Loading...
2012, 07-10 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,July 10,2012 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Star 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 Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Chuck Hefner, Council nember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Ben Wick, Councilmember John Holtman, Community Development Dir. Arne Woodard, Councilmember Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Al Hulten of Valley Assembly Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councihnembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schi»mlels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard: said he went to the Chamber Board of Directors meeting where he gave them a report on recent Council issues; went to the Council of Governance Meeting; attended the Washington Policy Center Health Care Conference where the Florida Attorney General made a presentation about the new health care act; attended the Home Based Business meeting and said he encouraged them to review the City's new signage rules. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Council of Governance meeting; went to the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)meeting where it was mentioned that WSDOT needs approximately$70 million a year just for our region and that they have no resources or plan on how to fund that;went to a SNAP Board Barbeque; and attended the Greenacres Park 4`h of July celebration. Councilmember Grafos: said he attended the Council of Governance meeting and the Greenacres Park 4"' of July celebration. Deputy Mayor Schinunels: explained that he attended the Solid Waste Advisory Meeting; went to the Council of Governance meeting and said he put his name down as a participant in the two-day tour; and went to a hamburger eating contest at Ron's Drive-in. Councilmember Grassel: no report Councilmember Hafner: no report. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Board of Health committee meeting where they heard a report comparing people's general health with different social environments and of how poverty impacts health; said he attended the Council of Governance meeting, and went to the Greenacres 4th of July celebration. Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comment, Kathleen Blair, 1921 N.Vista Road: she read her statement about truck traffic in her residential area; said commuters from the north and east are using Knox, Vista, Indiana and Nora as a shortcut to the industrial area; said they travel at unsafe speeds; said one "No Tnicks" sign was removed and she was told other signs were not taken down because the City assumes it is a deterrent to truck traffic; she suggested an ordinance is needed to address this. Andy Hale, Deputy Chief with Spokane Valley Fire Department: said he was speaking on behalf of Fire Chief Mike Thompson and the Valley Board of Fire Commissioners; he mentioned a report recently distributed to council which was provided as an explanation of the replacement levy on the upcoming August 7 ballot; he said the document provides facts about the maintenance and operation levy and that it is a continuation of a current Ievy that has been in place for the last three years; he said this is about 53% of their overall budget; and said that fact-related document and can be found on their Department's website. I. 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 06/20/2012 26250-26312 $1,124,993.29 06/21/2012 3957-3960 $61,829.12 06/28/2012 26313-26362 $141,337.41 GRAND TOTAL 51,328,159.82 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 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schiminels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-017, Coeur d'Alene Tribe Franchise—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schiinmels and seconded to approve Ordinance 12-017 authorizing execution of a telecommunication facilities franchise with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and authorize staff to execute the same. City Attorney Driskell summarized the purpose and terms of the franchise. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered, Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.'None. Motion carried. 3.Motion Consideration: University Road Overlay Bid Award—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schinunels and seconded to award the University Overlay Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Spokane Rock Products, Inc., in the amount of$226,4'81.00. Mr. Worley said the bid opening was yesterday, there were five bids, and Spokane Rock Products was the low bidder. After brief discussion about the process of using the small works roster, Mayor Towey invited public comment. No comments were offered, Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None, Motion carried. 4.Motion Consideration: SRTC Call for Projects—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with applying for grants for projects as listed on the "2012 SRTC Call for Projects — Proposed Projects List." Senior Engineer Worley mentioned that based on comments from the previous Council meeting, staff reviewed Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 potential trailhead projects for application under the "Other" category; and said the projects are not currently identified in a regional or City planning document; that the trailheads support the use of multimodal facilities but the primary benefits are derived from the trails themselves, therefore, those projects are not expected to score competitively. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Memorandum of Understanding for 48th Avenue—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded 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 48£''Avenue and Sundown Court Pavement Modifications." For continuity purposes, City Attorney Driskell went through the background and purpose of this issue and of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); that in 2009 Spokane County completed the West Ponderosa Sanitary Sewer Project which included full-width reconstruction of the roadways; and upon completion of the project, the City determined that the south half of 48'h Avenue east of Woodruff Road and the cul-de-sac at the end of Sundown Court was not constructed in a manner that provided proper drainage; and that Spokane County's position is that these roads were returned to a condition equal to or better than the condition that existed prior to the sewer construction; and said in the interest of settling this disagreement, the City and County are willing to share in the cost of the project to make the needed roadway repairs. Mr.Driskell noted that Section#16 of the Memorandum of Understanding has two blanks, and said he confirmed earlier today that the City's representative will be Steve Worley, and the County's representative will be Kevin Cooke; and said Spokane County approved this Memorandum of Understanding today at their meeting. Councilmember Hafner voiced his concern that Spokane Valley got the "short end of the stick" in having to pay $95,000. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bill Gothmann 10010 E 48th Avenue: said the problem on 48th is that water pools and during the winter, it freezes making for a hazardous route for traffic, including school busses; and he encouraged adoption of the agreement. Kent Moosman, 10106 E 48th Avenue: also expressed concerned about the dangerous situation on the street and he had several photos distributed to Council showing the standing water and/or frozen areas; he said he feels the re-paving wasn't done to proper safety standards and that homeowners have reasonable expectations that streets should be put back to pre-construction or better condition; said sometimes it even drains across the street; the crown wasn't high enough to allow for enough slope. Councilmember Woodard asked Mr. Moosman if draining was a problem prior to construction, and Mr. Moosman said he has lived there over 22 years, and there is no question that it didn't have this kind of drainage problem before; he said former Public Works Director Neil Kersten used to regularly walk the street when the County was initially pushing back on re-doing the street; and Mr. Mossman said he previously got an e-mail from Mr. Kersten and believes he also emphatically stated we did not have this problem before the construction work was done. Councilmember Grafos said he is familiar with that road and what went on up there; and said it starts with the fact that when the County put the road back in,they put in the sewer and came back to pave that road, and said he would hope in the future that we would make sure that we have the proper grade before they start paving; and said he thinks in that particular case that the County just went up there and paved it and it was after the fact they realized there wasn't enough ground in that road; and said so now we're stuck with it; and had we been on top of that at the beginning of the project and checked those grades, and if it wasn't paved properly we could have either gone back to the County or to the contractor and tell them they did not follow the grade standards on that road; and said he thinks we could do better in the future. City Manager Jackson said this was a County project,and said what Councilmember Grafos is suggesting is we could add another layer of inspection; he said other than a few remaining projects we have completed the septic tank replacement program; and said there shouldn't be a lot of additional roads that the County is re-paving under these circumstances; and said this road as it is repaved will have a set of Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 specifications, and per the MOU the City will be the project manager. To address Council questions concerning design, Senior Engineer Worley explained that the plan now is that as soon as the MOU is approved,the County will perform a topographic survey of the south half of the roadway, they will design a new elevation of the curb and look at all the transitions to each individual driveway, and all that will be part of the project. Mayor Towey thanked the residents for being so patient over these past few years; and said when there are two jurisdictions that don't accept responsibility for a project, it is very hard to work out a solution, and said even though he personally feels the City is not responsible, he agrees we have to "bite the bullet" and move on. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion Carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. No comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Street Landscaping Standards—John Holtman, Gabe Gallinger Senior Engineer Gallinger went over the City's current street landscaping standards by explaining that those standards are located in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Street Standards, and Municipal Code; he briefly discussed roadway cross sections as found in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan, and Street Standards as noted in the Municipal Code, and also showed some examples of different landscape plans. 7. Street Lighting Standards—John Hohman, Gabe Gallinger Senior Engineer Gallinger discussed requirements and procedures for public street lighting; said that the cost of adding street lights depends upon which of the four companies is involved; he explained that the City contracts with Spokane County for maintenance for our street lights on top of signal poles, and that we contract with Washington State Department of Transportation for the 133 luminaries an State Route 27 and 29; and that the City is responsible to pay for new poles after collisions unless we know who it was who damaged the pole. Mr. Gallinger also gave some basic cost information on utility company- maintenance lights. At approximately 7:10 p.m., Mayor Towey called for a recess; the meeting was reconvened at approximately 7:20 p.m. 8.Amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 8.25 Exceptions to Solicitation—Cary Driskell Legal Intern Ashley Stoltz explained that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides exceptions to the prohibition against panhandling in the rights-of-way and consequently, charitable solicitations and park activities are not currently considered a violation of the panhandling ordinance; but last April the City's Municipal Code 5.15.080 was amended to remove the ability to acquire special event permits for charitable solicitations , rendering the exception listed under 8.25.025 unnecessary. Further, she explained that the exception relating to park regulations is also unnecessary as an exception to the panhandling prohibition in the rights-of-way and said staff proposes revising 8.25.025 by deleting the exceptions relating to charitable solicitants and park regulations and thereby remove the inconsistencies within the code; adding that this change does not represent a substantive change, but is a housekeeping item. There were no objections from Council to have staff bring this forward as a first reading ordinance at an upcoming council meeting. 9.Amendments to SVMC Title 7.05,Nuisances—Cary Driskell Community Development Director Hohman explained that there are different aspects of the code enforcement process, such as nuisance, compliance and enforcement; and that staff wanted to explain that this is just some of the ideas staff has been working on over the last year, with combined efforts of Community Development and Legal in order to look at the practices of the city as well as code regulations; and to gather citizen input in order to arrive at suggested recommended changes; and said Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 tonight is just the beginning of this discussion; that staff is not anticipating moving forward with an ordinance at this point; but to discuss the ideas and details of the topic. City Attorney Driskell said that staff started working on these issues last year and have identified some areas and processes that work well and have identified what can be improved to make it more effective and easier for citizens to understand the process of regulating nuisance conditions; and mentioned that the following agenda item will focus on the enforcement portion. Mr. Driskell explained the rational for the proposed changes, noting that some changes were to clarify,white other changes were to remove superfluous language; or to remove language dealing with customer service, which he explained is generally not a topic addressed in ordinances. Issues discussed at length by Council included vegetation and the height of grass or weeds before it is a nuisance; whether animals can be included under noise nuisances; and how many yard sales can occur before they are deemed prohibited.Mr. Driskell said the plan is to have Council review these suggestions and have further discussion on these topics in two weeks. 10.Amendments to SVMC Title 17.100, Compliance and Enforcement--Caiy Driskell Continuing with nuisance issues, Mr. Driskell explained that this section of our City's Code deals with compliance and enforcement; and Legal Intern Ashley Stoltz went over the proposed changes; after which Mr. Driskell again mentioned that the plan is to have Council review these suggestions and have further discussion on these two ordinance proposals in two weeks. There were no objections. 11.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Councilmember Woodard said at the retreat he asked about a future discussion on our equipment, in particular snow plows; and Mr.Jackson said we can add that to the advance agenda. Councilmember Grafos said he distributed an information sheet to the other Councilmembers; he said he noted that a report is scheduled for the August 14 meeting concerning revenues and expenditures for the 2013 budget; he said on June 21 he asked Finance Director Calhoun to provide information on the staff step program, which he said is what determines the wages and benefits for staff; and as part of that asked for a comparison against Spokane County, City of Spokane, State of Washington, and possibly one or two eastern Washington cities, with comparable median incomes; he said he feels it is important to do those comparisons;he said he feels a common sense balance is needed;that we need to look at all our costs and that the wages and benefits of staff is a high percentage of our general fund, in addition to the public safety budget; and said he would like to see those questions and answers brought forward with the comparisons mentioned and to determine where we are headed with the 2013 budget. Councilmember Grafos said it is not his intent to cut people off the staff; he said this is a big part of the budget and he doesn't want to see our City become Stockton, California or Scranton, Pennsylvania or other cities that have real financial problems. City Manager Jackson said it might be beneficial for Council to realize that the number we put in our budget for 2013 doesn't obligate us to spend that amount of money if we negotiate a different contract with the Union; and said that contract runs through the end of this year; he said the rationale was to remain consistent with what we provided and let negotiations take care of themselves; and said that continues to be his recommendation. Mr. Jackson said we need to be careful about doing a makeshift study, and if we truly want to do a pay study we can of course do that; or we could rely on the Association of Washington Cities' study and determine from there if we want to do something more specific; and Mr. Jackson suggested we hold off on that component; he said he is of course, happy to provide it, we have done it before, but said it should be comprehensive and we should also realize it can work in both directions; and said we should determine how we intend to use that study and those results; he said the City has done a good job of holding down the cost of salaries, and that it is important to note that it is substantial in an city, and that we could do a comparison, and he said our salaries and wages are a much lower component of our costs, and he said part of that is due to contracts, but said a large part of that is the efficiency of the city; and said we could produce the study but it doesn't necessarily need to be timed Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 with the upcoming revenues and expenditures report; and said the amount we put in the budget does not obligate us to spend that amount, or mean that is the amount we will spend; but is more to remain consistent, which he said is a good conservative approach; and then we could go into negotiations. Councilmember Grafos said prior to getting into union negotiations for 2013, the budget will have already been passed. Mr. Jackson said the budget won't be passed prior to entering negotiations; and said those two functions are completely separate; that you could put any number in the budget,but that doesn't mean it will be spent, and said in the past we budgeted our entire ending fund balance and all the assets of the City but we never spent all that money, that we never spent $100 million; and said what we have suggested in the budget is to remain consistent with the 2.5% COLA and the 4% merit system, and that doesn't mean you are agreeing or must spend that amount, but that is a good conservative approach to preparing the budget. Councilmember Grafos indicated he understands that, but wants to see what the other entities are doing with their step programs; he said we have a 4.5% increase per step and said he would like to compare that with what other entities have going forward; and he said if that information is not provided to Council prior to Council approving the budget, that he thinks it is critical to have those questions answered. City Manager Jackson said staff is always happy to produce the comparisons and is always responsive to Council's request for information; and said he would like to contemplate how to put all the data together; he said it gets complex as you start to compare positions with positions, and it's comparisons against similar positions against comparisons against the median income, which he said is not the reflection of what an engineer, attorney, planner or another position might be paid within the community; and again said staff is more than happy to provide that information; and said it would be good to structure exactly what we are looking for; adding that he would not think such a comprehensive study could be produced by August. Again, Councilmember Grafos indicated he understands Mr. Jackson's comments, but said as an example, Spokane County's step program has a maximum of 2% while ours is 4.5%. Mr. Jackson again said there are numerous variables in doing comparisons and we must make sure we compare accurately; and Councilmember Grafos agreed that is what Council needs to more forward sensibly. Mayor Towey asked if AWC would have most of the information Council seeks; and Mr. Jackson responded it would; and said that is a published study,widely-distributed and said the first thing he can do is produce that study for Council; and to start from there and then determine if we want to identify other aspects of our merit system; and said we can still prepare the budget without having those things accomplished as a study as the budget has no bearing on the negotiations. Councilmember Hafner said he agrees with Councilmember Grafos and feels we have to have some comparables; but said if that is detrimental to negotiations with the Union, then he would like to see that done in an executive session. Mr. Jackson concurred that one of the purposes to hold an executive session is for labor negotiations. Councilmember Grassel said she had asked on June 26 to have the salary schedule and pay titles and rates posted on our website and she asked if we are able to do that. Mr. Jackson said that is possible; that we are working on that and it is not quite operational; and said that the full salary matrix is included in the budget, which is always available on our website. Mr. Jackson said on the City's website under Human Resources, there is a category of salaries and job descriptions, and we are working to have the ability to click on the job title and have it linked to the job description. Councilmember Grassel said she noticed the City Manager and Council are not included.Mr. Jackson said the City Manager is an unclassified position but we can include that as well as Council. Councilmember Grassel also mentioned that she would like some of the comparisons mentioned previously to include the private sector and to include benefits and several members of Council agreed. Councilmember Hafner said he is not sure what it is that has been decided regarding the request of Councilmember Grafos. Mr. Jackson said staff will provide Council with a copy of the AWC salary survey and use that as a starting point if we want to do a more refined salary study and to compare it with the private sector as well as with Spokane County and City and other similar cities. Councilmember Hafner said provided that doesn't interfere with negotiations with the Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 Union. Mr. Jackson said he recommends that the discussion be contained in executive session; and said if council wants to request a pay study and raise the issue of salaries, that is of course Council's prerogative. Councilmember Grassel asked about the issue addressed earlier tonight by Ms. Blair concerning trucks driving through neighborhoods. City Attorney Driskell said we became aware of this situation including the weight on the roads. Councilmember Woodard said he would like a more comprehensive overview of the issue including enforcement. 12. Temporary Sign Brochure was for information only and was not reported or discussed. • CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson said the due date for RFP (request for proposals) of the transfer station's solid waste system was yesterday and no responses were received; and said Mr. Menke is trying to determine the reason for the lack of responses, and has extended the deadline. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schiminels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. ATTEST T comas E. TON ey,Mayor Christine Bainbri s ge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 07-10-2012 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council:07-24-2012 GENERAL PUBLIC IC COMMEN T SIGN-IN SIGN-IN SHEE T SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE July 10, 2012 GENERAL C ] lL I Z E Y COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS ABOUT l2- — k(Q ,N` ! • bra ( .vcsio. e T 7 A alt) f �� Please!rote that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. My name KATHLEEN R. BLAIR (Formerly Kathleen R. Devine) Current Address: 1921 N. Vista Rd. - City of Spokane Valley Pertinent Information:Daughter of two Educators (learned how to do my homework) Mother of two - Grandmother of seven Degree in Finance (have been registered with all exchanges NYSE,ASE, and have held Insurance License) Active politically-usually behind the scenes -did hold office As a high school senior. Have in the past been a State delegate. I am an activist-when others want to join in the band wagon, I am willing to drive the horses. Tutor at Colbert Elementary for ten years -resigned last year. Active in animal rescue -have been an advocate- Am both Irish and a pit-bull (I enjoy pointing out the right thing to do and persevering) I moved to the City of Spokane Valley a year and a half ago when I re-married. My husband and his late wife had lived in the house at 1921 N. Vista prior to the birth of the City of Spokane Valley. Signs had been previously installed by the County indicating"No Trucks" and speed limit signs indicating 25 mph were installed in the neighborhood of approximately 1000 homes. I, being new to the neighborhood from the Colbert area ,was laboring under the illusion that the signs meant something and immediately started protesting to the Traffic division and the "Violators" involved. Pro-build told me they could drive on any road they wished. Inland Paper ignored - Goodyear (Wingfoot) was briefly compliant but not any more. Central Pre-mix is running their pre-stress beams , complete with pilot cars right down Vista. I assume that is the direction dispatch has indicated. After all the"short-cut"through the neighborhood is probably more expedient and less costly (no stop lights-less traffic) , easy 45 degree turn off Mission onto Vista. These are not the only offenders-semi's - dump trucks - etc. have decided this is their own personal freeway. However, there are children walking both ways to school. West Valley Hi is on Vista- Woodard Grade School is on Mission and Park, and Park middle school on Park. We have bicycles, walkers, skate boards, dogs, cats ,kids!!! In other words, this is a neighborhood. A day-care three houses down from me on Indiana has to take her nine children for walks on leashes. Two four year olds cannot go play with each other in this "neighborhood" because they live across the street from each other. Commuters from the North and East are using Knox, Vista, Indiana and Nora, as a shortcut to work in the industrial area at speeds of 45 to 60 mph because they can! Many of them have Idaho license plates—Ya think East? And at the same time we have youngsters trying to catch school busses. This an awful accident waiting to happen. Mike Zollers is doing the best he can, but the City of Spokane Valley covers a large area. . He and his staff(very small) need to sleep sometimes. Before I became aware that the City of Spokane Valley does not have a law or ordinance against trucks in our neighborhood, I , in conversations with our Traffic Engineer, Inga,was able to convince the department to move the sign"no trucks"down to the west side of Hutchinson. They, the trucks,were taking Montgomery (off Argonne) west to Hutchinson, South on Hutchinson,west on Knox and claim there was no sign. At the same time we managed to get a"No Trucks" sign erected south on Vista at Trent and Vista.(Guess what - I noticed today the sign had been removed.). Funny! Ha!Ha! What difference does it nuke?!? THERE IS NO LAW-NO ORDINANCE. I was even advised the signs were not taken down when we (The City of Spokane Valley) became a city because it was assumed it would be a deterrent. Isn't that like telling a one year old " We discussed that" We are at a point where a law or ordinance must be implemented. Incidently as an aside, the roads in our neighborhood were not constructed for those heavy loads. Indiana and Vista already has two caverns - direct result of over weight and speed. Correction a street man put a temporary filling in the caverns NOTE -TEMPORARY ! I did determine from him they were 2 feet X 2 feet- 8 inches deep for the biggest and 12 inches X 14 inches _ four inches deep for the second.NOTE—today I paid $124.00 because of a bent wheel -you can't see the holes when it is raining and full of water. Lets pass the City savings on to the constituents? Penny wise, Pound foolish? I do not know if the traffic situation in our neighborhood is a result of apathy, ignorance, or neglect . To ignore the situation appears to me at least to be a dereliction of duty. To postpone action is not acceptable to the citizens of Spokane Valley that live between Argonne and Park! HELP! ti q I { o i%i6 z r I o � m c l � ' o v ; k r m o: Vi a c ro I a 1- � I ..............,w**',f1 n 7t m �{ I N U2 t °o �F o �K 4W Q - I gN n F0 0 ku ,F,",,,,'"' m w _ 2,132 .'>-'1(2 Z d u OT o ,/ O Y>Y�( to p tii 0 l''' r O ' _ m b N 4TT tv Q � A F mo m o !,.4 .4.2 P P' ; d ' !i II { 4 C"I lf ` '2�lA�NNoo°.00��000 J411(II� L it 111)fiA - m`g O2J N N ��� .) c LI�I Yl y,+ I, �11IIIFIIII I�i�n'r. u�u�vf nw.n a>.a v��v..n {�°�F� a 4alE' IIIiIPI °00�0oI0000o0 0 y ' a i%iNz c sill II1l rilllll l.° oo m a m o o°; Pte, ca c m Ids ill 1° - o n d°3 W 40,,,;'441111 r �m m` IDEA," t6o °Pu N col m 5 fJ II,�I�II�jIP�,..„›.n.n.n.....nwtAVy 1 G a 1 I M 0 �IIY10 F a 40:, }7-':"..5i°°°"n � oN 1J III i1�'�I u �4 °040 00 �� °, ,` ii3.rZ _ t40---',',} '° N 44 N a OU 011.40 CJ m ,,, tQ o r4�n�1111 VIII N ICI' (Ia ° roo$ b �� w a` t4TIiIII�I�0rl� m min ,-•-o2 VII -uq , R�E,Ii 1I ,,,n���m .n v.a vi , ! �� aw Q 3 14P I° hw w v. m M m I t I I I2 fI N f l O C 4 A ..to.A.0...A0..A1Ay $ m W1r ooSoo 0 ° „4'` Y SOOONm r I rmog , 2,3p0 a J 4 ,2 ht,s 7 U I r°o o o o o °o o o C 0yM ro �-oo Rh ' h 6 rog w `n` N 1. i' 1�' o F qo " I -.INnwuustHnwn n a c m legm o a { o o 1401- 7 _ E1 + i'� o°rr� '.z N r rn° .-^ ' Y i o f -H Y m ° { gM1jl g 4l � U ul�`� IV VUw ISI S .p� E > 1W1L�III II m P. .�' ` II I u l`;A ,, m o d 57 r m w o ', Ifll II ° m o r o w r.lIli I' ; O Z Z to C Ii CD t°`,t II hrI 11 z °�'' m = > I w 0 o I4fhl" 1„J 8 o 1 °O 3 t ,. °f °� IIIhI'111I1(II ° nw° xof °m a SKYVga 0 0 ,.. '>'x l{III ¢ x z z V I E a any' /` O.Z '3 ,I, w f14 ti V''°a¢ yrA -.o ,P' �Pl Z o. _ III �If IP�'$ `. o rn M l - bi° cio , �- 0 a. pb p , 2 F- } m c N O O 8 Ill i r wN w4.?,E6 I'n c m c L w36 ' ,— `°.. w �R I� 1 L `ten z E g>w z ��I�II a ci o m m < a,k �, .n M r- w Q a, Z to 7117' : >° °�>w .. os C 1 Q m'o ¢ �II_I o°<aw-,,, as _a,N-°'3 • . a v `o- C.7 '''..'0A E-`oawo6',1WT$I,ISIII z ` ot .g ,,'.,y1 ,,., y a g (I©k {2Nd U(/T--ag44�4 a lloI ..o. , o 0 wu �N �liI194l�11�,-66,a-Ln m corn° �Rjr, o °' CO N 61 - :Ire..N. II WGk.I F-z° 7/10/2012 ADVANCE AGENDA SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 14TH ADMIN REPORT ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES On June 21st I asked Finance Director Mark Calhoun for information regarding the EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION( STEP PROGRAM). The questions and the answers provided by HR Manager John Whitehead are enclosed for your information and review. The preliminary administrative report on estimated revenues and expenditures for the 2013 budget is scheduled for August 14th I would ask that as part of that presentation by the finance department that the (STEP PROGRAM) which determines the range of salaries for the City of Spokane Valley and will in large part determine our future payroll costs be compared with at least the following entities. Spokane County, City of Spokane, State of Washington , and at least one or possibly two Eastern Washington Cities with a comparable median income to the City of Spokane Valley. The comparison of the STEP PROGRAMS for the other entities and cities should provide at a minimum a comparison of the information asked for in the enclosed seven questions, and the answers to these questions provided to me by HR Manager John Whitehead and Finance director Mark Calhoun. 2011 wages and benefits 6,963,615 19.10% of general fund 2011 public safety 22,062,268 61.00% 80.10% 2012 wages and benefits 8,156,192 23.37% << 2012 public safety 22,000,000 64.00% 87.37% 2013 wages/benefits 2013 proposed budget 8,400,820 24.12% 2013 public safety 22,200,200 63,74% 87.86% 2011-2013 Inflation: +8% 2011-2013 wages/benefits +20.63% Thank you Dean Grafos RE: Payroll costs for January through May 2012 Page 2 of 3 1. How many grades or steps are included in each Position Title? There are 14 different Grades for City positions. Each Grade has the equivalent of eight steps with approximately 4% between them. For most City positions there is only one Grade, however there are a few positions with two grades assigned to provide flexibility in recruitment. 2. Do each of the job classifications start at grade #1 and move to the maximum for that category? Each job description is assigned a specific grade reflected in Salary Schedule in the City's budget. These grades have a progression where employees start at a step and move to the maximum over a series of years. 1 What is the maximum percentage increase allowed under the step program? The maximum percentage amount an employee's compensation can be raised annually upon satisfactory performance is 6% based upon the union contract. It is very rare that an employee will be provided more than 4% each year. An employee at the maximum of their grade cannot receive step adjustments to their salaries. 4. Each change in grade under the (STEP) represents what percentage of increase? I have to interpret your question here. I believe you are asking is; "What is the percentage change from one step to the next highest in each of the grades?" There is approximately 4%difference between steps in a grade. 5. Who determines the percentage amount of the increase if an employee moves up in grade? The City Manager makes the determination as to the annual employee step increase. The union contract requires a step increase if the employee's performance is stated as "satisfactory" in their performance evaluation. 6. Is the (STEP) salary range increase for each Position Title determined by the amount of the COLA increase allocated/approved in the budget for that calendar year? 7. Does the(STEP) schedule, which determines the minimum and maximum salaries that can be paid for each "Grade " move up yearly based on the COLA award for that calendar year? example: IF COLA for a given year were 3%, does this not also increase the salary schedule for each grade by that same 3%? In answering both questions 06 and 07, I think I need to do some interpretation of your question(s). think what you're asking is "Are the steps within a grade increased when a general or COLA increase is allocated". You also asked in question #7 whether or not a general or COLA increase causes the minimum and maximums of each grade to increase. The answers to both these questions is yes, a general or COLA increase moves up the steps in the grades as well as the minimums and maximums for each grade. Thank you, Dean Grafos https://owa.spokanevalley.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADwvxBYDsiYR... 6/28/2012 , C o . » O r OO N » N N an Q .- » m v §»m .i V 184238;4824V 2u482;422 »Mg QNG Q mM V a o ° M m o v g ' m V' nngV] r g'q,ry V g g 2g L q_o a"yy g 8 g E i pp tO y o pp,,M , yp V pp yS p . pR d3 N N tl M b V M N O CVp q M Va o O Q M rvM.N R N V C b,R tl M C 3 I v a ro 8 6 q V< o P m » » 4 ry N N »M n N T N m O p N N V 4AV Mmy VmY4Cm1N 4DN Rpp n` pN» C aQV RR mMhml 8 2 2 a & N tN a N Nnq V Nn NpN Om roS mMN 5 E '0 V V ViAf vv t V M v V pgi MMA»vhV og NMd k po4 O vv ww �Op Opp W�Op �p ep y�Gyp y r�p{.� iiW L 8' A 5 hI�p eVp NN rul V r A r V:» -Q t�N0.��0f;I V DAN V N U,82HM(Y 1 v O NYI t'Y QPPrm lO�mn 4 X00 ttpp yNy �O pp�� ��pp qq E .!� V V NQ .h0;73 OY V VM24NVMI V V M4 V r»]2C)8 vhi tMil N V tltOV rja . 0 t{ e = o u . c V $ N N NN p.7 1 -y 81fN a O W »P8r3A aVIPni 2V NAM t`P N N N.n OF 0 N.h M V O Vl O n 0.Cf.N v A,R1 A n V n.r ,O 0 n 23 'c '4a3 F .4F828**2 v9, T o$g nAr n .-M r N.A-n�op]3 O N tM/�(0 N C W aV MrpQ'!vvM yy Yt AR rvN cttC NV pp Y V i n �N tA•1 ` 8= v S ',, m H 6 O {N0007. OGp NR UGGPP NMEPN Mi.ry Mn R N 1g N N n,-»4 NN 8 M 7 }}V 8 Q M O M - p�, g g M» Q M y »pp 7 N c . E ^ n 2 A 28t Ln 4 MtivM ° MO $ m SMPN N F °p 31 Mi oMg gYgNMgAp n aa20 NYNM wa gs u a ? p O A M S 6 0 0 C°p N N MH N yy mm y MN V MW 2 mm CL m m 0 a»NT) NOO---,. - -m'.N N8NAA R O4t0ApNH O>NN ra* 0 3 M ry Y N 0 OOr i tNvV OuM*�, .OcM Ap.V NYp N+»V^V r V N aF(r��C{M v v MtN D R t03 MrAn apr 0ppa0 a p VM MN tp»vN M, Ar I M M 04pp M tl, YY QV M N Y N N Y @@ e n o l g C L .pV N NN M M M r ENN i N 5 H O pN M -m n O.r w M N.r ° � V v; N N M p H A M 7 M»» N M M M r Q M p y 4»» »6gv1 V 0 M N» � all Ua '4 r HO m p _m n p N Yo Oim h u »OAm» m n H.r M a p A ry N m m»*Mb S b Q N N2 pn r 2dM W M 8 2 A M A ° 1 :5 . Y fAM NV AY CM ml »g g g M M yy 9l M M yy4 O N V N NM i •n N � ]E V r0 N. p � pgp pN ,p A Op V O V NM V roN Pp V1 b HBnm p*MNN»T 8 m V N a* 1 g S sM Y,n yM M MA1M �Hi Y xM ,gV N M M 7 N M M A S E14 cc n.A 5 w ' N mpi LL a u ` ' a. ti f. +.c=,N gNN NO QN V » gp cE i O r N y 1 s 9 Ny M ;8 M MMOMMMMMNMMMMgrynM pp 11Sd p 811g28;p y 2 8 ,p r C n V M N ONONt 0N. f1�.A» N N ngNN m0 Ory pA g ° p g DNt� f 4! ON NNNN r iV,tOO � a 7,s g V MMV M 4MMMM8M QV yNMMMAM V�MMOyyMAyA 4 8 - 0 22 x N •. s 0 0 m qNNMm 3N0 (Op 3 aNMNNhm Q N )N 3 N 9 p M A OOOQO3O 2AAN8r R»Q1mO m0 PV OQ2 y N EC C d 6" r @ MN V MM V H M MOvMMNm MCaNMNMM mMMMAV Mo MM 0 a g g Q O 2 V C '' m d a Ca'q O M m 4 M M A n p O 4 tl W A N^n M , .N OM°0 tp p Qy>»CM tp J O00 l h ii r N gg Q n° E a oo r N i -m -H O r m.w,o s V hT N n »ry m,Nn mn 3P u 8 - o M N N V P M 7 N N W, 8 N N O M 8 m m »M yy 8 N M N N a E ° N n Q C VU ® pp�� CACS�M O Aaa r N t m�m OWD eN.ep vy O N Y]�p O n.-m M m p m,M N N tri e-.-r p�A N r y ° A $ g 2 W ��j (($y!! 11''JJ m ep »AW n N aNi ti h.t�N N n O T N OAi,tOp- Y 1M. N 8 Omi-N Q my yn 7 n�M➢ro a N vp i r , . .' S55���� .._ '„F.' m. M NN y t1 N t^tNM M Nt]rvnry e%1 Mp Nf NNfitNnN NNt'1 MMM V r,Mt+1 MMrlNN 00 2 1 z' N i; 5 LLd N�tly� y y� �p p A {p p j 2 E e 1 2 T O M N NCI+^ t)tl`Oi00 NN R8P--4A2 A M8.OpNp A^^'Dn NCiOM ty�M W ONp.28 ti »8P _s g g ° 1pl a N 07 - h N f� O.N���pp tOtpp W q v *.t--.0., m r O. N° , s] r r o mA A ,A O -e�888NA tp88 t7.08 M MM O8 NN MN MNN K s. Ol n �. 8 H N V M N M N M M N H M ry N H N V M N N N N M ry N N ,39" S p T N � pp�� nn tOyy ty� V y o�y tppf y p�y try y p�pp pp O b tX' 20 C O P M M rV OV I1 N O]5 r OMi-00 tO t»/l,rVp!O.pp-1,A-10 andm Ca{y.II N vii m pnp��tp,i tm9 R 8cc OAi-°1 b this trn.P.,pp N tD Vm1-R 0 q. g O '1 M NNCm]NNCNiN MMNMfAVNNr9ry V.`1 NNNNa ,',4 M M V[mVNCI ry[h(M NN r ` � E c ° li al o° aR $ 8 H m m N G O O N M ry O Y N W R b O Y W oOp Im.V1 h N u1 ry.imi N Ot N pAt O r mp N O Np./r.O.ry M M t�pp tb 2 H M r yy M CI 00 M�V.pp 0pp0 V FI R FI ] Mg _ g 6 1 E g". CI N N MNN MN A8ry NNN MNMM NNNNNN NNMM°M C�iggA NNM NN °°a! 4 .- 0 ' ELL ` N ppp p� n t�on N M pp��VV A rrpp oO N to tp.C/1�pN OVA M N M O»<0 OVA O �0}t0p mW b n pm pt O OS n ym OVp }� 3 I n- W m p a O N 0'-.`tIV--O»p .NO.D(Y tp n..O;N WN 0'D Cl mAOM,�J,.M-NOOOON# }y n 1 m M t0 V viACl amebl`btpd Vo 1F yjttpp V»An OONNC1 ppr 8V 8g G n r N N M N N C1 N N N N N N N N CS N H H N N N N N ry N ry M M M M M N N M N N M N SY DI ' �g 2 E t� v q tp N pp C P.� 9 ! m Smrn Nt�i Mo:-. Vin Gs»hO n oO,OYN a°r,�gy�m4,NCR V tmDan.mO mn`.-' `p @ $ m 17 O C N m � N0ryry0 ryN�.1 M R mQy O r m,.-(M(��f uull tp Om r �.0.pp0 A V,O�m 4,<'1.O tO, O C C ' r H N f4 MN 8 Ff N N N N(VV hNtM`1 N NH M N N N NOP4 rV NMMN N MNhlN N N N N N 8 V 44 wNt` ° `� a hr ii15 • e$ r p A C A 1 > C U Y .. t] C'2 ° 1 C +O V 0 E ct U.. :52 FE g , O p—n f ]` J'S`C -L V m R 1.c N a p° V b V;'i,Q+ °.�C t L?%-r_7 m +0 - .l!! LLf7('}{j_�3 3»oaanAvamcnywr= 33 } z°g ` H • Appendix A f EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION 1 MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE • 2012 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2012 Position Title Grad_e ' 2012 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 8,888,29 - 12,661.08 City Attorney 21 8,888.39 - 11,395.08 Community Development Director 21 8,888.39 - 11,395.08 Finance Director 21 8,888,39 - 11,395.08 Public Works Director 21 8,888.39 - 11,395.08 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,199.37 - 9,230,79 Human Resources Manager 18 6,480,26 - 8,307.29 Planning Manager 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 B • uilding Official 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Senior Engineer-Capital Projects,Development 18 6,480.26 - 8,307,29 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29_. Senior Engineer-Traffic,GIP Planning/Grants 17 5,831.91 - 7,476.25 Accounting Manager 17 5,831.91 - 7,476.25 City Clerk 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Engineer 16 5,248,20 - 6,728,20 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 • Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,248,20 - 6,728.20 Senior Planner 16 _ 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Associate Planner 15 _ 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Centerpiece Coordinator 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Assistant Engineer 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 IT Specialist 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Engineering Technician II 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 GIS/Database Administrator 15 . 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Human Resource Analyst 14 _ 4,251.88 - 5,450,64 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Administrative Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Assistant Planner 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Building inspector II 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Plans Examiner 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Public Information Officer 14 4,251.88 - 5,450,64 Engineering Technician 1 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 • Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,450.64 Recreation Coordinator • 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,450.64 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 _ Building Inspector I 13 3,826.38 - 4,905,37 Planning Technician 13 3,826.38 - 4,905,37 Deputy City Clerk 12-13 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Senior Center Specialist 12-13 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Human Resources Technician 12-13 _ 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Administrative Assistant 11-12 _ 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Permit Specialist 11.12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Accounting Technician 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Maintenance Worker _ 11-12 _ 3,099.55 - 4,414,73 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,789.41 - 3,973.46 Custodian 10 2,789.41 - 3,973.46 ,Office Assistant I 0.10 2,510.78 - 3,575.28 , The pay grades for positions not represented by the Union are 2.5%tower then reflected above as they were not Increased by the 2.5%COLA on January 1,2011 • 89 . Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2011 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2011 Position Title Grade _ 2011 Range ` City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 8,671 50 - 12,352.28 " City Attorney 21 8,671.50 - 11.117.15 ; " Community Development Director 21 8,671 50 - 11,117.15 ' * Finance Director _ 21 8.671 50 - 11,117.15 " Public. _Director __ 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 _, Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,023-77 - 9,005.65 • " Human Resources Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 " Planning_Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 * Building Official 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 * Senior Engineer-Capital Projects,, Development 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 * Deputy City Attorney 18 6,322.20 _ 8,104.68 * Senior Engineer-Traffic,ClP Planning/Grants 17 5,689.67 - 7,293.90 Accounting_Manager 17 5,689 67 - 7,293 90 City Clerk 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 * Engineer 16 5,120.19 6,564.10 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,120 19 6,564.10 " Public Works Superintendent 16 5,120 19 - 6,564.10 " Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,120 19 - 6,564.10 Senior Planner 16 5,120 19 - 6,564.10 Associate Planner 15 4.608 80 - 5,908 10 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,608 80 5.908 10 Assistant Engineer 15 4,608.80 - 5,908 10 IT Specialist _ -- 15 4,608 80 - 5 908 10 Engineering Technician II 15 4,608 80 - 5,908 10 GIS/Database Administrator 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5.317.70 * AccountantiBudget Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 * Administrative Analyst 14 4.14818 _ - 5,317.70 Assistant Planner 14 4.148.18 - 5,317.70 Building Inspector II _ 14 4,148 18 - 5,317.70 Plans Examiner_ __ 14 4,148 18 - 5,317.70 Public Information Officer 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Engineering_Technician l —�_ _14 4,148 18 - 5,317.70 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 -- Recreation Coordinator _ 13-14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3.733 05 - 4.785.73 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3.733 05 4,785.73 Building Inspector I 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Planning Technician 13 _ 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Deputy Citt Clerk _ 12-13 3.360.98 - 4,785.73 * Senior Center Specialist 12-13 , 3,360 98 - 4,785.73 Human Resources Technician 12-13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 . ' Permit Specialist _ 11-12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Accounting Technician 11-12 3,023.95 - 4.307.05 Maintenance Worker _ 11-12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Office Assistant II _ 10-11 2,721.38 - 3,876.55 Custodian _ 10 2,721.38 - 3,488.08 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,449 55 - 3,488.08 "The pay grades for positions not represented by the Union are 2.5%lower than reflected above as they will not be increased by the 2 5%COLA on January 1, 2011 "There are some Admdi:strative Assistants that Urion and so non-union Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2010 Salary Schedule Effective 111/2010-To be updated Position Title Grade 2010 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 $8,013 - $11,415 City Attorney 21 8,013 - 10,274 Community Development Director 21 8,013 - _10,274 Finance Director 21 8,013 - 10,274 Public Works Director 21 8 013 - 10 274 Parks and Recreation Director 19 6,491 - 8,322 Human Resources Manager 18 5,842 - 7,489 Planning Manager 18 5,842 - 7,489 Building Official 18 5,842 - 7,489 Senior Engineer-Capital Projects, Development 18 5,842 - 7,489 Deputy City Attorney 18 5,842 - 7,489 Senior Engineer-Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,258 - 6,741 Accounting Manager 17 5,258 - 6,741 City Clerk 16 4,732 - 6,066 Engineer 16 4,732 - 6,066 Senior Plans Examiner 16 4,732 - 6,066 Public Works Superintendent 16 4,732 - 6,066 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 4,732 - 6,066 Senior Planner 16 4,732 - 6,066 Associate Planner 15 4,259 - 5,460 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,259 - 5,460 Assistant Engineer 15 4,259 - 5,460 IT Specialist 15 4,259 - 5,460 Engineering Technician II 15 4,259 - 5,460 GIS/Database Administrator 15 4,259 - 5,460 Human Resource Analyst 14 3,833 - 4,914 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 3 833 - 4,914 Administrative Analyst 14 3,833 - 4,914 Assistant Planner 14 3,833 - 4,914 Building Inspector 11 14 3,833 - 4,914 Plans Examiner 14 3,833 - 4,914 Public Information Officer 14 3,833 - 4,914 Engineering Technician I 14 3,833 - 4,914 Senior Permit Specialist 14 3,833 - 4,914 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,450 - 4,914 Recreation Coordinator 13-14 3,450 - 4,914 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,450 - 4,422 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,450 - 4,422 Building Inspector I 13 3,450 - 4,422 Planning Technician 13 3,450 - 4,422 Deputy City Clerk 12-13 3,106 - 4,422 Senior Center Specialist 12-13 3,106 - 4,422 Human Resources Technician 12-13 3,106 - 4,422 Administrative Assistant 11-12 2,794 - 3,980 Permit Specialist 11-12 2,794 - 3,980 Accounting Technician 11-12 2,794 - 3,980 Maintenance Worker 11-12 2,794 - 3,980 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,515 - 3,582 Custodian 10 2,515 - 3,224 Office Assistant' 9-10 2.264 - 3 2.24 *Financial Reports Specialist Pending Pending 79