2012, 07-31 Study SessionAMENDED AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT /ACTIVITY GOAL
ROLL CALL
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Mike Basinger
2. Mike Basinger
3. Cary Driskell
4. Steve Worley
5. Steve Worley
6. Councilmember Wick
NON - ACTION ITEMS:
7. Steve Worley
8. Morgan Koudelka
9. Greg Bingaman
10. John Hohman
11. Mayor Towey
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -018 Approval Consideration
For CPA 05 -012 [public comment]
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -019 Approval Consideration
CPA 05 -12, Zoning Map [public comment]
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -020 Approval Consideration
SVMC 8.25 Solicitation Exceptions [public comment]
Bid Award, Phase 2 Preservation Motion Consideration
[public comment]
Contract Amendment, Sullivan Road Motion Consideration
Bridge Design [public comment]
Extension of Time for Economic Develop- Motion Consideration
ment Ad Hoc Committee [public comment]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Decant Facility
Animal Control
Ipad Purchases and Use
Economic Development Committee Update
Advance Agenda
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
12. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): (a) Gateway Project; (b) Finance Monthly Report;
(c) Sprague Swale Project Update
13. Mayor Towey Council Check -in Discussion /Information
14. Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion /Information
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Labor Negotiations [RCW 42.30.140(4)] and Pending /Potential Litigation
[(RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]
ADJOURN
Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to
request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the
right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate,
or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate
physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made.
Study Session Agenda, July 31, 2012 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Review
Meeting Date: July 31, 2012 Department Director Approval ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -018: Comprehensive Plan
map amendment, CPA -05 -12
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On June 12, 2012, no action was taken by City Council
BACKGROUND: Staff presented CPA -05 -12 to the Planning Commission at a study session on
February 9, 2012. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on February
23, 2012. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 8, 2012 for further
deliberations. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the City Council on April 24, 2012. On
May 8, 2012, City Council deliberated on the comprehensive plan amendment. The findings in
Ordinance 12 -014 and 12 -015 reflect City Council's decision to deviate from the Planning
Commission's recommendation relating to CPA- 05 -12. On May 22, 2012, Council considered a
second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth
their basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendments, with the exception of CPA -
05-12, which was to be considered separately later. City Council determined that more
information would be necessary to ensure an informed decision could be made relating to CPA -
05-12. On June 12, 2012, Council concurred to proceed to an ordinance first reading without a
development agreement. On June 26, 2012, Council passed a motion to amend proposed draft
Ordinance 12 -018 to include a development agreement and advance to a second reading. On
July 3, 2012, staff provided an administrative report regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA -05 -12 and the terms of the negotiated development agreement. On July 17, 2012, staff
provided an administrative report covering the details of the negotiated development agreement.
On July 24, 2012, Council approved the development agreement associated with CPA- 05 -12.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment
proposals are organized into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports,
maps, and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Approve Ordinance 12 -018, or take other action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 12 -018, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA 05 -12.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance 12 -018
1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 06 -010 ADOPTING THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER
MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance 06 -010, the City of Spokane Valley
adopted land use plans as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and maps
as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows
comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be
initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by
the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions
warrant adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with
development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map
designations; and
IF
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City of Spokane Valley adopted public
participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending
comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment
applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner or by City staff to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the
property described herein; and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental
review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2012, the Washington State Department of Commerce was
notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments
to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2012, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff
issued Determinations of Non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the
Ordinance 12 -018 Comp Plan Amendment Page 1 of 5
Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to
all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2012, notice of the Commission's February 23, 2012 public
hearing was published in the Valley News Herald, was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of the subject property, and was posted on the subject properties; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Commission conducted a briefing to review the
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, the Commission received evidence, information,
public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, the Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use plan map and zoning map.
After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on Comprehensive Plan
map amendments CPA- 01 -12, CPA- 02 -12, CPA- 03 -12, CPA- 04 -12, CPA- 06 -12, CPA- 07 -12,
CPA- 08 -12, CPA- 09 -12, CPA- 10 -12, and CPA- 11 -12. The Planning Commission voted to
continue the deliberations on CPA -05 -12 to March 8, 2012 to further discuss public testimony
and develop a recommendation for City Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, the Commission continued deliberations on
Comprehensive Plan map amendment CPA -05 -12 and recommended approval subject to a
development agreement; and
F
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendments, including CPA -05 -12 without a development agreement; and
WHEREAS, On May 22, 2012, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of the proposed amendments, with the exception of CPA- 05 -12, which was to be
considered separately later. City Council determined that more information would be necessary
to ensure an informed decision could be made relating to CPA- 05 -12; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, Council concurred to proceed to an ordinance first
reading on CPA -05 -12 without a development agreement; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, Council passed a motion to amend proposed draft
Ordinance 12 -018 to include a development agreement and advance to a second reading; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2012, staff
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -05 -12
agreement; and
provided an administrative report regarding
and the terms of the negotiated development
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, staff provided an administrative report covering the details
of the negotiated development agreement; and
Ordinance 12 -018 Comp Plan Amendment Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, Council approved the development agreement associated
with CPA- 05 -12; and
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2012, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of CPA- 05 -12.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive
Plan adopted through Ordinance No. 06 -010.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted
appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby approves CPA -05 -12 to the Comprehensive Plan
map as conditioned by the development agreement approved by the City Council on July 24,
2012. The City Council specifically finds that:
1. On February 8, 2012, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley
News Herald and each site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description
of the proposal.
2. On February 8, 2012, individual notice of the map amendment proposals was mailed to all
property owners within 400 feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) environmental checklists
were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment.
4. On February 8, 2012, Determinations of Non - significance (DNS) were issued for the requested
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
5. On February 8, 2012, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper consistent with
the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance.
6. On February 23, 2012, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the proposed amendments. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made
recommendations on Comprehensive Plan map amendments CPA- 01 -12, CPA- 02 -12, CPA -03-
12, CPA- 04 -12, CPA- 06 -12, CPA- 07 -12, CPA- 08 -12, CPA- 09 -12, CPA- 10 -12, and CPA- 11 -12.
The Planning Commission voted to continue the deliberations on CPA -05 -12 to March 8, 2012
to further discuss public testimony and develop a recommendation for City Council. On March
8, 2012, the Commission continued deliberations on Comprehensive Plan map amendment CPA -
05-12 and recommended approval subject to a development agreement.
7. The Commission made findings and considered the factors necessary to ensure compliance
with SVMC 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones).
8. City Council considered the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
finds that amendment CPA -05 -12 is consistent with the GMA.
9. City Council considered the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
and finds that amendment CPA -05 -12 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance 12 -018 Comp Plan Amendment Page 3 of 5
10. The zoning designations of proposed amendment CPA -05 -12 are consistent with the current
use of the properties.
11. The Comprehensive Plan land use map and text amendments as proposed by the applicant in
CPA -05 -12 will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. Properly. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in
Attachment "A."
Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 the
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as adopted through Ordinance No. 06 -010, is
hereby amended as set forth in Comprehensive Plan Attachment "A" (map). The
Comprehensive Plan Amendments are generally described as follows:
May Amendments
File No. CPA- 05 -12:
Application /Description of Proposal: Privately initiated, site - specific Comprehensive Plan
map amendment requesting to change the designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR)
with a Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MF -1) zoning classification to High Density
Residential (HDR) designation with a High Density Multifamily Residential (MF -2) zoning
classification. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C.
Applicant: Land Use Solutions & Entitlement; 9101 Mt. View Lane; Spokane, WA 99218.
Amendment Location: Parcel number(s) 45133.0109, 45133.0118 and the northern 68 feet of
45133.0846; generally located south of Broadway Avenue west of Conklin Road; further located
in the NE' /4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette
Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
Council Decision: Change parcels 45133.0109, 45133.0118 and the northern 68 feet of
45133.0846 to High Density Residential (HDR) as conditioned by the development agreement
approved by the City Council on July 24, 2012.
Section 5. Copies on File- Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with
maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community
Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is
authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance.
Section 6. Liabilily. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit
applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any
particular class of individuals or organizations.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance.
Ordinance 12 -018 Comp Plan Amendment Page 4 of 5
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of
Spokane Valley as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2012
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
1
I L
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
L I
CA
kA
Ordinance 12 -018 Comp Plan Amendment Page 5 of 5
RC
DI:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Review
Meeting Date: July 31, 2012 Department Director Approval ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12 -019: Official Zoning map
amendment, CPA -05 -12
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On June 12, 2012, no action was taken by City Council
BACKGROUND: Staff presented CPA -05 -12 to the Planning Commission at a study session on
February 9, 2012. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on February
23, 2012. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 8, 2012 for further
deliberations. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the City Council on April 24, 2012. On
May 8, 2012, City Council deliberated on the comprehensive plan amendment. The findings in
Ordinance 12 -014 and 12 -015 reflect City Council's decision to deviate from the Planning
Commission's recommendation relating to CPA- 05 -12. On May 22, 2012, Council considered a
second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth
their basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendments, with the exception of CPA -
05-12, which was to be considered separately later. City Council determined that more
information would be necessary to ensure an informed decision could be made relating to CPA -
05-12. On June 12, 2012, Council concurred to proceed to an ordinance first reading without a
development agreement. On June 26, 2012, Council passed a motion to amend proposed draft
Ordinance 12 -018 to include a development agreement and advance to a second reading. On
July 3, 2012, staff provided an administrative report regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA -05 -12 and the terms of the negotiated development agreement. On July 17, 2012, staff
provided an administrative report covering the details of the negotiated development agreement.
On July 24, 2012, Council approved the development agreement associated with CPA- 05 -12.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan
amendment proposals are organized into individual reports consisting of application materials,
staff reports, maps, and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Approve Ordinance 12 -019, or take other action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 12 -019, to update the Official
Zoning Map for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 05 -12.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance 12 -019
lofl
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 07 -015 WHICH ADOPTED THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) and the Official City Zoning Map pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015, on September
25, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the SVMC and Official City Zoning Map became effective on October 28,
2007; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows
comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be
initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by
the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions
warrant adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with
development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map
designations; and
WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City of Spokane Valley adopted Public
Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending
comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and
WHEREAS, SVMC 17.80.14 provides that amendment applications shall be received
until November 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner or by City staff to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the
property described herein; and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental
review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and
Ordinance 12 -019 Zoning Map Changes Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued Determinations of
Non - significance (DNS) on February 8, 2012 for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley
News Herald on February 8, 2012, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and
mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on February 3,
2012 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to
the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2012, notice of the Commission's February 23, 2012 public
hearing was published in the Valley News Herald, was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of the subject property, and was posted on the subject properties; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Commission conducted a briefing to review the
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, the Commission received evidence, information,
public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, the Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use plan map and zoning map.
After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on Comprehensive Plan
map amendments CPA- 01 -12, CPA- 02 -12, CPA- 03 -12, CPA- 04 -12, CPA- 06 -12, CPA- 07 -12,
CPA- 08 -12, CPA- 09 -12, CPA- 10 -12, and CPA- 11 -12. The Planning Commission voted to
continue the deliberations on CPA -05 -12 to March 8, 2012 to further discuss public testimony
and develop a recommendation for City Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, the Commission continued deliberations on
Comprehensive Plan map amendment CPA -05 -12 and recommended approval subject to a
development agreement; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendments, including CPA -05 -12 without a development agreement; and
WHEREAS, On May 22, 2012, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of the proposed amendments, with the exception of CPA- 05 -12, which was to be
considered separately later. City Council determined that more information would be necessary
to ensure an informed decision could be made relating to CPA- 05 -12; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, Council concurred to proceed to an ordinance first
reading on CPA -05 -12 without a development agreement; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, Council passed a motion to amend proposed draft
Ordinance 12 -018 to include a development agreement and advance to a second reading; and
Ordinance 12 -019 Zoning Map Changes Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2012, staff provided an administrative report regarding
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -05 -12 and the terms of the negotiated development
agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2012, staff provided an administrative report covering the details
of the negotiated development agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, Council approved the development agreement associated
with CPA- 05 -12; and
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2012, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of CPA- 05 -12.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official Zoning
Map adopted through Ordinance No. 07 -015 in order to permit the property described herein to
be used in a matter consistent with the same.
Section 2. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted
appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby approves CPA -05 -12 to the Comprehensive Plan
map as conditioned by the development agreement approved by the City Council on July 24,
2012. The City Council specifically finds that:
1. On February 8, 2012 the notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley
News Herald and each site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description
of the proposal.
2. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) environmental checklists
were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Determinations of Non - significance (DNS) were
issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 8, 2012.
5. The DNS's were published in the city's official newspaper on February 8, 2012 consistent with
the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance.
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 23, 2012, to
consider the proposed amendments. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made
recommendations on Comprehensive Plan map amendments CPA- 01 -12, CPA- 02 -12, CPA -03-
12, CPA- 04 -12, CPA- 06 -12, CPA- 07 -12, CPA- 08 -12, CPA- 09 -12, CPA- 10 -12, and CPA- 11 -12.
The Planning Commission voted to continue the deliberations on CPA -05 -12 to March 8, 2012
to further discuss public testimony and develop a recommendation for City Council. On March
Ordinance 12 -019 Zoning Map Changes Page 3 of 5
8, 2012, the Commission continued deliberations on Comprehensive Plan map amendment CPA -
05-12 and recommended approval subject to a development agreement.
7. The Commission made findings and considered the factors necessary to ensure compliance
with SVMC 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones).
8. City Council considered the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
finds that amendment CPA -05 -12 is consistent with the GMA.
9. City Council considered the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
and finds that amendment CPA -05 -12 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The zoning designations of proposed amendment CPA -05 -12 are consistent with the current
use of the properties.
11. The Comprehensive Plan land use map and text amendments as proposed by the applicant in
CPA -05 -12 will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. Prgpelly. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in
Attachment "A."
Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City of Spokane
Valley Zoning Map as adopted through Ordinance No. 07 -015, is hereby amended as set forth in
Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning Map amendments are generally described as follows:
May Amendment
File No. CPA- 05 -12:
Application /Description of Proposal: Privately initiated, site - specific Comprehensive Plan
map amendment requesting to change the designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR)
with a Medium Density Multifamily Residential (MF -1) zoning classification to High Density
Residential (HDR) designation with a High Density Multifamily Residential (MF -2) zoning
classification. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C.
Applicant: Land Use Solutions & Entitlement, 9101 Mt. View Lane, Spokane, WA 99218.
Amendment Location: Parcel number(s) 45133.0109, 45133.0118 and the northern 68 feet of
45133.0846; generally located south of Broadway Avenue west of Conklin Road; further located
in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette
Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
Council Decision: Change parcels 45133.0109, 45133.0118 and the northern 68 feet of
45133.0846 to High Density Multifamily Residential (MF -2) as conditioned by the development
agreement approved by the City Council on July 24, 2012.
Section 5. Zoning Map /Official Controls. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100, for the
purpose of regulating the use of land and to implement and give effect to the Comprehensive
Plan, the City hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City as set forth in Zoning Map
Attachment "A."
Section 6. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC,
or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or
convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then
such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference.
Ordinance 12 -019 Zoning Map Changes Page 4 of 5
Section 7. Map - Copies on File- Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is
maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community
Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is
authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance.
Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit
applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any
particular class of individuals or organizations.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of
Spokane Valley as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 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 -019 Zoning Map Changes Page 5 of 5
RC
��n- .........
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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 — Ordinance 12 -020 amending SVMC 8.25.025 —
Solicitation from vehicle occupants prohibited
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 8.25.025
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: First reading July 24, 2012
BACKGROUND: The City adopted its current provision relating to solicitation from vehicle
occupants in 2010. When adopted, SVMC 8.25.025 contained an exception for special event
permits to engage in charitable solicitation from vehicles in the rights -of -way under certain
conditions. When the City amended SVMC 5.15 in 2012 to remove such permits, language in
SVMC 8.25.025 which called out the exception for charitable solicitation became moot. This
proposed amendment would remove that exception, as well as one that related to parks that
staff now believes is not relevant.
Additionally, staff has looked closely at a provision in SVMC 8.25.025C2b defining "prohibited
roadway ". In that provision, it states that "prohibited roadway" includes the first five feet beyond
the edge of a paved shoulder where there is no sidewalk. Staff proposes amending that to state
that it "includes paved shoulders and bike lanes."
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make it consistent with those areas where there
is a curb, but no sidewalk, and people walk on the dirt. In short, we allow people to walk in
those areas without being five feet back from the curb, and this would allow us to treat similarly
situated people the same. Additionally, staff believes the proposed change would make
prohibited areas of the roadway clearly identifiable to citizens, and more in line with promoting
traffic safety goals.
OPTIONS: (1) adopt ordinance as proposed; (2) request additional changes
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we adopt Ordinance 12 -020 amending
SVMC 8.25.025 relating to solicitation from vehicle occupants.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 12 -020
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 Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(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 definition of "prohibited roadway" should be amended by removing the
restriction of five feet beyond a paved shoulder as it is unnecessary from a traffic safety standpoint; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 10, 2012, amended SVMC 5.15.080 by removing the
ability to obtain 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 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.
A. The purpose of this section is to promote the City's fundamental interest in public peace, health, and
safety, by regulating acts of solicitation that occur at locations and under circumstances specified herein
which pose substantial risks to vehicular and pedestrian safety.
B. No person shall solicit from the occupants of any vehicle and be physically present within or
subsequently enter a prohibited roadway.
C. As used in this section:
1. "Enter" means to cross the vertical plane of the edge of a prohibited roadway. It includes
crossing the vertical plane by any part of a person's body or any extension thereof.
2. "Prohibited roadway" means a state route, on ramp or off ramp to Interstate 90, or principal
arterial, and also the first 100 feet of a road that intersects a state route, on ramp or off ramp to
Interstate 90, or principal arterial, as measured from the edge of the state route, on ramp or off ramp
to Interstate 90, or principal arterial. "Prohibited roadway ":
a. Includes any portion of a road traveled by vehicles;
Ordinance 12 -020 Amending 8.25.025 Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
b. ;
Includes paved shoulders and bike lanes_
c. Includes medians, which may be denoted by a physical barrier or solid yellow pavement
markings;
d. Excludes all sidewalks and curbs.
3. "Solicit' means:
a. Either orally or in writing, directly or by implication, to ask, beg, request or plead for
employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing
monetary value, for any purpose;
b. Either orally or in writing, to sell or offer for immediate sale goods, services, or
publications;
c. To distribute without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or
d. To solicit signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey.
D. Prohibited roadways, with the exception of roadway within 100 feet of a state route, on ramp or off
ramp to Interstate 90, or principal arterial, established herein are delineated upon the official map, entitled
"Prohibited Roadways as Defined by SVMC 8.25.025C2 and Referenced in SVMC 8.25.025D" as
adopted as part of this code as if contained herein.
The official map shall be filed in the office of the city clerk. It shall be the duty of the city attorney to
cause the official map to be updated and maintained by having changes entered that the city council may
approve.
E. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
F. A person summoning aid in an emergency situation is not a violations under this
section-
Section 2. Remainder of SVMC 8.25 Unchanged. The remaining provisions of SVMC 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.
Passed this day of July, 2012.
ATTEST:
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
Ordinance 12 -020 Amending 8.25.025 Page 2 of 3
DRAFT
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 12 -020 Amending 8.25.025 Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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 Street Preservation —Phase 2 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 2012 Street Preservation Project
— Phase 2 is one of the street preservation projects.
2012 Street Preservation Project — Phase 2: The project includes the following streets:
Fancher Rd - Sprague Ave. to Broadway Ave.
2" grind and inlay
Replace SB vehicle detection loops on Fancher Rd at Sprague Avenue.
Install ITS conduit from Sprague Ave. to Broadway Ave.
Update pedestrian ramps to current
Argonne Rd - Indiana Ave. thru Montgomery Ave.
2" grind and inlay of pavement failure areas
University Rd from Sprague Ave. to Main Ave.
2" grind and inlay
Replace SB vehicle detection loops on University Rd at Sprague Avenue.
Update pedestrian ramps to current
Mission Ave from Union Rd. to Pines Rd.
2" grind and inlay
The Phase 2 project went to bid on Friday, July 13. The bid opening is scheduled for Friday,
July 27 and work is anticipated to begin the last week of August or first week of September.
OPTIONS: 1) Award the 2012 Street Preservation Project — Phase 2 to the lowest responsible
bidder (the project bid tabs will be available at the Council Meeting) or 2) provide additional
direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to Award the 2012 Street Preservation
Project — Phase 2 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 (Engr's Est.)
$226,481
$623,338
Subtotal 1 $1,810,468
Grand Total $2,640,750
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 2012 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement Project
#0155 - Supplemental Agreement Number 4 — Final Design Phase
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
(FMSIB) Applications on May 25th, 2010; Admin Report on March 8, 2011; Admin Report on
August 23, 2011; Admin Report on Temporary Repairs on September 20, 2011; Info Memo on
TIGER III Grant Application on September 27, 2011; Approval of surveying and topographic
mapping contract with CH2M HILL on November 1, 2011; Authorized execution of
Supplemental Agreement Number 1 with CH2M HILL for a maximum amount payable of
$569,411.00 for Preliminary Design services; Info RCA regarding the Final Design Scope of
Work on July 24, 2012.
BACKGROUND: The Sullivan Rd West Bridge Replacement project has received $8 million in
funding from the federal Bridge Replacement (BR) program and $2 million from the state Freight
Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB).
CH2M HILL was selected to provide design services for this project. Preliminary design work
has been completed and the project is ready to move into the final design phase. Supplemental
Agreement 3 used some of the available Management Reserve Funds already approved in the
contract to allow the environmental permitting process to continue in an effort to keep the
project moving forward and avoid any unnecessary delays.
City and CH2M HILL staffs have coordinated on the details of the final design scope of work and
fee. See attached. The final design scope of work includes several additional optional services
that staff recommends moving ahead with.
The attached scope of work has been modified slightly compared to the one included with the
July 24, 2012 Info RCA. Task 9.9 was added to complete a Design Study of a
Pedestrian /Bicycle Walkway Beneath Sullivan Road West Bridge.
OPTIONS: (1) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract amendment
for final design services with CH2M HILL, or (2) Provide additional direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or his designee
to execute Contract Supplement #4 with CH2M HILL in the amount of $997,850 for the final
design phase of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project #0155.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The current estimate for the bridge project is $19.7 million.
Funding for approximately half of this cost has been received from a federal Bridge
Replacement grant ($8M) and a state Freight Mobility and Strategic Investment Board grant
($2M). The City has committed $200,000 to the project.
Below is a summary of the Current Funding for the project, the Project Budget by phases, and
the total estimated Project Design Costs. Also below is a breakdown of the costs associated
with the final design phase including the optional services recommended.
BR Grant
$
8,000,000
FMSIB Grant
$
2,000,000
City matching funds
$
200,000
Total
$
10,200,000
Budget Project
PE
$
2,669,854
RW
$
200,000
CN
$
16,873,481
Total
$
19,743,335
Final Design
Optional Services:
Open House
Bridge Visual Simulation
Preliminary Engineering
CH2M HILL Orig. Contract $ 71,430*
CH2M HILL Supplement #1 $ 497,981*
CH2M HILL Supplement #2 $ 0
CH2M HILL Supplement #3 ** $ (35,440)
CH2M HILL Supplement #4 $ 997,851*
Staff Costs $ 40,500
Printing / Advertising $ 9,000
Total $ 1,616,761
* Includes 10% Management Reserve Fund
** Used Available Management Reserve Funds
$857,791
$8,440
$9,053
Sullivan Park Water Main $7,145
Illumination $8,912
Park /Trailhead Irrigation $9,009
Improved River Access $6,786
10% Management Reserve Fund $90,715
Total - Final Design $997,851
The new maximum amount payable is $1,567,262, which includes the original survey contract
and supplements 1 through 4. The final design costs will be paid for with 80% federal BR grant
funds and 20% City REET funds. Currently $200,000 in City REET funds have been committed
to this project. This contract supplement will increase the commitment of City REET funds by
an additional $113,452. There are sufficient REET funds to pay the local match portion of this
contract amendment.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Final Draft Scope of Work for Supplemental Agreement Number 4 with
CH2M HILL for Final Design Services on the Sullivan Road W Bridge
Replacement Project #0155
EXHIBIT A -1
Scope of Work for Sullivan Road West Bridge
Replacement - Final Design and Bidding
Services
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
FHWA Project No. BRM 4103(007)
July 2012
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this scope of work is to establish the specific scope of CH2M HILL's
professional engineering services and compensation for the Final Design and Bid Period
phase of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project.
The City of Spokane Valley (Spokane Valley) may make or approve changes within the
general scope of this agreement. If such changes affect CH2M HILL's cost of, or time
required for, performance of the services, an equitable adjustment will be made through an
amendment to this agreement. Prior to performing the work, CH2M HILL will notify
Spokane Valley in writing of the occurrence of a change and an estimate of the cost impact.
Spokane Valley will review, and if approved, will provide written approval of the change.
A ten percent contingency fund has been established for minor changes to the Scope of
Work. Use of the contingency fund requires written authorization from Spokane Valley,
prior to performing the work.
Spokane Valley reserves the right to expand the scope of CH2M HILL's work on this project
to include project communications services, construction inspection and construction
management engineering services. These additional services are not included in this Scope
of Work but may be added to the Agreement at a later date by written amendment.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this scope of work is to perform detailed design and provide contract
document preparation, right -of -way plans, property descriptions and acquisition services,
continuation of environmental documentation and permitting services, and bidding services
to enable construction of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project. The ultimate
purpose of the project is to replace the existing 2 -lane bridge structure with a wider 4 -lane
bridge structure, which also includes a pedestrian and bicycle pathway.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
1 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
3.0 Scope of Work
CH2M HILL will perform the final design and bidding services and provide project
documentation in accordance with:
• City of Spokane Valley Street Standards
• Washington Department of Transportation Local Agency Guidelines Manual
• Washington Department of Transportation Bridge Design Manual
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Fifth Edition
• Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual
This scope of work includes the following main tasks:
Task 1:
Surveying and Mapping
Task 2:
Project Management
Task 3:
Client Coordination and Consultation Services
Task 4:
Stakeholder Coordination and Public Outreach
Task 5:
Environmental Documentation and Permitting
Task 6:
Geotechnical Services
Task 7:
River Hydraulics
Task 8:
Final Roadway, Storm Drainage and Utilities Design
Task 9:
Final Bridge and Structures Design
Task 10:
Property Restoration
Task 11:
Right -of -Way Plans and Descriptions
Task 12:
Right -of -Way Acquisition
Task 13:
Bid Period Assistance (Optional Services)
Task 14:
Miscellaneous Optional Services
CH2M HILL will provide the following specific services:
Task 1: Surveying and Mapping
No scope change.
Task 2: Project Management
Provide project management services. A total time of seventeen months (August 2012
through December 2013) is assumed to be the duration for this work. Project management
services include:
Staff and subconsultant management
Control budget and schedule
Monthly progress reports and invoices (The progress report /invoice will identify the
work performed for that period, major decisions, schedule, and budget status.
Deliverables: Progress reports and invoices.
Task 3: Client Coordination and Consultation Services
Provide coordination and correspondence with Spokane Valley management and staff to
support project progress and communications, including:
• Bi- weekly project coordination meetings (to be held alternately at the City Hall and
CH2M HILL)
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
2OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
• Regular telephone and electronic mail correspondence
• Overall project guidance, decision - making assistance and /or recommendations
• Action items review
Deliverables: Meeting agendas and notes, running action items listing.
Task 4: Stakeholder Coordination and Public Outreach
4.1 Key Stakeholder Coordination
Coordinate with Spokane Valley to conduct meetings with key project stakeholders which
may include impacted businesses, property owners, public officials, or partner agencies.
Spokane Valley will coordinate meeting times and locations. It is assumed that up to four
meetings will be required. CH2M HILL will prepare exhibits, agendas, and meeting notes.
A representative from CH2M HILL will attend the meetings.
Deliverables: Exhibits, meeting agendas and notes.
4.2 Public Information Meetings
All public involvement and community outreach activities will be coordinated with
Spokane Valley.
CH2M HILL will prepare for and coordinate one public information meeting. The public
meeting will be "Open House" style to provide project information and answer questions.
Two representatives from CH2M HILL will attend the meeting and be available to answer
questions. CH2M HILL will be responsible for preparing project fact sheets and displays. It
is anticipated that design drawings and an aerial photograph of the project area will be used
at the public meetings.
Coordinate with Spokane Valley to conduct the following public meeting:
Public Open House - 60% Design: Purpose of this meeting is to communicate
intermediate design elements, such as bridge replacement aesthetics, Centennial
Trail and Sullivan Park impacts/ mitigation, and access and traffic control during
construction, prior to finalizing the design.
Spokane Valley will prepare and distribute any public notices, mailings, or other
notification media, coordinate meeting times, locations and secure facilities.
Deliverables: Public meeting displays and handouts, meeting agendas and notes.
Task 5: Environmental Documentation and Permitting
CH2M HILL will conduct the environmental evaluation and documentation required under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and will assist Spokane Valley to obtain the associated environmental permitting for
this project as follows:
5.1 Environmental Classification Summary
Supplemental Agreement No. 3 authorized CH2M HILL to perform specific elements of the
Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) that were identified to be on the
project critical path schedule. The following additional ECS tasks are incorporated into
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
3OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
CH2M HILL's scope of work to complete the ECS evaluation and documentation for
compliance with NEPA requirements:
Deliverables: Draft and Final ECS
5.1.1 Section 106 1Cultural Resources Assessment
No scope change. Services for this sub -task are performed under Supplement No. 3,
Expanded Preliminary Design.
5.1.2 Section 4(o Evaluation
No scope change. Services for this sub -task are performed under Supplement No. 3,
Expanded Preliminary Design.
5.1.3 Biological Evaluation
No scope change. Services for this sub -task are performed under Supplement No. 3,
Expanded Preliminary Design.
5.1.4 Noise Analysis and Report
No scope change. Services for this sub -task are performed under Supplement No. 3,
Expanded Preliminary Design.
5.1.5 Hazardous Materials
No scope change. Services for this sub -task are performed under Supplement No. 3,
Expanded Preliminary Design.
5.1.6 Sole Source Aquifer Checklist
CH2M HILL will prepare the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental
Checklist for a sole source aquifer, and submit to EPA for project approval. Spokane Valley
will provide a copy of the EPA Environmental Checklist and approval letter for the
associated stormwater disposal site.
Deliverables:
• EPA Environmental Checklist
• EPA Environmental Checklist and response letter for both the stormwater disposal
site and the bridge project will be attached to the ECS
5.1.7 Environmental Justice
It is assumed that an Environmental Justice Report will not be necessary because the bridge
will remain open during construction. However, demographic data research will be
conducted, with a search for minority and low- income populations in the adjacent property
tracts. Data search will include looking at 2010 census, and the proximity of minority or
low- income residences and business ownership of adjacent properties.
Deliverables:
• Demographic data for the ECS
5.2 Prepare SEPA Environmental Checklist
CH2M HILL will prepare a draft and final SEPA Environmental Checklist. Information
gathered from the ECS will be incorporated and /or referenced as attached documents to the
SEPA Environmental Checklist. A draft SEPA Environmental Checklist will be submitted to
Spokane Valley for review and revised as appropriate.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
4OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Deliverables:
• A draft and final SEPA Environmental Checklist
5.3 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA)
5.3.1 Prepare JARPA
After the NEPA /SEPA evaluations are completed, CH2M HILL will prepare the Joint
Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for the Sullivan Road West Bridge
Replacement project. (The geotechnical JARPA for the bridge was prepared in a previous
scope of work). The JARPA will be submitted to regulatory agencies by Spokane Valley as
follows:
Environmental Permits
Permit or Approval
Agencies
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Shorelines Permit
City of Spokane Valley
Floodplain Development Permit and Critical
Areas Ordinance Compliance
City of Spokane Valley
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Section 404 Permit
United States Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Authorization of Entry and Easement
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
The JARPA will include the following discussion:
• Project history
• Project schedule
• Construction methods and demolition activities that will prevent debris from falling
into the river (Construction Methodology Plan)
• Summary of fills and excavations
• Ordinary high -water mark (OHWM)
• Shoreline - activities within 200 -foot shoreline boundary
• Wetlands
As part of the JARPA submittal, the following drawings will be prepared:
Vicinity map
Plan view of bridge
Elevation and cross - section views of bridge
Furthermore, the Critical Areas Ordinance will be reviewed, research will be conducted and
information summarized for the sole source aquifer, geological hazardous areas, habitat
management, and wetlands. A draft JARPA will be submitted to Spokane Valley for review
and revised as appropriate. A final JARPA will be submitted by Spokane Valley to the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
Deliverables:
• Draft and final JARPA, including three figures/drawings and Construction
Methodology Plan
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
5OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
5.3.2 Coordinate JARPA Permit Process
CH2M HILL will coordinate with the JARPA agencies in respect to permit requirements and
provide information to the agencies as needed so that permits can be issued in a timely
manner as follows:
Shoreline Permitting: CH2M HILL will coordinate with Spokane Valley and track the
shoreline permitting process. It is assumed that no public meeting will be required
and that the shorelines permit can be issued administratively by the Planning
Department.
Floodplain Development Permit: A Hydraulic Report will be developed under a
different task (Task 7 - River Hydraulics). This report will provide documentation
needed to obtain a Floodplain Development Permit from Spokane Valley. The
report will address any potential for a rise in river elevation by more than a tenth of
a foot during a 100 -year flood event.
Deliverables: Prepare and submit a letter to Spokane Valley with the Hydraulic
Report attached (report will be attached to the ECS)
• Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Permit and Section 7 Approval: CH2M HILL will
coordinate with the WDFW and track HPA permitting process, including
coordination between USFWS and WDFW, the biological evaluation and assessment,
and the compensatory mitigation plan.
• Water Quality Certification (Section 401) Permit: CH2M HILL will coordinate with Ecology
and track Section 401 permitting process, including coordination between USACE
and Ecology.
• Section 404 Permit: CH2M HILL will coordinate with USACE and track Section 404
permitting process (including wetlands).
• DNR Authorization of Entry and Easement: CH2M HILL will coordinate with DNR and
track authorization of entry and easement approvals. As required by DNR, CH2M
HILL will prepare descriptions of the three guiding principles, an operations plan
and a DNR application form, which will all be submitted to DNR to obtain the
authorization of entry. An as -built survey of the bridge will be submitted near
project completion and additional requirements will be coordinated with the
Spokane Valley to obtain the DNR easement.
Deliverables: Prepare draft and final DNR application forms for right of entry and
for easement, the "Three Guiding Principles" and an operations plan.
Assumptions
1. Public involvement with any other stakeholder groups, agencies, organizations or
businesses is assumed to be limited to participation in the formal public meetings
mandated as part of the permitting process. It is assumed that no public meeting will be
required for shorelines permitting, and that the shorelines permit can be issued
administratively by the Planning Department.
2. The Local Agency ECS will result in a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) for
NEPA and a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for SEPA. Therefore, there will be
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
6OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
no need for a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) or for either a NEPA or SEPA
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
3. Spokane Valley will provide mapping, transportation data and other information that
might be required to complete the ECS and supporting discipline reports, SEPA
Environmental Checklist and JARPA.
4. WSDOT will lead consultations with the tribes and other state and federal governmental
agencies. If the tribes become involved during the cultural resources field survey or
require reimbursement for services, reimbursement of tribal services are not included in
this scope of work and will be paid directly by Spokane Valley.
5. Application of Critical Areas Ordinance will be brief. This will include discussions on
the aquifer, geological hazardous areas, habitat management, and wetlands. There will
not be any need for any special survey, study, analysis, or reports for any of these critical
areas.
6. Hydraulic modeling and analysis will be performed under Task 7 - River Hydraulics,
which will provide documentation required for a Floodplain Development Permit
(addresses potential for rise in river elevation by more than a tenth of a foot during a
100 -year flood event).
7. The Section 4(f) evaluation will not need to address Section 6(f) properties.
8. A de minimis determination for Section 4(f) can be reached and agreed upon by State
and Spokane ValleyParks managers for the project.
9. A de minimis determination can be achieved without additional meetings or document
preparation, which would be outside of this scope of work.
10. CH2M HILL is not required to prepare documents or attend meetings with Washington
State Parks Lands Council to discuss Section 4(f) or right -of -way issues.
11. Compensatory mitigation will be acceptable by fish and wildlife regulatory agencies and
no "mitigation site projects' will be assigned to this project or implemented as part of
this project. All mitigation fees will be paid by Spokane Valley and is not included in
this scope of work.
12. The protection requirements for fish are assumed to be similar to what was required for
bull trout at Spokane County's Appleway (State Line) Bridge Replacement project and
what was required for red -band trout at the Barker Road Bridge Replacement project.
The project scope and budget currently do not include any special evaluations or
analyses for fish protection, such as a site - specific noise analysis.
13. Wetlands documentation (inventory, delineation and wetlands mitigation) will be
provided by Spokane Valley through a separate agreement with Anderson
Environmental. Spokane Valley will coordinate with Anderson Environmental to obtain
agency approvals of those documents, which will be attached to the ECS.
14. There are no Bald Eagle nests in the project vicinity.
15. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) will conduct the hot spot analysis for
the Indiana Avenue and Sullivan Road intersection, and prepare the necessary
documentation that will be attached to the ECS.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
7OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
16. There is no need to perform a visual impact analysis based on a meeting held with
WSDOT on March 12, 2012.
17. There is no need to do a Phase I or Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
18. Because minority and low- income residences are not anticipated to be found in the
project area, a review of the local school- assisted lunch program is not necessary for the
environmental justice demographic research.
19. An asbestos survey will be conducted by WSDOT and report findings referenced in the
ECS. It is assumed that associated fees would be paid directly by Spokane Valley.
20. The DNR public meeting associated with the DNR right of entry authorization can be
conducted prior to issuance of aquatic resource environmental permits from other
agencies so that when these bridge permits are issued, the DNR right of entry
authorization can be issued immediately by the agency.
21. The Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project will not result in any impacts that
are adverse to environmental justice populations and this environmental review will not
require a special environmental justice study or evaluation.
22. The schedule assumes Spokane Valley will provide 1 -week reviews for all deliverables.
23. The schedule assumes that WSDOT and FHWA will provide 3 to 4 week reviews for all
deliverables.
24. Other permits needed for the bridge replacement project including building, clearing
and grading, and public right -of -way are assumed to be the responsibility of Spokane
Valley. An NPDES General Permit for Construction is assumed to be the responsibility
of the bridge contractor.
Task 6: Geotechnical Services
6.1 Geotechnical Assistance with Plan and Specification Preparation
This subtask includes preparation of earthwork - related specifications, assistance with the
drilled shaft specification, review of the drainage and civil details and retaining wall
drawings, and miscellaneous geotechnical support during PS &E preparation.
Deliverables: Plan and specification reviews and redlines.
Task 7: River Hydraulics
CH2M HILL will perform the following hydraulic evaluations to support final design for
the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project.
7.1 Data Collection and Site Visit
CH2M HILL will conduct a review of all available information gathered by Spokane Valley
personnel from the data files prior to conducting any other work. This information should
include bridge drawings, aerial photos, topography maps, and data from maintenance files.
Review will also include previous hydraulic studies in the vicinity of the project site, as well
as FEMA mapping and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) for the project area.
CH2M HILL will conduct a site inspection/ investigation. Observations will be recorded for
the following:
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
8OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
• Lateral channel stability- note any signs of stream migration that could affect
stability for piers, bents or abutments, consistent with an FHWA HEC -20 Level 1
analysis.
• Degradation (headcutting) or aggradation (deposits) in the channel. Document
conditions with color photographs.
• Manning's "n" value for the main channel and overbank areas. Document with color
photographs.
• Determine size of existing riprap at abutments and piers; note any riprap failure.
• Determine bed material size by visual inspection, for use in scour prediction
equations.
• Note evidence of scour.
• Pier alignment (skewed or normal to flow).
• Hydraulic controls from channel constrictions, dams, etc.
• Apparent or observed high -water marks.
• Evidence of debris.
• Contact Spokane County or Spokane Valley maintenance personnel for site history.
7.2 Hydraulics and Scour Analyses
CH2M HILL will use publicly - available USGS gauging information and the current FIS to
develop the 2 -year through 500 -year flows for the hydraulic model.
CH2M HILL will develop hydraulic models, using the Hydrologic Engineering Center -
River Analysis System (HEC -RAS) computer model and the previously- collected survey
data for existing and proposed bridges. This work will include:
• Model the existing bridges. Calibrate basic model inputs by comparing results to the
flood elevations shown in the current FIS.
• Model the "natural conditions" with no bridge or roadway.
• Model the proposed west bridge with existing east bridge.
• Calculate backwater against "natural conditions" for the existing and proposed
bridges for floods stated above.
• If water overtops the roadway /bridge before the 500 -year flood peak, the
overtopping flood and frequency must be determined.
• Coordinate with the roadway designer, bridge designer, and the foundation
designer and refine hydraulic model if warranted.
CH2M HILL will perform calculations for maximum expected depth of scour for 100- and
500 -year conditions consistent with FHWA HEC -18 methodology, based on results of
hydraulic model, data collected from the site visit, and subsurface geotechnical information
gathered during the preliminary design phase of the project.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
9OF33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
CH2M HILL will perform tractive force analysis consistent with FHWA HEC -23
methodology to determine the stability of the proposed abutment fill. If needed, based on
soil and hydraulic conditions and proposed foundation type, determine necessary riprap
revetment sizing to maintain abutment fill in place. If revetment is needed, qualitatively
investigate alternative stabilization methods in hydraulic report document.
7.3 Hydraulics Report and No -Rise Certification
CH2M HILL will prepare Draft and Final reports in accordance with WSDOT guidelines.
CH2M HILL will provide support and documentation necessary to obtain local floodplain
permits. Respond to comments received relative to the hydraulic design during the permit
process. This scope of work assumes that a FEMA- format "no -rise' certification for
construction within a regulatory floodway and accompanying documentation is not
applicable.
CH2M HILL will attend and participate in up to three (3) project team meetings; meetings
will be coordinated and facilitated under other tasks.
7.4 Hydraulics Quality Assurance /Quality Control
CH2M HILL will perform a complete Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA /QC) check
of the work product /report. Either a check of the calculations or an independent analysis
will be performed as deemed necessary. Checks will be made of all computer program input
and the accurate use of the results. Upon completion of the QA /QC check, the original
designer will incorporate revisions with confirmation.
Deliverables: Preliminary and Final Hydraulics Report and recommendations for
foundation depths and revetment sizing.
Task 8: Final Roadway, Storm Drainage, and Utilities Design
This task involves:
• Final design and construction documents for temporary and permanent roadway
connections and transitions at the bridge ends.
• Final design and construction documents for stormwater management facilities.
• Final design and construction documents for permanent non - motorized facilities.
• Final design and construction of ancillary project requirements such as temporary
traffic control, traffic signal modifications, temporary erosion and sedimentation
control, and non - bridge demolition.
• Coordination of utilities to be relocated during construction and /or installed on the
new bridge.
8.1 Task Management and Coordination
Program, coordinate, and supervise the project civil and transportation design team. Attend
up to twelve (12) client meetings to provide input and coordination with other work
elements. Attend up to two (2) project review meetings to resolve review comments with
Spokane Valley, WSDOT, or other stakeholders.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
10 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
8.2 Construction Phasing and Temporary Traffic Control Plans
Construction phasing will be designed and plans will be prepared for each major phase of
construction to clearly depict the construction work areas, work zone security, and
contractor access routes. Detailed temporary traffic control plans will be designed to
integrate with the major construction phases and provide temporary traffic signage,
markings, and details for non - motorized and motorized traffic through the project work
zone.
It is anticipated that temporary traffic signal modifications will be required. Design of
temporary signal modifications is included in Task 8.6.
It is anticipated that temporary traffic revisions that impact the WSDOT Limited Access will
require formal coordination with WSDOT Eastern Region traffic personnel. A formal plan
submittal, including an initial coordination meeting and a plan review meeting are included
in this scope of work.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.3 Site Preparation Plans
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plans will be developed to mitigate potential
impacts during construction in accordance with the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual.
Site preparation plans and design will depict non - bridge related demolition and
miscellaneous site preparation details.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.4 Roadway Plans
Plan and profile sheets will be prepared. These plans will include horizontal and vertical
alignment information and plan views of paving limits; limits of curb, gutter, and sidewalk;
bicycle paths; locations of driveways; cut/ fill limits; retaining wall limits; stormwater
conveyance facilities; bridge approach guardrails and other elements of roadway
construction. Plan sheets will show structure notes.
Specific constraints related to right -of -way, the environment, and constructability will be
identified and alignments adjusted to avoid or minimize the effects of those constraints.
Encroachments and impacts to property beyond the existing right -of -way caused by
roadway widening, slope grading, and /or utility relocations will be defined.
Roadway sections will be prepared for Sullivan Road. Roadway section thicknesses
previously developed for the Indiana/ Sullivan Intersection project will be used for the
approach roadways, and no additional pavement design will be required.
Prepare detail sheets identifying miscellaneous details not covered by standard plans,
including temporary traffic control plans and details, roadway - specific demolition plans
and details, and a vicinity plan showing proposed construction detour routes and signing.
Signing and marking plans will be prepared. These plans will delineate the locations of all
pavement markings including lane lines, crosswalks, turn arrows, and stop bars. These
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
11 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
plans also will show the locations and sizes of required signing indicating the type and
location of individual signs. Signing and striping will be designed in accordance with the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and standards adopted by Spokane
Valley.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.5 Drainage and Utility Plans
Drainage and utility plan sheets depicting proposed storm drain system and proposed
utility locations will be prepared.
Assumptions
1. Spokane Valley is developing stormwater conveyance and treatment/ infiltration
facilities to eliminate direct discharges to the Spokane River from the two existing
(southbound and northbound) Sullivan Road bridges.
2. These new Spokane Valley - designed stormwater facilities, including modifications to
the existing Sullivan Road bridge structures, will be constructed in spring 2013.
3. The City will provide construction documents and as -built drawings to CH2M HILL for
incorporation into the project design.
Spokane Valley is developing conveyance and stormwater treatment/ infiltration facilities
that are assumed to be in -place at the time of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement
project construction. Collection and conveyance design for this project will be coordinated
with these facilities.
Impacts to existing stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities south of the Sullivan
Road West Bridge may require modifications. Plans and details will be developed to restore
operational characteristics of these facilities.
Separate detail sheets will show non - standard drainage construction details as well as
drainage profiles. Drainage design will be performed in accordance with the Spokane
Regional Stormwater Manual.
Utility design includes:
• Permanent power, natural gas, and communications infrastructure to be constructed
by Spokane Valley's bridge replacement contractor in accordance with utility
franchise agreements.
• Permanent stormwater collection, conveyance, and treatment/ infiltration facilities.
Existing utilities and storm drainage facilities and project - related utility work to be
performed by others will be depicted on the same set of plan sheets.
CH2M HILL will coordinate the design of Sullivan Road West Bridge with utility purveyors
with known existing or planned facilities within the project limits, including:
• Avista Utilities (Natural Gas, Power)
• CenturyLink, AT &T, Comcast, Zayo (Communications)
• Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 (Water)
• Spokane County (Sanitary Sewer)
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
12 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
• Spokane Valley (Stormwater)
CH2M HILL will provide utility purveyors with preliminary plans to ensure that existing
facilities are accurately represented. Utilities that may require relocation, and planned
utilities will be coordinated with the bridge replacement design.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.6 Traffic Signal Plans
Traffic signal revisions will be required at the Sullivan Road intersection with Indiana
Avenue.
Assumptions
1. Signal Pole Relocation at NW Corner - Due to the widened southbound bridge and lane
reconfigurations, it is anticipated that the signal pole located in the northwest corner of
the intersection will need to be relocated to the west. It is our understanding that
Spokane Valley anticipated this relocation during pole installation, and has located
conduit risers and runs to minimize impacts and effort.
2. Temporary signal modifications will be required to accommodate lane shifts associated
with construction phasing and temporary traffic control configurations to be determined
in Task 8.2. It is assumed modifications to the signal heads, and signal phasing
alterations will be required.
3. No other traffic signal work is anticipated.
4. CH2M HILL will coordinate with WSDOT and Spokane Valley on traffic signal
modifications.
5. Spokane Valley will provide CH2M HILL with as -built drawings of the existing traffic
signal system.
CH2M HILL will prepare the signal plans and details in accordance with WSDOT
guidelines, showing proposed locations for new or relocated signals, luminaires, electrical
hardware, and wiring diagrams.
Conduits and pull boxes for signal interconnection with other intersections will be included
in the project design.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.7 Non - Motorized Facilities Plans
Plans and details will be prepared to facilitate temporary and permanent modifications and
improvements to non - motorized facilities.
Assumptions
1. The Centennial Trail will remain open at all times except for short -term term closures,
which may be needed to safely construct and remove trail protection features and
during placement of the new bridge girders. Such short -term closures will be approved
in advance by Spokane Valley.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
13 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
2. A temporary cantilevered street -level walkway with protective barrier and railing will
be provided along the east side of the existing Sullivan Road East (northbound) bridge
to accommodate non - motorized traffic crossing the Spokane River during the project
construction phase.
3. A temporary ADA- compliant connection will be made between the Centennial Trail and
the existing street -level sidewalk adjacent to Sullivan Road to temporarily replace the
existing connection south of the trail on the west side of Sullivan Road, which is
anticipated to be disturbed during construction.
4. A permanent street -level walkway, in the range of 6 -feet to 10 -feet wide, will be
provided along the west side of Sullivan Road from the Indiana intersection to a
connection with an existing sidewalk north of the Spokane River. The street -level
walkway design width will be determined at a later date in conjunction with Spokane
Valley's consideration and decision regarding a permanent below -deck walkway.
5. Design of a permanent below -deck walkway is not currently part of this Agreement, but
may be added to the project by supplemental agreement at a later date.
CH2M HILL will prepare plans and details for temporary and permanent walkway,
sidewalk, and trail improvements.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
8.8 Specifications
CH2M HILL will prepare specifications using the 2012 edition of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction and WSDOT Special
Provisions. Standard plans will be identified and assembled for inclusion in the contract
documents. Modifications to the standards will be made with amendments and special
provisions. It is assumed that construction surveying will be included in the contractor's
contracted responsibilities.
Deliverables: 60% Specifications (Technical provisions and GSP's only), 90% and 100%
Specifications (Complete contract provisions, including bid documentation)
8.9 Summary of Quantities and Opinion of Cost
Develop detailed quantities for the roadway elements and incorporate into the project bid
documents. Develop a detailed cost opinion for the roadway elements of the project at the
60 %, 90 %, and 100 % levels of completion.
Deliverables: 60 01o, 90% and 100% Construction Cost Estimate
8.10 QAIQC Review
Perform Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA /QC) reviews for the Sullivan Road West
Bridge Replacement milestone submittals at 60 %, 90% and 100 %. Perform a plans check,
and review specifications, quantities, bid schedule, and cost estimates. Document review
comments and acceptable resolution in the project file.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
14 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the general, roadway, and drainage elements of the
project are shown below.
General
G -1 Title Sheet
G -2 General Notes and Abbreviations
G -3 Summary of Quantities (1 of 2)
G -4 Summary of Quantities (2 of 2)
Phasing and Temporary Traffic Control
P -1 Construction Phasing Plans (1 of 3)
P -2 Construction Phasing Plans (2 of 3)
P -3 Construction Phasing Plans (3 of 3)
TC -1 Construction Traffic Control Plans (1 of 3)
TC -2 Construction Traffic Control Plans (2 of 3)
TC -3 Construction Traffic Control Plans (3 of 3)
TC -4 Construction Traffic Control Details
TC -5 Construction Traffic Control Details
Site Preparation
SP -1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Details (1 of 2)
SP -2 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Details (2 of 2)
SP -3 Site Preparation and Demolition Plans and Details (1 of 2)
SP -4 Site Preparation and Demolition Plans and Details (2 of 2)
SP -5 Site Preparation Details
Drainage and Utilities
D -1 Drainage and Utilities Plan and Profile (1 of 3)
D -2 Drainage and Utilities Plan and Profile (2 of 3)
D -3 Drainage and Utilities Plan and Profile (3 of 3)
D -4 Drainage Swale Modification Plan
D -5 Drainage Details
D -6 Utilities Details
Roadway
R -1 Typical Roadway Sections and Details
R -2 Roadway Plan and Profile (1 of 3)
R -3 Roadway Plan and Profile (2 of 3)
R -4 Roadway Plan and Profile (3 of 3)
R -5 Roadway and Bridge Approach Details (1 of 2)
R -6 Roadway Bridge Approach Details (2 of 2)
R -7 Concrete Panel Layout Plan (1 of 2)
R -8 Concrete Panel Layout Plan (2 of 2)
R -9 Concrete Panel Layout Details (1 of 2)
R -10 Concrete Panel Layout Details (2 of 2)
R -11 Channelization and Signing Plan and Details (1 of 2)
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
15 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
R -12 Channelization and Signing Plan and Details (2 of 2)
Traffic Signal
TF -1 Traffic Signal Modifications Plan
TF -2 Traffic Signal Modification Details
TF -3 Traffic Signal Modification Details
Non - Motorized Facilities
TR -1 Trail Protection Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section
TR -2 Trail Protection Details (1 of 2)
TR -3 Trail Protection Details (2 of 2)
TR -4 Trail Access Improvements Plan (1 of 3)
TR -5 Trail Access Improvements Plan (2 of 3)
TR -6 Trail Access Improvements Plan (3 of 3)
TR -7 Trail Access Improvements Details
TR -8 Trail Access Improvements Details
Deliverables: 60% (not all details will be provided), 90% and 100% (all details will be
provided) plans.
Task 9: Final Bridge and Structures Design
This task involves final design and contract documentation preparation for replacement of
the existing Sullivan Road West Bridge over the Spokane River. Final design will be based
on the recommendations in the Preliminary Bridge Design Technical Memorandum, dated
March 29, 2012.
The following assumptions are made regarding the bridge and structure elements:
1. The existing southbound Sullivan Road West Bridge will be demolished and replaced
with a new bridge.
2. The new Sullivan Road West Bridge will be a straight, 4 -span prestressed concrete girder
bridge with 4 travel lanes and a pedestrian pathway. The bridge will be approximately
440 feet long, matching the length and skew of the existing Sullivan Road East Bridge.
The bridge is anticipated to be supported by multi - column bents founded on drilled
shafts. The location of interior piers will match that of the existing Sullivan Road East
Bridge.
3. The construction phasing approach to replace the bridge will be based on Construction
Phasing Alternative 4, in which the existing northbound Sullivan Road East Bridge will
be used to carry three lanes of traffic during construction.
4. The existing Sullivan Road East Bridge (northbound bridge) will be left in place and
modified as follows:
a) A temporary cantilevered walkway will be added to the east side of the bridge
during construction.
b) The existing median traffic barrier and pedestrian railing for the bridge will be
removed to accommodate three lanes of traffic during construction. A temporary
barrier will be placed between the vehicle lanes and the temporary cantilevered
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
16 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
walkway at the edge of the bridge deck. Railing will be provided along the east edge
of the temporary cantilevered walkway.
c) After construction of the new southbound bridge, the temporary barrier and
cantilevered walkway and railing will be removed; a new cast -in -place concrete
median barrier will be constructed; and the existing pedestrian railing will be
reattached to the bridge deck.
d) The existing stormwater collection system on the existing bridge will be modified by
a separate construction contract designed by Spokane Valley. This construction work
is anticipated to occur in spring 2013. Three of the five bridge drains will be plugged
at the south end of the bridge. The remaining two drains will be modified to collect
stormwater and convey it to a new swale northeast of the existing bridge.
e) A temporary stormwater collection system will be required during construction
when the existing concrete median barrier is removed. It is assumed that this
temporary system will consist of scuppers along the base of the temporary precast
barrier and a temporary gutter system along the outside edge of the bridge deck to
collect runoff and convey it to the north end of the bridge, where temporary
connection will be made to the Spokane Valley - designed pipe system to the new
swale. (The temporary cantilevered walkway described in Task 8.7 will be a few
inches above the bridge deck to accommodate the temporary gutter system.)
5. The following retaining walls will be required:
a) At the south and north ends of the bridge, circular walls at the outlooks,
approximately 50- to 60 -feet long. The walls are assumed to be cast -in -place
concrete walls with spread footings.
b) At the north end of the bridge, a wall along the edge of roadway, approximately
100 -feet long by 6- to 8 -feet maximum height. The wall is assumed to be either
cast -in -place concrete with spread footings or a structural earth wall.
c) At the north end of the bridge, a wall along the trail, approximately 250 -feet long
by 14- to 16 -feet maximum height. The wall is assumed to be either cast -in -place
concrete with spread footings or a structural earth wall.
d) It is assumed that the walls will have architectural relief to enhance the
appearance.
e) At the existing northbound bridge, short walls will be required at the ends of the
pedestrian walkway on each bank of the river for connection to a new trail. It is
assumed that these walls will be cast -in -place concrete with spread footings up to
40 -feet long by 4- to 6 -feet maximum height.
6. All calculations, analyses, design, plans, specifications, and other project work will be
prepared in English units.
7. All drawings will be prepared in AutoCAD format in accordance with Spokane Valley
drafting standards.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
17 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
8. Bridge design will be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the WSDOT
Bridge Design Manual (BDM) and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for
Highway Bridges.
9. The WSDOT / APWA 2012 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction, and Amendments (English version) will be used for specifying the work.
WSDOT General Special Provisions and project - specific Special Provisions will be
included as necessary.
10. Coordination with utility companies will be provided under other tasks. The bridge
designers will be provided with a list itemizing the arrangement, sizes, types, locations,
mounting requirements, and other utility requirements for present and future utilities to
be supported by the bridge.
9.1 Task Management and Coordination
Program, coordinate, and supervise the project structural design team. Attend up to six (6)
client meetings by teleconference to provide structural input and coordination with other
work elements such as utilities, illumination, aesthetic and architectural bridge features, and
construction sequencing. Attend up to two (2) project review meetings to resolve review
comments with Spokane Valley, WSDOT, or other stakeholders. Prepare meeting notes as
necessary to document decisions made.
9.2 Structural Design Calculations
Prepare analysis and design calculations for the bridge replacement and retaining walls in
accordance with the project design criteria.
9.3 Structure Plans
Prepare design drawings of superstructure, substructure, abutment, and foundation
components for bidding and construction of the bridge and retaining walls. Prepare
drawings for demolition of the existing Sullivan Road West Bridge. Drawings anticipated
for this project are included in the attached Drawing List.
9.4 Specifications
Prepare General Special Provisions and project - specific Special Provisions for the structural
elements to supplement the WSDOT /APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and
Municipal Construction (2012 edition) and incorporate into the project bid documents.
9.5 Quantities and Cost Opinion
Develop detailed quantities for the bridge and retaining walls and incorporate into the
project bid documents. Develop a detailed cost opinion for the structural elements of the
project at the 60%, 90%, and 100% levels of completion.
An independent contractor -based construction cost estimate will be developed and updated
with each submittal to validate the cost opinion.
9.6 Preliminary Construction Schedule
Develop preliminary construction schedules for use in developing construction phasing,
construction cost opinions, and anticipated project duration. Developed detailed
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
18 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
preliminary construction schedules and update at the 60%, 90%, and 100% levels of
completion.
9.7 QA/QC Review
Perform Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA /QC) reviews for the bridge and retaining
wall design, to include the following:
• Review project design criteria, geotechnical recommendations, and hydraulics
recommendations to assure conformity with the project requirements.
• Perform a structural design check, plans check, and constructability review as
described below.
• Review specifications, quantities, bid schedule, and cost estimates at the 90% level of
completion.
• Review the bridge load rating calculations and report.
• Document review comments and acceptable resolution in the project file.
The levels of checking are defined as follows:
Structural Design Check. Verify the adequacy of the main structural elements,
including section sizes, reinforcing steel, maximum stresses, and overall structural
stability of the design. Verification can consist of independent calculations or a
thorough review of the designer's calculations. Main structural elements include
deck, girders, cross beams, columns, walls, drilled shafts, and abutments.
• Plans Check. Perform a review of the plans to confirm that sufficient detail has been
provided and that the plans accurately reflect the results of the design calculations.
Controlling geometry, elevations, dimensions are checked.
• Constructibility Review. Perform a review of the plans to confirm that the structure
is constructible and the details and notes are consistent and clear.
Process and incorporate Spokane Valley and WSDOT review comments pertaining to the
60% and 90% submittals. Prepare written review comment responses and resolve comments
with Spokane Valley and WSDOT staff. Incorporate resolved comments into the final design
documents.
9.8 Bridge Load Rating
Perform LRFR load rating calculations for the new Sullivan Road West Bridge in accordance
with WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM) procedures and the AASHTO Guide Specification
for Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel and Concrete Bridges. Perform NBI load rating
calculations in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, latest
edition. Prepare and submit a Bridge Load Rating Report containing the load rating
calculations and a summary the load rating results.
9.9 Design Study of Pedestrian /Bicycle Walkway Beneath Sullivan Road West Bridge
Perform an additional design study of a proposed pedestrian/ bicycle walkway that will be
located under the new southbound Sullivan Road West Bridge. A previous study was
performed assuming the walkway will be located under the east side of the existing
northbound Sullivan Road East Bridge. This additional study is to consider constructing a
SPK/REVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
19 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
temporary walkway on the northbound bridge during construction and providing the
permanent walkway under the new southbound bridge, which would be designed and
constructed integral with the new bridge. The walkway will be supported from the new
bridge either between piers and symmetrical with the bridge for better integration with the
bridge or along the west edge of the bridge (downstream of piers) for better lighting and
security under the bridge. The deck -level walkway width on the new bridge will be reduced
from 10 -feet to 6 -feet and the associated cost saving will be considered in comparative cost
estimates. The temporary and permanent below -deck walkways will be a minimum of 5.5
and 10 feet wide, respectively.
The study will consist of the following tasks:
Evaluate up to five (5) alternatives for the walkway, including a walkway with deck
and girders supported by the intermediate piers and separate abutments at each end
located beneath and symmetrical to the bridge; a walkway with deck and girders
supported by the intermediate piers and separate abutments at each end located
beneath along the west edge of bridge; a walkway hung symmetrically to the bridge
from the precast girders; a walkway suspended symmetrically to the bridge from
cables anchored to the bridge piers; a walkway suspended along the west edge of
bridge from cables anchored to the bridge piers; and up to one (1) additional
alternative to be determined during the study.
• Identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative from a structural,
constructability, and maintenance perspective.
• Develop comparative -level costs of each alternative.
• Develop a structure layout of the preferred alternative to a preliminary level of
design.
Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum that documents the evaluation of walkway alternatives. It is
assumed that the memorandum will be up to four (4) pages long and will include
preliminary drawings of the walkway (including plan, elevation, and typical section).
Assumptions
The scope and fee developed for the bridge and structures work element is based on the
following assumptions:
• All calculations, analyses, design, plans, specifications, and other project work will be
prepared in English units.
• All drawings will be prepared in AutoCAD format in accordance with Spokane Valley
drafting standards.
• Bridge design will be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the WSDOT
Bridge Design Manual (BDM) and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for
Highway Bridges.
• The WSDOT / APWA 2012 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction, and Amendments (English version) will be used for specifying the work.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
20 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
WSDOT General Special Provisions and project - specific Special Provisions will be
included as necessary.
• This scope of work does not include final structures design of the pedestrian /bicycle
walkway located under the Sullivan Road West Bridge. Final design of the walkway will
be covered in a future amendment.
Deliverables:
• 60% PS&E Submittal:
— 60% structures plans (1 -11x17 hardcopy and electronic PDF file)
— 60% special provisions (electronic Word file)
— 60% opinion of cost (electronic Excel file)
• 90% PS&E Submittal (draft Final):
— 90% structures plans (1 -11x17 hardcopy and electronic PDF file)
— 90% special provisions (electronic Word file)
— 90% opinion of cost (electronic Excel file)
• 100% PS&E Submittal (Ad Copy):
— Final, stamped structures plans (1 -11x17 hardcopy and electronic PDF file)
— Final special provisions (electronic Word file)
— Final opinion of cost (electronic Excel file)
— Final, stamped design calculations (1 hardcopy and electronic PDF file)
• Bridge Load Rating Report (1 hardcopy and electronic PDF file)
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required for the bridge and structure elements of the project are
shown below.
Bridge Drawings — New Sullivan Road West Bridge
B -1.
Layout (Plan and Elevation)
B -2.
General Notes & Geometric Data
B -3.
Construction Staging/ Sequencing
B -4.
Foundation Layout
B -5.
Pier 1 and 5 Shaft Details
B -6.
Pier 1 Plan and Elevation
B -7.
Pier 5 Plan and Elevation
B -8.
Pier land 5 Sections and Details
B -9.
Pier 1 and 5 Curtain Wall Sections and Details
B -10.
Pier 2, 3, and 4 Shaft Details
B -11.
Pier 2, 3, and 4 Column Details
B -12.
Pier 2 Plan, Elevation, and Sections
B -13.
Pier 3 Plan, Elevation, and Sections
B -14.
Pier 4 Plan, Elevation, and Sections
B -15.
Pier Sections and Details
B -16.
Framing Plan
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
21 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
B -17.
Typical Cross Section
B -18.
Bearing Details
B -19.
Precast Girder Details (1 of 3)
B -20.
Precast Girder Details (2 of 3)
B -21.
Precast Girder Details (3 of 3)
B -22.
Intermediate Diaphragm Details
B -23.
Pier Diaphragm Details
B -24.
End Diaphragm Details
B -25.
Deck Slab Reinforcing Plan
B -26.
Deck Slab Sections and Details
B -27.
Utility Support Details
B -28.
Approach Slab Details (1 of 2)
B -29.
Approach Slab Details (2 of 2)
B -30.
Traffic Barrier Details (1 of 3)
B -31.
Traffic Barrier Details (2 of 3)
B -32.
Traffic Barrier Details (3 of 3)
B -33.
Median Barrier Details
B -34.
Pedestrian Railing Details (1 of 2)
B -35.
Pedestrian Railing Details (2 of 2)
B -36.
Bridge Railing Type BP (1 of 2)
B -37.
Bridge Railing Type BP (2 of 2)
B -38.
Miscellaneous Details
Bridge Drawings - Existing Sullivan Road East Bridge
B -1.
Layout (Plan and Elevation)
B -2.
Barrier and Pedestrian Railing Removal Details
B -3.
Traffic Barrier Details (1 of 2)
B -4.
Traffic Barrier Details (2 of 2)
B -5.
Cantilevered Walkway Details (1 of 2)
B -6.
Cantilevered Walkway Details (2 of 2)
B -7.
Pedestrian Railing Details
B -8.
Utility Supports
B -9.
Temporary Bridge Drain Details (1 of 2)
B -10.
Temporary Bridge Drain Details (2 of 2)
Retaining Wall Drawings
RW -1 South Outlook Wall Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section
RW -2 North Outlook Wall Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section
RW -3 North Roadway Wall Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section
RW -4 North Trail Wall Plan, Elevation, and Typical Section
RW -5 South Trail Wall at East Bridge, Plan, Elevation, and Sections
RW -6 North Trail Wall at East Bridge, Plan, Elevation, and Sections
RW -7 Wall Sections and Details
RW -8 Wall Sections and Details
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
22 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Task 10: Property Restoration
This task involves final design and contract document preparation for landscape restoration.
This scope of work does not include final design of additional park improvements (other
than those described in Task 10.1 and pathway connections to any eventual below -deck
walkway. Final design of aesthetic elements will be covered in a future amendment.
CH2M HILL will provide:
• Final design of restoration and enhancements for Sullivan Park.
• Final design of Sullivan Road Trailhead Improvements for the Centennial Trail.
• Restoration plans for private parcels anticipated to be impacted during construction
of the project.
10.1 Sullivan Park Improvements
Plans and details will be prepared to mitigate temporary and permanent impacts to Sullivan
Park. These plans include:
• Expansion of park open space (to include a new picnic shelter, picnic tables, grass,
and landscape plantings). The size of the expansion area will be comparable to the
existing park space temporarily allocated for construction activities.
• Landscape along new roadway retaining walls.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
10.2 Sullivan Road Trailhead Improvements
Plans and details will be prepared to restore access to the Centennial Trail from Sullivan
Road. These plans include:
• Replacement of the existing stairway and connection to existing multi-use path.
• Landscape restoration of tradhead area.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
10.3 Property Restoration Plans
Plans and details will be prepared to restore properties impacted by the project, including,
State Parks and private parcels. Unless specific mitigation is determined and accepted,
these plans will focus on restoring disturbed elements to pre - project conditions.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the property restoration and improvements
elements of the project are shown below.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
23 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Property Restoration Sheets
PR -1 Sullivan Park Restoration Plan
PR -2 Sullivan Park Restoration Details (1 of 2)
PR -3 Sullivan Park Restoration Details (2 of 2)
PR -4 Sullivan Road Trailhead Restoration Plan
PR -5 Sullivan Road Trailhead Restoration Details (1 of 2)
PR -6 Sullivan Road Trailhead Restoration Details (2 of 2)
PR -7 Property Restoration Plans
PR -8 Property Restoration Details
10.4 Specifications
Prepare specifications using the 2012 edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for
Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction and WSDOT Special Provisions. Standard plans
will be identified and assembled for inclusion in the contract documents. Modifications to
the standards will be made with amendments and special provisions.
Deliverables: 60% Specifications (Technical provisions and GSP's only), 90% and 100%
Specifications (Complete contract provisions, including bid documentation)
10.5 Quantities and Cost Opinion
Develop detailed quantities and a detailed cost opinion for the architectural, trailhead,
landscaping, and river bank restoration elements of the project at the 60 %, 90 %, and 100%
levels of completion.
Deliverables: 60 01o, 90% and 100% Construction Cost Estimate
10.6 QAIQC Review
Perform Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA /QC) reviews for the Landscape
Restoration design, to include the following:
• Review project design criteria to assure conformity with the project requirements.
• Perform a design check, plans check, and constructability review.
• Review specifications, quantities, bid schedule, and cost estimates at the 90% level of
completion.
• Review the irrigation calculations.
• Document review comments and acceptable resolution in the project file.
Process and incorporate Spokane Valley and WSDOT review comments pertaining to the
60% and 90% submittals. Prepare written review comment responses and resolve comments
with Spokane Valley and WSDOT staff. Incorporate resolved comments into the final design
documents.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
24 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Task 11: Right -of -Way Plans and Descriptions
11.1 Right -of -Way Plans and Descriptions
Based on initial bridge replacement concepts, right -of -way will be required from
Washington State Parks and Recreation on the north and south banks of the Spokane River,
and private parcel(s) on the northwest corner of Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue.
Right -of -way plans will be prepared, identifying the extent of required takes, to include
permanent takes, permanent easements, and temporary construction easements. These
plans will identify the location of the proposed improvements and how the parcels will be
affected by the improvements. Horizontal control and right -of -way plans will be
developed, showing the roadway centerline, survey control points, curve data, tangent
bearings and distances, proposed right -of -way and existing right -of -way.
Legal descriptions of the proposed property takes and easements will be prepared.
A right -of -way survey will be conducted to include:
1. Establish boundaries for Washington State Parks and Recreation Parcels
a) Prepare legal descriptions for takes and easements
b) Provide lath and hubs to delineate new right -of -way
2. Establish boundaries for impacted private parcels
a) Provide preliminary boundary staking
b) Prepare legal descriptions
c) Provide lath and hubs to delineate new right -of -way
3. Prepare and file a record of survey for all new boundaries
It is assumed that the Washington State Parks and Recreation properties on the north and
south banks, as well as one commercial parcel will be included. This also assumes that the
right -of -way acquisitions will be partial takes, with no structures to be impacted.
Property and right -of -way monuments will be reasonably searched for and field located in
the survey tasks. The existing right -of -way and subdivision property lines will be shown on
the plans, based on available monuments, plats, and record of surveys. CH2M HILL's
subconsultant will request from the County Assessor's office the ownership of the parcels
surrounding the project limits.
Deliverables: Right -of -way plans, legal descriptions and exhibits, right -of -way staking and
monumentation.
Task 12: Right -of -Way Acquisition
This section describes the Scope of Real Estate Services to be provided to support the
Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project. CH2M HILL's authorized subconsultant
will provide the real estate services for up to eight (8) parcels on this project.
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will provide the right -of -way acquisition services using
procedures specified herein and in accordance with the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Right -of -Way Manual and Local Agency Guidelines.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
25 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Assumptions:
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will field mark existing and proposed right -of -way
boundaries as required.
2. Spokane Valley will be directly responsible for all City, County, or State fees related to
the project.
3. CH2M HILL's subconsultant will provide the right -of -way plans prepared for the
project.
4. Spokane Valley will provide updated title reports for all involved parcels.
5. CH2M HILL will provide legal descriptions (and exhibits, if desired) for each parcel
acquisition and /or easement and /or temporary permit or easement, as accomplished in
Task 12.
6. Appraisals will consist of:
a. Up to four (4) Before and After, two (2) with potential damages.
b. Up to five (5) WSDOT Res. 208 Form Reports.
c. Up to four (4) review appraisals will be necessary.
7. No relocations are necessary on this project.
8. No property management services are necessary on this project.
12.1 Title
Spokane Valley will obtain and furnish updated title reports for each property prior to
beginning the appraisal work. Title reports should include encumbrances on the titles; issue
a settlement memorandum which shall include but not be limited to, payment of taxes due,
the securing of full or partial releases, subordination and /or re- conveyance from lien
holders of record; work with other local, state, or federal agencies to secure interagency
agreements for easement releases, subordination or other compatible agreements.
Deliverables: City furnished title reports, including encumbrances.
12.2 Appraisals
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will provide appraisal assistance and coordination with the
subconsultant Appraiser who will provide the following:
The appraiser will determine Fair Market Value for all property rights affected prior to
acquisition. For acquisitions under $25,000, the appraiser will complete an Administrative
Offer Summary (AOS) for each parcel. The Appraiser will include in the submittal to
Spokane Valley all necessary information used to form the fair Market Value in each AOS.
For parcels over $25,000 or those determined to be too complicated for an AOS, an
appropriate appraisal will be provided subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute
and the Uniform Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Foundation.
The Appraiser will prepare and mail to each property owner a "Notice of Decision to
Appraise" letter and schedule meetings with the appraiser. Initially for all parcels, the
Appraiser will contact the owner or the owner's agent of the subject property and offer the
opportunity for that person to accompany the appraiser in an inspection of the property.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
26 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
The Appraiser will determine the highest and best use, which is the foundation on which
fair market value is established. It is the Appraiser's responsibility to identify and support
the use of a specific value through research and analysis of market data. The opinion of
value includes an adequately described property, as of a specific date, and supported by the
presentation and analysis of relevant market information. Generally, a range of value is
developed and analyzed within the report. The analysis will result in a conclusion which is
reported as a single indication of value.
Deliverables: Administrative Offer Summaries (AOS) or Appraisal Reports for each parcel.
12.3 Appraisal Reviews
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will provide review appraisal assistance and coordination with
the subconsultant Reviewer who will provide the following:
The appraisal review process is that part of the appraisal process that ensures that both the
property owner and the taxpayer are treated fairly by having properly prepared appraisal
reports with credible valuation estimates. The Review Appraiser establishes the offer of just
compensation. The Review Appraiser is an advocate only for the appropriate
implementation of the Uniform Act, state eminent domain law and regulations, and criteria
outlined by WSDOT.
Documentation standards for appraisal and appraisal review will be commensurate with
the complexity of the appraisal problem. The Review Appraiser will prepare an appropriate
written explanation supporting the review appraiser's estimate of just compensation.
The Review Appraiser will sign the certification which verifies that the statements within
have been read and all are true and correct. A new certification will be submitted for any
changes in the report, and the date of the report must correspond with the date of the
changes. It is the Review Appraiser's approved estimate of compensation that is the amount
that must be offered to the landowner.
Deliverables: Appraisal review documentation for each parcel, estimate of compensation
for each parcel.
12.4 Acquisition Services
12.4.1 Meeting Preparation
CH2M HILL's subconsultant negotiator will provide a booklet describing the right -of -way
process to CH2M HILL or Spokane Valley for delivery with each first offer letter entitled
City of Spokane Valley's Acquisition/ Relocation Handbook. The handbook format may be
a modified version of the WSDOT booklet, "Transportation Property Needs and You'.
The negotiator will thoroughly review the appraisal data for each parcel. CH2M HILL's
subconsultant shall propose price determinations subject to the approval and revision by
Spokane Valley and after approval or revision, prepare First Offer Letters.
Deliverables: Right -of -Way process booklet, Price Determinations.
12.4.2 Document Preparation
CH2M HILL will prepare the Spokane Valley forms based on the LAG forms provided by
WSDOT and created under separate agreement. CH2M HILL will prepare and provide
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
27 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
conveyance documents specific to the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement for the
property rights to be acquired on the project including, but not limited to:
First Offer Letters with Summaries, Rights of Entry, Request for Taxpayer
Identification Number and Certification Documents (W -9 Taxpayer Identification
Forms), Real Property Vouchers, Real Estate Tax Affidavits, Right -of -Way
Dedication Deeds, Right -of -Way Easements, Temporary Construction Permits, and
Road Construction Agreements. CH2M HILL's subconsultant will also prepare the
Right -of -Way Diaries for documentation of individual parcel contacts and activities.
CH2M HILL will provide the prepared legal descriptions (per Task 11) for the right -of -way
to be acquired via fee and/or easement. Legal Descriptions will be provided in digital and
hard copy form.
Deliverables: Conveyance documentation for each parcel, Right -of -Way Diaries for each
parcel.
12.4.3 Negotiations
Acquisition negotiations for the project will be commenced within 10 days of receipt of
written authority to initiate contact and the price determinations are approved by Spokane
Valley.
First Offer Letters for all property owners will be submitted to Spokane Valley for review
and once approved by Spokane Valley, offer letters sent out.
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will contact property owners, advise them of the process,
prepare and assemble negotiation packages, and schedule appointments. The Summary
Statements and written offers will be prepared and presented to the owners, along with the
City of Spokane Valley's Acquisition/ Relocation Handbook, at personal meetings.
If an appointment has not been previously scheduled, within five days of the mailing of the
offer letter, CH2M HILL's subconsultant will attempt to contact each property owner for an
appointment to begin negotiations. Absentee owners will be contacted and negotiations
conducted by telephone. If CH2M HILL's subconsultant is unable to contact the owner
within the first ten days of the mailing date of the offer letter, CH2M HILL's subconsultant
will notify Spokane Valley of those owners with whom contact could not be made and
request direction on how to proceed.
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will assure that negotiations will be performed only to the
limit of authority delineated by the title reports, project maps, determination of fair market
value, and manual of procedures, acquisition schedule, or written instructions issued by
Spokane Valley.
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will utilize an Internet -based tracking system to maintain a
complete record of progress on each parcel. Spokane Valley and CH2M HILL will have
access to this system to monitor activities and to make entries.
Up to three meetings are assumed to be required to arrive at substantive discussions relative
to value.
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will submit to Spokane Valley for approval any
recommendations involving a value higher than the determination of just compensation.
An escrow account will be opened for each negotiated settlement. The negotiator will work
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
28 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
with the escrow agent as needed, and close the escrow account after title is transferred. The
escrow fee and title insurance charge will be payable by Spokane Valley separate from this
Agreement. CH2M HILL's subconsultant will provide an itemized invoice for all moneys to
be paid to owner together with appropriate documentation for all reimbursable expenses as
well as all expenses incurred incident to transfer of title.
If within a reasonable time, not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days from the initiation
of negotiations with the owner, it appears that an agreement relative to payment and
consistent with Spokane Valley's acquisition schedule cannot be reached, CH2M HILL's
subconsultant will make a recommendation to Spokane Valley relative to the initiation of
condemnation proceedings. Unresolved offers will be submitted to Spokane Valley for
court action.
Deliverables: Written documentation diary of negotiation process for each parcel, internet-
based tracking.
12.4.4 Temporary Construction Permits /Easements
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will prepare and attempt to secure signatures on Temporary
Construction Permits (TCP's) for up to five (5) parcels. Temporary Construction Easements
will be identified for those parcels wherein work is outside of the existing right of way but
not considered for the mutual benefit of the landowner. If TCP's are required for parcels
outside this scope of work or those not yet identified, they will be negotiated as extra work.
Said permits will be completed in a format provided by Spokane Valley. It is assumed no
compensation will be paid for said Temporary Construction Permits as they are for the
mutual benefit of the landowners and Spokane Valley. Compensation will be paid by
Spokane Valley to said landowners for use within these temporary easement areas.
Deliverables: Temporary Construction Permits,/Easements
12.4.5 Closing, Conveyance, and Certification
CH2M HILL's subconsultant will work with a local title company to coordinate closing on
the right -of -way acquisitions. When Spokane Valley receives acceptable documents from
CH2M HILL's subconsultant, they will be signed by Spokane Valley and forwarded to the
title/ escrow company for processing, recording, and closing. CH2M HILL's subconsultant
will coordinate the following:
a. Provide instructions to the property owners, title company, and escrow company;
b. Make recommendations to Spokane Valley and /or the City Council as needed;
c. Monitor schedule of closing dates;
d. Make recommendations to Spokane Valley regarding the schedule for closing;
e. Deliver pertinent documents to the escrow and title company with escrow
agreement;
Obtain required document signatures from all appropriate parties to the
transaction;
g. Ensure escrow/ title company records documents properly and distributes funds
promptly;
h. Ensure that the original copies are transmitted to Spokane Valley;
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
29 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
i. Obtain original title policy on acquired right of way from the title company.
Spokane Valley will pay all direct expenses associated with limited liability guarantees, title
reports, title insurance, escrow fees, other closing costs, and payments to property owners.
Deliverables: Closing instructions.
Task 13: Bid Period Assistance
13.1 Contract Documents Preparation
Following Spokane Valley and WSDOT approval of bid documents, CH2M HILL will
provide electronic (.pdf) contract documents to online plan centers and will print and
distribute up to 20 sets of contract documents for local plan centers.
13.2 Advertisement for Bids
CH2M HILL will assist Spokane Valley with language to be used in the advertisement for
bids (Spokane Valley will finalize and place the advertisement).
13.3 Response to Bidder Questions and Issue Addenda
CH2M HILL will answer bidder's questions and issue up to two contract addenda if
needed. CH2M HILL will not be required to attend the bid opening (Spokane Valley will
conduct bid opening).
13.4 Bid Tabulation, Evaluation, and Contract Award Recommendation
CH2M HILL will prepare bid tabulation, evaluate low bidder's qualifications, and make a
recommendation for contract award to Spokane Valley staff and the City Council.
Deliverables: 50 sets of contract documents, addenda, bid tabulation, and award
recommendation.
Task 14: Miscellaneous Optional Services
14.1 Public Information Meeting
All public involvement and community outreach activities will be coordinated with
Spokane Valley.
CH2M HILL will prepare for and coordinate one public information meeting. The public
meeting will be "Open House" style to provide project information and answer questions.
Two representatives from CH2M HILL will attend the meeting and be available to answer
questions. CH2M HILL will be responsible for preparing project fact sheets and displays. It
is anticipated that design drawings and an aerial photograph of the project area will be used
at the public meetings.
Coordinate with Spokane Valley to conduct the following public meeting:
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
30 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Public Open House #2 - Pre - Construction: Purpose of this meeting is to review
upcoming construction phase elements, such as traffic staging and public access, and
solicit input, prior to kicking off the construction phase of work.
Spokane Valley will prepare and distribute any public notices, mailings, or other
notification media, coordinate meeting times, locations and secure facilities.
Deliverables: Public meeting displays and handouts, meeting agendas and notes.
14.2 Bridge Visual Simulations
Visual simulations of the Sullivan Road West Bridge project will be prepared for the
purpose of communicating preferred aesthetic and public art treatments and completed
project. Preferred treatments and key project visual elements will be determined in other
tasks in this scope of work. Photos will be taken from ground level and low - altitude aerial
perspectives. Two (2) to three (3) viewpoints will be selected showing the existing bridge,
and a simulation of each viewpoint showing the proposed bridge will be provided.
Deliverable: Bridge visual simulation graphics (electronic format).
14.3 Sullivan Park Water Supply Main
Plan sheets depicting proposed water supply main from the existing water main on the
north side of Indiana Avenue at the Sullivan Road Intersection to Sullivan Park will be
prepared. It is assumed that the water supply will be provided only for Sullivan Park
irrigation and restroom service needs. Facilities and sizing for fire protection are not
included. CH2M HILL will coordinate the design of Sullivan Road West Bridge and
Sullivan Park water supply main with Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the water supply main elements of the project are
shown below.
Water Supply
WS -1 Water Supply Plan and Profile (1 of 2)
WS -2 Water Supply Plan and Profile (2 of 2)
WS -3 Water Supply Details
14.4 Roadway Illumination
The existing Sullivan Road bridges include roadway illumination at the bridge ends only.
Roadway lighting level requirements will be analyzed for the new 4 -lane bridge structure
and approaches, and luminaires will be designed to meet the identified requirements.
Recommendations will be based on Spokane Valley - provided lighting level requirements
and specifications and details for luminaire heads (style and wattage), standards, and poles
(including mounting height, arm length). It is assumed that an existing service cabinet is
available for power supply, and that a new service cabinet is not required. No pedestrian -
level lighting for the multi -use pathway or trail access routes is provided as part of this
scope.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
31 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the roadway illumination elements of the project
are shown below.
Roadway Illumination
RL -1 Roadway Lighting Plan (1 of 2)
RL -2 Roadway Lighting Plan (2 of 2)
RL -3 Roadway Lighting Details
RL -4 Roadway Lighting Details
14.5 Sullivan Park and Centennial Trailhead Irrigation
Irrigation plans and details will be prepared for the expanded Sullivan Park open space.
Specifications, quantities, and cost opinion will be prepared for these elements and
incorporated in to the overall documentation at the 60 %, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the property restoration and improvements
elements of the project are shown below.
Property Restoration Sheets
PR -9 Sullivan Park Irrigation Plan
PR -10 Sullivan Road Trailhead Irrigation Plan
PR -11 Irrigation Details
14.6 Improved Access to Spokane River
Plans and details will be prepared to improve access to the Spokane River from Sullivan
Park. It is assumed that the area for the bridge construction contractor's work trestle access
route in Sullivan Park may be utilized and restored for this purpose.
Deliverables: See Drawing List. Submittals will be made at 60 01o, 90% and 100% levels of
completion.
Drawing List
Anticipated drawings required to detail the property restoration and improvements
elements of the project are shown below.
Property Restoration Sheets
PR -12 River Access Plan
PR -13 River Access Details
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
32 OF 33
SCOPE OF WORK FOR SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, JULY 2012
4.0 Project Delivery Schedule
CH2M HILL will complete the work outlined in this Scope of Work within seventeen
months of receiving a Notice to Proceed from Spokane Valley.
SPKIREVISED SRWBR FINAL DESIGN SOW 07- 23- 2012.DOCX 428859.FD
33 OF 33
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Extension of Time to Economic Development Ad
Hoc Committee
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
At the April 24, 2012, Council meeting, a motion was passed unanimously to confirm certain
Mayoral appointments to the Economic Development ad Hoc Committee, with an approximate
time frame of four months from the date of appointment.
The committee's initial meeting was May 16, and thereafter they held meetings May 30, June
20, July 11 and July 18. In order to accomplish the tasks necessary to fulfill their directive, the
committee members feel an extension of time is needed.
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS: Move to extend the time frame in which the committee will work toward their task; or
take other action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to extend the timeframe of the Economic
Development Ad Hoc Committee to the end of November or sooner if the committee feels they
have satisfied their directive.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Ben Wick
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Decant Facility Project Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council approved the submittal of the Ecology Grant
for a Decant Facility.
BACKGROUND: Staff received a Department of Ecology grant for the design and construction
of a decant facility to be located in Spokane Valley. The purpose of the facility is to provide a
more efficient and cost effective means to dewater and dispose of waste material collected from
the annual vactoring of the city's drywells and catch basins.
Since receiving the grant, staff has been in contact and coordinating with the WSDOT Eastern
Region Maintenance staff to determine if the decant facility would be best located at WSDOT's
Pines Road Maintenance Facility. Constructing the decant facility at this location would create a
partnership between Spokane Valley and WSDOT that would allow both agencies to use the
decant facility for their stormwater needs.
WSDOT is receptive to locating the decant facility at their Pines Road site. There are currently
four areas on the site that could potentially be used for the decant facility. WSDOT and Spokane
Valley staffs agree that an engineering consultant with experience in designing stormwater
decant facilities is needed to review each of the WSDOT Pines Road site areas and develop
concepts on which locations would be best suited for these needs. The Ecology grant would pay
for this consultant work.
The question arises that since the decant facility is proposed to be located at WSDOT's Pines
Road Maintenance site, would it make sense to have WSDOT take over the Ecology grant and
lead the design and construction of this project. Initial contacts with both WSDOT and Ecology
indicate that this would not likely be possible for several reasons: 1) WSDOT is not an eligible
agency to receive Ecology grant funds, 2) WSDOT does not have the ability to easily contract
with consultants to help in the design of the project, and 3) WSDOT does not have the staff time
available to manage the design and construction of this project.
OPTIONS: Discussion only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total estimated Decant Facility cost in the grant
application is $980,000. The Ecology grant received is for $735,000. The local match is
$245,000. The local match will be covered with Stormwater APA funds and WSDOT funds.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Art Jenkins — Stormwater Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Spokane Valley Regional
Stormwater Decant Facility
Project Update
July 31, 2012
Overview
Current SW System and Disposal Method
Costs and Benefits of Decant Facility
Ecology Grant
Example Decant Facility
Regional Partners
Site - Location
Current Stormwater System
Structures Requiring Cleaning
7,350 Drywells
4,712 - no catch basins or swales for treatment
2,500 Catch Basins with Sumps
2,500 Curb and Sidewalk Inlets
4 Pump Stations
1262 Drywells in swales -meet current
standards
3
Current Maintenance
Preferred Schedule:
Catch Basins every 3 years
Drywells w /no Catch Basins every 3 -7 years
Curb and Sidewalk Inlets every 3 -7 years
2007 - 2010 Actual Work Completed:
457 Catch Basins/Year
212 Drywells/Year
100 Curb and Sidewalk Inlets /Year
n
Current Disposal Method
Cleaning 3 -6 hours /day
Add wood pellets (absorbent material)
When full, travel to contractor's shop
Pellets soak overnight in vacuum truck
Next day - Travel to Landfill &Dispose
,.010 Hauling Costs
Task
Wood
Travel to
Loading
eturn to
Shop
Travel to
Hours
Return to
30
15
Pellets
pellets
Pellets
Soak
Grahm
Dump
Shop
Total
Task
$21121
$31856
$11928
$31856
Rd.
Hours
34.66
48.59
147.75
76.86
29.16
76.35
425.37
Cost/Hr.
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
Totals
$187543
$47455
$67245
1 $187990
$97879
$37748
$97813 1
$7136731
Proposed Decant Hauling Cost
Task
Load End
Dump
Travel to
Grahm Rd.
Dump
p
eturn to
Shop
Total
Hours
16.5
30
15
30
91.5
Cost /Hr.
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
$128.53
Totals
$21121
$31856
$11928
$31856
$11,761
Summary of Benefits
Save $40, 000 - $60,000/ yr haul costs
Save $7,000 /yr landfill disposal costs
65% - 85% increase in structures
cleaned
No additional staffing required
7
Ecology Grant Funding
Grant application - November 2011
Grant Award -May 2012
$980,000 Maximum Project Cost
75% Ecology Grant / 25% Local Match
Local Match:
WSDOT (through June 2013)
Aquifer Protection Area (APA) fund
N
"Ol rA i
r9
LA
1
r_ • -b .6 + �
pdw
0
el rA orz
� P)l
"I
m
0
el rA orz
| .
-
'
F- 7,
L�
. _�-----�-
_
Regional Partners
WSDOT
Spokane County
City of Spokane Valley
City of Spokane
Ecology
13
Multiple Decant Facilities
Mead location
City of Spokane Playfair Site
WSDOT Pines Rd Maintenance Yard
West Plains (future)
14
Spokane Regional Decant Facility Locations
SR 395 US 2
SR 20
Fern
N Nin, Md, F,11,
=.r North Spokane County Location
l,,, I'd
S i
Spokane "Playfair" Location
t
Of�West Spokane Location (Future)
t Graham Rd "WM Landfill" Facility
SR 195
Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prarie Aquifer (2005 - USGS)
EPA designated as Sole Source Aquifer
Sole source of drinking water for nearly 400,000 people
N
W
S
Date: 7/11/2012
Spcika ne
,;oO%IIe3, I
Spokane Valley Location
Sp
N
W
S
Date: 7/11/2012
Spcika ne
,;oO%IIe3, I
Sites Proposed in Grant App
City Maintenance Facility on Euclid
WSDOT Pines Rd Maintenance Facility
R
r
0
Ah
i
ifttka-c Stormop
1261ce'r 5�craoic
�rqurcr 1�e�cer T�ks
Am
F
Montgomery _ _ _ _ - - —
I -� •
f
12102 E. Mowry Ave. , • ' o� ta��
#'2
des
z
-. F -90 Z
— - 'mffns' 1-90
Pines Pines eastbound off ramp
r
1
fi
a , .
M
N
lw su .1i} "yy.a
�� r!I
City of Spokane Valley - Proposed Regional Decant Facility Locations
cn aF
CUS 2
w Runer Pk.,
Proposed Decant Facility oIR
R ` 1 eeunllyNOmes EHr+nn. Location A
P p _ City -owned property
1
max 12 mile round trip
an ° 'FL,.aI,.R� within City limits
wn
I — Toa Co ±mIY _ 1 1
l � 3
-
1� E C-p". Are
Current Vactor Dump Site Piz f�
Waste Management Landfill _
Graham Rd Facility
1 Y
1 = z 4lefpm <In
44 mile round trip _ _ w 'a
_ soft.. eln An rllllllly
C
1 DAIrwnY HJpntn
-91l rmutl AFa
' q9�
_ _ _ E e 1 wH�9njj0Y
1 �
i FNiph��
�♦ 1
lls L�aF —
1 1
1 nar 1
l Ila
+ r, Proposed Decant Facility
Location B
WSDOT property
w MId JI l.keA, c° w N.PVp Rtl a
max 10 mile round trip
within City limits
' pMarshall �
Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prarie Aquifer (2005 - USGS)
EPA designated as Sole Source Aquifer
Sole source of drinking water for nearly 400,000 people
City of Spokane Valley Area for Decant Use
State Highway System for Decant Use
SR 27
Yn{kyl*,
O
W.— LO.
O O
0119 0,,hartl. -EAer
SR 290
offs orehn,tls�ey Yr a
a
E E UFI1J Ave
1
w . �ybUILL6k.
z
4
lex1Y 3
l.k.
A.po�el .N
1-
ry
W T.
s �
Date: 11/16/2011
Spcikan
Valley
City /WSDOT Partnership
Agree Pines Road Facility is best location
WSDOT - Environmental Clearance
Propose RFQ for development of
concepts and final design
Future Interlocal Agreement for long
term O &M
20
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Animal Control Proposals
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has contracted with Spokane County for animal
control services since the City's inception. According to the County, the current facility is not an
option for the future. The County ballot measure to purchase and renovate a new facility was
not approved by the voters.
The County is proposing a non - ballot option of purchasing an existing building utilizing existing
revenue sources and forming a regional system including Spokane Valley and the City of
Spokane to help mitigate associated costs.
Spokane County has provided information requested by Council.
Council authorized the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for animal control
services.
Two proposals were received: Spokane County SCRAPS and SpokAnimal. Staff has
conducted a preliminary comparison of the proposals and will continue to evaluate the
proposals and provide a recommendation to Council on August 14.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A — Council input on what are the most important
decision factors.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $250K - $296K annually adjusted by Consumer Price Index.
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
- Full copies of the proposals can be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office.
Spokane
,;oOValley
Animal Control Proposals
July 31, 2012
Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Background
Spokane County is pursuing the purchase of a new
animal shelter and is asking the City of Spokane Valley
to participate in a long -term regional animal control
syste m.
The County has presented a funding option that utilizes
existing resources.
Spokane Valley staff acquired specific details from
Spokane County regarding a new animal shelter.
The Spokane Valley Council requested the City Manager
to determine if SpokAnimal is also an option to provide
animal control services.
Staff determined SpokAnimal is a viable option.
Council authorized the City Manager to issue an RFP.
z
Spokane County SCRAPS Summary
Public Agency providing animal control services to the
Unincorporated County, Spokane Valley, Millwood, Cheney,
and Liberty Lake
Has indicated that a new facility is necessary and hopes to
vacate the current facility by mid -2013.
Hopes to finance costs of a new facility ($4.5M) through
existing revenue sources and with the participation of
Spokane.
Proposed facility is in the NW corner of Spokane Valley, 4.4
miles from City Hall, is on a bus line, and has easy access to
1 -90.
SCRAPS utilizes 185 volunteers and inmates.
V
SpokAnimal
A non- profit organization that has been operating for 29
years and providing animal control services to Spokane for 28
years. Also provides service to Newport, Medical Lake,
Plummer, Fairchild, Latah, Spangle, and Rockford.
Has indicated they have existing capacity to handle Spokane
Valley animals.
No expansion is planned in the foreseeable future.
SpokAnimal will continue as a humane service provider
regardless if they are providing animal control services.
M
SpokAnimal Facility
Located on 710 N. Napa in Spokane, 6.7 miles from
City Hall and 2 miles outside of the Spokane Valley
city limit.
Located on a bus line
Close proximity to
Recently acquired
donation, includes
New kennels
Interstate 90.
adjacent property though a $1 M
event center
Has full clinic on -site
SpokAnimal also owns
for expansion should it
Utilizes 400
services.
volunteers
adjacent property that allows
become necessary.
and inmates to provide some
5
Summary of Proposals -
(Based upon Spokane participating in a regional model)
Two proposals were received: Spokane Regional Animal
Protections Service (SCRAPS), and SpokAnimal C.A. R. E..
Both proposals were received on -time, were complete, and
met all the requirements of the Request for Proposal.
A staff team comprised of the City Manager, the Finance
Director, and the Senior Administrative Analyst, reviewed the
proposals.
The request for proposals included 6 evaluation categories:
1. Level of Service
2. Adoption Programs
3. Ability to Enforce Regulations
4. Financial Stability
5. Professionalism
W
Proposal Comparison
1 . Level of Service -Past and Current
SCRAPS
Has provided animal control service for the City for nine
years.
Has been responsive to City requests and quickly addresses
complaints, which have been few in number.
Proposal contains positive recommendations from the
Spokane Humane Society and the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Shelter hours under a regional model would be seven days
a week and include evening hours.
After -hours calls can access an automated system
providing a variety of information.
A separate emergency number is answered by on -call
officers and an answering service.
Proposal Comparison
1 . Level of Service -Past and Current
SpokAnimal
Has not been utilized by the City but has provided services to
many other local jurisdictions.
SpokAnimal customers have indicated that the number of
complaints were numerous in the past but are few in recent years.
• The type and level of service provided is comparable to SCRAPS.
• Proposal contains positive recommendations from two law firms
and a veterinarian clinic.
• Dispatch is open 7 -6:30 M -F, 7 -5 Sa -Su;
• Shelter hours are 10 -6:30 M -F and 12 -4 Sa -Su;
Clinic hours are 7:30 -6:30 M -F and 12 -3:30 the first Saturday of
each month.
After -hours calls are handled by an answering service and there is
always an on -call officer available.
he policy regarding injured animals is the same for both
org ns. SpokAnimal has an on -site clinic.
proposal Comparison
2. Programs utilized to house, adapt, and
return animals.
SCRAPS
Utilizes animal transfer /rescue partners and transfers 2,000
animals per year.
Utilize adoption specials, outreach events, and offsite
adoption centers such as Petco, Petsmart, and the Spokane
Public Market.
Available pets are listed on the SCRAPS website, Facebook
page, the Spokesman Review, and the Valley News Herald.
Provides food donations and animals houses to assist low -
income pet owners.
Live release rate has historically averaged about 63% but
has increased to 78% in 201 1 .
W
Proposal Comparison
2. Programs utilized to house, adapt, and
return animals (cont.)
SpokAnimal
Received a transfer vehicle from the ASCPCA and utilizes
animals shelters and rescue organizations throughout the
Northwest.
Utilizes Petco, Petsmart, and the Public Market as well as a
Farm Living program for cats and a housing /training
program at the state prison.
Lists available pets on their website, Facebook, Craigslist,
and a smartphone application.
Has a wish list for people desiring a certain type of pet.
Provides food donations and animal houses to assist low -
income pet owners.
10
Proposal Comparison
2. Programs utilized to house, adapt, and
return animals (cont.)
Provide training and assistance to pet owners and will list
the animals on Craigslist to help them find another home
for their pet if they choose to keep the pet. This option is
not utilized if the pet's health or safety is at risk.
Live release rate has been about 50 %, increasing to 60% in
2010 and 201 1 , and averaging about 74% in 2012.
Proposal Comparison
3. Ability to Enforce Animal Regulations
SCRAPS
Officers attend the Washington State Animal Control Officer
Academy.
Officers have a Deputy 1 Commission from the Sheriff's
Office.
Extremely knowledgeable regarding the animal regulations
which are the same as the County's.
Responded to 8,074 calls in 2010, resulting in 725
investigative reports, 322 infractions, 72 misdemeanors
and 2 felonies with most successfully prosecuted.
Works closely with the Prosecutor's Office to insure that the
proper outcome is achieved and improvements are made to
future investigations.
12
Proposal Comparison
3. Ability to Enforce Animal Regulations
(cant.)
SpokAnimal
• Officers are commissioned by the Spokane Police Department.
• Complete a 40 -hour training session with the Spokane Police.
In 2010 investigated 1 ,370 reports of animal cruelty and
neglect, 551 barking dog complaints and 392 zoning
complaints.
119 citations were issued.
Policy is to let officers educate and work with violating pet
owners to come up with a solution that is not in citation form.
This saves the City money, doesn't clog the court system, and
develops better pet owners as well as builds trust and respect
with animal owners.
13
Proposal Comparison
4. Financial Stability
SCRAPS
SCRAPS is part of Spokane County's General Fund.
General Fund Revenues have not kept pace with
expenditures in recent years and the County has been
forced to scale back budget appropriations and rely more
heavily on cost plan allocations from other funds to
maintain fund balance. The fund balance for 2011 was 12%
of total expenditures.
The County currently has $388 million in long -term
liabilities.
14
Proposal Comparison
4. Financial Stability (Cont.)
SpokAnimal
Revenues exceeded Expenditures in 2009 and 2010
Expenditures exceeded revenue by $40K in 201 1 ,
representing 1.7% of their total expenses.
2011 fund balance is 50% of operating expenses.
No long -term liabilities.
Financial statements were last audited in 2008.
15
Proposal Comparison
5. Professionalism
SCRAPS
Personnel go through extensive training for interaction with the
public.
Maintain a professional appearance.
Are courteous, responsive, and punctual.
Adhere to rules of conduct.
Pass Sheriff integrity review.
Has two year's experience handling animals.
► SpokAnimal
SpokAnimal personnel are screened for grammar and public
relation skills.
Customer service training is required.
A code of conduct must be followed by all employees.
ackground checks are performed.
16
Proposal Comparison
6. cost
SCRAPS
20 -year contract.
Starting price of $295,691 for the year 2013.
Cost adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
SpokAnimal
10 -year contract
Starting cost of $250,000 in 2013 if the City of Spokane
leaves.
The cost would be adjusted annually by the change in the
CPI.
If Spokane stays, the 2013 cost would be $216,000.
17
Long -Terri Animal control Cost Comparison
Both Providers Escalated at 2.6% Annual
CPI
Year
Spokanimal
SCRAPS
$ Difference
1
$
250,000
$
295,691
$
(45,691)
2
$
256,500
$
303,379
$
(46,879)
3
$
263,169
$
3111267
$
(48,098)
4
$
270,011
$
319,360
$
(49,348)
5
$
277,032
$
327,663
$
(50,631)
6
$
284,235
$
336,182
$
(51,948)
7
$
291,625
$
344,923
$
(53,298)
8
$
299,207
$
353,891
$
(54,684)
9
$
306,986
$
363,092
$
(56,106)
10
$
314,968
$
372,533
$
(57,565)
10 Yr. Total
$
2,813,732
$
3,327,981
$
(514,249)
11
$
323,157
$
3821219
$
(59,061)
12
$
331,559
$
3921156
$
(60,597)
13
$
340,180
$
402,352
$
(62,173)
14
$
349,024
$
412,813
$
(63,789)
15
$
358,099
$
423,547
$
(65,448)
16
$
367,410
$
434,559
$
(67,149)
17
$
376,962
$
445,857
$
(68,895)
18
$
386,763
$
457,450
$
(70,686)
19
$
396,819
$
469,343
$
(72,524)
20
$
407,136
$
481,546
$
(74,410)
20 Yr. Total
$
6,450,842
$
7,629,823
$
(1,178,982)
Other Items
Space
SpokAnimal has 30 fewer dog kennels and if Spokane City
continues to use SpokAnimal the combined numbers of Spokane
and Spokane Valley would test the capacity of the current
SpokAnimal facility.
Contractor Relationship
The City has an excellent relationship with SCRAPS but the Party to
the contract will be Spokane County and the City has had
unresolved billing disputes with the County and had difficulty
ensuring the County adheres to the terms of the contracts.
Customers of SpokAnimal have been unhappy with cost
fluctuations and customer complaints in the past. These concerns
have been addressed. SpokAnimal has indicated they will do what
it takes to achieve the standards set by the City of Spokane Valley
and are willing to be flexible.
19
Dec'Is'101,1 �Vlat�lix
What is most important to City.?
Cost (What %change warrants a change ?)
Location (In Spokane Valley or near SV)
Service level
Regional Coalition (or what is best for SV)
Working with the County (or consider all options)
Stability - Does council desire to stay with the same
service provider unless there is a compelling reason to
change?
Will of Spokane Valley Citizens- voters turned down
the ballot measure for a new facility.
Utilize existing resources and private contractors
when possible.
20
Next Steps
Come back to Council on August 14.
Staff provides recommendation.
Council consensus to pursue staff
recommendation.
Staff initiates contract discussions with
provider.
If parties cannot agree to terms, City can go
with other choice.
Staff brings contract to Council.
21
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Ipad's for City Council members and Department Directors
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: Council and Staff have expressed interest in purchasing Ipad's for use in
conducting city business. When considering the cost of acquiring Ipads there are a couple of
options depending on the type of connectivity.
1. Option 1: Apple Ipad 16GB — Wi -Fi only $499.99
o Must have Wi -Fi access to send /receive email and browse the web
X9
2. Option 2: Apple Ipad 16GB — Wi -Fi + 4G cellular access $629.99
o Must have either Wi -Fi access or a cellular access plan —cost $41.00 /month
Other Considerations:
• One -time accessory purchases include:
• Ativa Mobil -IT Home /Auto Charging kit $15.29
• Targus Business Folio case $49.99
• Screen Protector $39.99
• Targus 2 in 1 Stylus $19.46
Total $124.73
• Ongoing costs for each unit includes Mobile Device Management Software estimated to cost
$59.00 / year / per device.
• An Ipad cannot be upgraded from Wi -Fi only to Cellular and Wi -Fi, however it can be used
with a portable cellular access point to provide the same functionality as one with the cellular
access built in. IT does maintain one that can be check out when someone is traveling.
• Total cost to purchase for Council members and Directors is $683.72 or $813.72 each,
depending on which model chosen. Total cost for 11 new Ipad's is $7,520.92 to $8,950.92,
plus tax.
• Annual cost of cellular service for one Ipad is approximately $492.00.
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for WeWagendapacket 07- 31- 12Vtem 9 RCA - IPad.docx
OPTIONS: This is a discussion topic and requires no decisions at this time. We are still working
on the details of how to deploy and manage the Council packets. If however Council collectively
wishes to move forward with the purchase of Ipads at this time, we will begin the process of
acquiring and setting them up. Once acquired, it's likely that rather than conducting a group
training exercise we will schedule individual training times with each Council member.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This was not an anticipated expense at the point the 2012
Budget was adopted and would likely require a budget amendment. Future budget impacts
would be the annual and ongoing cost of 4G cellular service if this option is selected.
STAFF CONTACT: Greg `Bing' Bingaman, IT Specialist
ATTACHMENTS: None
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for WeWagendapacket 07- 31- 12Vtem 9 RCA - IPad.docx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
Council will hear an update on the Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee meetings.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Community Development Director John Hohman
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes of Committee Meetings: May 16, May 30, June 20, July 11, July 18
Spokane Valley Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee
5- 16 -12.
Attendees:
Committee Members
Staff members
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Grant Person, Citizen at Large
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
John Miller, Divcon
Ben Small, Central Valley School District
Ben Baker, East Valley High School
Josh Ramsey, University High School
Robin Toth, GSI
Erin Gurtel, Fair and Expo Center.
Keith Backsen,
Julie Cohen, Holiday Inn Express
Wayne Frost, Greenstone,
Meeting began with Introductions of committee members and staff.
Mr. Wick started with a proposed mission statement: What kinds of projects can we do to market to
make the Spokane Valley more appealing to visitors, businesses and citizens.
Mr Wick stated in order to make sure that the committee does not waste time they focus on this
statement and bringing ideas and concepts from this committee as a starting point for the City Council.
Members were referred to the request for council action which was given to the City Council in order to
introduce the idea and purpose of the committee.
Councilmembers asked committee members: What is working? What should the goals be? What are
the current projects that Council are already working on? What are the assets the City has that can be
capitalized upon now? What issues does the City need to overcome?
Members of the committee asked councilmembers what kind of community does council want this City
to be?
Councilmember Grassel stated she would like to concentrate on what projects the City has already done
or undertaken. Road map to enhanced permitting, Working on a sign project: Welcome to City of
Spokane Valley, streetscapes along auto row, who have asked for on street parking and pedestrian
crossings. Ms. Grassel also contributed that she thought the committee should talk to other
stakeholders and have them come in and speak to the committee: for instance having Eric Sawyer from
the Sports Council come in and talk about the need for a major sports complex in order to bring in
business. She also discussed building a City Hall and where development regulations would have
allowed and not allowed a place to build previously and now. She stated she would like to see the
committee come up with a list of SO projects the City Council can work on to come from the committee.
Members discussed
• City branding. Working on getting businesses to understand where they "are ". Some
businesses don't realize they are in Spokane Valley. Many don't use Spokane Valley in their
letterhead and or on their websites. The City has not had much of a voice in the region. Not
much of a branding message, not much of a real voice, not much of a presence here. Does not
get the message out about being here and its assets.
• District zoning — Identify areas of the City which are unique and zone differently than other
areas. Examples given are Spokane downtown, Perry District, South Hill, Northside, all different
with unique zoning. Need a set of allowed uses that enhance the ability to put into production
right away and not inhibit business growth. Too many restrictions now.
• What do we want to be as a community? Then how do we zone it. Do we want to be a
bedroom community? Do we want to have manufacturing next to the river? Do we want to be a
family community? or an industrial manufacturing site?
• What kind of jobs do we want for our youth, so that they don't leave our area looking for good
employment and lifestyles.
• Affordable housing is an important component for prospective employers
• There are several little communities, which make up the City, how do you take and honor
history with the little communities but bring them into focus is the City of Spokane Valley.
Market the historical perspective we have the districts but find a way to bring it all together?
• A great event, could be if not misconstrued - Occupy Spokane Valley
• Great place to live and work. Raise a family. More parks
• When a company looks at locating somewhere they look at the whole region. Looking for
attractive community, schools, manufacturing, distinctive atmosphere. Citizens need to take
more pride in Spokane Valley,
• What does the city do to actively go out and recruit businesses? Who are we looking for as a
client?
• What does the City have, what doesn't it have, who is the City, who isn't it? There is the river,
work with that, the freeway runs through it, work around that, missing infrastructure in (roads
and sewer) in important places where there is open developable land, Sprague is a long term fix,
can't have vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic /crossings in the same places. What do you see
when you drive through here, nothing - freeway walls, wrecking yard,
• Need private investment in order for change to occur, need to consider multifamily tax
exemption, sales tax increment financing, what is the City capable of doing? What can't they do?
What incentives can the City contribute to?
What do we have?
Parks
Schools
Hotels
Retail
valleyfest
7 miles of shoreline
Mirabeau Park
CenterPlace
Community Outreach
Improving business friendly environment
What do we have?
Centennial Trail however, trail is not wide
enough, it isn't on both sides of the river
Center of the Spokane region and the greater
metropolitan statistical area
Community outreach, this committee as a start
New leadership
Mirabeau Park /CenterPalace
Neighborhoods
Strong employment base
Transportation infrastructure
Current Projects
Sign Project at Appleway and Thierman
Sprague beautification
Local Art
Shoreline Master Program update
Road Map for Enhanced Permitting
Improving customer service in the permit center
Modification of Subarea Plan
Streetscapes
Review of development regulations
Goals
Define targets and strategies — prosperity,
employment, capital growth, types of
employers /businesses
Identify businesses we want to attract— medical -
target
Prosperity
Employment Growth
Eliminate Sprague vacancies
Capital Investments/ entrepreneurship
Sports facility
Continue Roadmap to enhanced permitting:
Customer service
Zoning -Land Use
Types of employers- health, light manufacturing,
heaving manufacturing?
Consider district zoning and city center
Branding of Spokane Valley —
Occupy Spokane Valley in a positive way
Members agreed to meeting every other Wednesday from 3:00 to 4:30. Will move the meeting place to
CenterPlace
Would like to have at the next meeting
• Discussion of Library/Park project
• Discussion of other stakeholder groups
• Zoning Map
• Development regulations.
Next Meeting is Wed. May 30th, 3:00 P.M.
CenterPlace, 2426 N Discovery Place
Spokane Valley Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee
May 30, 2012
ATTENDEES:
Committee Members
Staff members
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
Grant Person, Citizen at Large
Sue Passmore, Administrative Assistant
John Miller, Divcon
John Guarisco, MDI Marketing
Josh Ramsey, University High School
Robin Toth, GSI
Erin Gurtel, Fair and Expo Center.
Keith Backsen, Visit Spokane
Julie Cohen, Holiday Inn Express
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm. Since there were some new faces, Chairman Wick asked everyone to
introduce themselves one more time.
SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE
Mr. Wick stated that there was a lot of confusion about the scope of the committee at the last meeting so the
meeting began with a review of the Committee's focus. The Economic Development Committee's goal is to find and
investigate short term projects that the City of Spokane Valley can do to promote economic development within the
Spokane Valley.
Mr. Backsen stated that he believes the Committee needs to define what they see as economic development, such
as are we talking about projects that create new businesses or jobs or are we talking about what is really economic
development, i.e. creating residences. People living in Spokane Valley do have the housing available and the roads
to get here. Are we going to be the urban sprawl community or are we going to provide the services that draw
people In?
Mr. Person said he believes it Is important to address what we have to offer, as well as the gaps (what we need to
address). We can't solve all problems. He wants to focus on two or three deficiencies and then do something about
them.
Ms. Grassel stated that we don't know what the gaps are. We need to talk to the stakeholders to help determine
the gaps. Spokane Valley is lacking A,B,C so we don't know what to go after if we haven't heard from the
stakeholder groups. The problem that the City Council has is that we hear from different groups, but what we hear
is fragmented —we aren't getting the whole picture. What we are not getting is what we don't have in our
community that would bring even more people to the area. We know some of the things that we are doing right,
but we don't know all of the gaps that we have.
Mr, Hohman added that it had been previously discussed to come up with an itinerary of future meetings that will
focus on one or two topics and invite people from those areas, bring them in and work through the issues.
After much discussion, it was agreed that the Committee will come up with a list of Community Stakeholders,
interview them, collect a list of ideas and /or projects that will promote economic development within the Spokane
Valley and provide a summary to the City Council.
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
This Committee needs to reach out to different segments and see how we can help them as it relates to economic
development.
To help identify what groups (which we are calling Community Stakeholders) to interview, we should start by
identifying categories of community groups, as well as issues or areas that can be identified and developed. Brenda,
John Hohman and Ben provided the following as an initial list of community stakeholder groups to interview: land
Use, Sports, Marketing / Branding, River Groups, Business Development, and Tourism / Convention / Hospitality.
Mr. Wick asked if the committee noticed any groups that were not represented in this list.
It was the consensus of the Committee Members that education plays an important and critical role, even though K-
12 is controlled at the state level. Mr. Miller would like to see lots of hands on technology in the valley. He went on
to say that East Valley is trying to incorporate technical training into their curriculum. It was the consensus of the
committee to add Workforce Development as a stakeholder group in combination with Business Development.
With large Medical communities around the Valley Hospital, some discussion was had concerning making sure that
we included that community. Consensus was that they would be included as a group within the Business
Development category.
The recent Judy Randall Report was discussed to ensure that we look at the recommendations. For those committee
members not able to attend the event hosted by Visit Spokane, Mr. Wick and Ms. Passmore said they would provide
copies of the executive summary which was distributed at the event.
With Shopping and Dining being identified in the report as the primary reason visitors come to our area, there was
some discussion on how the retail and restaurant industry fits into the community stakeholders list.
Ms, Gurtel said she is struggling with determining the identity of the Valley and what makes us unique. After
discussing Marketing and Branding, it was realized that no groups within our community focus on branding or
marketing. After hearing from each of the groups, the Committee would come up with some recommendations for
this category.
After much discussion, specific groups were added to each community stakeholder category. See the list bellow for
specific details.
Stakeholder Categories
Possible Groups to Present
Sports
Sports Commission, HUB, Soccer Association
River Groups
River Forum, Raft Companies, Parks and Recreation, Centennial Trail
Business /Workforce Development
Valley Chamber, Retail Association, GSI /EDC, Industrial Park
Land Use
Realtor Association, Homebuilders Association, Trader's Club,
Community Development Report (John Hohman and John Miller)
Tourism /Convention /Hospitality
Hotel /Motel Association, Restaurant Association, Visit Spokane
We determined that since there are only so many things that the city can offer. As a Committee, we should highlight
or limit the discussion to the "real" things that the city can do such as planning, sewer, and roads. We can devise a
list of what we want to do, but there should be a list of what the city can actually do. If a company comes to you,
cities can offer certain assistance; some things are driven by the public rather than the municipality itself. We need
to hone in on what it is —you don't want to give expectations to groups that cannot be provided.
After much discussion, the Committee members agreed to have a separate meeting for each of the Stakeholder
Categories identified, inviting each group to give fifteen minute presentations, In order to keep moving forward
quickly it was decided to have the Sports category present at the next meeting. Ms. Grassel said she would contact
each of the groups identified in that category to get them scheduled for the next meeting on June 20tH
To aid the groups understanding of what we are looking for from their presentation, a list of questions was drafted.
Ms. Toth suggested that we limit the number of questions to no more than four.
The following information will be sent to each targeted stakeholder group:
Thank you for being a willing participant to present before the City of Spokane Valley's Economic Development
Committee. The goal of this committee is to hear from Community Stakeholders about projects /improvements that
the City of Spokane Valley could adopt which would benefit economic development in Spokane Valley.
Please provide a response for the following questions at least 24 hours before the meeting (so that we can prepare
copies for each of the committee members) and come prepared to give a 15 minute presentation /discussion.
What does the Spokane Valley area currently offer for your group?
What challenges /opportunities do you have?
What do you need to expand?
How are your goals going to increase jobs /private investment?
How can we help?
Thanks again. If you have any questions feel free to contact Councilmember Ben Wick (bwick @spokanevallev.org).
Also if you have any technical requirements for your presentation please contact Sue passmore at
spassmore @spokanevalley.org or 710 -5106
MARKETING /BRAINSTORMING
Due to time constraints, and the more clearly defined scope, this discussion was skipped until after the Community
Stakeholder meetings.
FUTURE MEETING DATE
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20, 3:30 pm, at the Holiday Inn Express, 9220 E Mission Avenue.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:39 pm.
Spokane Valley Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee
June 20, 2012 — SPORTS Presentations
ATTENDEES:
Committee Members
Staff members
Ben Wick, Councilmember
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Grant Person, Citizen at large
Sue Passmore, Administrative Assistant
John Miller, Divcon
John Guarisco, MDI Marketing
Ben Baker, East Valley High School
Robin Toth, GSI
Erin Gurtel, Fair and Expo Center
Keith Backsen, Visit Spokane
The meeting was called to order at 3:38 pm. Eric Sawyer, Spokane Regional Sports Commission began with a Power
Point Presentation detailing the impact of sports in the Spokane Valley Region.
SPORTS COMMISSION
Highlights include:
o $71 billion industry across the United States.
o Travel to sporting events is a huge industry comprises 36% of the industry, and is divided into two
categories: fans and participants. We could lose our share of the travel if we don't start developing
a plan.
o It is important to talk specifics as to how sports can impact a community. Impacts include: visitor
spending by fans and participants;
o Not only is there value by attracting visitors but also by increasing the quality of life for local
participants / residence.
o Event operations increase area revenue due to local purchases and employment.
o Currently there are not many sports facilities within the city limits.
o The Valley is centrally located geographically and we have the right mix of support: hotels, mall,
restaurants and grocery stores. No other place comes close. Because of the components of the
area, we could brand ourselves around sports. Eric stated that "a great and healthy brand is a hot
button." We could become the "amateur and youth sports capital" of the Pacific Northwest.
o Think big picturel We need to expand our facilities, and there is land available, so we can draw
tournaments at the next level. Round Rock, Texas is a great example of what can be accomplished.
The Valley area has that potential if we use leadership and vision and we have the necessary
facilities.
o How do we get there? Construct a field house complex
o Media exposure is one of the biggest impacts. Eric did an interview when the USA Women's Boxing
Olympic Trials were covered by MPR and his interview was picked up in Orlando. Our media reach is
ranked 76 nationwide; with the addition of the Canadian physical market we would be second.
o Statistics show that juvenile crime peaks at 4 pm in the afternoon. We need to keep kids busy.
o Juvenile obesity is off the charts in this country. We need to keep kids active.
Page 1 1
o We need to address the fact that the sports are shifting away from the schools. It is a fiscal reality
that they can't continue to provide sports. It is a trend we have to address as a community.
Robin Toth asked Eric how we would pay for new facilities. He stated through a public /private partnership suggesting
that public bonds are "the way to go ". As a general rule, no one is investing in these kinds of facilities because the
reality is that you are not going to make money. Eric said he is talking about an investment in our public development,
i.e., "branding" what the valley needs that would make us want to live here with our kids. It makes all of the difference
in our economic development.
FACILITIES IDENTIFIED THAT ARE NEEDED:
• Major "field house" Complex
• Softball /Baseball Complex. Plants Ferry Soccer Complex is 70 acres with 35 fields. Artificial turf could be
installed on two of the fields at a cost of one million per field. Installing lighting would open up the
option for all kinds of state tournaments from January- March. This Complex can't be expanded unless
the maintenance facility was moved. Additional field sites have been identified at Mirabeau, With ten
tournament quality fields we could get 150 teams per tournament. Right now there are only five fields
in the Greater Spokane Region.
• Additional and Improvement Multi -Use Field Complex. There is a big demand for indoor soccer fields
(11,000 currently playing soccer), as well as an arena football facility.
• Indoor Aquatic Complex
• Championship Golf Course (the closet is Circling Raven in Worley, Idaho)
• Dedicated Cross Country Course
• Alpine and Nordic Ski Area Improvements
• Ice Complex. The only one available is the Eagles Rink and practice time is limited.
• Our urban core is more desirable than Billings because our area has dining and entertainment options;
not just shopping.
For cost comparison John Miller stated that the City of Spokane spent $7 -8 million to redo the Merkel Fields at Joe Alby
Stadium. Eric told the Committee that Spokane County does not have one dedicated youth baseball field; that the
teams must play on softball fields which are not as deep.
Mr. Sawyer reported that the Sports Commission is currently working on a Project Sports 2012 Vision Team Study that
he expects will be completed in October. This study would be a road map that relates to the needs in the community.
Mr. Wick asked if the list of needed facilities was in priority order, Mr. Sawyer stated that some sort of needs priorities
will be included in the needs assessment section of the Project Sports 2012 Vision Study,
HUB SPORTS COMPLEX
Phil Champlin, Executive Director of the Hub, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation.
0 501c3 non - profit organization
o Fiscal year runs from October - September
o Located on the Spokane Valley /Liberty Lake border
a 8 1/2 acres. He would love to add ball fields.
• Reopened in 2007
• The facility is 66,650 square feet with five basketball courts, which are also used for volleyball,
badminton, soccer /futsal, baseball, wrestling, gymnastics, pickle ball and football practice.
Page 1 2
• The facility could be doubled in size and it would still be fully rented.
• Not completely utilized weekdays and summer weekends although he turns groups away in thew! nter.
• it has a floating floor that causes less wear and tear on the joints. The floor needs to be resurfaced
every other year but doesn't allow larger equipment to be placed on the floor
• The Hub activity has grown with new events added each year.
• The number of overnight stays generated by Hub usage has tripled over the past three years (somewhat
due to the fact that reporting is increasing each year).
• Economic impact for 2012 is projected to be five million. This is based on the number of people that
travel 50 or more miles for an event. Local dollars that are spent haven't been factored into the total.
• Youth sports, particularly girls' tournaments ages 14 and under, have lots of family participation. The
events are the "economic engine" for the Hub.
• As a facility they are trying to find a balance by bringing in tournaments but also providing services for
the community.
• It is difficult to cycle debt services but they are doing that now.
• Trying to purchase the building through a capital campaign.
• They have received support from the City of Spokane Valley through economic development and lodging
tax funds.
Phil reported that youth sports you are drawing in families; adult softball tournaments would not draw as many
spectators. Youth sports have greater bang for the buck. Girls' tournaments 14 and under: lots of family participation.
He added that his goal would be to purchase the facility; add outdoor fields; and increase local programming /outreach
for the betterment of the community.
John Guarisco said that he was involved as a coach forth ree years and he added that "you guys do a phenomenal job ".
The facility is something to be proud of. He believes the Hub is still an untapped resource forthis community.
Chairman Wick thanked Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Champlin for participating.
FUTURE MEETING DATE:
The next meeting will be held on July 11, 3:30 at CenterPlace, when the Tourism /Convention /Hospitality Stakeholders
will present. The River Groups will present at following meeting on July 18, 3:30 pm, also at Center Place.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Page 1 3
Spokane Valley Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee
July 11, 2012
Restaurant Association, Spokane Hotel /Motel Association, and Visit Spokane Presentations
ATTENDEES:
Committee Members
Staff members
Keith Backsen, Visit Spokane
Sue Passmore, Administrative Assistant
Ben Baker, East Valley High School
Wayne Frost, Greenstone Commercial
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
John Guarisco, MDI Marketing
John Miller, Divcon
Grant Person, Citizen at Large
Josh Ramsey, University High School
Ben Small, Central Valley School District
Ben Wick, Councilmember, Chair
FUTURE MEETING DATE:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wick at 3:35 pm.
Phil Costello was the first presenter. Mr. Costello is the current co -chair of the Washington Restaurant Association. He
stated that he is a relatively new business owner in Spokane Valley and after two years, his business still hasn't taken off,
stating "that the folks roll their sidewalks up at 5:30 pm and go home." Mr. Costello does advertise on Facebook and
other social media sites. Mr. Costello has lived in Spokane all of his life and he has watched Spokane Valley from its
initial phases of growth as a city. He worked for Valley Best Way Lumber when the Appleway Couplet was put in and he
said "he didn't think (the couplet) was going to work out ". According to Mr. Costello, the eastern section of the corridor
going east to Sullivan, has "done a good job" with the big box stores and rebuilding themselves. He would like to see the
corridor go back to the two way street.
Mr. Costello shared that restaurant owners are always looking for a hot spot to build and hotel /motels owners are
looking for tourists. The restaurant Industry loves tourists; however, we need the long term stability of having the
optimum traffic flows that continue to attract the restaurant customer. Spokane Valley has a chance to rebrand itself to
attract businesses here. No one has built on the Appleway Corridor. It is not the same situation as Division and Ruby,
which has Gonzaga University nearby. I don't know why that is. Businesses from Fancher to Pines continue to move
further east or elsewhere. When the road split the Zip Trip restaurant, which was the former tenant at his restaurant
location, had a 70% decrease in revenue.
Mr. Frost stated that eating out is as much about socializing as eating. He pointed out to Mr. Costello that his business is
in an area that is predominately manufacturing. He wanted to know, "how do we represent the industry; not just your
particular problem" and "how are restaurants doing in general ?" Mr. Costello said that it depends on what sector you
are in. With the economy the way it is, people have a tendency to "eat" down. The mid casual to upper casual
Page 1 1
restaurants are the ones that are struggling. Five Guys is really having a tough time. The Spokane area is a tough market
to open a restaurant in and has one of the highest failure rates.
Mr. Costello believes that businesses near Interstate 90 are locating there because there is nothing down Sprague to
draw people. We need activity, employment opportunities, and vibrancy. He said that the Spokane downtown corridor
was really in the dumps fifteen years ago. The arena was a huge step in changing what is going on in downtown
Spokane. He believes that the Spokane Valley City Council needs to rebuild the Appieway Corridor all the way to Sullivan
to get It back up and running. Councilmember Grassel said that Carmax will be locating near Mr. Costello's business in
the near future.
Mr. Miller said that the minute the freeway came through the area all of the perception on Sprague changed. You aren't
going to reinvent Sprague Avenue the way it was 60 years ago. You are going to have to do something to really change
it; make it a more walk able area. The City of Spokane Valley could also change the zoning regulations to be more
flexible about what can be built.
Mr. Guarisco agrees with Mr. Frost about certain points he made on the Sprague Corridor area. He also feels there is no
activity down there. He stated that he owned Luigi's on Dishman -Mica Road and another restaurant in downtown
Spokane on Bernard. In the Valley I could have shut my doors down the day school closed and not open it until school
starts again. In downtown Spokane there were a lot of events to draw customers. Valley activity is families, I think part
of it is marketing. The dynamic is different in Spokane Valley. We don't have a convention center so we aren't a fine
dining destination. Mr. Small agreed. He said that families won't take their kids out for fine dining when they are here
for a sporting event.
Mr. Costello believes that the disposable income people have right now is making it tougher for restaurants. You need
to have the discretionary income. The Cottage Cafe and Ferraro's are doing great because they have found their niche.
Mr. Backsen has lived here for eight years. During that time he has noticed issues in the Valley and wants to know if they
a caused because businesses aren't able to commit or the way the areas are zoned? He doesn't see any new "blood"
coming in. Mr. Frost believes there are always issues and there is room for improvement. Those that want to open a
business here can open a business and land is available. The issue is more of market confidence and pure numbers,
which come from our populations and tourists. Most of the regional activities are downtown or in Couer d'Alene.
Mr. Person has lived here for forty years and doesn't believe that Spokane Valley has a fine dining destination. There is
a lot of restaurant activity at the mall. He stated that permitting issues could have been a problem several years ago but
that is no longer the case.
Mrs. Kilday stated that according to data released by the International Association for Culinary Tourism, fine dining has
grown and destination dining is defined as "something different; a signature dish; the setting; and what would make
people drive three hours to get there ". What is our fine dining? Do we have the right mix? You think we would have a
few more dining places near the freeway interchanges.
Ms. Sanders, speaking as a representative of the Spokane Hotel /Motel Association, stated that sometimes a visitor is
coming into an area and they don't know "anything that is happening ". Sometimes people do want to go to the chain
restaurants and we have a lot of places to send them. The Valley Mall is a huge deal. All of the hotels are sending people
to the Valley Mall to go shopping.
She added that the hotel /motel industry receives a lot of roam reservations because of events held at Plantes Ferry Park
and the Hub. Reservations due to businesses at Industrial Park have gone down; however, there are a lot of sales and /or
business people that are staying in the Spokane Valley because they don't have to deal with parking in the downtown
area. She has noticed challenges since she started working in Spokane Valley twelve years ago. When people visit the
Page 12
Spokane region they are not thinking of boundary lines; "we have to embrace that we are part of the Spokane Region."
Additionally, funding is a problem. She believes that the City of Spokane Valley should continue to provide funding for
the Hub and Sports Commission events. Ms. Kilday reported that according to the Randall Report, 70% of the survey
participants said they would like to see more outdoor activities.
It was recently brought to Ms. Sanders' attention that the organizations receiving lodging tax funding from the City of
Spokane Valley are receiving their money late and "that doesn't make sense ". Councilmember Grassel said she would
discuss the funding process with her. We need to encourage the funding of these organizations. The lodging tax monies
are replenished by people staying in the hotels.
On a positive note, there is a lot of space in the valley to grow. We need to start with a vision. New construction
projects that provide local jobs will help.
There isn't any spot in Spokane Valley that has a great vibe or would be considered a neighborhood destination; not like
Sherman Avenue in Coeur d'Alene or downtown Spokane. Those kinds of things could make the City as a whole.
Mr. Person asked Ms. Sanders how the new Hampton Hotel was doing. She said that she hasn't heard.
Mr. Small said that if he was sitting on the Spokane Valley Council he would try to find a way to distinguish ourselves
from the Spokane Council. We need to draw distinctions between political subdivisions. The current dropout rate in
Spokane is approximately 30% but the dropout rate for Spokane Valley schools isn't that great, He reported that he has
been the Superintendent for the Central Valley School for four years. He has noticed that the media tends to shift "the
good things" to Spokane and the bad things get shifted to our area. Liberty Lake does things different but they are also
part of our region. People live in Spokane Valley for a reason and we need to let them know what it is like to do
business in Spokane Valley. He struggles with how to do this.
Mr. Miller said that Spokane Valley residents aren't paying excess taxes and we aren't subservient to the City of
Spokane. He added that land here is more expensive than the west plains. If you want economic development in
Spokane Valley we need to be as business friendly as possible. Ms. Kilday said that she spoke with the mayor of Walla
Walla and that area has taken wine making and built an industry around it. She thought it would be a great idea to
attract a culinary school. We have great area restaurants and a school would put our region on the scene; we would
attract the creative class.
Mr, Frost said that Walla Walla is successful because they can draw populations from the Portland and Seattle areas and
Walla Walla is now a destination and they perform better because of that. Spokane Valley is changing. Demographics
are becoming more homogenous. Things are changing all over and they will continue to change. We should be
welcome all of the facilities that want to come here and change will occur. Say what you don't want and be clear about
that.
Mr. Small stated that the population in this region is changing. What was expected when the City of Spokane Valley was
incorporated isn't necessarily the same.
Councilmember Grassel mentioned the former Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan. Under that Plan, restaurants were
banned in the Auto Row area unless it was a fast food restaurant, which is the main reason you don't have any
restaurants in that area. She said that what she takes away from this conversation is that there are gaps for bringing
tourism here and how are we going to make tourism friendly to the businesses? What I am hearing is to think about
what we want do to here.
Mrs. Kilday, President and CEO of Visit Spokane, started her presentation with a discussion about the power of travel.
Currently the State of Washington does not have a tourism office. Washington receives $16.4 billion through visitor
Page 13
spending each year and $1.8 billion in local, state and federal taxes. The state tourism industry has 150,000 related jobs.
Spokane County generated $856 million in visitor spending; $S6 million in local and state taxes; and accounts for 9,000
jobs. The average length of a Spokane County stay is 2.6 days. Average spending varies by season. Washington
currently does not have a tourism office. International travel has decreased for the US. International travelers do get to
Spokane Valley and we don't want to ignore that. Any increases in the travel statistics are due to tourists crossing into
the U.& from Canada and Mexico.
We often forget about seasons when we think about travelers. We really do have four strong seasons. Business and
leisure travel are still strong markets for Spokane Valley. There are no huge gaps between what is going on in Spokane,
Spokane Valley and the West Plains and each area has strong business, leisure and convention tourists.
She stated that we struggle with what is uniquely Spokane Valley from a tourism standpoint. We talk about WalMart
and big box stores and Canadians residents that come down to shop. We need to find ways to sell the Sullivan Corridor
without it soundingjust like a big box center. We need to find ways to market the valley.
Ms. Kilday said that in the past the cities were treated like cities and not a regional destination. We need to designate
cities as a "places to go" category and she said Visit Spokane has done that in the past year, with Spokane Valley getting
an identity within that regional brand.
The Spokane Valley area has more access to river and bike orientation. Creating more trails could be something that
the Valley should undertake; we need a river park with trails. This could be an attractive feature as we don't have paid
parking. We need a community that has a shared vision that will combine with a regional vision.
Mr. Miller said that the City is working on a Shoreline Master Plan, "but when you really look at it the state doesn't want
you to get close to the river." He believes that we should work together regionally to have a shared outlook on how we
want the regional signage to look. Can we do a Memo of Understanding (MOt)) to see if there is any push back from
without sacrificing our own look? We want to be a green destination. There are communities that have received
environmental funding.
Ms. Kilday said that the Economic Development Committee should think about what kind of retail business we want to
attract. Spokane Valley has a Nordstroms Rack, which is a big deal. What type of traveler and what time of retailer goes
with that? Mr. Backsen believes that we need to court retailers.
Ms. Kilday said that Visit Spokane doesn't do recruiting of businesses. She mentioned that in a lot of communities the
retail and hospitality services are not a priority but they drive a lot of revenue to the communities. One of the
challenges for Spokane Valley is because there isn't a shared vision for the region. Additionally, we need a more
predictable funding process in the Valley. The same organizations compete for lodging tax dollars when every other day
of the year those organizations work together. She would like to see funding separated into different categories so that
tourist organizations, such as Visit Spokane and the Sports Commission are in different categories.
Mr. Costello asked what type of venue the Spokane Valley area is missing. Ms. Kilday said we are an area rich in Native
American Tribes and history but there isn't a place to buy what the tribes make. What about a tour of local artisans'
studios or a center where handmade local items could be purchased.
The River Groups will present at the Committee's next meeting scheduled for July 18 at 3:30 pm. An additional meeting
was set for Thursday, August 2 at 3:30 pm. This meeting was adjourned by Chairman Wick at 5:20 pm.
Page 14
Spokane Valley Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee Minutes
July 18, 2012
River Groups Stakeholders Presentations
ATTENDEES:
Committee Members
Staff members
Ben Baker, East Valley High School
Henry Allen, Development Engineer
Julie Cohen, Holiday Inn Express
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
John Hohman, Community Development Director
John Guarisco, MDI Marketing
Sue Passmore, Administrative Assistant
John Miller, Divcon
Grant Person, Citizen at Large
Robin Toth, Greater Spokane, Inc.
Ben Wick, Councilmember, Chair
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ben Wick at 3:30 pm. Ben introduced Andy Dunau from Spokane River
Forum and Chris Guidotti from the Washington State Parks.
Andy began his presentation by thanking the Committee for inviting him to participate. He explained that the Spokane
River Forum is a small non - profit organization that helps to maintain the river accesses. He is here to provide
transparency to all issues relating to the river; however, his organization takes a regional approach and doesn't get
involved with policy positions.
Mr. Dunau talked about the four access points that are located within the City of Spokane Valley boundaries; Barker
Road, Mission Avenue, Sullivan Park and Mirabeau Point. Although part of the County, most would also consider Plante's
Ferry as part of the City. Upstream of the City is Harvard Road, which is managed by Riverside State Park and is critical
to river users that take out within the Valley. Downstream, Boulder Beach, managed by the City of Spokane, is a critical
take out point for people putting in at Plante's Ferry. Two proposed access points, one upstream at the State line and the
other downstream at the Centennial Trail Bridge, would benefit the City as they would be important put -in locations for
people likely to take out at Valley locations, In addition, proposals support drift boat access. This can greatly increase the
possibility of the Valley marketing itself as a local fly fishing destination.
People are beating up the shorelines, which diminishes your economic development opportunities. The Spokane River
Forum hopes to do some area restoration this fall working in conjunction with the VFW.
There is an opportunity to utilize the Valley as a focal point for marketing use of the Spokane River to Coeur d'Alene and
the Spokane Corridor, both for residents and area tourists. For all Forum water trail projects, we see economic
development and stewardship values as part of the same equation. Improved access increases the amount of food,
lodging, restaurant and other sales in the City of Spokane Valley. Creating, restoring and improving access locations is a
key component to environmental protection and stewardship. Without this investment, people will continue to find their
way to the river in a way that seriously degrades the shoreline areas. Besides affecting the environment, a beaten down
shoreline diminishes utilizing the Spokane River to support economic development.
Mr. Dunau summarizes the challenges as follows;
o Funding access development and restoration, which can be particularly difficult because multiple
jurisdictions are involved.
o As underscored in the recent Randall Report, "wayfinding ". Either at existing kiosk locations or via the
web, there is very limited and fragmented information on how to access this resource. We need to make
the trail user friendly by developing a website that has information on the area accesses. Andy said that
the Forum's website is 80% ready.
o Zoning /planning in developments near or on the river requires careful consideration. The River Run
development located just downstream of Monroe Street Bridge, is an excellent example of getting it right.
These are middle to higher income houses that are visually attractive and provide walking trails by the
river. When you are on the river you don't notice the housing because it blends into the landscape and
doesn't negatively affect the general river aesthetic. My understanding is that their home sales and
marketing strategies have been very successful.
Page 1 1
The more we do on the river, the more valuable the land becomes. What standards are we going to put on those
properties? Zoning is an ongoing issue. Ms. Barlow said that maintaining the balance and recognizing that the Spokane
River is an amenity in its natural state, while trying to find a balance with the property owners, is what the City is striving
for. We aren't there yet. In reality, about a third of our shorelines are public.
Mr. Dunau believes that we need to think regionally and there needs to be a central place where all things related to the
Spokane River Trails can be accessed. Are we making it easy on anyone not familiar with the area to get somewhere?
Right not the answer is "no ". Type in river trail, bike trail, etc. and the responses you receive are all over the map. It is not
only a Spokane Valley problem. It is also a problem for Spokane and other jurisdictions. The Forum is meeting on an ad
hoc basis to discuss additional signage, which would provide directions and river access information. Ms. Toth wanted to
know if the City had any information listed on trails.com? That is something we should look into.
What do you need to expand? Money, money and more money. Anything you can do to help the Forum obtain sponsors
would be appreciated. There have been preliminary conversations with Riverside State Park and the Sullivan Bridge
Project. Something needs to be done there. I believe leadership is required to complete a trail system. We are a highly
mobile society. We can have our cake and eat it too. We actually have a pretty decent water trail system which helps
with our differentiation. If I would be moving to Spokane Valley it would make a difference to me. Andy said that it is
easier to support specific projects. That helps all of us raise money. It is a very strategic dollar that helps us as well.
Councilmember Grassel asked Andy if there are things that water users want or need to create a more accessible river
beyond the trail. She mentioned Burien's Landing and Denver and what they have done. Andy replied that this is a major
development opportunity waiting to happen. The Randall Study was clear that people want to be able to eat, walk, and
bike on the river. Brenda asked if other groups would be interested in this concept? Andy replied that he didn't think it is
high on the canoe and kayak enthusiasts list. It really speaks to how you want your city to be perceived. Do we really
want to be a destination point for shops and restaurants? I don't believe this idea is getting pushed by the user groups
Mr. Person mentioned that Austin and San Antonio have done a real nice job designing their river access areas. He
believes that from our perspective we have done nothing to development the water group. Mr. Miller said that we have
actually decreased our access. Right now Spokane is in the process of getting rid of a nice restaurant downtown. The
Shoreline Act and the way things have been presented up until now doesn't make it user friendly. He went on to say that
if he wanted to create a project on the river there wouldn't be any access. The Centennial Trail is used a lot but most
people don't really want to get down to the river; they just want to see it. More access, in his opinion, is best. Greenstone
in Liberty Lake has plans for a rather elaborate complex on the river with a winery, etc.
Councilmember Grassel explained to the Committee that the City of Spokane Valley is working on the Shoreline Master
Plan with the assistance of legal counsel. The city is taking a more proactive approach. She offered compliments to the
staff for the countless hours they have spent on the plan,
Ms. Barlow said that she wanted to provide a bit of clarification. We have so much publically owned river access. The
new regulations that the City is working on will open up the area and would be consistent with the state rules as long as
there is a public benefit. Access to a trail is more of a collaborative issue, We are working on a public access plan and
realistically we recognize that people can walk down to the river, which is a detriment if we aren't able to direct them.
From the State stand point the Shoreline jurisdiction is 200' wide. The City hasn't established our setbacks although in
the existing plan you are allowed to develop in the 200' setback.
Mr. Person said that as a former guide in Montana, he has a lot of affinity for the river. He stated that, "I can't tell you how
many times I wished there was a nice restaurant down by the water ". Our mission, as a committee, is to see what is it we
can encourage to be done in the City of Spokane Valley to bolster economic ability without harming the beauty.
Mr. Stone believes that if we are going to promote the river from the City's standpoint, we need to include an educational
component.
Chris Guidotti, Riverside Area Manager for the Washington State Parks Department, thanked the Committee for the
opportunity to be here today. He said that he appreciates the great partnership that his agency has with the City of
Spokane Valley and the Spokane River Forum and he enjoys working with both agencies on multi- jurisdictional issues.
Chris added that he teaches boating safety, which is a means of providing education so that people learn how to enjoy the
river in a safe manner.
Page 12
Riverside State Park has over 10,000 acres and is the second largest and most diverse park in the State. He manages
property from the state line to Long Lake. The Riverside District is the overall manager of the Centennial Trail. The Trail
is an incredible asset and the "nicest" portion of the trail goes through Spokane Valley. The Park's Department has an
agreement to work together with all of the entities with river access. He would like to see the agreement renewed as the
current agreement was signed by Spokane County before the City of Spokane Valley incorporated.
Chris told the Committee that the Centennial Trail has two millions visitors on the trail each year and Spokane Valley is a
very busy section of the trail. Studies have shown that parks and open spaces are essential to a community for mental
health and tourism /economic development. Protecting the trail is critical. All the conversation we have heard so far are
about "balance. Washington State Parks owns over 60% of the property that is in the shoreline zones. We need the ability
to be able to permit and to provide better access to the river. From an economic development standpoint, providing
access to the river at the Sullivan Bridge is a window of opportunity you cannot miss. We want to protect shoreline
access but we have to acknowledge that people will get to the river no matter what. We have to formalize the access.
Maintaining a pristine river access in the City of Spokane Valley is essential. Protecting that natural resource is what
draws people to this area. The Shoreline Master Plan is a critical piece. The State currently owns Sullivan Park and he
would like to see us do a land swap so that the City owns the property,
The Centennial Trail has been in existence for twenty years. The City's Parks Department does the maintenance on the
Centennial, adding that "it would be nice if Mike had the assets to fix it" as preventive maintenance now would save huge
amounts later on.
Mr. Person asked Chris what is your biggest challenge in managing the trail? He was told that the challenge is trying to
find the budget and who is going to be responsible for capital improvement costs on the trail. Chris said that the
challenges for his agency are limited budget funds and balancing recreational opportunities with resource protection. The
lands we own within the City limits belong to the public. Finding the balance is somewhat subjective; i.e.it comes down to
what people's values are.
Also permitting can be very challenging in this environment. He said his agency has a great partnership with the City and
that Henry Allen has been instrumental in creating ways to combat the eroding shoreline and that Lori is great to work
with. Mr. Guarisco asked how much of the land erosion is caused by foot traffic. The Spokane River is unique because of
its high banks. People go down, others follow; pretty soon weeds come in and garbage is left behind.
He understands that there is a development complex of apartments going in on Mission Street. It is critical to maintain
this area as an access point. You don't get an area back once it has been developed. Mr. Miller would like to see the trail
developed on both sides of the river. It would be a huge economic driver and ease the burden on the south side of the
river. He believes the entire inventory of the river should be looked at with bike trails on both sides of the river. Chris said
he was opposed to that idea and he is not sure we want to impact both sides of the river.
Mike Stone said that as part of the City he is in an interesting position, staling "I am supporting what you guys are doing ".
He went on to say that the Committee can encourage our elected officials to make the river a priority. There is a lot of
information out there that would support this. He passed out articles published by the National Recreation and Park
Association entitled, Why Parks and Recreation are Essential Public Services and Synopsis of 2010 Research Papers -the
Key Benefits.
Mr. Stone said that the City is blessed with five public access points on the river. The state owns most of the trail; the City
owns some and we inherited Sullivan Park from the County. We can use the temporary bridge to development a first time
access point. Sullivan Park is one of our most challenging parks with a diverse user group. Public Works is using this
as a golden opportunity and they are on board with this. Mike said he appreciates what the Spokane River Forum and the
State Parks Department does for the City. If the river truly is the asset we believe it is, we need to focus on this
opportunity. The City Council has chosen to make street preservation a priority. How important is the river to the Council
for economic development? Hopefully the Council will entertain the recommendations from the River Groups.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Page 13
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of July 25, 2012; 3:30 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
August 7, 2012, Study Session Format —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. Proposed Resolution: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Goals and Policies — Lori Barlow (20 minutes)
3. Motion Consideration: Award of Animal Control Contract — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes)
4. Admin Report: 2013 Budget- Estimated Revenues & Expenditures - Mark Calhoun (20 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 65 minutes]
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. Zoning Use Matrix — Christina Janssen (20 minutes)
4. Revisions to Comp Plan Amendment Process — Scott Kuhta (30 minutes)
5. Multi- Family Zone Requirements Review — Scott Kuhta (20 minutes
6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 120 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 Zoning Use Matrix— Christina Janssen (15 minutes)
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. STA Presentation: Future Transit Planning & SV Corridor Potential Projects — Susan Meyer (15 minutes)
3. Sprague Appleway Corridor Environmental Assessment — Public Works (30 minutes)
4. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 80 minutes]
September 11, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tues, Sept 41
Proclamation: National Fall Prevention Day (Sept 21)
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Use Matrix — Christina Janssen (15 minutes)
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: 100 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2012 4:26:56 PM Page 1 of 3
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 Mon, 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 Mon Oct 11
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)
[ *estimated meeting: 80 minutes]
October 16, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
October 23. 2012. Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 D.M.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance Proposed Property Tax — Mark Calhoun
3. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2013 Budget — Mark Calhoun
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
5. Info Only: Department Reports
October 30, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
November 6, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
November 13, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
November 20, 2012 — No Meeting. Thanksgiving Week
November 27, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
3. Info Only: Department Reports
[due Mon, Oct 81
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Oct 151
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 35 minutes]
[due Mon, Oct 221
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Oct 291
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 51
[due Mon, Nov 191
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2012 4:26:56 PM Page 2 of 3
December 4, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Nov 261
1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
December 11, 2012, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 31
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments to Planning Commission, et al (15 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
4. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: minutes]
December 18, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 10]
December 25, 2012. No meeting. Christmas week
January 1, 2013. No meeting. New Year's Dav
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
Contracts, Annual Renewals, histories, etc.
Future Acquisition Areas
Greenacres Trail Grant
Interstate Signage
Investment Accounts
Lodging Tax Funding
Manufactured Homes
Nuisance, SVMC 7.05, Amendment
Nuisance Compliance Amendments SVMC 17.100
Pedestrian/Bicycle Grant Program
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
Prosecution Services
Revenue Policy, Cost Recovery
Snow Plows, Discussion of
Speed Limits (overall system)
Stormwater Projects
Truck Traffic; Truck Parking in Residential Areas
*time for public or council comments not included
Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2012 4:26:56 PM Page 3 of 3
Spiikane
jUalley
Memorandum
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org
To: City Council Members; Mike Jackson, City Manager
From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Date: July 26, 2012
Re: West Entry Sign and Landscape Improvements Project Update
Our gateway project as referenced above is currently out to bid. We will open bids on
Monday, August 6th at 10:00 a.m. in the City Council chambers. Landscape Architect
Mike Terrell has prepared the construction plans and specifications as previously
discussed with the City Council.
After the bids are received, staff will review all bids and develop a construction contract
for signature by City Manager Mike Jackson. The Contractor will have 60 calendar days
to complete the project. As you are all aware, this project consists of an entry sign
made from metal and masonry, installation of electrical and water services, concrete
and paver work along with landscaping and irrigation.
If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Thank
you.
1
S pokan�`
jvalley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhattCspokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To Mike Jackson, City Manager
From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Date: July 24, 2012
Re Finance Department Activity Report — June 2012
2012 Audit of 2011 Financial Records and Annual Financial Repo
The 2011 books were closed in the latter part of March 2012 and the annual financial report was
completed in early July 2012. The State Auditor's arrived on -site July 17 and we anticipate an
audit composed of approximately 800 man hours will be complete near the middle of
September.
2013 Bud et Development
Process
At the June 12, 2012,
Council retreat a preliminary 2013 Budget Worksheet was presented by
staff. Work continues on budget development and six future dates for the Council to review the
2013 Budget include:
August 14
Admin report on 2013 revenues and expenditures
August 28
Public hearing #1 on 2013 revenues and expenditures
September 11
City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2013 Budget
September 25
Public hearing #2 on 2013 Budget
October 9
Public hearing #3 on 2013 Budget
October 9
First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2013 Budget
October 23
Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2013 Budget
2013 Property Tax Levy
A significant part of the budget development process is levying property taxes which in 2013 are
expected to account for approximately 31% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council
discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings:
August 28 Review of ordinances levying 2013 property taxes and confirming tax levy
September 25 First reading of ordinances levying 2013 property taxes and confirming
tax levy.
October 9 Second reading of ordinances levying 2013 property taxes and confirming
tax levy.
Outside Agency Funding in the 2013 Budget
The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social
services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2013 Budget currently has
$150,000 collectively available for this. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows:
September 4 Economic development agency presentations to Council
September 11 Social service agency presentations to Council
11SV- FS21Userslmcalhoun\Finance Activity Reports1201212012 06.docx Page 1
September 25 Council makes final determination of awards
Staaffin-a
During the month of May we received the termination notice of an Accounting Technician whose
last day of work was May 31. We hope to have the position filled by early August.
in early June we had another staff person depart on maternity leave. She should return to work
near the end of August.
Bond Refinancina
Minimal work has been accomplished on this to date as we've been focused on the 2013
Budget development. With the Budget Retreat behind us we hope to begin preparing the
necessary information in order to advance this process.
Budget to Actual Comparison Report (pages 5 —17)
A report reflecting 2012 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which
a 2012 Budget was adopted and subsequently amended is located on pages 5 through 17.
Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner this report is prepared from
records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to
bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I
believe the report is materially accurate.
You will note that the format of the report is identical to pages 20 through 32 of the 2012 Budget
document. We've included the following information in the report:
• Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and
by type in all other funds.
• A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General
Fund, Street O &M Fund and Stormwater Fund.
• The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund
balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2011 Annual Financial Report.
• Columns of information include:
o The 2012 Budget as adopted and subsequently amended on February 28, 2012.
o June 2012 activity.
o Cumulative 2012 activity through June 2012.
o Budget remaining in terms of dollars.
o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed.
A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5):
Recurring revenues collections are currently at 45.4% of the amount budgeted with 50.0% of the
year elapsed. This is typical and reflective of the nature of the timing of when revenues are
collected.
• Property tax collections have reached $5.76 million or 53.3% of the amount budgeted. This
is because property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April
30 and October 31. These monies are then remitted to the City in May and November.
• Sales tax collections are currently just $6,119,592 or 43.1% of the amount budgeted. This is
because taxes collected in June are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part
of July.
• Gambling taxes are at $167,850 or 26.2% of the amount budgeted, This is because they
are paid quarterly with second quarter payments due by July 31. We anticipate second
quarter receipts will bring us close to 50% of the budgeted figure.
I1SV- FS21Userslmcalhoun\Finance Activity Reports1201212012 06.docx Page 2
• Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are received in the month following a
calendar year quarter. Through May we have received first quarter payments of $319,492
or 25.2% of the amount budgeted.
• State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items
such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal
justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a
calendar quarter. Through June we've received remittances totaling $946,767 or 51.6% of
the amount budgeted.
• Service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as
false alarm fees and right of way permits, Revenues are currently $775,649 or 59.7% of the
amount budgeted.
• Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County
with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine. Through June
2012 we've received remittances for the period January through May with receipts of just
$547,747 or 28.8% of the amount budgeted.
• Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and
recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in- season), and CenterPlace.
Currently, revenues total $321,691 or 56.4% of the amount budgeted.
Recurring expenditures are currently at 44.2% of the amount budgeted with 50.0% of the year
elapsed. Departments experience seasonal fluctuations in activity so they don't necessarily
expend their budget in twelve equal monthly installments. At this point the Council budget is
51.04% expended and this can be explained by the January 2012 payment of annual dues to
AWC and the NLC for a total cost of $67,655.
Investments (page 18)
Investments at June 30 total $51,612,528 and are composed of $46,580,896 in the Washington
State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,031,632 in bank CDs.
Total Safes Tax Receipts (page 19)
• Total sales tax receipts are $6,911,397 including general, criminal justice and public
safety taxes. This figure is $175,610 (2.61 %) greater than for the same 5 -month period
in 2011. Including the latter half of 2011 sales taxes have shown an impressive increase
but an increase of just 1.31 % in the March 2012 State remittance is a reminder that the
economic recovery is still tenuous.
• When comparing 2011 and 2012 receipts for the months of May and June you'll note a
reduction of $11,709 or .81 %, and 20,066 or 1.49 %, respectively. The decreases are
expected and are due to a 2011 Department of Revenue tax amnesty program that was
in place for the three -month period ending April 30, 2011, in which nearly 8,900 business
(state -wide) paid $320.7 million in state and local back taxes. Of the total, $56.8 million
was local tax that was forwarded to counties and cities beginning with the May 2011
sales tax distribution and concluding with the July 2011 distribution. Unfortunately the
Department of Revenue was unable to provide information on how much this actually
generated for the cities or from which businesses. Consequently we have no way of
determining how much the City of Spokane Valley benefited from the program.
• What we do know is that May 2011 sales tax remittances were 7.58% greater than the
May 2010 remittance, and the June 2011 remittance was 7.58% greater than June 2010.
With a combined May and June 2012 remittance that are collectively just 1.14% less
than an artificially inflated May and June 2011 remittance, one could make the argument
that the current economy continues to improve.
11SV- FS21Userslmca1houn\Finance Activity Reports1201212012 06.docx Page 3
Economic Indicators (pages 20 — 22)
The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax
revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy.
1. Sales taxes (page 20) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are
spending on the purchase of goods.
2. Hotel 1 Motel taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our
area by tourists or business travelers.
3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of real estate sales.
Page 20 provides a monthly history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or
criminal justice) beginning with the first remittance received in May 2003.
• Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have increased by $181,208 or 3.05 %.
• Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at $17.4 million and dropped off dramatically in the subsequent
three years.
Page 21 provides a monthly history of hotel /motel tax receipts beginning with the first remittance
in May 2003.
• Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have increased by $16,618 or 11.73 %.
• Collections peaked in 2007 and 2008, dropped off in 2009 (although significantly less than
the drop in sales taxes) and are currently again near the highs of 2008.
Page 22 provides a monthly history of real estate excise tax receipts beginning with the first
remittance in March 2003.
• Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have decreased by $34,622 or 8.66 %.
• Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and
2009, and appear to have leveled off in 2010 and 2011.
Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 23)
This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General
Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds
the City currently has outstanding.
• The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed
value and the 2011 assessed value for 2012 property taxes is $7,087,523,395. Following
the City's December 1, 2011 bond payment, the City currently has $7,930,000 of nonvoted
G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.46% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.49%
of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds.
• The $7,930,000 of bonds the City currently has outstanding is part of the 2003 nonvoted
(LTGO) bond issue. Of this amount;
• $6,260,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds
are repaid with a portion of the 1110 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane
Public Facilities District.
• $1,670,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around
CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected
by the City.
11SV- FS21UserslmcafhounlFinance Activity Reports1201 21201 2 06.docx Page 4
P:IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Repo rts1201 21201 2 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
#001 - GENERAL FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Criminal Justice Tax
Public safety Sales Tax
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax
Franchise Fees /Business Registration
State Shared Revenues
Service Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Recreation Program Fees
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest
Transfer -in #101 (street admin)
Transfer -in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising)
Transfer -In - #402 (storm admin)
Total Recurring Revenues
Expenditures
City Council
City Manager
Legal
Public Safety
Deputy City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Public Works
Community Development - Administration
Community Development - Engineering
Community Development - Planning
Community Development - Building
Parks & Rec - Administration
Parks & Rec - Maintenance
Parks & Rec - Recreation
Parks & Rec - Aquatics
Parks & Rec - Senior Center
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace
General Government
Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium)
Total Recurring Expenditures
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.0%
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget
10,808,900
884,355
5,757,726
(5,051,174)
53.27%
14,210,000
1,174,962
6,119,592
(8,090,408)
43.07%
1,200,000
96,281
505,395
(694,605)
42.12%
790,000
54,024
286,410
(503,590)
36,25%
640,000
1,072
167,850
(472,150)
26.23%
1,266,000
6,660
319,492
(946,508)
25.24%
1,834,300
497,797
946,767
(887,533)
51.61%
1,300,000
212,294
775,649
(524,351)
59.67%
1,900,000
101,858
547,747
(1,352,253)
28.83%
570,000
56,371
321,691
(248,309)
56.44%
305,000
17,978
77,521
(227,479)
25.42%
39,600
3,300
19,800
(19,800)
50.00%
30,000
0
0
(30,000)
0.00%
15,000
1,250
7,500
(7,500)
50.00%
34,908,800
3,108,202
15,853,140
(19,055,660)
45.41%
386,249
22,784
197,139
189,110
51.04%
631,667
58,232
292,252
339,415
46.27%
434,798
32,406
213,067
221,731
49.00%
22,000,000
3,112,788
10,139,339
11,860,661
46.09%
658,884
33,484
222,733
436,151
33.80%
1,047,107
70,902
457,018
590,089
43.65%
230,231
17,852
107,085
123,146
46.51%
901,519
55,936
333,426
568,093
36.98%
323,743
22,071
150,001
173,742
46.33%
680,796
49,727
321,832
358,964
47.27%
994,245
61,498
406,337
587,908
40.87%
1,260,454
93,373
648,582
611,872
51.46%
263,128
18,529
122,311
140,817
46.48a/a
803,700
60,226
305,143
498,557
37.97%
229,811
23,519
79,335
150,476
34.52%
442,250
2,123
11,965
430,285
2.71%
92,961
10,027
43,103
49,858
46X%
1,119,357
87,918
511,798
607,559
45.72%
1,840,500
80,740
583,675
1,256,825
31.71%
319,000
26,583
159,500
159,500
50.00%
34,660,400
3,940,717
15,305,641
19,354,759
44.16%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures
248,400
(832,515)
547,499
299,099
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
nla
0
0
0
0
#DIV /01
Total Nonrecurring Revenues
0
0
0
0
#DIV /01
Expenditures
Contingency/ Emergency (1 % of recur exp)
346,600
0
0
346,600
0.00%
Transfers out - #303
89,500
0
0
89,500
0.00%
Transfers out - #309 (park grant match)
100,000
8,333
50,000
50,000
50.00%
Transfers out - #311 (100% > $26million)
0
0
0
0
#DIV /0!
Building permit software purchase
0
0
0
0
#DIV /01
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures
536,100
8,333
50,000
486,100
9.33%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures
(536,100)
(8,333)
(50,000)
486,100
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures
(287,700)
(840,848)
497,499
785,199
Beginning fund balance
28,045,203
28,045,203
Ending fund balance
27,757,503
28,542,702
Page 5
P:1FinanceTor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.0%
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grants
0
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
Utility Taxes
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
0
0
0
0
#DIV /O!
#101 -STREET FUND
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
RECURRING ACTIVITY
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Revenues
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax
1,897,800
144,670
737,328
(1,160,472)
38.85%
Investment Interest
5,000
378
1,525
(3,475)
30.50%
Insurance Premiums & Recoveries
0
0
9,360
9,360
#DIVI01
Utility Tax
3,000,000
227,469
1,146,040
(1,853,960)
38.20%
Miscellaneous Revenue
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
Total Recurring Revenues
4,902,800
372,518
1,894,253
(3,008,547)
38.64%
Expenditures
1,961,271
1,604,609
Wages 1 Benefits I Payroll Taxes
522,142
39,052
295,416
226,726
56.58%
Supplies
72,200
61,119
390,591
(318,391)
540.99%
Services & Charges
3,310,321
595,023
1,920,539
1,389,782
58.02%
Intergovernmental Payments
847,000
52,390
248,277
598,723
29.31%
Interfund Transfers -out - #001
39,600
3,300
19,800
19,800
50.00%
Interfund Transfers -out - #103 (MVF7)
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
Interfund Transfers- out - #501 (plow replace.)
100,000
8,333
50,000
50,000
50.00%
Interfund Transfers
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
Streets Misc. projects
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total Recurring Expenditures
4,891,263
759,217
2,924,624
1,966,639
59.79%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures
11,537
(386,699)
(1,030,371)
(1,041,908)
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grants
0
0
143,388
143,388
#DIVIO!
Utility Taxes
0
0
0
0
#DIV101
Interfund Transfers in - #001
0
0
0
0
#DIV /O!
Interfund Transfers in - #122
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfers in - #302
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfers in - #402
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Miscellanecus
0
0
1,473
1,473
#DIVIO!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues
0
0
144,861
144,861
#DIV /O!
Expenditures
Bridge /Street Maintenance
0
0
1,402
(1,402)
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfers -out - #303 (Evergreen Rd)
500,000
0
(11,205)
511,205
-2.24%
Grant financed capital
0
2,299
9,418
(9,418)
#DIVIO!
Capital Outlay
40,000
0
0
40,000
0.00%
Snow Plow purchase (budgeted in 2010 delivered it
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures
540,000
2,299
(385)
540,385
-0.07%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures
(540,000)
(2,299)
145,246
685,246
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures
(528,463)
(388,998)
(885,125)
(356,662)
Beginning fund balance
2,489,734
2,489,734
Ending fund balance
1,961,271
1,604,609
Page 6
PAFinancelFor City CounclllCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
430,000
37,478
158,255
Budget Year
36.80%
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
700
51
Elapsed =
50.0%
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
Total revenues
430,700
37,529
158,442
(272,258)
36.79%
Expenditures
2012
Interfund Transfers - #001
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
0.00%
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
Total expenditures
430,700
20,586
138,997
291,703
#103 - PATHS & TRAILS
Revenues over (under) expenditures
0
16,943
19,445
(563,962)
Revenues
Beginning fund balance
257,932
257,932
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax
8,000
0
0
(8,000)
0.00%
Interfund Transfer -in #101 (MVFT)
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Investment Interest
0
5
21
21
#DIVIO!
Total revenues
8,000
5
21
(7,979)
0.26%
Expenditures
IF Transfer for Tra!lslPaths Cap Prj
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Miscellaneous
0
0
0
0
#DIV /O!
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total expenditures
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Revenues over (under) expenditures
8,000
5
21
(7,979)
Beginning fund balance
56,084
56,084
Ending fund balance
64,084
56,105
#105 - HOTEL I MOTEL TAX FUND
Revenues
Hotel]MotelTax
430,000
37,478
158,255
(271,745)
36.80%
Investment Interest
700
51
187
(513)
26.71%
Total revenues
430,700
37,529
158,442
(272,258)
36.79%
Expenditures
Interfund Transfers - #001
30,000
0
0
30,000
0.00%
Tourism Promotion
400,700
20,586
138,997
261,703
34.69%
Total expenditures
430,700
20,586
138,997
291,703
32.27%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
0
16,943
19,445
(563,962)
Beginning fund balance
257,932
257,932
Ending fund balance
257,932
277,377
Page 7
P:1Finance\For City CounclKouncil Monthly ReportM201 212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
Budget Year
Elapsed = 5a.0%
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget
SPECIAL- REVENUE FUNDS - continued
#120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest 700 42 181 (519) 25.89%
Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO!
Total revenues 700 42 181 (519) 25.89%
Expenditures
Operations
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
#121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND
0 0 0 0 #DIV10!
0 0 0 0 #DIV10!
700 42 181 (519)
350,787 350,787
351,487 350,968
Revenues
Investment Interest 10,000
Interfund Transfer 0
Total revenues 10,000
Expenditures
Operations
0
Total expenditures
0
Revenues over (under) expenditures
10,000
Beginning fund balance
5,432,428
Ending fund balance
5,442,428
#122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer
Subtotal revenues
Expenditures
647 2,816 (7,184) 28.16%
0 0 0 #DIV101
647 2.816 (7.184) 28.16%
0 0 0 #DIV101
0 0 0 #DIVI01
647 2,816 (7,184)
5,432,428
5,435,244
700 63 273 (427) 39.01%
0 0 0 0 #DIV10!
700 63 273 (427) 39.01%
Reserve for Winter Weather
0
Total expenditures
0
Revenues over (under) expenditures
700
Beginning fund balance
502,005
Ending fund balance
502,705
#123 - CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer - #001
Total revenues
Expenditures
Capital Outlay
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
0 0 0 #DIV10!
0 0 0 #DIV10!
63 273 (427)
502,005
502,278
2,000 149 649 (1,351) 32.46%
397,000 33,083 198,500 (198,500) 50.00%
399,000 33,233 199,149 (199,851) 49.91%
0 0 0 0 #DIVIO!
0 0 0 0 #DIVIO!
399,000 33,233 199,149 (199,851)
2,004,848 2,004,848
2,403,848 2,203,997
Page 8
P:IFinance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget Year
Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
0
115,060
Elapsed
50.0%
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
0
22,209
163,094 11.99%
Total expenditures
617,623
0
137,269
480,354 22.23%
2012
0
37,651
51,542
(909,165)
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
#204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND
Revenues
Spokane Public Facilities District
432,320
0
151,160
(281,160)
34.96%
Interfund Transfer -in - #301
92,652
18,826
18,826
(73,826)
20.32%
Interfund Transfer -in - #302
92,651
18,826
18,826
(73,825)
20.32%
Total revenues
617,623
37,651
188,811
(428,812)
30.57%
Expenditures
Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace
432,320
0
115,060
317,260 26.61%
Debt Service Payments - Roads
185,303
0
22,209
163,094 11.99%
Total expenditures
617,623
0
137,269
480,354 22.23%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
0
37,651
51,542
(909,165)
Beginning fund balance
0
0
Ending fund balance
0
51,542
Page 9
PAFinance\For City CounclKouncil Monthly Repo rts1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
#301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 1 - Taxes
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer -in - #303
Total revenues
Expenditures
Interfund Transfer -out - #204
Interfund Transfer -out - #303
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
#302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Budget Year
Eia sed = 50.0%
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Bud et June June 30 Remaining Budget
475,000
59,265
189,545
(285,455)
39.90%
400
82
355
(45)
88.75%
0
0
0
0
#DIV /01
475,400
59,347
189,900
(285,500)
39.95%
92,652 18,826 18,828 73,826 20.32%
363,627 0 147,127 216,500 40.46%
456,279 18,826 165,952 290,327 36.37%
19,121 40,522 23,948 (575,826)
772,072
791,193
772,072
796,020
REET 2 - Taxes
475,000
52,362
182,642
(292,358)
38.45%
Investment Interest
2,000
125
545
(1,455)
27.24%
Interfund Transfer -in - #307
0
0
4,393
4,393
#DIVIO!
Total revenues
477,000
52,487
187,580
(289,420)
39.32%
Expenditures
Interfund Transfer -out - #101
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfer -out - #204
92,651
18,826
18,826
73,825
20.32%
Interfund Transfer -out - #303
1,448,059
0
49,938
1,398,121
3.45%
Interfund Transfer -out - #307
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfer -out - #308
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total expenditures
1,540,710
18,826
68,764
1,471,946
4.46%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
(1,063,710)
33,662
118,816
(1,761,366)
Beginning fund balance
1,630,303
1,630,303
Ending fund balance
566,593
1,749,119
Page 10
P:1FinancelFor City Council%Council Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Developer Contribution
Miscellaneous
Interfund Transfer -in - 4001
Interfund Transfer -in -9101
Interfund Transfer -in -#301
Interfund Transfer -in -#302
Interfund Transfer -!n - #311
Interfund Transfer -in - #401
Interfund Transfer -in
Total revenues
Expenditures
005 Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd. to Pines
060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06 -31
061 Pines (SR27) ITS Imporvement SRTC 06 -26
063 Broadway Ave Safety Project - Pines
065 Sprague /Sullivan
069 Park Road Reconstruction #2
112 Indiana Avenue Extension
113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection
115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing- Evergreen to Sullivan
123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker
141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC
142 Broadway @ ArgonnelMullan
145 Spokane Valley- Millwood Trail
146 24th Ave Sidewalk - Adams to Sullivan
148 Greenacres Trail - Design
149 Sidewalk Infill
151 Green haven STEP
154 Sidewalk & Tansit Stop Accessibility
155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement
156 Mansfield Ave. Connection
157 Temporary Sullivan Bridge Repairs
159 University Rd / 1 -90 Overpass Study
160 Evergreen Rd Pres. 16th -32nd
Contingency
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.0%
463,312
99
2012
453,534
2.11%
802,792
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
7,828,118
213,080
403,433
(7,424,686)
5.15%
275,000
0
0
(275,000)
0.00%
0
0
1,500
1,500
#DIVIO!
89,000
0
23,429
(65,571)
26.32%
0
0
(11,205)
(11,205)
#DIVIO!
363,627
0
147,127
(216,500)
40.46%
1,448,059
0
49,938
(1,398,121)
3.45%
811,000
0
220,449
(590,551)
27.18%
0
0
0
0
#DIVI01
0
0
0
0
#DIV 101
10,814,804
213,080
834,670
(9,980,134)
7.72%
463,312
99
9,778
453,534
2.11%
802,792
11,291
97,949
704,843
12.20%
1,766,201
3,373
56,716
1,709,485
3.21%
0
0
1,747
(1,747)
#DIV 10!
0
0
(7,240)
7,240
#DIV /O!
0
0
139
(139)
#DIV10!
0
772
10,733
(10,733)
#DIV 101
0
763
2,039
(2,039)
#DIV10!
1,582,000
276,670
471,051
1,110,949
29.78%
300,000
0
109
299,891
0.04%
26,289
0
6,735
19,554
25.62%
138,150
0
965
137,185
0.70%
447,000
0
3,686
443,314
0.82%
278,520
3,062
19,624
258,896
7.05%
60,000
0
2,816
57,185
4.69%
398,250
12,653
70,653
327,597
17.74%
0
162
1,160
(1,160)
#DIV101
182,290
1,545
12,906
1169,384
7.08%
600,000
174,903
321,086
278,914
53.51%
738,000
686
2,227
735,773
0.30%
200,000
0
192,008
7,992
96.00%
284,000
751
751
283,249
0.26%
959,000
7,529
76,139
882,861
7.94%
1,500,000
0
0
1,500,000
0.00%
10,725,804
494,258
1,353,778
9,372,026
12.62%
89,000 (281,178) (519,108) (19,352,160)
73,646 73,646
162,646 (445,462)
Page 11
P:1Finance\For City CouncRCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued
#304 - MIRABEAU PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment Interest
Total revenues
Expenditures
Capital Outlays
Transfers
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
#307 - CAPITAL GRANTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Miscellaneous
Interfund Transfer -in - #302
Interfund Transfer -in
Total revenues
Expenditures
069 Broadway -190 to Park Road (Trans to #302)
088 Broadway - Moore to Flora
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.00/0
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget
0 0 0 0 #DIV101
0 3 14 14 #DIV101
0 3 14 14 #DIV /O!
0 0 0 0 #DIVIO!
0 0 0 0 #DIVIOi
0 0 0 0 #DIVIDE
0 3 14 14
44,347 44,347
44,347 44,361
0
0
182,332
182,332
#DIV /O!
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
0
0
182,332
182,332
#DIVIO!
0
0 4,393
(4,393) #DIVIO!
0
0 4,469
(4,469) #DIVIO!
0
0 8,862
(8,862) #DIVI01
0
0 173,470
191,194
147
147
147
173,617
Page 12
P:1FinanceTor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201 21201 2 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#308 - BARKER BRIDGE FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Developer Contribution
Interfund Transfer -in - #302
Total revenues
Expenditures
Bridge Reconstruction
Total expenditures
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.00/0
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaininq Budget
0
0
0
0
#DIV /01
0
0
0
0
#DIV /O!
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
8,391
50,282
(49,718)
50.28%
#DIV10!
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 0 0
Ending fund balance 0 0
9309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
0
0
0
0
#DIV 10!
Interfund Transfer -in - #001
100,000
8,333
50,000
(50,000)
50.00%
Investment Interest
0
58
282
282
#DIVI01
Total revenues
100,000
8,391
50,282
(49,718)
50.28%
Expenditures
Terrace View Park Shelter
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Terrace View Park Play Equipment
120,000
1,268
1,268
118,733
1.06%
Contingency
50,000
0
0
50,000
0.00%
Greenacres Park
0
0
167
(167)
#DIV10!
Valley Mission Park
0
0
0
0
#DIV101
Discovery (Universal) Park
0
0
0
0
#DIV/O!
Total expenditures
170,000
1,268
1,434
168,566
0.84%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
(70,000)
7,124
48,848
(218,284)
Beginning fund balance
411,151
411,151
Ending fund balance
341,151
459,999
Page 13
P:IFinance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.0%
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 #DIV101
Investment Interest 6,000 482 2,115 (3,885) 35.26%
Total revenues 6,000 482 2,115 (3,885) 35.26%
Expenditures
Interfund Transfers -out - #001
0
Capital - West Gateway at Thierman
120,000
Balfour Park Purchase
0
West Gateway at Thierman
0
Facilities
0
Total expenditures
120,000
Revenues over (under) expenditures
(114,000)
Beginning fund balance
3,856,624
Ending fund balance
3,742,624
0
0
0
#DIV10!
0
0
120,000
0.00%
623
14,130
(14,130)
#DIVIO!
0
1,811
(1,811)
#DIV101
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
623
15,941
104,059
13.28%
(140)
(13,826)
(107,943)
0
(2,200)
3,856,624
Total revenues
2,200
0
3,842,798
(1,950)
11.36%
#311 -STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+
0
#DIVIO!
Facilities
0
0
Revenues
0
13,438
Interfund Transfers -out - #303 - Sullivan
200,000
0
Miscellaneous
0
0
250
250
#DIV101
Interfund Transfers in - #001 (xx % >326mm)
0
0
0
0
#DIV /O!
Investment Interest
2,200
0
0
(2,200)
0.00%
Total revenues
2,200
0
250
(1,950)
11.36%
Expenditures
0
#DIVIO!
Facilities
0
0
2012 Street Preservation
0
13,438
Interfund Transfers -out - #303 - Sullivan
200,000
0
Interfund Transfers-out - #303- Evergreen
111,000
78.72%
Total expenditures
311,000
13,438
Revenues over (under) expenditures
(308,800)
(13,438)
Beginning fund balance
1,084,681
Ending fund balance
775,881
Page 14
0
0
#DIVIO!
24,382
(24,382)
#DIV101
192,008
7,992
96.00%
28,441
82,559
25.62%
244,831
66,169
78.72%
(244,581) (68,119)
1,084,681
840,100
P:1FinanceTor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
#402 - STORMWATER FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Stormwater Management Fees
Investment Interest
Miscellaneous
Total Recurring Revenues
Expenditures
Wages 1 Benefits I Payroll Taxes
Supplies
Services & Charges
Intergovernmental Payments
Interfund Transfers -out - #001
Interfund Transfers -out - #502
Total Recurring Expenditures
Budget Year
Elapsed = 50.0 %c
2012
Actual Actual thru Budget % of
Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget
1,750,000 208,374 994,613 (755,387) 56.84%
5,000 185 805 (4,195) 16.09%
0 0 57 57 #DIV10!
1,755,000 208,558 995,474 759,526 56.72%
438,614
26,179
183,195
255,419
41.77%
32,540
3,777
7,316
25,224
22.48%
1,244,287
134,447
358,365
885,922
28.80%
23,000
0
11,926
11,074
51.85%
15,000
1,250
7,500
7,500
50.00%
0
131
783
(783)
#DIV101
1,753,441
165,782
569,085
1,184,356
32.46%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures
1,559
42,776
426,388
424,829
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
153,657
0
3,428
(150,239)
2.23 %
Interfund Transfers -in - #101 (shop facility)
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues
153,667
0
3,428
(150,239)
2.23%
Expenditures
Interfund Transfers -out
0
0
0
0
#DIVI01
Contracted maintenance
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Div. 055 NPDES -Phase II program dev.
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Capital - various projects
400,000
0
18,781
381,219
4.70%
Shop Facility
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Interfund Transfers -out - #101
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures
400,000
0
18,781
381,219
4.70%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures
(246,333)
0
(15,354)
230,979
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures
(244,774)
42,776
411,035
655,809
Beginning working capital
2,382,660
2,382,660
Ending working capital
2,137,886
2,793,695
Page 15
P:IFinanceTor City CouncihCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
(Budget Year
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
Elapsed =
50.0%
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
2012
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued
#403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA
Revenues
Spokane County
500,000
273,341
273,341
(226,659)
54.67%
Investment Interest
2,500
0
0
(2,500)
0.00%
Total revenues
502,500
273,341
273,341
229,159
54.40%
Expenditures
Facilities
630,000
8,965
14,325
615,675
2.27%
Total expenditures
630,000
8,965
14,325
615,675
2.27%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
(127,500)
264,376
259,016
(844,834)
Beginning working capital
417,326
417,326
Ending working capital
289,826
676,342
Page 16
P:1Finance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
0
0
Budget Year
0
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
Software /Hardware replacement
0
Elapsed =
50.0%
For the Six -Month Period Ended June 30, 2012
#DIVIO!
Vehicle Replacement
0
0
0
0
2012
Capital Outlay
0
0
Actual
Actual thru
Budget
% of
Budget
June
June 30
Remaining
Budget
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
100,000
10,017
60,109
(39,891)
#501 - ER &R FUND
Beginning working capital
932,335
26,584
932,335
Revenues
Ending working capital
1,032,335
Interfund Transfer -in - #001 0
1,612
9,672
9,672
#DIV10!
Interfund Transfer -in - #101 (plow replace.) 100,000
8,333
50,000
(50,000)
50.00%
Investment Interest 0
72
437
437
#DIVIO!
Total revenues 100,000
10,017
60,109
39,891
60.11%
Expenditures
Computer replacement lease
0
0
0
0
#DIV101
Software /Hardware replacement
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Vehicle Replacement
0
0
0
0
#DIVIO!
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
#DIV101
Total expenditures
0
0
0
0
#DIV10!
Revenues over (under) expenditures
100,000
10,017
60,109
(39,891)
80.00%
Beginning working capital
932,335
26,584
932,335
(223,312)
Ending working capital
1,032,335
992,444
#502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
0
1
3
3
#DIV /O!
Interfund Transfer - #001
319,000
26,583
159,500
(159,500)
50.00%
Total revenues
319,000
26,584
159,503
(159,497)
50.00%
Expenditures
Services & Charges
319,000
0
255,185
63,815
80.00%
Total expenditures
319,000
0
255,185
63,815
80.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures
0
26,584
(95,682)
(223,312)
Beginning working capital
30,590
30,590
Ending working capital
30,590
(65,092)
Page 17
P:1Finance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Investment Report
For the Month of June 2012
7/18/2012
Beginning
$ 44,554,182.93 $
3,023,651.45 $
Total
LGIP*
BB CD 2
BB CD 3
Investments
Beginning
$ 44,554,182.93 $
3,023,651.45 $
2,000,000.00 $
49,577,834.38
Deposits
2,020,300.76
0.00
0.00
2,020,300.76
Withdrawls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Interest
6,412.23
7,980.46
0,00
14,392,69
Ending
$ 46,580,895.92 $
3,031,631.91 $
2,000,000.00 $
51,612,527.83
121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve
matures:
612812013
1 91412092
10,000.00
122 Winter Weather Reserve
rate:
0.65 %
0.35
700,00
Earnings
Balance Current Period Year to date Budget
001 General Fund
$ 32,573,089.66 $
12,050.55 $
34,781.93 $
145,000.00
101 Street Fund
3,027,978.10
378.45
1,525.20
5,000.00
103 Trails & Paths
37,870.90
4.73
20.60
0.00
105 Hotel /Motel
404,194.74
50.52
186.96
700.00
120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve
333,139.62
41.64
181.21
700.00
121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve
5,176,455.19
646.97
2,815.51
10,000.00
122 Winter Weather Reserve
502,108.35
62.76
273.10
700,00
123 Civic Facilities Replacement
1,193,580.42
149.18
649.21
2,000.00
301 Capital Projects
657,96724
82.24
354.99
400.00
302 Special Capital Projects
1,001,708.38
125.20
544.84
2,000.00
303 Street Capital Projects Fund
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
304 Mirabeau Point Project
26,441.04
3.30
14.38
0.00
307 Capital Grants Fund
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
309 Parks Capital Project
463,342.27
57.91
282.12
0.00
310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects
3,857,123.34
482.08
2,115.40
6,000.00
311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,200.00
402 Stormwater Management
1,479,250.99
184.88
804.58
5,000.00
403 Aquifer Protection Fund
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,500.00
501 Equipment Rental & Replacement
873,191.17
71.64
437.46
0,00
502 Risk Management
5,086.42
0.64
2.77
0.00
$ 51,612,527.83 $
14,392.69 $
44,990.26 $
182,200.00
*Local Government Investment Pool
Page 18
P:1FinancelFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 06 30 report
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1 7118/2012
Sales Tax Receipts
For the Month of June 2012
Month
Valley is 8.7 %. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the
vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to
Difference
The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to
Received
2011
2012
$
%
February
1,658,132.70
1,792,084.16
133,951.46
8.08%
March
1,130, 948.29
1,145,747.45
14,799.16
1.31%
April
1,149,418.90
1,208,053.80
58,634.90
5.10%
May
1,451,954.28
1,440,245.01
(11,709.27)
(0.81 %)
June
1,345,333.29
1,325,266.87
(20,066.42)
(1.49 %)
6,735,787.46
6,911,397.29
175,609.83
2.61%
July
1,415,961.55
0.00
August
1,520,766.09
0.00
September
1,448,728.86
0.00
October
1,464,653.60
0.00
November
1,463,313.06
0.00
December
1,381,684.76
0.00
January
1,410,552.03
0.00
16, 841,447.41
6, 911, 397.29
Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice
sales tax and public safety tax.
The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane
Valley is 8.7 %. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the
vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to
the various agencies that have imposed the tax.
The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to
the agencies is as follows:
- State of Washington
6.50%
- City of Spokane Valley
0.85%
- Spokane County
0.15%
- Spokane Public Facilities District
0.10%
- Crminial Justice
0.10%
- Public Safety
0.10% *
2.20% local tax
- Juvenile Jail
0,10% *
- Mental Health
0.10% *
- Law Enforcement Communications 0.10%
- Spokane Transit Authority 0.60%
8.70%
* Indicates voter approved sales taxes
In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of
the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is
computed as follows:
Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the
State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder
allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County.
Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the
State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder
allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County.
Page 19
11SV- FS21Userslmcalhoun\Tax RevenuelSales Tax1201212012 sales tax collections
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
747,486
1,123,171
1,212,663
1,362,737
1,428,868
1,386,908
1,151,772
1,123,907
1,248,218
6/25/2012
Sales Tax Collections - May
821,741
1,301,359
1,377,753
1,555,124
1,579,586
1,519,846
1,309,401
1,260,873
1,332,834
0
August
For the years 2003 through 2012
1,162,356
1,395,952
1,405,983
1,516,324
1,377,943
1,212,531
1,211,450
1,279,500
0
September
1,390,452
1,160,787
1,372,D81
1,487,155
1,546,705
1,364,963
1,227,813
1,191,558
1,294,403
0
October
2012 to 2011
1,274,680
1,520,176
1,526,910
1,601,038
1,344,217
1,236,493
1,269,505
1,291,217
0
November
Difference
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
$
%
January 0
1,145,888
1,367,929
1,572,609
1,759,531
1,729,680
1,484,350
1,491,059
1,460,548
1,589,887
129,339
8.86%
February 0
962,431
917,747
1,068,743
1,155,947
1,129,765
1,098,575
963,749
990,157
1,009,389
19,232
1.94%
March 0
909,472
1,015,573
1,072,330
1,196,575
1,219,611
1,068,811
1,018,468
1,015,762
1,067,733
51,971
5.12%
April 0
1,080,745
1,322,070
1,371,030
1,479,603
1,423,459
1,134,552
1,184,137
1,284,180
1,277,621
(6,559)
(0.51 %)
May 519,943
1,263,176
1,159,647
1,392,111
1,353,013
1,243,259
1,098,054
1,102,523
1,187,737
1,174,962
(12,775)
(1.08 %)
Collected to date 519,943
5,361,712
5,782,966
6,476,823
6,944,669
6,745,774
5,884,342
5,759,936
5,938,384
6,119,592
181,208
106%
June
747,486
1,123,171
1,212,663
1,362,737
1,428,868
1,386,908
1,151,772
1,123,907
1,248,218
0
July
821,741
1,301,359
1,377,753
1,555,124
1,579,586
1,519,846
1,309,401
1,260,873
1,332,834
0
August
1,306,427
1,162,356
1,395,952
1,405,983
1,516,324
1,377,943
1,212,531
1,211,450
1,279,500
0
September
1,390,452
1,160,787
1,372,D81
1,487,155
1,546,705
1,364,963
1,227,813
1,191,558
1,294,403
0
October
1,172,591
1,274,680
1,520,176
1,526,910
1,601,038
1,344,217
1,236,493
1,269,505
1,291,217
0
November
963,163
1,091,721
1,095,566
1,369,940
1,443,843
1,292,327
1,155,647
1,139,058
1,217,933
0
December
973,505
1,085,827
1,286,191
1,366,281
1,376,434
1,129,050
1,070,245
1,141,012
1,247,920
0
Total Collections
7,895,308
13,561,613
15,043,348
16,550,953
17,437,467
16,161,028
14,248,244
14,097,299
14,850,409
6,119,592
Budget Estimate
9,100,000
11,000,000
12,280,000
16,002,000
17,466,800
17,115,800
17,860,000
14,410,000
14,210,000
14,210,000
Actual over (under) budg
(1,204,692)
2,561,613
2,763,348
548,953
(29,333)
(954,772)
(3,611,756)
(312,701)
640,409
(8,090,408)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 86.76% 123.29% 122.50% 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% nla
% change in annual
total collected nla 71.77% 10.93% 10.02% 5.36% (7.32 %) (11.84 %) (1.06 ° /v) 5.349/. nla
% of budget collected
through May 5.71% 48.74% 47.09% 40.48% 39.76% 39.41% 32.95% 39.97% 41.79% 43.07%
% of actual total collected
through May 6.59% 39.54% 38.44% 39.13% 39.83% 41.74% 41.30% 40.86% 39.99% nla
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May
Page 20
8,000,000
7,000,000
---
6,000,000
5,000,000
May
■April
4,000,000
March
3,000,000
t February
u January
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Page 20
RSV- FS21UserslmcalhounlTax RevenuelLodging Tax12 0 1 211 0 5 hotel motel tax
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
o�Q
(770)
(3.47 %)
(1,243)
(5.46 %)
1,043
4.24%
13,900
Hotel /Motel Tax Receipts through -
May '
10.91%
■January
20,000.00
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual for the years 2003 through 2012
1`d
2003
2004
2005
2006
1 2007
1 2008
1 2009
2010
2011
2012
January
0.00
16,99158
20,691.03
20,653.49
25,137.92
28,946.96
23,280.21
22,706.96
22,212.21
21,442.32
February
0.00
18,169.04
19,976.81
20,946.09
25,310.66
24,623.06
23,283.95
23,416.94
22,792.14
21,548.82
March
0.00
18,182.01
22,828.15
24,308.48
29,190.35
27,509.99
25,272.02
24,232.35
24,611.28
25,654.64
April
0.00
26,897.82
29,748.41
34,371.82
37,950.53
40,406.02
36,253.63
39,463.49
38,230.49
52,130.37
May
11,527.32
16,440.37
29,017.66
32,522.06
31,371.01
36,828.53
32,588.80
34,683.32
33,790.69
37,478.44
Collected to dale
11,527.32
96,674.82
122,262.06
132,801.94
148,960.47
158,314.56
140,678.61
144,503.06
141,636.81
158,254.59
June
32,512.11
53,284.01
35,330.35
34,256.71
36,267.07
46,659.88
40,414.59
39,935.36
41,403.41
0.00
July
38,580.48
42,120.26
43,841.82
49,744.62
56,281.99
50,421.37
43,950.26
47,385.18
49,311.97
0.00
August
54,974.74
43,649.84
46,852.10
45,916.16
51,120.70
50,818.35
50,146.56
54,922.99
57,451.68
0.00
September
30,718.23
39,390.66
46,746.18
50,126.53
57,260.34
60,711.89
50,817.62
59,418.96
58,908.16
0.00
October
36,960.11
33,004.62
34,966.85
38,67417
43,969.74
38,290.46
36,784.36
41,272.35
39,028.08
0.00
November
23,044.56
32,176.61
26,08936
36,417.11
36,340.64
35,582.59
34,054.79
34,329.78
37,339.36
0.00
December
28,825.30
23,142.70
31,740.18
29,147.15
31,377.41
26,290.11
27,131.43
26,776.84
32,523.19
0.00
Total Collections
257,142.85
363,443.52
387,828.90
417,084.39
461,578.36
467,089.21
423,978.22
448,544.52
457,602.66
158,254.59
Budget Estimate
419,000.00
380,000.00
436,827.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
512,000.00
380,000.00
480,000.00
430,000.00
Actual over (under) budg
(161,857.15)
(16,556.48)
(48,998.10)
67,084.39
61,578.36
67,089.21
(88,021_78)
68,544.52
(22,397.34)
(271,745.41)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 61.37% 95.64% 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82-81% 118.04% 95.33% n/a
% change in annual
total collected n/a 41.34% 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23 %) 5.79 % 2.02% n/a
% of budget collected
through May 2.75% 25.44% 27.99% 37.94% 37.24% 39.58% 27.48% 38.03% 29.51% 36.80 %
% of actual total collected
through May 4.48% 26.60% 31.52% 31.84% 32.27% 33.89% 33.18% 32.22% 30.95% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May
6!29!2012
2012 to 2011
Difference
16,618 11.73%
Page 21
o�Q
(770)
(3.47 %)
(1,243)
(5.46 %)
1,043
4.24%
13,900
36.36%
3,688
10.91%
16,618 11.73%
Page 21
180,000.00
160,000.00
140,000.00
120,000.00
M May
100,000.00
80,000.00
■ April
, March
■ February
60,000.00
40,000.00
■January
20,000.00
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
16,618 11.73%
Page 21
11SV- FS21UserslmcalhounlTax RevenuelREET\20121301 and 302 REET
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Difference
800,000.00
(17,346)
(27.23 %)
19,672
53.98%
(23,656)
(24.80 %)
6,676
1st and 2nd 114% REET Collections through
May
(16.01 %)
(34,622)
400,000.00
Wanuary
•
Actual for the years 2003 through 2012
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
January
0.00
119,387.05
147,819.56
232,894.16
228,896.76
145,963.47
55,281.25
59,887.08
63,704.64
46,358.75
February
0.00
83,795.78
128,082.35
172,154.72
129,919.79
159,503.34
45,180.53
64,121.61
36,443.36
56,114.86
March
0.00
195,121.93
198,013.09
182,065.71
263,834.60
132,429.60
73,306.86
86,204.41
95,385.38
71,729.67
April
112,721.05
144,167.21
192,012.44
173,796.61
211,787.08
128,366.69
81,155.83
99,507.19
79,681.38
86,357.14
May
136,982.04
155,089.15
240,765.59
306,871.66
222,677.17
158,506.43
77,463.58
109,190.51
124,691.60
104,724.02
249,703.09
697,561.12
906,693.03
1,067,782.86
1,057,115.40
724,769.53
332,388.05
418,910.80
399,906.36
365,284.44
June
159,923.98
177,702.06
284,268.67
226,526.64
257,477.05
154,771.48
105,020.98
105,680.28
81,579.34
0.00
July
156,636.66
197,046.43
209,350.53
2,104.30
323,945.47
217,942.98
122,530.36
80,790.14
79,629.06
0.00
August
198,506.47
171,521.07
258,631.50
451,700.06
208,039.87
132,909.28
115,829.68
72,630.27
129,472.44
0.00
September
190,932.75
176,002.43
214,738.94
188,066.23
153,037.21
131,240.36
93,862.17
75,812.10
68,019.83
0.00
October
155,243.97
199,685.81
244,590.31
211,091.20
206,442.92
355,655.60
113,960.52
82,733.97
61,396.23
0,00
November
115,054.43
151,219.02
190,964.73
139,979.09
191,805.53
147,875.00
132,881.49
72,021.24
73,176.83
0.00
December
111,788.66
173,502.55
159,381.40
161,285.23
179,567.77
96,086.00
71,365.60
60,871.34
65,077.29
0.00
Total distributed by Spokane County
1,337,790.01
1,944,240.49
2,468,619.11
2,448,535.61
2,577,431.22
1,971,250.23
1,087,838.85
969,450.14
958,257.38
365,284.44
Budget estimate
1,127,112.00
1,680,000.00
4,006,361.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
760,000.00
800,000.00
950,000.00
Actual over (under) budget
210,678.01
264,240.49
(1,537,741.891
448,535.61
577,431.22
28,749.77
912,161.15
209,450.14
158,257.38
584,715.56
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget
118.69%
115.73%
61.62%
122.43%
128.87%
98.56%
54.39%
127.56%
119.78%
nla
% change in annual
total collected
n/a
45.33%
26.97%
(0.81 %)
5.26%
(23.52 %)
_44.81 %)
(10.88 %)
(1.15%)
nla
% of budget collected
through May
22.15%
41.52%
22.63%
53.39%
52.86%
3624%
16.62%
55.12%
49.99%
38.45%
% of actual total collected
through May
18.67%
35.88%
36.73%
43.61%
41.01%
36.77%
30.55%
43.21%
41.73%
n1a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections
through the Month of
may
611 312 01 2
2012 to 2011
Difference
800,000.00
(17,346)
(27.23 %)
19,672
53.98%
(23,656)
(24.80 %)
6,676
8.38%
(19,968)
(16.01 %)
(34,622)
400,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
800,000.00
May
a April
600,000.00
'March
s February
400,000.00
Wanuary
•
200,000.00
0.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Page 22
\\SV- FS2\Users\mcalhoun\Bonds\ debt capacity
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Debt Capacity
2011 Assessed Value for 2012 Prop
312 212 0 1 2
Page 23
2003 LTGO Bonds
Maximum
Outstanding
Remaining
12/1/2005
Period
Debt
as of
Debt
%
Ending
CenterPlace
Capacity
12/31/2011
Capacity
Utilized
Voted (UTGO)
1.00% of assessed value
70,875,234
0
70,875,234
0.00%
Nonvoted (LTGO)
1.50% of assessed value
106,312,851
7,930,000
98,382,851
7.46%
Voted park
2.50% of assessed value
177,188,085
0
177,188,085
0.00%
Voted utility
2,50% of assessed value
177,188,085
0
177,188,085
0.00%
740,000
760,000
531.564.255
7.930.000
523.634.255
1.49%
Page 23
2003 LTGO Bonds
60,000
85,0 0
Road &
12/1/2005
Period
90,00.0
Street
12/1/2006
Ending
CenterPlace
Improvemen s
Total
Page 23
12/1/2004
60,000
85,0 0
145,000
12/1/2005
75,000
90,00.0
165,000
12/1/2006
85,000
90,00
175,000
Bonds
12/1/2007
90,000
95,00
185,000
Repaid
12/1/2008
95,000
95,00
190,000
12/1/2009
105,000
100,00
205,000
12/1/2010
110,000
100,000
210,000
12/1/2011
120,000
105,000
225,000
740,000
760,000
1,500,000
12/1/2012
130,000
110,000
240,000
12/1/2013
140,000
115,000
255,000
12/1/2014
150,000
120,000
270,000
12/1/2015
160,000
125,000
285,000
12/1/2016
170,000
130,000
300,000
12/1/2017
180,000
135,000
315,000
12/1/2018
220,000
140,000
360,000
12/1/2019
250,000
145,000
395,000
12/1/2020
290,000
150,000
440,000
12/1/2021
325,000
160,000
485,000
Bonds
12/1/2022
360,000
165,000
525,000
Remaining
12/1/2023
405,000
175,000
580,000
12/1/2024
450,000
0
450,000
12/1/2025
490,000
0
490,000
12/1/2026
535,000
0
535,000
12/1/2027
430,000
0
430,000
12/1/2028
340,000
0
340,000
12/1/2029
295,000
0
295,000
12/1/2030
280,000
0
280,000
12/1/2031
240,000
0
240,000
12/1/2032
190,000
0
190,000
12/1/2033
230,000
0
230,000
6,260,000
1,670,000
7,930,000
7,000,000
2,430,000
9,430,000
Page 23
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 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: Sprague Avenue Swale Upgrade (UIC Elimination) Project, Park Rd to 1 -90
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173 -200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251 -1376;
Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Aquifer Protection Area Fund: RCW 36.36.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 12 -002, approved budget expenditure from
Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area for the Sprague Swale Upgrade Project - February 28, 2012.
BACKGROUND: In November 2011 Stormwater Utility staff applied for a grant from the
Department of Ecology to eliminate existing problem drywells and improve a section of Sprague
Ave between Park Rd and the I -90 interchange with landscaped stormwater bio- infiltration swales.
The project cost estimate was $888,829 with design scheduled for 2012 and construction in 2013.
In February 2012 Council approved $630,000 in Aquifer Protection Funds for the project through
Ordinance 12 -002. In March 2012 staff contracted with a survey consultant to begin the
topographic survey of Sprague Ave. In April 2012 staff received notice that Ecology would provide
the requested grant funds. By May 2012 HDR Engineering, Inc. is under contract to do design work
for the project. Preliminary design drawings and sketches were presented at a Public Open House
on June 13, 2012. It was discussed that the project limits will be restricted between Park Road and
Thierman Road due to budget constraints and construction feasibility. On July 16, 2012 HDR
submitted 90% drawings to begin Ecology and staff review. On July 23, 2012, staff received review
comments and general plan approval from Ecology. Out of 22 properties within the project area,
staff has finalized temporary construction access documents with 13, is in final negotiations with 6,
and has not received any response from 3.
The current project schedule is as follows:
• August 3, 2012 Advertise for bids
• August 17, 2012 Bid opening
• August 21, 2012 Present bids to Council
August 22, 2012 Award project
September 10, 2012 Notice to proceed
October 15, 2012 Probable pavement cutoff date
The original grant application construction cost estimate for this project was $768,717. The latest
construction cost estimate provided by HDR, Inc. is $666,508, with an additional $194,387 for the
grind and overlay portion putting the total estimated construction cost at $860,895. This estimate is
expected to slightly increase with final submittals. It is staff's intent to incorporate the grind and
overlay work with the other Sprague swale project work, and have it completed before November
2012. However, it is possible that unforeseen delays may force delaying the paving work until
spring of 2013.
OPTIONS: Information only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This project is being paid
of Ecology and city matching funds from Fund 403 (Aquifer
Grant funds will be negotiated based on final project co:
$666,622, which is 75% of the total estimated $888,829 cost.
for with a grant from the Department
Projection Area (APA) fee revenues).
;t but are currently estimated to be
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley— Senior Engineer Capital Projects
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 31, 2012 Department Director Approval
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending /Potential Litigation
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [(RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session
for approximately forty -five minutes to discuss [pending /potential litigation, and that no action
will be taken upon return to open session."
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: