entered into by Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter"STA," and the City of Spokane Valley,Washington, a non-charter code city of the State of Washington,hereinafter"COSV"or"GRANT RECIPIENT";and WHEREAS, STA is the Designated Recipient of certain federal grant funding authorized under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and specifically,grants awarded by the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)under 49.U.S.C. §5317;and WHEREAS, through a local process, COSV is the locally selected recipient of an FTA New Freedom grant, identified as Grant No.WA-57-X014—"Sidewalk&Transit Access",(also referred to as"Grant")funding authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 5317, and any subsequent amendments and resolutions thereto;and WHEREAS, STA, as the Designated Recipient, is responsible for the administration and management of COSV's use of the proceeds of Grant No. WA-57-X014 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5317 and will reimburse COSV for costs incurred in completion of the Sidewalk&Transit Access project using Grant proceeds,upon determination of COSV's compliance with Grant requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions,performances and mutual covenants herein set forth and the attached Exhibit I, "Scope of Project and Budget," which is incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Purpose of Agreement and Definition of Terms The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to facilitate STA's provision of grant management services to COSV for FTA Grant Agreement No.WA-57-X014 funding awarded for the construction of sidewalks and transit stop accessibility improvements to be used in the provision of transportation services to the residents and people within the City of Spokane Valley,hereinafter referred to as the "Project." Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning and definitions as set forth in FTA Grant Agreement No WA-57-X014. Section 2 Scope of Project The GRANT RECIPIENT shall undertake and complete the construction of the sidewalk and transit stop accessibility improvements as detailed in Exhibit I, "Scope of Project and Budget," which is by this reference fully incorporated herein as if fully set out in this AGREEMENT, and construct the improvements within the area described in the caption space header above titled"Service Area",in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT.The caption space header titled"Service Area"and all caption space headers above by this reference are incorporated herein as if fully set out in this AGREEMENT. Page 1 of 16 Section 3 Term of Project The Project period of this AGREEMENT shall begin on the date shown in the caption space header above titled "Term of Project"and continues through the end of the completion of the Project. Section 4 Grant Recipient's Project Cost Funds The Federal Funds available for the Project shall not exceed the amount indicated in the caption space header above titled "Project Costs." The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to expend"Contractor Funds"allocated for the Project in an amount sufficient, when added together with the "Federal Funds" allocated for the Project, to ensure payment of eligible expenses as described in Exhibit I, "Scope of Project and Budget" of this AGREEMENT. The GRANT RECIPIENT further agrees that there shall be no reduction in the amount specified as the "Contractor Funds" unless there is a concurrent proportional reduction in the "Federal Funds"or STA pre-approves the reduction in writing. If at any time the GRANT RECIPIENT becomes aware that the cost which it expects to incur in the performance of this AGREEMENT will exceed or be substantially less than the amount indicated in the caption space header above titled "Project Costs", the GRANT RECIPIENT shall notify STA promptly in writing to that effect. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that"Project Costs"eligible for Federal participation and"Contractor Funds"used as a match to FTA funds,must comply with the standards of OMB Circular A-87,Revised,"Cost Principles for State and Local Governments." Section 5 Construction Inspection Throughout the term of this AGREEMENT,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall complete construction of the sidewalk and transit stops ("Project Improvements") pursuant to this AGREEMENT. Upon completion of the Project Improvements, the GRANT RECIPIENT shall fully inspect the Project Improvements to ensure that the improvements comply with all regulations, rules, and laws and meet the design and engineering plans for the Project. Section 6 Miscellaneous Charges and Conditions The GRANT RECIPIENT shall pay and be solely responsible for all charges,late fees and fines,as well as any fees(including permits and inspection fees) and taxes, which may be imposed with respect to said Project. All replacements, repairs, or substitutions of parts or equipment shall be at the cost and expense of the GRANT RECIPIENT. Section 7 Payment A. STA,using FTA grant funds, shall reimburse the GRANT RECIPIENT's allowable expenses incurred in completing the Project described in Exhibit I,"Scope of Project and Budget." Allowable Project expenses shall be determined by STA based on FTA and other applicable federal guidelines. B. Payment will be made by STA on a reimbursable basis.Payment is subject to the submission to and approval by STA of appropriate invoices,reports,and financial summaries. Any fmancial summaries submitted to STA must include a record of the actual Project net costs. C. The GRANT RECIPIENT's final payment request for"Funds"must be received by STA,within thirty(30)days of the completion of the Project or within thirty(30)days of the termination of this AGREEMENT,whichever is sooner. Any payment request after this time will not be eligible for reimbursement. Section 8 Subcontracts The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to include Sections 9 through 25 of this AGREEMENT in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA;and in all contracts it enters into for the employment of any individuals, procurement of any materials,or the performance of any work to be accomplished under this AGREEMENT, subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 19C.2 and D.2 of this AGREEMENT. It is further agreed that those clauses shall not be modified, except to identify the subcontractor or other person or entity that will be subject to its provisions. In addition,the following provision shall be included in any advertisement or invitation to bid for any procurement by the GRANT RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT: Statement of Financial Assistance- This AGREEMENT is subject to a financial assistance contract between the City of Spokane Valley and the Federal Transit Administration. Section 9 Reports A. Reports. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall advise STA regarding the progress of the Project at such times and in such manner as STA and FTA may require,including,but not limited to,interim reports. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall keep satisfactory Page 2 of 16 written records with regard to the construction and equipment and shall submit the following reports to, and in a form and at such times prescribed by,STA until the Project is completed. 1.The GRANT RECIPIENT shall provide to STA periodic reports describing the progress of construction improvements as described in"Scope of Project and Budget"in Exhibit I hereto. 2.The GRANT RECIPIENT shall collect and submit to STA,at such time as STA may require,such financial statements, data,records,contracts,and other documents related to the Project as may be deemed necessary by STA and FTA. B. Remedies for Misuse or Noncompliance. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall not perform the construction of the Project in a manner different from that set forth in Exhibit I,"Scope of Project and Budget,"and the"Service Area"identified in the AGREEMENT. FTA may require STA to withhold Grant payments should it determine that the GRANT RECIPIENT has failed to comply with any provision of this AGREEMENT. If Federal participation and funding is either reduced or canceled as a result of a breach by the GRANT RECIPIENT,the GRANT RECIPIENT is then liable for all damages from the breach,even though those damages exceed the price payable under this AGREEMENT. Section 10 General Compliance Assurance The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to give reasonable guarantees that it and its subcontractors or third party contractors under this AGREEMENT,will comply with all requirements imposed by,or pursuant to,the Federal Transit Act including any amendments thereto,and the Federal Regulations. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 18 and the"Common Rule"as defined in OMB Circular A-87. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that the United States,any agency thereof,STA and any of STA's representatives,have not only the right to monitor the compliance of the GRANT RECIPIENT with the provisions of this assurance,but also have the right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Federal Transit Act,the Federal Regulations,and this assurance. It is understood by the GRANT RECIPIENT that this assurance obligates the GRANT RECIPIENT and any transferee of the GRANT RECIPIENT,or said transferee's successor(s),for the term of the Project. Section 11 Procurement The GRANT RECIPIENT shall follow procurement procedures approved in advance by STA and consistent with the following provisions: A. General Procurement Requirements. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with third party procurement requirements of 49 U.S.C.chapter 53 and other applicable Federal Laws in effect now or as subsequently enacted;with U.S.DOT third party procurement regulations of 49 C.F.R. § 18.36 and other applicable Federal Regulations pertaining to third party procurements and subsequent amendments thereto.The GRANT RECIPIENT shall also comply with the provisions of FTA Circular 4220.1.F, "Third Party Contracting Requirements,"November 1,2008 and any later revision thereto,except to the extent FTA determines otherwise in writing,which by this reference are incorporated herein,and any reference therein to"Grantee"shall mean GRANT RECIPIENT.The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that it may not use FTA assistance to support its third party procurements unless there is satisfactory compliance with Federal laws and regulations. B. Full and Open Competition.In accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 5325(a),the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to conduct all procurement transactions in a manner that provides full and open competition as determined by FTA. C. Exclusionary or Discriminatory Specifications.Apart from inconsistent requirements imposed by Federal laws or regulations,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5325(h)by not expending or otherwise using any Federal assistance awarded to support a procurement using exclusionary or discriminatory specifications. D. Method of Acquisition.In compliance with 49 U.S.C. § 5325(f),the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that any third party contract award made for rolling stock will be based on initial capital costs,or on performance,standardization,life cycle costs,and other factors,or on a competitive procurement process. E. Preference for United States Products and Services. To the extent applicable,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the following U.S.preference requirements: 1. Buy America. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with 49 U.S.C. § 5323(j),with FTA regulations,"Buy America Requirements,"49 C.F.R.Part 661,and any later amendments thereto. 2. Cargo Preference—Use of United States-Flag Vessels. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with 46 App. U.S.C. § 55305 and U.S.Maritime Administration regulations,"Cargo Preference—U.S.-Flag Vessels,"46 C.F.R.Part 381,to the extent those regulations apply to the Project. Page 3 of 16 3. Fly America. The GRANT RECIPIENT understands and agrees that the Federal Government will not participate in the costs of international air transportation of any persons involved in or property acquired for the Project unless that air transportation is provided by U.S.-flag air carriers to the extent service by U.S.-flag air carriers is available,in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974,as amended,49 U.S.C. §40118,and with U.S. GSA regulations, "Use of United States Flag Air Carriers,"41 C.F.R. §§301-10.131 through 301-10.143. F. Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Requirements. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. §5323(m)and FTA regulations,"Pre-Award and Post-Delivery Audits of Rolling Stock Purchases,"49 C.F.R.Part 663, and any revision thereto. G. Geographic Restrictions. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to not use any State or Local geographic preference,except those expressly mandated or encouraged by Federal Statute or as permitted by FTA. H. Preference for Recycled Products. To the extent applicable,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(U.S.EPA),"Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for Products Containing Recovered Materials",40 C.F.R.Part 247,which implements section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,as amended,42 U.S.C. § 6962.Accordingly,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to provide a competitive preference for products and services that conserve natural resources,protect the environment,and are energy efficient, except to the extent that the Federal Government determines otherwise in writing. I. National Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards.To the extent applicable,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to conform to the National Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)Architecture and Standards as required by SAFETEA-LU §5307(c),23 U.S.C. § 512 note,and follow the provisions of FTA Notice,"FTA National ITS Architecture Policy on Transit Projects,"66 Fed.Reg. 1455 et seq.,January 8,2001,and any other implementing directives FTA may issue at a later date,except to the extent FTA determines otherwise in writing. J. Government Orders. In case any lawful government authority shall make any order with respect to the Project,or any part thereof,or the PARTIES hereto or either PARTY,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall cooperate with STA in carrying out such order and will arrange its operation and business so as to enable STA to comply with the terms of the order. Section 12 Incorporation of Federal Terms A. Purchasing. This AGREEMENT's provisions include, in part, certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by FTA, whether or not expressly set forth herein. All contractual provisions as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1F are hereby incorporated by reference. All FTA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this AGREEMENT. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any STA request,which would cause STA to be in violation of any FTA term or condition. B. Federal Changes. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies, procedures and directives, whether or not they are referenced in this AGREEMENT and agrees to include any amendments promulgated by the FTA,during the term of this AGREEMENT. The GRANT RECIPIENT's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this AGREEMENT. Section 13 No Obligation by the Federal Government A. STA and the GRANT RECIPIENT acknowledge and agree that,regardless of any concurrence by the Federal Government or approval of the solicitation or award of this AGREEMENT,the Federal Government is not a party to this AGREEMENT and shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to the GRANT RECIPIENT,subcontractor,lessee or any other participant at any tier of the Project(whether or not a PARTY to this AGREEMENT)pertaining to any matter resulting from this AGREEMENT. B. No contract between the GRANT RECIPIENT and its subcontractors,lessees,or any other participant at any tier of the Project shall create any obligation or liability of STA with regard to this AGREEMENT without STA's specific written consent, notwithstanding its concurrence in,or approval of,the award of any contract or subcontract or the solicitations thereof. The GRANT RECIPIENT hereby agrees to include this provision in all contracts it enters into for the employment of any individuals, procurement of any materials,or the performance of any work to be accomplished under this AGREEMENT. Page 4 of 16 Section 14 Personal Liability of Public Officers No officer or employee of STA shall be personally liable for any acts or failure to act in connection with this AGREEMENT, it being understood that in such matters they are acting solely as agents of STA. Section 15 Ethics A. Code of Ethics. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to maintain a written code or standards of conduct that shall govern the performance of its officers,employees,board members,or agents engaged in the award and administration of contracts, subagreements,leases,third party contracts,or other arrangements supported by Federal assistance. The code or standards shall provide that the GRANT RECIPIENT's officers,employees,board members,or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors,or anything of monetary value from any present or potential subcontractor,lessee,sub-recipient,or participant at any tier of the Project,or agent thereof. The GRANT RECIPIENT may set de-minimis rules where the financial interest is not substantial,or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value. These codes or standards shall prohibit the GRANT RECIPIENT's officers,employees,board members,or agents from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest or personal gain. As permitted by State or Local Law or Regulations,such code or standards shall include penalties,sanctions,or other disciplinary actions for violations by the GRANT RECIPIENT's officers, employees,board members,or agents,or by subcontractors,lessees or sub-recipients,other participants or their agents. The GRANT RECIPIENT must fully comply with all the requirements and obligations of Chapter 42.52 RCW that govern ethics in State and Local Governments. 1. Personal Conflict of Interest. The GRANT RECIPIENT's code or standards shall prohibit the GRANT RECIPIENT's employees,officers,board members,or agents from participating in the selection,award,or administration of a contract supported by"Federal Funds"if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when any of the parties set forth below has a financial or other interest in the firm or entity selected for award: a. The employee,officer,board member,or agent; b. Any member of his or her immediate family; c. His or her partner;or d. An organization that employs,or is about to employ,any of the above. 2. Organizational Conflict of Interest. The GRANT RECIPIENT's code or standard of conduct must include procedures for identifying and preventing real and apparent organizational conflicts of interest. An organizational conflict of interest exists when the nature of the work to be performed under a proposed third party contract,subagreement,lease,or other arrangement at any tier may,without some restrictions on future activities,result in an unfair competitive advantage to the third party contractor or impair its objectivity in performing the work under this AGREEMENT. B. Debarment and Suspension. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply and assures the compliance of each sub-recipient, lessee,third party contractor,or other participant at any tier of the Project with the requirements of Executive Orders Numbers 12549 and 12689,"Debarment and Suspension,"31 U.S.C. §6101 note,and U.S.DOT regulations"Non-procurement Suspension and Debarment"2 C.F.R.Part 1200,which adopts and supplements the provisions of U.S.Office of Management and Budget (U.S.OMB)"Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension(Non-procurement),"2 C.F.R.Part 180.The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to and assures that its sub-recipients,lessees,third party contractors,and other participants at any tier of the Project will review the"Excluded Parties Listing System"at http://epls.arnet.gov/before entering into any third subagreement,lease,third party contract,or other arrangement in connection with the Project. C. Bonus or Commission. The GRANT RECIPIENT affirms that it has not paid,and agrees not to pay,any bonus or commission to obtain approval of its application for Federal financial assistance for this Project. D. Relationships with Employees and Officers of STA. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall not extend any loan,gratuity or gift of money in any form whatsoever to any employee or officer of STA, nor shall the GRANT RECIPIENT rent or purchase any Equipment and materials from any employee or officer of STA. E. STA Restrictions on Lobbying. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to: 1. Comply with 31 U.S.C. § 1352(a)and will not use Federal assistance to pay the costs of influencing any officer or employee of a Federal agency,Member of Congress,officer of Congress or employee of a member of Congress,in connection with making or extending this Grant AGREEMENT;and 2. Comply,and assure compliance by each subcontractor at any tier,each lessee at any tier and each sub-recipient at any tier,with applicable requirements of U.S.DOT regulations,"New Restriction on Lobbying,"49 C.F.R.Part 20,modified as necessary by 31 U.S.C. §1352;and Page 5 of 16 3. Comply with Federal statutory provisions to the extent applicable prohibiting the use of Federal assistance Funds for activities designed to influence Congress or a state legislature on legislation or appropriations,except through proper, official channels. G. Employee Political Activity. To the extent applicable,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the provisions of the "Hatch Act,"5 U.S.C. §§ 1501 through 1508,and§§ 7324 through 7326,and Office of Personnel Management regulations, "Political Activity of State or Local Officers or Employees,"5 C.F.R.Part 151. The"Hatch Act"limits the political activities of state and local agencies and their officers and employees,whose principal employment activities are financed in whole or in part with"Federal Funds"including a loan,grant,or cooperative agreement. Nevertheless,in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 5307(k)(2)(B)and 23 U.S.C. § 142(g),the"Hatch Act"does not apply to a non-supervisory employee of a transit system(or of any other agency or entity performing related functions)receiving assistance pursuant to the SAFETEA-LU provisions and/or receiving FTA assistance to whom the"Hatch Act"does not otherwise apply. H. False or Fraudulent Statements or Claims. The GRANT RECIPIENT acknowledges and agrees that: 1. The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986,as amended,31 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq.,and U.S.DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies,"49 C.F.R.Part 31,apply to its activities in connection with the Project. Accordingly,by executing this AGREEMENT,the GRANT RECIPIENT certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of each statement it has made,it makes,or it may make in connection with the Project covered by this AGREEMENT. In addition to other penalties that may apply,the GRANT RECIPIENT also acknowledges that if it makes a false,fictitious,or fraudulent claim,statement, submission,or certification to the Federal Government,the Federal Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986,as amended,on the GRANT RECIPIENT to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. 2. Criminal Fraud: If the GRANT RECIPIENT makes a false,fictitious,or fraudulent claim,statement,submission, certification,assurance,or representation to the Federal Government or includes a false,fictitious,or fraudulent statement or representation in any agreement in connection with this Project authorized under 49 U.S.C.chapter 53 or any other Federal Law, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose on the GRANT RECIPIENT the penalties of 49 U.S.C. §5323(1), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or other applicable Federal Law to the extent the Federal Government deems appropriate. I.Trafficking in Persons.To the extent applicable,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the requirements of subsection 106(g)of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000(TVPA),as amended,22 U.S.C. § 7104(g),and the provisions of Subsection 3.g of FTA Master Agreement(15)dated October 1,2008,which by this reference is incorporated herein as if fully set out in this AGREEMENT,and any amendments thereto,and accessible at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/15-Master.pdf, consistent with U.S.OMB guidance,"Trafficking in Persons:Grants and Cooperative Agreements,"2 C.F.R.Part 175. Section 16 Compliance with Laws and Regulations The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal Laws and Regulations including,but not limited to,those concerning employment,equal opportunity employment,nondiscrimination assurances,Project record keeping necessary to evidence compliance with such Federal and State Laws and Regulations,and retention of all such records. The GRANT RECIPIENT will adhere to all of the nondiscrimination provisions in Chapter 49.60 RCW. Section 17 Civil Rights The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable civil rights laws,regulations and directives except to the extent that the Federal Government determines otherwise in writing. These include,but are not limited to,the following: A. Nondiscrimination in Federal Transit Programs. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply,and assures compliance by each third party contractor,lessee or other participant at any tier,with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. §5332,which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,color,creed,national origin, sex,or age,and prohibits discrimination in employment or business opportunity; B. Nondiscrimination-Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply,and assure compliance by each third party contractor at any tier,with all provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race,color,or national origin, of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§2000d etseq.;and U.S.DOT regulations, "Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation-Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,"49 C.F.R.Part 21. Except to the extent FTA determines otherwise in writing,the GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to follow all applicable provisions of FTA Circular 4702.1A,"Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Assistance Recipients,"May 13,2007 and any other applicable implementing Federal Directives that may be issued; C. Equal Employment Opportunity. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply,and assures compliance by each third party contractor,lessee or other participant at any tier of this Project,with all requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Page 6 of 16 as amended,42 U.S.C. §2000e,and 49 U.S.C. § 5332 and any implementing Federal Regulations and any subsequent amendments thereto. Except to the extent FTA determines otherwise in writing,the GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to comply with any applicable Federal equal employment opportunity(EEO)directives that may be issued. Accordingly: 1. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race,color,creed,sex,disability,age,or national origin. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment,without regard to their race,color,creed,sex, disability,age,or national origin. Such action shall include,but not be limited to,employment,upgrading,demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising,layoff or termination;rates of pay or other forms of compensation;and selection for training,including apprenticeship. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall also comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. 2. If the GRANT RECIPIENT is required to submit and obtain Federal Government approval of its EEO program,that EEO program approved by the Federal Government is incorporated by reference and made part of this AGREEMENT. Failure by the GRANT RECIPIENT to carry out the terms of that EEO program shall be treated as a violation of this AGREEMENT. Upon notification to the GRANT RECIPIENT of its failure to carry out the approved EEO program,the Federal Government may impose such remedies,as it considers appropriate,including termination of Federal financial assistance,or other measures that may affect the GRANT RECIPIENT's eligibility to obtain future Federal financial assistance for transportation projects. D. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,as amended,20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.and with any implementing Federal regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex that may be applicable. E. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with applicable requirements of: 1. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.,and with implementing U.S.Health and Human Services,"Nondiscrimination on the basis of Age in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Assistance,"45 C.F.R. Part 90,which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. 2. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act(ADEA),29 U.S.C. §§ 621 through 634,and with implementing U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(U.S.EEOC)regulations,"Age Discrimination in Employment Act,"29 C.F.R.Part 1625. F. Disabilities-Employment. In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act,as amended,42 U.S.C. § 12112,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that it will comply with the requirements of U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act,"29 C.F.R. Part 1630,pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. G. Disabilities-Access. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5301(d),which state the Federal policy that the elderly and persons with disabilities have the same rights as other persons to use mass transportation service and facilities,and that special efforts shall be made in planning and designing those services and facilities to implement said policy. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,as amended,29 U.S.C. § 794,which prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap;with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA),as amended,42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.,which requires the provision of accessible facilities and services to be made available to persons with disabilities;and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§4151 et seq,which requires that buildings and public accommodations be accessible to persons with disabilities;and with other laws and amendments thereto pertaining to access for individuals with disabilities that may be applicable.In addition,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with applicable implementing Federal regulations and any later amendments thereto,and agrees to follow applicable Federal directives except to the extent FTA approves otherwise in writing.Among those regulations and directives are the following: U.S.DOT regulations,"Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities(ADA),"49 C.F.R. Part 37;U.S.DOT regulations,"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance,"49 C.F.R.Part 27;Joint U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board U.S.DOT regulations;"Americans with Disabilities(ADA)Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles,"36 C.F.R. Part 1192 and 49 C.F.R.Part 38;U.S.DOJ regulations,"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services,"28 C.F.R.Part 35;U.S.DOJ regulations,"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities,"28 C.F.R.Part 36;U.S.GSA regulations,"Accommodations for the Physically Handicapped,"41 C.F.R. Subpart 101-19;U.S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,"Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act,"29 C.F.R.Part 1630;U.S.Federal Communications Commission regulations,"Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Custom Premises Equipment for the Hearing and Speech Disabled,"47 C.F.R.Part 64,Subpart F;U.S.ATBCB regulations,"Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards,"36 C.F.R.Part 1194; FTA regulations,"Transportation for Elderly and Handicapped Persons,"49 C.F.R.Part 609; Page 7 of 16 and Federal civil rights and nondiscrimination directives implementing the foregoing regulations,except to the extent the Federal Government determines otherwise in writing. H. Drug or Alcohol Abuse. Confidentiality and Other Civil Rights Protections. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the confidentiality and other civil rights provisions of the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972,as amended 21 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.;with the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970,as amended;42 U.S.C. §§4541 et seq.;and to comply with the Public Health Service Act of 1912,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§201 et seq. and any subsequent amendments to these laws. I. Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the policies of Executive Order No. 13166,"Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,"42 U.S.C. §2000d-1 note,and with provisions of U.S.DOT Notice"DOT Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient(LEP)Persons,"70 Fed.Reg. 74087 December 14,2005. J. Environmental Justice. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the policies of Executive Order No. 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,"42 U.S.C. §4321 note, except to the extent that the Federal Government determines otherwise in writing. K. Other Nondiscrimination Statutes. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable provisions of other Federal Laws,Regulations,and Directives pertaining to and prohibiting discrimination and other nondiscrimination statute(s)that may apply to the Project including chapter 49.60 RCW. Section 18 Participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises The GRANT RECIPIENT shall take the following measures to facilitate participation by disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE)in the Project: A. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with section 1101(b)of SAFETEA-LU,23 U.S.C. § 101 note,and U.S.DOT regulations,"Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs,"49 C.F.R.Part 26;and B. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that it shall not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin,or sex in the award and performance of any third party contract,or sub-agreement supported with Federal assistance derived from the U.S.DOT or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 C.F.R.Part 26. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 C.F.R.Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of all third party contracts and sub-agreements supported with Federal assistance derived from the U.S.DOT. The GRANT RECIPIENT's DBE program,as required by 49 C.F.R.Part 26 and approved by the U.S.DOT,if any is incorporated by reference and made part of this AGREEMENT. Implementation of the DBE program is a legal obligation,and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as violation of this AGREEMENT.Upon notification to the GRANT RECIPIENT of its failure to implement its approved DBE program,the U.S.DOT may impose sanctions as provided for under 49 C.F.R.Part 26 and may,in appropriate cases,refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001,and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act,31 U.S.C. §§3801 et seq. Section 19 Energy Conservation and Environmental Requirements A. Energy Conservation. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with the mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency standards and policies within the Washington State energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,42 U.S.C. §§ 6321 et seq.,and any amendments thereto. B. Environmental Protection. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§4321 through 4335;Executive Order No. 11514,as amended, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality,"42 U.S.C. §4321 note;FTA statutory requirements at 49 U.S.C. §5324(b);U.S.Council on Environmental Quality regulations imposing requirements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,as amended,40 C.F.R.Part 1500 through 1508;joint Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/FTA regulations,"Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,"23 C.F.R.Part 771 and 49 C.F.R.Part 622,and subsequent Federal environmental protection regulations that may be promulgated.The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with 23 U.S.C. §§ 139 and 326 as applicable and implement those requirements in accordance with the provisions of joint FHWA/FTA fmal guidance"SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process(Public Law 109-59),"71 Fed.Reg. 66576 et seq., November 15,2006 and any applicable Federal Directives that may be issued at a later date,except to the extent that FTA determines otherwise in writing. C. Clean Water. In the event that the"Federal Funds,"identified in"PROJECT COST"of this AGREEMENT,exceeds $100,000,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable standards,orders,or regulations issued pursuant to Section Page 8 of 16 508 of the Clean Water Act,as amended,33 U.S.C. § 1368,and other applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act, as amended 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 through 1377. 1.The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to refrain from using any violating facilities. 2. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to report each violation to STA and understands and agrees that STA will,in turn, report each violation,as required,to the FTA and to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 3. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract that exceeds$100,000 and is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA. D. Clean Air. In the event that the"Federal Funds,"identified in"PROJECT COST"exceeds$100,000,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable standards,orders or regulations issued pursuant to Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,42 U.S.C. §7414,and other applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act,as amended,42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 through 7671q,including: 1. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall refrain from using any violating facilities. 2. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to report each violation to STA and understands and agrees that STA will,in turn, report each violation to the FTA and to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 3. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to include these requirements in each contract exceeding$100,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by the FTA. Section 20 Accounting Records A. Project Accounts. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to establish and maintain for the Project either a separate set of accounts or separate accounts within the framework of an established accounting system that can be identified with the Project,in accordance with applicable Federal Regulations and other requirements that FTA may impose. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that all checks,payrolls,invoices,contracts,vouchers,orders,or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the Project shall be clearly identified,readily accessible and available to STA and FTA upon request,and,to the extent feasible,kept separate from documents not pertaining to the Project. B. Funds Received or Made Available for the Project. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to deposit in a financial institution, all advance Project payments it receives from the Federal Government and record in the Project Account all amounts provided by the Federal Government in support of this Grant AGREEMENT or Cooperative AGREEMENT and all other funds provided for, accruing to,or otherwise received on account of the Project(Project funds)in accordance with applicable Federal Regulations and other requirements FTA may impose. Use of financial institutions owned at least 50 percent by minority group members is encouraged. C. Documentation of Project Costs and Program Income. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to support all costs charged to the Project,including any approved services contributed by the GRANT RECIPIENT or others,with properly executed payrolls, time records,invoices,contracts,or vouchers describing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to maintain accurate records of all program income derived from implementing the Project,except certain income determined by FTA to be exempt from Federal program income requirements. D. Checks,Orders,and Vouchers. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to refrain from drawing checks,drafts,or orders for goods or services to be charged against the Project Account until it has received and filed a properly signed voucher describing in proper detail the purpose for the expenditure. Section 21 Audits,Inspection,and Retention of Records A. Submission of Proceedings,Agreements,and Other Documents. During the course of the Project and for six(6)years thereafter,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to retain intact and to provide any data,documents,reports,records,contracts,and supporting materials relating to the Project as STA may require. Reporting and record-keeping requirements are set forth in 49 C.F.R.Part 19 or 49 C.F.R.Part 18 as applicable. Project closeout does not alter these recording and record-keeping requirements. Should an audit,enforcement,or litigation process be commenced,but not completed,during the aforementioned six-year period then the GRANT RECIPIENT's obligations hereunder shall be extended until the conclusion of that pending audit, enforcement,or litigation process. B. General Audit Requirements. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to perform the financial and compliance audits required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996,31 U.S.C. §§7501 et seq. As provided by 49 C.F.R.Part 19.26,these financial and compliance audits must comply with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133,Revised,"Audits of States,Local Governments,and Non-Profit Organizations,"the latest OMB A-133 Compliance Supplement for U.S.DOT,and any further revision or supplement Page 9 of 16 thereto. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to obtain any other audits required by the Federal Government. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that audits will be carried out in accordance with U.S.General Accounting Office"Government Auditing Standards." The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to obtain any other audits required by STA. Project closeout will not alter the GRANT RECIPIENT's audit responsibilities. C. Inspection. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to permit STA,the United States Department of Transportation,and the Comptroller General of the United States,or their authorized representatives,to inspect all Project work materials,payrolls, maintenance records,and other data,and to audit the books,records,and accounts of the GRANT RECIPIENT and its contractors pertaining to the Project. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to require each third party contractor whose contract award is not based on competitive bidding procedures as defined by the United States Department of Transportation to permit STA,the United States Department of Transportation,and the Comptroller General of the United States,or their duly authorized representatives,to inspect all work,materials,payrolls,and other data and records involving that third party contract,and to audit the books,records, and accounts involving that third party contract as it affects the Project as required by 49 U.S.C. § 5325(g). Section 22 Labor Provisions A. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with,and shall require the compliance by each subcontractor at any tier,any applicable employee protection requirements for non-construction employees as defined by the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act,as amended,40 U.S.C. §§3701 et seq., and specifically,the wage and hour requirements of Section 102 of that Act at 40 U.S.C. § 3702 and U.S.DOL regulations,"Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction(also Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Non-construction Contracts Subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act)"at 29 C.F.R.Part 5;and the safety requirements of Section 107 of that Act at 40 U.S.C. §3704,and implementing U.S.DOL regulations,"Safety and Health Regulations for Construction,"29 C.F.R.Part 1926. B. Fair Labor Standards Act. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees that the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act,as amended,29 U.S.C. §§201 et seq.,apply to employees performing work involving commerce,and apply to any local government employees that are public transit authority employees. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements for employees performing work in connection with the Project. C. Overtime Requirements. No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in excess of forty(40)hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)hours in such workweek. D. Payrolls and Basic Records. Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be maintained by the GRANT RECIPIENT during the course of the work and preserved for a period of six(6)years thereafter for all laborers and mechanics working at the site of the work(or under the United States Housing Act of 1937,or under the Housing Act of 1949,in the construction or development of the Project). Such records shall contain the name,address,and social security number of each such worker,his or her correct classification,hourly rates of wages paid(including rates of contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash equivalents thereof of the types described in section 1(b)(2)(B)of the Davis-Bacon Act,Public-Law 88-349,as amended by 40 U.S.C. §§3141 etseq.,and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 5333(a)et seq.,daily and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made and actual wages paid. Whenever the Secretary of Labor has found under 29 C.F.R. 5.5(a)(1)(iv)that the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or program described in section 1(b)(2)(B)of the Davis-Bacon Act,Public Law 88-349,as amended by 40 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5333(a),the GRANT RECIPIENT shall maintain records which show that the commitment to provide such benefits is enforceable,that the plan or program is financially responsible,and that the plan or program has been communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics affected,and records which show the costs anticipated or the actual cost incurred in providing such benefits. GRANT RECIPIENT's employing apprentices or trainees under approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the registration of apprenticeship programs and certification of trainee programs,the registration of the apprentices and trainees, and the ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs. E. Violation; liability for unpaid wages;liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (A)of this section the GRANT RECIPIENT and any subcontractor responsible therefore shall be liable for the unpaid wages. In addition,such GRANT RECIPIENT and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic,including watchmen and guards,employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph(A)of this section,in the sum of ten dollars($10)for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty(40)hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph(C)of this section. Page 10 of 16 F. Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall,upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor,withhold or cause to be withheld,from any moneys payable on account of work performed by the GRANT RECIPIENT or subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime GRANT RECIPIENT,or any other federally-assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act,which is held by the same prime GRANT RECIPIENT,such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such GRANT RECIPIENT or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in paragraph(E)of this section. G. Public Transportation Employee Protective Agreement. To the extent required by Federal Law,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to implement the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions that the U.S. Secretary of Labor has determined to be fair and equitable to protect the interests of any employees affected by the Project and that comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b),in accordance with the U. S.DOL guidelines,"Section 5333(b),Federal Transit Law,"29 C.F.R.Part 215 and any amendments thereto. These terms and conditions are identified in U.S.DOL's certification of public transportation employee protective arrangements to FTA. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to implement the Project in accordance with the conditions stated in that U.S.DOL certification,which certification and any documents cited therein are incorporated by reference and made part of this AGREEMENT. The GRANT RECIPIENT also agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Warranty for the Non-urbanized Area Program that is most current as of the date of execution of this AGREEMENT and any alternative comparable arrangements specified by U.S.DOL for application to the Project,in accordance with U.S.DOL guidelines,"Section 5333(b),Federal Transit Law,"29 C.F.R.Part 215,and any revision thereto. Section 23 Planning and Private Enterprise FTA Requirements. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to implement the Project in a manner consistent with the plans developed in compliance with the applicable planning and private enterprise provisions of 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303,5304,5306,and 5323(a)(1);joint Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)/FTA regulations,"Statewide Transportation Planning:Metropolitan Transportation Planning,"23 C.F.R.Part 450 and 49 C.F.R.Part 613;and any amendments thereto and with FTA regulations, "Major Capital Investment Projects,"49 C.F.R.Part 611,to the extent that these regulations are consistent with the SAFETEA-LU amendments to the public transportation planning and private enterprise laws,and when promulgated,any subsequent amendments to those regulations. To the extent feasible,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. §5323(k),which afford governmental agencies and non-profit organizations that receive Federal assistance for non-emergency transportation from Federal Governmental sources(other than U.S.DOT)an opportunity to be included in the design, coordination,and planning of transportation services.During the implementation of the Project,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to take into considerations the recommendations of Executive Order No. 12803,"Infrastructure Privatization,"31 U.S.C. § 501 note,and Executive Order No 12893,"Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments,"31 U.S.C. §501 note. Section 24 Substance Abuse A. Drug and Alcohol Abuse. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to establish and implement a drug and alcohol testing program that complies with 49 C.F.R. Part 655,produce any documentation necessary to establish its compliance with Part 655,and permit any authorized representative of the United States Department of Transportation or its operating administrations and STA to inspect the facilities and records associated with the implementation of the drug and alcohol testing program as required under 49 C.F.R. Part 655 and review the testing process. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees further to submit annually the Management Information System(MIS)reports to STA by February 28th each year for the useful life of the Project Equipment. B. Privacy Act. The GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to comply with the confidentiality and other civil rights provisions of the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-255, March 21, 1972, as amended 21 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., the Comprehensive Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-616, December 31, 1970,as amended 42 U.S.C. §§4541 et seq., and the Public Health Services Act of 1912,as amended 42 U.S.C. §§201 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 290dd-2, 290dd-3 and 290ee-3 including amendments to these acts. The GRANT RECIPIENT understands the requirements of confidentiality concerning persons covered and/or receiving services and/or treatment regarding alcohol and drug abuse, as defined in the aforementioned acts as applicable, including any civil and criminal penalties for not complying with the requirements of confidentiality and that failure to comply with such requirements may result in termination of this AGREEMENT. Section 25 Coordination of Special Needs Transportation It is the policy of the STA to actively support coordination of special needs transportation in the state. As a condition of assistance,the GRANT RECIPIENT is required to participate in local coordinated planning as led by GRANT RECIPIENT's relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)and/or Regional Transportation Planning Organization(RTPO). Page 11 of 16 Section 26 State and Local Law Except when a Federal Statute or Regulation pre-empts State and Local Law,no provision of this AGREEMENT shall require the GRANT RECIPIENT to observe or enforce compliance with any provision,perform any other act,or do any other thing in contravention of State or Local Law. Thus if any provision or compliance with any provision of this AGREEMENT violate State, or Local Law,or would require the GRANT RECIPIENT to violate State or Local Law,the GRANT RECIPIENT agrees to notify STA immediately in writing. Should this occur,STA and the GRANT RECIPIENT agree to make appropriate arrangements to proceed with or,if necessary,expeditiously terminate the Project. Section 27 Limitation of Liability A. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless STA,its agents,employees,and officers from and process and defend at its own expense any and all claims,demands,suits at law or equity,actions,penalties,losses,damages,or costs (hereinafter referred to collectively as"claims"),of whatsoever kind or nature brought against STA arising out of,in connection with or incident to the execution of this AGREEMENT and/or the GRANT RECIPIENT's performance or failure to perform any aspect of this AGREEMENT. This indemnity provision applies to all claims against STA,its agents,employees and officers arising out of,in connection with or incident to the negligent acts or omissions of the GRANT RECIPIENT,its agents,employees and officers.Provided,however,that nothing herein shall require the GRANT RECIPIENT to indemnify and hold harmless or defend STA,its agents,employees or officers to the extent that claims are caused by the negligent acts or omissions of STA,its agents,employees or officers. The indemnification and hold harmless provision shall survive termination of this AGREEMENT. B. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall be deemed an independent GRANT RECIPIENT for all purposes,and the employees of the GRANT RECIPIENT,or its subcontractors and the employees thereof,shall not in any manner be deemed to be the employees of STA. C. The GRANT RECIPIENT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by GRANT RECIPIENT's employees and/or subcontractors and solely for the purposes of this indemnification and defense,the GRANT RECIPIENT specifically waives any immunity under the State Industrial Insurance Law,Title 51 Revised Code of Washington. D. In the event either the GRANT RECIPIENT or STA incurs attorney's fees,costs or other legal expenses to enforce the provisions of this section of the AGREEMENT against the other PARTY,all such fees,costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the prevailing PARTY. Section 28 Changed Conditions Affecting Performance The GRANT RECIPIENT hereby agrees to immediately notify STA in writing of any change in conditions or law,or of any other event,which may affect its ability to perform the Project in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT. Section 29 Agreement Modifications Either PARTY may request changes to this AGREEMENT. Any changes to the terms of this AGREEMENT must be mutually agreed upon and incorporated by written amendment to this AGREEMENT. Such amendments or modifications to the terms of this AGREEMENT shall not be binding or valid unless signed by the authorized representatives of both PARTIES. Section 30 Termination A. Termination for Convenience. STA and/or the GRANT RECIPIENT may suspend or terminate this AGREEMENT,in whole or in part,by written notice to the other PARTY in accordance with 49 C.F.R.Part 18.44. STA and the GRANT RECIPIENT shall agree upon the AGREEMENT termination provisions including but not limited to the settlement terms, conditions,and in the case of partial termination the portion to be terminated. Written notification must set forth the reasons for such termination,the effective date,and in case of a partial termination,the portion to be terminated. The PARTIES may terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience for reasons including,but not limited to,the following: 1. The requisite"Federal Funds"become unavailable through failure of appropriation or otherwise; 2. STA determines,in its sole discretion,that the continuation of the Project would not produce beneficial results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds; 3. The GRANT RECIPIENT is prevented from proceeding with the Project as a direct result of an Executive Order of the President with respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense;or an Executive Order of the President or Governor of the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources; Page 12 of 16 4. The GRANT RECIPIENT is prevented from proceeding with the Project by reason of a temporary preliminary,special,or permanent restraining order or injunction of a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such order or injunction is primarily caused by the acts or omissions of persons or agencies other than the GRANT RECIPIENT; 5. The Federal Government determines that the purposes of the statute authorizing the Project would not be adequately served by the continuation of Federal financial assistance for the Project;or 6. The Federal Government terminates this AGREEMENT due to a determination that the GRANT RECIPIENT has:(a) willfully misused Federal assistance funds by failing to make adequate progress on the Project,(b)failed to make reasonable and appropriate use of the Project real property,facilities,or equipment,or(c)failed to comply with the terms of this AGREEMENT. In the event of a termination under this subsection,and the Federal Government exercises its right to require STA to refund any or all of the"Federal Funds"provided for the Project,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall return all monies reimbursed to it by STA,in the amount required by the Federal Government,within sixty(60)days of its receipt of a certified letter from STA. 7. In the case of termination for convenience under subsections A.1-5 above,STA shall reimburse the GRANT RECIPIENT for all costs payable under this AGREEMENT which the GRANT RECIPIENT properly incurred prior to termination. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall promptly submit its claim for reimbursement to STA. If the GRANT RECIPIENT has any property in its possession belonging to STA,the GRANT RECIPIENT will account for the same,and dispose of it in the manner STA directs. B. Termination for Default. STA may suspend or terminate this AGREEMENT for default,in whole or in part,and all or any part of the Federal financial assistance provided herein,at any time by written notice to the GRANT RECIPIENT,if the GRANT RECIPIENT materially breaches or fails to perform any of the requirements of this AGREEMENT,including: 1. Takes any action pertaining to this AGREEMENT without the approval of STA,which under the procedures of this AGREEMENT would have required the approval of STA; 2. Jeopardizes its ability to perform pursuant to this AGREEMENT,United States of America Laws,Washington State Laws,or local governmental laws under which the GRANT RECIPIENT operates; 3. Abuses or misuses the Project Equipment,including,but not limited to: a. Failure to maintain a vehicle according to the manufacturer's standards; b. Failure to repair damages or replace defective or broken parts in a timely manner;or c. Failure to take any action which could affect the ability of the Project Equipment to perform its designated function or takes any action which could shorten its useful life for Project use or otherwise. d. Failure to make reasonable and appropriate use of the Project Equipment,real property,or facilities. 4. Fails to make reasonable progress on the Project or other violation of this AGREEMENT that endangers substantial performance of the Project;or 5. Fails to perform in the manner called for in this AGREEMENT,or fails,to comply with,or is in violation of any provision of this AGREEMENT. STA shall serve a notice of termination on the GRANT RECIPIENT setting forth the manner in which the GRANT RECIPIENT is in default hereunder. If it is later determined by STA that the GRANT RECIPIENT had an excusable reason for not performing,such as events which are not the fault of or are beyond the control of the GRANT RECIPIENT,such as a strike,fire or flood,STA may: (a)allow the GRANT RECIPIENT to continue work after setting up a new delivery of performance schedule,or(b)treat the termination as a termination for convenience. C. STA,in its sole discretion may,in the case of a termination for breach or default,allow the GRANT RECIPIENT ten(10) business days,or such longer period as determined by STA,in which to cure the defect. In such case,the notice of termination will state the time period in which cure is permitted and other appropriate conditions. If the GRANT RECIPIENT fails to remedy to STA's satisfaction the breach or default within the timeframe and under the conditions set forth in the notice of termination, STA shall have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT without any further obligation to GRANT RECIPIENT. Any such termination for default shall not in any way operate to preclude STA from also pursuing all available remedies against GRANT RECIPIENT and its sureties for said breach or default including,but not limited to,demanding the return of some or all of the funds paid under this AGREEMENT. D. In the event that STA elects to waive its remedies for any breach by GRANT RECIPIENT of any covenant,term or condition of this AGREEMENT,such waiver by STA shall not limit STA's remedies for any succeeding breach of that or of any other term, covenant,or condition of this AGREEMENT. Page 13 of 16 Section 31 Lack of Waiver In no event shall any STA payment of grant funds to the GRANT RECIPIENT constitute or be construed as a waiver by STA of any GRANT RECIPIENT breach,or default. Such payment shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to STA with respect to any breach or default. Section 32 STA Advice The GRANT RECIPIENT bears complete responsibility for the administration and success of the Project as it is defined by this AGREEMENT and any amendments thereto. If the GRANT RECIPIENT solicits advice from STA on problems that may arise,the offering of STA advice shall not shift the responsibility of the GRANT RECIPIENT for the correct administration and success of the Project,and STA shall not be held liable for offering advice to the GRANT RECIPIENT. Section 33 Subrogation A. Prior to Subrogation. STA may require the GRANT RECIPIENT to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to preserve the GRANT RECIPIENT's right to recover damages from any person or organization alleged to be legally responsible for injury to the Project Equipment or other property in which STA has a financial interest. B. Subrogation. STA may require the GRANT RECIPIENT to assign to it all right of recovery against any person or organization for loss,to the extent of STA's loss. Upon assignment,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall execute,deliver,and do whatever else necessary to secure STA's rights. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall do nothing after any loss to prejudice the rights of STA. C. Duties of the GRANT RECIPIENT. If STA has exercised its right of subrogation,the GRANT RECIPIENT shall cooperate with STA and,upon STA's request,assist in the prosecution of suits and enforce any right against any person or organization who may be liable to STA due to damage of Project Equipment. The GRANT RECIPIENT shall attend hearings and trials,assist in securing and giving evidence,and obtain the attendance of witnesses. Section 34 Forbearance by STA Not a Waiver Any forbearance by STA in exercising any right or remedy hereunder, or otherwise afforded by applicable law, shall not be a waiver of or preclude the exercise of any such right or remedy. Section 35 Disputes A. Disputes. Disputes,arising in the performance of this AGREEMENT,which are not resolved by agreement of the PARTIES, shall be decided in writing by a third party mediator,whose selection will be mutually agreed upon by the PARTIES.This decision shall be final and conclusive and binding upon the PARTIES,and the PARTIES shall abide by the decision. B. Performance During Dispute. Unless otherwise directed by STA,GRANT RECIPIENT shall continue performance under this AGREEMENT while matters in dispute are being resolved. C. Claims for Damages. Should either PARTY to this AGREEMENT suffer injury or damage to person,property,or right because of any act or omission of the other PARTY or any of that PARTY's employees,agents or others for whose acts it is legally liable,a claim for damages therefore shall be made in writing to such other PARTY within thirty(30)days after the first observance of such injury or damage. D. Rights and Remedies. All remedies provided in this AGREEMENT are distinct and cumulative to any other right or remedy under this document or afforded by law or equity,and may be exercised independently,concurrently,or successively and shall not be construed to be a limitation of any duties,obligations,rights and remedies of the PARTIES hereto. No action or failure to act by STA or GRANT RECIPIENT shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded any of them under this AGREEMENT,nor shall any such action or failure to act constitute an approval of or acquiescence in any breach thereunder,except as may be specifically agreed in writing. Section 36 Venue and Process In the event that either PARTY deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT,the PARTIES hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington situated in Spokane County. The PARTIES hereby accept the issuing and service of process by registered mail at the mailing address shown in the caption space heading of this AGREEMENT titled"GRANT RECIPIENT"and"Spokane Transit Authority." The PARTIES agree that the laws of the State of Washington shall apply. Page 14 of 16 Section 37 Counterparts This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts,each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The GRANT RECIPIENT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements,representations,warranties, covenants,and agreements and their supporting materials contained and/or mentioned herein,and does hereby accept FTA's grant and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. Section 38 Severability Should any section,term or provision of this AGREEMENT be adjudged as void,such adjudication shall not affect the validity or obligation of performance of any other covenant or provision,or any part thereof,which by itself is valid if such remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this AGREEMENT.No controversy concerning any covenant or provision shall delay the performance of any other covenant or provision except as herein allowed. Section 39 Complete Agreement This document contains all covenants,stipulations,and provisions agreed upon by STA. No agent or representative of STA has authority to make,and STA shall not be bound by or be liable for,any statement,representation,promise or agreement not set forth herein or made by written amendment hereto. Section 40 Section Headings All section headings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this AGREEMENT. Section 41 Execution This AGREEMENT is executed by the Chief Executive Officer of Spokane Transit Authority or the Chief Executive Officer's designee,not as an individual incurring personal obligation and liability,but solely by,for and on behalf of the Spokane Transit Authority,in the capacity as Chief Executive Officer or as a designee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT the day and year last written below. SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: By: E. Susan Meyer Authorized Representative Chief Executive Officer Print Name Print Title Who by this signature certifies their authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the GRANT RECIPIENT. Date: Date: Approved as to form only: By: Laura McAloon Legal Counsel Date: February ,2012 Page 15 of 16 Exhibit I SCOPE OF PROJECT AND BUDGET Total Project Budget Federal Funds $ 178,790 State Funds $ 0 Contractor Funds $ 44,698 Total Cost $ 223,488 Scope of Work: The proposed project will complete gaps in sidewalks serving transit routes and construct concrete pads, curb ramps and related improvements at transit stops that currently have accessibility barriers to disabled residents. A list of projects was developed to establish the scope and nature of projects to be completed with New Freedom Funding. Project segments were identified in coordination with STA based upon known accessibility hazards and barriers, feedback from disabled residents, and volume of transit ridership. City staff will coordinate with STA to complete as many of the following identified projects and projects of similar scope and nature as funding will allow. Small portions of right-of- way acquisition may be necessary to complete some of the projects segments. Sidewalk Segments: 1. Montgomery Ave. (University Rd. to Wilbur Rd.): Completes gaps on north side of street, portion of gaps on south side. 2. 4th Ave. (University Rd. to Pierce Rd.): Completes gap on north side of street. Project connects Valley Transit Center and several large apartment complexes adjacent to 4th Ave. and Pierce Rd. 3. Tshirley Rd. (Sprague Ave. to Coach Drive): Completes gaps on east side of street. Project connects senior living facility and adjacent residential neighborhood to transit stops on Sprague Ave. 4. Park Rd. (8th Ave. to 12th Ave.): Completes gap in sidewalk on west side of street. Project connects large proposed new residential development(Taylor Cottages) to existing sidewalk, Edgecliff Park and transit stops. Transit Stop Improvements: Bus Pads, Curb Ramps, sites for Future Bus Shelters, and related improvements: 1. Sprague @ Pines Rd.: Northwest corner and Southeast corner 2. Sprague @ University Rd.: Northwest corner 3. Sprague @ Sullivan Rd.: Northwest corner 4. Sprague @ Havana Rd.: Northeast corner 5. Mission Rd. @ Mullen Rd.: Approx. 150-ft East of Intersection 6. Mission Rd. East of Barker Rd.: Add ramps/pads to accommodate new Route#98 7. Sullivan @ Spokane Industrial Park: Add pads adjacent to Kiernan/Euclid intersections 8. Indiana @ Evergreen: Southeast corner 9. Indiana @ ITT: South side of street 10. Indiana @ Staples: Southwest corner of intersection 11. Indiana @ Krispy Kreme: North side of street 12. Sullivan(4th to 16th) Provide pads on west side of street at intersections Page 16 of 16 8 s 4 s S PACIFIC OCEAN SIDEWALK AND TRANSIT STOP ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT CANADA —41w ormo litc,51 jot Anna "IP OREGON SPOKANE COUNTY SPOKANE CO/NTH PAO =kg1 DEER PARK MILLWOOD C/TY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE CHENEY VICINITY MAP z I 0 I > w Lul E A ILL 2 O N I WELLESLEY TRENT N SPOKANE RIVER EUCLID H 0 MTP 0 L EUCLID SPOKANE COM NITY NI COLLEGE 9 BROADWA INTERSTATE i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Union Pacific Railroad Agreement— Pines/Mansfield Project#0005 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 1) Approval of previous Six Year Transportation Improvement Programs, which included the Pines/Mansfield project, 2) approval of application for federal grant funding for the Pines/Mansfield Project, 3) approval of Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the TIB for the Pines/Mansfield project; 4) approval of a quit-claim deed on one parcel to complete right-of-way acquisition; 5) informational memo in June 3, 2008 Council Packets; 6) award of construction contract to Inland Asphalt on June 24, 2008; 7) Additional Change Order Authority for City Manager, June 2, 2009; 8) admin report and presentation to Council on Change Order #36 and #37, December 8, 2009; 9) Adopted the Amended 2011 TIP, which included the Pines/Mansfield project; 10) Informational RCA on UPRR Agreement in council's March 13, 2012 packet; 11) Admin Report to Council on March 20, 2012. BACKGROUND: The City and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) are successors to a June 30, 1977 agreement under which UPRR is responsible to operate and maintain the warning devises at the Pines Road crossing, and the City is responsible to pay for alterations to the existing warning devices necessitated by any future road improvements. As part of the Pines/Mansfield project, staff has been working with the UPRR to make improvements the Pines Road crossing to accommodate the widening of Pines Road and to provide a sidewalk for safe pedestrian crossings. The widening of Pines Road was for a southbound right turn lane onto westbound Montgomery Avenue. In accordance with RCW 81.53.261 the city filed a petition for these railroad crossing improvements with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The railroad crossing improvements will include relocating the existing cantilever (the structure with the overhead flashing red lights) and the crossing arm on the west side of Pines Road, installing a new crossing arm in the center median for southbound traffic, and other associated work. Under RCW 81.53.261 the City and UPRR may "enter into an agreement . . . providing for the installation of signals or other warning devices . . . or for the apportionment of the cost of installation and maintenance thereof." RCW 81.53.130 also provides that the UTC has authority to apportion costs of railroad crossing improvements as "the parties may agree, or as the [UTC] may consider advisable." Under the June 30 1977 agreement the City is responsible for alterations to the existing warning devices necessitated by the City's improvements to the roadway. Staff and UPRR have reached agreement on the improvements to the warning devices at the Pines Road crossing for which the City will be responsible. A summary of the main terms of the agreement are as follows: 1. UPRR will perform the work listed on the attached estimate dated 2011-11-02 and shown on the included drawing 2. The estimated cost for this work is $236,542 3. The city will be obligated to reimburse UPRR for the actual cost billed at UPRR's standard rates, including markups 4. The city's obligation to pay for work that exceeds the estimate would depend on the reason(s) for the overrun. 5. UPRR would not be permitted to bill for work that is not in the estimate 6. The city will have limited ability to dispute liability for work costing more than estimated 7. The city will have the right to monitor the work Attached is the final agreement UPRR has approved for the proposed crossing work. The following three issues have been addressed in the revised agreement and approved by UPRR. These issues include the following: 1. When the work will commence. The City's preference would be for the work to be performed as soon as possible after the agreement is approved by City Council. Under the current draft agreement, the cost estimate can be recalculated if the work is not commenced by May 2nd (six months from November 2nd). If the agreement is approved by City Council by March 27, that would give UPRR only about a month to design and commence the work. Of course if the agreement is not approved by City Council, UPRR would not be bound by the November 2, 2011 estimate. 2. Section 3 (A): The city would like to clarify that the work for which UPRR is billing the City is listed in the estimate, which is necessary because UPRR is performing some work for which it has agreed not to charge the City. 3. Section 4(A): The city would like clarification that the plans and specs refer to future sidewalk improvements to be constructed after UPRR completes their work, not to the already completed road improvements. Attached is a red-lined copy of the agreement showing changes approved by UPRR since the last agreement presented to Council. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the Agreement with UPRR, 2) Recommend revision to the agreement with UPRR, or 3) Provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad for the Pines Road Crossing Improvements, which is part of the Pines/Mansfield Project #0005. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated cost for the railroad crossing improvements is $236,542 but could be higher depending on the actual costs of these improvements. The 2012 budget includes sufficient REET funding to pay these costs. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft UPRR Agreement UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UFIRM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BUILDING.AMERICA' "�"I'F" Non-Standard Form Approved:AVP-Law 03062012 11 I UPRR Folder No.: 717-64 UPRR Audit No. SI813 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT (EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT) THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , 20 , by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, ("Railroad") and the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington with a mailing address at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 ("City"). RECITALS: By instrument dated June 30, 1977, the Spokane International Railroad Company and the County of Spokane entered into an agreement(the"Original Agreement"),identified in the records of the Railroad as Folder No. 717-64,Audit No. SI813,covering the construction,use,maintenance and repair of the Pines Road at-grade public road crossing (the "Road Crossing"), DOT No. 662- 519S, at Railroad's Mile Post 8.91 on its Spokane Subdivision, in Spokane County,near Spokane, Washington in the location shown on the Railroad Location Print marked Exhibit A,attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof The Railroad named herein is successor in interest to the Spokane International Railroad Company and the City is the successor in interest to the County of Spokane for the Original Agreement. In 2011 the City undertook, as its project, certain work in the area of the Road Crossing, including the widening of the west side of Pines Road to accommodate three southbound vehicle traffic lanes and the widening of a median island. Additional aspects of the project include work performed or to be performed by the Railroad in the area of the Road Crossing(signal modifications and improvements),as well as work yet to be performed by the City in the area of the Road Crossing (extension of the sidewalk along the west side of Pines Road). The combined work of the City and the Railroad is hereinafter referred to as the "Project." The Road Crossing, as improved, is hereinafter the"Roadway"and where the Roadway crosses the Railroad's property is the"Crossing Area." AGREEMENT: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the promises and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. The exhibits below are attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof: Supplemental Public Road Xing Page 1 of 65 revised March 6, 2012 Form Approved,AVP-Law DCAPDX 763154 vl UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNION SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BUILDING.AMERICA' ""I"F" Non-Standard Form Approved:AVP-Law 03062012 I I Exhibit A Railroad Location Print Exhibit B Railroad's Signal Material Estimate with Schematic of Signal Work Exhibit C Railroad Form of Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement Exhibit D Currently Applicable Additives SECTION 2. The Railroad,at City's expense,shall furnish labor,material,equipment,and supervision for the following elements of the Project, i.e.,: • Relocating and upgrading of the crossing gates and cantilevers, replacing and relocating the existing signal house, and replacing crossing signals; • Engineering necessary to complete the above, and • Flagging necessary to complete the above and any City work on railroad right-of-way or within 25 feet of the railroad tracks. SECTION 3. A. The work to be performed by the Railroad, at the City's sole cost and expense, is described in the Railroad's Signal Material Estimate dated November 2, 2011, in the amount of $236,542, marked Exhibit B, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof(the "Estimate"). B. The Railroad shall commence,if it so elects,may recalculate and update the Estimate submitted to the City in the event construction is not commenced on the portion of the Project located on the Railroad's property within six(6)months from the date of the Estimate. The Railroad confirms it intends to commence the work to be performed by the Railroad in a reasonably expeditious manner following execution of this Agreement and issuance of the Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission order authorizing the proposed signal modifications at the Road Crossing. C. All flagging or other protective services costs incurred by the Railroad are to be paid by the City or the Contractor as determined by the Railroad and the City. If it is determined that the Railroad will be billing the Contractor directly for such costs, the City agrees that it will pay the Railroad for any flagging costs that have not been paid by any Contractor within thirty(30)days of the Contractor's receipt of billing. D. The City agrees to reimburse the Railroad for one hundred percent (100%) of all actual costs incurred by the Railroad in connection with the Railroad's Signal Matcrialwork described in the Estimate; including, but not limited to, actual costs of preliminary engineering review, construction inspection, procurement of materials, equipment rental, manpower and deliveries to the job site and all of the Railroad's then-current normal and customary additives(which shall include direct and indirect overhead costs) associated therewith. The Currently Applicable Additives in effect as of the date hereof are attached as Exhibit D hereto. The Railroad may, in undertaking the Project, undertake at its own expense in the area of the Road Crossing work in addition to that described in the Estimate, viz., installation of a Constant Warning Timing Device. Supplemental Public Road Xing Page 2 of 65 revised March 6, 2012 Form Approved,AVP-Law DCAPDX 763154 vl UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BUILDING.AMERICA' Non-Standard Form Approved:AVP-Law 03062012 SECTION 4. A. The City shall have the right to monitor the work undertaken by the Railroad pursuant to Section 3. As to that portion of the Project yet to be performed by the City (extension of the sidewalk along the West side of Pines Road),the City at its expense,to the extent it has not already done so,shall prepare,or cause to be prepared by others,detailed plans and specifications and submit such plans and specifications to the Railroad's Assistant Vice President Engineering Design,or his authorized representative, for review and approval. The plans and specifications shall include all Roadway layout specifications, cross sections and elevations, associated drainage, and other appurtenances. B. The Railroad shall bill the City according to the Railroad's standard and customary practices and shall provide the Railroad's standard and customary documentation to support such billing. The City shall have the right to audit the Railroad's billing and documentation for the Project. C. The final one hundred percent(100%)completed plans that are approved in writing by the Railroad's Assistant Vice President Engineering—Design,or his authorized representative,are hereinafter referred to as the "Plans." The Plans are hereby made a part of this Agreement by reference. D. No changes in the Plans shall be made unless the Railroad has consented to such changes in writing. E. Notwithstanding the Railroad's approval of the Plans, the Railroad shall not be responsible for the permitting, design, details or construction of the Roadway. SECTION 5. After the Railroad completes the signal modifications and improvements, the City shall complete the installation of its improvements to Pines Road by extending the sidewalk on the west side of Pines Road pursuant to the plans previously approved by the Railroad. As to this portion of the Project,the City,at its expense,to the extent it has not already done so, shall prepare,or cause to be prepared by others, detailed plans and specifications and submit such plans and specifications to the Railroad's Assistant Vice President Engineering—Design, or his authorized representative,for review and approval. The plans and specifications shall include all Roadway layout specifications, cross sections and elevations, associated drainage, and other appurtenances. The City shall require its contractor(s) to execute the Railroad's standard and current form of Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C. City acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and understanding of its terms, provisions, and requirements, and will inform its contractor(s) of the need to execute the Agreement. Under no circumstances will the City's contractor(s)be allowed onto the Railroad's premises without first executing the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement. SECTION 6. Supplemental Public Road Xing Page 3 of '_5 revised March 6, 2012 Form Approved,AVP-Law DCAPDX 763154 vl UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNION SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BUILDING.AMERICA' Non-Standard Form Approved:AVP-Law 03062012 I I I Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Railroad's property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss of revenue and profits. City or its contractor(s)shall telephone the Railroad during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, except holidays) at 1-800-336-9193 (also a 24-hour number, 7 day number for emergency calls)to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Railroad's premises to be used by the City or its contractor(s). If it is, City or its contractor(s)will telephone the telecommunications company(ies)involved, arrange for a cable locator, and make arrangements for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable prior to beginning any work on the Railroad's premises. SECTION 7. The City,for itself and for its successors and assigns,hereby waives any right of assessment against the Railroad, as an adjacent property owner, for any and all improvements made under this agreement. SECTION 8. Covenants herein shall inure to or bind each party's successors and assigns;provided,no right of the City shall be transferred or assigned,either voluntarily or involuntarily,except by express prior written consent of the Railroad. SECTION 9. The City shall, when returning this agreement to the Railroad (signed), cause same to be accompanied by such Order,Resolution,or Ordinance of the governing body of the City,passed and approved as by law prescribed, and duly certified, evidencing the authority of the person executing this agreement on behalf of the City with the power so to do, and which also will certify that funds have been appropriated and are available for the payment of any sums herein agreed to be paid by City. SECTION 10. Upon execution and delivery of this Agreement, the City shall pay to the Railroad an administrative handling charge of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00). SECTION 11. This agreement is supplemental to the Original Agreement,as herein amended, and nothing herein contained shall be construed as amending or modifying the same except as herein specifically provided. SECTION 12. SPECIAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009. Supplemental Public Road Xing Page 4 of 65 revised March 6, 2012 Form Approved,AVP-Law DCAPDX 763154 vl UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNION SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BUILDING.AMERICA' Non-Standard Form Approved:AVP-Law 03062012 I I I If the City will be receiving American Recovery and Reinvestment Act("ARRA")funding for the Project, the City agrees that it is responsible in performing and completing all ARRA reporting documents for the Project. The City confirms and acknowledges that Section 1512 of the ARRA provisions applies only to a "recipient" receiving ARRA funding directly from the federal government and, therefore, (i) the ARRA reporting requirements are the responsibility of the City and not of the Railroad and(ii)the City shall not delegate any ARRA reporting responsibilities to the Railroad. The City also confirms and acknowledges that(i)the Railroad shall provide to the City the Railroad's standard and customary billing for expenses incurred by the Railroad for the Project including the Railroad's standard and customary documentation to support such billing and(ii)such standard and customary billing and documentation from the Railroad provides the information needed by the City to perform and complete the ARRA reporting documents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this Supplemental Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first hereinabove written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (Federal Tax ID #94-6001323) By: JAMES P. GADE Director Contracts WITNESS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY X Printed Name: Title: Supplemental Public Road Xing Page 5 of "--5 revised March 6, 2012 Form Approved,AVP-Law DCAPDX 763154 vl EXHIBIT A To Supplemental Agreement (Existing Public Road Crossing Improvement) Cover Sheet for the Railroad Location Print DCAPDX 763154 vl EXHIBIT B To Supplemental Agreement (Existing Public Road Crossing Improvement) Cover Sheet for the Railroad's Signal Material Estimate DCAPDX 763154 vl EXHIBIT C To Supplemental Agreement (Existing Public Road Crossing Improvement) Cover Sheet for the Form of Contractor' s Right of Entry Agreement DCAPDX 763154 vl EXHIBIT D To Supplemental Agreement (Existing Public Road Crossing Improvement) Cover Sheet for the Current Applicable Additives Document comparison by Workshare Professional on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:37:28 PM Input: Document 1 ID PowerDocs://DCAPDX/764623/1 Description DCAPDX-#764623-v1-3-7-12_city_draft_Pines_Road Document 2 ID Powerpocs://DCAPDX/763154/1 Description DCAPDX-#763154-v1-Supp_Agmt_(3-16-12_draft) Rendering set standard Legend: Insertion Deletion Moved f., Moved to Style change Format change Moved deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Statistics: Count Insertions 13 Deletions 8 Moved from 1 Moved to 1 Style change 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 23 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2012 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: 2012 Safe Routes to School — Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 28, 2011; Adoption of the 2012-2017 Six Year TIP. October 25, 2011; Adoption of Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan; Info RCA on March 13, 2012 Council Packet; Admin Report on March 20, 2012. BACKGROUND: On January 24th, 2012, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued a 2012 Call for Projects for the Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS). The goals of the SRTS program are to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety near elementary and middle schools. The program is funded with a combination of state and federal funds, and applications are due Monday, May 4th, 2012. The SRTS program promotes a comprehensive three part approach of engineering, education & encouragement and enforcement efforts to improve success. Engineering improvements such as sidewalks and crosswalk enhancements that provide safe travel routes are combined with education efforts conducted by the school districts that promote the benefits of walking and biking. Enforcement efforts by local law enforcement agencies are conducted to reinforce safe driver & pedestrian behavior and promote awareness of pedestrians near schools. WSDOT has not published the anticipated funding level for the 2012 Call for Projects. During the 2010 Call for Projects, WSDOT awarded approximately $11.8M for 30 projects. In an unexpected move during the most recent legislative session, the state legislature approved an additional $2.25M for the SRTC program that allowed WSDOT to fund five (5) additional SRTS projects from the 2010 Project list. This included Spokane Valley's Adams Rd. Sidewalk Project listed below. A local match is not required. However, preference is given to projects that include a local match when ranking projects that are equally scored. Education and enforcement efforts by the schools and police department that are performed in conjunction with the proposed improvements count as an `in-kind' match. Staff has been evaluating the SRTS grant criteria and coordinating with local school districts to identify projects that will have the highest benefits and potential to receive funding. We have also reviewed the City's Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and School Walk Routes map to identify potential projects. Based on this review, staff has come up with the following list of recommended projects for submitting to WSDOT for the 2012 SRTS Call for Projects. 1. Bowdish Rd. — 8th Ave. to 12th Ave: This project serves students attending Opportunity Elementary School (Central Valley School District). The busy arterial has very narrow gravel shoulders that do not safely accommodate pedestrians. The project would construct sidewalk on both sides of Bowdish Rd. Future phases would construct sidewalk along Bowdish Road from 16th Ave. to 20th Ave. and from 12th Ave. to 16th Ave. that would expand the safe walking routes and serve students attending Bowdish Middle School. Estimated Project Cost: $490,000. 2. Park Rd — Sinto Ave to Indiana Ave: This project serves students attending Seth Woodard Elementary School (West Valley School District). The District currently busses students that live northeast of the school campus and across Park Road because there are no safe walking routes along Park Road or Mission Ave. The proposed project would construct sidewalk along the east side of Park Road and complete a short sidewalk gap along Mission Ave east of Park Road. The Park Road sidewalk would be constructed in the location proposed by the Park Road (Broadway to Indiana) Improvement Project that has already been designed and is waiting for construction funding. The project would allow the District to remove bus stops from this area. Estimated Project Cost: $456,000. 3. Adams Rd —Trent Ave. to Wellesley Ave.: This project serves students attending Trentwood Elementary School (East Valley School District). Sidewalk would be constructed along one side of Adams Road to address the narrow ro. ay and avel shoulders. This segment was part of a previously sub SRT •• ••j= Wellesley Ave (Sullivan Rd. to Isenhart Rd.) in 2010. Tha j a funding cutoff. WSDOT Local Programs Office recently n • slature is considering whether to fund additional projects f '. 6 S- project list during the current legislative session. Therefore, this project may be funded without having to be resubmitted. 4. Park Rd — Marietta Ave to Buckeye Ave: This project serves students attending Orchard Center Elementary (West Valley School District). Sidewalk would be constructed from the school on Buckeye Ave to Park Road and along one side of Park Road to Marietta Ave. to address the narrow roadway and shoulders. The project connects to St. Paschal's School where there is a before and after school care program. Students currently are transported the 1-1/2 blocks by van or bus due to the absence of a safe walking route. Estimated Project Cost: $144,000. In addition to the preceding list, there are several worthwhile projects that were also considered for the SRTS program that expand on the recommended projects. 1. Mission Ave — Center Rd to Vista Rd: This project would construct sidewalk along the north side of Mission Ave. It expands the safe walking routes within the neighborhood east of Seth Woodard Elementary School and further reduces the need for bussing students. Estimated Project Cost: $300,000. 2. Vista Rd — Augusta Ave to Knox Ave.: This project is a continuation of the Park Road (Sinto Ave to Indiana Ave) and Mission Ave sidewalk projects. It expands the safe walking route to better serve the area east of Vista Road for students attending Seth Woodard Elementary School. Estimated Project Cost: $345,000. 3. Bowdish Rd — 16th Ave. to 20th Ave. and 12th Ave. to 16th Ave: These two projects would expand walking routes for students attending Bowdish Middle School and Opportunity Elementary School. This section of roadway is very narrow with gravel shoulders and numerous fixed obstructions. Sidewalks would also improve the visibility of pedestrians along Bowdish Rd where the site distance is limited from the crest of the hill adjacent to the middle school. Estimated Project Costs: (16th to 20th, one side): $266,000; (12th to 16th, both sides): $455,000. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the list of recommended projects for SRTS grant applications as presented, 2) Revise the list of projects for SRTS grant applications, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the (1) Bowdish Road, 8th Avenue to 12th Avenue, (2) Park Road, Sinto Avenue to Indiana Avenue, and (3) Park Road, Marietta Avenue to Buckeye Ave projects for the Safe Routes To Schools grant applications. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no required local match on SRTS funded projects. However during the ranking of projects, preference will be given to projects where the local agency is providing matching funds. If council would like to include city matching funds for any or all proposed SRTS projects, staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient funds to provide this local match. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, AIA— Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Maps of Recommended Projects BEGIN PROJECT I } r i S 1 11TH AVER rf -, r 0110 14*57 - Ili f ' ' f oft RTUN} Y MENTAUY I SCHOOL 12T AVE. bilir END PROJECT SPOKANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE / a a 6ROADWAi INTERSTATE it F R GRO I :IC SHARP ill AI UN� S 2 L 18TH PROJECT VICINITY SPR -APP SPOKANE RIVER /MST MERY N.� MISSION BROAD AT , a G � 1 s TRENT_ BRDADW VALLEYW Nom lam= 16TH 8TH SIIRAGUE 12TH 24THn 4TH 32ND z THORPE 9TH 16TH 9TH a a Spokane gValley SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROPOSED PROJECT BOWDISH 8TH AVE.TO 12TH AVE. DRAWN BY: DATE: MJH 3/14/12 CHECKED BY: DATE: SMW 3/14/12 END PROJECT -\ BEGIN PROJECT PROJECT VICINITY SPOKANE RIVER SPOKANE COMMUNITY w COLLEGE Spokane Valley SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROPOSED PROJECT PARK ROAD MARIETTA TO BUCKEYE DRAWN BY: DATE: MJH 3/14/12 CHECKED BY: DATE: SMW 3/14/12 END PROJECT -\ PROPOSE SIDEWALK YE•Oa+ MISSION AVE. MAXWELL AVE. BEGIN PROJECT -/ PROJECT VICINITY SPOKANE COM COLLEGE z NITY E MISSION SHA R BRGADWA INTERSTATE FAIR GROUN 3RD z EUCLID MARIET SRENj < N 0 KN X SPOKANE RIVER ONSGOMER iLiii Vv-1W 4TH z z 0 o 8TH z C) U 16TH z AY EWAY Spokane Valley SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROPOSED PROJECT PARK ROAD SINTO TO INDIANA DRAWN BY: DATE: MJH 3/14/12 CHECKED BY: DATE: SMW 3/14/12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: 2011 Pavement Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The Pavement Management Plan was discussed at the Council Retreat in February and at the March 20th Council Study Session. Approval would establish the Plan as the City's planning level document for street preservation and serve as the basis for funding discussions. Approval does not bind the City to any of the budget scenarios. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the "Pavement Management Plan Update for 2011." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approval of the Plan does not bind the City to any of the funding options. Funding and budget impact will occur as appropriations are discussed. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2011 Pavement Management Plan fi'!i te,m, Street Master Plan I Val Plan 4,0•00 valley Pavement Program Management Pro 9 9 Pavement Management Plan Update 2011' Prepared pokane V for City of Salley September, 2011 JLJ )) J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 304 Spokane, Washington 99201-0302 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2011 1 INTRODUCTION 1 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS 3 2011 ANALYSIS AND UPDATE 7 1. Segment Consolidation 7 2. Automated Pavement Inspection 8 Local Access (residential) Street Deterioration 9 Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations 10 Evaluation of Repair and Maintenance Treatments 11 BUDGET SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT 13 Arterial and Collectors 13 Local Access (residential) Streets 19 RECOMMENDATIONS 25 APPENDICES 1. AUTOMATED PAVEMENT INSPECTIONS METHODOLOGY 2. PROJECT EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS 3. DETERIORATION OF ROAD SEGMENTS 4. COMPARISON OF PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) AND OVERALL CONDITION INDEX (OCI) 5. ARTERIAL PROJECTS 2011 OCI Map: Arterials and Collectors Arterials and Collectors, 2012 — 2017 Projects Map — Overlays, Reconstruction, and Preventative Maintenance • 2012-2017 Proposed Budget —Arterials and Collectors — Preservation and Maintenance Projects List and Cost 6. LOCAL ACCESS (RESIDENTIAL) PROJECTS 2011 OCI Map: Local Access (Residential) Local Access (Residential), 2012 — 2017 Projects Map — Overlays, Reconstruction, and Preventative Maintenance • 2012-2017 Proposed Budget — Local Access (Residential) — Preservation and Maintenance Projects List and Cost PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2011 INTRODUCTION In June of 2007, the city completed their first development of a citywide Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and in 2008 the first update was completed. This update to the PMP is intended as an effort to monitor roadway pavement conditions on an ongoing basis. RCW 46.68.113 requires "large cities" to collect pavement condition data on the functionally classified Arterial and Collector network every two years. The pavement condition data is due to the Washington State Department of Transportation in September every even numbered year. J-U-B ENGINEERS INC. (J-U-B) assisted the City of Spokane Valley with this effort and submitted the pavement conditions per the RCW. This 2011 update includes additional field condition inspections of city streets and input of updated data into a computer model, Cartegraph Pavement View and Pavement View Plus. The computer model allows the City to analyze and rate the city streets by Overall Condition Index (OCI) of 0 (failed) to 100 (new). The primary goal of a PMP is to develop long term maintenance strategies that minimize the costs to the city. Instrumental in that effort is maximizing the maintenance of roads through annual crack sealing and fog sealing, while minimizing major rehabilitation and reconstruction costs. Budget scenarios were developed for existing city funding levels to compare with proposed funding levels that attempt to maintain the streets at a minimum average 70 OCI for Arterials/Collectors and 65 OCI for Local Access (residential) roads. This report updates the results of 2010 field inspections, modeling updates and modified recommendations for budget strategies. As recommended in the 2007 report, roadway condition surveys should occur bi-annually for Arterials, and every three to five years for Local Access (residential) roads. Over time, the data will aid the city in establishing road condition trends and appropriate budget forecasting. Major components of the 2011 Update include the following: 1 sv 2011 pmp 1-23-12 ➢ Use of an Automated Pavement Inspection Process. (Infrastructure Management Services [IMS] was tasked with completing the Automated Pavement Process) Previously inspections were conducted visually. ➢ Field inspected one-third of Local Access (residential) streets. (PMP recommended re-inspecting all Local Access (residential) streets every three- five years.) ➢ Field inspected one-half of the Arterial roads. (WSDOT bi-annual report on Arterials was due in the fall of 2010). ➢ Consolidated the Road Network Segments from 5,000 to 2,000. ➢ Updated the Cartegraph computer database. Updated Activity Unit Costs, input construction projects over the past three years including Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP) projects. ➢ Evaluated pavement condition changes experienced in 2010. ➢ Refined project prioritization, protocols, and strategy procedures. ➢ Analyzed budget strategies to evaluate the impact on long term roadway conditions to include: o The current $2.3 million City budget o Budget needed to maintain the desired OCI and prevent additional road segments from falling into the reconstruction OCI range 2 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Table 1 summarizes the City's estimated 2012 annual street Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M&R) revenue distribution. Preservation includes work such as crack sealing, fog sealing, patching, shoulder repair, grading, and overlays and mill & overlays. Major reconstruction involves total reconstruction of the roadway, including the base material. This estimated revenue was provided by City staff as the baseline for evaluating strategies for future recommendations. Table 1 . 2012 Estimated Annual City Streets M&R Anticipated Revenue Distribution for Pavement Preservation Estimate Future 2012 City Revenue City Revenue Capital Projects $300,000 $800000 Street Maintenance Fund $1,500,000 $1 ,500000 Street Maintenance $500,000 Fund* Total $2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 *One-time contribution from Street Maintenance Fund undesignated fund balance. The principle of pavement management is to perform regular maintenance of the roadways at lower costs and retain a higher overall pavement condition. The goal being to minimize or delay higher cost reconstruction in future years. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the agency that recommends historical pavement characteristics. The general overall Pavement Deterioration Curve recommended by ASTM shows that $1 of preservation at 75% of its life will cost $4 to $10 if delayed until 40% of its life remains. Figure 1 depicts this relationship of condition deterioration over time. For example, completing a maintenance project such as crack sealing on a road segment with 75% of life remaining will cost 8 to 10 times less than allowing that road to deteriorate to a level that would require a full reconstruction. The cost differential It should be noted that$1 million dollars of the $2.3 million dollar budget is typically allocated to PMP related projects to address immediate needs such as pothole repairs, patches, one-lane overlays. The dollars allocated for these repairs may or may not be listed in the PMP plan but these repairs do provide improvements to the road segment OCI. 3 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 between mill and overlay and reconstruction is on the order of 4 to 6 times more for reconstruction projects. Figure 1. General Pavement Deterioration Curve Crack Seal Mill & Overlay Excellent \it 40% drop in quality Each $1 of repair Good - 75°,% of life not done here . . .will cost $4 Fair - Q to $10 if 40% drop in delayed to quality a Poor - here a •12°% of life ro Failed I1Ii1Illl1llll f I1I1Illl•f 5 10 15 20 25 30 Year Results of the field inspections and computer analysis of existing roads in 2011 finds that the overall OCI for the road network compared to 2008 is as follows: 2008 2011 2017 • Arterial/Collector OCI 67 64 58 • Local Access (residential) OCI 71 71 58 The projected OCI for the Arterial/Collector roads is expected to deteriorate to an OCI of 58 by the end of 2017 using the current estimated $2.1 million dollar Arterial budget. The projected OCI for the Local Access (residential) roads is expected to deteriorate to an OCI of 58 by the end of 2017 using the current $200,000 Local Access (residential) 4 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 road budget. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate this predicted pavement condition deterioration over the next 6 years for both Arterial and Local Access (residential) roads using the current $2.3 million dollar budget. The 2008 Report projected the 2010 Arterial OCI to be 68 using the City's projected budget of$2.9 million dollars annual average. The report also predicted a 2010 Local Access (residential) OCI of 63 using the City's projected average annual budget of$1.7 million dollars. The OCI increase for the Local Access (residential) roads can be attributed to the STEP projects as described below. The decrease in OCI for the Arterial roads from 67 in 2008 to 64 in 2011 can be attributed to several factors including a decline in grant funding and database refinements such as segment consolidation and updated pavement inspection information. The key factor for the OCI decrease was due to the lack of significant projects in the year 2010 and 2011 . This budget does not include grant or STEP dollars received by the City to fund the reconstruction or upgrade of Arterial roads. The 2011 Updated Arterial OCI follows closely the projected trend from the 2008 report showing a difference in OCI of 4 points. The Local Access (residential) roads are showing a substantial increase in OCI from 2008 to 2011. Two reasons for the increase in Local Access (residential) roads OCI are 1) the analysis software did not account for predicted future STEP projects and 2) the 2010 analysis has included three years of substantial completed STEP projects. The software does not provide for the inclusion of future anticipated projects, only predicted projects defined by the program protocols. In the future, anticipated projects will need to be incorporated into the program by hand to account for their impact on road condition. 5 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Figure 2a. Predicted Six-Year OCI Using 2010 M & R Revenue (Arterials) Arterials 100 90 Excellent 80 69 Very Good 70 O4 63 62 61 60 – 59 58 60 Good - O 40 IF 40 ■ ■ ■ Fair. ■ ■ 30 ■ ■ ■ Poo ■ ■_ 20 — 10 ■ ■ Very Poo ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ Failed ■ ■ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2010) Plan Year (2017) Figure 2b. Predicted Six-Year OCI Using 2010 M & R Revenue (Local) Locals 100 — 90 Excellent 80 74 71 Very Good 69 68 66 70 63- — 61 58 60 ■ ■ ■ Good ■ • O 50 = = = = = - - = = - 40 30 ■ ■ ■ Poor ■ ■ ■ 20 Very Poo = = - Failed 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2010) Plan Year (2017) 6 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Several strategies were evaluated to develop a future budget that would continue to maintain the overall city roads. The 2011 recommendations are separated into functionally classified roads, (Arterials and Collectors), and Local Access (residential) roads. As established in previous reports, the goal over time is to maintain a 70 OCI for Arterials/Collectors and a 65 OCI for Local Access (residential) roads. Another condition was added to ensure additional road segments do not fall into the reconstruction status. Table 1 illustrates a comparison of funding levels for 2007 and 2011. Grant funds for maintenance and rehabilitation projects such as mill and overlays have decreased over the last three years. Table 1 also shows the 2012 estimated City Revenue for road preservation and rehabilitation for both Arterials and Local Access (residential) roads. 2011 ANALYSIS AND UPDATE Updating the citywide PMP began with field inspection of one-third of the Local Access (residential) streets and half of the Arterial streets. The PMP recommends inspecting all of the Local Access (residential) streets in a three year cycle and all of the Arterials and Collectors every two years. Two significant changes occurred this year in the process of analyzing the road systems. 1 . The massive data files for each individual roadway segment were consolidated into more manageable segments, thus streamlining analysis. 2. Inspections were conducted using automated equipment rather than visual field inspections These two changes described in detail below, have added a significant level of difficulty to this year's analysis when compared against the old data. 1. Segment Consolidation The large pavement database was consolidated into larger road segments, reducing the database from 5,000 to approximately 2,000 segments. The consolidation process involved re-segmenting the roads into more logical and longer segments. Previously the database road segments were broken down by each city block, each segment being one block. The road network has been re-calibrated; segments now begin and end at a functionally classified road. For example, Sprague Avenue from University to 7 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Evergreen is now two segments instead of 10. Since the 2008 update the amount of historical data in the database has grown substantially. This historical data, including, past mill and overlay projects, reconstruction projects, STEP projects, crack seal projects, mill and inlay projects, etc. have been used to update and refine the database. 2. Automated Pavement Inspection A significant change to the field inspection procedures for the 2011 update included using Automated Inspection instead of the manual (visual) inspection conducted in the past. Automated field inspection provided several advantages such as: ➢ Time savings ➢ Safety ➢ Consistency ➢ Easily input into the Cartegraph database In previous updates field inspection was accomplished using manual inspection by field personnel consisting of 4 -6 people in groups of two. Each group went out into the field to measure pavement distress on a sample segment basis. The inspections covered approximately two-fifths of all of the Local Access (residential) roads and all of the Arterials and Collectors. This work took approximately three months to complete. Using the automated field inspection method one-half of the Arterials and Collectors and one-third of the Local Access (residential) roads were cataloged in five days. The automated inspection is by far safer in that staff will no longer have to venture into the traveled lanes to measure or review pavement distresses. All work is done inside the comfort of a vehicle. Consistency increased due to the highly technical equipment used for the automated inspection. The tools used to measure distress do not rely on a subjective human eye. All of the pavement inspection data collected using automation was successfully transferred into the existing Cartegraph database. This saved several days of database 8 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 manipulation and formatting. While the cost of inspection increased, the cost of data manipulation decreased for an overall net zero (0) cost differential. IMS was chosen to provide the automated pavement inspection for this project. IMS had the ability to meet the schedule and provide high quality inspection information for the model. IMS also has a Cartegraph expert on their staff to manage the data transfer into the existing database. Refer to Appendix for additional IMS inspection information. Local Access (residential) Street Deterioration Figure 3 shows the deterioration curves used in the City's analysis. The first line, "Fitted Spokane Valley OCI curve (Local)" is the deterioration curve for the Local Access (residential) roads only. The second curve is the default deterioration curve for the Arterials, Collector and Local Access (residential) roads as provided by the Cartegraph software and the third curve is the PCI curve. The difference between the OCI and PCI is that the PCI is calculated solely based on the pavement inspections. The OCI is calculated based on the pavement inspection, pavement age, pavement type. See Appendix 4.Figure 3. Option 1 — Comparison of Deterioration Curves Arterial/Collector OCI Comparison 120 100 - "'°' —Fitted 80 Spokane Valley OCI 60 Curve Cr) Loc efaal u t OCl 0 40 (Arterial & Local) 20 Curve 0 PCI Curve -20 - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 35 40 Age 9 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Initially the standard, default ASTM deterioration curves were used in the analysis. Since the 2006 and 2008 updates a historical database has been collected. The historical data can now be used to refine the pavement deterioration and OCI curves to fit actual conditions. As a result, the Local Access (residential) OCI deterioration curve has been updated based on the historic information. See Figure 3. The OCI curve for Arterials and Collectors will be retained until the historic data analysis results in a curve update. The Local Access (residential) OCI deterioration curve was updated based on 1-2 years of pavement inspections between 2006 and the 2011 update. Over the past 4 years we have inspected all Local Access (residential) roads at least once and in some cases multiple times. The curve adjustment is based on the inspection of each of the approximately 1 ,700 Local Access (residential) road segments. It was very clear that the curve based on pavement inspections did not follow the standard ASTM curve as shown in Table 3. The Local Access (residential) road segments followed the fitted deterioration curve much more closely compared to the ASTM curve thus prompting the adjustment. The Arterial OCI deterioration curve is much more difficult to justify an adjustment with so few data points. There are 304 Arterial road segments, each road segment having been inspected at least 2 times. There are not enough inspection points to confidently adjust the Arterial deterioration curve at this time. Adjustments will be made after additional information is collected in future years. Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations The City of Spokane Valley will need to continue to modify the deterioration curves to more accurately reflect the actual field conditions of the roadway network. There appears to be areas in which the Arterial/Collector roads are deteriorating prematurely. Included in the Appendix are examples of premature deterioration on Sprague and Appleway Boulevard. This section shows the OCI trends and an estimated cost to improve these road segments. Again, there is a serious need to reserve funds for ongoing maintenance of the road network. There is also a need to utilize current design 10 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 and construction standards to ensure that future overlay and reconstruction projects perform adequately for 20+ years. Road segments such as Sprague and Appleway, as described above, and Argonne are all showing signs of premature failure. These roads are showing substantial cracking and are nearing failure. These road segments are between 5-10 years old with a design pavement life of 20 years, yet these roads need overlays within the next few years. In order to prevent premature failure of the road section in the future the City conducted a pavement performance study in 2008. Some of the recommended changes are as follows: 1. Increased geotechnical investigations of existing soil. 2. Accurate truck traffic assessments. 3. Require "Engineered" pavement section design. 4. Careful evaluation of asphalt cement mix design. 5. Increase minimum pavement section. 6. Increase fractured face requirement. 7. Increase moisture and compaction compliance testing. 8. Enhanced joint and pavement density compaction requirements. 9. Improved asphalt temperature monitoring and placement. 10.Use of stabilized subbase (Asphalt or Cement Treated Base). The full extent of the report developed by J-U-B can be found under separate cover in "Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations" October, 2008. Evaluation of Repair and Maintenance Treatments The City of Spokane Valley is in need of an effective surface treatment between crack sealing and overlay for the Arterial/Collector and Local Access (residential) road network. Potential solutions include Fog Seals, Seal Coats, Slurry Seals and Micro- Pave. Fog seal is not an effective treatment in extending the life of the pavement for the higher volume Arterials/Collectors roadways. As a result, the City may want to experiment with various treatments over time to find the most effective preventive maintenance treatment. Identifying and using a high quality surface treatment 2-3 years 11 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 prior to mill and overlay will bring down the long-term cost by further extending the life of the pavement. A high quality surface treatment could delay the need for a mill and overlay 3-5 years assuming the treatment is done on the correct road segment and at the appropriate time. It is recommended that the City select 2-3 treatments to be applied to several roadways throughout the city. City staff will evaluate the performance of the treatments on a yearly basis. Once the City is confident on the performance of a particular treatment it will be added to the PMP as a recommended activity for future years. This treatment will be used to bridge the gap between crack seal and mill and overlay. A potential solution to fill this gap is a seal coat called GSB88. GSB88 seal coat rejuvenates the asphalt by penetrating the surface asphalt. GSB88 contains polymers that adhere to the aggregates thus adding new life the oxidized asphalt. Typical Fog Seals such as a CSS-1 h do not penetrate the asphalt; the oil remains on the top surface and tends to wear out more quickly over time. The goal being to extend the life of the pavement 3-5 years until an overlay can be completed. This type of treatment allows the City to extend the life of pavements while preventing the road segment from falling into the reconstruction category, a much more costly alternative. J-U-B's recommendation is to conduct site specific test seal coats to gauge the potential of this and other products. The City has discovered a treatment for severe longitudinal joint cracking. This crack seal material is used to seal the longitudinal pavement joints on Arterial/Collector roadways. The crack repair material is called Deery Level and Go, manufactured by Craftco. This product has been successfully applied to the failed longitudinal joints on Thierman, Dishman-Mica, 32nd with great success. The advantages of this product are as follows: • Structurally sound material — this material can withstand heavy traffic loads while being flexible to allow for shrinking and swelling. • Plastic— this material is very flexible and will not pull away from the existing asphalt during times of expansion and contraction. 12 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 • This product is very easy to apply and will setup quickly to minimize road closures/restrictions. This treatment will improve and extend the life of a road which a failed longitudinal pavement joint is the only real distress in the that particular segment. BUDGET SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT The 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update evaluated the impact to road conditions for various City budgets moving forward. In the current economic state, additional funding options are limited. This budget analysis update will attempt to keep as many of the pavements from serious deterioration as possible. The 2011 update evaluates two options for funding the maintenance of streets with limited budget over the next six years until a more focused program can be developed: ➢ Option 1 — Continue with 2011 revenue of $2,100,000 for Arterials and Collectors and $200,000 for Local Access (residential) streets. The overall network OCI is expected to be much lower than 70. ➢ Option 2 — Establish a budget that maintains a "good" rating equal to a 65 OCI for Local Access (residential) streets and a "very good" rating equal to a 70 OCI for Arterials and Collectors. The results of these options are presented herein for both the Arterial and Collectors and the Local Access (residential) streets separately. These are separated since they use different deterioration curves while preventing additional roads from falling into the reconstruction OCI range. Arterial and Collectors In general, the changes to the protocols and priorities have been refined and improved to give better OCI values and a project list that enables the City to select projects that will provide the most value for the dollar spent. Several of the high priority Arterial roads have mill & overlay work recommended within the six year forecast. As a result of not fully funding the 2008 pavement management plan, the analysis identified 14 road segments that are currently failed with an OCI less than 30. The list of failed road 13 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 segments is summarized below. The goal is to head off more expensive future reconstruction projects as well as preventing future roads from falling into the reconstruction OCI range. In addition to costing 4-6 times more than preservation projects, reconstruction results in other significant impacts. • Increase in the time needed to construct the project • Major Impact to businesses on or near the project • Traffic congestion for the motoring public • Traffic safety concerns during construction Tables 3 and 4, and figures 4a & 4b summarize the six year projects for both Option #1 and Option #2 and compares the OCI trend. Option 2 will maintain an average 70 OCI and prevent future roads from falling into the reconstruction range. Reconstruction project costs are not included in the Option 2 budget at this time. The reconstruction project list is provided to give the City the option to reconstruct these roads as funds become available. Roads that are failed may not necessarily need to be reconstructed immediately, project evaluation should occur on a case-by-case basis. Over the six year program we recommend the reconstruction projects be systematically improved at a rate of$2.83 million per year. As described above, there are currently 14 road segments that are in need of a reconstruction. If steps are not taken to maintain the existing pavements immediately this number will steadily grow over time. For example, if no action is taken in 2012, the number of roads in the reconstruction category grows from 14 to 19 road segments. 14 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget** Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades (Y/N) Plan Year Reconstruction Projects: 27 68 23.27 Sprague Av Evergreen Adams AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 7 232919 99.68 $3,125,772.98 51 69 25.3 Sprague Av Adams Sullivan AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 7 234429 99.68 $3,146,037.18 75 11 21.42 Euclid Av Barker End AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 52665 99.68 $706,769.67 76. 10 2 IMMIWI- FloraW Barker AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 133870 27.3 $1,796,535.40 104 9 21.42 Euclid Av End Sullivan AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 38434 99.68 $515,790.72 105 206 22.06 Madison Rd 40th MADISON AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 107581 99.68 $1,443,741.31 106 245 27.96 Flora Rd Euclid Trent AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 94153 27.96 $1,263,533.26 124 1902 28.41 Euclid Av Sullivan Marietta AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 145693 99.68 $1,955,203.28 125 215 17.15 Progress Rd Wellesley Crown AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 32860 99.68 $440,989.52 126 145 1903 29.21 Euclid Av Marietta .. . RN. s AC-Reconstruct-Arterial ,, 2 „m2 d.+. 99322 . 99.68 . Flora $1,332,902.31 146 246 25.03 Flora Rd Euclid Euclid AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 18240 99.68 $244,780.80 147 1906 24.73 Sullivan Rd Wellesley End AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 29172 99.68 $391,500.05 148 "' ® �!' "<,;6a 4 T Sub-total $225,496.26 $17,086,075.86 ** The City of Spokane Valley's budget total is$2.3 million dollars.$1.O million dollars of the$2.3 million is spent on PMP related projects such as pothole repairs,patching,single lane overlays and other immediate needs as they arise. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an OCI adjustment based on the 2010IMS inspection Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 6times sv 2011 pmp 1-23-12 15 Table 3 indicates that continuing at the present budget will result in a downward trend in overall pavement condition for Arterials and Collectors. If this is not reversed, the cost for future repairs will increase as described in the general ASTM Deterioration Curve Figure 1. Table 3. Option 1 — Six Year Budget at $2.1 Million Year Total OCI 2012 $2,100,000 65.1 2013 $2,100,000 63.4 2014 $2,100,000 61.7 2015 $2,100,000 I 60.3 2016 $2,100,000 58.9 2017 $2,100,000 57.5 Total $12,600,000 Figure 4a - Option 1 — Six Year Budget at $2.1 Million Arterials 100 90 80 - - - 70 65 63 62 60 59 58 60 0 50 40 30 20 10 II- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2012) Plan Year 16 sv 2011 pmp 1-23-12 Table 4. Option 2 - Six Year Need Year Total OCI 2012 $5,663,000 67.8 2013 $6,058,000 68.4 2014 $6,184,000 69.2 2015 $6,163,000 70.1 2016 $6,203,000 71.0 2017 $6,053,000 71.5 Total $36,322,000 Table 4 shows the ongoing funding must be increased by approximately $4,000,000 annually to maintain a 70 OCI. The total plan year budget represents $175,000 in preventative maintenance with the balance dedicated to mill and overlay projects. Figure 4b - Option 2 - Six Year Budget Arterials 100 90 80 68 68 69 70 71 72 70 60 . v 50 . O 40 30 . . . 20 . . . 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2012) Plan Year 17 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Figures 5 and 6 graphically compare the budgets and OCI for Options 1 and 2. Figure 5. Arterial Streets Budget Comparison $10.0 -_ - $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.0 _ $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 r $1.0 r $0.0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Budget Year •2011 Option 1,$2.1M •2011 Option 2,Maintain Level 70 OCI Figure 6. Arterial Streets OCI Comparison Arterial/Collector OCI Comparison 75 - 70 65 60 U 0 55 50 - Option 1,$2.1M Option 2 45 - Do Nothing 40 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Budget Year 18 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Local Access (residential) Streets The tables and charts below show the resultant pavement conditions using the existing funding level compared to a budget option for maintaining the Local Access (residential) street network at a 65 OCI level. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the six year needs for Options 1 and 2. Table 5. Option 1 - Six Year Budget at $200,000 Year Total OCI 2012 $200,000 70.8 2013 $200,000 68.3 2014 $200,000 65.8 2015 $200,000 63.3 2016 $200,000 60.7 2017 $200,000 58.2 $1,200,000 Figure 7a — Six Year Budget at $200,000 Locals 100 90 - 80 71 70 68 66 — 63 61 60 58 0 50 • • 40 • • • 30 • • • 20 • • • • 10 • • • • • 0 — 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2012) Plan Year 19 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Table 6. Option 2 — Six Year Need Year Total OCI 2012 $2,999,000 73.4 2013 $2,776,000 72.2 2014 $2,999,000 70.8 2015 $2,996,000 69.5 2016 $2,899,000 68.0 2017 $2,996,000 66.5 $18,001,000 Figure 7b — Six Year Budget at $3 Million Dollars Locals 100 90 80 73 72 71 70 68 70 _67 60 , • 50 , • O 40 , . p 30 I 20 • — 10 , • 0 , • 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plan Year At the present budget, the pavement condition will deteriorate beyond the desired 65 OCI level. Even with Option 2 funding increases, the pavement conditions will still deteriorate slowly over time. But the Option 2 funding level will keep the local access OCI at or above 65 though the year 2019. 20 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Funding has been lacking for Local Access (residential) street projects. Local Access (residential) streets make up approximately 85% of the city's street network. Typically the maintenance treatment costs for these streets is lower than that for Arterials and Collectors so money spent on Local Access (residential) streets will go further and last longer than money spent on the classified roads. Figure 8 compares the funding levels for each option. Figure 8. Local Access (residential) Street Budget Comparison $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 ■ . . . . . . . 1 $2.0 o $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 . . . . . . . 1 sa5$o.o r r IP I IF I 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Budget Year •Option 1,$200K •Option 2,$3,000,000 21 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 Comparing pavement condition for each option in Figure 8, it can be seen that the Local Access (residential) street network is in good condition now but its condition is dropping rapidly under the existing funding level. Over the past three years the Local Access (residential) road OCI has improved due to the Spokane County STEP program. The program resulted in a complete reconstruction for many of the Local Access (residential) roads that otherwise would have not received a treatment. Each year of delay in increasing Local Access (residential) street funding adds a significant cost to keep the Local Access (residential) streets at a 65 OCI and maintaining that level. Figure 9. Local Access (residential) Street OCI Comparison Local Street OCI Comparison 75 - 70 Alikbb■ ♦ ♦ 65 U ♦ O 60 -Option 1 ♦ -Option 2 55 — — Do Nothing 50 , 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Budget Year Most of the recommended Local Access (residential) road work is focused in the area of the city south of Sprague between Dishman-Mica Road and Sullivan Road. Local Access (residential) street projects were grouped together by neighborhood as much as possible. This resulted in some streets being done ahead of others for the sake of efficiency over the identified priority of work. There may be situations where a street segment is omitted from work even when adjacent segments are done because it is in too poor of condition to be overlaid and there is not enough funding for reconstruction. It is possible some of these roads could 22 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 have minor repairs done and then be overlaid rather than reconstructed but the decision must be made by city staff on a case-by-case basis. Reconstruction project costs are not included in the Option 2 budget at this time. The reconstruction project list is provided to give the City the option to reconstruct these roads as funds become available. Roads that are failed may not necessarily need to be reconstructed immediately, project evaluation should occur on a case-by-case basis. Over the six year program we recommend the reconstruction projects be systematically improved at a rate of $1 .79 million per year. As described above, there are currently 27 road segments that are in need of a reconstruction. If steps are not taken to maintain the existing pavements immediately this number will steadily grow over time. 23 SV 2011 PMP 1-23-12 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access(Residential)Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Segment ID OCI Segment ID\Route Segment ID\Route Back Segment ID\Route Ahead Plan Activity Segment ID\Number of Lanes Segment ID\Pavement Area Improve d OCI Plan Cost Plan Year Reconstruction Projects 1953 17.76 Vera Crest Dr End 24th AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 143326.80 17.76 $1,686,956.44 605 11.15 Jackson Cul-De-Sac Dr End Jackson AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 4600.00 11.15 $54,142.00 928 14.89 Whipple Rd End Main AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 5020.08 14.89 $59,086.34 597 18.05 Marietta Av McMillan Montgomery AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 25262.40 18.05 $297,338.45 1715 18.1 Sonora Dr 24th End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 28702.08 18.1 $337,823.48 1594 18.5 20th Ct Vera Crest End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 17603.60 18.5 $207,194.37 607 20.94 Montgomery Cul-De-Sac Dr Montgomery End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 3800.00 20.94 $44,726.00 1006 21.5 Alki Av Barker Michigan AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 38822.16 21.5 $456,936.82 604 29.47 McMillan Rd Montgomery Buckeye AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 34139.20 29.47 $401,818.38 606 9.04 Montgomery Cul-De-Sac Dr Montgomery End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 4520.00 9.04 $53,200.40 554 21.69 Bridgeport Av End Barker AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 51446.00 21.69 $605,519.42 1703 22 Best Rd 24th 32nd AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 58428.04 22 $687,698.03 1960 22.94 33rd Av Pierce Woodward AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 41018.00 22.94 $482,781.86 300 29.63 Mansfield Av End Eastern AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 41543.36 29.63 $488,965.35 1923 23.61 Balfour Rd Sprague Main AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 21237.12 23.61 $249,960.90 550 24.02 Kiernan Av End Sullivan AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 43423.60 24.02 $511,095.77 1599 24.14 Conklin Ct 22nd End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 7600.00 24.14 $89,452.00 1915 24.19 Dollar Rd Trent Utah AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 38698.20 24.19 $455,477.81 1595 24.56 22nd Av Vera Crest Conklin AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 47247.12 24.56 $556,098.60 1233 25.81 6th Av Farr Woodruff AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 25962.00 25.81 $305,572.74 863 26.07 Dyer Rd Sprague End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 7860.80 26.07 $92,521.62 865 26.07 Val leywayAv Park Ella AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 40329.60 26.07 $474,679.39 305 26.18 Dickey Rd Trent Knox AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 16964.64 26.18 $199,673.81 380 27.72 University Rd End Montgomery AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 17464.60 27.72 $205,558.34 1601 27.93 Conklin Rd Vera Crest 23rd AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 68715.60 27.93 $808,782.61 1934 28.99 Buckeye Av Barker End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 68403.40 28.99 $805,108.02 1114 29.09 Elizabeth St 8th End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 8845.00 29.09 $104,105.65 Total $10,722,274.62 24 sv 2011 pmp 1-23-12 RECOMMENDATIONS The City's road network is one of its greatest assets. The current overall road condition is "very good", at the current funding levels the network will fall into the "fair" range within the next 4-5 years. The impact of which will result in future projects that will cost the City 4 — 10 times more than they would have if the road was maintained regularly. (Refer to Figure 1). The Arterial and collector roads need an annual funding level of approximately $6,000,000 to maintain a very good pavement condition. The Local Access (residential) roads represent approximately 85% of the City's road system. The maintenance budget for the Local Access (residential) streets needs to be increased to approximately $3,000,000 annually including funds allocated for overlays of those roads that are beyond maintenance. A list of the proposed Arterial and Local Access (residential) street projects for the next six years is provided in the Appendix. Table 7 summarizes the recommended street budget program to meet long-term maintenance needs of your facilities. able 7 Recommended Annual Average Budget Local Access Arterials & (residential) Collectors Roads Preventive $ 175,000 $500,000 Mill and Overlay $5,825,000 $2,500,000 Total $6,000,000 $3,000,000 Reconstruction , $2,500,000 $1,787,000 25 sv 2011 pmp 1-23-12 Appendix 1. Automated Pavement Inspections Methodology 2. Project Evaluation Recommendations 3. Deterioration of Road Segments 4. Comparison of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Overall Condition Index (OCI) 5. Arterial Projects 6. Local Access (residential) Projects Automated Pavement Inspections Methodology Automated Pavement Inspections Methodology For the Spokane Valley project, IMS used their Laser Road Surface Tester (RST) 4 ' enhanced with digital imagery and `, - GPS capabilities. The RST, with �" i its 11 laser sensors collected a full - I array of pavement condition data IM t'-1 .-�� complete with high accuracy GPS ° to coordinates and forward view digital images for both rigid and flexible pavements (in real time), as it traversed the roadway. An integrated Digital Condition Rating Subsystem supplements the RST data for additional distress data elements, quality assurance and inventory information. Specialized data processing, using GIS as its backbone, allows the pavement data to be quickly checked for completeness and quality. The main components of the Laser RST are: • A transducer bar with an array of 11 laser cameras, rate gyroscopes, inclinometers and accelerometers to measure pavement roughness, rutting, and cracking. • Digital Condition Rating Subsystem that was customized to collect a variety of roadway attributes and extent-severity based pavement distresses through trained operator input. • Ability to collect dual wheel path roughness to International Roughness Index (IRI) standards. • A single forward facing camera was mounted for IMS QA/QC procedures. The images can be provided for digital viewing purposes. • High accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with inertial navigation for geo-locating of pavement and asset information with excellent accuracy. • Dual distance measuring instruments to measure linear distances to within +1- 0.5%. The distress data was collected continuously and then reported in 100 foot intervals, complete with their respective GPS coordinates. The data was then aggregated to the section level, following the sectioning and referencing methodology contained in the existing Spokane Valley Cartegraph database. Laser Camera Array The laser camera array collects automated pavement condition data in the form of roughness to International Roughness Index (IRI) standards, wheel path rutting, transverse cracking, block cracking, alligator cracking and L texture. The technology driving the laser-camera - ` ` , array removes the subjective nature of pavement -' condition data collection. The pavement condition data was processed to provide extent-severity distress ratings that were loaded into Cartegraph. The data was collected in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protocols commonly referred to as ASTM D6433-09. Digital Collection/Rating System (DCRS) The Digital Collection Rating System is a touch screen \ ''''''' ''' '- based tablet computer that allows the user to define what ,� ; information (distresses & attributes) is to be collected and __ ∎ how it is to be quantified. The DCRS is integrated into the �-- data flow through time code, GPS, distance, and inventory control. In the context of this survey, the DCRS was configured to be used as a data collection and checking device. Distress data was collected continuously, while inventory and attribute data was checked as the survey proceeded. Survey events (such as detours or obstructions) and inventory related items were collected and noted in the data. RST operators note the surveyed lane and direction on a section-by-section basis. Automated Pavement Inspection Adjustments/Calibration One aspect of the Automated Pavement Inspection that warranted a closer look was the "rutting" distress. Initially an observer would measure rutting in the field by visual means. Occasionally, a straightedge was used to measure the depth of rut but due to time constraints a majority of the rutting inspection was just visual. IMS used a rut bar to measure the depth and extents of rutting in a particular road segment. The rut bar uses extremely sensitive lasers to measure rutting as the inspection vehicle travels roadways. The laser measures to the nearest millimeter every 4'±to develop an average every 100 feet. In order to develop a baseline for rutting sensitivity J-U-B and IMS worked together to modify the range at which rutting was recorded by the rut bar. The original rutting scale from 6 mm to 25 mm was as follows: 6 — 13 millimeters low severity rutting (approximately 1/4" — '/2") 13 — 25 millimeters moderate severity rutting (approximately 1/2" — 1") 25 millimeters high severity rutting (greater than 1") The baseline rutting scale shown above is based on ASTM D6433. However, the inspection procedures used for past pavement inspections where based on the Northwest Pavement Management Association's Pavement Surface Conditions Field Rating Manual for Asphalt Pavements, current edition. The discrepancy between the inspection methods leads to large discrepancies in the OCI. For example, in a typical road segment that is 2,640 feet long the IMS inspection would yield 660 data points where as the manual pavement inspection method would yield 2 points at best. Typically, the manual pavement inspection would yield a data point mid segment at a location most representative of the entire segment. Using the above scale the inspection by IMS using the rut bar is so accurate that any and all pavement anomalies would be interpreted as rutting which in turn translated in to a very low OCI for the actual age and condition of the roadway. J-U-B selected six roads to manually inspect this year (2011) in order to compare the overall inspection results as well as to more properly calibrate the rutting scale. Upon careful consideration and coordination with IMS, the rutting scale was adjusted to 10 mm to 25 mm as follows: 10 — 15 millimeters low severity rutting 15 — 25 millimeters moderate severity rutting 25 millimeters high severity rutting The adjustment was made to reduce the occurrence of anomalies being interpreted as rutting but at the same time retain the accuracy and consistency of the rut bar technology. With fewer occurrences of rutting throughout the road network, the OCI became more in line with the six manual test inspections (2011) and the 2008 manual road inspections. Project Evaluation Recommendations Project Evaluation Recommendations The following recommendations should be used during the street preservation project evaluation process, for both Maintenance and Rehabilitation projects as well as capital projects, just prior to the Pavement Design Phase. All prospective Arterials/Collectors planned for an overlay, mill and overlay or reconstruction should be cored to a minimum depth of 6-inches below existing subgrade. The advantages of taking cores prior to the pavement design are as follows: ➢ Determine if there is moisture in the base and sub-base course ➢ If the road had been previously overlaid, look for delamination ➢ Determine if a Performance Grade (PG) adjustment is necessary in the mix design, i.e. PG 64-28 vs. PG 70-28. ➢ Verify assumptions generally used for a pavement design The following recommendations may be considered during the construction process as a supplement to the WSDOT Standard Specifications: ➢ Verify moisture and compaction requirements through increased testing (2008 Pavement Management Plan Update) ➢ Enhanced joint density testing (2008 Pavement Management Plan Update) ➢ Enforce proper timing on asphalt delivery. Do not allow trucks to stack up waiting to be dumped. ➢ Diligent monitoring of asphalt temperature. Deterioration of Road Segments Deterioration of Road Segments The following section highlights 3 principle Arterial road segments and how each road has deteriorated over the past 3 years. The 3 road segments include: IIM Route Back Route Ahead 2008 OCI 2010 OCI I i (Average) (Average) Sprague Havana to Fancher 67.5 55.6 Sprague Evergreen to Sullivan 31.5 24.3 Appleway Dishman-Mica to University 59.4 51.0 In 2008 the segment of Sprague from Evergreen to Sullivan would have been a borderline candidate for a mill and overlay. The OCI threshold for a mill and overlay is OCI 30-60, an OCI below 30 calls for a complete reconstruction. Had this section of Sprague been overlaid in 2008 the cost would have been approximately $2.7 million dollars. Moving forward as recommended in the current 2010 update would require a complete reconstruction with a cost of approximately $3.8 million dollars. The segments of Sprague from Havana to Fancher and Appleway from Dishman-Mica to University are currently great candidates for a mill and overlay because of the existing pavement condition. The 2011 update recommends Sprague from Havana to Carnahan be overlaid in 2014 and Sprague from Carnahan to Fancher be overlaid in 2013. Appleway from Dishman- Mica to Farr is recommended to be overlaid in 2014 and Appleway from Farr to University is recommended to be overlaid in 2012. Should no treatment be completed on these road segments, they will fall into the reconstruction range within the next 7 years. The currently recommended overlays costing $700k - $800k would cost well over $3 million per project if no treatments are done. In the interim between now and the time it would take to complete an overlay, the City may want to consider the following preventative maintenance: • Crack seal • Seal coat (GSB88 or similar) • One lane grind and overlay • Patching • Slurry Seal These maintenance measures will buy the city additional time until an overlay can be funded. This section is intended to emphasize the importance of following the PMP. It is recommended that the City increase funding so preventative maintenance is a top priority, followed by overlays, and lastly reconstruction projects. The goal is to maintain the City's roads at a high level OCI and to keep individual segments from falling into more costly treatment categories. This PMP update is especially critical because of the completion of the STEP projects. With the completion of the STEP projects the City will need to maintain hundreds of newly reconstructed roads both now and into the future to keep these roads in great condition. Comparison of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Overall Condition Index (OCI) Comparison of Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and Overall Condition Index (OCI) PCI OCI 1 . Longitudinal Cracks 1. Longitudinal Cracks 2. Rutting 2. Rutting 3. Patches 3. Patches 4. Transverse Cracks 4. Transverse Cracks 5. Alligator Cracking 5. Alligator Cracking 6. Pavement Age 7. Pavement Type/ Structure Arterial Projects City of Spokane Valley 2011 Overall Condition Index Arterials and Collectors Legend Overall Condition Index - 1-30(Failed) - •61-60(Pbcium b Paoli -61-100(G00c0 Arterials and Collectors City of Spokane Valley 2012 - 2017 Preservation Projects Map /ii ,3`. CD N 7rt Mill 3 um mm No a )111116...96 O �_1�..,124 12,6 145 ,a u1 127 128 a t-T Mission Av Mission Av 5 -o 91 N � N 0. ao■ J 78 Miss'on_A - 7 80 Broadway Av N ; 1 55 30 31 56 81 32 Sprague Av I 84 Sprague N Av 110 -■1 ■ ' 1 Cith-AV, 16th Av 34 -4 88 112 .2 6 ^~ a co W 6 32nd Av f ! I l 1 i� February 1,2012 2012 Treatments Mill&Overlay - Reconstruct Legend 2015 Treatments Mill&Overlay Reconstruct Preventative Maintenance - •Preventative Maintenance 2013 Treatments 2016 Treatments Mill&Overlay Mill&Overlay - Reconstruct — Reconstruct -•Preventative Maintenance - •Preventative Maintenance 2014 Treatments 2017 Treatments Mill&Overlay Mill&Overlay Reconstruct — Reconstruct --Preventative Maintenance - •Preventative Maintenance 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget'" Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2012 Dverlav Proiecta _ _ _ 1 32 35.22 Mission Av Union Pines AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 60028.28ft 96.9 5142,66731 2 53 3136 Broadway Ay GreeneCres Barker AC-Mill and overlay Art 216315312ft 94.53 $33,991,83 3 64 3732 Appleway BE Farr University AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 195464.64 ft 9234 5465205.34 4 88 325 4th An Dishman Mica Farr AC-M &Overlay-Col 2 43145.00 ft 84.18 5102,685.10 5 121 30.13 32nd Av University Bowdlsh AC-Mill and Overlay Art 313298330 ft 94.53 $316300.73 6 123 40.19 32nd Av Pines 5R 27 AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 19972500 R 95.75 $475.345.50 7 124 4054 32nd Av SR 27 Best AC-Millard Overlay Art 2 79882.80 ft 93.36 5190.321.06 8 152 40.15 Argonne Rd Knott Montgomery AC-Mill and Overlay Art 651491.70 ft 96.61 $122,550.25 9 153 40.54 Argonne Rd Mullen Knox AC-MI1I and Overlay Art 6 32973.72 ft 96.61 578,477.45 10 161 33.47 Dishman Mica Rd 16th 24th AC-MITI and Overlay Art 4 194145.60 ft 95.74 _5467,066.53 11 162 35.19 Dishman Mica 8d 24th 32nd AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 194782-60 ft 95.74 54463.58259 12 163 32,04 Dishman Mica Rd 32nd Schafer AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 97963.24 ft 94.53 $233,152.51 13 173 38 Farr Rd Sprague ApPleway AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 20634.00 ft 84.18 549,108.92 14 180 35.47 University Rd Sprague Aopieway AC-Mill and Overlay Art 6 59922.00 It 9336 5142.37636 13 182 36 University Rd 8th 16th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 120110.00 ft 94.04 5285,861.80 16 203 35.22 Pines Rd 16th 24th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 90281.00 ft 93.7 5214,868.78 17 242 31.1 Adams Rd 24th End AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 14578.35 It 93,7 534.69564 18 250 35.77 Barker Rd Euclid Trent AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 105411,24 ft 96.61 5250,87$.75 19 251 30.27 Barker Rd End Euclid AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 99971.64 ft 96,03 5237,932.50 20 1867 3436 Faucher Rd Sprague Broadway AC-Mill and Overlay Art S 185598.00 R 94.63 5441,723.24 21 1868 36.98 Panther Rd Broadway Sharp AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 79404.00 ft 95.75 5188,981.52 22 1874 34.12 Vista Rd Mission Knox AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 3945936 ft 88.6 593,913.28 23 1878 48.44 Herald Rd Main End AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 29540.00 ft 84.18 522,70620 24 3881 39.07 University Rd Sprague Main AC-MITI and Overlay Art 4 35157.00 h 92.34 583,673.66 25 1883 32.75 University Rd 4th 8th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 53744.00 fl 94.53 5142,190.72 26 1886 3412 Bowdfsh Ito 16th 24th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 87290.00 ft 93.36 5207.750.20 Sub-total $5,488,202.27 $800,000.00 Recansfruttiion Preteehx 27 7.327 spragueAv Evergreen Adams AC-Reconstruct-Arterul 7 232919 99.58 53,125,772.99 Sub-total 53.125,772.98 50.00 Maintenance PrOjectst Crack Seal and Patching $175,000.00 5500,000,00 Sub-total 5175,00100 5.500.0.00.00 Subtotal Overlay and Preventative 55.663,20717 Total Overlay Reconstruction and Preventative 58788,980.25 $1,300,000.00 157,488,960.251 •• The City of Spokane Valley's budge total is$2.3 million dollars.53.8 million dollars of the 523 million is spent nn PMP pelt ted projects such as pothole repairs,patching,single lane overlays and other immediate needs as they arise. The highlighted roadways could ha e been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct There are 17 oonsalidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an OCI adjustment based on the 20101MSinrpectfon Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction a approximately 6 times 7011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Protect NO. Segment ID DCP Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget** Stormwater Upgrades (Y/N) Plan Year 2013 tOverlay Projects: 28 37 36.89 Broadway Av Yardley Fancher AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 93860.00 ft 96.61 5254,070.20 29 41 36.74 Broadway Av Park Vitta AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 113692.00 ft 95.45 $292,188.44 30 55 32.33 Sprague Av Carnahan Faucher AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 158841,00 ft 97.26 5408,22137 31 56 35,83 Sprague Av Faucher Dollar AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 87238.00 ft 95.73 5224,201,66 32 80 38.8 Appleway El -Merman Park AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 153784,68 ft 95.45 $395,226.63 33 109 43,19 16th Av Pines Sakes! AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 11133.00 ft 95.09 528,611,81 34 115 36.19 24th Av Pines McDonald AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 122968.00 ft 86.65 5316,027.75 35 130 37.05 Carnahan Rd 8th End AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 63552.00ft 97.26 5159,328,64 36 155 39.29 Argonne Rd Broadway Mission AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 95177.52 ft 96.9 $244,606.23 37 183 38.92 University Rd 16th 24th AC-Mill and Overlay Art S 153204.00 ft 93.02 5393,734.28 38 209 38.08 SalteseRd 16th McDonald AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 47092.00ft 84.18 5121,026.44 39 210 36,75 Blake Rd Saltese 24th AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 61516.00ft 86.65 5132,396.12 40 218 37A5 Sullivan Rd Euclid Trent AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 174731.00ft 94.2 $449,058.67 41 219 3728 Sullivan Rd Indiana Euclid AC-Mllland Overlay Art 6 325711.00 ft 95.34 $837,077.27 42 223 38.28 Sullivan Rd .•ra;ue 4th AC-Mill andOverl- Art 77315.16 ft 95.73 5198 699.96 43 333 3845 Adams Rd 2nd 4th AC-Milt and Overlay Art 2 28617.00 ft 93.02 573,545.69 44 239 42.19 Adams Rd Sprague 2nd AC-Mitt and Overlay Art 2 13755.00 ft 91.66 $35,350.35 45 1869 38.64 Park Rd Mission Trent AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 71481.96 ft 97,15 5183,708.64 46 1875 37.25 Broadway Av Argonne Farr AC-MIII and Overlay Art 4 87435.00 ft 96-9 5224,715.66 47 1887 36.67 24th Av University Bowdish AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 93092.00 ft 84,95 5239,246.44 48 1896 37.47 Evergreen Rd 24th 32nd AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 69151.00 ft 95,67 5177,743,77 49 1898 39.24 24th Av Adams Sullivan AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 95842.00 ft 85.12 $246,313.94 50 1973 34,64 Park Rd Valleyway Broadway AC-Mitl and Overlay Art 2 94892..00 ft 95.45 5243,872.44 Sub-total 55,882,972.41 $800,009.00 Reconstruction Projects: 51 69 25.3 Sprague Av Adams Sullivan AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 7 234429 99,68 53,146,037.18 Sub-total 53,146037.18 50.60 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal and Patching $175,000.00 $500,000.00 Sue-total 5175,000.00 $100,000.00 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative $8,057,972.41 Tonal overlay,Reconstruction and Preventative 59,204,00959 $1,300,600.00 1$7,904,009.59j The CIty of Spokane Valley's budget total is$2.3 million dollars.$1,0 million dollars is spent on non PMP related projects and immediate needs. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an 00 adjustment based on the 2010 OAS inspection Note:lire cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 6 times Project Number 30:two lane westbound re-surfacing project completed in 2011,City may choose to move this project to a later date. 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area{SF} improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget** Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2014 - --- -- - Overlay Prujects: 52 26 36.73 Mission AV Park Vista AC-M ill&Overlay-Col 267083.00 ft 87.64 5177,509.91 53 as 37.43 BroadwayAv Bowdish Pines AC-MllIand Overlay Art 4 117228AOft 96.32 $324,721.56 54 50 34.68 BroadwayAv Sullivan Conklin AC-BIM and Overlay Art 2 62429.00 ft 92.68. 5172928.33 55 54 37.4 Sprague Av End Carnahan AC-MII and Overlay Art 5 158080.00 ft 97..26 $437,881.50 56 57 36.67 SpragueAe Dollar Thierman AC-MiillandOverlay Art S 44798.00 ft 95,36 5124,090,46 57 63 35.01 Sprague Ay Herald University AC-Mill and Overlay Art $ 13508100ft 9124. 5374,174.37 58 83 34.73 Appeway BI Dishman Mica Farr AC-Mill and Overlay Art - 4 94627.58 ft 9166 $262,.118.40 69 90 32.3 4th AV Pines McDonald AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 285667,00ft 83.79 $237,297.59 60 91 34.27 4th Av McDonald Evergreen AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 285339.00 ft 8437 5236369.03 61 114 36.5824thAv Bowdish Pines AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 93259.00 ft 87.64 86.12 5258227.43 564,488.37 62 118 37,2424thAv Evergreen Banners AC-MO&Overlay-Col 22328L00ft 63 119 33.96 24th Av Barmen Adams AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 80491.00 ft 36.12 52221960.07 64 122 35A6 32nd Av Bowdish Pines AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 13322230 ft 96.61 5369026.33 65 128 3851 Thorpe Rd Dish man Mica MADISON AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 31233.00 ft 89.25 $8615.41 66 144 36.99 Park Rd Sp-:•ue Appleway AC-Mill and Overla Art 4 24061.00 ft 96.61 566,648,97 67 156 35.63 Argonne Rd Sprague Broadway AC-MII1andOverlay An 3 95136.16ft 95.61 5263,66526 68 170 36.56 Mullen Rd Dishman Mica Broadway AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 95419.03 ft 96.51 5264,310.85 69 184 34.76 University Rd 24th 32nd AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 153044.00 ft 94.53 $423,931.83 70 185 32.81 University Rd 32nd 9ishrnan MIca AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 67172.00 ft 92.68 5186,066.44 71 207 37.55 Mc0anald Rd 16th Saltese AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 33826.00 ft 92 $93,693.02 72 231. 35.07 Evergreen Rd Sprague Mission Connectior AC-Mill and Overlay Art S 342491.91 ft 96.32 5948,702,59 73 235 34.24 Evergreen Rd 16th 24th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 79380.00 ft 94.04 $219282.60 74 1885 36.52 Bowdish Rd 8th 16th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 69786.00 ft 95.74 5193,307,22 Sub-total $6,008,643.09 $800,000.00 Recarrstrut#on Projecto 75 76 11 21.42 Euclid An Barker End AC-Reconstruct-Arterial . - - 2 52665 99.68 Sub-to tal $70676927 52503205.07 50.00 Maintenance Projects: - _ Crack Seal and Patching 5175,000.00 $500,000.00 Stub-total 5175,000.00 5500,000.00 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative $6133,64109 Total Overlay Reconstruction and Preventative $8,686,94&16 51,300,000.00 (57,386,948.16) Ilse Crty of Spokane Valley's budget total is$2.3 million dollars.$10 million dollars is spent on non PMP related projects and immediate needs. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been averlayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct Then:are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an OCl adjustment based on the 2010 I MS inspection Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 6 times Project Number 55:two lane westbound re-surfacing project completed in 2011,City may choose to move this project to a later date, 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget** Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2015 Overlay PIu 6t1s: 77 S 33.96 Wellesley Av Sullivan Flora AC-Mill and Overlay An 2 105651.60 ft 9506 5316,954.80 78 28 33.68 Mission An Argonne Herald AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 145817.76 It 96.32 $437,453.28 79 43 33.32 Broadway An Farr Herald AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 58323.00 ft 96.32 5174.969.00 80 44 33.95 Broadway Av University Bowdish AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 116737.00ft 96.03 5350,211.00 81 58 34.3 Sprague Av Thierrrian Park AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 203589.00 ft 94.8 $610,767.00 82 61 33.24 $prag_ue Av Aagonne Fan AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 135114.00 ft 91.5 5405,342.00 83 62 33.32 SpragueAv Fan Herald AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 90216.00 ft 91..5 5270.648.00 84 93 34.2 8th Av Carnahan Dickey AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 65667.00 ft 97.19 5197,001.00 85 96 32.86 8thAv DishmanMica Farr AC-Mflland Overlay Art 2 34694.00 ft 92 $104,082.00 86 99 34.75 8th An University Sowdiuh AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 90281.00 ft 95.45 5270,543,00 87 110 33.96 16th Av Saltese McDonald AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 102661.00 ft 91.66 $307,953.00 88 116 33.7624thAn McDonald Blake AC-MO&Overlay-Col 2 45871.00 ft 65.73 $137,613.00 89 120 35 32nd An Oishman Mica University AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 1955L00ft 92.34 $58,653.00 90 139 35,02 ThiermanSt 4th 8th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 4781140 ft 96.32 $143,433.00 91 157' 36,98 Argonne Rd Sprague Appleway AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 33221.25 ft 97.19 $99,663.75 92 164 34,43 Oishman Mica fid Sans ThOrde AC-Mill and Over13f Aft 2 109344.00 ft 95.74 $328,03200 93 169 33,38 Mullen Rd Broadway Mission AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 95223.60 ft 96.32 $285,670.80 94 190 35.27 BowdishRd Sprague 4th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 53235.00ft 94,04 $159,705.00 95 193 33,76 Swedish Rd DishrranMica Sands AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 20349.00 ft 87.96 $61,047.00 96 221 32.49 Sullivan Rd Broadway Mission AC-Mill and Overlay Art 7 82166.00 ft 94,8 $246,558.00 97 237 35A7 Fancher Frontage Rd Sharp Railroad AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 17964.00 ft 84.18 553.892.00 98 3876 34.51 Broadway Av Herald University AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 87493.00 ft 95.74 $262,494.00 99 1879 36.54 Herald Rd Sprague Main AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 17239.00ft 83.01 $51,71790 100 1888 33.79 Bowdlsh Rd 32nd 37th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 31016.00 ft 95.74 5153,048,00 101 1890 36.65 8th An Pines Vercler AC-Mill and Overlay Art_ 2 40297.00ft 91.89 _ $120,891.00 102 1897 35.07 Adams Rd 16th 74th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2.79712.00 ft 92,68 $239,136,00 103 1911 33.25 MirabeauPk Indiana Mansfield AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 5 0679.96 ft 87.96 $140,03938 _ Sub-total $5,987,84751 $800.000.00 Reconstruction Projects: 104 9 2142 Euclid Av End Sullivan AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 38434 99.68 5515,790.72 105 206 22.06 Madison Rd 40th MADISON AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 107581 99,58 51,443,741.33 106 WIUSMItal Sub-total $3,223,065.79 $0.00 Maintenance Projects: Crack Seal and Patching 5175,000.00 $500,000.00 Sub-tpcal $175,000.00 3500,000.00 Sub-tata I Overlay and Preventative $6,162,847.51 -focal Overlay,Reconstruction and Preventative $9,385,912.80 51.300,000.00 {$8.055.912.80} The City of Spokane Valley's budget total is 52.3 mill'on dollars.$1.0 million dollars is spent on non PMP related projects arid immediate needs. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment Tao full reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been overiayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment isa full reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an OCI adjustment based on the 2010 IMS inspection Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials a nd Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OC! Plan Cost Suggested Budget** Over/Under Suggested Budget Stonnwater Upgrades(V/N) Plan Year 201.6 Overlay Pr4jerm 107 42 32.86 Broadway Av Vista Argonne AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 11634L0063 96.61 $378.587.52 108 60 34.04 Sprague Ac Vista Argonne AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 196007.00 ft. 96.38 $635,062.63 109 82 33.37 Appleway BI Vista Dishman Mic AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 339373.84 ft 96.03 $1,099,571.24 110 87 32.1 4th Av Thierrnan Park AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 268799.00ft 86.12 $222,908,76 ". 111 101 32.04 8th Av McDonald Evergreen AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 74592,00 ft 92.58 $242,002.08 112 117 31.64 24th Av Blake Evergreen AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 47835.00 ft 85.34 $154,985.40 113 132 34.38 Faucher Rd Sharp Trent AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 130504.00 ft 97.26 $422,832.96 114 165 33.67 Dishman Mica Rd 40th Sands AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 79005.00ft 95.45 5255,976,20 115 167 32,58 Dislrmnr Mica 3d Thorpe &td AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 57559.00ft 95.45 $185,491.16 116 177 30.94 Herald Rd 8th 16th AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 106928.00 ft 85.34 $346,446.72 117 191 32.06 Bawdish Rd 6th 6th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 52445.00 ft 93.7 5169,921.30 118 200 31.86 McDonald Rd 4th 8th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 52904.00 ft 92 5171,408,96 3.19 201 31.17 McDanaI'd ltd 8th 16th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 107332.00 ft 91.32 $347,755.68 120 21.1 34.5 Blake Rd 24th SR 27 AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 35487.00 ft 85.34 5114,977,83 121 222 31.2 Sullivan Rd Sprague Broadway AC-Mill and Overlay Art 7 246330.00 ft 94.74 5743,1159.30 122 1870 33.28 Park Rd Broadway Mission AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 95286.00ft 97.19 5308,726.64 123 1892 31.56 McDonald Rd Sprague 4th AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 53317.00 ft 92 5172,747.08 Soh-total $6,028,51L95 $800,000.00 Reconstruction Projetew 1.24 1902 23.41. EuclidAv Sullivan Marietta AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 145693 99.68 51,955,203.23 125 1.26 215 17.15 Progress Rd Wellesley Crown AC-Reconstruct-Arterial - 2 32860 _ 99.68 Sub•totll _ $440,98952 $2,893,21552 $11.00 Maintenance Protects: Crack Seal and Patching $175,000.00 $500,000.00 Sub-total $175,000.00 $500.00000 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative 55.203,511.96 Total Overlay,Reconstruction and Preventative $9,096,727.88 $1.300,00rsoO 157,796,7271081 The City of Spokane Valley's budget total is$2-5 million dollars.$1.0 million dollars is spent on non PM P related projects and immediate needs. The highlighted roadways could have been overtaped in 2008,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been overiayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads In 2003 that are shown as needing a reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an DCI adjustment based on the 2010 1M5 Inspection Note:The cost between a mill Sind overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Collectors-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No, Segment ID 00 Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved IDCI Plan Cost 5uggested Budget** Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(YWNM Plan Year 2017 Overlay Projects 127 18 32.78 Montgomery Dr Wilbur Pines AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 93808.40 ft 96.47 532$,329,40 128 19 33.1 Indiana Av Montgomery Mira beau AC-MfllandOverlay Art 5 249422,91 ft 96.61. $872,980.19 129 27 31.93 Mission Ay Vista Argonne AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 79224.30 ft 87.96 $277,28515 130 59 31.58 Sprague Av Park Vista AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 160308,04 ft 96.09 $561,078.00 131 70 31.46 Sprague Av Sullivan Conklin AC-Mill and overlay Art 5 18711000 ft 941 $654,885.00 132 72 32.76 Sprague Av Flora Corbin AC-Mill and Overlay Art 5 116830.00 ft 97.19 $408„905.00 133 76 33.11 SpragueAv Barker Hodges AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 253060.00ft 8957 $185710.00 _ 134 135 32.69 Thlerman Rd Broadway Mission AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 85458.00 ft 90.12 5299,033.00 135 199 33,21 McDonald Rd Sprague Broadway AC-Min and Overlay Art 4 12763230 ft 9611 $446,712.00 136 204 31.3 Pines Rd 24th 32nd AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 90343.00 It 95.74 $316,200.50 1.37 217 33.17 Sullivan Rd Et Off Wellesley AC-Mill and Overlay Art 4 77219,00 ft 97.26 $27026630 138 227 33.29 Sullivan Rd 24th End AC-Mill and Overlay Art 3 20250.30ft 95.78 570,876.05 139 228 30.43 Evergreen Rd I 90 W290 OFF Indiana AC-Mill and Overlay Art 6 7317620ft 91.66 5256,118.80 140 244 3178 Flora Rd Trent Wellesley AC-Mill and Overlay Art _ 2 32135.76ft 95.09 5112,475.16 141 1864 33.93 4th Av End Custer AC-Mill and Overlay Art 2 18797.00 ft 95.37 $65,789.50 142 1877 83.06 Herald Rd End Broadway AC-Mill&Overlay-Cul 2 44952,00 ft 87.24 $152332.00 143 1882 323 4th Av Unierraity Bo AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 84861.00 ft 86.65 5297,01330 144 1884 31.7 4th An Bowdlsh Pines AC-Mill&Overlay-Col 2 84933.00 It 85.34 $297,447.50 So total 55,278,437.15 $804,000.30 R.econstrurtion.Projects: 145 1903 29.21 Euclid Av Marietta Flora AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 99322 99.68 $1,332,90231 146 246 25.03 Flora ltd Euclid Euclid AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 18740 99.68 $244,780.80 147 1906 24.73 sutiyan Rd Wellesley End AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 29172 99.58 5391,500.05 148 .. _. .. .. _. Sub-total $2,194,679.42 $0.00 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal and Patching $175,000.00 $500,000.00 Sub-total $175,000.00 $500.000.00 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative 56,053,437,15 Total Overlay,Reconstruction and Preventative $8,243,11637 $1,300,000.00 {$6,948,116.57) L l I ' the City cf Spokane Valley's budget total is$2.3 million dollars.$1.0 million dollars of the$23 million is spent on PMP related projects such as pothole repairs,patching,single lane overlays and other Immediate needs as they arise. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2008,now the recommended treatment is Tull reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment is a Tull reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needing reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had an CCI adjustment based on the 2010 IM5 inspection Note..The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction fs approximately 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Arterials and Colleetvr$-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCT Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area{SF} Improved OCI Plan Coat Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget Storrnwater Upgrades(T/NI) Plan Year Reconstruction Projects: 27 50 23,27 Sprague Av Evergreen Adams AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 7 232919 99.68 53,125,772.98 51 69 25.3 Sprague Ar Adams Sullivan AC-Reaees-run-Arterial 7 234429 99.68 53,146,037.18 75 11 21.42 Euclid Au Barker End At-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 92665 99,63 $709,76967 76 - - - - 104 9 21.42 Euclid At End Sullivan AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 39434 99.68 $515,790-72 105 206 22.06 Madison Rd 40th MADISON AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 107581 99.63 51,443,741.31 106 - - 124 1902 26,41 Eodid AV Sullivan Marietta AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 145693 99.58 51,955,203.28 121 215 17.15 P• ess Rd Wellesley Crown AC. Be= -Arterial 2 32150 99.45 5440,98952 126 195 1903 2911 Eudid Av Marietta Flora AC-Reconstru t-Arterial 7 99322 99.58 51,332,902.31 146 246 25.03 Flora Rd _ _ Euclid Euclid AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 18240 99.68 5244,780.80- 147 1966 24.73 Sullivan Rd Web End AC-Reconstruct-Arterial 2 _ 29172 99.68 $391500.05 349 - - - Sub-total $17086,075.86 •' The City of Spokane Valley's budget total is 523 mitan dollars.$1.0 million dollars of the$2.3 million is spent on NAP dated projects such as pothole repairs,patching,single lane overlays and other immediate needs as hey arise. The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2009,now the recommended treatment Is a full reconstruct The highlighted roadways could have been overlayed in 2011,now the recommended treatment is a full reconstruct There are 17 consolidated roads in 2008 that are shown as needinga reconstruction.Several of which have been reconstructed or had urn OCI adjustment based on the 3010 IMS inspection Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full remnstrucsidn is approximately 6 times Local Access (residential) Projects City of Spokane Valley 2011 Overall Condition Index Local Streets e k.; 14 December 47 2011 • tg Legend Overall Condition Index -1-30(Failed) -- •31-6D RAedium to Poor) el-100(Good) Note:NeMark OC 11e 71.7 Local Streets City of Spokane Valley 2012-201 7 Preservation Projects Map Plwam...norarer 201-Tread Manta MS Ttdaimants -1..arao.ro — — !kW Pravaiterk.idaddanariso neladaa Crack Saran, F. DKAIN PaithdrdSarauldrar Hand Ra-aradaig and Grading. 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access(Residential)Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved 00 Plan Cast Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2012 ■ Overlay Prated= -- 1 1600 30.11 Camine Ct 22nd End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 23400.00 ft* 90.18 $46,566.00 2 1723 30.18 34th Ay Pierce 9owdish AC-AC Local Overlay 2 53129.00 1t' 90.18 9105,726.71 3 1097 30.78 Kahuna Dr End Carnahan AC-AC Local Overlay 2 35763.00 ft' 87.16 571,169.37 4 599 3081 Marlin Dr Buckeye McMillan AC-AC Local Overlay 2 56540.80 ft' 90.18 $112,515.19 5 369 3L03 Knox Av Argonne End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 1411230 ft' 928,084.47 6 1708 31.35 Cameron Ct End Sonora AC-AC Local Overlay 2 13462.884 _94.19 90.18 930,810.93 7 1345 3137 13th Av Houk End AC-AC Local overlay 2 9350.40 W 8953 518,60730 _ 8 397 31.4 Roble Rd End Marietta AC-AC Local Overlay 210725.70 ft' 9334 $21,343.15 9 559 31.43 Beige Rd Bridgeport Courtland AC-AC Local Overay 2 13940.64 ft' 90.18 527,741.67 10 1067 3136 Willamette St 8th End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 21979.006e 91.24 $43,738.21 11 600 3157 Montgomery Dr Drummond Marietta AC-AC Loral Overlay 233807.60 ft' 90.19 _ 9166,777.12 12 881 31.72 Riverside Ay Hutchinson Argonne AC-AC Local Overlay 2 10795.34 ft' 89.27 $21-482.73 13 1176 31952nd Av Best Adams AC-AC Local Overlay 244926.001t' 88.97 988,605-74 14 1917 31.98 Dyer Rd Broadway Sharp AC-AC Local Overlay 2 53820.48 ft* 90.59 $107,103.76 15 428 3256 Mansfield Av Pines Houk AC-AC Local Overlay 2 37994.40 ft' 91-7E $75,60936 16 1494 3259 Guthrie Dr 19th 25th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 12393830 ft' 90.48 5246,637.62 17 1602 32.64 Ridgemont ur Vera[.rest Conklin AC-AC Local Overlay 2 4400430 ft' 90.18 587,56955 18 724 3258 Bowdish Rd Mission End AC AC Local Overlay 2564930 ft' _ 94.49 511,24353 19 950 33.12 Clinton Rd Sprague Main AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 26563,60 ft' 8197 $52,90136 20 773 33.13 Maxwell Ay Oberlin University AC-AC Local Overlay 2 17505.30 ft' 94.49 934,835.35 21 1752 33.13 Fox Ct End 35th AC-AC Local Overlay 27463.00 ft' 88.97 514,65137 22 345 33.22 Canter lid Baldwin 'Indiana AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 7292.(10 ft* 93.32 914,511.08 23 1598 333 23rd Ct Vera Crest Eyed AC-AC Local Overlay 2 5400.00 ft' 88.97 510,746.00 24 599 33.66 Jackson Dr Barker Montgomery _ AC-AC Local Overlay 2 40289.20 ft' 90,13 580,17551 2S 328 33.92 Railroad Ay Edgerton Ely AC-AC Local Overlay 2 21474.36 St' 93.32 $42,733.98 26 1646 34.27 28th Ay Virginia Gutlirle AC-AC Local Overlay 2 6681334 ft' 90.18 5132,969.41 27 1789 35 39th AY Driftwood Ridgeview AC-AC Local Overlay 2 13520.00 ft' _ _ 91.24 526,90430 28 556 3512 Dalton Av Velox 0onwood AC-AC Local Overlay 2 3450132 R' 90.18 $68,657.63 29 1933 353 McKee Rd Euclid Bridgeport AC-AC Local Overlay 2 30366.40 ft' 91.24 $60,42914 30 1143 35.7 19th Ct Rocky Ridge End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 5600.00 W 91.76 311,144.00 81 1647 35.7 29th Av Vardar Guthrie AC-AC Local Overlay 2 8998630 ft' 91.24 $179,073.73 32 1744 3537 34th Ay Bowdlsh Loretta AC-AC Local Overlay 2 25379.00 fN 94.19 550,502.22 33 673 3987 Valleyway Av Eastern Dyer Ar=-AC linear nearby 2 12473.92 ft' 40.18 324,823.10 34 1950 36.04 Pierce Rd 16th 24th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 105740.00 ft' 90.18 5210,422.60 55 383 3611 woodruff Rd Montgomery End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 22988.64 ft' 94.19 545,74739 36 728 36.41 Houk St Mission End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 _ 16907.40 ft 88,67 932,84173 37 675 36.4 7 Marrs AV Familiar End AC•AC Local Overlay 2 20014.72 ft. 90.18 $39,829,29 38 381. 365 Montgomery Av Montgomery End 1-AC-AC Local Overlay 2 18102.76 ft 94.19 536.02449 39 1589 36.78 29th Ct End Bolivar AC-AC Local Overlay 2 4630.00 it' 90,18 59,313.20 45 1714 5357 Timberlane CL 24th End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 ,4000.00 ft' 9449 57360.00 Sub-total 92,498,435.47 WOO Reconstruction Projects° 41 1953 /7.76 Vera Crest Or End 24th AC-Remestruction-Local 2 143326.80 17.76 51,656,956.44 Sub-total $1,686,956.44 $0.00 Maintenance Pr010cts_ Crack Seal and Patching 5500,040.40 $000 Sub-total 9500.000.00 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative $2,993,935.47 Total0verlay Reconstruction and Preventative 31,685,891.91 Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction Is approximately 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access I Residential!Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID Oa Route From To Plan Activity Number of lanes Pavement Area{SF} Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget _ Stormwater Upgrades{Y/NJ PIa6 Year 2913 Cranky MOOS: 42 414 32.43 Jackson Ay WoodrufI End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 171151.04 IIa 93.84 539859.74 43 1750 33.47 37th As 8owdish Loretta AC-AC/cee1 Overlay 2 74969,001' 89.88 3161,183.35 44 1675 3354 27th Ay Blake Evergreen AC-AC Loral overlay 2 53305..63 ft' 91-24 5114779.94 45 1541 33.57 23rd Av Evergreen Solvay AC-AC Local Overlay 2 12801.201' 91.24 32752238 46 1099 34.21 15th Av Stanley Panther AC-AC Local Overlay 2 4813830 ft' 8988 5103,496.73 47 1949 34.7 Glenn Rd 16th 24th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 105682.001' 09.88 5227.21630 48 677 34.28 8euk Rd Sprague End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 5880.121 94.49 412942.26 49 1623 34.48 Glenn Rd 24th 32nd AC-AC Local Overlay _ 2 84558.001° _8988 5181,799.70 50 1233 34.55 3rd End End AC-AC LOCO Overlay 2 104000 fe 89.88 522.340.00 51 551. 5.436 Rotchford St Euclid End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 15965.201' 89.88 534325.18 52 1222. 34.55 Cecilia End End AC-AC Local Overlay 210600301' 89.88. 322,790.00 53 637 34.55 Sharp Ay Railroad Yardley AC-AC Lund Overlay 2 1425184 f' 39.08 V30943.61 54 1706 34.65 26th As Progress Hewer AC-AC Local Overlay 2 26512.401' 90.18' 557216.66 55 1142 34.75 Rudy Ridge Or 15th End ISC_AC Local Overlay _ 2 55086.001' _ 91.24 3118,434.90 55 1748 34.55 35th As Rates Loretta AC-AC local Overlay 2 3411100 f 89.88 373,338.65 57 1713 35.02 Trmberlane Or 24th End A.0-AC Local Overlay 2 58241.201' 89.88 5125,218.38 58 817 35.21 Worse AN Pines Verder AC-AC LUCal Overlay 234726.395' 88.37 574,661.72 59 1722 35.2933rd Av tinniersley Pierce AC-AC Local Overlay 248082.001' 89.88 5103,37630 - 613 935 35.3 Olive Av Panes Collins AC-AC Local Overlay _ _2 16873.5043' 8937 336,276.95 61 1566 35.43 Bums Rd 21st End AC-AC Local Overlay 229448.361' 90.18 563,313.97 62 1679 35,81 30th Av Avalon EVu...ten AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 52560.801' 91.24 3113,905.72 63 1127 36.08 19th Au End Wardson AC-AC Local Overt.;y 2 6611.00 Ft' 91.24 514,213.65 64 678 35.25 _ _ Eastern Rd Whitfield _ Broadway AC-AC LOtat Overlay 283701101' 89..85 517995.50 65 1955 3626 Pierce Rd _ 24111 32nd- - AC-ACWplOverlay 2145838.901' 89.58 5227,651.70 66 594 36,31 Fairview a End Joel AC-AC Loma Overlay 2 1170x1.601' 89.88 5291155,OO 67 636 36.49 Relkoad Av Howe Mission AC-AC Local overlay 2 21735.26 lt' 09.80 546,730.65 68 330 1656 Knox Av Dick Vista AC-AC LOOM Overlay 2 17728.1413' 92.5 590,11950 69 1734 36.75 Glenna End 35th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 34584.00 re 89.88 574.355.60 70 1773 37.03 40th Ay MAOISOR End AC-AC LOW overlay 2 741673533' 90,79 $51,959.82 71 1231 37.12 Hodges Rd Sprague 8th AC-ACLOCal Overlay 2 18654.511' 94.19 340.107.20 Subtotal 52276,44673 3030 RCa4MQ Action Ptak 72 BUS 11.15 Jackson Cul-De-Sac Or End Jackson AC.RctonsVUttion=Lntll '2 4500 11,15 54143 73 928 14.89 Whipple Rd End Main AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 5020.08 14.89 590853416 74 597 18.05 Marietta As McMillan Montgomery AC-Reconstruction•Loral 2 25262.4 1835 297338.448 75 1715 10.15w1wa Dr 241.19 End AC-ReunisnutuurW.ucl 2 28702.06 191 5978294816 76 1594 185 20th Ct Vera Crest End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 17603.6 18.5 207194372 77 607 20.94 Montgomery Cul-Oe-Sac Or Montgomery End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 3800 20.94 44726 78 1006 21.5 Alki Av Barker Michigan AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 30522.I0 21.5 456936.8232 79 604 29.47 McM9Nn Rd Montgomery Bootee AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 34139.2 29.47 401818.384 Sub-coral 31,859,065.30 Sam Mimtenarroe 4roieOr= Crack Seal and Patching 5500.000.60 50.08 Sdbtntal 5500.00005 Sub•totaI rlay and Preventative 52276.446.73 Total Overlay Reconstruction and Preventative $4,635,51256 Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and full reconstruction is aCpronimateiy 8 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access(Residential)Roads-Preservation Program City of 5 polane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID OCI itoute From To Plan Activity Number of lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2014 Overlay Pecjeces: e0 1757 33,47 Bates Rd End 37th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 64513,00 ft' 89,58 $150,315.29 _ 81 1726 318 35th Av University Pierce AC-AC total Overlay 249553,00 ft' 90.48, 5116458.49 82 1270 33.89 Mamer Rd 5th 7th AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 2732100 ft' 8958 $6165733 83 6601 34,12 fnrl Rd Buckeye End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 2899132 ft' 90,48 567,550,24 84 _ 1735 34.6 Gillis.Ct End ',artier 33rd End AC-AC Local Overlay AC-AC Local Overlay 2738100 2 ft' 17940.00 ftr 90.48 88.97 517,197.73 541,800.20 8S 1938 34.81 6th Av 86 466 34.91 Broad Av Bums Lucille_ AC-AC Local Overlay 2 1470120 ft' 89,58 55755330 87 726 35.1 Wilbur Rd MisSlun End AC-AC Local Overlay 21655168ftr 93.84 538555.41 88 967 35.3 Main Av Best Adams AC-AC Local Overlay 2 47236.32 ft' 88.37 51.10,060.63 89 1459 35.37 .110 Av University Skipworth AC-Al Local Overlay 279624,00 ft' 8958 $185,523.92 90 502 85.44 Drummond St Montgomery Marlin AC-AC Local Overlay 2 37270,40 P' 8938 38664003 91 935 35.45 Main AO Pines McDonald AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 63960.48 R' 88.37 5149,027..92 92 1146 3532 Fox Rd Sprague 1st AC-AC Local Overlay 29027,00 ft' 88.67 $21,032,91 93 595 35,60 Grace Ct End Joel AC-AC Local Overlay 2 11700.00 R' 89.58 527,261.00 94 1.241 3698 Goren Rd _ 16th_ _ Rocky Ridge AC-AC Local Over 2 38512.00 ftr 90.79 589,73296 95 1256 36.1 Houk Rd .4th End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 2635300 ft' 88.97 $61,425.79 9K 631 36.77 14amvrny Bd Madfe huekv a Al-Al I nen'Overlay 7 :AMA nil f1 AA 58 543,445 58 97 821 36,23 Houk Rd Sint* Mission AC-AC Local Overlay 2 2723180 ft 88.07 553,452.42 98 1720 36.39 Steen Rd 23rd End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 57204.00 R' 90.48 5133,285.32 99 336 36.54 Elton Rd Shannon Knox AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 10723,22 ft' 92,28 524.985.10 100 1446 36.69 24th Ac End Dish man Mina AC-AC local Overlay 21043200ft 88.37 524,306.56 101 361 36.9 Indiana Av Hutchinson Argonne AC-AC Local Overlay 20286.20R' 926 521,636.85 _ 102 1282 37.04 Century Ct Sullivan End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 14434,09 ft' - _ 91.76 531771,02 103 1924 37.06 Main Av Uniyersly Skipworth AC-AC Local Overlay 2 43594.10 R' 88.67 5101,574.25 104 686 37,430esmet Av Th Ferman Bradley AC-AC Local Overlay 223882.40 ft' 94.84 555645.99 105 1927 37.47 1st AV Union Pines AC-AC Local Overlay 23681000 re 88.67 585767.30 106 1188 3732 37.57 Progress Rd Sprague Sharp An Faneher Frontage 4th Thierman AC-AC total Overlay AC-AC Local Overlay _ 2 2 4015600 ft' 78034.40 It 91.76 90,48 591563.48 _ 5177,160.15 107 658 108 1500 57.66 Collins ed Sahese Houk AC-AC Loral Overlay 2 19355.601t 88.97 545321.85 109 558 37.69 Velox Rd Dalton Courtland AC-AC Local Overlay 2 36472.68 R' 89.58 584,981.34 110 1297 37.77 Farr ftd 8th Archery AC-AC Local Overlay 2 5851.00 ft' 89,27 513632.83 111 1662 37.81 Virginia Rd 29th 9151 AC-AC Local Overlay 2 40227.60 ft' 90.48 593,730.31 112 1654 38.01 Cherry Rd Siview End AC-AC Local Overlay 220210.80 ft' 90,48 547,09116 113 812 38.23 Maxwell An Pines Houk AC-AC Local Overlay 224135,48 R° 8,117 556,235.67 114 1346 38.54 14th AV Vender Virginia AC-AC Local Overlay 2 7207.00ftt 88.97 $1679131 Subtotal 52.499,18334 50.00 Rec3Miruction Projeds: 115 546 9.04 Montgomery Cul-Dc-Sa Montgomery End ACSteconstruction-Local 2 4520 9.04 53200.4 118 554 21.69 Bridgeport Av End Barker AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 51446 21.69 605519.42 117 1703 22 Best Rd 24th 32nd AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 58428.04 22 6476910308 118 1960 22.94 33rd Av Pierce Woodward AC-Re onstruction-Local- 2 41018 22.94 482781.86 Subtotal 51.829.19921 50.00 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal acrd Patching 6500,000.00 50.00 Subtotal 5580.000,00 Sub-total oveday and Preventative 51999,18334 Total Overlay Reconttroction and Preventative $4,828,383.15 [ 1 Nate:The cost between a rn71 and overlay and full reconstruction is approximately 5 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access IRmldential}Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No, Segment ID OCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cast Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormweter Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2015 Overlay Protect^ 2 61289.90 R' 90.48 _ $153,835.39 119 1304 34.66 13th An Herald University AC-AC Coral Overlay 3.20 1652 34.69 31st Av End Clinton AC-AC Local Overlay 2 97424.8011' 90.13 $244,536.25 121 1525 34.91 Slake Rd 16th Sagest AC-AC Local Overlay 2 5398143 it' 89.58 $135,493.51 122 1370 35 Blake Rd 12911 16th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 26760.00 R' 89.53 567,167.60 123 1959 35,01 Pierce St 32nd 37th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 43336.00 IN 92.8 5110,028.36 1.24 1522 35,15 Keller Rd latent Sernro AC-AC Local Overlay 227265.20 ft' 38,67 $68,435.65 125 1597 35-16 23rd Av Conklin Steen AC-AC Local Overlay 2 35184.00 ft' 91.24 $88311.84 126 1333 35.16 Union Rd 15th 16th AC-AC Local Overlay 212337.001' 90.79 530,965.57 127 1054 3519 1st Av Dishman Mka Willow AC-AC Local()Veda,' 210849,00 It' 88.37 $27.23599 128 1736 35.26 Gillis Rd 340 35th AC-AC Local Overlay 216740.02 It' 89.27 $42017.40 129 1644 35.36 27th Av 29th Tall Tree AC-AC.Local Overlay 2 552.73,60 R' 90.18 $138,736.74 130 1749 35.57 3639 An Rates Fox AC-AC Local Overlay 2 31995.00 R' 90,18 580,307.45 131 1751 35.55 Fox St 39th 37th _ AC-AC Local Overlay 2 23220.00 ft' 90.18 $58,282.20 132 553 35.71 Courtland Av Velox Oonwood AC-AC Local Overlay 2 33917.76 ft' 89.27 $85,13338 133 1182 35.81 2nd AV Adams End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 13582.00 R' 88.07 534,090.82 _ 134 1948 _ 35.88 Newer Ct 13th End AC-AC LOCaI Overlay 2 29569.00 R' 9124 $74,218.1.9 a 135 1758 3 624 Wilbur Rd 32nd 34th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 20218.00 ft' 90,18 550,417A6 136 953 3627 Slake Rd Spra 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Acon:s iResidentEalj Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2411 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Segment ID QCI Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved OCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget"' Over/tinder Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N} Plan Year 2016 Overlay Projects: 157 1.765 33,78 40th Av Reeves Limon AC-AC Leal Overby 225797.00Ru 88.97 $70,157.84 6 158 1074 34.03 Havana Yale Rd Yale 16th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 3073.00 R3 88.97 521,972.16 5 159 1167 34.27 Roble Rd Sprague 1st AC-AC Local Overlay 2 13466.00 Rt 88.07 536,627.52 _ 5 160 660 34.33 D Ay Lake Oyer AC-AC Local Overlay 2 26286.60 fe 39.88 5571,499.55 5' 161 1356 34 34 Virgin is St 13th 15th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 38842.00 Ftt 88.37 5105,650.24 5 162 1733 34.36 40th Ay Dishman Mira Bowdish AC-AC Local Overlay 258281.00 Re 92.28 5158224.32 5 163 1674 34.38 260:Av Burke Davis AC-AC Local OVerlay 2 45827.60 R3 93.16 5124,65127 5 164 1140 34.46 Fanchcr Rd 14th 15th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 9267.001t 99.88 526,838.24 5 165 1164 34.52 1st Au End Union AC-AC Local Overlay __ 218864.0093 88.07 553310.08 $ 166 1495 34,7 Saltese&Blake Fronted Vercler McDonald AC-AC Local Overlay 2 3405192 R3 88.37 $92,621.22 5 167 921 34.92 Main Av Bawdish Wilbur AC-AC Local Overlay 2 10629.241N 88.07 551,57L53 S 168 1414 35.05 Newer Rd 14th 16th AC-AC Local Overly 220640.0093 90.79 556,140.80 5 169 1171 35.2 3rd Av Pines End AC-AC Local Overlay 222214.00 le 88.37 560,422.08 5 170 1300 35.23 Walnut Rd $3h 16th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 30230.00 R. 90.18 5218,225.60 5 171 1501 353 Vertler Rd Saltese Forrest AC-AC Local Overlay 2 36242.40 Fe 88.37 598,579.33 5 172 955 35.55 Mayhew Rd Sprague Riverside AC-AC Local Overlay 2 20710.00 ft. 87.76 556,331.20 5 173 1484 35.66 21st Av Cherry Cvthrle AC-AC-i oral iWnrlay 236584 .4O R3 89.27 599,509,$7 5 174 1502 35.7 Woodlawn Rd Saltese Forrest AC-AC local Overlay 2 47570.4093 _ 88.37 5129,663.49 5 175 1656 35.71 Houk St 24th 25th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 14956.40 fe 89.27 540,681.41 5 176 948 35.8 Main Av McDonald End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 24953,409' 87,76 667,614.85 5 177 697 35.91 Indiana CO End End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 33226.5693 94.49 590,376.24 5 178 294 35.91 Utah Av Eastern Elisabeth AC-AC Local Overlay 2 35255.60'93 89.88 595,895.23 5 _ 179 1923 35.94 Main Av Wilbur Pines AC-AC Local Overlay 2 6501264 R, 83.07 5176,834.38 5 180 679. 35.91 Oyer Rd Valleyway Broadway AC-AC Local Overlay 2 48429.929' 89.88 5131,729.38 5 181 940 36.01 Collins Rd Olive Broadway AC-AC LOOM Overlay 239064.4093 87.46 5106,25917 5 182 1663 36.15 Woodlawn Rd Skyview 32nd AC-AC Local Overlay 2 30230.8093 89.88 582,227.78 5 183 1580 36.6 21st Ct End 7Emberiane Old Schafer AC-AC Local Overlay AC-AC Local Overlay 2 2 9090.7293 7723.00 R 88.97 89.88 524,726.76 521,006-56 5 5 _ 184 1802 36.62 Mercy Or Schafer 185 _ 1412 37.22 St Charles St End_ 15tb AC-AC Local Overlay 2 17023.00 lt1 90.79 532,702.56 S Sub-total 52.399,456.15 50,00 Reconstruction Projects: 186 1595 24.56 22nd Ay Vera Crest Conklin AC-Recon#nlction.Local 2 47247.12 24.56 556098.6024 187 1233 25.81 6th Ay Farr Woodruff AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 25962 25.81 305572.74 _ 188 887 26.07 Dyer Rd S rogue End AC-lteeOrtnructIOn•LOcll 2 7860.8 26.07 92521.616 189 865 26.07 Valieyway Av _ Park Ella AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 40329.6 26.07 474679392 190 305 26.13 Dickey Rd Trent Knout AC.Reconnructiondocal 2 16964.64 26.18 199673.8128 191 380 27.72 University Rd End Montgomery AC-Reeonsrr,ction-Loral 2 17464.6 27.72 205558..342 SutrWtal 51,83440451 50.00 Maintenance Pr4{eclar _ Crack Seal and Patehing 5500,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal 5300,000.00 Subtotal Overlay and Preventative 52$9945616 fatal Overlay Reconstruction and Preventative $4,733„560.67 Note:The cost between a mill and overlay and Furl reconstruction iS approvi mutely 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Lot:al Access(Residential)Roads-Preservation Program CRy of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Project Na, Segment ID OCi Route From To Plan Activity Number of Lanes Pavement Area(SF) Improved DCI Plan Cost Suggested Budget" Over/Under Suggested Budget Stormwater Upgrades(Y/N) Plan Year 2837 Overlay Project= 192 1621 32.85 30th Av University Bowdiah AC-AC Local Overlay 2 106430.00 ft' 88.67 $311,839,90 193 1532 33.31 18th Av Ban oen Early Dawn AC-AC Local Overlay 2 43424.30 it. 89.88 $327734,56 194 1260 _3337 VerCler Rd 7th 6th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 16898.00 ft' 88.07 549,511.14 195 1557 33.4 McDonald Rd 27th 31st AC-AC Local Overlay 250533.20 Pc. 89.58 5177,362.28 196 1746 33.43 34th Ay Melissa Pine; AC-AC Local Overlay 2 36671.00 ft' 89.58 5107,299,53 197 1413 33.48 St Charles Rd End 13th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 47302.00 ft' 90.48 5138,594.36 198 1738 3354 Woodward Rd 34th 34th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 51860.00 ft' 91.76 5151,949.80 199 1159 33.63 Bnoadvlew Or End End AC-AC Local Overlay 25504.00 R. 93.32 916,12872 ' 200 1643 33.83 26th Ay Pines Tall Tree AC-AC Local Overlay 2 99904.00 ft 88.97 5292,718.72 201 1567 33.91 Progress Rd 16th 24th AC-AC Local Overlay 269225.781t' 89.58 _ 5202,831.54 202 902 34.01 Raymond Rd Sprague Valleeyway AC-AC Local Overlay 242681.92 ft' 87.76 5125,058.03 203 . 909 34.06 Riverside Av University End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 13839,30 ft' _ 87.76 540,549.15 204 1174 34.1 Slake Rd Sptagtle 4th AC-AC Local Overlay 2 39954.00 ft' 88.67 $117,065.22 205 1724 34,12 34th Au Glenn MBEs AC-AC Local Overlay 210800.001' 8958 531,64400 206 1491 34,21 Gaits Park Ct 23rd End AC-AC Local Overlay 2 520130 ft' 88.97 515.239.81 207 280 34,28 Vista Rd Euclid Liberty AC-AC Local Overlay 2 21994.20 ft. 8E67 564.44301 _ 208 1462, 34.29 Skiowarth Rd 16th 24th AC-AC Local Overlay 7 105754 n0 R' 88.67 5309,888,52 209 1516 34.4 22nd Ay McDonald Blake AC-AC Local Overlay 2 53855201V 88.07 5157,795.74 210 1737 34.66 Skipworth Rd 32nd 33rd AC-AC Local Overlay 2 7800.001' 88.67 522,854.00 211 1699 34.97 Banner Ct End 31st AC-AC Local Overlay 212448.80 ft' 89.58 $36,474.98 Subtotal 57 496,481.61 90.00 ReOonitrU[tldn Fugal= 212 1601 21.93 Conklin Rd Vera Crest 23rd AC-Reconstruction-Loral _ 2 68715.6 27.93 808782.612 213 1534 28.99 Sockeye Au Barker End AC-Reconstructlon-Local 2 53403.4 2$.99 805108018 214 1114 29.09 Elizabeth St 8th End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 8845 29.09 104105.65 Sob-total $1,717,996.28 $0.00 l'aidadessattee ProjiCts: Crack Seal and Patching 55x0,000.00 90.00 Sub-total 5500,000.00 Sub-total Overlay and Preventative 52,996,481.61 Total Overlay ReCOOStn.Ction and Preventative $4,714,477.89 6ute:111e cua between a mill and oved:wand Full reconstruction is apprinimarely 6 times 2011 Proposed Budget-Local Access(Residential)Roads-Preservation Program City of Spokane Valley 2011 Pavement Management Plan Update Segment ID DCI Segment ID/Route Segment ID/Route Back Segment ID/Route Ahead Plan Activity Segment 11)/Number of Lanes Segment ID\Pavement Area Improved DCI Plan Cost Reconstruction Projects 1953 17.76 Vera Crest Dr End 24th AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 143326.80 17.76 $1,686,956.44 605 11.15 Jackson Cul-De-Sac Dr End Jackson AC-Reconstruction-Local _ 2 4600.00 11.15 $54,142.00 928 14.89 Whipple Rd End Main AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 5020.08 14.89 $59,086.34 597 18.05 Marietta Av McMillan Montgomery _ AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 25262.40 18.05 $297,338.45 1715 18.1 Sonora Dr 24th End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 28702.08 18.1 $337,823.48 1594 18.5 20th Ct Vera Crest End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 17603.60 18.5 $207,194.37 607 20.94 Montgomery Cul-De-Sac Dr Montgomery _ End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 3800.00 20.94 $44,726.00 1006 21.5 Alki Av Barker Michigan AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 38822.16 21.5 $456,936.82 604 29.47 McMillan Rd Montgomery Buckeye AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 34139.20 29.47 $401,818.38 606 9.04 Montgomery Cul-De-Sac Dr Montgomery End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 4520.0D 9.04 $53,200.40 554 21.69 Bridgeport Av End Barker AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 51446.00 _ 21.69 $605,519.42 1703 22 Best Rd 24th 32nd AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 58428.04 22 $687,698.03 1960 22.94 33rd Av Pierce Woodward AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 41018.00 22.94 $482,781.86 300 29.63 Mansfield Av End Eastern AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 41543.36 29.63 $488,965.35 1923 23.61 Balfour Rd Sprague Main AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 21237.12 23.61 $249,960.90 550 24.02 Kiernan Av End Sullivan AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 43423.60 24.02 $511,095.77 1599 24.14 Conklin Ct 22nd End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 7600.00 24.14 $89,452.00 1915 24.19 Dollar Rd Trent Utah AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 38698.20 24.19 $455,477.81 1595 2456 22nd Av Vera Crest Conklin AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 47247.12 24.56 $556,098.60 1233 25.81 6th Av Farr Woodruff AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 25962.00 25.81 $305572.74 863 26.07 Dyer Rd Sprague End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 7860.80 26.07 $92,521.62 865 26.07 Valleyway Av Park Ella AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 40329.60 26.07 $474,679.39 305 26.18 Dickey Rd Trent _ Knox AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 16964.64 26.18 $199,673.81 380 27.72 University Rd End Montgomery AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 17464.60 27.72 $205,558.34 1601 27.93 Conklin Rd Vera Crest 23rd AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 68715.60 27.93 $808,782.61 1934 28.99 Buckeye Av Barker End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 68403.40 28.99 $805,108.02 1114 29.09 Elizabeth St 8th End AC-Reconstruction-Local 2 8845.00 29.09 $104,105.65 Total $10,722,274.62 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Funding Options for Pavement Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There have been numerous discussions regarding the development of a Pavement Management Plan but to date, no final decision has been made regarding funding options. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has for some time worked on developing a Pavement Management Plan, and with the proposed adoption of a final plan at this evening's Council meeting, staff would like to begin discussions surrounding funding options. The ideal outcome of a final funding plan would be one that allows the City to accomplish as much of the pavement management plan as possible through the use of existing financial resources, while at the same time: 1. Follow our existing policy of setting aside 40% of the General Fund fund balance in excess of$26,000,000, and 2. Maintain existing levels of service in City operations. Given the magnitude of the financial commitment necessary to carry out the Pavement Management Plan however, staff believe it is not possible to meet the needs of the plan without an additional sustainable revenue source that would likely have to be imposed by the Council at some point in the next few years. Staff recommends we discuss future revenue sources in conjunction with Option 1 below. OPTIONS: Staffs recommendation for calendar year 2012 are as follow: • Option 1 — Follow the City's current policy of setting aside 40% of the General Fund fund balance in excess of $26,000,000 (which we currently estimate will be about $2,050,000, and of which 40% would be approximately $820,000) for street capital improvements and also commit the remaining reserves in Fund #311 — 2011 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ which are approximately $750,000. Collectively these would provide approximately $1,570,000 for street preservation projects in 2012. • Option 2 —Council could alter the City's current policy and set aside up to 100% of the General Fund fund balance in excess of $26,000,000 (which we currently estimate will be about $2,050,000) for street capital improvements and also commit the remaining reserves in Fund #311 — 2011 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ which are approximately $750,000. Collectively these would provide approximately $2,800,000 for street preservation projects in 2012. This is not the preferred approach as any unforeseen emergency, drop in revenue or unplanned expenditure could cause the Ending Fund Balance to dip below the target of$26,000,000. • In the development of the 2013 Budget (and beyond) Staff and the Council should continue discussions regarding arriving at an additional sustainable revenue source that can be dedicated specifically towards addressing the Pavement Management Plan. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 03-27-121Item 10 RCA funding options PMP.docx RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This is currently a discussion topic and does not require Council action. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Assuming the Council approves either option recommended by staff for calendar year 2012, a budget amendment will be necessary to appropriate the necessary monies. Budgets adopted subsequent to 2012 will also be impacted by future decisions the Council makes in regard to the Pavement Management Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: None. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 03-27-121Item 10 RCA funding options PMP.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2012 Department Director Approval: x Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ®admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.110 (Sign Regulations) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On July 5, 2011, Council directed staff to review the sign regulations. Information was presented to the Council on August 15 and October 20, 2011. On October 20, 2011, Council directed staff to proceed with amendments to SVMC 22.110. BACKGROUND: City Council directed staff to review the sign regulations. Staff compared the regulations to the adjacent jurisdictions, and Council identified specific issues to be addressed by the amendment. On January 12, 2012 the Planning Commission was presented an overview of the changes proposed. On January 26, 2012 a public hearing was conducted and continued to the February 9th meeting. As a result of the testimony provided, the Commission directed staff to provide language that would allow off-premise directional signage for businesses located on sites without arterial frontage. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. The amendments accomplish the directives provided by the Council and address additional items determined appropriate by the Commission. Staff has included incidental changes within the chapter to assure consistency throughout the regulations. The significant changes recommended for approval are: 1. Section 22.110.040—Table 22.110-1 a. Allow multi-family complexes to display one 20 sq. ft. wall sign; b. Increase the number of free standing signs allowed on lots with greater than 500 ft. of arterial street frontage in the Mixed Use and Office Zones; c. Increase the number of free standing signs allowed on lots with greater than 300 ft. of street frontage in Commercial and Industrial zones. d. Allow monument signs along all street frontages to be utilized for subdivisions, multi-family complexes and institutional uses in all zones and business in neighborhood business zones 2. Section 22.110.040.D Allow off premises directional signs to be displayed and establish specific criteria that a business must conform to; 3. Section 22.110.050.A-H Allow each business to display one temporary sign up to 32 square feet in size without a permit with criteria for sign materials, display location, and a provision for additional unlimited signage displays twice per year with a temporary sign permit. 4. Section 22.110.050.1 Allow each business to display one A-frame sign with criteria for size, maintenance, display time, and location. 5. Section 22.110.050.K Allow A-frame signs to be used for open house/directional signage with criteria for size, location, and display time. 6. Section 22.110.060.B Require electronic signs to have automatic dimming devices. OPTIONS: Consensus for staff to draft an ordinance for first reading, recommend minor changes, or remand substantial changes back to the Planning Commission for a future scheduled public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading scheduled for April 10, 2012 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Feb 2, 2012 Staff Memo for the February 9 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Findings Draft Amendment Public Comments Planning Commission minutes from all minutes related to Signage Presentation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION sokane PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-06-11 STAFF REPORT DATE: January 18,2012 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 26, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC),Chapter 22.110 Sign Regulations,to modify the regulations to allow A-frame signs,modify the requirements for temporary signs, increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials, allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs, and require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability. APPLICANT(S): City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission consider the additional information requested in conjunction with the public testimony and then approve CTA-06-11 with any modifications deemed appropriate. STAFF PLANNER:Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner,Community Development Department REVIEWED BY: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager,Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendment Exhibit 2: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On July 5, 2011 staff presented an overview of the City's sign regulations to City Council. Council directed staff to conduct a comparison of the city's sign regulations to surrounding jurisdictions. At the August 15, 2011 and October 20, 2011 Council meetings staff provided a comprehensive comparison of Spokane Valley's sign regulations to the jurisdictions of Spokane, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County. While the comparison highlighted many positives about the City's sign regulations, it also identified several items that the Council were concerned with, including: Spokane Valley is the only jurisdiction that does not allow A-frame signs, the only jurisdiction to charge for a temporary sign permit, and along with Liberty Lake, the only other jurisdiction compared that requires a temporary sign permit. Other conclusions of the review were that the varying categories of temporary sign permits and varying display time frames were confusing, and too restrictive for business; multi-family uses should be allowed wall signage; churches should have options for signage even when in residential zones; and dimming requirements should be considered for electronic signs. As a result of the discussions, Council directed staff to initiate a code text amendment that would implement the following changes: Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-06-11 1. Develop dimming requirements for electronic signs(lighting standards); 2. Ensure that churches are allowed reasonable signage in residential zones; 3. Allow properties along Trent and other arterials to have additional sign allowances; 4. Eliminate temporary sign fees and permits; 5. Develop regulations for the purposes of enforcement to address the following topics: a. Temporary signs should not distinguish between banners, pendants, flags, etc or special events; b. Time frames for displaying temporary signs should be increased; or c. Time frames for temporary signs should be eliminated and replaced with aesthetic standards that would determine when signs should be removed; 6. Allow A-frames or sandwich boards for businesses and real estate purposes; 7. Eliminate landscaping requirements at the base of free-standing signs on developed sites; and 8: Allow Multi-family complexes to have wall signs. The draft language implements the changes requested by Council with one exception: Item #7, freestanding sign landscaping requirements, are being addressed by separate code text amendment to the Landscaping Regulations. The following is a brief discussion regarding the proposed changes and the code section affected by the change. Dimming Requirements (SVMC 22.110.060.B): Dimming requirements for electronic signs are accomplished by requiring the sign to have automatic dimming capability. This device adjusts the brightness of the sign to the ambient light. The brightness of the sign is a common concern and often a code requirement. Currently the City of Spokane requires verification that the dimming device is installed, while Spokane County allows staff to place additional conditions on the permit that protect adjacent property, that include lighting and location issues. Liberty Lake does not allow electronic message centers. Signage for Churches in Residential Zones (SVMC Table 22-110-1 — Location, Height, and Copy Area Regulations): Churches are routinely classified as institutional uses, and therefore the current code would allow churches in residential zones to have wall signs, and 10' high pole signs and monument signs if the site was adjacent to an arterial. The issue is that churches and other institutional uses often locate in residential zones, as well as commercial sites not adjacent to arterials since they are not dependent on visibility to operate. Churches, schools, hospitals, and government offices are examples of typical institutional uses. Each of these uses may have a need for signage other than wall signage. Language is proposed that identifies what uses are considered institutional uses in order to clarify that churches are allowed signage consistent with the intent of the code. It is also proposed to allow monument signs in any location, not limited to sites adjacent to an arterial. , While the issue was originally thought to be specific to churches, the change as proposed affects all businesses, subdivisions, institutional uses, etc., not just churches, and allows monument signs on any site with street frontage. Small scale monument signs are generally compatible with residential areas and well suited for use along streets with lower speed limits. The current height limits in the SVMC associated with monument signs typically result in monument signs being used as identification signs, rather than electronic message centers utilized for advertising. The signs are generally unobtrusive and compatible with residential and mixed-use commercial settings. Additional sign allowances along Arterials (SVMC Table 22-110-1 — Location, Height, and Copy Area Regulations): The review indicated that Spokane County and Spokane increase the signage allowance for large sites in commercial and/or industrial zones. Spokane Valley's only additional sign allowance is provided to lots with more than one frontage. For example, corner lots may have two free standing signs if both street frontages are arterials. The additional sign on the second street frontage (corner lot) grants appropriate sign visibility for its passing traffic on both streets. Allowing additional freestanding signs on Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-06-11 large lots insure that large single development sites are generally afforded the same number of signs as multiple smaller sites. This provision maintains sign equity between the larger and smaller sites. The proposed language allows additional free standing signs at a ratio of 1 sign per 500 feet of lineal frontage. Temporary Signs (SVMC 22.110.050): Generally all communities regulate signs for special events — whether these signs are related to commercial enterprises (grant opening, sales, etc.) or institutional (places of worship, schools,non-profits) festivals, etc. The regulations generally include: the number of days the signs can be displayed; the number and type of advertising devices (signs, banners, balloons, etc.) that can be displayed; and their location on the property. This was consistent with all jurisdictions reviewed except for Spokane Valley, which did not stipulate number or size of temporary signs allowed. Currently the city classifies temporary signs into the following three categories: Banners; Pennants, flags, and streamers; and Special event signage. All three categories require a temporary sign permit with a fee, have varying display periods ranging from 7 to 60 days, but do not stipulate the number or area of temporary signs allowed to be displayed. The separate categories, with differing regulations, were confusing to the business owners, and the fee associated with the temporary sign permit was determined by the Council to be "cost prohibitive" to small business owners. Discussions with the Council highlighted conflicting concerns regarding temporary signs. The first being the cost associated with the temporary sign permit; second, if the permit was eliminated how display times could be enforced. Also, since temporary signage is not intended for long term display and is subject to fading, fraying,ripping, or otherwise showing significant wear and tear, a concern was noted that unmaintained signs would be indefinitely displayed. The regulations proposed allow a single temporary sign,up to 20 sq. ft. to be displayed, so long as it is in good condition. Additional signage could be displayed for a maximum of 30 days, twice per year, if a temporary sign permit is obtained. This allows flexibility for business to display a single temporary sign at their discretion indefinitely, while still providing additional allowance for special events. Confining unlimited temporary signage to a defined 30-day period balances the business owners need for occasional extra signage and keeps the visual clutter of signage in check to protect the area's aesthetics. A-frame Signs (SVMC 22.110.050.I and K: A-frame or Sandwich Board signs are commonly used by business's to attract attention. A-frame signs are not allowed in the current code since they are categorized as a portable sign. Jurisdictions typically regulate the size of the sign, and number of the signs allowed, location for display, display hours, and spacing. Size limits generally range from 6 — 9 sq. ft. per side, while location is typically linked to distance from business entrance combined with controls to maintain adequate pedestrian areas. Spacing requirements prevent closely situated signs from lining the public sidewalk. This can occur when each tenant within a strip mall displays a sign in front of their store front. The proposed language allows each business the opportunity to display an unlighted a-frame sign on-site, up to 9 sq. ft. on each side, within 12' of the business entrance, and during business hours only. As written, the regulation would keep the signs close to the business and prevent signage from being displayed off-site. Additionally, a-frame signs would be allowed to be used for open house/directional signage with a limit of 5 square feet. Multi-family wall signs (SVMC Table 22-110-1 — Location, Height, and Copy Area Regulations): The current code does not allow multi-family buildings, or apartments,to display wall signage. Multi-family development is allowed monument or freestanding signs. The review indicated that the other jurisdictions provide a small allowance for wall signs ranging from 10 — 20 sq. ft.. The proposed language would allow each multi-family building a wall sign up to 20 sq. ft. without modifying the other applicable signage requirements. At the January 12, 2012 study session the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding standard sizes for temporary banner signs and A-frame signs. A local vendor was contacted for this information. He indicated that common banner sizes ranged from 3-4 feet wide to 6-10 feet long. Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-06-11 However, custom signs are not unusual since the vinyl comes on a roll and can be printed up to 52"wide by their company. He believes that the widest printing capability in the Spokane area is 72". Of course the length is unlimited. Since charges are by the foot it would appear that cost is a defming factor in banner size. Pre-made A-frame signs generally have a printed space of 2'W X3'H with a carrying handle that extends to 3'6" in height or a smaller version that has a printed space of 2'WX2'H and additional height for the handle. The additional height of the handle would exceed the 3' height requirement. Real estate signs are generally 2'X2' or 24"X 18". A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): The DNS will be issued prior to the Public Hearing. End of Appeal Period for DNS: TBD Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 6,2012 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: January 6,2012 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls),the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division expects to issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal and has issued a Notice of Proposal with Optional DNS. The comment period ends January 20, 2012. The decision will be finalized at that time. The completed environmental checklist and other information are on file with the City. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 will be fulfilled prior to any action taken by the city. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F).Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-06-11 i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that(analysis is italicized): (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It has no bearing on the signage standards developed for the Aesthetic Corridors, and maintains the intent of the code by minimizing sign clutter while allowing adequate signage for business. This is accomplished by allowing more discretionary use of temporary signs, but limiting the number of signs allowed to be displayed to a single sign unless otherwise permitted. Below are the relevant policies from the Comprehensive Plan: LUP-14.2: Adopt specific regulations for designated aesthetic corridors that: •Provide incentives for aesthetic design; •Require landscaping buffers adjacent to roadways; •Limit sign height and size; •Provide performance standards to adequately screen intensive land uses that have exterior clutter such as outdoor storage, exterior heavy equipment and/or exterior fabrication/assembly. •Prohibit off-premise signage and billboards LUP-14.3: Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protect views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Comment: Public health, safety and welfare are furthered by providing sign regulations that respect the purposes of signs from the perspective of the community and business. The amendment recognizes business need to advertise, while preserving an attractive commercial environment for the public. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: As of January 20, 2012 no written comments have been received. Staff has had two phone calls with persons requesting that off-premise signage be considered. In both cases the persons were advised to attend the public hearing and provide comment, or to provide written comment discussing the request to allow off-premise signage. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-06-11 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: Staff has received no agency comments as of January 20, 2012. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-06-11 B. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed City initiated Municipal Code Text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission consider the additional information requested in conjunction with the public testimony and then approve CTA-06-11 with any modifications deemed appropriate. D. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move to recommend approval of CTA-06-11 to the City Council; or I move to recommend approval of CTA-06-11 with the following changes.... Page 6 of 6 SOI bkane 4000 Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106• Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner CC: Scott, Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager and John Hohman, CD Director Date: February 2, 2012 Re: CTA -06-11 Amendments to the Sign Code On January 26, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the City initiated sign code text amendment. As a result of the testimony provided the Commission directed staff to provide language that allows off-premise directional signage for businesses located on sites without arterial frontage. Currently the code prohibits all off-premise signage. According to the testimony, certain commercially zoned sites are difficult for customers to find and require directional signage to guide their customers. The proposed language creates an exception for off-premise signage if the purpose is to provide direction. The following draft language provides relief for businesses without adequate visibility while ensuring that off-premise signage does not create unnecessary visual clutter along the city's main commercial corridors: Off-Premises Directional Signs. It is the intent of this section to allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building wall. The business requiring the directional sign must conform to the following criteria: 1. The business must be located on a private easement or local access street; 2. The business must prove an off-premises directional sign is necessary for directions to access the site; 3. The business and proposed sign must be located in a commercial, office or mixed zone area; 4. Text shall be limited to the business name, logo, a directional arrow or may include certain advancing language as "next right"; 5. The sign must be located on the nearest collector or arterial. If a business has double frontage, staff will review this unique situation to determine if two directional signs are warranted; 6. Sign area is limited to six square feet; this shall not be construed to allow the on- premises sign to increase its sign area; and 7. If the business using an off-premises directional sign leaves its location, the property owner where the sign is located is responsible for the sign removal within sixty days. CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 1 8. If the site has no existing signage or buildings, thn a freestanding sign meeting the requirements above may be allowed. Other comments received: Additional testimony received requested that 1) freestanding signs be allowed on sites with any street frontage,not just arterial frontage, 2) additional signs be allowed for multi- business complexes, and that signs must be spaced at least 250' apart on each street frontage. The following comments are provided regarding the requests. Freestanding signs are currently only allowed on sites with arterial street frontage. While there is a formula that may be utilized to determine height and area requirements necessary to convey messages as it relates to roadway speed, other primary concerns are compatibility with existing development and maintaining the character of development. While residential uses are often located in commercial zones adjacent to commercial uses, the general rational is that zoning acts as a buffer to separate the more intensive commercial uses from the lower intensity residential uses. In the City of Spokane Valley the Office Zones (Garden Office and Office ) act as a transitional zone between commercial and low density residential since the existing uses typically include a blend of office and multifamily. Bearing this in mind, the further away from the commercial zones into an office zone a person travels, the more it begins to take on a residential character. Compatible signage helps to maintain that character. However, in the areas zoned MUC, it is common to see a blend of single and two family residential uses next to commercial uses and adjacent to arterials. Recognizing the diversity in the city's land uses staff recommends that commercial and industrial zoned properties be allowed a free standing sign per street frontage, and that Mixed Use and Office zoned properties be allowed free standing signs if adjacent to arterials. Currently the sign code allows an increase in sign area and sign height for multi-business complexes. For example, sites zoned Mixed Use or other Non-residential zones that contain a single business are allowed a sign from 100—200 square feet in area and up to 30' in height. A multi-business complex may have up to 250 square feet of sign of area and up to 40' in height. The fact that an additional sign area allowance is already provided should be considered when contemplating allowing additional signs, as well as the configuration of existing lots. As discussed, at the study session it is common for lots with narrow frontage to have more than one business located on the site. Providing an additional sign allowance may lead to an increase in the visual clutter,while the increase in sign area currently within the code, recognizes the additional signage needs, but restricts the signage to a single structure. Staff recommends no changes to our current provisions for multi-business sites. Currently the sign code does not contain a spacing provision between freestanding signs. Since only a single sign is allowed per site, except in certain instances, on-site spacing has not been an issue. Requiring a strict spacing between sign structures adjacent to street frontage would eliminate many opportunities for freestanding sites, since a huge percentage CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 2 of the sites have a frontage width far less than 250'. However, this does not appear to be the intent of the comment. Rather, the intent was to require spacing between sites on a single site. Based on staff's recommendation noted above, staff does not recommend spacing requirements between sign structures. The last request was specific to the requirement that a stamped, engineered drawing be provided for freestanding and monument signs over 6' in height. This question was forwarded to the acting Building Official and his response will be provided at the meeting. CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 23,2012 A. Background: 1. The development regulations in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. City Council reviewed the sign regulations on July 5,2011 and directed staff to complete a comprehensive review of the sign regulations. 3. Information was presented to Council on August 15, 2011 and October 20, 2011,at which time the Council directed staff to begin a code text amendment to address the following items: a. Develop dimming requirements for electronic signs(lighting standards); b. Ensure that churches are allowed reasonable signage in residential zones; c. Allow properties along Trent and other arterials to have additional sign allowances; d. Eliminate temporary sign fees and permits; f. Develop regulations for the purposes of enforcement to address the following topics: i. Temporary signs should not distinguish between banners,pendants,flags, etc or special events; ii Time frames for displaying temporary signs should be increased; or iii Time frames for temporary signs should be eliminated and replaced with aesthetic standards that would determine when signs should be removed; g. Allow A-frames or sandwich boards for businesses and real estate purposes; h. Allow Multi-family complexes to have wall signs. 4. Staff drafted proposed code text amendment CTA 06-11 using the guidelines that Council provided to staff. 5. In accordance with RCW 35A.63 et seq. and SVMC 18.10.050, staff presented CTA 06-11 to the Planning Commission to consider recommending adoption of the same to Council. 6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26,2012 and continued the hearing to February 9,2012,with deliberations completed at that meeting. 7. Public Testimony received from a business owner and sign company during the public hearing resulted in the following requests for consideration: a. Allow off-premise signage for properties not located adjacent to arterials; b. Allow freestanding signs on properties with any street frontage not just arterials; c. Allow additional signs for multi-business complexes at a ratio of one(1)freestanding sign per 250' frontage and one(1) additional sign for each additional 200' of frontage or fraction thereof. 8. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that CTA 06-11 be approved as drafted,with the following changes: a. Allow freestanding signs in commercial and industrial zones at a ratio of one(1)per 300 ft. of street frontage, and one(1)for each additional 300 ft. or fraction thereof; b. Allow freestanding signs in Mixed Use and Office zones at a ratio of one(1)per 500 ft. of arterial street frontage; c. Increase the amount of temporary sign square footage to 32 sq. ft. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-06-11 Page 1 of 2 d. Remove the language that restricts A-frame sign placement to within 12' of the business main entrance; e. Add the proposed off premise directional sign language proposed by staff without the requirements that"evidence of need"be provided, and increase the sign areas up to 15 sq. ft. . B. Findings: 1. The Planning Commission finds that it has authority under RCW 35A.63 et seq. and SVMC 18.10.050 to recommend that Council adopt sign regulations and amendments thereto which are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan; LUP-14.3: Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protect views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. 3. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. Public health, safety and welfare are furthered by providing sign regulations that respect the purposes of signs from the perspective of the community and business. The amendment recognizes business need to advertise, while preserving an attractive commercial environment for the public. Conclusions: The proposed City initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.110 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and promotes the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed City initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.110 (Sign Regulations), as attached. Approved this 23rd day of February,2012 :7 Bill Bates,Chairman ATTEST Deanna Griffith,Admini§tVive ssistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-06-11 Page 2 of 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 22.110 SIGN Chapter 22.110 F. Signs attached to or placed on a vehicle or SIGN REGULATIONS trailer parked on public or private property; provided,that this provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the identification of a Sections: business or its product on a vehicle operating 22.110.010 Purpose,intent and scope. during the normal course of business; 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. 22.110.030 Permit required. G. Signs obstructing visibility within any 22.110.040 Number,general regulations clearview triangle as established in Chapter for permitted permanent 22.70 SVMC; signs. 22.110.050 Permitted temporary signs. H. Billboards except when permitted as provided 22.110.060 General provisions in SVMC 22.110.130; applicable to all signs. 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. I. Off-premises signs,except off-premise 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. directional signs allowed pursuant to section 22.110.090 Sign location and front 22.110.040.D; setbacks. 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. J. Temporary signs unless specifically allowed 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. pursuant to SVMC 22.110.050; 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. K. Abandoned signs and sign structures.(Ord. 22.110.130 Billboards. 07-015 § 4,2007). 22.110.030 Permit required. 22.110.010 Purpose,intent and scope. A. Other than for those uses listed in subsection Signage regulations are intended to promote B of this section, a sign permit is required for all commerce,traffic safety and community identity allowed permanent signs,temporary signs, while improving the visual environment of unless otherwise specified,and billboards. residential,commercial and industrial areas. This code regulates permanent,temporary, and B. Permits are not required for on-premises portable signs. (Ord. 07-015 §4,2007). official signs; seasonal decorations;merchandise displays;point-of-purchase advertising displays; 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. national and state flags; flags of a political The following signs are prohibited: subdivision;notice signs,pennants and streamers without advertising copy; symbolic A. Signs which by coloring, shape,wording or flags of nonprofit institutions dedicated to public location resemble or conflict with traffic control service;legal notices required by law; barber signs or devices; poles; historic site designations; commemorative monuments/plaques; gravestones; advertising B. Signs that create a safety hazard for copy affixed to phone booths; donation and pedestrian or vehicular traffic; recycling containers;lettering or symbols applied directly onto or flush-mounted C.Flashing signs; magnetically to a motor vehicle operating in the normal course of business;political signs D. Portable signs; except A-frame signs supporting political issues,candidates or ballot specifically allowed pursuant to 22.110.050.I. measures;replacement of copy on signs otherwise permitted;name plates with less than E. Signs located within the public right-of-way, four square feet of copy area;directional signs except official signs and except bus benches with less than four square feet of copy area; and placed pursuant to an agreement with the City; murals containing no copy. Page 1 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 C. Permit applications shall include a site plan 7. Tax parcel number where proposed that provides the following information: sign will be located. (Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). 1. The location of the affected lot, building(s) and sign(s); 2. The scale of the site plan; 22.110.040 Number, general regulations for 3.A scaled drawing of the proposed permitted permanent signs. sign or sign revision,including size, height,copy, structural footing details, A.Permitted permanent signs shall comply with method of attachment and illumination; the requirements of Table 22.110-1.No more 4. The location of all existing signs on than the maximum numbers of either the site including size and height; freestanding pole signs or monument sign 5.For signs subject to spacing structures are allowed per parcel. regulations,the location of neighboring signs on adjacent properties; 6.Approved sign plan,if applicable; and Page 2 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 Table 22.110-1—Location,Height and Copy Area Requirements Maximum w 0 o Land Use Zoning District _© 'i. o az . Additional Provisions f� w 'i. C C — ,, sz� w aoi 04 V aoi y .: 40 40 — d d et d : 1-4 : .i a a a � 0 � 0 z Z w w k a Ell Attached Wall Signs Multifarjily Complex All Zones _ _ _ _ Y 1 sign up to 20 sq.ft. Instituti4nall Residential Zones n/a n/a n/a Y *25%of wall area Single Business Residential Zones 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a Y All Mixed Use and Nonresidential Nonresidential * n/a n/a n/a n/a Y *25%of wall area per building Zones Freestanding Signs Subdivi ion/Area Name ultifamily All Zones 1* 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y *Per arterial street frontage 1 per 500 Comple /Institutional ft.of arterial street frontage and 1 for each additional 500 ft.or fraction Single Business Neighborhood 1 20 100 n/a n/a 5 Y thereof in Mixed Use and Office Business(NC) Zones; or Multi-Business Complex Zones 1* 20 n/a 100 n/a 5 Y 1 per 300 ft.of street frontage and 1 for each additional 300 ft.or fraction Single Business Mixed Use and 1* 30 n/a 100 200 5 Y thereof in Commercial and Industrial Nonresidential Zones. Multi-Business Complex Zones(except NC) 1* 40 250 n/a n/a 5 Y Nonresidential Freeway* All Nonresidential 1 50 250 n/a n/a 5 Y *Adjacent to I-90 only Zones Monument Signs williP Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Comple4/Institutional *Per arterial street frontage Single Business Neighborhood 1* 7 75 n/a n/a 5 Y Business(NC) Multi-Business Complex Zones 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Single Business All Mixed Use and 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Nonresidential *Per street frontage Multi-Business Complex Zones 2* 7 150 n/a n/a 5 Y Other Signs Directional All Zones n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N Name Plates All Zones 1 n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N 1 Institutional includes nonprofit,religious or public uses,such as a church,library,public,or private school,hospital,or government owned or operated building,structure,or land used for public purposes. Page 3 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 B. In addition to the permanent signs allowed Except as otherwise described under this section, pursuant to Table 22.110-1, a single decorative no permit is necessary for temporary signs. emblem (or standard)constructed of durable Temporary signs are not allowed to continually vinyl with a thickness of not less than 13 mls for advertise goods, services or events on a site; every 50 feet of frontage shall be allowed. The permanent signs shall be used for that purpose. lowest horizontal member of the bracket shall be located at a height of not less than seven feet A.A temporary sign advertising a special event, above the adjacent grade. sale,promotion, opening of a new business or opening of a business under new management C. Where three or more single businesses agree may be displayed and must be removed at end of to share a single sign structure, an additional 20 use,event or condition. percent of copy area shall be allowed up to a maximum of 250 square feet. (Ord. 09-010 § 1, B.Number of Temporary Signs—No more than 2009; Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). one (1) such sign shall be allowed at any one time for a use,except as permitted below. D. Off-Premises Directional Signs. It is the intent of this section to allow the limited C. Signage shall be limited to 32 square feet in placement of off-premises directional signs by size. co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building D.All temporary signs must be made of durable wall. The business locating on an existing sign materials and shall be well maintained. Signs must conform to the following criteria: are not well maintained if they are frayed,torn, or broken, or the legibility thereof has materially 1. The business must be located on a private deteriorated. Unmaintained signs will be easement or local access street; required to be removed. 2. The business and proposed sign must be E. Banner signs must be attached to the façade, located in a commercial,office or mixed zone wall or window of the building which includes area the business which they advertise; 3. Text shall be limited to the business name, F. Additional banners or temporary signs logo, and a directional arrow and may include advertising a special event,sale,promotion, certain advancing language as"next right"; opening of a new business or a business under new management are allowed by temporary 4. The sign must be located on the nearest permit for a period of time not to exceed 30 days collector or arterial. If a business has double a maximum of two times with a single 30 day frontage, staff will review this unique situation renewal within any calendar year. to determine if two directional signs are warranted; G. Pennants,balloons, and streamers may be displayed in conjunction with the special event 5. Sign area is limited to fifteen square feet; signage allowed in section F above,but must be this shall not be construed to allow the on- removed at the conclusion of the event or within premises sign to increase its sign area; and thirty consecutive days. 6. If the business using an off-premises H. Temporary signs shall not endanger the directional sign leaves its location,the business public safety and shall be removed or relocated must remove the sign within sixty days. if the building official determines that a sign is unsafe. 7. If the site has no existing signage or buildings,then a freestanding sign meeting the 8 Pennants, flags, and streamers with copy are requirements above may be allowed. allowed by temporary permit for a period of time not to exceed 60 days with a 60 day 22.110.050 Permitted temporary signs. renewal. Additional temporary permits may be Page 4 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 obtained after 60 days have passed from the date JD.Temporary on-premises commercial signs of the expiration of the permit or a party may are allowed without permit when posted in obtain a single annual 75 day permit. conjunction with the alteration,construction, sale or lease of real property. Such signs shall C. Special event signage, including search lights not exceed 16 square feet in copy area or seven and inflatables are allowed by temporary permit feet in height.All such signs shall be affixed to for a period of time not to exceed seven days. either the ground or a permanent structure by All signs for a special event are covered under a rope,wire,or a mechanical device, single permit. No more than four special event . . .. K. Open House/Directional Signage - A-frame signs may be used as open house/directional I. A-frame Signs: Business will be allowed a signs and shall be allowed on each access street maximum of one sandwich board or A-frame to the property. Signs shall be placed so as not sign. These signs are in addition to other to interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, temporary signs allowed through sections A—H, shall be used only when-the property is open for and are subject to the following conditions: inspection, shall be unlit, and shall be limited in size to 5 square feet and limited in height to 3 1.Size: The area of the sign shall not exceed feet above grade. (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). nine square feet per side in size and shall not exceed three feet in any dimension. 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to 2.Maintenance Standards: Signs shall be all signs. constructed out of materials able to withstand extreme weather conditions. Such materials A.All signs illuminated with exterior lighting shall have lighting confined to the sign, and may be metal,fmished wood, chalkboard, whiteboard or plastic. Signs and copy should positioned and shielded to minimize impacts to be of professional quality. Permanent lettering the surrounding area(s). Gooseneck reflectors for the business name and logo are required on and lights are permitted on permanent the Sandwich boards. Owners of sandwich freestanding and wall signs;provided,that board signs shall be required to keep their signs lighting or glare does not extend beyond the in an intact,reasonably legible, and well property line. maintained manner. Sandwich boards are not B. Electronic signs shall be permitted on the well maintained if any part thereof is broken; same basis as other signs, subject to the letters or graphics are completely or partially requirements of Table 22.110-1. All electronic missing or obstructed; or the legibility thereof message center's(EMC's)are required to have has materially deteriorated. automatic dimming capability that adjusts the 3. Display Time: Signs may only be displayed brightness to the ambient light at all times of the during business hours. If business hours day and night. Written documentation that the continue past daylight hours,precautions should EMC is equipped with the automatic dimming be taken to place the sign in a lighted area.This device shall be submitted with the sign permit shall not be construed to allow the wiring of a application. sign for lighting. C. A roof-mounted sign may be substituted for 4. Location: Signs shall not be placed in a an allowed freestanding sign; provided,that the location which is within the clearview triangle, height of the sign structure may not exceed the as defined in section 22.070.020.C, or any other maximum height requirements of the zoning location which will impede vehicular traffic. district in which the sign is located. Further,such signs shall not be placed in a manner which will block or otherwise obstruct D. Signs located within the airport hazard area the safe use of sidewalks,building entrances or shall conform to the location and height stairs by pedestrians. regulations set forth in SVMC 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay zone. Page 5 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 E.No sign shall be erected,relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress from any door,window or fire 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. escape. A. The standards applicable to monument signs F.No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire shown on Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels escape except official signs. adjacent to aesthetic corridors designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: G.Any sign erected or maintained within five feet of public rights-of-way shall be smooth and 1. State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to free of nails,tacks and wires. City limits); H.All signs shall be maintained in good repair 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to pursuant to SVMC 22.110.110. Trent Avenue); I.No sign shall block the view of fire protection 3.Appleway Boulevard(south side only equipment from approach. (Ord. 07-015 §4, from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 2007). 4.Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. Hodges Road); Commercial development, shopping centers, 5. Dishman Mica Road(8th Avenue south to industrial parks,mixed use developments, and City limits); hotel conference centers exceeding five acres in size may seek approval of a sign plan specific to 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; the proposed development. The director may 7.Mirabeau Parkway(Pines Road to Indiana approve a comprehensive sign plan that allows Avenue). deviations from the strict interpretation of spacing,height and area requirements when the B. Only monument signs as shown on Table following is demonstrated: 22.110-1 shall be allowed with designated aesthetic corridors. (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). A. The plan provides adequate signage for all proposed uses; and 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks. B. The plan limits the number of freestanding A.Monument signs exceeding three feet in sign structures; and height shall be setback 10 feet from the front C. The total copy area of all signage does not property line and outside any border easement; exceed the amount which would otherwise be provided,that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 permitted. SVMC,Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, (clearview triangles)have been met. Any conditions imposed to secure approvals B.Freestanding signs with structural supports shall be binding on the applicant,his successors and assigns. less than two feet in width,with copy area placed at a height of seven feet or more above Modifications/amendments to the approved sign grade,may be located at the property line; plan shall require reapplication and approval by provided,that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 the director. If the applicant and director cannot SVMC,Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, come to an agreement as to a comprehensive (clearview triangles)of the Spokane Valley sign plan or a modification/amendment to the uniform development code have been met. same,the director's decision may be appealed to Freestanding signs with structural supports of the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 17.90 more than two feet shall be set back not less than SVMC. (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). Page 6 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 10 feet from the front property line or border Figure 22.110-3 easement. C. All temporary signs,except inflatable signs, shall be located at least five feet from public rights-of-way. D. Inflatable signs shall be set back at least 10 feet from public rights-of-way. b E.All signs shall meet the vertical and _ --- C - - ci horizontal clearance requirements of electric utilities. F.All new freestanding signs shall be located in a landscaped area in accordance with SVMC B. The sign area of a freestanding sign for a 22.70.030(J). Landscaping should ensure that single business shall be calculated as shown in signs are not blocked or obscured by trees or Figure 22.110-2. The sign area of a freestanding bushes. (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). sign identifying multiple businesses shall be computed by adding together the total area(s)of 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. all signs as shown in Figure 22.110-3.Refer to Table 22.110-1 for minimum and maximum A. Sign area for wall signs shall be no more than height requirements. 25 percent of the two-dimensional area of a building's elevation,excluding eaves and gables. C. The sign area for multiple-sided signs shall be Refer to Table 22.110-1. calculated as follows: Figure 22.110-1 1. The total sign area for a two-sided sign shall be calculated using a single surface of a PETE'S PRO GOLF sign with messages on both sides; l=• NI== 2. The sign area for a three-sided sign shall m■im m=imm be the sum of all surfaces where two or more M=MM MMIMM signs share a single structure; e 3. The gross surface area of both faces of a Figure 22.110-2 V-shaped sign; 4. The copy area of a monument sign. D.For irregularly shaped signs,the sign area is SIGH c calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the M-ximurn Height sign by no more than four rectangles.The sum of the area of the rectangles shall be the gross ' 'ij'r'f ht surface area.The maximum allowable area is I I reduced by 10 percent for the second and each • subsequent rectangle used in the calculation, illustrated below. L � 1. Conventional Measurement. Total area=a SIGN I '' times b. tivim+rq I—igM 4 41 Lytx: 1 'age 7 of 9 ^'u' •r Lift Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 2. Sum of Rectangles. Total area=(Area A+ all the requirements of the permit have been met. Area B +Area C+Area D). (Ord. 07- (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). 015 § 4,2007). 22.110.130 Billboards. 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. A.New billboards shall be prohibited;provided, A.All signs shall be maintained in good repair. however,that existing billboards may be The director shall have the authority to revoke replaced at another location with a structure and any permit for signs that are tattered,torn,faded copy area of equal or smaller size in mixed use or otherwise in disrepair, and may require the and nonresidential zoning districts except(NC) removal of flags,pennants and streamers which Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts as are torn,discolored or in disrepair. follows: B.All signage shall be maintained by the 1. Replacement billboards shall not business owner,or person in possession of the exceed the height limit in the property on which the sign is located. underlying zoning district,with a Maintenance shall be such that the signage maximum height limit of 50 feet in any continues to conform to the conditions imposed zone; by the sign permit. 2.No replacement billboard shall C. Any damaged sign structure shall be repaired exceed 672 square feet in copy area; within 30 days of notice. 3.Any replacement billboard may not D.Any signage which has been damaged to such be placed less than five feet from the extent that it may pose a hazard to passersby property line.No portion of the sign shall be repaired or removed within 48 hours of shall extend beyond the property line; notice. 4.No billboard may be located within E.Any abandoned sign shall be removed by and 1,000 feet of another billboard on the at the expense of the property owner within 60 same side of the street.Any days of notice. replacement billboard shall be offset from any billboard on the opposite side F. Any abandoned sign support structure shall be of the street by not less than 250 feet. removed within 36 months by the owner or Offset distance shall be measured from lessee of the premises upon which the sign is a point perpendicular to and along the located. (Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). alignment of the roadway; 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. 5. The owner of the billboard shall file Any permanent sign made nonconforming as a a complete inventory of all billboards result of the adoption of these regulations may located within the City,including date be repaired,but not structurally altered or made erected,height, size and location; more nonconforming in any way. If the sign is removed in order to make repairs,it shall be 6. Issuance of a permit for billboard replaced within 60 days,or any nonconforming replacement shall be accompanied by a rights are terminated.Thereafter,the sign shall permit for the destruction or removal of conform to the requirements of this chapter. the billboard to be replaced; and Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, 7.Any billboard that is not replaced any sign or signs for which a temporary permit within 60 months following the has been issued by the City shall be permitted to issuance of a demolition/removal remain at the location or locations authorized by permit shall not be replaced. the permit for as long as the permit is valid and Page 8 of 9 Planning Commission Findings of Fact—February 23,2012 CTA 06-11 B. Replacement billboards shall not be permitted along designated aesthetic corridors. (Ord. 07- 015 § 4,2007). Page 9 of 9 on ProSugn Inc. SALES - SERVICE - INSTALLATION January 24,2012 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re:Sign Code Recommendations To Whom It May Concern: Below I have listed my recommended changes to the current sign code presently under review. FREESTANDING SIGNS 1) Allow at least 1 per street frontage. Use the word "street" instead of"arterial", 2) For multi-business complexes, allow additional signs. 3) Require that the signs must be spaced at least 250' apart on each street frontage. THE REQUIREMENT OF A STAMPED, ENGINEERED DRAWING FOR FREESTANDING AND MONUMENT SIGNS This is presently required to permit any sign structure over 6' tall from grade. These costs the businesses in Spokane Valley an average of$300.00 per sign permit for every pole sign that their counterparts in the City of Spokane don't have to pay. The City of Spokane requires a stamped, engineered drawing if the sign is over 30' in height or exceeds 100 square feet. I would suggest we adopt the same standard. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 927-3925. I am happy to be of service to you and to the City of Spokane Valley! Respectfully, PRO SIGN,INC. ....011 n7 ail t tvi / dr di Steve Wineinger President WASHINGTON • IDAHO • MONTANA • OREGON 10021 E.KNOX SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99206 PHONE(509)927-3925 FAX(509)927-9655 Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.110.040 Table 22.110.1—Location,Height and Copy Area Requirements Maximum r. • Land Use i Zoning District T. Additional Provisions• I a w a dl ) BC O k 4 ° 'a oki Z . k U U 4 -in Attached Wall Signs Institutional Residential Zones * * * n/a n/a n/a Y *25% of wall area Single Business Residential Zones 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a nia Y All Mixed Use and *25%of wall area per * Nonresidential Nonresidential n/a n/a n/a n/a Y building Zones Freestanding Signs Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1* 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Complex/Institutional Single Business Neighborhood 1 20 100 nla n/a 5 Y Multi-business Business (NC) *Per arterial street Complex Zones 1' 20 n/a 100 n/a 5 Y frontage Single Business Mixed Use and 1* 30 n/a 100 200 5 Y1> e, OILS 411191445 Multi-business Nonresidential it° Complex Zones(except NC) 1* 40 250 nla nla 5 Y a*.l1 Nonresidential All Nonresidential Freeway* Zones 1 50 250 nla n/a 5 Y *Adjacent to 1-90 only 111 Monument Signs Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Complex/Institutional *Per arterial street Single Business Neighborhood 1' 7 75 n/a n/a 5 Y frontage Multi-business Business (NC) Complex Zones 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Single Business All Mixed Use and 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Multi-business Nonresidential 2* 7 150 n/a n/a 5 Y *per street frontage Complex Zones Other Signs Directional All Zones n/a n/a n/a 5 n/a n/a N Name Plates All Zones 1 n/a 4 5 n/a n/a N 2241 (FievEsed 12/07) ProSignInc. SALES - SERVICE - INSTALLATION February 9, 2012 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707E Sprague Ave.,Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re:Sign code Recommendations To Whom It May Concern: Below I have listed my recommended changes to the current sign code presently under review. FREESTANDING SIGNS 1) Allow at least 1 per street frontage. Use the word "street" instead of"arterial". 2) For multi-business complexes, allow additional signs as follows. A) 1 freestanding per 250' frontage B) and 1 additional sign for each additional 200' of frontage or fraction thereof. THE REQUIREMENT OF A STAMPED, ENGINEERED DRAINING FOR FREESTANDING AND MONUMENT SIGNS This is presently required to permit any sign structure over 6' tall from grade. These costs the businesses in Spokane Valley an average of$300.00 per sign permit for every pole sign that their counterparts in the City of Spokane don't have to pay. The City of Spokane requires a stamped, engineered drawing if the sign is over 30' in height or exceeds 100 square feet. I would suggest we adopt the same standard. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to call me at 927-3925. I am happy to be of service to you and to the City of Spokane Valley! Respectfully, PRO SIGN,INC. Steve Wineinger President WASHINGTON • IDAHO • MONTANA • OREGON 10021 E.KNOX SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99206 PHONE(509)927-3925 FAX(509)927-4685 January 12, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes New Business: Study Session CTA-06-11 proposed amendments to title 22.110, Sign Regulations Senior Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation regarding proposed amendments to Title 22.110 sign regulations. Ms. Barlow explained during a presentation to City Council regarding the sign regulations, the City Council had questions and requested that staff make some comparisons to surrounding jurisdictions and requested some changes be made to the current regulations. Ms. Barlow discussed the items in the current code that will be addressed in the proposed upcoming amendment. • allow A-frame signs • modify the requirements for temporary signs • increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials • Clarify that churches are allowed signage in any zone • allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and • require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability A-frame signs.: Currently the code prohibits A-frame signs. Businesses have expressed the desire to have them back. Ms Barlow stated that A-fame signs will be allowed with the amendment, max. size would be nine sf., no higher than three feet, cannot be located farther than 12 feet from the business entrance, can only be used during business hours, be well maintained, one sign per business and real estate signs would be limited to five sf. Ms. Barlow stated that these signs had been regulated previously to reduce the clutter along the roadways. She also mentioned the current proposal is for the business not to move the sign more than 12 feet from the business entrance, and that there could be some concern regarding this point. Free Standing signs: Currently each business is allowed one free standing sign per street frontage. Council would like to create standard based on frontage. The proposed amendment would change to allow one freestanding sign for each 500 feet of lineal frontage, all other requirements stay the same. Other jurisdictions have similar requirements - the City of Spokane; 300 feet, Spokane County; 500 feet. Ms Barlow stated that staff felt that Spokane Valley is suburban and more conservative, therefore felt the 500 foot decision. Commissioner Bates wanted to know if the size of the sign was regulated. Ms. Barlow responded yes, but the City was not aware of issues based on the size of the sign. Commissioner Carroll asked if there would be an inequity between shallow lots and deep lots and did any jurisdictions using total square footage of lot instead of frontage. Most jurisdictions have standards for spacing of the signs. Commissioner Stoy asked if signs had setbacks, the response is yes, but not the same as building setbacks. Commissioner Stoy stated he felt this could lead to clutter. 1 Wall signs on multi-family complexes: Currently the City did not have allowance for multi-family complexes to have a wall sign to state the name of complex on wall. This amendment would allow such a sign for them. Dimming requirements of electronic signs: Ms Barlow stated this was common concern for electronic signs to require dimming capability. The proposed language would require all new electronic signs to automatically adjust based on ambient light. Signs for churches in residential zones: Ms. Barlow informed the Commissioners that currently churches are only allowed an monument or pole sign if on an arterial. The proposed language would allow a monument sign in any zone. Ms Barlow said that changing this regulation would allow monument signs to be allowed in all zones, regardless of the business, not just churches.. Commissioner Stoy asked a question regarding probable reader boards, which Ms. Barlow stated are still prohibited. Temporary signs — Currently Ms. Barlow said, temporary signs are allowed with a permit only twice a year for 30 days. The proposed amendment would allow a single temp sign whenever a business would like. The sign could not be bigger than 20 sf, and must be well maintained. The amendment would also allow additional signage twice a year, for up to 30 days, for a fee. The questions Commissioners posed after Ms. Barlow's presentation why would it be a concern if A-frame signs were limited to 12-feet from business entrance. Mr. Kuhta gave an example of a business in strip mall that might need to have the sign farther from the door.. Commissioner Carroll wondered if the dimensions of signage material should be taken into account when basing the sign sizes. Commissioner Bates wondered if staff knew how many illegal temporary signs we in the City and confirmed that the City is complaint driven in regard to enforcement. January 26, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Hearing for CTA-06-11, Proposed amendments to Title 22.110 Sign Code Senior Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendments to the sign regulations in Title 22.110. • Allow A-frame signs -A-frame signs are not allowed in the current code since they are categorized as a portable sign. Jurisdictions typically regulate the size of the sign, and number of the signs allowed, location for display, display hours, and spacing. Size limits generally range from 6 — 9 sq. ft. per side, while location is typically linked to distance from business entrance combined with controls to maintain adequate pedestrian areas. Spacing requirements prevent closely situated signs from lining the public sidewalk. This can occur when each tenant within a strip mall displays a sign in front of their store front. 2 The proposed language allows each business the opportunity to display an unlighted a-frame sign on-site,up to nine (9) sq. ft. on each side, within 12' of the business entrance, and during business hours only. As written, the regulation would keep the signs close to the business and prevent signage from being displayed off-site. Additionally, a-frame signs would be allowed to be used for open house/directional signage with a limit of five (5) square feet. • Change the requirement to allow more than one free standing sign per street frontage The review indicated that Spokane County and Spokane increase the signage allowance for large sites in commercial and/or industrial zones. Spokane Valley's only additional sign allowance is provided to lots with more than one frontage. For example, corner lots may have two free standing signs if both street frontages are arterials. The additional sign on the second street frontage (corner lot) grants appropriate sign visibility for its passing traffic on both streets. Allowing additional freestanding signs on large lots insure that large single development sites are generally afforded the same number of signs as multiple smaller sites. This provision maintains sign equity between the larger and smaller sites. The proposed language allows additional free standing signs at a ratio of 1 sign per 500 feet of lineal frontage. • Allow a wall sign for multi-family complexes. The current code does not allow multi-family buildings, or apartments, to display wall signage. Multi- family development is allowed monument or freestanding signs. The review indicated that the other jurisdictions provide a small allowance for wall signs ranging from 10 —20 sq. ft.. The proposed language would allow each multi- family building a wall sign up to 20 sq. ft. without modifying the other applicable signage requirements. • A requirement for electronic signs would require them to automatically dim based on the ambient light. Dimming requirements for electronic signs are accomplished by requiring the sign to have automatic dimming capability. This device adjusts the brightness of the sign to the ambient light. The brightness of the sign is a common concern and often a code requirement. Currently the City of Spokane requires verification that the dimming device is installed, while Spokane County allows staff to place additional conditions on the permit that protect adjacent property, that include lighting and location issues. Liberty Lake does not allow electronic message centers. • Church signs in residential zones. Churches are routinely classified as institutional uses, and therefore the current code would allow churches in residential zones to have wall signs, and 10' high pole signs and monument signs if the site was adjacent to an arterial. The issue is that churches and other institutional uses often locate in residential zones, as well as commercial sites not adjacent to arterials since they are not dependent on visibility to operate. Churches, schools, hospitals, and government offices are examples of typical institutional uses. Each of these uses may have a 3 need for signage other than wall signage. Language is proposed that identifies what uses are considered institutional uses in order to clarify that churches are allowed signage consistent with the intent of the code. It is also proposed to allow monument signs in any location, not limited to sites adjacent to an arterial. While the issue was originally thought to be specific to churches, the change as proposed affects all businesses, subdivisions, institutional uses, etc., not just churches, and allows monument signs on any site with street frontage. Small scale monument signs are generally compatible with residential areas and well suited for use along streets with lower speed limits. The current height limits in the SVMC associated with monument signs typically result in monument signs being used as identification signs, rather than electronic message centers utilized for advertising. The signs are generally unobtrusive and compatible with residential and mixed use commercial settings. • Changing the requirements for Temporary signs. Generally all communities regulate signs for special events — whether these signs are related to commercial enterprises (grant opening, sales, etc.) or institutional (places of worship, schools, non-profits) festivals, etc. The regulations generally include: the number of days the signs can be displayed; the number and type of advertising devices (signs, banners, balloons, etc.) that can be displayed; and their location on the property. This was consistent with all jurisdictions reviewed except for Spokane Valley, which did not stipulate number or size of temporary signs allowed. Currently the city classifies temporary signs into the following three categories: banners; pennants, flags, and streamers; and special event signage. All three categories require a temporary sign permit with a fee, have varying display periods ranging from 7 to 60 days, but do not stipulate the number or area of temporary signs allowed to be displayed. The separate categories, with differing regulations, were confusing to the business owners, and the fee associated with the temporary sign permit was determined by the Council to be "cost prohibitive" to small business owners. Discussions with the Council highlighted conflicting concerns regarding temporary signs. o The first being the cost associated with the temporary sign permit; o second, if the permit was eliminated how display times could be enforced. o Also, since temporary signage is not intended for long term display and is subject to fading, fraying, ripping, or otherwise showing significant wear and tear, a concern was noted that unmaintained signs would be indefinitely displayed. The regulations proposed allow a single temporary sign, up to 20 sq. ft. to be displayed, so long as it is in good condition. Additional signage could be displayed for a maximum of 30 days, twice per year, if a temporary sign permit is obtained. This allows flexibility for business to display a single temporary sign at their discretion indefinitely, while still providing 4 additional allowance for special events. Confining unlimited temporary signage to a defined 30 day period balances the business owners need for occasional extra signage and keeps the visual clutter of signage in check to protect the area's aesthetics.+ Ms. Barlow stated that at the study session the Commissioners had questions regarding the amount of revenue that temporary signs generated. Ms Barlow stated that staff had responded in an email earlier that temporary signs could not be broken out however that in 2011 signs total generated less than $9,000. The other question the Commissioners had raised was standard sizes for signs. Ms Barlow stated she reviewed two kinds of signs. A-frame signs and banners. She said that generally A-frame signs are two feet (2) by three feet (3) plus the handle on top, which when opened would stand shorter than the three foot limitation. Banner fabric generally can be made in any size requested however the most requested size of a banner seemed to be three feet (3) by six feet(6) and four (4) feet by ten (10) feet. Chairman Bates asked if the Commissioners had any other questions for staff. There were none. Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Commissioner Stoy read the rules for a public hearing. Steve Wineinger, 10021 E Knox, ProSign: Mr. Wineinger stated he was in favor of the proposed amendments except he felt the he would like to propose some verbiage changes to the amendment for free standing signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like the Commissioner to propose replacing the word arterial with the word street, in relation to the allowance for freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he did not feel it was equable to have freestanding signs restricted to arterials. Mr. Wineinger also proposed to add a spacing requirement of 250 ft or more apart for more than one sign freestanding on large lots. Mr. Wineinger also stated he felt there should be an allowance for extra signage for more than one business on one lot. He stated that he felt they should be allowed so each sign can be same size and height,but they have to be 250 feet apart. Mr. Wineinger stated the other item he would like to address is any sign higher than six (6) feet in height must have engineered drawings. He stated that in the City of Spokane only requires required engineering when the sign is over 30 ft in height or 100 square feet in size. Mr. Wineinger stated he feels the City of Spokane Valley should also adopt this requirement. Mr. Wineinger stated he felts the dimming requirement for electronic signs are very important. David Hazard, 13218 E 10th: Mr. Hazard stated he was the owner of Copy Cat Printers. Mr Hazard stated he felt the reason he sees empty buildings on Sprague, is due to restrictions placed on small businesses. Mr Hazard stated he felt that after incorporation the adopted new sign code caused lost customers because it did not allowed off premise signs. Mr Hazard stated he was not in favor of more restrictions. Mr. Hazard stated that signs allow businesses to communicate with the public. Mr. Hazard stated that the Commissioners need to realize small business is important to our small city. 5 Shannon Wortman. 2304 N Dollar Rd: Ms. Wortman stated she worked for Ferguson: She shared she was attending the public hearing in order to get a directional signage to their business. Ms. Wortman stated it is difficult for people to find their business, which is off Trent and they need a sign to point people to their business. She stated that billboards are expensive. Ms Wortman stated she had had a sign on the corner of Dollar and Trent, however do to current regulations off premise signs are not allowed and they were required to take it down. She stated that after they were required to take it down, the traffic flow in their show room dropped of drastically. Commissioner Higgins made a statement regarding his concern about the fact that there is not enough people here to comment on this subject, and inquired of the public participants what they thought should be done to increase participation? Steve Wineinger —returned to the podium. He stated that he understood a mailing had gong e out to list of competitors. He stated that some people feel like people feel what they say will fall deaf ears. Mr Wineinger said he felt direct mail would be best. Commissioners had a conversation with Mr. Wineinger about sign companies. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Wineinger what his opinion was of current sign code. Mr. Wineinger stated that on a 10 scale, he felt it was about an 8.5. Ms Barlow respond to Commissioners Higgins comment about how the City distributed notices regarding the public hearing, City staff published a notice in newspaper, the department emailed to its contact list of approx. 800 contacts, did a direct mail letter to the sign companies who had obtained business licenses, and anyone who had done business, in the City. Ms. Barlow stated staff did the best effort to get information to out to people. Ms. Barlow said she would like to specifically address a couple of comments made which were made. Ms Barlow said it seemed there was a misunderstanding regarding the temporary signs. The time limit for displaying a temporary sign and the requirement that a sign could only be 12 feet from the business entrance is only based on A-fame signs. Ms. Barlow stated the City had many businesses which were not on an arterial. She stated the free standing signs regulations only apply to arterial frontage. Other signs are allowed on other streets when the business is not allowed a pole sign. Ms Barlow warned the Commissioners care should be given when allowing off premise signage. She stated she recognized the need for some businesses to need off premise signage, however when allowing off-premise signage the most popular corners can become congested, and then it becomes an issue as to how to control the clutter in order to maintain an attractive community. Ms. Barlow explained each amendment proposed and how each amendment would affect the sign code. A-frame signs — Currently A-frame signs are not allowed. The proposed amendment would allow business one A-frame sign which could not be taller than three (3) feet, the copy area cannot be larger than nine (9) sf, 6 Commissioner Higgins stated he was not trying to be critical of staffs efforts to try and contact people. Commissioner Neill asked why monument and wall signs were allowed on streets but pole signs were restricted to arterials. Sr. Planner Barlow related the scale of the sign relates to the zoning district, it is in order to keep it in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. Director Hohman stated the City Council had requested staff to some specific items to look some specific items in the code. Mr. Hohman stated off-premise signs could to be an issue for staff to review at a later time. He told the Commissioners about a program staff have been working on the regarding the `blue signs' on Appleway. He also shared that he thought a program of wayfaring signs would work as well for the off-premise signs, however it would take more work than the time for these amendments would allow and pertain to the whole City. Mr. Hohman said these sign code amendments will be part of fixing the vitality of the corridor. Mr. Hohman explained to the Commission the options which were available to them regarding these amendments and the process moving them forward. Commissioners took a break at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners reconvened at 7:33 p.m. Bates asking about allowances Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Wineinger for suggestions regarding couple issues, how to accommodate off premise signs and get the businesses what they need. Steve Wineinger: Mr. Wineinger stated he felt that directional signage could be a possible solution. He said allow a sign that is only six to eight sf, in copy area and not taller than six ft in height. He also stated that a business could also be allowed an off-premise sign, if they were allowed to put a sign on an existing pole sign, on another property, as long as did not exceed the square footage allowance of the sign at that location. He also restated that if the word arterial was replaced with street then she (Ms Wortman)would be allowed a pole sign at her location. David Hazard: Mr. Hazard returned to the podium and stated what an awful problem it would be if every building had a sign stating that they were open for business. There was discussion regarding directional signs between the Commissioners and staff regarding zoning, directional signs, options found in other jurisdictions as options for alternatives for the off premise signs. Mr Hohman asked the Commissioners what more information did they want staff to provide to them regarding the current amendments. It was requested to have more information regarding off-premise signs and the wayfaring signs. Mr. Hohman stated the Commissioners it would require staff to do some research to provide that information. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission City Council had made the request for the specific six amendments and to do the extra research could possibly delay the current amendments. Mr. Hohman stated that staff could return later with the information regarding the off-premise signs and wayfaring signs for a more in- depth discussion. Commissioners asked if the amendments could be passed with the information before them currently, could the current amendments be modified slightly and then moved forward. Staff responded yes to both questions. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 9, 2012. This motion was passed unanimously. February 9, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Unfinished Business: continued public hearing CTA-06-11, proposed amendments to Title 221.10 Sign Regulations. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow gave a short presentation regarding updates on the sign code and answer questions regarding the issues the Commissioners had brought up at the last meeting. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners of the issues which were being proposed for amendment: • Allow A-frame signs • Modify the requirements for temporary signs • Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials • Clarify that churches are institutional uses and allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage • Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and • Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability At the public hearing Ms. Barlow stated that the following items were brought up as requests to either modify the proposed amendments or proposed additional changes to the sign regulations as follows: • Allow off-premise signs • Allow free standing signs on all streets not just arterials • Allow additional free standing signs for multi-business complexes • Require a 250' minimum spacing for free-standing signs • Only require stamped engineered drawings for signs over 30' tall or 100 sf Ms. Barlow stated she had check with the City's Acting Building Official stated the requirement for drawings for signs over seven feet appears to have been an administrative determination by a previous Building Official (Tom Sholtens), however he was still looking for a actual building code reference. Mr. Powell stated (in his email) he will be discussing this issue with the regional Building Officials to see if they are aware of the requirement. Ms. Barlow stated she has also received a request for multi-business complexes to be able to have one sign for 250 ft of frontage and one for every additional 200 ft of frontage or fraction thereof. Ms. Barlow explained staff have proposed a new clause for off-premise directional signs related to the request pertaining to testimony received at the previous meeting. 8 Staff is proposing that the City allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building sign. These off-premise signs would only be allowed for uses located in commercial, office or mixed use zones, text would be limited to business name, logo and directional information. Ms Barlow stated that the request for additional signage for multi-business complexes was looked at however she explained the current additional allowances for multi-business and stated that at this time staff felt no change was needed. Ms Barlow then addressed the request to change the requirement for freestanding signs from being on an arterial to being on a street. Ms. Barlow discussed the link to free standing signs to from arterials to streets. She stated that in the memo provided, it explained the considerations were size and height to get the message across,what types of signs were compatible with the surrounding uses. Ms. Barlow stated cities use zoning for to make transitions in uses. She pointed out if the word arterial is removed and changed to street, then pole signs would be abutting to residential districts. It is staff's suggestion to leave the arterial frontage, this will help protect the residential uses. However, Ms. Barlow said that the code could be modified to say one per street front in commercial and industrial zoned but one per arterial frontage in office and mixed use zones. Based on the previous meeting's input and Commission questions staff currently recommends the following changes to Chapter. 22.110 to: o Allow on premise A-frame signs for business o Allow A-frame signs for real estate purposes o Modify the requirements for temporary signs o Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials o Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage o Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and o Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability Steve Wineinger, ProSign 10021 E Knox: Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to address each of the following items: Off-premise signs — Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose making the signs 15 sf instead of 6 sf. Mr. Wineinger stated that if the sign must piggy back an existing sign, then it should be allowed to match what is already there. He also said if there is not an existing sign to piggy back onto, then the business must build a monument sign. He shared the issue with most monument signs in order to be able to be seen in all weather, must stand a with a height of two and one half to three feet off ground. He stated that this would be a four foot by four foot square, no less. Aesthetically a monument sign better, if there is no sign existing to attach the 9 directional sign to. Mr. Wineinger said that the provision to remove the sign if the business left should not be included, because if a new business were to relocate there they would need the sign. Mr. Wineinger said that he felt it would be to excessive to have to do, the new sign would have bottom billing, and it would require dismantling the whole structure in order to remove the part that was added. He also felt it added enforcement issues. Mr. Wineinger said he thought that businesses with an interior lot or lots that fronted two streets would require Mr. Wineinger said that he would like to address spacing of freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose one freestanding sign for every 250 feet and one freestanding sign for each additional 200 feet or fraction thereafter. Mr. Wineinger stated several instances where he felt that additional freestanding signs would be more applicable to the properties based on this new footage standard he is suggesting, HiCo, Opportunity Plaza, OZ Fitness. Mr. Wineinger stated he was not proposing a spacing requirement between the signs, which he stated could have unintended consequences. Mr. Wineinger said he wanted to proposed that freestanding signs be allowed not just on arterials but also on streets. He used the Franz Bakery thrift store being on a street and not being able to get a freestanding sign in order to be seen. Mr. Wineinger also mentioned the issue of fronting on two streets. Mr. Wineinger said he felt business should be allowed to have a freestanding sign on a street in a residential area. He said if the business has a restrictive zone across the street make it restrictive to only allow monument in that case. Commissioners asked what is the science for the size of sign? Mr Wineinger stated that at 30-35 mph a sign which has letters that would be readable need to be approximately would be seven inches high. If it was a reader board signs the letters need to be about eight inches tall, most enter signs are five to six inches. Shannon Wertman. 2304 N Dollar Rd: Ms. Wertman stated she would just like to thank the Commission for listening to and considering the needs of our business. David Hazzard, 13218 E 10th: Mr. Hazzard stated he felt that a very restrictive sign ordinance is what lead to so many empty buildings. Thought process have to control signs, mess up the beauty of the city. Mr. Hazzard said he felt businesses should be allowed to have all the signs they want as long as they are not in the street, on the sidewalk, and do not pose a safety hazard. Mr. Hazzard said would it be so bad if there were signs all over the place, he it would mean all the buildings would have businesses in them. Mr Hazzard stated he felt that we should get the business first, be successful first. Seeing no one else that wished to testify, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-06-11, amendments to Title 22.110 to the City Council. The following is discussion of the amendment. Commissioner Stoy complemented staff on the excellent job in preparing and explaining the amendments. Commissioners noted that an A-frame was allowed to be nine square feet but a directional sign was limited to six square feet. Commissioners felt maybe 12 square feet for a directional sign might be more 10 appropriate. They discussed A-frame signs being within 12 feet of the business entrance. Stating there would only be four or five businesses which would benefit with the sign at this location. Commissioners discussed allowing A-frame signs behind the sidewalk. A consideration would be the sidewalk is backed by swales, how would the signs be seen. Suggestion was that they could sit on the edge of the swale,behind the landscaping strip but not in parking stall. Commissioner Neill stated he appreciated the proposed additional language for the off-premise signs but he had read the information from Mr. Wineinger and would like to take that into account as well. Commissioner Sands stated she had listened to the recording of the previous meeting and had and issue with changing requirement for freestanding signs from arterials to streets. She stated she would not want signs backing up to where she lived. Commissioner said maybe they should be addressed on a case by case basis, like Franz Bakery. Commissioner Bates said the Commissioners must weigh among themselves what everyone has to say, but that the relaxation of sign codes is important. He felt that public input to add more signs was good, however the problem with more signs is where does clutter stop? Mr Bates said he would like to relax the regulations however many temporary signs had been up for long time and showed wear. A 30- 60 day temporary permit would allow business tell us what they want. It is our responsibility to represent citizens as well as businesses. Mr. Bates said that businesses want to run their business the way they see fit, spend the money they want to. Within reason, we must try and balance the two issues. Commissioner Hall stated he had an issue with the requirement that a business had to provide proof of the need for the directional sign. His suggestion was assure no one was located on an arterial. Commissioners asked if adding to an existing sign, would staff allow the existing sign to grow. Yes, but not beyond the sign allowance. Discussion involved the difficulty of removing a sign after business close. It would be easy to remove the text only, and it was believed there is a provision in the code now which requires the business to turn the sign around. Commissioners did mention the location of business is a business choice, choosing not to pay higher rent on a site off an arterial is part of that choice. Businesses off an arterial are allowed signage,just like any other business, but the regulations do not allow another sign just because the business chooses not to pay a premium rent. The Commissioners felt if there was a sign available to co-located on, the additional sign should be proportional to the existing structure. Commissioners again discussed that an A-frame sign is not reasonable at located at only 12 feet from the business entrance, it should not block the sidewalk and should allow name and logo. Commission took a break at 7:32, they returned at 7:41 The Commission agreed that they would like to amend the proposed amendment to the sign code. They agreed to discuss each subject and make a determination if they would like to change each issue or leave it as staff has proposed. • Wall signs for Multi-family complexes, leave as is, no change 11 • Free standing signs based on lot frontage, one per every 500 ft. of frontage and every fraction of, is the staff recommendation. — Commissioners agreed to modify it to one freestanding sign for every 300 feet of frontage and fraction thereof in a commercial and industrial zones per street frontage and one freestanding sign for each 500 feet and fraction thereof in Mixed Use and Office zones per arterial frontage. - • Monument signs on street frontages—this is agreed as presented. • Temporary signs, Can have one at any time wanted, as long as maintained. Mr Bates has an issue with temporary signs for extra events and then must be removed at the end of the sale, he feels this needs to go away. Commissioner Neill agreed, stating it is on a business owners property they should get to put up whatever they want to. Commissioner Neill handed out written proposed language for the temporary signs. There was discussion of the proposed language. Commissioner Higgins confirmed the sign regulations are only enforced by complaints. Discussion turned to changing the size of the square footage of the signs. At first commissioners wanted to increase the number of signs and increase the square footage. Talk about the change of the size of the signs to make them more viable, change requested is to 32 square feet. Commissioners talked about the need to eliminate the permit for temp signs, however they also felt the control and enforcement would be more difficult without it. Should a special permit be allowed more than two extra times a year, special events, holidays, but they worked out that this would be adequate when combined with the free sign they can have all the time. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to extend the meeting to 9:30. Motion is seconded and vote is seven in favor, zero against. Motion passes. • A-fame signs — Commissioner expressed a concern to not block a clearview triangle but it was already in the proposed language. Commissioners wanted to delete the first sentence. Remove the language that says signs may be located no further than 12 feet from the entrance to the business. • Real estate signs—fine to go as written • Electronic signs — dimming capability. Must have one- required. This is a smart requirement. • Newly proposed off-premise directional signage — After discussion Commissioners reviewed the language, Commissioners would like the language added to the current proposed amendment with the following changes add a provision that if the business is on more than one arterial could have more than one directional sign. Removed the requirement to have to prove the need to have to have the sign. Increase the square footage to 15 square feet. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to amendment the language of the motion to reflect the following changes; 12 1. Change the freestanding sign requirement to allow one freestanding sign for every 300 feet and one for every fraction thereof in commercial and industrial zones per- street frontage and one sign for each 500 feet and one for every fraction thereof in mixed use and office zones per arterial frontage. 2. Increase the temporary sign square footage to 32 sf, 3. Remove the requirement that A-fame signs be restricted it to within 12 feet of the business entrance. 4. Add the proposed language to allow off-premise signs as was presented by staff removing the need to prove the necessity for the sign and change the size to 15 sf. Vote on the amendment was 7-0. The Chairman Bates called for the vote on the amended motion. Vote was 7-0. February 23, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Unfinished Business: CTA-06-11, Proposed amendment to Chapter 22.110 Sign Regulations: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta said after approving the proposed amendments to Chapter 22.110, sign regulations at the Feb. 9 meeting, he was presenting the findings of the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Stoy mad a motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation and forward them to the City Council. Vote on this motion was 7 in favor, 0 against. i_\,)(LL 4__/1L17)(2_,) 214 ZZ. CI Deanna Griffith, Planning Commission Secretary 13 1 File # CTA 06 - 1 1 City Council Administrative Report March 27th , 2012 Text Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapt. 22.110 GTYHAI I.f;,�.,;, r, ian Department of Community Development Planning Division Description of the Code Text Amendment Amend Sign Regulations Chap. 22. 1 10 to: Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage Allow limited off-premise directional signs Modify the requirements for temporary signs Allow on premise A-frame signs for business and real estate purposes; and Require electronic signs to have automatic dimming capability o Department of Community Development Planning Division 3 Wall Signs on Multi - Family Buildings I A Issue Li Multi-family buildings are not allowed wall signage Intent ❑ Allow buildings to display Apt. Complex Names ❑ Provide limited area that is compatible with residential areas ❑ Standards proposed: 1 wall sign per building 20 sq. ft. maximum area Livingston Ranch Estates. Barkey Ranch Newly Developed Residential Communities Livingston Ranch Pr- cirrH,aiLCa;�srr':.c,, r r[, Department of Community Development Planning Division Free Standing Signs 4 Issue Intent ❑ Large commercial and industrial lots are limited to 1 freestanding sign per arterial street frontage per site Increase the number of signs allowed for sites with considerable frontage Provide sign equity between smaller and larger lots by allowing signage at a ratio Maintain compatible signage standards in areas with mixed use and buffer zones I- Standards proposed: 1 sign per ea 500' and ea fraction thereof arterial frontage in Mixed Use and Office Zones 1 sign per ea 300' and ea fraction thereof street frontage in Commercial and Industrial Zones Height limits and area remain unchanged Barkley Ranch Estates La Quinta CITYHAI I f,." Siiaana Department of Community Development .0•00Y41, Planning Division MI Current Regulations Free standing Sign Allowance 0 0 13 0 arTeS 17:17- rlW o4 5, "ti ja e 1 41] Prod Regulations GTYHAI C[1 cF 4.0.1°valtiminim Department of Community Development Planning Division Aerial with Zoning and Land Use (0 and Go) Office zones abut arterial ❑ Transition to residential uses GTYHAI SikOkan Department of Community Development Planning Division Aerial with Zoning and Land Use (MUC Zone) SP:?IKI NE VALLEY Mix of Commercial, Light industrial and residential uses MUC Zone used liberally in areas along Trent r�,�ian Department of Community Development ., ,' l. a Planning Division 8 Signage for Churches in Residential Zones Issue Intent Current code allows wall signs for churches (Institutional Uses) in all zones L I Monument signs only allowed if site abuts arterial (includes subdivision names and apt's) ❑ Business signage limited in NC Zones ❑ Allow monument signs for institutional and commercial uses along all street frontages 11 No changes proposed to other sign allowances for churches or institutional uses ❑ No change proposed for monument signs height or size maximums o Department of Community Development Planning Division 9 Off- premise Directional Signage Issue ❑ Current code prohibits off- premise signs u Business located off of arterials need to direct customers u Off premise signage can lead to sign clutter Intent ❑ Allow the limited placement of off- premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building wall *wane Department of Community Development Planning Division 10 Off - premise Directional Sicina qe S T A N D A R D S Business Criteria: Be located on a private easement or access street; must be located in a commercial, office or mixed zone ▪ Sign Text limited to business name, logo, a directional arrow or language i.e "next right"; n Sign must be located on nearest collector or arterial. D Sign area 15 sq. ft. max. Sign must be removed w/in 60 days if business closes D Vacant sites allowed a sign that meets standards cirYHA!lr,s,.r..., ,r• *wane Department of Community Development ., ,' le Planning Division 11 Temporary Signs I Intent Current Regulations are confusing / Time Frames are inadequate Fees are too costly /Business desires more flexibility to utilize temporary signage r Allow a single temporary sign to be displayed at will without a fee or permit subject to limits: 32 sq. ft. maximum Maintained in good condition — no tears, fraying, otherwise obvious degrading condition Allow additional temporary signage to be displayed for up to 30 days twice/year with a fee — no limits on number of signs or sign area. Allows flexibility for business owner and controls visual clutter of commercial corridors. Does not decrease the amount of temporary signage allowed irvH„i lr,s,.r..., r• r�,�i ane Department of Community Development Planning Division 12 T�ry� Examples GRAND OPENING! OPEN E. T. ,,day NOVernber 15th 11arn - 3pm cirvH„ lr,s,.r..., r• r�,�ian Department of Community Development Planning Division 13 A frame Signs I Issue ❑ A-frame signs are prohibited LJ Allow A-frame signs to be used for business and real estate purposes Standards proposed 3' height max/9 sq. ft. Area (per side) Allowed during business hours only Must be well-maintained with permanent lettering and business logo One sign per business; or Real Estate — Open House One sign per access street Limited to 5 sq. ft. cirvH„i r• r�,�ian Department of Community Development Planning Division 14 Electronic Sign — Dimming Requirements Issue ❑ Current code does not regulate the brightness of electronic signs Intent ❑ Regulate the brightness as it relates to ambient lighting • Require that all Electronic Signs have "Automatic Dimming Capability" ❑ No other changes proposed to electronic sign requirements Lino MGCormkk 501,462131:16 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of March 22,2012; 11:30 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 April 3,2012 (CONFIRMED no meeting) Thurs, April 5, 2012, 6:30—8:00 p.m. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Valley Fourth Memorial Church,2303 S.Bowdish Rd 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 Proposed Ordinance 12-012, Special Event Permit—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3.First Reading Ordinance 12-013 Sign Code Amendments—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution 12-002 Adopting Governance Manual—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Sprague Ave Reconstruction Project#0115 —S.Worley (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Potential Sprague Property Concept Plans—Mike Stone (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Potential Sprague Property Purchase—Cary Driskell,Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Crime Prevention,Law Enforcement Update—Deputy Snyder, Chief VanLeuven (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 6:30—8:00 p.m. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Hope Lutheran Church, 17909 E.Broadway Avenue April 17,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 9] 1. Comp Plan Amendments for 2012—Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 2. Revisions to Title 24 Building Code —Doug Powell,John Hohman (20 minutes) 3. Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee—John Hohman (15 minutes) 4. Potential Sprague Property Purchase—Cary Driskell,Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting:90 minutes] Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 6:30 p.m. —8:00 p.m. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Seth Woodard Elementary,7401 E.Mission Avenue CONFIRMED:April 19,2012, 8:30 a.m. —11:30 a.m.Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Council&Mayor Held in Spokane Valley City Council Chambers. Tentative topics include Regional Animal Control, Solid Waste, Transportation Benefit District April 24, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Sign Code Amendments—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan—Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 4.Mayoral Appointments: Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee—Mayor Towey (15 minutes) 5. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 6:30 p.m. —8:00 p.m.Final STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Spokane Valley Mall,2nd Floor Community Room; 14700 E. Indiana Avenue Draft Advance Agenda 3/22/2012 3:12:42 PM Page 1 of 2 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 (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 8, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 30] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Comp Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) May 15, 2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 7] 1. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Goals and Policies—Lori Barlow (30 minutes) 2.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. Proposed Resolution Accepting SMP Goals and Policies—Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4. 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 Tentative Items Include: 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) June 19,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 11] 1.Advance Agenda June 26,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Reports OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Sidewalks Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Speed Limits(overall system) Centennial Trail Agreement Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Contracts,Annual Renewals,histories, etc. Gateway Signs *time for public or council comments not included Graffiti,Code Enforcement,etc. Investment Accounts Manufactured Homes Museum, SV Heritage History Prosecution Services Revenue Policy,Cost Recovery Senior Housing Draft Advance Agenda 3/22/2012 3:12:42 PM Page 2 of 2 MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: March 19, 2012 RE: Monthly Report February 2012 February 2012: February 2011: CAD incidents: 4,241 CAD incidents: 4,054 Reports taken: 1,532 Reports taken: 1,310 Traffic stops: 1,262 Traffic stops: 1,290 Traffic reports: 355 Traffic reports: 278 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing February residential burglaries, stolen vehicles, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend-line graphs for 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 February Crimes By Cities stats report. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief VanLeuven, along with other Valley law enforcement personnel attended the memorial for SCOPE Volunteer, George "Dick" Ott on February 3rd. Dick Ott was a committed volunteer with SCOPE spending tremendous hours working with graffiti issues throughout the City of Spokane Valley as well as his commitment with the SCOPE Incident Response Team (SIRT) which provides traffic control assistance at the scenes of major car accidents, fires, and other incidents. In recent years, he also served as the President of University SCOPE. His family was very thankful for the presence of those from the precinct who attended his memorial service. On February 7th Chief Van Leuven attended the Spokane Valley Council Retreat. On February 13t1i he also attended the Citizen's Advisory Board which is held once a month. On February 24th Chief Van Leuven along with the Sheriff attended the Boys Scouts Leadership Breakfast. On February 29th Chief Van Leuven attended the City Hall at the Mall event which was designed to build connections between community members and the City. Throughout the month of February, Chief Van Leuven met with Valley school's administration offices along with the school resource deputies to make sure we were providing the service that was needed for each school. He also suggested they review and practice their Crisis Response Plan with each Valley School District. Page 1 During the Valley standoff incident on February 15th that originated near the 11900 block of East Broadway, North Pines Jr. High and Broadway Elementary were immediately placed on lockdown. Investigators were advised there was a daycare next to the house where the suspect who was believed to be armed ran in to. Central Valley School District provided a school bus to Valley Officers in order to safely take 39 children from Robyn's Nest Day Care without incident to the Valley Precinct to wait for their parents to take them home. Both the parents and the children were extremely thankful for the safety precautions in evacuating the daycare. One of the little boys mentioned to his mom that he now wants to be a policeman when he grows up. The students made a very large thank you card that they presented to the Valley Precinct. See photos us safe, ,,,,,,,,attached below. �r�'1 For rlee�lnr 9 ,„.., rii,------ii„„,,, , ,.., r r1 f , d _ yf Cr I r Fro, +Ix b rn ' 4111r 111-_ our IFS' , .firt COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of February: ➢ East Valley Baptist Church Seniors—Crime Prevention • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteer Dick Ott Memorial ➢ S.C.O.P.E. Board Retreat ➢ Boy Scouts of America Breakfast ➢ Safe Kids mtg ➢ City Hall at the Mall event ➢ Edgecliff Weed and Seed meeting ➢ CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)meeting ➢ Operation Family ID meeting Page 2 February 2012 Volunteers Hours per station: Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 18 588.50 113.00 701.50 Edgecliff 31 758.00 142.00 900.00 Trentwood 5 243.50 37.50 281.00 University 28 552.00 376.00 928.00 TOTALS 82 2,142.00 668.50 2,810.50 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $60,763.01 for February 2012 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 66 on-scene hours (including travel time) in February responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 29 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total February volunteer hours contributed by SIRT including training, stand-by, response and special events is 3; year-to-date total is 6 hours. The reports show activity of 11 call outs. Training continues on new members, three of which are now in final stages preparatory to certification as a regular SIRT member. Others are also progressing, albeit, slower due to their personal schedules. One new member application was received in February and he will begin training this month. There were 13 reports of juveniles who ran away from their residence in Spokane Valley during the month of February 2012; zero have come back and are settled. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in January totaled 21 and in February 10 with 4 and 4 respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Twelve hulks were processed in January and 9 hulks processed in February. During the month of February, a total of 40 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 0 0 February 5 150 19 0 0 March - - - - _ April - - - - _ May - - - - _ June - - - - _ July - - - - - August - - - - _ September - - - - _ October - - - - _ November - - - - _ December - - - - _ Total 12 270 32 0 0 Page 3 Spokane County #of #of Hrs #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 5 24 6 0 0 February 5 74 0 0 0 March - - - - _ April - - - - _ May - - - - - June - - - - _ July - - - - _ August - - - - - September - - - - -- October - - - - - November - - - - - December - - - - - Total 10 98 6 0 0 6 0,E Rip Ada f ` Spokane Regional Air Support Unit February 2012 Monthly Report Notable incidents: o Responded to assist a unit pursuing a vehicle driven by a suspect with a warrant for assault on law enforcement. Immediately after the flight crew came on scene and turned the spotlight on the suspect vehicle,the driver pulled over and gave up. The same air crew then went directly from there to assist another unit following a rolling stolen vehicle and was the first back up unit on scene. Once the traffic stop was initiated,the helicopter again turned on its spot light and the driver immediately pulled over. The flight crew stopped one pursuit and likely prevented another during that one flight. o Responded to a call of two missing snowmobilers in the Mount Spokane area. The flight crew responded and located the missing people within two minutes, and then directed ground units to their location. o Assisted in the search of a triple homicide suspect,clearing a large search area provided by pinging of what was believed to be the suspect's cell phone. Page 4 OPERATIONS: Spokane Valley Police Department Implementing Aggressive Driving Program— The Spokane Valley Police Department is implementing a new program through their traffic unit which will focus on aggressive drivers in the City of Spokane Valley. ADEP, which stands for Aggressive Driver Enforcement Program,will focus on aggressive drivers in Spokane Valley. Aggressive Driving is defined as the commission of two or more moving violations that is likely to endanger other persons or property, or any single intentional violation that requires a defensive reaction of another driver. Statistics show that in 2011 there were 2,198 reckless driver calls in Spokane Valley. In an effort to reduce these numbers and ensure the safety of the motoring public in Spokane Valley, unmarked non-traditional law enforcement fleet vehicles will be used to focus on this type of driving behavior. The ADEP program is a proactive approach by the Spokane Valley Police Department to educate the public about the dangers of aggressive drivers. Through education and enforcement it is the goal of the department to reduce the number of aggressive drivers in Spokane Valley and ensure the safety of the motoring public. Chief Rick VanLeuven from the Spokane Valley Police Department supports the program and says, "any tool our agency can utilize to prevent serious injury and fatal collisions within our community is imperative. It is the mission of the Spokane Valley Police Department to ensure the motoring public is safe on their roadways and I am confident that we are taking every step possible to ensure their safety." Local Man Arrested in Craigslist Scam - On February 1, 2012, Spokane Valley Property Crimes Detectives arrested 35 yr. old Eric Pittsley of Newman Lake,WA. The investigation started when several victims called in to report being "scammed" by Pittsley. During the investigation, numerous other victims reported similar instances of being swindled out of money by Pittsley. To date,there have been at least seventeen different victims. Some of the reports were from victims who would meet Pittsley and were told he was an auto repo man who could get various makes and models of vehicles. He would offer a vehicle for sale at an unbelievably low price. The victim would pay Pittsley a deposit for the vehicle and an agreement was made for delivery. Delivery would never happen and the victim(s) would be out approximately $500. Numerous other victims were scammed when they responded to a Craigslist ad that Pittsley had posted regarding homes for rent or homes he was offering on a Rent-to-Own program. Pittsley did not own any of the homes he would advertise for rent. There were times when he would contact a victim directly from a Craigslist ad they themselves had posted whereby they were seeking a place to rent.Pittsley would tell the victims he was a property manager who had several homes they could look at in different neighborhoods throughout Spokane County. He would give addresses of homes that were being lived in and some of the homes were in various stages of foreclosure. He would tell the victims not to "bother" the existing tenants and to call him back once they looked at the homes if they were interested. When they called him back, he would tell them he is waiting for the existing tenants to move out. He would meet them at various locations such as hotels or coffee shops to get the victims to complete an application he had printed out and collect a small application fee. Pittsley would later call them back and advise them they have been approved to move-in and that he needed to meet with them again to get the first month's rent and a security deposit. Sometimes he would ask for additional months of rent be paid up front and would sweeten the deal by telling them, if they paid for several months in advance,they could get one month free. Many of the victims paid him in cash or money orders and often would get a signed lease agreement and a house key. The key they received would later be determined to be an incorrect key. Other times victims would pay fees to hold the residence until the first of the month and after hearing excuse after excuse,would never get keys to move-in. Spokane Valley Police pursuit leads to drug arrest - On February 1, 2012, at 10:36 p.m., Spokane Valley Police Officer Mark Brownell was monitoring traffic near the 11600 block of east 8th Ave. in Spokane Valley when he observed a vehicle approaching him westbound approximately six blocks east of his location. Officer Brownell activated his radar unit in his marked patrol vehicle which registered a speed of 35 mph in the posted 25 mph zone. Officer Brownell activated his emergency lights in an attempt to initiate a traffic stop with the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle, later identified as Danny D. Harman (36 yrs of age), failed to stop his vehicle for Officer Brownell and continued westbound on 8th Page 5 Ave. Harman accelerated in a reckless manner in an attempt to elude Officer Brownell, failing to stop for a posted stop sign at the intersection of 8th and Bowdish. Due to the recklessness and disregard for the safety of the public, Officer Brownell pursued Harman for a short distance prior to performing a successful PIT maneuver (Pursuit Intervention Technique) to safely stop Harman's vehicle. After safely taking Harman into custody for Attempting to Elude, Officer Brownell saw a clear gallon size bag in the bed of Harman's pickup that contained a glass pipe with white residue inside. He also saw additional plastic baggies inside the gallon size clear bag along with a scale which had white residue on the top of it. This white residue positively field tested for Methamphetamine. Harman was booked into Spokane County Jail on the charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance with intent to deliver (Methamphetamine), and Attempting to Elude. Suspects Plot Break-In to Finance Their Runaway Trip - Two juveniles were arrested February 10th for a burglary of their neighbor's house. The Juveniles had broken into the house through a back door and stole several cans of change and multiple firearms. The juveniles intended to run away to Nevada and start a rock band in a "warmer climate." Unfortunately the juveniles spent most of the money stolen on items not particularly useful for travel, and determined to break into the house again to get more "loot." One of the juveniles did just that on the day they all conspired to run away from home and they stashed their"loot" in a nearby field. An alert parent of one of the juveniles checked his son's Facebook account and learned of the stash. He located the firearms in the nearby field and called police, who quickly surmised the weapons belonged to the neighbor who had previously been burglarized. A short time later, one of the juveniles was located and booked into the Juvenile Detention Center. A second suspect was driven to the Detention Center by his grandmother the next day, when he returned home from running away,and was turned over to police. Vehicle Theft Suspect Armed with a Knife Arrested - Spokane Valley Police arrested a Spokane resident for several felony and misdemeanor charges after a short foot pursuit and physical fight where the suspect attempted to pull a knife and resisted arrest. On Sunday night, February 12th around 8:33 p.m., Deputy Darin Powers attempted to contact a male he observed acting suspicious in the Denny's parking lot located at Pines and Sprague in the Spokane Valley. The male, later identified as Brendon T. Kaluza-Graham, 24, dressed in dark clothing and crouched down between two parked vehicles,ran when the deputy tried to contact him. Deputy Powers,with the emergency lights of his patrol vehicle activated, pursued Kaluza-Graham as he ran across the intersection into the Rite Aid Pharmacy parking lot. He exited his vehicle and continued pursuing on foot. Kaluza-Graham attempted to grab a folding knife located in his back waistband area as Deputy Powers caught up to him. He continued to reach for the knife and fight with Deputy Powers until a Good Samaritan and additional deputies arrived to assist. Deputy Powers received an apparent minor injury to his leg/knee during the incident. Kaluza-Graham had a small cut and some abrasions and began vomiting after his arrest. Both received medical treatment and were later released. The investigation determined Kaluza-Graham had stolen the vehicle he was with when Deputy Powers initially tried to contact him. During a search of Kaluza-Graham after his arrest, a shaved key and substances believed to be Methamphetamine, Cocaine and Marijuana were found. The vehicle was released to the registered owner. Kaluza-Graham was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempted Assault 1st,Possession of a Controlled Substance; Methamphetamine and Cocaine,Possession of a Stolen Vehicle,Possession of Marijuana,Possession of Motor Vehicle Theft Tools,Resisting Arrest and Obstructing a Public Servant. Traffic School Attendee Arrested for Theft- The Spokane County Sheriffs Office and Spokane Valley Police Department offer individuals that receive traffic infractions the opportunity to attend Traffic School in lieu of having the ticket show on their driving record. Eighteen year old Cameron Rose was provided with that option from a ticket he received and was attending a class at the Sheriffs Office Training Center on Sunday, February 12. At lunch time, loss prevention and a store manager from Rosauers contacted Traffic School instructors at the Training Center. Security told them one of their students had possibly taken soda and candy, then exited the store without paying. Loss prevention Page 6 attempted to detain Mr. Rose for the theft when Rose decided to run through the parking lot. Unfortunately, Rose dropped his Traffic School paperwork out of his sweat pants in the Rosauers parking lot. The officer picked up the paperwork and to his surprise, the paperwork showed Mr. Rose was scheduled for class right next door at the Training Center. When the Traffic School students returned from lunch,the loss prevention officer positively identified Rose. Mr. Rose was asked to step out of class where loss prevention placed him under arrest for Third Degree Theft. Rose was cited and released for his crime and was dismissed from Traffic School. Short Pursuit Leads to Multiple Charges - On February 13, 2012, at approximately 7:38 p.m., Deputy Mosher was approaching a stop sign at the intersection of 3rd Ave. and Havana in the City of Spokane Valley. As Deputy Mosher approached the intersection, a vehicle traveling westbound on 3rd Ave. at a high rate of speed disregarded the posted stop sign at 3rd Ave. and Havana and continued westbound on 3rd. Deputy Mosher attempted to stop the vehicle as it accelerated away from him in an obvious attempt to elude him. After a short pursuit, the vehicle came to a rolling stop at the intersection of 2nd Ave. and Dearborn Rd. The driver,identified as 48 year old Joe Barton,rolled out of the driver's seat of his vehicle onto the ground, saw Deputy Mosher and ran into the back yard of a nearby residence. After a short foot pursuit, Deputy Mosher saw Barton was having a difficult time negotiating a large bush next to a fence. Deputy Mosher quickly took advantage of the situation and took Barton into custody. Mr. Barton was booked into the Spokane County Jail on a felony charge of Attempting to Elude. Additional misdemeanor charges included Driving While License Suspended Third Degree, Hit and Run, DUI, Ignition Interlock Requirement as well as a warrant for Driving While License Suspended Second Degree. Early Morning Bike Ride Leads To Drug Arrest - An early morning bike ride for 27 year old Jeremy Redding ended up in the back of a Spokane Valley Officer's patrol vehicle. On February 13, 2012, at about 0238 hrs., Deputy J. Rodriguez was driving eastbound on Valleyway Ave. near Van Marter Rd. when he saw Redding ride past him on his bicycle. State law requires bicycles to have a light on the front of the bike as well as a red reflector to the rear. Deputy Rodriguez saw Redding did not have the required rear reflector and attempted to stop Redding. When Deputy Rodriguez turned his marked patrol vehicle around, Redding decided to jump off his bike and run towards some bushes. As Deputy Rodriguez attempted to catch Redding, he saw Redding throw something into the bushes. After Deputy Rodriguez detained Redding, he found a pill bottle in the bushes containing marijuana. Redding told Deputy Rodriguez he got scared when he saw him turn around,which was why he ran and threw the marijuana in the bushes. Redding was cited and released for Possession of a Controlled Substance,Marijuana. Double Fatal in City of Spokane Valley - Spokane Valley collision investigators were called to the scene of a double fatal collision at 7:05 p.m. on February 14th near the 9500 block of E. Broadway Rd. Investigators determined a vehicle, occupied by an adult male and female, was driving westbound on Broadway Ave. at a high rate of speed. Evidence at the scene showed the vehicle left the roadway and struck a small tree and telephone pole before striking a large tree head-on. Neither occupant was wearing seatbelts at the time of the collision. Both occupants were pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators believe alcohol and speed were both factors in the collision. Valley Search Warrant Concludes Lengthy Investigation - Detectives from the Spokane Valley Property Crimes Unit, Sheriffs Investigative Support Unit and Investigative Task Force concluded months of investigation this morning with the arrest of 30 year old Victor A. Luna. Investigators developed information that Luna was actively purchasing stolen property. After extensive investigation by detectives, a search warrant was obtained to search Luna's residence on the 12700 block of East 31st Ave. in the City of Spokane Valley. Because of Luna's local criminal history, which includes 10 felony convictions for crimes such as Felony Assault, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Riot, Burglary and Possession of Stolen Property, Spokane County Sheriffs Office SWAT Team was used to secure the residence. Luna was taken into custody for the charge of Trafficking in Stolen Property 1st Degree without incident. Luna told investigators that he frequently purchases property from a variety of Page 7 individuals and that he did not want to know if the property was stolen or not. Although Luna is restricted from dealing with pawn shops because of his criminal history,he admitted to using other people to pawn property for him. Sheriffs detectives are continuing their investigation to determine what property Luna has pawned in an effort to return the items to their owners. Valley Standoff Ends Peacefully - Spokane County Sheriffs Office hostage negotiators safely ended a standoff in the City of Spokane Valley. On February 15, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., Spokane Valley Officers were called to a disturbance near the 11900 block of East Broadway Ave. Receiving multiple 911 calls from residents in the area, Valley Police quickly determined the suspect, identified as 39 year old Ryan Lancaster,had pointed a handgun at his ex-girlfriend of two years inside her apartment. According to the victim, Lancaster pulled the trigger of the weapon and she heard a "click" as if it had jammed. Lancaster fled the apartment and was confronted by two males in the parking lot. They gave chase to Lancaster through a football field at North Pines Jr. High when Lancaster pulled the gun from his person,pointed it at the males and told them to back off. One of the male victims continued to follow Lancaster to the 12000 block of East Valleyway Rd. and simultaneously called 911 to update Lancaster's location. North Pines Jr. High and Broadway Elementary were immediately placed on lockdown. Each school was assigned a Valley SRD (School Resource Deputy) to assist with the safe departure of buses and children being picked up by family.Lancaster ran into a residence on the 12000 block of East Valleyway. Spokane Valley Officers immediately surrounded the residence as other units responded to the scene. Since Lancaster was believed to be armed, the Sheriff's Office SWAT Team was called to the scene. After the residence was surrounded,investigators were advised there was a daycare next to the house Lancaster had run in to. Central Valley School District provided a school bus to Valley Officers in order to safely take 39 children from Robyn's Nest Day Care without incident. Negotiators were able to make contact with a 57 year old male that was inside the residence with a three month old infant. After they were safely taken out of the residence, Sheriffs Office hostage negotiators successfully had Lancaster exit the residence. He was taken into custody without incident and booked into the Spokane County Jail on the charges of Robbery 1st Degree-Domestic Violence, Assault rd Degree (2 counts), Theft 2nd Degree- Domestic Violence,Possession of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). Sheriff's Office Hostage Negotiators "sniff out" Marijuana Grow - On February 15, 2012, Spokane Valley Police and Sheriffs Office units were involved in a standoff near the 12100 block of east Valley Way Road. As the situation developed, Sheriffs Office hostage negotiators responded to the scene. Several members of the Hostage Negotiation Team are assigned to the Sheriffs Office ISU unit, which focuses on drug crimes in Spokane County. The Hostage Negotiation Team was stationed near the residence that the standoff suspect was eventually located in. As team members developed information with regard to the standoff, they were able to smell the odor of marijuana emanating from a residence in the area. Members of the team were eventually able to pin-point which residence the odor was coming from. This evidence, accompanied with additional investigation, led to Sheriffs Office ISU detectives serving a search warrant at the residence on February 23rd in the 12100 block of east Valley Way Road. Detectives located an active marijuana grow in the basement of the residence that included 49 marijuana plants, two pounds of finished product and baggies and scales consistent with drug sales. The residence was vacant at the time of the warrant and the investigation is ongoing with ISU detectives. Grenade Call—A call was received that a grenade was found while cleaning out an old house located at 1426 N Ella in the City of Spokane Valley. It turned out to be a WWII vintage hand grenade in poor condition. EDU (Explosive Disposal Unit) worked with FAFB EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) on this call since it was unmodified military ordnance. FAFB EOD determined that the grenade was "live." It was moved to the SCSO explosive range and counter charged. Pursuit Ends with a Smorgasbord of Drugs and Charges - A traffic stop and short pursuit ended with the driver's arrest for several felony charges late Sunday night February 19th in the City of Spokane Valley. At about 9:13 p.m. Spokane Valley Police Corporal Dave Ellis stopped a black 2006 Ford Page 8 Mustang for a minor traffic violation near the intersection of Sprague and Farr. Corporal Ellis contacted the driver who was later identified as David B. Middleton, 44, and asked for his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. Middleton began reaching toward the passenger's side console as if he was complying with the request but suddenly put the Mustang into gear and sped off at a high rate of speed. Corporal Ellis and Deputy Olson, who had arrived to assist with the traffic stop, returned to their marked patrol vehicles and gave chase. As they approached the 8800 block of East Sprague,Middleton's speed was estimated to be in excess of 100 miles an hour in a 35 mile hour zone. Concerned for the safety of motorist and citizens in the area due to the excessive speeds Middleton appeared willing to push his vehicle to as he attempted to escape, Corporal Ellis terminated the pursuit. Deputy Karnitz positioned at the corner of Park and Sprague to assist, observed Middleton turn north into a parking lot east of Park on Sprague. Deputy Karnitz could see Middleton looking at him as he drove up to the Mustang. When he drove up to the front driver's side fender area, Middleton accelerated forward in an attempt to escape or assault Deputy Karnitz. Deputy Olson pulled in behind Middleton's vehicle as Deputy Karnitz pulled forward pinning the vehicle between their patrol cars. Middleton opened his driver's door but refused several orders to exit the vehicle. He continued to resist by pulling his arms away as deputies tried to place him in handcuffs. Middleton received a small abrasion during the incident as deputies gained control and took him into custody. Corporal Ellis noticed a black bag he observed sitting on the passenger's seat of the vehicle when Middleton originally stopped was no longer there. He checked the area and found a similar bag lying on the ground about five feet from the passenger's door. Inside the bag he found clear plastic baggies, glass pipes commonly used to smoke illegal narcotics, scales, a pellet gun and some paperwork with Middleton's name on it. Middleton was transported to the Spokane County Jail where he was booked for felony charges of Eluding a Police Officer, Assault 2"d, Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Heroin. He also faces misdemeanor charges of Possession of Marijuana, Obstructing a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest and Driving While License Suspended 3rd. Spokane Valley Shooting - On February 24th at 11:30 p.m., Spokane Valley Police responded to a shooting call at The Oasis Tavern located in the 14900 block of East Trent Avenue. When officers arrived on scene they contacted an adult male in the tavern that had been shot in the abdomen. According to witnesses the victim had been outside the tavern smoking. When he came back inside he told patrons he had been shot. The victim was transported to a local medical facility where he was listed in critical, stable condition. The investigation led Detective Keyser to suspects Jarrod Veilleux, 29, who has been charged with one count of 1st Degree Assault and one count of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. As well as Terrance Riley, 32, who has been charged with Rendering Criminal Assistance. Both Veilleux and Riley are currently in custody in Montana. Both were on active probation through Montana Department of Corrections at the time of the incident,prohibited from leaving the state. Spokane County Littered With Collisions—February 25th Spokane County residents have been faced with inclement driving conditions. The snowstorm that caused challenging driving conditions accounted for 125 collisions that were reported in Spokane County between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. today. Deputies and officers from Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley spent the majority of the morning and afternoon responding to multiple collisions that blanketed the entire county. Thankfully there were no serious injury collisions due to these treacherous driving conditions. Bigelow Gulch was the only road the Sheriffs Office had to close down between Argonne and Forker from noon until about 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. Drivers are reminded to drive defensively as today was a reminder the winter season is still among us. Indecent Exposure Arrests In The City of Spokane Valley - On Tuesday, February 28th, Spokane County Sheriffs Office undercover detectives made five arrests at a Spokane Valley adult entertainment establishment. Sheriffs Office detectives frequently check adult entertainment businesses operating in Spokane County for criminal acts. Tuesday, undercover detectives observed five acts of Indecent Exposure as they walked through Hollywood Erotic Boutique located on the 9600 block of East Sprague Page 9 Avenue in Spokane Valley. Detectives had made other routine checks for criminal activity at the boutique on May 27, 2009 as well as on May 16, 2011. Three violations of Indecent Exposure were forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office, and charged, stemming from the check on May 27, 2009. An additional four arrests were made for Indecent Exposure on the May 16, 2011 business check. All four of these individuals were cited and released at the business for Indecent Exposure. The five arrests stemming from the business check on February 28, 2012 also resulted in those individuals receiving criminal citations for Indecent Exposure and released at the scene. None of the other establishments were in violation of any criminal conduct. Spokane Valley Fight Leads To Weapons Charge - On February 29, 2012, Spokane Valley School Resource Deputy along with Spokane County Sheriffs deputies responded to a fight call at Browns Park located at Pines Road and 32nd Avenue in Spokane Valley. After the fight was broken up and patrol units had cleared the scene, students that had watched the fight contacted University High School administrators and told them a male subject watching the fight lifted his shirt and displayed a firearm. Spokane Valley School Resource Deputy (SRD)Jeff Duncan,who is assigned to University High School, was immediately advised of the situation and interviewed witnesses to the event. Witnesses told SRD Duncan this act was done in an intentional, intimidating manner. School Resource Deputy Duncan determined the suspect, 18 year old Benjamin Washington,was a student at University High School. Due to the nature of the threat,the Spokane Violent Crime Gang Enforcement Team was requested to assist in the investigation. This is a federally funded multi-agency unit comprised of law enforcement from the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, Spokane Valley Police Department, Spokane City Police Department, Department of Corrections,FBI, ATF and Border Patrol. As a result of a combined investigation with all units involved, a search warrant was executed at Washington's residence near the 900 block of North Perry St. shortly after midnight on Thursday,March 1st. Spokane County SWAT executed the warrant as there was a weapon involved. SWAT surrounded the residence and was able to call occupants inside the residence outside without incident. A search of the residence followed and two firearms were located inside the residence, one of which matched the description provided to SRD Duncan. Washington was booked into Spokane County Jail for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. The investigation continues as other charges may be included. www.stopspokanegangs.org Page 10 2012 FEBRUARY CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Feb-12 Feb-11 2012 2011 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 BURGLARY 68 68 128 154 1027 936 725 753 584 714 FORGERY 70 32 146 58 593 341 297 354 365 334 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 126 74 259 169 1566 1183 1245 893 1,265 1,122 NON-CRIMINAL 6 3 17 87 160 917 892 944 839 811 PROPERTY OTHER 83 72 177 125 1126 837 933 828 890 982 RECOVERED VEHICLES 16 18 76 26 416 365 187 319 343 403 STOLEN VEHICLES 30 25 100 56 566 496 298 496 478 711 THEFT 155 176 382 329 2512 2365 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 UIOBC 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 8 11 VEHICLE OTHER 16 0 34 0 195 3 5 7 3 3 VEHICLE PROWLING 64 85 155 196 1491 1395 920 1069 682 937 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 634 553 1,474 1,200 9,615 8,852 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 ASSAULT 78 40 164 116 963 895 927 869 853 846 DOA/SUICIDE 20 19 40 30 213 188 210 269 221 167 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 35 125 69 224 714 1297 1226 1063 874 736 HOMICIDE 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 5 KIDNAP 0 2 0 3 15 16 21 16 23 22 MENTAL 23 17 53 31 253 289 310 360 350 425 MP 14 11 26 17 125 128 115 95 83 88 PERSONS OTHER 215 105 481 230 2484 1692 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 ROBBERY 4 4 8 10 98 68 75 71 60 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 13 11 26 22 162 153 159 95 73 83 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 403 336 868 685 4997 4727 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 ADULT RAPE 5 2 16 6 67 44 35 44 43 29 CHILD ABUSE 2 5 7 13 89 115 159 148 104 78 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 5 20 22 39 184 206 157 86 92 105 SEX REGISTRATION F 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 4 3 INDECENT LIBERTIES 0 2 3 2 17 8 10 11 18 15 CHILD MOLESTATION 0 5 0 11 19 47 35 66 46 69 CHILD RAPE 0 1 2 1 23 28 35 39 31 62 RUNAWAY 46 27 111 69 510 490 440 369 295 309 SEX OTHER 2 5 3 18 56 215 211 179 194 203 STALKING 1 3 2 3 19 18 15 21 17 17 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 38 22 72 42 341 215 175 142 152 177 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 99 92 238 204 1294 1387 1271 1,108 996 1,067 DRUG 41 50 85 118 519 541 670 838 807 665 ITF OTHER 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 TOTAL ITF 41 51 85 119 521 542 671 838 808 665 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 355 278 732 529 3569 3081 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,532 1,310 3,397 2,737 19,996 18,589 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,582 Oem ents San Mandalay o° a Crest$ fruit Hill Wails so‘„. Rub Wabash 8 $an on ` e y R OI - i��1— r Iles! • arland Lacrosse Granite �r ent arnet ferzea _m erick i 1 :0-d 1l mum TAMILISEES Ie- =-■ sil •YIL•'�■r i=Miu Imr17n■•�'r c� it vermai Ism I—■E,!!" I— 15•11• I-1IN-Q l∎relit.1 I—LSIII-161 pwrll■ • ■--- VlllEi�ll-- ■-LL - - :I •m- ■I9Eihem∎ •MNIFFP 101 ..-.0 TEM r .Ill!. 1■ r -• IYYEVy,.---- Des Y l Illy= -, p1r1111 ■"-ril11111111 inIllaY ai Nu .111 ,u111Jo rMiiim = mf priVillEi5.115111 MOICIEW1 1ST e 'LIMB 4 - Spokan al Park E 8 OM 3 alley 5 -s alton Eu Il s■■X■F1IE•■611 lS�� 1111141MIN11!r■ Broad Indiana JIM 'Ern -� L mAi _ �Jp I �' '�O- iberty Lake to Id IuIiT11� � ����■il �� ■I■e■ [9■ --- • I_� ■ —Vii vER.151011111rAIM. .9. m■■:■C:_II k ie■ •x :.111 ■ Z=iK IU ilgrA19110111111112111ParighAl ,,y■L 741M1111 e 18th man. scr ti 21st 25th 61' th ie ■ w enn/e I0 RA? roamemmplim m°52 °MA num A h 2 8th 8 i; Vii:E■■r gei°&" \� MEW/ cam w ■ za.sm..—N,A !1 mist MEM BF re aJillmra ,1L fit. %f:•1� �yLV 'a S o•f ite "ES�Sn'I� l��i� Ika dra ° X131 `mow nd oWVI eW we Terre e y Traffic Collisions O O C - 1 2 3 Low Medium Low Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I l I 2012 February Traffic Collision Hotspots Map Produced: 08 Mar 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 - -2012 MI 1 fruit Hill r 0 5300 Rub 8 arnet rick pa\ton W --iiin err d�113��111,i1�� r:: �■�1�--�11•Gill 1�1■ 1g �Ij��� ,�plll�' III :Huilik arland MRS Oly • E` Friar Mrjg Lacr ss Indu tn. rkA oa 0 sa Crest'' '° PloeCtof mw sue: EN Mission mUMNIanaiM Broadway erMl'aW AP, 11 Mansfiel. .�■m►=.��� M"« ibis,c_t■— ...men op 04 i11) p 4 Spokan " I ParkE 4 -5 alton~ w Eu alley �►I) -,mil �1D�..Iliat�.r1 .rium a J = Il i \PSrn Catald �I1P.4fl�F.P MAME ryry�rr,,�■■+■FS t� - column ■ ■.��t�nnn�— rl � m���� Lea I-"w1PA ■�� hla�w r. ilIIi1♦� _ �� LL wwwrii -mom mom .0 upipmw 1 h 1-N■ ∎ ' ∎iPM—� laamm�IP" --I---- -- --- rrmgon APO - Mr ■1! �A I C y y 11 ��� 0 ti 25th Era 13 oh a1 54 57th 3 th Echo In s,. 5 0.10 I0 6 ery m Y 6th ,�^ ■[.i■fei9■ ilmgragi AIL' 1 IA=FMS`—'gym ■■iCf!'f■�� �" \mss � � —r)rims .■ws- rommomg.r04\0.41a a �LJil1 �®m� � �irl� 1— !4 :tll� G PUB gdle Terre 0 Ilan 9 I It 8th 1st nd °°%iew Residential Burglaries c � 0 2 Low Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I 1 I 2012 February Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: 08 Mar 2012 ��rnet 1•.�a�-rick NW= !I rialIiijIi �i � lhliNuU o a mfr -U... .- aim um= Al Kier 'locum.I ��■■auk III --..i. 7 min1lTai; lint... 2 `=■■■•• � ta■ale■m�rw a/MRLLANEl-B r •'E" Immirrmer follitAPPINNUM .- -�. l∎ �= ...i—mb= --■-- ....•err= _._ M- Mai5.1:1a.= Iy� mow.■ 1 IJ�f9►9 � - Ec 11ui Iv■.I January & February 2012 Stolen Vehicle Hotspots 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2009 2010 -0-2011 - -2012 300 - 250 200 150 100 50 SPOKANE VALLEY TRAFFIC COLLISIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC a 2009 2010 —0-2011 —2012 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Spokane Valley Person Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2009 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 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents • • • • • • • 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2009 2010 -0-2011 -2012 60 50 40 30 20 10 Spokane Valley Sex Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 2009 2010 -0-2011 -2012 SWIM •3g1E00V:T-II INISMIALEMIdr w au9'�i 1.11 :. .0 _UN rnmEE =MM. —=-- 7 Clements San Mandahy 5s0 Rub iitki mes— � Oly r- isksuit arrai .1111 ffiE oa 0 sa Crest`s Granite A J■ I4 rick 1 Illy �o. wwlllllt :p ,aIICJI% — ,116.I . ,aggeE� 11111'7'/') �IwwFJI ��! ■� `- 111111 i :lm -s I- Eu mow ami .■rfPI!=r Nviall Alm � �, IIE■. LJ 1 r■IIO .. 1!fflaill mammy' trir k.=== '"o� Iliw b m%® a:3_ii PIYIiY1Y— 9th 1 _r trmn sommum IYIi.A.i -i. ;M IEINE iaJ�llilf.:a It111I c ".. i10:1RlNNUM ■-INfiiiLI .=Sla • "• = ..tan-- .r1Ya7..l■ ram—rY, -ffai�tw.tn rFi∎�� raraerr- ias. w— rasswm— .m 0 r •-m:_�' u .yr ESwrMp Rl1. w. WIZMigltri SIIl1■I4IEM!1 � PJii +�AaEP- C7■ro■m. ■ ■.!•1 aMai • �1■ d ��' UCTI..w1:MME r•= 1M'r E g al rrrnSro❑ Broad .U1 tu.F.-- --ii—=M rail. Era ... i a ;�1�41i.,,,,my- ..., , j�•1 p� 57 1514 AU IV■■ On Echo le s,. 3 th .1429 4 25th es Corkery le ■ I0 Rio ode 6 ery APO A Aim 1E wll ;1 ars- • VeT —21111 1 _\ \PSm "�'l�ilii it L!i iiire mengiimerrami 5 0 41111,— me= 4111 %1 ar<�rra ts1.■1 6.� 1 �f �i 1 � to� ■. is' . , E,mwsarsw w:a`—c�• 1! ii,®Z aJll.—�7 ��r �6`��-� a� �� l�—/i—`•wim� �rt. IWl \Efsvi.m.it R �■Ii.,,... e�� ! ii ill4 `ZS 0 d mErialla r 561e Terre 41st 42nd 43rd e y 4 0 6th `cn F 3 9 � S It 8th 1st nd o'M'iew Vehicle Prowling c 1 o 2 0 3 ® Low - Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2012 February Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Map Produced: 08 Mar 2012 Cf I1 C1F' Spokane \41leyr PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT February 2012 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION o Emergency After Hours Call-out —Senske o Engineering Services Support —Agreements with private engineering firms ® Landscaping Contract— Spokane ProCare (Rebidding for 2012) o Litter and Weed Control — Spokane County Geiger Work Crew • Solid Waste - Regional Solid Waste Interlocal a Street Maintenance — 2011 Signal, Sign & Striping County Interlocal o Street Sweeping --AAA sweeping o Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair contract—Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. • Street Maintenance (Pines & Trent) —WSDOT Interlocal o Vactoring Contract —AAA Sweeping (Rebidding for 2012) WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.netf http:/lwww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/spokaneriver/dissolved oxygenlstatus.html http://www.spokanecounty.orgl utilities/WaterReclamationlcontent.aspx?c=2224 and http:ff www.spokaneriverpartners.corraf 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 was given at council's February 7, 2012 retreat. CAPITAL PROJECTS (See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet) Valley Corridor EA A final Environmental Assessment document for the Valley Corridor Project is due by 9/30/2012. Staff proposes to prepare a document stating the locally preferred alternative is the No Build alternative (i.e., no extension of Appleway Avenue east of University Road). STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for February 2012: Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: • Snow removal operations, as needed. o Geiger crew continues with garbage pickup on arterials throughout the city. • Pothole patching. o AAA Sweeping began arterial sweep. "Information in bold indicates updates 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. Contract has been executed with Ace Landscaping and kick-off meeting scheduled for 20 March. • 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 WIC) 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. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 Stormwater Retrofit Grant #G1100278 — ($237k State/$79 City SW fund) Sullivan Road Bridge Drain Project (see also CIP #150). Design schedule has been updated to include coordination with the southbound bridge replacement project. Easements have been acquired. Construction should proceed next summer with completion before October 2012. o 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 completed the project on February 17, two weeks ahead of schedule. 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 e 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. Beacons have been installed at East Valley Middle and Bowdish Middle. Beacons at the other two schools will 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 • 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 and would be funded under DOE's proposed $30M level. *information in bold indicates updates 3 o 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. This proposal did not receive a ranking for funding in the draft list issued 10 February. • 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 prepared the pre-application due February 20, 2012. Staff and CH2M HILL will revise the previous TIGER grant application for the Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement project to meet the new TIGER IV grant application requirements and submit it by the March 19, 2012 deadline. 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, • 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/1110088html 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, which came in first and will be awarded. The second proposal would develop a Spokane area multi-media campaign to provide stormwater quality education to the public and was not awarded. *Information in bold indicates updates 4 Spokane Valley. February-12 Road Projects 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2-Brdwy& Ind. 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0148 Greenacres Trail-Design Valley Corridor-EA FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) Knutson Aldworth Amsden Knutson FHWA-CMAQ Note FHWA-STP(E) DOE-EECBG City Aldworth Aldworth Worley 10/03/11 09/30/12 11/15/12 06/15/12 90 5 15 8 12/01/13 0 02/15/13 09/20/12 09/30/12 0 20 10 $ 352,002 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 250,000 $ 745,000 $ 52,000 Design Estimated Total Project Complete %Complete Construction Project # Design Only Projects Funding Manager Date PE Completion Cost Road Projects 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2-Brdwy& Ind. 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0148 Greenacres Trail-Design Valley Corridor-EA FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) Knutson Aldworth Amsden Knutson FHWA-CMAQ Note FHWA-STP(E) DOE-EECBG City Aldworth Aldworth Worley 10/03/11 09/30/12 11/15/12 06/15/12 90 5 15 8 12/01/13 0 02/15/13 09/20/12 09/30/12 0 20 10 $ 352,002 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 250,000 $ 745,000 $ 52,000 Road Projects 0005 Pines/Manfield,Wilbur Rd to Pines 0115 Sprague Ave Reconstruct- E'grn to S'van 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection TIB-UCP TIB-UCP TIB-SP FHWA-BR FHWA-CMAQ Knutson Fisch Knutson Aldworth Knutson 05/23/08 03/16/12 06/15/12 12/01/13 03/14/13 100 95 5 2 0 95 0 0 0 0 09/30/12 12/01/12 07/31/12 12/31/15 tbd $ 6,626,700 $ 3,933,865 $ 292,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,026,000 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # Design &Construction Projects Funding Manager Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost Road Projects 0005 Pines/Manfield,Wilbur Rd to Pines 0115 Sprague Ave Reconstruct- E'grn to S'van 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection TIB-UCP TIB-UCP TIB-SP FHWA-BR FHWA-CMAQ Knutson Fisch Knutson Aldworth Knutson 05/23/08 03/16/12 06/15/12 12/01/13 03/14/13 100 95 5 2 0 95 0 0 0 0 09/30/12 12/01/12 07/31/12 12/31/15 tbd $ 6,626,700 $ 3,933,865 $ 292,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,026,000 Sewer Projects 0151 Green Haven STEP Street Preservation Projects 0160 Evergreen-16th to 32nd Reconstruction Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade 0061 Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements 0133 Sprague Ave ITS 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement Stormwater Projects 0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility COSY Fisch 03/23/11 100 80 05/01/12 $ 620,000 DOE-EECBG Aldworth 04/13/12 10 0 09/30/12 $ 998,951 FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ DOE-EECBG DOE-EECBG Knutson Knutson Knutson Kipp 05/15/12 07/06/12 03/04/11 12/15/10 90 0 11/15/12 $ 5 0 11/15/12 $ 100 52 12/31/12 $ 100 92 08/31/12 $ 1,290,636 2,083,121 768,121 90,000 Dept of Ecology Aldworth 06/15/12 25 0 12/31/12 $ 237,375 FHWA-CMAQ Amsden 06/20/12 25 0 10/30/13 $ 770,500 STA-FTA/NF Amsden 06/27/12 15 0 07/01/13 $ 315,011 Closeout Phase 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD 0106 West Pondersoa (STEP) 0112 Indiana Ave Extension 0129 South Greenacres (STEP) 0130 Corbin (STEP) 0131 Cronk(STEP) 0135 Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation 0147 Bike Lane Restriping 0152 Micaview STEP 0153 Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade 0157 Sullivan Road West Bridge Temp Repairs CDBG COSY TIB-UCP COSY COSY COSY DOE -EECBG DOE -EECBG COSY CDBG COSY Knutson Arlt Aldworth Fisch Iris Iris Kipp Kipp Fisch Knutson Fisch 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 11/11/11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 99 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 04/01/12 $ 932,850 $ 1,215,335 $ 2,082,000 $ 640,500 $ 705,000 $ 315,000 $ 34,210 $ 40,000 $ 280,000 $ 248,528 $ 358,000 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # _ Projects in Closeout Phase Funding r Manager Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost — Closeout Phase 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD 0106 West Pondersoa (STEP) 0112 Indiana Ave Extension 0129 South Greenacres (STEP) 0130 Corbin (STEP) 0131 Cronk(STEP) 0135 Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation 0147 Bike Lane Restriping 0152 Micaview STEP 0153 Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade 0157 Sullivan Road West Bridge Temp Repairs CDBG COSY TIB-UCP COSY COSY COSY DOE -EECBG DOE -EECBG COSY CDBG COSY Knutson Arlt Aldworth Fisch Iris Iris Kipp Kipp Fisch Knutson Fisch 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 11/11/11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 99 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 04/01/12 $ 932,850 $ 1,215,335 $ 2,082,000 $ 640,500 $ 705,000 $ 315,000 $ 34,210 $ 40,000 $ 280,000 $ 248,528 $ 358,000 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: New WSDOT funding program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Washington State Legislature passed the Complete Streets Bill (ESHB1071), establishing a grant program with the goal of improving conditions for all users on main street highways and comparable locations on local streets. A call for projects for the program is expected in April 2012, with applications due in June 2012 and the intent to have a prioritized project list by November 2012. The amount of funding for these projects will be determined by the state legislature in 2013. The program guidelines have yet to be published. The selection criteria are expected to focus on projects that improve walking and biking, with the intent to provide for all users of the transportation facility. Agencies with a complete streets ordinance, resolution or demonstrated equivalent standards may be in a better position to receive funding. The Spokane Valley code already includes many of the complete streets concepts, but there is room for improvement to make us more competitive. Readiness to proceed will likely be considered in the project rankings. This is not intended to be a resurfacing program. It is unknown whether the program will have a match requirement. Appleway Trail — One eligible project may be the construction of a multi-use trail in the Old Milwaukee right-of-way. This could be paired with north-south connections to Sprague Avenue and the residential neighborhoods to the south. Improvements could be made on Sprague to widen the sidewalk where feasible, install street trees or other landscaping, make ADA accessibility improvements, improve bus stops, and add bicycle parking at some destinations. OPTIONS: Request additional information from staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Regional Toxics Task Force Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force. On page 7 it describes the membership which includes NPDES wastewater discharge permit holders. The City of Spokane Valley is not required to join the Task Force. We are currently attending the meetings of the Task Forced to stay informed about their progress. Additional information can be obtained on the web site at: http://srrttf.orq/ OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx City of Spokane City Clerk File No. Spokane County File No. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING SPOKANE RIVER REGIONAL TOXICS TASK FORCE THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT is entered into and effective this first day of March, 2012, by and between the below signed parties (signature pages attached to back of document and signing parties are listed in the table at end of documents.). RECITALS WHEREAS, the parties have reached an agreement in principal relative to the organization and governance of the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force, as set forth in the document entitled "Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Operational and Organizational Concepts," ("Operational and Organizational Concepts") which is attached hereto as "Attachment A" and hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to more formally memorialize and bind the parties to the provisions of the Operational and Organizational Concepts; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, incorporated herein, and the mutual promises and benefits exchanged by the parties herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Operational and Organizational Concepts. The parties agree that the governance, roles and responsibilities, funding and other key aspects of the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force described in the Operational and Organizational Concepts are acceptable and will begin guiding implementation of the parties' participation in a regional effort to make measurable progress toward meeting applicable water quality criteria for PCBs. 2. Amendments. This Memorandum of Agreement may be changed, amended or modified at anytime through a written Amendment to this Agreement mutually agreed upon and signed by all parties. 3. Additional Parties. Additional parties may join the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force by duly authorized amendment to this Memorandum of Agreement in accordance with Section 2 herein, entitled"Amendments." 4. Term. This Memorandum of Agreement is effective when signed by all the parties and will continue in effect during the Ecology 2011 through 2016 NPDES wastewater permit cycle, and may continue in effect thereafter if future NPDES wastewater permits require participation in the Task Force. In the event any party to this Memorandum of Agreement withdraws from the Task Force, written notification shall be submitted to the Page 1 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx remaining parties. This Memorandum of Agreement shall remain in effect for all remaining participating parties. 5. Counterparts. This Memorandum of Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 6. Consideration. The consideration for this Memorandum of Agreement shall consist of the performance of the mutual promises and terms set forth herein. 7. Non-Waiver. No waiver by any party of any of the terms of this Memorandum of Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the same or other rights of that party in the future. 8. Entire Memorandum of Agreement. This Memorandum of Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties. No representations, promises, or agreements not expressed herein have been made to induce the parties to sign this Memorandum of Agreement. 9. 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 Memorandum of Agreement. Page 2 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx ATTACHMENT A Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Operational and Organizational Concepts Page 3 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Attachment A: Operational and Organizational Concepts Page 4 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Table of Contents Introduction 7 Task Force Vision Statement for 2012 Through 2016 8 Specific Task Force Goals Relating to NPDES Permit Compliance 8 Task Force Operating Guidelines 9 Membership 10 NPDES Permittee Membership: 10 Agency and Sovereign Government Membership. 10 Additional Government Agency Membership: 11 Stakeholder Membership: 11 Membership Governance 11 Membership Primary and Alternate Delegates: 11 Removal from Membership: 11 Non-Voting Participants. 11 Roles and Responsibilities 11 Organizational Structure 14 Decision Making 15 Consensus/"Unanimity Minus One" Decision Making Process: 15 Dispute Resolution 16 Task Force Funding 16 Meetings and Notices 17 Communications 18 Committees 19 Appropriate Staffing 19 Facilitator/Coordinator 20 Technical Consultants 20 Task Force Work Plan 20 Table 1 Amendment and Signatory Tacking 21 Signature Pages 22 Page 5 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Page 6 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Introduction The 2011 Washington NPDES wastewater discharge permits issued by the Department of Ecology for facilities discharging into the Spokane River include the requirement for creation of a Regional Toxics Task Force (Task Force). These permits state that the Task Force membership should include the NPDES permittees in the Spokane River Basin, conservation and environmental interests, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, Spokane Regional Health District, Ecology, and other appropriate interests. It is anticipated that similar permit requirements will be in the permits issued to the NPDES permittees with facilities discharging to the Spokane River in Idaho by the Environmental Protection Agency. This MOA can be amended to accommodate addition of the Idaho NPDES permittees discharging to the Spokane River at that time. The following document provides an organizational structure, identification of the roles and responsibilities of the membership, and governance structure for formation of the Task Force. The goal of the Task Force will be to develop a comprehensive plan to bring the Spokane River into compliance with applicable water quality standards for PCBs. For purposes of this Agreement, all references to "toxics" shall mean PCBs and Dioxins that were included on the Washington 2008, Category 5, 303(d) list. To accomplish that goal it is anticipated that the Task Force functions will include: • Identify data gaps and collect necessary data on PCBs and other toxics on the Washington 2008, Category 5, § 303(d) listing for the Spokane River. • Further analyze the existing and future data to better characterize the amounts, sources, and locations of PCBs and other toxics as defined above entering the Spokane River. • Prepare recommendations for controlling and reducing the sources of listed toxics in the Spokane River. • Review proposed Toxic Management Plans, Source Management Plans, and BMPs. • Monitor and assess the effectiveness of toxic reduction measures. • Identify a mutually agreeable entity to serve as the clearinghouse for data, reports, minutes, and other information gathered or developed by the Task Force and its members. This information shall be made publicly available by means of a website and other appropriate means. To accomplish these functions the Task Force will provide for an independent community technical advisor(s)who shall assist in review of data, studies, and control measures, as well as assist in providing technical education information to the public. The permits also state that if Ecology determines the Task Force is failing to make measurable progress toward meeting applicable water quality criteria for PCBs, Ecology would be obligated to proceed with development of a TMDL in the Spokane River for PCBs or determine an alternative to ensure water quality standards are met. Page 7 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx The permits require 1)the permittees to participate in a cooperative effort to create a Regional Toxics Task Force and participate in the functions of the Task Force, and 2)that by November 30, 2011, the Task Force shall provide Ecology with the details of the organizational structure, specific goals, funding and the governing documents of the Task Force. The following sections present the Task Force concept and organizational structure required by the permits: Section 2. Task Force Vision Statement for 2012 through 2016. Section 3. Task Force Goals Relating to NPDES Permit Compliance. Section 4. Task Force Operating Guidelines. Task Force Vision Statement for 2012 Through 2016 The following statement is the Task Force Vision Statement for the first five years, from 2012 through 2016: The Regional Toxics Task Force will work collaboratively to characterize the sources of toxics in the Spokane River and identify and implement appropriate actions needed to make measurable progress towards meeting applicable water quality standards for the State of Washington, State of Idaho, and The Spokane Tribe of Indians and in the interests of public and environmental health. Accomplishing this vision will involve, among other things, technical studies, monitoring, education, and recommendations for specific actions that will reduce toxics in the Spokane River. The Task Force will: • Provide a forum for the review and discussion of Spokane River toxics issues. • Participate in public education and engagement to advance the understanding of Spokane River toxics issues. • Consider the results of past and future studies and implementation actions including those conducted by individual dischargers within their operations and/or service areas. • Consider the technical studies needed to understand the sources of toxics and advance region-wide understanding of toxics in the Spokane River. • Provide specific recommendations for the development of a Spokane River toxics reduction plan. Significant efforts, collaboration and funding by many organizations will be required to identify and reduce the sources of toxics to the Spokane River. The Task Force will play a prominent role in this effort. Specific Task Force Goals Relating to NPDES Permit Compliance The specific goals for the Task Force during the 2011 to 2016 permit cycle following the Department of Ecology's acceptance, in consultation with other agency and sovereign Page 8 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx government members, of the November 30, 2011 submittal required from the NPDES permittees are: 1. Within 12 months of Ecology's approval of the November 30, 2011 required Washington NPDES permittee submittal: • Initial Task Force funding will be confirmed. • Identification and contracting with appropriate staffing. • Development of a 2012 through 2016 Task Force work plan that addresses: o Approach for and analysis of existing data on PCB and other toxics on the Washington 2008, Category 5, § 303(d) list to (1) understand what is known, (2) identify data gaps, and (3) determine where additional characterization of amounts, sources and locations is needed. o Development and implementation of a Monitoring Plan for the Spokane River that, (1) establishes the baseline conditions for PCBs and the other identified toxics, (2) monitors and assesses the effectiveness of toxic reduction measures, and(3) can be adapted to take into account newly generated data and sampling techniques. o Identification or establishment of a publicly accessible clearinghouse for storing data, reports, Task Force meeting minutes or summaries, and other information gathered or developed by the Task Force and its members. o Review of proposed Toxic Management Plans, Source Management Plans, and BMPs. o Approach for preparing recommendations to control and reduce point and nonpoint sources of PCBs and other toxics, on the Washington 2008, Category 5, 303 (d) list, to the Spokane River. o Public education needs and approach, including pollution prevention and public and environmental health determinations • As appropriate, begin implementation of work plan elements. 2. Prior to submittal to Ecology, the Task Force will develop and review all documents related to a comprehensive plan identifying actions required to bring the Spokane River into water quality compliance for PCBs. Task Force Operating Guidelines These operating guidelines are intended to clarify the Task Force governance process. It is assumed that the Task Force will convene and stay operational during the 2011 through 2016 NPDES wastewater permit cycle, and may continue to operate as long as the Spokane River Page 9 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx NPDES wastewater permits have requirements for participation in the Task Force. The following describe: • Membership. • Roles and Responsibilities. • Organizational Structure. • Decision Making. • Funding. • Meeting and Notices. • Communications. • Committees. • Staffing. • Work Plan. Membership The Task Force membership represents the Spokane River community. Membership in the Task Force is intended to encompass a wide field of expertise, community interest, and support a transparent process. Initial membership in the Task Force will include the following groups: NPDES Permittee Membership: NPDES permittee members of the Task Force shall consist of any private or public entity which is issued a NPDES permit for a discharge to the Spokane River, and which includes a permit requirement to participate in the Task Force. The NPDES permittee members will have the roles and responsibilities as described below. If an entity does not participate as a member of the Task Force, and in accordance with the NPDES permit condition, the issuing state or federal agency for that entity shall be responsible for enforcement of the permit condition. The Task Force does not have any regulatory authority over NPDES permittee members including any authority to determine non-compliance with any NPDES permit. Agency and Sovereign Government Membership: Agencies and sovereign governments that regulate or establish policies relating to PCBs and toxics shall be an Ex-officio Task Force member. Ex-officio, non-voting agency and sovereign government members shall include the WA State Department of Ecology(Ecology), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Spokane Tribe of Indians, Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(IDEA). The agency and sovereign government members will have the roles and responsibilities as described below. Page 10 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Additional Government Agency Membership: Additional government agencies may include the Spokane Regional Health District, Washington State Department of Health, Idaho Department of Health, Idaho Panhandle Health District, Idaho NPDES wastewater permit holders, stormwater permit holders, and other appropriate interests. The additional government agency members will have the roles and responsibilities as described below. Stakeholder Membership: Stakeholders, other than those referenced above, with roles and responsibilities identified below will receive a letter of invitation to join the Task Force from Ecology within 30 days of approval of this document. Those invited organizations that provide, in writing, an interest in being a member of the Task Force within 30 days of notification will be considered a stakeholder member of the Task Force. After expiration of the initial invitation time period, a new member may be added to the Task Force only by a consensus vote of the existing members of the Task Force. The stakeholder members will have the roles and responsibilities as described below. Membership Governance Membership Primary and Alternate Delegates: Each Task Force member organization will appoint a primary and an alternate delegate. Each entity's primary delegate will strive to attend all Task Force meetings. If the primary delegate is unable to attend, the alternate delegate will attend on the primary delegate's behalf and will have all the rights and responsibilities of the primary delegate. It is the responsibility of the primary delegate to brief their alternate on status of the Task Force. Task Force member organizations with more than one division, section, or department identifying Task Force interests, may have more than one representative become a Task Force member. However, for voting purposes, an entity can only have one representative vote. Removal from Membership: If a stakeholder member entity misses three consecutive meetings of the Task Force, the stakeholder member will be automatically removed from the Task Force. NPDES permittee, Ex- Officio sovereign and regulatory/governmental members will not be removed from the Task Force. Non-Voting Participants: Entities and individuals with an interest in Task Force proceedings may attend Task Force meetings and will be called upon to provide input when appropriate. Roles and Responsibilities Organizations Membership Roles and Responsibilities Page 11 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx • Comply with appropriate Task Force related permit Washington NPDES conditions Dischargers: • Provide administrative oversight,coordination and funding City of Spokane, for the operations of the Task Force County of Spokane, NPDES Liberty Lake Sewer • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of Permittee Task Force. and Water District, Inland Empire Paper, Membership • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Kaiser formed by Task Force,as appropriate. • Ensure regulatory agency concurrence/approval of any data collection/analysis work plans. • Participate as an ex-officio,non-voting Task Force member. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. • Provide regulatory oversight of Task Force actions relative to compliance with Washington permits issued • Provide and coordinate timely technical review and, as Agency and appropriate, approval of Task Force technical effort work Sovereign plans. Ecology Government • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Membership formed by Task Force,as appropriate. • Identify and assist in obtaining applicable grant funding for Task Force activities. • Lead consultation with EPA,the Spokane Tribe,IDEQ, Coeur d'Alene Tribe,and other appropriate agencies with respect to measurable progress and Task Force decisions. • Provide written approval of Task Force decisions, as appropriate. • Participate as an ex-officio, non-voting Task Force member • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. • Provide regulatory oversight of Task Force actions relative Agency and to compliance with permits issued. Sovereign EPA Government • Provide and coordinate timely technical review and,as appropriate, approval of Task Force technical effort work Membership plans. • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be formed by Task Force,as appropriate. • Identify and assist in obtaining applicable grant funding for Task Force activities. Page 12 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx • Participate in consultation with Ecology,the Spokane Tribe,Coeur d'Alene Tribe,IDEQ, and other appropriate agencies with respect to measurable progress and Task Force decisions. • Provide written approval of Task Force decisions,as appropriate. • Participate as an ex-officio,non-voting Task Force member. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. Agency and • Provide regulatory oversight of water quality standards. IDEQ Sovereign • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Government formed by Task Force, as appropriate. Membership • Participate in consultation with EPA,Ecology,the Spokane Tribe, and other appropriate agencies with respect to measurable progress and Task Force decisions. • Provide written approval of Task Force decisions,as appropriate. • Participate as an ex-officio,non-voting Task Force member. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. Agency and • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Sovereign formed by Task Force, as appropriate. Spokane Tribe Y � Government • Participate in consultation with EPA,Ecology,IDEQ, Membership Coeur d'Alene Tribe,and other appropriate agencies with respect to measurable progress and Task Force decisions. * Provide written approval of Task Force decisions,as appropriate. • Participate as an ex-officio,non-voting Task Force member. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. Agency and • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Sovereign formed by Task Force,as appropriate. Coeur d'Alene Tribe Y � Government • Participate in consultation with EPA,Ecology, Spokane Membership Tribe,IDEQ, and other appropriate agencies with respect to measurable progress and Task Force decisions. • Provide written approval of Task Force decisions,as appropriate. Page 13 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Additional • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of Spokane Regional Government the Task Force. Health District Agency • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Membership formed by Task Force,as appropriate. • Provide public health and technical oversight relating to fish advisories. Washington State Additional Government • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of Department of Agency the Task Force. Health Membership • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be formed by Task Force, as appropriate. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of the Task Force. NPDES Stormwater • Participate in funding Task Force activities relating to Agencies2 Permittee Stormwater. Membership • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be formed by Task Force, as appropriate. Conservation/ • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of Community/ Stakeholder the Task Force. Environmental Membership • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be Interests formed by Task Force,as appropriate. • Participate in the formation and on-going functioning of Other Appropriate Stakeholder the Task Force. Interest3 Membership • Participate in any technical sub-committees that may be formed by Task Force,as appropriate. Notes: 1. It is anticipated that SRRTTF will have approximately 15-20 active members. 2. Stormwater agencies include Spokane County Stormwater, City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane, City of Millwood, Washington State Department of Transportation, Stevens County and other appropriate agencies. Stormwater agencies will have an independent vote unless they are part of an entity also represented on the Task Force. In instances where one entity has more than one representative on the Task Force, they will share one vote for decision making purposes. 3. Potential appropriate interests include but not limited to: Avista Corp, Counties, Agencies and others. Organizational Structure The Task Force will be formed and operate under this Memorandum of Agreement which provides the Task Force structure and governing principles. A more robust organizational structure may be required to address the administrative, funding and contractual needs of the Task Force. Page 14 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Decision Making The Task Force will strive to reach consensus on all Task Force decisions. If the Task Force is unable to reach consensus, a"unanimity minus one"decision rule will be used as described below. A simple majority of the voting Task Force members shall constitute a quorum. A quorum must be present before a decision can be brought to a vote. Consensus/"Unanimity Minus One" Decision Making Process: The goal of the decision making process is to come to a decision that Task Force members can support following a respectful hearing of all concerns. The Task Force will use consensus-based decision making to guide the efforts toward studying, developing and implementing a comprehensive adaptive management plan to meet water quality standards in the Spokane River. During the Task Force set-up/implementation phase, while the Task Force is in the facilitator/administrator candidate identification process, a meeting facilitator will be needed. The Task Force members present at each meeting will select/request that an Ex-officio member facilitate the meeting. Once the Facilitator/Administrator is retained, they will take over the role of meeting facilitator. The facilitator will endeavor to reach true consensus on Task Force decisions as follows: Consensus on a decision about a project, recommendation or other action the Task Force plans to take will be reached when the voting membership present can make one of the following statements about the decision: • I agree with the decision and will publicly support it • I agree with the decision, but will refrain from publicly supporting it • I can live with the decision (and won't disparage it in public) If a member cannot support a decision, that member shall present a solution to the full group for discussion and consideration. However, the Facilitator has the authority to cut off discussion, if no further progress is being made toward resolving the concerns of voting members. When consensus is not reached, the Facilitator will move to a "unanimity minus one" decision rule described as follows: A `unanimity minus one' decision rule will be used to confirm and finalize consensus-based decisions. Whenever a decision is to be made, it will be an affirmative decision if one or fewer of the attending members oppose the proposed decision and vote accordingly. If two, or more, of the attending members oppose the proposed decision and vote accordingly, the decision will not be affirmed. Any decision by the Task Force will be based on a vote of the members in attendance at a meeting where a decision is made. Decisions will not be made on topics that are not included on Page 15 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx a meeting agenda, or on topics where associated documents were not sent out with the agenda. Meeting notices, agendas, and associated documents will be sent out no less than five business days prior to a Task Force meeting. Each Task Force voting member organization, authorized delegate, will represent one vote for decision making purposes. Any attending member or technical expert may be called upon to provide information during the decision making discussion process. Once a decision is made, and the meeting has ended, a decision will not be revisited unless the members, by consensus, agree to bring the decision back to the table for further consideration. Once the Task Force membership agrees to reopen a topic, the decision making process must be followed to change the original decision. The Task Force does not make decisions about the funding contributions from Task Force members to the Task Force, or how NPDES permittees meet permit requirements. Dispute Resolution If Task Force decisions cannot be reached through the consensus/`unanimity minus one' based decision making process described above, the Task Force may request that the issue be forwarded to dispute resolution. Depending on the issue and related decision needed, the dispute resolution will be addressed by appropriate agency and sovereign government members, and/or any voting Task Force members and any appropriate technical consultants. In the event a NPDES permit holder disputes a decision by the Task Force that impacts compliance with their permit, that dispute may be presented to the agency responsible for issuing the permit to the permit holder. The agency that issued the permit will consult with the other regulatory agencies/sovereigns to come to resolution and provide direction to the Task Force. The resolution by the agency that issued the permit will not be binding on the NPDES permit holder unless it is issued as a permit modification or administrative order, unless the agency and NPDES permit holder agree that a permit modification or administrative order is not necessary. If the permitting agency reaches the conclusion that a dispute resolution request does not pertain to an applicable permit condition, it reserves the right to return the dispute to the Task Force without opinion. Task Force Funding It is anticipated that Task Force funding will be provided by a combination of private and public sources including but not limited to Task Force members, non-members, grants, governmental agency contributions, sovereign contributions, and other identified outside sources. Funding will be required for administrative, technical support, and implementation activities. Regulatory agencies have agreed to provide up to fifty percent of the first year administrative operational costs up to $50,000. The NPDES permittees and other Task Force members will provide a Page 16 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx commitment for the remaining administrative operational budget for the first year by the signing deadline, February 1, 2012. Ecology will be the contracting entity for the first year; however, Ecology assumes that the administrative and contractual needs will be transferred to the Task Force upon adoption of an organizational structure that supports these activities or after the first operational year, whichever occurs first. Funding beyond the first year administrative costs will be provided by a combination of private and public sources including but not limited to Task Force members, non- members, grants, agency contributions, sovereign contributions, and other outside sources. Meetings and Notices The Task Force will meet at least four(4)times (approximately quarterly) per year, but may meet more frequently when appropriate for selection of consultants, for decision making, for review of project recommendations, review of work plans, for review of data and results, or other activities. It is expected that the Task Force will meet more frequently during the first year. The Task Force may adjust the frequency or schedule of meetings however, all members must be notified prior to a change in the meeting schedule or if additional meetings are implemented. All Task Force members will strive to participate in the Task Force meetings in person. If the primary or alternate member is unavailable to attend in person, and if they provide advance notice to the meeting facilitator,participation through electronic means will be allowable if available. The Task Force will be as open and transparent as possible. A person will be selected to take notes at the meeting and meeting notes will be sent out to those present for edit/comment. Once meeting minutes are finalized, they will be made available. The Task Force will provide a document review process and will identify a mutually agreeable entity to serve as a clearing house for data, reports, minutes, and other information gathered or developed by the Task Force. This information shall be made publicly available by means of a website and other appropriate means. The Task Force will strive to meet the following: • All meetings open to the public. • Task Force can't require members of public to "register"name, affiliation, or other information in order to attend meeting. • Task Force can remove disruptive members of the public who interfere with orderly conduct of a meeting. • No voting by secret ballot. Page 17 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx • The public is not entitled to speak at meetings (although usually opportunity is provided, with specific/consistent procedural guidelines). • Task Force is held to the following specific procedure for meeting notices: o Contents of notice: • The time and place. • The business to be transacted. o Timing of notice - written notice must be delivered personally, by mail, by fax, or by e-mail at least five business days before the time of the meeting to all members of the Task Force. A special meeting maybe held with 24 hours notice, but no decisions will be made at special meetings. o Notice of change in date, location, time of meetings. • The Task Force may take final action only concerning matters identified in the notice of the meeting. • As available, the minutes from meeting will be posted to the website. • No member will act as a representative of the Task Force unless assigned as such through a vote of the membership. Communications We have developed the following operating protocol regarding how we work together. • To promote trust and respect, in our work together we agree to: o Respect each other in and outside of meetings. o Operate in good faith. o No backroom deals. o Respect the personal integrity and values of participants and organizations. o All participants in the negotiation bring with them the legitimate purposes and goals of their organizations. All parties recognize the legitimacy of the goals of others and assume that their goals will also be respected. These negotiations will try to maximize all the goals of all the parties, as far as possible. o Honor agreements; commitments will not be made lightly and will be kept. o Regard disagreements as "problems to be solved,"rather than as "battles to be won." • To enhance open and honest dialogue, we will: Page 18 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx o Participate in discussions and will encourage each other to "explore without committing." This frees up the group to explore potential solutions without viewing those explorations as formal proposals. o State interests,problems, and opportunities, not positions—positive candor is an effective tool. o Air problems, disagreements, and critical information during meetings to avoid surprises. o Commit to search for opportunities and alternatives. Group creativity can often determine the best solution. o Substantiate rumors at the meeting before accepting them as fact. • To communicate clearly in specific discussions, we agree to: o Disclose interest. o Listen fully to understand. o Look for ways to address not only your own interests, but those of others as well. o Participate, share the floor, be concise. o Look ahead—acknowledge the past but don't rehash it. o Be explicit and factual—ask for clarification if confused. • To ensure inclusivity and transparency, we acknowledge and expect that: o Participants represent a broad range of interests, each having concerns about the outcome of the issues. o Participants commit to keeping their colleagues/constituents informed about progress. o Participants will not publicly represent the views of others. Committees The Task Force has the option to form Committees, provided it is determined by the Task Force that committees will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Task Force. Task Force members and appointed members may participate in committees. The Task Force will designate a chair for each committee formed from the membership of the committee. The committee chair will provide regular updates to the Task Force on the efforts and recommendations of the committee. Appropriate Staffing The Task Force will select staff and a technical consultant. The Task Force will select staff through an open and competitive process. Page 19 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Facilitator/Coordinator The role of the facilitator will be as follows: • Keep website up to date. • Post meeting notices. • Manage the meeting agenda. • Facilitate decision-making process. • Keep meeting minutes. • Post information from meetings on website. • Facilitate communications between Task Force and the public. Technical Consultants The Task Force will hire one or more independent technical consultants. The role of the technical consultant will be as follows: • Provide unbiased scientific and technical assistance. • Review work plan. • Provide technical guidance. • Facilitate technical communications between Task Force members and the public. Task Force Work Plan During the first year, the Task Force will develop a five-year work plan (2012 to 2016) for review by lead regulatory agency in consultation with the other appropriate agencies and tribal governments. The first work plan will contain first year specific tasks and projected five year conceptual work plan needed to meet the permit requirement of a comprehensive plan for PCBs. Each year, a work plan with specific activities for the upcoming year will be submitted. The work plan will clearly demonstrate a relationship to development of a comprehensive plan. The Task Force will address agency comments and revise the annual plan as needed. The revised work plan will be submitted to the agencies for final approval. The agencies will approve the work plan and confirm that the work plan will meet regulatory requirements with respect to permit compliance and activities required to develop a comprehensive plan. Page 20 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Table 1 Amendment and Signatory Tacking Organization Name of Primary Signatory Date Amended Page 21 of 22 Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force MOA January 23, 2012 File Name: SRRTTF MOA Final 1-23-2012.docx Signature Pages Page 22 of 22 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: