The URL can be used to link to this page

2013, 09-17 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (With Some Action Items) Tuesday, September 17,2013 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL ROLL CALL ACTION ITEMS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 08/26/2013 30024-30075 $352,101.26 08/29/2013 39976-30104; 827130174 $136,284.57 08/29/2013 5643-5664 $2,029.00 09/03/2013 30105-30139 $118,160.65 09/04/2013 4465; 4483-4486; 4502; 30140-30143 $260,936.16 09/06/2013 30144-30193; 830130027; 905130026 $2,067,438.14 GRAND TOTAL $2,936,949.78 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending August 31,2013: $409,490.69 c.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 20,2013, Study Session Format d.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 27,2013,Formal Meeting Format e.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 28,2013, Special Regional Solid Waste Meeting f.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 3,2013, Study Session Format g.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 4,2013, Special Joint Meeting h.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 6,2013, Special Meeting i.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 6,2013 Special Meeting, Council of Governments 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-013 Avista Natural Gas Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Scott Kuhta Manufactured Home Park Zoning Discussion/Information 4. Christina Janssen Specialized School in Industrial Zones Discussion/Information 5. Cary Driskell, Mike Basinger Site Selector Agreement Amendment Discussion/Information 6. Mike Jackson Presentation of 2014 Preliminary Budget Presentation 7.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 8.Information Only:Argonne Road& Sprague Ave Street Preservation Project 9.Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 10.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take"action"on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term"action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,September 17,2013 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 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 08/26/2013 30024-30075 $352,101.26 08/29/2013 39976-30104; 827130174 $136,284.57 08/29/2013 5643-5664 $2,029.00 09/03/2013 30105-30139 $118,160.65 09/04/2013 4465;4483-4486; 4502; 30140-30143 $260,936.16 09/06/2013 30144-30193; 830130027; 905130026 $2,067,438.14 GRAND TOTAL $2,936,949.78 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 I21 —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' % REET) 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.--Develop.Eng. 302—Special Capital Proj (2nd'A% REET) 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.-Planning 303 --Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.- Building 304—Mirabeau Point Project 00I.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 08/26/2013 11:01:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 30024 8/26/2013 002543 AIR ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT&TOOLS 30025 8/26/2013 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 30026 8/26/2013 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 187111 EXPENSE I NV009071 30027 8/26/2013 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 126042 30028 8/26/2013 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 30029 8/26/2013 002562 CD'A METALS 30030 8/26/2013 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 30031 8/26/2013 000729 CH2MHILL INC 30032 8/26/2013 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 2013-1458 646439 733788 3861855 6066772565 606769015 606769465 606770487 606771069 606771521 606773128 30033 8/26/2013 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AUGUST 2013 AUGUST 2013 A 101.00(1000.542 001.032.00(1543 001.016.000.521 '101.042.000.542 312.000.178.594 101.042.000 542 311.000.180.595 303.303.155.595 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 Amount SUPPLIES: PW Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PRECINCT JANITORIAL SERVICES. Total : EQUIPMENT RENTAL Total : JOINT PARK/LIBRARY SITE DEVEU Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 180-ON CALL ENGINEERING TASI Total : 0155-SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE SL Total : SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 Total : PETTY CASH:9381,9382,9383 PETTY CASH:9379, 9380 Total : 205.39 205.39 18.10 18.10 2,386.87 2,386.87 434.80 434.80 1 0,450.00 10,450.00 17.39 17.39 1,126.54 1,126.54 80,892.08 80,892.08 119.68 183.21 126.51 103.92 169.38 103.92 169.38 976.00 21.50 13.12 34.62 Page: 1 vchlist 08/26/2013 11:01:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30034 8/26/2013 000840 CLARY,AARON 30035 8/26/2013 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 30036 8/26/2013 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 30037 8126/2013 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 78349 EXPENSE Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 RE-313-ATB30813123 303.303.061.595 RE-313-ATB30813146 303.303.156.595 AUGUST 2013 30038 8/26/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 40398 40399 40400 40401 30039 8/26/2013 000609 GENDRONS CO 30040 8/26/2013 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 30041 8/26/2013 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 30042 8/26/2013 002990 INPRO 30043 8/26/2013 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 30044 8/26/2013 000265 JACKSON,MIKE 30045 8/26/2013 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 3368 89173 PAY APP 4 166 AUGUST 2013 SEPTEMBER 2013 0083108 001.076.304.575 001.013.015.515 303.303.168.595 311.000.180.595 303.303.155.595 403.000.000.595 Description/Account EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PINES RD(SR 27) ITS IMPROVEME MANSFIELD AVE CONNECTION Total : ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENT! Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 311.000.174.595 001.076.305.575 Total : Total : Total : Total : 0174/0184 CONSTRUCTION CONTE Total : ANNUAL DUES FOR 7/1/13-6/30/20' Total : 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 001.013.000.513 101.042.000.542 Total : SEPTEMBER 2013 AUTO ALLOWAI` Total : TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP Amount 31.64 31.64 627.88 57.41 685.29 32.22 32.22 45.00 45.00 156.80 123.20 169.60 120.00 569.60 49.95 49.95 335.87 335.87 2,892.20 2,892.20 150.00 150.00 282.01 282.01 300.00 300.00 22,950.08 Page: vchlist 08/26/2013 11:01:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30045 8/26/2013 000864 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 30046 8/26/2013 003468 MARSHALL,CHESTER 30047 8/26/2013 001104 MCCAIN INC. 30048 8/26/2013 003251 MDl MARKETING 30049 8/26/2013 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS 30050 8/26/2013 000662 NATL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 30051 8/26/2013 000187 NW MUSEUM OF ARTS&CULTURE 30052 8/26/2013 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 30053 8/26/2013 000191 RIVERFRONT PARK,GROUP SALES 30054 8/26/2013 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 30055 8/26/2013 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 30056 8/26/2013 002947 SILVER MOUNTAIN CORP (Continued) AQUTIC REFUND 1NV0165908 9723 492 80621 131NM120 JULY 2013 13947 28648 5347355 1256 30057 8/26/2013 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS, INC. 15831-03 15953-01 Fund/Dept 001.076.302.347 303.303.170.595 001.090.000.558 303.303.060.595 101.042.000.542 001.076.301.571 001.016.000.586 001.076.301.571 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.301.571 303.303.149.595 303.303.168.595 Description/Account Total : REFUND SWIM CLASS CHARGED I Total : 0170-ARGONNE SIGNAL EQUIPMI Total : JULY 2013 ADVERTISEMENTS Total : Total : SUPPLIES:PW Total PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 7/ Total: STATE REMITTANCE Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 8/ Total : ON-CALL BRIDGE CONSULTING TA Total : EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTROL! Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 7) Total : 0149 SIDEWALK INFILL SURVEY S' 0168 W ELESLEY AVE.&ADAMS AV Total : Amount 22,950.08 70.00 70.00 11,843.95 11,843.95 32,547.85 32,547.85 35.00 35.00 165.98 165.98 160.00 160.00 61,746.09 61,746,09 671.00 671.00 53729 537.29 54271 542.71 1,229.60 1,229.60 2,604.22 1,553.39 4,157.61 Page: 3 vchlist 08126/2013 11:01:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 30058 8/26/2013 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 30059 8/26/2013 000184 SPLASH DOWN 30060 8/26/2013 000710 SPOKANE CO BAR ASSOC Invoice 5-678232 081413 WSBA#24087 WSBA#40557 30061 8/26/2013 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY JULY 2013 30062 8/26/2013 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 366977 30063 8/26/2013 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS, INC 222292 30064 8/26/2013 000854 SPW 1419.02 30065 8/26/2013 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3206371683 3206371684 30066 8/26/2013 001875 STRATA 30067 8/26/2013 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 30068 8/26/2013 000335 TIRE-RAMA 30069 8/26/2013 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN, LLP SP130229-IN 63445 8080024184 105660 Fund/Dept Description/Account 101.000.000.542 001.076.301.571 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.016.000.586 001.011.000.511 101.000,000.542 303.000.185.595 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 303.303.061.595 001.018.016.518 001.058.057.558 001.013.015.515 Amount SUPPLIES: PW Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP Total : 2013-2014 MEMBERSHIP DUES: DF 2013-2014 MEMBERSHIP DUES: LA Total : CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F Total : ADVERTISEMENTS:ACCOUNT 423 Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 0185-LAANDSCAPE DESIGN SER) Total : SUPPLIES:CD SUPPLIES:CD Total : 0061 -CN MATERIALS TESTING Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 4-001 OIL CHANGE AND SERVICE Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 392.85 392.85 704.38 704.38 105.00 105.00 210.00 904.10 904.10 986.17 986.17 1.60 1.60 4,980.00 4,980.00 113.71 304.91 418.62 3,275.33 3,275.33 130.00 130.00 650,83 650.83 1,013.18 1,013.18 Page: 4 vchlist 08/26/2013 11:01:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 30070 8/26/2013 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 30071 8/26/2013 000098 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY Invoice 29671950 101019 30072 8/26/2013 002909 WA DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES 2013070061 30073 8/26/2013 001134 WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH 30074 8/26/2013 000842 WM WINKLER CO INC 30075 8/26/2013 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 52 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 847451 PAY APP 5 AUGUST 2013 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.090.000.518 HELP DESK TEMP 001.058.056.558 001.058.055.558 001.076.300.576 303.303.149.595 001.076.302.576 Total : NOTARY BOND: C.JANSSEN 32S4' Total : AUTOCAD 2014 SUBSCRIPTION RE Total : SULLIVAN PARK OPERATING PERI\ Total : 0149 SIDEWALK INFILL CONSTRU{ Total : OOPERATING EXPENSES:WAGES Total : Bank total : 52 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 775.20 775.20 50.00 50.00 280,29 280.29 100.98 100.98 9,682.00 9,682.00 88,973.00 88,973.00 352,101.26 352,101.26 Page: 5 vchlist 08/2912013 11:28:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 30076 30077 30078 30079 30080 30081 30082 30083 30084 30085 30086 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 8/29/2013 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES 8/29/2013 001081 ALSCO 8/29/2013 000538 BACON CONCRETE INC 8/29/2013 001117 BASINGER, MICHAEL 8/29/2013 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 15350 LSPO1355705 PAY APP 2 EXPENSE SPO-047897 8/29/2013 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC M13335-1 M13351-1 8/29/2013 000322 CENTURYLINK 8/29/2013 002419 CLARKS TIRES&AUTOMOTIVE 8/29/2013 000686 DEPT OF LICENSING 8/29/2013 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 8/29/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC AUGUST 2013 34912 NOTARY APP 2013 AUGUST 2013 40487 40491 40492 40493 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.058.056.524 001.058.057.558 303.223.40.00 001.058.056.558 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 403.000.000.595 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.058.056.558 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 Amount 13157 FENCE USE Total : MAT SERVICE PERMIT CENTER Total: RETAINAGE RELEASE CIP 0171 Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PHONE REPAIR Total : TASK D-BROADWAY SULLIVAN P. TASK F-BETTMAN DICKEY STORM Total : 2013 PHONE SVCS;ACCT 509 Z14- Total : 3-500: OIL CHANGE AND ROTATE 1 Total : NOTARY PUBLIC APPLICATION: C. Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total: 1,597.89 1,597.89 46.55 46.55 3,794.01 3,794.01 509.14 509.14 264.15 264.15 498.80 374.86 873.66 510.19 510.19 28.65 28.65 30.00 30.00 351.76 351.76 43.20 28.05 73.95 81.60 226.80 Page: 1 vchlist 08/2912013 11:28:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30087 8/29/2013 000007 GRAINGER 30088 8/29/2013 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 30089 8/29/2013 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 9210627429 794741 256682 30090 8/29/2013 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 4374 30091 8/29/2013 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP 1NC. 30092 8/29/2013 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 30093 8/29/2013 003471 PULLURO, HARIKA 30094 8/29/2013 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS 30095 8/29/2013 000235 SECURE SHRED 90453 1428301-AU13 AQUATIC REFUND 24604 93152 30096 8/29/2013 003488 SPOKANE AREA GOOD ROADS ASSOC SEPTEMBER 2013 30097 8/29/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 30098 8/29/2013 000311 SPRINT 50310215 51501734 959698810-069 30099 8/29/2013 002685 TAMARACK RIDGE CONSTRUCTION 09516 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.058.057.558 001.058.056.558 001.058.050.558 001.090.000.518 001.018.016,518 001.090.000.518 001.076.302.347 001.058.057.558 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.032,000.543 001.016.000.523 001.058.057.558 001.076.305.575 Amount SUPPLIES: CD 49.21 Total : 49.21 4-008: OIL CHANGE 51.81 Total : 51.81 COPIER MAINTENANCE:CD 4.03 Total : 4.03 MONTHLY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 3,975.00 Total : 3,975.00 SOTTED NAME BADGES 28.26 Total: 28.26 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 275.00 Total: 275.00 PRIVATE SWIM LESSONS REFUND 26.25 Total : 26.25 NAME PLATE 21.20 Total : 21.20 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 132.24 Total : 132.24 2013 LUNCHEON:GUTH/WORLEY 50.00 Total : 50.00 2012 LICENSES PICTOMETRY IMA( 7,594.68 JULY 2013 HOUSING INVOICE 106,447.00 Total : 114,041.68 GPS PHONE:AUGUST 2013 70.10 Total : 70.10 INSTALL ACOUSTICAL PANELS GR 3,054.47 Page: 2 vchlist 08/29/2013 11:28:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30099 8/29/2013 002685 002685 TAMARACK RIDGE CONSTRUCTION (Continued) 30100 8/29/2013 002254 TOWEY,TOM 30101 8/29/2013 001464 TW TELECOM 30102 8/29/2013 000337 UPS 30103 8/29/2013 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS EXPENSE 05697201 0000Y3F950323 9710040769 9710049551 30104 8/29/2013 002291 WACE FALL CONF 2013 827130174 8/27/2013 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-44 30 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.018.013.513 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.058.056.524 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : INTERNET/DATA/PHONE LINES:AL Total : RETURN POSTAGE CHARGE Total: AIR CARD FOR POLICE CHIEF AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTh Total : WACE FALL CONFERENCE 2013:S Total : CRYWOLF CHARGES:JULY 2013 Total : 3,054.47 54.25 54.25 1,151.60 1,151.60 22.13 22.13 40.05 803.20 843.25 200.00 200.00 4,001.29 4,001.29 Bank total : 136,284.57 30 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 136,284.57 Page: 3 vchlist 08/29/2013 9:17:33AM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5643 8/29/2013 003473 ACKERMAN, CHARLIE PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:MIRABEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5644 8/29/2013 003450 ADVENT LUTHERAN CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:TERRACE VIE), 52.00 Total : 52.00 5645 8/29/2013 003476 BAKER,TYLER PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:VALLEY MISSI( 56.00 Total : 56.00 5646 8/29/2013 003483 CARTWRIGHT, NANCY PARKS REFUND 001.237,10,99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: BROWN PARK 52.00 Total : 52.00 5647 8/29/2013 003481 DEREU,MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10,99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:VALLEY MISSI( 52.00 Total : 52.00 5648 8/29/2013 003474 DOTY,TAMMY PARKS REFUND 001,237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:TERRACE VIE% 52.00 Total : 52.00 5649 8/29/2013 003155 DOUGLASS,SCOTT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:MIRABEAU ME 257.00 Total : 257.00 5650 8/29/2013 003477 DRYDEN,JUDY PARKS REFUND 001.237,10,99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: EDGECLIFF PP 52.00 Total : 52.00 5651 8/29/2013 000642 INLAND NW CAMARO CLUB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:MIRABEAU ME 257.00 Total : 257.00 5652 8/29/2013 003484 KAUFMAN, CHRISTINE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CHEERTOTS CAMP REFUND-CLA: 104.00 Total : 104.00 5653 8/29/2013 003478 MARTIN, PATRICIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: BROWNS PARI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5654 8/29/2013 001504 MEYER, CHARLIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: BROWNS PARI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5655 8/29/2013 001485 NARVRE INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: EDGECLIFF PP 52.00 Page: 1 vchlist 08/29/2013 9:17:33AM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5655 8/29/2013 001485 001485 NARVRE INC (Continued) Total : 52.00 5656 8/29/2013 003485 NASCO, DANIELA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5657 8/29/2013 003482 OROPEZA, FRANK PARKS REFUND 001 237.40.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:TERRACE VIE\ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5658 8/29/2013 003472 RAUSCH, DAVE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:MIRABEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5659 8/29/2013 003480 SNAP PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:MIRABEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5660 8/29/2013 003479 SOMERLOT,JOSH PARKS REFUND 004.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: EDGCLIFF PAF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5661 8/29/2013 002097 SPOKANE VALLEY QUILTERS GUILD PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:VALLEY MISS1( 52.00 Total : 52.00 5662 8/29/2013 003071 TOP GOLD REALTY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT:VALLEY M1SSI( 52.00 Total: 52.00 5663 8/29/2013 003487 VOROPAY,MARINA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5664 8/29/2013 003486 WEST VALLEY HS CLASS OF 73' PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT: FIRESIDE LOU 155.00 Total : 155.00 22 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 2,029.00 22 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,029.00 Page: 2 whlist 09103/2013 12:51:21 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30105 9/3/2013 000030 AVISTA 30106 9/3/2013 000538 BACON CONCRETE INC 30107 9/3/2013 001606 BANNER BANK 30108 9/3/2013 003229 BARGREEN ELLINGSON 30109 9/3/2013 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 30110 9/3/2013 003083 DEBOISE, BR1TTANI 30111 9/3/2013 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 30112 9/3/2013 003336 FUNFLICKS OUTDOOR MOVIES July 2013 July 2013 4199 0797 2223 4064 6018 7511 8861 006350621 Fund/Dept 101.042,000.542 001.076.300.576 309.000.172.594 001.013,000.513 001.032,000.543 001.058.050.558 001.011.000.511 001.018.014.514 001.076.305.575 Description/Account UTILITIES: PW MASTER AV1STA UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA Total : DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND CONCI Total : JULY 2013:0797 JULY 2013:2223 JULY 2013:4064 JULY 2013:6018 JULY 2013:7511 JULY 2013:8861 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CP 9458228 001.076.305.575 9460285 001.076.305.575 9462330 001.076.305.575 500060256 001.076.305.575 50060225 001.076.305.575 50060577 001.076.305.575 Expenses 001.076.305.575 May June July 2013 001.076.300.576 164 001.076.301.571 165 001.076.301.571 30113 9/3/2013 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 36049 001.076.305.575 Total : Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYATC LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF Total : MOVIE IN THE PARK EVENT MOVIE IN THE PARK EVENT Total : FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION Amount 24,1 55.33 15,740.99 39,896.32 9,130.80 9,130.80 985.31 37.22 1,264.30 85.00 1,186.05 1,355.88 4,913.76 741.33 741.33 293,72 373.12 217.56 163.69 25.83 127,19 1,201.11 14.13 14.13 2,906.90 2,906.90 2,128.84 2,128.84 4,257.68 69.30 Page: 1 vchlist O MO312O13 12:51:21PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30113 9/3/2013 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV (Continued) 36302 30114 9/3/2013 003136 GIBSON, CARLY 30115 9/3/2013 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 30116 9/3/2013 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 30117 9/3/2013 001635 !SS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 30118 9/3/2013 001944 LANCER LTD 30119 9/3/2013 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 30120 9/3/2013 001002 M& L SUPPLY CO INC 30121 9/3/2013 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW 30122 9/3/2013 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 30123 9/3/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 30124 9/3/2013 002927 OUTWEST PROMOTIONS INC Expenses August 2013 1-718330 631469 632648 0438769 August 2013 S100135498.001 #Rec Postage 8/13/13 18253529 18253530 1598173818 6002 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.550 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.076.305.575 Description/Account AMEREX RESTUARANT SYSTEM S Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : OUTSIDE AGENCY 2013 GRANT RE Total : HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI Total : LETTERHEAD FOR CP OPERATING SUPPLIES Total : Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : POSTAGE/MAILING Total : PW ELECTRIC ACCT NOT ON MAS' PW ELECTRIC ACCT NOT ON MAS' Total : BINDERS FOR OUTSIDE AGENCY/ Total : BRIDAL FESTIVAL ADVERTISING Amount 112.23 181.53 16.95 16.95 2,087.00 2,087.00 154.00 154.00 63.21 189.63 252.84 266.32 266.32 174.08 174.08 10.88 10.88 1,156.20 1,156.20 22.48 23.30 45.78 42.91 42.91 540.00 Page: 2 vchlist 05/03/2013 12:51:21 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 30124 9/3/2013 002927 002927 OUTWEST PROMOTIONS INC (Continued) 30125 9/3/2013 001860 PLATT 30126 9/3/2013 000415 ROSAUERS 30127 9/3/2013 000748 ROTO-ROOTER 30128 9/3/2013 003469 SKYLINE INLAND NW 30129 9/3/2013 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES 30130 9/3/2013 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 5452772 5456576 679779 696507 73971 S PKQ4271 August 2013 August 2013 30131 9/3/2013 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 51025 51085 30132 9/3/2013 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 1011 1029 30133 9/3/2013 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 59007612 30134 9/3/2013 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES INV055512 30135 9/3/2013 000295 VALLEYFEST August 2013 August 2013 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 105.000.000.557 Description/Account Amount Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : REC PROGRAM SUPPLIES SUMMER CAMP SUPPLIES Total : MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AT Total : CENTERPLACE BANNERSTAND Ml Total : SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS:AU Total : WATER CHARGES: PW WOODRUF Total : WORK AT CP:WORK ORDER 2355 WORK AT PRECINCT:WORK ORDE Total : COSV SIGN DEVELOPMENT COSV SIGN DEVELOPMENT Total : TC/PA ANALYSIS: PARKS Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 2013 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEME 2013 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEM1 540.00 104.50 42.39 146.89 62.40 125.91 188.31 595.68 595.68 3,254.70 3,254.70 1,520.20 1,520.20 582.15 582.15 246.75 1,024.05 1,270.80 670.50 1,925.50 2,596.00 27.00 27.00 582.12 582.12 3,481.71 20,000.00 Page: 3 vchlist 0910312013 12:51:21 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 30135 9/3/2013 000295 VALLEYFEST 30136 9/3/2013 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 30137 9/3/2013 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 30138 9/3/2013 000541 WONDERLAND NORTHWEST INC. 30139 9/3/2013 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 35 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 35 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 Invoice (Continued) August 2013 5912 8127388 8139793 5270 August 2013 Fund/Dept 105.000.000.557 105.000.000.557 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.090.000.560 Description/Account 2013 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : 2013 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 8) Total : SOCIAL SVCS GRANT 2013 Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : Amount 505.00 23,986.71 11,604.27 11,604.27 619.05 309.52 928.57 1,537.91 1,537.91 1,348.82 1,348.82 118,160.65 118,160.65 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/06/2013 3:36:50PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4465 9/5/2013 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben50978 402.231.15.00 PERS: Payment 70,064.01 Total: 70,064.01 4483 9/5/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben50980 001.231.14.00 401A:Payment 28,811.76 Total: 28,811.76 4484 9/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben50982 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 32,477.16 Total: 32,477.16 4485 9/5/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS,457 PLA Ben50984 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payr 5,363.42 Total: 5,363.42 4486 9/5/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401AEXEC Pi Ben50986 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,083.90 Total: 1,083.90 4502 9/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben50990 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 949.40 Total: 949.40 30140 9/5/2013 000120 AWC Ben50970 402.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS: Payment 109,251.01 Ben50988 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS(COUNCIL): Payment 8,540.69 Total: 117,791.70 30141 9/5/2013 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben50972 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE:Payment 1,275.76 Total: 1,275.76 30142 9/5/2013 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben50974 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: Payment 2,278.02 Total: 2,278.02 30143 9/5/2013 002574 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK Ben50976 001.231.20.00 BERG20110-02-03952-4:Payment 841.03 Total: 841.03 10 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 260,936.16 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 260,936.16 Page: 1 vchlist 09/06/2013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 30144 30145 30146 30147 30148 30149 30150 30151 30152 30153 apbank Date Vendor 9/6/2013 002988 ACE LANDSCAPING 9/6/2013 000197 AIRFACTZ 9/6/2013 003435 ALLPLAY SYSTEMS LLC 9/6/2013 001473 APWA Invoice 3435 75228 76234 2013-087 615701 9/6/2013 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 126510 9/6/2013 003090 BIG R STORES 9/6/2013 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC 9/6/2013 001139 CATS EYE EXCAVATING INC 9/6/2013 002562 CD'A METALS 9/6/2013 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 30154 9/6/2013 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 050722/3 M13296-1 PAY APP 2 643889 606774620 606775209 606775678 606776717 606777283 606777752 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.076300.576 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 403.000.173.594 403.000.000.595 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 Description/Account 2013 LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WA Total CRIMINAL REPORTS NEW HIRES CRIMINAL REPORTS NEW HIRES Total : REPLACEMENT MALLETS-GREEN, Total : RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP:A.JENKI Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : BETTMAN-DICKEY STORMWATER Total : SUPPLIES:PW Total : SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICES: PW ACCOUNT 02384 SUPPLIES:PW ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 SERVICE: PW ACCOUNT 02384 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 02356 Total : AUGUST 2013 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION Amount 9,211.41 9,211.41 20.00 40.00 60.00 269.36 269.36 179.00 179.00 150.57 150.57 6.50 6.50 1,537.10 1,537.10 53,143.33 53,143.33 110.22 110.22 106.26 170.22 103.92 119.68 169.38 80.08 749.54 10.00 Page: 1 vchlist 09106/2013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: Voucher 30154 30155 30156 30157 30158 30159 30160 30161 30162 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 9/6/2013 000143 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 9/6/2013 000840 CLARY,AARON 9/6/2013 001888 COMCAST 9/6/2013 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC 9/6/2013 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 9/6/2013 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 9/6/2013 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 9/6/2013 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 9/6/2013 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES (Continued) EXPENSE SEPTEMBER 2012 SEPTEMBER 2013 334684 768/4741 RE-313-ATB30813060 RE-313-ATB30813062 0052789 CD201318086 CD201318087 CD201318088 CD201318089 CD201318090 CD201318091 CD209318092 CD201318093 CD201318094 CD201318095 CD201318096 CD201318097 CD201318098 CD201318177 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.543 001.058,055.558 001.090.000.548 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 303.303.142.595 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET: CITY HAL Total : COMMON AREA MAINT FACILITY C Total : 2013 SURVEY ON-CALL SERVICES Total : LEASE CONTRACT 001-8922117-00 Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL&ILLUMINATION MAIN Total : ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES Total : SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER Amount 10.00 29.38 29.38 119.77 119.77 229.18 229.18 1,224.00 1,224.00 1,087.48 1,087.48 12,526.04 2,850.80 15,376.84 5,808.64 5,808.64 4,979.19 5,084.12 4,937.56 4,796.02 4,912.59 5,025.83 5,040.81 5,070.79 5,069.13 3,958.37 5,042.49 3,981.70 3,855.13 4,061.63 Page: 2 vcrilist 09/0612013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: Voucher 30162 30163 30164 30165 30166 30167 30168 30169 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 9/6/2013 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES 9/6/2013 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 9/6/2013 002507 FASTENERS INC 9/6/2013 002134 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 9/6/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING 1NC 9/6/2013 002568 GRANICUS INC 9/6/2013 000917 GRAYBAR 9/6/2013 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 30170 9/6/2013 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS (Continued) CD201318678 2013-29 S3711918.001 861-425938429 40486 40529 40530 40531 40532 40534 40535 47844 967812214 600381336 600381451 600381452 783035 783056 783075 783130 89514 Fund/Dept 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.513 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 403.000.173.594 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.011.000.511 Description/Account SUPPLIES: ICE SLICER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION BROADCASTING SERVICES 303.303.170.595 SUPPLIES: PW 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : SCHEDULE 572D81 DD:917-1016113 SCHEDULE 572DA494:9/19-10/18/1 SCHEDULE 572DD016:9/11-10/10/1 Total : 5-204:ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION 5-204:ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION 5-206:ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION 5-207:ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION SUPPLIES: PW Amount 4,889.27 70,704.63 477.90 477.90 14.09 14.09 706.55 706.55 128.00 27.20 87.55 49.30 25.00 84.15 73.95 475.15 719.59 719.59 220.39 220.39 550.02 839.80 745.84 2,135.66 60.81 60.81 60.81 60.81 361.80 Page: 3 vchlist 09/06/2013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 30170 9/6/2013 002520 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS (Continued) Total : 605.04 30171 9/6/2013 002466 KENWORTH SALES 179208 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 562.11 Total : 562.11 30172 9/6/2013 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 11226410-0713 403.000.173.594 DECANT FACILITY DESIGN 46,173.16 Total : 46,173.16 30173 9/6/2013 003491 LABOR EXPRESS CRY WOLF 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VV 165.00 Total : 165.00 30174 9/6/2013 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. PAY APP 2 403.000.173.594 CONSTRUCTION-PHASE 1 122,781.84 Total : 122,781.84 30175 9/6/2013 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 2012362 101.042.000.542 SIDEWALK REMOVAL FUTURE LIBI 1,212.61 Total : 1,212.61 30176 9/6/2013 000662 NATL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 80930 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 617.42 Total: 617.42 30177 9/6/2013 000971 NORTHWEST IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY 41365 001.013.000.513 GROUP PHOTO 315.18 Total : 315.18 30178 9/6/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 664714319001 001.076.000.576 SUPPLIES: PARKS&REC 11.43 664714696001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES: PARKS&REC 76.22 671977190001 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 54.02 671977534001 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 5.21 671977535001 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 9.85 672215874001 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 90.78 672451498001 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 65.86 Total : 31 3.37 30179 9/6/2013 000881 OXARC 37262SS 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5124 Total : 51.24 30180 9/6/2013 003489 RABO,AGRIFINANCE CRY WOLF 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V; 35.00 Total : 35.00 Page: 4 vchlist 09/06/2013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: Voucher 30181 30182 30183 30184 30185 30186 30187 30188 30189 30190 30191 30192 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 9/6/2013 003494 ROE,WILLIAM&COLLEEN 9/6/2013 003493 SCHNEIDER, FLOYD 9/6/2013 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. CRY WOLF CRY WOLF 5347356 9/6/2013 003492 SISTERS COFFEE ROASTERS, KARRIE I REFUND 9/6/2013 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 8520 9/6/2013 002679 SPOKANE CO OFFICE OF FINANCIAL DUI CFDA#20.601 9/6/2013 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 9/6/2013 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 9/6/2013 003490 TWIGS BISTRO 9/6/2013 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9/6/2013 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 9/6/2013 003495 WALLACE, MICHELLE IWO#2013-29 313618 CRY WOLF 9708414659 9710207448 29702299 29735324 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.000.000.342 001:000.000.342 101.042.000.542 001.000.000.321 303.303.149.595 001.016.000.521 403.000.000.595 Amount FALSE ALARM REFUND: PERMIT V Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND: PERMIT V Total : EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTROL Total : REFUND CSV ENDORCEMENT FEE Total : 10-008 E ON CALL ROW ACQUISITI Total : IMPARIED DRIVING EMPHASIS JUL Total : MATERIALS/LABOR FOR 12TH&BE Total : 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.000.000.342 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 Total : FALSE ALRAM REFUND PERMIT W. Total : AUGUST 2013 VERIZON CELL PHO AUGUST 2013 WIRELESS DATA CA Total: 001.090.000.518 HELP DESK TEMP 001,090.000,518 HELP DESK TEMP AQUATIC REFUND 001 076.302.347 Total : LEVEL 6 SWIM CLASS REFUND Total : 25.00 25.00 15.00 15.00 542.71 54Z71 13.00 13.00 1,075.60 1,075.60 494.98 494.98 3,400.00 3,400.00 90.98 90.98 165.00 165.00 1,091.17 480.12 1,571.29 775.20 484.50 1,259.70 70.00 70.00 Page: 5 vchlist 09/06/2013 4:24:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 30193 9/6/2013 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 830130027 8/30/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 905130026 9/5/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 52 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 52 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 Invoice 1518-5 1890886-2681-8 9290200494 AUGUST 2013 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.543 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.554 Description/Account Amount MANUAL TICKET 423743-LAN DFILI WASTE MANAGEMENT:MAINT FAC Total : LAW ENFORCEMENT Total : SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : Bank total : Total vouchers: 105.34 172.46 277.80 1,529,813.00 1,529,813.00 191,035.83 191,035.83 2,067,438.14 2,067,438.14 Page: 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-17-2013 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 August 31, 2013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 252,995.10 $ 5,475.00 $258,470.10 Benefits: $ 141,894.22 $ 9,126.37 $151,020.59 Total payroll $ 394,889.32 $ 14,601.37 $409,490.69 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Payroll STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington August 20,2013 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 Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all Councilmembers were present. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit Project—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to award the Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit Project, #0150, to West Company in the amount of$232,918.50 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. In Mr. Guth's absence, Engineer Worley explained that this project will eliminate direct discharge of stormwater from the northbound Sullivan Road bridge deck into the Spokane River; said we were awarded a grant from the Department of Ecology; that we received three bids for this project with West Company as the low bidder, coming in slightly higher than the engineer's estimate. Mr. Worley said this is not a typical project for us and we did our best to come up with an estimate; he said there is sufficient grant money to cover the increase above the engineer's estimate. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 2. Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk and Adams Road Sidewalk Project—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the bid for the Wellesley Avenue sidewalk and Adams Avenue sidewalk project#0168 to Cameron Reilly in the amount of$542,200; and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Mr. Worley explained that we received one bid and assumed the reason is likely because there are many projects going on now and a lot of contractors are very busy; and said the bid came in less than the engineer's estimate. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 3. Carnahan,Indiana& Sprague Street Preservation Project—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the Carnahan, Indiana & Sprague Street Preservation Project #0180 to Spokane Rock Products in the amount of $999,134.45 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Mr. Worley said that this is Council Study Session Minutes 08-20-2013 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT phase 3 of the street preservation projects for 2013; and that phase 2 has been delayed until next year due to some funding issues; he said this is the next project in line for street preservation. Mr. Worley explained that there were four bidders, with the base bid slightly higher than the engineer's estimate, likely due to the traffic control item being a larger part of the project than anticipated. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. 14a'Avenue Stormwater Update—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the 14th Avenue Stormwater Upgrade Project to Big Sky Development in the amount of$297,154 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Mr. Worley said that this project is just west of Carnahan Road; that 14th is fairly steep with narrow shoulders and results in a significant amount of runoff,which leads to erosion; and said this project will help that situation; said Big Sky is a contractor we haven't worked with before; and their bid came in less than the engineer's estimate. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. Recognition of Elected Officials-Sullivan Bridge News Mayor Towey said he wanted to recognize and welcome Senator Mike Padden, who just walked in, and Mr. Jim Robinson from Representative Matt Shea's office. City Manager Jackson announced he has good news to report: said that late in 2009 when we first learned the Sullivan Bridge was structurally deficient, public works began looking for funding for that project; that there were some weight restrictions that closed the bridge and consequently in 2012, temporary repairs were put in place to remove those temporary weight restrictions; said this project has been a major priority since then and for the 2013 Legislative Session,this was our only capital projects priority; he said the project did not receive direct appropriation, but the high priority has now led to this announcement, that there are now sufficient funds so we can proceed with the bidding in January of 2014. Mr. Jackson said the contractor, CH2M Hill completed 90% of the drawings and had a reduced estimate, but said the real break was in collaboration with us and the Transportation Improvement Board(TIB), as they enabled us to remove the contingencies. As shown on his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jackson explained the project timeline to date, from October 2009 with the annual inspection to June 2011 having weight restrictions posted, to September 2011 with Council authorizing funding for temporary repairs, to receiving notice in November 2012 of receiving $3.5 million in Washington State Transportation Improvement Board funding, to now receiving notification that TIB will underwrite up to $500,000 on contingency funding. Mr. Jackson explained that project funding was modified to include receipt of$8 million from the Federal Bridge Program, $1.5 million in Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board funds, $3.5 million in Washington State Transportation Improvement funds, and a transfer from the City of Spokane Valley General Fund of $2,320,000 to the City's Capital Projects reserve. Senator Padden expressed thanks to Mr. Jackson and the City Council, along with thanks to Representatives Shea and Crouse, and Senator King, who all worked closely to get the TIB to come forward with some additional funds, and said we all know how important that road is to our area for jobs and future economic development; said that there were no new projects funded in the Transportation Budget this last year, and while it would have been natural to try again the following year,they wanted to continue to see if there were other avenues, and said fortunately the TIB was very interested in this; and he thanked staff for working with the TIB to get this accomplished. Mr. Robinson, Representative Shea's assistant, stated he was glad it all worked out and extended appreciation to Senator Padden for his pressure in solving this problem. Mr. Jackson also extended thanks to Council, to Senators Padden and Council Study Session Minutes 08-20-2013 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT King, to Representatives Shea and Crouse,to Washington State TIB Board Director Steve Gorcester, and to Spokane Valley Public Works Director Guth and Senior Engineer Worley for their efforts. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 5. Crime Prevention Officer Discussion- Chief VanLeuven,Deputy Chris Johnston Police Chief VanLeuven introduced Deputy Johnston, designated Crime Prevention Officer for Spokane Valley; and through their PowerPoint presentation, explained some of the various pro-active measures used in Spokane Valley to prevent crimes from occurring and to prevent people from becoming victims. Council expressed appreciation for their work in crime prevention. 6.Advance Agenda-Mayor Towey Councilmember Woodard mentioned there appears to be no future agenda item for city hall; said he would like to have the Police Chief come talk about the police precinct and what we have and are working with in conjunction with a city hall. Mr. Jackson responded that he will have discussions with Chief VanLeuven concerning enlarging the scope to include a police precinct, as that was not originally considered; said if that is something we want to consider and if that is Council's direction, the location shouldn't matter; he said he feels we have a good police precinct;that if there was a serious shortfall or if this is something for consideration, that he will have that discussion as well; adding that just today he received a first draft of refurbishing costs to apply to the facility they looked at,or any other facility; and said a general discussion could be held in a few weeks concerning remodeling versus new. 7. Information Only: (a)Spokane Regional Transportation Committee Update, and (b) Initiative 502 Update,were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Mayor Towy extended congratulations to Councilmember Woodard for receiving his certificate in Municipal Leadership conducted through the Association of Washington Cities. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Mr.Jackson had no comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Thomas E. Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 08-20-2013 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,August 27,2013 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 Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Dev Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Turbak,Development Serv.Coordinator Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor,Mayor Towey asked for several minutes of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: August Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey Mayor Towey recognized Sally Jackson as this month's recipient of the Certificate of Appreciation and Key to the City. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard reported that he attended a class a few weeks ago on water rights and supply issues; and went to the Chamber's Connection breakfast featuring Attorney Mike Ormsby. None of the other Councilmembers had a report. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he met with Board of County Commissioners Chair O'Quinn for their monthly meeting, and today met with School Superintendent Ben Small and Liberty Lake Mayor Steve Peterson for their monthly meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments. Don Meier, 3910 Eagle Lane,spoke concerning the upcoming County auction of the Painted Hills Golf Couse; and encouraged Spokane Valley's participation; said owning the property would give community pride in identity; and not having it would be a major loss. He asked if Spokane Valley were to purchase it,would the City be committed to keeping it as a nine-hole regulation golf course. Mr. Jackson said staff is still gathering information; and that next week Council will consider a motion concerning the property, and members of the public will Council Regular Meeting 08-27-2013 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT have an opportunity that night for additional comments. Mr. Jackson said the topic is also on tonight's agenda. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2014 Budget Revenues—Mark Calhoun Mayor Towey opened the public hearing a 6:26 p.m. Finance Director Calhoun explained that this is part of the budget process, and tonight is a precursor to Mr. Jackson's upcoming preliminary budget, which is a precursor to ultimate budget adoption consideration. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Calhoun gave a summary of the funds in the 2014 budget, discussed revenues and expenditures, as well as other funds including the motor vehicle fuel tax, and real estate excise tax, which funds are mostly used to match grant financed street projects; he also mentioned the Hotel/Motel tax revenues, stormwater management fees, aquifer protection area and grant revenues. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Councilmember Grafos asked if it would be possible for Mr. Calhoun to add a number at the bottom of the page for the total wages, benefits and remainder of the budget, and Mr. Calhoun responded he will have that ready for the next budget discussion. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 08/09/2013 4423,4442-4445,4462,29899-29902 $271,219.00 08/09/2013 29903-29931 $156,408.84 08/09/2013 29932-29980; 805130017 $561,043.39 08/20/2013 4463,4464,4466,4467,29981 $70,878.05 08/20/2013 5638-5641 $756.00 08/20/2013 29982-30023 $464,000.34 GRAND TOTAL $1,524,305.62 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 15,2013: $308,896.07 c.Approval of August 13,2013 Council Meeting Minutes,Regular Formal Format d.Approval of Resolution 13-008 Declaring Items as Surplus e.Motion Setting September 24,2013 Budget Hearing f.Approval of Commute Trip Reduction Interlocal Agreement It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-012,Lighting Code Revisions—Marty Palaniuk After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Ordinance 13-012. After Mr. Palaniuk went over the proposed changes to the lighting regulations, Mayor Towey invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Phase I—Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the Sullivan Park Improvements Project Phase 1 of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project#0155, to AM Landshaper in the amount of $165,052.58 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained the background as noted on his Request for Council Acton, added that AM Landshaper was the lowest bidder, they have good references, and staff recommends awarding them the Council Regular Meeting 08-27-2013 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT bid. 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;no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Smart Gov Public Portal—John Hohman,Mike Turbak Community Development Director Hohman and Development Services Coordinator Turbak gave a preview of the public portal access into the SmartGov permitting system. Mr. Hohman said they are still working out a few steps such as a third party vendor to handle credit card transactions, and building in the last few items of disclaimer information to make us compliant with state law; he said he will be working closely with frequent customers to get permits processed directly through this portal, and said they are also planning to use this to streamline the work efforts in the permit center,which means instead of faxing forms back and forth,it would go directly into the system. Mr. Hohman also mentioned a public meeting is scheduled for next month. Mr. Turbak gave a "hands-on" explanation of how the system will work, and said once complete,this will be accessible anywhere the World Wide Web is accessible. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:22 p.m. 6. Painted Hills—Mike Stone Councilmember Wick recused himself from this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest, and he left the Council Chambers. Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that this is a continued discussion from a few weeks ago, regarding park acquisition with the primary focus on the Painted Hills property; he said tonight he seeks Council consensus to bring back a motion next Tuesday, September 3. Mr. Stone gave a recap of how we got to this point, including updating the Parks and Recreation Master Plan,which has park acquisition as a main component; and that the Plan indicates we are not meeting our current level nor will we meet our future level, for parkland; and said this is an opportunity to purchase a large area; and said this 91 acres is likely the last large available piece of property within our City's limits; and that purchasing this property would also be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stone said the property could accommodate a wide variety of activities and features; that if we decided to pursue this, we would also seek public input for uses within the property; adding that there is no immediate need to develop the property now,but the key is to acquire the property. Concerning property maintenance, Mr. Stone said there are three levels of maintenance: weekly mowing and trash pickup; bi-monthly mowing and trash pickup, and monthly maintenance; said some portions could be maintained in the interim and some areas could be maintained for a little less; and said he estimates $150,000 to maintain that site until a decision is made about the use; said we could maintain about thirty acres at the first level for $49,500 a year; and the remaining sixty-one acres would be maintained at the third level, or even stretched out a little further, at a cost of about $36,000 a year. Mr. Stone said there would be a one-time repair and maintenance upgrade to the irrigation system, and said we don't know the entire condition of that system, but we do know it has not been fully functioning for several years, and he estimated a one-time cost of $25,000. Mr. Stone said the cost of water could be significant, while electricity would be minimal; that in 2011 the course was spending $40,000 for water; he said he feels that is extremely expensive and feels it could be split up in several different sections at about $27,000 a year. Other costs, he explained, would include brush and/or tree removal, and signage. Mr. Stone said he feels the figure is very conservative but we should be able to keep to the amount until types of development can be determined. To maintain a golf course, Mr. Stone said minimally it would cost three times what it would cost for the interim cost, but added that this is a great opportunity having this property available; and that he would like Council consensus to bring back a motion next week. If the decision, Mr. Stone said,were to retain the golf course operation, he would recommend leasing it out to a private sector and sending out a request for proposal, as we don't have staff or maintenance crews for Council Regular Meeting 08-27-2013 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT a golf course operation. After brief discussion, Council had no objection to placing this on next week's agenda for a motion consideration. 7. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Goals&Priorities—Mark Calhoun Councilmember Wick returned to the dias. Mr. Calhoun went over the potential goals and priorities for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as noted on his Request for Council Action,which included setting aside $30,000 for CenterPlace. When Council was asked if they agreed with these goals and priorities, including the $30,000 set-aside for CenterPlace, there were no objections and Councilmembers appeared to nod in agreement. 8.Avista Natural Gas Franchise—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell discussed the proposed franchise with Avista Utilities for installation, operation and maintenance of their natural gas facilities; said the franchise would be for twenty-five years, and would be in effect through the City. After brief discussion there was consensus to place this on a future agenda for an ordinance first reading. 9. Solid Waste Update Mike Jackson This item was moved as an information only item. 10.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey There were no suggestions for changes to the Advance Agenda. 11. Department Reports; 12. Stormwater Grants; 13. Planning Commission Minutes; and 13a Solid Waste were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson had no comments. 14.EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b), and RCW 42.30.110(1)i)] Potential acquisition of real estate; and potential litigation. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive session for approximately forty-five minutes to discuss potential acquisition of real estate and potential litigation, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 7:59 p.m. At approximately 9:47 p.m. Deputy Mayor Schimmels declared Council out of executive session. It was then moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 08-27-2013 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Solid Waste Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council, et al Wednesday,August 28,2013 8:30 a.m.—11:30 a.m. CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N Discovery Road, Spokane Valley,Washington Attendance: Spokane County Spokane Valley Spokane County Commission Chair Shelly O'Quinn Mayor Tom Towey Spokane County Commissioner Al French, Vice-Chair Deputy Mayor Gary Schimmels Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke Councilmember Dean Grafos Councilmember Chuck Hafner Other Elected Officials Councilmember Rod Higgins Liberty Lake Mayor Steve Peterson Councilmember Arne Woodard Cheney Mayor Tom Trulove Councilmember Ben Wick Marshall Farnell Spokane County Chief Executive Officer Mike Jackson,City Manager Ken Gimpel, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Eric Guth,Public Works Director Bruce Rawls, Spokane Co. Division of Utilities (retired) Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Steve Wamback,Pierce County Res. Div.Administrator Cary Driskell, City Attorney Jim Wavada,Environmental Planner,DOE Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Admin.Analyst Bob Rella,HDR Engineering,Inc. Michelle Rasmussen,Admin Assistant Lori Calub,HDR Engineering,Inc. Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Carolbelle Branch,Public Info. Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Approximately 60 people in the audience,including staff members from various municipalities. At approximately 8:37 a.m. Steve Wamback, Pierce County Sustainable Resources Division Administrator and this meeting's facilitator, acknowledged a quorum of Spokane County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Councilmembers. Commission Chair 0'Quinn called the meeting to order on behalf of the County Commissioners, followed by Mayor Towey calling the meeting to order on behalf of Spokane Valley Council. 1. Welcome and Introduction—Al French, Spokane County Commissioner Commissioner French welcomed everyone and gave a short overview of the history of solid waste handing; he referenced the HDR report and the objectives, and said he feels comfortable using the data as a basis for making a decision for the Board of County Commissioners by the end of September. Commissioner French then gave a brief biography of and introduced Steve Wamback, Pierce County Sustainable Resources Division Administrator and this meeting's facilitator. 2. History and Overview—Steve Wamback After going over the agenda for today's meeting, Mr. Wamback explained,with the aid of a PowerPoint, the statutory solid waste requirements of RCW 70.95 and 70.105 as well as RCW 35 for cities and counties; that according to RCW 70.95 and the topic of solid waste planning, the Plan must contain required elements (solid waste management/disposal and infrastructure, recycling, waste reduction and recycling education); said regarding the fundamental requirements for a solid waste system, that the Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT County must have a Plan,while cities and towns have options. Mr. Wamback gave some history of solid waste; said that in 1985 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) modified the rules for landfill design and management systems and as a result, Spokane County and Spokane City had to close five landfills that served the region. Regarding the Waste-to-Energy Facility, he explained that facility was financially challenging to fund so they formed a Regional Solid Waste System Interlocal Agreement with the County and the City and with every municipality within the County; that per that Interlocal, the facilities were owned by the City of Spokane; and he mentioned that approximately 300,000 tons per year were processed through the three facilities. Mr. Wamback said the Interlocal terminates November 16, 2014 as well as all the contracts associated with the system; he said staffs from the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of Spokane Valley are working together exploring options, and that the three entities have agreed to fund a study, and that HDR Engineering was selected to undertake the study. 3. Presentation: Evaluation of Costs for Regional Solid Waste Management Options — Bob Rella, P.E., HDR Engineering,Inc. Mr. Rella introduced his associate, Lori Calub,who he explained,worked with the financials of the study. He said the purpose of the study was to investigate and elaborate on the alternatives. He said the existing transfer stations are the Colbert (North) Transfer Station, the Valley Transfer Station, and the Transfer operations at the Waste-to-Energy Plant (WTE); and said all three stations initiated operations in 1991; said the transfer operation at the WTE requires significant staffmg and is staffed ten hours a day, seven days a week and said although twenty-two years old,they are all in very good condition for their age.Mr. Rella explained that they reviewed the operations and maintenance requirements for transfer of ownership or replacement or new facilities, and have developed staffing and equipment requirements based on their experience with similar facilities. Mr. Rella said they studied the tonnage rates and found that the total annual municipal solid waste tonnage is 300,000 tons,with about 46,000 tons coming through the Colbert station, 91,000 tons thru the Valley station, and 141,000 tons at the City of Spokane. Mr. Rella then explained the nine options; said the team had two approaches: one technical, and the other financial; that the technical approach includes sizing calculations and conceptual arrangements and conditions, while the financial aspects deals with cost. He spoke of the cost centers and options, such as purchasing the Colbert and Valley stations, or replacing them, or having a new West Plains transfer station; and said that the cost center total cost or gate fee was calculated by adding the transfer station plus haul and disposal. He explained that the options for disposal cost centers included trucking to the WTE, trucking to a landfill, rail (BNSF) to a landfill, or rail (proposed Geiger Spur) to a landfill. Mr. Rella then explained the nine options,which he said used 2018 dollars: 1. Option lA- purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations,truck to WTE at$113-$146 a ton. The City of Spokane operates the transfer station at the WTE, and a disposal fee would range from$65-$98 a ton. 2. Option 1B — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations and the West Plains station and truck to landfill at $147 a ton; this includes contracting truck long haul to regional landfill with disposal. 3. Option 1C—purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations,the West County customers would use the WTE; at$133 a ton; the City of Spokane would operate the transfer station at the WTE, and includes contracting truck long haul to a regional landfill with disposal. 4. Option 1D — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations, rail (proposed Geiger spur) to a landfill, and West County customers would use the WTE; at $124 a ton; the City of Spokane would operate the transfer station at the WTE. 5. Option 2 —purchase the Colbert and Valley transfer stations for a minimal fee, contract with those stations for operations and haul to WTE at $107 a ton; the City of Spokane operates the station at the WTE for West County customers, and the WTE disposal fee would be $65 a ton for long-term multi-year contract. Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6. Option 3A — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations and develop the West Plains station,plus rail(BNSF)to a landfill at$117 a ton. 7. Option 3B — purchase the Colbert and Valley transfer stations, develop the West Plains stations, use rail (proposed Geiger Spur) to a landfill at $135 a ton; and contract for transfer station operations. 8. Option 4A — replace Colbert and Valley transfer stations, develop the West Plains station, contract truck long haul to a regional landfill,at$155 a ton. 9. Option 4B—replace the Colbert and Valley transfer stations,develop the West Plains station, contract haul operations to a regional landfill,at$128 a ton. Mr. Rella also showed a graphical representation of gate fee projections of ten years, said the fees shown do not include the 3.6% Washington Refuse Tax, that all options include any capital development and show lower gate fees until the actual capital is recognized, specifically in Options 1B, 1D, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B; and said the interim operations also reflect disposal at the WTE at$98 a ton. 4. Elected Officials Questions on Technical Evaluation A question arose concerning the factor used in the projections, and Ms. Calub explained that among other factors,they used the contract operations plus 10% general administration,plus 10% overhead and profit; said the figures also depend on a competitive price bidding and which landfills would be used; she said the market gate route could be lower; that there is some variability in calculating the rail haul, and Mr. Rella added that the transfer stations are in good condition and are well maintained, and he anticipated they could last twenty years or more. There were other brief clarifying questions from elected officials. 5. Comments by Staff—Bruce Rawls,Mike Jackson,Ken Gimpel Mr. Rawls commented that about two and one-half years ago, a large regional, two-day summit was held concerning some of the many aspects of solid waste, such as governance; said it included a balanced representation of those who use the system,which he said,must be cost effective. He said there were two main objectives that arose from that meeting: that the cost study indicated we probably won't save money, and that the City of Spokane is no longer interested in being the leader of solid waste or in operating two transfer stations; that a plan is needed prior to November 2014 including a new governance structure. He said the cost study done was a good study and he just received the final report, which he said will be posted on the Spokane County website soon, under "utilities." Mr. Rawls said Option 2 appears to be more cost effective; he said this is not a prediction of actual gate fees but is a study meant to do a comparison and provide for an orderly transition; he said building a new facility is about twice as expensive as purchasing the current ones; and that Option 2 also retains cohesiveness of the system. He said the County will have to hire staff to manage this,will have to have a planning document and draft an RFP (request for proposals) all within fourteen weeks, so he said there is a huge amount of work to do. Mr. Rawls also said the County intends to have the Geiger Spur in the future and that there may be a hybrid of alternatives to have the West Plains facility long range as well. He said we need a decision on which approach(option)by the end of September. Spokane Valley City Manager Jackson said he concurs with Mr. Rawls in that this is an outstanding study; that they had to limit the number of variables, and that time is a constraint. He said Spokane City wants to divest itself of transfer stations, and one topic of immediate discussion is about ownership of these facilities, and the objective is to work regionally as much as possible. Mr. Jackson said Option 2 is worthy of strong consideration,but he would look hard at Option 3A; that if we go out to bid we may get different costs; he said this study has brought us much closer to a decision point and we need to move forward. Mr. Jackson noted that there will be a meeting next week with the Spokane Valley Council and the County Board of Commissioners, and that he hopes to come up with a long-term decision; and said he would like to reach a permanent decision. Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ken Gimpel said he feels the study is one of the best, and he offered his compliments to the HDR Team. Mr. Gimpel said Spokane City supports Option 2 as it addresses the impact to customers who use the facilities; said Option 2 also addresses the needed change in governance and said he believes in the County as the overseer and that it gives the people in the County the option to vote on these matters. Mr. Gimpel also stated that Option 2 has many reasons for the way the system has run; said the City of Spokane hasn't had partners in the County and others and that transition process will be huge; said the City of Spokane strongly supports Option 2. Mr. Gimpel also noted that this year will see the volume of waste increased as more people spending means more waste; that there is a need for the West Plains transfer station; and that this could be the manner for the County to serve those constituents. In response to a question someone in the audience had asked earlier about why there are not more options, Mr. Rawls said they had to define a scope and budget;that they held a brainstorming session last June and more alternatives could have been considered if they wanted, but feel these alternatives or options have identified the concerns; he said a separate service for the West Plains was included as perhaps a long- term option. Mr. Gimpel noted that the Waste-to-Energy plant would be totally contractual and would be no different from a disposal contract; that the City would act as vendor; that the tipping fee would be fixed and adjusted on a CPI (Consumer Price Index) escalator with a 1.54% increase for a fixed rate in 2014. 6. Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan Considerations—Jim Wavada,Department of Ecology Mr. Wavada explained that the job of the Department of Ecology (DOE) is whether or not to recommend approval of the Plan, and to help the entities get through the Plan; that the urgency has nothing to do with the options, only with the change in the management structure; said there will be a new system, and a requirement is to review the Plan every five years; that state law dictates having a public hearing for the citizens and to serve and protect the environment;that it is"all about the level of service" and the need to put an interlocal together fairly quickly. Commissioner French asked about grant money to help with the plan and Mr. Wavada said grants can be made to Counties,based on population, for handling solid waste within its jurisdictions; and said it usually doesn't make economic sense to issue grants to cities,but said the County can apply. Mr. Gimpel said during the 2013-2015 grant cycle, they have identified about $250,000 to be used for plan updates, and said they will have Spokane City's expertise to help with the plan; and that Option 2 is a minimal plan. Commissioner French also asked about the possibility of extending the deadline, and Mr. Wavada explained that in the "short turn around" they will need resolutions of adoptions, public hearings, etc. and the longest time is 120 days, so it is important to get started; that if it can be shown to the DOE that progress has been made, such as issuing an RFP and interlocals or other pieces of evidence for them to issue a Letter of Concurrency, then the DOE could consider the existing plan current until a new plan is finished. 7. Discussion by Elected Officials Regarding the Regional Solid Waste Management Options — Facilitated by Steve Wamback In response to a question concerning additional public meetings, Mr. Rawls said there could be another summit for the general population to participate, or maybe the Board of County Commissioners could hold a hearing to give citizens opportunity for their input. Commissioner French said the Board of County Commissioners and the Spokane Valley Council are going to hold a joint meeting next Wednesday to try to come to consensus about moving forward; and said the Commissioners' goal is to have a final decision by the end of September; adding that the Commissioners have not discussed holding a public hearing. Commission Chair O'Quinn said no public hearing has been scheduled. Commissioner Mielke mentioned the long-term impact and that the end of September is coming quickly; he suggested perhaps letting the public know they are invited to attend, and such a meeting could be a"trigger" to put together a public hearing. Mayor Trulove said he only just received the report and has not had an opportunity to study the report. Liberty Lake Mayor Peterson said they support option 2 as the most viable option; while Spokane Valley Councilmember Wick said we could still accomplish a regional Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT system if Spokane Valley owns the Valley transfer stations and said Option 3A would allow us to treat the situation more as a vendor. Commissioner Mielke said that they are all charged to provide service and that they need to try to maintain some consistency; that they are trying to have this as efficient as possible; that the question of the West Plains transfer station includes the City of Spokane or not or whether they are a partner or not is important; but the important decision is they need to push forward cooperatively; and said he understands Spokane Valley's interest in the transfer station in Spokane Valley,which is used by several jurisdictions. Commission Chair O'Quinn said they need to look regionally and maintain a regional system; she suggested the WTE plant stay under the ownership of the City and Mr. Gimpel concurred; and said the WTE plant could act as a transfer station, but the City of Spokane keeps ownerships. Cheney Mayor Trulove said his citizens don't use the transfer station as they dump directly to the WTE Plant; said his city does its own recycling and has always done its own recycling, but feels they are being overcharged for what they are getting. Mr. Gimpel said he agrees a regional system is subsidized, but it provides a service. Mr.Wavada said for a plan to be valid,it must deliver services and has to be for all citizens. 8. The Way Forward: Next Steps—Al French, Spokane County Commissioner Commissioner French extended thanks to everyone for participating and coming today; and again mentioned the joint study session meeting next week with the Spokane Valley Council;he said the reason they are meeting is because they are the two largest users; and he added if the Board of County Commissioners later decides to hold a public hearing,it will of course,be duly noticed. Commissioner 0'Quinn,followed by Mayor Towey,each adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 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 September 3,2013 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Dean Grafos,Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Rod Higgins,Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir. Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard,Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ABSENT: Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and announced that Council will hold an Executive Session at the end of tonight's meeting. Roll Call: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Schimmels. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels from tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to advance Ordinance 13-013, granting Avista Utilities a natural gas franchise, to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the franchise ordinance. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 2. Painted Hills Property Acquisition Motion Consideration—Mike Stone Councilmember Wick recused himself due to a conflict of interest, and he left the dais. It was moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to authorize the City Manager to pursue acquisition of the Painted Hills property and to participate in the public auction on September 13, 2013. Parks and Recreation Director Stone went over the history of the possibility of the City acquiring the Painted Hills Property; said if we were to purchase the property, there would be no need to immediately development the property, although minimal maintenance would be required; and explained that his previous estimate of $150,000 annual cost is based on a fairly aggressive maintenance schedule on thirty acres, and includes some one-time costs, so the $150,000 would be less in future years; he added that staff would have to approach the costs from a different perspective if the City were to try to maintain that property as a golf course, as among other things, personnel would be needed and the cost would increase considerably. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Mark Paxton, Business Address 12109 E Broadway Blvd C: spoke against the City of Spokane Valley purchasing the property; said he represents someone who is interested in purchasing the property and maintaining it as a public golf course; said there is already a tremendous amount of park space in our City but this is the only golf course we'd have; and said he feels the idea of using the property as something else would be "crazy." Chuck Simpson, E 9003 Cataldo: mentioned possible lost tax revenue if the City Council Study Session: 09-03-2013 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT were to purchase this property; said when it was private the City was making money; said it would be great if private citizens purchase the property. Tom Kendall, 14311 E 22nd Avenue: said he is President of the Painted Hills Men's Club; they moved their center of operation elsewhere but would like to come back and said he encourages the opportunity for private investment. There were no other public comments. During Council discussion, Councilmember Woodard said when he first became aware of this property, he was not aware of any groups or private individuals trying to buy the property; said if we were to buy this as park land he would want to make sure we have all our options before us; and said he would not want to supersede the private market. Councilmember Grafos said if the City were to purchase the property it would be difficult to operate it as a golf course and he mentioned his concern with the $150,000 a year maintenance; said the City will be facing expenses in expanding other park properties next year; also mentioned that he was not aware of any others interested in this property when it was first brought up; said the City is facing other large issues such as solid waste. Councilmember Higgins said he is pleased a group is willing to take what appears is an issue of great concern, into their own hands and said he would also hate to see it go off the City's tax rolls. Councilmember Hafner noted the City is facing other financial issues and he would hate to move resources into a golf course. Mayor Towey mentioned that the City will never see again this particular piece of land; and said he will vote for moving forward based on the idea of the more options we have, the more flexibility and the better off we will be. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor:Mayor Towey and Councilmember Woodard,- Opposed: Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins and Grafos. Motion failed. Councilmember Wick returned to the dais. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)—Kevin Wallace SRTC Executive Director Wallace gave a presentation on the SRTC Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Horizon 2040; he explained that the purpose of the plan is to satisfy federal and state planning requirements including coordination among SRTC, STA (Spokane Transit Authority), and WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation); he went over the vision, policy and evaluation frameworks, and showed a map of projected 2040 traffic conditions with 1.75 congestive hours; he discussed maintenance and preservation, the corridor screening process, and explained the different transportation corridor types and corridor screening; and said the next steps include community outreach, placing preliminary draft chapters on the SRTC website, and a public comment period with anticipated SRTC Board approval in November or December. Councilmember Wick noted the bridging the valley project is not listed and Mr. Wallace explained that SRTC will have a list of projects included in the plan, and said bridging the valley has been talked about and is something the Board is examining; he said the Board has identified many capital projects but since there isn't enough funding for them all, it becomes a balancing act. Mr. Wallace said preservation needs are very great and that SRTC controls about 3%of all funds, and that the majority of funds for preservation are federal or state funds. Mayor Towey asked if Spokane Valley would be penalized for doing diligence by focusing and funding street preservations, and thereby not be considered for other funding. Mr. Wallace explained that SRTC in participating in the preservation on Sprague and their focus will start to migrate to principal arterials which is where federal agencies will target as a region; and said they will continue more local focus in the future, adding that what is not included today is an analysis by communities in terms of which community has enough other funding to maintain a system. Councilmember Woodard asked about populations needed for light rail or other equivalent mass transit and Mr. Wallace explained that those figures are usually based on thousand trips per day for federal participation or some other formula such as number of dwelling units per acre; and said they realize that in the past this region has examined the possibility of light rail. Concerning project funding, Mr. Wallace said one criterion could be based on an agency paying more for projects but added that has not been implemented yet,but the idea would be if agencies could put"more skin in the game"then they would be awarded more points. Again,he said that criterion has not been established. Council Study Session: 09-03-2013 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Outside Agency Funding Requests—Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun explained that tonight is an opportunity for those agencies that have applied for outside funding to make their presentation to Council, and said $150,000 is included in the 2014 budget for this purpose.Mr. Calhoun said each applicant has been invited to give a five-minute presentation, and that Council will consider the distribution of funds at the September 24 council meeting. Mr. Calhoun asked Councilmembers to submit their recommendations for funding to him no later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, September 13, and he explained the methodology that will be used to make the awards, as noted in his Request for Council Action Form. Mayor Towey explained that the outside agency presentations have been split into two categories: Economic Development and Social Service; and said he received a request from a representative of Spokane Valley Partners to be the first presenter as she is seven months pregnant and would be able to go home and rest, and he granted her request. Mayor Towey later explained that he received another request for a change in the order of presenters so that Spokane Guild's School Foundation representatives could present earlier in the schedule as they had young children present, and Mayor Towey granted that request as well. The following is the order of presenters: Spokane Valley Partners—Social Service Agency Greater Spokane,Inc.—Economic Development Agency Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce—Economic Development Agency Spokane Area Workforce Development Council—Economic Development Agency Spokane River Forum—Economic Development Agency Spokane Valley Arts Council—Economic Development Agency Spokane Valley Heritage Museum—Economic Development Agency Valleyfest—Economic Development Agency At approximately 8:05 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a recess;he reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Spokane Guilds' School Foundation—Social Service Agency Big Brothers and Sisters of the Inland NW—Social Service Agency Children's Home Society of Washington—Social Service Agency Coalition of the Responsible Disabled—Social Service Agency Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council—Social Service Agency Hearth Homes—Social Service Agency Y WCA - Social Service Agency(YMCA listed on the agenda was a typographical error) 5. 2014 Property Tax Levy—Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun explained that state law requires an ordinance be adopted in order to levy property taxes and that the proposal is not to increase the levy other than the estimated new construction. Mr. Calhoun also noted that all figures except the 2013 levy rate, are based on estimates and that we won't have the updated estimate on new construction until about the middle of September; with the County making the final assessed determinations after our budget is adopted in October. 6. Solid Waste—Mike Jackson,Eric Guth City Manager Jackson said he,Public Works Director Guth, and Sr.Administrative Analyst Koudelka are here to answer questions from Council concerning the draft solid waste study; and he said that Deputy City Attorney Lamb as well as Finance Director Calhoun are part of the team and are also here tonight. Mr. Jackson said he wanted to briefly discuss some of the issues for Council's consideration during tomorrow's regional solid waste meeting. Mr. Jackson gave a quick background of the topic, including that the analysis was completed by HDR Engineering and that the cost was shared by Spokane Solid Waste System, City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County with Spokane County as the issuing agency. Mr. Jackson said there are three phases of the Scope of Work, and that at the end of Phase 1, Spokane County and Spokane Valley would each determine which scenario to move forward into Phase II, which Council Study Session: 09-03-2013 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT phase includes the development of a detailed options analysis including an evaluation of the most advantageous means to forming a public/private partnership if that scenario is selected. Phase III, Mr. Jackson said, is the implementation phase where a separate budget would be negotiated and whereby the consultant would assist in implementing the option selected by each entity, which could include assisting in preparation of Requests for Proposals, and/or selection of a public/private partnership. Mr. Jackson referenced the graph in the Plan showing the various costs of the options, and said the addition of the West Plains Transfer Station is what drives up the cost,although a bid to build that could actually come in lower than estimated. Mr. Jackson explained that one of the items staff brought up in examining the transfer station options was to add what we call a 1E,which is for the County and the City of Spokane Valley to purchase the Colbert and Valley transfer stations at fair market values, and to contract with the City of Spokane for services at the West Plans, adding that he feels this is not an option the City of Spokane is willing to entertain; but even if you were to pay the gate rate for those materials at that transfer station,it would be a large savings over constructing the new transfer station. He explained that the group examined about nine options, but said if you go into the cost centers you could put together other options. City Manager Jackson said the intent of the report was to provide data, and he suggested it would take a few weeks to study the alternatives and consider if there is a better way to save the citizens money in terms of the gate rate; and said the goal is to provide environmentally sound solid waste service for our citizens while keeping the cost down; said he feels it is important for Council to be able to set rates and hours of service for the transfer stations; that customer service is very important; and that we will discuss this with the County. Mr. Jackson said he feels it is important to do this in an open forum,that there will be other issues to raise tomorrow, and that we want to take our time to make sure we're examining all the numbers in the best, transparent manner. Councilmember Grafos said in order to prevent discussing this again in seven years, we need to have some kind of ownership interest. Mr. Jackson concurred and said we could look ahead and decide what might happen at the end of seven years based on a decision made, or define as much as possible what happens now and in seven years; said it is important to make a decision in real time or in seven years from now,we will be starting over. 7. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Councilmember Wick suggested having more information on the Horizon 2040 plan. 8. (a)Finance Department Monthly Report and, (b) Police Department Monthly Report were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 10. Council Check in—Mayor Towey.No report. 11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson. Mr.Jackson had no further comments. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately forty-five minutes to discuss potential land acquisition and potential litigation, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:26 p.m. At 10:15 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb announced in Council Chambers that the Executive Session would be extended fifteen minutes. Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session at 10:31 p.m., after which it was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:31 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:09-03-2013 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES JOINT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL AND SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 4,2013 11:00 a.m.—2:30 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99216 Attendance: Spokane Valley Spokane County Tom Towey,Mayor Shelly O'Quinn, Commission Chair Dean Grafos, Councilmember Al French, Commission Vice-Chair Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Todd Mielke, Commissioner Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Staff Marshall Farnell, County CEO Absent: Jim Emacio,Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Kevin Cooke, County Utilities Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Bill Wedlake, Regional Solid Waste Coordinator Bob Wrigley, Spokane County CBO Staff John Dickson, Spokane County, COO Mike Jackson, City Manager Ken Gimpel, Regional Solid Waste Sys. Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Others in Attendance Eric Guth, Public Works Director Tami Yager, Waste Management Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Assistant Mark Torre, Sunshine Disposal&Recycling Michelle Rasmussen,Admin.Assistant Steven Wulf Sunshine Disposal&Recycling Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Doug Nixon, City Council, Cheney Matthew Pederson, Republic Services Ed Pace, Citizen Nina Culver, Spokesman Review At 11:00 a.m.,Mayor Towey announced that the County Commissioners would be about 15 minutes late. At approximately 11:15 a.m., Mayor Towey called the meeting to order, followed by Commission Chair O'Quinn calling the meeting to order as well. It was moved by Councilmember Hafner, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Woodard from today's meeting. Mayor Towey welcomed everyone to the meeting, said there will be a brief intermission at noon and elected officials and staff are invited to participate in lunch. Mayor Towey referenced the HDR Report and said that his hope coming out of this meeting will be that Spokane Valley officials and Spokane County Commissioners will have a clear understanding of the priorities, and explained that we want to work in conjunction with the County to make that happen; and said he would like to know the County's expectations and priorities for today's meeting, recognizing that theirs might be different. City Manager Jackson asked the Commissioners if they have other expectations for today's meeting, and that he also hopes to reach some understanding from today's meeting. Commission Chair O'Quinn said the County Commissioners will not be making a decision today as they have scheduled a public hearing for October Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 8; that they will consider today as part of that process; and that they would like to hear Spokane Valley's thoughts and decisions. City Manager Jackson gave some of the history behind this issue; explained that the County and City staffs worked together on the scope of work with a hopeful response deadline of the end of 2012,but that there were no responses to that RFP(request for proposal);that there were also changes in administrations and staff which lead them to reconsider the process, and have this study completed; he said the information contained in the study is good and there is enough data to formulate the basis of a decision; said there was some discussion last week about a couple different options that different team members selected, and it appears there is a split in opinions between Option 2, and Option 3A; said perhaps together we could come up with other ideas. Concerning Option 2, Mr. Jackson said this means continuing to send waste to the waste-to-energy plant (WTE) for an undetermined amount of time, about seven to ten years at $65 a ton, and at the end of that time,the County would own the Colbert and Valley transfer stations. Mr. Jackson said Spokane Valley favors Option 3A which is where the City and County purchase the transfer stations outright, with Spokane Valley purchasing the Spokane Valley transfer station and Spokane County purchasing the Colbert station, and the purchase would be paid back through gate fees; through an interlocal agreement, Spokane Valley would be part of the Spokane County Solid Waste Plan and Spokane Valley and Spokane County would immediately issue an RFP for transport and disposal; he said the City of Spokane could submit a bid which would meet their objective to be a vendor; and the private sector could submit a bid similar to the Rabanco/Allied bid for the Whitman County contract for transport and disposal with the contract being awarded to the lowest bidder. Further, Mr. Jackson explained, Spokane County and Spokane Valley would operate the Colbert and Valley transfer stations as a partnership and the County could issue one contract. Mr. Jackson said the Valley transfer station would serve the region,we would work together on options for the West Plains, and provide other required services through an interlocal agreement. Mr. Jackson said that ownership is very important; that it's about the value we place on customer service along with our ability to have a voice at the table and have the ability to control the use at the Valley transfer station since the majority use is by Valley residents; he said it would be a regional facility with the County operating the Colbert transfer station; and that with each location,the purchase would be paid back through the gate rate; he said that amortization schedule could even be extended and thus bring the rate down; that ten years is probably a reasonable period, and perhaps to invest a little more cash into those facilities to make them a twenty-year facility. City Manager Jackson said once an RFP is submitted, Spokane City could respond as the County did when we put out an RFP for animal control; he said this option is right out of the study; and said that Spokane City was favorable to this a few months ago although he can't say this is their position today. In order to help drive down costs, Mr. Jackson said we must always be vigilant; he said the study makes the assumption of having the West Plains transfer station, and we know that is what drives up the cost and keeps 3A from being the lowest cost option over time; he said we'd like to work together to see if there is a way to hold down those costs. City Manager Jackson said even if we consider the WTE plant option at the end of seven years, if we feel we haven't solved the West Plains transfer station issue, or feel we still have to construct a transfer station, then it would be better to make that decision now and have those seven years behind us; that leaving the issue open brings you right back to the same position in seven years. Mr. Jackson said it is obvious there would be variables in what the bids would be, or how long to amortize and how inexpensive you could build a West Plans transfer station, so we would have to make some assumptions, and if we did this, based on the process followed by Whitman County, all we're comparing is transport and disposal;he said their gate rate is $103. Mr. Jackson said Whitman County got a pretty good deal and it included transport from Pullman and the cost of the containers, that it doesn't mean we could repeat that deal, but are just looking at some logical options. Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka distributed copies of a chart giving a simplistic look at solid waste disposal options for Spokane Valley/Spokane County; he explained that as shown in the details of the study,the cost for the individual transfer stations in Spokane Valley and Colbert are less expensive for 3A then they are for option 2 and that it is the West Plains that drive up costs on some of the other options; he said option 2 came in at$107 per ton,while option 3A is $92 per ton; he said we noticed in option 2 that there was no accounting for 20,000 tons for the west plains for transfer station costs so we made some slight adjustments for those costs which would take option 2 up to $111 per ton; and using the same assumptions for option 3A, there is no adjustment to the transfer station operating costs; he said any changes would be across-the-board and we would hope for some additional savings through the competitive environment; he said we focused on where we could realize distinct savings and it is in transport and disposal which takes that $60 per ton down to $45. Mr. Koudelka said that we know there would be fewer miles for a short haul to the intermodal, and we have the ability to get more tons per container which would also reduce the cost, so we plugged in $45 per ton for transport and disposal. Mr. Koudelka said there could be other options looking at the West Plains service and we did not research that for today's discussions; and said the main point of these numbers is that there are options other than option 2 which could drive down the cost; but we don't know the exact figures without getting proposals or bids. Concerning cost,Mr. Jackson suggested putting this out to bid and removing the guesswork; he said these figures do not represent a vast savings, that the dollar amount is not a lot, but multiplied by tonnage multiplied by ten years it becomes millions; and said we want to take every opportunity to save every dime; said he feels the long term is the best option and best solution and it doesn't push the problem back seven years; he said we favor option 3A and think that rail might come in less expensive. Mr. Jackson asked everyone to take a hard look at these two options and see what is best for our citizens; that cost is a huge factor but we also need to resolve the West Plains issue. Concerning the handout and Option 3A, Commissioner Mielke asked if these figures would mean different rates for each transfer station. Mr. Jackson said it does not;but that he feels there is an advantage to this option;he agrees with one gate rate and to operate as a system to provide the lowest gate rate regionally, and said he is not proposing a different gate rate. Commissioner Mielke said it has been established through previous discussions that Spokane Valley is not willing to be in a position to underwrite costs to any jurisdiction just because of volume and he suggested the opposite is true, adding that the West Plains would receive the least tonnage. Mr. Jackson explained that he is still proposing a regional system and to set one gate rate, but a decision needs to be made concerning what to do with the West Plains as it impacts us all; and again asked, what can we do to hold down that cost; he said the only differential is that the Spokane Valley transfer station would cost more than Colbert, but Spokane Valley would be paid back through the gate rates over time and over bond issues. Commissioner Mielke said that option 2 is no resolution to the West Plains transfer station at the end of seven years, but under 3A, it contemplates the construction toward the front, and he asked if the cost could be spread over the entire system and seen in all the transfer station rates. Mr. Jackson replied that it would except it would be contingent upon us working together and deciding how much we can afford to spend on a West Plans transfer station; that if it drives the cost way up, we might all be back asking ourselves if that is the best option; ideally there would be one rate for a regional system,but we need to think about the West Plains. Commissioner Mielke also noted concerning the handout from Mr. Koudelka,the option of long haul and using rail; and said part of his concern is the history in working with the railroad as there never seems to be any leverage; hauling ash is probably the lowest revenue generating item they haul and said the handout assumes hauling more per car; and he questioned assuming room to expand for a commodity which gives the railroad the lowest return on investments. Mr. Koudelka replied that Mr. Jackson had conversations with BSF Railroad and that our numbers were based on Whitman County's numbers, and said their contract is all inclusive; that for the short haul to BNSF, they use open top containers; said the legal limit is 29 tons per container and the rail yard is capable of moving those efficiently at 27 tons; he Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT said Whitman County averages 15-26 tons with a tarp over the top; that we have a compactor that could get a little more tons into those containers; he said he heard from Whitman County that there was a time they didn't have the containers they contracted for, which was six at a time, and because there was a problem with the WTE plant, they had to use more containers to long haul; he said they had priority so those containers were at the WTE; adding that they have stipulations in their agreement that the waste can't be on the floor for more than a specified time or other arrangements must be made; and said there were only a couple slight issues from them. Mr. Jackson also stated that the project team met with Allied/Rabanco and with Eagle concerning contracts to load containers; and said they didn't see any issue with capacity, which he said is included as an alternative in the study. Mr. Jackson said the next step would be to bid it out and see what kind of contract you would get; and clarified that the team did not meet directly with BNSF Railroad. Commissioner Mielke said that Spokane City prefers option 2 and they see themselves as a partner in a regional system with option 2; and at the end of seven years, they'd partner to look for any additional solutions, like the West Plains transfer station; he explained that how you see the value of a regional system depends on the City of Spokane participating or not; that if as partners in the next phase,the City of Spokane would look at reappraised value of facilities, and under option 2 they would be willing to transfer the transfer station for a nominal fee; but if the County purchased it instead, the cost would be probably $10 million; or if they took it off the market and did a negotiated agreement with Waste Management, Commissioner Mielke said they would be looking at$22 million to build a transfer station; so he rhetorically asked,what is the value of having that City, and the answer is it looks like a$22 million question; that if they are not partners, they would likely take their transfer station off the market, putting the County in a$22 million position. Mr. Jackson said that today the transfer stations are for sale;that the Commissioners have a hearing early October, he said Spokane Valley is prepared to make an offer to purchase the transfer station and feels very strongly that ownership is a must for the County and for Spokane Valley for the system; and he suggested making that decision now instead of trying to foresee what would happen in seven years. Regarding a regional system, Mr. Jackson said the City of Spokane could continue to operate the system, which was an option until just recently, that they would operate the entire system and transfer stations during that period; and we would all negotiate what we would do at the end of that period, whether five or ten years; or the City of Spokane could turn their assets to the County and have a regional system under the County. Mr. Jackson said that Spokane City previously made a decision to operate the WTE plant and they said it doesn't matter if it cost more, they would operate the WTE plant, which puts some constraints on us all. Mr. Jackson said Spokane City indicated they would prefer to be a vendor if we'd purchase the transfer station, and they could bid on the final disposal;that he feels Spokane City made that decision to continue to operate the WTE plant, and the question is,do we go along with that at a higher cost, or look for the best solution we can; or perhaps the system could come back together under one roof. Commissioner Mielke asked Mr. Jackson what he sees as the necessity for ownership. City Manager Jackson replied that it has to do with "having a voice at the table" as we move forward and set service levels and cost for what is a utility for our citizens; that there are several self-haulers and he hopes to see more over time; as an example, said we paid Spokane Valley's share of the cost of the study and have been working on this for several years; said he called Mr. French after the last joint meeting concerning a joint news release issued by the Public Information Officers from Spokane County and Spokane City, and he asked why wouldn't all three entities have a voice; and he stressed that we feel we would not have a seat at the table without ownership. Commissioner Mielke said that we have had three years of discussions about what jurisdictions can or can't do; said their understanding is that every jurisdiction controls its waste stream; before it releases it to a regional system the jurisdiction can tax it; said the question he knows will be raised from those that use the transfer stations is if Spokane Valley owns the transfer station would that mean they could impose a leasehold tax or utility tax at the facility, and it would no longer be limited to just the flows of Spokane Valley but assessed on all flows going through Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT the transfer station; said one of the issues of how to decide the next 20 years agreement was some jurisdictions said the City of Spokane could impose a utility tax on those outside the City of Spokane. Further, Mr. Mielke said what the difference is between Valley ownership and County ownership is the County has no authority for imposing a utility tax under state law,but Spokane Valley could impose such a tax on all users even outside its jurisdiction; so Spokane Valley wants to have control over service and cost.Mr. Jackson said he agrees that eventually there has to be some kind of governance; that the County has to be responsible to those other cities;he said we are in"for the whole game" and that a utility tax is a threshold of ownership which is up to Council in terms of what kind of agreement they would want, or to have a utility tax or not;he said all those trucks go across the Valley roads so the only way we would take advantage of that is if it generated money for the roads; he said Council would have to decide whether to increase fees and the most legitimate way to increase the fee is a tax; and said that the threshold is the ownership,not necessarily the ability to impose a tax. Commission Chair O'Quinn said if the County owned the facility, Spokane Valley could impose a tax on its own citizens. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said Spokane Valley would not be able to impose a utility tax if the facility were owned by the County; said there is statutory prohibition on that as well as case law to support his statement; and added he realizes the County has a different legal view. Commissioner Mielke said they have used outside counsel in the past on this issue, and said every jurisdiction owns its flows until through an interlocal agreement, it releases them, and can impose a fee on their flows. County Attorney Emacio added that he worked with Attorney DiJulio and asked him the same question; agreed that Mr. Driskell and Mr. Lamb don't necessarily agree; said Attorney DiJulio feels you don't have to own the facility to determine whether to impose a utility tax; and said there has not been an opportunity to have Spokane Valley Attorneys speak with Mr. DiJulio and perhaps that could be resolved by having those attorneys sit down together; adding that the Board of County Commissioners relied upon Mr. DiJulio's opinion. Commissioner Mielke said the intent of the Board for any regional system as it is established, would make it clear that every jurisdiction would keep the right to impose any fee consistent with state statutes. Councilmember Grafos said we are not trying to find a way to raise rates but rather to keep rates down, and feel that we should own it; it is in the middle of our City,and it makes sense we would own it,control it, and be part of the system. Commissioner Mielke disagreed, and said speaking for himself, there are some regional assets that are within the corporate boundaries of other jurisdictions which serve all citizens throughout the County, such as the Fairgrounds or Plantes Ferry Park. Councilmember Wick stated that without ownership,how can we be sure we are at the table;that even though we paid for a third of the study, we were not included in the announcements; that ownership is having a seat at the table. Addressing the difference in opinion between the attorneys, Councilmember Hafner said he feels there would be the ability to work things out in an interlocal agreement. Commissioner French said that we have been here since February 2011;when developing the agreement for the alliance,language was given to each jurisdiction concerning the right to impose a tax; that he recognizes through that alliance that every jurisdiction deserves the right to self-determination; he said he feels reasonable minds can and have come to that conclusion, and that can be incorporated into any necessary documents. Concerning the press releases, Commissioner French said that was an unfortunate situation that the two PIOs (Public Information Officer) did not include the third PIO; said that was not driven by the County and he extended his apologies; said the two PIOs decided they would be aggressive and that was not the direction of his Board. Mr. Jackson said we know time is short;that the County wants a decision as we do; and this is the option we want to examine, and he asked if there is a possibility of working with the County on this option; asked if there is more research or other questions to answer; that we want to consider our alternatives and realize the Board will have a decision to make, and asked if this is a viable alternate to continue to examine. The group took a short break at 12:21 p.m. for lunch; Mayor Towey resumed the meeting at 12:42 p.m. Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Towey said that our preference of options is 3A; that he realizes the Board of County Commissioners can't make a decision today, but he would like to continue the dialogue about what parts can we work with; he said we would like to work with the County for a regional system, and he asked if the County is willing to work in that direction with us, or if they have other preferences. From his perspective, Commissioner Mielke said his biggest concern in trying to take the next step and how to move forward, is the transfer stations and the unknown that accompanies that; with a range of just $1.00 with commitment of flow over a certain period of time, up to a$22 million endeavor,their top priority is to have as much certainty as possible regarding the transfer stations; said he has learned over the last few years about how you pick up solid waste;that cities can use haulers or create their own collection system; that he's also learned where you put it after it is collected is vital to the base of the system; said with the prospect of having their own transfer station, and then look at the public facilities regulations, that using any transfer station other than those that already exist means a lot of uncertainty in cost and time, adding that they don't have the luxury of that time; said Option 2 is a seven year commitment and in that seven year time,they get certainty regarding what we know we are doing versus an unknown construction price; and they also get the commitment of the City of Spokane to be a partner in a system; he said their citizenry makes up about 206,000; and what's driving his decision is he wants that certainty as early as possible on this fundamental building block in the solid waste system. Mayor Towey asked on a scale of one to ten, how important is it to the County to own that transfer station. Commissioner Mielke said the notion that there is some certainty beyond the short term periods and that it's part of the system,otherwise they'd be right back where we are today; said if something happened in the future that would cause Spokane Valley to break away,that creates a huge amount of uncertainty; said what elected leaders do for their citizens is their call as he is a firm believer in driving the decision to the local level; said he also has some concern philosophically about Spokane Valley's ability to make decisions outside their borders. Mayor Towey responded that if we called it a regional system, those problems could be solved by interlocals; to which Commissioner Mielke said yes, if we all agree; adding if you were to try to sign away powers of a future legislature, the Courts have in the past thrown that out; said if Spokane Valley has powers of regulations and taxation, to sign it away would be to tie the hands of future legislators that may decide to impose a utility tax for roads or enhance law enforcement; and said the courts have preserved the right to not impair a future legislature. Councilmember Wick said that just as the City of Spokane has a commitment, we too are saying we are committed to not having a utility tax; that there is no guarantee of how many different positions could come back in the future; that the Board is going on Spokane's commitment, while we are just as committed not to impose a utility tax on other jurisdictions that want to be a partner today, and Mayor Towey agreed that as elected officials, the worst thing would be to have another jurisdiction tax your citizens. Commissioner Mielke said that the slight difference is, the Board has the ability to tax the entire county and can't blame another set of elected officials, but only have ourselves to be held accountable. Commission Chair 0'Quinn stated that there are nine jurisdictions within her district and she hears from them all, and feels it is important to come together for an agreement and look at the future; that each jurisdiction has the ability to "opt into" the County's plan; regional assets should be a benefit for all citizens; she said we don't know what will happen on the West Plains;that the Board doesn't want to own the WTE plant but at some point, that regional asset will come to the end of its life; that no one wants to commit to twenty years, whereas the seven to ten year period will meet initial local needs and still allow for long term planning; said she sees the seven to ten years as a strategic plan to move forward;that she'll look at this issue in terms of what is best for all citizens of Spokane County; and said she appreciates today's discussions, input and feedback; that she's comfortable with the seven years, but it doesn't mean another hybrid option couldn't come up. Councilmember Grafos suggested that if Spokane Valley owns the Spokane Valley Transfer Station with the City of Spokane as a vendor,they'd use their transfer station for flow and probably would be a reason to have a West Plains transfer station. Chair O'Quinn said she is not necessarily advocating for a West Plains transfer station; that if the City of Spokane is part of the regional system, they'd continue to service the West Plans; that if Spokane Valley wants ownership and Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT to be at the table there is no reason why they can't be at the table even if they are not an owner; said she sees no reason why we can't have a regional advisory group to allow for those involved to have input. Commissioner French said he has seen this issue from all sides; that in February 2011 they stated they wanted to treat waste differently and create an alliance where everyone had a seat at the table; at the end they heard back that they want the County to be in control; and if people don't like what we're doing the citizens can remove them from office; adding that he can't control decisions in other jurisdictions, so they backed away from the alliance; said the City uses the WTE plant as a way to dispose of waste and it is an economic driver and could be an engine for economic activity on the West Plains; that it has been designated as a renewable energy source and they got tax breaks, even though that was eventually taken away; said the challenge is the limited life expectancy without upkeep and what does the County or City do when the WTE plant is dead,they'd have to go long-haul and said it is not a matter of if but when; said he feels ultimately the entire region will be looking at long haul. Commissioner French said this has been a good discussion and Mr. Koudelka's report has been enlightening; said he hasn't had this conversation with Spokane City but feels it is a conversation worth having, and to determine if the City would be willing to allow the West Plains customer to continue to deliver waste to the WTE plant or add a compactor to that and make it a true transfer station and still meet the needs of all the customers in the West Plains; said he appreciates their willingness to consider a phased out conversion of the WTE Plant instead of a seven year or nothing idea; said they don't need everything committed to today but need some certainty for the next three to four years. Additionally, Mr. French explained that when the consultant gave the report,they were told the mean figures were historically high and not a true projection of actual costs, so likely there will be opportunities for savings; he spoke of rail expansion opportunity and of the opportunity for economic growth in the West Plains as there is currently none; and said the City of Spokane is willing to consider that an early buyout provides opportunity to mature and perfect the costs and move forward without damaging neighbors. Regarding owning the Valley transfer station, Commissioner French said he understands the arguments to have that under Spokane Valley control and that he was surprised at the alliance meeting to hear Spokane Valley wanted the County to own the facility. Concerning the issue of taxation and the letter to the editor this morning about Commissioner French's statement to the media about taxing the garbage, he said that was not what he told the reporter; that he told the reporter Spokane Valley wanted to preserve that option. Commissioner French also noted that he feels the ability to tax is not contingent upon ownership as with his conversations with Attorney DeJulio; said it would be similar to taxing water where you are not taxing the water but the water in the pipes; so it would not be taxing the garbage but the ability to tax would not be not hampered by ownership; said we can find a way to provide the ability to maintain self-determination for Spokane Valley but the Board has to protect those elsewhere as well; and said he feels reasonable minds can find a solution. Commissioner Mielke said as they move to a decision, top consideration is the transfer station; said the other thing is that most citizens elected them to take care of all the details; in making this transposition to the current twenty-year plan, the Board has the responsibility to maintain some level of certainty and smooth transition with as little disruption in citizens' lives as possible; and will also consider this issue from a financial certainty as well as delegation of service certainty. Mayor Towey said he agrees today's discussion has been good and that he understands the County wants certainty, as does the City of Spokane and Spokane Valley; and the only way to get that is to work together to try to eliminate obstacles. Commissioner French suggested having Attorney DiJulio and the Spokane Valley attorneys get together to see if they can come to some understanding about what's legal regarding the utility tax; and said he feels it is critical to Spokane Valley and the Board in making a decision; and Mayor Towey agreed that the results of the meeting among the attorneys could determine Spokane Valley's decision on how to move forward. Councilmember Wick added that the best thing is to acquire the transfer station before the City of Spokane changes their mind; that concerning the regional Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT system, Spokane Valley did not come up with the idea of using the City of Spokane as a vendor, as we got an e-mail from them stating they preferred that option. Commissioner Mielke said in order to give private citizens and business owners an opportunity to give their opinions, the County has scheduled a hearing for October; and he agreed that the common objective is to provide the best, most convenient service at the lowest cost for the constituents; to have a predicable cost efficient system; and the issue is how to secure the transfer station at the lowest cost as soon as possible but still give opportunities for other options; he said option 2 is a seven-year commitment; that the City of Spokane expressed an openness and willingness that they'd entertain an early buyout option; he said the Board will prepare for the October hearing and look at the list of options to help reach the objectives; he also stated the Board had previously made a commitment to Spokane City about making a decision by the end of September, but the Board has moved that to about ten days later. City Manager Jackson said he appreciates what Commissioner French said and said our decision does not hinge on a utility tax,but ownership is about all the other reasons previously discussed; and said he has no objection to the attorneys discussing the tax, but said that is not foremost on our minds. Councilmember Grafos agreed and said the discussion has never been about a utility tax,but to work together to control the costs. Commissioner Mielke thanked Spokane Valley for hosting the meeting today and for this opportunity for open dialogue. Chair 0'Quinn asked if the Board chooses to own all the transfer stations, how will Spokane Valley more forward, and Mayor Towey replied that if that occurs, this Council would have to evaluate that and see how it fits in the regional concept of what Spokane Valley envisions. Mayor Towey also thanked everyone for coming and said he too feels it was a very productive exchange of information, and to keep in mind that any decision would impact all citizens for a long time. Commissioner French said he will get clarification from the City of Spokane as reinforced by Mr. Koudelka's figures; and said between now and a final decision, there will be a lot of information gathering, and he will be happy to share; said he also feels today was very helpful and informative, and the Board will make the decision when everyone is fully informed. Mayor Towey adjourned the meeting at 1:42 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Friday, September 6,2013, 5:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember(arrived 5:03 p.m.) EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)and RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Woodard. It was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Woodard. I t was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to discuss potential acquisition of real estate and potential litigation, and that no action is anticipated thereafter upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at approximately 5:02 p.m. At 6:00 p.m., City Attorney Driskell announced in Council chambers that the meeting has been extended to 6:20 p.m.; and at 6:20 p.m., City Attorney Driskell announced that the meeting has been extended to 6:45 p.m. Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session at 6:38 p.m., and it was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Minutes:09-05-2013 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Friday, September 6,2013 10:00 a.m.—12:30 a.m. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center,Conference Facility 404 N Havana Street, Spokane Valley,Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Staff Mayor Tom Towey Mike Jackson, City Manager Councilmember Chuck Hafner Cary Driskell, City Attorney Councilmember Rod Higgins Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Councilmember Arne Woodard Councilmember Ben Wick Absent Councilmembers: Deputy Mayor Schimmels Councilmember Dean Grafos Others in Attendance: Various elected officials and staff members 1.Welcome &Review of Meeting Agenda—Spokane Co. Commissioner Shelly O'Quinn Commission Chair O'Quinn welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave those in attendance the opportunity for self-introductions. 2. Relationship between Fairchild AFB and Spokane Regional Governments — 92nd ARW Commander Col.Brian Newberry Colonel Newberry explained that there is a strong relationship with Fairchild AFB and the community, and that his job over the next year is to work to deepen the relationship between Fairchild AFB and Spokane Regional Governments. Via his PowerPoint presentation,he discussed such issues as sequester, Shell 77 accident investigation, Fairchild 2020 which includes working with Spokane County for a possible small arms range; and he mentioned their motto of"Two Fold Security"which includes the 92nd Airborne survival teams. 3. Public Facilities District(PFD)Update—Mike McDowell, Spokane PFD Board Member Mr. McDowell said they have chosen the design-build team to add 100,000 square feet to the exhibit hall in the Spokane Convention Center and that the establishment Shenanigans is now completely gone; he said 90% of their Shoreline Master Plan and Centennial Plan approval process is complete;mentioned the upcoming new Walt Worthy hotel with 719 rooms and 900+ parking on the lot near the Convention Center,with an estimated completion date of spring 2015; and said with the completion of that hotel they anticipate eight to ten more major conventions than normal. 4. Transportation Update—Wayne Brokaw,Executive Director,Inland Northwest AGC Mr.Brokaw mentioned the receipt of two TIGER fund grants;mentioned our regional projects separate us from those in western Washington as ours create lasting jobs in manufacturing,trade,tourism, and are all key to the state's economic growth;he mentioned the "Informational Face Sheet"which discusses the gas tax,the North Spokane Corridor mega project,which has not been funded for completion in spite of being over 50% complete; and other regional economic development projects such as Bridging the Valley, that Regional Solid Waste Meeting 09-06-2013 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT will provide an economic return to the State. He said that October 2nd GSI will have its first open forum and they want to deliver a message to the legislators as they travel around the state,that we are the part of Washington that is growing jobs. 5. Economic Growth in Spokane—Rich Hadley,Greater Spokane Incorporated President& CEO Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Hadley explained that we are a substantial region and have an important partnership in the region; mentioned our cost of living is 6% lower than the national average; said the median home price is $171,300; we have the 6th best commute time; are the 6th lowest for natural disasters,and we rank 149 out of 392 for metro areas for graduating over 70,000 students studying within a 75 mile radius; said we have a diverse economy and he listed some of the top private employers; said our region is a health care and research hub with the largest concentration of medical services between Seattle, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and Calgary, Canada. In connection with heath issues, Mr. Hadley mentioned the various medical school facilities for nursing, pharmacy and other health care areas, and estimated by 2030 the region would employ about 9,000. He mentioned aerospace companies in the West Plains area; said he sees huge opportunities for our area to be a freight corridor from Canada to Mexico; and by spring they expect to have more information on the idea of Port Districts. 6.Fairchild AFB—Accident Potential Zone (APZ)Update—Spokane County Commissioner Al French Commissioner French talked about the "Accident Potential Zone" and encroachment issues concerning Fairchild Air Force Base; said the encroachment is expected to be used as a reason to recommend closure of the Base and the area of concern is about a ten-block section of mobile home parks and apartments in Airway Heights; said several hundred people live in that identified APZ or crash zone. Commissioner French said they are moving forward for a bond measure in November; and he showed a map of the overlay areas; said the land use is mostly light industrial. Commissioner French said the idea is to purchase mobile homes parks and individually owned mobile homes as that is a residential zone; said they will acquire these properties subject to the successful bond issue in November with the goal to retire the bond in nine or less years; said they are working with property owners of facilities to begin the purchase; said that the estimated cost to purchase is $6.4 million, then added to that is demolition costs, relocation costs, miscellaneous cost and a contingency for a total of$18.1 million. Commissioner French said to repay the debt would require a levy resulting in an estimated cost to the home owner of about $6.31; said they would put deed restrictions on the land to run with the land in perpetuity; said they would have to give twelve month's notice to purchase and would need to work with each resident; and said he will soon be asking for support of the initiative. 7. LEAN Concepts in Spokane County—John Dickson, Spokane Co. Chief Operations Officer Mr. Dickson said he looks at government systems which includes politics, policy, performance, and people; said the performance part has lots of twists and restrictions with the idea to streamline the operations concerning how quickly they do what citizens need, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the non-value wait activities; said the issue is there is not enough focus on the work time and the goal is improvement of the process, to actually slow down the wait activities; he discussed the lean leadership course and gave as an example the goal to have a more efficient criminal justice system and to reduce recidivism; and he again stressed the real process problems; and in summary said government leaders should work even closer together and leverage all the resources and talents available to increase the capacity to provide great services. 8. Regional Animal Control for Small Cities—County Commissioner Todd Mielke and SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill Commissioner Mielke and Ms. Hill gave a brief update on Regional Animal Control; said they are on target to open the new shelter spring 2014; mentioned some of the regional benefits such as all strays and lost animals housed at one location; and to have a full service animal shelter; said some of the services they provide include enforcing animal laws regarding nuisance complaints; helping injured and sick Regional Solid Waste Meeting 09-06-2013 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT animals, and investigating animal cruelty; and mentioned the assistance of law enforcement in emergency calls. 9. Roundtable Discussion of Topics of Regional Importance—Spokane Commissioner Shelly 0'Quinn Some of the topics briefly discussed included the Sullivan Road Bridge and funding, the Bigelow Gulch Project and the rationale for moving traffic through the north Spokane corridor, and federal regulations and the documenting process as a function of funding; that the Veterans' Court is alive and well and is just one of the therapeutic courts that has substantially reduced recidivism; and there was very brief mention of the solid waste issue meeting with all the jurisdictions, and that the topic will continue to be discussed. Commission Chair O'Quinn adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Regional Solid Waste Meeting 09-06-2013 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 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: Second Reading - Proposed Ordinance 13-013 granting franchise to Avista Utilities (Avista) for installation, operation, and maintenance of their natural gas facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report August 27, 2013; first reading September 3, 2013. BACKGROUND: The City inherited a franchise from Spokane County upon incorporation wherein the County granted Washington Water Power (now Avista) a 25 year franchise to locate, operate and maintain their natural gas distribution facilities. The new proposed franchise with Avista would be for 25 years, and would be in effect throughout the City. OPTIONS: (1) Approve Ordinance 13-013; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve Ordinance 13-013 granting Avista Utilities a natural gas franchise. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 13-013 - natural gas franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,GRANTING TO AVISTA CORPORATION A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN NATURAL GAS 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: "Avista" means Avista Corporation, dba Avista Utilities, a Washington corporation, and its respective successors and assigns, agents and contractors. "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "Commission" means the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission or such successor regulatory agency having jurisdiction over investor-owned public utilities in the State of Washington. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 1 of 13 DRAFT "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. "facilities"means,collectively, any and all gas transmission, and distribution systems and appurtenances owned by Avista,now and in the future in the franchise area,including but not limited to, gas plants, gas pipes, pipelines, mains, laterals, conduits, regulators, valves, meters, meter-reading devices, communication and control systems and other equipment, appliances, fixtures, attachments, appurtenances and other items necessary, convenient,or in any way appertaining to any and all of the foregoing for the purposes of transmission,distribution, and sale of gas. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "gas"means natural, manufactured and/or mixed gases. "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. "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. "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. "tariff' means the rate schedules, rules, and regulations relating to utility service, filed with and approved by the Commission during the term of this Franchise. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), hereby grants unto Avista (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 25 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain,replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place gas 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"). The parties may renew this franchise for an additional 25 years by mutual written agreement, which may be exercised at any time within the final year of the initial franchise term. Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 2 of 13 DRAFT 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. 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. Section 5. 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 6. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. Avista shall have the discretion to determine the placement of its Facilities as may be necessary to provide safe and reliable Gas service within the Franchise Area, subject to the following non-interference requirements. 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. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the 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 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 7. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations,laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its facilities. 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 facilities or safety thereof. Joint users Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 3 of 13 DRAFT will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 8. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 9. Tree Trimming. The Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning,trimming and removal for access to Grantee's facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code, provided however,that Grantee shall consult with and get approval from the City prior to the removal of any tree, which will not be unreasonably withheld. All such pruning, trimming and removal shall be done by Grantee or its authorized contractors at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 10. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise,designate one or more responsible people and an emergency contact, along with the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to respond in a timely manner with action to aid in the protection the health and safety of the public. In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 11. 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 12. Safety. All of Grantee's 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 facilities. Section 13. Movement of Grantee's 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 at least 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 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 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 facilities. Section 14. Acquiring New Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon Grantee's notice of any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such facilities in the rights-of-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all 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 15. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of 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, 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 Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 4 of 13 DRAFT 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 16. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's 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 facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 17. 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 18. Relocation of 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 facilities when so required by the City, 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 facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then-existing facilities,the City shall: a) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and b) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's facilities so that Grantee may relocate its facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specification, Grantee shall complete relocation of its facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project. Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its 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 facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 5 of 13 DRAFT 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 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 facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities,provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 19. Abandonment of Grantee's 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 and the location of the abandoned facility will impede the progress of such project; (b)the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health,safety,or welfare of the public; (c)the abandoned facility has collapsed,broken,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(c) above applies. When (b)or(c) 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. 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 20. 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 facilities placed in the rights-of- way. The route map shall identify facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict service lines to individual subscribers. The Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground 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. Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 6 of 13 DRAFT 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 facilities. Grantee shall field locate its 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 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 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 21. 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. The City is a party to the Inland Northwest Regional Pavement Cut Policy, and shall maintain a copy of the currently adopted Policy on its website or similar broad means of dissemination. Section 22. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the Public Works Director that extending the facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 23. 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 24. 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 Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 7 of 13 DRAFT the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law or the tariff. In the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise,the Municipal Code shall control. Section 25. 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 facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days notice as provided for in section 36. Section 26. 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 the City permitting grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; c) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right-of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise. 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 Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 8 of 13 DRAFT 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. 4. In the event any matter(for which the City intends to assert its rights under this Section) is presented to or filed with the City, the City shall promptly notify Grantee thereof and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such matter as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. In the event any suit or action is commenced against the City based upon any such matter, the City shall likewise promptly notify Grantee thereof, and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such suit or action, or defend the same at its sole cost and expense, by attorneys of its own election, as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. Failure of the City to give notice as required herein shall not be a defense except and to the extent that Grantee demonstrates actual prejudice therefrom. 5. In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action,including all reasonable expert witness fees,reasonable attorneys' fees,the reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this subsection. 6. 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. 7. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its 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 the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits,brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the 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 27. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance, or provide self-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. Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 9 of 13 DRAFT 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 a named as an insured under the Applicant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and$2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations;broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: 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. 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 28. 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 Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 10 of 13 DRAFT 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 29. 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 30. 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 31. 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 32. 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 33. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 34. 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 this Ordinance 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 35. 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 Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 11 of 13 DRAFT effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 36. 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, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: Avista Corporation Attn: Director of Operations 1411 East Mission Ave.MSC-46 Spokane,WA 99202 Phone: (509)495-4590 Section 37. 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 38. 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 39. 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 40. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of ,2013. Mayor,Thomas E.Towey ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 12 of 13 DRAFT Accepted by Avista Corporation: By: The Grantee, Avista Corporation, 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 13-013,Avista Natural Gas Franchise Page 13 of 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 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: Manufactured Home Park Owner Survey Results GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, RCW 59.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council discussed manufactured home park zoning regulations at the February 26, 2013 Council workshop. Staff presented a proposal to survey manufactured home park owners at the July 2, 2013 Council study session. BACKGROUND: Representatives from the Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHO) have requested the City Council to adopt restrictive manufactured home park zoning regulations that would provide some degree of protection to home owners should the land owner desire to convert the property underlying the manufactured homes to another use. Council discussed this issue at the February 26, 2013 workshop. At the workshop, staff provided an overview of zoning regulations adopted by the City of Tumwater that provide some protection to manufactured home owners. These regulations were challenged in court as being unconstitutional, but the court ruled in favor of the city, thus upholding the regulations. After review and discussion, City Council decided that they wanted to hear from manufactured home park property owners before proceeding with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. On July 2, 2013, staff presented Council an option to survey manufactured home park property owners in order to provide Council the desired information. In late July, surveys were mailed to thirty manufactured home parks located within Spokane Valley; only five were mailed back (see Attachment A). All expressed concerns about establishing zoning for manufactured home parks. Note that one survey and accompanying letter was received from a representative of Trailer Inns, a recreational vehicle park. Although Trailer Inns is not a manufactured home park, the owner letter expressed concerns about establishing manufactured home park zoning. Also attached is a letter from Verona Southern, owner of a 16 unit manufactured home park. Staff followed up with telephone calls to six of the larger manufactured home parks, including Arbor Grove, Birch Tree, Vista, Circle J, Appleway Park Estates (formerly Rose Haven) and Pinecroft. Out of the six contacted, five were not in favor of adopting zoning for manufactured home parks. One owner was not concerned as he had no intention of converting to another use. Staff also met with Robert Cochran, State President of the Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington, Inc., the organization that represents manufactured home park owners and the same organization that challenged Tumwater's manufactured home park zoning. Mr. Cochran provided staff with materials that support the position of manufactured home park owners (see Attachment B). Mr. Cochran provided a number of reasons why the City should not adopt such zoning, including the following points: - There are enough protections in current State law for residents of manufactured home parks. - The premise of manufactured home park zoning puts an undue burden on owners. - Restrictive zoning perpetuates the existence of substandard homes. - Restrictive zoning denies that there is a life span inherent in community design. - Restrictive zoning interferes with private property rights. The deadline to include the issue on the 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, if Council desires, is November 1, 2013. OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to place issue on 2014 Comprehensive Plan docket. 2. Do nothing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A— Returned surveys and letters Attachment B — Information provided by Robert Cochran sijji an Valley DEPARTMENT OF cOMMLJNIrY DEVELOPMENT 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 9.921.1000 ♦ Fax; 509,921.1008 • cis hails 5pokanevalley.org July 17,2013 Dear SirfVladam, The City of Spokane Valley has received multiple requests from the Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHD) to establish land use polices and zoning that create some protection from manufactured home parks being sold and converted to other uses. The intent would be to create a Manufactured Home Park overlay zone where the predominant permitted use would be manufactured home parks. A least a portion of AMHO's request is based on recent legislation passed in the City of Tumwater. We have enclosed Tumwater°s recent changes should you desire to review them. As a citizen and property owner, we hope that you are aware that the City respects the rights and opinions of everyone in our community. In order to fully understand all sides of this issue, the City would like input from manufactured home park owners prior to discussing or considering any changes. Please complete the questionnaire and return in the prepaid envelope. If you prefer, you may scan and email the survey to skiihta spokanevaliey, Please note that the questionnaire is voluntary and you arc under no obligation to reply. If you prefer to learn more prior to responding, or if you would like to voice your opinion in another manner, please contact Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager at 509-720-5334. Sincerely, Scott Kuhta,MCP Manufactured Home Park Survey AUG 9 SPOKANE VALLEY 'JA M C "y 1 The City of Spokane Valley has been asked to consider adopting policies and regulations that would limit the use of property being used as manufactured home parks, similar to zoning rules adopted by the City of Tumwater. In general, the regulations restrict the use of land to manufactured home parks, manufactured homes and conventional homes on individual lots and recreational uses, 1. What specific concerns do you have about the City establishing regulations that would place some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks? rke ins ,s+ Ltse- ( 'i l-,k t}c t-y ( 5 16_1 if,A e'l So:vci 0,1,N j f 54 r 4 o C 2. What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured home parks would provide? SLA. °-L ` Pec C C 3 Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use? If so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your property? p Tc.1 `e a, \idol my it I n ih l - I -tee . e l y h s 15 c, { •i +Le e her l L '_ to L. 01 1 o C IAA eke- F 4. Is there anything else you would like to communicate to the Spokane Valley City Council? C' vl c- Aiky P s 1 5 I >f f lka.rkc' Volk , C (AAA v‘f e C l 5. v'1, _D 4 ah S^ Wes.t ( C le c rti -i)-VO (\ . ,Assivte c'i , e vcai j , 44:25,j, Let k eN t c+ c � - J J e yvt.Floy cs t T 0.1 r s 0.1 k r- {>~ Loy 5 1-1-te VeA44e # C4 y I t 43 alNj ( #er• park P i" _ 5 S y yLte 9,, 5 1 toe l h► 1 re_ c, (o \if) also F\r v%4 l i' Lea i i 5 i `L-P SPok Pj C. VIA VLF\ to eS4 1r\ ff 5+ s \ eke parks L (,-- 6c rm e -to sell PrePerty to eL Co fJ ef,e eV .: a , ma e Osi- co go-1.-e t-oei no,"-- j yr c rctS o 1 vcdr c 5 1 ' eS- 1- no cl6e. d- crack 1, TLYIkk or tL rn v . rokci .. ; Vote/ � -c ate) 'hi i hc:e r cs'1 1 ]ick k S TO yhA L ns-1 +o 1t1 - 4 �2hf 015,°2F11:; 11; 37 5095336757 THE KITCHEN PLACE PAGE 101/01 I�■ter ■ " RECEIVED ray Manufactured Home Park SurveyAuG 2013 SPOKANE VALLEY The City of Spokane Valley has been asked to consider moo rvairre 1n+ regulations that would limit the use of property being used as manufactured home parks, similar to zoning rules adopted by the City of Tumvuatcr. In general, the regulations restrict the use of land to manufactured home parks, manufactured homes and conventional homes on individual lots and recreational uses. 1. What specific concerns do you have about the City establishing regulations that would puce some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks?. T. What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured home parks would provide? 3. Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use? If so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your properly? Xr,. A5 7 Len" c i'rv, - y.A 1 co ; TV.0 Lv •tif N -F RC-14 {.Jnckk-5 e Tit 1.)PENT- cap ",r� ' tY ? S 6,L C... 4 Is there anything else you would like to communicate to the Spokane Valley City Council? •k�1 z, ao i' 5/fcu e 4, ?(A4-446. { L . •�e-- 5 P 2aCr ksS kaiA LLE` - PiAD `C1 e--5. F ceivE Manufactured Home Park Survey /um t zr pdi Srd LI EV fir oevEinrmL The City of Spokane Valley has been asked to consider adopting policies and regulations that would limit the use of property being used as manufactured home parks, similar to zoning rules adopted by the City of Tumwater. In general, the regulations restrict the use of land to manufactured home parks, manufactured homes and conventional homes on individual lots and recreational uses. 1. What specific concerns do you have about the City establishing regulations that would place some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks? We plan to keep our manufactured housing community as a mobile home park. The problem is that it is difficult to find singlewide mobile homes to replace homes that are 40-50 years old. The implication of this is that don't know what the future holds and if land is zoned to only use as mobile home park it restricts future use such as multifamily use. 2. What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured home parks would provide? I know it protects the current homeowners but again if a park owner cannot attract new homes because of non-availability then it is likely that spaces will be empty and no longer feasible to keep as a mobile home park and if owner cannot sell land for other uses then city will have parks that are partially filled but cannot be maintained. Owners will have to walk away from their parks as they cannot meet tax and mortgage obligations. Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use? If so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your properly? No want to keep as manufactured home community 4. Is there anything else you would like to communicate to the Spokane Valley City Council? We appreciated the concerns of home owners but a zoning restriction on the properties could create empty parks for reasons stated above. The manufactured housing business has changed dramatically in past few years. Please don't limit the use of land if it becomes critical to consider other options sometime in the future. Manufactured Home Park Survey The City of Spokane Valley has been asked to consider adopting policies and regulations that would limit the use of property being used as manufactured home parks, similar to zoning rules adopted by the City of Tumwater. In general, the regulations restrict the use of land to manufactured home parks, manufactured homes and conventional homes on individual lots and recreational uses. 1. What specific concerns do you have about the City establishing regulations that would place some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks? ;`. Nt.) 1-0 c e e l -s v . 2. What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured home parks would provide? , ' ti , ,4 0`I 1(1 i tip 3. Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use? If so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your property? ", r 1- 0 4. Is there anything else you would like to communicate to the Spokane Valley City Council? N.J J Manufactured Home Park Survey The City of Spokane Valley has been asked to consider adopting policies and regulations that would limit the use of property being used as manufactured home parks, similar to zoning rules adopted by the City of Tumwater. In general, the regulations restrict the use of land to manufactured home parks, manufactured homes and conventional homes on individual lots and recreational uses. 1. What specific concerns do you have about the City establishing regulations that would place some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks? i 2. What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured home parks would provide? Pt- 3. Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use? If so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your property? 4. Is there anything else you would like to communicate to the Spokane Valley City Council? i� 1 1 �±�� i'. � J +1jt"'P I14 , W5' r it..4i, A Luxury Concept in Recreational Vehicle Parks + T' _ 1 I is l 0 N. 1st Street, Suite 1 Yakima.Washington? 98941 Phone 509-24S-1142 August 13, 2013 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E, Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 RE: Zoning change 1 Dear Mr Kuhta, Trailer Inns of Spokane is not an Manufactured Home Park, but a RV park. Trailer Inns Inc opinion is that there should be no protection or zoning change put in place to stop a land owner from changing the use of the their land, There are adequate state laws on the books now as to protect Manufactured Home parks. Quite frankly lots of the older Manufactured Home Parks have very old and antiquated homes in them that create multiple hazards and fire dangers. Some homes are way past their intended time of use and really need to be updated. There are much better and cheaper ways to provide and manage affordable single family and i senior housing than keeping old parks running way past their prime . r .ely, t .• / .." i Don Kramer Trailer Inns. Inc. I .t TO THE MAYOR&COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY RE: CONSIDERATION OF NEW PERMANENT ZONING LAW FOR MANUFACTURE HOME PADS August 30, 2013. The current Manufactured Home Park rules and regulations are working well.They allow for change of land use and protect the renters. They provide housing for high, medium,and low income groups_ The City of SpokarneValley is a new and developing area. Future growth&development depends on developing land to the highest and best use to ensure a tax base that keeps up with the future need of expansion in the City. The purposed zoning request you are asked to consider does not provide for this. 1 Under current rules aIvil P owner must give renters a 2-3 year notice and pay into a fund to assist with the renters'relocation! This provides for a smother relocation to enable future change of land use. The document you are considering severely restricts a NIHP from any land use change and condemns the MFIP to being a slum and blighted area in which new homes and"middle income" tenants will not choose to reside;making the City of Spokane Valley, an undesirable place for growth and development. My gravest concern with the MHP Zoning proposal being considered is it seems to ask a specific group of private citizens(MTIP owners)to provide a service that be]ongs to the government(law income housing). Older mobile homes, many of which are in the parks in the Valley,tend to deteriorate and lose value,losing their appeal to renters and causing the land to lase value as a manufactured home park. Under current zoning this land could be rezoned to a better use. The current Zoning for MI-IP is working well. Let us put our energies into attracting new industry,business,and keeping our infrastructure in repair to provide an attractive city that people will want to live in. Verona Southern owner ofa small 16 parcel park and resident of tiro City of Spokane Valley �' 1_ .„5742,-„2.v. :.,e__e/c_ii , � � A , N L sa _ %, 2(lfl r Vetnna Southern ¢ P0 BOX 205 City of V Spokane allff ey ° GreenocresWA99a16-0205 Dear Mayor and Council Members of the City of Spokane Valley RE: Response to consideration of limiting use of manufactured home parks. The current zoning regulations are adequate to protect the mobile home tenants and property owners. (f the City feels that additional support is needed for some tenants,then the City or State should fund a support system by using property taxes from all land owners. It isn't fair to single out only manufactured Bone property owner's to support the full financial burden of disadvantaged class. Please also note that freezing property values, which would flapped,will also limit the City from increasing the value of the property at a future date. There by increasing the tax burden on the tax payers. Thank you, Spokane Valley property owner and relative of a small manufactured park owner RECEIVED SE D ,_ goo City of Spokane Valley .i Tom Towey 06-Sep-2D13 Spokane Valley City Council 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Mr. Towey and City of Spokane Valley Council: I am a longtime Valley resident currently working for the Department of Defense. I have plans to return with my family to the City of Spokane Valley, as I dearly love the community, land, and people of Spokane. No other region can compare. I thank you all for your service to the City of Spokane Valley, and to the hard work of running a municipality. I also stand to inherit a small moblie home park which my grandparents developed In the 1970's as residential building lots some years ago. This small park and two or three duplexes which she built will help in my retirement. However, I am familiar with the Ordinances in place by the City of Tumwater regarding manufactured housing, and I am concerned to hear that the City Council is considering such ordinances for the City of Spokane Valley. The following is provided in response to your Manufactured Home Park Survey questions. 1.) What specific concerns to you have about the City establishing regulations that would place some land use restrictions on manufactured home parks? Ordinance allowing mixed use developments are functional and help prevent sprawl and are a wise use of land planning. However, the Turnwater Ordinances effectively prohibit mixed use mandate a single home environment, and "grandfather" in existing mobile homes in such a manner which effectively prohibits the conversion of some areas into equally necessary higher density housing or mixed income development. Primarily I believe that such zoning practices effectively promote the inability for my property to be used in the most economical or sustainable manner. Higher density housing is more sustainable and less conducive to sprawl. Locking in a land use practice to manufactured homes or single family homes prohibits the flexibility to offer creative solutions to the other aspects of housing needs in our community. I believe that sut;h ordinances create a "last to the trough" penalty on property owners: First,the property owners who have maintained their parks are now to be saddled with limited flexibility in future park use. Second, property owners who wish to be the first in an area to convert their land to a different use for business strategy or entrepreneurial reasons) will not oe able to meet the burden of showing the economic necessltytheTurrwater Ordinances require. instead, by application, property owners must adhere to the limited options available under the more restrictive Tumwater Ordinances (Le.single family homes or mobile homes)or wait until development encroaches around the park such that the park's continued existence is now an economic burden. This unfairly restricts the property owner's choice in land use. l believe that Tumwater generally faces different economic, municipal, land, and population issues than the City of Spokane or the City of Spokane Valley. While the creation of a zoned area for FUTURE mobile hone parks may be appropriate, grandfatherin.g existing parks into the restrictive use provisions are drastic measures which do not need to be employed in the City of Spokane Valley to meet or ensure such housing exists in the future. Property prices in Tumwater are not comparable to those of Spokane Valley, nor are the minimal number of mobile home parks which existed in Tumwater comparable to the numerous options which exist in the valley and beyond. It appears that a double standard is being applied to park owners, while owners of other housing facilities enjoy either direct or indirect subsidies or programs from federal,state and local governments for providing housing options. In a roundabout way these subsidies ensure that such property owners will not convert to other uses, and in a direct way these subsidies ensures that the governmental function of providing housing options are met. Mobile home park owners do not have such a benefit or assurance, and yet mobile home park owners will be saddled with the mandate to remain as they are to fulfill an essentially governmental function: housing. Such ordinances seek to ensure the existence of a particular type of housing(mobile parks), which in effect creates a class of people which the government seeks to house, Park owners, however,will not erjoy subsides as they maintain these parks. Instead, they are rewarded with a restriction on future land use Lastly, I believe that the restrictive nature of such ordinances would seta dangerous precedent in zoning practices and will serve to deter others from creating mobile home parks. in ae effort to ensure mobile home parks exist, such ordinances would be short cited in the City of Spokane Valley, 2.) What specific benefits do you believe zoning for manufactured horse parks would provide? Zoning in geoeral provides important benefits to society, including reducing urban sprawl and ensuring the safety of our living and working environments, ?oning for small lots, or higher density lots, of which manufactured horne parks could be included, would similarly meet sustainable land use goals. Zoning for mixed use communities, including community services within housing areas, is also a positive step toward achieving sustainable land use goals and stemming urban sprawl. Such zoning would also allow transit to more adequately and economically serve a variety of people. However, these benefits can be achieved without the exclusive identification of a zone for mobile home parks and single family homes, or levying the burden of a fixed use on existing parks. zoning which is well thought out should allow manufactured home parks to qualify as a part of a variety of mixed use housing, including higher density housing, and should identify core areas where such housing would best exist given the Valley's services and future plans for growth. Allowing mixed uses(not just manufactured homes}also allows for a variety of incomes to exist in such areas rather than pockets of lower or higher incomes_ The intent behind zoning for manufactured home parks may be to stem the conversion of such parks to other housing or land uses, and thus prevent the demise of housing options for mobile home owners. In other words, the intent is to ensure that land exists on which a trailer home may he placed. question whether there is such a risk in Spokane Valley and surrounding unincorporated land? Such zoning crosses the line from the beneficial community organization which wiring provides to a method of creating a de facto housing authority in the Council. 3,) Do you have any plans to redevelop your manufactured home park to another use?if so, do you have a time frame to redevelop your property? While l do not anticipate these events occurring within the next 10 years, should I inherit the land an which my grandparent's small mobile home park now sits, I would of course evaluate the economic benefit of other uses. This would happen in a variety of ways: either by business opportunity or by park attrition, Should a business opportunity present itself which would allow me to be the first to offer a different service in the area, I would of course consider redevelopment. should a zoning law prevent me from such re-development until other land surrounding me has already proven the potential of such development I would be facing a missed business opportunity.1 Alternately, I would anticipate that as 1 I urge the council to consider this scenario and anticipate the undoubted legal action that is likely to ensue from land owners in similar situations. Thls scenario would bean os applied challenge to the zoning law,which was riot at issue in the Turnwater case, and which the court Itself would have rikely upheld as discussed below. land owner I will in the future face rising taxes on the park, rising costs for sewer and other amenities, and a rising cost of living in general. I would and could anticipate that eventually the need to raise the rental price on the tenants. I could anticipate that someday the cost to rent ratio would reach an amount where operation of such a park would result in a financial Toss. Specifically, I would not be able to charge the amount necessary to operate the park and retain tenants. Given the age of many of the homes, and smaller size and location of this park, it is foreseeable that this may happen sooner than later,and operation of the park would cease. Redevelopment would then be the likely recourse. 4.l Is there anything eke you would life to communicate to the Spokane Volley City Council? The Council may be familiar with the case L awe!Park Community, LLC V City of Turnwoter, 598 F.3d 11801 (20112), which upheld the City ofTumwater'sOrdinances regarding waning and manufactured home parks. While this case has likely been used by proponents of such restrictive zoning to assure the Council that such ordinances are within the authority of local zoning boards,the Council must take caution. The Court noted that if it had been presented with better facts and data with respect to the economic impact of the City's new zoning laws, the outcome might well have been different. Specifically,the 9° Circuit Court of Appeals did not blariketly affirm that such ordinances were clear of violating the takings clause of either the federal constitution or of Washington State's constitution, Rather,the Court found a lack of evidence pertaining to the concrete economic impact, and held that without such evidence a facial challenge to the ordinance was unpersuasive. The Council should be aware of several important points made by the Court in the case; First,the Court agreed that government generally cannot "'forc[ej some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'ed. at537, 125 S.Ct. 2074(quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364115,40, 49, 80 S.Ct, 1563, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (19610)). Importantly, the Court didfind that Tumwater's zoning ordinances were a takings violation in this regard. However, the court was persuaded by the remaining lack of evidence(see next point)to uphold the ordinances despite finding a takings had occurred. Second,the Court placed considerable importance on the fact that plaintiffs (park owners) brought a facial challenge to the ordinances ana did not provide evidence of any alleged economic harm. Had a particular plaintiff been able to show a significant diminution in property value then the weighing of the factors in the case may have been different.The court indicated that, "[a]t best, [pllaintirfs have presented information that reflects an economic loss of less than 15%" with respect to one of the three properties and "no effect"on the remaining two. In particular,the court was presented with three valuations of one park,which showed decreases of value as a result of the ordinances ranging from 11.19 to 13.4%.The other two parks showed no change in pre-ordinance and post-ordinance valuations. Given the Penn Central test's central focus upon the economic effects of the challenged regulation - the Ninth Circuit refers to the first two Penn Certtraf factors as the'primary"factors to consider-- it k little wonder that plaintiffs'takings case failed. There is no guarantee that a similar lack of harm would be presented should Spokane Valley Council pass ordinances, and certainly as applied challenges would be able to demonstrate econcrnic harm. Third,the Court's examples of a "reasonable" investment-backed expectation ignores the true ability of property owners to demonstrate this expectation, and is setting future City Councils which enact such ordinances up for a barrage of lawsuits. the Laurel Pork court noted a prior Ninth Circuit opinion, which held that"'(dlistinct investment-backed expectations' implies reasonable probability, like expecting rent to be paid, net starry eyed hope of winning the jackpot if the law changes!' (fd. at 20) Considering that prior to enacting the ordinances the law permitted conversions of the plaintiffs' properties to dense multi-unit development, the expectation that they could do so could hardly be characterized as a "jackpot' hoped for by a "starry-eyed' pla;ntifl.The court, however, sidestepped that point by noting how little economic effect the ordinances had upon plaintiffs' properties, This again goes not to the validity of the ordinances, but to the fact that these particular plaintiffs could not point to an actual monetary loss in their circumstances and were challenging the ordinances facially.This should alert the Spokane Valley Council to the very real possibility of numerous lawsuits from park owners challenging both racially and the specific application of such an ordinance to their property. Such challenges have a serious chance of prevailing—creating a waste of taxpayer monies by the Council's need to defend the ordinances. I thank you for your consideration In this matter, Chiara Bahia McGowan WHY A MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME? Advantages or a home that can be moved:one does not need give up a cherished home when changing location, it can go with its owner:one can trade-in and upgrade a home without changing one's location; one can have a comfortable home in a temporary location. Why locate in a mobile home park? One need not buy real estate,making the home more affordable. Many desire the secure,close-knit neighborhood parks can provide. What are the costs associated with relocating a mobile home? Preparation of the home, transport, set-up at new site,,re-installation of accessory structures.are costs to be considered. Moving a home is not done on a whim, but when needed,it is relatively affordable as they are designed to move. Twenty percent,or 115,of all USA mobile homes are relocated from their first homesite at least one time. Another 13%don't know of or did not report a.relocation. Survey:After moving into a MH, two-thirds reported reduced housing costs or about the same. Top choice of a MN was for financial reasons. income of MH owners; 40%earn less than$25,000; over that,23.5%earn under$40,000;over that 19% earn under$60,000;over that, 12.6%earn under $100,000;3.9%earn over$100,000. Median income of USA MH owner,$30,000. Income of MH dwellers: 75%have lobs,31.7% receive social security or railroad retirement, 12% receive interest or dividends on investments. A fifth receive public assistance of some kind.while 6.8% receive disability payments. A mobile home park is "any real property which is rented or held out for rent to others for the placement of two or more mobile homes, manufactured homes, or park models for the primary purpose of production of income, except where such real property is rented or held out for rent for seasonal recreational purpose only and is not intended for year-round occupancy."- Washineton RCW 59.20. 030 (10) FACTSHEET MAN U FACTU ICED HOUSING IN WASHINGTON GETTING THE CORRECT FACTS On many occasions there is a need to write a letter or make a call to answer something in the news or something that is being debated by our elected officials. In order to be confident in our statements, this reference sheet can be used to double-check basic facts of manufactured housing. Compiled May 2011 by Robert Cochran. property manager of a.park in Spokane that is a member of Ml-ICW. Based on US census and AI IS data. (Unless otherwise cited.) A mobile home is a moveable dwelling. 8 feet or more wide and 40 feet or more long,designed to be towed on its own chassis,with transportation gear integral to the unit when it leaves the factory,and without need of permanent foundation. - US Census definition. Manufactured or mobile,the two terms are interchangeable as they refer to the same concept of home construction for a moveable dwelling. The median year of construction of all owner- occupied manufactured homes in USA is 1991. Manufactured homes sold in 2009 in USA= 52.500: in the west=7.300. West avg.=$81,700. Manufactured homes sold in 1999 in USA= 338,300;in the west=43,500.West avg.= $49,600. Eighty-seven percent of mobile homes are anchored by tie-downs and are supported on blocks or concrete pads. Only 18% have permanent masonry foundations. The largest number of'mobile homes are located on lots of 1 to 5 acres in size. The next highest number are located on less than 1/8 acre lots. The majority of mobile homes are sized from 750 to 9,500 square feet.Single-wide homes are 61% of the total,double-wides are 37%. Survey;recent MH buyers,40%are first-time home buyers, 58%had owned a home before. Seasonal-use MH's are 8.3%of total in USA. You may visit www_mhrw_r,rg nr rnntart MHC-W here: MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES OF WASHINGTON 509 12TH AVE.SE, SUITE 7 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 (360) 753 8730/(800) 345 5608 FACTSHEET MAN U FACTU ICED HOUSING IN WASHINGTON GETTING THE CORRECT FACTS On many occasions there is a need to write a letter or make a call to answer something in the news or something that is being debated by our elected officials. In order to be confident in our statements, this reference sheet can be used to double-check basic facts of manufactured housing. Compiled May 2011 by Robert Cochran. property manager of a.park in Spokane that is a member of Ml-ICW. Based on US census and AI IS data. (Unless otherwise cited.) H Washington State Numbers: 2010 The total number of manufactured homes in Washington is estimated 245,000; of those, 242,800 are occupied (lived in). 9% of all Washingtonians reside in manufactured homes, est. 609,430 people out of 6,724,540 state population. 74.5% of WA mobile homes, 182,600, are located on private parcels. 25.5% of WA mobile homes, 62,400, are located in mobile home communities. 2.3% of Washington citizens reside in mobile home communities, numbering 156,624 people. (@ 2.51 people per WA mobile home- US Census) There are about 1,410 mobile home communities licensed with 62,400 active home spaces... WA Dept. of Licensing, Oct. 2010. Space vacancy rates are low. 30% of the 1,410 communities are members of Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington (MHCW). This membership represents 45% of all home spaces available in Washington's mobile home communities. Tenant groups Mobile Home Owners of America and Association of Manufactured Home Owners (both of WA) together have about 2,200 member home owners. The two represent 3.5% of occupied-home tenants in land-leased communities. 56% of MH's relocate from communities that close in Washington. (WA DoC) Numbers rounded,small +-errors may exist. ss otherwise cited,) C C L 0 C) 0 a U U tr C C C, a Basic Facts & Statistics USA Occupancy of all MH's (8,769,000 total) Owner-Occupied Rented VacantlOther Survey: Previous Home Before Choosing a MH ■ 90.0 67.5 45.0 22.5 • From house From apartment • From MH Other HOME OWNERSHIP RATES BY AGE Ln 0) 'Et (3) 'I' 01 .i 07 5t 0) Lr) N N D7 n] st u3 LC) LO LO r- V Q ❑ Ii n ❑ LC] to ❑ A N t c*) 71' d" U in LLD LO t- ■ NUMBER OF PERSONS PER MH. USA 3,000,000 2.2 50.000 1 ,500,000 7 50,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ • NATIONAL NUMBERS 2010 ALL HOUSING IN USA: HUD AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY 2009 AND US CENSUS REPORTS US Census data reports there are 17,068,000 people living in 6,839,000 manufactured homes. Of that number, 5,418,000, or 79%, are owner-occupied manufactured homes, housing about 13,484,000 people. The total number of manufactured homes,vacant and occupied, is 8,769,000. Industry data shows 25%to 30% of manufactured homes are placed on leased land [in communities]. That translates to between 1.3 and 1.6 million owners choose to lease the land for their mobile homes. 22.5% of manufactured homes are occupied by elderly 65 years and older, and 80% own their homes. 21.8% of all people living in manufactured housing are below the poverty line. There are 130,1 I2,000 total residential housing units in the U.S.; 86 percent of these are occupied. Some of the other key findings of the 2009 AIiS include: 68 percent of U.S. homes are owner-occupied;51 percent are located in suburban areas; 29 percent in central cities;and 20 percent outside metropolitan areas. Less than one in ten of all households with someone 55 years or older (7 percent) reported living in an age-restricted community. Rased on US census data. Consider What Exactly We are Talking About: Manufactured actured Housing Specifics Recently, there has been talk of manufactured housing at various city and county councils around the state. There's been meetings with state legislators. Issues being discussed are from all corners,some fairly benign, others significant in their impact. Before we as citizens, or society, or government, can really delve into the issues being brought before us, we need to know exactly what we are talking about when manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities are concerned, There are many preconceived notions out there that color the conversation, And there is a lack of needed perspective in order to make informed decisions. For example, when someone steps up to speak and tells you about people who own their homes but rent the land under their homes, and describes in detail the problems they face,you need to know some background for a true perspective, Without any other knowledge than what the speaker says, you will think most manufactured homes have owners who have been prevented from owning the land under their homes. This is not the case. So let's get started with some basics: Manufactured home owners who choose to rent land are in the minority. Some 70 to 75% of manufactured homes are located on private parcels controlled by their owners, The others that prefer to Iocate in land-lease communities, a.k.a, mobile home parks, represent 25 to 30% of all manufactured homes. In the United States, there are roughly 7 million occupied manufactured homes, and about 5.4 million are owner-occupied. Those located in manufactured housing communities comes to about 1.3 to 146 million homes nationwide. In the state of Washington, it's estimated there are 243,000 occupied manufactured homes, with about 62,400 of those homes located in land-lease communities The median age of those homes is 21 years. Out of a total population of 6,724,500 people in Washington, an estimated 9% live in manufactured homes, and of those 2.3% live in manufactured homes located in manufactured housing communities. (Derived from US Census.) The number of manufactured housing communities operating in Washington is 1,410 according to licenses issued. The majority of M1-HC's (manufactured housing communities) are family oriented and not age restricted. The remainder are restricted to those over 55 age. Specific demographics of only those living in MI-lCs are not available,. but for all manufactured housing everywhere, 22.5% are occupied by elderly 65 years and older, and overall 21.8% living in manufactured housing are below the poverty line. Arguments against zoning restrictions The arguments for restrictive zoning are primarily focused on preserving established mobile home parks or manufactured housing communities. The preservation is hoped to guard against the loss of affordable housing if one or more manufactured housing communities close and convert to another use. Restrictive zoning that prevents conversion of a manufactured housing community into another use has the following problems. The premise puts an undue burden on the property owner for society's responsibility for affordable housing. Restrictive zoning will preserve low-quality housing to a degree that it is detrimental to the very people the zoning is purported to help. Energy-wasting 80 to 100 year old mobile homes will be commonplace if an older community is forced to remain in business as a manufactured housing community. Who will pay for updating infrastructure that is required when an older community is forced to remain under restrictive zoning and must replace water and sewer systems? Restrictive zoning denies that there is a life-span inherent in every community design. Who will build a new manufactured housing community in a city that imposes a restriction that once the business is chosen, that is the only business it can be? Will the city impose similar restrictions on warehouse hardware stores? Should other businesses be worried that the city will turn to them and zone them into remaining only "warehouse hardware retail" or "high-density apartments" in special zones? Restrictions would reward freedom of choice of one party and take away the freedom of choice of another, Home owners have a choice of acquiring their own Iand or choosing another community for their home. The park owner's freedom of choice to stay in a particular line of business and the freedom to choose the best use of private property will be taken away with zoning restrictions. Any time there is protection for the mobile homes on rented land, i.e. to be barred from eviction based upon age, the resale values of those homes will be above normal market value. The result will be compounded for those homes in a community that is mandated to remain a community forever. The resu[t is each seller of a home will take away a higher value that is attributed solely to the restrictions on the property owner, and the property owner will not benefit. The transfer of value of the land from the landlord to the tenant is the result. canto Manufactured Rousing Communities of Washington Robert Cochran, State President 2013-14 01 President of Inland Empire Unit 12.05 E. Lyons Ave., Spokane, WA 99208 kliaHa # robertrnmv@iriac.com 8 August 2013 Scott Kuhta,John Holman Spokane Valley Dept. of Community Development 11707E,Sprague,Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509 921 1000/ 921 1008 fax Re: Topic of restrictive zoning based on Tumwater's Dear Sirs: WON has expended a great deal of funds to fight on behalf of a few manufactured housing conimmnit • owners in Turnwater and in Snohomish County because we feel restrictive zoning policies that take away property rights are unjust. The legal view from our association attorney.Walt Olsen, is thus: 1. Turnwater was decided on the unique one-time facts of that case, which are much different than the facts that now exist in Spokane Valley Turnwater was uniquely decided and inapposite to Spokane Valley like many westside issues, as the Court of Appeals ruled that the Tumwater owners could not prove damages from any takings insofar as Turnwater's Ordinance took effect shortly before or during the real estate crash of 2008-2Q109 when fair market values were concurrently plummeting for independent reasons related to our counhy's recession. In 21113, Spokane Valley owners can demonstrate damages and trace those damages more directly to any future single use zone,and the Tumwater opinion specifically ruled that its ruling is limited to those owners in the case, as future owners in Tumwater or elsewhere could prove takings if they could specifically produce damages caused by the takings. 2. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously considered a governmental takings in Guggenheim, the 9th Circuit has setup the next challenge of single use zoning in WA. There, the court said that a City could take property rights in the form of rent control,because that did not violate the current owner's investment-backed expectations when that owner purchased the property already subject to rent control with eyes wide open. In Spokane Valley,each owvner purchased each community 1 when single use zoning did not exist, and with a reasonable life savings investment backed expectation that the community would convert to a higher and best use at some point in the future. 3. Ishbel Dickens cost Tumwater at least OU,[IOJ in legal fees, and she cost CLS(Columbia Legal Services)over $1 million in.legal fees while she was employed there, and sued IVIHCW and its directors to collect less than $10 in damages. Does Spokane Valley want to do that? In Tumwater, the net effect of Ishbel's lobbying was to ultimately decrease property values and tax revenues for the County,and require the few community owners in the county to shoulder the County's responsibility for affordable housing to benefit the public as a whole at their expense. Does Spokane Valley want to promote lbs. Dickens as Robin Hood in the county? further legal observations from the case: On the subject of the 9th Circuit Court rejection of MHC> 's appeal of the decision allowing Turnwater to establish restrictive zoning, the court nnide the decision on the grounds of the appeal only, which were limited_ The Court did allow that"As a result,many states and municipalities have enacted laws aimed at protecting owners of manufactured homes. Those actions, though,often impinge on the property rights of the owners of mobile home parks, sometimes to such a degree that the legislation amounts to a constitutional violation." The door is left open for any individual community owner who is harmed by restrictive zoning to seek relief in court for proven damages, In the case MFICW supported, only one of three community owners could show damages, and the Court evidently thought the particular damages were too small to count. To enact zoning to restrict any change of use for a land owner,as the 4th Circuit Court agrees,"requires park owners to bear a disproportionate share of the social burden of low income housing." Restrictive zoning also denies any land owner the right to bring the property to a higher and better use,but as in the case of Tumwater, does not prevent the local tax assessor from taxing as a highest and best use other than an MI-1C, One owner of a community now under restrictive zoning has reported that the tax assessor increased the value of the property based not on highest and best use, but on income from property. The only problem is that the assessor decided that the rents for the MHC in the restricted zone were not high enough, so the assessor based the tax on a$100 increase for each space. In the bigger picture,Spokane Valley must adhere to the Growth Management Act,and as such they are repiied to promote affordable housing. Preserve lion of a form of affordable housing (that is not subsidized,by the way) is not the same as promotion of affordable housing, In fact, it could be said that if there is an effort to preserve existing MI-IC's, there should be a twin effort to promote new MHC development, And,it must be recognized that manufactured housing outside of any MHC as an alternative to a conventionally built homes is also "affordable housing". 2 Spokane valley has a small number of manufactured housing canununities, comprising maybe 700 to 1000 homes.There is demand for new developments, as space vacancy rates remain low in this area and across the state, Spokane Valley has one of the newer MH C's in the area, Mission Meadows,which is nice development of larger home models. The Tumwater ordinance does nothing to promote new developments, other than it states it is established to promote high density land use. No investor or developer is likely to build a project that is destined to remain less-than-hest-use forever. The conversions allowed in the ordinance are all uses that would he less profitable than use as an MHC. This language is by design as well, as this quote from National Consumer Law Center's advice on promoting zoning indicates,"The goal of preservation of the MI-IC may be preserved as long is the zoning ordinance does not allow uses that would be significantly more profitable than a manufactured housing community." The practical effect of Tumwater's zoning effort is that the city has decided that for the small percentage of its population that lives within 10 MHes, the land nwr1er5 of those 10 MH4"s shall bear the total burden of supplying affordable housing far into the future. Tumwater's citizens says society shall not shoulder any of the burden for this housing, In the decades since manufactured housing communities, or mobile home parks,have matured and were designed developments rather than ad-hoc parks, the pattern had been established of new MF•IC's being built just at the edge of a town on affordable land,or on Iand formerly impractical for other uses. As new communities were built,homes from older communities and private Iand helped to fill them. Older parks converted to other uses and the homeowners relocated to available spaces or land. For the boom of the late-1990's and 2U0ll's,more pressure was put on the large parcels that comprised some MI-ICS to be converted to better uses.Many communities in this state closed,most of which were on the west side, in heavily populated areas. The large parcels were good for airport expansion, warehouse stores or malls, or large-scale apartment developments. Locally in 2000,a 70-space park from the 1950's or 1960's was closed near Francis and Nevada in Spokane. The homes there ranged from actual travel trailers from 7 960`s to some built in the 1980's, The land was converted for use as a large grocery store and retail area, Many homes moved to other communities,some to land elsewhere,some were scrapped or sold. I'm not aware if the developer bought outright any homes.The area since then has benefited greatly from the conversion and it has increased local property values and tax income in the process. Is Spokane Valley anticipating that there will not be similar needs for improvements to the areas surrounding older MHC's? If there was one or two special communities within Spokane Valley's boundaries,would the city consider buying out the park owner in order to preserve that special portion of affordable housing? Sincerely, Robert Cochran 3 ousueoe Manufactured Housing Communities of wasltington. do er--'-- •—4 IN.i Robert Cochran, State President 2013-14 i I resident of Inland Empire Unit 120 E. Lyons Ave., ol�ane,WA 99208 9f1P. lv robertmmv a mac.corn S August 2013 Scott Kuhta,John Holman Spokane Valley Dept. of Community Development 11707E,Sprague,Suits 10 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509 92110€]0 j 921 1008 fax Re:Topic of restrictive zoning for manufactured housing communities Dear Sirs: As we have become aware through letters sent by you to manufactured housing community (MHC) owners in Spokane Valley,you have received multiple requests from Association of Manufactured Home Owners(AMHD) to establish restrictive zoning for MHC's. The restrictive zoning would be intended to eliminate most or all other uses of the land other than the existing use of an MHC. MI-1CW opposes such restrictive zoning. AMMO is the smaller of the state's two manufactured home owner associations with about 500 members from 60 con—ununities. Manufactured Home Owners of America (MHOA) is the larger, with about 1,500 members. AMHO is relatively new at about 10 years, while MHOA has been around for a few decades. Ishbel Dickens is a prime mover of AMHO and is currently the national executive director of MHOAA the national version of home owner association with about 1,500 members.) Ishbel has dedicated her life to helping tenants of MHC"s since the early 1990's. In 2002, she received her law degree from WU, By 2004,she was working for Columbia Legal Services in Seattle and had by then successfully engaged our organization, MHCW, in a lawsuit that in the end lasted 6 years,costing Columbia Legal Services about$500,000 in an effort to seek$100 for her clients. The lawsuit cost MHCW about$500,000 and nearly caused its bankruptcy. In actuality, it was a SLAPP lawsuit aimed at eliminating MHCW. MT ICW represents MHC owners and managers and works to promote education in the application of the RCW Manu€actured/Ivlobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act,new community development, preservation of communities and protection of the owners property rights, MHCW has 500 member MHC's out of the state's 1,400 parks. Our membership represents about 30,000 home spaces,which is about half of all the home spaces available across the state in MHCs. 1 The vast majority of manufactured homes are located on private land. The minority are in Iand- lease communities, (LTS Census data) (.0 On private land In ll+lfd. Housing Communities I Washington's Households 0 12,5 25 37.5 50 62,5 75 87,5 100 Ail other housing All Mfd homes Mid homes in communities 7 Some municipalities have harsh restrictions for the location of manufactured homes cited on single parcels. Spokane Valley does not allow any manufactured homes that have been previously titled,meaning no used homes whatsoever. The issue of restrictive zoning: The arguments made for restrictive zoning are focused on preserving existing MHC"s by preventing their change to any other use. Some say it is to "guard against" the owner of a property from converting the use of the land. AMHO has no concern for compensating a land owner for the loss of opportunity such zoning brings with it. What is restrictive zoning really meant to do? It is meant to further the transfer of rented land from the land owner to the land renter. It is meant to diminish the land owners' investment and vested interest over the years in order to force abandonment of opportunities the long-terra investment has provided. Ishbel Dickens and others like AMHO advocate for MHC`s to be sold to the tenants who live in them because they feel operating an MI-IC should be non-profit. They support rent control and they support any measure that places the burden of new or added costs on to the landlord so that the ultimate result is a socialization of costs among the tenants. Afew years ago,Ishbel drafted legislation that would have made the landlords responsible for ALL landscaping on tenants' spaces rind it prevented landlords from REMOVING ANY landscaping. Short of eliminating private ownership of WIHC's, Ishbel and others try their best to legislate away the property rights of the land owners, restrictive zoning is one such effort. 2 AM1-ID does not support the development of new manufactured housing carnntinities_ Advocates for home owners say that most home owners are in jeopardy of losing their moat valuable asset" if an MI-HC is allowed to close and convert. They say the homes are no longer mobile, they are no longer able to move, so therefore the homes will have to be abandoned by their owners. Advocates even speculate that once this happens,most will likely never be homeowners again. Maintaining the status quo is the goal; allowing homeowners to remain in place until a tierce they choose to move on or until they choose to trade in their home for a better one. The answer proposed is to take the property rights away from the land owner and give them to the land renters, in the name of protecting the manufactured home owners. For AMEIO, the concept of taking Land rights from a property owner is not a problem.They repeat that their members own their homes bet not the land under them. The"but" is included as a pejorative, implying that for some reason the homeowners are prevented from owning land for their homes. (Remember, 759E of manufactured homes are on private land the owners conLiol,) The fundamental concept which allows the business model of renting land to manu€actrned home owners is the simple fact that the homes are all designed to move upon the highways and they retain that built-in design once installed. Were it not for a manufactured home being able to relocate, there would never be a mobile home park. (If the manufactured homes were considered permanent, they why would not the business model transfer over to conventional site-built homes where the home is mortgaged while on leased land?) Most tenants of M11-1C's are aware that they are renting land under the home. They pay rent to a landlord. They consciously chose to rent land under the home because they were downsizing and did not want to spend the money to own land,for example,as many have told me. The tenants may not ever consider the possibility of moving the home they buy in an existing MHC,but once they're aware of the possibility, they understand it and hope it does not happen while they're there. Some know they can move their home if they don't like the way the community is operated or if rents become too high. Others dream of trading in their homes on newer,better ones. So really,AMHO is asking Spokane Valley to help "guard against" any chance a tenant in an MI-IC will have to relocate their home except when the tenant wants to. And AM HO argues this is because the homes cannot be moved. Washington state already has laws to guard against a tenant from having to relocate their homes: A landlord cannot force a manufactured home to vacate the space based solely upon being sold or its attaining a certain age. If evicted,a tenant has the right to mediation which often allows for the home to remain in place and be sold to another tenant. If evicted,a tenant has the right to require the landlord to store the home on the space rather than having to remove it or to prevent the landlord from placing the home on the nearest right-of-way. 3 Other Washington protections: A landlord cannot deny entry of a manufactured home to a community based on its age. A tenant has the right of a one-year lease always-even if after having been on a month-to-month lease. A landlord must give 3-months notice for any increase in rent. A landlord does not have the right of non-renewal of a lease. The tenant is the only party in the agreement allowed to not renew the rental of the land. The legislature's unintended consequence of this in 1993 is that it makes a space rental perpetual,forever,unless the tenant vacates voluntarily The duration of a lease is automatically renewed for another term. (A 2 year lease can be required to renew for another 2 years for example) A tenant has the right to assign the remainder of a lease to the buyer of their home. If a community is to close, tenants have a full year to make arrangements before they are required to vacate the land. If a community is closed, there is a state-funded program to help reimburse homeowners forced to move based on income status. If a conununity is closed,no municipality can require the older homes forced to move to upgrade to current fire or electrical or other codes- there is a waiver. One-fifth,or 20 percent, of all manufactured homes have relocated at least once from their original home sites. S Census) In the ease of one large 1970's community in Spokane with 220 spaces, about 15 percent of its homes have relocated since 1981-all voluntary on the part of the tenants. For comparison,in my 1960's neighborhood of conventional site-built homes here in Spokane, zero percent have relocated.since 1970. Advocates like AMHO will argue that if manufactured homes are able to be moved, it is too expensive for the homeowners. The costs of moving can be too expensive if the home is worth very little. Smaller, older single-wide homes are less expensive to move than newer double-wide homes. Most older 1v1HCs are filled with a majority of single-wide homes. And again, if a community closes, there is a state program to help reimburse moving expenses for those low-income forced to move. The argument then becomes that the homes are no Conger mobile, they cannot survive a move, These homes will have to be abandoned they sal, and the homeowners will have lost "their biggest asset". One questions the actual value of a manufactured home that is so dilapidated thvt it will fall apart when a professional mover tries to relocate it. Is a dilapidated home one that society should protect? A home in such dilapidated condition is more presumably a second or third biggest asset for the homeowner because the car in the driveway is probably the biggest asset they own. If the argument to preserve MHC's by restrictive zoning is meant to shield old dilapidated homes that are no longer structurally sound from ever being required to relocate, then the desired zoning's result is to imprison low-income homeowners in substandard housing forever while the city takes credit for maintaining affordable housing. 4 The WA Dept. of Commerce has noted that in the past 10 years or;su, 60% of the homes in communities that have closed were relocated for their continued use. AMHO argues that 'most" homeowners are not able to move their homes. Ask some questions of advocates like AMHO AMHO wants to prevent a homeowner from losing their biggest asset when forced to abandon the home or when it falls apart during relocation. Or AMHO wants to save the homeowner the costs of relocation even though low-income folks qualify for reimbursement. How much are we talking about in these instances of abandonment or falling apart? If a home's value is less than$2,000,is that enough to walk away from? Certainly we are not talking about $30,000 homes here. A homeowner who cannot afford to relocate and/or does not qualify for moving expenses is talking about$2,500 to$5,000 to relocate a single-wide home?How much does a home have to be worth in order for a homeowner to see the value of moving the home? Let's look at it another way: AMMO wants all manufactured homes,no matter their condition or age,to remain in place for their homeowners,forever. A home built in 1968 for example has 2-inch walls. Outside is a sheet of aluminum,inside is thin wood paneling,and in the wall cavity is 1 inch of fiberglass insulation. The windows are single-pane, and some are Louvered,with aluminum frames. The extra cost for a typical homeowner in one of these 1968 homes is about$150 per month mow to heat in winter than for a late-model better built home. Cooling in summer can likewise be more costly. That would result in$900 extra per year wasted in energy for a typical l968 single-wide home versus a better similar home. Passing restrictive zoning will protect a tenant's home during the average tenancy of 7 years to lose $6,300 just-in energy costs.AMI.3C has no problem with homeowners losing thousands into thin air. As it stands now in the law, manufactured homes in))O'TC's are protected from being required to vacate individually. This has distorted the market for these homes,for example in that an old 1968 single-wide home for sale can command perhaps twice or quadruple its actual value for the fact it is existing with protected status. A home of this sort has a lot value of perhaps 52,400, but wilt sell in an MHC for$5,000 to $7,000 depending on condition. Trade-in value is for scrap,as no pre-1976-1-IUD homes are taken in by dealers for trade. No one who pays too mach for an cIder home will be in a financial position to trade in the home on a better-buil L one without suffering a huge loss of up to 80% of their equity. Therefore, the older homes existing will continue to remain in place, and will continue to waste enormous amounts of energy, Tenants may defer other expensive repairs needed to the home as the aluminum window frames can cause condensation damage and mold inside,the iron plumbing rusts and breaks causing the pressed-wood subfloors to buckle or collapse. Re-piping a manufactured home can cost$3,000 to$5,000. Very few people who pay$5,000 or less for a manufactured home will invest another $10,000 to improve the windows and plumbing, knowing full well that the return on investment will be lam upon a sale. Adding restrictive zoning will exacerbate the distorted market value of existing homes in MllC's,resulting in a reduction in wealth in the long-run for tenants who buy them. It can also be noted that in the short-run,the inflated values of the homes under current law and,/or under restrictive zoning do not benefit the land owners;it is an increase in value for the homeowners at the expense of the property owners'rights, In fact,it could be 5 argued that though homeowners enjoy an increased value for their homes individually when they sell in place, the overall condition cpf the community based on the aging homes will continue to decrease, dragging down its total value as a business and thus decreasing the value of the property owner's asset. Lenders and insurers take into account the average age and condition of homes,affecting loan rates and premiums. If the market allowed older homes' values in MHC's to reflect their true values, the homes would be replaced and the community would be renewed in a slow progression, maintaining;a quality of community that most tenants desire and would appreciate. Note also, that in a federal study on manufactured homes, manufactured homes on leased land did not necessarily show an increase in equity for the homeowner over time similar to conventional site-built homes. But the homeowners did show an increase in wealth-building over time from the savings over time of not buying the land and paying far the expenses tied to land ownership. The savings-equity opportunity is a key factor for many who choose to live in Land-leased communities, Mobile home parks, or manufactured housing communities, have life-spans Preserving MFIC's by government intervention will not make an unprofitable park suddenly profitable. it will not make an existing,park more beautiful, safe or able to last another 50 years. Few if any mobile home parks were designed to last 100 years,unlike conventional home development, If Spokane Valley requires MI-IC's to stay in business as IVIHC's through zoning, where will the money come from to upgrade sewer systems on zoned-IVMI-TC's when their systems fail in ten, fifteen or twenty years frorii now?Built in the 1950's. 6LYs or 70's,any MI-IC must consider that its water systems will need to be replaced within the next 40 years. If the money is not there, the community will have to dose, and any future development will be limited to a short list of less-profitable opportunities in the ordinance,or the tenants will have to face extreme increases in rents to keep the park viable. At Contempo MI-IP in Spokane, Avista Utilities decided they were tired of repairing the aging supply cables underground in the park. Having been installed. in 1974,the wires just were not up to the task anymore. So Avista installed all new underground supply cables. They did this on their own. Century Link is having similar issues with their old wires installed by AT&T 39 years ago. Older MI-IC's do not close without reason, Once they're run-down,or one-third empty, or they face hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure upgrades and repairs, they become unprofitable. A decent manufactured home that finds itself in a park that is unprofitable and forced to close can move to another Location,so the demise of the park does not spell doom for the homeowner as well. The trailers, mobile homes and manufactured homes built before 1990 were never expected to last 100 years either, Industry standards foresaw lifespans of 15 to 25 years back then, Of course, many people continue to make use o€ old homes far beyond their designed expectations,for better or worse. Encroachment by development,or a long-planned change of use, or unforeseen circumstances can all be influences that affect the life span of an MNC. Many investors and 6 builders of MHC's of course never considered life spans of the property.because they do their business short term-once built and sold,they are done. But a good number of properties were developed by individual land owners,mainly because it was the type of development that they could literally do themselves. Digging trenches for pipes, graveling roads, building fences, etc., were things a land owner could do on their own time and with their own sweat. Decades later, these individual land owners should be free to seek a return on their time and sweat investment without their city taking away viable options, There is no crisis of community closures,no crisis when one does close Granted, for any individual facing the prospect of having to uproot and relocate involuntarily,it can pose a crisis,especially if the situation comes as a surprise, There is a good percentage of tenants of MI-IC's who are blissfully unaware that a possibility exists for the opportunity to rent the land may end, Most tenants are aware that they can move their homes if they don't like the situation. Communities close. Communities open. They are like any other business, and like any other business, when conditions change that require change, they change. When communities close,unlike when an apartment building closes,the tenants do not lose their homes-they only lose where the home is located. When Albertson's grocery saw the opportunity to open in an area with growth,it was not a crisis to buy out and close down a very old mobilo home park. It liva,5 an orderly transition that ended up relocating most of the homes in the span of a full year. When the Dept. of Transportation needed a parcel for Hwy 193, it was not a crisis to buy out the small mobile home park and relocate the residents. The state did this without the full year notice,most likely because it simply bought out homeowners as well as the land owner. The state of Washington is buying out a community on the west side in order to eliminate the flood hazard. The homes are being moved to safer locations. Moving a home can be planned for,it can be saved for or at the least it can be a known possibility,much Iike having to replace a furnace or a hansmission in a car. Not everyone will need to make these expenditures,but everyone is aware that these things happen, A crisis for an IVIHC would be a sink-hole swallowing up the property,or an earthquake or flood destroying a majority of homes. A closing does not destroy homes. If homes are said to be immobile or will fall apart when moved, that is not a result of the community closing or not, it is a state of repair the homeowner has allowed to happen and the home would fail apart where it sits eventually. A manufactured home located on rented land is never considered a permanent installation-becoming immobile for lack of structural integrity due to ravages of time or neglect does not make a manufactured home permanent any more than a broken transmission on a car would make the car permanent. There exist many protections for manufactured home owners who choose to rent land for their homes. There is no need to add any more protections by restrictive zoning to preserve MHC's at the expense of the property owner. Sincerely, Robert Cochran 7 Imagine you own your home,but rent the land under it. Now imagine that you've been given notice that the land under your home is being redeveloped and you have 12 months to find some other place to live. For nearly 1,100 households in Spokane Valley this is a reality_ Manufactured homeowners who have invested thousands of dollar in their homes, who have lived in the same community for years,have only one year security of tenure, When a mobile home park closes most homeowners are not able to move their homes. They lose their biggest asset and probably will never be homeowners again. To prevent this devastation,manufactured homeowners asked the City Council to add a "mobile home park"zone ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan. Such a zone would add a layer of security for homeowners white protecting park owners'profitable businesses. The zone would also preserve existing housing while continuing to provide affordable housing options for all economic sectors in Spokane Valley. The 9th Circuit ruled Oct.29 that such a zoning ordinance is constitutional and upheld the city of Turn water's mobile home park zoning ordinance. If is time now for the Valley to enact one,too. Amelia Odeen ("re Spokane Valley -letter to editor of Spokesman-Review newspaper,Nov.27,2012 Letter to editor response After many decades of existence as Imagine you own your business, and manufactured housing communities, some are no longer viable in their current use. The you rent the land and building its on Or businessperson who owns the land has the imagine you own too much stuff, and you right to decide if a change should take place rent a storage building to keep it in. Now in the land or business, not the government imagine that you are given notice that you will no longer be able to rent a place for your But some manufactured home owners business or your stuff. For most anyone are dismayed that a rental arrangement has who rents anything, it is an obvious fact that the possibility of ending if the land use were the renter needs to move their business or changed. They say the homes must be lost stuff elsewhere when the land changes use. to destruction because they cannot move off But in the case of just over percent rented land. in a majority of cases, this is of Washington's population who live in their untrue: mobile/manufactured homes are designed to be able to move, having no need own manufactured homes on rented land in of a permanent foundation (hence the manufactured housing communities, many primary reason land can be rented for them). imagine that the opportunity for rental of the land should simply never ever end_ Even in There is no need to transfer property the case of a manufactured housing rights of a land owner to tenants in order to community that is suffering from losses and preserve a community. If the city sees that cannot afford to exist any banger, Some folks their citizens wish to preserve a particular like Amelia Odeen (letter Nov. 21) propose community, they should consider the option that no manufactured housing community of using taxpayer money to buy out the land should be allowed to close and redevelop owner and then become a non-profit into anything else. She advocates Spokane landlord. No special-class zoning required. Valley and other cities to adopt permanent restrictive zoning for manufactured housing -Robert Cochran communities to prevent any change of use_ Spokane CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17t1, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation n executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Title 19.120. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission conducted a study session July 25, 2013 and a public hearing on August 8, 2013 to consider the amendment. BACKGROUND: CTA-2013-0006 is a privately initiated code text amendment to allow Specialized Training/Learning Schools/Studios outright in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone and with a conditional use permit in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone. SVMC Appendix A defines specialized training/learning schools/studios as "facilities providing specialized classes to persons of all ages including, but not limited to,gymnastics, fitness,martial arts and dance." Currently,the Permitted and Accessory Uses matrix allows this use in all zones throughout the City, with the exception of Parks and Open Space and the I-2 & I-2 zones. Earlier this year,the applicant, Tiara Racicot, expressed interest in locating a gymnastics business in an I-2 zone. When she discovered that this use is not allowed by the City's code, she began discussions with staff regarding an amendment to the municipal code. A pre-application meeting was held on July 2, 2013 and the application for code amendment was submitted on July 10, 2013. Staff's review of the request showed incompatibilities with several provisions of the comprehensive plan. In addition, a previous analysis indicated that only 16% of the City's vacant industrial properties have sewer service. The concern is that industrial properties should be reserved for the higher intensity uses described in the comprehensive plan. These factors led staff to conclude that this request was not compatible with the guidance in the comprehensive plan and therefore we recommended denial of the request to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission heard this matter at a study session on July 25, 2013 and conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2013. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 5 - 2 to recommend approval of the proposed code text amendment. The minutes of these meetings are attached. OPTIONS: Determine whether or not to proceed to an ordinance first reading. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Text Amendment B. PC Meeting Minutes July 25, 2013 C. PC Meeting Minutes August 8, 2013 D. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation E. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission F. Presentation CTA-2013-0005 RCA for Administrative Report S�okane� Community Development Department City Council Administrative Report September 17, 2013 Privately Initiated Code Text Amendment SVMC 19.120 (CTA-20 13 -0006) 1 Background Privately initiated code amendment to allow Specialized Training Schools/Studios as a Permitted Use in Light Industrial Zone and as a Conditional Use in the Heavy Industrial Zone. This use is not currently allowed in the 2 Permitted Use Matrix. Specialized training/learning schools/studios : A facility providing specialized classes to persons of all ages including, but not limited to, gymnastics, fitness, martial arts and dance. 3 Proposed Am n m n t e d e R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community CommercialComrnercia Regional Parks/Open Space I-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 56292 Solid waste recycling/transfersite S 5 S SVMC19.60.060(B) 6116 Specializedtrainingllearning schools or studios P P P P S P P P C aptive reuse of existing s uctures only.No expansion allowed. P P 49319 Storage.self-service facility P P P P P P 4 Approval Criteria SVMC 17. 80. 150(F) 1 . The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. 6 Chapter 2 -Land Use Light Industry- •Planned industrial areas with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping, and internal and community compatibility. •Uses may include high technology and other low impact industries. •Non-industrial uses should be limited. 7 Chapter 2-Land Use Heavy Industry- • Intense industrial activities including, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly/disassembly, freight-handling and similar operations. •Heavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas. •Commercial, residential and most recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry, except for small-scale ancillary uses serving the industrial area. Application Materials LUG-14-Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. EDG-1- Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. EDG-2- Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. 9 EDG-1- Encourage regional tourism as a sustainable provider of jobs and markets City of Spokane -Classified as "Retail Sales & Service" -Allowed, with limitations in both the Light and Heavy Industrial areas Spokane County -Classified as "Participant & Spectator Sport Facility (indoor)" -Allowed in light industrial. Not allowed in Heavy Industrial City of Liberty Lake -Classified as "Participant & Spectator Sport Facility (indoor)" -Allowed in the Industrial zone. 10 Staff Report Recommended denial based upon: • Incompatibility with comprehensive plan • Sewer availability of industrial zoned properties — Previous analysis showed 16% of vacant industrial zoned land has on-site or nearby sewer service Planning Commission July 25th, 2013 - Study Session August 8th, 2013 — Public Hearing Vote- 5 — 2 to recommend approval 12 Council Options • Determine whether or not to proceed to an ordinance first reading • Remit back to Planning Commission Questions? 14 R- R- 1 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses AQRendix 19-A Mixed Use Cente Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Ligh Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions ._,._._ — 711 Adult entertainment establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC 453 Adult retail use establishment ■ S S Chapter 19.30 SVMC 311 Agricultural processing plant, warehouse P P 481219 Airstrip,private P P 62191 Ambulance service P P P P P P P 54194 Animal clinidveterinary P S P P P SVMC 19.60.040(6)(1) 311613 Animal processing facility P S S S S S S 112 Animal raising and/or keeping S S Excluding NAICS 1122, Swine.SVMC 19.40.150. 81291 Animal shelter S P P SVMC 19.60.080(6)(6) 31161 Animal slaughtering and processing P 45392 Antique store P P P P P 448 Apparel/tailor shop P P P P P P P 443111 Appliance saleslservice P P A P A A Only if manufactured/ assembled on premises. 45392 Art gallery/studio P P P P P P P 333 Assembly–heavy P 334 Assembly–light P P P P P P 7 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF- 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Ugh Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions -..,,-,•_..._.__...._ P P P 623312 Assisted living facility P P P P 4533 Auction house P P P P 4533 Auction yard(excluding livestock) p p 1152 Auction yard,livestock P 3361 Automobile assembly plant P 922 Automobile impound yard P P 441 Automobile/light truck sales and service P P P P 4853 Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P P P 811121 Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting,repair,body and fender Works S S P p p Enclosed structure only. SVMG 19.60.050(B)(3). 4413 Automotive parts,accessories and tires P P P P P P 445291 Bakery,retail P P S S P P P A A Floor area limited to 10% of Gross Leasable Floor Area(GLFA)not to exceed 1,000 sf. 52211 Bank,savings/loan and other financial institutions P P P P P P P P P 3 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A _......._ w.. w..� Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 8121 Barber/beauty shop P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 721191 Bed and breakfast P P P 11291 Beekeeping,commercial p S S S 11291 Beekeeping,hobby SVMC 19.40.150(C) 4511 Bicycle sales/service P P P P P P P p p 336611 Boat building,repair and maintenance p p 441222 Boat sales/service p p p p 4512 Book/stationery store P P P P P P P 3121 Bottling plant p p 71395 Bowling alley P P P P 722 Brewery,micro P P P P P P P P p 3121 Brewery,winery and/or distillery P P P P p p 4441 Building supply and home improvement P S P P P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq.ft.or less 445292 Candy and confectionery P P P P P P p p p 71399 Carnival,circus T T T T T T 3219 Carpenter shop P P P P 561740 Carpet and rug cleaning plants P P 4 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A y�L W.. Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind_ 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 811192 Carwash P P S P P P P SVNiC 19.60.040(6) 7132 Casino P P P P 454113 Catalog and mail order houses P P P p p P P 72232 Catering services P P P P P P P P P P 8122 Cemetery P 451112 Ceramics shop P P . P P P P P P P P P P 813 Church,temple,mosque,synagogue and parsonage P P P P P P p 4481 ' Clothes,retail sales P P P P P 49312 Cold storage/food locker P p 6113 College or university P P P P P P 517 Communication service/sales P P P P P P p S S 5 5 5 S 921— 922 Community facilities S S S S S 5 S S 5 S See zoning districts for conditions. P P P 8134 Community hall,dub,or lodge P P P P P P P P P P 6232 Community residential facility(6 or less residents) P P P 6232 Community residential facility(greater than 6 residents,no more than 25) ' 5 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF_ 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A m_-._.,.._...._...._ Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 56173 Composting storage/processing, commercial P 54151 Computer services P P P P P P P P P 2373— 238 Contractor's yard P P P P P 623 Convalescent home,nursing home P P 44512 Convenience store P P A A P P P p p Crematories P P P P P P P P P P P 6233 Day care,adult P P A P P P A A C C C C P P 624410 Day care,child(13 children or more) P P A A P A A P P P P P P 624410 Day care,child(12 children or fewer) P P A A P P P A A 4521 Department/variety store P P P P 3123 Dry cleaners P P A P P P P 812332 Dry cleaning,laundry,linen supply plant,commercial P P 3211114 Dry kiln P S S S 814 Dwelling,accessory apartments SVMC 19.40.100 814 Dwelling,caretaker's residence S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.060(6)(1) P P 7213 Dwelling,congregate P P P 6 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF- 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A ...... ................................... Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parlts/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 ' Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions P P P P 814 Dwelling,duplex P P P P P 814 Dwelling,multifamily P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B) P P P P P P 814 Dwelling,single-family P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(6) P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P P 334— 335 Electrical/electronic/computer component and system manufacturing/assembly P P P P P P P 713 Entertainmentlrecreation facilities, indoor P P P P P P C 7139 Entertainment/recreation facilities, outdoor P P P P P P 5323 Equipment rental shop P P P P P 8113 Equipment sales,repair,and maintenance P P P P P 7222 Espressollatte retail service P P P P P P P P P R R R R R R 92 Essential public facilities R R R R R R R Chapter 1 9.90 SVMC A A 71394 Exercise facility/gym/athletic club P P A P P P P A A 493190 Explosive storage P P P P P P P P 814 Family home,adult P P P P R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind_ 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions P P P P P P 814 Family home,child P P P P 441222 Farm machinery sales and repair P P p 112112 Feed lot p 311211 Feed/cereal/flour mill P P 81292 Film developing P P A A P P P 44313 Film/camera sales/service P P A A P P P 4531 Florist shop P P A A P P P p 44521 Food sales,specialty/butcher shop/meat marketlspecialty foods P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(6)(3) 484 Freight forwarding P P 447 Fueling station P P P A P P P P 81221 Funeral home P P P 453 Gift shop P P A A P P P A S S S S S S 71391 Golf course P S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC C C C C C C 71391 Golf driving range/training center P C S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC 49313 Grain elevator p p 44422 Greenhouse,nursery,garden center, retail P P p P P P 8 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A ----- Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 1114 Greenhouse,nursery,commercial S S P P SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) 4451 Grocery store P P $ P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3) 44413 Hardware store P P S P P SVMC 119.60.040(13)(3) 562211 Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S SVMC 21.40.060 4812 Heliport P P 4812 Helistop C C C C P 45112 Hobby shop P P P P P P P 442 Home furnishings,retail sale P P P P P 6221 Hospital P P P P p R R R R R R 622210 Hospital,psychiatric and substance abuse R R R R R R R R 622310 Hospital,specialty P P P P P A A 7211 Hotel/motel P P P P P p 312113 Ice plant p p 45322 Jewelry,clock,musical instrument assembly,sales/service P P A P P P P P 81291 Kennel,indoor kennel,doggie day Care facility S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions. 9 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NA1CS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A W °° Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light End. 1-2 Heavy Ind_ Reference Conditions 54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 2) P P p 54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 3) P p p 54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 4) p p 62151 Laboratories,medical and diagnostic P P P P p 44419 Landscape materials sales P P p p p A A A 812310 Laundromat P P A P p P P 4453 Liquor store P P A A p p 561622 Locksmith P P A A P P P T- 3211 Lumbermill,sawmill,shingle mill, plywood mill P 33271 Machine shop P p P 236115 Manufactured home fabrication p p S S S S S 814 Manufactured home park SVMC 19.40.130 45393 Manufactured home sales P P P Manufacturing 336411 Aircraft manufacturing P 33522 Appliances manufacturing p p 32412 Asphalt plant/manufacturing p 10 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A - Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 31181 Bakery products manufacturing p p 33591 Battery rebuilding/manufacturing p p 339994 Broom manufacturing P p 325 Chemical manufacturing P 3342 Communications equipment manufacturing P P p P 339 Cosmetic and miscellaneous manufacturing p p 322226 Emery cloth and sandpaper manufacturing P P 32592 Explosive manufacturing P 3253 Fertilizer manufacturing P 311 Food product manufacturing/storage p 337 Furniture manufacturing P P 315 Garment manufacturing P p 32591 Ink manufacturing P 333 Machine/machinery manufacturing P P 3391 Medical and laboratory instrument/apparatus manufacturing P p p 11 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF- 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A __.._........................_..._................. Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Incl. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 327 Nonmetallic metal products manufacturing P P Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing P 32411 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing P 32511 Plastic and rubber products manufacturing P 314991 Rope manufacturing P P 325212 Rubber reclamation, manufacturing/fabrication P 33995 Sign manufacturing/repair P P 32561 Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing P 31411 Textile manufacturing P P 58292 Tire,recap and retread manufacturing P 321 Wood product manufacturing P P 453998 Market,outdoor P P P P P P 621498 Massage therapy P P P P P P P 3116— Meat/fish canning,cutting,curing and P P 12 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NA1CS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A - Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 tight Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 3117 smoking 42345 Medical,dental,and hospital equipment supply/sales P P P P P 6214 MedicalMental clinic P P P P P P P 621 MedicaVdental office P P P P P P P 332 Metal fabrication P p 332 Metal plating P 332 Metal processes,hot p 212 Mining P 722330 Mobile food vendors S S S S S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.010(H) T T T T T T 236115 Model home units 71211 Museum P P P P P P 45114 Music store P P A A P P P A A 561 Office P P P P P P P P P 45321 Office and computer supplies P P A P P P P P 999 Off-road recreational vehicle use P P 1113 Orchard,tree farming,commercial P P 32211 Paper/pulp mills P 13 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF- 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A .. Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind, 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 4859 Park-and-ride facility P P P P P p P 522298 Pawnshop P P P P 812 Personal service P P P P P P P 45391 Pet shop P P A P P P 44611 Pharmacy P P A P P P P p 54192 Photographic studio P P P P P P 326199 Plastic injection molding,thermoset p 326199 Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P 326199 Plastic injection solvent molding p 491 Post office,postal center P P P P P P P P P 221 Power plant(excluding public utility facilities) p 56143 Print shop P P A P P P P P P 323 Printing,reprographics,bookbinding services,commercial P P 48849 Public pay parking garage/lot P P P P P S S S S S S 221 Public utility distribution facility S S P P P P P P P P See zoning districts for conditions. 14 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MP- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Ap ndi�19-A Pe . ........_,..m.-�._.__ --- Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParkslOpen Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions S! S S S S S 237 Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions. 71399 Racecourse P p p p 711212 1 Racetrack P p 1 5151 RadiofTV broadcasting studio P P P p p P 4821 Railroad yard,repair shop and roundhouse - P 7212 Recreational vehicle park/campground I C S SVMC 19.60.060 44121 Recreational vehicle sales and service P P p p 56292 Recycling facility S S S p p P P P P P P 51511 Repeater facility P P P P P P 7222 Restaurant,drive-in P P v P P p p 7222 Restaurant,drive-through P P A C P P p P 722 Restaurant,full service P P A P P P P P P 452— 453 Retail sales P P A P P P A A Limited to items manufactured on the premises. 71399 Riding stable C P p '5 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses A pendix 19-A .,..,......._................__ Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space I-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 33122 Rolling mill P P P P P P P 6111 Schools,public and private,K through 12 P P P P P P 6114 Schools,professional,vocational and trade schools P P P P P P P P 4533 Secondhand store,consignment sales P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(1X9) Showroom P P P P P P 33995 Sign painting shop p p p p P 56292 Solid waste recycling/transfer site S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B) 6116 Specialized training/leaming schools or studios P P P P S P P — Adaptive reuse of existing structures only.No expansion allowed. P P 49319 Storage,self-service facility P P P P P P 493 Storage,general—outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for conditions. Tank storage,LPG above ground S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060 213112 Tank storage,critical material above ground S S SVMC 21.40.060 213112 Tank storage,critical material below ground S S 5 S SVMC 21.40.060 16 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF- 1 MF- 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A - - - • Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy ind. Reference Conditions 3161 Tanning,curing of hides and skins P 7224 Tavern P P P P P Taxidermy P P P S S S S S S 5172 Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC C C C C C C 5172 Telecommunication wireless support tower S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC 711 Theater,indoor P P P P P 711 Theater,outdoor P P P P S S S S S S 5179 Tower,ham operator S S C S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(A) 221119 Tower,wind turbine support C S S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(B) 4851 Transit center P P P P P P P C 7213 Transitional housing 441779 Truck sales,rental,repair and maintenance P P 445- 447 Truck stop P p 81142 Upholstery shop P P P P P 49311 Warehousing A S P A P P Adaptive reuse of existing 17 R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF-MF- 1 2 NAICS Schedule of Permitted Uses A pendix 19-A A1P29.di Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks!Open Space 1-1 Light Ind. 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions _...�__.�._._ -- structures.No expansion allowed. 56292 Wrecking,recycling,junk and salvage yards C S SVMC 19.60.060(B) P Permitted Use A Accessory Only R Regional Siting T Temporary Permit S Conditions Apply C Conditional Use Permit (Ord.13-003§3(Exh.A),2013;Ord. 12-022§3(Att.A),2012;Ord.12-021 §4,2012;Ord.11-021 §1,2011;Ord.10-005§1 (Exh.A),2010;Ord.09-036§6,2009;Ord.09-017§1,2009; Ord.09-010§1,2009;Ord.09-006§5,2009;Ord.06-026§1,2008;Ord.08-002§1,2008;Ord_07-015§4,2007). Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. July 25, 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 pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair x Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair x r Christina Janssen, Planner Steven Neill x r Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Kevin Anderson x r Mike Phillips Robert McCaslin x r Christina Carlsen x Mary Swank, secretary IV. APPROVAL OI+ AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the July 11, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. There was no commission reports. Planning Conunission Minutes Page 1 of 3 IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager, reported he just got back from Olympia, participating in the Department of Ecology's SEPA reform committee. Mr. Kuhta stated they updated categorical exemptions last year and are continuing to do work under the direction from the legislature. The committee will continue looking at the SEPA regulations and by the end of this year we will have more reform. Mr. Kuhta informed Commissioners that next week will be a public hearing on the text amendment being presented today and following that we will continue with the Shoreline Regulations. X. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: No unfinished Business B. New Business: CTA-2013-0006 Christina Janssen, Planner, started her presentation on CTA-2013-0006, a privately initiated Code Text Amendment, SVMC Chapter 19.120, to allow specialized training/learning studios as permitted use in the I-1 zone and a conditional use in the 1-2 zone. Ms. Janssen informed Commissioners how the City Council allowed indoor recreational and entertainment facilities in the Light and Heavy Industrial zones as a permitted use. Ms. Janssen explained the difference between this use and the entertainment recreation facility. The recreational and entertainment uses would be a bowling alley or indoor soccer center, where individuals would go to recreate at their own leisure. Specialized training and learning schools deal with instruction have a teaching staff and participate in classes. Ms. Janssen explained that Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Section 17.80. 150(1) outlines two criteria that must be met in order to approve the amendment: 1. The proposed amendment needs to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive plan. 2. 2 The amendment must bear a substantial relationship with the public health safety and welfare. Ms. Janssen went over the approval criteria, Chapter 2-Land use, Light and Heavy Industry, application materials, the classifications from the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and City of Liberty Lake. All three cities allow this type of use in their industrial zones. Ms. Janssen explained the conditional use permit process: the Hearing Examiner process and the recommendations. Questions: Commissioner Anderson asked why we deny anyone in the heavy industrial area from renting, leasing or buying. Mr. Kuhta responded that some jurisdictions take the approach of each successive intensive zone would allow everything that is less intensive. Other jurisdictions take the approach that industrial areas are intended just for industry. Industrial areas are available for high employment and high paying wage jobs. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Stoy asked if there is any vacant ground available for a brand new facility or is this going to be leasable spaces that this is going to effect. Ms. Janssen responded that she did not know. However, the interaction with this applicant and others interested in this type of use is that they looking for large open span buildings without the support poles which are typically found in industrial areas. Further, rent in the industrial areas is more reasonable. Commission Neill asked how many applicants we have spoken with. Ms. Janssen responded that there have been a number of inquiries of uses of this kind. Corrnnissioner Bates asked about the availability of land in 1-1 and 1-2 zones. Mr. Kuhta responded that the City has a lot of vacant industrial land, but a lot of it is un-sewered. Mike Basinger recently presented a study of industrial lands to the City Council. . The report will be submitted into the next Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Bates asked if Barker Road was sewered yet. Mr. Kuhta responded that east of the industrial park is not sewered. The Department is putting together a study right now to see how much it would cost to put sewer out there. Commissioner Bates asked if along Trent was sewered. Mr. Kuhta responded yes, it is mostly sewered and all the Yardley areas have sewer and water. XI. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XII, ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m. /6/..{ Bill Bates, Chairperson Mary Swank, PC 8eeretary Date signed L ` Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers—City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. August S, 2013 L 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 l4 Joliu Holtman,Community Development Director Joe Stay—Vice Chair x r Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Steven Neill x 1^ Christina Janssen,Planner Kevin Anderson x l-" Cary I]riskell, City Attorney Mike Philips x l� Robert McCaslin x l— Christina Carlsen x I.. Cart Hinshaw, Secretary IV, APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner SIoy moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second was made and the mutton passed unanimously, V. APPROVAL 01? MINUTES Commissioner Neil proved to approve the July 25, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was Made and the tnctian was passed unanimously, VI, COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Bates reported that he attended the last Council meeting and stated there was a great presentation in regards to Balfour Park and Library. Re stated that it was the first time he had seen the plaits for the park and it will be a very nice addition to our City. Chair Bates also attended some of the National Night Out Against Crime parties. He stated that there were forty-five neighborhood parties that out the County, with the Fire IDepartment, Police Chief and deputies attending party to party. Planning Control sion Minutes Page I of 8 VII', ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Holtman stated that there would be a new version of the advance agenda drawn up. Previously it was anticipated to be ready for n Public Hearing on the Shoreline development regulations for August 22. He stated that they are not prepared enough for that and it would be sometime in September. Staff spent a lot of time this week trying to fit all the pieces together with a real concerted effort on looking at the critical area regulations and how it fits in with the development regulations, VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: Them Was no public comment IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. New Business: Industrial Land Inventory Analysis Senior Planner Mike 1asinger provided an overview on the Industrial Land Inventoryr, which is an assessment of the industrial property supply for the City of Spokane Valley. The purpose of the industrial property inventory is to provide an up-to-date understanding of the characteristics, practicality, and deficiencies of industrial properties, Commissioner Stoy stated that on the map that Mr. Basinger provided there is a critical area, he asked Mr. Basinger to explain that. Mr. Basinger stated that it's a wetland and that we have wetlands in our jurisdiction that haven't gone anon a process where they have been identified as a wetland, Mr. Basinger excluded that portion of the industrial property from the analysis. X. PUBLIC HEARING: CTA-2013-0006 Privately Initiated Code Text Amendment, SVMC Chapter 1€9.120, to allow Specialized Training/Learning Studios as a Permitted Use in the I-1 zone and a Conditional use in the 1-2 zone. Chair Bates opened the Public Hearing at 6:11 PM. Planner Christina Janssen provided a brief overview of CTA-2013-0006. Ms. Janssen informed Cominissioners how the City Council allowed indoor recreational and entertainment facilities in the Light and Heavy Industrial zones as a permitted use, Ms. Janssen explained the difference between this use and the entertainment recreation facility. The recreational and entertainment uses would be a bowling alley or indoor soccer center, where individuals would go to recreate at their own leisure. Specialized training and learning schools deal with instruction have a teaching staff and participate in classes, Ms, Janssen explained that Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Section 17.80, 150(0 outlines two criteria that must be met in order to approve the amendment: 1. The proposed amendment needs to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive plan, 2. The amendment must bear a substantial relationship with the public health safety and welfare. Ms. Janssen went over the approval criteria, Chapter 2-Land use, Light and Heavy Industry. She stated in the application that was submitted the applicant called out form goals from the Comprehensive Plan to support their application: 1. LUG-14-Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2. EDG-1- Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. 3. I DG 2- Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. 4. EDG-1-1-Encourage regional tourism as a sustainable provider of jobs and markets Following the application being submitted to the City, staff as well did an analysis of the CompPlan. Following are the goals and policies that stall' found to be applicable to this application: 1. LUG-10-Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure (he long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. 2. LUG-11- A variety of strategically located heavy industrial areas should be designated and protected from conflicting land uses, 3. LUP-11.1- Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. 4. LUP-11.2- Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 5. LUP-12.t-Commerical, residential and recreational uses shall be limited or not allowed in areas designated for light industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses primarily to serve the industrial arca. Ms. Janssen stated that Staff recommends denial of amendment to the Spokane Valley Munieipal Code(SVMC) 19.120. Questions: Commissioner McCaslin asked why the word residential is put in I,UP-11.1. In addition, has anybody had any requests for residential in the light industrial area? Ms. Janssen stated that yes they have had questions regarding that at the Permit Center. (People wanting to locate residential In industrial areas). Public Comment: Tiara Racicot, 16612 E. Indiana # 0108, Spokane Valley. A packet was passed around to the Planning Commission from Ms. Raeicot. (See enclosed Attachment "A"). Ms. Raeieot stated she has a huge amount of equipment totaling to a minimum of 15,000 square feet, so when you go out of the industrial zones its double to triple the price. Site has ring towers reaching nineteen Beet high, which need twenty-foot ceilings. Floor exercises are 45 by 45 feet, so columns within warehousing have to leave leer with that amount of room. She stated that at this paint she has exhausted every possible building. The industrial zone is her only option within the city limits. Ms. Racicot stated that there are already two other gymnastic facilities in the industrial zones and she [topes the City will give her the opportunity to do the same, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Bates slated that the specialized training and learning schools are permitted use in six of our runes within the city and that encolllpasses most of the city. Mixed us; corridor mixed use, garden office, office,community commercial and regional commercial. Commissioner Bates asked Ms. Racicot if there were buildings in uuy of the stated zones that would fit her needs, Ms. Racicot stated that she has gone thrn every broker system and it has been an ongoing search since the beginning of April, with the specific requirements of the ceilings, pillars, and space,that she needs there is nothing. Commissioner Stay asked what her facility does. Ms. Racicot responded that she holds Mommy and Me classes, recreational classes, adttlt classes, yoga, gymnastics. Commissioner Bates asked how many people she would employ. Ms. Racicot stated after the first year probably about twenty. Commissioner Bates asked what her main reason that. she chooses the building she has in mind. Ms. Racicot responded that it is ideally set up with a sprinkler system, up to code, has the right spacing, and has the column situation where everything is outright twenty thousand square feet find half the price of anything she could have got if it was available. It's in the light industrial zone off Bradley by the UPS building. Shelli Waddell, 16621 E. Indiana Ave #0103, Spokane Valley. Ms. Waddell stated that she is a mom who has had kids in gymnastics and in traveling in that she has traveled the State of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, and Colorado. Site stated that every site she has been to was an industrial zone. She stated she is permanently disabled and she has no safety concerns, traveling to those sites they are much more accommodating then some of the other sites she has been to. Industrial zones are more willing to build and be accoin nodating. Ms.Waddel stated that it seems kind of funny that cities like Liberty Lake, Spokane and the rest of Washington Stato allow this in the industrial zone and why wouldn't the City of Spokane Valley want in move forward and progress like everyone else has. Spokane Valley is willing to advertise (hey come to tis were willing to work with you, were willing to change your permits). She stated that something like this is a no bulkier. Commissioner Bales asked Ms. Waddell in her experience is it daytime activities or nighttime activities? lvis, Waddell responded that the kids were in school in the daytime, so it was in the evenings. Usually classes were 5-8 pin five days a week and some weekends. A few mornings for Mommy and Me's program for slily at home moms. Todd Whipple, 2528 N. Sullivan, Spokane Valley. A packet was passed around to the Planning Commission. (Sec attachment"B"). Mr, Whipple stated, in the packet is The City of Spokane's Code for Light Industrial with what has allowed and not allowed. Also included in the City code is the definition of Community Services, which is what this would technically fall under. Mr. Whipple stated also in the Community Services that they could sec the exceptions that were noted when it becomes retail sales and service. Page four of the packet. Mr. Whipple stated he works with many land developers, which have many discussions about everybody is chasing the same dollar. 'Where should that dollar be spent? Should it be spent in Spokane, Spokane Valley, or Liberty Lake? One of the reasons Liberty Lake allows it is because of the HUI3, which is a very nice sports facility that just happens to be located in Light industrial. Mr. Whipplc's opinion is; the Light Mushy category is. not to be as feared for change as is the resulting blight, He stated he wrote that in his first letter and was trying to be fairly hard about it. It's the cities responsibility to help aitd facilitate business. The city has an incredible amount by Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of percentage of heavy and light industrial for what he believes is per capita ratio. There are not that many 20,000 foot clear span buildings and the perception is that grocery stores are clear span but they're no He said if you were to take a hard look at every grocery store, you would see that they put the rack lines on the column lines every twelve to sixteen feet. It's the cleat span elements and some of the uses that can be facilitttted by that in the long run that will help. He expressed in hopes that the City of Spokane Valley would come forward along with everyone else who has already done it. He stated that it could go too far to protect an industry, to the detriment of your City. Robert Ilonnecelli, 4904 S. St. Andrews Lane, Spokane. Mr. Bonnecelli stated that he is a lifetime resident of Spokane Valley. He is the owner and or partner in owning about seven hundred thousand square feet of industrial buildings in the City of Spokane Valley that compromise about twenty-five separate projects. In addition,he is one dike managing partners of Pinecroft I3wsness Park, which has three Hundred and sixty thousand square feet of Business Park at Pines and Mirabeati Parkway. He stated he has many projects in the Valley, grew up here,and has paid a lot of tares. This amendment to the text that Tiara is asking for is a no teatiuter. Mr. I3onnccelli commented that he is the owner of the building that Tiara is hoping to occupy. Changing this text amendment is going to allow a very compatible low impact use in this facility. He stated he has leased to several gyms in the industrial zone in the Spokane Valley,and currently he has two tenants that are gym related uses in industrial zones,one in Spokane Valley, and one in California. Piper Dr3lskcll, 11014 E. 215', Spokane Valley. Ms, Driskell wanted more information as to why the City of Spokane Valley's staff recommended to deny the amendment. Commissioner Bates stated this is a time to make a presentation to the Planning Commission and discussion and other information come after that. Commissioner Bates stated a letter was added to the record for Public comment. (See Attachment"C"). There were no further comments and Commissioner Bates closed the Public Hearing at 6:43 PM, Motion: Commissioner Neill moved to approve and forward to City Council CT4-2013- 0006 as presented, a second was grade. Discussion! Commissioner Stay had concerns about the existing lighting levels due to the fact that light industrial zones are not quite as high as a regular retail area night be as far a for kids naming around in the evening hours and how much truck traffic would there be due to it being a light industrial zone. Commissioner Stoy stated he thinks this should be allowed in industrial zones, hut he just wants to make sure that there might be some stipulations to make sure we do have adequate lighting for that type of a use and make that part of the tenant improvement permit just to make sure there is enough light. Commissioner Bates reminded the Planning Commissioners that this is a request for permitted use its the light industrial use and the conditional use in the heavy industrial and if we approve and recommend to the City Council we not only change it for the building that is in. question but that entire zone anywhere within our City. Commissioner Bates concern is that this would be city wide as tt permitted use. Commissioner McCaslin Planning Commission Minutes page 5 ofg commented that in all his experience with his daughter being in gymnastics that anytime he took her there, he took her directly in the building and if the kids were waiting for anything, they stayed within the building. It was not outside. Commissioner Bates stated that Planning Commission did not get a chance to study over the material that was handed out (Attachments A, 1),) and in all fairness, he had hoped they could end the discussion and take a recommendation that evening. I-te commented that with anything this major we should take our time and read all the information before there is a decision. Commissioner Anderson stated that two of the items supporting the applicant from the municipal code EDG-1 and EDG-2 (refer to page 3 of this document) do support the applicant due to the fact it encourages economic development. Staff comments LUG-I 0 and LUG-I I and LUP«11.2 (refer to page 3 of this document); Commissioner Anderson does not think these apply, Ile stated he agrees we are not developing new or converting existing industrial land into a different use and we are not converting industrial land. It's talking about a zoning action, but he thinks LUP-1 1.I and LUP-12,1 do apply if they are taken literally. Commissioner Anderson stated that he does not see anything that is being offered to do in this application is any different from some of the items that are currently allowed in our own code. He does not think there is a public health safety welfiire item, our job is not to further it, we just do not want to create a safety problem, He stated lighting is a problem anywhere. Commissioner Anderson supports the applicant stating he can't find any negatives, Commissioner Carlsen stated she liked that the proposed code text amendment request is utilizing existing structures for repurposing and not suggesting building new, She stated that currently we do allow similar facilities such as professional, vocational, trade schools and the golf driving range facilities. Commissioner Carlsen commented she believes to be consistent and to follow the Comprehensive Plan, we should think about allowing the specialized training and learning schools to be a conditional use in I-1 light industrial and not be allowed in 1-2 heavy industrial, This allows for hi this case she has a building in the light industrial area that fits her needs and on this case it only can be met on this particular location, it should be something that we can address. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think that the heavy industrial should be used for this. It already states in the Comprehensive Plan that we should limit the uses to small scale and she does not see a dance, gymnastics or martial arts in the industrial parks, Coninrissioner McCastin asked if we would be denying a manufacturing concern valuable space if we allowed a learning studio. Is there that much demand for manufacturing space? He also staled as n City are we trying to attract manufacturing by offering tax breaks, wouldn't the City of Spokane Valley benefit from that, and shouldn't this be business and landowner driven and not driven by our City. Commissioner provided the pros to this proposal; use of empty buildings that would otherwise he unused, business development for Spokane Valley and the allowance of being business and customer driven. Commissioner Phillips commented that he believes we should allow businesses and property owners to mike tine decision whether they want to fill a building with a manufacturing need and or if they cannot feel that need then they should be able to decide. Planning Commission Minutes l}ago,6 of 8 1-ie stated if there is a lighting problem, the customer could let the gymnastics company know this and it would take care of itself. Commissioner Phillips supports the proposal. Commissioner Neill stated he supports this because he loves to see new business corning in. Commissioner Neill asked Community Develop=ment Director John i-lohanan if there is a di=fference in the code for lighting for light industrial verses retail. Mr. Holtman responded no, we recently looked at the lighting code, before we did have some type of "not to exceed" language in there, The City does not regatlnte how tnticll light, it is up to the proponent to bring that forward. Co=mmissioner Bates stated he has a problem with this and that he rotates to the Comprehensive Plan as the City's declaration as far as our City's Land Use. Commissioner Bates passed along a copy of the heavy industry and light industry from the Comprehensive Plan for the Planning Commission (see attachment "D"). Commissioner Bates requested that 2.5.16 ladustrial Designations from the Comprehensive Plan be part of the record. After Commissioner l3ntes rend aloud 2.5,6 Industrial Designation, he commented on his definition of Ancillary uses, which he believes it means support of our industrial areas such as banks, credit unions, and convenient stores, these types of things, which are supported by the Comprehensive Plan to support the industrial area. Commissioner Bates reminded the Planning Commissioners that if were approving or recommending approval of the industrial area were doing it citywide, and not just talking about this one building. Commissioner Bates stated he does not intend to support the application. Commissioner Bates slated that it is important to go thru all the documents that ivere handed out that evening hi order to make a clear decision. He asked the Planning Commission how they felt about it. Majority felt they were ready to vote, Commissioner Anderson stated that he understands what Commissioner Bates just read, 2.5.6, and he thinks it needs to he taken in context that if you are developing a new industrial area or you're going to signify a new industrial area than you have the ability to put some stringent "what shall" and "not shall" be there. Most of the industrial areas that are being discussed is already developed. We are filling in an area that has no activity. Mr. Hellman slated the Comprehensive Plan applies for existing and new. You cannot just take the new and apply it to brat, Commissioner McCasliin stated that it keeps coining back to some of Tiera's comments about her search for an appropriate place for what she is trying to do and the fact that she has only ibund it in the areas sae's talking about, plus the feel the cost of putting that together in that buikling is so much lower. Commissioner McCaslin agreed that we need to take a good look at the Comp Plan and that there are parts that need to be revised. Commissioner Stoy stated that Mr. Bonnecelli has about 700,000 square feet of leasable space in different industrial areas. The industrial park has around 500,000 square feet of additional space.. Looking at the information provided by staff on the Matrix, item number 713 is Entertainment/recreation facilities, indoor, which is an outright permitted use in the 1-2. 7139 is Entertainment/recreation facilities, outdoor, is an outright permitted use in the 1-1. Commissioner Stoy stated he thinks the Comprehensive Phan has missed this particular use, because it's right in the Matrix to have an Indoor or outdoor recreation facility. Commissioner Stoy supports this, Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 Motion on floor: Planning Commission Vole was to forward to the City Council as presented CM-2013- 5 in favor, 2 against (Commissioner Bates and Commissioner Car•lsen), the motion was passed. XI, GOOD OF THE ORDER: #Ii101'e were no comments. XII, ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was ll4journed at 7:18 p.m. g ,'-'4'1.------,g,— -- 13111 Hates, Chairperson / .gyp e-4. e.A/ 6---' ' 4J Cari Hinshaw,PC Secretary Date signed E ,P It'7 Planning COIL MISSio1i i liIIUres Page 8 of 8 Attachrrient „� l•„ August 8'1', 2013 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 I; Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Dear Commissioners, Attached are examples of the equipment required for inc to successfully run a USA approval competitive gynt. This equipment demands specific building requirements due to the size in height and length of the various events. For example, for the floor exercise apparatus requires an area free of building support columns of 45'x 45'. The ring tower, used by the boys and Iticn, is 19 feet tall and requires a coiling height of 20 feet. 1 need to lease a space that is 20,000811 in site,much different than small dance and karate studios. These apparatus are the reason 1 have made this request to the zoning matrix to allow my use in the Light Industrial Zone,where 1 mn able to film buildings that meet these specific requirements. I spent several months looking for a building suitable In the current approved zoning and was unsuccessful. Thank you for hearing my cnse and I hope this information is helpful to you when snaking your final decision. SinCercly Tiara Racicot Evergreen Gymnastic, IdLC Gymnastics Equipment and Facility Requirements The main challenge in finding a building to accommodate a gymnastics club is finding one that is not only large and open, but also has 20ft ceilings in order to accommodate the equipment. Listed below is a description and dimensions of each piece of apparatus. The Vault requires 105ft in length by 8ft. This are will need to be doubled as there is an additional training vault. L'vamp!uof ftilfiamki:dfaudiriu orunl '•�''��'nr5'✓EarF:s'it� 't'rrJ�-'r''ni�r�.ri-,'-'f W FIU runway 70'min -62'max. (14'for JO) W minimum ahawed lot J O 70'rn'alraurrt, naxinunnptl`kr,JOt-uv.7 7ti mi munr,00'reuxkrnurufurJOt o,,0.10 The Uneven Oars require 19ft in length by 811 wide by 8ft high. Then you must consider an additional 8ft needed to accommodate the gymnast's rotation around the high bar. In addition,there are two training bar sets. So,the required area above will need to be doubled. rx;mrrrty pf lotymatte(Ilanfl ln,J area as pin EIGltndNpnndl amunItpncllfcal;ons.Matsnrn 20 crrr.IhO.n all'/'(/'w14 u. - _ l•►. s � •'� I L� ,/ 12' lb' 19'6' f�O Cpl Iiislil'ILU16113inrllrriG: Luv.4.1 6.16 FIG 1 11,•f ICS 17t7► I rrr F1,0 •FIG 250!1 C,11 ,11043V!1`.' 11Y4 3g04� rlal�hl or tia+s Inrast�n from •l�� 111;J I'aal Ia iiif:top of ra.i wldiTt . inr•uu�cJ ur ti dIntonn1 Imo 0$5100 Lcm[civ sa froIdrr 1113 The Beam requires 45,5ft in length and 8ft wide and 4ft tall. Again,an additional 8ft is needed for the gymnast to perform tricks on the apparatus. in addition,there are 4 training beam areas. Therefore, there is 4x this area needed, G II,vnps,ti WIG 4 vof■etipn4 ro, 1- Ina, t 4 n,1 "e' "`g r in d rrr4vp5 " y T it t: } 117 i r�.' 7. ' :: .. !1 ,■43 f , ,., ,.:i., .fib'. r... .r.� . . ,4 1 1 i ) > 1 - 1 16" 15.w 1V The Floor requires a very large open area of 45ft by 45ft. There can be no beams or structures within this 45sgft area. T91.1 amp• 44\takino a 41•i Ar Flair VIII• Jr 4 irl4'■ )1'4 7118' .n T t 1 mla�lnl [4 Ii: ' �> 13 l t:OTF.:lfnstrir 15IIse-lh it r, dV,7rute!llarlrrr.11;,5 �:itwtr.u0n i• ~ t'MI'C4G+On,1DPdlhn'�1+YdtY,th7iUk^! ;I i+la6UtIf4hSllijiQ,.., 1.,,,,]lrrtl—Oil 0.crh{+ F '� � �Js. 2 ii ule Foam Floor(picture not shown)needs an area of 45ft in length by Eft wide. There are 4 foam floors to be set up. Tumble Tralc and matting requires an area of 56ft in length by lift wide by aft high. An additional 12f1 of height is needed for the gymnast to work the trek. r �i '- 11 Nigh Bar and Matting requires 16ft in length by 8ft wide by 10ft in high. In addition,you need an additional 8ft in height to accommodate the gymnast rotating around the high bar. ' 1 r' • • f y� 1 ro 1 ? Parallel Bars and Matting requires 12ft in length by 12ft wide by 6.Gft in height. In addition,needed is an additional 1.0ft in height for gymnast to hit vertical on to (handstand) and dismounts. Pomm_ei Morse and Matting requires 10ft in length by 10ft wide by Aft high. An additional 1Oft in height Is needed for the gymnast to hit vortical and dismount. /i _ I Ring Tower and matting requires 16ft in length by 8ft wide and 19ft in height, Therefore 20ft is needed In ceiling height. f,,,,,C it 1 0 / g■Y«4k J i Elite Rids Bar Station and Matting requires 20ft in length by Sft wide by Gft high. /1"`T i 1-\) 3 t,1 .4 i i ilil_ I.L. 1-L.,4 1 1 ,..%k,,,s____, J ,„,..„............. . ...... ,, . mss 1 i I Robert A 130nuccelli Village Square Realty 12309 E. Mirabeau Pkwy 112 Spokane Valley, W i 99216 Cell 509-220-8522 bobbonvccelti @msti,corn TO: City of Spokane Malley, Planning Department RE: Chances in Industrial Zones to callow Gyms Date: 8-02-2010 Gentlemen: lain i11 favor of changing the permitted uses in lndusIri 31 Zones to allow Gyrns and other exercise and fitness ruses not permitted under the current zoning matrix, have leased and currently (ease to oyrns, exercise/weight training facilities and sports.: associations that need high cube Ia.rger open spaces at an offordat)le monthly price. A normal industrial building would rent for 1/2 of less versus et comparable facility located in a retail zone, This makes Industrial buildings art:a very cost effective solution for these businesses. Additionally, they y are very low impact on both the facility, the adjacent tenants and neighborhood. Normally, most of their heaviest parking requiroments are. at Hours when surrounding tyri inesses are dosed or on weekends. -thank you for your atlenlion to rily request. Sincerely, ---7 ?ee--0Se77--t-e4. c--e.1,e,e_--,,,,,,!: Curbs I le norn ccarlos4ladereafy.00m. Gynuinstic r.ca in indv al oat zonas August 0,2013 2:31 se PM POT Dalton Staa'mian.dslackrnanaoattrinrkocnu p4rron, Prom my perspective and experience tits gynlnaStio use does not negatively affect other business located in industrial zones. TJic lira and scope of the apparatuses use by this typo of business requires buildings that have high ceilings(20'll)and wide clear spans(451x453 These building characteristics are not found In commercial 2xutcs. The business hours are typically not concurrent with industrial hours as they operate a gruel deal of nights and wetkends, This type ofuyc is allowed in industrial zones in other local municipalities,county,Liberty Lake,and City of Spokane. Cartes A.Herrera Proskivnl 9polranrr Real E:stmo Tradors Cfub Commerclsi Sntos 8 Leasing St)S Realty inn. 100 North WnstalnutDn,Sulto 500 Spoknno,WA 99201 Cella(509)714-2593 Fax;(609)621-1711 Go to In much cournorcia l listings In Spoknno, ttorco:Tilts entail coa,ld Iw considered es an edverlisomant undo(ludo rut raw. To opt nut nlmpty([ply will tiko word wirova In IIio auNeci Ifna. Cti>bu Brotknor.cc1>rockriarOero'miwoa.ebm> LOW Suppoit vi Zeno C-19ingo hrrflust 4.29131:40:43 PM PDT `Jtladvnanci'nalGtsck.c am'sdslarkumniiRmin ec9.cerrn To Whom 11 may concern: lam willing In regard to further our support of a zone code change for a potential Gymnastics facility In the City of Spokane Valley. We have,explored this type of use and other similar types of nonconforming uses PVC car track,baseball training facility,Indoor skate park,ate.)for our Industrial space before. In the past,we have found that pymnastks use would not negatively affect other businesses located in our industrial zone. We noticed that the business hours for gymnastics studios are typically not concurrent with the industrial hours of the majority olio irclients, It always appeared that a gymnastics facility or other^training"facilities are mostly used at nights and on weekends. The use Is very tow impact on buildings,adjacent tenants and neighborhoods_ Our type of property seems Ideal,as the size and scope of the apparatuses requires buildings that have high ceilings )20'li) and wide clear spans{45'x45').Those building characteristics are 111)1 typically found in other commercial zones. Thank you for your consideration. rime Itreekner, [:ruM 1Y:+a lr�.elak,I 1 Xlrnliimr Itusita•s., C 1•u111.,hi,11 11.9 1. N.:IYIA tikte h t�.",,ir.! h,�a'{rnr Volr.y,WA' t 22Ib 45091 V?1 111e1 I1Hire 009)9?-I '1?-in 1 as Icr isJ9 Yt15,iecj1 r'%k rrki,•rr',e.r„xai.w ta;er•7 C Whipple, Consulting Engineers August 8, 2013 W.a. No. OH Attachment "B" City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 9926' Attn: Community 1:ovelopmetlt—Planning Division Re: Development Cole Text Amendment to Chapter 19-120; Permitted and Accessory Uses; Supplemental Information ---2" Offering Dear Sirs, These supplemental responses are being provided in support of the Code Text Amendment being proposed by the above Applicant, The intent of the Code Text Amendment would allow additional uses in the 1-1 and 1-2 zones. These uses would include the ability to provide Specialized Training(Gymnastics) Learning Schools r Studios. We would request that these uses be outright permitted in the 1-1 and I-2 Zones, with the understanding that the City may choose to allow these uses in the I-2 Zone as a Conditional Use. This letter is intended to supplement my original letter of July 9,2013. With this Ietter 1 otter additional information for your consideration in adopting this text amendment. ▪ Light Industrial portion of the City of Spokane Code with definition for Community Service • Entails supporting the requested text changes from o Spokane Business and Industrial Park, Chase Breckner,CC1lv1 o Spokane Real estate Traders Club, Carlos Herrera, President Again, we would ask that the Planning Commission allow this Text Amendment to he heard by the City Council, a publicly elected unit. We believe that while the development of new commercinl buildings can meet many goals, the adaptive reuse of an existing structure to meet an area wide deficiency is an important goal for continued economic growth of the City of Spokane Valley. Should you have any questions do not hesitate to call at 893-2617 or email at twhipple tt.whipplece.coiti Sincerely, ' 47. „Ai . Todd R. Whipple, 1'E President Cc: Tiara Racket File 2526 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 09216 6 PO Box 1666 • Voradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Prom: aM°Elrecknor brsotirvf Scrovnvostmor Subject: 40er or Support at Zen Ctharwp • • Irate: /5ugust 0,2013 I:4043 hit PDT To "dslac m.nr naes1ac't,come.cdafackrranenalD'ack.corro- To Whoni It may concern, I am writing In regard to further our support of axone code change for a potential gymnastics facility In the City of Spokane Valley. We have explored this type of use and other similar types of nonconforming uses(It/C car track baseball training facility,Indoor skate park,etc.)for our Industrial space before. In the past,we have found that gymnastics use would not negatively affect other businesses located in our industrial zone. We noticed that the business(lours for gymnastics studios are typically not concurrent with the indult Kai hours of the majority of our clients. It always appeared that a gymnastics facility or other"training"fac titles are mostly used el nights and on weekends. The use Is very low impact on buildings,adjacent tenants and neighborhoods. Our type of property seems Ideal,as the size and scope of the appa rate sos requires buildings that have high ceilings (2 ft) and wide clear spans(45'x45'). These bulking characteristics are not typically round in usher co:iimercial tones. Thank you for your consideration. Chase Itrcekner, CCIN1 truun lyt`st I iI1y,1.I..C. Spokane Business&Industrial Park R.]SOn minims Rug!.1.11.1A N.IS,4242 SpArno Vsiley,WA 99213 (soy)9924-1721 Olike (MO)924.3745 Ft, (5fr))873.-7459 Ccil From CM'03 Harr4ra ccartasesdsrcolty.com> Subject: Gymnastic use in tndualrial 2045e2 Dates /opal tl,2013 211 38 FM PDT To Darnnr!t3Iacknrall cdslackarananablaelc.tttri7 Darren, From my perspective and experience 1110 gym:iastics use does not negatively affect other business located in industrial zones. The sire and scope of the apparatuses use by this typo of business requires buildings that have high ceilings(20'ft)anti wide clear spans{45`x45`}, 'These budding cllaracterikties ire not felted in certimocial zones. The business hours DM typically not concurrent'`vilh industrial hours as they rccnr4e a grcrtdcal of nights and weekends. This type of use is allowed in industrial•rimes in oilier local municipalities,county,Liberty Lake,and City of Spokane, C0(103 A.Herrera President Spokane Real Est3to Trotters OM Commercial Solos&Leasing SDS Really Inc. 109 Norlh Weshlr tan,Su;ta 500 Spokonv,WA 99201 CetI:(509)714-2593 Fox:(509)621-1711 omit:.ra311 idsrea.tlyCDirl Go to yyKVa.rAlrealtv,corrl lo search oft wmmcrrdat II6Ur a In Spokane. No:Ice:This enroll could be rcnsklerest as an adverpsomoot under fedora)trrrr. To opt out sirn7ty reply with thn Hord remove in 11',o suhlact lino. Spokane Municipal Code Thursday,August 8, 2013-S:01 Pf 1 print 1 Claw Window rout Size:Increase 1 Decrease Title 17C Land Use Standards Chapter 17C.190 Use Category Descriptions Article V. Inst'tutlonal Categories Section 17C,190.420 Community Services A. Characteristics. Community Services are uses of a public, nonprofit or charitable nature general},providing a local seiv;ce to people of the community. Generally,they provide the service on the site or have employees at the site on a regular basis. The service Is oncgoincg,not Just for special events. Cormtunity centers or facilities that have merrbership provisions are open to the general pubic to join at any tine, (for Instance,any senior citizen could join a senior center),The use tray provide mass shelter or short:-termhousing whore tenancy may be arranged for periods of 1.ss than one month when operated by a pibik or nonprofit agency.The use irny also provide special course ing, education or training of a public, nonprofit or chartable nature. B. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses may include offices;meeting areas;food preparation areas;parking,health and therapy areas;daycare uses;and athletic facilties, C. Examples. Exan-ples include libraries, nxrseurrc, senior centers, corn-minty centers, publicly owned swieming pools,youth dub facilities,hospices,ambulance stations, drug and alcohol centers, social service faciltk�s, mass shelters or shart-term haus'ng when operated by a public or nonprofit agency,vocational training for the physically or mentally disabled, crewtoriunn, colurrbariunn, r3nusoleurr;, soup kitchens and surplus food distribution centers. D, Exceptions. 1. Private lodges,clubs and private or conntercial athletic or health dubs are classified as Retail Sales and Service. Conrr►ercial rrxuscunm(such as a wax museum)are in Retail Sales and Service. 2. Parks are h Parks and Open Areas. 3. lases where tenancy is arranged on a month-to-month basis, or for a longer period are residential,and are classified as Residential 1-iouseho!d or Group living. 4. pubic safely facilities are dassifled as Basic Utilities. Date Passed:Tuesday, Play 31, 2005 ORD C33636 section 3 a.vw.spdnnocitycuglserVussld ocunwlsfsmefpinVderau'r,sspx 111 Spokane Municipal Code Thursday,August 8, 2013-5:02 PM int 1 Closo Wirtdow Font Size: increase,I Decrease; Title 17CLand Use Standards Chapter 170.130 Industriil Zones section].7C.]30.010 Purpose Tire idustrial zoning categories rnpien rtt the industrial goals and policies and land use plan map designations of the comprehensive plan.Tne zones are for areas of the City designated by the comprehensive plan for Industrial uses.The industrial zone crassif;catrons reserve areas or the City for industrial uses and a nix of non"ndustrial uses that are compatible with Industrial uses.These areas are located where necessary supporting infrastructure is available and where there s an adequate supply of land. Units on the Intensity of uses and theT irrpacts en surrounding land uses are accomplished by the development standards specified in this chapter,Thu development standards are designed to allow a large degree of developnrent flexibilty within paranr.^.ters that support the Intent of the specie zone. The standards are intended to provide certainty to property❑tenets, devetopas and neighbors about the I+tits of what Is aIowed in the industrial zo;res. Date Passed: Monday,November 7, 2005 0 a 033757 Section 1 Section 170130,015 Design Standards Administration Al projects must address the pertinent design standards and guidelines.A determination of consistency with the standards and gulde:Ines MI he nude by the planning director fotowirg air adninlstrative design review process. Design standards are irr the form of Requ'rerrents(R),Presunptions(P),and Cons'de►ations(C). Regardless of w'+inch term is used,an applicant roust:address each gu`de!Ine. An applicant may seek to deviate from eligible standards and rduldelitcs through the design departure process;see chanter 17G,O3O S'1C, Design Departures. A. Requirements(R). 1 equren-ents are mandator y in that they conta'n language that is not discretionary,such as"shat+,""anise,"arid"wit." Requirements must he satisfied by any plan prior Lo building permit approval.An applicant may seek a deviation from certain requIrcnunts througir the design departure process, chapter 17G.030 SMC. Requirements are listed with an(R)after Or: standard. 13 Presunptions(P). Presumptions are guidelines that are rent to be appl'ed,but with SCUM flexibility. Presumptions Indicate that the City Is open to design features that are equal to,or better than, that stated--so long as the purpose Is satisfied.A submitted pan Is inccnplete and will be rejected if it does not demonstrate that the presumptive elennnts have been in some way incorporated or overcome.Presurrptions are listed with a(P)after the standard. 1. Overcoming a Presumption, A presumption that may he unsuitable for a even project rr+ay be waived if an applcant can demonstrate to the planning director that there Is a good reason why the presumption Is inappropriate.'the director may approve an alternative that achieves the Intent of the presumption.At the discretion of the applicant,a request to deviate from o presumption may be referred to the design review board pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter 17G.030 E.C. In rare cases involving projects of unusual complexity and/or situations where it is not clear to the director whether or not the proposal satisf es the intent of the design standards and the comprehensive plan, the director, ntny arso refer the project application to the design review board. 2. Appropriate ways to overcorrr"s a presumption Include: a. derrranstrating that for a specific project,tire under'i7lrci design princlpies will not be furthered by the applr'eation of the presumption; b. show.ng that another design principle Is enhanced by not applying the presumption; e. demonstrating an afrernative method for achieving the Intent of the presumption; d. explaining the unique site factors that woke the presunption unworkable such as lot s;zc and shape,slope, natural vegetation,drainage,and characteristics of adjacent development,which are Identified through their use of materials,colors, building mass and form, and landscaping. note:Increases in the cost of development will not be an acceptable reason to waive a guideline or deternine that a guideline Is inappropriate, w.wv.spol,2mollyerfIis f eesldov❑irwntslsatclprintidafau't.aspx 1/23 urns Sr.ciane M rucrp3r uo ie C. Considerations(C), Design guidelines listed as considerations are features and concepts that an a pplcant shou'd consider in preparhg a plan.Tlnelr omission Is not grounds for rejecting a plan, but their Inclusion cr recogntion is encouraged and may assist in overcoming certain presumptions and in gaining acceptance for a plan. Considerations are listed with an(C)after the standard, Date Passed: Monday,Apri125,2011 ORD 034717 Section 13 Section 17C,130.020 List of the Industrial Zones The fWI and short r,am.s of the industrial zones and their Wrap syrri'xc"s are[sled below.When this chapter refers to the industrial zones,It Is referring to the zoning categories listed here. Full Manta Short Nunn/ Map Symbol Light irndustrial LI Heavy Industrial Hi P'anncd Industrial PI Date Passed:Monday,Noven-Ler 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170..30.030 Citaractet-istics of Industrial Zones A. Light Industrial(11). The!gilt industrial zoning category Is located In areas designated felt Industrial on the land use plan trap of the corrprehensI'ie p'an.The fight industrial(11)zone is intended to provide a wide range of etrployrlrent opportunities tihithout potential conflicts from interspersed residential uses,A full range of industrial,comnxrcial and office use is allowed. Corrrrerclal uses are limited in size,to ensure that they do not doninate the character of the Industrial area or adversely affect the intended Industrial use of the area. Consistent with the comprehensive plan, residentiaal cfeve'oprrent Is a1'owed In close proxirrity to the Spoltane Ricer tYlrere residents can take advantage of the river amanita. The development standards In this titre are the min-munnnecessary to assure safe,efficient and environrrental,'y sound development, which will hove minimum adverse impacts. 13. Heavy Industrial(HI). The heavy Industrial zoning category Is located in areas designated heavy industrial on the kind use plan Wrap of the comprehensive plan. The heavy industrial(1-11)zone Is Intended prirrariiy for high impact industrial uses while allowing office and limited commarclal uses wvh!ch are harmonious with industrial uses.Connvrcial uses are ratted in size to ensure that they do not dominate the character of the Industrial area or adversely affect the Intended Industrial use of the area. Residential development Is allowed in close proximity to the Spokane River where residents can take advantage of the river amenity. The development standards are the rrinhiurn necessary to assure safe, functional,efficient and environnn=_ntally sound development, C. Planned Industrial(PI). The planned industrial zoning category may be located in areas designated light Industrial or heavy Industrial on the land use plan map of the conprehensi're plan.The planned Industrial(PI)zone is intended to encourage the use of Industrial land for employment and enproyrrent sr.pporting uses.Nonindustrial uses are limited unless they are a part of a binding site plan or planned unit development. Date Passed: Monday,Noveni er 7,2005 Oi2D 033757 Section 1 Section i7C.130.040 Other Zoning Standards The standards in this chapter state the allowed uses and the dcvekrprient standards for the base zones. Sites wain overlay zones, plan districts or designated historical landmarks are subject to additional standards.The official zoning wraps Indicate which sites are subject to the additional standards. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to standards In Part 3,Special Use Standards,of the dNiston. tW.tv.spn:farecit y.orgiserw'ces Now rent sisnn 1prInflcs;facltaspx 217.3 Urn.r!.�. Date Passed;Monday, November 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170.130.100 Industrial Zones Primary Uses A. Permitted Uses(P). Uses permitted In the industrial zones are lsted in Table 170.130-1 with a"P."T1ese uses are allowed if they comply w:th the cevchoprr nt standards and other standards of this chapter. B. Limited Uses(L). Uses itowed that are subject to Iinitaltons are ll$t;ed In I ah'e 170.130.1 with an"1,.""These uses are allawed If they comply w;tit the limitations as listed In the footnotes fotowing the table and the development standards and other standards of this chapter. in addition, a tse or development listed in Part 3 of this division,Special USE:Standards, Is also subject to the standards of those chapters. C. Condi.ionat Uses(CU). Uses That are el'flwed If pproved through the conditional use review process are listed In Tablz 170.1304 with a"CU."These uses are aI"owed provided they comply with the conditional use approval criteria for that use,the development standards, and other standards of this chapter. Uses listed with a"CU"that also have a footnote number in the table are subject to the standards cited in the footnote, In addition,a use or development listed in Part 3 of this division,Special Use Standards,is also subject to the standards of tltoso chapters.The conditional use review process and approval criteria are stated in chapter, 170.320 2dc,Conditional Uses. D. Uses Not Pernitted(N). Uses listed In Table 170.130-1 with an"N"are not permitted.I:xbting uses in categories listed as not permitted Troy be subject to the standards of chapter 17C,2111 SMC,Nonconforming St.rations, Table 17C.130-1 Industrial Zones Primary Uses Use Is: P—Pernitted; --Not Pernitted; LI Zone Hi Zone PI Zone L—Aimed, but with (Light Industrial) (Heavy rndustrial) (Planned Industrial) Special Unitations; CU--Conditional Use Review Required Res'dentla 1 Categories Group Lvinr3 L[lf N 1[3] Residentiai Household L[2] L[2] L[3) lsring Commercial Categories Adult[3usiress L[4J N N Con i ercial Outdoor P P CU Recreation Commercial Pa rang P P P Drive through Facilly P P P wiNo.sj:o'cr citYcrgfso'Nicesk focurnen1slsrocfp9ntedcfaXt.aspx 3123 Ud II3 Wan Municipal Cola Major Event CU CU CU Entertainment Office P P P Quick Vehicle Servicing P P Retail Sa les and LICU[S] LJCU[6] L[7] Service Mini-storage Facilities L[8] L[8] L[©] Vellide Repay P P P Industrial Categories ifgh Inpact Use L[9] L[9] N Industrial Service P P P ManGfacturing and P P P Production Ral 'oad Yards CU P P Warehouse and Freight P P P Movement Waste-related CU CU CU Wholesale Sales P P P Institutional Categories Basic Utlikies P P P Colleges P N L(10] Cnnirrentty Service P N N 4 Daycare P CU L[10] Medical Centers P N L[OD] Parks and Open Areas P CU P Religious InstituVoris P N N Schools P N L[10] memspolorecllyorglsers Icesl dscurnentesmceprinllr:Nault.aspx 423 MO pe,var}?Muni GP3#'.oce Other Categories Agrdculture Aviation and Surface p P P Passenger Ternin a is Detention paaties CU CU CU Essential Public CU CU Cif Feel'ities le ning CU CU CU Rail L'nes and Utility P P Corridors Wireless COtUT1un1Cathe t/CU[11] l/CU[11] 1/CU[11] Facittles Notes; @_s •The use categories are described in chapter 17C.1c4 SfdC, •Standards that correspond to the bracketed numbers[]are specified In SMC 170.130,110. •Specific uses and developments may be suhjeet to the standards in Part 3 of this division,Special Use Standards. •Standards applr.abie to condk anal uses are stated in elm nter 17C.320 sr-IC. Date Posed:Monday, Neverter7, 2,00 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 17C.130.1.113 Limited tJso Standards The paragraphs I,sted below contain the limitations and correspond with the bracketed[]footnote numbers fromTab'e 17C.130-1. 1. Group Living. This standard applies to all parts of Tab'e 170.130-1•that have a[Ij, a. Group living uses are al:o'.ved on sites wtthin one•queiter rile of the Spokane River where residents can take advantage of the river amenity.The panning cfirector riuy authorize a group living use greater than ono-quarter mile from the Spokane River if the applicant denmstrates that the site has a river viewpoint and a pedestrian connection to the river. Group ruing eses shall provide buffering from adjacent industrial lands by use of berme,landscaping, fencing or a combination of these measures or other appropriate screening measures dcenn('appropriate by the Worming director.The proposal shell Include a design, landscape and transportation plan which hit conflicts between the residential, envie),went end industrial uses. b. Alternative or Post Incarceration Faci'ities. Group living uses whlcli consist of alternative or post incarceration facilities are not permitted, 2, Residential Household Lleeng. Th's standard applies to all parts of Table 17C,130-1 that have a[4 a, Residential household Hying uses are alkeeed on sties within one•quarter nine of the Spokane River rehere residents can take advantage of the river enmity.The planning director may authorize a residential living use greater than one-quarter irk from the Spokane River if the applicant demonstrates that the site has a river viewpoint and a pedestrian connection to the river. Residential uses shall provide buffering Irani adjacent industrial lands by use of berms,randscaping,fencing ora combination of the rr4asures or other appropriate screening rn±asures deemed appropriate by the planning director,The proposal shall include a design,landscape,and transportation plan,which wil Init confricts between the residential,employment and Industrial uses. b. A s'ng'e-family residence may he erected on a lot having a side property line Wi ch adjoins a tot In a residential zone, with or without an intervening al'ey,or on a lot which has less than one hundred feet of frontage and has residerces existing on all lots adjoining its side property lines. r.eee.spoleanoclty.cr{rl serdcesldxummtetsiec eprrnedairrAt,aspx 5/23 A1a,'13 po ,r»Mureclpa'Cod° c. Living quarters for one caretaker per site In the LI, H1 and PI zones are permitted. 3. Group living and ResidentialUousehokl Living, This standard applies to all parts of Table 17C,130-1.that have a[3].Group living and reskienUaI household wing uses may be permtted ki the P1 zone as a past of a binding site plan under the provisions of the subdivision code or a planned unit develaprnent t nder the provis?ons of Division G—Administration anid Procedures.A mnimumof fifty percent of the site N1thin the binding she plan or planned unit development shalt be in manufacturing and production, Industrial service or office uses.Group Wing and resicentialhotrsehold living uses shall be buffered from industrial lands by use of berms, landscaping, fencing or a corrrb!nation of these measures or other appropriate screening measures deemed appropriate by the planning director.The buffenlag irrprovennnts slia'I be developed on the residential portion of the binding site plan or planned unit development at the thee the residential uses are constructed.The site development plan shall include a design, landscape,and transportation plan, which will limit conflicts between the residential and industrial uses, 4. Adult Business. This standard applies to all parts of Table 17C,130.1 that have a [q]. Adult bus'nesses are subject to the following standards: a, chapter 17C,305 SMC,Adult nosiness, b. Adult businesses are subject to the size requ!reinents specifed in item[5]below applicable to retail sales and services Uses in the lght hdustrkal(11)zone. c. In addition to the standards it subsections(4)(a)and(b)of this section, adult businesses are permitted only in the I"rght industrial zone adult business overlay zone as desiana;ed on the official zoning neap. 5, Retail Sales and Service Uses Size Limitation. This standard applies to all Farts of Table 170.130.1 that have a [5], Retail sales and service uses are Awed If the floor area plus outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area Is not more than sixty thousand square feet per site. Retail sales and service uses where the floor area plus the outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area Is more than sixty thousand square feet per site are a conditional use. 6. Retail Sales and Service Uses Size Limitation. This standard applies to all carts of Table 170.130-1 that have a [b]. Retail sales and service uses are allowed if the floor area plus outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area Is not nnre than twenty thousand square feet per site.retail sales and service uses~.here the floor area plus the outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area Is more than twenty thousand square feet per site are a conditional use. 7. Retail Sales and Service Uses Size Limitation. This standard apples to all parts of Table 170,130-1,that have a [7]. Retailsaales and service uses are allowed if the floor arca plus the outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area fs not mare than three thousand square feet per site.Retail sales and service uses where the floor area plus the outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage area Is more than three thousand square feet per site may be permitted as a part of a binding site plan under the provisions of the subdi'vlsion coda or a planned unit development under the provisions of the zoning code,A minimal of fifty percent of the site area of the uses In the planned unit development or.bindfng site plan shat be in manufacturing and production,industrial service or office uses. 11, Mni-storage Facilities. This standard airfares to all parts of Table 170.130.1 that have a[8],The irritations are stated with the special standards for these uses in chanter 17C,359 5h1C,Mini-Storage radlties. 9. Hirsh lnpact Uses. This standard applies to al parts of;Fable 17C.13C-1,that have a [9]. High Impac:uses shall be located a minimum of six hundred feet from the boundary of a residential or conrnerrial zone, 10. Colleges, Medical Centers, Daycare anti School Uses. This standard applies to all parts of Table 170.130-i.that have an[10]. Colleges,medical centers,daycare and school uses may be per Flitted as a part of a b'ndfng site plan under the provisions of the subrtivlsion code,or a planned unit development Lander the prnvls'ons of the zoning code, A n-in'arumof fifty percent of the site within the planned unit development or binding s'le plan she]be In man.rfacturingg and production, industrial service or office uses. Colleges, medical centers,daycare and school uses are allowed within the planned unit development or binding site plan provided that the site developmei t includes a design, lardscape and transportation plan which%vit hn't confl'cls between the college,nedCal center,daycare,school and lndustrbl uses, 11. Wireless Conntun'catian Faciities. This standard applies to all parts of Table 170,130.1,that have a[11].Some wireless corn run'cation facilities are allowed by right. See chapter 17C355 SMC, Date Passed: Monday, November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 ttvw'z,si>,ol inrciryorg/serticasktonuirwntsisrmcltirir.Vdafault.aspx 6123. 1-4,7 v.e y1-,4-4.,,a„ice I+wIFw vwwv Section 170,130.124 Accessory Uses Uses that are accessory to a prinnry use are allowed if they cony with specfic standards for the accessory uses nr.d all deveroprr nt standards.See chanter 170,190 SMMC, Use Category Descriptions. Date Passed: Monday, Naverr1 er 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Scctio.'r 1 Section 170,130.130 il+rtlsance-related Impacts A. Off-silo Inputs. 1 Al noaresklentlaI uses Including their accessory uses shall corypiy with the standards of chanter 17C.220 SMC,Off-site In-pacts. R. Other Nuisances. Nuisances are further regulated by state and local laves. Dale Passed: Monday, November 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Sectloa 1 Section 170,130.204 Lot:Size There Is no required n n'nximlot size for devekkprront of land or for the creation of new lots in the industrial zones.Creation of new lots Is subject to the standards of chapter 17U.090_Sl'.1C,Subdivis'ons. Date Passed: Monday, Novell-her 7, 2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 17C.130.210 Hoer Area Ratio Floor a Rea ratios(FARs)regulate the a=tint of use(the Intensty)al'owed on a site FARs provide a rreans to match the potential annunt of uses+'with the de5ired character of the area and the provision of puh!Ic services.FARs also work with the height,and setback standards to control the overall bulk of developrmnt.There Is no maxlniim FAR in the industrial zones. ' ,� k k f r s:Ories t 13,-f]R'f 11:,...... /(eVI' ` (. %ft r . 171 R — [ttiltill Floor Alk1 �.1, ° / diti[cLcl by Site Alva. .r�{ ' S �r�#l' ,fI i f l �f Table 17C.130-2 Industrial Zones Development Standards[1] Standard LI Zone HI Zone PI Zone MaxinumFAR(2] No trill No Limit No Unit MaximumFleight[3] ISO ft.[3] 150 ft.13j 150ft.[3] Maximum i'elcjht Abutting P.Zoned 35 ft.[3] 35 ft.[3] 35 It.[3] Lots[3] ‘nr v,spa c recl ly.c rgis cry cesldccunkrdsis nr+FhInttdefaul t.aspx 7/23 tav'L??13 Spoti•re Municipal Cole hl rinxrm Building Setback Street Lot o[4] 0[4] 0[41 tine[4] f•1nInnumSetback from 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. R Zoned Laks[5] Landscaping and Yes Yes Yes Screening Required[6] Parking Requi•ed[7] Yes Yes Yes Notes: [1]Plan district or overlay zone standards nay supersede these standards. [21 The FAR for uses that are not classified as Industrial uses within the Industrie!Categories of Tab'e 17C,130-1 are the sari'as the GC Commercial Zone.See Oa.ter 170.120 St4C for GC zone standards, [3]Sse.,SMC 1-K.130,220(EHH and(C). [r]When abutting a sing'e•far ily and tw.a•fanity residential zoning,the niarininistructure setback from the street lot fine is the saran as the residential zoning dlstri:t for the first sixty feet from the boundary of the residential zon'rg district.See SMC 170.130,230 for a ddit:onal standards and exceptions, This does not apply when a zone boundary Is within the prrbl!c right-of-way. [5]Structure setbacks are nx:asured from tho lot line. [6]This part of the tai:re Is for general information purposes only;see chapter 17C.200 SMC, Landscaping and Screening, for the specific standards. [7]Tits part of the tattle Is for general information purposes only;see chapter 170.230 SMC, Parkiig and i-oad'ng,for the specific standards. Date Passed: Monday, Novenier 7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 170,130.220 Height A. Purpose The height lints are intended to control the overall scan_of bul!dings.Trc he'.ght snits for sites near residential zones discourc.ge bu+kJings that visually doninate adjacent residential zones. Light,air,and potential for privacy are Intended to be preserved In reskfentlal zones that are close to Industrial zones. B. Height Standards The height standards for all structures are stated In'Table 17C,].30-2, Exceptions to the n xrnxrrndrei0ht standard are stated below. 1. Maximum Height. Exceptions to the nnrxirrp.innstructure I,eiglit are designated on the official zoning iiep by a dash and a height listed after the zone map symbol(Le,,CD-154), Changes to the height'hits require a rezone. Iie;ght limits are thirty-five feet,forty feet,fifty-fire feet,seventy feet or one hundred fifty feet depending on location. 2, i3uildings and structures for uses that are not classified as industrial uses w,thln the Industrbl Categories of Tab!e 170.130.1 and that are over fifty feet In height must fellow the design,setback and trunsional standards found In chapter 17C.250 SMC,Ta'I Rrrifding Standards. 3. Adjacent to Single-family and Two-family Residential Zones. To provide a gradual transition and enhance the corrpatiblity between the mare Intensive industrial zones and adjacent single-fanily and t wo•famify residential zones: a. For all devefopattent within one hundred fifty feet or any single-farrily or two-family residential zone the naxinxrm buiiding height Is as fo,'oves:Starting at a height of thirty feet at the residential zone boundary,additional building height may be added at a ratio of one to two(one foot of additional building height for every two feet of additional horizontal distance frorn the cbsest single-fa niy crtwvo-famty residential zone).The building height transition requirement ends one hundred fifty feet from the single-fa oily or two-far ilj residential lone and then full building height allowed In the zone apples. vans p^,tanec ity,orgls oy;lceskixura*!ts;srrc/prl rt/d sfnuit.aspx 13/23 UM IV V pMw,19 MLR.i.,,r PI VS.t. iN•l r1 ti. 4.4 war L4 1 l/.•'•4 mot k theme:Ali y .Ifit 14e f* h-(.1:•1. f•+Atm d. Projections Allowed. Cfiirm_ys,flag poles,satellte recelv,ng dishes and other items similar with a width,depth or diameter of five feet or less ney rise ten feet above the height limit,or five feet above the highest point of the roof,whichever is greater.If they are greater than five feat in width,depth or diameter,they are subject to the height limit. 5. Rcoftop Mechanical Equipment, All rooftop nechankal equiprmnt nwst be set back at least fifteen feet from all roof edges that are parallel to street lot lines and roof Ines facing an abatueg residential zone. Elevator mechanical equipment my extend up to sixteen feet above the height Intl.Other rooftop mtedian:cal equ'prrient,which cumulatively covers no more than ten percent of the roof area,Troy extend ten feet above the height Init. 6, Radio and television antennas,utility power poles and public safety facifties are exempt from the height lint except as provided in chapter 17C.3S5 SMC,Wireless Cctmxtication Faci9tIes. C. Special Height Districts Special height districts are established to control building heights under particular circumstances such as preservation of public view or airport approaches. See chanter 17C•170 stiq,Special Height Overlay Districts and chapter 1 C.100,s 1C,Airfield Overlay Zones, Date Passed: Monday,July 23,2012 ORD 030388 Section 7 Section i.7C,130.230 Setbacks and Sidewalks A. Purpose. The required structure setbacks promote streetscapes that are consistent with the desired character of the different Industrial zones.The setback requirements for press that abut single-farrily residential zones promote commercial development that MI maintain light,air,and the potential for privacy for adjacent single-fanny residential zones.The sidewalk standards provide a continuous,safe,and consistent street frontage character along the street right-of-way. B. Setback and Required 5+dewalkWidth Standards, The setback standards for al structures are stated In laib 17C,130-2, Industrial zones Development Standards,and as stated below. 1, Structures shall be no closer than twelve feet from the bacicof the curb except as provided in subsection(B)(3)of this section. 2. Sidewalks are required to be constructed and shalt consist of a clear walking path at least five feet wide(in add;tlon to a planting zone for street trees per SMC 17C,200,QS0), Part or all of the sidewatc width may be located on private property.The sidewatc dimension shall be applied to the clear,unobstructed pathway between the planting zone behind the curb and building facades or parldng lot screening. f At�tti yy •)- r •�, • e'er• • 3. The required stdewalkwidth may be reduced by approval of the planning director if the existing sidewak(distance between the curb and the building)Is less than twelve feet>,eide between the back of curb and the existing building wFw s paw ectty org/s erticesfdoc unontsIsrnc/prirt/default.aspx 0+23 ette,13 }xlarr�I.4unlcl} l Colo setback Ine of adjacent build:ng(s). In no case shall the setback he reduced below nine feet from the back of the curb unless orb-street parking exists between the buIkVng and the street. 4. Unless otherwise required or where larger plaza areas are provided,sidewalk-paving material shall be concrete,two-foot grid,standard sidewa'kcolor and float finislt. C. Exceptions to the Setback Standards. 1. Where a site is split between more than one zone and a structure is proposed that will cross an Internal lot Inc that is also a zoning line, no setbacks are required from that lot Inc.' 2. Detached Accessory Structures. The setbackstandauis for detached accessory structures are stated fro SMC 17C.130.300.Fences are addressed In SiFtC 170.130.310.Sign standards are In chapter 170.240 Sh1C, Signs. D. Extensions into Required Structure Setbacks. The Fo1'owing features attached to structures are allowed as except-sans to the setbackstandards except they shall not reduce the required sIdewa'k kvdth of SMC 17C.130.23Q. 1. (Minor Projections of Features Attached to Structures, a. Minor Projections Allowed, Minor features of a structure,such as eaves,chimneys,fire escapes,bay windows,uncovered stairways, Wheelchair rants,and uncovered decks or balconies nay extend Into a required structure setback up to twenty percent of the depth of the setback.However, they nay not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback fs required. Bays and bay windows extereng Into the setback also rant meet the following requfrenents: I. Each bay and bay window may be up to twelve feet long,but the total area of all bays and bay windows on a building facade cannot be wore than thirty percent of the area of the facade. II. At least thirty percent of the area of the bay which faces the property rne requiring the setback must be glazing or glass black. t3ays and bay windows n°crst cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure,and Iv. The bay may not Include any doors. b. Full Prejectlon AI;o:ved. In addlzlon to subsection(D)(1)(a)of this section,the fo:iowincg features are allowed to project farther into required structure setbacks: I. Canopies,rnmrquees,awnings, and similar features nhay fully extend into a street setback and nay extend Into the public right-of-way subject to the requirements of SW.170140.140. i. Uncovered stairways and wheelchair ramps that lead to one entrance on the street-faring facade of a building nay fully extend Into a street setback. b. Uncovered decks and stairways that are no more than forty-two inches above the ground nny fu'l y extend Into a required structure setback;; and iv. On lots that slope down from the street,vehicular and pedestrian entry brfges that are no more than forty-tyro Inches above the average sidewalk elevation may fully extend into a required structure setback, v. Balconies nay extend into pubic rights-of-way as allowed in the building code. c. Protections(dot Allowed, Attached nt_chanIcaI structures such as heat punps,alr concll:foners,emergency generators, and water punps are allowed In a street setback but not In a required setback from an abutting res?dential zone. 2. Underground structures are permitted in all setbacks. Date Passed: Monday,February 25,2013 ORla C34961 Section G Section£70,130,240 Landscaped Area s A. Purpose. landscaping is required because it is attractive and it helps to soften the effects of built and paved areas. It also helps reduce stormwater runoff by providing a surface into which stoat-water can percolate into the soli. v Wd.spclo ity.orgI a 1cos floGJJrnerisisnWpcintldefai■last 1023 tVi21 aporZ:I Jit1 uiIWO:11)1,10 B. Landscape Standards, Requireirents for landscaping are stated'n chanter 170,200 SMC,Landscap'rtg and Screening. Date Passed:Monday, November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 17C,i30.250 Screening A, Purpose, She screening standards Erdr?ress specific uns'.ghtiy features which detract from the appearance of Industrial areas. 13. Garbage,CoIection Areas. M exterior refuse(including garbage, recycl'ng materials and yard debt's)receptacles and refuse collection are mrst be screened from the street and any adjacent properties.Trash receptacles for pedestrian use are exempt.Screening must ccirply wit the standards of chapter 17C.2C0 SMC, I.andscap'ng and Screening. C. 11c I arkal Equipment, rdecilarke1 equipment located on the ground,such as heating or cooling equim ent, pumps or generators roust be screened from the.street and any abutting residential zones by malls,fences or vegetation tall enough to screen the equipment. Nlechan'cal equipment on roofs of buildings nut be screened from ground level of any abutting R-zoned lands, D. Other Screening Requiren-ents. The screening requlrenEnts for parking,outdoor storage and outdoor display areas are stated in the standards for those types of development. Date Passed:Monday, November 7,2005 ORDC33757 Section 1 Section 1.70,1.30.260 Pedestrian Standards A. Purpose. The pedestrian standards encourage a safe,Wiz crave and usable pedestrian circiAtion system.They erasure a direct pedestrian connection between the street and bui'dings on a site. H, Pedestrian Connection Inp'ermntation. 1. Connections. Within parking lots containing more tarn thirty stalls,cleary defined pedestrian connections shall be provided: a. bels;een a publicright-of-way and building entrances, b, between parking lots and bulking entrances. 2. Width. Pedestrian connections shall not be less than The feet tA.tide. 3, Materials. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by at least two of the following: a, Six-Inch vertical curb. b. Textured paving, incl-dinr3 across vehicular lanes, c. A continuous Iartdsca pe area at a nin:n umof three feet wide on at least one side of the vial way. d. Treks. e. Special falling. 1. Bollards, g. Special paving, h. Lary seat wall andlor other architectural features, 4w.w.sp:)ncclty.orglsenIcesldoar,'nt.nis/SmcIF{lnVde1acrlt.aspx 11g23 !b7?i 13 Spccttuta lflurdcipai Cade 1' )I 11I 0 LJ 1 AugE.i ....., . . t-zatir- vt 10, --I- 1 firt ILA , pediast :rn aornriciion t tilt 4 1 ,. . .f.,. .,....-,.. ,. ...w:,_:4: _ .: , .;;--- Pi rr[irrq reinforcesperiostrrart connection thltxrfih parking tot ri. Landscaping. Pedestrian connections can be counted toward fire amount of required landscaping, Requirornents For landscaping are stated In chapter 17C,200 Sf IC, Landscaping and Screening, Date Passed: Monday, Novel-her 7, 200S ORh 033757 Section 1 Section 170.130.270 outdoor Activities A. Purpose. The standards of this section ere intended to assure that outdoor sales, display,storage and wotkactivities: 1, wit he cons'stent with the dewed character of the zone; 2, wit riot he a detriment to the overall appearance of the industrial area; 3, wil riot have adverse impacts on adjacent properties,especially those zoned residential,and 4, till not have an adverse frrpact on the environment. Outdoor activities associated with nonresidential uses shalt be pernitted in industrial zones subject to the standards of the zone as described below, 13. 0Jtdoor Saves and Storage Areas. 1, Outdoor sates and storage areas are allowed in all industrial zones. 2„ 'iltere Is no limit on the size of pernitted outdoor storage areas. 3. The s ze of outdoor sales areas for retail sale s and service uses are prescribed In the fli 170.130-1,Industrial Zones Prima y Uses,and;SMC 17C.130.110, United Use Standards, C. 0 at door Activities Location, 1, The faliow:ng outdoor activities shall be located at least fifty feet from a residentially zoned lot: a. Outdoor sales andfor service of food or beverages, b, Outdoor storage. c, Outdoor loading berths. d. Outdoor work activities Including the sates of rrntor veikcle fuels and car washes. D. Oatdoor Activities Area frrpravenmnts. L Outdoor activities shall he screened and i3ndscaped accord'ng to the provisions of chapter 17C.200 SMC,landscaping and Screen-11g, mrttsF eneclty.orgr servi ceddccun•cnrsrserfprintidcfaull.ospx 12123 CHO,l) :n111,1)01 4■NA17 2. In order to control dust and lard,all vehicle circulation areas must be paved. Date Passed:Monday,November 7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 170.130.280 rfteserrved] Reserved Date Passed: Monday, November 7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 170.130,290 Drive-through Facilities Drive through facilities are allowed In ail Industrial zones.The standards for drive-through facilities are stated in chanter 17C.32.5 SMC, Drive-through Facilities. Date Passed: Monday, November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170.130.300 Detached Accessory Structures A. Purpose. The general standards are Intended to clarify the development standards appicahle to detached accessory structures. B. General Standards, 1. The standards of thr3 Seaton apply only to dcteched accessary structures. 2. The heisht standards of the Ease zone apply to detached accessory structures. 3. Detached accessory structures shall not reduce the required sidewalk width of SMC 170.130.230. C. Setback . 1. Uncovered Accessory Structures. a. Uncovered accessory structures such as flag poles, ianp posts, signs,radio antennas and dishes,naechankal equip-mot,uncovered decks, play structures,and tennis courts are allowed in the street lot tine setback provided they do not reduce the required sidewalk vrldth of SMC 17C.130.230. h. Uncovered accessory structures are not allowed in a required setback from an abutthg residential zone. 2. Covered Structures. Covered Structures such as storage buildhcis,garages, greenhouses,work soled,covered decks and covered recreational strOltures ore subject to the setbacks for structures. Date Passed: f.lortday, November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170.130.310 Fences A. Purpose The fence standards prormte the positive benefits of fences without adversely f rpacting the cormrurity or endangering public or vehicle safety. Fences near streets are kept low in order to allow vtsibifrty into and out of the site and to ensure vlsihlity for motorists.Fences in any required side or rear setback are I ailed iii height so as to not conflict with the purpose for the setback. B. Type of Fences The standards apply to walls,fences, and screens of all types ti4tether open, solid, wood,metal, wire, masonry,or other im torlal, C. Location, Height, and Design wwr.tiro'r4,necily.crgJsord eldoctarontslsrrrly dnUdefauitaspx 1323 Flrtt'13 Spoon)Municipal Code 1. Street Setbacks. No fence or other structure Is ai'owed Within twelve feet from till back of the curb, consistent with the required sidewalk width of SMC 17C.130,230. a. Measured from Front Lot Line. fences up to three and one-half feet high are armed le a required street setback that Is ni asured from a front lot Inc. b. Measured froma Side Lot line. Fences up to six feet h'gl1 are allowed In required setback that is measured from a side lot I'ne. c, Fences shall no reduce the required setback width of SMC 170.130.210. 2. Side or Rear Structure Setbacks. Fences up to six feet high are allowed In required s'de or rear setbacks except wizen the side at rear setback abuts a pedestrian connection.When the side or rear setback abuts a pedestrian connection, fences are United to three and orie-ltaif feet in Freight. 3. Not in Setbacks. The height for fences that are not In required setbacks is the satin as the regular height Knits of the zone, 4. Sght-obscuring Fences and Wails. Any required or non-required sight-obscuring fences, k%ails, and other structures over three and one-half feet hgh,and within fifteen feet of a street lot line shall he placed on the interior side of a L2 see-through buffer landscaping area at least five feet Ir1 depth(See chaoter 17C.200 SMC, Landscaping and Screenhg), D. Prohbited Fences 1. No person troy erect or nuintaln a fence or barrier consisting of or containing barbed,razor,concertina, or similar titre except that up to three strands of barbed vdIre may be placed atop a lawful fence exceeding sx feet ht height a`tove grade. 2. No person may rrrointaln a fence or barrier charged with electricity. 3, A fence, ma!'or other structure shall not be placed within a public right-of-way without an approved covenant as provided In 5MC 17G,010.100 and any such structure is subject to the height requirement for the adJo'ning setback, 4. No fence may be closer than twehre feet to the curb. E. Vsibllty at Intersections 1. A fence,wail, Kedge or other improvement may not be erected or maintained at the corner of a lot so as to obstruct the view of travrwier upon the streets, 2, Subject to the autherity of the traffic engineer to nuke adjustra nts and special requirenrnts In particular cases, no fence exceeding a height of thirty-six Indies above the curb may be inside the: a, right isosceles triangle having skies of fifty feet nt.asured along the curb lime of each Intersecting residential street;or w.wi.spotatechlyorgisorricesldccurr nIslsrna/frInt/defauita px 14123 Well! a}iur+011t1 rv!uMvw1J i.ws. . ►� 1. 'Al.S1uf:1' •CURB r�rl1 /,r/// Sr /,IN PO 07/0 MAXIMUM PENCE ff I h?(GHTOF36- INCHES CURB._ LINT. b. right triangle having a fifteen-foot side pleasured along the curb Ine of the residential street and a seventy-We Foot side along the curb line of the intersecting arterial street,except that when the arterial street has a speed lire:of thirty-five Hiles per hour,the triangle has a side along such arterial of one hundred twenty-two feet;or B. LOCAL. ShI RL1iT --I 15' e ca . MIAXIMIJM FENCE HCIUHT 01?36 INCH1IS, CURB LINE 44 c. right Isosceles triangle having sides of seven Feet measured along the right-of-way One of an a1>Ly and: L the inside ine of the sidewalk;or IL lf there is no sidewalk,a line seven feet Inside the curb line. vvwsixs`.w achye n/sentceddocurrants;sroctprtnt/defadt.raspx 1 012113 Sp:k3ne Municipal Coca SI LW la CI BUrllt"it SI1&It' )Tfl SIDEWALK r ___j____,. T. ., MAXI,4itJAS FENCE HEIGH rov 36 i NC 1i4 ALLEY F. Enclosures for Pools, Hot Tub, or Ponds 1. A person mjintoining i sw:rrning pool,het tub,pond,or other impoundment of water exceeding five thousand gallons and eighteen Inches or Hare In depth and loca,ed on private property Is required to construct and maintain an approved fence by which the pool or other water feature 1s enclosed and Inaccessible by stroll children, 2, The required pool enclosure mist be at least ftty-four'aches Ugh and nuy be a fence,wall, building or other structure approved by the bul'ding services department, 3. If the enclosure is a woven wire fence,It is required to be built to discourage enrri:ing. d. No opening,except a door or gate may exceed four inches in any dia nsion, 5. Any door or gate iri the pool enclosure,except when part of the occupied dwelling unit,roust have self-closing and self- locking equipment by which the door or gate is kept secure when not in use.A latch or lock release on the outside or the door or gate nn5t be at least fifty-four inches above the ground. C. Reference to Other Standards i3uilding permits are required by the building services department for all fences Including tha replacement of existing fences.A 'emit is not required to repair an existing fence. Date Passed: Monday,Juy 23,2017 ORD 034883 Section a Section 17C,130,32O[Reserved] Reserved ')ate Passed: Monday, November 7, 200S ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 170.130,330 INIonconfornlirig Development Existing development that does not conform to the deveiopm?nt standards cf this chapter shall be subject to the standarcis of Chanter: 170,210 SW:, Nonconforning Situations. Date Passed: Monday, 1lovenriaer•7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 17C130,340 Parking and loading The standards pertaining to the minimum requred and nraxirtimm arlowed number of auto parking spaces,minimum required number of bi yc!e parking spaces, parking lot pracerr nt,parking lot setbacks and internal pa-king lot pedestrian connections are stated in chapter 17C,23O SMC, Parking and Loading, wo.W.spat+naWlty.pro/setViceslrlcct,menrsisrncfi rntklYault.aspx 16,23 Lu+13 apuclfI+PAW ILA pill'LAM r� Date Passed:Monday,November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170,130,350 Signs The sicn standards are stated in chapter 170,/10 Sh1C,Signs. Date Passed; Monday,July 23,2012 ORD 031889 Section 9 Sec tfon 17C.130.360 Residential Uses Notification Any res!dential property offered for sale shall include notice to potential purchasers,paced on the tale to the property that Industrial activities within theme are iegai and permitted by zoning standards, and further, that the property is iccated wrtiiin an area where additional industrial aclIvities may be conducted.A role to this effect sha'I also he placed on any plat or short plat approved by the City. Property, bulldiigs,or portions thereof offered for lease or rent shall include in the lease or rental agreement a note to this effect. Failure to provide such not'co does not negate the right to engage in any lawful Industrial activities located In the area. Date Passed:Monday, Nroverlaer 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 17C.1.20.400[Reserved' Reserved Date Passed:f.lcnday,November 7, 2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Section 170,130.500 Design Standards Implementation The design standards and gu'deEnes found in 5 M 17C,J30.500 through SFIC 17C.130.510 follow SMC 17C.130.O15,Design Standards Adrnin'stration.All protects must address the pertinent design standards and gedelines, Design standards are In the form of Requirements(R), Presunptrons(P),and Considerations(C).Regardless of which tennis used,an appl'cant most address each gu!del'ne, An applcant may seek relief through chapter 17G,030 SMC, Design Depa Acres,for those eligb!e standards and guidelines contained h the zoning code. A. 1ndLstrlal, Institutional and Other Use Catejorbs, Site and bui'ding design for uses in the industrial, institutional and other categories described In chanter 17C,190 SMC, Use Category Descriptrors,shall cdtt~f y with the folowAg design standards(refer to Table 170,130-3 below for a summary of the design standards): 1, light Industrial(LI),Heavy Industrial(HI),a nd Planned Industrial(PI)Zones. . A bui!drng w'thrn sixty feet of an arterial street shall incorporate cne of the design elements specified in Sh1C 17C.130.510through SMC 17C,130.51D. Table 17C,130-3 Industrial Zone Design Standards[1] r3eslgn Standards for Light industrial(U), Heavy Industrial(HI)and Planned Industrial(Pi)Zones Ground floor Prominent Ground Level Roof Bose/Middle/Top Articulation RlankWalls Site Windotvs SMC, SMC Entrance C1etails Express!on atic Location n1C r r Sh1C SW: SMC f7C'13°'515 '17C.1.3a,520 17C.130i5A0 L7C.130.51. !70',134.525 1JC,130.530 17C,130.535 Site Adjacent One of the above design treatments requ red on wall facing arterial v.v.vlsir iiecityorglserticesidocuI 1slsn•cipxint/dOfauiLsspx 17,23 06'11'13 Spckino MunicipalCcab to Arter nI Site Abutting a Two of the above design treatnx:nts required an wall facing conyrerciaizone Cormarcial Zone Ste Abutting a 1liree of the above design treatments required on wall facing reskential zone Residential Zone Outer Sites No requlrennts Notes: E1]Design standards apply to uses in the industrial, institutional and other use categories,see chanter 170.190 SMC, Uses In the. corrcmrctal use categories shall corrply with all of the design standards specified In SPiC 170.120.500 through SMC 170.220.580. b. A buildrrg on a site adjacent to or across a right-of-way from a ccn•rr>ercial zone or within sixty feet of a conmarclal zone shall incorporate two of the design elenrnts specified in S1'1 C 17x..130,510 through Sl1C 17C,130.510. c. A building on a site adjacent to or across a right-of-way from a residential zone or within sixty feet of a resdential zone shall Incorporate three of the design elements specified In SMC 17C.130.510 throuch SIIC 170,130.510, R Convtxirciai Uses in industrial Zones. Bu'Idiig and site developriint in the U, Pi and 1-117ones with uses in the coniir.rcial use category shall corrply with all of the design standards specified in SMC 17C.12Q.500 through SW: 17C.120.580, C. Residential Uses In industrial Zones. auiiding and si:e development In the Li,131 and HI tones with uses in residentiai use category shalt comply with the design standards specified In chapter 170,110 SPCC app5cabie to residential uses, Date Passed; Monday, It'oven-her 7, 2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 17C.130.510 Ground Floor Windows -Building Design A. PLrpase, Blank web an the ground level of bul'dings are iirrixed in order to: 1. provide a peasant, rich and diverse view from neighboring corrirrercial and residential zones and front arterial streets; 2, encourage observation or viewing opportunities by restricting fortress like facades;and 3. avoid a monotonous pedestrian erwironrmrit. D. Required Arnaunts of Vi'iidov'Area. These provisions apply to building facades between two feet and ten feet above the level of the adjacent sidewalk,tvalkway or grourd fevel.When this building design erenr nt Is chosen,w,ndows equal in area to a ninlrrtrrn of fifteen percent of the wall area shall be provided. mii. polcarr city.orgl sercicesfdacunwirtslsnrc f1rintWaulf.aspx 1 0,0r1J `p. rieMunCipaiUOOA3 III II ilia al `1 • wv • +1 iA w V .,d+ e` •t• Date Passed:hlcnday, Novcrrber 7,2005 OR[)033757 5ect'1 n 1 Section 17C,130.515 Base/Middle/Top--Building Design A, Purpose. To red;rce the appaient bulk of buildings by providing a sense of'base"and"top," 0. case/KcidIefroptnprennntation. When this build+'ng design oicnrnt Is chosol1 1. 13u idings sha'I have.a distinct"base"at the ground ravel, using articulation and materials such as stone, ni-isoniy or decorative concrete. (P) 2, The lop"of the building shall be treated with a distinct outrne with elements such as a projecting parapet, cornice,or projection. (P) . iS ' • i„p fill/ 1 ,'`'�yylll�l(1l'll'L a r1i h, °' i 7 xt Ili N __ .� 1 •.. .•. •%li %tip r---47-117..\--, O{� rip �.� iv .. d' . . '_ -tea— vi Date Passed:Monday, Noven her 7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Secrrori 170.130.520 Articulation—Quildin{i Design A. Purpose. To reduce the n ass:veness of larger buildings. it. Articulation implerrentation. wrwsp anecily.c'rg/ser+.1 oe s/dacuin nts/smaprIrt/de/aultaspx 19)23 R,' t13 Spc'sato Municipal Code ' When this building design eienrent is chosen: 1, Parades longer than fifty feet shwa be broken down into sn3ller units through the use of offsets,recesses,staggered wafts,stepped rolls, pitched or stepped roofiines, overhangs and other elements of the building's muss,SInpty changing materials or co'or Is not sufficient to accomplish this,(R) 2, Articulation shall be provided along facades visible f rain the street,as well as frornneighboring residential areas.(P)•„0,.f c� .■ � r ^ r,. - 4.1 id i ill , v-i411.-* s r ° 1 4 rtr, _ rr 1 it Date Passed:Monday, 1Noverrber 7,2005 ORD 033757 Section 1 Suction 170.130,525 Prominent Entrance-•I31.111ding Design A. Purpose. To ensure that building entrances are easily identifiable and clearly visible frohr roads and sidewalks. B. Proiinent Entrance:irrplern ntation. When this building design element Is chosen: 1, principal entry to the bui'ding shall be,harked by at last one element from Group A and one eiearnt from Group 13: (R) a. Group A. i. Large entry doors. Pi, Recessed entrance. li. Prot rudirg entrance. b. Group B. I, Canopy. ii, Poitko. I. Overhang. 2, Weather protection over the entry. (P) WAY)s pcylwecity.org{seal ces/dccunk:nlsis mcipri nktdcfa'.rq.aspx 20•23 r I 4 y r rlJ .} rte 11 '1 - r- 1Tl i..� w I .. - ./ Sgt.-. i di Comte Makin , e-JIul i'IC• i. , . Date Passed:Monday, h'oven ber 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 170.130.530 Ground Level Details--Building Design A. Purpose, To ensure that bukdings display the greatest amount of visual Interest, B. Ground Level Details Irrpknntation. When this building resign element is chosen: 1. Ground level of building shag be pedestrian friendly in scale, expression and use of materials.(R) 2. Ground floor of the buildings shall have at least two of the forming elements: (P) a. Large windows. b, Kickplates for storefront windows, c, Projecting s1Ig, d. Pedestrian scale s(gns. e. Canopies, 1. Plinth. YMVZspok annity aryfserioesJdocuments tsmclreinVdefadLaspx 210 u t3 5pc i Munlcrpa:Code canopy ■r �r a Sri I� 1-is Vaegagia tre. rxt'rrA peclosfriwr Mint/ NI Elements.to he incorpor'ated erf promo,level Date?assed: Monday, November 7, 2005 ORIO C33757 Settion 1 Section L7C.13O.535 Roof Expression—Building Design A. fkrrpose. To ensdre that roof fires present a dist;nct profile and appearance for the bolding. B, Roof Expression Implementation. When Ills build'ng design element is chosen, buildings with fIdt roofs shall have portions with pitched roofs, extended parapets or protecting corn''ces to create a pronfnent edge when viewed against the sky,especially to hIgh'ight major entrances. (P) to,Nts r I `I_Pr D kij =own fe rriiw: .i1`"+•iii �.. 'r'• f✓ '.iX'�'Ii�}//i ?`" .r:; I' Variation in r ooflino Date Passed: Monday, November 7,2005 ORD C33757 Section 1 Section 17C.130.540 Treating Blank Walls—fluilclinrg Design A. Purpose. To mitigate blank walls by providing visual interest. @. Treating Blank Walls IrrplenMntation. When this building design clermnt Is chosen: 1. Where windows are not provided on walls(or portfors of walls)fadng streets orvlslble from right-of-way, at least two of the fol'owirig elements shall be Incorporated:(R) a, Masonry(but not fiat concrete block). b. Concrete or masonry p'fnth at wall base. c. Belt coursas of a different texture and color, %wmspo'ouwcIty o rser dcesldo:urmls;snrlcrintlddfault.aspx 22123 d. Projecting cornbbe. e. Protecting metal canopy. 1, Decorative tilewok g, Treks containing planting. li. htedalions. I. opaque or translucent gltsss windows. I. Artwork such as scu'pttires,nurals,Ways, nnsalcs or elemnts Integrated with the pre'Act. k Vertical articulation. I. Lighting fixtures. m. Recesses. n. An archllectural elenr.n1 not listed above,as approved,that w ets the Intent. r ,�, g c)i, ,. rr ,aF r .1-, _ _��0,1 4j r ; �r LI S y r. �f I i *� l ti 4 c 7 I° r,IX r'.,i, (eh .34.44 '11/1 rr`ti l , .1, Y ■ , � 1 ,i i , tr 5r ( 7 1f tf _ e-;"':::";:f:4%;:'1'"!1, l ,: F r�.' Vert/eat trellis sit ticltire with clinrbingplants lrslp sotto!?binnk 4t'alls A (17:\,,.\* 441/K • I� �, A!:r-p-1-6.1 trNlt_illr'tllrritrr Hi I iIINI tMmi ll iiimil 1 0 , .ifu , z., __ , v, rt., br . P � . /, . (.1. e�T ,' '4 f Planting and awnings adfacont to blank'Iva!! Bate Passed:Monday, Noventer7,20113 ORt)033757 Section 1 ww...spo',1-snec lty.crglse•Veesl6xum1+1stSIVfP Iintl bfaciI o spx 23/23 RECEIVED Ittachment "C" Robert A. Bonuccelii Village Square Realty AUG I.; 2013 12309 E. Mirabeau Pkwy #2 Spokane Valley, Wa 99216 SP{MAIII VALI.I!Y -t" 41 i irwHllr CeII 509-220-8522 bobbonucceliiOnnsn.com TO: City of Spokane Valley, Planning Department RE: Changes in Industrial Zones to allow Gyms Date: 8-02-2013 Gentlemen: am in favor of changing the permitted uses in Industrial Zones to allow Gyms and other exercise and fitness uses not permitted under the current zoning matrix. have leased and currently lease to gyms, exercise/weight training facilities and sports associations that need high cube larger open spaces at an affordable monthly price. A normal industrial building would rent for 1/2 of less versus a comparable facility located in a retail zone. This makes Industrial buildings are a very cost effective solution for these businesses. Additionally, they are very low impact on both the facility, the adjacent tenants and neighborhood. Normally, most of their heaviest parking requirements are at hours when surrounding businesses aro closed or on weekends. Thank you for your attention to my request. Sincerely, 7-To cle/(S-077,-U4, -".t) 41,P _[ I l fl ,I1 City of Spokano Valley Comprehensive PkIn Corridor Mixed-ilse Corridor Mixed-use Is intended to entrance travel options, encourage development of locally serving commercial uses, multi-family apartments, lodging and offices along major transportation corridors identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map(Map 2.1). Corridor Mixed-uso recognizes the historical low-intensity, auto-dependent development pattern, and focuses on a pedestrian orientation with an emphasis on aesthetics and design. The Corridor Mixed-use designation Is primarily used along Sprague Avenue In order to space the areas designated commercial. NMixod-Uso Center The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within developments under this designation. As described above, Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and would include ernployment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses, and In some cases community or cultural facilities, Mixed-use developments in this designation are characterized by differing land uses which are developed pursuant to a coherent, approved plan of development. Compatibility between uses Is achieved through design which integrates certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities. 2.6.6 industrial Desiggnations Providing for industrial land is important for the economic health of Spokane Valley. Industrial businesses help drive the local economy and ,' , � r, create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Providing an adequate supply of ( ;.r - `.1 , usable land with minimal environmental ,1�6►'r .•+f11 ;:;'r 11r` .trtr; 1' 1 constraints and Infrastructure in place Kelps ensure that Spokane Valley will be an attractive -- - place for Industrial businesses to locate and prosper. (See Chapter 7, Economic Development, for additional policies that encourage recruitment and retention of Industrial business), Heavy Industry Heavy industry is characterized by intense Industrial activities which include, but are not limited to, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly/disassembly, freight-handling ulad similar operations. Heavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas. - Commercial residential and most recreational uses • .._ ' , �: j? should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry, except for small-scale enclilary uses serving ' t-'° r.' • the industrial area, The conversion of designated ;; ,E‘� • industrial lands to other uses should be limited. ;`-r ' ' 1* � ill -j .�, Limiting incompatible uses ensures a competitive -U&f j i R.. J51- I advantage In business recruitment by providing adequate industrial land supply, reducing land arse 'r . conflicts and preventing Inflation of land prices. , , ', ,• Moreover, allowing a wide variety of commercial, retail and other uses in the Industrial areas would be in ` f4 i conflict with other portions of this Plan related to � ., concentrating major commercial growth in nodes at - the intersection of major streets. Adopted April 25, 2006(Updated 06-06-2012) Chapter 2-Land Use Page 10of311 City orspokano Valley Comprehensive Plan Light industry The Light Industry designation is a planned Industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping, and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low-Impact Industries. Light Industry areas may incorporate office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for the industrial area. Non-industrial uses should be limited and In the majority of cases be associated with permitted industr€al uses. The Light industry category may serve as a transitional category between heavy industrial areas and other less Intensive land use categories. The category may also serve as a visual buffer for heavy industrial areas adjacent to aesthetic corridors. 2.6.7 Perko,Opon Space The Parks and Open Space designation is intended to protect parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community. 2,6 Development Review Process The Land Use chapter provides the policy foundation for Implementing zoning and development regulations. In developing policy concerning future land use regulations, or revisions to existing regulations, every effort has been made to instill certainty and efficiency in the development process. State legislation has focused on developing streamlined and timely permit processing, Through the goals and policies of this Plan,the City will continue to strive to provide an efficient and timely review system. p.7 Urban Design and Farris In addition to guiding development, the Land Use chapter also guides the quality and character of the City's future development pattern through goats and policies related to the form, function, and appearance of the built environment. These priorities and implementation strategies, related to quality development, serve and will continue to serve as a basis from which to develop appropriate implementation measures. The design of our urban environment has a significant effect on community identity. Well designed communities contribute to a healthful, safe and sustainable environment that offers e variety of opportunities for housing and employment. An attractive and well planned community is invaluable when recruiting new business and industry to an area. Some of the concepts considered include: Community appearance, Including signs and placement of utilities; • Neighborhood considerations Iii the review of development projects; • Integration and linking of neighborhoods including bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o The effect of traffic patterns and parking on neighborhood character; o Encouragement of high quality development through the appropriate use of planned unit developments; and ▪ Consideration for public art. 2.7.1 Aesthetic Corridora Aesthetic corridors are intended to protect the visual appeal of Spokane Valley along major transportation routes entering and exiting the city. Aosthetlo corridors provide special design standards for aesthetics along major transportation routes to help create a quality image of Spokane Valley. Another component of aesthetic corridors is the "gateways" into the city, There ere several entrances Into the City of Spokane Valley along major transportation corridors, inclucding Sprague Avenue, Trent Avenue, State Route 27 and a number of interchanges on Interstate 00. Design elements and landscaping treatments should denote a sense of arrival into the City, a neighborhood or special area such as the city center. Adopted April 26, 2000 (Updated 06.06-2012) Chapter 2- Land Use Page 19 of 34 21) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • tn ti �r PLANNING DIVISION Spokane Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: July 30,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 8, 2013, 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 privately initiated text amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses- to allow specialized training/learning schools or studios in the Light Industrial(I-1)district as a Permitted Use and as a Conditional Use in the Heavy Industrial (I- 2) district. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Tiara Racicot 16621 E.Indiana#D-108 Spokane Valley,WA 99216 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission deny the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.120 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: 7/2/2013 Application Submitted: 6/25/2013 Determination of Completeness: 7/12/2013 Published Notice of Public Hearing: 6/26/2013 and 8/2/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 6/25/2013 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The applicant, Tiara Racicot, had preliminary discussions with staff regarding the proposed text amendment prior to a formal application submittal. The proposal is to modify Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0006 Appendix 19-A, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19,120 to allow specialized training/learning schools or studios in the Light Industrial (I-1) district as a Permitted Use and as a Conditional Use in the Heavy Industrial(I-2)district. The following is a summary of the applicant's reasoning for making application for this text amendment. a. Many of these uses require high ceilings (above 20 ft), large run and workout areas and increased square footages. These types of spaces are not readily available in commercial and office areas and can generally only be found in industrial or light manufacturing areas. b. Allowing these uses in the industrial zones will provide additional commercial opportunities to building owners. c. Requiring these facilities to locate in commercial and office zones will consume vacant developable ground that may be better suited for other higher and best uses. Additionally,utilizing existing facilities in a re-use fashion reduces the need for expansion of the built environment, allows for the adaptive re-use of existing buildings and facilitates economic vitality of the surrounding area. d. The applicant referenced the following goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan as support for their proposal. LUG-14 EDG-1,2,4 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 1. 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 not consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as evidenced below: LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUG-11: A variety of strategically located heavy industrial areas should be designated and protected f onr conflicting land uses. LUP-11.1: Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0006 LUP-12.1. Commercial, residential and recreational uses shall be limited or rrot allowed in areas designated for light industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses primarily to serve the industrial area. (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 not furthered by allowing these facilities in the City's industrial areas. Locating incompatible uses such as industry and specialized learning schools next to each other creates significant safety concerns as well as decreases the amount of land available for industrial development. b. Conclusion(s): After a thorough review, staff was unable to find any goals and policies to support the proposed text amendment and has determined that the amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. Comprehensive Plan policies limit commercial and recreational uses in Light and Heavy Industrial areas primarily to individuals working and doing business in those areas. Specialized training/learning schools and studio type uses (i.e. dance studios, gymnastics training,karate training), are not typically oriented and marketed to industrial areas. (3) Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2013-4006 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures (4) 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 A detailed review has determined that the code text amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after careful review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, recommends denial of the proposed code text amendment. Page 3 of 3 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION August 22,2013 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 is a citizen-initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120 Permitted and Accessory Uses matrix-to allow specialized training/learning schools or studios in the Light Industrial (I-1) district as a Permitted Use and as a conditional use in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) district, 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on August 8, 2013. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. PIanning Commission Findings and Conclusions: 1. Compliance with SVIVIC 17.80150(F)Approval Criteria a. The proposed citizen-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy, LUP-11.1 - Comrnercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas designated for industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to primarily serve the industrial area. ii. Land Use Goal,LUG-14 -Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. iii. Economic Development Goal, EDG-1 — Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing economic vitality, stability and sustainability. iv. Economic Development Goal, EDG-2 — Encourage redevelopment of connnercial/industrial properties within the City. v. Economic Development Goal, EDG-4 — Encourage regional tourism as a sustainable provider of jobs and markets. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Utilizing existing facilities in a re-use fashion reduces the need for expansion of the built environment, allows for the adaptive re-use of existing building that rnatclres the scale of the surroundings and again facilitates the economic vitality of the surrounding area. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 Finding(s): i. Allowing specialized training/learning schools or studios in the Light Industrial (I-1) district as a Permitted Use and as a Conditional Use in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) district is consistent with uses already allowed in these zones including, but not limited to entertainment/recreational facilities and golf driving ranges. ii. Specialized training/learning schools or studios do not present a safety concern in the industrial zones for either the participants or the surrounding uses. 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 citizen-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 citizen-initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.120,Permitted and Accessory Uses matrix. Approved this 22nd day of August,2013. Bill Bates,Chairman ATTEST: Carl Hinshaw,Planning Commission Secretary Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 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: Spokane Regional Site Selector Proposed Agreement Amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption on December 12, 2006 of Amendment #1 to the Agreement for the Spokane Regional Site Selector, which made the City of Spokane Valley a party to the Agreement for the first time; execution of a new Agreement for the Spokane Regional Site Selector on or about October 19, 2009. BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Site Selector is a GIS based economic development tool that provides a wealth of information for anyone interested in researching commercial property for sale or lease in the Spokane region. The website allows users to view property listings, generate economic and census reports, provides data on competitive businesses and includes interactive maps that display geographic information such as the location of streets, water bodies, parks and other points of interest. The Regional Site Selector Consortium is comprised of the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake, and Spokane County and Avista. City staff participates on the Consortium Oversight Committee and directly participates in all decisions. OPTIONS: (1) place on a future agenda for approval; or (2) request additional changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for approval. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Cost can vary from year-to-year depending on how many entities are party to the Agreement. The 2013 budgeted amount for this was $12,000. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner — Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed replacement Agreement for the Spokane Regional Site Selector (2) PowerPoint presentation AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and among EASTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, an institution of higher education and an agency of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at Showalter Hall 210, Cheney, WA 99004-2444, hereinafter referred to as "University", SPOKANE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "County," the CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard., Spokane, Washington 99201 , hereinafter referred to as "City of Spokane", the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99206, hereinafter referred to as the City of Spokane Valley and AVISTA CORPORATION dba Avista Utilities, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1411 East Mission Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99220-3727, hereinafter referred to as "Avista", and the GREATER SPOKANE INCORPORATED, a federal 501 c (6) entity, defined as a business league as an association of persons having common business interest whose purposes is to promote the common business interest, having offices for the transaction of business at 801 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 302, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as "GSI"; jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the Parties to mutually participate in this project; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTINUATION OF SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR CONSORTIUM: The Parties hereto are constituent members of the Spokane Regional Site Selector Consortium (hereinafter referred to as the "Consortium"). The role of the Consortium is to coordinate a community partnership that facilitates development and operation of an economic development web site. The Consortium Oversight Committee (see Section 5B below) establishes the responsibilities of each Consortium member with regards to the implementation and the maintenance of the Spokane Regional Site Selector application and associated data and establishes the financial commitment of each Consortium member to the Spokane Regional Site Selector. The Consortium's purpose is also to ensure the products of the Consortium are effective and useful. 1 2. HISTORY OF GIS WEB BASED SITE SELECTOR: A GIS web enabled site selector tool has been established for use in attracting and retaining companies in the region. In order to meet growing demands for immediate access to data that site selectors require, as well as to assist GSI in preparing proposals for prospective clients, the Consortium contracts with GIS Planning Inc. for an off-the- shelf site selector application. For clarification purposes, this is NOT the State of Washington's limited version of a GIS Planning web-based site selection tool. Support for this tool and its implementation and local maintenance is provided by the University, with University faculty leading and supervising these efforts as further described in Section 5C. 3. OVERVIEW OF SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR: The Spokane Regional Site Selector project is a GIS based Site Selector website which allows citizens and businesses access to available commercial properties, business locations, land based GIS information, demographic and market information. The Spokane Regional Site Selector website is a resource to local and imported businesses and regional economic development. The project leverages the communities' existing investments in GIS to foster economic development, empower developers and investors with information, and improve regional economic development capacity. 4. CONSORTIUM MEMBER COMMITMENTS FOR THE SITE SELECTOR: A. The Consortium is an open group of public and private organizations committed to the creation and ongoing maintenance of the Spokane Regional Site Selector. As an open consortium, it can be expanded to include new members and will actively solicit new members during its existence. There are two types of Consortium members, public sector organizations and private sector organizations. New public sector members of the Consortium with populations above 20,000 may be added anytime by a majority vote of the voting members of the Consortium Oversight Committee, in accordance with Section 5.B of this agreement. Upon approval, the new member shall execute a new membership agreement; on behalf of the Spokane Regional Site Selector Consortium. The new membership agreement will automatically become an addendum to this agreement. By executing the new membership agreement, the new member agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Agreement for Spokane Area Site Selector. All other public sector members will be categorized as small communities. New private sector members will be managed by GSI as further described in Section 4C. To host locally relevant infrastructure and land management information on the Spokane Regional Site Selector, an agency must be a member of the Consortium. Consonant with the membership types, there are two models for the distribution of costs to support the Spokane Regional Site Selector, as described in Sections 4B and 4C. B. PUBLIC SECTOR FUNDING COMMITMENTS: 2 The distribution of costs for Public Sector organizations will be based on the official annual population count as defined by the appropriate federal or state entity (i.e., the Office of Financial Management in Washington State) for the respective geographic area that public sector organization serves. For instance, the City of Spokane's percentage share is based on its population share of the entire county's population. Spokane County's share is County population less that of the incorporated areas and so forth. New members that join the Consortium on dates other than the Consortium annual renewal date will be billed based on their population share of the entire Consortium pro-rated by the percent of the year remaining. Existing Consortium members will receive a credit on their next annual bill. The credit will be in the amount equivalent to the incremental difference in their annual contribution prior to and after the addition of any new public sector members that join mid-year of this agreement. This arrangement will be revisited annually through budgetary analysis and can be modified by an amendment to this agreement. The distribution of costs for 1) software acquisition and online application maintenance and service, 2) data acquisition integration and maintenance, 3) real estate data management, and 4) fiscal management shall be as established annually by the Consortium Steering Committee. C. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING COMMITMENTS: At this time private sector organizations will not have a similar metric for their contribution. Instead, private sector contributions to the Consortium will be managed by the GSI and its public and private member community. Additional Private Sector funds to be applied to site-selector implementation and maintenance will be the responsibility of the GSI to solicit and obtain from other Private Sector sources in the region. Any additional private sector contributions will serve to reduce public sector Consortium member costs and existing Consortium members will receive a credit on their next annual bill reflecting the lower cost per member. The credit will be in the amount equivalent to the incremental difference in their annual contribution prior to and after the addition of any new private sector members that join mid- year of this agreement. This arrangement will be revisited annually through budgetary analysis and can be modified by an amendment to this agreement. 5. CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY: A. The University will serve as the Manager for the Spokane Regional Site Selector. Dr. Kerry Brooks, Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Public and Health Administration, or his successor, will direct the project on behalf of the University including overseeing a staff member funded by the Consortium who is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Spokane Area Regional Site Selector. 3 B. CONSORTIUM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: A Consortium Oversight Committee is hereby established. The Oversight Committee is constituted by one official representative from each member public sector organization. Small communities are represented by the Spokane County member. The Oversight committee will also constitute one member representing each original Private Sector Consortium member. The GSI will represent all future private sector Consortium members. Meetings of the Committee are open to others, but only the official representative may vote on decisions of the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee shall convene at least once per calendar quarter by the Director identified in Section 5.A above who may vote to break ties. All oversight Committee decisions shall be by majority vote of a quorum, with the quorum being 60% or more of the Oversight Committee membership. The major business of the Oversight Committee is to annually evaluate the status of the Site Selector and, by majority vote, agree that it shall continue for the next year. The annual meeting shall take place on or about 15 May annually. _ Additional roles of the Oversight Committee include the approval of new members, advice and approval on the look, feel, and functionality of the Site Selector GIS web site, and determination of the annual operating budget for the following calendar year. C. UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: University consortium management responsibilities under this Agreement are as follows: 1 . Manage the temporal accuracy of Commercial Real Estate Broker Data, as needed. 2. Provide training and technical support to Commercial Real Estate Brokers in the entry of new and the removal of old Commercial Real Estate data, as needed. 3. Provide written quarterly summaries of the project to Consortium members. 4. Coordinate and manage the temporal accuracy of Public Sector GIS Data used with the regional site selector. 5. Support the evaluation, standardization, and quality control of any newly requested attribute or spatial data additions to the regional site selector. 6. Serve as primary fiscal agent for the Consortium, specifically including invoicing each member, as detailed in Section 11 below, as well as reimbursing GIS Planning for site selector web services and other fiscal duties as required. 7. Act as Director of the Site Selector Oversight Committee. 4 6. CONSORTIUM MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES: It is agreed between University and Consortium members that members shall carry out the following responsibilities: A. PUBLIC SECTOR MEMBERS SHALL: 1 . Provide and maintain the temporal accuracy of their respective entity's data used for purposes related to the Spokane Regional Site Selector. 2. Coordinate with the University to integrate municipal and/or regional data sources into a contiguous data set. 3. Facilitate and promote the addition of new public sector members for the Consortium. B. PRIVATE SECTOR MEMBERS SHALL: 1 . Provide and maintain the temporal accuracy of their respective entity's data used for purposes related to the Spokane Regional Site selector. 2. Coordinate with University to appropriately integrate privately owned data sources into contiguous data set in accordance with applicable copyright laws. 3. Facilitate and promote the addition of new private sector members for the Consortium. 7. AMENDMENT: This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written consent of Consortium members and University. 8. TERM: This Agreement will become effective upon signature by all Consortium members and University. Unless terminated as provided below, this Agreement will be reviewed annually and recommended for continuation upon approval of the Consortium Oversight Committee at the designated Consortium annual meeting, in accordance with Section 5.B of this Agreement. Continuation of the agreement is subject to the availability of appropriated funds and administrative approvals. This Agreement is null and void in the event project funding cannot be obtained from any of the previously defined Consortium members, or if data provision commitments discussed in Sections 6A through D, are not met by any Consortium member. 5 9. TERMINATION: A. Termination for Convenience. This Agreement may be terminated by any party hereto upon written notice delivered to the other parties at least thirty (30) days prior to the intended date of termination. By such termination, no party may nullify obligations already incurred prior to the date of termination. B. Termination for Cause. In the event any party shall commit any material breach of or default in any terms or conditions of this Agreement, and also shall fail to remedy such default or breach within sixty (60) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the non-breaching parties may, at their option and in addition to any other remedies which they may have at law or in equity, terminate this Agreement by sending notice of termination in writing to the other party to that effect. Termination shall be effective as of the day of receipt of such notice. C. In the event of either Termination for Convenience or Termination for Cause of this Agreement University shall retain advanced payments made by Consortium members in an amount sufficient to pay for all costs and/or liabilities incurred by University in its performance of this Agreement. 10. CONTRACT SUM: In consideration for performance of this Agreement, Consortium members shall pay University as determined at the annual meeting and by this agreement. The payments, subject to the availability of appropriated funds and administrative approvals, shall be made in accordance with the provisions stated in Section 11 below. 11. PAYMENTS: University shall submit annual advance invoices to Consortium members. Invoices shall be distributed annually no later than July 15th or upon execution of the agreement whichever is later. Consortium members shall make full advance payment of the amount stated in any undisputed invoice no later than thirty (30) days after the date the invoice is received by Consortium members. 12. EQUIPMENT Equipment purchased under this Agreement shall be used specifically for the life of the project covered herein, with ownership of the equipment remaining with University upon completion of this contract period and any subsequent contract periods. 13. INDEMNITY Each party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officers, employees and agents. The Consortium and each Consortium member shall fully indemnify and hold harmless University against all claims arising out 6 of the Consortium's use, commercialization, or distribution of any intellectual property or products that result in whole or in part from this Agreement. 14. RIGHTS IN DATA Any data developed/delivered by Consortium Members for the Spokane Regional Site Selector is only for use within the Site Selector GIS web-based application. University licensing notwithstanding, all data acquired from Consortium members or licensed from commercial entities shall retain its original licensing status. Any GIS data requests initiated by users of the GIS web-based application to the University will be referred back to the original Consortium Member who provided said data. Any data developed/delivered by the University under this Agreement shall be transferred to Consortium with a nonexclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, dispose of, and to authorize others to do so; provided, that such license shall be limited to the extent which University has a right to grant such a license. The University shall exert all reasonable effort to advise Consortium, at the time of delivery of data furnished under this agreement, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document, which was not produced in the performance of this agreement. Consortium shall receive prompt written notice of each notice or claim or copyright infringement received by University with respect to any data delivered under this Agreement. In making GIS data available to the web based Spokane Regional Site Selector, Consortium Members make no warranty of data accuracy. Consortium Members GIS data is created for informational purposes and as a general planning and management tool. Care was used by Consortium Members during compilation of GIS data and products to insure accuracy, but it may be subject to, in whole or in part, the quality of the source data and outside sources of information. A given Consortium Member may on occasion be shifting GIS data to improve the geographic accuracy. Any data that other Consortium Members build on top of the existing Consortium Member data may require adjustment. The Consortium assumes responsibility for aligning and registering data to the existing Site Selector data, if necessary. GIS data and products may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for, legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. The Consortium Members do not accept responsibility for errors and omissions, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany this Site Selector data. Users of this information should consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of this information. This information may be periodically updated. Consortium Members will make every effort to ensure that the Spokane Regional Site Selector has the latest revision of its data. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. 7 This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date set forth herein by their duly authorized representatives. 8 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: Mike Jackson, City Manager DATED: Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney ATTEST: CITY CLERK 9 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) For UNIVERSITY Toni Habegger Associate Vice President for Business & Finance (Signature) Dated: 10 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) For Avista Utilities (Print) (Signature) Dated: 11 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Clerk of the Board OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON By: TODD MIELKE, Chair DANIELA ERICKSON MARK RICHARD, Vice-Chair BONNIE MAGER, Commissioner Approved as to form: Dated: Deputy Civil Prosecuting Attorney 12 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) CITY OF SPOKANE By: City Administrator Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk Assistant City Attorney Dated: 13 AGREEMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR (Signature Page) GREATER SPOKANE INCORPORATED (Print) Signature) Dated: 14 SPOKANE "°"" ' it. SITE • iEGIOAL SELECTOR PROP ERT Y L }CATOR B.IAA ET INFORMATION SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE 5ELFr'FOR PARTNERS irAly.d 9lwrls.....e City of Spakanc iPaII v !}pokane[:oust* Graal ar Spokane Incorp1.rataA r;i,..l 1:1a..Iy 1.4r LSIy of£hcne,• Pon sw ildloi l-iomea Mobile 1 Add I'ropertica 1 About 1 Help Spokane Regional Site Selector An online tool for Commercial Property Location & Market Information 1 SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR PROPERTY LOCATOR &J4ARKET INFORMATION POKANE REGIONAL SITE SELECTOR PARTN ER9 city.1"SIw..kanw city Spokana CourtYp .raatar Spolranal Ioco rpEraatiad C R x of Ub ty Ln kit city of C tummy Anlcta utIIttI ac home Noble Add Properties 1 About 1 Help Major Components of Website —> Commercial Realtor Listings —> Business Data —> labor Force Statistics —> Socio-Economic & Demographic Data —> Consumer Reports —> Local Government GIS Data o can add data (E.g. Certified Sites) Spokano SPOKANE REGIONAL • SITE SELECTOR PI10 I'EIITV LOCATE N. Ilk ET INFOR1YMATION SPCIOCA.PIE O1.IAL.ATE SELE�rOR PAJ TMERS r7y..r rily ry Spokane Calamity Greater Spokane II1CQ p1atzd Crew.a'F Elbert..L.Ice F.y to L1Filydcs Primary users of the site —> Professional Site Selectors —> Commercial Realtors —> Greater Spokane Incorporated —> Grant Writers —> Small & Large Businesses SPOKANE REGIONAL PROPERTY LOCATOR.6.MARKET!Nf ORM AT PO narsacANF RFGTf]NAI STTF RFI FcrnR PARTNFRG fit y u.r 41...k....,- f:ly..fR1...k..�.vY..11-y s...I....... fly„rI il,...ly 1k.- A..M1I w.1 fl1Fl irti Basic Functionality of Site Selector Search Properties —> Property Type —> Minimum Size —> Maximum Size —> Units —> For sale or lease —> Draw a search area Search Properties Property Type. All Pro5+e1L T4. Office Building Industrial Building Retail Building Warehouse Building :Land Minimum Size Available: Maximum Size Available: Units: Square Feet Properties for: 0 Sale LI Lease Community: Address;Street Name: err Comrrlunit es Draw a search area Draw Clear Sample Search Search Properties Property Type: Minimum Siae Available: Maximum Size Available: Units: Properties For: Community: Address. /Street Name. AI Property Types. Office Buildin • Industrial Building Retail Budding Warehouse Building Land 100460 Square Fent ❑r✓Sale 0 Lease Spokane Valley Craw a search area: Draw Clear ,A Find a Parcel Community Profile Ai Map Content, _A Go to Location Basemap .%None ?Spokane.Base Map kane Imagery ESRI Streets ESRI Imagery Hillshade Pan (..0, Zoom In Zoom Out Identify vy Full Extent Street View Sketch&Measure Buckeye Av Euclid Av Knox Av Empire Wy MIL LWOOD Montgomery Av aI Add Label Mirabea5 4 p) Remove Lat:47.66893• Lang:-117.25212 VIlaack to Properties Available Property Select a business report Demographic Report d:.ti:Y!Business Report To generate a business report for the available property,select an area to cover. Available Property: 11016 E Montgomery Dr Distance front Property: 1 miles (10 mile max) Generate Report 11016 E Montgomery Or Spokane Valley 99206 Spokane County Broker/Contact Information Aaron Lake Leavitt Capital Co. Phone: 2 063286777 Email: aaron©leavittcap.com Property Characteristics !able Properly x1 Demographic Report y Business Report �1.Y CI 5 Prop Hame:erty Central Business Park Available_ Yes City: Spokane Valley Type: industrial minimum Available: 0 Sq Ft flax Avail6Fe_ 200,040 Sq R Far Sale: Na For Lease: Yes Zip Code: 99206 CNA Area: 7055 Asking Rent:. 0.30 Building Informs' Building Name: Central Business Park TTnta_6uikling 481125. #floors building: Year Built: 1973 Available Area: 100000 Acres: 44.710000000000001 Total Parking Budding: 463 Geographic Inform Zoning: County: Description: I-1 Light Industrial Spokane Ready-to-lease,build-to-suit and yard space available.Prime distribution center with immediate access to I-90 and SR 290.Law operating expenses,28 34 clearanee height,50` 30 column spa p g,entire property is fenced and secure,racking available including racking with in rack sprinkler syste 6 Demographic Report —> Population —› Sex —> Age Distribution —> Race Distribution —> Total Households —> Household Income —> Household Size —> Labor Force Status —> Education Attainment Consumer Expenditure Report 1 Available Property Demographic Report Report Center: 11015 E Montgomery Dr Radius: 1 mile Consumer Expenditures Report iness Report Export Reports Consumer Expenditures(2013] Apparel Men's Apparel Boys'Apparel Women's Apparel Girls'Apparel Infants Apparel Footwear Apparel Services and Accessories Education Books And supplies Tuition Entertainment Fees And Admissions Video And Audio Equipment Recreational Equipment And Supplies Food and Beverages Food At Home Food Away From Home Alcoholic Beverages Health Care Health Care Insurance Health Care Services Health Care Supplies And Equipment Household Furnishings and Equipment Household Ter4iles Furniture Floor Coverings Major Appliances Housewares And Small Appliances Shelter Mortgage Interest Property Taxes Miscellaneous Owned Dwelling Casts Rental Costs Other Lodging Household Operations Babysitting And Elderly Care Household Services Alimony And Child Support Househald Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Legal And Accounting Funeral And Cemetery Finance Charges Secluding Mortgage And Vehicle Other Miscellaneous Expenses $/Household Total$000s 1,820 3,272 34-4 618 89 161 603 1,085 120 216 81 145 309 556 273 491 844 1,518 119 213 726 1,305 2,097 3,770 502 902 755 1,358 839 1,509 6,006 10,798 3,243 5,832 2,331 4,191 431 775 2,470 4,4-41 1,193 2,145 593 1,066 684 1,230 1,614 2,903 111 200 435 783 52 93 199 358 817 1,469 7,433 13,364 2,769 4,979 1,207 2,170 975 1,753 2,088 3,754 394 708 1,257 2,259 290 521 231 416 180 324 556 999 647 1,163 78 140 71 127 419 753 80 14-4 Source:Applied Geographic Solutions, Thousand Oaks, CA P ersonal Care Hair Care Electric Personal Care Appliances Personal Care Services P ersonal Care Products Reading Newspapers Magazines Books Tobacco Cigarettes Other Tobacco Products Transportation New Vehicl Purchase Used Vehicle Purchase Matorcyc les(New And Used) Vehicle Finance Charges Gasoline And Oil Vehicle Repair And Maintenance Vehicle Insurance Public Transportation Other Transportation Costs Utilities Natural Gas Electricity Fuel Oil And Other Fuels Telephone Service Other Utilities Gifts Gifts Of Apparel Gifts Of Apparel Accessories Gifts Of Education Gifts Of Recreation Gifts Of Food And Beverages Gifts Of Household Furnishings And Equipment Gifts Of Household Gifts Of Transportation Gifts Elsewhere Unspecified Personal Insurance Contributions «New Demographic Report 556 1,000 43 78 11 20 373 670 129 233 123 222 53 95 25 46 45 81 285 512 256 460 28 51 7,542 13,560 1,767 3,178 1,253 2,252 49 SS 355 638 1,807 3,248 602 1,083 890 1,600 420 755 399 718 2,822 5,073 391 703 1,044 1,878 106 190 962 1,729 319 574 937 1,685 186 335 23 42 191 343 64 115 87 157 153 275 39 71 48 87 145 261 369 66-4 1,334 2,399 8 List of Businesses within a 1 mile Radius Competition Supporting business Business Report Available Property -I%Demographic Report Business Report Report Center: 11016 E Montgomery Dr ee New Business Report Radius: 1 mile Business Counts by NAICS code ii R d 15 Business Type Total ❑Accommodation and Food Services 9 ❑Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 22 •Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1 ■Arts, Sports, Entertainment, and Recreation 3 •Banking, Finance and Insurance 9 ❑Construction 50 Education 5 ❑Health Care and Social Services 18 ❑Information 7 `l Manufacturing - Chemical, Fuel, Paper, Plastic, Wood 14 t•Manufacturing - Electronics, Furniture, Machinery, Metal,Transportation, Misc. 30 III •Manufacturing - Processed Food, Textiles, Clothing 4 ■Mineral, Oil and Gas Extraction 6 �y■Other Services - Repair, Personal Care, Laundry, Religious, etc. 37 }•Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 50 ❑Public Administration 1 •Real Estate and Rentals 31 ❑Retail: Hobby, Media, General Merchandise 10 IN Retail: Home, Food, Automobiles, Personal Care 34 I,IJ Transportation and Warehousing: Couriers and Messengers, Warehousing and Storage 1 f•Transportation and Warehousing: Private and Public Transportation,Oil and Gas Pipelines,Sightseeing 5 ❑Unclassified 9 ❑Utility Services: Power, Gas, Steam, Water, and Sewage 2 •Wholesalers 75 Fource:Inf,LAS4,2011 9 L Property Type: Minimum Size Available'. Maximum Sae Available'. Colts: Square Feet Properties Tor: ®Sale®Lease ak Av Business Report Al Property Types er Office Builder! Industrial Iuildin+ Retail Building Warehouse Building Land • 106666 Community: Spokane Valley Addre ssrstreet Name- ..ran'a search area: Draw Clear Find a Parcel Community Profile Map Contents Go to Location List of businesses within the "Construction" category P r- ego Dr EdcidAr MILL Buckeye Av- Knorr Av Upriver Di 11 00■■ • ■ ❑ ■■■ ❑ ■ rr Wellesley Av A BEST ROOFING INC Business name: A BEST ROOFING INC Employees: 5 Indiana Av ;� Lat:47.65788•Long:-117.19436 91I 11eack to Properties Vaileyway Av Available Property Demographic Report Report Center:11016 E Montgomery Dr Radius:1 mile o � SPOKANE VALLEY Vaileyway Av Valleyway Av <<New Business Report Business Details For Category:Construction Close© El XI Name Employees '-S A BEST ROOFING INC Q. ADVANCED ELECTRIC&ALARM Q AMERICAN DRILLING Q ANDERSON'S SHEET METAL HEATING Q API DRYWALL&STUCCO INC Q AQUA MOTION CONTRACTORS Q ARCTIC LIGHTING&ELECTRIC Q ARK COMMERCIEAL ROOFING INC Q ARROW CONCRETE&ASPHALT SPEC Q ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY Q MELFOR CONSTRUCTION SVC 14 4 7 12 15 16 8 17 15 10 SPOKANE SITE REGIONAL . ",.r �.a SELECTOR P110PE11TV WCATE 51.MA UK ET INFOR1YlATION SPCIOCAIIE O1.IAL.ATE SELE�rOR PAJ TMERS r7y...r qm.I VAIry Spokane Calamity Greater Spokane II1CQ p1atzd Crew.a'F Elbert..L.1ce F.y to Utilities hfeatures Ot a r > Community Profile Reports by Jurisdiction • Demographics, Consumer Expenditures, Labor Force > Regional Map Layers • Zoning, Water Districts, Fire Districts, Etc. (Add Certified Sites) > Search Properties • Parcel, Address, Custom Area (using drawing tool), or Latitude & Longitude > Google Street View is Incorporated Includes a mobile application with the same functionality as the desktop version www.selectspokane.com SPOKANE REGIONAL iew Full Website Search by Property Type & Size Property Type: Minimum Size: fvlaximum Size: Units: J For Sale J For Lease .ddress/Street Optional): City: All Prose T- `es Square Feet Airway Heights Cheney Deer Park Fairfield Search Properties SPOKANE ,. it. SITE iEGIOAL SELECTOR PROP ERT Y L }CATOR B.MARKET INFORMATION SPOKANE REGIONAL SITE 5ELFr'FOR PARTNERS irAly.d 9lwrfs.....e City.of Spakane iPaII v !}pokane court* G eal ar Spokane Incorp1.rataA r;i,1.1 I:ia..I.I.k... LSIy of£hcne,• Pon sw Ildloi Questions 1lomc1 Mobile 1 Add I'ropertica 1 About 1 Help 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 2013 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Preliminary 2014 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.33 Budgets in Code Cities PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Reports. Public hearing on August 27. BACKGROUND: As part of the ongoing budget process, and in keeping with the requirements of RCW 35A.33.052, City Manager Jackson will present the 2014 Preliminary Budget for council review and discussion. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS 2014 Preliminary Budget CITY MANAGER'S 2014 PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL September 17, 2013 po a City Manager's Budget Message Fiscal policies Budget Highlights Challenges Balanced Budget for 2014 Future Concepts ( 2 ) Spokan��" • Ualley Balanced Budget - City is in Excellent Financial Condition 3 FISCAL POLICIES ( 4 ) Sikika< FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1. Maintain basic service levels with modest increases. 2. Minimize Personnel cost/overhead by continuing to contract for many services. 3 . Continue the 6 Year Business Plan Process. The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1.48% of it total allowable debt capacity, and more importantly, only 7.41% of non-voted bond capacity. ( 5 ) Spok'!tine FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT jValiey 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. 5 . Minimize City Debt with a pay as you go philosophy. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize mid-year addition of projects and appropriations. ( 6 ) Spokane `�` Valley Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Balance of 50% of total recurring expenditures. 6 months of general fund operations If necessary, utilize the Service Level Stabilization fund ($5.4 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not reduce below $3.24 million (60% of $5.4 million). Property Tax assessment will increase by new construction in 2014. (Approximately $150,000; City will not take 1% property tax increase) Grow our economy so our existing tax base can support our basic programs. FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES ( 7 ) Sikikane COMMITMENT TO POLICIES Long term financial sustainability. Deviation from commitments could begin to erode our financial condition . ( 8 ) Must Remain Fiscally Sound Recurring Revenues Recurring Expenditures $36,823,010 Difference $490 Spokan��" • Ualley Remaining Fiscally Conservative Only true debt service is Street Bonds CenterPlace debt is reimbursed by the Spokane Public Facilities District Spokane Valley Ending Fund Balance Projected fund balance at the end of 2014 is currently $20, 149,703 or 54.27% of recurring expenditures = 6 month's operating expenses Spokan��" • Ualley Budget Highlights Spokane Valley Lean Operations The proposed 2014 Budget recurring expenditures were capped at 1 % over the 2013 Budget for non-wage expenditures FTE count will increase by 2 . 0 employees from 85.25 in 2013 to 87.25 in 2014 13 Sheriffs Office-2013 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 221.00 (2 temporary Deputy positions included in Uninc.Patrol) Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 203.92 Excludes(hose allocated a long with administrative costs and(hose that are County responsibility. Category 2 Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Seraeant Detectives Deputy Investigative Task Force(ITF) Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Investigative Support Unit(ISU) Detectives CI I I/.ITTF/r1TFM Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp Total Investigative Intellelligence Led Policing Detective Marine/Search Rescue Deputies K-9 Deputies 6 1 4.84 1 0.25 1 5 2.33 2.50 0.25 1.00 2.00 30.17 1.75 5 Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.92 Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff I lnrlersheriff PIO Deputy Training/OPS/Adm in Lieutenant Sergeant Detective _ Deputies Tn*aI Arlminiefraw..n 2 Category 4 County Responsibility/ Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 3 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res Verif.S514 Detective/Corp ISU Federal Seizures Lieutenant Detective/Corp Adm in/Not Allocated Sheriff Total County/Other 0.75 0.67 9.08 Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:"Unincorporated"here includes small cities. Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Adm in Chief/Inspector _ 1 _ _ _ 1 Lieutenant 1 1 Sergeant 1 1 Deputy 1 Patrol Captain 1 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 8 6 14 Detective/Corp. 6 6 Deputies 53.5 44 4.5 2 104 Traffic/CVEO Sergeant 9 1 Detective/Corp. 1 1 2 Deputies 4 5 9 Community Services Deputy 1 1 2 Property Crimes Sergeant y 1 1 Detective/Corp. 3 6 9 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 1 Deputy 1 1 SRO Deputies 3 4 7 Total Dedicated FTEs 78.5 81 4.5 2 166 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 75.5 77 4.5 159 2 Category 2 Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Seraeant Detectives Deputy Investigative Task Force(ITF) Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Investigative Support Unit(ISU) Detectives CI I I/.ITTF/r1TFM Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp Total Investigative Intellelligence Led Policing Detective Marine/Search Rescue Deputies K-9 Deputies 6 1 4.84 1 0.25 1 5 2.33 2.50 0.25 1.00 2.00 30.17 1.75 5 Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.92 Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff I lnrlersheriff PIO Deputy Training/OPS/Adm in Lieutenant Sergeant Detective _ Deputies Tn*aI Arlminiefraw..n 2 Category 4 County Responsibility/ Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 3 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res Verif.S514 Detective/Corp ISU Federal Seizures Lieutenant Detective/Corp Adm in/Not Allocated Sheriff Total County/Other 0.75 0.67 9.08 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 so Comparison $11,049,400 06/2013—Source 2012 Budget 16 ) So What Does it Take to Get There? elk mm 1 $11,049,400 Property Tax $1,330,000 Criminal Justice Tax $745,000 Public Safety $10,634,243 General Fund (Sales Taxes) .y . II ro ROAD MAINTENANCE, PRESERVATION AND CONSTRUCTION - # 2 PRIORITY Spokane Val lev 18 Sp"olt'ane FUNDING PAVEMENT PRESERVATION General Fund recurring expenditures Pavement Preservation goal commitment (represents 6% of recurring expenditures) $ 35,934, 187 X 6% $ 2, 156,051 19 Spokane .00.0Valley FUNDING PAVEMENT PRESERVATION #001 General Fund #101 Street Fund #123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund #301 Capital Projects Fund (1St �/4% of REET) & #302 Special Capital Projects Fund (2nd �/4% REET) $888,823 $282,000 $616,284 $184,472 $184,472 TOTAL $2,156,051 ( 20 ) CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2014 Budget Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation Actual 2012 Revenues Transfers in-#001 General Fund 2,045,203 Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 0 Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 0 Transfers in-#301 REET 1 0 Transfers in-#302 REET 2 0 Grants 0 Miscellaneous 300 2013 Budget As Adopted Amendmnt 0 0 282,000 0 616,284 0 616,284 150,000 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 165,793 0 0 As Amended 0 282,000 150,000 165,793 0 Budget 2014 888,823 282,000 616,284 184,472 184,472 2,763,272 0 9/10/2013 Projected 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 888,823 888,823 888,823 888,823 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 616,284 554,996 0 0 184,472 184,472 184,472 184,472 184,472 184,472 184,472 184,472 971,032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total reeenues 2,045,503 1,198,284 165,793 1,364,077 4,919,323 3,127,083 2,094,763 1,539,767 " 1,539,767 Expenditures Unidentified Projects 1,882,424 1,198,284 (1,198,284) 0 0 1,033,470 2,156,051 2,156,051 2,156,051 Appleway-Thierman to Park 0 0 0 0 0 0162-2012 Street Preservation 0 0 360,000 r 360,000 0 0 0 0 0 0174-2013 Street Preservation Phase 1 0 0 1,027,000 r 1,027,000 0 0 0 0 0 0179-2013 Street Preservation Phase 2 0 0 62,000 r 62,000 1,610,000 0 0 0 0 0180-2013 Street Preservation Phase 3 0 0 1,080,000 r 1,080,000 0 0 0 0 0 0186-Adams Road Resurfacing Project 0 0 14,040 r 14,040 198,760 0 0 0 0 0187-Sprague Aee Preservation Project 0 0 27,060 r 27,060 1,352,841 0 0 0 0 0188-Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0 0 0 r 0 33,920 1,122,581 0 0 0 Trans to#403 0 0 334,213 r 334,213 0 0 0 0 0 Less: General Fund share in 2013 0 0 (855,857)r (855,857) 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sidewalk infill 27,043 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sullivan bridge repairs 192,039 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Eeergreen 79,945 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 2,181,451 1,198,284 850,172 2,048,456 3,595,521 2,156,051 2,156,051 2,156,051 2,156,051 Revenues over(under)expenditures r (135,948) 0 r (684,379)r (684,379) 1,323,802 971,032 r (61,288) (616,284)' (616,284) Beginning fund balance 948,733 ' 948,733 264,354 1,588,156 r 2,559,188 2,497,900 1,881,616 Ending fund balance 948,733 264,354 1,588,156 2,559,188 2,497,900 1,881,616 1,265,332 1,084,681 948,733 21 $25.000.oeo . r $10,000,0120 S!.000aao i a Strom ilaletees rot, SOW, Prase nation Stier APit Lees Lake Spokane jUalley 2014 City Expenditures Conn insoniR Devi crowns Parts& Recreation Spokan��" • Ualley MODERATE GROWTH IN CURRENT OPERATIONAL EXPENSES / BUDGET INCREASE ( 23 ) ( 24 ) 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 • • Spokane Valley Sales Tax Collections 2004-2014 0 •■ • Library District 4% Sample 2013 Tax Bill Spokane Aw‘ County 10% City of Spokane Valley 11% Tax District #0144 (the most populated district) Median Home Value Central Valley School CVSD General - Voted District General CVSD B&I - Voted 35% State Schools - Non-voted Fire Dist #1 - Non-voted Fire Dist #1 Special - Voted City of Spo Valley - Non-voted Spo Co Gen! - Non-voted Spo Co Con Futrs - Non-voted Library District - Non-voted Total Tax Bill Source—Spokane County Assessor website 06/2013 Fire District#1 23% $135,685 $417.72 $245.94 $331.76 $203.53 $237.11 $214.06 $176.14 $6.45 $67.84 $1,900.55 25 I M I M • m Source—S•okane Count Assessor's Office $ 135685 Median House Value in Spokane Valley $ 1 .58 2013 Property Tax Rate per thousand of valuation (rounded from 1.577609) $21z1.06 Annual homeowner cost helps to provide police protection, community planning, building services, parks and recreation, general government and more Spokane Valley 2013 city tax rate per thousand of valuation: Median home value in Spokane Valley 05/2013 Source—Spokane County Assessor's Office $1.58* $135,685 *rounded from $1.577609 Spokan��" • Ualley STAFFING LEVELS ( 28 ) Personnel Comparisons with other Jurisdictions 2014 Ratio Personnel Jurisdiction Population #FTE's* 1 Emp/res % of Budget Kennewick 75,160 153 491 76% Pasco 62,670 142 441 55% Spokane 210,000 1287 163 63% Yakima 91 ,930 408 225 75% Benton County 180,000 644 280 67% Spokane County 475,600 1551 307 60% Spokane Valley 91,490 87.25 1049 21% *Other jurisdictions #'s based on 2012/2013; FTE's adjusted for removal of Police, Fire, Library Spokine `' FINANCIAL CHALLENGES CONTINUED FUNDING Pavement Preservation Street Capital Projects - Grants and Matching Funds Street Maintenance Other Capital Projects — Parks, Trails, City Hall ( 30 ) Spokane `�` Valley Budgeted recurring revenues exceed budgeted recurring expenses. The City does not draw on non-recurring revenues to fund continuing operations. Low debt. No major deficit in service provision. Prioritized spending. Sufficient stabilization and reserve funds in all accounts. Capacity to handle unforeseen events without impacting general fund A detailed, transparent budget process and Business Plan that provide full disclosure to the council and citizens. Balanced Budget j11ey FUTURE CONCEPTS FILLING VACANT POSTIONS SERVICE LEVEL SOLVENCY PAVEMENT PRESERVATION LAW ENFORCEMENT/PUBLIC SAFETY REET FUNDS FORECAST ( 32 ) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Analysis of Real Estate Excise Tax(REET)Revenues and Scheduled Disbursements Estimated REET available on January 1 Estimated REET revenues Estimated approved capital expenditures (Engineers estimate) Potential capital expenditures(Top 2 Outstanding Grant Applications) Transfer to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation June 1 debt service payment on 2003 LTGO bonds December 1 debt service payment on 2003 LTGO bonds Estimated REET available on December 31 9/5/2013 ACTUALS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2,402,374 2,222,934 1,604,758 1,845,568 2,344,788 2,188,213 2,832,966 1,204,750 1,000,600 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 (1,198,888) (1,121,873) (358,943) (40,083) (109,178) 0 0 0 (11,000) (45,000) (105,250) (691,950) 0 0 0 (300,000) (368,944) (368,944) (368,944) (368,944) (368,944) (37,651) (35,451) (33,151) (30,751) (28,251) (25,651) (22,850) (147,651) (150,451) (153,152) (155,752) (158,252) (160,652) (162,850) 2,222,934 1,604,758 1,845,568 2,344,788 2,188,213 2,832,966 3,478,322 MATCH AMOUNT BY ANTICIPATED YEAR CURRENT PENDING GRANT APPLICATIONS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1WUTC-Vista/Trent BNSF RR Crossings 11,000 2TIB-Broadway Flora to Barker 45,000 105,250 332nd Ave Sidewalk-SR-27 to Evergreen 77,000 4lndiana Ave Sidewalk-Pines to Indiana Ct 72,600 Shaded areas reflect known figures.All other figures are estimates. Note: 691,950 This version differs from the 20130820 version in that Proje Replacement here reflects NO REET money being used in in those years will be paid from Fund#312. Ilivan Rd W Bridge d 2015. Instead,the match Spokane .••OValley Summary Balanced Budget - City is in Excellent Financial Condition ( 34 ) Sijokane� • Ualley City of Spokane Valley, WA 2014 Preliminary Budget As of September 17, 2013 Cp+o _ ..FValley City Manager's Budget Message 2014 Annual Budget Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: I am pleased to present the attached 2014 proposed budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane Valley remains financially strong and continues to benefit from a history of prudent financial decisions since our 2003 incorporation. Responsible budgeting and restrained spending has helped us achieve our key fiscal policies including an ending fund balance equivalent to six months of general fund operations and almost no debt. The City of Spokane Valley is a stellar example of how a City can function efficiently and economically while providing key services to the community. Our per capita employee count and personnel expenses are among the lowest(if not the lowest)in the nation. To ensure continued financial stability it is imperative that the City keep its recurring expenses in check. To do this,we must continue to limit recurring expenditures at levels less than or equal to our annual revenues. In 2012, the City initiated spending of general fund, special fund and capital project fund revenues and reserves for the sole purpose of aiding street preservation. In 2012, 2013 and again in 2014 our citizens will see an aggressive program of repaving our roadways. Some may question paving roads that"don't look so bad." The truth is the best time to repave is before a road deteriorates to the point that full reconstruction is necessary. Full reconstruction can cost substantially more than pavement preservation such as crack sealing or grinding and repaving. That is why the City of Spokane Valley has committed critical financial resources to preservation of our transportation infrastructure. 1 Fiscal Policies The Fiscal Policies adopted by the City Council are an important element in the long range fiscal strength of Spokane Valley. These policies appropriately dictate that if the economic conditions deteriorate, future budget reductions may be triggered. Financial Management—The City proposes to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with minimal resources to achieve success. 2. Minimize personnel costs/overhead by continuing to contract for many services. 3. Continue the 6-year Business Plan process. 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. 5. Minimize City debt with a pay as you go philosophy. o The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1.48% of its total debt capacity, and more importantly, only 7.41% of non-voted bond capacity. This is extremely low debt. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize mid-year addition of projects and appropriations. Financial Objectives - The City's financial objectives are: 1. Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Balance of 50% of recurring expenditures which is the equivalent of 6 months of general fund operations. 2. If necessary, utilize the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund ($5.4 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. 3. Commitment to the strategy that the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not reduce below $3.24 million (60% of$5.4 million). 4. Maintain the property tax assessment the same as 2013 with the exception of new construction. As in the previous three years, the City will forego the 1% annual increase allowable by RCW 84.52.050. We anticipate this will result in a levy of $10,899,437.13 plus estimated new construction of $150,000 for a total levy of $11,049,437.13. The 1% increase capacity will be banked for future use as provided by law. 5. Grow our economy so our existing tax base can support our basic programs. Commitment — By committing to these policies, the City will ensure financial sustainability well into the future. Breaking this commitment can take us in the opposite direction and begin to erode our fiscal strength. 2 Budget Highlights The 2014 Budget recognizes the economic realities of our times and the necessity to continue to operate within our financial means. Pavement Preservation Fund: In the 2012 Budget, Council established the Pavement Preservation Fund #311. For 2014, projected expenditures for preservation are $3,595,521. A total of$2,763,272 in grant funding is budgeted in pavement preservation for 2014. In addition, $888,823 will be transferred from the General Fund, $282,000 from the Street Fund, $616,284 from the Civic Facilities Replacement Fund, $184,472 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund and $184,472 from REET 2 Special Capital Projects Fund. Most of these transfers are projected to be sustainable for the foreseeable future. However, the transfer from the Civic Facilities Replacement fund is not sustainable and can only occur for four years (including 2013) until the balance of$2,403,848 is depleted at year end 2016. The good news is due to grants, the total revenues for street preservation are $4,919,323 which exceeds expenditures by $1,323,802. Because of this, we currently are able to continue the funding of street preservation through at least 2018 and beyond. This will require us to adhere to a budget and continue to utilize grant funds to bolster our own city transfers. Moderate Growth in Current Operational Expenses/Budget Increase: Investing in the essential core services identified by the Council and community creates baseline costs. Similar to the trend in most jurisdictions, costs and demands for service are growing while tax revenues are decreasing. Quality service delivery requires ongoing investment in basic capacity to provide efficient operations. Moderate as it may be, operational expenses have increased as reflected in the General Fund increase of 4.28%for 2014. Staffing Levels: Staffing levels were increased by 2 positions for 2014 for a total of 87.25 employees. Even taking into consideration that we contract for police services and are served by Fire Districts and a Library District, for a major city, we are operating substantially below the normal employee count at a substantially reduced cost. Spokane Valley personnel costs are approximately 20.78% of the total General Fund recurring expenditures. Comparable cities and counties typically fund personnel costs at about 60% to 70% of their General Fund Budget (after adjusting for police, fire and library personnel, of which the City of Spokane Valley contracts). Spokane Valley staff levels are about 1 employee for every 1,043 citizens. Comparable cities range from 1 employee to every 163 citizens to 1 employee for every 491 citizens. While the survey is not scientific, the low comparable personnel costs coupled with the low employee per citizen ratio indicates the City of Spokane Valley is operating at a very low yet effective staffing level. 3 Since incorporation, this City has taken a conservative approach to adding new staff. Spokane Valley continues to have the lowest employee count of any Washington city with 50,000 or more in population. By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley is a lean, productive City government. The addition of 2 positions is included in the 2014 budget, increasing staff to 87.25 in 2014. In each case the positions — a Computer Help Desk Specialist and a Grants Coordinator, are justified as they result in cost reduction of contracted services currently being provided. Public Safety Costs: In 2014, the Police, Court and Jail related services proposed budget is $23,758,643 —an amount equal to 215% of anticipated property tax collections ($11,049,437) for the entire year. Council has made a commitment not to reduce public safety service levels and associated costs in 2014. Challenges: Pavement Preservation: Street Preservation needs must be balanced with other needs. The 2014 Budget achieves this balance. Grants and Declining Matching Funds: City staff actively pursues funding commitments from other sources to help pay the cost of needed capital improvements—roads, bridges, stormwater and parks that benefit the community. In 2014 a total of$20,685,561 is budgeted for a range of capital projects of which $14,726,269 (71.2%) is coming from outside grant sources. When the City applies for state and federal grants, the City must provide its share (match) for these projects. In the past, Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) was used for most of the City match. In addition to capital construction, the City funds a portion of Pavement Preservation from REET funds. During the last five years, annual revenue from the REET tax has declined from $2.5 million to estimated 2014 revenues of $1.2 million. Depending on availability of Federal, State and Local grants, the City may reach a point where we have to prioritize preservation versus capital projects. Local Street Maintenance Combination of Funding: This fund derives its revenues from an allocation of the State Motor Fuel Tax distributed to cities and towns, and a 6% city utility tax on telephone usage estimated in 2014 at $1,858,600 and $2,750,000 respectively. The combination of Fuel Tax and Telephone Utility Tax enables us to meet the ongoing need for these funds to pay for critical street maintenance activities such as snow plowing, pothole repair, crack sealing, sweeping, weed control, street lighting, traffic signals and a variety of other repairs/improvements. In 2014, $282,000 will transfer to Pavement Preservation for more substantial repaving projects. 4 The Budget for 2014 Balanced Budget Adopted: One of the most important tests of fiscal management is the ability of a municipal enterprise to maintain basic services during an economic downturn. The creation and maintenance of financial reserves since incorporation has served its intended purpose and provided the opportunity for Spokane Valley to sustain critical public services during the turbulent economic conditions that began in 2008 and from which we are just now emerging. The 2014 budget reflects a prudent increase in continuation of service delivery capabilities. The 2014 budget is in balance. Expenses have been balanced with known or reasonably predictable revenues. The budget is designed to maintain the healthy, positive fund balance at year end that provides for the city's cash flow needs without costly borrowing. In pursuit of fiscal responsibility, special attention was given to limiting the growth in new programs and financial commitments. This approach allows available resources to be put toward sustaining services that are consistent with the City Council's priorities for 2014 and beyond. Future Concepts: The budget process is not static and Council, the citizens, and staff must remain vigilant to watch for economic trends that impact current forecasts. Even as we adopt a 2014 budget, we must keep in mind the future economic opportunities and threats that may impact our multi-year forecast. An example of potential impacts and adaptive future concepts are as follows: • A commitment by Management to review all vacant positions prior to filling them. (In some cases, positions must be filled quickly due to workload.) • Continue budget strategy to fund City programs and pavement preservation within the existing City of Spokane Valley tax structure. • By all indications, the economic recovery of the U.S. and its collective states, counties and cities will be a steady but perhaps faltering process. The City of Spokane Valley has predicted $150,000 increase in property tax due to new construction and an increase in sales tax revenues of 7.48% ($1,140,000) in 2014. This is the largest projected annual increase in sales tax since 2006. Sales tax actually declined substantially in 2008 — 2011 and began to trend slowly upward in 2012. • Because it represents about 64% of the General Fund budget, achieving future budget reductions without impacting Law Enforcement and other Public Safety services will be challenging but achievable. 5 Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the City Council and staff for a long history of conservative spending and prudent fiscal planning. By saving and conserving the taxpayers' money, and by adopting prudent long-term fiscal policies, the City can balance its budget for many years to come. The City Council has set a path to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the City. The management staff and employees have worked together to develop Business Plans and 2014 budget recommendations that achieve Council's goal of sustainability. The Citizens of Spokane Valley should be proud of the strong financial condition of their City. We invite your examination and questions regarding the 2014 Budget. Respectfully, Mike Jackson City Manager 6 S }f 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 po ne 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org 4.00 galley TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Mark Calhoun,Finance Director SUBJECT: About the 2014 Budget and Budget Development Process The budget includes the financial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds. Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing the budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The budget serves four functions: 1. It is a Policy Document The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to the actual day-to-day activities of the City staff. 2. It is an Operational Guide The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of the City Council. 3. It is a Link with the General Public The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City operations. The budget describes the activities of the City,the reason or cause for those activities,future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry. 4. It is a Legally Required Financial Planning Tool The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light, preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The budget must be adopted as a balanced budget and must be in place prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The budget is the legal authority to expend public moneys and controls those expenditures by limiting the amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along with available cash carry-forward,to indicate funds available. The budget takes into account unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments. 7 2014 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Historically the City has utilized a budgeting approach that assumed for most functions of government that the current year's budget was indicative of the base required for the following year. However, with the downturn in the economy and resultant reduction in revenues (most notably the decline in sales taxes), the 2012 through 2014 Budget development processes were amended to consciously review service levels in each department and determine the appropriate level of funding that meets Council goals relative to available resources. The 2014 Budget development process began at the February 26, 2013 Council workshop where among other topics, Council and Staff discussed the budget in general terms. In mid-April 2013 the Finance Department notified City Departments that their 2014 revenue and expenditure estimates were due by May 17. Through the balance of May and early June, the City Manager's office and Finance Department worked to prepare budget worksheets that were communicated to the City Council at a Budget workshop held June 18, 2013. Following the workshop, the Finance Department continued work on the budget including refinements of revenue and expenditure estimates and through July and early August, the Finance Department and City Manager reviewed updated budget projections. By the time the 2014 Budget is scheduled to be adopted on October 22, 2013, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on seven separate occasions, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens: June 18 Council budget workshop August 13 Admin report: Estimated 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 ordinance adopting the 2014 Budget October 22 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2014 Budget Once adopted,the final operating budget is published,distributed,and made available to the public. After the budget is adopted, the City enters a budget implementation and monitoring stage. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored by the Finance Department and department directors to ensure that actual expenditures are in compliance with the approved budget. The Finance Department provides the City Manager and City Council with monthly reports to keep them abreast of the City's financial condition and individual department compliance with approved appropriation levels. Any budget amendments made during the year are adopted by City Council ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within a fund; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be approved by the City Council. When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance adopted by Council after holding one public hearing. 8 BUDGET PRINCIPLES • Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction,and for implementing them once they are approved. • The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation and administration of the City's budget. This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington statutes governing local government budgeting practices. • The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems, formulating solutions and alternatives,and implementing any necessary corrective actions. • Interfund charges will be based on recovery of costs associated with providing those services. • Budget amendments requiring City Council approval will occur through the ordinance process at the fund level prior to fiscal year end. • The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services plan in a Council/constituent friendly format. • Short term debt shall not exceed 10% of revenues. No long term debt will be incurred without identification of a revenue source to repay the debt. Long term debt will be incurred for capital purposes only. • The City will strive to maintain equipment replacement funds in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. New operations in difficult economic times may make it difficult to fund this principle in some years. • The City will pursue an ending general fund balance at a level of no less than 50% of recurring expenditures. This figure is based upon an evaluation of both cash flow and operating needs. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING Accounting Accounting records for the City are maintained in accordance with methods prescribed by the State Auditor under the authority of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.09.20, and in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Basis of Presentation-Fund Accounting The accounts of the City of Spokane Valley are organized on the basis of funds,each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of double-entry accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity,revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City's resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on their intended purpose. The following are the fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 9 Governmental Fund Types Governmental funds are used to account for activities typically associated with state and local government operations. All governmental fund types are accounted for on a spending or "financial flows" measurement focus, which means that typically only current assets and current liabilities are included on related balance sheets. The operating statements of governmental funds measure changes in financial position,rather than net income. They present increases(revenues and other financing sources) and decreases(expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 1. General Fund This fund is the primary fund of the City of Spokane Valley. It accounts for all financial resources except those required or elected to be accounted for in another fund. 2. Special Revenue Funds These funds account for revenues that are legally restricted or designated to finance particular activities of the City of Spokane Valley. Special Revenue funds include: • #101 - Street Fund • #103 -Paths&Trails Fund • #105 -Hotel/Motel Tax Fund • #120- CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund • #121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund • #122-Winter Weather Reserve Fund • #123 - Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 3. Debt Service Funds These funds account for financial resources which are designated for the retirement of debt. Debt Service Funds are comprised of the #204-Debt Service LTGO 03 Fund. 4. Capital Project Funds These funds account for financial resources, which are designated for the acquisition or construction of general government capital projects. Capital Project Funds include: • #301 —REET 1 Capital Project Fund • #302—REET 2 Capital Projects Fund • #303 - Streets Capital Projects Fund • #309 -Parks Capital Projects Fund • #310- Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund • #311 -Pavement Preservation Fund • #312—Capital Reserve Fund Proprietary Fund Types A fifth type of fund classification are the Proprietary Funds that are used to account for activities similar to those found in the private sector where the intent of the governing body is to finance the full cost of providing services based on the commercial model which uses a flow of economic resources approach. Under this approach, the operating statements for the proprietary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non-current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Their reported fund equity (total net assets) is segregated into restricted, unrestricted and invested in capital assets classifications. As described below,there are two generic fund types in this category: 10 1. Enterprise Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to the general public and are supported primarily by user charges. Included in this type of fund is: • #402—Stormwater Management Fund • #403—Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2. Internal Service Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to other departments or funds of the City. Included in this type of fund is: #501 -Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund #502-Risk Management Fund Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized, recorded in the accounting system and ultimately reported in the financial statements. • Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for all governmental funds. Modified accrual recognizes revenues when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. • Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for enterprise and internal service funds. Under this system revenues and expenses are recognized in the period incurred rather than when cash is either received or disbursed. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Annual appropriation budgets are adopted for all funds with Governmental Funds utilizing a modified cash basis of accounting for budget purposes, and Proprietary Funds utilizing a working capital approach. Budgets are adopted at the fund level that constitutes the legal authority for expenditures and annual appropriations for all funds lapse at the end of the fiscal period. EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund#001 • Property Tax Property taxes play an essential role in the finances of the municipal budget. State law limits the City to a $3.60 levy per $1,000 assessed valuation, deducting from there the levy of$1.50 by the Spokane County Fire Districts #1 and #8, along with deducting $0.50 for the Library District, which leaves the City with the authority to levy up to $1.60 for its own purposes. The levy amount must be established by ordinance by November 30th prior to the levy year. • Retail Sales and Use 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 Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the 8.7%tax rate to the agencies is as follows: 11 State of Washington 6.50% City of Spokane Valley 0.85% Spokane County 0.15% Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * Criminal 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. • Criminal Justice Sales Tax Local Sales Tax for Criminal Justice funding is to be used solely for criminal justice purposes, such as the City's law enforcement contract. This tax is authorized at 1/10 of 1% of retail sales transacted in the County. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and cities within the County. • Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional .1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This .1% was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Of the total amount 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. • Gambling Tax Gambling tax revenues must be spent primarily on law enforcement purposes pertaining to gambling. Funds remaining after necessary expenditures for such enforcement purposes may be used for any general government purpose. Gambling taxes are to be paid quarterly to the City, no later than the last day of January, April, July and October. The City imposes a tax on the following forms of gambling at the following rates: Bingo (5% gross, less prizes); Raffles (5% gross, less prizes); Games (2% gross, less prizes); Card playing (10% gross). • Leasehold Excise Tax Taxes on property owned by state or local governments and leased to private parties (City's share). • Franchise Fees Cable TV is the only franchise fee levied in the City at a rate of 5%of gross revenues. This is a fee levied on private utilities for the right to use city streets, alleys, and other public properties. • State-Shared Revenues State-shared revenues are received from liquor sales, and motor vehicle excise taxes. These taxes are collected by the State of Washington and shared with local governments based on population. State- shared revenues are distributed on either a monthly or quarterly basis, although not all quarterly revenues are distributed in the same month of the quarter. The 2013 population figure used in the 2014 Budget is 91,490 as reported by the Office of Financial Management for Washington State on April 1, 2013. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. 12 • Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety Fines and penalties are collected as a result of Municipal Court rulings and other miscellaneous rule infractions. All court fines and penalties are shared with the State, with the City, on average, retaining less than 50%of the amount collected. • Community Development Community Development revenues are largely composed of fees for building permits,plan reviews,false alarms and right of way permits. • Recreation Program Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for selected recreation programs. These fees offset direct costs related to providing the program. • CenterPlace Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for use of CenterPlace. Uses include regional meetings, weddings, receptions and banquets. Rental rooms include classrooms, the great room and dining rooms. • Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax money held by the State of Washington prior to the distribution of the taxes to the City, as well as on City initiated investments. Street Fund#101 • Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax(gas tax) The State of Washington collects a $.3750 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump and remits $.0296 of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2014 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $20.40 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 91,490 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1,2013) we anticipate the City will collect $1,866,400 in 2014. RCW 47.30.050 specifies that .42% of this tax must be expended for paths and trails activities and based upon the 2014 revenue estimate this computes to $7,800. The balance or $1,858,600 will be credited to Fund #101 for Street maintenance and operations. • Telephone Utility Tax The City of Spokane Valley levied a 6% telephone utility tax via Ordinance #08-014 with collections beginning in 2009. Telephone companies providing this service pay the tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at$2.75million for 2014. Paths& Trails Fund#103 Cities are required to spend .42% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts on paths and trails (please see the explanation for Street Fund#101)which we anticipate will be $7,800 in 2014. Because the amount collected in any given year is relatively small, it is typical to accumulate State distributions for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 The City imposes a 2%tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5 percent state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the 13 jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism-related facilities. This tax is estimated to generate $490,000 in 2014. Debt Service—LTGO 03 Fund#204 The City issued$9,430,000 in limited tax general obligation bonds(LTGO)in 2003. Of this total: • $7,000,000 of the proceeds was used to finance the construction of CenterPlace at Mirabeau Point. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1,2014 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $5,990,000. • $2,430,000 of the proceeds was used to finance Road and Street Improvements near CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax. At January 1, 2014 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $1,445,000. REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302 Under Washington State Law,RCW 82.46.010,the City is allowed to impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing public works capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. Stormwater Management Fund#402 A stormwater fee is imposed upon every developed parcel within the City, which is an annual charge of$21 for each single family unit and $21 per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface for all other properties. These charges are uniform for the same class of customers and service facilities. These fees are estimated to generate $1,835,000 in 2014. Aquifer Protection Area Fund#403 These are voter approved fees to assist the City in protecting the aquifer. The City expects to receive $500,000 in 2014. Interfund Transfers Many funds receive a portion of their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers typically represent payments for either services rendered by one fund for another or a concentration of revenues for a specific project or purpose. The following interfund transfers are planned for 2014: 14 Out: 001 I 101 I 105 I 123 11 301 I 302 312 I 402 Total In 001 0 39,700 30,000 0 0 0 0 13,400 83,100 204 0 0 0 0 93,152 93,151 0 0 186,303 303 0 0 0 0 268,575 285,097 2,570,000 7,101 3,130,773 In: 309 192,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192,500 311 888,823 282,000 0 616,284 184,472 184,472 0 0 2,156,051 501 15,400 100,777 0 0 0 0 0 31,567 147,744 502 325,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325,000 6,221,471 Total Out 1,421,723 422,477 30,000 616,284 546,199 562,720 2,570,000 52,068 6,221,471 0 #001-General Fund is budgeted to transfer out$1,421,723 including: • $192,500 towards Fund#309-Park Capital Projects Fund for park related projects. • $888,823 to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $15,400 to Fund#501-Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund for the future replacement of vehicles. • $325,000 towards the #502-Risk Management Fund for the 2014 property and liability insurance premium. #101-Street Fund is budgeted to transfer out$422,477 including: • $39,700 to Fund#001-General Fund to cover administrative costs. • $282,000 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $100,177 to Fund #501-Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund including $85,177 for the future replacement of existing vehicles including snow plows plus an additional $15,000 in 2014 to partially cover the acquisition of an additional half-ton pickup. #105-Hotel /Motel Tax Fund is budgeted to transfer $30,000 to Fund #001-General Fund for the purpose of financing advertising at CenterPlace. #123-Civic Facilities Replacement Fund is budgeted to transfer $616,284 to Fund #311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #301-REET 1 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out$546,199 including: • $93,152 to Fund #204-Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 LTGO bonds. • $268,575 to Fund#303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $184,472 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. 15 #302-REET 2 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out$562,720 including: • $93,151 to Fund #204-Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 LTGO bonds. • $285,097 to Fund#303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $184,472 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #312—Capital Reserve Fund is budgeted to transfer out$2,570,000 including: • $250,000 to Fund #303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards the Appleway Landscaping project. • $2,320,000 to Fund #303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. #402-Stormwater Fund is budgeted to transfer out$52,068 including: • $13,400 to Fund#001-General Fund to cover administrative costs. • $31,567 to Fund #501-Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund for the future replacement of vehicles including $1,567 for the future replacement of existing vehicles plus an additional $30,000 in 2014 to cover the acquisition of an additional half-ton pickup. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2014 BUDGET Budget Summary for All Funds • Based upon funding levels anticipated in the 2014 budget, City staff will strive to maintain adequate levels of service. • Appropriations for all City Funds will total$70.2 million including $20.7 million in capital expenditures, comprised in-part of: o $14.4 million in Fund#303 Street Capital Projects. o $262,500 in Fund#309 Park Capital Projects. o $3.6 in Fund#311 Pavement Preservation Fund projects. o $1.2 in Fund#402 Stormwater Management projects. o $1.1 in Fund#403 Aquifer Protection Area projects. o $90,000 in Fund #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement for the acquisition of three half-ton pick- ups. • Budgets will be adopted across 20 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will increase by 2.0 employees from 85.25 in 2013 to 87.25 in 2014. The two additional employee include: o A 1.0 FTE help desk technician in the Finance Department. Cost of this position is budgeted at $64,996 which will be offset by reductions of$74,800 in professional services costs. o A 1.0 FTE planning grants engineer in the Public Works Department. Cost of this position is budgeted at$100,010 allocated: • 37.5% to the General Fund#001 at a cost of$37,467,which is offset by a$40,000 reduction the professional services budget. • 37.5%to the Street Fund#101 at a cost of$37,467,which is offset by a$40,000 reduction in the professional services budget. • 25%to the Stormwater Management Fund#402 at a cost of$25,076. • Fund#301,previously titled"Capital Projects"is renamed"REET 1 Capital Projects"to more accurately describe the source of funding. • Fund#302,previously titled"Special Capital Projects" is renamed"REET 2 Capital Projects"to more accurately describe the source of funding. 16 • The 2014 Budget reflects the second consecutive year the City will set aside an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures for pavement preservation in Fund#311 —Pavement Preservation. This 6% equals$2,156,051. • Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. • Payroll tax and benefit amounts are based on staff benefit plans. • Contract costs for public safety,park maintenance, aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. • The City is setting money aside in Fund#501-Equipment Rental and Replacement for the eventual replacement of its vehicles,including snow plows. 2014 General Fund Revenues • Total recurring 2014 revenues are estimated at$36,823,500 as compared to $35,274,700 in 2013. This is an increase of$1,548,800 or 4.39%. • The two largest sources of revenue continue to be Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 80%of 2014 General Fund revenues. • General sales tax(excluding criminal justice and public safety sales taxes) are reflective of 2013 receipts to date and are currently estimated at$16.4 million which reflects an increase of$1,140,000. • The Property Tax levy will not include the 1%increase allowed by Initiative #747 which was approved by the voters in November 2001 through their approval of Initiative #747 and the subsequent action by the State Legislature in November 2007. o The 2014 levy is estimated at$11,049,400. o The levy assumes we start with the 2013 levy of$10,899,437,forgo the 1%increase allowed by State law,and finally add taxes related to new construction which we estimate to be $150,000. • Franchise fees and business registrations are primarily based on projected receipts in 2013. • State shared revenues are based upon a combination of historical collections including 2013 collections through July, and per capita distribution figures reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center. • Fines and forfeitures are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historical collections. • Building permit and land use fees are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historic collections. 2014 General Fund Expenditures • Total 2014 recurring expenditures are budgeted at$36,823,010 as compared to $35,312,674 in 2013. This is an increase of$1,510,336 or 4.28%. The increase is comprised of: o $1,245,443 that is public safety related(reflecting a 5.63%increase over 2013), and o $264,893 for all non-public safety related departments(reflecting a 2.01%increase over 2013). • The City commitment of 6%of recurring General Fund expenditures to pavement preservation equals $2,156,051 and is computed by multiplying total recurring expenditures prior to adding the pavement preservation element($35,934,187 x 6%=$2,156,051). The $2,156,051 that is transferred to Pavement Preservation Fund#311 is comprised of the following: o $888,823 from General Fund#001 o $282,000 from Street Fund#101 o $616,284 from Civic Facilities Replacement Fund#123 o $184,472 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301 o $184,472 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302 • 2014 Nonrecurring expenditures total$586,650 and include: o a$192,500 transfer to Fund#309—Parks Capital Projects Fund. o $350,000 for a law enforcement contingency. o $8,800 for AutoCad licenses for the Public Works Department. o $11,350 for replacement chairs at CenterPlace. o $24,000 for a variety of improvements at the police precinct. 17 General Fund Revenues Over(Under)Expenditures and Fund Balance • 2014 recurring revenues are anticipated to exceed recurring revenues by$490. • Total 2014 expenditures are anticipated to exceed total revenues by$586,160. o This is entirely due to the nonrecurring expenditures previously discussed which equal $586,650 and is not a result of ongoing operating costs overwhelming revenues. • The total unrestricted General Fund fund balance is anticipated to be $20,149,703 at the end of 2014 which is 54.72% of total recurring expenditures of$36,823,010. Our goal is to maintain an ending fund balance of at least 50.0%. Highlights of Other Funds Revenues • Motor vehicle fuel tax(MVFT)revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the City is estimated to be $1,866,400 according to per capita estimates provided by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Of this amount, $1,858,600 will be credited to the Street O&M Fund and.42% or$7,800 to the Paths and Trails Fund. • Telephone taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated at$2,750,000. • Real estate excise tax(REET)revenue is computed by the City and is primarily used to match grant funded street projects as well as pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 general obligation bonds. In 2014 we estimate these revenues to be $600,000 per each '4%for a total of$1,200,000. • Hotel/Motel tax revenues are computed by the City and are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism. In 2014 we estimate the 6%tax will generate $490,000. • The Stomwater Management Fee is based on an equivalent residential unit(ERU)that is equal to 3,160 square feet of impervious surface that is billed at a rate of$21 per single family residence and$21 per ERU for commercial properties(an ERU for a commercial property is computed as total square feet of impervious surface divided by 3,160). In 2014 we estimate this will fee will generate $1,835,000. • The Aquifer Protection Area Fund is expected to generate $500,000 in fees that are collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County and remitted in two installments during the year. • Grant revenues that will be applied to a variety of construction projects are estimated at$14,726,269 in 2014. By fund we anticipate grant revenues as follows: o Fund#303—Street Capital Projects- $11,092,997 o Fund#311 —Pavement Preservation- $2,763,272 o Fund#403—Aquifer Protection Area-$870,000 Expenditures • Fund#101 - Street Fund includes an appropriation of$61,750 for capital items including: o $30,000 for the acquisition of a patch trailer. o $25,000 for the installation of a hawk signal. o $6,750 for the acquisition of software. • Fund#301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund includes an appropriation of$184,872 that represents a transfer to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • Fund#302 -REET 2 Capital Projects Fund includes appropriation of$184,872 that represents a transfer to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • Fund#303 —Street Capital Projects Fund includes an appropriation of$14,389,790 for a variety of street construction projects. Included in the projects is the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement for which we are appropriating$8,888,189 in 2014. We anticipate the project will cost approximately$15.3 million between 2014 and 2015 and will be financed through a combination of$13.0 million in grants and$2.3 18 million in City matching funds with the source being a$2.3 million transfer from Fund#312—Capital Reserves. • Fund#309—Parks Capital Projects includes$262,500 of appropriations to cover a variety of City park improvements that will be financed through a combination of a$192,500 transfer from the General Fund #001 with the balance of$70,000 being paid from Fund#309 reserves. • Fund#311 —Pavement Preservation includes $3,595,521 of pavement preservation projects that will be financed in large part through grants totaling $2,763,272. • Fund#312—Capital Reserve includes $2,520,000 in transfers to Fund#303 —Street Capital Projects $2,520,000 including: o $250,000 that will be applied towards the Appleway Landscaping project. o $2,320,000 that will be applied towards the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. • Fund#402- Stormwater Fund includes$1,181,000 for capital expenditures including: o a$900,000 for various projects, o $250,000 for land acquisition for stormwater projects, o $16,000 for the acquisition of a variable message system(VMS)trailer • Fund#403 -Aquifer Protection Area Fund includes $1,120,000 for capital expenditures including: o $60,000 for the design of a Broadway stormwater retrofit o $60,000 for the design of an outfall diversion o $1,000,000 for a SE Yardley retrofit project. Cost for this will be offset by an $870,000 grant. • Fund#501 - Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund includes$90,000 for the addition of three half-ton pickups. 19 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget Summary Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 20,735,863 36,823,500 57,559,363 37,409,660 20,149,703 Street Fund 101 2,090,538 4,611,600 6,702,138 4,688,216 2,013,922 Paths&Trails Fund 103 71,741 7,800 79,541 0 79,541 Hotel/Motel Fund 105 186,772 490,300 677,072 577,000 100,072 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 5,448,531 7,300 5,455,831 0 5,455,831 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 503,588 700 504,288 0 504,288 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 123 1,789,263 1,700 1,790,963 616,284 1,174,679 Debt Service LTGO 03 204 0 627,823 627,823 627,823 0 Capital Projects Fund 301 457,409 601,000 1,058,409 546,199 512,210 Special Capital Projects 302 771,239 601,000 1,372,239 562,720 809,519 Street Capital Projects 303 177,918 14,389,790 14,567,708 14,389,790 177,918 Parks Capital Projects Fund 309 302,423 193,000 495,423 262,500 232,923 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 1,110,074 1,900 1,111,974 0 1,111,974 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 264,354 4,919,323 5,183,677 3,595,521 1,588,156 Capital Reserve Fund 312 7,706,057 0 7,706,057 2,570,000 5,136,057 41,915,770 63,276,736 105,192,506 65,845,713 39,346,793 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management 402 1,991,142 1,837,500 3,828,642 2,823,978 1,004,664 Aquifer Protection Area 403 317,673 1,370,000 1,687,673 1,120,000 567,673 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund 501 1,181,921 148,744 1,330,665 90,000 1,240,665 Risk Management Fund 502 83,212 325,000 408,212 325,000 83,212 3,573,948 3,681,244 7,255,192 4,358,978 2,896,214 Total of all Funds 45,489,718 66,957,980 112,447,698 70,204,691 42,243,007 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 10,943,700 0 10,943,700 11,049,400 105,700 0.97% Sales Tax 15,250,000 0 15,250,000 16,390,000 1,140,000 7.48% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,280,000 0 1,280,000 1,330,000 50,000 3.91% Sales Tax-Public Safety 750,000 0 750,000 745,000 (5,000) (0.67%) Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 612,500 0 612,500 619,400 6,900 1.13% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,135,000 0 1,135,000 1,213,000 78,000 6.87% State Shared Revenues 1,684,600 0 1,684,600 1,886,500 201,900 11.99% Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,632,300 0 1,632,300 1,470,800 (161,500) (9.89%) Community Development 1,174,000 0 1,174,000 1,255,400 81,400 6.93% Recreation Program Revenues 571,500 0 571,500 579,800 8,300 1.45% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 0 0 0 85,500 85,500 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 158,000 0 158,000 115,600 (42,400) (26.84%) Transfers in-#101 (street admin) 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#402(storm admin) 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 35,274,700 0 35,274,700 36,823,500 1,548,800 4.39% Expenditures City Council 390,111 0 390,111 414,950 24,839 6.37% City Manager 637,984 0 637,984 660,843 22,859 3.58% Legal 439,161 35,000 474,161 448,922 (25,239) (5.32%) Public Safety 22,139,200 0 22,139,200 23,384,643 1,245,443 5.63% Deputy City Manager 609,706 0 609,706 653,215 43,509 7.14% Finance/IT 1,089,633 0 1,089,633 1,180,659 91,026 8.35% Human Resources 232,469 0 232,469 237,883 5,414 2.33% Public Works 876,443 0 876,443 882,694 6,251 0.71% Community Development-Administration 257,175 12,750 269,925 290,883 20,958 7.76% Community Development-Engineering 850,845 14,750 865,595 807,114 (58,481) (6.76%) Community Development-Planning 899,743 12,750 912,493 928,906 16,413 1.80% Community Development-Building 1,162,582 12,750 1,175,332 1,267,656 92,324 7.86% Parks&Rec-Administration 270,717 0 270,717 274,743 4,026 1.49% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 789,000 0 789,000 796,200 7,200 0.91% Parks&Rec-Recreation 231,321 0 231,321 229,152 (2,169) (0.94%) Parks&Rec-Aquatics 485,600 0 485,600 490,400 4,800 0.99% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 88,143 0 88,143 89,882 1,739 1.97% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 800,884 0 800,884 828,842 27,958 3.49% Pavement Preservation 855,857 0 855,857 888,823 32,966 3.85% General Government 1,799,100 0 1,799,100 1,741,600 (57,500) (3.20%) Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 319,000 0 319,000 325,000 6,000 1.88% Total Recurring Expenditures 35,224,674 88,000 35,312,674 36,823,010 1,510,336 4.28% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 50,026 (88,000) (37,974) 490 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in-#120(excess reserves) 50,787 0 50,787 0 (50,787) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Revenues 50,787 0 50,787 0 (50,787) (100.00%) Expenditures Transfers out-#309(park grant match) 50,000 0 50,000 192,500 142,500 285.00% Law Enforcement Contingency 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 #DIV/0! Public Works(autocad licenses) 0 0 0 8,800 8,800 #DIV/0! Parks&Recreation (CP chairs) 0 0 0 11,350 11,350 #DIV/0! Public Safety(precinct improvements) 0 0 24,000 24,000 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#312(Capital Reserve Fund) 7,826,207 0 7,826,207 0 (7,826,207) (100.00%) Parks&Recreation related 56,962 0 56,962 0 (56,962) (100.00%) Carpet at City Hall 25,000 0 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 7,958,169 0 7,958,169 586,650 (7,371,519) (92.63%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (7,907,382) 0 (7,907,382) (586,650) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (7,857,356) (88,000) (7,945,356) (586,160) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 28,681,219 28,681,219 20,735,863 Ending unrestricted fund balance 20,823,863 20,735,863 20,149,703 Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures 59.12% 58.72% 54.72% 22 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,861,100 0 1,861,100 1,858,600 (2,500) (0.13%) Investment Interest 5,000 0 5,000 3,000 (2,000) (40.00%) Utility Tax 2,900,000 0 2,900,000 2,750,000 (150,000) (5.17%) Total Recurring Revenues 4,766,100 0 4,766,100 4,611,600 (154,500) (3.24%) Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 573,170 0 573,170 627,288 54,118 9.44% Supplies 72,200 0 72,200 91,500 19,300 26.73% Services&Charges 2,456,152 0 2,456,152 2,167,201 (288,951) (11.76%) Snow Operations 469,000 0 469,000 520,000 51,000 10.87% Intergovernmental Payments 851,000 0 851,000 798,000 (53,000) (6.23%) Transfers out-#001 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 0 282,000 282,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 0 150,000 75,000 (75,000) (50.00%) Transfers out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 0 10,777 10,777 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,903,999 0 4,903,999 4,611,466 (292,533) (5.97%) Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures (137,899) 0 (137,899) 134 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 200,000 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 200,000 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Expenditures 133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS-phase 2 0 200,000 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Patch trailer 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 #DIV/0! Hawk Signal 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV/0! Software 0 0 0 6,750 6,750 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 200,000 200,000 76,750 (123,250) (61.63%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 0 (76,750) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (137,899) 0 (137,899) (76,616) Beginning fund balance 2,228,437 2,228,437 2,090,538 Ending fund balance 2,090,538 2,090,538 2,013,922 23 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 7,800 7,800 Beginning fund balance 63,941 63,941 71,741 Ending fund balance 71,741 71,741 79,541 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 460,000 30,000 490,000 490,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 500 0 500 300 (200) (40.00%) Total revenues 460,500 30,000 490,500 490,300 (200) (0.04%) Expenditures Transfers out-#001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% City directed marketing efforts 55,000 0 55,000 0 (55,000) (100.00%) Tourism Promotion-contracted 425,500 0 425,500 0 (425,500) (100.00%) Tourism Promotion 0 0 0 547,000 547,000 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 510,500 0 510,500 577,000 66,500 13.03% Revenues over(under)expenditures (50,000) (20,000) (86,700) Beginning fund balance 206,772 206,772 186,772 Ending fund balance 156,772 186,772 100,072 24 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Operations 50,787 0 50,787 0 (50,787) (100.00%) Total expenditures 50,787 0 50,787 0 (50,787) (100.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (50,787) (50,787) 0 Beginning fund balance 350,787 350,787 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 7,000 0 7,000 7,300 300 4.29% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,000 0 7,000 7,300 300 4.29% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,000 7,000 7,300 Beginning fund balance 5,441,531 5,441,531 5,448,531 Ending fund balance 5,448,531 5,448,531 5,455,831 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 0 700 700 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Subtotal revenues 700 0 700 700 0 0.00% Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 700 700 700 Beginning fund balance 502,888 502,888 503,588 Ending fund balance 503,588 503,588 504,288 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,600 0 1,600 1,700 100 6.25% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,600 0 1,600 1,700 100 6.25% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Total expenditures 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,684) (614,684) (614,584) Beginning fund balance 2,403,947 2,403,947 1,789,263 Ending fund balance 1,789,263 1,789,263 1,174,679 25 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 437,120 0 437,120 441,520 4,400 1.01% Transfers in-#301 92,951 0 92,951 93,152 201 0.22% Transfers in-#302 92,952 0 92,952 93,151 199 0.21% Total revenues 623,023 0 623,023 627,823 4,800 0.77% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 437,120 0 437,120 441,520 4,400 1.01% Debt Service Payments-Roads 185,903 0 185,903 186,303 400 0.22% Total expenditures 623,023 0 623,023 627,823 4,800 0.77% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 26 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 500,000 0 500,000 600,000 100,000 20.00% Investment Interest 500 0 500 1,000 500 100.00% Total revenues 500,500 0 500,500 601,000 100,500 20.08% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 92,951 0 92,951 93,152 201 0.22% Transfers out-#303 892,404 0 892,404 268,575 (623,829) (69.90%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 150,000 0 150,000 184,472 34,472 22.98% Total expenditures 1,135,355 0 1,135,355 546,199 (589,156) (51.89%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (634,855) (634,855) 54,801 Beginning fund balance 1,092,264 1,092,264 457,409 Ending fund balance 457,409 457,409 512,210 #302-REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 500,000 0 500,000 600,000 100,000 20.00% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 501,000 0 501,000 601,000 100,000 19.96% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 92,952 0 92,952 93,151 199 0.21% Transfers out-#303 617,479 0 617,479 285,097 (332,382) (53.83%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 150,000 0 150,000 184,472 34,472 22.98% Total expenditures 860,431 0 860,431 562,720 (297,711) (34.60%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (359,431) (359,431) 38,280 Beginning fund balance 1,130,670 1,130,670 771,239 Ending fund balance 771,239 771,239 809,519 27 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303-STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 6,597,842 0 6,597,842 11,092,997 4,495,155 68.13% Developer 0 0 0 166,020 166,020 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#301 892,404 0 892,404 268,575 (623,829) (69.90%) Transfers in-#302 617,479 0 617,479 285,097 (332,382) (53.83%) Transfers in-#312-Appleway Landscaping 0 18,000 18,000 250,000 232,000 1288.89% Transfers in-#312-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 2,320,000 2,320,000 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#402 0 0 0 7,101 7,101 #DIV/0! Total revenues 8,107,725 18,000 8,125,725 14,389,790 6,264,065 77.09% Expenditures 005 Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 300,000 0 300,000 0 (300,000) (100.00%) 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 957,892 0 957,892 860,280 (97,612) (10.19%) 061 Pines(SR27) ITS Imporvements 637,288 0 637,288 10,000 (627,288) (98.43%) 115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 188,745 0 188,745 0 (188,745) (100.00%) 123 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker 0 127,500 127,500 382,410 254,910 199.93% 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC(PE&RW) 139,332 0 139,332 123,090 (16,242) (11.66%) 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 219,599 0 219,599 50,000 (169,599) (77.23%) 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 200,000 0 200,000 100,000 (100,000) (50.00%) 146 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) 149 Sidewalk Infill 337,507 0 337,507 364,425 26,918 7.98% 154 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 33,198 0 33,198 0 (33,198) (100.00%) 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 800,000 0 800,000 8,888,189 8,088,189 1011.02% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 1,012,924 0 1,012,924 1,158,727 145,803 14.39% 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 125,000 0 125,000 50,000 (75,000) (60.00%) 166 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave. Intersect Safety 98,100 0 98,100 538,850 440,750 449.29% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements(bike/ped) 450,995 0 450,995 341,928 (109,067) (24.18%) 168 Wellesley Ave&Adams Rd Sidewalk 554,500 0 554,500 30,000 (524,500) (94.59%) 169 Argonne/MUIIan Corridor Safety-Indiana to Broac 104,460 0 104,460 0 (104,460) (100.00%) 170 Argonne Road-Empire to Knox Corridor Safety 172,785 0 172,785 0 (172,785) (100.00%) 171 Sprague Ave ADA Sdwlk Improve(Havana-Fanc 110,400 0 110,400 0 (110,400) (100.00%) 176 Appleway Trail Design 150,000 0 150,000 0 (150,000) (100.00%) 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0 150,000 150,000 50,000 (100,000) (66.67%) 185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 0 18,000 18,000 250,000 232,000 1288.89% XU ITS Infi11 Project Phase 1 (PE START 2014) 0 0 0 91,891 91,891 #DIV/0! Contingency 1,500,000 (377,500) 1,122,500 1,000,000 (122,500) (10.91%) Total expenditures 8,107,725 18,000 8,125,725 14,389,790 6,264,065 77.09% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 177,918 177,918 177,918 Ending fund balance 177,918 177,918 177,918 28 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 50,000 0 50,000 192,500 142,500 285.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 500 500 #DIV/0! Total revenues 50,000 0 50,000 193,000 143,000 286.00% Expenditures Capital 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Sand volleyball courts(4)at Brown's Park 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 #DIV/0! Edgecliff picnic shelter 0 0 0 65,000 65,000 #DIV/0! Discovery Playground equipment 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 #DIV/0! Shade structure at Discovery Playground 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 #DIV/0! City entry sign 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 #DIV/0! Park signs(3) 0 0 0 22,500 22,500 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 50,000 0 50,000 262,500 212,500 425.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 (69,500) Beginning fund balance 302,423 302,423 302,423 Ending fund balance 302,423 302,423 232,923 #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 0 0 0 1,900 1,900 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 0 0 1,900 1,900 #DIV/0! Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 1,900 Beginning fund balance 1,110,074 1,110,074 1,110,074 Ending fund balance 1,110,074 1,110,074 1,111,974 #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in-#101 282,000 0 282,000 282,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#123 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Transfers in-#301 150,000 0 150,000 184,472 34,472 22.98% Transfers in-#302 150,000 0 150,000 184,472 34,472 22.98% Transfers in-#001 0 0 0 888,823 888,823 #DIV/0! Grants 0 165,793 165,793 2,763,272 2,597,479 1566.70% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,198,284 165,793 1,364,077 4,919,323 3,555,246 260.63% Expenditures Pavement preservation 1,198,284 850,172 2,048,456 3,595,521 1,547,065 75.52% Total expenditures 1,198,284 850,172 2,048,456 3,595,521 1,547,065 75.52% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (684,379) 1,323,802 Beginning fund balance 948,733 948,733 264,354 Ending fund balance 948,733 264,354 1,588,156 29 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 7,826,207 0 7,826,207 0 (7,826,207) (100.00%) Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,826,207 0 7,826,207 0 (7,826,207) (100.00%) Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Business Route Signage 60,000 0 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Balfour Park/Library site development 42,150 0 42,150 0 (42,150) (100.00%) Transfers out#303-Phase 1 -Appleway Lands( 0 18,000 18,000 250,000 232,000 1288.89% Transfers out#303-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 2,320,000 2,320,000 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 102,150 18,000 120,150 2,570,000 2,449,850 2038.99% Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,724,057 7,706,057 (2,570,000) Beginning fund balance 0 0 7,706,057 Ending fund balance 7,724,057 7,706,057 5,136,057 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 1,835,000 35,000 1.94% Investment Interest 1,800 0 1,800 2,500 700 38.89% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 1,801,800 0 1,801,800 1,837,500 35,700 1.98% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 475,604 0 475,604 505,535 29,931 6.29% Supplies 16,300 0 16,300 15,900 (400) (2.45%) Services&Charges 1,127,120 0 1,127,120 1,065,076 (62,044) (5.50%) Intergovernmental Payments 27,000 0 27,000 26,500 (500) (1.85%) Transfers out-#001 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Transfers out-#501 1,567 0 1,567 1,567 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,660,991 0 1,660,991 1,627,978 (33,013) (1.99%) Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 140,809 0 140,809 209,522 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 200,000 0 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 200,000 0 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Expenditures Capital-various projects 350,000 0 350,000 900,000 550,000 157.14% Property acquisition 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 #DIV/0! VMS Trailer 0 0 0 16,000 16,000 #DIV/0! Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit 267,000 0 267,000 0 (267,000) (100.00%) UIC Retrofits on Pvmnt Pres Projects 430,000 0 430,000 0 (430,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,047,000 0 1,047,000 1,196,000 149,000 14.23% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (847,000) 0 (847,000) (1,196,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (706,191) 0 (706,191) (986,478) Beginning working capital 2,697,333 2,697,333 1,991,142 Ending working capital 1,991,142 1,991,142 1,004,664 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Grant DOE-Decant Facility 735,000 0 735,000 0 (735,000) (100.00%) Grant DOT-Decant Facility 150,000 0 150,000 0 (150,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-Sprague UIC Elimination 610,331 0 610,331 0 (610,331) (100.00%) Grant revenue 0 0 0 870,000 870,000 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 0 (1,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 1,996,331 0 1,996,331 1,370,000 (626,331) (31.37%) Expenditures Sprague Swales 40,000 0 40,000 0 (40,000) (100.00%) 14th Ave Custer to Carnahan 300,000 0 300,000 0 (300,000) (100.00%) Bettman-Dickey Storm drain 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) Decant Facility 980,000 0 980,000 0 (980,000) (100.00%) Broadway SD retrofit(design only) 0 0 0 60,000 60,000 #DIV/0! Outfall Diversion(design only) 0 0 0 60,000 60,000 #DIV/0! SE Yardley Retrofits 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 1,570,000 0 1,570,000 1,120,000 (450,000) (28.66%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 426,331 426,331 250,000 Beginning working capital (108,658) (108,658) 317,673 Ending working capital 317,673 317,673 567,673 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/11/2013 2014 Budget 2013 2014 Difference Between As Amended As Proposed 2013 and 2014 May 28 Amendment Amended Budget $ 1 % INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 15,400 0 15,400 15,400 0 0.00% Transfers in-#101 10,777 0 10,777 10,777 0 0.00% Transfers in-#101 (plow replace.) 150,000 0 150,000 75,000 (75,000) (50.00%) Transfers in-#402 1,567 0 1,567 1,567 0 0.00% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#101 (new pickup) 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#402(new pickup) 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 #DIV/0! Total revenues 178,744 0 178,744 148,744 (30,000) (16.78%) Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Vehicle Replacement 50,000 0 50,000 90,000 40,000 80.00% Snow Plow Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 50,000 0 50,000 90,000 40,000 80.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 128,744 128,744 58,744 Beginning working capital 1,053,177 1,053,177 1,181,921 Ending working capital 1,181,921 1,181,921 1,240,665 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#001 319,000 0 319,000 325,000 6,000 1.88% Total revenues 319,000 0 319,000 325,000 6,000 1.88% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 319,000 0 319,000 325,000 6,000 1.88% Unemployment Claims 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 319,000 0 319,000 325,000 6,000 1.88% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 83,212 83,212 83,212 Ending fund balance 83,212 83,212 83,212 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 63,871,801 413,793 64,285,594 66,957,980 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 65,988,372 1,174,172 67,162,544 70,204,691 Total grant revenues(included in total revenues) 8,293,173 365,793 8,658,966 14,726,269 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 12,981,016 868,172 13,849,188 20,685,561 33 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget Revenues by Fund General Fund Property Tax 11,049,400 Sales Tax 16,390,000 Criminal Justice Sales Tax 1,330,000 Public Safety Sales Tax 745,000 Gambling Tax 619,400 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,213,000 State Shared Revenues 1,886,500 Service Revenues 1,507,400 Fines and Forfeitures 1,303,800 Recreation Program Fees 579,500 Miscellaneous, Investment Int. ,Transfers 199,500 Total General Fund 36,823,500 Other Funds Street Fund 4,611,600 Paths &Trails Fund 7,800 Hotel/Motel Fund 490,300 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 Service Level Reserve Fund 7,300 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 700 City Facilities Repair& Replacement 1,700 Debt Service LTGO 03 627,823 Capital Projects Fund 601,000 Special Capital Projects Fund 601,000 Street Capitial Projects Fund 14,389,790 Parks Capital Fund 193,000 Civic Facilities Capital Fund 1,900 Pavement Preservation Fund 4,919,323 Capital Reserve Fund 0 Stormwater Management Fund 1,837,500 Aquifer Protection Area 1,370,000 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 148,744 Risk Management Fund 325,000 Total Other Funds 30,134,480 Total All Funds 66,957,980 34 City of Spokane Valley 2014 General Fund Revenues $36,823,500 Recreation Program Fees 2% Miscellaneous 1% Fines& Forfeitures 3% Service Revenues 4% State Shared Revenues 5% Franchise Fees/Business Registrations \ 3% Gambling Tax 2% Public Safety Sales Taxes 2% Criminal Justice Sales Tax 4% Property Tax 30% Sales Tax 44% Debt Service Fund 1% Other Special Revenue Funds 1% Street Fund 7% City of Spokane Valley 2014 City Wide Revenues $ 66,957,980 l Capital Projects Funds 31% General Fund 55% 36 Stormwater Management Fund 3% APA Fund 2% Internal Service Funds 0% City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget-General Fund Detail Revenues by Type 2014 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Property Tax Property Tax 10,799,123 10,943,700 11,049,400 Property Tax-Delinquent 0 0 0 10,799,123 10,943,700 11,049,400 Sales Taxes Leasehold Excise Tax 12,251 0 0 Sales Tax 15,427,377 15,250,000 16,390,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,286,302 1,280,000 1,330,000 Sales Tax-Public Safety 724,052 750,000 745,000 17,449,982 17,280,000 18,465,000 Gambling Taxes Amusement Games 11,927 10,800 12,400 Card Games 541,696 535,500 540,000 Interest on Gambling Tax 2,728 200 2,000 Punch Boards&Pull Tabs 64,771 66,000 65,000 621,122 612,500 619,400 Licenses&Permits Business Licenses 92,867 90,000 93,000 Comcast PEG Contribution 91,014 25,000 91,000 Franchise Fees 1,029,061 1,020,000 1,029,000 1,212,942 1,135,000 1,213,000 State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue 0 0 0 Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax 557,415 540,000 557,400 Payment in Lieu of Taxes-DNR 8,898 4,800 4,800 CJ-High Crime 148,505 0 148,000 MVET Criminal Justice-Population 20,548 23,500 23,800 CJ Contracted Services 134,119 130,100 134,100 CJ Special Programs 77,114 80,600 79,600 DUI-Cities 16,618 17,300 16,600 Liquor Board Excise Tax 225,791 76,100 108,900 Liquor Board Profits 898,852 812,200 813,300 Work Study Reimbursement 0 0 0 2,087,860 1,684,600 1,886,500 Service Revenues Airway Heights Bldg.Plan Rev. 10,476 0 10,500 Building Permits 640,896 730,000 640,900 Cry Wolf Fees 001.000.000.342.28.02 170,262 130,000 171,000 Demolition Permits 3,446 3,000 3,400 Building&Planning Fees 95,403 0 104,100 Entertainment License 12,604 0 12,600 Grading Permits 3,444 1,100 3,400 Home Profession Fee 3,360 0 3,400 Mechanical Permits 84,045 84,000 84,000 Misc.Permits&Fees 11,117 5,900 5,000 Planning Fees 001.058.059.345.83.* 332,778 310,000 332,800 Plumbing Permits 50,829 40,000 50,800 Right of Way Permits 82,262 0 85,000 Temporary Use Permit Fees 471 0 500 1,501,393 1,304,000 1,507,400 Fines and Forfeitures Code Enforcement 3,906 0 4,000 Public Safety Grants 61,255 8,000 28,000 Fines&Forfeits-Traffic 586,000 656,000 587,000 Other Criminal-Non Traffic Fines 683,641 838,300 684,800 1,334,802 1,502,300 1,303,800 Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees(To use a recreational facility) 438,226 397,100 405,400 Program Fees(To participate in a program) 168,250 174,400 174,100 606,476 571,500 579,500 Miscellaneous Investment Interest 88,008 90,000 65,000 Sales Tax Interest 6,086 15,000 7,000 Property Tax Interest 0 0 0 Dept.of Ecology Grant 51,048 0 0 EECBG Grant 20,383 0 0 Police Precinct Rent&Maint. 41,636 53,000 41,600 Miscellaneous Revenue&Grants 5,611 0 2,800 212,772 158,000 116,400 Transfers Transfer-in-#101(street admin) 39,600 39,700 39,700 Transfer-in-#120 0 50,787 0 Transfer-in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transfer-in-#310(full paveback) 0 0 0 Transfer-in-#402(storm admin) 15,000 13,400 13,400 84,600 133,887 83,100 Total General Fund Revenue 35,911,072 35,325,487 36,823,500 37 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget-Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2014 2013 Proposed Actua Budget Budget 101 Street Fund Investment Interest 4,056 5,000 3,000 Grants Revenues 173,185 200,000 0 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,846,990 1,861,100 1,858,600 Other Miscellaneous Revenues&Grants 64,415 0 0 Transfers in-#302 7,614 0 0 Street Maintenance&Repair Charges 0 0 0 Utilities tax 2,735,484 2,900,000 2,750,000 4,831,743 4,966,100 4,611,600 103 Paths&Trails Fund Investment interest 67 0 0 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,790 7,800 7,800 7,857 7,800 7,800 105 Hotel/Motel Fund Hotel/Motel Tax 490,004 490,000 490,000 Investment Interest 592 500 300 490,596 490,500 490,300 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Transfer in 0 0 0 Investment Interest 9,103 7,000 7,300 9,103 7,000 7,300 122 Winter Weather Reserve Investment Interest 883 700 700 883 700 700 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement Investment Interest 2,099 1,600 1,700 Transfers in 397,000 0 0 399,099 1,600 1,700 204 Debt Service-LTGO 03 Facilities District Revenue 432,320 437,120 441,520 Transfers in-#301 92,651 92,951 93,152 Transfers in-#302 92,651 92,952 93,151 617,623 623,023 627,823 301 Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 1,204 500 1,000 REET 1-2nd Percent 654,264 500,000 600,000 Misc.Revenues 9,601 0 0 665,069 500,500 601,000 302 Special Capital Protects Fund Investment Interest 1,762 1,000 1,000 REET 2-2nd.25 Percent 531,442 500,000 600,000 Transfers in-Capital Grants fund 6,477 0 0 539,681 501,000 601,000 303 Street Capital Projects Developer Contributions 760,768 0 166,020 Grant Proceeds 3,852,253 6,597,842 11,092,997 Transfers in-#001 64,750 0 0 Transfers in-#101 476,659 0 0 Transfers in-#102 207,447 0 0 Transfers in-#301 253,429 892,404 268,575 Transfers in-#302 1,101,314 617,479 285,097 Transfers in-#310 140,139 0 0 Transfers in-#311 299,027 0 0 Transfers in-#312 Appleway Landscaping 0 18,000 250,000 Transfers in-#313 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 2,320,000 Transfersin-#402 113,014 0 7,101 Spokane County Sewer 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 1,651 0 0 7,270,451 8,125,725 14,389,790 309 Parks Capital Protects Investment Interest 848 0 500 Transfers in-#001 106,250 50,000 192,500 Transfers in-#304 0 0 0 107,098 50,000 193,000 310 Civic Facilities Capital Proiects Investment Interest 5,349 0 1,900 Misc Revenues 7,577 0 0 12,926 0 1,900 38 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget-Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2014 2013 Proposed Actua Budget * Budget 311 Pavement Preservation Grants 0 165,793 2,763,272 Transfers in-#001 2,045,503 0 888,823 Transfers in-#101 0 282,000 282,000 Transfers in-#123 0 616,284 616,284 Transfers in-#301 0 150,000 184,472 Transfers in-#302 0 150,000 184,472 2,045,503 1,364,077 4,919,323 312 Capital Reserve Fund Transfers in-#001 0 7,826,207 0 0 7,826,207 0 402 Stormwater Management Fund Grant Proceeds 64,838 200,000 0 Transfers in-#101 (shop facility) 0 0 0 Investment Interest 2,658 1,800 2,500 Stormwater Management Fee 1,834,740 1,800,000 1,835,000 1,902,236 2,001,800 1,837,500 403 Aquifer Protection Area Spokane County 510,936 500,000 500,000 Grant revenue 0 0 870,000 Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 735,000 0 Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 150,000 0 Decant Facility 0 610,331 0 Grant-Sprague Swales 96,291 0 0 Investment Interest 0 1,000 0 607,227 1,996,331 1,370,000 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund Investment Interest 1,498 1,000 1,000 Transfers in-#001 15,400 15,400 15,400 Transfers in-#001 (Vehicle Lease) 94,844 Transfers in-#101 9,100 10,777 10,777 Transfers in-#101 (plow replace) 0 150,000 75,000 Transfers in- #402 0 1,567 1,567 Transfers in-#101 0 0 15,000 Transfers in-#402 0 0 30,000 120,842 178,744 148,744 502 Risk Management Fund Employment Security Transfers 0 0 0 Transfers in-#001 319,000 319,000 325,000 Investment Interest 9 0 0 319,009 319,000 325,000 Total of"Other Fund"Revenues 19,966,905 28,960,107 30,134,480 General Fund Revenues 35,911,072 35,325,487 36,823,500 Total Revenues 55,878,021 64,285,594 66,957,980 39 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget Expenditures by Fund and Department General Fund Council 414,950 City Manager 1,109,765 Public Safety 23,758,643 Operations &Administrative Deputy City Manager 653,215 Finance 1,180,659 Human Resources 237,883 Public Works 891,494 Planning &Community Development Admin 290,883 Development Engineering 807,114 Planning 928,906 Building 1,267,656 Parks &Recreation Administration 286,093 Maintenance 796,200 Recreation 229,152 Aquatics 490,400 Senior Center 89,882 CenterPlace 828,842 General Government 3,147,923 Total General Fund 37,409,660 Other Funds Street Fund 4,688,216 Paths &Trails Fund 0 Hotel/Motel Fund 577,000 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 Service Level Stabilization Fund 0 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 0 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 Debt Service- LTGO 03 627,823 Capital Projects Fund 546,199 Special Capital Projects Fund 562,720 Street Capital Projects Fund 14,389,790 Parks Capital Projects Fund 262,500 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 0 Pavement Preservation 3,595,521 Capital Reserve Fund 2,570,000 Stormwater Management Fund 2,823,978 Aquifer Protection Area 1,120,000 Equipment Rental &Replacement(ER&R) 90,000 Risk Management Fund 325,000 Total All Funds 70,204,691 40 Planning&Community Development 9% Public Works 2% Operation&Administrative 6% City of Spokane Valley 2014 General Fund Expenditures $ 37,409,660 Public Safety 7 64% Parks& Recreations Council& Executive 4% General Government 8% City of Spokane Valley 2014 City Wide Expenditures $ 70,204,691 Stormwater&APA Funds 6% Gen Gov/Risk Mgmt/ER&R 5% Capital Projects Funds 7 32% Public Safety 34% Tourism Promotion 1% Street Fund 7% Parks& Recreation 4% Council/Executive/Ops& Admin 6% Planning&Community Development 5% 42 Supplies Intergovernmental CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2014 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department and Type Wages, Benefits &Payroll Taxes City Council 210,658 4,192 City Manager and City Attorney 964,112 5,750 Public Safety 0 0 Operations&Administrative Services& Charges 1 nterfund 200,100 0 139,903 0 0 23,758,643 0 0 0 Capital Expenditures Total 0 414,950 0 1,109,765 0 23,758,643 Deputy City Manager 590,025 2,050 61,140 0 0 0 653,215 Finance 1,151,059 7,000 22,600 0 0 0 1,180,659 Human Resources 214,905 700 22,278 0 0 0 237,883 Public Works 799,369 28,300 63,825 0 0 0 891,494 Planning &Community Development Ad m in 232,683 3,100 55,100 0 0 0 290,883 Development Engineering 709,964 9,800 87,350 0 0 0 807,114 Planning 777,356 11,250 140,300 0 0 0 928,906 Building 1,136,956 28,200 102,500 0 0 0 1,267,656 Parks&Recreation Administration 222,343 19,800 30,950 13,000 0 0 286,093 Maintenance 0 10,000 786,200 0 0 0 796,200 Recreation 156,702 5,350 67,100 0 0 0 229,152 Aquatics 0 2,500 487,900 0 0 0 490,400 Senior Center 81,682 2,500 5,700 0 0 0 89,882 CenterPlace 420,115 64,187 344,540 0 0 0 828,842 General Government 0 77,400 1,301,300 269,600 1,406,323 93,300 3,147,923 Total $ 7,667,929 $ 282,079 $ 3,918,786 $ 24,041,243 $ 1,406,323 $ 93,300 $ 37,409,660 43 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2014 Budget This department accounts for the cost of providing effective elected representation of the citizenry in the governing body. The Council makes policy decisions for the City and is accountable to Spokane Valley citizens by making decisions regarding how resources are allocated,the appropriate levels of service,and establishing goals and policies for the organization. Accomplishments for 2013 • 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. Monitored status of Spokane County Wastewater Permit. Staff assisted in analyzing discharge options to Saltese Flats. • Pursue the topic of Solid Waste to include identifying the issue and obtaining alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and the consequences of each alternative. Staff provided support and analysis on a range of solid waste disposal and collection options. The City worked in conjunction with Spokane County and City of Spokane to develop an RFP to evaluate alternatives for solid waste management and disposal. The project team selected a consultant and moved forward with looking at alternative options. The consultant completed cost models for the project team to discuss. A special joint meeting was held with the County Commissioners,City of Spokane and all other municipalities in the County to discuss the results of the study and future options for the regional system. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. The SMP is moving forward with many significant components having been adopted by resolution this year.The regulations are nearly complete.The adoption process commenced in late Summer and should be completed in 2013. • 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. Pursued legislative requests through our legislative advisor for the Sullivan Bridge project only. We were unsuccessful in obtaining additional financial assistance for the Sullivan Bridge replacement project. Public Works was successful in obtaining a grant from SRTC for the Appleway Trail Project in the amount of$640,000.00. • 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. Completed an Economic Development Work Plan and designated a staff coordinator. Evaluating sites for City Hall location,continuing evaluations of development regulations,and developing a Certified Sites Program for vacant commercial and industrial property. Goals for 2014 • Continue to monitor the discharge permit process for the Spokane County wastewater treatment plant. • Implement solid waste alternatives for collection,transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request or other grant/funding for the Appleway Trail Project,parkland acquisition,the Barker Road grade separation and purchase of a transfer station. • Continue and expand where possible,an economic development plan,including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they compare with other jurisdicitons;and keeping options open for an alternative city hall. • Focus on sustainability of Street Preservation program beyond 2016. • Evaluate law enforcement needs based on calls for service,crime rates,business and population growth and other supporting data. 44 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2014 Budget i Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Mayor 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Council 6 6.0 6.0 6.0 Total FTEs 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 141,389 $ 165,571 $ 188,868 $ 210,658 Supplies 3,515 3,605 4,150 4,192 Services&Charges 139,814 171,816 197,093 200,100 Total Legislative Branch $ 284,718 $ 340,992 $ 390,111 $ 414,950 45 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 013 Executive&Legislative Support 2014 Budget 013-City Manager This department is accountable to the City Council for the operational results of the organization,effective support of elected officials in achieving their goals;fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the City Manager,implementation of City Council policies,and provision of a communication linkage between citizens,the City Council,City departments, and other government agencies. Accomplishments for 2013 •In addition to the support of the 2013 Council Goals as referenced under the Legislative Budget: •Provided oversight and direction for the City's internal Economic Development projects •Executed marketing plan for the promotion of the City as a business friendly community •Presented Council a balanced 2014 Budget Goals for 2014 •In addition to the support of the 2014 Council Goals as referenced under the Legislative Budget: •Present Council a balanced 2015 Budget •Continue further efforts in promotion of the City •Prepare Legislative Agenda for Council consideration 015-Legal Accomplishments for 2013 •Finalize transfer of Sprague Park property following completion of joint site plan •Completion of comprehensive Procurement Manual •Assist in identifying option,providers,and costs for disposal and collection •Ongoing research and advice for City marijuana regulations Goals for 2014 •Analyze governance of solid waste facilities and pursuit of efficient and economical methods of solid waste disposal and collection;review and negotiate terms of solid waste interlocal •Negotiate and draft franchise agreements on an as-needed basis with utility providers Budget Summary 2014 2013 Proposed Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Attorney 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Attorney 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant-Legal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant(CC) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant(CM) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Interns 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail(*) Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 722,496 $ 847,380 $ 936,891 $ 964,112 Supplies 3,273 4,501 5,700 5,750 Services&Charges 215,742 174,452 169,554 139,903 Total Executive&Legislative Support $ 941,511 $ 1,026,333 $ 1,112,145 $ 1,109,765 46 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 016 Public Safety 2014 Budget The Public Safety department budget provides funds for the protection of persons and property in the city. The City contracts with Spokane County for law enforcement, district court, prosecutor services, public defender services, probation services,jail and animal control services. See following page for detail information on each budgeted section. Judicial System -The Spokane County District Court is contracted to provide municipal court services. The contract provides for the services of judge and court commissioner with related support staff. Budgeted amount also includes jury management fees. Budgeted contract amount: $ 2,253,940 Law Enforcement- The Spokane County Sheriffs Office is responsible for maintaining law and order and providing police services to the community under the direction of the Police Chief. The office provides for the preservation of life, protection of property, and reduction of crime. Budgeted contract amount: $ 18,907,900 Jail System -Spokane County provides jail and probation services for persons sentenced by any City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court Judge for violating laws of the city or state. Budgeted contract amount: $ 1,545,222 Animal Control -Spokane County will provide animal control services to include licensing, care and treatment of lost or stray animals, and response to potentially dangerous animal confrontations. Budgeted contract amount: $ 287,081 Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance Budgeted contract amount: $ 764,500 Communications Budgeted contract amount: $ - Interfund Transfers-Transfer to Fund#123 to cover future building improvements or the eventual replacement of the precinct building $ - Total $ 23,758,643 47 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budget 016-Public Safety 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Judicial System: District Court Contract 1,098,465 792,455 898,375 891,304 Public Defender Contract 705,375 769,295 672,894 852,965 Prosecutor Contract 484,799 421,087 393,219 406,777 Pretrial Services Contract 144,713 102,300 125,838 102,894 Prosecutor-Funded by JAG Grant 97 - - - Subtotal Judicial System 2,433,449 2,085,137 2,090,326 2,253,940 Law Enforcement System: Sheriff Contract 16,885,482 16,853,600 16,599,835 18,144,552 Emergency Management Contract 59,622 80,877 82,291 81,398 Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 6,133 2,389 4,936 3,500 Operating Supplies 5,630 6,497 2,473 3,500 Repair&Maintenance. Supplies 1,412 693 2,473 3,500 Janitorial Supplies 1,083 1,062 - - Small Tools&Minor Equipment - - 990 - Electricity/Gas 29,266 21,603 33,880 30,000 Water 1,804 1,385 2,541 1,750 Sewer 847 849 847 900 Waste Disposal 3,423 3,504 2,964 4,000 Copier Maintenance - - - - Law Enf. Bldg Maintenance Contract 50,940 59,194 74,153 77,400 Taxes and Assessments - 358 - 400 Contingency - - 367,735 500,000 Crywolf Charges&Fees 33,314 45,568 45,450 48,000 Sterling Bank Fees 4,365 5,057 - 7,000 Crywolf Refunds 1,769 - - 2,000 Subtotal Law Enforcement System: 17,085,090 17,082,636 17,220,568 18,907,900 Jail System: Jail Contract 689,636 976,681 1,301,540 1,501,222 Work Release(Geiger) 795,160 429,420 - - Subtotal Jail System: 1,484,796 1,406,101 1,301,540 1,501,222 Other: Capital Outlays/Communications 190,738 206,445 208,151 - Fines&Forfeitures State Remittance 751,862 682,014 1,050,264 764,500 Animal Control Contract 306,923 284,926 268,351 287,081 Non-Capital Equipment for JAG Grant 44,524 16,253 - 20,000 Non-Capital Equip for ARRA JAG Grant 93,462 26,099 - - Small Tools - - - 12,000 Professional Services 1,765 - - - JAG-Wireless Cards 10,462 10,035 - - Building Replacement Costs 77,600 80,000 - - Nighttime Seatbelt Patrol Overtime 3,000 1,783 - - Maintenance - - - 12,000 Drive Hammered-Get Nailed Grant 6,943 5,876 - - Child Car Seat Overtime 2,436 - - - Slow Down or Pay Up 2,734 - - - Stickman Knows - 3,992 - - Subtotal Other: 1,492,449 1,317,423 1,526,766 1,095,581 Total Public Safety 22,495,784 21,891,297 22,139,200 23,758,643 48 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Budgeted Contract Expenditures 20,000,000 - 18,000,000 - 16,000,000 - 14,000,000 - 12,000,000 - 10,000,000 - 8,000,000 - 6,000,000 - 4,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 891,304 852,965 406,777 18,144,552 81,398 77,400 1,501,222 287,081 District Court Public Defender Prosecutor Sheriff Contract Emergency Law Enf. Bldg Jail Contract Animal Control Contract Contract Contract Management Maintenance Contract Contract Contract 49 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations&Administrative Services 2014 Budget The Operations&Administrative Services Department is composed of three divisions,the Deputy City Manager Division,the Finance Division,and the Human Resources Division. 013-Deputy City Manager Division The Deputy City Manager(DCM)supervises the Operations&Administrative Services Department,assists the City Manager in organizing and directing the other operations of the City,and assumes the duties of City Manager in his/her absence. Note: The Deputy City Manager position has been vacant since January 2010 but intended to be filled in the future. Accomplishments for 2013 • Negotiated public safety contracts to include enhanced reporting,greater accuracy,and eaiser administration. • Implemented quarterly reporting on public safety contracts to Council. • Evaluated County Information Systems contract and eliminated unnecessary licenses. • Completed SWOT analysis in conjunction with annual update of Business Plan • Recruited and coordinated community Ten Year Anniversary Committee&worked with various City departments in successful planned programs and events in celebration of the ten year anniversary. • Provided public information&marketing support to the City's economic development&tourism promotion efforts. Updated DRAFT Strategic Communications Plan. Goals for 2014 • Evaluate law enforcement needs based upon calls for service,crime rates,and citizen/business growth. • Finalize case weighting methodology in collaboration with the Spokane County Public Defender's Office. Update Draft 6 Year Strategic Communications Plan. • Provide public information support that informs and engages the public as needed for Sullivan Bridge Replacement,Appleway Trail development,and other major projects that may be identified by the Council. • Increase HotTopic community newsletter from twice annually to four times per year inserted in the Spokesman and Valley News Herald • Identify and maximize opportunity to promote the City of Spokane Valley. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Deputy City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Public Information Officer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Office Assistant II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 424,953 $ 404,685 $ 573,870 $ 590,025 Supplies 1,380 1,728 2,350 2,050 Services&Charges 79,375 23,651 33,486 61,140 Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 505,708 $ 430,064 $ 609,706 $ 653,215 50 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations&Administrative Services 2014 Budget 014-Finance Division The Finance Division provides financial management services for all City departments. Programs include accounting and financial reporting, payroll,accounts payable, purchasing, budgeting and financial planning,treasury, information technology and investments. The division is also responsible for generating and analyzing financial data related to the City's operations. The department prepares monthly Finance Activity Reports for review by the City Manager and City Council as well as the Annual Financial Report that is subject to an annual audit conducted by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Accomplishments for 2013 • Implemented State Auditor recommendations. • Improved financial statement preparation process and accuracy. • Replaced 3 servers that reached the end of their life cycle. • Assisted in negotiations to renew the City's lease of the City Hall building. • Replaced the software used to monitor sales tax receipts. • Added a big screen television to the Opportunity Conference room in order to more readily communicate information to meeting participants. • Replaced projectors in the Council Chambers with big screen televisions in order to improve visual quality. • Acquired i-Pads for City Council and City Directors as a means of more easily facilitating the preparation of weekly Council agenda packets. • Replaced City logos on the entire City fleet. • Acquired 2-Ford Escapes for use by the Community Development Department. • Updated the City chart of accounts to match the new State Auditor's Office BARS configuration. Goals for 2014 • Implement 2012 audit recommendations • Work towards continued improvement and accuracy in the financial statement preparation process. • Complete the 2013 annual financial report by May 30,2014 and receive a"clean audit opinion". • Maintain consistent levels of service in payroll,accounts payable, budget development, periodic financial • report preparation and information technology services. • Replace approximately 30 desktop computers that will reach the end of their life cycle. • Replace 3 servers that will reach the end of their life cycle. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Finance&Admin Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accountant/Budget Analyst 3.00 3.00 3.75 3.75 Accounting Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 IT Specialist 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 GIS/Database Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Help Desk Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Total FTEs 11.00 11.00 10.75 11.75 Intern 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 903,495 $ 895,125 $ 1,055,533 $ 1,151,059 Supplies 6,468 7,026 3,500 7,000 Services&Charges 46,543 18,665 30,600 22,600 Total Finance Division $ 956,506 $ 920,816 $ 1,089,633 $ 1,180,659 51 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations&Administrative Services 2014 Budget 016-Human Resources Division Human Resources(HR)is administered through the Deputy City Manager(DCM). The HR operation provides services in compensation, benefits,training and organizational development,staffing,employee relations,and communications. Accomplishments for 2013 • Achievement of the 2012 WellCity Award presented by the Association of Washington Cities • Development and Launch of the City's Mobile App for tourism • Development and Launch of the Employee Intranet • Implementation of a revised employee compensation and benefits structure • Increase of on-time employee evaluations from 22%to greater than 90% Goals for 2014 • Explore AWC Retro Program for possible reductions in workman's compensation rates • Assist Finance/Information Technology in compliance with the WCIA standards associated with cyber liability. • Launch of game mobile app to support tourism within Spokane Valley • Provide employee training in the areas of safe driving, Hazardous Material Identification and fire extinguisher use. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Human Resource Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Human Resources Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 182,604 $ 187,339 $ 210,161 $ 214,905 Supplies 596 461 700 700 Services&Charges 21,314 24,278 21,608 22,278 Total Human Resources Division $ 204,514 $ 212,078 $ 232,469 $ 237,883 52 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 032 Public Works 2014 Budget The Public Works Department oversees the City's transportation system,which includes construction and maintenance of streets and stormwater systems,operations and maintenance of traffic signs and signals and transportation planning. Accomplishments for 2013 • Designed twenty three projects and managed the construction of thirteen. • Developed the 2014-2019 Six Year TIP • Submitted eleven grants for various capital projects;currently received$2.1 M • Completed two 2012 and five 2013 Pavement Preservation Projects • Completed design and permitting of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project • Completed construction of Phase 1 (Sullivan Park)-Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project Goals for 2014 • Implement approved capital projects. • Provide planning for development of the updated Transportation Improvement Plan. • Prepare and submit grant applications for capital projects. • Complete 2014 Pavement Preservation Projects as approved Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Public Works Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Assistant Engineer(CIP) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1) Engineering Technician I 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 (1) Engineering Technician II 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 (1) Limited Term Construction Inspector-Bridge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 (2) Maint./Construction Inspector(ROW) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Senior Engineer 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 Senior Engineer-Proj Mgmt 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 (1) Planning Grants Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.375 Total FTEs 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.875 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 550,017 $ 516,757 $ 741,993 $ 799,369 Supplies 16,954 15,881 25,500 28,300 Services&Charges 101,646 104,612 108,950 63,825 Capital Outlay - 69,344 - - Total Public Works $ 668,617 $ 706,594 $ 876,443 $ 891,494 (1) Only 50%is budgeted to the public works department in the General Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of capital projects funds. (2) This position is budgeted 50%as a part of capital projects funds and 50%street fund. 53 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 050 Community Development-Administrative 2014 Budget The Administrative Division provides overall management and oversight of the Community Development Department including the permitting operation, long-range planning,development engineering,and code compliance and provides staff support through administration of the department's budget, provides administrative support and department training. Accomplishments for 2013 • Continued work on City's economic development plan. • Continued to implement customer service improvements for the department. • Continued work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Continued to implement a document control system for documents and forms. Goals for 2014 • Continue work on City's economic development plan. • Continue to implement a document control system for documents and forms. • Assist in City's Marketing Plan • Assist in City Hall project Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Community Development Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Total FTEs 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 280,228 $ 269,228 $ 227,975 $ 232,683 Supplies 1,488 3,854 3,100 3,100 Services&Charges 27,403 34,934 16,100 55,100 Intergovernmental Payments 10,645 - 10,000 - Total Administrative Division $ 319,764 $ 308,016 $ 257,175 $ 290,883 54 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 055 Community Development-Dev. Engineering 2014 Budget Development Engineering provides the review and inspection for stormwater,access management and other public works improvements in development applications,and provides policy recommendations for public works issues. Accomplishments for 2013 • Updated the Standard Plans for the Street Standards. • Continued to work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Updated Development Engineering's Webpage. • Submitted Forker Draw Hydrology to FEMA for review • Assisted in development of Regional LID guidance manual • Updated Development Engineering's Webpage. Goals for 2014 • Update Street Standards. • Work on Regional Low Impact Development Standards • Work on Floodplain Revisions • Developers Forums • Work on the City's Certified Sites Program Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Senior Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Assistant Engineer 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Engineer 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Engineering Technician 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 Maint/Construction Inspector 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ROW Inspector 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total FTEs 6.0 6.0 8.00 7.00 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 527,389 $ 567,984 $ 764,895 $ 709,964 Supplies 7,939 3,251 7,800 9,800 Services&Charges 64,346 112,499 53,150 87,350 Intergovernmental Payments 37,410 7,764 25,000 - Total Engineering Division $ 637,084 $ 691,498 $ 850,845 $ 807,114 55 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 056 Community Development-Planning 2014 Budget The Planning Division is responsible for providing professional policy guidance on land use issues to the City Council and Planning Commission. Planning staff participate at a regional level on issues such as annexations, growth targets,water quality, etc. It is also responsible for processing land use permits, reviewing environmentally sensitive areas, administering the State Environmental Protection Act and reviewing home occupation licenses. Accomplishments for 2013 • Continued work on the Shoreline Master Program. • Continued to work on Economic Development issues for the City. • Continued work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Contuned to work on code compliance procedure manual update with legal office. • Continued participation in the County's UGA update process • Completed the 2013 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. Goals for 2014 • Complete the Shoreline Master Program. • Continue work on the City's Economic Development Program. • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Developers Forums • 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. • CBDG-Identify Sidewalk projects • Review of Municipal Code for updates Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel -FTE Equivalents Planning Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Planner 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Associate Planner 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Assistant Planner 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 Code Enforcement Officer 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Office Assistant I 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Planner 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Planning Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Total FTEs 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 648,560 $ 697,096 $ 758,871 $ 777,356 Supplies 5,119 3,888 7,250 11,250 Services&Charges 70,027 140,425 98,200 140,300 Intergovernmental Services 18,629 - 35,000 - Total Planning Division $ 742,335 $ 841,409 $ 899,321 $ 928,906 56 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 057 Community Development-Building Division 2014 Budget The Building Division implements the Washington State Building Code. This Division is responsible for ensuring that buildings and structures comply with adopted building codes through technical plan review and inspection services. The Permit Center receives applications and coordinates the review and processing of permits. Code compliance staff enforce zoning and building regulations on a complaint-driven basis. ROW inspection program provides inspection services to assure the compliance with the RPCP and the durability and safety of work done in the public ROW. Accomplishments for 2013 • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Maintained partnering efforts with Spokane and Spokane County. • Developed web-access for permit system. • Developed department reports. Goals for 2014 • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Maintain partnering efforts with Spokane and Spokane County. • Develop web-access for permit system. • Coordinate on Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Building Inspector II 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Assistant Planner 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Planner 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Code Enforcement Officer BP 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Construction Inspector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Development Service Coordinator 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Tech 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Maint/Const Inspector(ROW) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Permit Facilitator 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Plans Examiner 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 Senior Permit Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 Senior Plans Examiner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 12.75 12.75 11.50 12.50 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 993,267 $ 1,021,199 $ 1,036,282 $ 1,136,956 Supplies 22,515 21,645 34,200 28,200 Services&Charges 62,803 94,541 62,100 102,500 Intergovernmental Payments 18,629 - 30,000 - Capital Outlays 64,308 86,384 - - Interfund Charges - 3,668 - - Total Building Division $ 1,161,522 $ 1,227,437 $ 1,162,582 $ 1,267,656 57 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of six divisions including Administration, Maintenance, Recreation,Aquatics, Senior Center,and CenterPlace. The overall goal of the department is to provide quality recreation programs and acquisition, renovation,development,operation and maintenance of parks and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. 000-Parks Administration Division The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas of the City. Accomplishments for 2013 • Completed update to the Parks&Recreation Master Plan. • Completed conceptual site plan for Park/Library site. • Completed the West Entry Gateway Signage project. • Completed the addition of new ADA walkways at Discovery Playground. • Finalized the Centennial Trail maintenance agreement. Goals for 2014 • Develop Master Plan for Sand Volleyball Complex at Browns Park. • Implement acquisition priorities from Master Plan. • Install new picnic shelter at Edgecliff Park. • Add shade structure and new equipment to Discovery Playground. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Parks&Recreation Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 195,308 $ 204,362 $ 221,717 $ 222,343 Supplies 32,474 17,641 35,800 19,800 Services&Charges 670,565 766,894 791,200 30,950 Intergovernmental Services 10,208 12,550 11,000 13,000 Interfund Transfer 7,000 7,000 - - Capital Outlays - 6,545 - - Total Parks Administration $ 915,555 $ 1,014,992 $ 1,059,717 $ 286,093 58 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget 300-Maintenance Division The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for the contracted maintenance and upkeep of our parks and public areas including the Centennial Trail. Budget Summary Fl 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies 4,608 12,133 27,500 10,000 Services&Charges 651,591 738,636 761,500 786,200 Total Parks Administration $ 656,199 $ 750,769 $ 789,000 $ 796,200 59 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget 301 -Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and service throughout the City and the City's Park system. Accomplishments for 2013 • Utilized Certified Card Holder Services and Spokane Kids Calendar in efforts to increase marketing and program awareness. • Continue to work with local partners to provide successful programs and events such as Breakfast with Santa with the Rotary and Sand Volleyball Tournaments and leagues with Evergreen Volleyball Association. • Altered Recreation Brochure distribution and agency used to design the publication which resulted in cost savings for the Department. Goals for 2014 • Continue to provide quality recreation programs for the Spokane Valley Community. • Research additional speciality camp options for Spring and Winter school breaks. • Actively look for sponsorship opportunities within the Community in regards to the Summer Outdoor Movies. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 137,379 $ 131,218 $ 145,999 $ 156,702 Supplies 4,688 4,220 6,700 5,350 Services&Charges 65,087 74,269 72,300 67,100 Interfund Charges - - - - Total Recreation Division $ 207,154 $ 209,707 $ 224,999 $ 229,152 60 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget 302-Aquatics Division The City of Spokane Valley owns three pools: Park Road Pool,Terrace View Pool,and Valley Mission Pool. Services include open swim,swim lessons,swim team and facility rentals. In addition, the City leases a portion of Valley Mission Park to Splashdown Inc.for a water park. The City currently is contracting with the YMCA for all aquatic activities within the City. The YMCA provides the lifeguards and maintains the pools during the season. Accomplishments for 2013 • Completed the painting of the Terrace View Pool tank. • Introduced merchandise options to the pools as an additional source of revenue. • Increased swim lesson and team fees to be competitive in our area. • Extended water exercise from just Tues.and Thurs.to Mon.-Thurs.at Terrace View Pool. Goals for 2014 • Maintain full summer swimming program. • Research vending options at the pools. • Paint the Park Road Pool tank. • Research birthday party package pricing options. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies $ 1,947 $ 5,053 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Services&Charges 446,067 434,242 483,100 487,900 Intergovernmental Services - - - - Total Aquatics Division $ 448,014 $ 439,295 $ 485,600 $ 490,400 61 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget 304-Senior Center Division The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department assumed operational control of the Valley Senior Center in 2003. Accomplishments for 2013 • Continued Resource Fair for Seniors and their families; Event now combined with"Get Connected Event'with Healthy Communities and the Parks&Recreation Department. • Extended exercise programs for seniors and added several new programs. • Educated volunteer leaders on Spokane County Regional Health District food codes. • Continued to participate with Senior Circle through Spokane Valley Hospital. • Offered a number of health related presentations. Goals for 2014 • Offer more Tuesday evening classes in the Senior Wing of CenterPlace. • Increase participation by 10 percent. • Keep Senior Center Board&volunteers compliant with Agency regulations and rules; Such as the Gambling Commission and the Health District. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Senior Center Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 72,601 $ 78,209 $ 77,693 $ 81,682 Supplies 960 2,855 3,500 2,500 Services&Charges 2,779 5,133 6,950 5,700 Capital Outlay - - - - Total Senior Center Division $ 76,340 $ 86,197 $ 88,143 $ 89,882 62 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2014 Budget 305-CenterPlace Division Construction of Mirabeau Point CenterPlace began in late 2003,and was completed mid-year 2005.The project represented the culmination of eight years of planning and fundraising by Mirabeau Point Inc.and the joint involvement of the City and Spokane County. The approximately 54,000 square foot facility houses the City of Spokane Valley Senior Center,a great room/banquet facility, numerous meeting rooms, multi-purpose rooms and high tech lecture hall. The facility combines with Mirabeau Meadows Parks and Mirabeau Springs to form a regional focal point for northeast Washington and Northern Idaho. Accomplishments for 2013 • Improved tracking of events and revenue generated from them. • Created an updated marketing plan to promote business events at CenterPlace. • Developed on-line packets to reduce paper usage and printing costs. • Re-designed our reservation forms for better customer understanding. • Created better defined job duties of part-time event staff to ensure consistency in performance. Goal for 2014 • Start implementing suggestions from Marketing Plan. • Develop a list of maintenance items needing attention and establish a priority ranking. • Create an on-site storage facility in loading dock area that would alleviate storage challenges in CenterPlace and ensure our compliance with current regulations. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Custodian 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maintenance Worker 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total FTEs 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 339,744 $ 389,547 $ 410,402 $ 420,115 Supplies 59,756 82,900 68,947 64,187 Services&Charges 260,998 318,679 321,535 344,540 Capital Outlays 328,311 317,000 - - Total CenterPlace Division $ 988,809 $ 1,108,126 $ 800,884 $ 828,842 63 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2014 Budget The General Government Department accounts for those activities that are not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund Department or operation. Expenditures recorded here are composed of City Hall rent and related utilities; information technology equipment and services;capital costs that benefit more than one department;support of agencies external to the City that provide social service programs and economic development services;and transfers to other City funds for property/casualty insurance premiums(Fund#502), park capital projects(Fund#309)and the pavement preservation program (Fund#311). Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Supplies Employee Recognition&Safety Program 1,694 347 5,000 0 PEG COSV Small tools&Minor Equip 0 329 0 100 Business Registrations 1,292 1,288 2,000 2,000 Employee Recognition-Operating Supplies 25 0 0 3,000 Office&Operating Supplies 0 158 0 0 Small Tools&Minor Equipment 1,629 8,081 1,700 2,500 Non Capital Office Furniture&Equipment 0 526 0 0 Computer Hardware-Non Capital 0 0 0 23,000 Computer Software-Non Capital 0 0 0 31,800 Non Capital Computer Software/Hardware 35,941 22,568 82,100 0 Fuel 763 0 0 0 Office&Operating Supplies 9,229 4,504 15,000 15,000 50,573 37,801 105,800 77,400 Other Services&Charges Broadcasting Council Meeting 45,725 0 0 0 Contingency 0 0 150,000 150,000 Accounting&Auditing 68,336 69,161 90,000 90,000 Uncollectible Accounts Expense 2,054 2,288 0 0 Petty Cash Reimbursement 11 0 0 0 Advertising 169 0 0 0 Postage 3,626 3,993 5,000 5,000 Telephone Service 23,845 29,196 30,900 18,500 Internet Service 0 0 0 18,100 City Wide Records Management 3,300 3,610 10,000 10,000 City Hall Rent 461,208 478,324 428,400 416,000 Facility Repairs&Maintenance 381 583 30,000 5,000 Equip Repair&Maint-Hardware Support 25,680 23,083 38,500 36,500 IT Support 96,059 75,225 105,000 28,500 Software Licenses&Maintenance 68,706 70,737 80,000 78,600 PEG Reimburse-CMTV 28,988 12,305 0 0 Printing&Binding 0 343 5,000 0 Miscellaneous Services 10,872 7,045 15,000 15,000 Merchant Charges(Bankcard Fees) 9,927 1,492 10,000 2,500 EECBG Utilities Partnering Program 12,947 20,383 0 0 Vehicle Rental 4,130 7,000 7,000 7,000 General Operating Leases:Computer 45,559 52,842 35,000 39,600 Economic Development-Site Selector 9,179 9,197 12,000 11,000 Professional Services-Economic Devel. 83,352 100,340 87,000 82,500 City Economic Development 1,375 88,230 200,000 200,000 Professional Services-Social Services 67,961 49,095 63,000 67,500 Alcohol Treatment:Liquor Excise Tax 8,750 4,516 7,000 0 Alcohol Treatment:Liquor Profits 12,512 17,977 14,000 20,000 Prior Period Adjustment 0 (163,322) 0 0 $ 1,094,652 $ 963,643 $ 1,422,800 $ 1,301,300 64 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2014 Budget Budget Summary cont. 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Intergovernmental Services Election Costs 50,184 0 57,000 57,000 Voter Registration 79,252 86,132 83,000 87,000 Taxes and assessments 8,536 6,006 8,600 8,600 Spokane County Air Pollution Authority 114,941 115,569 117,000 117,000 252,913 207,707 265,600 269,600 Capital Outlays PEG COSV Broadcast-Office Furn. 13,330 0 0 0 PEG COSV Broadcast-Software/hardware 47,095 24,232 0 33,300 PEG COSV Broadcast-Communication 5,357 0 0 0 Copy Machine 0 21,523 2,000 20,000 Office Furniture&Equipment 0 0 3,500 0 Computer Software/Hardware 22,121 3,063 24,400 0 Compuer Hardware-Capital 0 0 0 40,000 Construction-Pavement Preservation 0 0 855,857 0 87,903 48,818 885,757 93,300 Debt Service: Principal Interest and Other Debt Service Costs (952) 444 - - Interfund Payments for Service Interfund Transfer to ST Cap 2011+ 1,084,681 0 0 0 Interfund Trf to#303-Street Capital 551,730 0 0 0 Interfund Trf to#309-Park Capital 100,000 106,250 50,000 192,500 Interfund Trf to#311-Pavement reservatio 0 2,045,203 0 888,823 Interfund Trf to#312-Capital Reserve Fun( 0 0 7,826,207 0 Interfund Trf to#502-Risk Management 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 2,055,411 2,470,453 8,195,207 1,406,323 10th Anniversary Supplies-10th Anniversary - 257 - - Total Governmental Division $ 3,540,500 $ 3,729,123 $ 10,875,164 $ 3,147,923 65 Fund:101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Street Fund was established to account for the activities associated with the provision of efficient and safe movement of both motorized and nonmotorized vehicles,as well as pedestrians within the limits of the City,and coordinate convenient interconnect to the regional transportation system. Maintenace work includes snow and ice control,street pavement repairs,traffic signals and signs,landscaping and vegetation control and many other street maintenance and repair activities. Accomplishments for 2013 • Received grant funding for traffic sign and safety improvements • Signal retiming for parts of Sullivan and Sprague-Appleway Corridors • Worked with WSDOT and ASHTO to reestablish the 1-90 Business Route signage • Renewed contracts with private contracts for street maintenance services • Continue to improve the efficiency of snow and ice operations • Updated the Pavement Management Plan Goals for 2014 • Optimize traffic signals on selected corridors. • Apply for grants and work with various schools to install flashing beacons at crosswalks. • Renew Contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continue with the development and implementation of a fleet maintenance program Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Personnel-FTE Equivalents Actual Actual Budget Budget Senior Engineer-Traffic 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Public Works Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Assistant Engineer-Traffic/Planning 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Planning Grants Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.375 Total FTEs 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.375 Interns 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 • For 0.5 FTE of the 2 FTEs,only 50%is budgeted to the Street Fund with the balance budgeted as part of the capital project funds Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1,857,708 1,846,990 1,861,100 1,858,600 Investment Interest 5,252 4,056 5,000 3,000 Utility Tax 2,880,963 2,735,469 2,900,000 2,750,000 Grants 528,156 210,948 200,000 0 Miscellaneous 52,677 34,280 0 0 Total revenues 5,324,756 4,831,743 4,966,100 4,611,600 Expenditures Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits 435,510 572,348 573,170 627,288 Supplies 331,254 496,825 72,200 386,500 Services&Charges 2,878,710 2,595,785 2,925,152 2,392,201 Intergovernmental Payments 712,919 723,305 851,000 798,000 Transfers out-#001 25,000 39,600 39,700 39,700 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservatio 0 0 282,000 282,000 Transfers out-#501 (vehicle replacement) 0 110,777 160,777 85,777 Transfers out-#501 (new vehicle) 0 0 0 15,000 Transfers out 22,205 0 0 0 Equipment 223,442 18,000 0 61,750 Capital construction 1,282,183 536,400 200,000 0 Total expenditures 5,911,223 5,093,040 5,103,999 4,688,216 Revenues over(under)expenditures (586,467) (261,297) (137,899) (76,616) Beginning fund balance 3,076,201 2,489,734 2,228,437 2,090,538 Ending fund balance $ 2,489,734 $ 2,228,437 $ 2,090,538 $ 2,013,922 66 Fund:103 Trails&Paths Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The State of Washington collects a$.375 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump and remits$.0296 of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2014 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be$20.40 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 91,490 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1,2013)we anticipate the City will collect $1,866,400 in 2014. RCW 47.030.050 specifies that.42%of this tax must be expended for the construction of paths and trails and based upon the 2014 revenue estimate. This computes to$7,800. The balance or$1,858,600 will be credited to Fund#101 for Street maintenance and operations. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Moter Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,835 7,790 7,800 7,800 Investment Interest 63 67 0 Total revenues 7,898 7,857 7,800 7,800 Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,898 7,857 7,800 7,800 Beginning fund balance 48,186 56,084 63,941 71,741 Ending fund balance $ 56,084 $ 63,941 $ 71,741 $ 79,541 Fund:105 Hotel/Motel Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Hotel/Motel Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of two percent on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourist promotion,acquisition or operation of tourism-related facilities,and marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 457,603 490,004 490,000 490,000 Investment Interest 455 592 500 300 Total revenues 458,058 490,596 490,500 490,300 Expenditures Tourism Promotion 472,482 511,756 425,500 547,000 City Directed Marketing Efforts 0 0 55,000 0 Transfers out- #001 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 Total expenditures 472,482 541,756 510,500 577,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures (14,424) (51,160) (20,000) (86,700) Beginning fund balance 272,356 257,932 206,772 186,772 Ending fund balance $ 257,932 $ 206,772 $ 186,772 $ 100,072 67 Fund: 120 Center Place Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund was established as a result of covenant related to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds in 2003 for the purpose of constructing the CenterPlace facility. As a part of the bond issuance the City agreed to establish a$300,000 operating reserve account that could be used to make debt service payments on the bonds and/or pay for operating expenses of CenterPlace. If at any time the City were to draw on these reserves it would have to prepare and follow a plan for reinstatement of those funds drawn. This reserve is required to be in place for the life of the 2003 bonds or through December 1,2033. Budget Summary I U 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 556 0 0 0 Transfers-in 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 556 0 0 0 Expenditures Operations 0 0 50,787 0 Total expenditures 0 0 50,787 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 556 0 (50,787) 0 Beginning fund balance 350,231 350,787 350,787 300,000 Ending fund balance $ 350,787 $ 350,787 $ 300,000 300,000 Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund was established to provide an emergency revenue source to maintain service levels in the event of a downturn in the local economy. Budget Summary T 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 8,632 9,103 7,000 7,300 Transfer-in 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 8,632 9,103 7,000 7,300 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 8,632 9,103 7,000 7,300 Beginning fund balance 5,423,796 5,432,428 5,441,531 5,448,531 Ending fund balance $ 5,432,428 $ 5,441,531 $ 5,448,531 $ 5,455,831 68 Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established to provide an emergency reserve for use during unusually harsh winters where the Street Fund#101 budget becomes inadequate to accommodate the amount of snow plowing that may be necessary. In the event the City draws against this fund in any given winter we will strive to replenish the balance back to approximately$500,000 through subsequent years transfers from Fund#101. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 837 883 700 700 Transfer-in 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 837 883 700 700 Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 837 883 700 700 Beginning fund balance 501,168 502,005 502,888 503,588 Ending fund balance $ 502,005 $ 502,888 $ 503,588 $ 504,288 Fund: 123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget This fund was initially created to set aside money for the eventual replacement of CenterPlace and the police precinct building located on on east Sprague Avenue and the source of funds has in prior years been an annual transfer from the General Fund. Beginning in 2013 however the City made the decision to no longer set money aside in this fund for fugure building replacements and instead decided to commit the entire fund balance of Fund#123 to a pavement preservation program that will be operated through Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation. This is in recognition of the fact that addressing deteriorating streets in a timely manner is a much higher priority in the present than setting money aside for buildings that will need replaced in the distant future. It was the City's conclusion that to both set money aside for the replacement of CenterPlace now while at the same time repaying the 2003 LTGO bonds(see Fund#204 discussion)that were issued to finance the construction of CenterPlace is essentially asking the same generation of taxpayers/citizens to pay for the same structure twice-the initial construction and the replacement. Based upon the projected fund balance at the end of 2014 of$1,174,679,we estimate we can sustain a transfer of $616,284 through approximately 2016 or for a total of four years. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 1,989 2,099 1,600 1,700 Transfers in-#001 394,600 397,000 0 0 Total revenues 396,589 399,099 1,600 1,700 Expenditures Transfers out-#311 0 0 616,284 616,284 Total expenditures 0 0 616,284 616,284 Revenues over(under)expenditures 396,589 399,099 (614,684) (614,584) Beginning fund balance 1,608,259 2,004,848 2,403,947 1,789,263 Ending fund balance $ 2,004,848 $ 2,403,947 $ 1,789,263 $ 1,174,679 69 Fund:204 Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO)-Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for,and the payment of the 2003 nonvoted (LTGO)bonds issued by the City to construct the CenterPlace facility. These are limited tax general obligation bonds and as such,the full faith,credit and resources of the City have been irrevocably pledged for the timely payment of principal and interest,within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non-voted general obligations. The 2003 LTGO Bonds are 30-year bonds and are due to be paid-off in annual installments running through 2033. Annual debt service payments are financed through two sources: 1) Money received from the Spokane County Public Facilities District 2) A portion of the first and second 1/4%real estate excise tax(REET)that is transferred into this fund from City of Spokane Valley fund numbers 301 and 302. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 427,120 432,320 437,120 441,520 Transfers in-#301 92,252 92,651 92,951 93,152 Transfers in-#302 92,251 92,652 92,952 93,151 Total revenues 611,623 617,623 623,023 627,823 Expenditures Debt Service Payment-CenterPlace 427,470 432,531 437,120 441,520 Debt Service Payment-Roads 184,153 185,092 185,903 186,303 Total expenditures 611,623 617,623 623,023 627,823 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 70 Fund: 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the first one-quarter of one-percent real estate excise tax(REET 1)that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent must be expended for purposes identified in a capital improvements plan. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching fund for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Fund #303-Street Capital Projects Fund,and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2003 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in Fund#204-LTGO Debt Service Fund. Beginning in 2013 the City began transferring a portion of these REET revenues to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation Fund to provide partial financing towards the City's pavement preservation effort. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 481,623 654,264 500,000 600,000 Investment Interest 1,518 1,204 500 1,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 0 9,601 0 0 Total revenues 483,141 665,069 500,500 601,000 Expenditures Intergovernmental Services 0 0 0 Transfers out-#204 92,251 92,651 92,951 93,152 Transfers out-#303 278,105 253,429 892,404 268,575 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 0 0 150,000 184,472 Interfund Transfers 133,588 (1,203) 0 0 Total expenditures 503,944 344,877 1,135,355 546,199 Revenues over(under)expenditures (20,803) 320,192 (634,855) 54,801 Beginning fund balance 792,875 772,072 1,092,264 457,409 Ending fund balance $ 772,072 $ 1,092,264 $ 457,409 $ 512,210 71 Fund: 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the second one-quarter of one-percent real estate excise tax(REET 2)that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent may be only be levied by cities that are planning under the Growth Management Act and may only be used to finance capital projects. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching fund for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Fund#303-Street Capital Projects Fund,and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2003 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in Fund#204-LTGO Debt Service Fund. Beginning in 2013 the City began transferring a portion of these REET revenues to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation Fund to provide partial financing towards the City's pavement preservation effort. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues REET 2-Taxes 479,129 531,442 500,000 600,000 Investment Interest 1,732 1,762 1,000 1,000 Transfers in-#307 0 6,477 0 Total revenues 480,861 539,681 501,000 601,000 Expenditures Transfers out-#101 0 7,615 0 0 Transfers out-#204 92,251 92,651 92,952 93,151 Transfers out-#303 1,045,677 1,112,518 617,479 285,097 Transfers out-#307 45,714 (173,470) 0 0 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 0 0 150,000 184,472 1,183,642 1,039,314 860,431 562,720 Revenues over(under)expenditures (702,781) (499,633) (359,431) 38,280 Beginning fund balance 2,333,084 1,630,303 1,130,670 771,239 Ending fund balance $ 1,630,303 $ 1,130,670 $ 771,239 $ 809,519 72 , Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance street construction and reconstruction projects adopted in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). Revenues to finance the projects represent a combination of State and Federal Grants which typically cover upwards of 80%of projects costs with the City match portion coming from transfers from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301,REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302 and sometimes Stormwater Management Fund#402. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget I Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds 3,297,974 3,852,253 6,597,842 11,092,997 Developer Contribution 91,268 760,768 0 166,020 Miscellaneous 209,037 1,652 0 0 Transfers in-#001 551,730 64,750 0 0 Transfers in-#101 0 476,659 0 0 Transfers in-#102 0 207,447 0 0 Transfers in-#301 259,060 253,428 892,404 268,575 Transfers in-#302 1,036,178 1,101,314 617,479 285,097 Transfers in-#310 0 140,139 0 0 Transfers in-#311 0 299,027 0 0 Transfers in-#312 Appleway Landscaping 0 0 18,000 250,000 Transfers in-#312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 2,320,000 Transfers in-#402 56,862 113,014 0 7,101 Transfers in 50,151 0 0 0 Total revenues 5,552,260 7,270,451 8,125,725 14,389,790 Expenditures Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 22,743 43,725 300,000 0 24th Avenue-Sullivan to 22nd 0 0 15,000 0 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 134,006 109,948 957,892 860,280 Pines(SR27)ITS Impoovement SRTC 06-26 3,090 196,503 637,288 10,000 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines-Park 804,028 1,747 0 0 Sprague/Sullivan PCC Intersection 1,510 (7,240) 0 0 Park Road-#2(PE Only)-Broadway to Indiana 122,989 1,019 0 0 Indiana Ave.Extension-3600 1,358,038 53,791 0 0 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC 1,252,581 1,435 0 0 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 44,359 2,825,760 188,745 0 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 7,061 109 127,500 382,410 Park Rd RR Crosing Safety Improvements 25,839 0 0 0 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 25,923 8,720 139,332 123,090 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 42,887 1,255 219,599 50,000 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 3,778 3,834 200,000 100,000 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 1,696 43,091 0 0 Greenacres Trail-Design 44,787 2,816 0 0 In-House Design-Sidewalk Infill 7,851 529,155 337,507 364,425 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 9,500 233,859 33,198 0 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 54,386 949,390 800,000 8,888,189 Mansfield Ave.Connection 477 21,996 1,012,924 1,158,727 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Temp Repairs 1,950 192,039 0 0 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 0 5,336 125,000 50,000 Evergreen-16th to 32nd reconstruction 0 1,677,723 0 0 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersect study 0 0 98,100 538,850 City wide safety improvements 0 841 450,995 341,928 Wellesley Ave&Adams rd sidewalk 0 27,137 554,500 30,000 Argonne/Mullan corridor safety-Indiana to Broadway 0 0 104,460 0 Argonne Rd-Empire to Knox 0 0 172,785 0 Sprague ave ADA sdwlk improvement(Havana-Fancher) 0 10,429 110,400 0 Appleway Trail Design 0 0 150,000 0 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 0 100,000 100,000 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0 0 150,000 50,000 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 0 0 18,000 250,000 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE START 2014) 0 0 0 91,891 STEP Projects(106,129,130,131,151,152) 1,375,144 231,761 0 0 Contingency 0 0 1,122,500 1,000,000 Misc.Road Projects 207,447 0 0 0 Total expenditures 5,552,070 7,166,179 8,125,725 14,389,790 Revenues over(under)expenditures 190 104,272 0 0 Beginning fund balance 73,456 73,646 177,918 177,918 Ending fund balance $ 73,646 $ 177,918 $ 177,918 $ 177,918 73 Fund: 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Parks Capital Projects Fund was created to account for park related capital improvements. Source of financing is an annual transfer of money from the General Fund#001. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds 496,250 0 0 0 Transfers in-#001 100,000 106,250 50,000 192,500 Investment Interest 1,735 848 0 500 Total revenues 597,985 107,098 50,000 193,000 Expenditures Sand volleyball courts(4)at Brown's Park 0 0 0 40,000 Edgecliff picnic shelter 0 0 0 65,000 Discovery Playground equipment 0 0 0 50,000 Shade structure at Discovery Playground 0 0 0 15,000 City entry sign 0 0 0 70,000 Park signs(3) 0 0 0 22,500 Terrace View Park Play Equipment 0 166,932 0 0 CenterPlace S. Landscape Development 0 38,365 0 0 Capital 0 0 50,000 0 Greenacres Park 1,338,146 10,529 0 0 Terrace View Park Shelter 98,053 0 0 0 Total expenditures 1,436,199 215,826 50,000 262,500 Revenues over(under)expenditures (838,214) (108,728) 0 (69,500) Beginning fund balance 1,249,365 411,151 302,423 302,423 Ending fund balance $ 411,151 $ 302,423 $ 302,423 $ 232,923 74 Fund: 310 Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Civic Building Capital Projects Fund was initially set-up to accumulate resources to ultimately acquire or construct a City Hall building. The initial sources of revenue to set-up the fund reserves were transfers from the General Fund during 2005 through 2007, and as recently as December 31, 2009 this fund had a fund balance of $5,828,600. During 2010 and 2011 the City determined that street repairs and reconstruction represented a more immediate City need and opted to expend nearly$2,000,000 of the fund balance for these projects. The projects themselves were part of a septic tank elimination program(STEP)initiated by Spokane County that resulted in the installation of sewer lines down many City streets. At that time the City decided to completely reconstruct the effected streets rather than patch them. In 2012 the City opted to use this fund to finance a variety street related capital projects as well as the $2.5 million acquisition of an 8.4 acre parcel of land on Sprague Avenue that is adjacent to Balfour Park. Partially offsetting the cost of the land acquisition cost was a$744,048 receipt from the Spokane County Library District who will acquire 2.5 of the 8.4 acres initially purchased by the City where they plan to ultimately construct a library building with no less than 30,000 square feet. In order for the Library District to actually construct a new building on this site they must first have a successful voted bond issue to provide necessary financing. In the event the Library District is unable to pass a bond within five-years(in 2017),they will transfer the property back to the City in exchange for the same$744,048 price paid at the initial point of the land acquisition. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 8,609 5,349 0 1,900 Miscellaneous 0 7,577 0 0 Total revenues 8,609 12,926 0 1,900 Expenditures West Gateway at Thierman 0 88,559 0 0 STEP-Greenhaven 0 67,737 0 0 STEP-48th &Sundown 0 72,402 0 0 Acquisition of Sprague Property 0 2,501,668 0 0 Sprague Property Acquisition costs 0 29,109 0 0 Transfers out-#001 551,730 0 0 0 Transfers out-#311 500,000 0 0 0 Total expenditures 1,051,730 2,759,475 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,043,121) (2,746,549) 0 1,900 Beginning fund balance 4,899,744 3,856,623 1,110,074 1,110,074 Ending fund balance $ 3,856,623 $ 1,110,074 $ 1,110,074 $ 1,111,974 75 Fund:311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget This fund was created during the 2011 Budget development process for the purpose of setting money aside for yet to be determined street capital improvement projects. During the 2011 Budget the City Council opted to: • During the 2011 Budget development process the City Council opted to make an iniital transfer of$500,000 from the Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund#310,and additionally transfer an amount equivalent to 40%of the General Fund's audited fund balance that exceeded$26,000,000 as of December 31,2010. The 2010 ending fund balance was$27,461,703 which resulted in an additional 2011 transfer of$584,681 ((=$27,461,703-$26,000,000)x 40%))bringing the total of 2011 transfers to$1,084,681. There were no pavement preservation expenditures in 2011. • In the 2012 Budget the City Council opted to transfer 100%of the General Fund unreserved fund balance in excess of$26,000,000 to Fund#311 which computed out to$2,045,203(=$28,045,203-$26,000,000). Pavement preservation expenditures in 2012 totalled$2,181,451. • In the 2013 Budget development process the City committed to finance pavement preservation at a level equivalent to 6%of 2013 General Fund recurring expenditures which computed out to$2,054,141 (=$34,235,677 x 6%). This was funded with an appropriation of$855,857 directly from the General Fund plus an additional appropriation of $1,198,284 in Fund#311. Sources of financing for the fund#311 appropriation included transfers-in from Fund#101 of$282,000;#123 of$616,284;#301 of$150,000 and#302 of$150,000. With an additional$165,793 in grant revenue this brought total 2013 pavement preservation revenues to$2,219,934,which are anticipated to finance$2,904,313 in projects in 2013(=$855,587 in Fund#001 and$2,048,456 in Fund#311). • The 2014 Budget is again being developed to set aside City funds equivalent to 6%of 2014 General Fund recurring expenditures which computes out to$2,156,051 (=$35,934,187 x 6%). This is being funded with transfers of$888,823 from Fund#001;$282,000 from Fund#101;$616,284 from Fund#123;$184,472 from Fund#301 and$184,472 from Fund#302. With an additional$2,763,272 of grant revenue this brings anticipated 2014 pavement preservation revenues to$4,919,323. The 2014 Budget is anticipated to finance$3,595,521 in projects in 2014. Setting aside City funds in an amount equivalent to 6%of General Fund expenditures through the aforementioned plan is sustainable for approximately 4-years(2013 through 2016),which will coincide with the ultimate exhaustion of the Fund#123 fund balance. Beyond that point,we anticipate the finanacial commitment to pavement preservation is sustainable at an annual level of no less than$1,539,767 including$888,823 from the General Fund#001;$282,000 from the Street Fund#101;$184,472 from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301;and$184,472 from the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302. The City will also take advantage of grant programs directed at pavement preservation as they become available. Because this is a Capital Project Fund whose sole purpose is to provide for Pavement Preservation projects,any money not expended in a given year will remain in the fund and will be available for reappropriation in subsequent years. Please see the following page for a list of proposed/potential projects in 2014. Budget Summary � 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in-#001 584,681 2,045,203 0 888,823 Transfers in-#101 0 0 282,000 282,000 Transfers in-#123 0 0 616,284 616,284 Transfers in-#301 0 0 150,000 184,472 Transfers in-#302 0 0 150,000 184,472 Transfers in-#310 500,000 0 0 0 Grants 0 0 165,793 2,763,272 Miscellaneous 0 300 0 0 Total revenues 1,084,681 2,045,503 1,364,077 4,919,323 Expenditures Pavement preservation 0 1,882,424 2,048,456 3,595,521 Transfers out-#303-Sullivan Brdg Rpr 0 192,039 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Evergreen 16-32 0 79,945 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sidewalk Infill 0 27,043 0 0 Total expenditures 0 2,181,451 2,048,456 3,595,521 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,084,681 (135,948) (684,379) 1,323,802 Beginning fund balance 0 1,084,681 948,733 264,354 Ending fund balance $ 1,084,681 $ 948,733 $ 264,354 $ 1,588,156 76 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget Based upon recommendations in the Pavement Management Plan Update 2011 along with field verification by Public Works staff we are recommending the following preliminary project list of pavement preservation projects for 2014: STREET FROM TO Sprague Avenue" Herald Road University Avenue Argonne Road" Sprague Avenue Broadway Avenue Sprague Avenue(EB Only)" Havana Street Fancher Road Sprague Avenue" Fancher Road Dollar Road Sprague Avenue Vista Road Herald Road Adams Road"" Sprague Avenue 4th Avenue Appleway Blvd Thierman Road Park road *These are projects recommended by SRTC staff for grant funding. **These are projects eligible for CDBG funding Carried over from 2013 If construction bids are lower than our estimates or if grant money is received, then the following list of projects would be recommended for additional pavement preservation projects in 2014: STREET FROM TO 24th Avenue Pines Road McDonald Road Sullivan Road 16th Avenue 24th Avenue Mullan Road Sprague Avenue Broadway Avenue Park Road Mission Avenue Trent Avenue Please note: Further investigation,testing and evaluation will be necessary to finalize these lists. 77 Fund: 312 Capital Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget This fund was created in 2013 to be used to account for the accumulation of resources for a number of future capital projects. Source of funds was a 2013 transfer of a portion of the General Fund fund balance in the amount of$7,826,207. Potential projects for which resources of this fund included: • The replacement of the western most portion of the Sullivan Street Bridge that accomodates southbound traffic. • The acquisition or construction of a City Hall building. • Development of a joint library and City park site adjacent to Balfour Park. In 2013 the City appropriated$120,150 for a variety of capital projects including: • $60,000 for business route signage • $42,150 for site development of the Balfour Park/Library project • an$18,000 transfer to Fund#303 for design costs related to landscaping alongside Appleway Avenue Projects in 2014 will include: • a$2,320,000 transfer to Fund#303 that represents the City's anticipated match towards a$15.3 million replacement of the westbound portion of the Sullivan Road Bridge that is anticipated to take place during 2014 and 2015. • a$250,000 transfer to Fund#303 for landscaping alongside Appleway Avenue Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in#001 0 0 7,826,207 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 0 0 7,826,207 0 Expenditures Business Route Singage 0 0 60,000 0 Balfour Park/Library site development 0 0 42,150 0 Transfers out#303-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 2,320,000 Transfers out#303-Appleway Landscapinc 0 0 18,000 250,000 Total expenditures 0 0 120,150 2,570,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 7,706,057 (2,570,000) Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 7,706,057 Ending fund balance 0 0 7,706,057 $ 5,136,057 78 Fund:402 Storm Management Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The purpose of the Stormwater Management Fund is to account for the funds related to the maintenance, improvement and expansion of the City's storm sewer system. The revenue for this fund originates from a stormwater fee collected on behalf of the City by Spokane County. The annual fee is$21 for each single family unit and$21 per each 3,160 square feet of impermvious surface for all other properties. Each increment of 3,160 square feet is know as an equivalent residential unit(ERU). Accomplishments for 2013 • Completed design and construction on 4 stormwater capital projects • Eliminated stormwater discharges to the Spokane River from the Sullivan Road Bridges • Completed the Underground Injection Control(UIC)Assessment and Retrofit Plan • Completed the City's first Stormwater Capital Improvement plan for 2014-2019 • Developed and implemented an ongoing structure inspection program • Facilitated a 30-year interlocal agreement with WSDOT to construct/operate Decant Facility Goals for 2014 • Complete small works projects per the Stormwater CIP • Complete design and construction of stormwater capital projects in the current CIP • Update specifications and bid the street sweeping contract • Continue development and refining a Stormwater Capital Improvement Program • Continue work with WSDOT to build a decant facility to process/dispose liquid and solid stormdrain debris Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Personnel-FTE Equivalents Actual Actual Budget Budget Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Technician II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Assistant Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Planning Grants Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 Total FTEs 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.75 Interns 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Revenues Stormwater Management fees 1,785,381 1,789,489 1,800,000 1,835,000 Investment Interest 2,833 2,601 1,800 2,500 Miscellaneous 47,571 45,308 0 0 Nonrecurring Grant Proceeds 373,861 64,838 200,000 0 Total revenues 2,209,646 1,902,236 2,001,800 1,837,500 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 417,874 373,824 475,604 505,535 Supplies 13,427 12,158 16,300 15,900 Services&Charges 1,017,181 1,014,609 1,127,120 1,065,076 Intergovernmental Services 23,076 24,820 27,000 26,500 Transfers out-#001 0 0 13,400 13,400 Transfers out-#501 70,248 16,567 1,567 1,567 Transfers out-#501 -new vehicle 0 0 0 30,000 Capital construction 91,211 145,585 1,047,000 900,000 Property acquisition 0 0 0 250,000 VMS Trailer 0 0 0 16,000 Total Expenditures 1,633,017 1,587,563 2,707,991 2,823,978 Revenues over(under)expenditures 576,629 314,673 (706,191) (986,478) Beginning fund balance 2,697,333 1,991,142 Ending fund balance $ 1,991,142 $ 1,004,664 79 Fund:403 Aquifer Protection Area Spokane Valley 2014 Budget In 1985 voters of Spokane County approved a ballot proposition to create the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area(APA) as well as corresponding aquifer protection area fees with both sunsetting December 31,2005. Boundaries of the APA included portions of unincorporated areas(including what is now Spokane Valley)and the cities of Liberty Lake, Millwood and Spokane. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley approved a resolution authorizing the inclusion of its municipal boundaries within the APA. The APA program was subsequently reauthorized through 2025 with voter approval. All fees are collected by Spokane County. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley(City)entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County(County)that authorized the County to collect and retain APA fees through 2010 for a variety of projects including: • up to$100,000 annually through 2010 to the Spokane Regional Health District to provide for data base management related to monitoriing of septic tanks and their potential impact on water quality in the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Praire Aquifer. • a septic tank elimination program (STEP)designed to replace septic tanks with sanitary sewer systems. In the 2004 interlocal agreement the City and County also agreed that for the years 2011 through 2025 the APA fees remaining after the payment of reasonable administration and billing fees incurred by the County would be distributed annually between the County, City and City of Spokane on a proportional basis relative to the amount generated in unincorporated areas,the City and City of Spokane. The fees collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County are expended entirely on stormwater related projects that designed to protect the acquifer. These fees plus grant monies received from a number of granting agencies finance a variety of capital projects. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Spokane County 417,326 510,934 500,000 500,000 Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 0 735,000 0 Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 0 150,000 0 Grant DOE-Sprague UIC Elimination 0 0 610,331 0 Grant revenue 0 96,291 0 870,000 Miscellaneous 0 2 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 1,000 0 Total Revenues 417,326 607,227 1,996,331 1,370,000 Expenditures Sprague Swales 0 1,133,211 40,000 0 14th Ave Custer to Carnahan 0 0 300,000 0 Bettman-Dickey Storm drain 0 0 250,000 0 Decant Facility 0 0 980,000 0 Broadway SD Retrofit(design only) 0 0 0 60,000 Outfall Diversion Projects(design only) 0 0 0 60,000 SE Yardley Retrofits 0 0 0 1,000,000 Total Expenditures 0 1,133,211 1,570,000 1,120,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 417,326 (525,984) 426,331 250,000 Beginning fund balance (108,658) 317,673 Ending fund balance $ 317,673 $ 567,673 80 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund (ER&R)is an Internal Service Fund that is designed to provide the funds necessary to purchase new vehicles and equipment at predetermined life cycles. This fund operates by charging each City department a monthly rental rate for the vehicles they use. The fee is based upon the estimated useful life of the vehicle and its replacement cost. The theory behind this program is that it allows City departments to budget vehicle replacement costs as a reocurring expense over an extended period of time rather than as an intermittent capital expense that may be difficult to afford in any single year. In the event a City department requires an additional vehicle that actually adds to the fleet rather than simply replaces an existing vehicle,then that department must budget for the initial purchase price and transfer the necessary funds to the ER&R Fund to make the acquisition. In subsequent years the department will then begin paying a replacement fee spread out over the estimated useful life of the new vehicle. The 2014 Budget includes an appropriation of$90,000 to add three 1/2 ton pickups for our Public Works Department. Source of financing for the pickups will be$15,000 from Street Fund#101,$30,000 from Stormwater Fund#402 and$45,000 from the Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund#501 fund balance. Budget Summary 2014 2011 r 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in-#001 (replacements) 15,400 0 15,400 15,400 Transfers in-#101 (replacements) 0 119,344 10,777 10,777 Transfers in-#101 (addtl'pickup) 0 0 0 15,000 Transfers in-#101 (plow replace.) 9,100 0 150,000 75,000 Transfers in-#402(addtl'pickup) 0 0 0 30,000 Transfers in-#402(replacements) 0 0 1,567 1,567 Investment Interest 1,456 1,498 1,000 1,000 Total Revenues 25,956 120,842 178,744 148,744 Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 Snow plow replacement 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Replacement 0 0 50,000 90,000 Total Expenditures 0 0 50,000 90,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 25,956 120,842 128,744 58,744 Beginning fund balance 1,053,177 1,181,921 Ending fund balance $ 1,181,921 $ 1,240,665 81 Fund: 502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley 2014 Budget The City of Spokane Valley Risk Management Fund was established to account for insurance costs,claims settlement and administration of a Risk Management Safety Program. This fund also accounts for unemployment claims filed by former employees through the State of Washington. Budget Summary 2014 2011 2012 2013 Proposed Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in-#001 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 Investment Interest 25 9 0 0 Total Revenues 319,025 319,009 319,000 325,000 Expenditures Auto&Property insurance 282,419 255,185 300,000 325,000 Unemployment Claims 24,087 10,340 19,000 0 Miscellaneous 2,349 862 0 0 Total Expenditures 308,855 266,387 319,000 325,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 10,170 52,622 0 0 Beginning fund balance 20,420 30,590 83,212 83,212 Ending fund balance $ 30,590 $ 83,212 $ 83,212 $ 83,212 82 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Capital Expenditures for 2014 SOURCE OF FUNDS #303 Street Capital Proiects Fund 0060 Argonne Road-190 to Trent 0061 Pines(SR27)ITS Improvements 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to barker 0141 Sullivan Rd/Euclid PCC(PE/RW) 0142 Broadway @ Argonne&Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0159 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study 0166 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersection Safety 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 0177 Sullivan road Corridor Traffic Study 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 Contingency 1 Subtotal #101 Street Fund -Patch trailer -Hawk signal -Software Subtotal $ 860,280 $ 10,000 $ 382,410 $ 123,090 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 364,425 $ 8,888,189 $ 1,158,727 $ 50,000 $ 538,850 $ 341,928 $ 30,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 $ 91,891 $ 1,000,000 116,138 1,350 6,750 6,750 19,208 51,625 16,617 50,794 20,151 32,410 13,500 18,379 100,000 100,000 2,320,000 250,000 7,101 744,142 8,650 330,785 106,473 43,250 100,000 306,530 6,568,189 972,556 43,250 538,850 309,518 10,792 86,500 50,000 73,512 800,000 166,020 $ 14,389,790 268,575 285,097 0 0 2,570,000 7,101 0 0 11,092,997 166,020 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $ 6,750 $ 61,750 #309 Parks Capital Proiects Fund -Capital-various projects Subtotal $ 262,500 $ 262,500 01 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 262,500 01 01 262,500 1 01 0 0 #311 Pavement Preservation Fund 0179 2013 Street Preservation Phase 2 0186 Adams road resurfacing Project 0187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project Appleway-Thierman to Park Subtotal 1,610,000 198,760 1,352,841 33,920 400,000 $ 3,595,521 01 01 0 0 217,350 1,392,650 27,686 171,074 182,634 1,170,207 4,579 29,341 400,000 0 01 0 0 832,249 0 0 01 0 I 2,763,272 0 #402 Stormwater Management Fund -Capital-various projects -Property acquisition -Variable messaging system(VMS)trailer Subtotal #403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund -Broadway stormdrain retrofit -Outfall diversion -SE Yardley retrofits Subtotal #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund -3 one-half ton pickups Subtotal 900,000 250,000 16,000 $ 1,166,000 60,000 60,000 1,000,000 900,000 250,000 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,166,000 01 01 0 0 60,000 60,000 130,000 870,000 $ 1,120,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 870,000 0 90,000 $ 90,000 90,000 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 90,000 0 0 Total Capital Expenditures and Related Financing Sources $ 20,685,561 $ 268,575 $ 285,097 $ 262,500 $ 832,249 $ 2,570,000 $ 1,173,101 $ 250,000 $ 90,000 $14,726,269 $ 166,020 1 Contingency amount is to cover unforseen overruns,costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2013 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources identified. -Dollar figures in Italicized Bold font are paid from a combination of existing fund balance and fund revenue that is not attributable to a single project. 83 #301 #302 #303 #311 #312 #402 #403 #501 2014 REET 1 REET 2 Street Aquifer Equipment Expenditure Capital Capital Capital Pavement Capital Stormwater Protection Rental& Developer Capital Outlay Description Budget Projects Projects Projects Preservation Reserve Management Area Replacement Grants Contributions #303 Street Capital Proiects Fund 0060 Argonne Road-190 to Trent 0061 Pines(SR27)ITS Improvements 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to barker 0141 Sullivan Rd/Euclid PCC(PE/RW) 0142 Broadway @ Argonne&Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0159 University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study 0166 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersection Safety 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 0177 Sullivan road Corridor Traffic Study 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 Contingency 1 Subtotal #101 Street Fund -Patch trailer -Hawk signal -Software Subtotal $ 860,280 $ 10,000 $ 382,410 $ 123,090 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 364,425 $ 8,888,189 $ 1,158,727 $ 50,000 $ 538,850 $ 341,928 $ 30,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 $ 91,891 $ 1,000,000 116,138 1,350 6,750 6,750 19,208 51,625 16,617 50,794 20,151 32,410 13,500 18,379 100,000 100,000 2,320,000 250,000 7,101 744,142 8,650 330,785 106,473 43,250 100,000 306,530 6,568,189 972,556 43,250 538,850 309,518 10,792 86,500 50,000 73,512 800,000 166,020 $ 14,389,790 268,575 285,097 0 0 2,570,000 7,101 0 0 11,092,997 166,020 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $ 6,750 $ 61,750 #309 Parks Capital Proiects Fund -Capital-various projects Subtotal $ 262,500 $ 262,500 01 01 01 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 262,500 01 01 262,500 1 01 0 0 #311 Pavement Preservation Fund 0179 2013 Street Preservation Phase 2 0186 Adams road resurfacing Project 0187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project Appleway-Thierman to Park Subtotal 1,610,000 198,760 1,352,841 33,920 400,000 $ 3,595,521 01 01 0 0 217,350 1,392,650 27,686 171,074 182,634 1,170,207 4,579 29,341 400,000 0 01 0 0 832,249 0 0 01 0 I 2,763,272 0 #402 Stormwater Management Fund -Capital-various projects -Property acquisition -Variable messaging system(VMS)trailer Subtotal #403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund -Broadway stormdrain retrofit -Outfall diversion -SE Yardley retrofits Subtotal #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund -3 one-half ton pickups Subtotal 900,000 250,000 16,000 $ 1,166,000 60,000 60,000 1,000,000 900,000 250,000 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 1 1,166,000 01 01 0 0 60,000 60,000 130,000 870,000 $ 1,120,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 870,000 0 90,000 $ 90,000 90,000 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 90,000 0 0 Total Capital Expenditures and Related Financing Sources $ 20,685,561 $ 268,575 $ 285,097 $ 262,500 $ 832,249 $ 2,570,000 $ 1,173,101 $ 250,000 $ 90,000 $14,726,269 $ 166,020 1 Contingency amount is to cover unforseen overruns,costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2013 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources identified. -Dollar figures in Italicized Bold font are paid from a combination of existing fund balance and fund revenue that is not attributable to a single project. 83 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Full Time Equivalent Employees Difference from Adopted Proposed 2013 to 2014 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 2014 +(-) #001 -General Fund City Manager/City Clerk 5 5 5 5 5 5 Legal 3 3 3 3 3 3 Deputy City Manager 8 8 7 7 6 6 Finance 10 12 11 11 10.75 11.75 1.000 (1) Human Resources 2 2 2 2 2 2 Public Works 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 7 7.375 0.375 (2) CD-Administration 3 3 3 3 2 2 CD-Engineering 8 8 6 6 8 7 (1.000) (3) CD-Planning 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 8 CD-Building 14.75 14.75 12.75 12.75 11.5 12.5 1.000 (3) Parks&Rec-Admin 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parks&Rec-Recreation 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parks&Rec-Senior Cntr 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 7 7 5 5 5 5 Total General Fund 81.25 83.25 74.75 74.25 72.25 73.625 1.375 #101 -Street Fund 5 5 4.5 5 5 5.375 0.375 (2) #303-Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 #402-Storm Water Fund 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.75 0.250 (2) Total FTEs 93.75 95.75 87.25 87.25 85.25 87.250 2.000 (1) Reflects the addition of a 1.0 FTE Help Desk Technician. (2) Reflects the addition of a 1.0 FTE Planning Grants Engineer. 84 2013 Work Force Comparison The 30 Washington Communities with a Population of 30,000 to 100,000 CITY POPULATION FULL-TIME PART-TIME Bellingham 82,310 725 55 Yakima 92,620 685 17 Renton 95,540 642 16 Redmond 55,840 568 23 Olympia 48,480 532 11 Kirkland 81,730 481 42 Richland 51,150 448 30 Auburn 73,235 396 3 Kennewick 76,410 329 8 Lynnwood 35,960 304 18 Bremerton 37,850 300 16 Longview 36,940 287 8 Pasco 65,600 286 5 Bothell 34,460 277 11 Federal Way 89,720 275 15 Puyallup 37,980 262 11 Lacey 44,350 251 4 Walla Walla 31,930 236 15 Marysville 62,100 232 9 Lakewood 58,310 227 7 Issaquah 32,130 226 11 Edmonds 39,950 193 5 Mount Vernon 32,710 189 24 Pullman 30,990 187 35 Wenatchee 32,520 158 4 Shoreline 53,670 115 14 Spokane Valley 91,490 85 2 Sammamish 48,060 65 4 Burien 48,030 56 10 University Place 31,340 43 7 AVERAGE 302 15 Source: Association of Washington Cities Survey: 2013 Full Time 7/22/2013 85 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE Salary Schedule Effective January 1,2014 Position Title Grade 2014 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 8,888.39 - 14,923.47 City Attorney 21 8,888.39 - 12,089.04 Community Development Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,089.04 Finance Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,089.04 Public Works Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,089.04 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,199.37 - 9,792.94 Human Resources Manager 18 6,480.26 - 8,813.21 Planning Manager 18 6,480.26 - 8,813.21 Building Official 18 6,480.26 - 8,813.21 Senior Engineer-Capital Projects, Development 18 6,480.26 - 8,813.21 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,480.26 - 8,813.21 Senior Engineer-Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,831.91 - 7,931.56 Accounting Manager 17 5,831.91 - 7,931.56 City Clerk 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Engineer 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Senior Planner 16 5,248.20 - 7,137.95 Development Services Coordinator 16 5,248.20 7,137.95 Associate Planner 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 Assistant Engineer 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 IT Specialist 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 Engineering Technician II 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 GIS/Database Administrator 15 4,724.02 - 6,424.59 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Administrative Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Planner 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Building Inspector II 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Plans Examiner 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Public Information Officer 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Engineering Technician I 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,251.88 - 5,782.58 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,782.58 Recreation Coordinator 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,782.58 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,826.38 - 5,204.11 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,826.38 - 5,204.11 Building Inspector I 13 3,826.38 - 5,204.11 Planning Technician 13 3,826.38 - 5,204.11 Deputy City Clerk 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,204.11 Senior Center Specialist 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,204.11 Human Resources Technician 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,204.11 Permit Facilitator 12 3,445.00 - 4,683.59 Help Desk Technician 12 3,445.00 - 4,683.59 Administrative Assistant 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,683.59 Permit Specialist 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,683.59 Accounting Technician 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,683.59 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,683.59 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,789.41 - 4,215.44 Custodian 10 2,789.41 - 3,793.02 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,510.78 - 3,793.02 Note: Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System. 86 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of September 11,2013; 10:30 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 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) 4.First Reading Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Code Text Amendment, specialized schools in Industrial—Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Allocations to Outside Agencies—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Budget Amendment for 2013 —Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation(Alki)—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 9.Admin Report: CDBG Potential Projects—Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 10.Admin Report: Horizon 2040—Eric Guth, Steve Worley (15 minutes) 11.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 12. Information Only: (a)Dept Reports; (b)Planning Comm.Minutes 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential Real Estate Acquisition;Potential Litigation [*estimated meeting: 125 minutes] Oct 1,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 23) 1. Comp Plan Draft Docket—Lori Barlow (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 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. Second Reading CTA, Specialized Schools in Industrial—Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 6.First Reading Ordinance Amending 2013 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7.First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2014 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 8.First Reading Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation (Alki)—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 9.Motion Consideration: Approval of CDBG Projects—Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 10.Motion Consideration: Site Selector Agreement —Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 11.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Argonne Rd& Sprague Ave St. Preservation Project (5 minutes) 12.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] Oct 15,2013, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 7] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 9/11/2013 4:55:15 PM Page 1 of 3 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. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation(Alki)—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Information Only: Dept Reports; Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Oct 29,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 23]] 1. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations to Council—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25 minutes] Nov 5,2013 Meeting Cancelled (election night) 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) [*estimated meeting: 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] Draft Advance Agenda 9/11/2013 4:55:15 PM Page 2 of 3 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) (5 minutes) 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: Appt.,Mayoral committee appointments for 2014 ADA Transition Plan Coal Train EIS Decant Facility,Phase 2 Bid Award Future Acquisition Areas Park& Recreation Master Plan PEG Funds(Education) Public Safety Contract,Proposed Amendment Townhouses in Garden Office *time for public or Council comments not included Draft Advance Agenda 9/11/2013 4:55:15 PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 17, 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: Update on Argonne and Sprague Street Preservation Project Phase 2 - 2013 Street Preservation Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 27, 2012 council approved the Pavement Management Plan Update for 2011; October 30, 2012 council approved the 2013 Budget which included $2.054 million for street preservation projects in 2013; Info Memo on March 5, 2013 with 2013 Street Preservation Projects Update; Bid Award on March 12, 2013 for Phase 1 — Sullivan Road Street Preservation Project; Info Memo on April 2, 2013 with 2013 Street Preservation Projects Update; Info RCA on June 11 with an update on the 2013 St Preservation Projects; Info RCA on August 13 with an update on the 2013 Street Preservation Projects. BACKGROUND: The 2013 Street Preservation Phase 2 project consists of the following four federally funded projects: • Sprague Ave — Herald to University • Sprague Ave (EB only) — Havana to Fancher • Sprague Ave — Fancher to Thierman • Argonne Road — Sprague to Broadway At the beginning of this year it was anticipated that the design, environmental process and construction of these projects could be completed in one year. Unfortunately, the right-of-way process took longer than expected so construction of the project has been delayed to avoid paving during the cold fall weather. The project was advertised with a provision that delays the start of the project until spring of 2014. Bids were advertised on August 30 and September 6, 2013. Bids are scheduled to be opened on Friday, September 20th. A copy of the bid tabulation will be provided for the October 8th council meeting for award consideration. OPTIONS: Info only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Council approved $2.054 million in the 2013 Budget for the 2013 Street Preservation projects. The estimated cost for this project is $1,540,613. The federal STP(U) grant share of 86.5% is $1,332,630. The City's local share is $207,983, of which approximately $188,300 is stormwater work that will be paid from Fund 402. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None