2012, 07-10 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT MEETING
Tuesday, July 10, 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 Al Hulten, Valley Assembly 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. 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. ADUroval of the followina claim vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT
06/20/2012 26250 -26312 $1,124,993.29
06/21/2012 3957 -3960 $61,829.12
06/28/2012 26313 -26362 $141,337.41
GRAND TOTAL $1,328,159.82
b. Approval of Payroll for period ending June 30, 2012: $378,646.89
c. Approval of Minutes of June 12, 2012 Special Council Meeting, Budget Retreat
d. Approval of Minutes of June 26, 2012 Regular Formal Format Council Meeting
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -017, Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise — Cary Driskell
[public comment]
3. Motion Consideration: University Road Overlay Bid Award— Steve Worley [public comment]
4. Motion Consideration: SRTC Call for Projects — Steve Worley [public comment]
5. Motion Consideration: Memorandum of Understanding for 48th Avenue — Steve Worley
[public comment]
Council Agenda 07 -10 -12 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2
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:
6. Street Landscaping Standards — John Hohman, Gabe Gallinger
7. Street Lighting Standards — John Hohman, Gabe Galinger
8. Amendments to SVMC 8.25 Exceptions to Solicitation — Cary Driskell
9. Amendments to SVMC Title 7.05, Nuisances — Cary Driskell
10. Amendments to SVMC Title 17.100, Compliance and Enforcement — Cary Driskell
11. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey
INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):
12. Temporary Sign Brochure
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
General Meeting 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 let, 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 07 -10 -12 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 2012 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE_ VOUCHER NUMBERS, TOTAL AMOUNT
06/20/2012 26250 -26312 $1,124,993.29
06/21/2012 3957 -3960 $61,829.12
06/28/2012 26313 -26362 $141,337.41
GRAND TOTAL $1,328,159.82
)und on Voucher Lists
Other Funds
101 — Street Fund
103 — Paths & Trails
105 — Hotel/Motel Tax
120 -- CenterPlace Operating Reserve
121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve
122 -- Winter Weather Reserve
I23 — Civic Facilities Replacement
204 -- Debt Service
301 — Capital Projects (1" 114% BEET)
302 — Special Capital Proj (2 °' %% REST)
303 Street Capital Projects
304 — Mirabeau Point Project
307 — Capital Grants
309 -- Parks Capital Grants
310 —Civic Bldg Capital Projects
311 -- Street Capital Improvements 2011+
402 — StormEvatcr Management
403 — Aquifer Protection Area
501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement
502 — Risk Management
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists
Explanation of Fund Numbers fi
#001- General Fluid
001 .011.000.511
City Council
001.013.000.513.
City Manager
001.013.015.515.
Legal
001.016.000,
Public Safety
001.0 1 8.013.513.
Deputy City Manager
001.018.014.514,
Finance
001.018.016.516.
Human Resources
001.032.000.
Public Works
001.058.050.558.
Comm. Develop.- Administration
001.058.055.559.
Comm. Develop,— Develop.Eng.
001.058.056.558.
Community Develop.- Planting
001.058.057.559.
Community DeveIop.- Building
001.076.000.576.
Parks & Rec— Administration
001.076.300.576.
Parks & Rec - Maintenance
001.076.301.574.
Parks & Rec - Recreation
001.076.302.576.
Parks & Rec- Aquatics
001.076.304.575.
Parks & Rec- Senior Center
001.076.305.574.
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace
00I.090.000.511.
General Gov't- Council related
001.090.000.514.
General Gov't - finance related
001.090.000.517.
General Gov't - Employee supply
001.090.000.518.
General,Gov't- Centralized Services
001.090.000.519.
General Gov't - Other Services
001.090.000.531.
General Gov't - Natural Resources
001.090.000.550.
General Gov't - Economic Dev.
001.090.000.560.
General Gov't - Social Services
001.090.000.594.
General Gov't - Capital Outlay
)und on Voucher Lists
Other Funds
101 — Street Fund
103 — Paths & Trails
105 — Hotel/Motel Tax
120 -- CenterPlace Operating Reserve
121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve
122 -- Winter Weather Reserve
I23 — Civic Facilities Replacement
204 -- Debt Service
301 — Capital Projects (1" 114% BEET)
302 — Special Capital Proj (2 °' %% REST)
303 Street Capital Projects
304 — Mirabeau Point Project
307 — Capital Grants
309 -- Parks Capital Grants
310 —Civic Bldg Capital Projects
311 -- Street Capital Improvements 2011+
402 — StormEvatcr Management
403 — Aquifer Protection Area
501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement
502 — Risk Management
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists
vchlist
6/2012012 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
Voucher List
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
Page: 1
06/20/2012
1:42:31 PM
Spokane Valley
Total :
96.25
Bank code:
apbank
IVC1017579
001.076.305.575
LOCKAND KEYS FOR CENTERPLA
159.72
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund/Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26250
6/20/2012 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC
47499
402.402.000.538
2012 STREET SWEEPING SERVICE
25,968.73
47966-A
402.402.000.538
2012 STREET SWEEPING SERVICE
76,724.28
26254
6/20/2012 002638 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
47967
402.402.000.536
MAY 7ni2 .Tnizm nrzornr r r r-ANIN�
20 083 71
Total : 122,776.72
26251
6/2012012 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
21019
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
96.25
Total :
96.25
26252
6/20/2012 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY
IVC1017579
001.076.305.575
LOCKAND KEYS FOR CENTERPLA
159.72
Total :
159.72
26253
6/20/2012 001081 ALSCO
LSPOI159943
001.058.057.559
FLOOR MATS: BUILDING
39.55
Total :
39.55
26254
6/20/2012 002638 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY
104478
101,042.000.542
SCARFIER RENTAL: PW
108.70
Total :
108.70
26255
6/20/2012 000148 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
939935
001.016.000.521
MISC. EMBROIDERY /EMB/NAME/IN
606.55
Total :
606.55
26256
6/20/2012 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO
JUNE 2012
101.042.000.542
CROSSING GATE DAMAGE
903.40
Total :
903.40
26257
6/20/2012 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC
M12166 -2
101.042.000.542
UNIVERSITY ROAD 4 TO 6TH
1,578.74
M12197 -1
101.042,000.542
FARR ROAD SPRAGUE TO SULLIVi
998.58
Total :
2,577.32
26258
6/2012012 002562 CD'A METALS
467889
101 .000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
350.23
Total:
350.23
26259
6/20/2012 000729 CH2MHILL INC
38112009833
101.042.000.542
SULLIVAN WEST BRIDGE GRANT Ic
6,299.06
3831436
303.303.155.595
0155 - SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE SL
174,376.14
Total :
180,675.20
26260
6/20/2012 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN
606710671
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES FOR PW
113.33
606711583
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
111.32
606712073
101.042.000.543
SUPPLIES: PW
160.53
Page: 1
rrchlist
Voucher List
Page: 2
06/2012012
1:42:31 PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund/Dept
Description /Account
Amourd
26260
6/20/2012 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN
(Continued)
606712526
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
110.23
606713444
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
110.23
606714375
101.000.000,542
SUPPLIES: PW
140.02
606714424
101.042.000.543
SUPPLIES: PW
160.53
Total :
906.19
26261
6/20/2012 002419 CLARKS TIRES & AUTOMOTIVE
26128
001.076.000.576
0677OD: OIL CHANGEISNOW TIRE
81.11
Total :
81.11
26262
6/20/2012 001888 COMCAST
June 2012
001.090.000.518
HIGH SPEED INTERNET: CITY HAL
115.95
Total :
115.95
26263
6/20/2012 000508 CONOCOPH[LLIPS FLEET
29587572
001.058.057.559
MAY 2012: FLEET FUEL BILL
2,072.13
Total :
2,072.13
26264
6/20/2012 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19
May 2012
001.076.300.576
UTILITIES FOR RAY BROWN PROP
24.20
Total :
24.20
26265
6/20/2012 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC
75820180
001.090.000.548
LEASE CONTRACT
1,087.47
Total :
1,087.47
26266
6/20/2012 002920 DIRECTV, INC
17945083885
101.042.000.543
JUNE 2012 CABLE SERVICES: MA[I
34.99
Total :
34.99
26267
6/20/2012 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES
50057
303.303.060.595
ARGONNE CORRIDOR SIGNAL & 0
10,442.64
Total :
10,442.64
26268
6/20/2012 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES
.tune 2012
101.000.000.542
ICE SLICER: MA1NT FACILITY
55,993.74
Total :
55,993.74
26269
6/20/2012 002507 FASTENERS, INC
53345614.001
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
70.33
Total :
70.33
26270
6/20/2012 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
37907
303.303.159.595
LEGAL PUBLICATION
102.40
37937
311.000.162.541
LEGAL PUBLICATION
102.40
Total :
204.80
Page: 2
vchlist
6/20/2012 000741 HONEY BUCKETS
Voucher List
Page: 3
06/20/2012
1:42:31PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
26274
6/20/2012 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC.
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice Fund /Dept Description /Account
Amount
26271
6/20/2012 000609 GENDRONS CO
2212 001.032.000,543 SUPPLIES: PW
188.04
26275
6/20/2012 001944 LANCER LTD
0427844
Total : 188.04
26272
6/20/2012 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.
May 2012 001,058.057.559 COPIER COST
2,529.88
Total :
26273
6/20/2012 000741 HONEY BUCKETS
1- 473176
001.076.300.576
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS
Total
26274
6/20/2012 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC.
0076126
101,042.000.542
TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPD
Total
26275
6/20/2012 001944 LANCER LTD
0427844
001.058.057.559
NAME PLATE - JEFFREY
Total
26276
6/20/2012 003011 MANPOWER
8004341
001.018.016.516
STAFFING SERVICE: HR
Total
26277
6/20/2012 000788 MEDIA JOE, INC.
3393
001.090.000.594
BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT
3396
001.090.000.594
BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT
Total:
26278
6/20/2012 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO
May 2012
101.042.000.542
UTILITIES: PW
Total
26279
6/20/2012 001546 NORCO, INC
9734989
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
Total:
26280
6/20/2012 002936 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES INC
48211
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
26281
6/20/2012 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC.
87027
001.076.301.574
NAME BADGE
87229
001.018.016.516
NAME BADGE
Total :
26282
6/20/2012 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC
July 2012
001.090.000.518
CITY HALL RENT
Total :
2,529.88
154.00
154.00
22,917.04
22,917.04
13.04
13,04
491,96
491.96
1,793.55
6,266.56
8,060.11
8,202.41
8,202.41
263.24
263.24
323.49
323.49
51.09
16.85
67.94
39,566.35
39,566.35
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
06/20/2012 1:42:31 PM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund /Dept Description/Account Amount
26283 6/20/2012 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 611996060001 001.013.015.515 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL 87 88
Page: 4
Total :
87.88
26284
6/20/2012 002243 ORBITCOM
00573720
001.090.000.518
ETHERNET: JUNE 2012
590.00
Total :
590.00
26285
6/20/2012 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER
131760
001.090.000.519
COPY PAPER
1,459.84
Total :
1,459.84
26286
6/20/2012 001084 PAPICH, JENNIFER
Expenses
001.076.301.574
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
71.16
Total :
71.16
26287
6/20/2012 000029 PITNEY BOWES INC
48447288
001.090.000.518
POSTAGE REFILL: MAY 2012
5,000.00
Total :
5,000.00
26288
6/20/2012 001860 PLATT
1775815
001.076305.575
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
76.87
Total :
76.87
26289
6/20/2012 001089 POEASPHALT PAVING, INC.
May 2012
101.042.000.542
2012 STREETAND STORMWATER
475,348.09
Total :
475,348.09
26290
6/20/2012 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC
155503
101.000.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
1,403.22
Total :
1,403.22
26291
6/20/2012 000235 SECURE SHRED
79699
001.090.000.518
SHREDDING CHARGES
167.10
Total :
167.10
26292
6/20/2012 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
4264746
001.076.300.576
CONTRACT MAINT: MAY 2012
54,123.81
Total :
54,12181
26293
6/20/2012 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS, INC.
15855 -01
402.402.000.538
SURVEYING SVCS: 14TH AVE AMM
2,200.00
Total :
2,200.00
26294
6/20/2012 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE
May 2012
001.058.056.558
RECORDING FEES
449.00
MAY 2012
001.058.056.558
RECORDING FEES
315.00
Total :
764.00
26295
6/20/2012 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
51501164
001.016.000.523
MAY 2012 HOUSING INVOICE
97,739.00
Page: 4
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 5
06/20/2012
1:42:39 PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26295
6/20/2012 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
(Continued)
51501187
101.042.000,542
MAY 2012 - WORK CLEW
5,218.37
Total :
102,957.37
26296
6/20/2012 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES
June 2012
001.076.302.576
SEWER CHARGES FOR JUNE 201,,
1,459.89
Total :
1,459.89
26297
6/20/2012 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW
312777
303303.159.595
ADVERTISEMENT: ACCT 42365
1,297.84
312794
001.076.305.575
ADVERTISEMENT: ACCT # 42801
399.00
Total :
1,696.84
26298
6/20/2012 001970 STADIUM SPORTS
36407
001.076.301.574
SHIRTS FOR PARKS AND REC
181.31
Total :
181.31
26299
6/20/2012 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS
31053
001.016.000.521
MAY 2012 MONTHLY MAINT PRECII
553.60
Total :
553.60
26300
6/20/2012 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC
1 - TaskA
303.303.146.595
0146 - ON CALL ENG, DES, AUTOC,
292.76
Total :
292.76
26301
6/20/2012 001472 TESTAMERICA LAB
59004838
001.076.300.576
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING: PARK:
27.00
Total:
27.00
26302
6/20/2012 003056 THERUSTYMUFFLER, RUSSEL SEATON
Refund
001.018.013.513
CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND
13.00
Total :
13.00
26303
6/20/2012 002576 TUNE TALES MUSIC, INC
June 2012
001.076.301.574
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
488.00
Total:
488.00
26304
6/20/2012 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRIZES L.L.0
5312012
001.011.000.511
BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTS W
2,934.90
Total:
2,934.90
26305
6/20/2012 000337 UPS
OOOOY3F950222
001.090.000.518
SHIPPING CHARGES: GENERAL
239.42
Total :
239.42
26306
6/20/2012 000167 VERA WATER & POWER
May 2012
101 .042.000.542
UTILITIES: MAY 2012
2,833.86
Total :
2,833.86
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
06/20/2012 1:42:31PM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26307
6/20/2012 002909 WA DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES
2012050060
001.032.000.543
TECHNOLOGY BROKERING SERVI
5,605.03
Total :
5,605.03
26308
6/20/2012 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE
33066
303.303.160.595
EVERGREEN RD RECONSTRUCT](
446.86
Total :
446.86
26309
6/20/2012 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC_
74433
101.042.000.542
WIRELESS TELEPHONE/INTERNEI
84.95
Total :
84.95
26310
6/20/2012 001409 WORLD CLASS COMMUNICATIONS
120600208
004.076.305.575
ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE
22.00
Total:
22.00
26311
6/20/2012 003002 XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0251303670
001.076.305.575
JUNE 2012 INTERNET /DATA LINES
449.42
Total :
449.12
26312
6/20/2012 001885 Z4YO BANDWIDTH LLC
June 2012
001.090.000.518
HIGH SPEED INTERNET: CITY HAL
1,068.33
May 2012
001.090.000.518
MAY 2012: DARK FIBER LEASE
242.39
Total :
1310.72
63 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
Bank total :
1,124,993.29
63 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,124,993.29
Page: 6
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
06/21/2012
10:50:09AM Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor Invoice
Fund /Dept
DescriptionlAccount
Amount
3957
6/20/2012 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben44302
001,231.14.00
401A: Payment
22,543.49
Total:
22,543.49
3958
6/20/2012 000682 EFTPS Ben44304
001.231.11.00
FEDERAL TAXES: Payment
30,628.74
Total :
30,628.74
3959
6/20/2012 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PLf Ben44306
001.231.18,00
457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payr
7,604.56
Total:
7,604.56
3960
6/20/2092 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben44308
001,231.14.00
401 EXEC PLAN: Payment
1,052.33
Total :
1,052.33
4 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
Bank total :
61,829.12
4 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers:
61,829.12
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
Mayo r Date
Councit Member Date
Page: 1
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
06/28/2012
10:03:44AM
Spokane Valley
Bank code :
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description/Account
Amount
26313
6/28/2012 002937 AUTO ELECTRIC PRODUCTS
33227
101.000.000.542
ALTERNATOR REPAIR
172.83
Total :
172.83
26314
6/28/2012 000030 AVISTA
May 2012
001.076.300.576
UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA
9,764.95
May 2012
101.042.000.542
UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA
24,222.46
Total :
33,987.41
26315
6/28/2012 001606 BANNER BANK
0618
001.011.000.511
MAY 2012: 0618
20.00
4458
001.011.000.511
MAY 2012:4458
932.33
8861
310.000.161.594
MAY 2012: 8861
504.21
9048
001.032.000.543
MAY 2012: 9048
2,120.99
Total :
3,577.53
26316
6/28/2012 003029 BEACH, BOBBIN
06202012
001.076.301.574
FIRSTAID INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
525.00
Total :
525.00
26317
6/28/2012 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG
2nd Qtr 2012
001.018.014.518
2ND QTR CELLALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Expenses
001.018.014.514
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
15.43
Total:
150.43
26318
6/28/2012 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC
SPO - 030130
001.076.305.575
SERVICE CALL
323.39
Total :
323.39
26319
6/2812012 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
9337728
001.076.305.575
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C
37.08
S0033393
001.076.305.575
LINEN SERVICEAND SUPPLYAT C
292.39
S0033708
001.076.305.575
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C
88.94
Total :
418.41
26320
.6/2812012 000904 BRANCH, CAROLBELLE
2nd Qtr 2012
001.018.013.513
2ND QTR CELLALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Total :
135.00
26321
6/28/2012 000796 BUDINGER 8 ASSOC INC
H12089 -2
402.402.000.538
512 N PINES DRAINAGE IMPROVE]
1,083.39
M12222 -1
303.303.149.595
0149 -ON CALL MATERIALS TESTII
737.68
M12223 -1
303.303.154.595
0154 - ON CALL MATERIALS TESTII
549.59
M12224 -2
303.303.146.595
0146 - ON CALL MATERIALS TESTII
422.40
M12225 -1
311.000.162.541
0162 - ON CALL MATERIALSTESTIP
488.81
Page: 1
vchlist
Voucher List
Page:
2
0612812012
10:03:44AM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26321
6/28/2012 000796 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC
(Continued)
Total :
3,281.87
26322
6/28/2012 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP
233083
001.032.000.543
2012 TIP SERVICES - EXPIRES 121:
7,263.45
Total :
7,263.45
26323
6/28/2012 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
June 2012
001.018.013.513
PETTY CASH: 7796, 7797
12.90
June 2012
001.090.000.519
PETTY CASH: 7795
2.71
Total :
15.61
26324
6/28/2012 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES
318437
101.042.000.542
2012 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERI
9,737.30
Total :
9,737.30
26325
6/28/2012 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST
June 2012
001.076.305.575
ADVERTISING: CP
140.23
June 2012
001.076.304.575
ADERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTEF
39.55
Total :
179.78
26326
6/28/2012 003074 DIERKS, EMILY
Refund
001.076.302.347
AQUATICS REFUND FOR OVERCH,
60.00
Total :
60.00
26327
6/28/2012 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC, INC
63097
001.013.015.515
LEGAL SERVICES
40.00
Total ;
40.00
26328
6/28/2012 002296 ELECTRONIC COMMERCE LINK
9600
001.018.013.513
MAINTAND HOSTING: E -GOV BASI
1,440.00
Total :
1,440.00
26329
6/28/2012 001625 EPIC EVENTS & PROMOTION, INC
733
001.076.301.574
OUTDOOR MOVIES IN THE PARK
2,800.00
Total :
2,800.00
26330
6/28/2012 001232 FASTENAL CO
IDLEW83078
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC WORKS
130.43
Total :
130.43
26331
6/28/2012 002308 FINKE, MELISSA
June 2012
001.076.301.574
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
830.00
Total :
830.00
26332
6/28/2012 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
38051
001.058.056.558
LEGAL PUBLICATION
71.40
38052
001.058.056.558
LEGAL PUBLICATION
73.10
38053
001.058.056.558
LEGAL PUBLICATION
68.85
38054
001.013.000.513
LEGAL PUBLICATION
25.00
Page: 2
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
0612812012
10:03:44AM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26332
6/28/2012 001447 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING
INC (Continued)
Total :
238.35
26333
6/28/2012 003058 GEORGIE GIRLS LLC, DBAAVENUES
June 2012
001.076.305.575
ITEMS PURCHASED FOR CENTERI
1,870.00
Total :
1,870.00
26334
612812012 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN
2nd Qtr 2012
001.011.000.519
2ND QTR CELL ALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Expenses
001.011.000,511
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
36.66
Total :
171.66
26335
6/28/2012 000007 GRAINGER
861093094
001.016.000.521
SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT
33.81
9848520152
101,042,000,542
SUPPLIES: PW
30.78
9848654860
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
5.13
Total :
69.72
26336
6/28/2012 002568 GRANICUS INC
36545
001.011.000.511
BRAODCASTING SERVICES
719.59
Total :
719.59
26337
6/28/2012 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA
2nd Qtr 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELL ALLOWANCE 2012
135.00
Total :
135.00
26338
6/28/2012 002682 HAFNER, CHARLES
2nd Qtr 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELL ALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Total :
135.00
26339
6/28/2012 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6
May 2012
101.042.000.542
UTILITIES: PW
47.25
Total :
47.25
26340
6/28/2012 000265 JACKSON, MIKE
2nd Qtr 2012
001.013.000.513
2ND QTR CELLALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
July 2012
001.013.000.513
MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE
300.00
Total :
435.00
26341
6/28/2012 002466 KENWORTH SALES
113969
101.000.000.542
PARTS/SUPPLIES: PW
127.05
Total :
127.05
26342
6/28/2012 001944 LANCER LTD
0428081
001.013.015.615
NAME PLATE: STOLTZ
13.04
Total :
13,04
26343
6/28/2012 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW
CP 6-14 -2012 Media
001.076.304.575
ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE
2,357.00
Page: 3
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 4
06/28/2012
10 :03:44AM
Spokane Valley
Bank code :
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund/Dept
DescriptionlAccount
Amount
26343
6/28/2012 001684 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW (Continued)
Total :
2,357.00
26344
6/28/2012 001130 MPLC
503784214
001.076.305.575
LICENSE FOR MOTION PICTURE
537.64
Total :
537.64
26345
6/28/2012 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT
3381
001.090.000.518
SYSTEM MONTHLY MAINTENANCE
4,977.50
Total :
4,977.50
26346
6/28/2012 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC.
87306
001.018.016.516
NAME BADGE
16.85
Total :
46.85
26347
6/28/2012 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
613517363001
001.076.000.576
OFFICE SUPPILES: PARKS AND CF
59.60
613718838001
001.032.000.543
SUPPLIES: PW
21.16
613718894001
001.032.000.543
SUPPLIES: PW
3.34
Total :
84.10
26348
6/28/2012 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
May 2012
001.016.000.586
STATE REMITTANCE
54,960.91
Total :
54,960.91
26349
6/28/2012 001334 OLYMPIC FOUNDRY INC.
0000226523
402.402.000.538
STORMWATER LIP REPLACEMENT
3,489.48
Total:
3,489.48
26350
6/28/2012 000041 PROTHMAN COMPANY
2012 -3418
001.013.000.513
REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSES: PW
2,231.65
Total:
2,231.65
26351
6/28/2012 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC.
29503
001.076.000.576
SUPPLIES: PARKS /CENTERPLACE
50.83
29504
001.076.305.575
SUPPLIES: PARKS /CENTERPLACE
218.27
29509
001.076.300.576
SUPPLIES: PARKS /CENTERPLACE
46.74
Total:
315.84
26352
6/28/2012 002467 QWICK KURB, INC.
103514
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES, PW
175.97
Total :
175.97
26353
6/28/2012 000191 RIVERFRONT PARK, GROUP SALES
12308
001.076.301.574
DAY CAMP PASSES FOR RIVERFR(
473.00
Total :
473.00
26354
6/28/2012 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY
2ND Qtr 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELL ALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Page: 4
vchlist
Voucher List
Page:
5
06/28/2012
10:03:44AM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
Fund /Dept
Description /Account
Amount
26354
6/28/2012
000064 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY
(Continued)
Total :
135.00
26355
6/28/2012
000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
May 2012
001.016.000.586
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F
803.13
Total :
803.13
26356
6/28/2092
002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS, INC
215041
101.042.000.542
SUPPLIES: PW
380.45
Total :
380.45
26357
6/28/2012
000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
57267
001.018.016.516
PROFESSIONAL SVC: GENERAL El
127.50
Total:
127.50
26358
6/28/2012
003075 TAYLOR, REBEKAH
Refund
001.076.302.347
AQUATIC REFUND FOR OVERCHAI
140.00
Total :
140.00
26359
6/28/2012
002254 TOWEY, TOM
2ND QTR 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELLALLOWANCE. 2012
135.00
Total:
135.00
26360
6/28/2012
000676 WEST
825073350
001.013.015.515
SUBSCRIPTION: LEGAL
69629
Total :
696.29
26361
6/28/2012
002960 WICK, BEN
2nd Qtr 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELLALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Total :
135.00
26362
6/28/2012
002651 WOODARD, ARNE
2nd Qtr 2012
001.011.000.511
2ND QTR CELL ALLOWANCE: 2012
135.00
Total :
135.00
50 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
50 Vouchers in this report
Bank total : 141,337.41
Total vouchers: 141,337.41
Page: 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 07 -10 -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 June 30, 2012
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Budget/Financial impacts
Employees Council Total
Gross: $ 234,375.24 $ 5,475.00 $239,850.24
Benefits: $ 130,310.12 $ 8,486.53 $138,796.65
Total payroll $ 364,685.36 $ 13,961.53 $378,646.89
STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
CenterPlace Regional Event Center
2426 N Discovery Place, Room 213
Spokane Valley, Washington
June 12, 2012
Attendance:
8:30 a.m.
Councilmembers
Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Arne Woodard, Councilmember
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Others Present
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Bill Bates, Chair Planning Commission
Michelle Rasmussen, Administrative Assistant
Rod Higgins, Planning Commissioner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Nina Culver, Spokesman Review
Diana Wilhite, Citizen
Ashley Stoltz, Legal Intern
Raba Nimri, Accountant/Budget Analyst
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
Deven Nickerson, Administrative Assistant
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
At approximately 8:30 a.m., Mayor Towey called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. After
self - introductions by Council and staff, Mayor Towey extended thanks to staff for their work in putting
this meeting together and the accompanying materials; and reminded everyone that the objective today is
discussion of ideas and options and to use that discussion as a guideline for the 2013 budget. Mayor
Towey said that our City is better financially than most cities now, but we have a long way to go and said
he is sure changes will occur between now and when the budget is actually adopted later this year.
City Manager Jackson said today's objective is by the end of the day, to make sure council concerns are
addressed, and that the budget sheets are thoroughly vetted so staff has direction from Council as we
work to prepare the actual budget. He said the main focus includes the financial objectives, then
determine what Council wants to accomplish from today's meeting; he said all the information is in the
worksheets; the department heads have been through a "snapshot" of their own budget; but that during the
overall process, we might discover some things we wish to change; he said that the budget is %2 of 1%
over last year's budget, so we could find we need to put things back in, or take other things out; he said
the idea for today is to discuss what's relevant, including economic development and revenues, and how
we'll provide what we need to provide; he said he plans ending today's meeting with a wrap -up
discussion on the ending fund balance, which will also be discussed more tonight by Engineer Worley.
Mr. Jackson said we could find by the end of 2013 that our ending fund balance might not be $26 million,
and if so, it could mean we're not accomplishing as much preservation as we had anticipated.
City Manager Jackson led the discussion on the financial objectives.
Financial objectives listed on the white board (taken from the business plan):
* 2013 Budget — Maintain basic service levels with reduced resources to maximize funds available for
street preservation.
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 1 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
* Current budget worksheets reflect %2 of 1% increase over 2012 expenditures.
1. The general fund balance minimum set at 15%
It was stated that 15% is not sufficient to help in any economic downtown, and Mr. Jackson said staff will
be recommending we keep the $26 million general fund balance.
Suggested New #1: "Maintain 36% minimum general fund ending balance."
2. Maintain the same Service Level Stabilization fund at current level of $5.4 million through 2015.
3. On an ongoing basis, transfer to the Street Capital Fund, 40% of the ending fund balance which
exceeds $26 million. This will be done in the first quarter of each year following reconciliation of the
previous year's books. This preserves the City's $26 million ending fund balance while also funding a
portion of street capital projects from the General Fund. Mr. Jackson said the description would be more
accurate to call it "street capital preservation projects."
4. New - increase property tax by 1% plus new construction.
Mr. Jackson said that of course these suggestions are subject to council input. To explain the history of
our property tax levy, Mr. Jackson said that when this Council came in in 2010, the City had passed a
Finding of Substantial Need and increased the 2010 property tax by 1% plus new construction; when
Council later asked if that could change, they were told it could not but staff suggested an alternative
would be to take the $100,000 that represents 1 %, and set that aside for 2011 and put that toward our
assessment, which affectively reduced the taxes; and said there was no increase in property taxes for
2012. Mr. Jackson said that adds up each year, and the 1% increase to the citizens represents less than
$3.00 a year, or about 30¢ a month, which he said is a very small amount and all it does is try to keep up
with inflation. Councilmember Woodard asked if we continue to not take the increase, can we go back for
an accumulative total. Finance Director Calhoun explained that if it is not taken, it becomes like a banked
capacity; and that now it is about $250,000, but a year ago it would have been greater; he said it moves
around depending on the assessed values of the city. Mr. Jackson said the accumulative impact of that
money over time is even more powerful, as over the years it would be about two to three million; and said
in reality it's just keeping up with a fraction of inflation; that inflation over the last few years was about
2.5% each year where as the maximum allowed property tax by law is 1 %.
The direction to department heads this year, said Mr. Jackson was to maintain the basic service levels
with the reduced resources used to maximum funds available for street preservation; to run as efficiently
and lean as possible, but provide the services; and he said although they are not budget proposals, the
scenarios of three, six, and nine percent reductions were built into the worksheets, with each reduction
representing a substantial decrease in services. Mr. Jackson also noted that over the past few years we
have "squeezed about $3 million from the budget" and said that includes about nine vacant positions. He
further explained that most line items expenditures in 2013 will not exceed what was actually spent in
2011; but just to keep up with inflation, we would need an increase in the budget while allowing room for
efficiency; and said each department displayed an excellent effort to keep the %2 of 1% increase. When
Council was asked if there were any missing components or if Council would like to see a different
approach, Mayor Towey asked if we assume inflation at 2.5% and we have %2 of 1% increase and there is
a shortfall, where would that money come from. Mr. Jackson replied that as we work through each
department budget, we'll show where the money comes from and what the corresponding services in
reduction would be; he said reductions could come from a variety of places, for example, in the Deputy
City Manager Budget we are no longer doing a community -wide survey; he said reduction in services
would come out of the general fund; and he stressed that the goal is to spend as little as possible and
increase the carryover.
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 2 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Finance Director Calhoun then gave an overview of the budget worksheets; explained that there are
twelve sections in the book including department budgets; and said each department produced budget
sheets showing line item expenditures and what was actually spent in 2011, and what is proposed for
2013. He discussed some of the recurring and nonrecurring activities and the percentage increase or
decrease in each department; then said that the sales tax estimated increases are based on what we have
been experiencing; he noted State shared revenues are down by over $298,000 which he said, is reflective
of the state legislative adopted budget eliminating the distribution of excess taxes. He also noted that the
ending fund balance for 2013 has less than $26 million; and said the hope is always to have revenues
come in higher than expected and expenditures come in lower than expected; he said for the past few
years, we have done a great job keeping expenses down. City Manager Jackson said sales taxes have
increased only slightly but in looking at the projections, there are a lot of opposing forces working against
us, and the reduction in State shared revenues has and will have, a huge impact. Mr. Calhoun also noted
that these figures will change between now and when the budget is actually adopted. Mr. Jacksons said as
we look at 2012, we note we have spent more money than the City took in in revenue; he said the
expenditures were used for good purposes, but any time you spend more than you bring in, there is cause
to reflect on the method of spending; and said this time, it is due to nonrecurring expenses on street
preservation; he said we call it "nonrecurring" but it is always ongoing; and he emphasized that for the
first time in this City's history, we spent more than we took in.
Mayor Towey said that since emphasis now is street preservation, we must make sure we have a revenue
stream for that; he said we started with 100% over $26 million, but it seems now the 2013 budget will fall
below that $26 million estimate; and said we need to either lower the threshold, or determine an outside
revenue source. Councilmember Grafos said the sales tax projection from the 2012 budget has a
projection of 6.2% increase in 2013, but said that is not based on the revenues, which he said would be
the correct way to do it; he said that Mr. Calhoun is using the original number, so if we took the 14.2 and
added back what we're increasing, the ending fund balance would go up going into 2013 because we're
doing an accrual system in lieu of revenues coming in after the fact and that makes it more difficult to
project into next year. Mr. Calhoun said he calculated the sales tax based on what we've received for the
four months this year as well as historically what we received in the first four months of other years; he
said that is a fairly good projection, but there is no way to project that number precisely. Mr. Calhoun
explained the sheets showing the figures from 2009 to 2012 each year and how the general fund balance
actually decreased; he went over the FTE history (full time equivalent), said the high year was 2010 and
we have dropped nine and one -half positions in one year and that overall, 2013 reflects about 1.375 fewer
FTEs for a total FTE count of 85.875. City Manager Jackson said it doesn't mean we won't fill those
vacant positions at some time in the future. Mr. Calhoun also have a brief history of CPI (Consumer Price
Index) and its yearly fluctuation, and summarized by stating that the average CPIU increase was 2.48 %;
the average CPIW was 2.54°/x, and the average social security increase was 2.6 %. City Manager Jackson
said that the main point is, inflation is real, and when we have a budget that is less than inflation, it puts
pressure on the budget; he said if you want to continue the same services, a rate of inflation would be
included in the budget; that we can make budget cuts but said that you reach a point, and said we are
getting close to that, where you reduce services to a point where it has an impact, such as in response time
to people; he said we have an outstanding staff doing everything they can, and said we need to realize
that; and again said the objective is to provide services, and that it takes resources to provide those
services.
Tab #1: General Government and Leeislative worksheets
Finance Director Calhoun gave an overview of the worksheets explaining some of the figures such as the
$50,000 set aside for retirement and Labor and Industries; and a contingency figure of $350,000 to
provide some coverage in case some departments are too tight on their projected increase. Mr. Jackson
further explained that when we reduced the budget last year, we initiated the contingency, and reminded
Council that staff had that discussion with the Finance Committee, and said this is so if something does
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 3 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
come up, we won't have to come back to council, and said so far, we haven't had to use those funds or
come to council to explain that we have fallen short; he said once we establish the budget, we try to meet
it, so this covers whatever may come our way that is not anticipated; and said it could even cover
something in Public Works, but not from the street or stormwater fund; we said we still have a small
amount in public safety, and at one time had $1 million to cover any increase in cost for public safety, but
said that has now been reduced to almost nothing. Mr. Calhoun said our current City Hall lease expires in
2013. Mr. Calhoun said that IT support includes cost for monthly server maintenance and staff continues
to research the idea of bringing in a full -time person to work on "help desk" problems, thus freeing the IT
staff to do other more involved work that we are currently paying a contractor for; and said our staff could
handle those duties for a fraction of the cost of the contractor, and having the additional staff member,
would still mean spending less overall. Mr. Calhoun mentioned that the audit will be performed this year
at a cost of approximately $85.00 per hour; that they budgeted $90,000 for the audit in 2011 but the actual
amount was $68,000; and estimated this year's audit at $70,000.
Legislative, City Council:
City Manager Jackson said there were some minor changes such as office and operating supplies reduced
from $3,500 to $2,000. Councilmember Grassel asked why there is an increase in payroll taxes and
benefits, and Mr. Jackson explained the increase is primarily due to insurance coverage. Mr. Calhoun
said every year those figures change based on the individual's coverage; and said the health insurance will
increase about 10% each year and that Asuris premiums went up about 11% and Group Health premiums
increased about 7 %; and confirmed those figures are just for Councilmembers. Mr. Jackson said staff can
get the actual breakdown on the health care cost increases later. Mr. Jackson mentioned they were able to
more closely project the actual cost of the lobbyist at $38,000; and now that we have some history of
broadcasting council meetings, that figured was reduced to $42,000. Mr. Jackson said travel increased
some most likely due to the increased cost of airline travel and hotels; and mentioned that
Councilmembers share those funds.
Tab #2: Executive and Legislative Support
Mr. Jackson said this is the City Manager's budget, and he referenced page 31 of the Business Plan
concerning impact of budget reductions; he said the largest change is the reduction to meet the 1% of the
professional services line item and that figure was cut in half, he said we normally use Prothman
Company to recruit for new department heads, but we could use other consulting agencies as well; he said
occasionally we use outside legal counsel and if we had to go over - budget, the contingency could be used;
he said there is a slight increase in travel and mileage as the City Manager's car allowance was not
previously budgeted. In response to comment from Councilmember Grassel about the increase in wages,
Mr. Jackson said this represents a 2.5% increase and that the new contract has not yet been negotiated.
Mr. Calhoun said we are using that figure as a holding place throughout the budget.
Tab #3: City Attorney/Legal Support
City Attorney Driskell explained that his office consists of two attorneys, one administrative assistant,
and two interns; that the bulk of what his office does is drafting and reviewing contracts and ordinances,
and the overall structure of the City; he said the difference in wages is mostly due to not having a Deputy
City Attorney for most of the year; he said training was reduced; and he said his office relies heavily on
on -line publications, and have virtually no hardbound publications except for the RCWs (Revised Code of
Washington) and WACs (Washington Administrative Code); he said they occasionally use outside
council but at an average rate of $250.00 a hour, they try not to unless there is a need for a particular
expertise, such as in the case of Shoreline Management.
At approximately 10:00 a.m., Mayor Towey called for a break; the meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 4 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Tab #4: Ogs & Admin Services
Mr. Jackson said page 39 of the Business plan outlines the Operations and Administrative Services
Department, which includes human resources, central reception, and public information. He explained
the vacant positions include a Deputy City Manager and an administrative assistant to the Deputy City
manager; and to meet the 1% reduction, said there is not a lot of room for reductions as this department is
mainly people; they have switched to doing the annual survey to every other year; and noted the copier
maintenance was zero in 2011 as it was previously funded under general government. Councilmember
Woodard said the Deputy City Manager has been vacant for about two years now and he asked if Mr.
Jackson plans to continue with that vacancy or remove the position, and he asked about the administrative
assistant position as well. Mr. Jackson responded that he has taken a hard look at that position and it
needs to be filled; and said it would be shortchanging the City if he didn't fill it; he said he has taken his
time with that position, that he has been focusing on hiring department heads and waiting to see how
everything settles out and said he has been more involved in operations and less involved in legislature,
and said he should be spending more time with the constituents rather than buried in work; he said he can
wait to fill the position and mentioned the aspect of economic development; he said the City's real
emphasis should be infrastructure and focus on what we do well like roads, bridges, and parks; that if we
start to move into marketing or other economic development activity that our partners are providing, we
start to step out of our realm of expertise. Mr. Jackson said this kind of work takes considerable training
and is a profession in itself, and to think we can piece this together with staff simply won't work in the
long term, as the right choice for this position is someone with economic development background. Mr.
Jackson said for every employee we have, we must get 100% from them; and every time we have a
vacancy we re -write the job description to make sure we hire the person to give us the most value for the
organization; if council wants to remove it, he said he can bring this back later but the intent is to fill the
Deputy City Manager position when he is ready as it leaves a hole in the organization and there is more
work than one City Manager can provide on a sustainable basis and that it has become obvious that the
amount of work we have in this City is large and it takes an extraordinary amount of time to prepare for
each council meeting.
Councilmember Woodard asked if when Mr. Jackson has to be out of town or on vacation and someone is
delegated as the Acting City Manager, if there is an increase in their pay. Mr. Jackson replied there is not;
as that has been a favor and courtesy that department heads are willing and able to do. Mr. Jackson
explained that we have an extremely flat organization structure; that it is rare to see a Deputy Community
Development Director or a Deputy Parks and Recreation Manager, and said that is one of the ways we
hold down costs; that when a Department Head has to be gone, they rely on staff, he said it is efficient
and saves us money and we do it because our focus is to hold down costs and not grow the organization.
Concerning economic marketing, Mr. Jackson said in examining an organization, you look for where the
void is and plan accordingly; that every time we add a park, like the Old Milwaukee Trail, we add future
costs to the City; and said we need to consider that whenever we add a new facility. Mr. Jackson said it is
his understanding that the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee is working on a plan, and when
they make a report, a decision can be made if we are going to add a program, and if so, what resources
will be needed; or to continue to work with our partners. Conversation switched to the City's upcoming
Tenth Anniversary and Public Information Officer Branch noted there are no funds dedicated in that
regard. Mr. Jackson said staff will need to add that under general government.
Tab #5: Human Resources
Human Resources Manager Whitehead said some of the changes they are working on to reduce the
budget include such things as not requiring a pre - employment physical for every employee but instead
examine which positions include a physical component; he said advertising is one of the biggest expenses
and they are working on a plan to reduce that by implementing an on -line system; that regarding training,
they are planning to bring courses to all employees, like safe driving. Mr. Whitehead said the Health and
Wellness funds do not include the $8,000 annual savings we realize by having the Wellness Program; and
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 5 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
he briefly explained that some of the health care increases are based on experience throughout the state.
At Council request, Mr. Whitehead also explained the various benefits city employees receive, which lead
to further discussion on the difference between social security and retirement benefits and whether
retirement is mandatory, and what the percentage is that the employee pays and what percentage the City
pays, with Councilmember Woodard asking about the possibility of letting employees own their own
system instead of paying into a state system. Mr. Jackson said PERS retirement is mandatory, and we
must either pay into social security or have a substitute plan, adding that we all realize that social security
won't sustain anyone on retirement.
Tab #6: Finance and Information Technology
Finance Director Calhoun said ironically, his department could not produce their budget at or below the
1 %; but they did use the vacant position to cut back to a thirty -hour work week to help with the capital
policy and a variety of research projects; he said staff works hard on the day -to -day duties but there are
other tasks such as development policies or conducting research; he said he plans to fill the vacant
accounting technician position.
Tab #7: Community Development
City Manager Jackson said we will be proposing some restructuring in this department at no cost increase
and said it will actually save money. Community Development Director Hohman starting by discussing
page 57 of the business plan and the various department divisions and the responsibilities and duties in
each division. With the proposed changes as noted on the organizational tree, Mr. Hohman said the City
will realize about a 3.5% net reduction, and said staff has worked hard to reduce as much as possible; and
added that the new permitting software was a positive cost benefit. Mr. Hohman spoke of the proposed
consolidation of associate and assistant planner as an attempt to have a group of staff members examine
land use and long -range planning. Director Hohman also noted that his goal is to create a dynamic group
to focus on taking customer service to the next level and have a customer service policy that will be
unequal to any other jurisdiction, and he said part of that can be accomplished by having a planner at the
commercial building permit section; and to take reach out a step further by working toward having a
certified site plan; to focus on available properties and identify what needs to be done initially, such as
traffic and environmental issues, and have those completed at those sites to make it easier for
development to occur. He said the position of permit facilitator will require a higher educated, higher
certified person at the counter to provide that needed service, and said he plans to have a residential plans
examiner at the counter to process such things as basic remodels like garages, or adding a shed or room.
Mr. Hohman said they need a development services coordinator as they haven't had anyone designated as
the contact person for developers, and said he envisions this as an individual staff member who fills in
unofficially where needed to help coordinate all the projects from the contractor /developer side and city
side; and to consolidate that even further, said two of the planners would be moved over to the building
division to be supervised by the planners, and a three- quarter position will be reduced to a fifty percent
position. Mr. Hohman said a part-time assistant planner resigned last month and that position will be re-
evaluated and will actually be eliminated into next year, giving an overall net reduction of three - fourths of
a position.
City Manager Jackson explained that any re- classifications would come to council for approval
consideration; and any change in structure without change in classifications would be done
administratively. Director Hohman explained that his department will see a substantial savings due to the
revisions in organization and approximately an $80,000 savings with the reduction of the PLUS
permitting and software service agreement with Spokane County. After Director Hohman said he worked
to develop a staffing level that is sustainable, and said the Planning Division took a big cut with the
reduction of 1.5 positions along with splitting duties; he said his department is at a stage where every staff
member is very busy; and if a large project were added, they would have to examine how to fit that in,
which he said would not preclude the possibility of using a consultant; and said if that were to occur, he
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 6 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
would work to identify the cost and work with City Manager Jackson to bring that to Council; and he
again emphasized that every staff member is maxed out and everyone seems motivated to get the projects
completed.
Tab #8: Parks and Recreation
Beginning on page 73 of the Business Plan, Parks and Recreation Director Stone went over the various
divisions and the associated tasks; he said there are six divisions with nine FTEs; he said he had to cut
$42,000 to make the 1% goal, and part of that included eliminating the planning professional services to
begin a skate park; the reduction of CenterPlace seasonal staffing; and the purchase of replacement chairs
at CenterPlace, and said there were various other line items cut over the entire Department. Mr. Stone
noted that the swimming pools need painting, and the cost just for Terrace View Pool starts at $35,000.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked why the sewer rate fluctuates, and Mr. Stone said it might be due to the
different added features, but that he will need to research that issue.
Director Stone said the Senior Center Division boasts over 1,000 members; that they occupy the east wing
of CenterPlace and when they are not there, the space can be rented. Mr. Stone also noted that
CenterPlace is open about eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, and they rely heavily on seasonal
employees, or hosts, to work evenings and weekends to manage the events and the people, and said many
times it is these hosts who are the first contact with the public. Mr. Stone said they hold over 900 events
annually, and there could be a point in the future where he would need to transition some of those
seasonal workers into a permanent positions working evenings and weekends. There was general
discussion about this Department and Mr. Stone stated that if we were to remove the $317,000 funds from
the building replacement fund, it would have a dramatic effect. Councilmember Hafner asked about the
lack of grants applied for under the category of the Centennial Trail; and Mr. Stone responded that he
does not have the staff or time to apply for grants; but that line is included in case there might be a needed
capital improvement project. He said the Centennial Trail is an interesting project as the entities involved
are still trying to finalize a new agreement, and the delay concerns what each district wants to contribute
to the trail; he said there are some sections of the trail that are badly eroded and repair work should be
done or we will end up with a major challenge; and said there are no repair dollars in the 2012 or the 2013
budget for the trail. It was noted the State owns the trail and each entity is responsible for the maintenance
of the trail within that entity's jurisdiction. Mr. Jackson said we do routine maintenance of the part of the
trail in our City, but there is no funding for major repairs, and the condition of the trail is gradually
declining. Councilmember Grassel asked about using the $315,000 contingency funds for major
reconstruction, and Mr. Jackson explained that would not be our responsibility; adding that it is very
difficult to work through the State and he finds it almost impossible to believe we still don't have an
agreement. Mr. Jackson said grants aren't usually available for trails, but we will keep looking; adding
that the State does not have the money either for that type of work. City Manager Jackson said the finance
committee thought we should keep the building replacement fund so we could replace the facility in
twenty to thirty years; but using those funds is something we could research. At approximately 12:25
p.m., the group took a break for lunch and reconvened at approximately 1:05 p.m.
Tab #9: Public Works
Senior Engineer Worley introduced Public Works Administrative Assistant Deven Nickerson and
explained that Mr. Nickerson worked with former Public Works Director Kerstin over the last several
years in putting the budget together. Mr. Worley began by discussing page 83 of the Business Plan, which
gives an overview of the department's organization. Mr. Worley explained that they are a very small
department consisting of four divisions: street maintenance, stormwater, capital improvement program,
and traffic. Mr. Worley said some of the proposed budget cuts were due to the Director vacancy, and that
it is anticipated that someone new coming in would not be paid at the same level as the outgoing Director.
Mr. Worley noted that $48,000 is allocated for TIP management (Transportation Improvement Program)
to hire a consultant to help with the TIP and grant applications as we don't have enough staff to do that;
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 7 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
and he said overall, their general fund is almost 4% less than what was proposed in 2012, and stressed
that this budget is at the bare minimum. Mr. Worley said that the street fund budget is budgeted almost
exactly to revenues, and he discussed those revenues as shown in the data. Mr. Worley explained that we
took about $200,000 from the Poe Contract that we had been using for street preservation and put it into
the street preservation line item, which balances the expenditures with the revenues. Mr. Worley said staff
would like to construct a truck wash facility at the maintenance shop for about $180,000; he said the
facility would be used to spray the chemicals off the snow plow trucks as the chemicals are very corrosive
and we want to keep those trucks operational as long as possible; adding that we bought older used trucks
from DOT (Department of Transportation ), and we are on a program to replace a plow truck every few
years; and said public works budgeted within the available revenues. It was noted by Finance Director
Calhoun that the seasonal employees are separated from the regular staff in order to get a better picture of
seasonal needs, and a truer picture of wages. Mr. Calhoun also discussed the funds being set aside for
future snowplow purchases. Councilmember Woodard asked that the topic of snowplows and purchases
be added to a future council agenda.
In discussion preservation, Mr. Jackson said staff went through the preservation contract we have with
Poe and went back to 2007 and added the inflationary increases and other changes to the contract, and
explained that $200,000 was the net that we were able to separate from that contract and keep in good
faith with the contract originally agreed to; so that amount was moved to preservation and can go out on a
bid basis; and said Poe can do grind and overlay as a component of their maintenance contract which was
what was awarded, while preservation can be subtracted out and bid out separately. Councilmember
Grafos said his concern is that the contract states grind and overlay but doesn't quantify that type of work.
Mr. Jackson explained that it would cause crack sealing or other repair work instead of grind and overlay,
and said if grind and overlay is the best choice at any time, we should keep that option available, whether
by contract basis or not; and said it is because of the contract that we were able to get those projects done
so quickly. Mr. Worley said this is the biggest year we have had for street preservation because of
Council's priority for preservation and he showed a table entitled "Poe Asphalt Street and Stormwater
Maintenance Contract" that shows how the Poe contract costs are broken down for the various projects.
Mr. Worley explained there was $1.145 million slated in the Poe Contract for street preservation and that
there is a long list of items that we can do within the Poe contract; and said staff decided to delay some of
those projects and put those funds into street preservation; he explained that decision was made prior to
Council putting the $2.8 million from the general fund end balance into street preservation; and he
explained the strategy of bringing the cost down to the 2007 costs plus inflation, as noted above, and
redistribute those funds into different activities.
Mr. Worley pointed out that the dollar figures for pavement removal and overlays, and for pothole cutout
and patch, grew substantially from 2009 to the estimated figure in 2012; and explained that this occurred
because we kept falling further behind in preservation so we kept shifting money into those two
categories because that need kept growing and we did not want to get any further behind than could be
avoided. Mr. Worley explained that the overall contract amount has gone up as well because over the last
several years, former Public Works Director Kersten tried to get as much preservation work done as
possible within the contract because the contract was the only vehicle available to do those projects. For
2012, funds were moved around and we tried to put as much money into the street preservation as
possible; and Mr. Worley explained that subsequent to that, Council decided to put more money into
street preservation and staff began bidding out those projects; and said we got some bid results which will
be explained at tonight's meeting. Mr. Worley said that if we had not had those funds, we would not have
been able to do Appleway or University which are on the pavement management list for this year; and
again stated that these funds, in addition to what Council approved earlier, allowed us to do as much of
the 2012 pavement projects as possible. For the 2013 contract, Mr. Worley explained that we would
remove $200,000 and put it in the budget under a street preservation line item and then re- distribute those
funds; then go back to do those other projects like crack sealing, or shoulder repairs; and said the question
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 8 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
for 2013 is, what other funds will be available for other street preservation projects. Councilmember
Woodard asked why the maintenance contract was the only available one for those projects; and said if
we wanted to do preservation, why wasn't that done on a bid basis? Mr. Jackson responded that we had a
contract for a certain amount of money, and used the money already approved for grind and overlay; he
said the grind and overlay costs have increased over the years, and said it's nothing extraordinary that we
couldn't use the Poe contract for that purpose; and Mr. Worley concurred it was well within their scope.
Councilmember Grafos said the Poe Contract in 2007 was about $1.1 million and now it's about $1.5
million; and said the contract includes thirteen categories; and said what has happened over time in that
contract, because there were limited funds for road repair, and that staff was trying to get grants for major
contracts, instead of having Poe concentrate on crack sealing and other things that would have prevented
us from going into a whole reconstruction on those roads, those funds were diverted, so now we're
spending the majority of that contract on grind and overlay with a no bid contract with Poe; and said if we
look back, the work that was done and the contracts that are coming in we have lower bids on those
contracts; and said we are basically just giving that whole contract to Poe on a no bid basis. Mr. Jackson
explained that Poe did bid that contract; and said it is a misconception to say they didn't bid it; he said
they bid the contract, it was a competitive bid for a multiyear contract, and they won that bid. Mr. Jackson
agreed the costs have come in lower this time whether they will next time is speculative; but he stressed
that when that contract was bid, we got the best price; he said the contract has grown over the years but it
is not a diversion. Mr. Jackson explained that as the City had more money, we increased the Poe Contract
for them to do more maintenance; he rhetorically asked if now is the time to stop and examine what is
maintenance and what is preservation. He asked if we ever intended to only put crack sealing, shoulder
repair and other efforts into that contract at the time, and answered we did not. Mr. Jackson said when it
comes time to renew that contract, if we want grind and overlay separate we can consider that; but it all
falls within the maintenance category; and he explained again that what causes the conflict and puts
pressure on the system is a lack of resources. Mr. Jackson explained that there is nothing to say if we had
only focused on crack repair all of these years, that we wouldn't have had any roads fall into total
reconstruction; and said that we could do crack repair over the years to extend the road three or four
years, but eventually it will take a grind and overlay to preserve that road in most cases; he said it is a
matter of choice, it is the most visible and it puts the roadwork on a major arterial on Appleway; he said
we have heard many good things about Appleway and said he feels it was the right place for that
construction and it demonstrates that the City is working toward road preservation. Mr. Jackson said to be
fair to Poe, we want to maintain the contract we agreed to, and said $200,000 is the amount; and said this
has not been discussed with Poe yet; but that is the amount we felt we could remove and still keep in good
faith to the contract terms we previously agreed to.
Councilmember Woodard said he feels Mr. Jackson is missing some of Councilmember Grafos' point;
that these contractors he has talked to would have bid had they known there was half a million dollars in
grind and overlay, or knew it would have grown to $1.145 million in asphalt type work; he said they
didn't bid it perhaps because they didn't want to get involved with just crack sealing; and again said if
those contractors had known that contract would have grown to over a million dollars, he feels many
more contractors would have "jumped in." Mr. Jackson replied that the bid was bid collectively; that this
was a general contract and at the time it was not know how much grind and overlay would be needed; and
said this has obviously grown to a point where Council is uncomfortable; and said it needs to be
reviewed; but he recommended letting the contract run its course and then review it to determine if grind
and overlay would be included, or to examine other options on how the contract should be structured.
Councilmember Woodard said the point he was trying to make is, the contract is a lot different today than
it was four years ago; said he doesn't want to call it a "bait and switch" because he feels it was not
intentional, but rather is just how it has grown. Councilmember Grafos added that he realizes we have to
honor the Poe Contract; but going forward feels we should split that off so the maintenance portion of a
future contract would be a lot less than $1.5 million. Going back to the slides, Mr. Worley explained how
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 9 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
the original contract in 2007 changed over time. Councilmember Grassel acknowledged that it is
sometimes difficult to split out maintenance from preservation; and said her recollection about putting the
$200,000 into the Poe Contract, was because they were already on site doing maintenance and it would
have been overlapping; and said we didn't want two contractors in conflict over the same project. Mr.
Worley said there were numerous issues and that was part of it; but also that we get a faster response time
with Poe, as when we put out a project for bid, we must prepare a bid package, publish the bid, award,
and then manage the contract and therefore there is an additional cost on every project; and said he feels
the idea here was that Mr. Kersten was trying to get as much work done on these streets as possible, with
the available funding. Councilmember Woodard said the couple of contractors he spoke with indicated
that the contracts of about $150,000 and above, are jobs that they would have wanted to bid on; and said
he asked both of the contractors he spoke with, how they would have bid on this differently, and said they
indicated they would not have charged 22% overhead, but rather between nine and eleven percent.
Councilmember Woodard said the only thing he cares about is getting asphalt on the streets for the
citizens, with the best product for the least amount of money; and he asked how this could be done better
in the future.
Mr. Worley said the best alternative is that we know street preservation is a high priority, and this year we
have funding for it and are getting those bids out; he said we have the benefit of having this in the
contract and getting these projects out as well. Mr. Worley said that if we have the funding in the future
to continue the street preservation program and look at 2013 to do that program, then what's in the Poe
contract can then go back and do the other types of normal maintenance work and therefore, we'd be
doing both; we'd be putting money in the street preservation projects and bidding it out on the larger
projects, and still have that same amount of money in the Poe Contract to do all the maintenance that
needs to be done; but he cautioned that the bottom line is, there is more need then money to fill that need.
Mr. Nickerson said when we put out the RFP for the maintenance contract, staff originally estimated we
would stay around $500,000 for grind and overlay, and Mr. Worley added that the County had estimated
work done in each of those categories in our city in prior years, and that figure was the basis for the
maintenance contract; that all the bidders put in their bids for it and Poe was the lowest bidder.
Councilmember Woodard said he is not debating the issue of who won the bid; but said this is a different
situation; he said he realizes some of it is "sour grapes" and some of it is, perhaps the other contractors
didn't understand the RFP, or didn't understand the exact nature of what was being asked for.
Councilmember Hafner agreed we have to try to take care of both maintenance and preservation; and not
just do one and forget the other. Councilmember Woodard asked about the $180,000 wash facility and
said he doesn't see that in the 101 fund; and said he doesn't see money in a replacement fund for the shop.
Finance Director Calhoun said the City just purchased the shop in 2011 so there is no money currently set
aside.
Mr. Worley then moved to Fund 402, stormwater management and hit the highlights of the summary, and
noted this fund shows an approximate 5% decrease for 2013. Concerning the slight increase in wages, he
explained two temporary seasonal stormwater interns are usually hired for the summer; said there was
only one in 2012 and the goal is to have two for 2013; and he noted some of the costs have decreased
under contracted stormwater maintenance due to recent bids. Mr. Worley noted that the lease has ended
for the previous public works shop rented through Waste Management. In response to Councilmember
Grafos question about how many pieces of equipment we have, Mr. Worley responded that we have ten
trucks. Councilmember Grafos asked what kind of a $200,000 car or truck wash do we need for those ten
trucks. Mr. Worley explained that because the trucks are so big, we need a catwalk system to be able to
get over the trucks; and said that cost is an estimate, and staff expects to get more information. City
Manager Jackson said the corrosive materials rust the trucks, and said if we keep those trucks hosed off,
we will save money. Discussion turned to vactoring and the decamp facility, and Mr. Worley said we will
be able to do more, for less cost; that instead of waiting for the materials to drain, the materials can be
dumped and the driver can immediately go back out and get more drywells; and once the water drains out
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 10 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
of the materials, we only have to haul away the solids so the volume of disposal goes way down and so
does the time it takes to perform these functions. Mr. Worley said he recently met with representatives
from WSDOT and toured the site; and they agreed with the idea of hiring a consultant to review each of
the three areas of their site to determine the best and most efficient use; and confirmed that the decision
for the use of the facility has not been finally determined. Mr. Jackson said once we get the details we will
report to Council; and said there is a possibility we can locate our facility on WSDOT's site.
Tab #10: Public Safety: a contract service — Morgan and Chief VanLeuven
In moving to Addendum B in the Business Plan, Mr. Jackson said today's discussion will be ideas and
potential concepts. Chief VanLeuven gave some history of the personnel changes over time, of the
volume of monthly calls; of the high level of customer service that all officers are aware of, and of the
importance to be informed on all issues; and he spoke of staffing and work shifts challenges. In response
to a question about cost, Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said the approximate cost per officer
including all their support, is $130,000. Chief VanLeuven mentioned the success of the recently formed
traffic school, discussed crime prevention and school resource deputies, and of shared programs with the
police and the School District; and said that we have one of the best property crime units in the State; and
noted the success of the false alarm ordinance. In addressing financial issues, Senior Administrative
Analyst Koudelka explained the impact on our contract costs over the years and on the budget in terms of
how we might reduce cost; and said it is obvious we keep putting pressure on our general fund and staff
has been examining innovative alternatives to help reduce a budget that has become increasingly difficult
to further tighten.
In looking at the budget sheets, Mr. Koudelka explained that the bulk of the supplies is to maintain the
Precinct Building; and regarding the $53,395 under Miscellaneous Services /Contingency, said the 1%
increase was applied to this budget with a result overall of less than 1% increase, and the amount under
that 1% was placed in this contingency line item. He explained that final costs are determined by the
actual expenditures made by the County and of our cost of the use of those services, and noted there are
trends worth examining. Mr. Koudelka said that there are numerous contracts and they all have different
amounts due at different times; said in the past we did a fairly good job of estimating costs but when the
economy changed, it became more difficult to give a good estimate; he said past items were based on
normal growth in population and expenditures, and said now we don't know where the revenues will
come in; he said in Public Safety, the economy has unique impacts on crimes and the amount of resources
needed; and said it's not always practical to scale back in the public safety arena as demands and
workloads increase even in a tight economy. Mr. Koudelka said we have a new contract in place for
police services with a new calculation method; and said he feels the estimate was low for 2011; and City
Manager Jackson stressed these figures are our best estimates. Mr. Koudelka said that we use a multi -year
trend and factor in any recent changes or one -time expenditures into the forecast; said page 2 of the
budget focuses on public safety contracts; that we made the normal projections and made the 1% goal
without reducing the service level, and feels this budget will accommodate what the true costs are, which
is $20 million; and said we will have to monitor this and if we see any items that need changing, he will
address those with the City Manager.
City Manager Jackson said we have confidence in this budget; but if we reduce the contingency, it
increases the likelihood of having to come back and explain that because of certain circumstances, we
can't make this budget; he said any increase in this budget would result in a decrease in any of the other
budgets; that we are fully funding law enforcement and are reaping that benefit; and said to simply
increase that to increase the margin of error would mean we would have to go back to other department
budgets. Mr. Koudelka said as an example, the public defender's average annual increase is 13.6 %; that
as the economy worsens and more people use public defense, we see the rate going up for multiple
reasons; to compare the public defender with the prosecutor, the prosecutor has about twice as many
attorneys, and suggested this is something to explore; he said it is imperative we provide adequate
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 11 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
representation to indigents. Mr. Koudelka also noted that annual increase for pretrial services is about
18 %; and 11% for detention services; he said we can accommodate these increases this year but cannot
continue to do so moving forward. Mr. Koudelka said we operate under the tenet that we are not
interested in growing government, so we use the private sector when possible and use competition to
provide the best service for the best price; that we did that in the past in selective instances, but now that
our city is ten years old, we are using the same contract and not employing those important tenets; and
said now is the time to consider those issues as the opportunities become available. Mr. Koudelka then
explained about the prosecution services and costs associated with the number of jail days, number of
trials per case, and detention services, and added that the County handles felonies; and said for detention
services, although our numbers decreased, so did the overall numbers which give us a higher percentage
use; which means our costs are going up even though our true usage as far as workload is going down; he
said we are the only city in the top ten cities that doesn't have its own prosecutor. As it is now, he said,
we don't have a lot of control over the rest of the system; that there is no one to prioritize our cases and
ensure that charges are timely filed; said the cost of detention is $134 a day per prisoner, and if a person
stayed for a full year, that would amount to $48,000 for one prisoner; that court costs can be determined
by acts of the prosecutor; and that there are alternatives to jail time such as day reporting, or electronic
home monitoring; and currently the prosecutor does not distinguish between our cases and the county's
cases. Mr. Koudelka explained that we want to ensure our cases are a priority; and said that has not
happened in the current contract as the county focuses, for good reasons, on felonies. Mr. Koudelka said
we have a different focus; and reiterated that the public defender and pre -trial contracts have experienced
double -digit annual increases.
In answer to Councilmember Hafner's question if he thinks it is time to get our own prosecutor for 2013,
Mr. Koudelka said he does, if that is Council's desire; and said we could use performance measurements
to assess how such a system works. Mr. Jackson said we are not looking for definitive direction today and
asked Council if they have any strong feelings to let him know; said these are concepts which would be
developed and brought back; that prosecution requires employees and a place to house those employees;
that we are exploring real opportunities to reduce costs; that managed competition generally works well in
very large municipalities, but we are limited; that we can bring this in -house or use the County's services.
Council indicated this sounds good to them to have staff continue to explore this and bring back further
reports to Council. The group took a break at 3:05 p.m., and reconvened at 3:20 p.m.
Tab #11: Endine Fund Balance —Mark Calhoun
City Manager Jackson said issues to consider concerning the ending fund balance include how much do
we need, what's the right amount, and how would we use it; and said after that discussion, the plan is to
return to the topic of financial objectives and talk about street preservation; he said the objective is to get
some ideas of how to achieve at least partial execution of our street preservation plan over the next few
years.
Finance Director Calhoun explained that as discussed previously, the question is, how much does the
City need for an ending fund balance. He explained that an "ending fund balance" in accounting concepts
is the difference between the assets and the liabilities, or receivables and payables; said in examining an
ending fund balance, the primary objective is to maintain adequate resources to cope with the day -to -day
operations and contingencies that come up, and said historically the City has set a minimum general fund
balance of 15 %; that when we ended the adopted 2012 budget era, it would appear we will be looking at
about 74 %, which is based on taking the anticipated ending fund balance of $26 million divided by
recurring expenditures and revenue budgets, to give us 74 %. Mr. Calhoun explained that an ending fund
balance is used for ongoing operations and to handle such things as cash flow and said we generally use
about 1/12 of that fund each month with two significant differences. He explained that property taxes are
due at the County Assessor's office April 30 and October 31, and for us that represents $10.8 million
from our general fund budget, split in two payments means we receive about $5.4 million per installment;
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 12 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
yet while we are waiting for those revenues, he said cash reserves drop, and said this represents some of
that cash flow need. Concerning remittances we get from the State like sales tax, Mr. Calhoun explained
that those revenues generally come in with about a two months' lag time; said when the City was first
established, it was decided to just account for one -month lag, and said from a cash flow standpoint, that
was a good decision. He explained that adding the State's lag time for our revenues, and the lag in
property taxes represent about a $7 million cash flow need; and by dividing that $7 million by our
recurring expenditure budget produces a minimum cash flow requirement of about 20 %, and because the
City has always had a minimum fund balance in excess of that amount, we have never experienced a cash
flow problem. Mr. Calhoun said we also must determine what is needed for operations and whether we
want one or two months' operational needs; and said if one were to divide one month of operational needs
by twelve, that gives almost $2.9 million or about $5.8 million for two months. Mr. Calhoun said
assuming we want collectively with two months of operational needs, which is his recommendation, that
combined with the other mentioned needs, that gives about 36.88% or about $12.8 million. Mr. Calhoun
recommended keeping our reserves at their current level of about 74% to handle such things as unknown
future expenditures, Sullivan Street Bridge, the possibility of building or owning a City Hall, and for
other unforeseen reasons.
Councilmember Woodard said people find it impressive that we have $26 million in reserve on a $35
million general fund budget; and even more so when it is learned we only have $7 million in total debt;
and said that story should be shared more with the public; he said his goal is never to destroy the $26
million unless we had to do a capital purchase, or we have to do something like the Sullivan Bridge
because we don't get grant funds; and said he would not vote in favor again as he did this year, to move
100% over the $26 million to help pay for street preservation; and said he likes the policy we have with
the 40% of the ending funding balance over $26 million going to street preservation. Councilmember
Wick said he also does not want to spend the reserve down, but would rather look at this as a type of
savings account where we could make some one -time expenditures, but nothing recurring; said it took a
long time to build up and we don't want to spend it down immediately; and asked if perhaps there are
some one -time costs in which we could invest. Mayor Towey said traditionally since 2003 the carryover
funds were for extreme emergencies; and said we are at a point where we have quite a bit of buffer, but
are starting to see with this last decision to move 100% over $26 million to street preservation instead of
40% over $26 million that the question is now, do we want to continue that or even do both: use it as an
extreme emergency fund, then if that falls below $26 million, we need to make sure we will see results
returned to the City, such as economic development investment projects where we know we will get the
funds back. Councilmember Hafner said he seriously considered that the cash balance could be 50%
instead of 36: and said he was surprised when we came up with that as this discussion appears to be on-
going to keep the 72; he said those funds belong to the people and if we can reserve 50% of that to handle
any emergency; then take half of the amount left and put it into a bridge fund to add to that $10 million.
There was council discussion of how much one might use for bridge replacement, and /or take from
reserves, with Councilmember Hafner mentioning that there is always a possibility of getting grant money
to handle that as well.
Mayor Towey asked what cities do when they fall below their cash revenues. Finance Director Calhoun
explained that if a city establishes a fund balance minimum percentage and they fall below that, the
choices are to increase revenues or reduce expenditures, or some combination thereof. City Manager
Jackson said or an option is to borrow money for cash flow, which he explained is what some cities do,
and stressed he is not suggesting that. Councilmember Hafner again stated his suggestion as noted above
or by keeping to the 36 %, he said it would still give a fairly good cushion of cash reserve, and the excess
could be used for other major projects such as road preservation or a city hall, for example, which he said
would be preferable to continue spending half a million a year for rent ; and said we need to discuss
having a public relations organization to "toot our own horn for our city" adding that we had 5,000 more
permits this month over last month; and said someone should be able to tell that. Deputy Mayor
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 13 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Schimmels suggested looking at the bigger picture and the graph on the last page; said our ending fund
balance is down and our expenditures are up; and said we didn't get to this point by gambling with our
fund balance. Mayor Towey repeated what was said earlier by Mr. Jackson, that this is the first time in
this City's history that we have spent more money than we have taken in; and that is a red flag.
Councilmember Hafner asked where the over - spending occurred, and Mr. Jackson indicated it was spent
predominately in street preservation. Councilmember Grassel said she doesn't like that wording that "we
spent more" and said it wasn't as if we borrowed that money; it was money sitting there in a slush fund;
and said meanwhile the cost of those roads has doubled; said the money was doing nothing so it was
moved over for the citizens for the badly needed road preservation; and said if we sit on this money and
do nothing, the roads deteriorate; and again said she doesn't like the way it was stated, that we spent more
than we brought in, as she feels that is confusing, and Councilmember Woodard said it is deceiving.
Mayor Towey said that we have to distinguish between expenditures and investments; and said this was
an investment for the future and saves us money for the future; and said he feels it was correct to set those
funds aside for preservation; but we want to be careful in the future; and the options he sees for this
situation is to either lower the threshold, or seek outside revenues. Councilmember Grafos said before the
ending fund balance is discussed, council need to discuss what it will be used for and should discuss a
revenue source for our roads; said departments went through the exercise of not having more than 1%
increase on the general fund balance, but said the fact is, we are less than 1% on the general fund; he said
there was a huge increases in wages and benefits for the staff, and said he would like to see a cap in 2013
of wages and benefits to remain at the level of 2012; and said the cost for wages and benefit has increased
17% in three years and inflation was at 8 %; which is $1,192,000 a year in three years and said that is
unsustainable; and said doing so would bring that figure down by about $400,000; and what he would like
to see then is to take 6% of that general fund and dedicate it to roads; and drop the ending funding balance
to $20 million and take another $4 million for the bridge and leave that other $2 million alone, and take
that 6% out of the general fund and see where we are at the end of the year; and said with the increase in
revenues with what we have in the budget already; he said there are seven and a half vacant positions and
the per employee cost is about $84,000 for each employee, so that represents about $600,000; and said we
can't keep raising wages and benefits at 17% every three years. Councilmember Grassel agreed and asked
the City Manager when we go into negotiations, and suggested we have comparisons to not just public
sector pay scales and benefits, but to the private sector as well; and said often when the comparisons are
done, it should be state -wide; and said part of the data to consider is cost of living on this side of the state.
Councilmember Wick asked for clarification of how Councilmember Grafos arrived at 17 %; and
Councilmember Grafos said take the actual dollars spent on wages and benefits in 2011, and move it
forward to 2012, it jumped over $1 million dollars. For further clarification, Mr. Jackson said salaries are
raised with a COLA (cost of living adjustment) by 2.5% and for those who have not topped out of their
salary range, there is also a possible 4% merit increase; and said health care benefits also increase, and
said staff can break out those figures if council desires. Mayor Towey said since we have no control over
the mandatory increases in benefits, that figure would have to be subtracted from the data.
City Manager Jackson said the real question that staff will examine is, are we at a point to impact
employee wages and benefits; and said we need to examine the whole picture; he said part of the point in
the merit system is that you try to bring in employees at a lower amount then if you had a fixed rate; that
we bring employees in at a fixed amount but they have a good opportunity to increase annually if they do
a good job; he said even though we have good retention, these vacancies came about because employees
left the City's employ; he said we are trying to grow our economy and move this City forward and
prosper and said these are the people who will do that for us; that these people are our most valuable
resource. Mr. Jackson said we can come back and have those discussions with Council and Mr. Calhoun
can look at what each percentage or half of a percentage of salaries and what that means in terms of the
actual budget. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said what he is hearing is that there is some belief
that a portion of the fund Council is looking for can be achieved in the general fund through the
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 14 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
employees; but said that won't solve the overall problems if we are trying to fund street preservation or
other capital programs; and said regardless of what happens in the general fund, we must look at some
sort of outside revenue source; and if we are not committed to that, we might as well go through the
budget and take it down. Councilmember Grafos said he thinks we can do both and said he is not saying
to go backwards; but said the City spent over $8 million in wages and benefits in the 2012 budget, and he
suggests capping that to that we will spend in 2013; and said he is not saying anyone is going to go back
or take a pay cut; but said he is saying, we will not increase it for one year; and that we will go back to the
general fund and take 6% and devote that to roads, which is about $1.8 million. Director Stone said if you
look at the reductions all the departments made, a 6% will have a significant impact on programs and
services. Councilmember Grafos said what the staff has done in the departments is fine and said he is not
suggesting pulling another 6% from the departments; but just freeze the wages for 2013.
Finance Director Calhoun explained that assuming a 2.5% COLA, along with the potential 4% merit
increase; the 2013 budget assuming the 2.5% COLA, that ads about $169,000 in wages, benefits and
payroll taxes across all the funds; so each 1% of COLA awarded in 2013 cost the city about $67,000
across all the funds. Councilmember Woodard said if we don't start, we'll never be there; that something
that "bugs the citizens" is that the median income of Spokane Valley over the last three years dropped
from $55,000 to $48,000, while City pay has gone up considerably; and said they feel it is unfair; he said
the private sector has taken a tremendous hit while City employees' salaries continue to increase; and said
City employees are substantially above those same positions in the private sector in most cases.
Councilmember Woodard said if he had his way he'd cut 15% just to get started, although he knows that
is not even a starting point to start to talk to the unions; and said he feels we have to freeze wages, COLA
and the step increases; and it has to come down to something that equates to what's happening in the real
world. Councilmember Wick said in his experience with private enterprises, there has not been a dramatic
decrease and that they are sitting par with our City as far as increases and COLAs; he said he doesn't see
where we are significantly above pay scales of anyone else, and said if that were the case, we would not
have turnover because if pay were significantly higher here, no one would ever want to leave.
Councilmember Grassel said that is why she asked for comparison of actual figures; and Mr. Jackson said
we can provide that. Councilmember Wick also noted we have the lowest number of staff of all cities;
said we have a low number of employees as many are "jacks of all trades" in that they do more than
employees in different regions; and in order for our City to be successful with a lower number of staff, he
said we have to have higher efficiency of staff.
Councilmember Hafner suggested for every action there will be a reaction that should be considered.
Councilmember Grafos said if you add wages and benefits for 2013 compared with 2012, it's about
$344,000 difference. Councilmember Hafner asked what happens in 2014 when the wages are no longer
frozen; and asked what would be the net benefit. Councilmember Grafos said we need a way to fund the
roads, and instead of raising taxes for another year; that we are just coming out of the recession and we
need to take a portion of that general fund and set it up for roads. City Manager Jackson said he added
"street preservation needs" on the white board list; said he hopes there are other suggestions; that it boils
down to the magnitude of the problem; that historically, that is the reason the City separated street
preservation from the general fund, but now we are pulling it back in; he said the preservation is
outstanding; he said we are not trying to portray anything other than the fact that we have spent more than
we brought in; but by funding preservation from the general fund and by putting it into the general fund,
you are making it a component of that fund; and said when you spend money for general fund purposes
that exceed revenues, it is a cause to reflect; that we are not in financial problems because we have a
reserve; he said we have a healthy general fund to provide such things as police services. Mr. Jackson said
the question came up today whether we need to add police services; and he said every department could
talk about who they would add so as to function in the most ideal manner; but said that the fact is, we
don't know what might happen in the future nor could we predict what kind of infrastructure problem
might fall upon a City to cause us to use that $26 million; and said it is therefore a philosophical question
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 15 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
of holding on to that which was generated through sales and property tax and look for a way to solve this
problem, or do you run the general fund down and put so much pressure on it you can't provide the basic
daily services; and said when you spend that non - recurring money, that leaves you at the end of the day of
having spent down those reserves, but not solving the problem. Mr. Jackson said the general fund cannot
solve this problem; and said we have not solved this problem in our nine years because we have never had
a designated revenue source to address this issue. Mr. Jackson said in examining the preservation plan, it
indicates a need for $8.5 million for arterials and collectors, and $4.8 million for local access roads for a
total of $13.8 million; and said perhaps the solution is to just address preventive maintenance on arterials
and collectors, then the most essential roads in front of businesses, and if they need to be reconstructed
then do that; or just fix the potholes; he said somehow we have to tailor the problem to meet our ability to
fund it; but said squeezing that last little bit from the general fund doesn't go far in solving the entire
preservation problem.
Councilmember Grassel said the confusing part is, in 2007 or 2008 we already put in an outside revenue
source, the utility tax, and said if a city isn't going to include preservation in a budget, then at a minimum
it should include street maintenance; which is a recurring cost you need to have; so what is confusing is
there is a 6% utility tax and she said she doesn't recall ever doing a road project without some sort of
grant associated with it, and said she thinks these will be decisive issues in the upcoming state and
national election; and said what she thinks is convoluted in this conversation is, that you start out with
$13 million and now we have managed to work our way back to $5 million; and said when she examines
a city budget that is a part of the mandatory line item and said that is what the community expects their
tax dollars to be used for — roads, safety, and infrastructure; and said to say we can't put it in the budget,
or it won't work in the budget, that doesn't connect with the citizens. Councilmember Hafner agreed there
is no easy solution and said he feels council will likely be discussing this again next year since there are
no sustainable sources to take care of it; and said council is avoiding the idea of perhaps having a bond
issue in the future. Councilmember Grafos said if we take a portion of the general fund; that if you know
the general fund is $35 million, we know we will have $2.1 million to work with; instead of waiting to get
to the end of the fund balance and question what to do with the funds; you'd know you'd have those
dollars available. Councilmember Hafner suggested that $2 million a year won't come close to taking
care of the problem; and said another three or four million would be needed.
Councilmember Woodard said he has a potential solution; and he asked when do we have to renegotiate
with Waste Management and Sunshine and Mr. Jackson said the franchise expires in 2014, about the
same time as the solid waste contract. Councilmember Woodard asked if we could meet with the haulers
to start working "on what the damage period" is going to be; and said it will be six or seven years with
those entities before we can do anything unless we negotiate with them up -front according to the WTC
Rules (Washington Trade Commission). Councilmember Woodward said he feels it is ludicrous to hire a
consultant for the next two year period when we can do it in a week; and if we want to take control of our
solid waste issues; and said if we were to negotiate now, we could go into a contract with the haulers
which would include some portion of the savings coming to us; and said he realizes it will be called a tax
since everything that comes to the city is a tax; and said it's the difference between what the citizens are
paying now at $109 a ton and what it could be if we negotiate a 10 -15 -20 year contract with the haulers;
and we could pick up that difference and use it for road capital or preservation; he said he has estimated
that would be between four and seven million dollars a year for ten to twenty years depending on the term
we can negotiate; and said there are two haulers who want to do something; he said it will save between
$30 -50 a ton; he said we have an increase on recyclables coming on of about 32 cents per can so the
citizens will see an increase in their garbage bill regardless of when single stream goes on -line.
Councilmember Woodard said we will have another very short deadline in two years because of this
consultant, to make a decision; and in November we will get the alternatives of a ten to twenty year plan
and we will be in the same place we were last year; he said we could negotiate on our own transfer center,
said our citizens paid for that; and said if it was put to a vote; that some of the City Council of Spokane
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 16 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
would transfer that to us for one dollar; he said we have to negotiate the whole thing of us taking control
of our solid waste; and said the savings would go to road preservation; he said he knows is a possibility
but no one wants to look at it.
City Manager Jackson said he mentioned at the last council meeting that Council needs to consider the
entire scope which includes collection; and said certainly that needs to be investigated; he said we are
trying to work with the regional partners; he said if he gets direction from Council that we want to move
off in our own direction we can do that and said he thinks some of the cities are contemplating that; he
said it is a balancing act; we need to look at the full cost and said that is what this study will tell us; that it
is designed to help each partner either collectively or individually move into the alliance or move out on
their own, but it does not include collections. Mr. Jackson said staff met with Sunshine and Waste
Management and has had ongoing discussions; he said he believes the franchise agreement coincides with
the contract; and what we have to consider is how much time we have to exercise our rights when that
franchise agreement ends; he said any deal we strike is a cost to the citizens so you're working to hold
down the cost of the current system and that any money that the City would generate from solid waste
would mean that the individual homeowner is paying that cost as it is not money that automatically comes
to us; regarding collections, he said that is something we need to do independently as a City; he said the
consortium is not looking at collection and said Cheney and Spokane City each have their own collection.
Mr. Jackson said we need to look at all possible options, including the possibility of bringing this in-
house, and said he is not advocating that position, but that all options should be considered.
Councilmember Woodard asked if there is anything that precludes us from negotiating prior to the end of
the contract; and said he has done some research and it appears nothing precludes that particularly for the
collection; and said he is looking at the total savings from all aspects; and that it appears the consultant
will take two years to report. Mr. Jackson said they just met last week and set the end of September of
this year as the deadline; that they are going to give the consultant six weeks, and said he realizes this is a
very aggressive schedule. Councilmember Woodard asked if it makes any sense that we are paying $109
and we have lowered the cost; but it will go up again and said by the time we get to the end of the
contract, we'll be at $115 a ton; and said it drops to $60 by using other things such as the Waste -to-
Energy Plant, that the difference is something we could capture that doesn't increase the net to the
citizens. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we couldn't take that transfer station for $1 if we had to; that
according to law we have to pay current value; and said the issue is the tipping fee of $45.00 and how to
get it down the road; he said that would be our cost.
City Manager Jackson said that he and Finance Director Calhoun have thought about having a system in
place to generate funding for street preservation; he said we didn't get into this situation overnight and
we won't get out of it overnight; and said the real answer is to pull together as a team and generate
additional revenue under the existing tax base in this community; and in order to that and sell our
community, we have to do it in a positive manner; we know we have a street preservation problem and he
rhetorically asked if council thinks it's impacting the quality of life now or preventing businesses from
coming; and said he doesn't think so; he said the potential is there; that about three years ago we were
generating $3 million or more than we are now in sales tax; he said we will have to live with this
problem; he said if we go back and get 6% we will be forced to close some swimming pools, or shorten
hours; or potentially have slower response time for permits; he emphasized he is not saying we wouldn't
do everything we could to have business as usual; but realistically, we have squeezed nine and a half
positions and $3 million out of the budget in the last few years. Mr. Jackson said there comes a point
when you can only get so much effort; if we work to grow the economy, then 40% of every dollar we
bring in over $26 million will go to street preservation; he said we do the best we can and put as much
toward street preservation as possible, but the reductions aren't achievable without growing our economy
or looking to other revenue sources. City Manager Jackson said we have discussed how low our taxes are
and that this is a great place to do business; he said we only have one utility tax on phones and that
generates a lot of discussion and he said he feels this is a city which is not likely to impose other utility
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 17 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
taxes; adding that the phone utility tax saved the street fund. Mr. Jackson said we need a way to define
preservation; that we have discussed separating the street fund and street preservation but the message is
not being sold and somehow we need to re- group; he said the concept of separating preservation isn't
working; that the original idea was almost artificial to try to determine what component of the city can't
we afford or that we aren't doing now, and it's preservation. He said we could somewhat isolate that
problem of preservation, and if we had a tab fee or some other resource , we could designate that to
preservation; but said we are operating at a base level with our general fund and our services. Mr.
Jackson said not thinking about the money, but if one were to concentrate just on which services are
unnecessary or what would we like to cut, what conclusions would we reach; he said City consists of the
departments of Law Enforcement, Public Works, Community Development, and Parks and Recreation,
and everything else falls under those functions necessary to operate a City, like accountants and attorneys;
and said these are the basics and there are no superfluous programs; the recreation programs operate at
100% recovery.
Councilmember Grafos said that we are actually taking that 40% from the general fund just not doing it
after the fact; he said he realizes we are not at the point of Spokane; but if we continue the way we are
and don't designate a realizable source for at least some of those funds, we'll never do it; he said the core
services are important, so why not take a percentage of the general fund and dedicate it to the roads and at
the end of the year said he thinks our revenues will go up; so the funds will grow at one end, and the
expenses will be held at the other. Councilmember Grafos said at the end of 2013, if we squeezed it too
tight, then those dollars don't exist, but we'd still have that $26 million. City Manager Jackson asked if
Council wants to spend below the $26 million, or in other words, lower the threshold. Councilmember
Grafos suggested putting in a line item of about 6% or $1.8 million; and leave the $26 million. Mr.
Jackson said if these were intermediate steps , it should include the need for a sustainable revenue source;
that either the economy will improve or we will have to implement a source; he said he worries that like
this year, we've taken over $4 million for preservation but we're not telling our story, and said four or
five years from now, we'll get to the point where we will realize we can't spend any more of the ending
fund balance; and said he wished there was a way that we could agree that the existing revenue will not
cover this; and said if we did this to get us by and then by 2015 we haven't increased revenue by 17 %, we
would have to implement some kind of a plan so the public will know what we're doing; and said the
revenue from this year isn't being used as a leverage to increase any future revenue needs; he said this
just continues what we have been doing with the only difference now of having a willingness to spend the
ending fund balance. Councilmember Grassel said she recalled from former City Finance Director
Thompson's report that we are spending the carryover as the carryover was put into the general fund to
meet the expenses of the general fund. Mr. Jackson explained that was just a forecast; that the same thing
is in this budget; he said if the revenue didn't keep up and council decided we can't cut any of our
services any further, and we were $1 million short, we'd use that money to supplement our general fund,
but explained that what Councilmember Grassel was referring to, was always in the form of a forecast.
Councilmember Grassel said if the $26 million is 74 %, she doesn't have a problem using 100% of
everything above $26 million for that because she said keeping a 74% balance is unheard of, and she
asked what was the finance committee's justification for having the $26 million. Councilmember Hafner
said that the forecast for the subsequent years is now below that $26 million, so we won't be putting any
money aside for roads. Mayor Towey concurred we are already below $26 million. Councilmember
Grassel asked about the justification of using 40% above $26 million; and City Manager Jackson said the
reason is to preserve our current ending fund balance; and said it is a philosophical issue; do you keep
those funds there or do you use it for some other purpose. Councilmember Hafner reiterated that if we
have 50% in reserve, that would be more than enough to take care of the problems; and Mayor Towey
again stated that if we are going to sustain street preservation for the long term, we have to lower that
threshold or have outside revenue.
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 18 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Community Development Director Hohman stated that another option is to grow the City; which was
what Mr. Jackson mentioned. Mr. Hohman said staff has been working very hard over the last few years
to try to put a program together to change the perception of doing business in the City; he said from his
perspective he is a little concerned as we still have a long way to go; that we have made good progress but
we have to put in programs and get to the next level to where it is sustainable, predictable, and consistent;
and said based on some of the things he has heard, he is concerned whether that level of service will be
able to be maintained; he said we have a very high performance staff and it would be difficult to maintain
that goal without some of the necessary tools.
City Manager Jackson said he and Finance Director Calhoun will take all this information and will look at
the budget again; he said he will prepare a budget to align with expectations while exercising his
management expertise and authority to deliver a reasonable budget; and once that is turned over to
council, council can make other changes; and said he is hopeful he and Council will be closely aligned;
that this needs to put this into a policy statement and we need to give it time to work. Mr. Jackson said
there is a multitude of new businesses and development; that if we believe in our City we should believe
we will increase our revenues. He said there have been about 1700 new businesses over the last year, and
Public Information Officer Branch showed the quick one - minute PowerPoint scrolling down the names of
all those establishments. City Manager Jackson ended by stating he hopes Council will take what he said
in good faith; that Spokane Valley's staff that has been working very hard and after a while, you start to
see the stress and strain of a lot of good work and high productivity; and said he is hesitant to reduce our
already lean workforce, and said he defies anyone to find a city running more lean and economical than
our City; and said it takes people to get the work done and that he is hesitant to make additional
reductions.
In the interest of time, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Special Council Meeting, June Budget Retreat: June 12, 2012 Page 19 of 19
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meetings
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, June 26, 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
Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Arne Woodard, Councilmember
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church 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: said he attended the staffs Sprague Swale Public meeting; went to the Growth
Management Act Committee meeting, and explained that committee members make recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners regarding which lands would be included in the boundary of the
Urban Growth Area; went to a Risk Management Meeting, a Health District Board meeting regarding the
budget, an STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting, and today attended a 9 -1 -1 Committee meeting.
Councilmember Grassel said she went to the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Conference in
Vancouver, Wa. last week, which included workshops on negotiations, land use, and economic
development, and said Governor Gregoire gave the closing speech.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said about two weeks ago he went to the opening of the next five miles of the
North/South Corridor, and said it was well attended; went to SpokAnimal for a tour; attended the SRTC
(Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting; went to the AWC Conference; and went to the
Rabanco Landfill at Roosevelt Washington, and said half our waste is hauled to that landfill and the other
half to a landfill across the river.
Councilmember Grafos: said he went to the City's public works meeting on the Swale project and said
there was favorable response from property owners; went to the GMA Steering Committee meeting where
they are working to complete the ten -year update; and toured SpokAnimal.
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 1 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Wick: reported he met with the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee, and toured
SpokAnimal.
Councilmember Woodard: said he toured SpokAnimal; went to the HCDAC (Housing and Community
Development Advisory Committee) meeting, and explained that group works to consider distribution of
CDBG funds (Community Development Block Grant), and said they selected a chair and vice - chair; went
to the Rabanco Landfill; attended the AWC Conference and also toured Vancouver's City Hall, and said
that it is a remarkable, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) high- energy efficient
building.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he also went to the North /South Corridor ribbon
cutting; went to the Swale project meeting at City Hall; while in Vancouver at the AWC meeting,
attended workshops on how to conduct a council meeting, use of city volunteers, understanding impacts
of grants, and attended the Mayor's Exchange. Mayor Towey extended congratulations to our Human
Resources Department as our City received a Wellness City Award, which he said saves us about 2% on
our insurance premiums for 2013. Mayor Towey also read a Proclamation proclaiming July as Parks and
Recreation Month; and after he read a list of upcoming activities, Parks and Recreation Director Stone
accepted the Proclamation, and said Parks and Recreation brochures are available on the counter, and
mentioned that the upcoming free movies at the park are very popular and averages between 500 and 600
people for each movie; and said their department does a wide variety of activities to encourage health and
fitness.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Towey gave a reminder of public comment protocol, he invited
general public comments.
Rick Squibb, 13621 E. 3& Street: said he is a long -haul truck driver and wanted to talk about parking
regulations; said living in Spokane Valley has been a great environment for his daughter; that he parks his
truck across the street in front of his neighbor's house with that neighbor's permission; said he's only
home a few nights a week; that he does not idle the truck or reefer and tries to be as noninvasive as
possible; he agreed there should be an anti- idling ordinance but not anti- parking; said his truck has all his
possessions and he's responsible for truck, trailer and cargo, which sometimes is in excess of half a
million dollars, and said he prefers to park it where he can see it; said he doesn't park in front of his house
to as not to interrupt mail delivery; said that the neighbors he's talked to don't have an issue with him,
and some who do, that haven't talk to him, said he wished they would talk to him.
Nick Cavender, 13619 E. 30"': said he started this action over two years ago to try to stop truck parking in
residential neighborhoods; said the owner of the house where Mr. Squibb parks his truck, is legally blind
and almost deaf, and said Mr. Squibb doesn't take into consideration the other people in the
neighborhood; that this is not about one truck but about parking in the entire City; he said Spokane and
Liberty Lake have ordinances to address this; that commercial truck drivers only represent about 1% of
the population; and he is concerned about how this affects the character and nature of the neighborhood.
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
06/06/2012 3941 -3944; 3956; 26141 -26145 $242,028.78
06/08/2012 26146 - 26200; 531120029; 605120014 $1,888,485.65
06/14/2012 26201 -26249 (- 26239) $110,766.20
GRAND TOTAL $2,241,280.63
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 2 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
b. Approval of Payroll for period ending June 15, 2012: $273,660.07
c. Approval of Minutes of June 12, 2012 Council Formal Format Meeting
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -017, Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise — Kelly Konkright
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded, to advance Ordinance 12 -017 authorizing execution of a telecommunication facilities franchise
with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Konkright explained that there
have been no changes since this was reported a few weeks ago, and explained that this franchise would
allow the Tribe to use the City's rights -of -way to run some, and that it is similar to the Electric Lightwave
Franchise approved by Council earlier; and said for this franchise, they will use overhead lines on existing
power poles and nothing will be underground. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.- None. Motion carried.
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -018, CPA 05 -12 — Mike Basinger
After City Clerk read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to
advance ordinance 12 -018 to a second reading. Senior Planner Basinger gave a brief history of the
proposal and of previous actions of the Planning Commission and Council, and said staff recommends
advancing both this ordinance and the next, to a second reading. Councilmember Woodard asked about
making changes to the restrictions and City Attorney Driskell replied that if council wants to make
changes in the land use restrictions, that could be done through a development agreement.
Councilmember Grassel asked about uses in MF2 zones and Mr. Basinger explained that the primary use
would be multi - family, not commercial. Mayor Towey invited public comment.
Jerry Combs, 405 N Sonora: said he is still opposed to this; that he hasn't seen any plans; that he's not
opposed to staying with housing and with what is in the neighborhood, but is opposed to high- rises, and
said it will mean more traffic and more crime.
Jan Wold, 503 N Conklin Road: said she spoke with a representative of the School District and said they
are at capacity at Progress School and Greenacres; said an apartment complex means more kids; she also
mentioned Alki Street and said that situation was covered up and not dealt with; said it was in the plans
several years ago to bring that street through; that the biggest issue is they don't want high density as they
already "put up with" big box stores; and asked why he has to "invade her neighborhood" and said they
need buffers between him and Broadway and Conklin.
Cheryl McManammon, 504 N Conklin Road: said she did some research on this and found within the
99037 zip code, there are seven apartment buildings, and with another being built and this, that would
make nine; she questioned the MF -2 high density and said that is supposed to be used as a buffer between
high and medium densities.
Richard Wilcox, 16102 Broadway Avenue: said there is probably no way to get this stopped entirely or
broken down; asked if the taxpayers or the developer would be the one to pay for the widening of the
street on Conklin; he also asked about getting signs put up in the residential areas to ban trucks; said he
has seen nothing yet in that regard and semi - trucks travel the roads frequently.
F.J. Dullanty, Attorney for Developer Arger: Mr. Dullanty asked for permission to have Mr. Arger allot
his three minutes to Mr. Dullanty, and Mayor Towey and Mr. Arger both agreed. Mr. Dullanty explained
that Mr. Arger commissioned Sunburst Engineering to perform a traffic study on a generic project, and
the results are it shows no traffic impact and is within the City's adopted level of service; he said the City
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 3 of 8
Approved by Council:
1W EM
needs to recognize its requirement to accommodate growth under the GMA (Growth Management Act)
and said this will go toward that goal; and he briefly went over the figures contained in his one -page
document entitled "Arger Conklin Fiscal Impact" which was distributed to Councilmembers, which
includes information on the size of the area, approximate project cost, estimated sales tax revenues,
estimated city portion of those sales tax, building permit fees, estate taxes, and approximate number of
construction jobs the project will create. There were no further public comments.
Council discussion included comment from Councilmember Hafner that he feels this is a good project for
the property, and to take care of the concerns of the neighborhood, wants to include a development
agreement. Councilmember Woodard said this would be more of a luxury apartment where crime is
normally not an issue, Mayor Towey said he read over the sections in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
and it speaks of the need to grow our community but to preserve and protect the character of residential
neighborhoods; and said based on that and other sections within the Comprehensive Plan, he will vote to
forward the ordinance to a second reading if a development agreement is required. Councilmember
Grassel asked about the process of having a development agreement and after Mr. Basinger explained,
Councilmember Grassel said she feels the delay in getting the project started is worth having the
agreement. It was also noted by Mayor Towey and Councilmember Wick that the comprehensive plan
and municipal code need to be examined in the future regarding land use in these types of circumstances.
It was moved by Mayor Towey and seconded to amend the motion to add a developer's agreement. Mayor
Towey invited public comment.
Mr. Dullanty said the problem is the timing and that Mr. Arger has some favorable financing available to
him now that might not be available later; he said Mr. Arger cannot move forward on this project until
this is resolved; he said an elevator may be required but it is not practical; that affordable housing is
geared toward a much smaller infill type of development; and it is not an agreement he has a problem
with but the timing of such an agreement.
Jerry Combs, 405 N Sonora: said he thought when this was brought up three weeks ago that the developer
didn't want an agreement. Jan Wold, 503 N Conklin: said if there is no agreement, what guarantee would
they have of a buffer. Linda Rockhold, 423 N Conklin: said she appreciates the developer wanting to get
started but doesn't think it unreasonable that the neighbors know exactly what the project will be and said
she would like to see a plan.
Greg Arger, 300 N Mullan: said he is the project owner; that he spent a lot of time working with different
lenders; originally when was going to do affordable housing, he had to order a market study which cost
about $5,000; he said it was pretty specific about affordable housing and it came back very limited in
market absorption; he said he thought the additional 70 units would take two years to find people
qualified as they have strict criteria; said he met with members of City Staff and asked for a higher
density and to go with a real nice luxury apartment; he said he met with lenders and they endorsed the site
since it is close to shopping; that he would lose two months in financing opportunities if a development
agreement is needed, and that it could jeopardize the project; he said four -story apartments don't make
sense; that he cares a lot about the neighborhood and families; and any developer is governed by market,
lenders, and having a nice project, and said it will be a top notch project, and said he doesn't think a
development agreement is necessary. There were no further public comments.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said a development agreement was discussed six weeks ago or longer; that he
feels the location is one of the finest in the city and feels a development agreement is not needed; and that
the idea of an elevator is a moot point. Councilmember Grafos said he agrees with Deputy Mayor
Schimmels and feels Council should follow staffs recommendation to proceed without an agreement.
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 4 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Vote by Acclamation to amend the motion to include a development agreement: In Favor: Mayor Towey,
and Councilmembers Grassel, Hafner and Wick. Opposed. Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
Councilmembers Woodard and Grafos. Motion carried. Vote by Acclamation on the fully amended
motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading with a development agreement: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed. None. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:42 p.m. He
reconvened the meeting at about 8:00 p.m.
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -019, CPA Zoning Map- Mike Basinger
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance ordinance 12 -019 to a second reading. Mr. Basinger explained that this ordinance
would simply update the zoning map, and accompanies the previous ordinance. Mayor Towey invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. -
None. Motion carried.
5. Proposed Resolution 12 -003: Adoption of Draft 2013 -2018 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Resolution 12 -003 adopting the
2013 -2018 Six Year TIP as presented. After Senior Engineer Worley went over the background of the
TIP and the projects, Councilmember Grafos noted that the Sprague Avenue resurfacing project was still
included and Mr. Worley concurred that it should not be. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos and
seconded to amend the six year TIP and remove the Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Thierman to Park
project form the 1015 TIP. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
affirmation to amend the motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. None. Motion carried. Vote by
Acclamation to approve Resolution 12 -003, adopting the 2013 -2018 Six Year TIP and to remove the
Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Thierman to Park Project from the 2015 TIP: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed. None. Motion carried.
6. Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County, Milwaukee Right -of -way —Cga
Driskell
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the Interlocal Agreement Between Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley Regarding
Multi - -Use Trail Along a Portion of Former Milwaukee Rail Right -of- way." City Attorney Driskell
explained that this issue was discussed a few weeks ago; and that the interlocal permits Spokane Valley's
use of Spokane County's right -of -way, and that this would enable use of the area for a multi -use trail;
adding that staff and representatives from Spokane County are working together to develop a grant
proposal and are ready to submit this should council approve the Interlocal; and said that the interlocal
also stipulates that Spokane Valley will be responsible for the trial's maintenance; and said staff has not
identified which funds would be used for the trial's maintenance. City Manager Jackson said the
approximate $7500 cost for the remainder of the year could likely be found in the Public Works and /or
Parks and Recreation Budget, that although those budgets are tight, if needed, this could be included in
the budget amendment for later this year; and said the real cost will occur if we determine to fully develop
the area. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire: said he thinks we
should own the property and not have to take orders from the County; if we owned the property we could
do whatever we want; and said he thinks it is time we own the sewers as well. Susan Scott, 205 S.
Evergreen Road: she read her letter in opposition to the trail; said they own a business along the right -of-
way and some of her concerns include increase in graffiti, illegal dumping, break -ins, and theft the dry
grass catching on fire from smokers or kids playing with matches and fireworks; and that it is an attractive
nuisance that will trigger increased security for those bordering the trail as well as law enforcement;
suggested the City save its money and let the County continue to maintain the area. There were no further
comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Schimmels, and Councilmembers
Hafner; Grassel, Wick and Grafos. Opposed.' Councilmember Woodard. Motion carried.
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 5 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Marilyn Cline, 13303 E. 10"': spoke concerning parking regulations and trucks in residential areas; said
they are not trying to take away anyone's livelihood but they have invaded ours: said it is the vibration on
the windows that wake up you when the truck comes and goes, as well as the smell of diesel; and asked
Council to consider the residents. Ray Ward, 13404 E 9h Avenue: said he agreed with the previous
speaker's comments; that he lives down -wind from the trucker; that he bangs on his truck and makes a lot
of noise; that he had a petition but nothing was done, and said he doesn't see any reason why something
can't get done in this regard. There were no other public comments.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
7. Parking Regulations for Trucks in Residential Areas — Kelly Konkright
Deputy City Attorney Konkright said that as a result of his prior report and Council's request, he spoke to
the President of the Washington Trucking Association as well as several truck owner /drivers; and said the
truck owners wanted him to extend thanks to Council for asking for their input. Mr. Konkright spoke of
the independent owners who generally park their trucks at home; of the noise connected with those trucks
that have refrigerated units; of the lack of options of where these independent owners can park as most
truck stops are for commercial trucks; and that theft is a primary concern when talking about unattended
trucks. Mr. Konkright said the truck drivers he spoke with said they do not idle their trucks; feel an
ordinance is not necessary, but if council were to implement an ordinance, they might consider an anti -
idling ordinance; and said the truck owners said that refers or generators for those refrigerated units are
extremely loud and they should not be allowed to run in a residential neighborhood. There was council
and staff discussion about our noise ordinance, or perhaps having a parking ordinance, mention of air
quality due to diesel fumes; and that we could have an anti- idling ordinance but that noise complaints and
the ordinance itself would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Driskell said our Municipal Code includes an
objective standard on noise and that staff will be proposing adding something to the nuisance provisions
that is subjectively based on something that would offend "a reasonable person." Councilmember Grassel
suggested staff get information on what the top ten Washington cities require, and Councilmember Hafner
said council needs to consider not allowing idling. Mayor Towey agreed and said he feels parking is not
so much a problem as the noise, and Councilmember Grafos suggested including commercial vehicles.
After further discussion on what to include in an ordinance, City Attorney Driskell said staff will work on
an ordinance addressing sound, vibration, and fumes and bring that back for further discussion.
8. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) for projects — Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) will be
issuing a 2012 Call for Projects on July 2, 2012, for allocation of federal Surface Transportation Program
(ST) funding for the years 2013 -2016, and said approximately $24 million is expected to be available for
the Spokane Region, although previously deferred projects will result in the actual Call for Projects at
approximately $22.5 million. Mr. Worley said the applications are due Friday, August 3, 2012, and he
said staff is recommending those bolded projects listed on the attached list as the projects to submit under
this grant opportunity. There was discussion among Council about adding other projects such as trail
enhancements; and mention from Councilmember Woodard that he would like to see the Argonne/Mullan
Broadway intersection as a high priority; while Councilmember Grafos said he likes the list and feels the
priorities are right. Mr. Worley said he will bring this back for formal approval at the July 10 council
meeting. At 9:00 p.m. it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to
extend the meeting thirty minutes. Mr. Worley said the upcoming council action would be just giving
staff approval to put in the grant applications, as the SRTC Board makes the ultimate funding decision.
9. Animal Control - Morgan Koudelka
Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said that we received a draft interlocal agreement from Spokane
County concerning animal control services, and said this is the first time staff has seen this option as well,
and said the County has indicated now that this is the only option being presented. The agreement's term,
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 6 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
he explained, would be 20 years. Mr. Koudelka said that Council and staff toured the SpokAnimal
facility, and staff now seeks council direction on whether to pursue issuing an RFP (Request for Proposal)
for animal control services. Per his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Koudelka explained that Spokane
County is pursuing purchase of a new animal shelter and asks the City of Spokane Valley to participate in
a long -term regional animal control system; and at Council's request, staff has determined that
SpokAnimal is a viable option. Mr. Koudelka gave some of the background on animal control, including
Spokane County's moving toward a new facility, that the cost to finance such new facility is
approximately $4.5 million, which would be paid through existing revenue sources and with the
participation of the City of Spokane. Mr. Koudelka said the new, proposed facility is within the city
limits of Spokane Valley, about 4.4 miles from City Hall_ Mr. Koudelka also explained that SpokAnimal
is a non - profit organization that has been providing animal control services for about 28 years; they are
willing to provide animal control services for Spokane Valley and have more than enough room to handle
Spokane Valley animals. Further, Mr. Koudelka said, SpokAnimal has no plans to get out of the animal
control business, and that they would respond to an RFP or provide information requested in order to
allow a full comparison of services and costs with SCRAPS. Mr. Koudelka said the SpokAnimal facility
is located in the City of Spokane about 6.7 miles from City Hall, is located on a bus line and within close
proximity to Interstate 90; that they have a full clinic on -site; new kennels; and own adjacent property that
allows for expansion should it become necessary.
Concerning a regional option, Mr. Koudelka said that all costs, capital and operating will be fixed over
the life of the agreement but adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and
said the CPI adjustment would be applied to the capital costs as well as to the 3% finance change; that
there would be no settle and adjust; we would be billed twice a year, that beyond the 20 year obligation,
the agreement would automatically renew in four -year terms; and that costs start at $287,079. Mr.
Koudelka said those dollars are 2012 dollars and since this would actually start in 2014, the County
adjusted that to $303,000. In response to a question about the City of Spokane's intention, Mr. Koudelka
said he does not know that city's intention, but did just learn yesterday that the City of Spokane is
planning on pursuing an RFP sometime around the end of July. Mayor Towey said he appreciated getting
the final draft on this; that he feels we don't have enough information from SpokAnimal to make a
rational decision, and that an RFP should give us the needed information. After further discussion, Mayor
Towey asked if there were any objections to staff issuing an RFP, and no objections were raised. Mr.
Jackson confirmed that an RFP would be open to any provider, and that the County had indicated
previously as a governmental agency, they don't respond to RFPs in the same manner, but that they
would respond in a different manner.
10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey
City Manager Jackson said we will schedule an administrative report for CPA 05 -12 for next week, and
said staff will move that process as expeditiously as possible. Councilmember Grafos asked about when
we start on the new comprehensive plan amendments, and Mr. Jackson said November 1 is the deadline.
Councilmember Grafos said our current plan still shows we have a city center and overlay zones.
Planning Manager Kuhta explained that once CPA 05 -012 is complete, if council would like an overhaul
of the Plan, staff would need to be directed on what components to look at so that a work program can be
drafted; he said those issues mentioned by Councilmember Grafos are issues that helped lay the
foundation of the SARP (Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan), but were borne out of public
community meetings; and if Council would like a full review and update, he suggests a fairly intensive
public process; and said some of the issues connected with such a review, would include assigning
resources; he said staff would need to know Council's desire; does Council just want some minor
amendments or a full public process. Councilmember Grafos said the SARP was eliminated, but the city
center zone still exists; and Mr. Kuhta explained that it all stays in there; that SARP implemented in more
details and those are general ideas; and said perhaps it would be good to bring a report back to council to
explain the Comprehensive Plan process.
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 7 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
INFORMATION ONLY (11) Department of Emergency Management (DEM) Interlocal Agreement
Update; (12) Department Reports; (13) Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Call for Projects; (14).
Street Classification Process; (15) Memorandum of Understanding for Gateway Improvements; (16) City
Hall Update; and (17) Arts Council were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Jackson said July 9 is the due date for the solid waste
submittals; and once the contract is awarded, they will have six weeks to have the first draft proposals,
then another three weeks to prepare a final draft.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting 06 -26 -2012 Page 8 of 8
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -017, Coeur d'Alene Tribe
Franchise
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff presented an administrative report in May 2012;
first reading June 26, 2012.
BACKGROUND: The Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians ( "CDA Tribe ") is seeking to install fiber
optic cable from its location in Worley, Idaho, to Liberty Lake, Washington, in order to upgrade
its capacity to provide access to the internet and telecommunication services. To accomplish
this, the CDA Tribe is seeking permission to run fiber cable along the City's rights -of -way. If the
franchise agreement is approved, the CDA Tribe plans to place fiber cable along Barker Road
from approximately 11th Avenue to 8th Avenue, and then along 8th Avenue from Barker Road to
Hodges Road.
This agreement with the CDA Tribe grants a non - exclusive franchise for telecommunication
facilities within the public rights -of -way of the City. The CDA Tribe does not currently have fiber
optic cables in the ROW. This agreement grants a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning
on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use
all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on,
across, over, through, along or below the public rights -of -way and public places located in the
City, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise.
Similar to other franchises with private utility companies, the City collects no fee from this
agreement. The City has superior right to the use of the rights -of -way. The cost of any new
construction or maintenance of the CDA Tribe's facilities shall be solely the CDA Tribe's
expense. The City requires the CDA Tribe to maintain insurance through the entire period of
this agreement.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed franchise.
OPTIONS: The Council can approve the franchise, deny the franchise, or request changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve Ordinance 12 -017
authorizing execution of a telecommunication facilities franchise with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
and authorize staff to execute the same.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed franchise with the CDA Tribe.
2. Map showing location of where the CDA Tribe plans to place fiber
optic cable.
UI:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -017
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON - EXLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO THE COEUR WALENE
TRIBE OF INDIANS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive
franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below
the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles,
conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and
distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid
fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service; "
and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any
franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the
day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without
first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at
least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the city attorney prior to its passage; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance,
subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of this City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, ordains as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms
shall have the meaning set forth below:
"City Manager" means the City Manager or designee.
2. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging,
excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing,
replacing, and repairing a facility.
3. "day" shall mean a 24 -hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or
act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and
legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time.
4. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as
it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted.
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 1 of 13
UI:
5. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW
70.105D.020(10).
6. "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in
the replacement and /or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying,
repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and
excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto.
7. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit
by the Permitting Authority.
8. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee
authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights -of-
way.
9. "product" shall refer to the item, thing or use provided by the Grantee.
10. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the
City.
11. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Works
Director or his/her designee.
12. "right -of -way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above,
and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court,
boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and /or public way now or hereafter
held or administered by the City.
13. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above
and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or
intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to
allow the Grantee to use them.
14. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment,
fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and
deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with
crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables,
communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults,
and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the
distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by
Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to
remove the same from this definition.
Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City "), hereby grants unto the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians (hereinafter
"Grantee "), a Franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to
install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place
telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights -of -way
and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant
to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise "). This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities
to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff).
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 2 of 13
UI:
Section 3. Fee. No right -of -way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such
right -of -way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any
subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties.
Section 4. Cijy Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use.
1. Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (2 pair)
along the route identified in Exhibit A as adopted or amended, within the boundaries of the City, for sole
and exclusive municipal use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers "). City agrees that it shall not use
the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public.
2. The City shall have the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at
existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits. The City
shall provide at least 30 days written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access
or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber
pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate ") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the
parties in writing and shall enter into Grantee's standard "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern
the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be
imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City.
In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle, then
the following shall apply:
A. If the City is using the fibers, then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from
the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate.
B. If the City is not using the fibers, the City shall have the option of abandoning the City
Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate.
3. The City shall pay all costs associated with constructing any connection to the City
Reserved Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this Franchise
Ordinance ( "Reserved Fiber Term ").
4. Consistent with RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating,
or placing ducts or conduits in public rights -of -way, the Public Works Director may require Grantee to
provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to
access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under
this section shall only be used for City municipal purposes.
A. The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the
access structures and vaults of the Grantee.
B. This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable
television provider under federal law.
C. Grantee shall notify the Public Works Director at least 14 days prior to opening
trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein.
Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication
of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 3 of 13
UI:
franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and
inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or
under City Code. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities
undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code.
Section 6. Non - Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it
shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights -
of -way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its
rights -of -way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them.
Section 7. Non - Interference with Existing Facilities, The City shall have prior and superior
right to the use of its rights -of -way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities
and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations,
repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may
deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights -of-
way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and
all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060
provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by
the date established by the Public Works Director's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with
RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and /or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the
expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee.
The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the
installation of the telecommunications facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning
and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in
the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties.
Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as
not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may
have been laid in the rights -of -way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise
damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, the Grantee shall wholly and at its
own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director.
Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply
with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable
federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and
quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said
federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public
trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the
Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance,
and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition,
and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies.
If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this
franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share
such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the
Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety
thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis.
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 4 of 13
UI:
Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws
relating to protection of monuments.
Section 10. Tree Trimming. The Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and
trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights -of -way subject to compliance
with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at the Grantee's sole cost and expense.
Section 11. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this
franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24 -hour on -call personnel and the
procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency,
Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection the
health and safety of the public.
In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with
such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent
injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to
protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any
expenses.
Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming
familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall
comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes.
Section 13. Safely. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights -of -way shall
be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes
and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications
facilities.
Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any
third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right —of - -way for the purpose of
moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon 14 days' written notice from the City,
shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's
telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof, provided, that the path for moving
such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as
determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days'
notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities.
Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of
any new telecommunications facilities in the rights -of -way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City
of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights -of -way, the
Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved,
whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such
facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise.
Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation,
installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized
by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of
the adjoining right -of -way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or
private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all
necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed
within a prescribed time.
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 5 of 13
UI:
hi the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails
to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the
City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent
public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions
deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable
to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee.
Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state
and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's
telecommunications facilities in the rights —of -way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any
claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the
release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its
telecommunications facilities within the City's right -of -way.
Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws,
rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their
various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or
amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which
may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules,
recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or
unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including
legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or
governmental subdivision or agency to clean and /or remove any pollution caused or permitted by
Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination.
Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at
its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street
any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of
RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in
the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications
facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed.
If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then- existing
telecommunications facilities, the City shall:
a) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project,
provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and
b) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications
for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications
facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City
rights -of -way in order to accommodate such improvement project.
C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specification, Grantee shall
complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the
City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060
(2)-
Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications
facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 6 of 13
UI:
alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate
the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so
requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such
evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the
event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its
telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section.
The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any
arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its
telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications
facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or
maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project.
If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act
or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend
and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims,
injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of or in connection
with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived
by the parties except in writing.
Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No
telecommunications facilities constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express
written consent of the City.
Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City:
1. A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities
placed in the rights -of -way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or
underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and
service lines to individual subscribers. The Grantee shall also provide an electronic format of the
aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right -of -way centerline reference to allow
the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ( "GIS ") program. The
information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually.
2. hi addition to subsection 1 of this section, the City may request that Grantee to provide the
information described in subsection 1 of this section. To the extent such requests are limited to specific
telecommunications facilities at a given location within the franchise area in connection with the
construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request,
copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications
facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and
planning of City improvement projects.
3. Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update
available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise
area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational
purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise
area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually.
4. In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically
share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for
governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 7 of 13
UI:
Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the
subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to
any third parties.
5. Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be
subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in RCW 42.56.
Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY /CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any
documentation /information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public
inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide the Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure
request to inspect or copy documentation /information which the Grantee has provided to the City and
marked as "PROPRIETARY /CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and /or copying as well
as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its
written basis for non - disclosure of the requested documentation /information. hi the event the City
disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non - disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested
documentation /information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to
file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540.
Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. hi the event that the City constructs a new street or
reconstructs an existing street, the Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set
forth in the City's then - adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations.
Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request
for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written
statement from the Public Works Director that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed,
would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare.
Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. hi addition to any other remedy provided
herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors
and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not
prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein.
Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or
restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the
performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise
of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have
the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of
construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall
promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other
requirements of law.
hi the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise, City Code shall control.
Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right -of -way or other City
property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any
relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of
180 days notice as provided for in section 37.
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 8 of 13
UI:
Section 27. Indemnification.
1. Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards
or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any
nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages
caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury:
a) For which the negligent acts or omissions of grantee, its agents, servants, officers
or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are the proximate
cause;
b) By virtue of grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein;
C) By virtue of the City permitting grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or
other public property;
d) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by
grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work
authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a
franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a
franchise;
C) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of grantee, its agents,
servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or
providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the
facility, in any right -of -way, or other public place in performance of work or services
permitted under a franchise; or
I) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from grantee's
equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether grantee's equipment complies
with applicable federal statutes and /or FCC regulations related thereto.
2. Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include
assuming liability for actions brought by grantee's own employees and the employees of grantee's agents,
representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though grantee might be immune under RCW Title
51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this
assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to
claims against the City arising by virtue of grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The
obligations of grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and grantee
acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without grantee's waiver. To the extent
required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, grantee waives its immunity under
RCW Title 51.
3. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by grantee at the time of completion
of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification.
Provided, that grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said
indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which
may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 9 of 13
UI:
City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve
any settlement or other compromise of any such claim.
4. In the event that grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having
been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having
jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a
wrongful refusal on the part of grantee, then grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the
action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, the reasonable costs of the
City, and reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this subsection.
5. Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused
by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or
Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or
Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction
determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the
indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be
allocated as provided herein.
6. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, grantee assumes the risk of damage to its
telecommunication facilities located in the rights -of -way and upon City -owned property from activities
conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such
damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on
the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and
all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited
to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of grantee's facilities as the
result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of grantee's facilities caused by or
arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the
extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or
malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors.
7. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this
franchise.
Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in
connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its
agents, representatives or employees.
Applicant's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit
the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's
recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single
Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all
owned, non - owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage
shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form
providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to
provide contractual liability coverage; and
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 10 of 13
UI:
(ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability
coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be a
named as an insured under the Applicant's Commercial General Liability insurance
policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions - Permits CG 20 12 or
a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage
shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined
Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily
injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket
contractual; products /completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and
underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability.
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for
Commercial General Liability insurance:
The Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as
outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self - insurance,
or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Grantee's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
2. The Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled,
except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory
endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the
Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect
coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity_. Before undertaking any of
the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this
franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this
franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors
and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as
may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed twenty -five thousand dollars, as sufficient to ensure
performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee
shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of
this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road,
streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee
proposes to construct a project for which the above - mentioned bond would not ensure performance of
Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be
appropriate under the circumstances.
Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or
modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such
alteration, amendment or modification.
Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with
any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 11 of 13
UI:
comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate
opportunity to cure the violation or non - compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee
shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked
or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu
of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order
from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this
franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply.
Section 32. Assi n� This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the
written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon
notice to the City to, any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or
substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise.
Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, the Grantee
must accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof.
Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection
thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day
period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose.
Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7,
13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other
obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by
contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the
provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding
upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and
City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective
heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein.
Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by
a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and
may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the
franchise.
Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall
be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this
franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in
effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City.
Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the
parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing:
The City: City of Spokane Valley
Attn: City Clerk
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Grantee: Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians
Attn: IT Director
850 A Street
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 12 of 13
UI:
Plummer, ID 83851
Phone: (208) 659 -4578
Facsimile: (208) 686 -5059
Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or
regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in
the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
Section 39. Non - Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to
reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest.
Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by
reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its
rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect.
Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings,
written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This
franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads
as herein described.
Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of
Spokane Valley as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2012.
ATTEST:
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Date of Publicattion:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney
Accepted by Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians:
53
The Grantee, Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does
accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of _
2012. Subscribed and sworn before me this _ day of 12012.
Notary Public in and for the State of
residing in
My commission expires
Ordinance 12 -017 Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise Page 13 of 13
us ml&, j
� pl
Le
rvii I
16"
Jpf
V,
464
n
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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: University Road Overlay Bid Award
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 27, 2012 council approved the Pavement
Management Plan Update for 2011; April 10, 2012 council approved $2.8 million dollars for
street preservation projects in 2012; May 15, 2012 Admin Report on status of the 2012 Street
Preservation Projects; June 12, 2012 Admin Report on 2012 Street Preservation Projects
Update; July 3, 2012 Info item on the 2012 Street Preservation Projects Update.
BACKGROUND: Council approved the Pavement Management Plan Update for 2011 which
included a list of recommended street preservation projects for 2012. Council also approved
$2.8 million to pay for street preservation projects in 2012. The University Road Overlay project
is included as one of the street preservation projects.
University Overlay Project (4th to 16th): Poe Asphalt began this project and installed ITS
conduit, made ADA sidewalk ramp upgrades and ground the pavement at the curb in
preparation for an asphalt overlay. The final overlay work has gone to bid under the city's Small
Works Roster process for the final asphalt overlay. The bid opening is scheduled for July 9th
and work is anticipated to begin the last week of July or first week of August. The additional
work Poe Asphalt completed on Appleway Avenue and various other smaller projects concluded
the preservation component of Poe's maintenance contract.
OPTIONS: Award the University Overlay Project to the lowest responsible bidder (the project
bid tabs will be available at the Council Meeting) or provide direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we Award the University Overlay Project to
the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Council approved $2.8 million dollars for street preservation
projects in 2012. Below is the summary of proposed expenditures and estimates to date.
These estimates are preliminary and subject to change based on final construction quantities
and as designs are finalized and bid.
Project (Bids Completed)
Est. Expenditures
Phase 1
Evergreen Rd (16th to 32nd)
$723,880
$106,402
Subtotal $830,282
Project (To be Bid)
Est. Expenditures
Phase 2
University Overlay (4th to 16th)
Sprague Ave (Park to Thierman)
$960,649
$343,730(Engr's Est.)
$623,338
Subtotal I $1,927,717
Grand Total $2,757,999
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 2012
Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: 2012 SRTC Call for Projects
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution 11 -005 adopting the 2012 -2017 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on June 28, 2011; Admin Report on the Draft 2013-
2018 Six Year TIP on May 29, 2012; Info Memo on Preliminary STP Project List on June 12,
2012; Admin. Report on Preliminary STP Project List on June 26, 2012.
BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) issued their 2012 Call
for Projects on July 2nd, 2012 for allocation of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)
funding for the years 2013 -2016.
Approximately $24 million in STP funding is expected to be available for the Spokane region.
However, because of funding for SRTC programs and previously deferred projects, the amount
available for the actual Call for Projects is $22.5 million. Project applications are due Friday,
August 3rd, 2012.
The available funds will be divided into two regional categories: Urban and Rural projects. The
Urban category of projects will receive 80% of the total funds available (currently estimated to
be $18.0 million); while the Rural category will receive 20% of the total available funds ($4.5
million). Spokane Valley is eligible for Urban funding only.
The federal STP(U) funds will be further divided into four project categories
These dollar amounts are subject to change due to the urban /rural split being
not specific to each project type.
as shown below.
program wide and
Improvement
20%
$3.6 Million
Reconstruction
30%
$5.4 Million
Preservation
40%
$7.2 Million
Other*
10%
$1.8 Million
Total
$18.0 Million
* `Other' includes Bike /Ped, ITS, Studies and Transit projects
Due to the short application cycle, staff began evaluating the proposed STP grant criteria and
has identified a draft list of projects to review with council. Information used to develop this draft
list of projects includes:
• The draft 2013 -2018 Six Year TIP
• The adopted Pavement Management Program (PMP)
• Council's expressed priorities including the Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement
Project and Street Preservation
Based on comments received during the Admin Report on this item at the June 26th Council
meeting, staff reviewed potential trailhead projects for application under the `Other' category.
The criteria for this category are weighted heavily toward projects with regional significance and
a widespread benefit that have been previously identified in the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP) and /or other regional planning documents. Scoring criteria also favor projects that
complete a functional facility. While the suggested trailhead projects are good projects
themselves, they are not currently identified in a regional or City planning document. Also, while
the trailheads support the use of multimodal facilities, the primary benefits are derived from the
trails themselves. Therefore, based upon staff's initial review, the trailhead projects by
themselves are not expected to score competitively.
OPTIONS: 1) Approve the list of recommended projects for STP grant applications as
presented, 2) Revise the list of projects for STP grant applications, or 3) provide additional
direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize staff to proceed with applying for
grants for projects as listed on the "2012 SRTC Call for Projects — Proposed Projects List."
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail
for each project. The city's match on federally funded projects is typically 13.5% of the total
project cost. An initial review of the projected REET funds through 2016 appears to indicate
sufficient funds to provide the city's match for the recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: 2012 SRTC Call for Projects — Proposed Projects List; STP Application
Forms
City of Spokane Valley - 2012 SRTC Call for Projects - Proposed Projects List
Improvement Category
#
Project Name
Limits
Start
PE RW CN
City Match
STP funds
4,439
Flora Barker
2014
Start End
I Year
I (Dollars in Thousands)
(13.5 %)
(86.5 %)
1 Total
1 Sullivan Road West Bridge (CN)
2 Mission Ave Improvement (CN)
3 Park Rd Improvement (RW /CN)
4
Reconstruction Category
@ Spokane River
2013
$ 4,439
$ 599
$
3,840
$
4,439
Flora Barker
2014
$ 4,050
$ 547
$
3,503
$
4,050
Broadway Indiana
2015
$ 20 $ 150 $ 2,877
$ 411
$
2,636
$
3,047
Sub - Totals
2
Broadway @ Argonne /Mullan PCC (CN)
Broadway
Argonne /Mullan
2014
$ 1,557
$
9,979
$
11,536
#
Project Name
Start
Limits
End
Start
Year
PE RW CN
(Dollars in Thousands)
City Match
(13.5 %)
City Match
(13.5 %)
STP funds
(86.5/)
STP funds
(86.5/)
Total
1
Sullivan /Euclid Intersection PCC (CN)
Sullivan
Euclid
2013
2013
$ 1,562
$
211
$
1,351
$
1,562
2
Broadway @ Argonne /Mullan PCC (CN)
Broadway
Argonne /Mullan
2014
Fancher
$ 2,110
$
285
$
1,825
$
2,110
3
Sullivan Rd PCC
Marietta
Euclid
2014
$
338 $ 2,595
$
396
$
2,537
$
2,933
4
Euclid Ave
Flora
Barker
2015
$
30 $ 1,500
$
207
$
1,323
$
1,530
5
Flora Rd
Euclid
Trent
2016
$
25 $ 1,300
1 $
179
1 $
1,146
1 $
1,325
2015
$
30
$
680
$
Sub-Totalsl
$
1,277
1 $
8,183
1 $
9,460
Preservation Cateeory
#
Project Name
Start
Limits
End
Start
Year
PE RW CN
(Dollars in Thousands)
City Match
(13.5 %)
STP funds
(86.5/)
Total
1
Sprague Ave Resurfacing (EB Lanes)
Havana
Fancher
2013
$
50
$
450
$
68
$
433
$
500
2
Sprague Ave Resurfacing
Fancher
Dollar
2013
$
24
$
225
$
34
$
215
$
249
3
Sprague Ave Resurfacing
Herald
University
2014
$
30
$
375
$
55
$
350
$
405
4
Argonne Rd Resurfacing
Sprague
Broadway
2014
$
30
$
265
$
40
$
255
$
295
5
Sprague Ave Resurfacing
Argonne
Herald
2015
$
30
$
680
$
96
$
614
$
710
6
Sullivan Ave Resurfacing
Broadway
Mission
2015
$
30
$
286
$
43
$
273
$
316
7
Sprague Ave Resurfacing
Vista
Argonne
2016
$
30
$
640
$
90
$
580
$
670
8
Sullivan Ave Resurfacing
Sprague
Broadway
2016
$
40
$
800
$
113
$
727
$
840
Sub - Totals
$
538
1 $
3,447
1 $
3,985
Other Category (Bike /Ped, ITS, Studies, Transit, etc.)
# Project Name Limits
Sta rt End
1 Sullivan Rd Corridor Traffic Study Indiana Wellesley
2 ApplewayTrail Evergreen Tshirley
3
Start PE RW CN City Match STP funds
Year (Dollars in Thousands) (13.5 %) (86.5 %)
2013 $ 200 $ 27 $ 173 $
2014 $ 200 $ 1,500 $ 230 $ 1,471 $
Total
200
1,700
Sub - Totals) $ 257 1 $ 1,644 1 $ 1,900
RQ% n,;,, STD pr ;e , , Totalsl $ 3,629 1 $ 23,252 1 $ 26,881
P: \Public Works \Capital Projects \Project Funding Applications \2012 Applications \STP(U) Apps \STP Potential Project List.xlsxSTP Potential Project List.xlsx 6/6/2012
2013 -2016 Regional STP Project Application
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN
PROJECT TITLE:
Agency or Organization Phone Number
Contact Person Email Address
❑ Urban (project located on an urban facility) ❑Rural (project located on a rural facility)
Federal Functional Classification (WSDOT FFC map)
Project Location
Project Description (include length of project and work to be done, 2000 character max.)
PE RW CN Other
Estimated obligation date (m /d /yy)
Estimated completion date (m /d /yy)
Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form attached to this application.
SRTC
Spokane R�qinnd rranspor[Mon Coanod
SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement
A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases)
$
Funding is requested for the following
phases (check all that apply):
❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design
❑ Right -of -way
❑ Construction
❑ Other (planning, etc.)
B. Requested STP Funds
$
C. Other secured federal funds, source:
$
D. Secured state funds, source:
$
E. Secured local funds, source:
$
F. Secured private funds, source:
$
G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F]
$
Cost summary notes (optional):
The project is listed in SRTC's 2011 -2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as:
❑ A planned improvement (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 12 -17);
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18 -19);
❑The project is not specifically listed, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP (as
SRTC Staff
Consistent with MTP?
Y/N
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN SRTC Staff Project Number:
described in Section 1). Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the MTP:
The project is listed in a local agency long -range plan or capital improvement program as:
❑ A programmed or planned improvement (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. Page number and text that indicates consistency with the plan:
The project is listed in an approved regional (SRTC) plan:
❑ Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan
❑ Spokane Regional Bike Plan
❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan
❑ Other:
Page
SRTC Staff
Page Consistent with local /regional
Page plans or programs?
Page Y / N
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN
SRTC Staff Project Number:
What is the average daily traffic (ADT) of the existing facility? Provide the ADT and the year of the latest traffic count.
ADT
Year
❑ Urban — 15,000+ ADT
❑ Urban — 10,000 to 15,000 ADT
❑ Urban — 5,000 to 10,000 ADT
❑ Rural — 2,000+ ADT 10
❑ Rural —1,000 to 2,000 ADT 8
❑ Rural — 500 to 1,000 ADT 6
Will the project improve traffic flow and alleviate congestion? If so, please describe.
If the project will alleviate congestion, what is the current level of congestion on the facility where the project is located (for proposed
new facilities, what is the congestion on the facility that the project will directly impact)? Measure the level of congestion using
intersection or section Levels of Service.
❑ LOS F
❑ LOS E
❑ LOS D
If the project will alleviate congestion, what is the current duration of congestion on the facility where the project is located (for
proposed new facilities, what is the duration of congestion on the facility that the project will directly impact)? Measure the
duration of congestion using a 24 -hour traffic count (with 15 minute intervals), which will indicate the length of the peak period.
SRTC staff will assign points on a sliding scale.
Duration of congestion (minutes)
Is the facility on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS)? If so, indicate the classification. If not,
provide the truck traffic equivalency and the year of the latest vehicle classification count.
On FGTS
WSFGS Classification
❑ T -1
❑ T -2
❑ T -3
❑ T -4
❑ T -5
•'
Annual Gross Tons
Year
Truck Traffic Equivalency
❑ More than 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 4 to 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 300,000 to 4 million gross tons annually
[:1100,000 to 300,000 gross tons annually
❑ 20,000 gross tons in 60 days
10
Does the project enhance connections to existing employment centers, key destinations (i.e. schools, parks, retail, city /regional
centers and attractions), major transportation routes and /or transportation hubs? If so, please describe. 6
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN
SRTC Staff Project Number:
Is the project consistent with a local economic development/revitalization plan? If so, please cite the plan and the page number
that indicates the project is consistent with the plan. 4
Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities beyond ADA requirements (crossings, completes a gap, vegetated
buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe.
Is the facility on a designated bicycle route? If yes, will the project add or improve bicycle facilities beyond improved
pavement condition (lanes, pavement markings, signage, completes a gap etc.)? If so, please describe.
Has the project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? If so, please describe. 2
If the project is on a bus route, how many buses per day traverse the facility?
Number of buses
❑ 1 -30 buses per day
❑ 30+ buses per day
Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current design
standards (i.e. use of recycled materials, innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation, air quality benefit 5
If so, please describe.
Describe the status of the project.
❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE) 5
❑ Right -of -way plans approved 1
❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed 5
❑ Design is 30% complete 15 point max. 1
❑ Design is 60% complete 3
❑ Design is 90% complete 5
all
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN
SRTC Staff Project Number:
Provide the location and details for correctable collisions (i.e. not random, unpreventable incidences) on the project facility for the three most current years available. This 10
information can be obtained from the Statewide Travel & Collision Data Office (STCDO).
Fill out a separate row for each collision. Provide information on the location, collision type, severity, number of vehicles involved, and the primary countermeasure to
eliminate or mitigate the collision (countermeasure must be consistent with project scope).
SRTC Staff: Rank: Pts:
SRTC staff will use this information to assign points on a sliding scale.
Collision Location
(provide location details or
milepost)
Collision Type
(head -on, broad -side,
right angle, etc.)
Number of
Property Damage
Only (PDOs)
Number of
Injuries
Number of
Fatalities
Number of
Vehicles
Involved
Primary Countermeasure
(must be consistent with project scope)
ex. Driveway East of Myrtle St.
Side swipe
0
1
0
2
Improved visibility.
Fatalities
$4,400,000
TOTAL (Sum of Column A)
TOTAL (Sum of Column B)
TOTAL (Sum of Column C)
Collision Involving
A. Total Number
B. Factor
C. Accident Cost
(A x B)
Annual Benefit
(Sum of Column C / 20 years)
Property Damage Only (PDO)
$6,700
Injuries
$375,000
Fatalities
$4,400,000
TOTAL (Sum of Column A)
TOTAL (Sum of Column B)
TOTAL (Sum of Column C)
ROADWAY IMPROVEMEN
SRTC Staff Project Number:
Does the project address an existing safety concern(s)? If yes, please indicate the existing safety concern(s).
❑ Unsignalized intersection collisions ❑ Signalized intersection collisions
❑ Head -on collisions ❑ Run - off -road collisions
❑ Collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists ❑ Collisions involving horizontal curves, utility poles, trees
❑ Other safety concern:
Does the project address the existing safety concern(s) via the one or more of the following strategies?
❑ Improve visibility /sight list. of intersections, signals, signs
❑ Improve geometry, approaches of complex intersections
❑ Provide /improve turn channelization
❑ Add rumble strips, barriers /rails, raised pavement markers
❑ Add center turn lane /pocket
❑ Improve geometry of horizontal curves
❑ Provide enhanced pavement markings
❑ Eliminate at -grade crossings
❑ Provides sidewalks /walkways and curb ramps
❑ Provides bike lanes, markings, signage
❑ Implement roadway narrowing measures
❑ Add traffic calming improvements
❑ Other safety improvements consistent with NCHRP 500:
10
❑ Restrict or eliminate turns (including right turns on red,
driveway access)
❑ Restrict cross - median access near intersections
❑ Provide appropriate intersection traffic control (all -way stop,
signalizing, roundabouts) to reduce collisions and severity
❑ Add non - traversable median
❑ Provide skid - resistant pavement surfaces
❑ Remove, move utility poles /trees in high -crash or high -risk locations
❑ Add signage directed to improve safety concern
❑ Install /improve traffic and pedestrian signals
❑ Provide crosswalk enhancements (including striping, refuge islands,
raised medians)
2013 -2016 Regional STP Project Application
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TITLE:
Agency or Organization Phone Number
Contact Person Email Address
Project Information -
❑ Urban (project located on an urban facility) ❑Rural (project located on a rural facility)
Federal Functional Classification (WSDOT FFC map)
Project Location
Project Description (include length of project and work to be done, 2000 character max.)
Proposed
PE RW CN Other
Estimated obligation date (m /d /yy)
Estimated completion date (m /d /yy)
SRTC
spo%ane cound
Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form attached to this application.
SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement
A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases)
$
Funding is requested for the following
phases (check all that apply):
❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design
❑ Right -of -way
❑ Construction
❑ Other (planning, etc.)
B. Requested STP Funds
$
C. Other secured federal funds, source:
$
D. Secured state funds, source:
$
E. Secured local funds, source:
$
F. Secured private funds, source:
$
G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F]
$
Cost summary notes (optional):
The project is listed in SRTC's 2011 -2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as: SRTC Staff
❑ A planned improvement (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 12 -17);
Consistent with MTP?
Y/N
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION SRTC Staff Project Number:
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18 -19);
❑The project is not specifically listed, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP (as
described in Section 1). Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the MTP:
The project is listed in a local agency long -range plan or capital improvement program as:
❑ A programmed or planned improvement (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. Page number and text that indicates consistency with the plan:
The project is listed in an approved regional (SRTC) plan: SRTC Staff
❑ Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan Page Consistent with local /regional
❑ Spokane Regional Bike Plan Page plans or programs?
❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan Page Y / N
❑ Other:
Page
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
SRTC Staff Project Number:
What is the structural condition of the existing facility? Rate the Overall Condition Index (OCI) rating, using the TTC Pavement
Condition Rating Standards (attached to application packet) and the year of last inspection. Note: OCI will be reviewed by a
team of representatives from Spokane, Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT prior to project scoring.
OCI
Year
❑ OCI: 0 -45
❑ OCI: 46 -65
❑ OCI: 66 -85
What is the average daily traffic (ADT) of the existing facility? Provide the ADT and the year of latest traffic count.
ADT
Year
❑ Urban — 15,000+ ADT
❑ Urban — 10,000 to 15,000 ADT
❑ Urban — 5,000 to 10,000 ADT
❑ Rural — 2,000+ ADT
❑ Rural —1,000 to 2,000 ADT
❑ Rural — 500 to 1,000 ADT
Is the facility on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS)? If so, indicate the classification. If not,
provide the truck traffic equivalency and the year of the latest vehicle classification count.
On FGTS
WSFGS Classification
❑ T -1
❑ T -2
❑ T -3
❑ T -4
❑ T -5
Annual Gross Tons
Year
Truck Traffic Equivalency
❑ More than 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 4 to 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 300,000 to 4 million gross tons annually
❑ 100,000 to 300,000 gross tons annually
❑ 20,000 gross tons in 60 days
.& 9F
40
30
10
15
10
5
10
8
6
4
2
Does the project enhance connections to existing employment centers, key destinations (i.e. schools, parks, retail, city /regional
centers and attractions), major transportation routes and /or transportation hubs? If so, please describe. 5
Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities beyond ADA requirements (crossings, completes a gap, vegetated 4
buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe.
Is the facility on a designated bicycle route? 2
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
❑ Yes ❑ No
SRTC Staff Project Number:
If the project is on a designated bicycle route, will the project add or improve bicycle facilities beyond improved pavement
condition (lanes, pavement markings, signage, etc.)? If so, please describe.
Has the project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? If so, please describe.
If the project is on a bus route, how many buses per day traverse the facility?
Number of buses
❑1 -30 buses per day
❑ 30+ buses per day
Describe the status of the project.
❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE)
❑ Right -of -way plans approved
❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed
❑ Design is 30% complete
❑ Design is 60% complete
❑ Design is 90% complete
all
15 point max.
3
63
2013 -2016 Regional STP Project Application
ROADWAY PRESERVATION
PROJECT TITLE:
Agency or Organization Phone Number
Contact Person Email Address
❑ Urban (project located on an urban facility) ❑Rural (project located on a rural facility)
Federal Functional Classification (WSDOT FFC map)
Project Location
Project Description (include length of project and work to be done, 2000 character max.)
PE RW CN Other
Estimated obligation date (m /d /yy)
Estimated completion date (m /d /yy)
SRTC
spo%ane cound
Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form attached to this application.
SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement
A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases)
$
Funding is requested for the following
phases (check all that apply):
❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design
❑ Right -of -way
❑ Construction
❑ Other (planning, etc.)
B. Requested STP Funds
$
C. Other secured federal funds, source:
$
D. Secured state funds, source:
$
E. Secured local funds, source:
$
F. Secured private funds, source:
$
G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F]
$
Cost summary notes (optional):
The project is listed in SRTC's 2011 -2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as: SRTC Staff
❑ A planned improvement (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 12 -17); Consistent with MTP?
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18 -19); Y / N
ROADWAY PRESERVATION SRTC Staff Project Number:
❑The project is not specifically listed, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP (as
described in Section 1). Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the MTP:
The project is listed in a local agency long -range plan or capital improvement program as:
❑ A programmed or planned improvement (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed). Plan /program and page number:
❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. Page number and text that indicates consistency with the plan:
The project is listed in an approved regional (SRTC) plan:
❑ Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan
❑ Spokane Regional Bike Plan
❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan
❑ Other:
Page
SRTC Staff
Page Consistent with local /regional
Page plans or programs?
Page Y / N
ROADWAY PRESERVATION
SRTC Staff Project Number:
What is the structural condition of the existing facility? Rate the Overall Condition Index (OCI) rating, using the TTC Pavement
Condition Rating Standards (attached to application packet) and the year of last inspection. Note: OCI will be reviewed by a
team of representatives from Spokane, Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT prior to project scoring.
OCI
Year
❑ OCI: 0 -45
❑ OCI: 46 -65
❑ OCI: 66 -85
What is the average daily traffic (ADT) of the existing facility? Provide the ADT and the year of the latest traffic count.
ADT
Year
❑ Urban — 15,000+ ADT
❑ Urban — 10,000 to 15,000 ADT
❑ Urban — 5,000 to 10,000 ADT
❑ Rural — 2,000+ ADT
❑ Rural —1,000 to 2,000 ADT
❑ Rural — 500 to 1,000 ADT
Is the facility on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS)? If so, indicate the classification. If not,
provide the truck traffic equivalency and the year of the latest vehicle classification count.
On FGTS
WSFGS Classification
❑ T -1
❑ T -2
❑ T -3
❑ T -4
❑ T -5
•C
Annual Gross Tons
Year
Truck Traffic Equivalency
❑ More than 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 4 to 10 million gross tons annually
❑ 300,000 to 4 million gross tons annually
❑ 100,000 to 300,000 gross tons annually
❑ 20,000 gross tons in 60 days
10
40
30
15
10
5
10
8
6
4
2
Does the project enhance connections to existing employment centers, key destinations (i.e. schools, parks, retail, city /regional
centers and attractions), major transportation routes and /or transportation hubs? If so, please describe. 5
Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities beyond ADA requirements (crossings, completes a gap, vegetated
buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe.
Is the facility on a designated bicycle route?
❑ Yes ❑ No
4
2
ROADWAY PRESERVATION
SRTC Staff Project Number:
If the project is on a designated bicycle route, will the project add or improve bicycle facilities beyond an improved pavement
condition (lanes, pavement markings, signage, etc.)? If so, please describe.
Has the project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? If so, please describe.
If the project is on a bus route, how many buses per day traverse the facility?
Number of buses
❑ 1 -30 buses per day
❑ 30+ buses per day
Provide the total estimated cost of the project (same as item G under Cost Summary), the cost of any future routine
maintenance that will be needed until reconstruction is necessary, the length of the project in miles, and the life of the 10
preservation project until reconstruction will be necessary. SRTC staff will use this information to calculate a life cycle cost for
all projects; points will be assigned on a sliding scale.
Total estimated cost of project $ SRTC Staff
Future routine maintenance until reconstruction $ Life Cycle Cost:
Length of project (miles)
Life of project until reconstruction (years)
Describe the status of the project.
❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed
❑ Design is 30% complete
❑ Design is 60% complete
❑ Design is 90% complete
all
2
5 point max. 1
2
3
2013 -2016 Regional STP Project Application
OTHER (NON-ROADWAY])
PROJECT TITLE:
Agency or Organization
Contact Person
Phone Number
Email Address
SRTC
J`iokane `�iona�`7ransfiorfa6'on Cocrnci%
❑ Urban (project located on an urban facility, or in 2010 Census Urban Area) ❑Rural (project located on a rural facility, or outside urban area)
Federal Functional Classification (WSDOT FFC map), for projects not located on a classified facility: NA
Project Location
Project Description (include length of project and work to be done, 2500 character max.)
Proposed
PE RW CN Other
Estimated obligation date (m /d /yy)
Estimated completion date (m /d /yy)
Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form attached to this application.
SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement
A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases)
$
Funding is requested for the following
phases (check all that apply):
❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design
❑ Right -of -way
❑ Construction
❑ Other (planning, etc.)
B. Requested STP Funds
$
C. Other secured federal funds, source:
$
D. Secured state funds, source:
$
E. Secured local funds, source:
$
F. Secured private funds, source:
$
G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F]
$
Cost summary notes (optional):
Choose one of the following options:
❑ A planned improvement (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 12 -17) 25
OTHER (NON - ROADWAY SRTC Staff Project Number:
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18 -19) 15
❑ The project is not specifically listed, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP (as described 5
in Section 1). Cite the page number that illustrates consistency with the MTP:
❑ The project is not specifically listed in the MTP, but is listed as a priority project in an approved regional (SRTC) plan. 10
❑ Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan Page
❑ Spokane Regional Bike Plan Page
❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan Page
❑ Other: Page
❑ The project is not specifically listed in the MTP, but is consistent with the goals and policies of an approved regional (SRTC) plan.
5
SRTC Staff
Consistent with MTP? Consistent with other Regional Plans?
Y/N Y/N
❑ A programmed or planned improvement (specifically listed). Cite the program /plan name and page number: 15
❑ An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed). Cite program /plan name and page number: 12
❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Cite plan name and page number that illustrates consistency with the plan:
❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is listed as a priority project in an adopted local plan 12
(modal, subarea). Cite plan name and page number:
Describe the status of the project. Note: If the project does not require completion of the items below in order to advance, but will be
done concurrent with a project that does (i.e. placement of communications systems concurrent with pavement reconstruction), please
indicate the status of the concurrent project as well.
❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE)
❑ Right -of -way plans approved
❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed
❑ Design is 30% complete 10 point max.
❑ Design is 60% complete
❑ Design is 90% complete
Does the project address an identified safety issue, transportation system gap, or another identified transportation 10
system need? If so, please describe.
OTHER (NON- ROADWAY
SRTC Staff Project Number:
Describe the regional significance of the project (the project has or will have a high level of usage in the community, is easily accessible
to a high density area or to a large proportion of the local community).
Describe how the project will improve mobility, multi - modality, safety, economic development, and environmental stewardship. The
description should consider (but is not limited to) the items under each category.
Project improves the person -trip capacity of a corridor.
Project improves conditions of a congested corridor.
Project extends or completes a gap in the pedestrian system or in a regional /local bicycle route.
Project includes sidewalks wider that 5 ft and /or includes a vegetated buffer.
Project improves or enhances existing transit service, facilities or amenities.
Project provides a new transportation choice to a corridor.
Project reduces conflicts between modes.
Project improves safety of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists or transit users.
Project establishes a new connection, or improves an existing, between key destinations (employment centers, schools,
parks, retail, city /regional centers and attractions, transit), major transportation routes and /or transportation hubs.
Project improves a facility on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) or serves as an
unclassified freight route.
Project has a positive impact on the human environment; including the transportation disadvantaged.
Project improves, or minimizes negative impacts on, the environment.
Project maximizes the efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with Spokane County -48th Ave & Sundown Ct Pavement Repair
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Spokane County for the 2009 Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP) on April 7,
2009; Information Item on July 3, 2012 council agenda.
BACKGROUND: In 2009 Spokane County completed the West Ponderosa Sanitary Sewer
Project, which included full -width reconstruction of the roadways in this area. Upon completion
of this project the City determined that the south half of 48th Avenue, east of Woodruff Road,
and the cul -de -sac at the end of Sundown Court was not constructed in a manner that provided
for proper drainage. Spokane County has taken the position that these roads have been
returned to a condition that is equal to or better than the condition that existed prior to the sewer
construction.
In the interest of settling this disagreement, the City and County are willing to share in the cost
of a project to repair these roadways.
Attached is a draft MOU that describes the sharing of costs for the replacement of the south half
of 48th Avenue and the installation of an asphalt channel across the cul -de -sac of Sundown
Court to allow for proper drainage.
OPTIONS: Move to approve the attached MOU, or take other action deemed appropriate
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve, and authorize the City Manager to
execute the "Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane
County- Pavement Replacement and Drainage Improvement Cost Sharing For the 48th Avenue and
Sundown Court Pavement Modifications."
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The draft MOU proposes that the City pay 50% of the
estimated $157,000 construction cost along with 100% of the construction management cost,
which is estimated to be $16,500. The County proposes to pay for the design costs. The total
estimated City cost is approximately $95,000. Funds for this work are proposed to come from
the Civic Facilities Fund which paid for the full -width paving of the 2010 and 2011 STEP
projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
I]G7_\aI
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County
Pavement Replacement and Drainage Improvement Cost Sharing
For the 48th Avenue and Sundown Court Pavement Modifications
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (the CITY) and Spokane County (the COUNTY) have
worked collaboratively to construct portions of the COUNTY's West Ponderosa Sewer Basin Project
together with CITY paving and drainage improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, the CITY desires that the roads impacted by the construction of sewers be reconstructed
based on typical road design standards including 2% cross slopes; and
WHEREAS the CITY has taken the position that the south half of 48th Avenue east of Woodruff
Road was not reconstructed in an acceptable manner following the construction of sewers, and that a
portion of the cul -de -sac at the end of Sundown Court has not been reconstructed in a manner that
provides for proper drainage; and
WHEREAS the COUNTY has taken the position that the roads impacted by the construction have
been returned to a condition that is equal to or better than the condition that existed prior to the
construction; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of settling the disagreements relative to the replacement of these
roadways, the CITY and COUNTY are willing to share in the cost of a project to address the CITY's
concerns; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY are willing to share equally in the construction contract costs
of such pavement modifications.
NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and the COUNTY do hereby agree as follows:
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall jointly prepare a notification letter for distribution to property
owners located adjacent to the proposed improvements, advising them of the scope of the work
and the anticipated schedule. The COUNTY shall mail the notification letter to the property
owners prior to the start of design survey work.
2. The COUNTY shall design the roadway improvements, and shall provide the CITY with a set of
project plans indicating the extent of the pavement modifications and adjoining restorations,
together with a construction cost estimate for same. The COUNTY shall bear the cost of the
design and cost estimating work.
3. The CITY and COUNTY agree that the pavement section for these roadway improvements shall
consist of two and a half (2%2) inches of hot mix asphalt overlying four (4) inches of crushed rock.
4. Portions of the south half of 48"' Avenue between Woodruff Road and a point approximately 300
feet east of Raymond Road will be removed, re- graded, and repaved with an increased cross
slope.
Memorandum of Understanding
48th Ave. & Sundown Ct. Pavement Modifications Page 2 of 3
5. A 10 -foot wide asphalt channel will be constructed through the cul -de -sac at the end of Sundown
Court to direct runoff to the existing drywell
6. During the design process, the COUNTY and the CITY shall each provide a representative to
coordinate as a team with affected property owners relative to the impacts to driveway
approaches and driveway slope adjustments. In those cases where driveway re- grading will be
required beyond the right -of -way, the CITY shall prepare and secure the authorizations necessary
for the re- grading from the property owners
The CITY shall review the plans and construction cost estimate, and shall provide written
comments to the COUNTY outlining any changes to the design desired by the CITY. The
COUNTY shall make modifications to the design to address the CITY's comments.
The CITY shall approve the project plans prior to the release of the plans for bidding. Such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9. The CITY shall incorporate the plans prepared by the COUNTY into a bid package, and shall bid
the project. The bid documents shall clearly establish the CITY's right to reject all bids. After
the bids for a project are opened, the CITY shall prepare the bid tabulation and provide a copy to
the COUNTY.
10. The CITY's and the COUNTY's shares of the construction contract cost will each be one -half the
cost submitted by the lowest responsive bidder. The preliminary construction cost estimate for
the work contemplated is $157,000. If the total amount bid by the lowest responsive bidder does
not exceed $157,000, the CITY may elect to proceed immediately with the award of the
construction contract.
11. In the event that the total low bid amount exceeds $157,000, The CITY and the COUNTY may 1)
agree to reject all bids and revise the scope of the project and rebid, or 2) agree to increase in the
CITY's and the COUNTY's respective project budgets equally to allow the work to proceed as
bid with each party paying 50% of the cost.
12. The CITY shall manage all components of the construction contract, and shall be responsible for
compliance with all provisions of the Revised Code of Washington relating to public works
contracts. The CITY's construction management costs shall be borne entirely by the CITY.
13. The CITY and the COUNTY recognize that the actual CITY and COUNTY costs may be
different from the bid cost based upon final quantities and contract change orders. The CITY
shall present all proposed change orders to the COUNTY during construction for acceptance by
the COUNTY. The actual final cost shall be shared equally by the CITY and the COUNTY.
However, the COUNTY shall not be responsible for any additional cost resulting from change
orders that have not been accepted by the COUNTY.
14. When all paving work is completed, the CITY shall send an invoice to the COUNTY for the
COUNTY'S portion of the project costs. The invoice shall be accompanied by a copy of the final
contract pay estimate and any contract change orders. The COUNTY shall make payment to the
CITY within 30 days of receipt of the invoice and documentation.
15. Upon the CITY's final project completion and acceptance of the COUNTY's full payment for
construction costs, the CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY from any and all
Memorandum of Understanding
48th Ave. & Sundown Ct. Pavement Modifications Page 3 of 3
current or future claims associated with the roadway improvements on 48`h Avenue east of
Woodruff Road and on Sundown Court.
Any dispute between the COUNTY and CITY regarding the Agreement which cannot be
resolved between the COUNTY and CITY shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for
to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing. If the County CEO and the
City Manager or his designee cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The
provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an
arbitrator. The two (2) selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision
of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as
provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the Parties.
16. The COUNTY hereby appoints and CITY hereby accepts
designee for the purpose of administering this Agreement.
hereby accepts as CITY'S designee
Agreement.
SPOKANE COUNTY:
Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
Mike Jackson, City Manager
as the COUNTY'S
CITY hereby appoints and COUNTY
for the purpose of administering this
Date:
Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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: Street Landscaping Standards
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Code Chapter 3, Transportation
Street Standards, Chapter 11
Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 22.70.030, Section F. Street Trees
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
City Council requested an administrative report regarding the City's current Street Landscaping
Standards. The landscaping standards can be found in the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and
Street Standards. The requirements generally consist of separated sidewalk, drainage swales, and street
trees for new multifamily and non - residential projects.
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: n/a
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman /Gabe Gallinger
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Department of Community Development
Valle
Planning Division
Street Landscaping Standards
City Council Administrative Report
July 10, 2012
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
Valle
Planning Division
Guidance for street landscaping is found in 3 areas
• Comprehensive Plan
• Street Standards
• Municipal Code
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Roadway Cross Sections
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 (Transportation), Section 3.2
July 10, 2012
pOAD Pio-4-1 or wv,
IM I LCP"' I IrMI
PRINCIPAL AR-11EMAL
7'eF PL 5ECTiON — N " 5
A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY A e,
BIKE LEFT TURN _ BIKE
LANE LANE LANE
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING
AND DRAINAGE AND DRAINAGE
COLLECTOR ARTERIAL
TYPICAL SECTION — N.T.S
Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
Valle Planning Division
Typical Collector Arterial Cross Section
Street Standards Chapter 11, Standard Plan R -122
6' SIDEVIALK
(SEE NOTE d)
q
PLANTER STRIP SWALE
SECTION' SE MOM
BORDER EASEMENT 7w
I ¢ —4W—PAVING
2 -3 I L —M
7' PLANTER 57R{P
HMR Ci.PSS 1/2" {M{N, 4 , SEE NDT>r 3)
GS BBC /C.S.T.C. {IdIN. 6 "' SEE NOTE 3
APPROVEn SU6Gfi11DE 0% MODIFIED 8CT4R
BORDER ' EAIENT
1'
Ur SWALE Ls' SIDEWALK
{SEE NOTE r_
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
alle
Planning Division
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 22.70.030, Section F. Street Trees
• The provisions of this section apply only to Multifamily and
Non - Residential projects.
• If construction is adjacent to any local access, collector or
arterial, as least one medium tree shall be planted for each 40
linear feet, or fraction thereof, for that portion of the
development abutting the right -of -way
— Trees shall be deciduous
— Within 10 feet of the public right -of -way
— Planted at a distance of not less than 3 5 feet on center
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
alle Planning Division
Broadway Ave looking east from the SW corner of Lowes
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
alle Planning Division
Broadway Ave looking east from the driveway approach to
Walmart
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
alle Planning Division
Sprague Ave looking west from the NW corner of Panda
Express
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
pkanc t'T" " }r "`rt "E Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
Carnahan Street looking north from the SW corner of Panda
Express
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
Department of Community Development
alle Planning Division
First Ave. looking west from the SW corner of Panda Express
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley street landscaping standards for public streets
D
D
n
m
z
cn
O
m
0
m
m
v
0
D
cn
D
n
n
z
D
n
C-
0
2
O
zT
07
(D
v
m
W
c
v
m
z
D
z
n
D
r
D
n
cn
z
cn
0
0
0
D
O
va ° CAD �. n D � 0 D CD
`� O m m CD
�� N� o C� < m Z n
^.s
CI-DI y 0 CCD CD ° �' c z D =
v
CD`�,� ° O cn z 3
m
Z r rt
`° `° CD `° 0 O su
CD
CD
CD
CD CD
o
C, O CD, D
D U) ❑❑ N
0
N 4 CCD `C O (p �, O
O � N
CD
CD - Z r CD
�. CD
CD D o.
o CD CL m cQ ® ❑
tj 0ZCDno o Z Qo
� Q
tj CD CD CT
CD
o m
'1"5 °�,
° CD
tj -n
;s CD k� ; 0 CD C� a CD
CCDD W �. cD cD
�. CD
CL CD 5
CD
tJ CD
P7, oci CD CD 0
�.
CD �otj El El �.
CD
CD
Ut:tQ C CT
CD W
• ¢ v CD P- �D fl cD cD tU
5 � (n v
CD
tj
CD .
i El CD "� CD CD O
CD
CD
cn
O
O
r_
m
n
n
0
m
W
O
a
Z
m
D
r
r
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
Street Lighting
City Council Administrative Report
July 10, 2012
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle
Planning Division
t, 1, son
Street lighting is covered in two areas
• Municipal Code
• City Practices
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
Municipal Code
Chapter 22.60, Outdoor Lighting Standards
• Does not require public street lighting
• Addresses on -site lighting for Multifamily
and Non - Residential projects only
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
City Practices
Non - published guidelines practiced by Spokane Valley
• Provide Street Lighting at:
— Intersections of two arterials
— Marked crosswalks
— Areas of safety concern
(collision history, sharp curves)
— If requested by police for public safety
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle Planning Division
Street Light Providers
• The City currently has
approximately 1,926 street
lights in the public right -of -way
• Utility Company Maintained
— Modern Electric Water Co.
— Avista Utilities
— Vera Water &Power
— Inland Power &Light
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle Planning Division
Street Light Providers
• City Maintained
— Contract with Spokane County
• Street lights on top of signal
poles
— Contract with WSDOT
• 133 luminaires on SR 27
and SR 290
• City is responsible to pay for
new poles after collisions
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
�
Non City Lighting
• Street lighting is available to
— Businesses
— Neighborhood Associations
— Private Property Owners
• Coordinate directly with
Utility Company
— Generally $15 -$20 /month
— Additional cost for new poles
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
Cost Information
• Utility Company Maintained
— $12.20- $20.00 /month depending on
wattage, type of pole and provider
— Includes electricity and maintenance of
light
— Additional fees for new poles
• City Maintained
— Spokane County and WSDOT invoice
the City on a time and material basis
for street light maintenance
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle - Planning Division
Street
Lighting
and
Signals
Electricity Costs
2009 2010 2011
iJ
$3921500 $414100 $4191200 $4201000 $4201000
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle Planning Division
Street light on an existing Utility Pole
• Initial cost varies
from $0 to $850
depending on utility
company
• Monthly fees apply
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
Department of Community Development
Valle Planning Division
Street light on a new steel pole
air - 'qT 1W �
�M'-'
• Initial cost varies
depending on type of
light, pole, and distance
from power source
— Typically $2,500 and up
• Monthly fees apply
July 10, 2012 Spokane Valley Street Lighting
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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 Ordinance amending SVMC 8.25.025
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 8.25.025; SVMC 5.15.080 and SVMC 6.05
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: SVMC 8.25.025F currently provides exceptions to the prohibition against
panhandling in the rights -of -way. Consequently, charitable solicitations and park activities are
not currently considered a violation of the panhandling ordinance. However, on April 10, 2012,
SVMC 5.15.080 was amended to remove the ability to get special event permits for charitable
solicitations in the rights -of -way, rendering the exception listed under SVMC 8.25.025
unnecessary. Furthermore, the exception relating to park regulations is unnecessary as an
exception to the panhandling prohibition in the rights -of -way.
Staff proposes revising SVMC 8.25.025 by deleting the exceptions relating to charitable
solicitations and to park regulations. This amendment would remove inconsistencies with other
sections of the Code, and reflect current practices and appropriate measures for prohibiting
panhandling in the rights -of -way. This does not represent any substantive change, and is
merely a housekeeping item.
OPTIONS: Approve moving forward with the proposed amendment to SVMC 8.25.025 with or
without modification, or request further information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place the proposed ordinance
amending SVMC 8.25.025 on a future agenda for a first reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance amending SVMC 8.25.025
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 8.25.025 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY; AND
OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted SVMC 8.25.025 in order to promote
the City's fundamental interest in public, health, and safety, by regulating acts of solicitation that occur at
locations and under circumstances which pose substantial risks to vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 10, 2012, amended SVMC 5.15.080 by removing the
ability to get special event permits for charitable solicitations in the rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, the reference to SVMC 6.05 is unnecessary as an exception to the panhandling
prohibition in the rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, SVMC Chapter 8.25 should be amended so it is consistent with SVMC 5.15.080 by
removing the exception relating to charitable solicitations, and the exception relating to SVMC 6.05.
Such changes directly relate to the life, health, and safety of the City's citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 8.25.025F Regarding Solicitation from
Vehicle Occupants that is Prohibited. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 8.25.025F is hereby
amended as follows:
8.25.025 Solicitation from vehicle occupants prohibited.
F. The fellewiiig afe iie4A person summoning aid in an emergency situation is not a violations under this
section-
1. Aetiv4y au+hefized ptwstiafft to Chapter- 5:4A S344C, Speeial &oeiits, or- Chapter- SV
Section 2. Remainder of SVMC 8.25 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC Chapter 8.25
are unchanged by this amendment.
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 or
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.
Draft Proposed Ordinance 12 -020 Amending SVMC 8.25 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Passed this day of August, 2012.
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Draft Proposed Ordinance 12 -020 Amending SVMC 8.25 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 2012 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Ordinance amending SVMC 7.05 — Nuisances
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 7.05
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of 7.05 in 2003, amended in 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006, and 2008.
BACKGROUND: Since the adoption of SVMC 7.05, the City has gained additional insight and
experience in how to better identify and regulate nuisance conditions. Staff recommends that
the Council consider amending certain provisions within SVMC 7.05 in order to clarify and better
reflect the City's current practice of identifying and regulating nuisance conditions, and to
include other limitations and prohibitions.
(1) Washington law holds adjoining property owners responsible for encroachments in the
rights -of -way. However, SVMC 7.05.020, in defining persons responsible for a nuisance
violation, does not make clear that such persons are responsible for nuisance violations
occurring near any public rights -of -way next to their property. Staff recommends that language
be added to make clear that property owners are responsible for encroachments in the rights -of-
way in accordance with Washington law.
(2) SVMC 7.05.030, SVMC 7.05.050, and SVMC 7.05.060H currently contain language relating
to complaints. However, the City no longer requires receipt of a complaint in order to initiate
actions necessary to abate a nuisance. This language should be removed to coincide with
current City practices.
(3) SVMC 7.05.040 currently contains language relating to nuisances existing in the front, back
or side yards of the property. This is unnecessary and should be removed for clarity throughout
SVMC 7.05.040.
(4) SVMC 7.05.040A currently does not set forth excessive overgrowth of vegetation that
obstructs or impairs the full use of walkways as a nuisance violation. The City has identified
overgrowth of vegetation that obstructs the full use of walkways, sidewalks, and streets as a
nuisance, and staff recommends that language be added specifying that such overgrowth may
be a nuisance in certain circumstances.
(5) SVMC 7.05.040E2e does not presently identify improperly disposed of vegetation waste as a
nuisance. The City has experienced disposal of vegetation waste may create a nuisance when
it is not properly contained, and staff recommends adding language that makes improperly
contained disposal of vegetation waste a nuisance.
(6) SVMC 7.05.040F sets forth types of fire hazards that may constitute a nuisance. It should
be clear that this determination is made by the Fire Marshall, as a professional with expertise,
and language should be added to SVMC 7.05.040F to reflect this.
(7) SVMC 7.05.040H should explicitly set forth
nuisance as the City has received complaints
offensive to persons of reasonable sensitivity.
animal feces as an example of a potential odor
about animal feces, which may be harmful and
(8) SVMC 7.05.040L does not explicitly set forth noise created by radios, televisions, musical
instruments, sound amplifiers, or other similar devices as a potential noise nuisance. For clarity,
language should be added to indicate such sounds may become a nuisance violation if they
disturb a person of reasonable sensitivity.
(9) Under SVMC 7.05.0400, yard sales may constitute a nuisance if they are held for more than
seven consecutive days, or more than two consecutive weekends. This poses a potential
problem whereby an excessive amount of yard sales may be held, for example, every other
weekend or for six consecutive days. The City has received complaints that excessive yard
sales increase the traffic and impact the safety of a neighborhood. For clarity, therefore, staff
recommends the number of yard sales per calendar year be determined and added to SVMC
7.05.0400.
(10) SVMC 7.05.050D currently requires the director to check for previous violations on a
property that contains an alleged nuisance. This should be removed since there is no legal or
practical basis for this requirement.
(11) SVMC 7.05.0608 currently requires a property with a nuisance violation to be reinspected
14 days after a warning notice is issued. This is incompatible with the City's current procedures
for reinspecting nuisance violations and the requirement should be removed.
(12) SVMC 7.05.060F requires the director to determine who is responsible for a nuisance
violation when the property owner has not caused the violation. However, it should be removed
as it is unnecessary and does not comport with the City's current practices. Code compliance
officers work to identify all tenants as well as the record owner and taxpayer to pursue for
compliance with City Code.
OPTIONS: (1) Place the proposed amendments to SVMC 7.05 on a future agenda for
consideration, (2) reject the proposed amendments, or (3) request further information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for a first
reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; John Hohman, Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance amending SVMC 7.05
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 7.05.020, 7.05.030, 7.05.040, 7.05.050, AND 7.05.060 OF
THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NUISANCE CONDITIONS ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted SVMC Chapter 7.05 in order to
maintain a safe and healthy environment by regulating nuisance conditions that contribute to injury,
illness, and devaluation of property; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of these provisions, the City has gained additional insight in how to
better identify and regulate such nuisance conditions; and
WHEREAS, certain existing provisions within SVMC Chapter 7.05 should be amended to better
reflect the City's current practice of identifying and regulating such nuisances and the types of conditions
that constitute a nuisance. Such changes directly relate to the life, health and safety of the City's citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.05.020 Regarding the Definition of
"Person Responsible for a Nuisance Violation ". Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 7.05.020 is
hereby amended as follows:
"Person responsible for a nuisance violation" means the person who caused the violation, if that can be
determined, and /or the owner, lessor, tenant or other person entitled to control, use and /or occupancy of
the property, including any public rights -of -way abutting a person, firm, or entity's property where the
nuisance violation occurs,
Section 2. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.05.030 Regarding the Compliance,
Authority and Administration of Nuisance Violations. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 7.05.030
is hereby amended as follows:
A—.In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with applieab niiis *ee
afdi °n°° pr °T en-s his Chapter, the director may, in response to field observations of Feliable
mss, determine that at4s nee o -diff +,.° violations of this Chapter have occurred or are occurring,
and may utilize any of the compliance provisions contained in Chapter 17.100 SVMC.
Section 3. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.05.040 Regarding the Type of Nuisances
to be Regulated. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 7.05.040 is hereby amended as follows:
Ordinance 12 -021, Amending SVMC Title 7.05 Page 1 of 5
DRAFT
No person, firm, or entity shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain, or permit to exist any public
nuisances within the City,= including any public rights -of -way abutting a person, firm, or entity's
property. Prohibited public nuisances include, but are not limited to:
A. Vegetation.
1. Any vegetation, or parts thereof, which hang lower than 8 feet over any public
walkway or sidewalk, or hang lower than 14 feet over any public street, or which
are rig thereon in such a manner as to obstruct or impair the free and full
use of the walkway, sidewalk, or street by the public, or violate clearview
triangle policies adopted by the City,
less than n eigh! feec-! abEwe a publie ,a4k ., side .,1L ss +.r- an 14 fee
.,1 eu4 a ublie stfeei
2. Growth of grass or weeds which exceeds 12 inches in height. This provision
shall not apply to properties that are engaged in the lawful use of animal raising
of large animals, as defined in Appendix A, or to ornamental grasses placed as
part of landscaping a property.
3. Any growth of noxious weeds or any toxic vegetation shall be subject to
Chapter 16 -750 WAC as currently adopted and hereafter amended.
E. Accumulations of Materials, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery.
1. Building and Construction Materials. Accumulations, stacks, or piles of building or
construction materials not associated with a current, in- progress project including metal, wood,
wire, electrical or plumbing materials in disarray or exposed to the elements on the property.
This provision does not apply to a designated contractor's yard, as defined in the currently
adopted Spokane Valley Zoning Code.
2. Garbage, Recyclables, Compost, and Infestations.
a. Garbage not kept in a proper receptacle with a tight - fitting lid.
b. Accumulations of broken or neglected items, litter, salvage materials, and junk not in an
approved enclosed structure, in the f ea +, baek o side yards of the p p °,t.,
c. Recyclables not properly stored and regularly disposed of.
d. Creating or maintaining accumulations of matter, including foodstuffs, that harbor or are
an attraction for the infestation of insects or vermin; failing to eliminate such infestations;
or failing to eliminate intrusive insects.
e. Disposal or accumulation of vegetation waste, including, but not limited to, grass
clippings, cut brush, cut trees, cut weeds, and/or cut wood, except as contained in a
Ordinance 12 -021, Amending SVMC Title 7.05 Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
compost pile not to exceed two cubic yards, or orderly stacked fire wood, if cut in lengths
of four feet or less.
3. Furniture and Appliances.
a. All broken or discarded household furniture, furnishings or equipment, or any appliances
not in an approved enclosed structure, in t4e f ent, side, °r- bae k yafd - ofd °r ° p°:
b. All accessible refrigeration appliances not having the doors secured or removed, or any
enclosure that can entrap humans or animals.
4. Machinery and Equipment. Broken, inoperable, accumulations of, or parts of machinery or
equipment not in an approved enclosed structure, '
This subsection °°does not include -nt+isa-nee---'uJ nk vehicles that are regulated by
subsection P of this section.
F. Fire Hazards. Stacks or accumulations of newspapers, dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained
compost piles), cardboard, or other paper, cloth, or wood products left in a manner that could pose a
substantial risk of combustion or the spread of fire -, as determined by the Fire Marshall.
H. Smoke, Soot, or Odors. The escaping or emitting of any unnecessary or harmful smoke, soot, fumes,
e-r--gases, or odors, such as those caused by animal feces,- offensive or harmful to persons of
oses-reasonable sensitivity.
L. Noise.
1. Any noise or sound that intrudes into the property of another person that exceeds the maximum
permissible noise levels as established in WAC 173.60.010, as currently adopted and hereafter
amended.
2. Sounds created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument, sound amplifier or any other
device capable of producing or reproducing sounds, which emanate frequently, repetitively or
continuously from any building, structure or property located within a residential area, and which
annoy or disturb the peace, comfort, or repose of a person of reasonable sensitivity.
33. The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle,
except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted by law.
43. The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting,
operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off - highway vehicle or
internal combustion engine within a residential zone, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with
the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
54. The noisy operation of any automobile, truck, motorcycle or other vehicle in such a
nonemergency manner to cause the squealing of tires by the rapid acceleration of the vehicle; the loud
and continuous grinding, thumping or grading noises from trucks or other commercial vehicles; the
engine compression noise from the unmuffled or poorly muffled compression braking of trucks; the
sound from any motor vehicle audio sound system such as tape players, radios, and compact disc
players at volumes so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the vehicle itself; and loud, excessive
Ordinance 12 -021, Amending SVMC Title 7.05 Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
engine or exhaust noise from unmuffled vehicles or vehicles operating with inadequate muffler
systems to prevent unreasonably loud noises.
6. Any other sound occurring frequently, repetitively, or continuously which annoys or disturbs the
peace, comfort, or repose of a person of Treasonable sensitivity.
O. Yard Sales. The holding or permitting of a yard sale on the same real property more than seven
consecutive days, or more than two consecutive weekends„ There shall be no more than (9 112,3,4) of yard
sales a4 aff , eiie l .,.ag -e ~on the same real property per calendar year.
Section 4. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.05.050 Regarding the Initial Investigation
of a Nuisance. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 7.05.050 is hereby amended as follows:
B. Advising interested parties of weeip� ereamplaint a*d field stigudenMparent violation:
1. The person responsible for the nuisance violation should be advised of any eemplaifftapparent
violation, which may be by personal contact, phone, posting ora*d regular mail (T-et-'am reeeip*
�. The letter should state that a violation may have occurred, but has not been verified,
and should ask the recipient to contact the person issuing the letter.
Section 5. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.05.060 Regarding the Procedures When
Probable Nuisance Violation is Identified. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 7.05.060 is hereby
amended as follows:
B. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing
promptly when a field inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the director otherwise determines a
nuisance violation has occurred. The warning shall inform the person determined to be responsible for a
nuisance violation of the violation and allow the person an opportunity to correct it or enter into a
voluntary compliance agreement as provided for by this chapter. Verbal warnings shall be logged and
followed up with a written warning within five days, and the site shall be reinspected_ ,,,4hi 14 days.
Ordinance 12 -021, Amending SVMC Title 7.05 Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
Section 6. Remainder of SVMC 7.05 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC Chapter 7.05
are unchanged by this amendment.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 8. 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 this day of August, 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 -021, Amending SVMC Title 7.05 Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 2012 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Amending 17.100 — Compliance and Enforcement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.100; Civil Rule 4; RCW 4.28.100 and RCW 4.28.110
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of 17.100 in 2007, amended in 2008 and
2010.
BACKGROUND
SVMC 17.100 currently contains certain provisions that are incompatible or out of date with the
City's present practice of regulating and enforcing nuisance violations.
(1) SVMC 17.100.030, .040 and .130 contain language relating to complaints that should be
removed as the City no longer requires receipt of a complaint in order to investigate and act on
a nuisance violation.
(2) SVMC 17.100.050F currently requires a violation to be corrected or a voluntary compliance
order to be entered into within 15 days of notice from the City. However, staff recommends
extending this to 30 days for the violation to be corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement
to be entered into, as this would more closely coincide with current practice.
(3) SVMC 17.100.060A3 currently requires copies of a notice and order to be sent via first class
mail and by certified mail. The requirement of sending certified mail is legally unnecessary, and
should be amended to requiring one copy of a notice and order to be sent via ordinary first class
mail. This would save considerable time and expense in staff's process while meeting due
process requirements at the same time.
(4) SVMC 17.100.0608 currently states service by publication of a notice and order shall
conform to the requirements of Civil Rule 4 of the Rules for Superior Court. Civil Rule 4,
however, is designed specifically for service of a summons and complaint which commences a
lawsuit in Superior Court. The summons and complaint process in Superior Court is
substantially different than the City's administrative notice and order process. Accordingly,
some requirements of Civil Rule 4 for service by publication are incompatible with the City's
administrative notice and order process under Title 17 of the SVMC. Staff proposes revising
SVMC 17.100.0608 by deleting the requirement of compliance with Civil Rule 4, and instead
setting forth requirements for service by publication of notice and orders that are consistent with
RCW 4.28.100, RCW 4.28.110, and the City's notice and order process for enforcing the SVMC.
(5) SVMC 17.100.090 currently states that the City will provide copies of a written determination
of compliance by certified mail if a complainant requests such notification. As noted above,
however, the City is no longer complaint driven, so this provision has become unnecessary.
Even if the City were to keep the provision as it relates to giving written determinations of
compliance to complainants because we still expect to receive complaints, staff would
recommend removing the requirement that the written determination be sent via certified mail.
(6) SVMC 17.100.120A has language stating that authorized representatives of the City may
enter property to abate a violation without seeking a judicial abatement order. Although it is
legal to enter somebody's property under an agreement such as a voluntary compliance
agreement, it is the practice of staff to not do so without a court order out of respect for property
rights, and to minimize potential liability risk. Staff recommends that this language be removed
since we will not enter onto a property without a court order.
(7) SVMC 17.100.150E presently provides for civil penalties for each separate violation of the
SVMC. In practice, the City does not impose a civil penalty for each violation, but rather one
civil penalty for all violations that occur on a property. The City does this because imposing
multiple penalties seems too heavy- handed. Additionally, if the goal is to bring the property into
compliance with City Code, staff has found one penalty of $500 is more than sufficient to
accomplish this goal, whereas multiple penalties for different types of violations do not appear to
offer additional incentive for compliance with the Code. There are exceptions, however, where
somebody is getting a financial benefit from the violation, for example, by storing scrap metal,
when the price is high, in such quantities as to overflow City rights -of -ways, or by engaging in a
zoning use that is not allowed for financial benefit. In these instances, the City would be able to
impose a $5,000 penalty in addition to the $500 penalty. In the very limited circumstances
(twice) where the City has imposed the $5,000 penalty, staff was promptly contacted about
bringing the properties into compliance.
(8) SVMC 17.100.150K currently states that an appeal of a notice and order is 20 days. This
conflicts with SVMC 17.90.040, which provides for 14 days. The time limit in SVMC
17.100.150K should be amended to 14 days so that it is consistent with other Code appeal
provisions.
(9) Staff recommends changing SVMC 17.100.1500 as set forth in the proposed ordinance so
that it is broader in its application in terms of why a file may be forwarded to the office of the City
Attorney for further action.
(10) SVMC 17.100.250 sets forth an assessment schedule for civil penalties. The current
schedule has an initial penalty for each violation; however, the City's practice is to have one
basic penalty regardless of the number of violations, as discussed in relation to SVMC
17.100.150E, above. Other fees are charged in the current schedule based on the public health
risk, the environmental damage, or damage to another's property. The City, however, does not
presently assess and differentiate civil penalties based on the type of nuisance, and staff feels
they are unnecessary to include in the penalty schedule. Staff believes the proposed changes
to the penalty schedule will be easier to understand.
(11) SVMC 17.100.300 requires the City to prepare a report upon completion of any abatement.
This is unnecessary, however, as the City already maintains an itemized account of the costs
incurred and the legal actions taken to abate a nuisance. Therefore, the requirement that the
City prepare a report could be removed.
OPTIONS: (1) Place the proposed amendments to SVMC 17.100 on a future agenda for
consideration, (2) reject the proposed amendments, or (3) request further information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for a first
reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; John Hohman, Community Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance amending SVMC 17.100
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 17.100.030, 17.100.040, 17.100.050, 17.100.060,
17.100.090, 17.100.120, 17.100.130, 17.100.150, 17.100.250, AND 17.100.300 OF THE SPOKANE
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CITY'S ABILITY TO SET FORTH
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted SVMC Chapter 17.100 in order to
enforce nuisance violations as set forth in SVMC Chapter 7.05 and for violations of any provisions of
Titles 17 through 22 and Title 24; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of these provisions, the City has gained additional experience in how
to better regulate and enforce such nuisance provisions; and
WHEREAS, certain existing provisions within SVMC Chapter 17.100 should be amended in
order to better reflect the City's current practice of regulating and enforcing such nuisances. Such changes
directly relate to the life, health, and safety of the City's citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.030 Regarding Enforcement.
Authority, and Administration. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.030 is hereby amended
as follows:
A. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with applicable code
provisions, the City may, in response to field observations or- reliable eel, determine that
violations of this !41eTitles 17 through 22 and Title 24, have occurred or are occurring, and may:
1. Enter into voluntary compliance agreements with persons responsible for code violations;
2. Issue notice and orders, assess civil penalties, and recover costs as authorized by this chapter;
3. Require abatement by means of a judicial abatement order, and if such abatement is not timely
completed by the person or persons responsible for a code violation, undertake the abatement and
charge the reasonable costs of such work as authorized by this chapter;
4. Allow a person responsible for the code violation to perform community service in lieu of paying
civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
5. Order work stopped at a site by means of a stop work order, and if such order is not complied
with, assesses civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
6. Suspend, revoke, or modify any permit previously issued by the City or deny a permit
application as authorized by this chapter when other efforts to achieve compliance have failed; and
Ordinance 12- , Amending SVMC Title 17- Page 1 of 5
DRAFT
7. Forward a written statement providing all relevant information relating to the violation to the
office of the city attorney with a recommendation to prosecute willful and knowing violations as
misdemeanor offenses.
Section 2. Repealing Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.040 Regarding the Guidelines for
Departmental Responses to Complaints. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.040 is hereby
repealed as follows:
Section 3. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.050 Regarding the Procedures When
a Probable Violation is Identified. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.050 is hereby
amended as follows:
F. If the violation is not corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within 30 �
days of notification by the City, a notice and order or stop work order should be issued. Stop work orders
should be issued promptly upon discovery of a violation in progress.
Section 4. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.060 Regarding the Service of a
Notice and Order and a Stop Work Order. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.060 is hereby
amended as follows:
A. Service of a notice and order shall be made on a person responsible for code violation by one or more
of the following methods:
3. Service by mail may be made for a notice and order by mailin og ne coRy, �We -sew postage
prepaid, one by ordinary first class mail_ a-ad !he other- byseiti4e to the person
responsible for the code violation at his or her last known address, at the address of the violation,
or at the address of the place of business of the person responsible for the code violation. The
taxpayer's address as shown on the tax records of Spokane County shall be deemed to be the
proper address for the purpose of mailing such notice to the landowner of the property where the
violation occurred. Service by mail shall be presumed effective upon the third business day
following the day upon which the notice and order was placed in the mail.
B. For notice and orders only, when the address of the person responsible for the code violation cannot be
reasonably determined, service may be made by publication once .a week for two consecutive weeks in an
appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal. Service by publication shall eeafefm
the rzqttirements of Q-ail Rule 4 o t Superior- be deemed complete at the expiration of
the time prescribed for publication. A notice and order served by publication shall be signed by a code
Ordinance 12- , Amending SVMC Title 17- Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
compliance officer, shall include the dates of the publication, and shall contain a brief statement of the
nature of the action and how it can be remedied.
Section 5. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.090 Regarding the Determination of
Compliance. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.090 is hereby amended as follows:
After issuance of a warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, or stop work order, and
after the person(s) responsible for a violation has come into compliance, the City shall issue a written
determination of compliance. The City shall mail copies of the determination of compliance to each
person originally named in the warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, or stop work
order
Section 6. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.120 Regarding Failure to Meet Terms
of Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.120 is hereby
amended as follows:
A. If the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement are not completely met, and an extension of time
has not been granted,
the person responsible for the violation may,
without being issued a notice and order or stop work order, be assessed a civil penalty as set forth by this
chapter, plus all costs incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation, and may
be subject to other remedies authorized by this chapter. Penalties imposed when a voluntary compliance
agreement is not met accrue from the date that an appeal of any preceding notice and order or stop work
order was to have been filed or from the date the voluntary compliance agreement was entered into if
there was not a preceding notice and order or stop work order.
Section 7. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.130 Regarding the Authority of a
Notice and Order. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.130 is hereby amended as follows:
When the City has reason to believe, based on investigation of documents and/or physical evidence, that a
code violation exists or has occurred, or that the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement have not
been met, the City is authorized to issue a notice and order to any person responsible for a code violation.
The City shall make a determination whether or not to issue a notice and order within 30 days of
determiningfeee ing a eemplain! alleging elatie et4efwise disee,ve.:,, that a violation may
sexists, or within 10 days of the end of a voluntary compliance agreement time period which
has not been met.
Section 8. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.150 Regarding the Contents of a
Notice and Order. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.150 is hereby amended as follows:
The notice and order shall contain the following information:
Ordinance 12- , Amending SVMC Title 17- Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
E. A statement that a civil penalty is being assessed, including the dollar amount of the civil penalties per
sepafale -,4e atiea, and that any assessed penalties must be paid within 20 days of service of the notice and
order;
K. A statement advising that any person named in the notice and order, or having any record or equitable
title in the property against which the notice and order is recorded, may appeal from the notice and order
to the hearing examiner within 2414 days of the date of service of the notice and order;
O. A statement advising that failure to comply with the notice and order
may be referred to the office of the city attorney for pr-aseei-4ii-eagppropriate legal action.
Section 9. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.250 Regarding the Assessment
Schedule for Civil Penalties. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.250 is hereby amended as
follows:
A. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed for remedial purposes ~a sha4l be assessed
eaehfor violations identified in a notice and order or stop work order, pursuant to the following schedule:
Notice and orders and stop work orders- basic initial penalty: $500.00.
B. Additional iiiitial penalties shall be added where there is:
14. Second violation : $4- 990500. $500.00.
2. Each subsequent Violation (three or more): $445091.000.
-236. Economic benefit to person responsible for violation: $5,000.
Section 10. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.100.300 Regarding Cost Recovery.
Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 17.100.300 is hereby amended as follows:
A. In addition to the other remedies available under this chapter, upon issuance of a notice and order or
stop work order the City shall charge the costs of pursuing code compliance and abatement incurred to
correct a code violation to the person responsible for a code violation. These charges include:
3. Abatement Costs. The City shall keep an itemized account of costs incurred by the City in the
abatement of a violation under this chapter.
Ordinance 12- , Amending SVMC Title 17- Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
aeenaed; and
Section 11. Remainder of SVMC 17.100 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC Chapter
17.100 are unchanged by this amendment.
Section 12. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 13. 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 this day of August, 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- , Amending SVMC Title 17- Page 5 of 5
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of July 5, 2012; 4:30 p.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
July 17, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, July 91
1. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Goals and Policies — Lori Barlow (30 minutes)
2. Draft Development Agreement for CPA 05 -12— Mike Basinger (20 minutes)
3. Graffiti Update — Cary Driskell (20 minutes)
4. TIB Call for projects — Steve Worley (20 minutes)
5. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 95 minutes]
July 24, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, July 161
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA 05 -12 Development Agreement — Mike Basinger ( -45 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: CPA 05 -12 Development Agreement —Mike Basinger (20 minutes)
3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -020 Amending SVMC 8.25.025, Solicitation Exceptions - Driskell (15 min)
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -021 Amending SVMC 7.05, Nuisance —Cary Driskell (15 min)
6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -022 Amending SVMC 17.100, Nuisance Compliance — Driskell (5 min)
7. Motion Consideration: TIB Call for Projects — Steve Worley (10 minutes)
8. Admin Report: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Goals and Policies — Lori Barlow (30 minutes)
9. Admin Report: Ipad Purchases and Use — Greg Bingaman (15 minutes)
10. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
11. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 165 minutes]
July 31, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, July 231
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -018, CPA 05 -12 — Mike Basinger (30 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -019, CPA Zoning Map — Mike Basinger (5 minutes)
NON - ACTION ITEMS:
3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
August 7, 2012, Study Session Format (CONFIRMED no meeting — National Night Out)
August 14, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 61
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Read Proposed Ordinance 12 -020 Amending SVMC 8.25.025, Solicitation Exceptions - Driskell (15 min)
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -021 Amending SVMC 7.05, Nuisance —Cary Driskell (15 min)
4. Second Read Proposed Ordinance 12 -022 Amending SVMC 17.100, Nuisance Compliance — Driskell (5 min)
5. Proposed Resolution: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Goals and Policies — Lori Barlow (20 minutes)
6. Motion Consideration: Award of Animal Control Contract — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes)
7. Admin Report: 2013 Budget- Estimated Revenues & Expenditures (20 minutes)
8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 100 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 7/6/2012 11:33:50 AM Page 1 of 3
August 21, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 13]]
1. Animal Shelters, SVMC Title 19.120 Amendment, (to permit in CMU zones) - Karen Kendall (20 min)
2. Donation Policy — Mike Stone (25 minutes)
3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 50 minutes]
August 28, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 201
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2013 Budget (estimated revenues & expenditures) (10 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.120, Animal Shelters — K.Kendall (15 min)
4. Admin Report: Proposed 2013 Budget Ordinances — Mark Calhoun (20 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
6. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
September 4, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 271
1. Outside Agencies: Presentations from Economic Development Orgs — Mark Calhoun ( -30 min)
2. Sprague Appleway Corridor Environmental Assessment — Public Works (30 minutes)
3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 65 minutes]
September 11, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due Tues, Sept 41
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.120, Animal Shelters — K.Kendall (15 min)
3. Admin Report: Presentation of City Manager's Preliminary 2013
budget — Mike Jackson (15 minutes)
4. Admin Report: Outside Agencies: Presentations from Social Service
Agencies — M.Calhoun ( -60 min)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
(5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 95 minutes]
September 18, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due Mon, Sept 101
1. Advance Agenda
(5 minutes)
September 25, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due Tues, Sept 171
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2013 Budget — Mark Calhoun
(20 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
(5 minutes)
3. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies
— Mark Calhoun (20 minutes)
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
(5 minutes)
5. Info Only: Department Reports
[ *estimated meeting: 50 minutes]
October 2, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due Mon, Sept 241
1. Advance Agenda
(5 minutes)
October 9, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due Tues, Oct 1]]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2013 Budget — Mark Calhoun
(20 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
(5 minutes)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance for Property Tax — Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2013 Budget — Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
5. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies
— Mark Calhoun (20 minutes)
6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
(5 minutes)
7. Info Only: Department Reports
[ *estimated meeting: 80 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 7/6/2012 11:33:50 AM Page 2 of 3
October 16, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 81
1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
October 23, 2012, Formal Meetine Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tues, Oct 15]]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance Proposed Property Tax — Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
3. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2013 Budget — Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 35 minutes]
October 30, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 221
1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
ADA Transition Plan
Arts Council
Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions)
Budget Amendment, 2012
Centennial Trail Agreement
City Hall Analysis
Code Text Amendments (Permitted Use Matrix)
Comprehensive Plan Process
Contracts, Annual Renewals, histories, etc.
Decant Discussion
Future Acquisition Areas
Greenacres Trail Grant
Interstate Signage
Investment Accounts
Lodging Tax Funding
Manufactured Homes
Pedestrian/Bicycle Grant Program
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
Prosecution Services
Revenue Policy, Cost Recovery
Speed Limits (overall system)
Stormwater Projects
Truck Parking in Residential Areas Ordinance
*time for public or council comments not included
Draft Advance Agenda 7/6/2012 11:33:50 AM Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 10, 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: Temporary Sign Brochure
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.110, Sign Regulations
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted new sign regulations in April, 2012.
BACKGROUND: City Council adopted new sign regulations in April 2012. The regulations
increase the opportunity for temporary signage for Spokane Valley businesses. The Community
Development Department created a temporary sign brochure and accompanying letter to send
out to all Spokane Valley businesses. Once the brochure is mailed to businesses, the City's
Code Enforcement Officers will begin informing businesses of the new regulations.
OPTIONS: N/A— Information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Cost of copying and mailing — unknown at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Temporary Sign Brochure and Letter to Business Owners
S p6ICane e
,,;oo4JFVaIIeY
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall ®spokanevalley.org
Current date, 2012
Name
Company/ Organization
Address
City, ST zip
RE: Notice of New Temporary Sign Regulations
Dear
The City of Spokane Valley has adopted new temporary sign regulations. The new regulations
provide more flexible standards and requirements allowing temporary signs, while
maintaining an attractive and safe environment in our commercial areas. The primary
purpose of this letter is to alert you of the new regulations so that you may take action to
remove and /or relocate your temporary signage so that your temporary signage complies with
the regulations. Secondarily, we want to inform you that if your signage does not comply
with the regulations you will be contacted by City staff within the next 30 days to explain
what actions are required to bring your signage into compliance.
Critical changes to the regulations for temporary signs include allowing each business to
display one A -frame sign, also known as a sandwich board, and one additional temporary sign
up to 32 square feet without time limits, permits, or fees required. A brochure is attached to
help you understand the details of the regulations, such as placement, setbacks, display area,
and maintenance standards, as well as other temporary sign opportunities.
The previous temporary sign regulations, enacted in 2007, were more restrictive. For
example all temporary signs required a temporary sign permit which limited the display time
from 7 to 30 days, no more than twice a year, and A -frame signs were not allowed under any
circumstances. The vast majority of the temporary signs previously and currently displayed
did not comply with the past regulations and consequently are not vested. However, at this
time the City is only interested in helping businesses comply with the current regulations, and
therefore only those signs that do not meet the current regulations are required to be
removed and /or relocated.
We recognize that signs are an important tool in promoting business, organizations and events
in the community. However, signs can also play a significant role in creating an unsightly
environment and prompting complaints. We look forward to working with you as a partner in
keeping Spokane Valley beautiful. For more information, please contact the Spokane Valley
Permit Center at 720 -5310, or by email at plan ningCspokanevalley.org.
Sincerely,
John Hohman, Director
Community Development Department
Business Guide to
Keeping Spokane Valley
Beautiful.
We understand that running a business is
challenging, and that adequate signage is
critical to communicate with your
customers. At the some time, we know
business owners recognize the need to
keep signage, especially movable and
temporary signage, from overwhelming the
image of our business areas_ Ultimately,
the future of Spokane Valley relies on a
balance between supporting the
businesses that serve our community, and
protecting the quality of life that will attract
the residents and major employers who
will patronize those businesses_
Spokane Valley's City Code is available
online at www spokanevalley.org. Follow
the links to the Municipal Code. Complete
sign regulations may be viewed by in
Chapter 22.110, Sign Regulations__
If you have additional questions
after reading this brochure,
please contact the Community
Development Department at
(509) 720 -5310 or
plan ning @spokanevaI Ley, org.
Spokane
Va11ey� Temporary Sign
Opportunities for
Businesses
For more information contact:
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11707 E Sprague Ave_, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Phone: (509)720 -5310
Website: www.s okanevalley- or
An overview of the
City of Spokane Valley
Office Hours
Temporary and A -frame
sign regulations.
Monday — Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
except holidays.
S oKme
p
,;o*Va11ey-
DISCLAIMER
This brochure is intended only as a general guide. ... ..... .. .................... .. ...................... _ ............ ......
Other codes and ordinances may apply. May 2012
Temporary and A -frame
Sign Regulations
The Community Development Department
has worked with local business owners,
sign companies, citizens, and elected
officials to create a sign code that
balances the needs of these different
groups.
This brochure summarizes the regulations
for temporary signs and A -frame signs.
Any questions regarding permanent signs
and their associated building permits
should be directed to the Permit Center at
(509)720 -5116.
What is a Temporary Sign?
Temporary Signs are defined as:
"Banners, pennants, flags, streamers,
searchlights, inflatables, special event
signage or temporary on- premises
commercial signs posted in conjunction
with the alteration, construction, sale or
lease of real property."
General Information
Each business may display a single
temporary sign without a permit_
Additionally, each business is allowed to
display one A -frame sign without a permit.
All signs must be located on the same
premises as the business they advertise.
Signs may not be located in the right -of -way
(ROW), which includes the sidewalk, or
otherwise impede travel ways or safe
visibility.
Signs must be well maintained, intact, and
reasonably legible. Signs are not well -
maintained if they are frayed, torn, broken,
have partially or completely missing letters
or graphics, or are otherwise deteriorated.
These signs may be required to be
removed.
GRAND
OPENING!
Temporary Signs
Sign size must be 32 square feet or less_
Materials: Signs must be made of durable
materials and shall be well- maintained.
Banners must be attached to the wall,
window or facade of the building which the
advertised business is located in.
All temporary signs must be set back at
least 5 feet from ROW, except inflatables
must be set back at least 10 feet.
A -frame Sign
(aka. Sandwich. Boards)
• Signs cannot exceed 9 square
feet in area or 3 feet in height.
• Sign materials may be metal,
finished wood, chalkboard,
whiteboard or plastic.
• Permanent lettering for the
business name and/or logo
must be located on the sign.
• Signs may only be displayed
during business hours. If
hours continue past daylight
hours the sign should be
placed in a lighted area.
127 %f
Additional Temporary Sign
Opportunities
Additional banners or temporary signs
advertising a special event, sale,
promotion, opening of a new business
or a business under new management
are allowed if a temporary sign permit
is obtained. Each business is allowed
two permits per calendar year. Each
permit covers a 60 day period and
allows an unlimited number of
temporary signs. To obtain a permit or
for more information please call the
Permit Center at 720 -5310.