Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2013, 07-23 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,July 23,2013 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef,Valley United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 07/03/2013 5590-5605 $1,164.00 07/03/2013 29579-29599 $41,923.18 07/03/2013 29600-29627 $113,276.59 07/08/2013 29629 $404.96 07/10/2013 4375,4399-4402; 4419; 29630-29634 $276,264.84 07/12/2013 29635-29671 $142,477.99 07/12/2013 29672-29734; 705130017 $1,657,588.74 07/15/2013 5606-5615 $892.00 GRAND TOTAL $2,233,992.30 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15,2013: $303,929.95 c.Approval of June 18,2013 Council Workshop Meeting Minutes d.Approval of July 2,2013 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format e.Approval of July 9,2013 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Meeting Format f.Approval of July 16,2013 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format Council Agenda 07-23-13 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-010, Sign Code Revisions—John Hohman [public comment] 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-011,Zayo Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Geology of Mirabeau Point Park—Mike Stone,Andy Buddington 5. Lighting Code Revisions—Mary Palaniuk 6. Council Goals for 2014—Mike Jackson 7. WUTC Grade Crossing Protective Fund,Railroad Safety Improvement Grants—Eric Guth 8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): 9. Department Reports 10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes,June 27,2013 11. Justice Assistance Grant CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 12.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation; and Potential Acquisition of Real Estate [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)];and RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] ADJOURNMENT General Meetinji Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2°°—d and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting)are generally held the 0 3�d and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments;but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items.NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 07-23-13 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 07/03/2013 5590-5605 $1,164.00 07/03/2013 29579-29599 $41,923.18 07/03/2013 29600-29627 $113,276.59 07/08/2013 29629 $404.96 07/10/2013 4375, 4399-4402; 4419;29630-29634 $276,264.84 07/12/2013 29635-29671 $142,477.99 07/12/2013 29672-29734; 705130017 $1,657,588.74 07/15/2013 5606-5615 $892.00 GRAND TOTAL $2,233,992.30 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund Other Funds 001.011.000.511 City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013,000.513, City Manager 103 —Paths &Trails 001,013,015.515. Legal 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001,018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001,018.014.514. Finance 122---Winter Weather Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 123 —Civic Facilities Replacement 001,032.000, Public Works 204—Debt Service 001.058.050.558. Comm.Develop.-Administration 301 —Capital Projects (1st Va%REET) 001,058.055,558. Comm.Develop,—Develop.Eng, 302—Special Capital Proj (2"d'/%REET) 001,058.056.558. Community Develop.-Planning 303--Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.-Building 304—Mirabeau Point Project 001.076,000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 307—Capital Grants 001.076.300.576. Parks &Rec-Maintenance 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076,301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.304.575. Parks &Rec- Senior Center 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 402---Stormwater Management 001.090.000.511. General Gov't-Council related 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 501 ---Equipment Rental&Replacement 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 502—Risk Management 001.090.000,518. General Gov't-Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001.090.000.540, General Gov't-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director; ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 07/03/2013 3:21:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor 5590 7/3/2013 003410 BOTZON,LAURIE 5591 7/3/2013 003402 BREBNER,GRETCHEN 5592 7/3/2013 003408 DRAGOMIR, DENIS 5593 7/3/2013 001467 DUFFEY,JODY 5594 7/3/2013 003409 GRAND LODGE OF WA LADIES 5595 7/3/2013 003405 MANNING, DONNA 5596 7/3/2013 003413 NORTHWEST GYMNASTICS 5597 7/3/2013 003414 OWENS, PAT 5598 7/3/2013 003412 POHLE, ED 5599 7/3/2013 003415 REYES, MIRNA 5600 7/3/2013 003407 RIGHT SYSTEMS 5601 7/3/2013 003403 SCHEER, KAREN 5602 7/3/2013 003406 SHRIGLEY, RALPH Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 OVERPAYMENT FOR GREAT ROOK Total Amount DAMAGE DEPOSIT: ROOM 109 Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT:DISCOVERY PI Total DAMAGE DEPOSIT: GREAT ROOM Total : DAMAGE DEPSOSIT: MIRABEAU M Total : DAMAGE REFUND: FIRESIDE LOU! Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT: MIRABEAU ME Total : DAMAGE DEPSOSIT:MISSION PAR Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT: GREAT ROOM Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT: MISSION PARK Total : REFUND FOR SUMMPER CAMP-R: Total : PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:TERRACE VIE\ Total : 52.00 52.00 5200 52.00 210.00 210.00 5200 52.00 20.00 20.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 52.00 52.00 115.00 115.00 37.00 37.00 52.00 52.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: GREENACRES 52.00 Page: 1 vchlist 0710312013 3:21:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : Voucher 5602 5603 5604 5605 pk-ref Date Vendor Invoice 7/3/2013 003406 003406 SHRIGLEY, RALPH 7/3/2013 001166 SPOKANE ISLAMIC CENTER 7/3/2013 003404 STEVENS, ED 7/3/2013 003411 WOO, BRENDA 16 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref 16 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date (Continued) PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: MIRABEAU ME Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:VALLEY MISSI( Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:BROWNS PARI Total : Bank total: Total vouchers: Amount 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 1,164.00 1,164.00 Page: 2 vchlist 07/03/2013 12:00:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29579 7/3/2013 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY 29580 7/3/2013 000030 AVISTA 29581 7/3/2013 001606 BANNER BANK 29582 7/3/2013 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 29583 7/3/2013 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 29584 7/3/2013 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 29585 7/3/2013 002389 DIRECTPOS SVC1080920 May 2013 0618 0797 1423 2223 4064 8861 9440147 9442163 9444150 S0055374 S0055982 S0056009 S0056057 S0056098 June 2013 June 2013 May 2013 May 2013 3820:137247 17526 17581 17582 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 402.402.000.531 001.058.055.558 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305,575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.032.000.543 101.042.000.542 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 001.076.302.576 001.076.302.576 Description/Account SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA Total : MAY 2013:0618 MAY 2013:0797 MAY 2013: 1423 MAY 2013:7723 MAY 2013:4064 MAY 2013:8861 LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND Total : SUPPLY AT C SUPPLY AT C SUPPLY AT C SUPPLYAT C SUPPLY AT C SUPPLY AT C SUPPLY AT C SUPPLY AT C Total : PETTY CASH: 9138,39,41,42 PETTY CASH:9143,9145 PE I I Y CASH:9127,28,29 PETTY CASH:9126 Total : COFFEE SERVICE AT CENTERPLA1 Total : SERVICE AT PARK ROAD POOL SERVICE AT PARK ROAD POOL SERVICE AT PARK ROAD POOL Amount 622.67 622.67 24,790.67 24,790.67 65.00 558.49 1,413.19 1,110.65 2,003.88 757.12 5,908.33 39.06 297.89 321.01 20.00 59.82 81.88 237.34 116.25 1,173.25 82.61 6.17 2.75 1.00 92.53 90.93 90.93 896.78 927.43 228.27 Page: 1 vchlist 07/03/2013 12:00:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29585 7/3/2013 002389 002389 DIRECTPOS 29586 7/3/2013 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 June 2013 29587 7/3/2013 002308 FINKE,MELISSA June 2013 June 2013 (Continued) 29588 7/3/2013 003136 GIBSON,CARLY Expenses 29589 7/3/2013 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 609772 29590 7/3/2013 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT June 2013 29591 7/3/2013 001054 MOBIUS SCIENCE CENTER AND, KIDS C 10064078 29592 7/3/2013 001130 MPLC 29593 7/3/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 29594 7/3/2013 001860 PLATT 29595 7/3/2013 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 29596 7/3/2013 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 29597 7/3/2013 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 503844055 1583431601 5065276 31395 5343777 June 2013 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.018.014.514 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 Description/Account WATER CHARGES: PW INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTS INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA4 Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 61 Total : LICENSE FOR MOTION PICTURE Total OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR OPS/ADMII Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : BANNERS FOR REC PROGRAMS Total : IRRIGATION AND BACKFLOW TES- Total : Amount 2,052.48 1,103.25 1,103.25 510.90 152.10 663.00 18.65 18.65 63.21 63.21 174.25 174.25 255.00 255.00 546.78 546.78 60.42 60.42 25.39 25.39 95.66 95.66 170.01 170.01 WATER CHARGES: PW 315.94 Total : 315.94 Page: 2 vchlist 07/0312013 12:00:59PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 29598 7/3/2013 000167 VERA WATER&POWER 2013 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:MAY 2013 2,672.18 Total : 2,672.18 29599 7/3/2013 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 1846891-2681-3 001.076.305.575 WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE 744.58 1846892-2681-1 001.016.000.521 WASTE MANAGEMENT: PRECINCT 284.00 Total : 1,028.58 21 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 41,923.18 21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 41,923.18 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 3 vchlist 07/03/2013 2:16:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29600 7/3/2013 003341 ANDERSON ENVIRONMENTAL,CONSUL 341 29601 7/3/2013 000538 BACON CONCRETE INC 29602 7/3/2013 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC 29603 7/3/2013 002615 BULLOCK,SUSAN 29604 7/3/2013 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 29605 7/3/2013 001861 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 29606 29607 29608 29609 29610 7/3/2013 7/3/2013 7/3/2013 7/3/2013 7/3/2013 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 003416 DIERDORFF, KRISTIN 000422 DISHMAN DODGE INC 001926 FARR, SARAH 002989 FRANK GURNEY 29611 7/3/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC PAY APP#2 M12435-3 EXPENSE 233682 C1P 0155 RE-313-ATB30611123 AQUATICS REFUND DOCS297524 EXPENSE 282699 40032 40033 40037 Fund/Dept 303.303.155.595 303.223.40.00 303.303.149.595 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 303.303.155.595 303.303.061.595 001.076.302.347 001.090.000.518 001.018.014.514 311.000.174.595 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 Description/Account 0155-SULLIVAN RD BRIDGE REP. Total : RETAINAGE RELEASE FOR CIP 001 Total : 0149-CN MATERIALS TESTING Total : EXPENSE REMIBURSEMENT Total : 2013 TIP SERVICES Total : JARPA PROCESSING FEE SULLIVA Total : PINES RD(SR 27) ITS IMPROVEME Total: AQUATICS REFUND FOR SWIM TE Total: 1-101 INGNITION REPLACEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : TEMPORARY BARRIER ON SULLIV Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Amount 4,991.97 4,991.97 845.00 845.00 1,023.58 1,023.58 11.55 11.55 5,315.00 5,315.00 25.00 25.00 494.05 494.05 45.00 45.00 397.65 397.65 53.11 53.11 4,540.00 4,540.00 46.40 57.60 37.40 Page: 1 vchlist 07/03/2013 2:16:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29611 7/3/2013 001447 29612 29613 29614 29615 29616 29617 29618 29619 29620 29621 29622 29623 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 7/3/2013 003085 GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING,STAND, 01475210 7/3/2013 002682 HAFNER, CHARLES 7/3/2013 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 7/3/2013 003185 LAMB, ERIK 7/3/2013 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY 7/3/2013 000235 SECURE SHRED 7/3/2013 003133 SHAMROCK MANUFACTURING INC 7/3/2013 003079 SVR DESIGN CENTER 7/3/2013 002185 URS CORPORATION 7/3/2013 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN, LLP 7/3/2013 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 7/3/2013 000618 WA DEPT OF FISH&WILDLIFE EXPENSE 0081545 0082120 EXPENSE EXPENSE 91717 1531 010776 5572725 104731 104732 29455176 Fund/Dept 001.018.014.514 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 303.000.176.595 001.058.158.558 001.013.015.515 001.058.158.558 001.090.000.518 GIP 0155 303.303.155.595 Description/Account Total : ACCOUNT 538990 GASB SUBSCRII Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPD TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : DOCUMENT DESCTRUCTION Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 0176 APPLEWAY TRAIL-CE& LS A Total : SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : HELP DESK TECH TEMP Total : JARPA PROCESSING SULLIVAN RC Amount 141.40 225.00 225.00 203.44 203.44 13,875.33 25,365.89 39,241.22 19.85 19.85 283.84 283.84 165.30 165.30 370.57 370.57 25,850.00 25,850.00 5,545.44 5,545.44 15,405.30 5,672.00 21,077.30 465.12 465.12 150.00 Page: 2 vch l ist 07/03/2013 2:16:03PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 29623 7/3/2013 000618 000618 WA DEPT OF FISH&WILDLIFE (Continued) Total : 150,00 29624 7/3/2013 000140 WALTS MAILING SERVICE 36964 303.000.176.595 APPLEWAY TRAIL PC(DROP#2) 1,344.85 Total : 1,344.85 29625 7/3/2013 000255 WFOA 2013 MEMERSHIP 001.018.014.514 WFOA MEMBERSHIP 2013-C.TAY!. 50.00 Total : 50.00 29626 7/3/2013 002960 WICK, BEN EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 223.95 Total : 223.95 29627 7/3/2013 002651 WOODARD,ARNE EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 177.40 Total: 177.40 28 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 113,276.59 28 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 113,276.59 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 3 vchlist 07/08/2013 2:27:54PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29629 7/8/2013 002185 URS CORPORATION 1 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 1 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5582640 001.058.'158.558 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 404.96 Total : 404.96 Bank total : 404.96 Total vouchers : 404.96 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/10/2013 2:17:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4375 7/5/2013 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben50070 001.231.15.00 PERS:Payment 58,064.84 Total: 58,064.84 4399 7/5/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben50072 001.231.14.00 401A:Payment 28,218.30 Total: 28,218.30 4400 7/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben50074 402.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 32,252.16 Total: 32,252.16 4401 7/5/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL./ Ben50076 303.231,18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payr 6,684.44 Total 6,684.44 4402 7/5/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL Ben50078 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,083.90 Total: 1,083.90 4419 7/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben50084 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 949.40 Total: 949.40 29630 7/5/2013 000120 AWC Ben50062 402.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS:Payment 109,297.27 Ben50080 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS(COUNCIL):Payment 8,540.69 Total: 117,837.96 29631 7/5/2013 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben50064 403.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE:Payment 1,306.33 Total: 1,306.33 29632 7/5/2013 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES Ben50060 001.231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:Payment 26,613.68 Ben50082 001.231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:Payment 229.32 Total: 26,843.00 29633 7/5/2013 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben50066 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES:Payment 2,220.10 Total: 2,220.10 29634 7/5/2013 002574 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK Ben50068 001.231.20.00 BERG20110-02-03952-4:Payment 804.41 Total: 804.41 11 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 276,264.84 Page: 1 whilst 07/12/2013 3:09:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 29635 7/12/2013 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY 29636 7/12/2013 003078 ALLWEST TESTING&ENGINEERING Invoice RCB1112334 70037 29637 7/12/2013 001081 ALSCO LSPO1328987 LS PO 1335022 29638 7/12/2013 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 29639 7/12/2013 003300 CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL 29640 7/12/2013 000572 CARTER, CAROL 29641 7/12/2013 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 29642 7/12/2013 000278 DRISKELL,CARY 29643 7/12/2013 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 29644 7/12/2013 000010 FEDEX OFFICE 29645 7/12/2013 002882 HOFFMAN MUSIC COMPANY 9446186 9448186 S0058040 June 2013 Expenses June 2013 June 2013 Expenses 31537 289700009676 SO-40296 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.099.576 001.016.000,521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.519 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 101.042,000.542 001.013.015.515 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account SECURITY MONITORING: CENTER Total : ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING Total : FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MATS AT PRECINCT Total : LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : SUPPLIES Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: PARKS UTILTIES: PW Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION:CP Total: COPIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : AN SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : Amount 112.50 112.50 917.70 917.70 20.39 20.39 40.78 446.74 374.03 5.50 826.27 507.14 507.14 52.50 52.50 766.07 376.80 1,142.87 64.68 64.68 35.00 35.00 292.95 292.95 656.44 656.44 Page: 'I vchlist 07/12/2013 3:09:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: Voucher 29646 29647 29648 29649 29650 29651 29652 29653 29654 29655 29656 29657 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 7/12/2013 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES June 2013 7/12/2013 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 94202 7/12/2013 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 July 2013 7/12/2013 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 613978 614390 7/12/2013 001181 KOUDELKA,CARRIE Expenses 7/12/2013 001944 LANCER LTD 0437643 7/12/2013 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO June 2013 June 2013 7/12/2013 003423 NEILS,JOAN Refund 7/12/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1567113728 7/12/2013 003422 PERSON, GRANT Refund 7/12/2013 003399 PHALON ABATEMENT SERVICES INC PAS 1674 7/12/2013 003230 POOL WORLD, INC 594831 Fund/Dept 101.043.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.076.302.576 001.076.302.576 101.042.000.542 001.058.059.345 001.013.000.513 001.058.058.345 001.076.099.576 001.076.099.576 Description/Account SUPPLIES FOR PW UTILITIES:JUNE PW UTILITIES: PW Total: Total : Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAC JUNE 2013 MONTHLY CLEANING C Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : AQUATICS BROCHURE UTILITIES: PARKS UTILITIES: PW Total : Total : REFUND DIFFERENCE IN APP FEE Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR OPS/ADMII Total: REFUND PRE APP FEE-PRE-LU-21 Total: ASBESTOS REMOVAL AT LONG RC Total : ADA LIFT INSTALLATION TERRACE Total : Amount 21.03 21.03 192.74 192.74 1,417.58 1,417.58 231.78 7,136.00 7,367.78 270.99 270.99 366.32 366.32 3,751.31 8,201.20 11,952.51 41.89 41.89 26.86 26.86 250.00 250.00 8,483.98 8,483.98 2,404.11 2,404.11 Page: 2 vchlist 07112/20/3 3:09:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher 29658 29659 29660 29661 29662 29663 29664 29665 29666 29667 29668 29669 Date Vendor 7/12/2013 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 7/12/2013 000415 ROSAUERS 7/12/2013 002305 SAFEGUARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS 7/12/2013 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 7/12/2013 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES 7/12/2013 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Invoice 31514 679775 028955763 5083944 5572838 5614897 July 2013 June 2013 June 2013 7/12/2013 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 50876 50910 7/12/2013 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION CP761 7/12/2013 001056 TRIPLE PLAY June 2013 7/12/2013 000167 VERA WATER&POWER 2013 7/12/2013 000038 7/12/2013 000066 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0057746-1518-0 WCP SOLUTIONS 8076097 Fund/Dept 001.076.300.576 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.016.000.521 001.076.302.576 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.300.576 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount SIGNS FOR PARKS Total : SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER DAY CAN Total : PROMOTIONAL PENS FOR CENTEI Total: CONTRACT MAINT PARKS:JUNE 2 PARK REPAIRS AT GREENACRES F SERVICES AT PRECINCT Total: SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS:JUl Total : WATER CHARGES:PARK ROAD PC WATER CHARGES PW:SPRAGUE, Total : LABOR FOR HVAC AT PRECINT LABOR FOR HVAC SYSTEM AT CE Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAc Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 6/ Total: UTILITIES:MAY-JUNE 2013 PARKS Total : WASTE MGMT:JUNE 2013 Total: SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 69.57 69.57 49.37 49.37 533.38 533.38 57,482.94 278.77 548.83 58,310.54 1,687.43 1,687.43 579.75 280.04 859.79 897.86 192.40 1,090.26 538.09 538.09 1,535.94 1,535.94 479.55 479.55 4,801.45 4,801.45 1,738.77 Page: 3 vchlist 07/12/2013 3:09:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 29669 7/12/2013 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS Invoice (Continued) 8076098 8079840 29670 7/12/2013 001409 WORLD CLASS COMMUNICATIONS 130611173101 29671 7/12/2013 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW July 2013 37 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 37 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 Description/Account SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : ANSWERING SERVICE CENTERPL Total: JULY OPERATING EXPENSES Total : Bank total : Total vouchers: Amount 244.47 22.83 2,006.07 20.00 20.00 33,051.93 33,051.93 142,477.99 142,477.99 Page: vchlist 071/2/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29672 7/12/2013 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 29673 7/12/2013 002988 ACE LANDSCAPING 29674 7/12/2013 001107 ADVANCEDTRAFFIC PRODUCTS 29675 7/12/2013 000197 A1RFACTZ 49980 49981 3148 0000008042 74215 29676 7/12/2013 002931 ALL-WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 96227 29677 7/12/2013 001081 ALSCO 29678 7/12/2013 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 29679 7/12/2013 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 29680 7/12/2013 003090 BIG R STORES 29681 7/12/2013 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 29682 7/12/2013 000101 CDW-G 29683 7/12/2013 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION LSPO1337631 EXPENSE 644461 644527 049759/3 SPO-046282 DC32691 DC39408 I°undlDept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 303.303.170.595 001.018.016.518 101.000.000.542 001.058.057.558 001.032.000.543 001.013.015.515 001.058.050.558 DescriptionlAccount Amount 2013 STREET SWEEPING SERVICE 2013 STORM DRAIN CLEANING SE Total : 2013 LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WA Total : 0170-ARGONNE PEDESTRIAN MC Total : CRIMINAL REPORTS: NEW HIRES Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : MATT SERVICE PERMIT CENTER Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : COPIER COST: LEGAL COPIER COST:CD 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.090.000.518 PHONE MAINTENANCE 001.018.013.513 001.011.000.511 606764915 101.042.000.543 Total : Total : Total : PLANTRONICS WIRELESS HEADS! APPLE LIGHTING/LABELS Total : SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 23,510.17 25,738.58 49,248.75 9,211.41 9,211.41 1,852.25 1,852.25 60.00 60.00 28.32 28.32 46.55 46.55 67.84 67.84 170.03 376.78 546.81 39.10 39.10 145.67 145.67 168.27 83.23 251.50 183.21 Page: 1 vchlist 07/12/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 29683 7/12/2013 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 29684 7/12/2013 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 29685 7/12/2013 001888 COMCAST 29686 7/12/2013 000508 CONOCOPHILL1PS FLEET 29687 7/12/2013 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 29688 7/12/2013 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 29689 7/12/2013 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 29690 7/12/2013 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 29691 7/12/2013 003420 DESTINATION TRAVEL NETWORK 29692 7/12/2013 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 29693 7/12/2013 002213 ED KA MANUFACTURING INC. Invoice (Continued) 606765377 606766390 606766944 606767400 606768440 43833 JULY 2013 33452990 103996 332416 76697020 2ND QTR 2013 37167 0052347 11496 Fund/Dept 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.013.000,513 001.090.000.518 001.018.014.514 101.042.000.542 001.058.055,558 001.090.000.548 001.076.301.586 105.000.000.557 303.303.142.595 101.000,000.542 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 SUPPLIES:PW ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 Total MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET: CITY HAL Total: JUNE 2013:FLEET FUEL BILL Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 2013 SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL Total : LEASE CONTRACT 001-8922117-00 Total : LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : ONLINE ADVERTISEMENT PROGRr Total : ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 140.45 140.45 213.65 140.45 150.51 968.72 73.91 73.91 119.77 119.77 3,043.17 3,043.17 137.16 137.16 780.00 780.00 1,087.48 1,087.48 2,689.48 2,689.48 300.00 300.00 26,874.76 26,874.76 344.96 344.96 Page: 2 vchlist 07/12/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 29694 7/12/2013 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4211995 101.000.000.542 OIL PRODUCTS FOR MAINT SHOP 881.48 Total : 881.48 29695 7/12/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 39964 403.000.173.594 LEGAL PUBLICATION 123.20 40084 402.402.000.531 LEGAL PUBLICATION 118.40 40085 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 116.80 40087 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 40088 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 77.35 40089 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 97.75 Total : 558.50 29696 7/12/2013 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL JUN 13 1042 001.011.000.511 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,116.60 Total : 3,116.60 29697 7/12/2013 003421 GRIFFITH, SONA AQUATIC REFUND 001.076.302.347 SWIM TEAM REFUND FOR BENJAII 45.00 Total : 45.00 29698 7/12/2013 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 600374273 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572D81 DD: 717-816113 550.02 600374397 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572DA494:7119-8118 839.80 600374398 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572DD016:7111-8110112 745.84 Total : 2,135.66 29699 7/12/2013 000161 IIMC 21848 001.013.000.513 ID 21848 ANNUAL CONF:C KOUDE 85.00 8688 001.013.000.513 ID 8688 68TH ANNUAL CONF.:C Bf 185.00 Total : 270.00 29700 7/12/2013 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PAY APP 3 311.000.174.595 0174/0184 CONSTRUCTION CONTF 476,192.94 PAY APP 5 403.000.163.595 CONSTRUCTION-SPRAGUE SWAI 249,989.08 Total : 726,182.02 29701 7/12/2013 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 11226410-0513 403.000.173.594 DECANT FACILITY DESIGN 32,320.98 11226410-0613 403,000.173.594 DECANT FACILITY DESIGN 43,709.52 Total : 76,030.50 29702 7/12/2013 001944 LANCER LTD 0437212 001.058.057.558 BUSINESS CARDS:J NICKERSON 37.61 0437498 001.058.055.558 BUSINESS CARDS: C RIGGS 50.65 0437889 001.090.000.519 ENVELOPES GENERAL USE 207.89 Page: 3 vchlist 07/12/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29702 7/12/2013 001944 001944 LANCER LTD 29703 7/12/2013 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION, INC. 29704 7/12/2013 000258 MICROFLEX INC. (Continued) Fund/Dept PAY APP 1 403.000.173.594 00021352 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.513 AQUATIC REFUND 001.076.302.347 29705 7/12/2013 003305 MMEC ARCHITECTURE&INTERIORS 2013-205 29706 7/12/2013 003417 MULLIGAN,MICHELLE 29707 7/12/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 29708 7/12/2013 000058 OMA 29709 7/12/2013 000881 OXARC 29710 7/12/2013 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 29711 7/12/2013 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 590240668001 646420705001 658386395001 662272232001 662272264001 662272265001 662326300001 662531502001 663095255001 663740073001 A500163 R209661 141866 43892 RETAINAGE 2012 001.076.000.576 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.519 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.519 001.076.305.575 001.013.015.515 001.018.016.518 Description/Account CONSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 Total : Total : TAXTOOLS SOFTWARE RENTAL-J Total : INTERIOR DESIGN: CITY HALL Total : REFUND FOR PARENT/CHILD SWII Total : CREDIT FOR SUPPLIES: PARKS AN CREDIT ON RETURNED ITEMS: P111 SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES:GENERAL SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC SUPPLIES: LEGAL Total : PHYSICAL EXAMS NEW EMPLOYE Total : 101.042.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL 001.090.000.519 PAPER GENERAL USE 101.042.000.542 101.223.40.00 Total : Total : 2013 STREET AND STORMWATER 2012 RETAINAGE RELEASE Amount 296.15 23,697.82 23,697.82 343.83 343.83 403.50 403.50 70.00 70.00 -217.39 -26.84 26.17 10.86 49.98 69.51 86.36 24.30 58.90 124.41 206.26 195.00 195.00 112.94 112.94 193.49 193.49 41,002.61 76,505.00 Page: 4 vchlist 07/12120/3 3:48:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29711 7/12/2013 001089 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. (Continued) 29712 7/12/2013 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 29713 7/12/2013 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS 29714 7/12/2013 003208 RODDA PAINT CO. 29715 7/12/2013 003418 SELLERS MASONRY INC 29716 7/12/2013 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 29717 7/12/2013 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD 29718 7/12/2013 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 29719 7/12/2013 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER 29720 7/12/2013 002679 SPOKANE CO OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SWV#0000330-20 29721 7/12/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51501648 51501669 31530 24383 9406838 CRYWOLF 5347354 JUNE 2013 JUNE 2013 VLY1305 29722 7/12/2013 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 301794 29723 7/12/2013 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. PAY APP 2 PAY APP 8 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.058.055.558 101.042.000.542 001.000.000.342 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 Description/Account VEHICLE MAGNETS SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : Total : Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND: PERMIT V Total : EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTROL Total : DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE: Total : 001.058.056.558 RECORDING FEES 311.000.174.595 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.523 101.042.000.542 MAY COUNTY SERVICES Total : Total : SCSC SEALBELT PARTOLSI IMPAIF Total : MAY 2013 HOUSING INVOICE DETENTION SVCS INVOICE: MAY2 Total : 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 311.000.162.595 303.303.112.595 Total : UNIVERSITY OVERLY CONSTRUCT INDIANA AVE. EXTENSION CN COIN Amount 117,507.61 54.35 54.35 21.20 21.20 482.80 482.80 55.00 55.00 542.71 542.71 715.00 715.00 1,646.00 1,646.00 54,073.53 54,073.53 948.93 948.93 106,447.00 6,028.40 112,47540 226.77 226.77 7,376.37 62,61 2.48 Page: 5 vchlist 07112/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 29723 7/12/2013 000862 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. (Continued) 29724 7/12/2013 001903 SPOKANE TRAFFIC CONTROL SMV13-JUNE1 SMV13-JUNE2 SMV13-JUNE3 29725 29726 29727 29728 7/12/2013 000202 SRCAA 3697 7/12/2013 003135 UNITED RENTALS, (NORTH AMERICA) IN 111680601-001 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.553 101.042.000.542 7/12/2013 003419 VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS,AUE WA03-13-0190-000 001,013.015.515 7/12/2013 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY 105433 611230 29729 7/12/2013 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 29730 7/12/2013 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 29731 7/12/2013 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS 29732 7/12/2013 001792 WHITEHEAD,JOHN 29733 7/12/2013 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC. 29734 7/12/2013 000842 WM WINKLER CO INC 9706742924 9706877317 29512583 0000023719 0000023730 EXPENSE 80505 PAY APP 4 402.402000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 303303.170.595 303.303.170.595 001.018.016.518 402.402.000.531 303.303.149.595 Description/Account Total : TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES Total : LOCAL ASSESSMENT FEE FOR 3R Total : COMPRESSOR RENTAL Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : JUN 2013 VERIZON CELL PHONES JUN 2013 WIRELESS DATA CARDS Total : HELP DESK TECH TEMP Total : 0170-ARGONNE CONTROLLER C/ 0170-ARGONNE CONTROLLER C) Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : WIRELESS PHONE/INTERNET FOR Total : 0149 SIDEWALK INFILL CONSTRUC Amount 69,988.85 6,600.00 257.75 414.75 7,272.50 28,930.00 28,930.00 661.18 661.18 3,356.50 3,356.50 108.70 11.94 120.64 1,090.09 484.01 1,574.10 775.20 775.20 59,962.72 2,616.63 62,579.35 52.50 52.50 84.95 84.95 91,278.00 Page: 6 vchlist 07/12/2013 3:48:04PM Voucher List Page: 7 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 29734 7/12/2013 000842 000842 WM WINKLER CO INC (Continued) Total : 91,278.00 705130017 7/5/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JUNE 2013 001.016.000.554 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 169,50931 Total : 169,509.31 64 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 1,657,588.74 64 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,657,588.74 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 7 vchlist 07/15/2013 2:02:42PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5606 7/15/2013 003430 AWBERY,AMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 LITTLE SPORTS CAMP REFUND 65.00 Total : 65.00 5607 7/15/2013 003427 BALCOM,CHANTAL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRE; 200.00 Total : 200.00 5608 7/15/2013 002494 BROWNING, LAURA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAY CAMP REFUND FOR JENNA Bl 185.00 Total : 185.00 5609 7/15/2013 003116 HORIZON CREDIT UNION PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOP 52.00 Total : 52.00 5610 7/15/2013 003429 MCKANNA, COLLEEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 LITTLE SPORT CAMP CANCELLED 130.00 Total : 130.00 5611 7/15/2013 003425 RIEKEN,AMARA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRA 52.00 Total : 52.00 5612 7/15/2013 003426 STRICKLAND, KRISTINA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: MISSI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5613 7/15/2013 002728 TURNER, GLORIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: MISSI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5614 7/15/2013 003428 USAB,TRICIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5615 7/15/2013 003424 VALLEYPOINT CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: M1SS1 52.00 Total : 52.00 10 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 892.00 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 892.00 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07-23-2013 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending July 15, 2013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 257,998.34 $ - $257,998.34 Benefits: $ 45,931.61 $ - $ 45,931.61 Total payroll $ 303,929.95 $ - $303,929.95 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Payroll STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,Washington June 18,2013 9:30 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir. Rod Higgins, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Arne Woodard,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Ben Wick,Councilmember John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Others in Attendance: Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Mike Hoffman,Valley News Herald Raba Nimri,Accountant Budget Analyst Nina Culver, Spokesman Review Michelle Rasmussen,Administrative Assistant Bill Bates,Planning Commission Chair Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Ron Schmidt,Fire Commissioner Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Ed Pace Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk One or two other citizens Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and welcomed everyone. He explained that this is an informal gathering to examine the draft budget for 2014; said he hopes to take from this meeting a philosophy that is sustainable for the future of our city, and said that is sometimes more important than the budget figures as the philosophy will be the reality in the future. Workshop Overview City Manager Jackson gave a brief summary of the process for today's workshop; said the worksheets in the notebook are draft worksheets as the preliminary budget won't be delivered to Council until September; he brought attention to the Draft Business Plan, which he explained shows a type of "snapshot in time" and said the worksheets help guide the Plan;that once the final budget is adopted, staff goes back to the business plan to make sure it matches; he said this plan is published once a year and after publication, staff begins working on the next publication. Mr. Jackson explained that each Department Director will review their individual budget. Mr. Jackson also noted there are supplemental budget requests under Tab 12,which items are not currently included in the budget but have been requested, and said staff feels those requests have merit. After discussion of the plan, Mr. Jackson said we'll discuss capital projects and he noted that the spreadsheets, similar to the TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan), can be used to track those projects; he said we will also discuss financial objectives at the beginning as well as at the end of the meeting,wants to look at possible Council goals, and if time permits,we will end the meeting with a brainstorming session. Mr. Jackson said that page 9 in the Business Plan contains the program descriptions and shows where we try to consolidate everything in the Plan, and said this will give Council an idea of functions of the various departments, adding that each department section also contains an organizational chart which lists responsibilities, goals and strategies for the year. For example, Mr. Jackson mentioned that the top of page 66 shows that the department is within their maximum allowable increase of 1% for non-wage issues; he said that wages, salaries, PERS benefits, and health care are represented in the wages and salaries, which he explained actually increased more than 1%, but stressed that the non-wages were Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT capped at a 1% increase. Mr. Jackson pointed out the theoretical reduction of 3, 6, and 9% and of the possible ramifications of such reductions. He also went over the Fiscal Policies, Objectives, Commitment and Challenges as noted on pages 6 and 7 of the Business Plan; he said we have to constrain our spending even in the good years and he stressed that the #1 fiscal policy for financial management to "Maintain basic service levels with reduced resources" is actually a powerful statement. He spoke of the other information contained on those two pages, including that we have been and continue to be committed to minimizing personnel costs/overhead since incorporation; that staff considers the potential future costs and sometimes contracting is more of a cost over time, and said later today we will discuss bringing in- house at least one contracted service. Concerning grant opportunities, Mr. Jackson said one of the things we want to discuss is defining grant requirements and whether we want to have grant requirements before moving forward, all while keeping in mind sometimes it could take ten years to complete these projects, but he said they have a way of getting done. Mr. Jackson said we are very proud of the extremely low debt we have incurred and there might be circumstances in the future, especially concerning solid waste where we will examine those issues,particularly when it comes to making a determination on whether we want to own the transfer station; he said we all support the policy of not issuing a debt unless there's a revenue source for dealing with that debt. Concerning fiscal policy #6, prioritizing spending and minimizing mid-year additions of projects and appropriations, he said we have been fairly flexible and had a number of budget amendments; but suggested the focus be on the budget process and strive to look at the coming year within that process and proceed according; he said the likely best way to handle issues is, if possible, to put a project off until the subsequent budget cycle. Councilmember Grafos said he agrees with maintaining service levels, and prioritizing the basic levels of spending, and to make staff and Council aware that other items would be extra and would need justification. Councilmember Hafner agreed but added that flexibility is needed as well in those circumstances where we would need to "strike while the iron is hot." City Manager Jackson said he agreed as we would not want to miss an opportunity for the sake of following protocol; but that the goal is to work as hard as possible to fit those in the following budget process. Mayor Towey agreed with the need to keep focused on the service level and to evaluate projects as they come; Councilmember Higgins and Wick also agreed, with Councilmember Woodard adding that if there is a loss of revenues, adjustments will have to be made; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that he also agrees with prioritizing the need,rather than the want. City Manager Jackson said that we have an extremely sound budget; we have a 50%ending fund balance, and a $5.4 million service stabilization fund if needed; he said we don't have enough money for every project, and again stressed that sometimes it just takes time to get the projects done; adding that when the Finance Committee met, they went over these policies as well. Concerning page 7 of the business plan, Mr. Jackson said there is an established goal of retaining a minimum general fund ending balance of 50% of recurring expenditures; and said we don't want that to drop below that figure; and said you can't have reserves and spend them too. Councilmember Woodard remarked that over the last three years, we only went into the reserves about one-half million; and that we didn't access them in 2011 or 2012, but did in 2010. Mr. Jackson replied that he would have to research those figures. There was discussion about defining what the basic services are and of the priorities should a cut become necessary. Mr. Jackson said that the services we provide are the core level we want to offer our community; and said if we had to reduce any of the services we are providing now,we'd be cutting into the core level;he said if there was a drastic downturn, we'd start to look at some of the support services; that in such a scenario, we would look at the importance of maintaining parks and pools even in an economic downturn; he said we have dwindled this reserve down over the last few years; and that we are providing those core services as efficiently and economically as possible; and said the core services are equal and it would be difficult to cut any of the programs. Mr. Jackson added that we do face challenges; that we are doing a good job of funding street preservation and can sustain the current level to 2016; but we can also look at other opportunities to roll some of that funding forward, so the concept would be to extend the program rather than take away additional funds. REET (real estate excise tax) funds were mentioned and Finance Director Calhoun said they have peaked at about $2.7 million; they declined in 2011 to about $900,000; that we now have $1 million budgeted for 2013, and even though that may sound good,that is still about half of what they were in 2007. Mr. Jackson said we have not heard anything defmitive concerning the Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT State Legislators and our at-risk shared revenues; he said our budget depends on us receiving full allocation of liquor revenues from the State,and if they reduce that,we will be changing our budget. Councilmember Hafner brought up the subject of our law enforcement contract and said we want to make sure we have money available for a safe city; that without a safe city, parks and roads aren't worth anything and families won't move into our community; said we need a plan to provide deputies for the future. City Manager Jackson said this topic will be discussed more later, but said that he has spoken with the Sheriff and with our Chief, and during 2014 we will devote the vast amount of our analyst time at looking at those measures and looking for efficiencies; that the cost per officer is approximately $150,000; our law enforcement and public safety budget is about $24 million and with a property tax of $11 million, that doesn't even cover half of the cost; that one of the things the #4 financial objective on page 7 addresses is that the budget is not taking that permitted 1% increase, but he said we could take it and focus that money on law enforcement, an option to discuss later; that unless things improve dramatically, it will take additional people to provide that revenue as there is not a lot of general fund money available to add officers or programs; that it needs to be a multi-year plan; and he said we are proposing to spend in this budget almost exactly what we project in revenues; and said we will need $300,000 excess this year to add those officers for next year. Budget Worksheet Overview Finance Director Calhoun began by explaining that the formula used in the past few years is used for this budget as well; he said it is set up with recurring and nonrecurring activities; he said 2014 revenue projections are based on revenues from the last five years; said he understands the importance of not being overly optimistic or pessimistic and has tried to be as realistic as possible, and when not certain, said he takes the more conservative number. Mr. Calhoun also noted the figures do not include taking the 1% property tax increase; and said some of our budget process is dependent upon the State's budget process, such as liquor excise tax and profits. Finance Director Calhoun also briefly explained some of the miscellaneous department revenues, investment interest, the fund balance in general, the street fund, mentioned the continual decrease of telephone tax which he said is likely due to people moving from land lines to cell phones; and went over the stormwater fund page, which he said will be explained further by Public Works Director Guth. 1.Legislative City Manager Jackson briefed Council on information concerning the Legislative Department, which is City Council, with the larger sheet showing actual figures for past years as well as hypothetical 3, 6, and 9%reductions; and that the yellow sheet shows the actual breakdown of line items. He explained that the figures under postage reflects about 1,500 letters a year welcoming new businesses into the City, and said that travel is up slightly to cover increases in such things as air travel and hotel accommodations. Councilmember Wick noted the large increase in taxes and benefits and Mr. Calhoun explained that the biggest cost in payroll and benefits would be the health insurance estimate. In response to further questions from Councilmember Wick, Mr. Calhoun said that the City pays 100% of the premium for councilmembers, and in other departments,40% of the cost is covered by employees. Mr. Jackson added that the cost also depends if a Councilmember has a single or a family plan;he said other departments are not including payroll and benefits in the calculations as we know that will increase about 3 to 4%. 2. General Government Finance Director Calhoun gave a synopsis of the General Government budget,which included mention of the many nonrecurring items and mentioned the one-time transfer to the new Capital Reserve fund; he said the recurring expenses are up about 1.73% but the budget overall is down about $7+million dollars; said the general fund covers a lot of ground; he spoke of the $150,000 contingency used to finance professional services with about $85,000 committed so far; mentioned the accounting and auditing figure of$90,000 which he said is the same amount as past years; and then briefly went over the second sheet including intergovernmental services, capital outlays, debt service, and interfund payments for service, which are transfers to such things as risk management or capital projects. Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3.Executive and Legislative Support Mr. Jackson explained that the slight increase in professional services is to account for such things as legal consulting; and said advertising expenses are the legal notices for meetings, hearings, etc. done through the clerk's office;he noted printing and binding decreased as a result of not printing as many hard copy council agenda packets. At 11:00 a.m.,Mayor Towey called for a ten-minute break; the meeting reconvened at 11:10 a.m. 4. City Attorney/Legal Support City Attorney Driskell explained his departmental budget figures; said the outside counsel is the largest expense and they are proposing the same amount as last year; said outside counsel is used for such things as litigation connected with erotic boutiques, or to assist in the shoreline regulations. He said the 2011 and 2012 amounts were higher since we were operating with one attorney most of that time; said he feels the figures will be stable next year for most other expenses except the Spokane County GIS; said they are proposing a new program and instead of allocating that to general government, the proposal is to include this in their line item. He also referenced supplemental budget requests under Tab 12, for $2,500 to help with the legal marijuana legal issues. Also under Tab 12,Mr. Driskell explained they included$1,500 for service by publication, and explained that they are having an increase of cases involving the death of a property owner without a will or other mechanism to transfer the property, and that someone comes in and lives on the property, and said the most effective way to give notice is notice by publication. Mr. Driskell said they are also proposing an increase in filing and recording fees in anticipation of the state legislature increasing the filing fee from $240 to $290. 5. Operations and Administration Services This department includes the deputy city manager, administrative analysts, the public information officer and Human Resources; and Mr. Jackson said very little has changed in this budget, and there is one supplemental item under Tab 12 to account for a wellness grant. Councilmember Hafner asked if Mr. Jackson is planning on having a deputy city manager and if so is the idea to have someone with development experience. Mr. Jackson responded that he plans to have a deputy city manager. Concerning economic development, Mr. Jackson said he and Mr. Hohman have been working together and are proposing to use a senior planner to interface with major economic development partners, and then begin to grow that program; said the concern is when we hire someone and put them into economic development, we want to be ready to work with them and let them know what we want to do instead of having someone hired to tell us what we need; he said that program will be handled through Community Development, but we are not ready for that yet. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that is one of the ways we operate so efficiently; that originally we were going to have someone come in and draft a plan, but instead have decided not to do that; and said we may have enough focus in a few years as we need to know how to implement a plan once we have one. Concerning Tab 12, Mr. Jackson explained that about $40,000 is being requested for doing additional mailers; that he estimated a city-wide mailing costs about $12,000, and these funds would be used for several mailers; he also noted we are publishing the Hot Topic newsletter four times a year and desire to do additional advertising other than through the typical media releases; and said we will come back to the supplemental items to determine what we want to include. 6.Human Resources Human Resources Manager Whitehead said that these figures are similar to past years and he briefly gave the budget highlights; adding that Tab 12 also shows a supplemental request for receiving grant funds for the Wellness Program,which program saves an estimated$6,000 to $8,000 annually as we are awarded a 2% reduction in premiums for those employees who select the Health First plan. Concerning increase in health premiums,he said he is researching with AWC (Association of Washington Cities)to help prepare for that added expense; and Mr. Jackson noted that any adjustment in that regard will not greatly impact the overall budget. Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7.Finance and Information Technology Finance Director Calhoun explained that his department includes 10.75 FTE (full time equivalent) personnel; he noted the "professional services" is the additional help desk assistance brought in,which he said varies from year to year; he said in 2012 they hired a seasonal person to perform that task. Mr. Calhoun went over the other items under his department including travel,mileage, and training,which he explained also includes training for the IT Specialists. As an example,Mr. Calhoun said that last fall one of the IT Specialists attended a class on hackers. Noted under Tab 12,he explained,is a request to hire an additional help desk technician at a cost of approximately $65,000 in the first year. Mr. Calhoun explained that we normally spend$100,000 annually for vendors to provide routine maintenance work for about 700 hours a year. Mr. Calhoun said they propose to hire a help desk technician to cover the more routine work which will free up the IT Specialists for other more technical tasks. Mr. Calhoun explained that after about the fifth year we would hit the breakeven point, assuming the vendor didn't increase their costs. He also noted that the two IT specialists are called out throughout the year, but if one person is unavailable due to absence, the work force drops by 50%. Councilmember Hafner said he likes adding personnel without adding to the expense. 8. Community Development On shown on page 1, Community Development Director Hohman said they are proposing an overall budget increase of 3.92%; said that perhaps in his zeal last year to try to free up as much funds as possible for street preservation, that there was an actual decrease from 2012 to 2013 of-3.65%. Mr. Hohman explained that some of the services provided for us by Spokane County were actually split between two budget items; said they did a three-year analysis of expenditures and with the assistance of Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka, a $20,000 shortfall was projected in the GIS services. Mr. Hohman said he hopes to come forward with a budget amendment to restore some of that. Mr. Hohman also reviewed budget items such as software licenses such as PALADIN software, which he added is anticipated to go live August 1. Under Development Engineering, he explained that he moved the supervision of the engineering tech to the people in the permit center; said he moved the Code Enforcement Officers last year into the Planning Division, but didn't increase the fuel; and said the Building Division budget decreased as other items moved to other divisions. Mr. Hohman said the new structure works well and he would like to maintain that for the ongoing future, but continue to fine-tune where needed. Mr. Hohman noted the one change not reflected is the designation of a senior planner to move into the Economic Development realm; and said once the Shoreline Master Plan gets completed, Senior Planner Lori Barlow will move into Economic Development. Mr. Hohman said he has no supplemental requests this year. The meeting recessed for lunch at noon; and Mayor Towey reconvened the meeting at approximately 12:30 p.m. 9.Public Safety Spokane Valley Police Department: Police Chief VanLeuven pointed out Addendum B in the Business Plan concerning public safety services; and said there are a number of changes in the first addendum as shown on page 115. He explained that since 2010 because of the losses agency-wide in the Sheriff's Office,there are now about sixteen people less; he explained the basic patrol as shown on pages 116-117 and said there is an average of seven to eight people working on a shift;he said about 33% of the property crimes were not investigated due to lack of staff; but there has been success in property crimes investigation due to the team and intelligent policing. He said officers pay particular attention to crimes against people, as well as property and stolen vehicle crimes; and said he and Lt. Lyons have been working with Mr.Jackson and Mr.Koudelka in performance reviews. Mr.Koudelka said the first page of the business plan (115) needs clarification as the Commissioned Officer Worksheet number includes employees for the entire Sheriff's Office; he said the ten-year history of the number of dedicated officers in Spokane Valley has remained constant. Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT Chief VanLeuven said that some of the challenges his department is experiencing this year are being experienced agency-wide; that at the end of this year about forty deputies agency-wide will be eligible for retirement and that in the next five years,that number will jump to 91; he said the challenge is when they hire a new deputy, by the time they do the initial testing, background checks, academy, and training, it actually takes about a year to get a new hire fully trained;that in the last few years he said they have hired several lateral-transfers, who are generally older and more experienced than a typical new hire; which adds to an already ageing department. Chief VanLeuven said that the position requires a lot of physical activity, and the oldest patrolman is about 65. Chief VanLeuven noted that the sheriff's office is aware that Mr. Jackson has expressed his desire to try to make sure all our Spokane Valley positions are filled; he said we have one of the best property crime units with an 85% success rate; and that they also investigate stolen vehicle thefts while some agencies don't; and he added that Spokane Valley has a high stolen-to-recovery rate. Chief VanLeuven stated that they have had success in Facebook advertising to find out who the owners are of the stolen/recovered property. Chief VanLeuven said that the false alarm policy continues to be effective and the number of registrations increase annually. Court, Jail and Other Public Safety Contracts: Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka discussed the intergovernmental services and noted costs have grown by less than 1%per year; he said they are facing many potential retirements in 2014 and as noted,the process is lengthy to get officers ready, so there will be training costs associated with that issue; he said mostly likely we will have some inflationary escalators apply and have multiple year costs that might come due in 2014, adding that there is some allowance in the contingency fund for those fluctuations. Another impact, Mr. Koudelka noted, is that some positions in the business plan, such as category 4 officer, show positions that we don't pay for; and said the one paid for by grants and seizure funds will be reduced in 2014 so those positions will move back into the shared category; and said a combination of all that leads to an increase of about 7%, or$1.3 million over the previous year's budget, including the $300,000 contingency. Mr. Koudelka explained that most allowances are in the law enforcement line item; he said at this point it is unknown how some issues will end up, such as public defender standards and other items currently in process; he said we try to be specific to capture what we believe are costs for that particular year, and when we know about carryover that might result in costs for another year,we try to separate that out to make it less confusing. There was discussion about overall public safety costs, training for the new hires, cadet salaries, keeping the same number of officers in Spokane Valley unless Council wishes to make changes; charges per commissioned officer and what that includes such as uniforms; keeping the retirement issue separate from the need for more officers; levels of service; mention that we have not cut or added officers; and the link between level of service and number of officers. City Manager Jackson mentioned as we do before adding any employee, one looks carefully before adding more personnel; he said this will be addressed in the 2015 budget as he is not fully confident about adding officers now as we need to understand more about our force and where those officers need to be and if efficiencies can be gained elsewhere. Mr. Jackson said if Council decides to add officers,we will need more time to review the issue; and said any increase in officers would be negotiated through the contract; and the Sheriff's Office would have to agree with a timeframe about when to make those additions. Chief VanLeuven reminded everyone it takes about a year to get a patrolman on board; and that lateral hires come in quicker but also come in at a higher pay scale. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the overtime goes into the cost per officer figures. Mr. Koudelka said that all the cost for commissioned officers goes into the pot and are split up, with some costs dedicated and some shared, and are split out determined by how much we use those; that overtime is a category thrown into the pot used to calculate the per officer time; that it is beneficial to us to hold down all the overtime costs for our City, but sometimes we have to pay officers overtime due to other officers being absent due to injury or illness.The question arose about the overtime costs and Mr. Jackson said he would have to research that figure. Further discussion ensued about retirements, recruiting, lead-time, costs, overall staffing, levels of service, call load and population, and of the issue of finding eligible recruits to fill positions; and that it has been ten years since we added first responder deputies. Mr. Koudelka said Chief VanLeuven is Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT working with some realtors to see what they can do to reduce the call load and take more responsibility, adding that several cities have done that; he said false alarms are another area that waste resources of our officers, and that we are conducting an exhaustive analysis of our needs. Chief VanLeuven added that they are looking at loss prevention techniques for certain locations and are examining ways to have the best efficiencies concerning how staff is used; and that they hope to bring more information to Council once that analysis is complete. Mr. Koudelka said staff has been meeting with Lt. Lyons and going through the data to make sure we have a complete understanding of all the services we receive and the information about calls and types of calls. Mr. Koudelka said they have made a lot of progress and when he gets to a point where he feels he has everything he needs, he will meet with Mr. Jackson to get direction on how and in what timeframe to proceed. Mr. Jackson said on the outside, that would occur next year, but it doesn't have to be that long and later this year discussions can begin about law enforcement;he said we need to understand the fundamentals and arrive at a decision pragmatically rather than politically, and will take a look at this in 2014. Councilmember Grafos said he wants this prior to 2014 as it will take more than a year before any action can be taken; that the issue is the timeframe to make intelligent decisions based on community, and said he would like it brought to council in a timely manner. Councilmember Woodard said he would like to see a report perhaps this fall from the loss mitigation officer on some of the projects he's working on and the results; and Chief Van Leuven said he can provide that; and that it is that officer's dedicated job to empower people through knowledge or safety tips,on how to reduce people from being victims of crime. Mr. Koudelka then reviewed the remainder of the information concerning expenses and revenues, and said that the costs for Geiger have increased significantly with several years of double digit percentage increases; that this year it was a little more controlled; but we have a large increase in the number of days we use at the jail;that in 2003 the cost per day was between $50 and$60, and now that daily cost is about $110; he said there is a settle and adjust provision for most contracts and at the end of every year they make a projection; he said the process is working better but it still gets complicated. Mr. Koudelka also noted the repairs to the precinct building and some of those improvements are noted under Tab 12. Mr. Koudelka said they are also examining the possibility of a JAG grant for this year to further enhance security at the front desk in that building,to add bullet-proof speaker boxes. 10.Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Stone went through the figures for the six divisions within his department, and said overall this results in an increase of .5% for 2014. Brown's Park and the idea of volleyball leagues was mentioned, along with the possibility of future potential for that park; and Mr. Stone said there was an increase in the public's interest in wanting to know about the facilities and programs, which cost is reflected under printing and binding. He said Mirabeau Park has other potentials for such things as a guided walking tour, geology reports, and the idea of having the various features used for educational lesson plans. Mayor Towey asked about the taxes and benefits going up while other departments have gone down, and Mr. Calhoun said he will check those figures. Mr. Stone also noted there is the potential to take the design for the Gateway and make a template for all signage for parks; he noted the recreation programs recover 100% of their costs; he said we continue to contract with the YMCA to operate the three swimming pools, and the professional services increased $4,000 from last year; that it will cost about $35,000 to re-paint the Park Road Pool and they are using new products to hopefully get ten years of use from the pool painting. Mr. Stone said the Senior Center is fairly self-explanatory as is CenterPlace; that the janitorial services cost have been the same for the last five years and the contractor does an extremely cost-effective and efficient job. Concerning advertising, Mr. Stone said they are not anticipating receiving any LTAC (lodging tax advisory committee) funds, and Mr. Jackson said there is the possibility of continuing with our past funding levels as it is an existing use, and the legal department is researching that issue. Mr. Stone noted Tab 12 contains a supplemental budget request for 50 chairs for CenterPlace; that they take out the 50 worst chairs and replace them and said they would only surplus chairs that are not repairable. There was also some discussion about gate modification at Brown's Park and other items for that park including installing between eight and twelve sand volleyball courts, replacing the restroom, and adding a picnic shelter. The Centennial Trail was briefly mentioned with Mr. Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT Stone explaining that we are responsible for maintaining about 6.5 miles of the trail, all as according to an agreement. At approximately 2:17 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a recess;the meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m. 11.Public Works Public Works Director Guth said that he is proposing a 1% increase for 2014; he explained that he has five divisions in three general funds and he described some of the changes, such as fuel, equipment repair and maintenance including oil changes, which were handled under different items and are being tracked individually; and tires and repairs for four+ vehicles. Mr. Guth said under Engineering and Architect, they have slated$40,000 for a consultant to assist in planning in grant engineering; that they are currently using Century West; and have $8,000 set aside for contingency for miscellaneous work not anticipated at this time. Mr. Guth said the software licenses and maintenance are related to supplemental requests adding one auto cad license; and under conference registrations, he noted a modest increase of$600 due to the cost of those conferences and training increases.He said the street fund includes traffic engineering and maintenance and said his staff is performing more in-house activities for smaller projects. There was also some discussion about wages for 2013 and that contracted drivers are paid as part of the contract. Mr. Guth said the bridge inspection report is scheduled for this fall and he anticipates spending close to what was spent in the current year. Councilmember Wick remarked that the Engineering and Architectural figure dropped about $100,000; and Mr. Guth explained that he and Mr. Koudelka have been discussing that topic; that there were some old "understandings" that have since been clarified; and that the street masterplan decreased, as it was usually budgeted $100,000 to pay for scanning, database, evaluation, and reporting; he said the streets have been scanned and the policy is now to scan the streets every two years, so that was reduced for 2014, however, he said those figures will increase again in 2015. Mr. Guth said the winter/snow services were split with about$70,000 for the Poe Contract, and$70,000 for WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation) for projects on Trent and Pines; and said based on last year's snowfall, he feels this was an area where they could relax a little; and said he will try this approach for a year and see how that goes. Mr. Guth also noted one of his goals is to develop a fleet management program, which includes saving some funds annually for future vehicle replacement. Councilmember Hafner noted it appears there are no school beacons for this year and Mr. Guth concurred; and said the school zone beacons are in the capital fund and said we have matching funds for that. Mr. Jackson said that perhaps Mr. Calhoun can research that, adding that perhaps this would be a nonrecurring activity. Mr. Calhoun said we have not yet applied for the grant associated with the beacons, but that he will research that issue. Mr. Guth said the Stormwater Division had mostly modest changes from the previous year; and said he noted an error under IT support under"other services" as the $10,000 needs to be changed to $7500. Mr. Guth also spoke about the stormwater maintenance funds which includes Poe Contract as well as landscaping, vactoring and sweeping, plus about a 10% contingency; figures under the shop include charges for oil changes and miscellaneous repairs which were not previously charged under that category. Mr. Guth noted the repair and maintenance of the Euclid Facility is split 50/50 with the stormwater fund. As shown under Tab 12, Mr. Guth said they are requesting a new position, which would be a full time planning and grants engineer, funded 37.5% from the general fund, and 37.5% from the street fund, and 25% from the stormwater fund; he said we currently try for grants for most of our projects and that we contract out a great deal of this with Century West, who provides us with an engineer who comes to our office two days a week and uses our computer, work station, and whom we pay $80,000 a year for that service. Mr. Guth said that person does an excellent job but many times there are questions or issues associated with his service that arise during the other three days of the week. Mr. Guth said he feels with the current workload, a full time position would be beneficial, and the difference in cost would be minimal; he said he feels we could hire someone for about $100,000 a year to work full time, for five days a week, compared with the $80,000 we currently pay a year for someone to work two days a week; Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT he said he does not foresee the grant environment slowing, and there would be plenty for that person to do in applying for,researching, and managing our grants. Other issues Mr. Guth addressed included the proposal to add one auto cad license and change the stand- alone license to a network license for greater flexibility; the proposed purchase of 1.5 pickups as they currently have three vehicles shared among twelve people; under Tab 12 to include a hawk signal at Splash Down on Mission Park and to purchase a VMS Trailer. Mr. Guth explained that a VMS trailer is a variable messaging system; that we currently spend about $15,000 annually on these signs and he proposed to buy one in 2014 and one in 2015, and said they are safety issues as having a sign saves having to pay a contractor to provide the signs. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if we expect to increase support staff at the decant facility, and Mr. Guth replied that we do not. City Manager Jackson reminded everyone that these issues are for discussions as Mr. Calhoun will advise whether we can afford the desired items. Discussion included the desire and importance of maintaining our buildings; positive reactions to the Hawk Signal as well as to the idea of hiring a full time employee for less than the cost of contracting even though at some point, the employee will cost more than the contract; some voiced the opinion of the benefits of contracting versus hiring as if the economy were to slow down, we would not want to have to lay off any employees, while contracts can be negotiated; and mention from Mr. Woodard that he would still like to have an eventual discussion on the long-range goals for snow plows, and said he'd rather have more contracts than employee increases. 12. Supplemental Budget Requests Discussion of the overall budget requests and changes included mention that a full-time grant engineer costs $20,000 more than a contracted engineer, but the contractor would only work two days compared with the full-time employee working five days a week; mention that one of the reasons for the high cost of the police precinct maintenance is due to the concrete floor; Councilmember Hafner stated his concern with replacing 50 chairs in Parks and Recreation; some questioned the priority of Brown's Park volleyball courts; it was felt further explanation was needed for the VMS Trailer, and Mr. Guth explained that the device provides notice to the public about upcoming road closures,cleanings, etc and can be programmed to use as a traffic device. Concerning the grants engineer position, Councilmember Woodard stated that he has been anti-grant since he came on the Council and said at some point there won't be money for grants, or we'll get to the point where we won't like all the stipulations that come with grants. Mr. Guth added that this individual would do most of their own administrative work so the cost would be just the salary and benefits for the person. Concerning capital projects, Mr. Jackson said Council will have another opportunity for discussion when the budget is brought forward, and said it will be important at that time to discuss other recurring costs. Mr. Calhoun distributed copies of an updated sheet for street preservation,which he said would be discussed later. 13.Potential Capital Projects City Manager Jackson said that this includes projects that staff or Council has brought up over the last few months, such as the Sullivan Bridge or Barker Road Grade Separation; and said these two issues are placing an immediate demand on the City's cash; and after going over the list, Mr. Jackson asked for Council comments or concerns. Councilmember Wick asked about the previous idea of partnering with Liberty Lake for a gateway sign; and Mr. Jackson said funding would be an issue and an option would be to reduce the fund balance; and Mr. Calhoun also noted the funds might be taken from the general fund reserves. Councilmember Wick also mentioned the former Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee's idea of promoting access to the River and improving trailheads. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hohman both agreed that as we work through the shoreline program, the public access plan could be discussed further. Councilmember Woodard asked about park signs, and Mr. Jackson replied that we currently have a 55% ending fund balance, and we could use some of those funds and reduce the balance slightly. Other projects discussed included building a city hall and converting our lease payments. Councilmembers were then asked to place colored dots on the chart on the wall to indicate project priority. Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT The results of the project chart with Council priorities: Sullivan Rd West Bridge Replacement 6 votes for#1 priority Balfour Park Development—no votes Phase II Appleway Trail(Univ Evergreen) 2 votes for#2 priority, and 2 votes for#3 priority Phase III Appleway Trail(Evergreen-Corbin) no votes Phase I Appleway Landscaping(Dora-Park) 2 votes for#2 priority Phase II&III Appleway Landscaping(Park-University) no votes Business Route Signage—no votes Joint Site Design—Balfour Park/Library no votes City Hall 1 vote for#1 priority, 2 votes for#2 priority, and 1 vote for#3 priority Barker Rd BNSC Grade Separation 1 vote for#3 priority Sewer&Roads at Industrial Property East of Flora—no votes Transfer Station 1 vote for#2 priority; 2 votes for#3 priority Access Projects River—1 vote for#3 priority Discussion included notice that the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement is the obvious top priority; some of the completed projects were discussed such as the West Gateway project at Thierman and the Mission Avenue Trailhead and Mr. Jackson said those completed projects can be removed from the list. It was also mentioned that Council previously decided not to proceed with the quiet zones. Concerning the prioritized projects listed above, Mr. Jackson said staff will work to put together funding options and said these will be a work in progress. Recurring general fund expenditures were discussed and Mr. Jackson said if the desire is to add peace officers in the future, we need to start to build capacity for that into the general fund; he said we can't spend everything in 2014 and we need to be very careful when it comes to adding programs and/or services; and said now is the time to start thinking about that and put it all into perspective as there is a limited capacity in the general fund for recurring expenses. Mr. Calhoun also briefly mentioned cost of any future bond payments. Mr. Jackson and Calhoun reminded everyone that these figures are projections and assumptions but we have to have a starting point; with Mr. Jackson noting we must be very cautious when it comes to recurring expenses and to think very hard about law enforcement; that we need to manage our general fund very carefully to handle the priorities we already have; he said staff will continue to refine this and will schedule other meetings concerning the budget, with the entire budget scheduled to come before Council September 14. 14.Financial Objectives In the interest of time,this item was not specifically addressed. BRAINSTORMING: The following ideas were mentioned and briefly discussed: 1. Solid waste 2.Add 2012 actual to general fund summary 3. Public safety efficiency 4. Economic development—discuss partners—City Role 5. Public Safety—anticipate cost 6. Street preservation—long term funding 7. Consider 1%property tax 8. Sustainability 9.Work within our mean 10.Basic services 11.Freshen advertising—public safety—roads 12. Common sense level of service 13. Land(park) acquisition Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT General closing comments included Councilmember Grafos expressing his appreciation to Mr. Calhoun for his work and that he would like to see a column of the 2012 actual expenses in front of the 2013 budget; he said if we added the actual wages and benefits to each department under each heading, we could see at a glance a more clear entire budget picture. Councilmember Wick said the biggest item is public safety; adding that we don't want to lose sight of the goals of the Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee. Councilmember Higgins mentioned the need to be "in front of the curve" when it comes to public safety due to the anticipated lead-time in adding personnel. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he feels Council needs to look at allowed property tax, and if council wants more services, the 1% property tax might be an option. Mayor Towey stated he feels while all the ideas are good, the most important job this Council has is to make sure of the sustainability of this City and how we handle services to the citizens and at what level, and to have a philosophy to make sure our programs are sustainable. Councilmember Hafner added that he feels sometimes the most difficult thing is to come up with ideas for our City, and to spend money within our means, to keep the 50% fund balance and continue to provide basic services; to fund projects that we can afford and maintain; and to advertise the City more often. Councilmember Woodard said our advertising needs to include specific things unique to Spokane Valley, such as no parking meters, and reduced crime; and that we have never had a reduction of service. Mr. Jackson said he is working with MBI on advertising and taking some of their advice on how long these ads should run; while working on new ads for permitting, public safety and roads, and said it might be possible to add in the free parking. Councilmember Wick asked about the park master plan and potential land acquisition. Mr. Stone said he plans to have the Park Master Plan available for Council review in August or September. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Workshop minutes:June 18,2013 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 2,2013 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Carrie Koudelka,Deputy City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll: all councilmembers were present.It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEM: 1.Bettman-Dickey Stormwater Project: Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the Bettman-Dickey Stormwater Upgrade Project to Cat's Eye Excavating, Inc. in the amount of$164,000.95 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained the project is to address local flooding issues to include bio-swales and dry wells. He said the project was advertised for two weeks and six bids were received and opened Friday, June 28, 2013. The low bidder was Cat's Eye Excavating and the bids ranged up to $317,000.00; the engineer's estimate was $251,309.00 so the bidder was below our estimate and within the budgeted amount for the project. There were no questions or comments from Council. The Mayor invited public comment; no comments were given. Vote by acclamation:In favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Solid Waste Management Update—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said HDR Engineering is the consultant conducting the study for Solid Waste Transfer and Disposal Options for Spokane, Spokane County, Spokane Valley, and other cities and towns in Spokane County. He said the team met with the consultant last month to discuss the scope of work and the information needed to develop a regional plan. He said the consultant is working on cost center descriptions and the two aspects to the study are the transfer of waste and the disposal of waste.Mr. Guth directed Council to the exhibits in their agenda packets and discussed the cost center descriptions and transfer and disposal options. Transfer Center Option 1: Spokane Valley and Spokane County purchase the Colbert and Valley Transfer Stations and contract for the operations of both facilities. Councilmember Woodard asked when we conducted the appraisals. City Manager Jackson said the appraisals are about a year old and the numbers Council Study Session Minutes 07-02-2013 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT on the exhibit sheets are not the actual or negotiated numbers, but are presented for worksheet purposes only. Transfer Option 2: Spokane Valley and Spokane County build new transfer stations rather than using existing sites and contract for the operations of the transfer stations. Transfer Option 3: If Spokane Valley and Spokane County do not haul waste to the Waste-to-Energy Plant, this option is to build a transfer station on the West Plains. He said this is something the County would need and because it is a regional system, it would be a cost to the system. Councilmember Wick asked if there would be a single contract for operations of both sites or if they might be separate contracts. Mr. Guth said we are looking at just one contract but we may have the option to break it into two contracts for the different facilities.He said it is early yet and they are keeping all options open. Disposal Option 1: This option looks at disposal at the Waste to Energy plant if Spokane gives the transfer station to Spokane Valley and Spokane County at a nominal fee with a contract to haul waste to the Waste-to-Energy plant for a determined length of time. There would be a negotiated cost for disposal and a term commitment. Disposal Option 2: This option considers truck long haul to a regional landfill and the consultant is looking at four regional landfill options. Councilmember Woodard said we should include Kootenai County landfill as one of our disposal options. Disposal Option 3: This option is for rail long haul to a regional landfill using BNSF as the receiving intermodal yard. Disposal Option 4: Spokane Valley and Spokane County would contract for rail long haul to a regional landfill using the proposed Geiger Spur Intermodal Yard. Mr. Guth informed Council that August 28, 2013,is a joint meeting with the team at which the consultant will give a presentation as to cost centers and options. City Manager Jackson said throughout this process the consultant will provide information and staff may need to get the information to Council immediately because we are moving at an accelerated pace. He said there may be an occasion that we need to call a special meeting to go over the information with Council and asks that Council be flexible through the process. 3. Comprehensive Plan 2014 Revisions—Scott Kuhta Planning Manager Kuhta said tonight is the first look at the potential docket for the 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He said the deadline to receive privately initiated proposals is November 1, 2013, and we have not received any yet. He said the City has no site-specific initiated amendment proposals either, only text amendments. He said that except for Chapter 11, each section listed references the removal of"City Center" language as requested by Council. He said many of the remaining proposed changes are updates we do annually and said if Council has any to add, staff will look at those as well. Councilmember Wick said he does not want to see the "City Center" language go away. Councilmember Grafos said market forces will develop a city center in time and he said he does not believe Spokane Valley should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the corridor. Mayor Towey inquired as to the process for bringing amendment proposals to Council; Mr. Kuhta and City Manager Jackson said staff will present the docket to Council two more times before the cut-off date in November. 4.Manufactured Home Zoning—Scott Kuhta Planning Manager Kuhta said that on February 26, 2013, Community Director Hohman and City Attorney Driskell presented information about the Tumwater ordinance that restricts manufactured homes Council Study Session Minutes 07-02-2013 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT to manufactured home park areas.He said Council expressed their desire to talk with manufactured home park owners and said staff is developing a process to do that and to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the deadline is November 1, 2013. He said they will mail a questionnaire and depending on the feedback, make personal contact to the owners, then draft a memo with staff findings and report back to Council for direction.It was the consensus of Council to proceed with this proposal. 5.Initiative 502 Update—Erik Lamb Deputy Attorney Lamb said he updated Council on May 14, 2013 on the City's regulatory authority over recreational and medical marijuana and at that time, Council expressed their desire to wait for more information from the State before determining what direction to pursue. Mr. Lamb said that in late May, the Liquor Control Board issued initial proposed draft rules for recreational marijuana and they had sought extensive public input and held a work session in mid-June. On June 10, 2013,the Liquor Control Board released a new timeline for implementation of the new rules. He said the new draft rules will be released on July 3, 2013; a public hearing will be held on August 7, 2013; the rules will be adopted on August 14, 2013; and applications for all license types will be accepted beginning September 14, 2013 when the rules become effective. Mr. Lamb said that Spokane Valley has received four calls requesting information as to where recreational locations can be sited and staff is analyzing our current zoning regulations. Under the current law, recreational marijuana facilities are not allowed within 1,000 feet of schools, day care facilities or in residential areas. He said once we have the official draft rules from the State, we will have more clarity to put together a zoning map. He asked Council for direction as to any possible additional regulations they want to consider and said that if we do nothing, recreational marijuana facilities will not be allowed in residential zones and a 1,000-foot buffer for sensitive uses, such as schools,would be required under state law. Councilmember Woodard said he would like to move cautiously and systematically. Councilmember Higgins asked if we have an update as to what the federal government is doing. Mr. Lamb said we do not know what will happen at the federal level and that Washington state will be test case. There was no objection from Council for Mr. Lamb to present Council with a zoning map when we receive the new rules. 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey: No comments. 7. Information Only: The Sullivan Road Bridge Overlay Project, State Adopted Building Code, School Zone Flashing Beacons, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 5-23-2013, Department Reports and Intergovernmental Purchasing Agreement were for information only and were not reported on or discussed. 8. Council Check in — Mayor Towey: Mayor Towey reminded everyone of the Citizen Recognition Program and said that applications are due this Friday. He also reminded everyone of the Greenacres Fourth of July celebration with a kid's parade, prizes and a petting zoo from 9:45a.m. to 3:00 pm on the corner of Boone and Long. He also mentioned the City's photo and video contest and said the deadline for applications is July 31,2013. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said the State Legislature approved their budget last Friday and they will retain a portion of the liquor revenue that would have been directed to the City. He said the potential reduction to the City will likely be a $75,000—$147,000 impact to our 2014 budget. He said he and Finance Director Calhoun will look at programs to decide what to eliminate in the 2014 budget. Mr. Calhoun said prior to the actions of the 2012 legislature, the City's liquor excise tax revenue was approximately $460,000.00. He said the 2012 legislature reduced that by $164,000.00 to our city leaving $294,000.00 which is the number he included in the 2014 budget. He said now that number may have been reduced again by about fifty percent, or the $147,000.00 City Manager Jackson referenced, but it could be as much as seventy- five percent. He said we are waiting for MRSC (Municipal Research Services Center) to come out with Council Study Session Minutes 07-02-2013 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT their 2014 Budget Suggestions Guide with their best estimate of the per capita distribution for taxes and he said their estimates tend to be pretty accurate. City Manager Jackson said that Human Resource Manager Whitehead has finalized a tourism mobile application that will be released on Google and Mr. Whitehead will give Council a presentation at the July 16,2013 meeting. 10.Executive Session: IRCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review Performance of Public Employee It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately forty-five minutes to review the performance of a public employee and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:50 p.m. At approximately 7:49 p.m.,Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session, after which it was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 07-02-2013 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,July 9,2013 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Dev Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Matthew Larson of the Advent Lutheran Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scouts from Troop 426 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard: said he attended the Council/staff budget workshop June 18, as well as the Council/Planning Commission joint meeting where the Shoreline Master Program was discussed; said he went to the AWC Conference (Association of Washington Cities) in Tri-Cities and attended several sessions, including a session on civic engagement and recruiting volunteers, and said he would like to see more volunteerism in our city and have future discussion on that topic. Councilmember Wick: reported that he also attended the AWC conference, and some of the sessions he attended included Tapping the Fountain of Youth, where they spoke of the idea of creating a youth position on planning commissions; said several "text-savvy" cities got together and analyzed how to get more fiber optic networks in the communities; also went to a main street session where they discussed getting a refund on the B&O taxes (business and occupation); and said he made some connections with the Union Pacific Railroad and encouraged more bridging the valley discussions. Councilmember Grafos: said he also attended the budget workshop and evening joint meeting; and participated in the July 4th celebration at Greenacres Park. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: reported that he also attended several committee meetings as well as the AWC conference; said that last Saturday he went to Ron's Drive-in to witness the hamburger eating contest where the winners. Councilmember Higgins: said he attended the AWC Conference as well as the Council budget workshop and the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting focusing on the Shoreline Master Program; and said that last Saturday he attended the Spokane Valley Night at the Spokane Indians game and witnessed Mayor Towey throw out the first pitch. Council Regular Meeting 07-09-2013 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Hafner: said that he attended the June 18 meetings; went to Health Board meeting and an STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting; and at the AWC Conference picked up some statistics of municipalities and compared them with our City, such as cutting employees, wages, or public safety spending, all of which our City has not done; and also remarked about a workshop discussing the various different generations, such as Baby Boomers, and Generation X or Y that make up a community; and attended another session dealing with being ready if the "Good Times" arrive, such as making sure that what community services are provided,will be sustainable over time. MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamations:Parks and Recreation Month; Valleyfest Cycle Celebration Mayor Towey reported that he also attended the two meetings on June 18th; and said he had the pleasure to welcome 39 treasurers to Spokane Valley at their conference at the Mirabeau Park Hotel; had breakfast with Mayor Truelove and other officials for an informal get-together; reminded everything that the Cheney Rodeo celebration is this weekend; said the 4th of July event at Greenacres was terrific and included such things as a petting zoo and kids' parade; said he went to the event at Ron's Hamburgers and noted that all the proceed were donated to Meals on Wheels; and said there was a lot of pressure on the mound at the Indians Baseball game as he threw out that first pitch, which incidentally, he said was a strike. Mayor Towey then read the two proclamations,one for Parks and Recreation Month accepted with thanks by Parks and Recreation Director Mike Stone; and the other proclamation was for the Valleyfest Cycle Celebration, also accepted with thanks from Bill Gothmann. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments;no comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 06/06/2013 29345-29397; 606130013 $429,643.42 06/12/2013 4333,4351-4354; 4371; 29398-29402 $260,042.96 06/13/2013 29403-29424 $84,445.72 06/14/2013 29425-29476 $855,276.20 06/19/2013 4373-4374; 4376-4377; 29477 $66,899.71 06/20/2013 5582-5589 $2,308.00 06/20/2013 29478-29495 $38,504.94 06/21/2013 29496—29518 $74,799.58 6/28/2013 29519—29576; 62713032; 627130040 $2,116,074.46 07/02/2013 29577-29578 $4,460.00 GRAND TOTAL $3,932,454.99 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15,2013: $289,097.27 c.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30,2013: $403,696.06 d.Approval of June 11,2013 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Format e.Approval of June 18,2013 Joint Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-008, Comprehensive Plan—Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Ordinance 13-008, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, as drafted. Senior Planner Basinger explained that there have been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Mayor Council Regular Meeting 07-09-2013 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation to approve the ordinance:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-009,Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan—Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Ordinance 13-009. Senior Planner Basinger explained that there have been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading, and that this is the accompanying ordinance which amends the official zoning map. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation to approve the ordinance:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4.Motion Consideration: Sullivan Rd. Bridge Overlay Project—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the bid for the Sullivan Road Bridge Southbound(#4507) Over UPRR Tracks Overlay Project #0175 to MJ Hughes Construction, Inc., in the amount of$148,873.00 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Speaking for Mr. Worley, Public Works Director Guth said this is a request to approve a bid to put in a new surface on the southbound bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad on Sullivan; that the bid opening was held June 28 and we received three bids, with MJ Hughes coming in as the low bidder. Mayor Towey invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5.Motion Consideration: Intergovernmental Purchasing Contract with Washington State—Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Master Contract Usage Agreement with the State of Washington. City Attorney Driskell explained that he came before Council last March asking for a six-month agreement with the understanding the State was re-vamping their interlocal purchasing program; and said this new contract is more simplified. Mr. Driskell also explained that the State formerly charged a$2,000 annual fee for these contracts,but they eliminated that and instead have rolled that cost into each contract, so the percentage is .74%, which saves us money as if we calculated the new rate compared with the $2,000 old rate, we would have to spend about $270,000 in contracts, and said he is not aware we have spent that in the past. Mr. Driskell said we use this contract to purchase such things as school beacons,or IT equipment. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments. Mr. Lynn Plaggemeier, 11708 E 19th, 927-8388,made the following comments: (1)concerning the paving on Pines Highway 27, said when you get to 16th there are two triangle pieces of ground that always look ratty; said it is not a good presentation of the city and he would like the engineering staff to talk to the state and the county and before the paving gets up that far, to drive a couple conduits under the pavement for future landscaping, and suggested having volunteers like scouts, seniors, or schools take part in developing those islands. (2)He explained that he took his car into a garage on Sprague and left it to get it fixed and got a call that the car was vandalized; he asked the owners if they reported it to the police and was told no because the police won't do anything anyway and they don't respond. He said he didn't like that answer so he called the police and they did come;he said he spoke to a different car garage across the street and they had some vandalism too, and he asked if they reported it and was told no because that it would have been a waste of time; he recommended that the city start doing some PR work to get information to citizens to report these things, and said it appears there is some disconnect between what we are doing and what Spokane does. (3) He said that three or four months ago he asked about getting contract deficiencies on Sprague between Evergreen and Sullivan repaired and was eventually called back by city staff who said they were working on it; said he called back a few months later and was told they didn't have any dates to fix the problem; said he'd like Council to ask staff for a date when those deficiencies will get fixed. (4) He mentioned some photos he gave the Clerk to distribute to Council; Council Regular Meeting 07-09-2013 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT said the corner of Pines and Sprague where Denny's is located, that the cold mix asphalt is up the sidewalk about 250' and is a slipping hazard; said he called on this about three or four weeks ago and tried to find answers, and sometimes he was told it was a state problem and other times was told it was a city problem; said he if you drive north on Pines on the right lane you'd go through this,and said this is an extreme hazard. He said there needs to be better coordination on these issues. (5)He mentioned two steel plates on Mission which he said he discovered were put in by a job by the city; and (6) said that two or three months he ago asked to get paragraph #30 or 32 of the Sheriffs Office contract modified to eliminate the portion where our chief had to get authorization for press releases. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Sign Code Revisions—John Hohman Via his PowerPoint presentation, Community Development Director Hohman went through the proposed changes for the sign regulations, and showed and explained the proposed changes in the text: page 1 includes "reader boards" as an exception to prohibited portable signs; section D on pages 2 and 3 discusses engineer requirements for any sign over 30'; and he noted the last newly added sentence of "Where special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents . . if deemed necessary." Mr. Hohman said this suggests some discretion is permitted,but not in all cases. Page 4 includes some minor edits changing"must"to"shall." Mr. Hohman said that 22.110.050 Temporary Signs's existing language included many restrictions,but he said staff didn't have the ability to enforce it all so some of the restrictive language was omitted and the section streamlined. Mr. Hohman said the Planning Commission had a lot of discussion with this section and how many signs would be considered too many; he said the heart of the issue is that most businesses are allowed a free-standing sign, and the intent of the changes shown on page 5 is to provide flexibility; that businesses will be allowed not more than two of the types of signs listed under new 22.110.050 A(1, 2, and 3). Mr. Hohman recommended Council consider this issue, adding that citizens have not voiced concerning regarding this issue. After Mr. Hohman went over the remainder of the proposed changes, there was some discussion about adding language to further clarify each hyperlinked code section; and on page 8, it was suggested to add the word "landscaping" to 22.110.090F, at the end of the sentence, immediately after 22.070.030(J). There was also discussion concerning the number of permitted temporary signs, with the majority of Council agreeing with the change to allow up to two instead of just one, temporary sign as noted in 22.110.050 new section A. Mayor Towey asked if there were any objections to staff bringing this to Council for a first reading July 23, and no objections were raised. At 7:37 p.m.Mayor Towey called for a short recess;he reconvened the meeting at 7:49 p.m. 7. Residential Land Inventory Analysis—Mike Basinger Senior Planner Basinger explained the methodology developed by the Washington State Department of Commerce as a basis to determine developable land in the low-density residential category; he went over the figures contained in his Request for Council Action form, and he discussed the vacant parcels and partially used parcels as shown on the accompanying map. After several Council questions concerning the number of developments and demand per year, Mr. Basinger said with the recent past dissolution of the Boundary Review Board, staff has been thinking about and researching how to promote in-fill development including examining our annexation policies and processes. The question arose about how many sewered residential properties we have and Mr. Basinger said he will research that information. 8. Industrial Land Inventory Analysis—Mike Basinger Concerning the industrial land inventory, Mr. Basinger explained about the process used here as well as the number of vacant areas; he said he intends to bring Council further analysis at the July 30 Council meeting. Mr. Basinger noted that as on the previous agenda item map, wetlands and critical areas were not included in the analysis. Mr. Basinger also noted staff is coordinating and collaborating on this issue with Spokane County. Council Regular Meeting 07-09-2013 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9.Appleway Trail Project- Steve Worley Speaking for Mr. Worley; as noted in the Request for Council Action form, Public Works Director Guth explained the possible federal funding from SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) for the Appleway Trail Project; said our grant application requested $2.2 million to construct the two-mile trail from University to Evergreen; and that we have the opportunity to receive $642,852 in TA (Transportation Alternatives) funds; he said we could modify the project or do the project in phases; he said University to Evergreen is the entire project, and the logical midpoint would be to Pines Road. Mr. Guth said they asked the consultant to estimate the cost for that portion, and the figure given was $941,000; and said we would also need matching funds or other grant funds of about $340,000. Another option, Mr. Guth said would be for us to help support that difference. Mr. Guth said the issue is whether to accept the $642,000 in TA funds offered and commit to funding the remaining match; and said the decision on whether to accept those funds for the Appleway Trail is necessary for the SRTC Board to make their final project selection at their meeting in two days. Mr. Jackson said this comes down to a matter of choice, build the projects already discussed and scheduled such as the volleyball courts or development of the new Balfour park, or take this $642,000 at the cost of some other project. Mr. Guth said he recommends accepting the $642,000 and allow staff to look for other funding going forward; and said the timeline we face is 2017, and that the project could be amended. Mr. Jackson said the worst case scenario is we would have to come up with $340,000; he said he feels there is an excellent opportunity between now and 2017 to raise some additional funds, or use this as leverage to complete the entire project, adding that we would have to look at the capital reserve fund if that were the case and there is already a large demand on those funds. Mayor Towey asked if there were objections to proceed as Mr. Guth suggested and no objections were raised. 10.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY Item #11, TIB Grant Requests, and item #12, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13,2013,were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson had no comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 07-09-2013 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 16,2013 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Towey announced that there will be an Executive Session after tonight's open meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. Presentations: July Community Recognition: Mayor Towey announced that July's recipient of the Key and Certificate is Mary Pollard, nominated by City Attorney Cary Driskell. As noted on Mr. Driskell's nomination form, Mayor Towey read that "Mary is a community activist, and also instrumental in the siting and design of the City's new Greenacres park. Mary has also been a key component of the Greenacres neighborhood group organizing the family-fun July 4th event that puts a heavy emphasis on games where kids have fun while being active." City Attorney Driskell remarked that he is impressed with the amount of energy Mary has poured into the neighborhood group in helping to design the park; and that she also put a tremendous amount of energy into the 4th of July event, and said he took his entire family to last year's event. Mayor Towey presented the Key and Certificate to Mary Pollard,who accepted it with thanks;Ms. Pollard said she prefers to refer to herself as an advocate rather than an activist; and she thanked the members of the neighborhood group for their work. Wellness Award: Mayor Towey presented the Well-City Award plaque to Human Resources Manager John Whitehead; Mayor Towey said out of the 291 cities throughout Washington, Spokane Valley was one of 84 cities to receive this recognition; he said it also represents a 2% discount in premiums for 2014, or an $8,000 annual savings; he said our City has received this for the last three years so we have recognized $24,000 in savings; and he again extended thanks to Mr. Whitehead and to Human Resources Technician Lindsey Skinfill. Human Resources Manager Whitehead extended his appreciation for the support of the City Manager and others who helped the City attain this recognition, and he acknowledged and thanked the work of the committee, which includes Lori Barlow, Ryan Kipp, Dan Domrese, Chris Berg, and Brittani DeBoise, and he gave special thanks to Lindsey Skinfill who he said, is very creative Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT and kept everyone motivated. Mr. Whitehead said each year we took a step up to the next level and this award is the highest level of excellence. 1. Spokane Valley Mobile App Demonstration—John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained that with the assistance of our IT staff, the City's mobile app has been launched; he went over some of the features of the app, including the ease of navigation and access; and said that some of the aspects connected with the app are still being improved. After Mr.Whitehead's demonstration, Councilmember Wick suggested Mr.Whitehead contact the Valley Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce to take advantage of some advertising. 2. Public Works Capital Projects Update—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said this presentation is similar to and an update of what he presented to Council May 21, and said the hope is to come before Council about every six weeks to give an update on projects. Mr. Guth mentioned that although the sidewalk infill project shown on slide 5 indicates the project is complete, he said the shoulders of the road are gravel and said we are in the process of getting those paved within the next few weeks. Mr. Guth continued explaining the projects as shown on the various slides, noting which were complete and which have been postponed. Councilmember Woodard mentioned the high effectiveness of the full reflective posts on signs and asked if the plan is to cover all sign poles in a similar manner. Mr. Guth said he will research that question. 3. TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) Grant Requests—Eric Guth Senior Engineer Worley explained that the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has issued another call for projects for allocation of Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) funding; and said the applications are due the end of August. Mr. Worley said that the TIB has completely changed their scoring criteria this year and it is now performed in bands that emphasize safety, growth and development,physical condition, and mobility. He explained that previously a project would need to score well across several categories in order to rank well; but under the new criteria, a project that scores well in one particular category could be selected. Mr. Worley summarized the preliminary list of projects as shown on his July 16, 2013 Request for Council Action form. Mr. Worley also noted other projects evaluated and considered including the Sprague Avenue Lane Reduction, Argonne Road to Park Road, and Barker Road improvements, McDonald restriping to three-lanes, and State Route 27/16th and Pines Roundabout. Mr.Worley invited Council comments. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if any or the schools are without sidewalks and Mr. Worley replied that several don't have sidewalks that lead up to the school, although most have sidewalks around the property; and said he received a comment today asking about getting sidewalks in the area of Bowdish from 8th to 12th. Mr. Worley said staff has submitted these projects under other grant programs but thus far have not been successful. Discussion included which projects might be funded; which might be more critical; whether to move forward on the Sprague Lane reduction and if so, staff would need to get cost estimates; that the Sprague Lane reduction as well as other projects might take a few years to complete. Councilmember Grafos said he feels it should be a priority but staff still needs to address it in the most feasible way. Councilmember Wick said different business owners say frontage is everything; and he suggests more discussion before making a commitment, and City Manager Jackson said we need to know the condition of the road and asked if we can wait a couple of years to do the overlay. Mr. Worley replied that the condition of the road is not "that great" and is a prime candidate for overlay; but if we wait too long it will fall below preservation; he said Sprague is the largest arterial for preservation, and this section between Park and Vista was the last section to do; if we did it this year, he said we would finish the federally funded projects next year and would have the entire Sprague resurfaced within the last four years,which he said is one of Council's desires. Councilmember Grafos suggested doing all the work on Sprague at the same time in order to be less disruptive to the businesses; and Councilmember Woodard added that perhaps we could do some work this year and some work such as landscaping the following Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT year; said he feels that section is important. Mr. Jackson asked if we decided to pursue Sprague, how would that rank. Mr. Worley said in checking with the TIB staff regarding the new criteria,he has asked for more information on what safety factors they are looking at and if this improvement is made, will those improvements address the safety factors criteria; and said he has not received that information yet but hopes to have it before next Tuesday's Council meeting when this topic is scheduled for a motion. Concerning the Appleway Trail, Mr. Worley said that project would not qualify under either the SP or UAP program. Mr. Guth said it is also below our other two projects on the list; he said TIB values safety first and they look at improving complete streets with sidewalks and curbs, and said this would be a lane reduction that already has many of those safety features. It was also noted that the City's match on TIB funded projects is typically 20% of the total project cost, and that right-of-way is not an eligible cost for sidewalk projects. Mr. Jackson said staff will get additional information and come back with options for Council consideration. At 7:26 p.m.Mayor Towey called for a ten-minute recess;the meeting was reconvened at 7:39 p.m. 4. Communications Franchise,Zayo Renewal—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said that in July of 2003, the City granted a ten-year franchise to Columbia Fiber; he said that this is a replacement franchise as Columbia sold their interest to Zayo; he said this would also be a ten year franchise with many of the same terms; that there have been some updates to reflect what we have done in other franchises, and he noted under Section 4 the City negotiated for the right to use up to four dark fibers or two pair,to be used solely for municipal purposes. Mr. Driskell said we will also have the route map available for next week at the proposed first reading. There was consensus from council to move this forward to a first reading July 23. 5. City Hall Concepts—John Hohman Community Development Director Hohman introduced Mr. Doug Mitchell and Ms. Marian Evenson of MMEC Architects, who he said have been retained to update the 2008 City Hall Space Analysis, and to develop concepts using existing available structures as well as undeveloped properties. Mr. Hohman said they used the 2008 study as the basis for their work, but used different assumptions since the economy has changed since 2008. Mr. Hohman said MMEC also reviewed our existing space; he said they did not look at parking, but as was noted in the February retreat, they examined the idea of locating the police precinct building with city hall. Ms. Evenson explained that the 2008 report wasn't a waste of effort as it included good information; but said that report did not analyze the existing space including shared space; she said as they examined existing versus new space, using the existing space enabled them to understand the needs; and therefore said their document is more of an addendum to the 2008 document. She said they conducted discussions with the department heads to see where growth is headed, and said she feels it is minimal as no one is asking for additional people; she explained that there was more growth anticipated in 2008,but feels their report is more realistic of how Spokane Valley might grow. She explained that they anticipate a city hall would need 44,213 square feet; a future police precinct would need 27,224 square feet as the current precinct lacks things like front door security, and suggested it would be more secure if they had a bigger lobby; and said they also need more conference room space, and larger locker rooms. As shown on the PowerPoint slides, Mr. Hohman explained that a combined City Hall and Police Precinct would require 71,500 square feet; and he went over the space needs broken down by department. Ms. Evenson added that if the two buildings were combined, one of the reasons more space would be required is because the police would actually take up more room because of their vehicles.Mr. Hohman added that City Hall and the Police Precinct would also have separate uses and separate security needs. Mr. Mitchell said that the police would need more security and they don't want a lot of windows,but windows would be desired for a City Hall; that the precinct would need high security, and while there are some benefits to co-locating, he said he feels there is no real benefit to co-locate in the same building. Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Hohman went over the property evaluation figures as shown on slide 6, and said of the available developed and undeveloped properties within the city, they initially established a list of 21 possible locations, and that list was then reduced to six representative locations. Ms. Evenson said the biggest thing that would affect growth would be expanded services; if you provide more services, you will need more space. Mr. Jackson said the space study shows the assumptions, adding that it is sometimes hard to do assumptions; he said if we decide to build a city hall,we would come back and look at space needs; he said twenty years from now a different council and staff would have different needs; we want to make sure we have enough space to accommodate reasonable additions over time. Councilmember Grafos said if security is the downside to having the two buildings combined, there could be separate entrances; and said it would be a benefit overall concerning cost, to have them together. Mr. Mitchell agreed there is nothing wrong in putting the two together; he said the existing facility isn't bad,which he said is more to do with the reason why they didn't look at every scenario; that the existing facility could use some modifications to make it function even better. Ms. Evenson added that a lot of smaller communities combine them; she said this precinct is better than those smaller cities; and that mostly it would be a perception of coming to the City Hall versus coming to a Police Precinct. The question arose concerning the projection time the consultants are considering, and Ms. Evenson explained that they are looking out five years into the future as that is much more clear than trying to look out twenty years since the city has a five-year history upon which to review, and said they feel their estimates are conservative yet close to an actual need. Mr. Jackson added that over our first ten years we have remained fairly stable at 85 employees; he said he is comfortable with these numbers and feels they would be good for at least fifteen to twenty years; and said any city hall should be built to serve the community for the next hundred years and if anything,perhaps at the most, another 10% could be added to these figures. The six representative sites were discussed along with the benefits of each site Mr. Mitchell explained that option 2 uses the old Crescent Building, which has 100,000 square feet and could accommodate a city hall and a police precinct; but he added that some of the other sites could accommodate both; he said this site is about six acres and discussion would have to be held about the logistics, whether to have the police on the first floor or in the back of the first floor,with City hall on the second floor or in front of the building, or other combinations. Mr. Mitchell said the "East of University Option 3" would not work to include a police department as the acreage is too tight. Option 4, Mr. Mitchell said, is the former Yokes building;he said it has six or seven acres, and if that is the choice,it might be possible to put a building in front of the old Yokes building. Mr. Mitchell explained that site 5 and 6 are at the Mirabeau area, with site 5 lending to the synergy of having CenterPlace and the Centennial Trail close by. He said site 6 property is currently owned by John Miler. Cost per square foot was discussed and estimated, and it was mentioned if the idea is to build two to three years from now, a figure would likely be different from today's market figures. Councilmember Grafos said he estimated the square foot cost for a new city hall building at $225 per square foot, bringing the cost of the building to about $16 million, without counting an additional 33% for further costs or another $5 million; he said the Crescent building selling price is $4.7 million,which includes over six acres,with remodeling cost of about $60 to $70 a square foot. Mr. Mitchell said he feels the additional 33% would be closer to 35 to 40%, and the $60 to $70 remodeling cost is underestimated. Ms. Evenson added that the cost would be closer to $70 per square foot improvement at least; that the building is sorely lacking such things as access to daylight, and a decent mechanical, electrical and information system (IT), and said taking those factors into consideration, she feels renovation cost would not be much different from new construction costs. Mr. Mitchell said those ideas deserve further study as we don't know exactly the state of those systems; he said the floor structure is also a factor, as is the high likelihood of the building containing asbestos; and said there are a lot of things in that building they haven't looked at yet; he said that ITRON did a study when they were considering moving to Liberty Lake, concerning existing versus new, and their decision was to buy existing and converted quite a lot; but added that for the Crescent building,the mechanical, electrical and IT systems would have to be taken into consideration. Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ms. Evenson also noted that a concern of that employer was retaining good employees; they wanted office space comparable to what they'd be used to; she said nice space attracts the best employees and they wanted their employees to work in environments that are pleasant, adding that we spend about 314th of our lives in our office space. Mr. Mitchell said for the Crescent building, we would probably want to cut openings in exterior walls to make it more office like; and said it is still not an ideal building because it's so square; that ideally you want to have people thirty to forty feet from a window and you can't do that in that building and it would take a lot more to accomplish that; perhaps maybe even putting in a skylight in the middle. Ms. Evenson said often older buildings come with some redeeming qualities and she's not positive that building has a lot; but added that with money, you can do anything to make it pleasant. There was discussion about a library and city hall,with Mr.Mitchell explaining that the Crescent building was chosen as an option because of the possibility of a library across the street; and said it would probably set the best visual for that little section; and Ms. Evenson added that two schemes include a relationship to the park. Mr. Jackson said that particular location adjacent to a potential library was a consideration; that the original study in 2008 determined it would be co-located, but said for this study, that was not a requirement. Councilmember Wick asked about the original three-story building idea; and Mr. Mitchell said three stories were not justified due to cost. Councilmember Woodward said he likes site #2 and would like to see more about that area;he said he feels site #3 is too small; #4 has possibilities but doesn't include a"campus concept" and said he formerly felt Mirabeau was a good location, but the drawback is that won't entice new development,whereas the U-City area would; and said he is not sure if #1 with a new building is the option he would prefer. Councilmember Grafos said he agreed with Councilmember Woodard and feels that location is an opportunity to re-develop the U-City area as well as enhance the park/library project, and will re-purpose an existing building; and said purchase of the building would also include the economic development component; and suggests that as part of that sale agreement, we should ask the seller to remove the remaining unoccupied buildings at their expense as they no longer have a useful economic life and will continue to deteriorate and restrict development; he said the owner should also paint and "dress up" the sheriff office training center; and that we should be granted a 20 to 25 foot easement or property line adjustment on the east side to end up with a free- standing building; he said we don't have to remodel the entire 100,000 square feet; and said you can never go wrong having more square footage. Councilmember Wick also voiced his agreement with Councilmember Woodard and said that #2 has a lot of potential and feels it is more in line with the philosophy of what we are looking for. Councilmember Hafner agreed that this has an identity for us. Deputy Mayor Schimmels stated that the best thing about #2 is the location; said he doesn't like that building and it would have to be "gutted" and feels the second floor is not trustworthy; and that it is important to talk to the owner as those old buildings should have been removed a long time ago. Mr. Jackson said as we bring options forward, it is important to look more closely at the precinct; that we started with a City Hall concept and at least one facility that could accommodate police; he said renovations are costly and we can come back and have a separate discussion on the police department, although we have a precinct building; said he feels it is too soon to eliminate options and he would like to come back with more information on renovation; perhaps have a separate study session to talk about precinct needs; said when we were discussing the idea of building new we were not discussing building a new precinct; he said that would be difficult to fund unless we could sell the existing building; he aid the challenge is to finance the correct-size city hall and we need to take a closer look at the issues. Mr. Mitchell said if#2 is a consideration, at some point they will want to get in and look at the structure, and the mechanical and electrical systems to see what we'd be getting; and Ms. Evenson added she anticipates that building would have a great deal of asbestos. Mayor Towey said he feels those are the next steps to help determine what to eliminate and how to move forward. Mr. Mitchell said for either #1 or #2, an option would also be to remove the existing building. Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 7. The (a)Initiative 502 Rules Update, and(b) WUTC Grant Opportunity were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey There were no comments. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Mr.Jackson had no comments. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss potential land acquisition, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:52 p.m. Councilmember Wick recused himself due to a conflict of interest. At 9:26 p.m. Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session; immediately thereafter it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 07-16-2013 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: IZI Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-010; CTA-2013-0004 City Initiated Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code-minor updates to sign regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a study session on March 28, 2013, followed by public hearings on April 11, 2013 and May 23, 2013. Following the public hearings, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval the proposed amendment (see Attachments). The Planning Commission approved their Findings of Fact on June 27, 2013. The Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to Council at the July 9, 2013 study session. OPTIONS: Proceed to second ordinance reading with or without further amendments; send back to Planning Commission for further review; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 13-010, City Initiated Amendment CTA 2013-0004, sign regulation amendments, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance B. Staff Report to Planning Commission C. Planning Commission Findings D. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 22.110, SIGN REGULATIONS INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF TEMPORARY SIGNS ALLOWED, AND PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS;AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Title 22, pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2007, SVMC Title 22 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2013, 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 Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2013, the Planning Commission held a study session to hear a staff report about the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2013 and April 5, 2013, notice of a Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2013 and May 10, 2013, notice of a second Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2013 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2013 the Planning Commission continued deliberations; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, the Planning Commission approved its findings and conclusions; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2013, City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments to SVMC 22.110; and Ordinance 13-010 Page 1 of 14 DRAFT WHEREAS, on August 13, 2013, City Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments to SVMC 22.110; and WHEREAS, SVMC 22.110, as amended, bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment. 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 SVMC 22.110, including minor updates to sign regulations relating to the number and type of temporary signs and permit submittal requirements. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held public hearings on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission, specifically that: A. Growth Management Act Policies - The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County-Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. a. Land Use Policy LUP-14.3 Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial,retail and industrial signage that protect views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. b. Economic Development Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,consistency,predictability and clear direction. c. Economic Development Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. C. Conclusions a. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals establishing and maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. b. The amendment bears substantial relations to public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment. c. The proposed amendment will provide additional signage options to business owners. d. The proposed City initiated Code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.150(F). e. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The proposal is consistent with RCW 36.70A, Washington State Growth Management Act, which stipulates that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Section 3. Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 22.100, Sign Regulations, is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance 13-010 Page 2 of 14 DRAFT Chapter 22.110 SIGN REGULATIONS Sections: 22.110.010 Purpose,intent and scope. 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. 22.110.030 Permit required. 22.110.040 Number,general regulations for permitted permanent signs. 22.110.050 Permitted temporary signs. 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs. 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks. 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. 22.110.130 Billboards. 22.110.010 Purpose,intent and scope. Signage regulations are intended to promote commerce,traffic safety and community identity while improving the visual environment of residential,commercial and industrial areas.This code regulates permanent,temporary,and portable signs. 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: A. Signs which by coloring,shape,wording or location resemble or conflict with traffic control signs or devices; B. Signs that create a safety hazard for pedestrian or vehicular traffic; C.Flashing signs; D.Portable signs;except A-frame signs and reader boards specifically allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.050(_A1) and(E); E. Signs located within the public right-of-way,except official signs and except bus benches placed pursuant to an agreement with the City; F. Signs attached to or placed on a vehicle or trailer parked on public or private property;provided,that this provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the identification of a business or its product on a vehicle operating during the normal course of business; G. Signs obstructing visibility within any clearview triangle as established in Chapter 22.70 SVMC; H.Billboards except when permitted as provided in SVMC 22.110.130; Ordinance 13-010 Page 3 of 14 DRAFT I.Off-premises signs,except off-premises directional signs allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.040(D); J.Temporary signs unless specifically allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.050; K.Abandoned signs and sign structures. 22.110.030 Permit required. A.Other than for those uses listed in subsection(B)of this section,a sign permit is required for all allowed permanent signs,temporary signs,unless otherwise specified,and billboards. B.Permits are not required for on-premises official signs;seasonal decorations;merchandise displays;point-of- purchase advertising displays;national and state flags;flags of a political subdivision;notice signs,inflatables;flags with copy;reader boards;temporary signs as listed in 22.110.050 pennants and streamers without advertising copy; symbolic flags of nonprofit institutions dedicated to public service;legal notices required by law;barber poles; historic site designations;commemorative monuments/plaques;gravestones;advertising copy affixed to phone booths;donation and recycling containers;lettering or symbols applied directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically to a motor vehicle operating in the normal course of business;political signs supporting political issues,candidates or ballot measures;replacement of copy on signs otherwise permitted;name plates with less than four square feet of copy area;directional signs with less than four square feet of copy area;and murals containing no copy. C.Permit applications shall include a site plan that provides the following information: 1.The location of the affected lot,building(s)and sign(s); 2.The scale of the site plan; 3.The location of all existing signs for the subject applicant including size and heightA scaled drawing of the proposed sign or sign revision,including size,height, copy, structural footing details,method of attachment and illumination; 4.For signs subject to spacing regulations,the location of neighboring signs on adjacent propertiesThe location of all existing signs on the site including size and height; 5.Approved sign plan,if applicableFor signs subject to spacing-regulations,the location of neighboring signs on adjacent properties,Viand;; 6.Tax parcel number where proposed sign will be located.Approved sign plan,if applicable; and 7.Tax parcel number where proposed sign will be located. (Ord. 12 013 § 1,2012; Ord. 09 010 § 1,2009; Ord.07 015 § 1,2007). D. Permit applications shall include construction drawings that provide the following information: 1. Two complete sets of scaled drawings of the proposed sign or sign revision,including copy,structural footing details;method of attachment and illumination. A Washington State licensed engineer's design, stamp and signature is required on each construction drawing for signs over 30 feet in height,pole and monument signs over 100 square feet in sign area regardless of height,flag signs over 10 feet in height Ordinance 13-010 Page 4 of 14 DRAFT regardless of sign area and wall signs where it is determined the size and weight of the sign is a factor on the structural integrity of the building or structure. Where special conditions exist for any type of sign,the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer and/or special inspections if deemed necessary. 22.110.040 Number,general regulations for permitted permanent signs. A.Permitted permanent signs shall comply with the requirements of Table 22.110-1.No more than the maximum numbers of either freestanding pole signs or monument sign structures are allowed per parcel. Table 22.110-1—Location,Height and Copy Area Requirements Maximum 1 Copy Copy Side Zoning Number Copy Area Area Yard Permit Additional Land Use Height District per Area (ft2)/Lot (ft2)/Lot Setback Required Provisions (ft.) Parcel (ft2) Frontage Frontage (ft.) <100ft. > 100 ft. Man Mil Attached Wall Signs 1 One sign up to 20 Multifamily Complex All Zones * * * * * * Y sq.ft. Residential *25%of wall Institutional' * * * n/a n/a n/a Y Zones area Residential Single Business 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a Y Zones All Mixed Use and *25%of wall Nonresidential n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Nonresidential area per building Zones Freestanding Signs Subdivision/Area *One per 200 ft. Name/Multifamily All Zones 1* 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y of street frontage Complex/Institutional' and 1 for each Single Business Neighborhood 1 20 100 n/a n/a 5 Y additional 200 ft. or fraction Multi-Business Business(NC) 1* 20 n/a 100 n/a 5 y thereof in Complex Zones nonresidential Single Business Mixed Use 1* 30 n/a 100 200 5 Y zones.Additional and signs allowed on Multi-Business Nonresidential 40 1* 250 n/a n/a 5 y a multi-business Complex Zones(except complex site may Ordinance 13-010 Page 5 of 14 DRAFT NC) all be free- standing; additional signs allowed on a single business parcel shall be monument signs All Nonresidential *Adjacent to I-90 Nonresidential 1 50 250 n/a n/a 5 Y Freeway* only Zones Mak Monument Signs Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Complex/Institutional' *Per street Single Business Neighborhood 1* 7 75 n/a n/a 5 Y frontage Multi-Business Business(NC) Complex Zones 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Single Business All Mixed Use 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y and *Per street Multi-Business Nonresidential 2* frontage 2 7 150 n/a n/a 5 y g Complex Zones MIE Other Signs Directional All Zones n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N Name Plates All Zones 1 n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N 1.Institutional includes nonprofit,religious or public uses,such as a church,library,public,or private school,hospital,or government owned or operated building,structure,or land used for public purposes. B.In addition to the permanent signs allowed pursuant to Table 22.110-1,a single decorative emblem(or standard) constructed of durable vinyl with a thickness of not less than 13 mil for every 50 feet of frontage shall be allowed. The lowest horizontal member of the bracket shall be located at a height of not less than seven feet above the adjacent grade. C.Where three or more single businesses agree to share a single sign structure,an additional 20 percent of copy area shall be allowed up to a maximum of 250 square feet. D.Off-Premises Directional Signs.It is the intent of this subsection to allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign,freestanding sign,or building wall.The A business locating placing this type of sign on an existing sign must shall conform to the following criteria: 1.The business must shall be located on a private easement or local access street; Ordinance 13-010 Page 6 of 14 DRAFT 2.The business and proposed sign must shall be located in a commercial,office,industrial or mixed zone area; 3.Text shall be limited to the business name,logo,and a directional arrow and may include certain advancing language as"next right"; 4.The sign must shall be located on the nearest collector or arterial.If a business has double frontage, staff will review this unique situation to determine if two directional signs are warranted; 5. Sign area is-shall be limited to 15 square feet;this shall not be construed to allow the on-premises sign to increase its sign area;and 6.If the business using an off-premises directional sign leaves its location,the business must shall remove the sign within 60 days. 7.If the site has no existing signage or buildings,then a freestanding sign meeting the requirements above may be allowed. 22.110.050 ReFmitted Ttemporary signs. Except as otherwise described under this section,no permit is necessary for temporary signs.Temporary signs are not allowed to continually advertise goods, services or events on a site;permanent signs shall be used for that A.A temporary sign advertising a special event, sale,promotion,opening of a new business or opening of a business under new management may be displayed and must be removed at end of use, event or condition. AB.Number of Temporary Signs.No more than two of the followings e-s-tie-14 signs shall be allowed at any one time for a use,except as permitted in subsection E below;.- 1. One Banner,or 2. One Reader board,or 3. One Flag with copy, 4,4. Or any combination of the above,not to exceed a total of two signs. BC.Each signSignage shall be limited to 32 square feet in size. D.All temporary signs must be made of durable materials and shall be well maintained. Signs are not well maintained if they are frayed,torn,or broken,or the legibility thereof has materially deteriorated.Unmaintained signs will be required to be removed. E. Banner signs must be attached to the facade,wall or window of the building which includes the business which they advertise. Additional banners or temporary signs advertising a special event,sale,promotion,opening of a new business or a business under new management,including banners,balloons,pennants,flags with copy,streamers,searchlights Ordinance 13-010 Page 7 of 14 DRAFT and inflatables are allowed by temporary permit for a period of time not to exceed 60 days a maximum of two times in any calendar year. G.Pennants,balloons, and streamers may be displayed in conjunction with the special event signage allowed in subsection F of this section,but must be removed at the conclusion of the event or within 60 consecutive days. DII.Temporary signs shall not endanger the public safety and shall be removed or relocated if the building official determines that a sign is unsafe. EI.A-Frame Signs. Each bgusiness will be allowed a maximum of one sandwich board or A-frame sign.These signs are in addition to other temporary signs allowed through subsections A through Hand C of this section,and are subject to the following conditions: 1. Size.The area of the sign shall not exceed nine square feet per side in size and shall not exceed three feet in any dimension. 2.Maintenance Standards. Signs shall be constructed out of materials able to withstand extreme weather conditions. Such materials may be metal,finished wood,chalkboard,whiteboard or plastic. Signs and copy should be of professional quality.Permanent lettering for the business name and logo are required on the sandwich boards.Owners of sandwich board signs shall be required to keep their signs in an intact, reasonably legible,and well maintained manner. Sandwich boards are not well maintained if any part thereof is broken;letters or graphics are completely or partially missing or obstructed;or the legibility thereof has materially deteriorated. 3.Display Time. Signs may only be displayed during business hours. If business hours continuelf the sign is displayed past daylight hours,precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area.This shall not be construed to allow the wiring of a sign for lighting. 4.Location. Signs shall not be placed in a location which is within the clearview triangle,as defined in SVMC 22.70.020(C),or any other location which will impede vehicular traffic.Further,such signs shall not be placed in a manner which will block or otherwise obstruct the safe use of sidewalks,building entrances or stairs by pedestrians. F4.Temporary on-premises commercial signs are allowed without permit when posted in conjunction with the alteration,construction,sale or lease of real property. Such signs shall not exceed 16 square feet in copy area or seven feet in height.All such signs shall be affixed to either the ground or a permanent structure by rope,wire,or a mechanical device. GIB.Open House/Directional Signage.A-frame signs may be used as open house/directional signs and shall be allowed on each access street to the property. Signs shall be placed so as not to interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic,shall be used only when the property is open for inspection,shall be unlit,and shall be limited in size to five square feet and limited in height to three feet above grade. Ordinance 13-010 Page 8 of 14 DRAFT 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs. A.All signs illuminated with exterior lighting shall have lighting confined to the sign,and positioned and shielded to minimize impacts to the surrounding area(s).Gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted on permanent freestanding and wall signs;provided,that lighting or glare does not extend beyond the property line. B.Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs,subject to the requirements of Table 22.110- 1.All electronic message centers(EMCs)are required to have automatic dimming capability that adjusts the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night.Written documentation that the EMC is equipped with the automatic dimming device shall be submitted with the sign permit application. C.A roof-mounted sign may be substituted for an allowed freestanding sign;provided,that the height of the sign structure may not exceed the maximum height requirements of the zoning district in which the sign is located. D. Signs located within the airport hazard area shall conform to the location and height regulations set forth in SVMC 19.110.030,Airport Hazard Overlay zone. E.No sign shall be erected,relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress from any door,window or fire escape. F.No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape except official signs. G.Any sign erected or maintained within five feet of public rights-of-way shall be smooth and free of nails,tacks and wires. H.All signs shall be maintained in good repair pursuant to SVMC 22.110.110. I.No sign shall block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. Commercial development,shopping centers,industrial parks,mixed use developments,and hotel conference centers exceeding five acres in size may seek approval of a sign plan specific to the proposed development.The director may approve a comprehensive sign plan that allows deviations from the strict interpretation of spacing,height and area requirements when the following is demonstrated: A.The plan provides adequate signage for all proposed uses;and B.The plan limits the number of freestanding sign structures;and C.The total copy area of all signage does not exceed the amount which would otherwise be permitted. Any conditions imposed to secure approvals shall be binding on the applicant,his successors and assigns. Modifications/amendments to the approved sign plan shall require reapplication and approval by the director.If the applicant and director cannot come to an agreement as to a comprehensive sign plan or a modification/amendment to the same,the director's decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC. Ordinance 13-010 Page 9 of 14 DRAFT 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. A.The standards applicable to monument signs shown on Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to aesthetic corridors designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: 1. State Route 27(16th Avenue south to City limits); 2. State Route 27(Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3.Appleway Boulevard(south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4.Appleway Avenue(Barker Road to Hodges Road); 5.Dishman Mica Road(8th Avenue south to City limits); 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; 7.Mirabeau Parkway(Pines Road to Indiana Avenue). B.Only monument signs as shown on Table 22.110-1 shall be allowed with designated aesthetic corridors. 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks. A.Monument signs exceeding three feet in height shall be setback 10 feet from the front property line and outside any border easement;provided,that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 SVMC,Fencing,Screening and Landscaping,(clearview triangles)have been met. B.Freestanding signs with structural supports less than two feet in width,with copy area placed at a height of seven feet or more above grade,may be located at the property line;provided,that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 SVMC,Fencing,Screening and Landscaping,(clearview triangles)of the Spokane Valley igiifefm :: •-• .• :. Municipal-eCode have been met.Freestanding signs with structural supports of more than two feet shall be set back not less than 10 feet from the front property line or border easement. C.All temporary signs,except inflatable signs,shall be located at least five feet from public rights-of-way. D.Inflatable signs shall be set back at least 10 feet from public rights-of-way. E.All signs shall meet the vertical and horizontal clearance requirements of electric utilities. F.All new freestanding signs shall be located in a landscaped area in accordancecomply with SVMC 22.70.030(J) Landscaping.Landscaping should ensure that signs are not blocked or obscured by trees or bushes.(Ord.07 015 § 1,2007). 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. A. Sign area for wall signs shall be no more than 25 percent of the two-dimensional area of a building's elevation, excluding eaves and gables.Refer to Table 22.110-1. Ordinance 13-010 Page 10 of 14 DRAFT PETE'S PRO GOLF Figure 22.110-1 SIG H B -- _ _- Max!mum.Heigh r Minimum HeiV Propel Line Figure 22.110-2 Hanker M1 SIGN 74 Al Mat:-tr.7 Hai�hi SIGN 2 t B2 tbadi ` ea J Worm,Lne Figure 22.110-3 B.The sign area of a freestanding sign for a single business shall be calculated as shown in Figure 22.110-2.The sign area of a freestanding sign identifying multiple businesses shall be computed by adding together the total area(s)of all signs as shown in Figure 22.110-3.Refer to Table 22.110-1 for minimum and maximum height requirements. C.The sign area for multiple-sided signs shall be calculated as follows: 1.The total sign area for a two-sided sign shall be calculated using a single surface of a sign with messages on both sides; 2.The sign area for a three-sided sign shall be the sum of all surfaces where two or more signs share a single structure; 3.The gross surface area of both faces of a V-shaped sign; 4.The copy area of a monument sign. Ordinance 13-010 Page 11 of 14 DRAFT D.For irregularly shaped signs,the sign area is calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the sign by no more than four rectangles.The sum of the area of the rectangles shall be the gross surface area.The maximum allowable area is reduced by 10 percent for the second and each subsequent rectangle used in the calculation,illustrated below. a A lisCIOVit imp 1 8 1.Conventional Measurement.Total area=a times b. 2. Sum of Rectangles.Total area=(Area A+Area B+Area C+Area D). 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. A.All signs shall be maintained in good repair.The director shall have the authority to revoke any permit for signs 1 that are tattered,torn,faded or otherwise in disrepair,and may require the removal of banners,flags,reader boards. pennants and streamers which are torn,discolored or in disrepair. B.All signage shall be maintained by the business owner,or person in possession of the property on which the sign is located.Maintenance shall be such that the signage continues to conform to the conditions imposed by the sign permit. C.Any damaged sign structure shall be repaired within 30 days of notice. D.Any signage which has been damaged to such extent that it may pose a hazard to passersby shall be repaired or removed within 48 hours of notice. E.Any abandoned sign shall be removed by and at the expense of the property owner within 60 days of notice. F.Any abandoned sign support structure shall be removed within 36 months by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is located. 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. Any permanent sign made nonconforming as a result of the adoption of these regulations may be repaired,but not structurally altered or made more nonconforming in any way.If the sign is removed in order to make repairs,it shall be replaced within 60 days,or any nonconforming rights are terminated.Thereafter,the sign shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. Ordinance 13-010 Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Notwithstanding other provisions of this section,any sign or signs for which a temporary permit has been issued by the City shall be permitted to remain at the location or locations authorized by the permit for as long as the permit is valid and all the requirements of the permit have been met. 22.110.130 Billboards. A.New billboards shall be prohibited;provided,however,that existing billboards may be replaced at another location with a structure and copy area of equal or smaller size in mixed use and nonresidential zoning districts except(NC)Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts as follows: 1.Replacement billboards shall not exceed the height limit in the underlying zoning district,with a maximum height limit of 50 feet in any zone; 2.No replacement billboard shall exceed 672 square feet in copy area; 3.Any replacement billboard may not be placed less than five feet from the property line.No portion of the sign shall extend beyond the property line; 4.No billboard may be located within 1,000 feet of another billboard on the same side of the street.Any replacement billboard shall be offset from any billboard on the opposite side of the street by not less than 250 feet.Offset distance shall be measured from a point perpendicular to and along the alignment of the roadway; 5.The owner of the billboard shall file a complete inventory of all billboards located within the City, including date erected,height,size and location; 6.Issuance of a permit for billboard replacement shall be accompanied by a permit for the destruction or removal of the billboard to be replaced;and 7.Any billboard that is not replaced within 5five years40-menhs following the issuance of a demolition/removal permit shall not be replaced. B.Replacement billboards shall not be permitted along designated aesthetic corridors. Section 4. All other provisions of SVMC Title 22 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. 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 6. 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. Ordinance 13-010 Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Passed by the City Council this day of August, 2013. Mayor,Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 13-010 Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION June 27h,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. This city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.100, Sign Regulations- minor updates to sign regulations including number and type of temporary signs and permit submittal requirements, 3. The Planning Commission held public hearings on April 11, 2013 and May 23, 20]3. Following deliberations on June 13, 2013 the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council, Planning Commission Findings: 1, Compliance with SVMC 17.8O.1SOF Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i, LUP-14.3: Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protect views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. ii. EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. iii. EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): i. Allowing additional temporary signage options for both type and location allows the City to continue to be mindful of community appearance and signage clutter while providing businesses with reasonable advertising options. ii. With the addition of reader boards, allowing options for the placement of temporary signs anywhere on a parcel, and the updating of the information required for permit submittal, the City is responding to both the feedback from the business community and providing consistency with the regulations of surrounding jurisdictions. Fite ngs and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Nip 1 oF2 ATTACHMENT A iii, The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive.Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17,80.150F. b, The Growth Management Act (G1vIA,) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.110, Sign Regulations. Ap. oo ed this 27th daLof June 2413. ' 7 --) —. k , rPF- Bil" Rates,Chairman ATTEST: Carl Hinshaw,Planning Commission Secretary Findings and P.ecomrnendations of the Spokane Valley Maiming Commission Page 2 oft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Sjökane 4•••oValley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: March 19,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: April 11th, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.100, Sign Regulations- minor updates to sign regulations including number and type of temporary signs and permit submittal requirements. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community Development Director, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 22.110 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 3/29/2013 and 4/5/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 3/28/13 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0004 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: On April 24,2012,City Council adopted significant changes to the City's signage regulations. The changes being proposed here are minor in nature and address concerns raised by business owners since the adoption of the updated regulations. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Comment: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan: LUP-14.3: Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protect views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. EDG-7-Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. EDP-7.2-Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Comment: Public health, safety and welfare are furthered by providing sign regulations that respect the purposes of signs from the perspective of the community and business. The amendment recognizes business need to advertise, while preserving an attractive commercial environment for the public. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. (3) Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing has not been initiated for CTA-2013-0004 as of this date. (4) Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0004 b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, recommends approval of the proposed sign code updates Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 13, 2013 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the fledge of allegiance IlI. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair x John Holtman, Corn Development Director Joe Stoy Vice Chair x Marty Palanit,tc, Planner Steven Neill x r Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Anderson x 1-- Mike Phillips x l� Robert MeCaslin x r Christina Carlson x r Carl Hinshaw, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second war made and the motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL Olt; MINUTES Commissioner Neill moved to approve the May 23, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was made and the motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Community Development Director John Hohman went over the advance agenda. He stated that the creation of the development regulations have pushed their abilities to the limits because of Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of all the different rewrites. There were seven different versions from the consultant before they decided to go a different direction in-house, and then five different versions after that. He stated that they are at a point where they have done the best job they can do with this particular material and that it was very complex. There will be various experts at Tuesday night's Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to help walk through all of it. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: CTA-201 i-0004, Sign Code Amendments. A pending/postponed motion is on the table from the May 23, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting: Motion: Commissioner Stay roved to approve and forward to the City Council CIA-2013- 0004 as presentee, a second was rude, Community Development Director John Hohman provided a short recap of the changes, which are as follows: 1. 22.110.030 Permit required, paragraph C, item 3. (The location of all existing signs for the subject applicant including size and height). Subject Applicant was added. 2. 22 110,030 Permit required,paragraph 11 In the last draft, there was an item 2. (2. Special inspection agency agreements,signed by the owner and special inspection agency are required for sign construction with concrete over 2500 psi, on site welding,.or high strength bolting.) Item 2 was removed. Mr. Hohman stated that at the public hearing Mr. Wineinger stated that it was his experience that special inspection agreements were not typically required. Mr. Hohman stated he discussed it with the City's Building Official Doug Powell. Mr. Powell talked to the jurisdictions of Cheney. Spokane, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake to get a feel for what they are doing. Mr. Hohman explained that what staff came up with was that special inspection agreements are only required in three different areas. • If a sign company comes forward with something completely out of the ordinary that is typically not seen, like a large sign with a strange cantilever structure or something else that would cause some questions. + Extremely large pole signs that are not typical as well that have some additional bracing or other issues that might make staff believe special inspections arc required. • Replacement of existing billboards -those inspections are required. Beyond the three items, it is not typical to have a special inspection agreement done. Therefore, Item 2 was removed and, the following was added to Item 1: (Where special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer and for special inspections if deemed necessary.)Mr. Hohman stated that this would provide the flexibility in case the City was to encounter one of the three out of the ordinary situations,then the City could require special inspections. 3. 22.110.050 Temporary Signs,paragraph E, item. 3. (Signs may only be displayed During business hours. If business hours continue) was removed and replaced with; (If the sign is displaced past daylight hours, precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area.) Plannin.Commission minutes Page 2 of 6 4. 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks,paragraph F, was changed to; (All new freestanding signs shall comply with SVMC 22.70.030 (4) Mr. Holtman stated that be located and landscaped area was removed as well as the second sentence. Commissioner Canisen read the attached statement to the Planning Commission regarding CTA-2013-0004. Commissioner Stoy responded that most of the businesses that Commissioner Carlsen highlighted are destination locations and they do not need exposure the way temporary signs would highlight an unknown brand new business; everyone knows where Fred Meyer is (Sullivan). He said he thhiks the worst-case scenario was put out there and that there are several business that have been there for large amount of time, and everybody knows that they are there. He stated that there is a possibility that there could be two hundred signs out there but that would probably never happen and you cannot tie somebody's hands because he has a little lot with a hundred foot of frontage, to one sign. Commissioner Carlsen stated that the purpose of a temporary sign is not to advertise your business; the purpose is to advertise a special, or a daily deal, The temporary sign is not meant to be the sign to draw people into your business. She continued that any strip mall with any number of tenants could have the same problem and said she does not think a temporary sign is going to change the nature of the business. Commissioner Bates stated that temporary signs in some instances are the lifeblood of a small business and through his experience; he knows you can get traffic in a store if temporary signs are done properly, There are so many empty retail and businesses that we as a City have a big job to get business in there. He stated that he is for doing anything within reason to help a business survive and prosper. Commissioner Anderson stated that the worst-case scenario is always possible with any rule or zone and that if it did happen then there is always the option to say it can't continue because of any clutter. The City still has the ability to talk to the business and let them know they are making a mess out of the area or with the code or we can go out and stiffen it up. Commissioner Neill moved to amend the original motion to approve and recommend CTA- 2013-0004 to City Council to read, "as presented by staff with the four amendments recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of the proposed text amendments provided to the Commission tonight, ';Q second was made, 6 in favor, I against (Commissioner Carisen). Commissioner Curlsen stated she meant to vote yes to amending the motion. Commissioner Bates stated that they needed to revote on the last motion. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that someone needs to make a motion to re vote and make the record clear that Commissioner Carlsen wishes to vote affirmatively on that motion to amend the original motion, Commissioner Sloy moved to rescind the amended motion CTA-2013-0004. A second ivas made and the motion passed unanimously. Re-vote: Commissioner Neill moved to amend the motion to approve and recommend C7'A-2013- 0004 to CO) Council to read, as presented by staff with the lbw. amendments recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of The proposed text Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 amendments provided to the Commission tonight. '"A ,second was made and the motion passed amrtarrinrnusly. Note: The amendments arc: 1. 22.110,030 C (4): to read.' The location of all existing signs on the site for the subject applicant including size and height. 2. 22.110.030 D (2): was proposed: Special inspection agency agreements, signed by the owner and special inspection agency are required for sign construction with concrete over 2300 psi, on site welding, or high strength baiting. Then replaced with (1): 1'fflterAe special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer and/or special inspections of'deemed necessary. 3. 22,110.050 E (3) was proposed: Signs nuay only be displayed during business hours. If business bourn continue. Then replaced whir If the sign is displaced past daylight hours,precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area. 4. 22.110.090 F: to read:All new freestanding signs shall comply with SVIPIC 22,70.03 0 (1). be located find landscaped area was removed also the second sentence. The pending motion: Commissioner Stray moved to approve and forward to the City Council CTA-2013-0004 as amended a second w s made. Vote on the motion as amended: six in favor and one opposed. The amended motion passed. B. New Business: Study Session: CTA-2013-0005, Outdoor Lighting Standards Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting Standards and went over the proposed changes as attached in the draft materials for Chapter 22,60 Outdoor lighting standards: Mr. Palaniuk stated that the outdoor lighting standard does not apply to one or two-family dwellings and public street lighting. He covered the background of 1 wattage and lumens, which is the measure of the brightness of a light and stated that over the last several years technology has changed. The old incandescent bulb at 40 watts would only put out 550 lumens and now there are compact florescent light bulbs that require much less wattage but actually create the same amount of lumens. This is important to the text amendment that is being proposed. He stated a new Washington State Energy code would be enacted in July. All of the new development will have to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. See attached Chapter 2240 for proposed changes. Commissioner Neill asked if there was going to be a stipulation that shows at what point an audit is triggered to have somebody come in and inspect. Mr, Palaniuk stated that during the pre-application phase of development, the scope, scale and surrounding uses are looked at or if there are any anticipated impacts from light trespass. Therefore, if the Building Department felt that was going to happen, than they would require it at the lighting plan. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated there is potential legal concern when there is no criteria and you have unfettered discretion or there are no guiding principles for when that Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 lighting plan is required, there are potential legal pitfalls with that. The three potential criteria that Mr. Palaniuk listed could work well and still allow discretion from the building department as to when the lighting plan is required without locking them into having a lighting plan. Commissioner Stoy asked if it was going to affect existing developments. Mr. Palaniuk stated it would only effect developments after the amendments occur. It will not go back to prior developments. Commissioner MeCaslin asked if you need a permit to change a light bulb for commercial projects. Community Development John Lohman stated that the City does not handle electrical components; it is the Department of Labor and Industries that handle electrical permits. What the City would do in the case of an addition or just installing new lighting, is look towards compliance with the energy code to make sure that those units that were specified comply with our code. He stated, that what this new amendment is looking at doing is handing most of it off to the review of the energy code, maybe requiring a lighting plan in the larger developments or the ones adjacent to residential, where the City would be more concerned about the location of the lights and whether they are shielded or not, This is a big sealing back of our regulations. Commissioner Anderson used a scenario that if you develop a mall parking lot, does the City currently have a limitation on how much energy that they could use to light the mall parking lot? Mr. Palaniuk said yes they do have to meet the provisions in the Washington State Energy Code. That is what they are primarily trying to deal with is how much energy you consume with your lighting. This concerns the luminosity and how bright the site gets and the impacts of that brightness on the surrounding uses or adjacent properties. Commissioner Bates talked about the zoning and new developments changes for going from residential to the multi-family. He asked if we are getting into developer agreements again, if we do not have criteria for lighting. Mr, Palaniuk responded that it needs to be discussed whether they want to change the City to a responsible official like the building official or the Community Development Director and whether or not they want to include sonic criteria if they want to include that lighting plan. Such as the scope and scale of the project, the surrounding uses if there is residential than we should require a lighting plan, or if there is a sports arena or light industrial project, then the Planning Commission cart add them in there. Commissioner Bates stated that we are still in the Study Session and that it might be a discussion to have after the public hearing. Mt. Palaniuk responded that he could bring back another draft. Commissioner Stoy asked if a multi-family would be considered a commercial development. Mr. Palaniuk responded yes it would be subject to this regulation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that if it is the Commissions' desire to have criteria in the regulation then he could get that for them and staff could come back with the changes before the public hearing, Commissioner Bates asked how everyone felt about the criteria. Commissioner Anderson stated there are two things: we need criteria, and then you have a designation of an individual. He asked if the Planning Commission is qualified to designate that individual. Mr. Palaniuk stated that the City's Building Official is the one who oversees the City's development pre-app meetings, He said he might be the likely choice. Commissioner Stew agreed with Mr. Palaniuk as far as the Building Official having the authority, but thinks they should also define the scope and scale similar to the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Bates agreed and asked Mr. Palaniuk to come back with some criteria for requiring a lighting plan. Commissioner McCaslin asked if there have been any complaints regarding current outdoor lighting standards. Mr. Holtman and Mr. Palaniuk said they had no complaints from the public. Commissioner Anderson Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 01.6 commented on the public right away in the General requirements. He said we do not wart horizontal lights or bright lights affecting drivers on a roadway but said he would not be against light laminating the sidewalk of a road or an alley from commercial property. He asked if it is a stiff rule or an open rule. Mr. Hohman responded that they are talking about unshielded light and what they are trying to avoid is something like a spot light that would blind you as a motorist or anything that would cause traffic safety concerns as opposed to unshielded light that may illuminate part of the right-of-way. Commissioner Carlsen staled that at the beginning Mr. Palaniuk said he is going to remove the reference to the Washington State Energy Code. Mr. Pulaniuk stated they are coming out with a new energy code July 1st. Commissioner Bates asked if there was a criteria for the brightness of lights on billboards. Mr. Palaniuk stated that is under the sign code and it does reference it needs to be down loaded and that the bulbs cannot show. Flashing signs are prohibited. Mr. Hohrnan stated that he would look to amend the notice to include some of the language changes that Mr. Palaniuk talked about in his presentation. Therefore, at the public hearing, there will be some criteria and the designated individual will be in the language. Hu said if we could not amend the notice to the public, then they will bring some options forward for the Planning Commission deliberations. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. _ P Bill Bates, Chairperson Carl Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed 64.7 Planning Commission Minutes Page ij cf 6 I believe that the current code is sufficient for businesses to advertise their specials. According to the intent of temporary signage, they are meant to be "posted in conjunction with the alteration, construction, sale, or lease of reap property."' In essence TEMPORARY signs for a TEMPORARY purpose. Our current code offers free of cost options for business to provide notice for temporary events. Currently businesses are allowed an A-frame sign and either a banner, reader board, or two flags with copy. This is in addition to the permanent signs also on the premises. Furthermore, businesses are allowed to get a permit for additional signage to include 'event" style advertising for up to 4 months of each year. As this new code has not even been enforced for a full year, I don't think it is prudent to change the code again so quickly. I think that it would be wise to let the code remain for a longer length of time, to ascertain if there are needs for more signs. In addition, temporary signage is riot intended to keep a company in business, and I do not believe that an additional temporary sign will make or break any of our cities businesses. There are many ways to have effective advertising and marketing, and businesses have opportunities to pursue them. To address a concern brought up at our last meeting, I do not believe that temporary signs help with the locating of businesses. And if businesses are using temporary signs for these purposes, then they are not following the intent of usage of temporary signs. In the context of finding businesses, I think that more temporary signs will detract from the permanent signs and address markings. Another note about signage, I agree that in theory one more sign per business doesn't sound like that much of a change, but when I drive down some of our main streets, I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of signs that are present. There are real estate signs, there are political signs by the handful, there are dancing tooth paste tubes and slices of pizza, Jiffy Lobe and tire store employees waving. I have prepared a couple visual examples of the differences between the current code and the proposed changes. i c /1— ` P/aion.,,py c c,dArithos.rtmeie : eAelififi at" e6r4- Example A Example B In discussing this issue with citizens, comments that I heard related to the difficulty of finding businesses, especially along Sprague Avenue. The concerns were that there aren't adequate numbering signs along the street, and those on the businesses are too small or too far from the street to be useful. Additional concerns are that excess of flags and banners are distracting to drivers along some busy streets, and some trees along streets obscure not only signs and addresses, but buildings as well. My suggestion would be to let the current code stand until next year, to give enough time for the businesses to determine if they do need more signs. I would also be open to amending the current code with language stating that those with a certain length of frontage to be allowed to have an additional sign. As to the length of frontage, I would need more research on determining an appropriate length. An example would be if your business has less than 100 feet of frontage, you get one banner, reader board, or two flags with copy, and if you have more than 100 feet you would get the option of two of the items. To quote the Community Development Department's Business Guide to Keeping Spokane Valley Beautiful "We understand that running a business is challenging, and that adequate signage is critical to communicate with your customers, At the same time, we know business owners recognize the need to keep signage, especially movable and temporary signage, from overwhelming the image of our business areas. Ultimately, the future of Spokane Valley relies on a balance between supporting the businesses that serve our community, and protecting the quality of life that will attract the residents and major employers who will patronize those businesses." Ih�A�I 'VOW lA" Example A.1 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154,2005 13 817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA There are 11 unique business in this location. A-Frame Banner Reader Board Photos Flag with copy Orkk- 111* 41" VIP L5d Example A.2 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005 13817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA L ,sittisliteop Alk If each of the 11 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there would be 34 signs. 1 Pole Mounted Sign 12 Wall Mounted Signs 11 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 11 Banners, Reader Boards,or 2 Flags with copy. VIM Example A.3 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005 13817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA If each of the 11 tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there would be 46 signs. 1 Pole Mounted Sign 12 Wall Mounted Signs 11 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 22 Banners,Reader Boards,or 1 Flag with copy. wrr si ta'o', EiSprague*Aue 1 Example B.1 Parcels 45133.1341 , .1342, 1346, .1347, .1343, .1434, .1444, .1464, .1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA There are 22 unique businesses in this area. lrid.r Elv1111.1".1 A-Frame Banner Reader Board Flag with copy ratter Sprague ve Example B.2 Parcels 45133. 1341, .1342, 1346, .1347, . 1343, .1434, .1444, .1464, . 1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA If each of the 22 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there would he 82+signs. 7 Pole Mounted Sign 1 Monument Sign 30+Wall Mounted Signs 22 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 22 Banners,Reader Boards,or 2 Flags with copy. There are also two Billboard signs located here. Prim 8.ShIp iLl -mikir nt, '110ff.CF.f 111';.*4 A A-Frame Banner Reader Board Flag with copy Fre6Meyer Pharrnaqr 7-2 thl •:=1 Example B.3 Parcels 45133.1341, .1342, 1346, .1347, .1343, .1434, .1444, . 1464, .1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA Qi w S17:5arlearrli'' Pra g tiO-kyliESsismisra EIS praque'Ave e: If each of the 22 tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there would be 104+signs. 7 Pole Mounted Sign 1 Monument Sign 30+Wall Mounted Signs 22 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 44 Banners,Reader Boards,or I Flag with copy. There are also two Billboard signs located here. Chapter 22.60 OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS Sections: 22 60.010 Purpose. 22 80.020 Application. 22. 0,030 General requirements, 22.60.C40 Prohibited lights. 22.60.050 Exceptions, 22.60.060 Temporary lighting, 22.60.010 Purpose. The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive Iigh:ing of outdoor spaces, encourages energy conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord 07-015 § 4, 2007) 22.60.020 Application. The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code + r e' .,poly to outdoor lighting requirements fur all developments except one-and two-family dwellings and public street lighting. (Ord 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.030 General requirements. The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor lighting is subject to the following requirements: A_ The hting a14o once for covered parking. open ,parking ;nd outdoor aroes-sk+ t exe watts perequa @ot of lot area; provided, however, that the l w Fnay-be-+uQr s - -3 atte l qu feat for covered reside ntial-park-i-egeel a tell-egs-ar walls-are-pa+n:te i or stained with-a reflectance value of 0.70 or higher. B. TI e tfee-allowance r e;ld-in xt'± • ., ___ _ .ng. shall no:exceed either .25 watts per-Sware-fleet-ofl • . -- • -- :•-- , 5=' . .. a irie titer: r rmrru�r4eeeen-leeei t ni e .net tennr,l 'g_ect - el ll-e t x 42 feet 41-Regional CG4:FimeFG4l-and industrial zarerie-d+sle a-- foetee-allathe fi^, s A, All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that unshielded ne light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or into the public rigneof-wayeabove a height of three-feet. CT,A-20]3-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1 F. .4 -f. e JiI M4'�'"c.f { 110-0, r t 1Jt1 I .L :: 1 r ^•r!F I 1 1 { 5 ,.15 M R. ' ■ I Yn.1r Pomp-arty PINOchb.r'w, IrFnr-•Fpy et`ACCEPTAfLE AIR4.N LIL.11 I V fd�'± 15 R a {li `r f 44;t1r1rr��a Hr 4•pQ h T,err'ti trntr iy E. Outdoor lighting fixtures aliali be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible. tahIACCEP ASL , ACCEFTAIII.E•; 1 Il, - f "i,1 1 111111.17111111110, ' 71f1 *Oh!IL 1 1111111,.111111111p1.Jk FH1dYJ7"�4. •:j11 X111 R11111,Ii.g 1 �1 l' All outdoor lighti t'csw+tche-s-e,e4f$Fm;FIg tc th-e r•egu dfBmer1, _ . ._. _ •- .•_• •e. yCode. G. +4l 1-Aapplicatitans to -b_eilding permit for commercial development will be evaluated b the c t to determine if aIiahtinr plan is rewired. If rectiRed, the plan will include the following: ekall-e as copal`i:.- 1 _ e,7 e,._ - -e- ;._ e e: Righting effects ie nginee 1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures 2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture. Ci'A-2OL3-OOO5 Proposed Text Amendment Page 12 11- he- eating- eig ht of Walkway hg tit s aye' exceed 12 feet and-a4-#i t- tt of-+x -r has ei etlbe't-y-sh+e1 e4: I. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination of pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not visible at adjacent property lines. Light ng for o i44eor-a n4pI feIac-siail not maip ea l aaer-thaa..,3sr 'r+rr kItee tellawt0g-t4 s-end of the•eve 07-441-x- t 2007) 22.60.040 Prohibited lights, The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained far specific events with specific times of operation: A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is issued shall riot;project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way. B. Searchlights, (Ord. 07-415 §4, 2007). 22.60.050 Exceptions. A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes_ E. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities. C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of Transportation. D. Internal lighting of permitted signs. E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments. F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pool G. Holiday decorations (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.060 Temporary lighting. The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown. (Ord_ 07-015§4, 2007). CTA-7013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing [' information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-011 Telecommunications franchise to Zayo Communications. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of initial franchise in July, 2003; administrative report July 16, 2013. BACKGROUND: The City granted a 10-year franchise to Columbia Fiber in July, 2003 for the construction and operation of a fiber network in the City's rights-of-way. This proposed replacement franchise would be 10 years as well. There is no recurring franchise fee payable to the City for this type of franchise (as compared to a cable franchise), as set forth in state law. Zayo has reviewed this draft and is in agreement with the proposed terms. The terms are substantially similar to those in other franchises adopted by the City. Staff recommends approving proposed Ordinance 13-011 granting Zayo a telecommunications franchise. OPTIONS: (1) Advance Ordinance 13-011 to a second reading with or without additional changes; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we advance Ordinance 13-011, granting a telecommunications franchise to Zayo, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 13-011 granting fiber optic franchise to Zayo Communications. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO ZAYO GROUP,LLC TO CONSTRUCT,MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service"; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body,nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective"; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance has been submitted to the city attorney prior to its passage;and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance,maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the Permitting Authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item,thing or use provided by the Grantee. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Works Director or his/her designee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way,including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public,to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), hereby grants unto the Zayo Group (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise,if any,between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. 1. Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands(two pair) along the route identified in Exhibit A as adopted or amended, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. It is the intent of Grantor and Grantee that any additional fiber capacity resulting from overbuilding, overlashing, or relocation of Grantee's facilities shall not be considered a new route for purposes of increasing the number of dark fiber strands available for use by Grantor, except as set forth under 4.3,below. 2. The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be sole responsibility of the Grantee. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of$20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall enter into Grantee's standard"Fiber License Agreement"which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. 3. In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle,then the following shall apply: A. If the City is using the fibers,then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. B. If the City is not using the fibers,the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber stands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2,immediately above, shall again be in effect. 4. All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. 5. Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the Public Works Director may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT incremental cost,necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal,non-commercial purposes. A. The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. B. This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. C. Grantee shall notify the Public Works Director at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non-Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights- of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of- way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the Public Works Director's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities,the Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations,laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors,assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors,assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan,to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise,the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and(2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. The Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One-Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One-Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One-Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided,that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way,or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions,or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action,the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property,or street utilities,or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind,whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise,or be caused by,or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws,rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee,whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060,provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then- existing telecommunications facilities,the City shall: Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT a) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and b) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities,provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre-removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b)the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed,broke,or otherwise failed. Grantee may delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b)or(d) above applies. When(b)or(d) applies,Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs,including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City,at no cost to the City: 1. A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types,number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. The Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. 2. In connection with the construction of any City project,Grantee shall provide to the City,upon the City's reasonable request,copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. 3. Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area.The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. 4. In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section,the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. 5. Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in RCW 42.56. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide the Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non-disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non-disclosure,the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, the Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the Public Works Director that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise,City Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. Section 27. Indemnification. 1. Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: a) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; b) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; c) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; d) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT e) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right-of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or f) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility,regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. 2. Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. 3. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. 4. In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. 5. Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents,employees,or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. 6. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section,Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City-owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT limited to,business interruption damages and lost profits,brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City,its officers, agents,employees or contractors. 7. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents,representatives or employees. Applicant's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non-owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under the Applicant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements,including the additional insured endorsement,evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall,upon the request of the City,furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect,in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City to, any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee,by merger, sale,consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, the Grantee must accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60-day period, absolutely cease,unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified,in writing: The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: Zayo Group,LLC Attn: Legal Department 1805 29th Street Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: (303) 854-5271 Facsimile: (303) 604-6869 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non-Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance,nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2013. Mayor,Thomas E.Towey ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Accepted by Zayo Group,LLC: By: The Grantee, Zayo Group, LLC, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of_ ,2013. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2013. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 13-011 Zayo Telecommunications Franchise Page 14 of 14 •;Ii.. ae, - of „. ' wilt e_ s _ ,a olp' a fix' �•o �� `?� 1,• w " c. M1 iF' } L LI AAA J{I,.e _ A . •` Spokane,,Va � _ ley 4. , '�".s °g. r 7 ve :tip ji r d4d 6, n . gpP,ewal ., _.,� j . � I F; L jr.Cliy Hail 7 •f f, E, m • 7 . F P �. a.e " iae 1.. -[ *Q 141. 01 E ■ n 0'b - ,,2C13Gocgle u �,[lt`ti1l t�{��L rcagery 7a e 9;7C 7C"11r' - -i l l 4;'1a..1 3 1'N 1 1 -1 A "1",N e e•L 2034!t _ Eye all E 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Mirabeau Point Park Geology— Spokane Community College GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: As the City Council is aware, Mirabeau Point Park is located in the central Spokane Valley area along the southwest bank of the Spokane River. Comprised of 55.5 acres, the park contains Mirabeau Meadows to the north, a large natural area to the west, CenterPlace and Discovery Playground to the south and is bordered by Mirabeau Parkway on the east. This project was conceived as a cooperative between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane Community College as a service-learning opportunity for geology students. Although the site is located within the heart of the urban Spokane Valley, this area has remained relatively undeveloped and offers a scenic rural forest setting. The park has numerous walking trails that weave through abundant hilly outcrops, which ultimately make for an excellent field study site for both students and the public. Mirabeau Point Park has numerous quality examples of basic and complex geology that are easily accessible to the public. This undergraduate service-learning research project was developed to create earth science awareness and education opportunities for the general public that utilize the park. Field studies and interpretations will allow for the development of informational displays, a guided walking tour, and potential lesson plans for K-12 field trips. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. Study was provided by Spokane Community College. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Spokane Valley's Island of Natural History Andy Buddington Spokane Community College Undergraduate Student Service Learning Research Project What is Service learning? • Teaching & learning via community service • Applying classroom knowledge to community needs • K-12 & college-level 4many, many examples ! Project Objectives 1 . Basic field experience for students 2 . Identify any interesting geologic features 3 . Develop geologic map & guided walking tour 4. Present finished report on research results 49;iJ12..L:ooglc C;0Ogle ec f Lh GPS survey sites 015 Park boundary ir—favc02s 0,29 Ipso 432 033 ti Ceecaid Tra%orte male 25 rn 4 •ti Tr.. MirdraaFee, 034 r...rmrrirme Troll 20011 7 Mirabeau N � Point Park b ism 22N. LEGEND outcrop foliation lineation park boundary 0 100 200 300 FEET Geologic Out rop Map 2000 8 t1' Q At- SITE 2 SITE 3i SITE 4 i SITE 5 SITE ii • i SITE 6 PARK BOUNDARY i SITE 7 1 Mirabeau Point Park WALKING TRAIL MAP 9 e Valley geologic overview ,,„ Site 2: bedrock gneiss & pegmatite dikes Future Potential • Develop natural history board — kiosk ( ?) • Complete guided walking tour • K- 12 field trip lesson plans Spokane Valley's "Island Jewel" of Natural History CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: MI Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information admin. report LJ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA 'ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Title 22.60, GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission conducted a study session June 13, 2013 and a public hearing on June 27, 2013 to consider the amendment. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6 - (1 to recommend approval of the proposed code text amendment. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment seeks to simplify development review of outdoor lighting by addressing the following areas in the SVMC: 1. Eliminates redundant references to the Washington State Energy Code; 2, Eliminates the watts per square foot standard as a means to limit luminosity; 3. Eliminates the height restrictions on light poles; 4. Eliminates the requirement for a photometric plan; 5. Establishes the requirement for a lighting plan; 6. Eliminates reference to recreational facility lighting. 7. Establishes two new outdoor lighting exemptions, OPTIONS: Proceed to first ordinance reading as proposed; or as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council consensus to bring this forward for a first ordinance reading at the August 23, 2013 Council meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Pataniuk, Planner ATTACH H M ENTS: A. Proposed Text Amendment 13. PC Meeting Minutes June 13, 2013 C. PC Meeting Minutes June 27, 2013 D. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation E. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CI A-2013-0005 RCA for Administrative Report ATTACHMENT A Chapter 22.60 OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS Sections: 22.60.010 Purpose. 22.60.020 Application. 22.60.030 General requirements. 22.60.040 Prohibited lights. 22.60.050 Exceptions. 22.60.060 Temporary lighting. 22.60.010 Purpose. The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourages energy conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.020 Application. The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code(Chapter 51 11 WAC) apply to outdoor lighting requirements for all developments except one-and two-family dwellings and public street lighting. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.030 General requirements. The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor lighting is subject to the following requirements: A. The lighting allowance for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas shall not exceed 0.20 e._. per square foot for covered residential parking when ceilings and walls are painted or stained with a reflectance value of 0.70 or higher. B. The lighting allowance for building exteriors, including landscaping lighting, shall not exceed either 0.25 watts per square foot of building facade or 7.5 watts per linear foot of building perimeter. C. The maximum height of pole mounted outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed /12 feet in Regional Commercial and industrial zoning districts and 35 feet in all other districts. A. All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that unshielded no light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or into the public right-of-way_ CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1 ATTACHMENT A im vr-1 r c EP TA Et LE rft i i l ! '4►y"... % r L y y ! y J —V..,. P.RFtr}• N'1rhb1, R Fr.r..F7 1 r:CCLP-T°Api.E MAK .:/IQ N7' '+F},r/i i i! I Y.b +! 4117 •.:t yi. fp"i o 1 iM1.�* ire ,. -.Yvur 1frrrpMl7ty. .�.1-M#6ttLhnr'a It rnn -'v B. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible. t IN ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTA131.1: Irr Ad IhimmiriiiiiiiT IN. 40.0-F.11111 U11l1111U M 1111 Wino-+kuu4 .11111 F�1 F. All outdoor lighting systems shall be equipped with automatic switchcs conforming to the rcquircmcntc, of Section 1513.6.2 of the Washington Energy Code. GC.AlkAapplications for building permits for commercial development will be evaluated by the Community Development Director to determine if a liqhtinq plan is required to assess and mitiqate impacts. The need for a lighting plan will be based on the scope and scale of the project, compatibility with surrounding uses, and anticipated light impacts. If required, the plan will include the following: shall 1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures. 2. The type and method of shielding for each liqht fixture. CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 12 ATTACHMENT A of more than eight feet shall be fully shielded. �D. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination of pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not visible at adjacent property lines. J. Lighting for outdoor arenas, stadiums and playfields shall not remain on longer than 30 minutes following the end of the event. (Ord. 07 015 § 4, 2007). 22.60.040 Prohibited lights. The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific times of operation: A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley. High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is issued shall not project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way. B. Searchlights. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.60.050 Exceptions. A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes. B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities. C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of Transportation. D. Internal lighting of permitted signs. E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments. F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pools. G. Holiday decorations. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.060 Temporary lighting. The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 13, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dates called the meeting to order at 6:O() p.m. IL PLEUCE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair x John Holtman, Coin Development Director Joe Stoy— Vice Chair x r- Marty Palaniuk, Planner Steven Neill x Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Anderson x Mike Phillips x - Robert McCaslin x I� Christina C'arlsen x C'ari i iinshaw, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Soy moved to approve the agenda as presented. a .second war oracle and the rrrutlun passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner- Neill moved to approve the May 23, 2013 minutes as presented a second was made and the notion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Community Development Director John I lohman went over the advance agenda. Ile stated that the creation of the development regulations have pushed their abilities to the limits because of Planning Cu E 55 ion Min tiles Page I of n all the different rewrites. There were seven different versions from the consultant before they decided to go a different direction in-house, and then five different versions after that. He stated that they arc at a point where they have done the best job they can do with this particular material and that it was very complex. There will be various experts at Tuesday night's Joint PIanning Commission/City Council meeting to help walk through all of it. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: CTA-2013-0004, Sign Code Amendments. A pending/postponed motion is on the table from the May 23, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting: Motion: Commissioner Stoy moved to approve and forward to the City Council CTA-2013- 1)011W as presented, a,Second was made. Community Development Director John I lohman provided a short recap of the changes, which are as follows: 1. 22.110.030 Permit required, paragraph C, item 3. (The location of all existing signs fir the subject applicant including size and height). Subject Applicant was added. 2. 22.1 10.030 Permit required, paragraph D. In the last draft, there was an item 2. (2. Special inspection agency agreements,signed by the owner and special inspection agency are required for sign construction with concrete over 2500 psi, on site welding, or high strength bolting.) Item 2 was removed. Mr. Hohman stated that at the public hearing Mr, Wineinger slated that it was his experience that special inspection agreements were not typically required. Mr. Hohman stated he discussed it with the City's Building Official Doug Powell. Mr. Powell talked to the jurisdictions of Cheney, Spokane, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake to get a feel for what they are doing. Mr. Hohman explained that what staff came up with was that special inspection agreements are only required in three different areas. • If a sign co mpany conies forward with something completely out of the ordinary that is typically not seen, like a large sign with a strange cantilever structure or something else that would cause some questions. • Extremely large pole signs that are not typical as well that have some additional bracing or other issues that might make staff believe special inspections are required. • Replacement of existing billboards - those inspections are required. Beyond the three items, it is not typical to have a special inspection agreement done, Therefore, Item 2 was removed and, the following was added to Item 1: (Where special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a Washington State licensed engineer and /or special inspections if deemed necessary.) Mr. I lohman stated that this would provide the flexibility in case the City was to encounter one of the three out of the ordinary situations, then the City could require special inspections. 3. 22.1 10.050 Temporary Signs, paragraph E, item 3. (Signs may only be displayed During business hours. It' business hours continue) was removed and replaced with; (If the sign is displaced past daylight hours, precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area.) Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 (4'6 4. 22.110,090 Sign location and front setbacks, paragraph F, was changed to; (All new freestanding signs shall comply with SVMC 22.70.039 (J).) Mr. Holtman stated that be located and landscaped area was removed as well as the second sentence. Commissioner Carlsen read the attached statement to the Planning Commission regarding CTA-2013-0004. Commissioner Stoy responded that most of the businesses that Commissioner Carlsen highlighted are destination locations and they do not need exposure the way temporary signs would highlight an unknown brand new business; everyone knows where Fred Meyer is (Sullivan), 1 l said he thinks the worst-case scenario was put out there and that there are several business that have been there for large amount of time, and everybody knows that they are there. lIe stated that there is a possibility that there could be two hundred signs out there but that would probably never happen and you cannot tie somebody's hands because he has a little lot with a hundred foot of frontage, to one sign. Commissioner Carlsen stated that the purpose of a temporary sign is not to advertise your business; the purpose is to advertise a special. or a daily deal. The temporary sign is not meant to be the sign to draw people into your business. She continued that any strip mall with any number of tenants could have the same problem and said she does not think a temporary sign is going to change the nature of the business. Commissioner Bates stated that temporary signs in Some instances are the lifeblood of a small business and through his experience; he knows you can get traffic in a store if temporary signs arc done properly. There are so many empty retail and businesses that we as a City have a big job to get business in there. He stated that he is for doing anything within reason to help a business survive and prosper. Commissioner Anderson stated that the worst-case scenario is always possible with any rule or zone and that if it did happen then there is always the option to say it can't continue because of any clutter. The City still has the ability to talk to the business and let them know they are making a mess out of the area or with the code or we can go out and stiffen it up. Commissioner Neill moved to amend the original motion to approve and recommend C{TA- 2013-0004 to City Council to read, "as presented by staff' with the ,Jour• amendments recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of the proposed text amendments provided to the Commission tonight. 'A second iras made, 6 in favor, 1 against (Commissioner Carlsen). Commissioner Carlsen stated she meant to vote yes to amending the motion. Commissioner Bates stated that they needed to revote on the last motion. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that someone needs to make a motion to re vote and make the record clear that Commissioner Car lsen wishes to vote affirmatively on that motion to amend the original motion. Commissioner Stoy moved to rescind the amended motion CTA-2013-0004, A second was made and the motion passed unanimously. Re-vote: Commissioner Neill moved to amend the motion to approve and recommend CTA-2013- 0004 to City Council to read. as presented by staff wiwitlh the ,folk' alnendrncnts recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of the proposed text Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 amendments provided to the Commission tonight. "A second lr'a.S made and the motion passed unanimously. Note: The amendments are: 1. 22.1/0.030 C (4): to read: The location of all existing signs on the site for the subject applicant including size and height. 2. 22.110.030 D (2): tii'as proposed.: Special inspection agency agreements, .signed by the owner and special inspection agency area required or sign construction re'itl► concrete over 2500 psi, on site welding, or high strength halting. Then replaced with (1): Where special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by c► Washington State licensed engineer and/or special inspections if deemed necessary. 3. 22,110.050 E (3) was proposed.' Signs may only be displayed during business hours. If business hours continue. Then replaced with: If the sign is displaced past daylight how's, p1'ecautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area 4. 22.110.090 F: to read:rill new freestanding signs shall comply with S VMC 22.70.030 (J). be located and landscaped area was removed also the second sentence. The pending motion: Commissioner Stoy moved to approve and.forward to the City Council C7A-2013-0004 as amended, a second was made. Vote on the motion as amended: six in favor and one opposed. The amended motion passed. B. New Business: Study Session: CTA-2013-0005, Outdoor Lighting Standards Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting Standards and \vent over the proposed changes as attached in the drab materials for Chapter 22.60 Outdoor lighting standards: Mr. Palaniuk stated that the outdoor lighting standard does not apply to one or two-family dwellings and public street lighting. He covered the background of l wattage and lumens, which is the measure of the brightness of a light and stated that over the last several years technology has changed. The old incandescent bulb at 40 watts would only put out 550 lumens and now there arc compact florescent light bulbs that require much less wattage but actually create the same amount of lumens. This is important to the text amendment that is being proposed. He stated a new Washington State Energy code would be enacted in July. All of the new development will have to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. See attached Chapter 22.60 I'or proposed changes. Commissioner Neill asked if there was going to be a stipulation that shows at what point an audit is triggered to have somebody come in and inspect. Mr. Palaniuk stated that during the pre-application phase of development, the scope, scale and surrounding uses are looked at or if there are any anticipated impacts from light trespass. Therefore, if the Building Department felt that was going to happen, then they would require it at the lighting plan. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated there is potential legal concern when there is no criteria and you have unfettered discretion or there are no guiding principles for when that Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 lighting plan is required, there are potential legal pitfalls with that. The three potential criteria that Mr. Palaniuk listed could work well and still allow discretion from the building department as to when the lighting plan is required without locking them into having a lighting plan. Commissioner Stay asked if it was going to affect existing developments. Mr. Palaniuk stated it would only effect developments after the amendments occur. it will not go back to prior developments. Commissioner McCaslin asked if you need a permit to change a light bulb for commercial projects, Community Development John llolvnan stated that the City does not handle electrical components; it is the Department of Labor and Industries that handle electrical permits. What the City would do in the case of an addition or just installing new lighting, is look towards compliance with the energy code to make sure that those units that were specified comply with our code. He stated, that what this new amendment is looking at doing is handing most of it off to the review of the energy code, maybe requiring a lighting plan in the larger developments or the ones adjacent to residential, where the City would be more concerned about the location of the lights and whether they are shielded or not. This is a big scaling back of out regulations. Commissioner Anderson used a scenario that if you develop a mall parking lot, does the City currently have a limitation on how much energy that they could use to light the mall parking lot? Mr, Palaniuk said yes they do have to meet the provisions in the Washington State Energy Code, That is what they are primarily trying to deal with is how much energy you consume with your lighting. This concerns the luminosity and how bright the site gets and the impacts of that brightness on the surrounding uses or adjacent properties, Commissioner Bates talked about the zoning and new developments changes for going from residential to the multi-family. He asked if we are getting into developer agreements again, if we do not have criteria for lighting. Mr. Palaniuk responded that it needs to be discussed whether they want to change the City to a responsible official like the building official or the Community Development Director and whether or not they want to include some criteria if they want to include that lighting plan. Such as the scope and scale of the project, the surrounding uses if there is residential than we should require a lighting plan, or if there is a sports arena or light industrial project, then the Planning Commission can add them in there. Commissioner Bates stated that we are still in the Study Session and that it might be a discussion to have after the public hearing. Mr. Palaniuk responded that he could bring back another draft. Commissioner Stay asked if a multi-family would be considered a commercial development. Mr. Palaniuk responded yes it would be subject to this regulation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that if it is the Commissions' desire to have criteria in the regulation then he could get that for them and staff could come back with the changes before the public hearing. Commissioner Bates asked how everyone felt about the criteria. Commissioner Anderson stated there are two things: we need criteria, and then you have a designation of an individual. He asked if the Planning Commission is qualified to designate that individual. Mr. Palaniuk stated that the City's Building Official is the one who oversees the City's development pre-app meetings. He said he might he the likely choice. Commissioner Stay agreed with Mr. Palaniuk as far as the Building Official having the authority, but thinks they should also define the scope and scale similar to the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Bates agreed and asked Mr. Palaniuk to come back with some criteria for requiring a lighting plan. Commissioner McCaslin asked if there have been any complaints regarding current outdoor lighting standards. Mr. Hohman and Mr. Palaniuk said they had no complaints from the public. Commissioner Anderson Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 commented on the public right away in the General requirements. He said we do not want horizontal lights or bright lights affecting drivers on a roadway but said he would not be against light laminating the sidewalk of a road or an alley from commercial property. He asked if it is a stiff rule or an open rule. Mr. llohman responded that they are talking about unshielded light and what they are trying to avoid is something like a spot light that would blind you as a motorist or anything that would cause traffic safety concerns as opposed to unshielded light that may illuminate part of the right-of-way. Commissioner Carlsen stated that at the beginning Mr. Palaniuk said he is going to remove the reference to the Washington State Energy Code. Mr. Palaniuk stated they are coming out with a new energy code July 1st. Commissioner Bates asked if there was a criteria for the brightness of lights on billboards. Mr. Palaniuk stated that is under the sign code and it does reference it needs to be down loaded and that the bulbs cannot show. Flashing signs are prohibited. Mr. Hohman stated that he would look to amend the notice to include some of the language changes that Mr. Palaniuk talked about in his presentation. Therefore, at the public hearing, there will be some criteria and the designated individual will be in the language. He said if we could not amend the notice to the public, then they will bring some options forward for the Planning Commission deliberations. X. COOL) OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. gr) 1 � L Bill Bates,Bates, Chairperson Carl Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed 6/77 . Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 I believe that the current code is sufficient for businesses to advertise their specials. According to the intent of temporary signage, they are meant to be "posted in conjunction with the alteration, construction, sale, or lease of real property." In essence TEMPORARY signs for a TEMPORARY purpose. Our current code offers free of cost options for business to provide notice for temporary events. Currently businesses are allowed an A-frame sign and either a banner, reader board, or two flags with copy. This is in addition to the permanent signs also on the premises. Furthermore, businesses are allowed to get a permit for additional signage to include "event" style advertising for up to 4 months of each year. As this new code has not even been enforced for a full year, I don't think it is prudent to change the code again so quickly. I think that it would be wise to let the code remain for a longer length of time, to ascertain if there are needs for more signs. In addition, temporary signage is not intended to keep a company in business, and I do not believe that an additional temporary sign will make or break any of our cities businesses. There are many ways to have effective advertising and marketing, and businesses have opportunities to pursue them. To address a concern brought up at our last meeting, I do not believe that temporary signs help with the locating of businesses. And if businesses are using temporary signs for these purposes, then they are not following the intent of usage of temporary signs. In the context of finding businesses, I think that more temporary signs will detract from the permanent signs and address markings. Another note about signage, I agree that in theory one more sign per business doesn't sound like that much of a change, but when I drive down some of our main streets, I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of signs that are present. There are real estate signs, there are political signs by the handful, there are dancing tooth paste tubes and slices of pizza, Jiffy Lube and tire store employees waving. I have prepared a couple visual examples of the differences between the current code and the proposed changes. ` f, , /3, Q/ P/annt/7 �Jfr44r.S.fr0n" , Example A Example B In discussing this issue with citizens, comments that I heard related to the difficulty of finding businesses, especially along Sprague Avenue. The concerns were that there aren't adequate numbering signs along the street, and those on the businesses are too small or too far from the street to be useful. Additional concerns are that excess of flags and banners are distracting to drivers along some busy streets, and some trees along streets obscure not only signs and addresses, but buildings as well. My suggestion would be to let the current code stand until next year, to give enough time for the businesses to determine if they do need more signs. I would also be open to amending the current code with language stating that those with a certain length of frontage to be allowed to have an additional sign. As to the length of frontage, I would need more research on determining an appropriate length. An example would be if your business has less than 100 feet of frontage, you get one banner, reader board, or two flags with copy, and if you have more than 100 feet you would get the option of two of the items. To quote the Community Development Department's Business Guide to Keeping Spokane Valley Beautiful "We understand that running a business is challenging, and that adequate signage is critical to communicate with your customers. At the same time, we know business owners recognize the need to keep signage, especially movable and temporary signage, from overwhelming the image of our business areas. Ultimately, the future of Spokane Valley relies on a balance between supporting the businesses that serve our community, and protecting the quality of life that will attract the residents and major employers who will patronize those businesses." Example A. 1 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005 13 817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA There are 11 unique business in this location. Example A.2 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154/005 13 817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA If each of the 11 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there would be 34 signs. 1 Pole Mounted Sign 12 Wall Mounted Signs 11 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 11 Banners, Reader Boards,or 2 Flags with copy. Example A.3 Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005 13 817 East Sprague Spokane Valley, WA If each of the 1 I tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there would be 46 signs. 1 Pole Mounted Sian 12 Wall Mounted Signs 11 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 22 Banners. Reader Boards, or 1 Flag with copy. Example B.1 Parcels 45133.1341 , .1342, 1346, .1347, . 1343, .1434, .1444, .1464, .1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA There are 22 unique businesses in this area. Example B.2 Parcels 45133.1341, . 1342, 1346, . 1347, .1343, .1434, . 1444, .1464, .1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA If each of the 22 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there would be 82—signs. 7 Pole Mounted Sign 1 Monument Sign 30—Wall Mounted Signs 22 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 22 Banners,Reader Boards,or 2 Flags with copy. There are also two Billboard signs located here. 9: i w « • 3 A-Frame Banner Reader Board Flag with copy i � � y Ay� 34 i7 I J • • ifr.d"AP l, 40r. '41.11P P J J 4111111111W N.,27 r art- 21121112:- Ara-11116 a _•4 • vague 1: INYL- Example B.3 Parcels 45133. 1341, .1342, 1346, .1347, . 1343, . 1434, . 1444, .1464, .1463, 15605 to 15901 East Sprague and 10 to 212 North Sullivan Spokane Valley, WA I f each of the 22 tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there would be 104—signs. 7 Pole Mounted Sign 1 Monument Sign 30--Wall Mounted Signs 22 A-Frame Signs Some combination of 44 Banners, Reader Boards. or 1 Flag with copy_ There are also two Billboard signs located here. Chapter 22.60 OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS Sections: 22.60.010 Purpose. 22.60.020 Application. 22.60,030 General requirements. 22,60,040 Prohibited lights. 22.60.050 Exceptions. 22.60.060 Temporary lighting, 22.60.010 Purpose. The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourages energy conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.020 Application. The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code (Chapter 51 11 WAC)-apply to outdoor lighting requirements for all developments except one-and two-family dwellings and public street lighting. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.030 General requirements. The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor lighting is subject to the following requirements: A. The lighting-aflowe pa r- as-S watts-per squarafeo sue , be rearsed to 0.30 watts per--square-foot for covered reside- =- -- • - -•_ -11s-a+ fefleotar value of 0.70 or higher. e# ll�il+ogext= - -..- - -•- = -'"e -er0.25 wad per sq+ afe-€oat ofatts-per - et _ e-. e= - - Gabe-max+ ► ted- i t+f1g-fixte+reer-s11a11-f ex 4-eet-1 iona1 Csfr+{merGi 1-a d-inrlustr„r zoning distr ctts ands-feet if a8-oth districts- A. All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam se that unshielded no light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or Into the public right-of-way_-above-a-he ht-of-three-feet: CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1 ,E3 11NACCLPT.IBLL �1. i.Siy, 'r1.1141 i.' —'Y1.111 Pr np.rSy -Ma1Sh`ar'♦ prnnrrRy. 1C'ACCEPTAI3L1 f:77.....,::::Ni �1�+ t+F e,..c, fps!µ" iyl7, OL5t1 i.j. .r'rr P;lr rrr ��,, Pr 1 Ycua 1'rlvpytIr --I—might,'" Irn[s ev E. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible. UNACCEPTABLE I ACCEPTAUI1 � � ' el Uuunlri �1pi l \�,,- ,, __ _. _,___, 'I i+an-,:IiIlnl i lwlul.x w 1 n...`" ill Ylll4 F. All:outdeeNigl 4 nom-shall--be-egai}sped-with-cuter is-swats irsrraents of Section 151-3.6,2 a-tho Washingto-nergy Code. G. All•-Aapplications uildin9--per-colts-for commercial development will be evaluated by the city to determine if a lighting plan is required. If required, the plan will include the followingLehall-be aGGQrpa++' f.-a - - -'- - -e-lights g--effects-prepared tea-gaal+fieci--engineer- 1. A sit A lan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures t 0 Q 2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture. CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 12 H-The- a+r+th g-height-o-w ►4kway4ighting th-„ot-axseed-12 feet-and-all-f+ t of-more-than-eigfa-f-feet shall be-fay-shielded: I. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination of pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not visible at adjacent property lines. J -L+g*$ting f„, ou door nd-p4a3 fields-shall not-Facnai ecthan-3 -m-mutes followi tg-t n4— event-(ate-0 15§ 1, 2007). 22.60.040 Prohibited lights. The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific times of operation: A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley. High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is issued shall not project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way. B. Searchlights, (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.050 Exceptions. A, Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes. B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities. C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of Transportation. D. Internal lighting of permitted signs. E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments. F. In-pool liahtinq for private swimming pools G. Holiday decorations (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.60.060 Temporary lighting. The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown. (Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVE-1D Minutes Council Chambers — City ball, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. .tune 27, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates- Chair x Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Joe Stoy— Vice Chair x Marty Palaniuk, Planner Steven Neil! x -- Cary Driskell,City Attorney Kevin Anderson x r Mike Phillips x I— Robert MeCaslin Christina Carlson x Can Hinshaw, Secretary Planning Commissioners agreed to excuse Commissioner Stoy from the Planning Commission Meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner [arisen melded to approve t1w agenda as presented, a second was made toned the motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill moved to approve the dune 13, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was made and the motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Carlsen attended the Regional Short Course at the City of Spokane. Commissioner Carlsen stated there was a lot of good information and wished there were more that would have attended. She said there were many aspects of City Planning that she had not wrapped her head around yet and the speakers did a good job at presenting the Planning Commission Minutes Page I of information, Commissioner Bates attended the City of Spokane Valley budget session and the Joint Session on the Shoreline. He stated it was good to have a joint meeting and he complimented the staff on what a good job they did. VIII. ADMINiSTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reviewed the advance agenda. I lc stated that the plan is to focus on the Shoreline Master Plan issues. There is not a lot of detail to the advance agenda due to waiting to see how the S M I' issues plays out. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business: Findings of Fact: CTA-20134)004, Sign Code Amendments (.'oamnissioner Neill moved lo approve and forward to City Council CTA-2013-0004 as presented. A second was made, Discussion: None Planning C'oa?umssiwn Pole was to,forward to the City Council us presented. the motion was passed rnnaitinruusly, B. New Business: Presentation: Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Senior Transportation Planner Ryan Stewart provided an overview of the I lorizon 2040 effort. Under Federal regulations, one requirement is to develop a metropolitan transportation plan. This is a twenty-year minimum look into the future. It will be the blue print for the entire county of what they want transportation to look like over the next twenty plus years. lie went over the Regional priorities, their vision, forecasting the population and employment. C. Unfinished Business: Commissioner 13.ites opened the I'uhlie Bearing at 7:03 PM Public I-Tearing and Deliberations: C'I'A-2013-0005. Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting Standards and went over the proposed changes as attached in the draft materials fot- Chapter 2 2.60 Outdoor lighting standards. Commissioner Phillips asked if "lights on billboards" was in the sign code ordinance. Planning Manager Kuhta read the regulation as follows: Sign code section of the municipal code 22.11 0.060 General Provisions: Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs. All electronic message centers arc required to have automatic dimming capabilities that adjust the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night. Mr. Kuhta stated there is suppose to be written documentation when people conk in for a permit to install their sign. It does not talk about a specific standard, it talks about dimming capabilities. Planning C:uiiilnission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Bates discussed criteria, His concern was about the maximum pole height. He asked if the Planning Director would determine the height of each individual project based on his knowledge of zoning and could we have different heights of poles in the City? Planner Palaniuk responded with yes. Commissioner Bates discussed treating people fairly by one of them not being able to put up the kind of fixture that he/she wanted verses somebody else. He stated that maybe regulating it based on zoning would be good. Mr. Palaniuk responded that the only purpose of the decision criteria is to decide whether a lighting plan is required. He does not think it is going to limit the height of the pole. The City is going to allow the developer to conic in and provide the information. The only requirement the City will have is that the light be shielded off the site. The intent of the changes is to allow more flexibility for the developer. Commissioner Bates closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 Pr"i Commissioner Neill moved to approve and'inward to the City Council CTi1-2013-0005 as presented, a second'vas made Discussion: Commissioner Anderson stated he will support the plan, but from a personal standpoint, he said he could understand rules about minimal lighting for public areas or parking lots that are all safety related, Ile does not like the idea that we would restrict private people from how much electricity they use or pay for on their own properly. The state of Washington has taken it upon itself to put rules for that. From Commissioner Anderson's standpoint, he stated the cost of electricity would control what people do with their money. He is amazed at the thought process (not created by this City) in that we would restrict people from doing whatever lighting process they wanted as long as it was not a safety hazard. Planning Commission Action: to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion Wa.s passed unaniragnarsly. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson .1/ 1 d{--e4 Can Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed 7 / /f l/--.? Planning C0111111 ission Minutes Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT D FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION July 11,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: I. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. The City-initiated text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.60 to streamline the outdoor lighting standards by eliminating the watts per square foot lighting limit, eliminating redundant provisions, eliminating the requirement for a photometric plan, adding a requirement for a lighting plan if deemed necessary by the building division, eliminating outdoor recreation facility requirements, and adding two additional exemptions. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 2013 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.159F Approval Criteria a. The proposed City-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. ii. Land Use Policy LUi'-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. iii, Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. iv. Housing Policy HP-1.2: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses. v. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and cleat'direction. vi, Economic Policy EDP-7.I: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. vii. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. viii. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential ticighborhoods, ix, Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's kind use regulations and joint planning. x. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 oft ATTACHMENT D b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Find i. The proposed amendment will streamline the outdoor lighting development review process and provide flexibility in lighting choices. The requirement to shield lighting trespass will minimize glare and mitigate off-site impacts. ii. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). b. The Growth Management Aet stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recoin in cii(I at ions: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed City- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.60 as attached. Appioved this 1 rr''Mday of July,2013 ill Bates,Chairman A't'lTST e'"1- • / .1 Cai•i Hinshaw,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Sjkane .uii Valle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2013x0005 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 11,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 27, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A City-initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.60 to streamline the outdoor lighting standards by eliminating the watts per square foot lighting limit, eliminating redundant provisions, eliminating the requirement for a photometric plan, adding a requirement for a lighting plan if deemed necessary by the building division, eliminating outdoor recreation facility requirements, and adding two additional exemptions. PROI'oNI:N'I': City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDA'T'ION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments as put forth, STAFF PLANNER: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, Community Development Department REVIEWLU BY: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager, Community Development Department A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal, Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 6/14/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 6/14/2013 Posted Notice of Public Hearing 6/14/2013 Staff Report and Recommendation Ct'A-2013-0005 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 22.60, Outdoor Lighting Standards. The intent is to streamline the development review process and remove unwarranted lighting requirements. The proposed amendment will eliminate the lighting limits for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas, These areas were limited to 0.20 watts per square foot of lot area. Newer lighting fixture technology has made the use of input wattage as a measure of brightness,or luminosity, outdated. New lighting fixtures have increased the lumens, a measure of the amount of brightness a light fixture emits, while reducing the amount of watts required. limiting the watts per square foot is an inconsistent method of limiting the brightness emanating from a site. The amendment will also remove the lighting limits on building exterior and landscape lighting. The current code limits the watts per square foot of building façade or per linear foot of building perimeter. Restrictions on the maximum height of pole-mounted outdoor lighting fixtures are removed as part of the proposed amendment. This requirement did not seem reasonable based on a new proposed standard of not allowing any unshielded light trespass to occur between incompatible uses. In order to meet the new standard, development should self-limit the height of light poles. The proposed amendment changes the previous standard of no light trespass across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or into the public right-of-way. It is difficult for development to completely eliminate all light trespass. Staff is not trained or educated to evaluate or measure whether proposed development is meeting the no light trespass standard, The new standard will require that no unshielded light trespass may occur across the boundary, seeking to eliminate the glare from outdoor lighting while allowing some light trespass to occur. This standard appears to be consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. Development is required to meet all the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code. Restating the requirements in the SVMC is redundant. The amendment will remove these redundant references. The current SVMC requires any application for development to submit a photometric analysis of the lighting effects prepared by a qualified engineer. The reason was to determine if any lighting trespass would occur across the bounding property lines. The proposed amendment will require the Community Development Department to evaluate the development application during the pre- application phase of the permit process and determine if a lighting plan will be required. I1'a lighting plan is required than it must show the location of the fixtures and type of shielding being used. A photometric analysis will not be required because the new applicant no longer must show that no light trespass will occur on adjacent properties. The proposed amendment removes the restriction on the height of walkway lighting. Walkway lighting will still require shielding to eliminate off-site glare. The proposed amendment will eliminate the requirement for outdoor arenas, stadiums and playl`ields to turn off lighting within 30 minutes of completing an event. This requirement has not been actively enforced and no compliance issues have arisen. Two additional exceptions to the outdoor lighting standards will be added as part of the proposed amendment; in-pool lighting for private swimming pools and holiday decorations. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria Page 2of4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-20I3-0005 L The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses, providing affordable housing options, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Policy-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non- residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Policy -13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate, i Iousing Policy HP-I.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. Housing Policy 1-IP-1.2: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses. Economic Goal ED€i-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. (2) The proposed amendment hears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will streamline the outdoor lighting development review process and provide flexibility in lighting choices. The requirement to shield lighting trespass will minimize glare and mitigate off-site impacts. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation ($TA-2013-0005 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was completed for CTA-2013-0005 on June 14,2013. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date, b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STA FE RF,C()147 MEN DATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, rccomtnertds the approval of the proposed amendment to eliminate the maximum watts per square foot requirement, eliminate references to the Washington State Energy Code, remove height restrictions on pole-mounted and walkway lighting, eliminate. the no light trespass standard and replace it with a no unshielded light trespass standard, eliminate the requirement for a photometric analysis and replace it with a lighting plan if required by the building division, eliminate the 30 minute turn-off after an event requirement for outdoor arenas, and except in-pool swimming pool lighting and holiday decorations from the outdoor lighting standards. Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Council Administrative Report July 23, 2013 Code Text Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code (CTA-20 13 -0005) Municipal Code Text Amendment SOU— ne .00°Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Before we begin The Outdoor Lighting section does not apply to : • One- and two-family dwellings • Public street lighting Municipal Code Text Amendment SOU, ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NNING Divrsiow Background — Lights, Wattage & Lumens LAMP TYPE COMPARISON -- SUMMARY Factor Wattage Output (lumens) Lamp Type incandescent Fluorescen Efficiency (lumens/watt) 5-150 10-2700 -18 18-95 1000-7500 79 Municipal Code Text Amendment Metal High-Pressure Halide odium low-Pressure Sodium 50-400 0-400 18-180 600-46000 800-33000 30000 2-115 11100-183 3 ne �a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Background Photometric Plan _ C-C 0.3 0.6 I.2 0.0 17.3 Ck511:3 8 6.Og 0.3 0.7 .a 0.0 OF Q.QO 0.3 0.5 q.9 6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0 11IMII i)-6 a.5 0.4 0.3 o-a El.5 0. 1.5 t 0.4 1.9 1.1 '.t 1;[3 1.2 0.9 d,6 �0,8 d,6 0.& 671 1,0 ' L�J1 ka_ -1 C.` ..1, 5.1' 2_s 1-0 0.5, 1-0 1.a C.9 0.7 1.0 0.s 18 O.A 1-a 1-2 1.4 1.1 0 6 9,:2f0 0.4 Si p,4 1,1 4.0 2,5 1.9 0,4 0,7, 1.2 0.6 a8 1.3 !(\ `J rya •:..1 C.1 .1 1.1 I.S 1.8 O 0.' t.S 4.E 3.0 22 U3' $ 0. 0.,i q9 W,4 0.8 05 6.9,' 0j 6.2 i-Q 4.0 2.9 2.0 02 .6F''1.3 2.0'-..9,3• r - w 4`• ,� •lrii c><+t- �...,t.o 0.7 0.44'0.2 11 0,1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 o.4 0.2 0.4 1.4 n.3 ;,....#40t,45...;-- 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 91 Tr.t 0,1 0,2 01 0.1 9,4 1.2 i.1 :• ° 01• J.3 9.7 1.5 0,9 G-.3 { /---' 0.1 7.7'j�e'1 0.7 1.3 5,.3 0.5 Ll / �� IS 0.1 '0.3 0.7,1.3 2.5 1.0 ? I' J IC..' '0.3»4.5 1.1 1.4 f .1 I IP I d 7. 0.6 S'' r t 1 X 0.3 1.1 .0.1 a "0.8 4 4 •4-2 13 1.3 1,0 ..CS1 8 0-1 0.5 1-3 1 a ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Background • Washington State Energy Code • Regulates lighting efficacy • New release in effect 1 July, 2013 Municipal Code Text Amendment 5 Stkikane Val ky COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Text Deletions •Watts per square foot of area —Covered parking —Open parking —Outdoor areas —Building exteriors •Maximum height of pole-mounted fixtures •Graphic showing acceptable/unacceptable light trespass • References to Washington State Energy Code Municipal Code Text Amendment 6 ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Text Deletions •Walkway lighting height restrictions •Outdoor recreational facilities 30 minute requirement Municipal Code Text Amendment 7 ne �a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Text Modifications Paragraph D "No" light trespass modified to "No unshielded" light Removed 3 foot requirement Paragraph G Photometric plan by qualified engineer removed Added lighting plan may be required Added minimum lighting plan requirements 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Text Additions • Exceptions In-pool lighting for private swimming pools Holiday decorations Municipal Code Text Amendment 9 Stffikane .000 Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Proposed Amendment 22.64.030 General requirements. The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor lighting is subject to the following requirements: A. The lighting allowance for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas shall not exceed 0.20 watts per squarb foot of lot area: provided. however. that thy allowance may be increased to 0.30 watts per square foot for cov sired reidential parking when ceilings and walls are painted or stained with a reflectanc@ value of 0.70 or higher. E. Ths lighting allowance for building exteriors, including landscaping lighting, shall not exc.e:1 either 0.25 watts per square foot of building facade or 7.5 watts per linear foot of building perimeter. C. The maximum height of pole-mounted outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed "12 feet in Regional Commercial and industrial zoning districts and 35 feet in all other districts. Municipal Code Text Amendment Sliffikane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Proposed Amendment .. .All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that unshielded light does not extend& across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or into the public right-of-way aI:c ; a height of thre9 feet. Municipal Code Text Amendment 11 .000 Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Proposed Amendment ,'N..( LFPT LE 41.4-". F' Y.,t.. h I% bari 54'mp.'1y - p....rA., al, IPI f ,I itCGEr . . ,4[ r yl Jar a F4� ..1 iiFi . I I`l 11..JJI r�•.. .UL X T 1.5 VT 1.4 Ma.I frnr -ay V Ui 1't c•prt i#3" Fhibnr'a i EB. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible. Municipal Code Text Amendment 12 Stffikane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Proposed Amendment . . applications for building permits for commercial development ,Mill be evaluated by the Community Development Director to determine if a lighting plan is required. The need for a lighting plan will be based on an evaluation of the scope and scale of the project. compatibility of surrounding uses. and anticipated light impacts. If required. the plan will include the following: shall be accompanied by a photometric analysis of the lighting effects prepared by a qualified engineer. 1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures 2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture. Municipal Code Text Amendment 1 Stffikane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Proposed Amendment H. The mounting height of walkway lighting shall not exceed 12 feet and all fixtures mounted at a height of more than eight feet shall be fully shielded. ID. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination of pole-mounted flags ofthe United States. shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not visible at adjacent property lines. J. Lighting for outdoor arenas, stadiums and playfields shall not remain on longer than 300 minut; following the end of the event. (Ord. 07-015 1: 2007). Municipal Code Text Amendment SOU— ne MilleY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NNING DlvrsloN Proposed Amendment 22.60.050 Exceptions. A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes. B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities. D. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of Transportation. D. Internal lighting of permitted signs. E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments. F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pools G. Holiday decorations Municipal Code Text Amendment 15 1 Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Questions ? Municipal Code Text Amendment 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council Goals for 2014 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Each year Council has an opportunity to discuss and establish goals for the next year's Budget. The 2013 Budget goals have been provided below for review/revision to assist Council in establishing goals for the 2014 Budget: • Continue monitoring wastewater issues, including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharge licenses. • Pursue the topic of Solid Waste, to include identifying the issues and obtaining alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and the consequences of each alternative. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for possible financial assistance in the restoration of the Sullivan Bridge; purchase of a Transfer Station; and the assistance with creating the Appleway Trail Project. • Create an Economic Development Plan including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they compare with other jurisdictions; and keeping options open for an alternative city hall. OPTIONS: Council can add to, delete, and/or modify the list of goals in order to establish the Council Goals for the 2014 Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mayor Towey, Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: WUTC Grade Protective Fund —Open Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational memo in July 17, 2013 Council packet. BACKGROUND: The Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), through its Grade Crossing Protective Fund (GCPF), has an open call for projects for railroad safety improvement grants. Grants of up to $20,000 per project are available to eliminate or mitigate public safety hazards at railroad crossings and along railroad rights-of-way. The funding is available on a first-come first-served basis until the funding cycle allotment has been used. A new funding cycle starts in July 2013. A GCPF grant was previously received for safety improvements at the Park Rd/Trent railroad crossing to install concrete medians and delineators to prevent drivers from driving around the crossing gates. See photo on page 2. A citizen contacted the City regarding the Vista Rd/Trent Ave crossing for the BNSF Railroad. Staff checked with WUTC staff and they suggested the crossing at Vista would be a strong candidate for safety funding. BNSF has recorded six (6) close calls at this location over the past five years from vehicles driving around down crossing gates as trains approached. The Vista/Trent crossing is made up of two mainline tracks. With two railroad crossings located close to each other at this location, up to $40,000 ($20,000 per crossing) is available for safety improvements. The grant will cover 100% of the project cost up to the maximum grant amount with one restriction. The grant will not cover in-house staff time for administration, design and construction management. However, it will cover the design and construction management costs if they are contracted out to a consultant. This unusual restriction was discovered after the completion of the Park Rd/Trent safety improvement project. Based upon review of the site conditions, staff agrees that safety improvements at the Vista/Trent crossings would be a prudent investment given the potential for high severity and/or fatal accidents that can occur due to the pattern of unsafe driver behavior. A preliminary cost estimate for improvements at Vista/Trent is attached. Staff is coordinating with BNSF to verify the scope of the safety improvements necessary for the railroad crossings. If Council agrees to staff submitting a Grade Crossing Protective Fund grant application for this project and we are successful in getting grant funds, we anticipate design to begin this year and construction of the improvements next spring. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The GCPF grant pays 100% of the total project cost up to the maximum grant amount if design and construction management is contracted out. As the proposed GCPF application is developed, staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient city funds to provide the needed match for the proposed GCPF project. Based upon the current preliminary estimate, the City match would be approximately $11,000 to take advantage of the amount of grant funding available. It is proposed that REET funds be used to provide the City match. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: WUTC-GCPF Call for Projects, Vista/Trent Preliminary Cost Estimate 2123 North Park Road.Spokane Valley.Washington.United States Ore r approximate -- `` I t t vit • — y k i • • dr � I a r l^ Date:Septe . ' Report a problem Concrete Medians on Park Road south of Trent Avenue Grade Crossing Protective Fund(GCPF) Rules -WAC 480-62-400 through 420 WAC 480-62-400,Purpose 1. As authorized by chapter 81.53 RCW, this chapter prescribes the manner in which a public, private or nonprofit entity may apply to the commission for grants from the grade crossing protective fund, and to prescribe a program for the award of such grants. 2. Grade crossing protective fund grants are to fund projects that: a. Reduce accident frequency and severity at either public and private railroad crossings; or b. Reduce pedestrian, trespassing, and motorist injuries and deaths on railroad rights of way at places other than crossings. WAC 480-62-405,Applications 1. Any public, private or nonprofit entity may submit an application to the commission for a grant from the grade crossing protective fund. The commission will consider applications that propose projects that are within one of the following categories: a. Grade crossing signals or other warning devices at public crossings. This category includes safety improvement projects at public crossings under RCW 81.53.261 and 81.53.295. b. Trespass prevention and motorist safety projects. This category includes, but is not limited to, fencing or other physical barriers; warning devices; channeling devices; public information efforts; and enforcement-related activities. c. Private crossing safety improvements. This category includes, but is not limited to, crossing closures or consolidations; signals or warning devices; nighttime and off- hours locked gates; and making existing warning devices more noticeable. d. Miscellaneous safety projects. This category includes other projects within the scope of WAC 480-62-400(2) to foster creative and effective ideas and to address newly discovered problems. Such projects might include, but are not limited to, roadway improvements at or approaching grade crossings; mitigation of problems created by crossing closures; and removal of sight obstructions to signals or trains for the traveling public. 2. An applicant may at any time submit an application on a form provided by the commission for a grant to pay for costs of public grade crossing signals or other warning devices as described in subsection(1)(a) of this section. The commission will evaluate and act on such applications as they are received. 3. An applicant may at any time submit an application for a grant to pay for projects falling within the categories described in subsection (1)(b), (c), and (d) of this section. When funds are available for disbursement, the commission will issue a call for grant applications with a deadline by which applications must be submitted for competitive consideration. The commission will evaluate and act on all pending applications, deciding whether each application should be granted, in whole or in part; whether the application should be retained for further consideration if funds become available; or whether the application should be denied. Applications that have not been denied may remain active until the next ensuing call for grant applications is issued, not to exceed two years from the date of the application, or such shorter time as the commission may specify. 4. Applicants for projects described in subsection (1)(b), (c), and(d) of this section must submit grant applications on a form provided by the commission that requires applicants to provide the following information: 1 Grade Crossing Protective Fund(GCPF) Rules -WAC 480-62-400 through 420 a. A detailed summary of the hazard to be addressed, including location, accident history, and the identities of the relevant railroad company and local agency (local government that has jurisdiction over the issue and/or territory involved); b. A summary of the project and how its implementation will mitigate or eliminate the hazard; c. Cost estimates; d. An estimated timeline for project completion; e. A description of how the project's success can be measured; f. A summary of efforts to coordinate with the railroad and/or local government, and the results of those efforts; g. A description of the applicant's experience, capacity, and competency to complete the project; and h. Such other information as the commission may require. WAC 480-62-410,Funding for project categories The commission may set aside a specific amount for the category that includes public grade crossing signals and other warning devices. It may designate a portion of the total available funds for each of the other project categories. The commission may limit the amount of funding per project for each project category. The commission may also award a grant that pays a portion of a larger safety project. WAC 480-62-415,Evaluation and award process 1. The commission will evaluate each petition for a project involving grade crossing signals or other warning devices at a public crossing when it is filed. The commission will evaluate projects in other categories after the deadline specified in a call for grant applications. When evaluating projects, the commission may perform diagnostic reviews at the site of proposed projects and may inquire about possible revisions to improve the proposal. If the applicant modifies the grant application in response to commission inquiries, the commission will consider the application in its modified form. 2. The commission will consider grant applications at regularly scheduled open meetings. Any interested person may speak at the open meeting regarding the grant applications. a. The commission will award a grant for a project involving grade crossing signals or other warning devices at a public crossing if funds are available and the commission determines that the public safety requires the project. The commission will consider the severity of the hazard addressed by the project and the safety benefits expected to be achieved. b. The commission will award grants to projects in other categories that, in the commission's judgment, will achieve the greatest gains in safety relative to their cost. The commission will consider the relative severity of the hazard being addressed in each application, the safety benefits expected to be achieved by the proposed projects, the costs of implementing each project, the likelihood that the applicant can complete the project, and whether the applicant coordinated with and sought approval from the relevant local agency and railroad. The commission may also consider geographic diversity. The commission may condition an award on an amendment of the application regarding the requested level of funding, the suggested time limit for completion of the grant project, and any other proposed term or condition. 2 Grade Crossing Protective Fund(GCPF) Rules -WAC 480-62-400 through 420 WAC 480-62-420, Grant documents,timelines and fund transfers 1. As a condition of every grant award, award recipient must sign an agreement provided by the commission specifying the terms of the grant. 2. If it appears that an award recipient is not meeting the timelines specified in the application, commission order, or agreement, the commission may set specific project milestones and deadlines for meeting them. The commission may withdraw the award if the award recipient does not achieve a milestone on time. 3. When an award recipient completes a project, it must submit its request to the commission for disbursement of grant funds on a form provided by the commission. 4. The commission will verify that the project is complete and meets all terms and conditions of the application, order, and agreement. When the commission confirms that the project has been completed consistent with the application, order, and agreement, the commission will disburse grant funds to the award recipient. 3 Grant Application Cost Estimate Project Name: Vista Road RR Crossing Safety Improvements Prepared By: Preparation Date: Bryan D. Hicks, P.E. May 29,2013 SOmorliane .•••OValley ITEM# WSDOT STD. SPEC. WSDOT STD.# ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE PLANNED QUANTITY ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED ITEM PRICE 1 1-09.7 0001 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800 3 1-10.3 6971 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500 4 8-04 6701 CEMENT CONC. MEDIAN CURB, 12-IN WIDE L.F. 300 $ 40.00 $ 12,000 5 8-23 TRAFFIC DELINEATORS &CORE HOLES EACH 30 $ 150.00 $ 4,500 6 8-23 BULLNOSE MARKER EACH 8 $ 400.00 $ 3,200 7 PERMANENT SIGNAGE LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $ 29,000 Contingency(25%) $ 7,250 -(Allowance for variation in market conditions for bid prices due to small project size and no economics of scale) Construction Sub-Total Preliminary Engineering & Design (20%) -(Preparation of Contract Documents to Bid project) Construction Engineering& Management(20%) $ 7,250 -(Inspection and Management of Construction Contractor) Right Of Way $ 36,250 $ 7,250 TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 50,750 \\SV-FS2\Public Folders\Public Works\Capital Projects\Project Funding Applications\2013 Applications\WUTC Apps\GPCF Cost Est May 29-13.xlsx 7/2/2013 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 18,2013; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings July 30,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,July 22] ACTION ITEM: 1.Motion Consideration: Approval to Submit WUTC Grant Application—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: TIB Grant Requests—Steve Worley,Eric Guth (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3.Update on the Park/Library Project—Mike Stone (25 minutes) 4. Economic Development Update—John Hohman (20 minutes) 5. Industrial Land Sewer—John Hohman,Gabe Gallinger (15 minutes) 6. Spokane County Saltese Wetlands Restoration—John Hohman (20 minutes) 7.Appleway Landscaping Phase 1 —Eric Guth (15 minutes) 8. Initiative 502—Erik Lamb, Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) 9. 2014 Council Goals—Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 10.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 11. Info Only: (a)Wellesley/Adams Sidewalk Project [*estimated meeting: 150 minutes] August 6,2013 NO MEETING(National Night Out) August 13,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon July 29] Presentation of Special Guests:Kevin Wallace, SRTC Director ( 15 minutes) 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-010, Sign Code Revisions -John Hohman (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-011,Zayo Franchise Renewal—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,Lighting Code Revisions—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Wellesley/Adams Sidewalk Project—Steve Worley (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: 2014 Budget—Estimated revenues&expenditures—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] August 20,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 12] 1. Criminal Prevention Officer Update—Chief VanLeuven,Deputy Chris Johnston (25 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] August 27,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 19] August Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2014 Budget revenues(including prop taxes)—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes,Motion setting 9-24 budget hearing) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,Lighting Code Revisions—Mary Palaniuk (10 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Information Only: (a)Dept Reports; (b)Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] Wed,Aug 28,2013: 8:30 a.m 11:30 a.m.Special Joint Meeting w/Board of County Commissioners et al CenterPlace Regional Event Center,Room 109. Topic: Solid Waste Draft Advance Agenda 7/18/2013 10:11:22 AM Page 1 of 3 Sept 3, 2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 26] 1. Outside Agency Presentations(Economic Development Agencies) (-30 minutes) 2. Outside Agency Presentations(social service agencies, 5 min each)—Mark Calhoun (-50 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] Friday, Sept 6, 2013, 10 a.m. —12:30 P.M Spokane Regional Council of Governments, Fairgrounds Sept 10,2013 No Meeting.Council attends"Spokane Valley Day at the Fair" Sept 17,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Sept 9 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Presentation of 2014 Preliminary Budget—City Manager Jackson (30 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Sept 24,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 16] Sept Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2014 Proposed Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Allocations to Outside Agencies—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Budget Amendment for 2013 —Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Information Only: (a)Dept Reports; (b)Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 75 minutes] Oct 1,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 23) 1. CDBG Potential Projects—Scott Kuhta (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Oct 8,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 30] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Projects—Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2013 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4. Second Reading Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Ordinance Amending 2013 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 6.First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2014 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7.Motion Consideration: Approval of CDBG Projects—Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 8.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 minutes] Oct 15,2013, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 7] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Oct 22,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 14] Oct Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending 2013 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2014 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 5. Information Only: Dept Reports;Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 35 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 7/18/2013 10:11:22 AM Page 2 of 3 Oct 29,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 23]] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Nov 5,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 28] 1. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations to Council—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Nov 12,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. (possible no meeting) [due Mon,Nov 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: 2014 Fee Resolution—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25 minutes] Nov 13—16:NLC Conference,Seattle Nov 19,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 11] Nov Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Nov 26 2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 18] Oath of Office to Councilmember Position#1 (completing term vacated by B.Grassel) (5 minutes) 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Information Only: Dept Reports;Planning Commission Minutes Dec 3,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 25) 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Dec 10,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 2] Dec Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2014—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2014—Mark Calhoun (25 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Dec 17,2013,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 9] Oath of Office to Councilmembers (Positions 1, 4, 5, 7) (10 minutes) 1.Mayoral Appointments to Planning Commission(2 positions set to expire 12-31-2013) (5 minutes) 2.Mayoral Appointments to LTAC (2 positions set to expire 12-31-2013) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Dec 24,2013 no meeting—Christmas Eve Dec 31,2013 no meeting—New Year's Eve January 7,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 30] 1. Council Officer Elections (select Mayor and Deputy Mayor)—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appointments,Mayoral,PC&committees for 2014 Public Safety Contract,Proposed Amendment ADA Transition Plan Speed Limits(overall system) Coal Train EIS Regional Transportation Issues Economic Development(long term goals) Townhouses in Garden Office Future Acquisition Areas Park& Recreation Master Plan *time for public or Council comments not included PEG Funds(Education) Draft Advance Agenda 7/18/2013 10:11:22 AM Page 3 of 3 Community Development Sp ri o �e® Monthly Report 4,000Valley- June 2013 Pre Application Meetings A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development conducted a total of 10 Pre-Application Meetings in June 2013. 1 15 10 al 5 j 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application MI Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 I nd Use Pre-Application Meeting 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 0 U u u U LU 0 0 0 0 I .0 Annual Total To-Date: 10 Page 1 of 8 Community Development Spo°ka�ne® Monthly Report jValley° June 2013 Construction Applications Received Community Development received a total of 278 Construction Applications in June 2013. 400 1 200 II 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New Commercial-TI Residential-New =Other Building Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition - 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Building Permits - 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals + -- 0 0 0 278 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 278 Page 2 of 8 Community Development Spokane Monthly Report 4100 Valley' June 2013 Land Use Applications Received Community Development received a total of 29 Land Use Applications in June 2013. 40 s 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment II. Binding Site Plan Preliminary mir. State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) IS_ Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation I.Other Land Use Permits San Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec :Diln 4►r n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Piet Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plain Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SE' 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals IF 0 29 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 29 Page 3 of 8 Community Development Spokane Monthly Report Valley. June 2013 Construction Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 268 Construction Permits in June 2013. 400 ii200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New Commercial-TI Residential-New I♦Other Building Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec IIIMI/Mrrirrk 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Trade 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Accessory 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Building Permits 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 0 0 0 0 0 2 ;, Annual Total To-Date; 268 Page 4 of 8 Community Development *Wane ne® .000 Monthly Report valley� p June 2013 Land Use Applications Approved Community Development approved a total of 1 Land Use Applications in June 2013. 2 1 1 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec NE Boundary Line Adjustment i Binding Site Plan Preliminary ® State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) MN Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation ME Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjust :;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4..L l ly Totals Q'" „ 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 1 Page 5 of 8 Community Development Spo°'kan� .0000 Valley° Monthly Report June 2013 Development Inspections Performed Community Development performed a total of 1013 Development Inspections in June 2013. Development Inspections include building, planning,engineering and ROW inspections. 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 2012 2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals '111r:c 464 502 807 1,026 1,059 1,013 0 0 0 0 0 0 W4,871 1,023 441 540 828 1,102 926 984 988 931 1,149 805 549 10,069 {;)e,: 923 276 416 470 456 489 506 524 561 568 461 446 6,096 Page 6 of 8 �� Community Development Sp okan Monthly Report Valley' June 2013 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 27 citizen requests in the month of June.They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec lt Complaint,Non-Violation Environmental General Nuisance I= Property Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 w , 1 1 Totals 0 X27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 27 Page 7 of 8 Community Development Sp*Wane Monthly Report 4000Valley June 2013 Revenue Community Development Revenue totaled$409,592 in June 2013. 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec - - 2013 2012 Ffve-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2013 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,013,750 Trend $63,520 $74,051 $128,083 $190,355 $197,635 $169,785 $116,228 $127,337 $132,479 $104,187 $121,267 $79,395 $1,504,322 2012 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 1.552,558 2011 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 83,255 2010 $87,229 $84,626 $109,029 $96,800 $305,185 $102,781 $87,805 $87,724 $107,002 $73,100 $72,948 $64,009.78,238 2009 $65,199 $68,914 $93,424 $214,601 $233,397 $136,568 $123,348 $204,739 $107,930 $121,658 $100,247 $110,001 $0'a 2008 $87,126 $79,147 $179,451 $348,203 $96,239 $278,781 $158,602 $156,571 $166,655 $135,398 $229,022 $112,339 2,027,, Page 8 of 8 S�pokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director_}t,1c Date: July 16, 2013 Re Finance Department Activity Report June 2013 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of June 2013 and included herein is a 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the month of June. 2012 Yearend Process The 2012 books were closed in April 2013. The general accounting work required to accomplish this included determining that revenue and expenditure activity was posted to the correct year and accounts, analyzing account balances and preparing closing entries. The annual report preparation is complete in advance of the annual audit which we understand will begin the first week of August. 2014 Budget Development Process The 2014 Budget development process is well underway and at this point we have received detailed budget requests from all departments. By the time the budget is adopted on October 22nd the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including two public hearings. June 18 Council budget workshop August 13 Admin report on 2014 revenues and expenditures August 27 Public hearing #1 on 2014 revenues and expenditures September 17 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2014 Budget September 24 Public hearing #2 on 2014 Budget October 8 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2014 Budget October 22 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2014 Budget 2014 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2014 are expected to account for approximately 30% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: August 27 Review of ordinances levying 2014 property taxes and confirming tax levy September 24 First reading of ordinances levying 2014 property taxes and confirming tax levy. October 8 Second reading of ordinances levying 2014 property taxes and confirming tax levy. liSV-FS21UserslmcalhounlFinance Activity Reports1201312013 06.docx Page 1 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 2014 Budget currently has $150,000 collectively available for this. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: June 28 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. July 26 Agency requests are due at City Hall. September 3 Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council. September 17 Council makes final determination of awards. IT Related Activity • IT staff closed 83 help desk requests during the month of June. • A seasonal employee was hired during June to assist with the IT Help Desk and cover for vacations of staff. • Launched a testing phase for a new employee timesheet application for finance staff, with the intention of providing to the rest of the city as bugs get worked out. The purpose of this system is to standardize the information being reported to Payroll, assist managers in the approval process, provide better reporting, and to have the potential for automated entry of staff hours directly into the EDEN Payroll system. • Assisted with the city's soon to be available phone application. Helped with programming JavaScript and Google Maps so the application would have mapping technology available to the users. Bud et Actual to Acal Comparison Report A report reflecting 2013 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2013 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 16. 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. 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 expected to be reflected in our 2012 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2013 Budget as adopted. o June 2013 activity. o Cumulative 2013 activity through June 2013. 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 46.19% of the amount budgeted with 50.00% of the year elapsed. This is typical and reflective of the nature of the timing of when revenues are collected. 41SV-FS24Users.rncafhoun1Finance Activity Reports1201312013 06.docx Page 2 • Property tax collections have reached $5,828,789 or 53.26% of the amount budgeted. Property taxes are paid to Spokane County Treasurer in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31. The greatest portion of these monies are then remitted to the City in May and November, with lesser amounts typically received in June and December. • Sales tax collections represent only 5-months of collections thus far because taxes collected in June are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of July. Collections are currently $6,632,385 or 43.49% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at$152,057 or 24.83% of the amount budgeted. These taxes are paid quarterly. The first quarter payments were mostly received and recorded during April and May. Second quarter payments are due by July 31. We anticipate second quarter receipts will bring us close to 50.00% of the budgeted figure. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. Through June we have received $330,801 or 29.15% of the amount budgeted. We anticipate second quarter receipts will bring us close to 50.00% of the budgeted figure. • 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 $799,675 or 47.47% 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 $822,058 or 63.04% 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 2013 we've received remittances for the period January through May with receipts of $527,358 or 35.29% 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 $258,717 or 45.27% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at 43.39%© of the amount budgeted with 50.00% of the year elapsed. Departments experience seasonal fluctuations in activity so they don't necessarily expend their budget in twelve equal monthly installments. Investments (page 17) Investments at May 31 total $49,532,844 and are composed of$44,489,955 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,042,889 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 18) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through June and total $7,469,254 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $557,856 (8.07%) greater than for the same 5-month period in 2012. Economic Indicators (pages 19—21) 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 19) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 20) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. 11SV FS21UserslmcalhounlFinance Activity Reports4201312013 06.docx Page 3 Page 19 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2004. • Compared with calendar year 2012, 2013 collections have increased by $512,793 or 8.38%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at $17.4 million and dropped off dramatically in the subsequent three years. Page 20 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2004. • Compared with calendar year 2012, 2013 collections have increased by $1,184 or 0.75%. • Collections peaked in 2012 at approximately $490,004. Page 21 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2004. • Compared with calendar year 2012, 2013 collections have increased by $118,470 or 31.82%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and appear to be slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 22) 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.Q. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value and the 2012 assessed value for 2013 property taxes is $6,921,825,295. Following the City's December 1, 2012, bond payment, the City currently has $7,690,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.41% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.48% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. • The $7,690,000 of bonds the City currently has outstanding is part of the 2003 nonvoted (LTGO) bond issue. Of this amount: o $6,130,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,560,000 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. IISV-FS2lUserslmcalhounlFinance Activity Reports1201312013 06.docx Page 4 P;IFinance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports/2013/2013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 ' 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 10,943,700 977,434 5,828,789 (5,114,911) 53.26% Sales Tax 15,250,000 1,320,449 6,632,385 (8,617,615) 43.49% Criminal Justice Tax 1,280,000 107,238 536,471 (743,529) 41.91% Public safety Sales Tax 750,000 59,193 300,398 (449,602) 40.05% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 612,300 2,854 152,057 (460,243) 24.83% Franchise FeeslBusiness Registration 1,135,000 7,637 330,801 (804,199) 29.15% State Shared Revenues 1,684,600 344,978 799,675 (884,925) 47.47% Service Revenues 1,304,000 135,020 822,058 (481,942) 63.04% Fines and Forfeitures 1,494,300 99,141 527,358 (966,942) 35.29% Recreation Program Fees 571,500 40,9B8 258,717 (312,783) 45.27% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 166,200 14,451 76,483 (89,717) 46.02% Transfer-in -#101 (streetadmin) 39,700 3,308 19,850 (19,850) 50.00% Transfer-in -#105(h/m tax-CPadvertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Transfer-in -#402(storm admire) 13,400 1,117 6,700 (6,700) 50.00% Total Recurring Revenues 35,274,700 3,113,807 16,291,740 (18,982,960) 46.19% Expenditures City Council 390,111 21,001 196,698 193,413 50.42% City Manager 637,984 48,352 296,551 341,433 46.48% Legal 439,161 33,935 203,890 235,271 46.43% Public Safety 22,139,200 1,619,889 10,307,164 11,832,036 46.56% Deputy City Manager 509,706 33,881 213,808 395,898 35.07% Finance 1,089,633 87,771 509,312 580,321 46.74% Human Resources 232,469 18,244 105,913 126,556 45.56% Public Works 876,443 42,470 311,001 565,442 35.48% Community Development-Administration 257,175 17,423 119,393 137,782 46.42% Community Development-Engineering 850,845 61,110 411,011 439,834 48.31% Community Development-Planning 899,743 61,417 470,870 428,873 52.33% Community Development-Building 1,162,582 79,229 516,518 646,064 44.43% Parks&Rec-Administration 270,717 20,054 142,801 127,916 52.75% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 789,000 64,297 312,758 476,242 39.64% Parks&Rec-Recreation 231,321 22,668 78,673 152,648 34.01% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 485,600 35,238 51,988 433,612 10.71% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 88,143 6,571 38,977 49,166 44.22% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 800,884 57,066 337,534 463,350 42.15% Pavement Preservation 855,857 0 0 855,857 0.00% General Government 1,799,100 54,383 606,916 1,192,184 33.73% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 319,000 26,583 159,500 159,500 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 35,224,674 2,411,562 15,391,277 19,833,397 43.69% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 50,026 702,245 900,463 850,437 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfer in-#120(excess reserves) 50,787 0 0 (50,787) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 50,787 0 0 (50,787) 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out-#309(park grant match) 50,000 4,167 25,000 25,000 50.00% Transfers out-#312(Capital Reserve Fund) 7,826,207 0 7,826,207 0 100.00% Parks&Recreation Related 56,962 0 0 56,962 0.00% Carpet at City Hall 25,000 0 0 25,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 7,958,169 4,167 7,851,207 106,962 98.66% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (7,907,382) (4,167) (7,851,207) 56,175 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (7,857,356) 698,078 (6,950,744) 906,612 Beginning unrestrictedfund balance 28,681,219 28,681,219 Ending unrestricted fund balance 20,823,863 21,730,475 Page 5 P,IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget (SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND 'RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,861,100 151,595 735,963 (1,125,137) 39.54% Investment Interest 5,000 214 1,217 (3,783) 24.34% Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 0 0 633 633 #D1VI0! Utility Tax 2,900,000 129,270 1,001,802 (1,898,198) 34,54% Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 4,766,100 281,079 1,739,615 (3,026,485) 36.50% Expenditures Wages/Benefits I Payroll Taxes 573,170 40,538 315,856 257,314 55.11% Supplies 72,200 34,136 198,014 (125,814) 274.26% Services&Charges 2,925,152 425,242 908,662 2,016,490 31.08% Intergovernmental Payments 851,000 44,567 208,122 642,878 24.46% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 3,308 19,850 19,850 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 12,500 75,000 75,000 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle 10,777 898 5,388 5,389 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservf 282,000 0 282,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,903,999 561,189 2,012,892 2,891,107 41.05% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures (137,899) (280,110) (273,278) (135,379) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 32,756 34,368 34,388 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers in-#302 0 0 252 252 #DIVI01 Miscellaneous 0 0 11,516 11,516 #DIVI01 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 32,756 46,136 46,136 #DIV/01 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-out-#303 0 0 138 (138) #DIV/01 0133-Sprague/Sullivan ITS 0 22,875 191,621 (191,621) #DIVIO! Capital Outlay-Buildings&Structures 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 22,875 191,760 (191,760) #DIVIOI Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 9,881 (145,624) (145,624) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (1.37,899) (270,229) (418,902) (281,003) Beginning fund balance 2,228,437 2,228,437 Ending fund balance 2,090,538 1,809,535 Page 6 P:IFinancelFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201 312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %Q of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,800 0 0 (7,800) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 3 21 21 #DIVI01 Total revenues 7,800 3 21 (7,779) 0.27% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 _ 3 21 (7,779) Beginning fund balance 63,941 63,941 Ending fund balance 71,741 63,962• #105-HOTEL 1 MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 460,000 40,560 159,438 (300,562) 34.66% Investment Interest 500 25 135 (365) 26.94% Total revenues 460,500 40,586 159,573 (300,927) 34.65% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% City directed marketing efforts 55,000 0 0 55,000 0.00% Tourism Promotion 425,500 20,710 143,401 282,099 33.70% Total expenditures 510,500 20,710 143,401 367,099 28.09% Revenues over(under)expenditures (50,000) 19,875 16,172 (668,026) Beginning fund balance 206,772 206,772 Ending fund balance 156,772 222,944 Page 7 P:1Finance\For City Council\Cauncil Monthly Reports1201312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50,0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 #DIV101 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIV101 Total revenues 0 0 0 0 #DNV101 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #D1VI01 Interfund Transfer-out-#001 50,787 0 0 50,787 0.00% Total expenditures 50,787 0 0 50,787 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (50,787) 0 0 (50,787) Beginning fund balance 350,787 350,787 Ending fund balance 300,000 350,787 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 7,000 454 2,897 (4,103) 41.39% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Total revenues 7,000 454 2,897 (4,103) 41.39% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVf01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,000 454 2,897 (4,103) Beginning fund balance 5,441,531 5,441,531 Ending fund balance 5,448,531 5,444,428 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 44 281 (419) 40.15% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Subtotal revenues 700- - 44 281 (419) 40.15% Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Revenues over(under)expenditures 700 44 281 (419) Beginning fund balance 502,888 502,888 Ending fund balance 503,588 503,169 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,600 105 668 (932) 41.75% Interfund Transfer-#001 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Total revenues 1,600 105 668 (932) 41.75% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 0 616,284 0 100.00% Total expenditures 616,284 0 616,284 0 100.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,684) 105 (615,616) (932) Beginning fund balance 2,403,947 2,403,947 Ending fund balance 1,789,263 1,788,331 Page 8 P:1FinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201 31201 3 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget °Jo of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget (DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 437,120 0 148,560 (288,560) 33.99% Interfund Transfer-in-#301 92,951 7,746 46,476 (46,475) 50.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 92,952 7,746 46,476 (46,476) 50.00% Total revenues 623,023 15,492 241,511 (381,512) 38.76% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 437,120 0 112,249 324,871 25.68% Debt Service Payments-Roads 185,903 0 20,221 165,682 10.88% Total expenditures 623,023 0 132,469 490,554 21.26% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 15,492 109,042 (872,065) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 109,042 Page 9 PAFinance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports12013\2013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget [CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 500,000 56,082 279,600 (220,400) 55.92% Investment Interest 500 74 464 (36) 92.84% Interfund Transfer-in-#303 0 0 0 0 #D1V10t Total revenues 500,500 58,156 280,064 (220,436) _55.96% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 92,951 7,746 46,476 46,475 50,00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 892,404 0 3,763 888,641 0.42% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presen 150,000 0 150,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 1,135,355 7,746 200,239 935,116 17.64% Revenues over(under)expenditures (634,855) 50,410 79,825 (1,155,552) Beginning fund balance 1,092,264 1,092,264 Ending fund balance 457,409 1,172,089 #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 500,000 58,082 211,238 (288,762) 42.25% Investment Interest 1,000 88 561 (439) 56.06% Interfund Transfer-in-#307 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total revenues 501,000 58,170 211,799 (289,201) 42.28% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#101 0 0 252 (252) #DIV/Oi Interfund Transfer-out-#204 92,952 7,746 46,476 46,476 50.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 617,479 0 10,186 607,293 1.65% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presen 150,000 0 150,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 860,431 7,746 206,913 653,518 24.05% Revenues over(under)expenditures (359,431) 50,424 4,886 (942,719) Beginning fund balance 1,130,670 1,130,670 Ending fund balance 771,239 1,135,556 Page 10 P:1Finance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 5o.0%o- For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %a of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 6,597,842 98,465 416,820 (6,181,022) 6.32% Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 (1) 49 49 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfer-in-#101 0 0 138 138 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfer-in-#301 892,404 0 3,763 (888,641) 0.42% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 617,479 0 10,186 (607,293) 1.65% Investment Interest 0 2 10 10 #DIVIO! Total revenues 8,107,725 98,466 430,966 (7,676,759) 5.32% Expenditures 005 Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 300,000 17,337 228,301 71,699 76.10% 053 24th Ave-Sullivan to 22nd 0 815 815 (815) #DIVIO! 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 957,892 2,285 8,283 949,609 0.86% 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvement SRTC 06-26 637,288 263,120 537,080 100,208 84.28% 063 Broadway Ave Safety Project-Pines 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0 065 Sprague/Sullivan 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 069 Park Road Reconstruction#2 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 106 West Ponderosa STEP 0 0 236 (236) #DiV/0! 112 Indiana Avenue Extension 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 188,745 130 10,825 177,920 5.74% 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 0 1,454 1,828 (1,828) #DIV/01 141 Sullivan&Euclid FCC 139,332 0 0 139,332 0.00% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 219,599 4,566 16,032 203,567 7.30% 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 200,000 128 373 199,627 0.19% 146 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 15,000 4,112 240,473 (225,473) 1603.15% 148 Greenacres Trail-Design 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 149 Sidewalk lnfill 337,507 16,127 43,051 294,456 12.76% 151 Green Haven STEP 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 154 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 33,198 25 25 33,173 0.08% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 800,000 130,412 289,677 510,323 36.21% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 1,012,924 14,309 68,106 944,818 6.72% 157 Temporary Sullivan Bridge Repairs 0 0 16 (16) #DIVIO! 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 125,000 1,375 78,949 46,051 63.16% 160 Evergreen Rd Pres. 16th-32nd 0 103 1,002 (1,002) #DIVIOI 166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave. Int.Safety 98,100 0 12,563 85,537 12,81% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 450,995 0 1,449 449,546 0.32% 168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 554,500 31,813 96,987 457,513 17.49% 169 Argonne/Mullan Safety Indiana-Broadway 104,460 72 789 103,671 0.76% 170 Argonne road: Empire Ave-Knox Ave. 172,785 508 1,746 171,039 1.01% 171 Sprague Ave ADA Curb Ramp Project 110,400 3,270 95,408 14,992 86.42% 175 Sullivan UP Tracks UC(SB)Resurfacing 0 4,773 10,467 (10,467) #DIV10! 176 ApplewayTrail 150,000 1,263 29,858 120,142 19.91% 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 0 2,349 (2,349) #DIVI01 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Contingency 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 8,107,725 497,998 1,776,686 6,331,039 21.91% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (399,533) (1,345,720) (14,007,798) Beginning fund balance 73,646 73,646 Ending fund balance 73,646 (1,272,074) Page 11 P;1FinanceWFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201312013 08 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Interfund Transfer-in-#001 50,000 4,167 25,000 (25,000) 50,00% Interfund Transfer-in-#304 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Investment Interest 0 43 274 274 #DIV/0! Total revenues 50,000 4,210 25,274 (24,728) 50.55% Expenditures Capital 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Total expenditures 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 4,210 25,274 (74,726) Beginning fund balance 302,423 302,423 Ending fund balance 302,423 327,697 Page 12 P:1FinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports120131201 3 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget !CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued 1 #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 0 115 736 736 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 115 736 736 #DIV/0! Expenditures Capital 0 0 0 0 #0IV/0I Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVIOI Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 115 736 736 Beginning fund balance 1,110,074 1,110,074 Ending fund balance 1,110,074 1,110,810 #311 -STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 12,138 12,138 12,138 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 50 50 50 #DIV/01 Interfund Transfers in-#101 282,000 0 282,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#123 616,284 0 616,284 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#301 150,000 0 150,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#302 150,000 0 150,000 0 100.00% Investment Interest 0 179 1,143 1,143 #DIV/01 Total revenues 1,198,284 12,367 1,211,615 13,331 101.11% Expenditures 162 2012 Street Preservation 0 217 1,637 (1,637) #DIV/0l 174 2013 Street Preservation Ph1 0 400,9108 557,245 (557,245) #DIV/0! 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0 14,183 48,841 (48,841) #DIV/0! 180 2013 Street Preservation Phi 0 8,601 10,404 (10,404) #DIV/0! Pavement Preservation 1,198,284 0 0 1,198,284 100.00% Total expenditures 1,198,284 423,909 618,126 580,158 51.58% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (411,542) 593,489 (566,826) Beginning fund balance 948,733 948,733 Ending fund balance 948,733 1,542,222 #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 7,826,207 0 7,826,207 0 100.00°J Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 #D!V/01 Developer Contribution 0 1,956 1,956 1,956 #DIVI01 Total revenues 7,826,207 1,956 7,828,163 1,956 100.02% Expenditures Business Route Signage 60,000 0 0 60,000 0.00% Balfour Park/Library Site Development 42,150 9,542 11,025 31,125 26.16% Total expenditures 102,150 9,542 11,025 91,125 10,79% Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,724,057 (7,586) 7,817,138 (89,169) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 7,724,057 7,817,138 Page 13 P:1Finance\For City CouncillCouncll Monthly Reports12013".2013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% _ For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,800,000 238,463 1,014,769 (785,231) 56,38% Investment Interest 1,800 130 828 (972) 46.00% Miscellaneous 0 4,143 4,143 4,143 #DIV10! Total Recurring Revenues 1,801,800 242,736 1,019,741 (782,059) 56.60% Expenditures Wages/Benefits I Payroll Taxes 475,604 36,625 201,539 274,066 42.38% Supplies 16,300 614 2,655 13,645 16.29% Services&Charges 1,131,120 176,894 492,483 638,637 43.54% Intergovernmental Payments 23,000 0 12,500 10,501 54.35% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 13,400 1,117 6,700 6,700 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#502 1,567 0 0 1,567 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,660,991 215,249 715,877 945,114 43.10% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 140,809 27,488 303,864 163,055 I NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 200,000 0 11,073 (188,927) 5.54% Interfund Transfers-in 0 0 0 0 #D1V101 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 200,000 0 11,073 (188,927) 5.54% Expenditures Capital-various projects 350,000 0 197,358 152,642 56.39% Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit 267,000 2,414 6,532 260,468 2.45% UIC Retrofits on Pvmnt Pres Projects 430,000 95,796 147,881 282,119 34.39% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,047,000 98,210 351,770 695,230 33.60% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (847,000) (98,210) (340,698) 506,302 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (706,191) (70,723) (36,834) 669,357 Beginning working capital 2,697,333 2,697,333 Ending working capital 1,991,142 2,660,499 Page 14 P,1Finance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201 312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued I #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 234,336 234,336 (265,664) 46.87% Grant DOE-Decant Facility 735,000 0 0 (735,000) 0.00% Grant DOT-Decant Facility 150,000 0 0 (150,000) 0.00% Grant DOE-Sprague UIC Elimination 610,331 0 570,332 (39,999) 93.45% Investment Interest 1,000 0 0 (1,000) 0,00% Miscellaneous 0 50 50 50 #DIVI0? Total revenues 1,996,331 234,386 804,718 (1,191,613) 40.31% Expenditures Sprague swales 40,000 4,213 46,973 (6,973) 117.43% 14th Ave Custer to Carnahan 300,000 0 0 300,000 0.00% Bettman-Dickey Storm drain 250,000 0 0 250,000 0.00% Decant Facility 980,000 691 691 979,309 0.07% Total expenditures 1,570,000 4,904 47,664 1,522,336 3.04% Revenues over(under)expenditures 426,331 229,482 757,054 (2,713,949) Beginning working capital (108,658) (108,658) Ending working capital 317,673 648,396 Page 15 P:1Finance\For City CouncillCouncit Monthly Reports1201 312013 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2013 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50 0°%a For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2013 2013 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget 'INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund Transfer-in-#001 15,400 0 0 (15,400) 0.00% Interfund Transfer-In-#101 10,777 14,812 88,872 78,095 824.65% Interfund Transfer-in-#101 (plow replace.) 150,000 0 0 (150,000) 0.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#402 1,567 0 0 (1,567) 0.00% Investment Interest 1,000 77 489 (511) 48.87% Total revenues 178,744 14,889 89,361 (89,383) 49.99% Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Vehicle Replacement 50,000 0 48,749 1,251 97.50% Snow Plow Replacement 0 0 0 0 #DIVf0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 50,000 0 48,749 1,251 97.50% Revenues over(under)expenditures 128,744 14,889 40,611 (90,634) Beginning working capital 1,053,177 1,053,177 Ending working capital 1,181,921 1,093,788 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 3 3 #DIVIO! 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°l° Expenditures Services&Charges 319,000 0 267,106 51,894 83.73% Total expenditures 319,000 0 267,106 51,894 83.73% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 26,584 (107,603) (211,391) Beginning working capital 83,212 83,212 Ending working capital 83,212 (24,391) SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 63,871,801 4,236,360 30,555,455 Per revenue status report 63,871,801 4,236,360 30,555,454 Difference 0 0 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 65,988,372 4,285,808 30,583,447 Per expenditure status report 65,988,372 4,285,808 30,583,447 0 0 0 Page 16 P:\Finance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201312013 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/9/2013 Investment Report For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30, 2013 Total t.G1P* BB CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments Beginning $ 42,452,679.67 $ 3,041,436.56 $ 2,001,452.09 $ 47,495,568.32 Deposits 2,032,943.94 0,00 0.00 2,032,943.94 Withdrawls 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest 4,331.87 0.00 0,00 4,331.87 Ending $ 44,489,955.48 $ 3,041,436.56 $ 2,001,452.09 $ 49,532,844.13 matures: 6/28/2014 11/4/2013 rate: 0.35% 0.29% Earnings Balance Current Period Year to date Budget 001 General Fund $ 31,456,687,50 $ 2,780.13 $ 18,113.15 $ 90,000.00 101 Street Fund 2,447,325.73 214.03 1,216.99 5,000.00 103 Trails & Paths 37,938.11 3,32 21.21 0.00 105 Hotel/Motel 287,921.88 25.18 134.69 500.00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 332,958.41 0.00 0.00 500.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,185,640.03 453.51 2,897.11 7,000,00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 502,999.27 43.99 281.02 700.00 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,195,698.24 104.57 668.01 1,600.00 301 Capital Projects 843,560.95 73.77 464.22 500.00 302 Special Capital Projects 1,003,485.77 87.76 560.64 1,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 22,825.61 2.00 10.16 0.00 304 Mirabeau Point Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 307 Capital Grants Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 490,652.38 42.91 274.13 0.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 1,317,092.65 115.19 735.84 0.00 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 2,046,345.89 178.96 1,143.26 0.00 312 Capital Reserve Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 Stormwater Management 1,481,875.71 129.60 827.91 1,800.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 874,740.54 76.50 488.71 1,000.00 502 Risk Management 5,095.46 0.45 2.86 0.00 $ 49,532,844.13 $ 4,331,87 $ 27,839.91 $ 110,600.00 *Local Government Investment Pool Page 17 P:IFInancelFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201312013 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 7/9/2013 Sales Tax Receipts For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30, 2013 Month Difference Received 2012 2013 $ February 1,792,084.16 1,876,298.24 84,214.08 4.70% March 1,145,747.45 1,279,426.01 133,678.56 11.67% April 1,208,053.80 1,295,166.24 87,112.44 7.21% May 1,440,245.01 1,531,483.94 91,238.93 6.33% June 1,325,266.87 1,486,879,22 161,612,35 12.19% 6,911,397.29 7,469,253.65 557,856.36 8.07% July 1,458,841.23 0.00 August 1,482,908.83 0.00 September 1,470,215.17 0.00 October 1,558,848.71 0.00 November 1,541,210.69 0.00 December 1,523,377.53 0.00 January 1,490,932.65 0.00 17,437,732.10 7,469,253.65 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 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Sales Tax Collections- May For the years 2004 through 2013 January February March April May Collected to date \\SV-FS21Users\mcalhoun\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax1201312013 sales tax collections 2004 I 2005 1 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 f 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 1,145,888 962,431 909,472 1,080,745 1,263,176 1,367,929 917,747 1,015,573 1,322,070 1,159,647 1,572,609 1,068,743 1,072,330 1,371,030 1,392,111 1,759,531 1,155,947 1,196,575 1,479,603 1,353,013 1,729,680 1,129,765 1,219,611 1,423,459 1,243,259 1,484,350 1,098,575 1,068,811 1,134,552 1,098,054 1,491,059 963,749 1,018,468 1,184,137 1,102,523 1,460,548 990,157 1,015,762 1,284,180 1,187,737 1,589,887 1,009,389 1,067,733 1,277,621 1,174,962 1,671,269 1,133,347 1,148,486 1,358,834 1,320,449 7/1/2013 2013 to 2012 Difference 81,382 123,958 80,753 81,213 145,487 % 5.12% 12,28% 7.56% 6.36% 12.38% 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 6,632,385 512,793 8.38% June July August September October November December Total Collections Budget Estimate Actual over(under)budg 1,123,171 1,301,359 1,162,356 1,1 60.787 1,274,680 1,091,721 1,085,827 13,561,613 11,000,000 2,561,613 1,212,663 1,377,753 1,395,952 1,372,081 1,520,176 1,095,566 1,286,191 15,043,348 12,280,000 2,763,348 1,362,737 1,555,124 1,405,983 1,487,155 1,526,910 1,369,940 1,366,281 16,550,953 16,002,000 548,953 1,428,868 1,579,586 1,516,324 1,546,705 1,601,038 1,443,843 1,376,434 17,437,467 17,466,800 (29,333) 1,386,908 1,519,846 1,377,943 1,364,963 1,344,217 1,292,327 1,129,050 16,161,028 17,115,800 (954,772) 1,151,772 1,309,401 1,212,531 1,227,813 1,236,493 1,155,647 1,070,245 14,248,244 17,860,000 (3,611,756) 1,123,907 1,260,873 1,211,450 1,191,558 1,269,505 1,139,058 1,141,012 14,097,299 14,410,000 (31 2,701) 1,248,218 1,332,834 1,279,500 1,294,403 1,291,217 1,217,933 1,247,920 14,850,409 14,210,000 640,409 1,290,976 1,302,706 1,299,678 1,383,123 1,358,533 1,349,580 1,323,189 15,427,377 14,210,000 1,217,377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,632,385 15,100,000 (8,467,615) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 123.29% 122.50% 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% n/a %change in annual total collected %of budget collected through May %of actual total collected through May 71.77% 10.93% 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% n/a 48.74% 47.09% 40.48% 39.76% 39.41% 32.95% 39.97% 41.79% 43.07% 43.92% 39.54% 38.44% 39.13% 39.83% 41.74% 41.30% 40.86% 39.99% 39.67% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 _a_ 1 T May •April 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 March 2,000,000 5 February =January 1,000,000 �. 0 p ' n 2004 -r 2005 2006 i 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Page 19 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through- May Actual for the years 2004 through 2013 January February March April May 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlTax Revenue\Lodging Tax120131105 hotel motel tax 2013 2004 k 2005 I 2006 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 2012 2013 16,993.58 18,161.04 18,182.01 26,897.82 16,440.37 20,691.03 19,976.81 22,828.15 29,748.41 29,017.66 20,653.49 20,946.09 24,308.48 34,371.82 32,522.06 25,137.92 25,310.66 29,190.35 37,950.53 31,371.01 28,946.96 24,623.06 27,509.99 40,406.02 36,828.53 23,280.21 23,283.95 25,272.02 36,253.63 32,588.80 22,706.96 23,416.94 24,232.35 39,463.49 34,683.32 22,212.21 22,792.14 24,611.28 38,230.49 33,790.69 21,442.32 21,548.82 25,654.64 52,130.37 37,478.44 7/1/2013 2013 to 2012 Difference 24,184.84 2,743 12.79% 25,974.98 4,426 20.54% 27,738.65 2,084 8.12% 40,979.25 (11,151) (21.39%) 40,560.41 3,082 8.22% L 2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,527.32 Total Collections 96,674.82 122,262.06 132,801.94 148,960.47 158,314.56 140,678.61 144,503.06 141,636.81 158,254.59 159,438.13 1,184 0.75% 11,527.32 June 53,284.01 35,330.35 34,256.71 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39,935.36 41,403.41 43,970.70 0.00 32,512.11 July 42,120.26 43,841.82 49,744.62 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 0.00 38,580.48 August 43,649.84 46,852.10 45,916.16 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54,922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 0.00 54,974.74 September 39,390.66 46,746.18 50,126.53 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 0.00 30,718.23 October 33,004.62 34,966.85 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 0.00 36,960.11 November 32,176.61 26,089.36 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 0.00 23,044.56 December 23,142.70 31,740.18 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 0.00 28,825.30 Total Collections 363,443.52 387,828.90 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 159,438.13 257,142.85 Budget Estimate 380,000.00 436,827.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 460,000.00 419,000.00 Actual over(under)budg 16,556.48 48,998.10 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 88,021.78 68,544.52 22,397.34 60,004.07 300,561.87 (161,857.15) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 95.64% 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% nla 61.37% %change in annual total collected of budget collected through May 41.34% 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% n/a %of actual total collected through May 25.44% 27.99% 37.94% 37.24% 39.58% 27.48% 38.03% 29.51% 36.80% 34.66% n/a 2.75% 26.60% 31.52% 31.84% 32.27% 33.89% 33.18% 32.22% 30.95% 32.30% nla 4.48% Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May 180,000.00 •May •March ■February ■January , 160,000.00 140,000,00 120,000.00 100,000.00 = 1 80,000.00 60,000.00 40,000.00 r - 20,000.00 0.00 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Page 20 I 7/1/2013 J CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1st and 2nd 114%REET Collections through May Actual for the years 2004 through 2013 11SV-FS21Users\mcalhoun\Tax Revenue\REET120131301 and 302 REET for 2013 I 2004 2005 I 2006 2007 I 2008 I 2009 j 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 January 119,387.05 147,819.56 243,894.16 228,896.76 145,963.47 55,281.25 February 83,795.78 128,082.35 172,154.72 129,919.79 159,503.34 45,180.53 March 195,121.93 198,013.09 182,065.71 263,834.60 133,513.35 73,306.86 April 144,167.21 192,012.44 173,796.61 211,787.08 128,366.69 81,155.83 May 155,089.15 240,765.59 306,871.66 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 59.887.08 64,121.61 86,204.41 99,507.19 109,624.89 64,128.13 36,443.36 95,879.78 79,681.38 124,691.60 46,358.75 56,114.56 71,729.67 86,537.14 111,627.22 56,898.40 155,226.07 72,171.53 90,376.91 116,164.91 2013 to 2012 Difference 10,540 22.73% 99,112 176.62% 442 0.62% 3,840 4.44% 4,538 4.07% Collected to date 697,561.12 906,693.03 1,078,782.86 1,057,115.40 725,853.28 332,388.05 419,345.18 400,824.25 372,367.34 490,837.82 118,470 31.82% June 177,702.06 284,268.67 226,526.64 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.98 105,680.28 81,579.34 124,976.28 July 197,046.43 209,350.53 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 August 171,521.07 280,881.50 451,700.06 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 September 176,002.43 214,738.94 188,066.23 165,287.21 131,240.36 93,862.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 October 199,685.81 244,590.31 211,091.20 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 November 217,019.02 190,964.73 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885.99 December 173,502.55 159,381.40 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,010,040.49 2,490,869.11 2,461,285.61 2,589,681.22 1,986,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 490,837.82 Budget estimate 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 1,000,000.00 Actual over(under)budget 330.040.49 1,515.491.89 461,285.61 589,681.22 13,237.87 911,777.80 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 509,162.18 Total actual collections as a%of total budget %change in annual total collected %of budget collected through May %of actual total collected through May 119.65% 62.17% 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% Na n/a 41.52% 22.63% 53.94% 52.86% 36.29% 16.62% 55.18% 50.10% 39.20% 49.08% 34.70% 36.40% 43.83% 40.82% 36.53% Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May 30.54% 43.58% 41.72% 31.40% n/a 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 800,000,00 600,000.00 400,000.00 7 May April r; ® March ■February 200,000.00 a January 0.00 r 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Page 21 \\SV-FS2\Users\mcalhoun\Bonds\debt capacity CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/22/2013 Debt Capacity 2012 Assessed Value for 2013 Property Taxes 6,921,825,295 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt Capacity , 12/31/2012 Capacity Utilized Voted (UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 69,218,253 0 69,218,253 0.00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 103,827,379 7,690,000 96,137,379 7.41% Voted park 2.50% of assessed value 173,045,632 0 173,045,632 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 173,045,632 0 173,045,632 0.00% 519,136,896 7,690,000 511,446,896 1.48% f. 2003 LTGO Bonds Road & Period Street Ending CenterPlace Improvemen s Total 12/1/2004 60,000 85,010 145,000 12/1/2005 75,000 90,010 165,000 12/1/2006 85,000 90,001 175,000 Bonds 12/1/2007 90,000 95,000 185,000 Repaid 12/1/2008 95,000 95,001 190,000 12/1/2009 105,000 100,001 205,000 12/1/2010 110,000 100,000 210,000 12/1/2011 120,000 105,000 225,000 12/1/2012 130,000 110,000 240,000 870,000 870,000 1,740,000 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 6,130,000 1,560,000 7,690,000 7,000,000 2,430,000 9,430,000 Page 22 Spo"kane ey. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT June 2013 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Total %of Contract Name Contractor Cont n# Exas ofed Contract 6/30/13 Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $570,048.88 41.71% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $490,199.94 $296,107.50 60.41% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $86,949.27 45.77% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $140,000.00 $36,897.14 26.36% Landscaping Ace Landscaping $90,803.72 $35,535.23 39.13% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $3,425.82 34.26% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $29,621.14 49.37% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $215,000.00 $68,910.29 32.05% Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $632,000.00 $184,675.85 29.22% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard $15,000.00 $8,401.00 56.01% **Total does not include June 2013. * Budget estimates Citizen Requests for Public Works 60 50 IA a, 40 I a C. cc 30 a 20 u 10 1-_.i—_J��__1 I 0 1• 1 i �� Total Citizen Landscapi Dead Roadway Pothole Sign& Street Traffic Requests: ng Right- Animal Signal Graffiti Public of ways Removal Hazard Requests Requests Sweeping Requests Works •Submitted 48 3 2 10 6 12 0 3 12 •In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iiResolved 48 3 2 10 6 12 0 3 12 wommf "Information in bold indicates updates 9 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http:/Iwww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wo/tmdi/spokaneriver/dissolved oxygen/status.html, http:/Iwww.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content,aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Staff attended regional strategy meetings with Spokane County and City of Spokane regarding development of an RFP to solicit proposals from consultants to evaluate alternatives for solid waste management and disposal. The selection committee recommended HDR's proposal. The Committee has been negotiating a fee proposal with HDR to be presented to the County Commissioners in May. The County Commissioners approved the contract with HDR and the contract was signed on May 20. A kickoff meeting is scheduled for June 5. The 2-day kickoff mtg was held with HDR on June 4th and 5th, which included site visits to all of the facilities. HDR is in the process of collecting data and developing cost alternatives for the various regional options. They expect to complete these cost models in late July for the project team to review and discuss. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN A contract was executed with IMS to prepare the 2013 update to the Pavement Management Plan, IMS has completed the scanning of the streets. We instructed them to scan half the arterials and one-third of the local access streets. They are in process of inputing the data collected into Cartegraph (the pavement management software program) and updating the model. We anticipate receiving the new update by July 31st CAPITAL PROJECTS (See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet) STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for June 2013: • Cracksealing • Pothole patching • Poe asphalt patch work • Poe subcontractors completed stormwater repairs • The Geiger crew continues with garbage pickup on arterials and dryland grass vegetation management • AAA Sweeping continues sweeping arterial roadways and vectoring drywells and catch basins STORMWATER UTILITY • Stormwater Small Works projects Repair, replace or improve problems on the stormwater list. Design Continues. • Dettman/Dickev Stormdrain Improvements Project bid. Award to Cat's Eye Excavating, Inc. Expect NIP by August 1. o 14th Avenue, Custer to Carnahan Design continues, *Information in bold indicates updates 2 TRAFFIC e Development Projects Reviewing traffic impact studies for several projects and assisting Development Engineering with preparation of a Certified Site Program. O 1-90 Business Route We received the reimbursement agreement from WSDOT and are routing it for signatures. Expect installation of the 1-90 Business Route signs in late summer. GRANT APPLICATIONS New Call for Projects 6 SRTC Call for Projects - CMAQ and TA Funds Staff presented a list of potential projects to Council for the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program Call for Projects SRTC issued on March 1. Council approved the list of projects on March 12 and allowed staff to make final decision on which applications to submit after final review of grant criteria and cost estimates. The following grant applications were submitted on April 30: CMAQ 1. Appleway Trail Phase 2 -- University to Evergreen 2. Appleway Trail Phase 3- Evergreen to Corbin 3. North Sullivan ITS - 1-90 to Trent (SR 290) 4. ITS Infill Project Phase 1: • University Road -4th to 16`11 o Fancher-Sprague to Broadway o Broadway- Fancher to Park 5. Sidewalk Infill Phase 3: o Park Rd - 200 ft. south of Sinto to Indiana o Indiana/Evergreen Intersection 6 16th Ave/SR 27/Saltese Rd Intersections TA 1. Appleway Trail Phase 2 - University to Evergreen The Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) met in June and made a recommendation to the SRTC Board on which projects should receive CMAQ and TA funding. The two ITS projects (#3 and #4 above) were on the recommended list for CMAQ funding. After selecting five projects for TA funding, the TIC also recommended $642,852 in remaining TA funds go to the Appleway Trail Phase 2 Project. G 2012 Supplemental Statewide Stormwater Grants The State Department of Ecology announced $7.0M/statewide from previous grant offers that were declined or de-obligated. Grant applications are due June 14 and if awarded, projects would need to be completed by June 30, 2015. Staff submitted applications for projects that are in the Council approved Stormwater CIP. The projects are: 1. Broadway, Havana to Fancher Stormdrain Retrofits 2. SE Yardley Stormdrain Retrofits "Information in bald indicates updates 3 Public Works Projects Monthly Summary June-2013 Design & Construction Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) &Grace Ave. lnt Safety 0175 Sullivan UP Tracks UC(SB) Resurfacing P Street Preservation Projects 0179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0180 2013 Street Preservation Ph3 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines(SR27) ITS Improvements(SRTC 06-2 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade Stormwater Projects 0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit 0173 Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility 0182 2013 Street Presery- Ph 2-Stormwater 0183 2013 Street Presery- Ph 3-Stormwater Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0168 Wellesley Ave s'walk&Adams Rd s'walk 0169 Argonne/Mullan Safety Indiana - Broadway FHWA-BR FHWA-CMAQ HSIP FHWA- BR 12/01/13 03/01/14 04/01/14 06/07/13 FHWA-STP(U) 07/12/13 COSV 07/26/13 FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ HSIP HS1P Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology COSV COSV FHWA-CMAQ SafeRoutes-State HSIP 01/31/14 09/21/12 09/01/13 08/01/13 07/12/13 05/24/13 07/12/13 07/26/13 08/02/13 07/05/13 07/01/13 80 0 12/31/15 35 0 12/31/14 10 0 10/31/14 100 0 09/30/13 $ 19,800,000 $ 1,976,800 $ 671,050 $ 286,142 95 0 10/15/13 $ 1,522,400 50 0 10/15/13 TBD 95 100 60 90 0 80 0 0 07/31/14 07/31/13 06/30/15 12/31/13 95 0 07/01/13 50 5 12/31/13 0 0 10/15/13 0 0 10/15/13 $ 1,290,636 $ 2,083,121 $ 474,580 $ 200,000 75 45 12/30/13 $ 95 0 10/30/13 $ 100 5 10/01/13 $ 237,375 885,000 TBD TBD 939,955 639,000 111,750 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # Design &Construction Projects Funding Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) &Grace Ave. lnt Safety 0175 Sullivan UP Tracks UC(SB) Resurfacing P Street Preservation Projects 0179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0180 2013 Street Preservation Ph3 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines(SR27) ITS Improvements(SRTC 06-2 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade Stormwater Projects 0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit 0173 Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility 0182 2013 Street Presery- Ph 2-Stormwater 0183 2013 Street Presery- Ph 3-Stormwater Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0168 Wellesley Ave s'walk&Adams Rd s'walk 0169 Argonne/Mullan Safety Indiana - Broadway FHWA-BR FHWA-CMAQ HSIP FHWA- BR 12/01/13 03/01/14 04/01/14 06/07/13 FHWA-STP(U) 07/12/13 COSV 07/26/13 FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ HSIP HS1P Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology COSV COSV FHWA-CMAQ SafeRoutes-State HSIP 01/31/14 09/21/12 09/01/13 08/01/13 07/12/13 05/24/13 07/12/13 07/26/13 08/02/13 07/05/13 07/01/13 80 0 12/31/15 35 0 12/31/14 10 0 10/31/14 100 0 09/30/13 $ 19,800,000 $ 1,976,800 $ 671,050 $ 286,142 95 0 10/15/13 $ 1,522,400 50 0 10/15/13 TBD 95 100 60 90 0 80 0 0 07/31/14 07/31/13 06/30/15 12/31/13 95 0 07/01/13 50 5 12/31/13 0 0 10/15/13 0 0 10/15/13 $ 1,290,636 $ 2,083,121 $ 474,580 $ 200,000 75 45 12/30/13 $ 95 0 10/30/13 $ 100 5 10/01/13 $ 237,375 885,000 TBD TBD 939,955 639,000 111,750 0170 Argonne Road: Empire Ave- Knox Ave HSIP Design onl 07/01/13 100 5 10/01/13 $ 180,640 Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan FHWA-STP(U) 09/30/13 FHWA-STP(U) 11/15/13 FHWA-STP(U) 10/31/13 5 20 85 Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study FHWA-CMAC; 12/01/13 45 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study FHWA-STP(U) 03/01/14 4 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail FHWA-STP(E) 02/15/14 0 $ 745,000 0176 Appleway Trail COSV 07/31/13 30 $ 150,000 Design Total Project Design Only Projects Funding Complete %Complete Project # Date PE Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan FHWA-STP(U) 09/30/13 FHWA-STP(U) 11/15/13 FHWA-STP(U) 10/31/13 5 20 85 Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study FHWA-CMAC; 12/01/13 45 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study FHWA-STP(U) 03/01/14 4 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail FHWA-STP(E) 02/15/14 0 $ 745,000 0176 Appleway Trail COSV 07/31/13 30 $ 150,000 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 27, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair x r Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair x Marty Palaniuk,Planner Steven Neill x I Cary Driskell,City Attorney Kevin Anderson x Mike Phillips x r Robert McCaslin x r Christina Carlsen x r Cari Hinshaw, Secretary Planning Commissioners agreed to excuse Commissioner Stoy from the Planning Commission Meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second was made and the motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill moved to approve the June 13, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was made and the motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Carlsen attended the Regional Short Course at the City of Spokane. Commissioner Carlsen stated there was a lot of good information and wished there were more that would have attended. She said there were many aspects of City Planning that she had not wrapped her head around yet and the speakers did a good job at presenting the Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 information. Commissioner Bates attended the City of Spokane Valley budget session and the Joint Session on the Shoreline. He stated it was good to have a joint meeting and he complimented the staff on what a good job they did. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reviewed the advance agenda. He stated that the plan is to focus on the Shoreline Master Plan issues. There is not a lot of detail to the advance agenda due to waiting to see how the SMP issues plays out. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business: Findings of Fact: CTA-2013-0004, Sign Code Amendments Commissioner Neill moved to approve and forward to City Council CTA-2013-0004 as presented. A second was made. Discussion: None Planning Commission vote was to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion was passed unanimously. B. New Business: Presentation: Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Senior Transportation Planner Ryan Stewart provided an overview of the Horizon 2040 effort. Under Federal regulations, one requirement is to develop a metropolitan transportation plan. This is a twenty-year minimum look into the future. It will be the blue print for the entire county of what they want transportation to look like over the next twenty plus years. He went over the Regional priorities, their vision, forecasting the population and employment. C. Unfinished Business: Commissioner Bates opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 PM Public Hearing and Deliberations: CTA-2013-0005. Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting Standards and went over the proposed changes as attached in the draft materials for Chapter 22.60 Outdoor lighting standards. Commissioner Phillips asked if "lights on billboards" was in the sign code ordinance. Planning Manager Kulata read the regulation as follows: Sign code section of the municipal code 22.110.060 General Provisions: Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs. All electronic message centers are required to have automatic dimming capabilities that adjust the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night. Mr. Kuhta stated there is suppose to be written documentation when people come in for a permit to install their sign. It does not talk about a specific standard, it talks about dimming capabilities. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Bates discussed criteria. His concern was about the maximum pole height. He asked if the Planning Director would determine the height of each individual project based on his knowledge of zoning and could we have different heights of poles in the City? Planner Palaniuk responded with yes. Commissioner Bates discussed treating people fairly by one of them not being able to put up the kind of fixture that he/she wanted verses somebody else. He stated that maybe regulating it based on zoning would be good. Mr. Palaniuk responded that the only purpose of the decision criteria is to decide whether a lighting plan is required. He does not think it is going to limit the height of the pole. The City is going to allow the developer to come in and provide the information. The only requirement the City will have is that the light be shielded off the site. The intent of the changes is to allow more flexibility for the developer. Commissioner Bates closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 PM Commissioner Neill moved to approve and forward to the City Council CIA-2013-0005 as presented, a second was made Discussion: Commissioner Anderson stated he will support the plan, but from a personal standpoint, he said he could understand rules about minimal lighting for public areas or parking lots that are all safety related. He does not like the idea that we would restrict private people from how much electricity they use or pay for on their own property. The state of Washington has taken it upon itself to put rules for that. From Commissioner Anderson's standpoint, he stated the cost of electricity would control what people do with their money. He is amazed at the thought process (not created by this City) in that we would restrict people from doing whatever lighting process they wanted as long as it was not a safety hazard. Planning Commission Action: to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion was passed unanimously. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. (3Ct:-- — Bill Bates, Chairperson Can Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed 7 /// Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT D FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION July 11,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. The City-initiated text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.60 to streamline the outdoor Iighting standards by eliminating the watts per square foot lighting limit, eliminating redundant provisions, eliminating the requirement for a photometric plan, adding a requirement for a Iighting plan if deemed necessary by the building division, eliminating outdoor recreation facility requirements,and adding two additional exemptions. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 2013 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed City-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): 1. Land Use Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. ii. Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. iii. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. iv. Housing Policy HP-1.2: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses. v. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. vi. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective,and expeditious. vii. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. viii. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. ix. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. x. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): i. The proposed amendment will streamline the outdoor lighting development review process and provide flexibility in lighting choices. The requirement to shield lighting trespass will minimize glare and mitigate off-site impacts. ii. The public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed City- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.60 as attached. A ived this 1 ' day of July,2013 ill Bates, hairman ATTEST • Cari Hinshaw,Administrative-Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Sokie Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager Mayor and Members of Council From: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Date: July 23, 2013 Re: 2013 Justice Assistance Grant(JAG) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2013 Application Deadline: July 9, 2013 City of Spokane Valley Eligible Amount: $20,612 Match Required: None Award Period: Awards are made in the first fiscal year of the appropriation and may be expended during the following 3 years, for a total grant period of 4 years. Summary: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG-funded projects may address crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures. City of Spokane Valley Expenditures: 1) $18,500 — Mobile Data Computers (3) 2) $2,112 — Bullet-proof Speakers (3) Purpose and Goals: The City of Spokane Valley requests Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) monies in the amount of $20,612 to fund various law enforcement smart policing programs as well as to enhance officer safety and wellness for the SVJAG13 Project. The goal of the SVJAG13 Project is to equip the Spokane Valley Police Department with the necessary tools to support evidenced-based City of Spokane Valley—JAG Grant 2013 July 23,2013 Page 2 of 2 programs. The City of Spokane Valley will use $18,500 to purchase three (3) mobile data computers/printers/accessories that are rugged in design and can withstand extreme temperature fluctuations. Mobile data computers will allow officers to practice intelligence-led policing by accessing state and federal criminal databases and GPS mapping software. The computers will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of officers by allowing them review hot spot crime data, scan driver licenses and vehicle registrations to auto-fill reports and citations, referencing policy and procedures, training bulletins, obtain photos of suspects, receive rapid responder information immediately, upload reports to the report system, and utilize intelligence led policing and data. $2,112 will be used to purchase three (3) bullet-proof speakers that will improve officer safety by placing the speakers in an existing bullet-proof partition at the public counter. The speakers will provide a complete bullet-proof barrier between the public lobby and the personnel working behind the counter. The speakers will also improve communication between officers at the counter and members of the public. Top Five Project Identifiers • Computer Software/Hardware • Community Policing • Criminal Intelligence Information Systems • Data Sharing/Linkage • Officer Safety Responsibilities: The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an eligible unit of local government or other officer designated by the CEO must submit the application for JAG funds. A unit of local government receiving a JAG award will be responsible for the administration of the funds including: distributing the funds; monitoring the award; submitting quarterly financial status (SF-425) and performance metrics reports and annual programmatic reports; and providing ongoing oversight and assistance to any sub recipients of the funds. Non-Supplanting: Federal funds must be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and cannot replace or supplant nonfederal funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. Supplanting is prohibited under JAG. Reporting Requirements: Once an award is accepted, award recipients must submit quarterly financial status (SF-425) and annual performance reports through GMS (https://grants.oip.usdoi.gov). To assist in fulfilling the Department's responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, applicants who receive funding under this solicitation must provide data that measures the results of their work. Additionally, applicants must discuss in their application their methods for collecting data for performance measures. Please refer to "What An Application Must Include" (below), for additional information on applicant responsibilities for collecting and reporting data. Quarterly performance metrics reports must be submitted through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) web site: www.bjaperformancetools.org. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2013 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; and Potential Acquisition of Real Estate GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); and RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty-minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and potential land acquisition; and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: