2006, 06-06 Study Session
~
AG Eh'DA
CiTY OF SFOkAh`E V ALLEY
CITY CO[iNCII, WnRkS1IEET
STUDY SESSION
'I'ucsdu}•, Janc f►, 2006 6:00 p.m.
CITY I3AI.L CO[INCIL CL1AriBERS
11707 East Sprague Avcauc, Firat Floc►r
(Please Taro (1iTAll Elertronfc Qrvices Dnring tbe Meeting)
ALSCLISSiON LF.ADER SiTB.TF.CT/AC"ITVTTY GnAL
Empluvee• tnlrmluction: 1,es,•ctl Irrlern.v 1'atricc C le•rrtcins rnul F_'rik I.amh - htl C rty Afrornrv .4-lr,fr ('unncltv
1. Nicirgtttt houdelk3 (10 tttinti►es) Ptrc.inct [3uildinu Putchasc h(otion Considcmtican: Pr4eincl Purcliasc
(Public Commrat]
2. Aleil KeriettlEiruce Rawls `ewer (ssues L'plate Uiscu."ion,l nforntation
(15 minertcs)
1. Ncil KctsicnlGlcnn Milcs Spokanc Rcgiotwl TconsWrtation Disrussiorv7nfiinnation
(25 minutes) Council Rcgianal Cancumcncy Study
a. Noi) kerSten/Ross Kclly Bigelow Gulch Uiscussionllnfarmation
( I S minutcs)
5. Nell Kersitn (20 minutes) 7'raffic, "I'raffic LighL. Spocd Limits Discuuion/lnformation
a_ Nei! kecsten (20 minutes) Broadway Re-Striping DisrussionMfarmatian
;Vci) Kcrstcn (30 minutes) VaIlry, Corridt-ir Discussicnllnformation
8. Cary Ihiskell (IS minutcs) Timc Wsrncr Frartchise Discussinn/lnformasinn
9. Mayor Wilhito Advance Agcnda Additions Discussian/informatinn
10. Injarmation pisly.• Spakanr Counry Memorandurn of UnderTtan(fing. Sewer : fmrruJmcrn!
11. Ma),or Wilhitc Council Check in lliscwsionr'Information
1^. Dave Mercier Gity Mnnager Comments PiscussioaRnformation
Natr. l:aless otberwise noted abnve, there will be no public comments at Cauncil Study Sexsinns. IIONCYM, COfiplli IIIIIIjs [YSCR'tf
the rigbt to rtqutst informutioo frnm the public ond stsR as approp►ijFtt.
NUTICE: lndJrehueU plmuuaa w ape»i tfie morWye wlw roqnbe speoial atiamm ►a ~uartnKxWe phyaioal, heuing, a.1iu rmgrotmmacs, plenc amtazi
~s~
ihe rity t'lnk at ( S(ia) v21- 1000 as sonn aa po-ssihk so ttut mnn@cmentx mey be ertade
Stud} Sci:i,;n .4[cnu Iune b, =0)6 F"abt 1 01 I
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
_ Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report [D pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Precinct Building Purchase
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley contract C0420 was approved in July of 2004. That
agreement provided an equity credit to the City of Spokane Valley toward the purchase of the
Spokane Valley precinct premises. This credit has been drawn down through the City's fifty-six
(56%)' occupancy of the building since incorporation. Spokane County has agreed to sell the premises to the City for the original value of $2.4 million
less the City's remaining equity credit of $639,090, for a remaining balance of $1,760,910. The
City will make an initial down payment of $500,000 and the County will draw down the
remaining balance through lease and maintenance charges. ~
The County will continue to provide maintenance through the end of 2006 according to the
terms of the current agreement. The City will provide maintenance beginning January, 2007. for
which the County will pay its share. '
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the "Agreement for Purchase of
the Spokane Valley Precinct Building," and authorize the City Manager or designee to •
execute said Agreement.
. . .
BUDGETlFINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City will make an immediate down payment of $500,000.
Funding is available in the Civic Facilities Reserve Fund.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Morgan Koudelka, Administrative
Analyst .
ATTACHMENTS 1. Spokane Valley Precinct Building and Premises Purchase Agreement
2. PowerPoint Presentation
DRAFT
AGREEAIENT FOR PURCAASE OF THF SPOKANF VALLEY
PRECINCT BU]LDING '
This Agreement is made and entered into by and beriveen the City of Spokanc Valley, a
municipal corporation organized and operaring under RCW 35A (hereafter referred to as "City" or
"Buyer"), and Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washi.ngton (hereafter referred to as
"County" or "Seller"), F►nd jointly referred to hereafter as "Parties."
12EC1TALS:
A. Puesuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners has the
care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and
B. Pursuant Co the provisions of RCti'J 3634.130, the Board of County Commissioncrs of
Spokane County may dispose of County property to another governmental agency upon such terms as
may be agreed upbn and fnr such consideration as may be deemetl- by the Board of Cntmty
Commissioners to be adequate; and
C. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Spokane Vallcy in 2003, Spoksine County acquired
that parcel of property Iocated at 12710 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99216,
including the structure locatecl on the property (Spokane Valley Precinct), hereafter sometime$ referred to
as the. "Premises." After purohase by the County, the building and property were renovated for various
purposes includi.ng but not li.mited to, use by the Spqkane County Sheriff. The tot;a1 cost of the purchase
and renovation of the property to Spokane County was $2,400,000; and
D. Prior to the incorporation of the City, the Parties entered into an agreement whereby the . JCounry and the Spokane County Sheriff would provide police services to the City; and
E. Recognizing that the citizens within the newly incorporated limits of the City helped pay for
the purchase of the Spokane Valley 13recinct and renovation of the Premises through payment of various
- taYes, the County provided the City a credit that could be used to either (1) purchase a portion or all of the .
Premises, or (2) pay toward the City's yearly lease amount for usage of 56% of the Premises. The
amoune of the credit was calculated by taking the total cost of the Premises ($2,400,000) and dividing it
by the population of the unincocporated area of thc Councy prior to incorporation of th'e City in March,
2003 (201,849). ($2,400,000 = 201,849 =$11.8g) The resulting amount of $11.89 represented the
unincocporatcd per capita cost of the 1'remises for all residents of the County. This Fgure was then
applied to the population of tlle City as of March 31, 2003, the date of incorporation (82,500). (82,500 x
$11.89 =$975,A46) $975,046 represents the credit the County recognized for either purchase of all or a portion of the Premises, or to apply toward the City's lease payment for housing the City's police
services; and
F. The City chose to lease a portioii of the Premises for approximately the first three years,
reducing the City's eredit from $975,046 to $639,090 as of June 1, 2006. The Ciry now desires to
purchase the Premiscs, and the County now desires to sell the Premises. The remaining $639,090 shall be
applied against the purchase pricc of S2,400,000 for the Premises, leaving a balance of $1,760,910 as of
June 1, 2006; and
G. Upon purchase of the Premises by the City, the County may continue to occupy up to 44% of
the Premises for criminal justice-related purposes or purposes not incompatible with criminal justice-
related purposes. The use of up tn 44% of d1e Premises by t}le County shall be subject to a separate lease ;
agreement bctween the P3rties following the execution of this agreement. Such lease ageement shall
~
Precinct Building Purchase Agreement Pagc 1 nf 5
DRAFT
provide that the County shall give the City nntice on or before March IS` of any year to rf:duce its
occupaney below 44% or the previous year's occupancy, whichever is less, for the subsequent calendar
year's oceupancy.
NOW, 'I"HEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter and as
provided for in the recitals above, which are made part of this agreemcnt ancl incorporated herein, the
Parties hereby agree as fnllows:
1. 1'CTRPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the Parties' understanding regarding
the purchase of the Premises by City from County.
'1 he terms nnd conditions under which the County may occupy a portion of the Premises are set fortli in a
separate Icase abneement w}iich will be entered into by the Partics following the execution of this
puroha.se Ageement.
2. PRENIISGS. The terminology "Premises" shall mean that parcel of prapcrty located at 12710
East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216. The legal clescription of the Premises is as follows:
Parcel number 45222.0227
Opportunity. The N 428 ft of the W '/x of the W of TR 162 and the N 428 ft of the 1U'/s of the -
E'/s of the W%z of SD 'I'R 162 and the W 10 ft of the N 428 R of d1e E%z of the E'/z of the W'/2 of SD .
TR 162.
3. P'(TRCFIASE I'RICE. The total purchase price for the Nroperty (the "Purchase Price") is TI'VO
1VIIC,LIpN FOUR H'CJ1V7)REi) THOUSAI~'D t1NI) 00/1001aOLLt1R.S ($2,400,000.00). The Purchase
Price shall be payable by Buyer to Seller as follows: .
(a) 1'he Parties shall apply $639,090.00 in previously-recognizcd equity to the City towards the
sale price.
(b) Upon mutual execution of this Agreement, City shall deposit the sum of $500,000.00 in
escrow with the TransNation Title Insurance Company ("the 1 itle Company"). 1'his Agreement
shall coostitute the parties' joint instructions to the Title Compa,ny concerning the handling of the
Deposit. The Deposit will be held in a federally insured depository account, wilh any interest
earneci on the Dcposit held in the aecount, The Deposit (including any interest) shall be held,
reFunded, applied, and handled as desceibed in this Agreement. •
(c) The remaining balance of $1,260,910.00 will be naid pursuant to the terms of a separate lease
agreement whereby the County will occupy a portion of the Premises for criminal justice-related
purpnses or purposes not incompatible with criminal jusCice-related purposes. The Lease
Agreement is intended to retire the remaining balance owed by the City to the County.
4. TITLE RFP012T. This agreement is subject to receipt by the City of an acceptable title report.
Prior to closing, City, at City's eYpense, shall obtain the title report and title insurance fnr the Premises.
5. S.1LE OF PROPFRTY 1N "AS-JS" CONDI'1'ION. City acknowledgesthat the sale of the
Premises to City is made solely on an "as-is" basis. This provision is conditioned upon the County
providing to the City, at least seven busincss days prior to closing, conies of all data compiled by the
County conceming the condition of the Property, including, but not limited to, all feasibility and propcrty
studies, audits, surveys, and environmental studies. The intent of this provision is to allow the City to
Precinct Building Purchase Agreement Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
reasonabty determine whether the Premises harbor a condition that would substantia.lly affect the value to
the City. If such a condition exists, City shall have the right to terminatc this Agreement prior to closing.
6. CT,.OSIlqG DATE. This transaction will be closed in escrow at the Title Company (whose
address is lOS West 3`d Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201) no later than June l, 2006. The closing date may
be extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties.
7. DELIVERY QF CT..OSING DnCUMEN'I'S BY COUNTY. On or before the closing datc,
Counry shall deposit with the T'itle Company, for delivery at closing to City, the following:
(a) a bargain and sale deed sufficient to eonvey title thaC is gQOd and marketable; and
(b) if required by State law, any transfer tax or sales tax affidavit or statement of value or other
form required to be signed in order tn record the deed; and
(c) an executed closing statement prepared by the closing agent. .
8. I)ELiVERY OF CLOSL~i TG DOCIJMENI5 BY CITY. At least one business day before tlie
closing date of ]une 1, 2006, or as may be extended by agreement of the Parties, City shall deposit with
the Title Company, for delivery at closing to County, the following:
(a) a wire transfer of funds in the amount sct forth in Section 3(b); and
(b) any adclitional instrument to be signed in order to record the statutory warranty deed; and
(c) an executed closing statement prepared by the elosing agent; and
(d) an exccuted lease behi,een the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County as addressed in
Recita) "G."
9. COSTS Ok' CLOSliNIIG. City shall bear and pay the following:
(a) the cost of recording the statutory warranty deed; and
(b) the cost of title insurance on the 1'remises.
Any and all other costs of closing shall be divided equally between the County ancl City and paid by them
accordingly. .
10. ATT012NjCY FEES. If suit or action is inslituted to interpret or enforce the temis of this .
Agreement or to rescind khis Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the oxher
party such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial, vn any appeal, anci on any
petition for review, in addition to all other sums peovidcd by law.
11. FiJR'T'HER ASSiJRANCES. .Each party will, whenever and as often as it shall be reasonably
requested by the other party, execule, acl:nowlectge, and deliver or cause to be eYecuted, acknowledged,
and deliverecl such further instruments and documents as may be necessary in order to carry out thc intent
and purpose of this Agreement.
12. CHANGES IN W12ITING. This Agreement and any of its terms may be changed, waived,
discharged, or term inated only by a mutual wTitten agreement of thc Parties.
13. COiTNTERPARTS.1"his Agreement may be eYecuted simult,aneously or in counterparts, each af
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which toSether shall constitute ane and the same Agreement.
14. SEVERAl3.CLITY. The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are
held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affi'ected ~
Precinct Building F'urchase Agreemetit Aage 3 of 5
D12.AFT
ancl the rights and obligations nf Che Parties shall not be af~fected in regard to the remainder of the
Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with aiiy
statutary provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision khereof that may be in
conflict shall be decmed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in confliet therewith, and this
Agreement shall be deemed to modify tn conform to such statutory provision. .
IN WITN~'.SS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have eaused this Agreement te be cxecuted on date and
year opposite their respective signatures. -
DATEll: BOt\.RD OI' COUNrrY COvINIISSIQiNERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
• TODD MTrLKE, Chair
ATTF,ST: MAR1C RICHARD, Vice-Chair
Clerk of the 13oard
Daniela Frickson PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Commissiorier
llATE:D: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST:
David Mercier, City Manager
Christine Baiobridge, City Clerk
. A.PF'ROVED AS TO FORNi OI~'LY: Off ce of the City Attorney
Precinct Building Purchase Agreement Page 4 of 5
17RAFT
STATE OF WASI-HNGT0N
) ss• ~
County of Spokane )
On this day of . 2006, before me, the undersigied, a Aiotary Public in and for the
State of Washingten, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appe.ared T017D iV'(LELICE, e1rIA.RK
RICHARD, ANll PI-IZI,LIP T7 HA.RRIS, to me known to be the individual(s) that exeeuted the within and
foregoing instTUment, and acknowledged the said i.nstrument to be the free and voluntary act and daed of said
individual(s), for the uses and purposes therein rimentioned, and on oath statecl that he/she were authorized to
execute said instrument, and that the seal a.ffixeci is the seal of said Couney.
IN WITNESS VWI,FREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year fi.rst
written above.
NOTARX PUBLIC in and for thc State of
Washington, residing at Spokane.
My commission expires:
:
i
f
. ~
Frecinct Building Purchase Ageement Page 5 of 5
~ Precinct Building Purchase
.
I Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager, June 6, 2006
Precinct Building History
o Acquired by County prior to incorporation of City.
o Total cost for purchase and renovation was $2.4
million.
❑ City contracts with County for use of building for
law enforcement.
❑ City draws down credit for previous contribution
through lease charges.
❑ City pays County for maintenance of premises
1
City Credit for Previous Contributions
City of Spokaae Vallcy ConMbutlon to Premisa Parc6asc
F.cMey e.mb.u ..e Rao..a.. co.d u.400,000
rnriaca by:
U'sloeerponEeA Topdatlen st Tlsc of Pvciwe 201,849
Equsls:
Per UaY►arpontM Gpih CM ot RaelLLq 511.89
Multiply by:
rey or svok.■o v.uky 2003 r.pul■aoo 92,005
Eauds:
City of Spolcane Vdlry Camribution $975.046
,
City Lease Costs to Date
❑ City has leased 56% of the Valley Precinct since
incorporation at the following rates:
--B--- -
Spoka_ns Valley Pre cinct uildf-ng Lease_Coats Th rough Ma - y - 2006
- -
Year $ per eq. R. SV Square Footaga Annual Cost
2003 (7 moMhs) 9.00 12.197 $ 64.034.25
- - - -
2004 $ 9.00 ' - - - 12,197 $ 109, 773.00
-
2005 S - 9.29 - ----12,197 $ 113,310.13
2006 (5 months) $ -9.61- ---------12,197 $ 48,838.62
335,956.20
2
City Draw-Down of Credit
Spokane Valley Gedit a 975,046
Tatal Lease Amourrt Paid by SV to County (335,956)
Remaining SV Crodit (Applicable toward Purchase Price) ~ t 639,090
;Procinct Building Cost
jFZemainfng SV Credit T (639,090)
-
-
--Purchase Price of 100%of Valley Precinct $ 1,760,910
Purchase Details
❑ City will make a down payment of $500,000,
bringing the outstanding purchase price to
$1,260,910.
o County will occupy 44% of building (law
enforcement, probation, district court).
❑ County will draw down remaining balance of
$1,260,910 through lease charges.
o County will pay City for share of maintenance costs
(City will be responsible for maintenance) beginning
in 2007.
3
County Lease Details
❑ County will begin leasing 9,583 sq. ft. (44%) of
building at $9.61 / sq. ft. beginning June 1.
❑ Lease Rate will be adjusted annually according to
the Consumer Price Index average for the preceding
year.
❑ County will use space for services compatible with
law enforcement.
o County will notify City by March 1 of preceding
year of any changes to occupancy level.
Closing Costs
~
o Closing Costs - City's share is $1,000.
4
Maintenance Details
❑ Estimated 2006 cost is $60,000.
❑ Majority of maintenance is contractual (utilities,
janitorial, inspection, insurance, etc.).
❑ County facilities maintenance spends approximately
120 hours annually on the precinct building.
■ Landscaping
■ Building Repairs
■ Security Systern
■ Sprinkler System
❑ County will continue to provide maintenance
through the end of 2006.
Next Steps
❑ Council considers authorizing City Manager to
approve purchase of Valley Precinct premises.
❑ If Council approves, City Manager signs and sends
purchase agreement to BOCC.
❑ Title company processes transfer.
❑ Property added onto City insurance policy.
❑ City makes arrangements to take over maintenance
in 2007.
5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 06-06-06 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new buslness ❑ public hearing
❑ infoRnation ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sewer Issues Update
Spokane County Utilities Director Bruce Rawls will give a presentation on sewer issues,
including utility outlook, and options for low income seniors.
OPTIONS:
RECOIIAMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Actjon
Meeting Dabe: June 6, 2066 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public heanng
❑ information ~ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : SRTC Regional Concurrency Study
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Glenn Miles of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council will provide and
update on their regional concurrency study. Attached is a copy of their May 2006 Technical
Memorandum.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS May 2006 Technical Memorandum
p~~;e-~nal Transportation Concurrency
System in Spokane County
A Feasibility Study
TECHNICAL MEh10RANDUM Ar Z
Literature Survey on Various
Concurrency Implementation Strategies
Prepared for
s~~ _ ~ . r _ % ` •.r4 .
Prepared by
~~~~~~D Bl;(=t-iEh, 41'ILLIS & K,1TI iE=F
c'ORPORATION
~
r- M. f: I' r I r
May 2006
Technical h%unorandum -v 1: Cant'urrencv Litcrature ReYiaiv
Spvkane Caunty RegAor+al Tran.sportahan Cvncurrzncy: .4 Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
I(YTRODUCTION A1VD BACKGROUND ..........................................................................1
PURPOSES OF CONCURRENCIf ....................................................................................1
STATEWIDE APPROACHES TO CONCURRENCY ...........................................................4
APPROACH TO itEGIONAL CONCURRENCY .................................................................7
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MAR1f1.AND ..........................................................................g
ALBUQUERQUE, NE1N MDQCO: THE PLANNED GROWTH STRATEGY ..........................9
EASTSIDE OF THE PUGET SOUND REGION (BELLEViIE, RFDMOND,
KZRKLAND, AND ISSAQUAH 11
ORL.ANDO AND ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA 13
EVALUATION OF CONCURRENCIf SYSfEMS 16
EVALUATION OF REGIONAL CONCURRENCY SYSTEMS 17
WORKS CITED 21
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 24
Page i
i,~,,.~:.+1!•fe,,i,xa~.tc:,~± x: •;:1~,~:e~~~ h SA: i I.~:-t
P. UJ!?Y C~r~_;~r,~,:!c•~ .i5 _74 :~i14 n--V?
Technical h9emorarrdum # 2: Conrurrency Literature Review
Spokane CoUnty Regiona/ Transportation Concurrency.- A Feasibilrty Study
~ INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Concurrency is a land use planning and implementation tool that is designed to "ensure
tfiat necessary public facilities and services to support new development are available and
adequate, based on adopted level of service (LOS) standards, at the time the impacts of new
development otcur (White and Paster, 2003)." The term "concurrenc.y" comes from an
amendment to the Florida Growth Management Act in 1986, whicfi states that "[i]t is tlhe intent
of the Legislature tihat public facilities and services needed to support• development shall be
available concurrent with the impact of development (Powell, 1993: 292)." The term
"concurrency" is often used interchangeably with "adequate public facilities ordinances" (APFOs)
(DVRPC, 2002; White and Paster, 2003;), however, others use "concurrency" to refer to the
state-mandate requirement of local governments participating in state-wide grovvth
management programs and "APFOs" to refer to locally,-adopted ordinances that attempt to
manage the timing of new development (Steiner, 2004). Where possible this memorandum will
make that disbinction. The purpose of this Tethnical Memorandum is to define the purposes of
concurrency and APFOs, identify approaches to-regional concurrency and their characteristics, 0 and identify the strengths and weaknesses -of various regional approaches to concurrency.i
Although this review may~indude all forms of public infrastructure and services, it generally
focuses on transportation facil~ties. ,
PURPOSES OF CONCURRENCY
White and Paster (2003: 756-57) describe seven major objectives of an APFO or
concurrency system:
(1) To link the provision of key public facilities and services with the type, amount,
location, density, rate and timing of new development.
(2) To properly manage new growth and development so that it does not outpace tfie
ability of service providers to -accommodate the development at the established
LOS standards.
! The initial proposal also induded the types of performance measures used in wncurrency programs in the topics to
O be addressed in this menorandum. However, due to the delay in the contract and the objedaves in 7ask 3.33, the
performance measures will not be addressad in this Technical Memorandum # 3. Instead they will be induded in the
second Technical Memorandum.
May 2006 Page 1
O:VUDY1Conarrency12006\05-04-2006 DraR 7echnlcal Memorandum 02-Submltted Oo SRTCI.doc
Tecfinical Merrrararrdurrr # 2.• C.bacvrrerrcy Lilerature 12eplew
Sppkane County Regiona1 Tiansportidon Coneurrency: A Faas~Grlr'ty Study ~
(3) To coordinate public faciNtY and service caPacitY with the demands created bY new I
development.
(4) To discourage sprawl and leapfrog development patkerns and to proma#e more infilE
development and red6velopment. '
(5) To encourage types of devefopment patterns that use infrastructure mor~ efficiently,
such a s New Urbanism or Transit-Oriented Development,
(6)' To require that the provision of public facilities and service to new development does
' not cause a reduckion in the [evels of service. provided to the existing residents.
(7) 7o pravide an approach for providing necessary_ infrastrucbure for new residents.
lhe essence of these objeckives is to provide a link bekween the varivus elements of the .
comprehansive plan - capital improvernenis, transpg!tafion and land use - and to have a
' financially feasible plan far implernentatton (DVRPC, 2002; Steiner, 2001), T'te fand use plan
shows the location of future growth and_ #fie transporiation pfan specifies the necessary
infrastructure tia acfiieve the desired development--pattern. Thus~=the land use, transpor-tation,
and capital improvements elements are consistent. with- each='other and the plans shouCd - be f~
'i
. .financially feasible. 7he #iird= element of coricurrency invoEves tirning because concurrency
- requ ires th at public faciliti es a re avakiab[e concurrent with the impact of developme nt.
The components of the cancurrency system have been characterized in various ways
(Seer DVRPC; 20021; Steinerr 2001; White, 1996; 1Nhi4e and Paster,'2003). The approach taken
by tl're -Delaware Ifalley Regionak Planning Cornmission htas been adapted fvr this literature
review because it uses a braader rarrge of concepts that wilf apply to the diversity of situations
discussed Iater in this review.~_, .
~ The tomponenL of a ooncurmncy sys6ern in ihe ather souroes are more deEailed and rnort useEul ko operatlonallze khe
concvrrenty slnndards. A5 su[h, they are likely to be af greaker irnportan[e In the later phases of khis projeck. Far exarrsple, 1vhite
arkd Pasker (2003) inGude some of the .faflowing aomponents: the LOS standard, the types of devJopmBntlland uses to whECh
[on[urrEnry is apptied, tlte rype of developmenk approvals,the timing af oon[urrency dekerminaGon, khe efFects of failing t❑ rneet ~
conctirrerMCYr ancf khe condiGon and rnitigatians attached to approval. Simijarly, Stieiner (2001) pruwldes s1gnFficank detail pn ho+v to
arrount far capaoky. ,
MB~ 2006 PaJe 2
D:~)UOY~[nnn.irrenWU46105-04-2Qd6 OrattTerhniwl Mamorandum #Z-Submft6ed #fl SRTCi.doc -
Teahnrcal Memorandum # Z: Concurrency Literature Revrew
Spokarre County Regional Transportadon Concurrenry: A Feasibility Study
~ Figure 1. The Components of a Concurrency System
Source: Adapted from DVRPC 2002
Concurrency
w '
Overall Environment
° Political Commitment
Legai and ]udioal Support 1101 Well-Drafbed Ordinance
° - .
° Public Support = o Manages Groivth
Appropriate LOS
° Details on Timing of Growth
_ Private-Public Cooperation
Intergovernmental ° Fle(ibility
Coordination ~ - - ° Communication
° Bet►veen neighboring jurisdictions ~ ° Government Aacountability
° Between 5tate and local -
~ goverr►ments - '
° On reaional {evel
' - Capital Improvements Plan
Land and Transportation ~ that speaties finanang of
• Element of Comprehensive - Financial ~~frasb-uctur2, with Capital
Plan that show location and Consistencv Improvements Program that
timing of future grawth, and rnatches resources to a
municipaf gaals and vision schedule of infrastrudvre
imnrrwPmPnt.
J~
May 2006 Page 3
D:N)UDY1ConcurrencA2006~05-04-2006 Draft Technlcal Manorendum #2-Submltted bo SRTCi.d4c
Techniral Memorandum 7 2: Conturrency Literature Review
Spokane County Regwnal Transportation Concurrency.• A Feasibilrty Study as the flowchart in Figure 1 shows, the success of the concuRency system begins with the capital improvements plan and the comprehensive plan. The capital improvements plan
needs to 6e consistent with the comprehensive plan in meeting the goals and visions_of the ,
community. The goals, objectives, and policies of the plan should be supported by financing of
. infrastructure in the Capital Improvements program. Intergovernmental coordination is
necessary to ensure that adjacent jurisdictions and state and local govemments and
jurisdictions throughout the region have goals, objectives, and policies that are consistent with
each other. Public-private cooperation is necessary to ensure that governments provide
flexibility in how the concurrency needs are met and ensures that govemments are accountable
for providing the infrastructure in a timely manner; and that they communicate with the private sector. Well-drafred ordinances include appropriate LOS standards that are meant to manage,
not limit, growth and provide appropriate details on timing of growth. The overall political
environment needs to have the support- of the community for the goals of the community,
ongoing political commitment of elected officials; and legal and judicial support for concurrency.
.
STATEWIDE APPROACHES TO CONCURRENCY - ~
To more fully place. these case studies into context it is useful to understand the context
of the implementa-tion of concurrency and APFOs in the states in which these regions are
lacated. Florida and Washington are_the only two states that incorporate concurrency into their
growth. management framework for all counties that participate in statewide growth
management programs. Florida 'requires concurrency of all local governments while
Washington only requires counties with high populations or high rates of grovth or counties
that opt into the growth management program. Once a county opts into growth management
in Washington, tfiey are required to follow the state requirements for concurrency. Even though
both states require concurrency, the context for implementation differs. Florida's Growth
Management has been characterized as being top-down, while Washington's is characterized as
being a fusion between state and local governments. The differences between the appraaches
taken by these states includes the use of exception areas, the establishment of LOS standards
and its measurement, the coordination of concurrency review with environmental review, the
~
May 2006 Page 4
D:UUDYI,ConcurrenM2006\05-04-2006 DraitTechnlcal IAemorandum R2-Submltted to SRTC1.doc
Tecfinical Memorandum # 1: Conturrency Literature Review
Spokane County Regional Transportab`on Concurrency.• A f,easibility Study
~ LOS standards on State Highways, and the use of urban growth boundaries and interregional
cooperafion.
The statz of Florida has provided significant guidance to local governments on how to
meet the requirements of concurrency. The legislation mandating concurrency was passed in
1985 and began to be implemented in the late 1980s. The transportation concurrency system
has evolved from a system that was based almost exclusivety on the use of LOS standards
based on a volume to capacity ratio to a multimodal planning sjrstem for communities that
choose to have greater flexibility than a capacity-based system :affords.
Beginning in 1992, the state incorporated areawide and project specific exceptions into
the concurrency framework. Project-specific exceptions include: (1) urban redevelopment
projects [FSA 163.3180 (8)] (2) de minimus p'rojects [FSA 163.3180 (6)]; (3) projects that
promote public transportation [FSA 163.3180 (5) (b) and 93-5.0057 (7)]; (4) 'part-time projects
[FSA 163.3180 (5) (c)]; and (5) projects for which private contributions are made [FSA
163.3180 (11) (c)]. Areawide exceptions include: (1) transportation concurrency exception
areas (TCEAs), (2) transportation concurrency management areas (TCMAs), (3) long-term
~ concurrency management. systems (LTCMS),= and (4) . multimodal transportation districts
(MMTDs). The purpose_of a TCMA is to "promote infill development or redevelopment witfiin
selected portions of urban _ areas in a manner that supports the provision of more efficient
mobility alternatives,-incfuding public transit [FAC 9]-5.50055]." The TCMA may be established
in "a compact geographic° area with an exisdng network of roads where multiple, viable
alternative travel paths or modes are available for common trips [FSA Sec. 163,3180 (7)]." An
areawide LOS may be established for facilities with similar functions serving common origins
and destinations [FSA Sec. 163.3180 (7)]. LTCMS are established in areas with existing
deficiencies. To eliminate the backlog, a comprehensive plan is established that identifies the
improvements to be made over a ten-year period or, in exceptional circumstances, over a
fifkeen-year period [FAC 9]-5.0055 (4)]. The purpose of a TCEA is to "reduce the adverse
impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill and redevelopment and the
achievement of other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the
development of public transportation [FAC 91-5.0055 (7) and FSA Sec. 163.3160 (S) (b)]." A
TCEA can be established to meet one of four purposes: (1) promotion of urban infill
~ development, (2) urban redevelopment, (3) promotion of downtown revitalizaaon, or (4) urban
fNay 2006 Page S
D:\IUD1f\ConcUrrency\2005105-04-2006 DraR Ted►nlcat Memorandum #2-SubmlGed Oo SRTCI.doc
Technrca/ Memorarrdum # Z: Concurrency Literature Revlew
Spokane Counly Regional Transportation Concurrency: A Feasibility Study
infill and redevelopment. An MMlU must have at least 5,000 in residential papulation, a
minimum of population to jobs ratio of 2:1, an appropriate mix of land use (including
. residential, educational, recreational, and cultural uses), and an interconnected network of
streets designed to encourage walking and bicycling. Furtliermore, it should use traffic calming,
appropriate densities and intensities of land uses within walking distance of transit stops, and a
pattern of land uses that promotes transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel, including good
intennodal connections. In MMTOs, the roadway LOS is relaxed and higher pedestrian, bicycle
and transit LOSs are required. In 2005, tfhe state Rassed legislation 1hat requires TCEAs to
incorporate tihe characteristics of MMT05 into districts even as local governments are allowed to
continue to allow development, even if they are not required to meet established roadway level
of service standards. -
In sharp contrast to Florida's complex set of transportation concurrency regulations,
Washington is seen as providing significant flexibility in how to implement concurrency. The
GMA in Washington directs local govemments to establish LOS standards for their
transportation systems and use them as a baseline- for determining whether new development
can be accommodated. The Act "only requires jurisdictions to-adopt ordinances tlhat establish a
concurrency measurement system for transportation. - As a result, the ability of the transportation system -to support new development has become the primary test for whether
development and infrastructure are'concurrent' (Hallenbecic, Carlson, and Simmons, 2003: ix;
emphasis in original)." Local govemments in the State of Washington have used a variety of
approaches to measure concurrency including: (1) travel delay system, (2) average vehicle
operating speed, (3) LOS at a screen line rather than intersection or a link LOS, (4) arterials
that serve a new development are required to meet certain construction standards, (5) person
throughput or person carrying capacity, and (6) certain transportation facilities (streets,
intersecctions, or both) that are built out are not included in concurrency calculation
(Trohimovich, 2001).
A second difference between the two states is that the development review process
difFers. Local governments in Washington are required to conduct a review of all development
impacts, including the impacts on the transportation system, under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). In Florida local yovemments conduct such comprehensive reviews on a
narrower set of projects. Large-scale development projects that are expected to have an impact
May 2006 Page 6
D:1lUDY\Concvmencyti2DD6195-04-2005 DraR Technical hSemorandum A 2-Subm9lTed to SRTCI.doc
Technical Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Lr'tL~ratut~_- F2evrew
Sppkarre Courrty Regiowl Tr'gnsportabbn Carrc1rtency' ,4 Feasr6flrty Sf'1.rdy
~ on more than one county are required Go cornpIete ar-evkew for Developments vf Regional
Irnpact. The DRI review process takes place instead, rather tnan; in addition to the
concurrency review process (FDOT 1998). •
The #fiird area of major difference between the stats is that Florida h as established a '
Sb-ategic IntermodaE system that includes aIk roadways on the Florida Intrastate Fiighway
System (FIHS). SRnce the roadways on khe FIFfS are intended for travel between regions in
Floridar the FDOT protects the L0S an these roadways. In Wiishington, khe highways af
statewide significance are specificafly exempted ftom concurrency..
One other major area of difference is the appraach taken to intergovernmental
coordination a nd urban growth bounda(es. AIthough bath states' legislati on i ncludes the use of
urban growth baundarEes,'_ FEonda's laws are I ess-strictJy enforced and Florida facks a salid
frameworfc fnr intergovernmenkal cooperatian. In contrast Washingtan's laws include Regional
Transpc)rtation PIanning Organizations (RTPOs). Maryland has takerr a different approaeK to cOordination -of land use and transpartation
~ that involves the use of priority funding areas {PFAs}. TFie PFAs are eMblished so that the state
can only invest maney in 'PFA-t%t are establishied by loral gvvemments to be consistient with
athef planning goals.. The state th~n establishes'criteria to designate these fiandipg areas and
all state projecFs are reviewed annually ta detp-rmine their consisLency with qualo growth
objectives. The advantages of PFA's ate that they are incentive based and they channel state
money info:.areas thak are 5uited for grewth. They aimit growth in rvral areas by IimGting staGe
investrnent that would spur grawth intv these areas; local gavernments and deve[opers in non-
PFA areas pay the co5t of devefopment in these areaEi. The disadvantages of PFAs are that
khey target developiment to areas that are already developed, #hey limit assistance ta rural
areas, and they do nothing to preserve affordabfe housing outside of PFA areas.
APPROACH TO REGZOIVAL CONCURREN-CY ' .
In order to understand the regional approaches ta concurrency, it is necessary to
understand the broader context in which concurrency is being irnplemented. Concurrency
shauld not be the only tool used by iocal grnrernments to impEemerit growth management; it
~ needs to be reinforced by ather policies that together with concurrency supporL the goais and
! Ma}r 2005 Page 7
I D=~]L10YXC4d1RU7e11[yXaU0fi~05-4'F2U0$ tiraFkTechnJml W7em=rwJum *2-SUbmIL#ed bo SRTCi.d4C
Technica/ Memorandum # 1: Corcurrenry Lrterature Review
Spokane County Regional Transportatron Concurrency.• A Feasibilriy Study
vision of the community. In this literature search, the research team was able to identify
several regions in diverse locations that are either using or have studied using concurrency or
APFOs as a part of a growth management program. The following locations were identified:
Albuquerque and Bemalillo County, New Meaico (White and Paster, 2003; City of Albuquerque,
2002a, 2002b); Montgomery and other counties in Maryland (Levinson, 1997; Cohen, 2005;
NCSMRE, 2005; NCSMRE, 2006); Boise, Idaho (Freilich, 2003); Dane County (Madison),
Wisconsin (Freilich, 2003); Davidson and Concord-Cabarrus County, North Carolina (White and
Paster, 2003); Puget Sound Region (PSRC, 2003), fihe Eastside of the Puget Sound Region
(Bellewe, Redmond, Kirkland, and Issaquah) (Hallenbetk, Carlson- and Simmons 2003); Clark
County, Washington (ECONorthwest 2002); Hillsborough .(Tampa) (White and Paster, 2003),
Or9ando and Orange County (Steiner et al., 2000); Palm BQach, Miami-Dade, and Duval
(Jacksonville) and other counties in Fiorida. Because of the availability of both secondary and
primary sources of information on these identified cases, the following regions will be
highlighted in this research: Montgomery County, Maryiand; Albuquerque, NM; Bellevue,
Redmond, Kirlcland, and Issaquah, Washingfon; and Orlando and Orange County, Florida. In
the evaluation, examples will be cited from counties in Florida.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,* MARYLAND
Montgomery County, Maryland has had an-adequate public facilities system since 1974
(Levinson, 1997). The system was established with a requirement that all developrnent
propasals pass two tests of transportation facilities adequacy (DVRPC, 2002), The first of
these, the Policy Area Transportation Review analyzed the effect. of growth on overall road
system of the twenty-two policy areas in the community. If the growth in population or jobs
could be accommodated with existing roadway capacity, programmed roadway capacity or
programmed bus, rail, or other Forms of mass transportation, tne developrnent could be
permitted. The second test is the Local Area Transportation Review, which measures level of
service at local intersections, and requires certain standards to be met before development is
approved. The standards are lower in areas with better transit service and ensure that nearby
intersections will not be overwhelmed. In 2005, the Policy Area Transportatian Review was
eliminated from the process. Much of the structure of the Polic.y Area review was retained but
the process was simplified (MCDPP, 2005).
May 2006 Page 8
D:\IUDY\Concu.rency1,2006105-04-2006 braR Technical Memaarudum #2-Submfttad tn SItM.doc
Technical Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Literature Review
Spokane Counfy Regrorral Transportatron Concurrency.• A Feasibilify Study
~ The success of the Montgomery County APFO system can be measured by the length of
~ time that it has been in place. The County continually evaluates the implementation of the
system but it continues to be _in place. The program is generally seen as not being transferable because it is too complex (DVRPC, 2002). Additionally, concems have been raised about
whether more traffic congestion is worse in the county because adjacent counGes have not
used such strict growth controls and they have allowed development that uses the roads in
Montgomery County (Levinson 1997). _
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO: THE PLANNED GROWTH STRATEGY
In 2002, the Albuquerque City Council adopted the Planned Growth Strategy (PGS), a
comprehensive strategy designed to direct future growdi in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
Region.3 The PGS was developed through a series of public workshops, cibizens' surveys, and
technical studies by consultants to develop goals and polides for regional growth and to test
the fiscal impacts of various growtfi stenarios. The PGS was established with seven basic
ideas: (1) local government should play__ a proactive role, (2) lfie community, not just
O development, matters in new and old areas, (3). the_ existing community - neighborhoods,
schools and businesses - come: first in vitality and development, (4) maintain, rehabilitate and
improve infrastructure_in existing neighborhoods; (S) develop first where infrastructure exists to
grow efficiently, (6) do not just plan - implement, and (7) keep the community involved (City of
Albuquerque 2002a). The PGS-is designed to address the linkage betvveen infrastructure and .
population and employment growth in the community. The six major guiding principles in the
strategy include:
1. The locatlon of population and housing should be phased and timed to achieve
community goals. These goals are represented by the Planned Growth Strategy
Preferreri Alternative. '
2. Critical infrastructure capacity (streets, parks, schools, water, sewer, and storm
drainage) is available to support urban growth. -
3. The needs of growth, rehabilitation, and correction of existing infrastructUre deficiencies
are fully funded.
3 According to White and Paster (2003) Bemalillo County had not adopted the PGS in 2003. A searcfi of thc Bemilillo
County website did not contradict this oondusion, however, several sector plans were found on the website
May 2006 . Page 9
D:VUDnConcurresrc,A2006\05-04-2flO6 DraR Tec?in3ca1 Memorandum #2•Submitted Oo SRTCl.Qoc
Te['Jankal N7amarandurrr ,?2' Conctirren[y Liter,7turi--f7ev~ew
Spokarre C'oun ty Regrbrra! Trarrsporta tlon Corrcurren cy: A Feaslbi!!ty Study .
4. Implementation is guided by adapted plans, e.g., corridor plans, sector (neighborhood) ~
pEansr redevelopment plans, and area plans. 5. Charges for infrastructure to support growth reffect the costs af grawth to the
com mu n ity.
6. The syskem is ffexible (City of Albuquerque 2002b: 170).
The PGS identiFies shork-term (1-10 years) and mediijm-terrt7 (10,25 years) grawth
, areas that refleck the communityr's goals for khe locationr density, timing, and sequencing of
~ development. In other words, the fufly served areas may be rnore appmpriate for higher
i - _
densfty, but those served areas should also de've[op before ne'w cfevefopment occurs in
unserved areas.
The PGS includes a"preferred Altemative" thabased upan the avai[abil'rty of
infrastrucbure in the comrrtunity. The location-bf infrastructure* is divided into three "tiers:" the
iiFully Served Areas," which contain the full rarige of urban infrastructure, #he "Paraally Served
Areas,,, which have sorne,. b.ut_ not all, af the._q~~ry fnfrastrucrtiare and 5ervices, and the . ,t
llUnserved Areas," which..lack all.or most of #he needed infrastructure and services (Oty of
Albuquerque, 2DUb). The_Planned Growth Strategy is to be implemented with a vanety of
toofsr includ'rng:__ capital improvernents _ programs, service standards and concurrency or
adequate public facilities ordinances, development impack fees, development agreementsr
development incentives and inducements, and carnrnunity plans (City of Afbuquerque, 2002b).
Several advantages are attributed to #tie PGS. The adeyuate public facilities ordinance
~ is corisidered a comprehensive tool that "could tie together many of the policies scattered
among the Caty/Countiy Comprehensive Plarrr the Sector Pians, Area Plans, and infrastrucbure
master plans into one set of standards (City of AGbuquerque, 2002a: 172)." Second, the
Capikal Improvernents ProgramJAdequate Public Facilities Ordiriance approach is flexible enough
to be mandatory or incentive--based or a cornbination of both approaches. A purely incentive-
based system would tie the level of service to increases in density or provide other regulatory or
fir~ancial incentiveEi. A purely mandatory system would direc~ly tie issuance of development I
permits to level of service standards for fnfrastructure. `f'he city appears ta be ijsing a ~
combination af bath incentives and rnahdat~s to implement this plan. Third, even though no
May 2006 Page LO
p;1]VOnConcurrentyS,ZUDE\65-04-2406 i3rafk Fechnlcal h4emaa-arLdum #2-5utim1ned tn SR f[f.dor
TenSnical Memorandum # Z: Conrurrency Ulerature Review
Spokane County Regional TraRSporta£lon Concurrency: A Feas/6Ilily Study
system can ensure that all costs are fully funded, the variable Capital Improvements
Program/APFO increases the likelihood tfiat critical infrastructure will be available to serve urban
grotvth. Expansion of infrastructure is tied to level of service standards that make sense for a
particular area of the community. In areas where capacity cannot be expanded due to policy or
physical constraints, a lower level of senrice can be assigned or the area can be exempted from
APFO. This creates incentives for infill development by removing steps in the development
review process. A long-range constrained Gapital Improvements._Program assures that the
community is alsfl making land available for future development to accommodate the growtfi in
populabon and employment (City of Albuquerque, 2002b). Fnally, a varied level of service
approach assures that infrastructure charges reflect the true cost to the community because
development cannot proceed unless the level of service standards will be met. The cost of
providing the cost of service will be identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. A developer
can choose to phase their project to match the build out of infrasb'ucture based on the area's
level of service or voluntarify advance the facilities with a development agreement (City of
Albuquerque, 2002b). -
.
~ EASTSIDE OF THE PUGET SOUND REGION (BELLEVUE, REDMOND,
KIRKLAN D, AN D ISSAQUAH
In 2001, the cities of-BeIlewe, Kirkland, Issaquah and Redmond, Washington began a
two-year cooperative study to accompfish the following goals: (1) describe and assess the four
cities' existing approach°to transportation concurrency, (2) develop and analyze alternative
approacties'that are more multi-modal in nature, (3) evaluate alternative approaches for the
four cities in reaching the objectives of the Growth Management Act and the region's Vision
2020 plan, and (5) recommend changes, if necessary, to state and local laws to improve the
effectiveness of transportation concurrency (Hallenbeck, Carlson, and Simmons, 2003). These
communities worked with an interdisciplinary team from the University of Washington led by
Washington State Transportation Center, and including the Evans School of Public Affairs, the
School of Urban Design and Planning and the consulting firm of Kittleson and Associates.
After completing this study, several conclusions were reached by the research team.
Most notably that the four Eastside cities have sufficient flexibility under current law to develop,
~ implement and fund a variety of multi-modal concurrency approaches, both within their own
f jurisdictions and among one or more of tfieir neighbors. A regional approach to transportation
May 2006 Page 11
D:VUDY~Conaurctky\2006\05-04-2006 thaft Technkal hSemorandum 42-Submltfed to SRTp.doc
Tethnical Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Literature Revfew
Spflkane County Regronal Transportalion Concurrency: A Feasrbilify Study
planning could be coordinated under the eAsting authority of the Puget Sound Regional Council ;----.1
and would not require significant change to state or local concurrency legislation unless the four
cities would like to create some form of inetropolitan govemment (Hallenbeck, Evans, and
Simmons, 2003).
The University of Washington team found that the existing transportation concurrency
system is implemented using roadway capacity, or the volume /capacity ratio (v/c) as a metric.
However, each city uses a slightly different computation method to calculate the v/c and a
different LOS service standard. Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland LOS standards vary by
geographic location, requiring better LOS in some zones (usually residenbial areas) and
permitting more congestion in other areas (generally commercial areas).. Issaquah varies LOS
standards by arterial street rather than by zone (Hallenbeck, Evans, and Simmons, 2003).
To overcome the constraint of volume to capacity, 'several alternative approaches for
concurrency are recommended. Three "a-pproaches include: (1) enhanced volurne/capacity, (2)
travel time as a measurement for concurrency, and (3) a regional mode-split concurrency
system. The enhanced volume/capadty would allow, jurisdictions to incorporate transit and _
_ other altemaave modes of transportation capadty when setting and implementing the LOS .
standard. The measured v/c ratios of cars to_. roadway capacity do not change. Rather,
jurisdictions make a policy_ choice to permit a higher v/c ratio and higher levels of congestion
where. certain levels of transit service or other transportation choices, such as walking or
bicycling e)cist. lhis method can also incorporate a more robust process of developer
negotiation in the mitigation process. Travel time can be measured to and from key places in a
city or along main corridors. Its advantage over v/c ratio is that it is relatively easily explained
and understoad by the general public. The disadvantage of using travel time is that the public
will easily understand, and may not accept, an LOS change in travel time for a S-mile trip from
7 to 12 minutes (Hallenbeck, Evans, and Simmons 2003). The four cities could adopt a regional
system of concurrency, but dep2nding upon how it is structured it may require a change in
state law. A regional mode-split approach replaces a facility performance calculadon with a
measure of how well a region (or sub-region) achieves a transportation policy target of reducing
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Hallenbeck, Evans, and Simmons, 2003). Thus, if the regional
LOS target is to increase the share of non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips during the
evening peak by 3 percent within five years, and the share of non-SOV trips increase from 8
May 2006 Page 12
D:VUDY\Corvcurrenc+/12fl061,O5A4-2006 DraftTechnlcal Memocarudum }2-Submf:ted to SRTCl.doc
Technrcal Memorandum # 1: Concurrency Lirerature Review
Spflkane County Regronal TiansportaYon Concurrency: A Feasibilrty Study
percent to 11 percent, the region would remain concurrent. After five years, the region would
establish another goal. The report compares these three approaches to concurrency and
concludes that the approaches score diffierendy on a set of criteria and the analysis can be used
for each jurisdiction to tailor its transportation concurrency to the policies it wants fio achieve.
Finally, the report makes three groups of suggestions about how to move beyond LOS
measures to involve other actions that may make a difference in the medium-term: using fewer
roads, funding transit more, and acting inter-jurisdictionally. The communities could use roads
less through monetary rewards for residents who reduce SOV u"sage and by introducing variable
roadway pricing based on time-of-day congestion. They could fund transit more through
developer agreements to fund Transportation Management Assodations and transit service, by
concentrating new development in transit friendly nodes and corridors to build ridership for
more frequent service and by subsidizing ixansit service with Flexpass and: other tools until
important routes reach core status and attain a higher level._of permanence. The four cities are
urged to act inter-jurisdictionally by expanding developer agreements to include transportation
systems and services across city boundaries, forming a mulfi-dty Transpflrtation Benefit District
O that rationalizes varying LOS standards and sets subregional perFormance targets and rewards
and by creating a region-wide transportation concurrency authority to establish and manage
regional*VMT reductiori and mode-split credits (Hallenbeck, Evans, Simmons, 2003).
ORLANDO AND ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Tfie city of Orlando and Orange County have incorporated several principles of New
Urbanism into their land development planning. lliis has been accomplished through a mixture
of tools that promote New Urbanism in both jurisdictions. The City of Orlando has used the
principles of New Urbanism in three diverse setiings: downtown revitalization, redevelopment of
Baldwin Park, and the South East Sector Plan. Each of these plans has incorporated a variety of
planning tools with the concuRency program that is mandated by the State of Florida.
Similarly, Orange County has used principles of New Urbanism in its Horizons West planning
effott.
In the Downtown area, the City of Orlando has used a series of downtown
~ Redevelopment Plans to gradually redevelop a vibrant downtown. The City and businesses put
together a partnership in the early 1990s to incorporate the Central Business District into a
May 2006 Page 13
D:UUDI'\Concurrency\2006\05-04-2006 Draft 7edmkal Memorandum S2-Subanttted to SRTCl.doc
Technfcal Memorandum # Z: Concurrenty Literature Revrew
Spokane Gounty Regfonal Transpartation Concurrency: A Feasibi/ity Study
downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and a TCFJa. The last two downtown plans
have encouraged multimodal planning through the use of remote parlcing and a free downtown ~.~.J
circulator called the Lymmo. They have also encouraged urban design features that hide
parking and reduce its impact on pedestrians by gradually improving the pedestrian
environment through use of streetscape improvements induding use of brick pavers at many
street crossings, planting of street trees along green corridors, and developing a system of
bicycle trails throughout the downtown. The DRI has targets for the mode split among
downtown employees and downtown transportation improvements are funded through a
private-public partnership that indudes tax-increment financing (TIF), and a special assessment
on downtown business (Steiner, Wright, and Paul with Kolinski, Perez, and Bojanowski, 2000).
Fnally, the Downtown Redevelopment District indudes high-density residential development
because the Downtown Redevelopment District.'is.located in the middle of a TCEA, level of
service standards only apply to facilities on the Fiorida'Intrastate Highway System.
The. Baldwin Park project provides:an example of redeyelopment in the City of Orlando
that uses New Urbanist principles. Baldwin Park was the Orlando Naval Training Center until
the mid-1990s when it was tumed over to the City of Odando as a part of the Base .
Realignment and Closure (BRAC)~ Act. The project includes approximately 1,000 acres that is -r
located about 4 miles east of downtown Orlando. The vision for Baldwin Parlc is to create a
walkable community that includes two lakes, 200 acres of parks, over 3,000 residential units, an
elementary and middle school, a village center, and over a million square feet of office space
(Steiner et al. 2000). The decision to build the project, based upon New Urbanist principles, was
made after transportation modeling of the project area showed that without significant network
connectivity, roads all around the project would fail. When the land was used as a Naval
Training Center, it induded only 3 connections into the site; today, tfie neighborhood has over
twenty roadways connecting to the site so that traffic can be dispersed.
The Southeast Sector Plan involves 19,300 acres of development within a 20 to 30
minute driving distance to Downtown Orlando, and many of the entertainment attractions and .
is directty adjacent to the Orlando International Airport. This area is planned for over 13,300
residential units and a population of more than 28,000 residents, 2.1 million square feet of retail
space, 3.3 million square feet of office space, 1,950 hotel rooms, 4.7 million square feet of
industrial space, and 600,000 square feet of civic/govemmental space within th e next fifteen
May 2005 Page 14
D:9UDY`Concurrency12006~05-04-2006 DraitTediMcaf Memorandum #2-Submfited t9 SRTU.doe
Techn/c.a/ Memorarrdum ri 2: Concurrency Literature Revrew
Spokane County Regianal Transportation Corrcurrency., A Feasibiliry Study
years (City of Orlando, 2005). This project is being built as a partriership between the property
- owners in the area, the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando Utilities Commission,
representatives of local, regional, and state agencies affected by or having permitting
jurisdiction of aspetts of the project, and representatives of interest groups concerned with
building successful communities. The area will be idendfied by ttie pattem of residential
neighborhoods that focus on town, village and neighborhood centers, by the design of homes
and commercial buildings and by the prowmity to nature. Neighbflrhoods will be developed at a
pedestrian scale with schools and parks as a focal point for activ'rty. The Southeast Sector Plan
provides a mix of land uses built on a connected grid that supporfis all modes of transportation.
Pedestrian travel is supported by the close proximity of services to residences and through
designs for pedestrian comfort including a fully coordinated system of pedestrian and bikeways
that are linked to commercial areas, transit stops, employment centers, parks, open spaces,
schools and other community facilities. Atthough cars will be accommodated, land use patterns,
street layouts and densities will make walking, bicyding and-public bransit viable alternatives to
the automobile. The Southeast Sector Plan indudes fee waivers and expedited permitting to
encourage the development of t'aditional stre2t design (City of Odando, 2005).
The Horizons West= plan is located in Sbuthwest Orange County, north of Disney and
west of the City of Orlando. This project represents the evolution of rural lands no longer for
agricultural use into self-sustaining urban environments that feature mixed-use, pedestrian-
oriented communities tfiat provide community school and parks that respect the natural
environment. The County has been able to avoid piecemeal growth and suburban sprawl by
master planning 38,000 acres tfiat were formerly orange groves. In the 1980s, a series of
severe freezes eliminated the citrus groves that had been in the area; the citrus industry moved
to warmer climates in South Flo'rida.
In 1993, a conceptual master plan was initiated by Horizon West, -Inc., a group of
property owners working.with Orange County to find a sustainable long-term solution for the
area. Horizon West was designed to provide housing in an area of Orange County that liad
historically had five-to-ten-acre rural zoning that forced development into the adjacent counties.
The plan will include six or seven mixed-use villages and town centers when it is completed.
Villages include two to four neighborhoods oriented around community schools and parks that
~are no more than one half-mile walking distance from the neighborhoods, on between 1,000
• May 2006 Page 15
D:`JUDY\Conoxrency\2006\OS-04-2006 Draft Techniml Memorandum #2-Submitfed to SRTCl.doc
leahnical Memorandum # 1: Concurrency Literature Reidew
SpokaRe County Regfonal Transporta66on Concurrency: A Feaslbility Study
and 3,000 acres surrounded by a greenbelt. In Horizon West's viliages diverse housing types
are available or will be buiit, including single-famify homes, townhomes, estates, and
apartments. Housing will be priced from the low $100,000s up to $700,000.
Horizon West was planned using the Optional Sector Planning process developed by the
Florida Department of Community AfFairs as an altemative to Developments of Regional Impact.
Each sector plan combines the purposes of the State Growth Management Act, requires public
participation throughout the process, emphasizes urban form and the protection of regional
resflurces and facilities, and can be applied to areas greater than 5,000 acres (FDCA, 2006).
The Horizon West Plan is implemented through the use of transfer of developrnent rights to
ensure that the greenbelts are provided and protected and through a requirement that new
development contribute to schools, parks, and other public facilities needed to serve the
community (Testerman and Torres, 2004).
EVALUATION OF CONCURRENCY_SYSTEMS -
Before evaluating regional concurrency systems, it is useful to evaluate concurrency and
APFO systems in general. Concurrency_system has been the subject of numerous reviews that '
characterize its flaw. A major criticism is that it contributes to sprawl rather than to compact development (Downs 2003; DeGrove 1992; LUTSC 1999). A second major set of issues
paracularly in Florida_has been the failure of tfie state to fund the infrastructure backlog (Ben-
Zadok and Gale, 2001; Downs, 2003) and the related failure of local governments to develop
flnancially feasible plans (Downs, 2003;-TLUSC 1999). In 2005, tihe state of Florida Legislature
passed the Growth Management Reform Act (GMRA) to address concems about transportation
funding. Under this legislation, local governments will be required to develop proportional fair
share methodologies and cost feasible capital improvements plans that are updated on an
annual basis. If local governments do not submit their updated capital improvements plans on
an annual basis, the state will delay approval of all new development.
Some have cnticized local govemments in Florida for taking a one sizes fits all approach
(LUTSC 1999) to concurrenc.y, while others suggest that there is significant variability in
concurrency practice (Chapin, 2005). This criticism does not apply to local governments in
Washington because of the flexibilify that is incorporated into the state implementation. Others
suggest concurrency has been unable to balance community and economic development goals
May 2006 Page 16
O:UUDY,Concurrencyti20K7614544-2fl05 Orag Technkal Mertrorandlim 92-Submlfted to SRTCi.dac
Technical Memorarrdum # Z: Concurrenry Uterature Revrew
• Spflkane County Regronal Trans,oortab`on Concurrency: A feasibilily Study
with the state's need to facilitate interstate and interregional mobility (TLUSC 1999) and
re9ional traffic presents a si9nificant challen9e to citaes' abilitY to manage local transportation
.
concurrency because a city's efforts to set LOS standards can be offset by traffic that passes
through and clogs roadways and intersections in the process (Hallenback, Evans and Simmons
2003).
Similarly, concurrency is criticized for the emphasis given to high levels of vehicle
mobility because it impedes the attainment of more important goals for community design
(TLUSC 1999) and it fails to encourage use of capacity for altemative modes of transportation
(Hallenbeck Evans and Simmons, 2003). The exclusive use of roadway-capacity-based LOS
standards may not provide the correct signals for local -government decision makers. Current
LOS standards may be based more on an expression of people's congestion preference than on
coordination of cities' long-term land use-transportation gaals (Hallenbeck, Evans, and Simmons
2003). Most jurisdictions' LOS standards are not designed:_to evolve over time and, therefore,
do not reflect changing land-use and transportation values (Hallenbeck, Evans, and Simmons,
2003). Fnally, concurrency and APFOs are criticized for increasing housing costs (Downs 2003;
~ . NCSGRE 2006); these cridcisms are similar to those made of otfier forms of land use controls
(Reason Foundabon...)
EVALUATION OF REGIONAL CONCURREfVCY SYSTEMS
In evaluating concurrency systems, it is important to remember that concurrency is an
evolutionary. process that develops over time; most of the regional concuRency efforts have
been in place for a relatively short time. Additionally, many of tfie tools for implementing
concurrency are relatively new and also evolving wilfi the regional growth management
systems. Two of the regions-discussed above - the Eastside Cities of the Puget Sound Region
and Albuquerque are early in the implementation process.
To evaluate regional concurrency systems, it is useful to reconsider the components of a '
concurrency system as outlined in Figure 1. In the next section, each of the four regions will be
evaluated to see how they rate in each of the boxes on that figure.
The bottom of the chart identifies the importance of consistency and a financial feasible
plan that coordinates the land use plan, transportation plan with the capital improvements plan.
May 2006 Page 17
D:\)UDY`ConcurrencA2006\05-04-2005 Draft Techn9ml Memaandum #2-Submirood to SRTCI.doc
.
i rechrutal M8mo,rndum e 2: Con~cirrerrcy L~tera~~.+r~ Revrew
SpDkan e Cowrty Regiona! Trarrsportat~br~ Cor~cc~rreri ~y: Feas~~ll~tyStudy
,
The consistency requirement considers how the visian of the region is coordinated with the
irnplementation steps identified in the Corrrprehensive Plan and the financiat feasibility C-an be ~
determined based upon whether th e plan is s€mply a wiEih 1ist of projects or a sys#ematic plan af how capit,al improvements will be rnade on an angoing basis. N1ontgomery County, Mary4and
has had a county-wide growth management system since 1974 and its pEan show cansistency
between Iand use, transportation and a financially-feasible capital improvefnents plan. 7 he
transportation rapacity is monitored through the Local Area Transportation Review and, up until
recently, had afso bE!en monitored #hrough aPolicy Area Transpoitation Review. In evaluatirig
concijrrency in h'lontgomery County it is important to recognize that not all countwes in the area
use APFOs. Thus, there may be spillover effecks with development that is denied in h'qvntgornery
County occurring in neighboring counties. in the Albuquerque region, the implementation of
regional canturrency is relatively new. It is sfill ,not cCear whether 6ernalilla County has adopted
APFOs, but they have begun to develop seckor p3ans' and liave-develaped a`vision. for critical
infrastructure.projects. The coordination between Iand us_e-~-and transparkation investrnents is
dear frorn a review of planning dacurnent-Transportation projects of both regianal~ and Cocal
significance are identified in khe plan. The Eastsi& cities of the - Puget Saund Ftegion show a
variety of local goals with respect to 1and. use and transporkatior. Vtifhile each locaf communfty
i
is internafly consistent,_ they have-- coriflicting visions of what the regional system should be.
While rnany commu-nities i.n_ FEorida are criticized .for the lack ofi a financially feasible p1an,
Orlando ancl Orange Coun#y have cEeveloped a_ vition for the cornrnunity khat is supporked by a
fin ancia lly fea- sibEe plan for its implementatian.
The se[ond component of the concurrency system is wntergovernrnental coordination,
which needs to occur between neighboring jurisdictions, between state and iocal gvvernments
~ and on a regional basis.. In both Fforida and Washingtonf ongoing confiicts exist between #heir
respective Departrnents o€ Transportation and local govemrni~nis over the management of the '
state highway sysbem. Maryland has reduced these conflicts with their P(iority Funding Areas
because the Iocal governments work in coordination wiCh the 5tate to establish areas where the ~I
state will support grawkh khrough infrastructure investment. Thusr in Montgomery County,-
Maryland, the decisions may not be cavrdinated with the rest of the region, but the dedsians
are consistent wi#h those of the state. In Flaridar the City of Orfando ancf Orange Cvunty are
nat coardinating their planning efforts with each ather or with adjacent jurisd9ctions. However,
r 1 II
~~y 2-006 Page 18
d=VUQ1f\ConburreW2406%bS-04-2006 praft Techoiral Piemou-andum a2-5ce6nbtMJ tD SRTCLdo[ ,
Technrcal Memorandum # 2: Conrurrenry Literature ReWew
Spookane County Regional Transportalron Concurrency: A Feasibility Study
~ these jurisdictions are coordinating with other cities in Orange County and other adjacent
~ counties.
The third component of the concurrency system is the private-public cooperation. In
Montgomery County, Orange County and the City of Orlando, and Albuquerque, the private
sector took a major role in identifying the vision of the region and putting together the
implementation plan. -
The fourth component of the concurrency systems, well-dratted ordinances, was not
evaluated in great detail. Each of these regions are seen as 'managing growth rather than
trying to control it. Albuquerque and the Eastside Cities are still eariy in the process of
implementing their plans. The use of appropriate LOS standards was raised in the Eastsade
Study area of the Puget Sound Region. The Orlando/Orange County plan provides an example
of the flexibility that is found in Florida's concurrency system. lliat region has taken advantage
of the flexibility available in concurrency exception areas and DRI in Downtown Orlando and the
flexibility in Sector Plans.
O The final component is the overall political environment: In each of these regions there
is evidence of a political commitment including legal and judicial support and public support. All
of the planning processes included participation from a broad group of partiapants. One other
aspect of political commitment tliat is important is a commitment to impose sanctions for
projects that are not consistent with the concurrency requirement, which is a moratorium on
growth..11Vith the exception _of_ Montgome'ry County, Maryland, none of these regions has used
concurrency long enough to ensure that a sustained political commitment exists for the vision of
the regional growtfi plan.
In summary, the four regions described here have many of the components outlined by
DVRPC as being important in a concurrency system. All of these regions show evidence of
consistency between and among the land use plan, the transportadon plan, and the capital
improvements plan and they generally have a financially feasible plan. They all show evidence
of private-public cooperation that ensures communication of the goals of the plan, flexibility in
the means of achieving that vision and accountability for the public role in implementing the
plan. These regions have well-drafted ordinances that manage rather than control growth and
~ incorporate the details of timing of growth in the plan. Not all regions sfiow evidence of using •
May 2006 Page 19
O:VUDY\Concurrency\2006105-04-2006 DraftTecRnlcel Merrwrandum 42-Submftted to SRTCl.doc
Tethnrcal Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Literature RevlPw
Spokane County Regiona/ Tiansportation Concurrency: A Feasibi/ity Study
appropriate LOS measures.4 The polibcal environment in each of these regions is supportive of ~
the implementation of regional concurrency. Finally, the weakest link in regional concurrency is
intergovemmental coordination. In both Washington and Florida, the state and local
governments disagree on the management of roadways of the state highway system and
coordination on a regional level and between neighboring jurisdictions is not readily apparent.
A cautionary note on these results is necessary. The examples provided in this summary are a
snapshot of regional concurrency systems and these systems cannot be entirely divorced from
regional approaches to planning. Many of the regions that are recognized for their regional
governance, (e.g., Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Lexington, and Kentucicy) do not uniformfy apply
APFOs as a part of their planning process. Additionally, the question of regionalism is much
more complex than afforded by this project (see, for example, Katr, 2000)
Ultimately, this raises a related quesstion of how a region is defined and what constitutes
a regional approach to concurrency. Ls a region county-wide? Is it tfie same as the
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) used by the U.S. Census Bureau? Or, is a region simply
defined by its communities? As a partof this research, the tiered approach to growth
management in Palm Beach County was reviewed. Under this tiered system, the LOS on
~
roadway varies from one tier to=tfie other. While tfiis system provides an interesting approach -
to growth managemenf, it is not particularly innovative in its concurrency system. Two other
large counties in Florida may eventually provide examples of innovative concurrency
management sy5tem. Jacksonville/Duval County is currently incorporating exception areas into
its concurrency system and Miami-Dade County has a complex system of concurrency that also
uses a tiered approach and exception areas. . The Jacksonville/Duval County exception area is
still under review and Miami-Dade County's system is neither well-understood nor well-
documented.
Technical Memorandum 3 wi11 outline options for measuring level of service and identify their advantages and
disadvantages.
May 2006 Page ZO
D:UUDY1Conarrency\2006\05-04-20O6 DraftTecfirdcal Memorandum #2-Subml~~ted to SRTCI.doc
. Technical Memorandum # 1: Concurrency Literature Review
Spokane County Regronal Transportatron Corrcurrency: A Feaslbility Study ~ WORKS CITED
Albuquerque, City of. (2002a). Planned growth strategy sUmmary presentation. Available at:
http://www.cabq.gov/council/pdf/pgspres.pdf
Albuquerque, City of. (2002b). Planned growth strategy, section 2: Implementation pp. 168-
202. Available at: http://www.cabq.gov/council/pdf/Part2-5.pdf .
. Ben-Zadok, E., and Gale, D. E. (2001). "Innovation and Reform, Intentional Inaction, and
Tactical Breakdown: The Implementation Record of the Florida Concurrency Policy,"
Ur6an Affairs Review36, 6: 836-871.
Chapin, T. (2005). A revietN of local government concurrency practices in Florida. Available at:
http://www.fsu.edu/Ndurp/publications/workpapers/VilPS_05-OS_Chapin.pdf
City of Orlando Planning and Development Bureau. (2005).- Southeast sector plan: Vision
statement. Available at:
http://www.cityoforfando.net/planning jdeptpage/sesp/sespvisi.htm
Cohen, J. (2005). Findings=from case studies of local' adequate public fadlities ordinance
implementation°in N.' Central Maryland (October 24). Available at:
http://www.smartgrowth. umd:ed u/pdf/NorttiCentralAPFOs. ppt
DeGrove, J._M: 1992. Planning and Growth Management in the States. Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy: Cambridge, MA:_
Delaware Valley-- Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). (2002). Managing growth:
Infrastructure concurrency implementation barriers and ways to overcome them.
Downs, A. 2003. Why Florida's concurrency principles (for controlling new development by
regulating road' construction) do not - and cannot - tNOrk efFectively. Transpartabon
Quarterly57, 1: 13-18.
ECONOrthwest and tlie Trasnspo Group, Henderson, Young & Company, Winterbrook Planning .
Services and Parametrix. (2002). Clark County Concurrency Summary. Avail~ble atia~
Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 91-5.50055 Available at:
~ http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/stafiutesruleslegis/index.cfim
Page 21
D:\IUDY~GoncurnencyV006k05-04-2006 Dcaft Tedttdc.al Memorarvfum #2-Submltted tD SRTCl.doc
Technfca/ Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Liferature ReviPw
Spookane CoUnty Regronal Transportab"on Concurrency., A Feasibilrty Study
Florida Departrnent of Community Affairs (FDCA) Division of Community Planning. (2006).
Optional sector plans. Available at: ~---~J
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/optionalsectorplans/index.cfm
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Systems Planning Office. (1998). Sibe impact
handbook. Available at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/siteimp/sihandbook.htm
Florida Statutes Annotated (FSA) Available at: -
htqp://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index. cfm?stafiuteyear=2004&tab=statutes&submenu
=1
Freilich, R. H. (2003). Drafting and implementing a smart growtfi plan. Presentation to the
. Dane County, Wisconsin. Available at:
http://www.daneplan.org/ppt/20030930 freilich:,_presentation.ppt#257;1,Dane County,
Wisconsin Drafting And Implementing A Smart Growth Plan
Freilich, R. H. (2004). Blueprint for good grov+rtii. Presentation to the Boise City Club
November 17, 2004. Available at:
http://www.blueprintforgoQdgroKth.com/PDFs/city%20club%20workshop_111704.ppt#
256,1,Boise City Club November 17, 2004-_
Hallenbeck, M. E., Carlson, D:, and Simmons, J. (2003). The possibilities of transportation
concurrency:Proposal and evaluaaon of ineasurement altematives. University of
.
Washington, Seatde. Available at:
http://depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/report.html
Katz, Bruce (ed.). (2000). Reflections on Regionalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Knapp, G., Cohen, and Bento, A. (2003). Adequate public facilities ordinances in Maryland:
Prevalence, practice and policy efFects. Available at:
http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/pdf/APF03Ps.ppt#264,1,ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILI7Y
ORDINANCES IN MARYLAND: Prevalence, Practice, and Policy Effects.
Levinson, D. (1997). The limfts to growth management: Development regulation in
Montgomery County, Maryland. Environment and Planning B.• Planning and Design 24:
689-707.
Page 22
D:IJUDY~Conarrr2ncy\20D6\05-042006 Draft Technlcal Memaandtt,m S2-Submltted Co SRTCl.do[ •
Technrcal Memorandum # 1: Concurrency Literature Review
Spokane County Regional Transportah"on Concurrency: A Feasibility Study
~ Montgomery County Departrnent of Parks and Planning (MCDPP) (2005). Growtfi policy
worksession 3: Approval activity under the new growth policy, devefopment pressure on
the agricultural re5erve, and the boundaries of the Governor policy area. Available at:
http://%v%vw.mc-mncppc.org/development/agp/2005%ZOpolicyrtem 1_092205_opt.pdf
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. (2005). Adequate public facilities
ordinances in Maryland: An analysis of their implementation and effects on residential
development in the Baltimore metropolitan area. A Report for the Home Builders
Association of Maryland (]anuary 12). Available at:
htkp://www.smartgrowth. u md.edu/resea rch/pdf/Cohen_APFOBaltimore_041906. pdf
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. (2006). Adequate public facilities in
Maryland: Inappropriate use, inconsistent standards, unintended consequences. A report
yland and the.Maryland National
prepared for the Home Builders Association_of Ma_r
Capital Building Industry Association _(April 20). Available at:
http://www. smartgrowtfi . umd.edu/research/pdf/NCSG_APFOMa ryland_041906. pdf
Powell, D. L. (1993). Managing Florida's growtli: The next generation. florida State University
a Law Reutew, 21: 223-339.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). (2003). Implementing 2030 DESTINATION monitoring
regional progress: Assessing the effectiveness of concurrency: Fnal Report. Seattle,
Washington: Puget Sound Regional Council. Available at:
http:%/www.psrc.org/projects/growth/concu r/con currencyfinal. pdf
Steiner, R. and Davis, K. (2004). Can cities and counties get along? Lessons from the
implementation of transportation concurrency in Florida and Washington State.
Presented at the Access to Destinations Conference in Minneapolis, NiN in November
2004.
Steiner, R. L. (2001). Florida's transportation concurrency: Are the current tools adequate to
meet the needs for coordinated land use and transportation?" University ofFlolYda
loumal of Law and Public Policy 12, 2, pp. 269-297.
Steiner, R. L., Wright, S. A., Paul, J. B., with assistance from Karen Kolinski, Angie Perez, and
Alice N. Bojanowski. (2000). Travel in new urbanist and traditional communities: A case
~
Page 23
0:uUDYlConcurtencA2006W5-04-2006 OraR TecNntcal Memwrandum #2-Submll*.ed to SRTCl.doc!
Technical NPemorandum # 2: Concurrency Literatrire Review
Spokane County Regional Transportation Concurrency.• A Feasibi/ity Study
study of downtown Orlando. Prepared for the Florida Department of Department of
Transportation Office of Policy Planning under Contract BC-354-15. ~..~'Testerman, C., and Torres, A.B. (2004). Horizon West, Orange County Rorida. Teriain.org: A
.Iournal ofthe Builtand NaturalEnvironment. Issue No. 14 (Winter/Spring). Available
at: http://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/14/
Transportation and Land Use Study Committee. (1999). Fnal Report of the TransQortation and
Land Use Study Comm'rttee.
Trohimovich, T. (2001). Current issues in growth management/land use and transportation:
The "new cities" experience. Chapter Three/C. Prepared for 1000 Friends of
Washington, Seatlle, WA. http://depts.washi ngton.edu/trac/concurrency/pdf/trohimovich-b. pdf
White, M. S. (1996). Adequate public facilities ordinances and transportation Management.
Planning Advisory Services Report Number 465. Cliicego, IL: American Planning
Association.
White, M. S., and Paster, E. L. (2003). Creating effective land use regulations through
concurrency. Natu4 ResourcesJouma143, 3: 753-79. ADDITIONAL ftEFERENCES
Arline, T: K. (1998). Primer on Florida's growth management system. Paper delivered August
1998 at Smart Growth Conference in Atlanta by Legal Director of 1000 Friends of
Florida. Available at: http://www.state.fl.us/fdi/fscc/news/state/9804/fgme.htm
Audirac, I., O'Dell, W., and Shermyen, A. (1992). Concurrency management systems in Florida:
A catalog and analysis. Monograph 7. Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Florida.
Boggs, H. G., and Apgar, R. C. (1991). Concurrency and growth management: A lawyer's
primer. Joumal oFLand Use and Environmental Law, 7: 1-27.
Cervero, R. (2000). Growing smart by linking transportation and urban development. Virginia
Environmental LawJoumal, 19: 357-374. ,
I\ J
Page 24
O:VUDY\Corrcurrency\2006tU5-04-2006 DraR Techn(caI hfemarandum #Z-Submitttad Oo SRTC1.doc
Technfcal Memorandum # 1: Concurrency Literature Revrew
Spokane Counly Regrona/ Transportab'on Concurrency: A Aaasibrlify Study
~ City of Orlando Downtown Strategic Transition Team. (2003). Downtown Orlando: 20-point
J strategic implementaaon team. Available at:
http://www.cityoforlando.net/planningJTransportation/documents/20_points.pdf .
Dawson, M. (1996). The best laid plans: The rise and fall of growth management in Florida.
.Iouma/ of Land Use and Enuironmenta/ Law, 11(2). Available at:
www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/112.hbnl
Downs, A. (2004). Still stuck in traffic: Coping with peak-hour tra ffic congestion. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institute.
Durden, B., Layman, D., and Ansbacher, S. (1996). Waiting for the go: Concurrency, takings
and property rights act. Nova Law Review, 20(2): 661-682. -
Environmental Land Management Study Committee, State of Florida (ELMS). (1992). Building
successful communities: Fnal report. Tallahassee, FL State of Florida (December).
Eustis, M. (1993). Between Scylla and Charybdis: Growth management act implementation
that avoids takings and substantive due process limitations: Puget Sound Law Reurew,
~ 16: 1181-1221. -Ewing, R. (2000). Florida s growth management leaming curve. Virginia Env?ronmental Law
Journal, 19: 375-392.
Florida Department of_Transportation (FDOT) Systems Planning Office. (1992). 1992 Level of
Service Handbook: -Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Systems Planning Office. (2002). 2002
Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Available at:
hitp://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/QLOS2002Novweb.pdf
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Systems Planning Office. (2003). Multimodal
Transportation Districts and Areawide Level of Service Handbook. Available at:
http: //t%rww. dot.state.fl . us/planni ng/systems/sm/los/pdfs/M MAreawideQ051211.pdf
Florida Departrnent of Transportabion (FDOT). Systems Planning Oifice. (1998). 1998 Level of
Service Handbook. Available at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Planning/Systems/sm/los/981os.pdf
J
Page 25
0:%]UDY\ConcurrenK,W006W5-04-2006 DraR Techntcal Me[swrandum #2-Submitied to SR'PCl.doc
Tecfinical Memorandum -,f 2: Concurrency Literature Review
Spokane County Reglona/ Transportation Concurrency: A Feasibility Study
. Florida's Growth Management Study Commission (FGMSC). (2001). A livable Florida for today
and tomorrow. Available at: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/growth/pdf/gmsc.pdf
Freilich, R. H. (1993). Economic development and public transit: Making the most of the
Washington growth management act. Puget Sound Law Review, 16: 949-973.
Freilich, R. H., and White, S. M. (1991). Trarrsportation congestion and growth management:
Comprehensive approaches to resolving America's major quality of life crisis. Loyola
Law Review, 24: 91570.
Gale, D: (1992). Eight state-sponsored growth management programs: A comparative analysis.
Journal ofthe American Planning Associatr'on, 58(5). '
Guttenplan, M., Davis, B., Steiner, R. L., and Miller, D.- (2003). Planning level areawide multi- modal level of service (LOS) analysis: Performance measures for congestion
management. Transportation Research Record'1858.'-61-68.
Guttenplan, M., Landis, B. W., Grider, L., and _McLead, D. S. (2001). Multimodal level of service
(LOS) analysis at a planning level. Florida:departrnent of transpartation (FDOI0, TRB
Paper No. 01-3084.
Hall, R. (1990). Everythi.ng you wanted to know about transportation level of service. Proceedings of The Florida Bar Continuing Education Committee, the Environmental and
Land Use and Local Government Law Section, Course No. 6846. Land Use Contlicts:
Remedies and Enforcement.• 7-1- 7.12.
Hialeah; City -of. (2004). Concurrency management system. Report prepared by Tiie
Corradino Group. Jacicsonville, City of. (1998). Development agreement between the City of Jacksonville and
Arthur Chester Skinner,. III, eta/. (September 2).
Kelly, E. D. (1993). Managing community growth: Policies, techniques, and impacts. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Layman, D. M. (1997). Environmental and land use law: Concurrency and moratoria. The
F/orida BarJoumal, 71: 49-53.
Lincks, T. F. (1990). Transportation considerations. Proceedings of Florida bar environmental
and land use la+nr section. Mechanics ofZoning and Land Use LarY 1.1- 1.20.
~
Page 26
b:1JUD1'1Concurrencyti2005ti,05-04-2006 DrdR Tedinlcal Memocandum #2-Submi:ted to SRTCl.doc
Technrca/ Memorandum # 2: Concurrency Literature Review
Spokane County Regfonal Transportation Corrcurrenry: A Feasibility Study
~ Marshall, J. T. (2002). Special series: New urbanism and smart growth: Florida's downtowns:
`-J The key to smart growtfi, urban revitalization, and green space preservation. Fordham
University Scfiool of La w, 29: 1509-1527.
McKay, P. S. (1989). Capital improvements planning in Fiorida. Chapter III in Barbara
Brumback and M.J. Marvin (eds). Imp/ementadon of ffie 1985 Growth ManagementAct:
From Planning to Land Dreve%pment Regulations Fort Lauderdale, FL: Florida Atlantic
University/Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban
Problems, Monograph #89-1, pp. 39-53.
Merrill, W., III. (1990). Implementing comprehensive plans through local land development
regulations. Proceedings of the Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee and
the Environmental and Land Use Law Section, the Local Government Law Section Course
No. 7013 R Loca/ Land Qeve%pment Regulabons: Issues and Ideas 3.1. - 3.19.
Metr, S. W. (1991). An overview of growth management: Where we are/where we have been.
Proceeding of the Conference on Growth Managemenf for bhe 19105: Leyal Problems
and Practica/ Solutions: 1.1 - 1.32.
O Miami Beach, Gity of. (2000).. Transportation concurrency management areas. Report prepared by the Corradino Group.
Murphy, M. (1996). Property rights and growth management in Florida: Balancing opportunity and responsibility in a changing political climate. Pace Envrronmenta/LawReview, 14:
269-321. - .
Nicholas, C. and Steiner, R. L. (2000). Smart growth and sustainable development in
Florida. Wake Fiorest Law Repiew, 35(3): 645-670.
Pelham, T. 1992. Adequate public facilities requirements: Reflections on Florida's concurrency
system for managing growth. Florida State Unrversity Law Reuiew, 19: 974-1053.
Pelham, T. 2001. Restructuring Florida's growth management system: Atternative approaches
to plan implementation and concurrency. University of Florida Joumal of Law and Public
Policy, 12(2): 299-310.
Porter, D. R. (1993). State growth management: The intergovernmental eacperiment. Pace
Law Review, 13: 481-503. ,
J
Page 27
D:UUpYlConcu:rency12006105-04-2006 DraftTedtinical Memorandum #2•SuGerdtted iu SRTCl.doc
Technical 149emorandum # 2: Concurrency Uteratzire Revrew
Spokane County Reglona/ Transportatron Concurrency: A Feasibilily Study
Powell, D. L. (1994). Recent changes in concurrency. The Florida State BarJoumal, 68: 671
Powell, D. L. (2001). Growth management: Florida's past as prologue for the future. Florida
State University Law Review, 28: 519-542.
Rhodes, R. M. (1991). Concurrency: Problems, practicalities, and prospeds. JoumalofLand
Use and Environmental Law, 6: 241-254.
Rhodes, R. M. (1991). Concurrency - A practical perspective. Proceeding of the Conference by
the Florida Bar Environmental and Land Use Law Section on Growth Management for fhe
19905: Legal Prob/ems and Practica/ So/ub`ons.
Roberts, T. N. (1986). Capital improvements programming sfter the growtti managernent act:
A planner's perspettive. Chapter IX in Jofin-M.- DeGrove and Julian Conrad
Juergensmeyer (eds.), Perspectives on Florrda's' Growth NlanagementAct of 1985
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Monograph #89-5. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute,
pP. , 1-7 -
Robertson, C. A. (1996). Concurrency and its=relation to:gr.owtli'management. Nova Law .
Reuiew, 20(2): 891=917. 2-==
Sakowi¢, J. C. (2004). Urban sprawl: Florida's and Maryland's approaches. JoumalofLand
Use and Environmenta/ Law, 19: 337-424.
Siemon, C. L-:~ (1986). 1Miat goes around, comes around. Cliapter IX in John M. DeGrove and
]uliarr Conrad Juergensmeyer (eds.), Perspectives on Flolida's Growth ManagementAct
of1985. _ Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Monograph #89-5. Gambridge, MA: Lincoln
Institute, pp: Steiner, R. (1999). Concurrency management: Florida's example. Transportation Research •
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1685: 181-86.
Steiner, R. (forthcoming). Transportation concurrency: An idea before its time? Chapter 7 in C.
Conneriy, T. Chapin, and H. Higgins (eds.), Regulalrng Development in the Sunshine
State: EvaluaGng Florrda's Growth ManagementApproach. Ashgate Publishing.
Steiner, R. L., Bond, A., Miller, D., and Shad, P. (2004). Future directions for multimodal
areawide level of service handbook Research and Development. Prepared for tlie
Page 28
O:VUDY\Coamurrcrvc,A2006\05-Q4-2005 DraR 7ecfin6nl Memoranttum #2-Submltted to SRTCl.doc
Tethnrcal Memorandum # Z: Concurrenry Literature Revlew
S,aokane County Regiona/ Transportadan Concurr2ncy: A Feasibility Study
~ . Florida Department of Transportafion Office of Systems Planning under contract # BC-
~ 35478. Steiner, R. L., and Miller, D., writh assistance from Karen Kolinski. (2002). Muftimodal quality of
- service, part II: Areawide level of service (induding the Gainesville case study).
Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning under
Contract No. BC-354, RPW028, July 2002. Incorporated into Appendix of "Multimodal
Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook" available at:
http://www.dot.state.fl. us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf
Steiner, R. L., and Waterman, J. ~ al, (1999). The impact of concurrency management and the
Florida growth management act on transportation investments. P~epared for the Florida
Department of Transportation Department of Policy Planning under Contract No. 6B-
866.
Steiner, R. L., Li, I., Shad, P., and Brown, M. B. (2003). Muftimodal trade-off analysis in traffic
impact studies. Prepared for the Florida Departrnent oUTransportation Ot~ice of Systems
Pfanning (May). Available at:
~ http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systemsJsm/los/pdfs/mmtradeoff.pdf
U. S. Departrnent of TransQortation Federal Highway Administration. (2005). Transportation ,
Sfllutions Conference_Proceedings.
Walsh, Thomas M. 1993. The concurren'cy requirement of the Washington State growth
management act. PugetSound LavrReview, 16: 1025-1057.
Weaver, R. L.'(2000). Environmental and land use law: A vision of the future of Florida land
use law. The F/orida BarJoumal, 74: 91-95.
Weaver, R. L. (2001). Concurrency, concurrency alternatives, infrastructure, planning and regional solution issues. Joumal ofLaw and Public Poli% 12: 172~~ G~7.
Weaver, R. L., Hanna, J. E., Carraway, C. B., Craine, 6., and Smith, D. M. (1990). Everything
you wanted to know about transportation level of service, proceedings of the Florida bar
continuing education committee, the environmental and land use and local government law secction. Land Use Contlicts: Remedies and Enforcement, 7-1- 7.12.
Weaver, R., Hanna, J., Smolker, D., Carraway, C., and Craine, B. (1989). It's a mad, mad,
mad, mad, mad, world. Proceedings of The Florida Bar Continuing Education Committee
Page 29
D:1lUDY~Concurrenc,A2406\05-04-2UU6 Draft Tethnlcal Memorandum #2-Submitted to SRYU.doc
Tcachnlca/ Memorandum # Z: Concurrenry Literature Review
Spokane Gounty Regional Transportation Concurrency: A Feasibility Study
and the Environmental and Land Use and LQCaI Govemment Law Section of Every Which ---,1
Way But Loose: Concurrency Revrsited. Course No. 6639.
Ziegler, E. H. (2003). Urban sprawl, growth management and sustainable development in the
United States: Thoughts on the sentimental quest for a new middle landscape. ~irginia
Joumal of Social Policy and the La w, 11: 26-65
. ;
Page 30
D:UUDYtiConairrerucy\2006\05-04-2005 D2ft Tedsnlcal Memrandum `2-Subcsidttad to SRTCl.doc
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
N information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending IegislaCion
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Biglow Gulch
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Ross Kelley, Spokane County Engineer, will give a presentation of the
County's Biglow Gulch road project.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENTS
CI1`Y OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 . City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information [9 admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Traffic, Traffic Lights and Speed Limit Discussion
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Presentation/Discussion at Council's June 6, 2006
meeting '
BACKGROUND: Council has requested an overview of several traffic issues. The following
information will be presented:
1) Elements of the model traffic ordinance and standard manuals for traffic engineering.
. 2) The process for establishing speed limits, and current efforts to update the speed limits in the
County Code as adopted by the City.
3) Explanation of traffic signal warrants.
4) The process used to coordinate traffic signals and current efforts to improve coordination
within the City.
5) Options for school speed zoning and Central Valley's request to switch from "when children
are present" to a time-of-day sign.
OPTIONS:
None. .
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council direction on scope or changes of any traffic .
related issues.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Worlcs Director; John Hohman, Senior Engineer;
Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE 11ALLEY
Request for Council Action .
Meeting Date: June S. 2006 Ctty Manager Sign-off-
Item: Check a Ir that a pply- ❑ con sent old business [I new business public hearing
❑ information ~ acimtn, repor# 0 pending legislation
AGENDA [TEM TITLE: 'Brnadway Re-s#riping Update
GOVEFtNI[VG LEGlSLATION: NJA .
PRE1fIOUS COllNCIL ACTEOhf TAFCEN: PresentationJDiscussion at CounciPs May 'iG, 20136
meeting
BACICGRDUND: Council has fequested additional Enformatian on the po#ent€a1 re-strkping of
Broadway. 7he following information will be presented- .
- 'l) Impact to LOS and concurrency by changing signal phasing.
2) Impact on Sprague-Appleway s#udp if Broadway is changed.
3) Hfstoric traffic caunts on iViissiorr and other arkerials, 4) Cost to madify signals to spfit phasing if left as 4-lane_
5} InstallatEOn of signal at BroadwaylPragress.
OPTIONS:
None_
ftECOMMENDED ACTION OR MO1"JON: Nane.
BUDGETlFINANC«#L fMPACT& None.
STAFF CONTACT: Neij Kersten, Public 1Norks Director; Steve Worley, Senior Engineer;
fnga N o#e, senior Traffic Engineer
ATTACHhflEhlFS-
.
i
' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Q Request for Council Ac#ion
M ee#ing Date: June fi, 2006 City Manager Sign-off,
Item: Check all that apply: ED cansent ❑olcf business ❑ new business El public hearing
M information ❑ admin. report ❑ pencfing legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 1lalley Corridor Discussion -
GOVERhfING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACT[ON 7A1{EN:
BACKGROUfVD: Staf# will facilitate a general discussion af issues regarding Spokane County's
~ railroad right-of-way from Universaty Road to the east boundary of the City.
OP71ONS:
RECON1MENDED ACTION OR MOTEON: .
BUDG ETfFl NANC IAL I MPAC TS:
S7AFF CONTACT; Neil Kersten
ASTACHiUIENTS Presen#ation
~
~F ♦ •tJ~w.'~~ ~YI~'R?+ J . ~ . . iix~ K nf~."~"MT~ :r~Tx ~ w
• ..r 3i. ~ « • f 7~ Xi~ I ~ `5::~«4:
, , .t, y.w.~'" ~ ais~ss•~•x~~~~. c t ' • ~ . :~:~..M~;~3;: c.zs='.~wa~~~~
4 ~"7~3lO S~Nar~~ _ . . w.Ly,~. ~j ,i ..,'~~....y~.~.~, x,~y+„
k , ~~M~ ~ • ~ • ,I~~
~~M .~r~ ~'o," ~,.t r.w. ~~"?~."'e`x µiQ ..37i7~~'.L.1r"'•.w»~ ~"~C7~~~~ "~.CC.<«'~"»:«.%: ~ «.w.. :'~q ~ s
r~ • ~
~--r Lt • ~:.,...W.~, 7• ~ Mw.-~Srr.~ . .
r. ~I .T.i ».C~~~~S.....^,~ tJC'~3 ~55..^'~ . ~ , R. ~t ~L~S . w
G'•~ ...i~~~~"''~~~f'".' 1b"..,~ . ~ ......w.~. ~.,..~.....»...z~~.
~ 17 T~d~ ~ , ' i~S~F~'.7.;.~~''r"x"•~'~"iS , °
~"r ~ : -~,-,;,r`~;~ ~Sw = I. '..~v'~,'~, ~ ~~'""„~:Sa' ,..,.,~:~a""'"""" v~~..~~'r~..:x^~.s,~~,~~~~i.>
. N . M:,^~in:~r• ~ , ~ ~ ^ «..»r............o..,. ..a
.a^,~,~.~ +1~~'~~- i..^i .~C`~~ ~ts:Yir•IL.L.{vn.s:r{ ..3'~ • • ,~»'Y.:.~.. ~ ~3..fi. 'k~`t°°r~ t ~
.;Di ^ f """.:^~f~~ . ~°::~2s :'S; w..^;,~:,'"'f~e'w'7~'~3~"~ ~ lSD+`•tM'~w•„w..j,~"'~wr~L~~-7•~ .
p i '~ax ~;:s:•..,~
=~.~:~c ~ • a----- -M«--,..
r ,.,~,.."i~ :G;i~:isA.~' ~~:r«::Y_ w'.~!~:M.'~ - ~ ^ ~ .
{ ~ `q.~J:i ry^"17:SSii•~~ , ~M ie y. ~r'•"".aQ^'^"'""^ '""•`iRi~awS:..
• ~ r't~;~ -.fi.~~ ~ ~~'i.1~'~'1',•',..•`?~li:~:=~US' . ~''"'w.~..' h«..,..« ~ ~ F~ ~
~
, a •;+;;`s v' ';~~~:i,Y.`~'~~ ~r='~ ~ •~s;;:tx :i.'~5-:-^-:•`E . Z;i:;~'J:.c~i . T' ?il~~x~:E»~~~~~Si.r".~.CC.~ '7x'"ti~~EE~
~ ~t ~ ~ ~;~c ~ ; < ! "~s; i'~,~ .~s~..a,..,a,:;.-s:..^^ ti~ ~~~~~..~.t~.,~ ...r~,;....
p~ c ~ .:L3:i:! ~1".,..~...%3~...: •i rr. ~e.e;,.~.r1_»^~ N~'~~"v~ir
y , ••Ji~''~i:~^.~1:~'Si::.%I'.'.:R` C«:i.' ~ :Z
»a iz;s'~» ~::rr:~- s~ i~.:• - ,:x~cz.........~....., t~.:_~r,.^:a:~xui" "s~
v" ' %~E+v~i?'='~i~°.i-:s~a.~:~^1' r ;"'s«'i:s:~:sa.s~~• Z.yc.'-s.
",i , + ...~..'<z ~~~'u. : ~C .7';' ' :.t: 's•• _ . L 1'.~`~~'"
~ ~ w1' ~ ~ ' ^ ~ ~ i~ytti Sl~r't~~Ss: t~+';iS~t?1?•^'~3~ _
Lj
' ~ klP'^7~ V ~i~ "*'^=K"~S b ~"'.t 1~ . T~•
~ ^ is`~'Sr ~ . ' "S'~a;.~E~.''S. : ti .~U'~.:w~ .r, ~~.w r • ` ~,.y,~ ' .
~ M j ~ ~ ~ }
. , • _ - ~r
_..~;~,~,•x..
~'yp ~ w +N rt~~~ M~„ ~w+ ' . ..0~ , , ' ~M~ s
r 4
.n...~`~"~'~.w.vs~ws..~w. . t ` . . . e"
wC°e~•~~~~ ~ ~n.iL.... u..~ ~ ~ ~ «w
~ ^ ~ r„~,~ ~.w....+ ~ `Y~ ~2 V • 1 . a = .Y5^.._
. ( • ~w ~MM M ~ ~ .
V ` F AI/t ^ t 1~ Y~'~ Ct' ~ • ~ ~i1+~~ 1 NITY~M~YNS~
i:~1 " ~E ~ ?4 ~ ir:~~;: v : H y • ~ • Z
• o' •~.1. ~ " rv . . ~ .1 ~~Ib`:G:Ce.jw~•' ` ~ 5 .....w... .,.T.
~ w> ;r. '•,rr-'Y i' 17:
~
Y ~ • ~ ` ~
1~ 1t''~" ~.1 ~M' ~t ; •t--~e~_ ,j;yl r
..~H~~~~ . , j~ ~ ~ ' .+rx ...a..a...u"~'. :r~''*~~*~..~..,. ~~7G. ~__~r•w~ _
, ~ , ` ? ~~r•,.~«o
~~'•T..,:«.- .~.W +[7~:.." ' ; ' . . R ' . • 'i.J.,,~;s '4 ~ ' r ~i~~' • wa
FUURE ES TRACK
TRACK 58' FtQW . L
14~ 7
r
ROW 2V
C-A
~ r
i ~
~ r
. - \
1
` i
0
w~ ~ •Af ri~ .A ~ • • '
i,EH✓pY ~ • ~ ~{q ^ d ~
• ' ~ f
iIODOYO ` _ , ~Y• 1
~ • O" 1[~MtO }q
f~ Np ~:<r~.y~yy~~ ~ • , rt.MtA ~ C< ~jV w ~`Ij>^S ` .F" '
i. > ~Ai[' • • ! : • ~ ~ . TMM71 b ~~~pet
. .w n~g ~ f Y0✓AN' ~i '~Yy ~ Y
f y;p .
~ s~ ~p ~ ~ S.• ♦
a « ~e.ri.ns
ti~.vO.:~ •K ~a% ~ o~ V L3S .
f riy.. S~ .
~ • '~~~b ~ N • ~ ~~r <e 1 ' v i ' ~ . ♦
~ a t ' ' ~ ..l. ( •
x ~ ' e
► :;wY~x~4 ~ ~4 « ~=i. ` F~. • ` ' : ! n
~
<e wHl.vvO~~r>• ~ 44• -•'t viMl
~>~i> %'AOYC! .
~iNwe/+Y~-~YYM'~y~'
.
^~lF~~I•^ - ~
A
M' A• 5. ~ rtlV' J ..f. a
~ pY r
; fOd~ ~11 w,
s e -
.VK~~ . .,,s~ > -
$ ' ,S.' ` 4• ~
.~.e«
oc sK aw ♦ - . ~ ♦ v~• ' • a
• L< .o vwr S ~ = i~: 1
•oa,i ~ •R~~ ♦
M M pQ
~'"~f_V~ * ' • . .~h{ ~9 f W n ~ % ~>R~p~wt'.p<~~0y ~<t
7.~e0.lV 'e""`.M ~ . 1 wAwA~ 8.►LM~w'
~ • ' v r.'. a.wre,'°°r~ ~ob~~';f~.:.. ' ' ~•~~523~ SPaCES ~ .~•°.~..+r~~.ww
~ . .ee~ ~ ~ V a,.~«>u:~~~erec
. }
.w~." e« • r~oe?a...w... a~ i ~Y w.wes~~e~....
~ ,.E.. ~ :~i.x.~.~.-K•>•
...._F
~ lCN~lOqfow~axowa~c ~a's~+~ e M.t.jpOW ~ M~pp~y~tl . ~ 1 .
b~► awee a ~wM6`4~seY'.. 'MN '.-./v.~... . ~~~>v♦
y6ui s~ iwva»pxe _,_~m~.-•~ <
• ~M ~v
♦ MMw~w 1 < ~:.:%t v ~ ♦
{!K y~ > A >
~ e ' M ~ t t w\)w. I~'i yG.
~ti V, ~~q'~K` ~i ♦ l vm ::O>. !.A :f ~ i>'~;:IJ
.,olk ee?-b!, . ' . . > ~'r{,,~, . ~ :i • ,
L~ ~YdViiYV~ <<e~ 'T,y ~~.~'.~i~.~.t~',• »
K
P ~
b~~ < ~ w...r ~•+w..v w » e . ~'<n<,x ~ ..e~M~c MA.~
♦ ~ ' q Z~se,,.
~ aaoa~r n w~ba^e~+~~w ,7. , t • ~
•a s
WU
pto1•
Es
v~►RAE~ t2
. TRACK
14•
7`
„~r-.--
~t1E~ 3, `25~ - ~ . *
.
~
;
' ' rt;i r . ~ • ~ . ~l~1 ~ 1 r„~~,
' , ^ . ~ ~ . t~~~ , ,
~'IT~'at'`11'ii~ ' ~►a ' ~E~, ; - - r' ' ' , ~ ~ . t ~ . ~ A+~~,~
~1 I~~~~ "tifir~ ,r~'~ '•-~M,. • ~ i ' ~ ~ i
IN, " ~ ~r+ ~ ~ )I
7:'
~ V F 1~~j.~a ~ ~t•w . , , _ _ • I
1",~All ~1 . i~ i •r~.' ~ .
1 , • ~ ~ ~ I ~ -
.
~r
`~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i ,iI '
- - ^ - ~ ~ - , ~ ~P~ ~ :.~a .i 1 ~
R/W R/w
t oo'
72' ~ 28'
~
- ~ ~
12' 6' 10' 2' 12' 11' - 12' 5' - 2' 10'
Pn 1 F 1 91Kk r--~~1--.\ ~
LANE
nr
~ t~I~.H CAPACJTY TRANSI7
1./1NE TION TQ
PI~G
,AN1.~SCAPING 0 " tyt'1~~~r~~ ~ 7LO407CA
A .f•ILl D,{u~iAce ~~r~t; •.~,ir~ cL
O_tlT CIITt~l~r^_'f~'iK 111I -1_INNL!_:ir•~Iwl)NU
„
~i:v vt `pGk~7nc. V~Iliy Orawn Fly. 's'JS
,
GiE!partrnenl o( Pul,lic Works VP1LLLY URR fD UR I'RU. ~.l,T Ddte: C*L26
~ ~,^7 F Sprague Avt. Suite 108 CONCEP1uAL CHOSS-SEC11tiN WI tri I.RT $CALE
>Ni_m l~t;i VALLEY, WA. 99206 EiIAltE PrAJ fU EYP.C,H:U•4 RLIAG HORIZfXJTAL N/A
i ~110` 921-1000 VFI?TiCNt NNIN,
L: L
Am ~ C} M ~ h ~ y
;•i
}l l~ • ~ N ~t I
t t~f v 1r ! IJiI, M ` f~ ~
L ~ (~w ' ~ • • c - • •W:'
r { " ~ • , ' ~ 1~1 . 1
~ _ ~ ,,d • . . - . • . ~ 1 t••
I'i- ~ c' • r ~ ~ ~
0: y ~ 1
L~
:
- f• a, ~f~ ~ i ~r/ir~"•M~~-yA _ ~ j
IL~+~
+ w ~ - ~ ~ ~:l :.r , ~ • ~
u~'Y j~~1~ ; ' .t.~~~ 'x ~ y ' ~ ~1 •~r . . ~i
a& A I _r
- i 28'
- ~ _
10. 2., 12' • ' 12' 5' 2• 10, .Y. _
BIKE
,f LAIVE
~ -
~
a 'y I
" ~ ,
_ I_AN[ COIJFIGiIRA710N i,`)
8`t DETERMINEO L d%CAPING
URAINAGL At
i`y Of $pOkqfle VOlley vrawn by: 5J5
~,~~;:~Jrtment at Public Work.s `'V~nLLCl` ;;Or'RIDGR PF;c_1JECT
Qate: 05 0+-
t. Sprogue Ave. 5uite 106 CONCEPIUAL CR05S-SECFION N7Tii LRi SCAL~
_ ~l.i{ANC V,'LLEY WA. 99206 RO.AG TO SULUVAld ROnD HlYfl
.7.f0NiC~put,L
tI ^~~~~4 • ~ . ~ J,~ ~}c ' tr~, _ r ..y
~ ~ ~fil:v' i~ ~ .l ~ ~ . ' ~ ~~•`~h~tr'' .~„~1~~' ~ ~ ~
h ~ . t•• ' ~ r ~i ( y~ 1~ - ~ ~i~.
t , r ~ I 3t ~ . . . _ a~ .a - - ' ( ~ J ! •J ~1.~ 4 1r ' ` ~ y . ~ _
~~:~~-~~4. ~.i l.♦ ~.i ~,..~p~ .~i
~ ~ "Z . . • - - ~ • t~ ~ . ' ~ ..~~r._ . 1'~.• ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ -
~ j C , rt' ~ 1
' ~ ' ~ • ' , ~ -A
_ ` I ' ~ , , ~ I ~ ~
.
- ~ ~ ti - ~ , S+• _ r~ • s ;
~ ~ , lA ~1(~ f~~~ .
. ~ ~~~~1~•V. ~ 1. . f 1 f~~
I~//`~
- ~ • I
10' 17' • 11' ~ 12 5' 2' 10'
PATH dIKE ^ 1
~
LANE rqp, F)p
; rili.;li CAPACIT'f iRAhJ511
U1NE Cah1FiGURAl10N TO NQ, t ANQ~CAPI Dr DETI:RMINED
rr C?
A,NG GI~AtNAG
i•_nT aAn ml:e/a+ mc u.-' tasaae_D_s•fa.. nM
_11y Of .i~).r.'~i.71"1E= aIIB'y~ ~ ~ GrOM7l By 3~a~Z. ~EET
C ~J
LlcpartmeriR o( Public Warics VN~LI" l,U, f~f~IL JR I'~(~~,~ ~JEC i Dal6: qV26106
t- -!i_•7 E. Sprogue Avo. 5uite 106 CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SEC7IUN W11H LK1' SCALE -
_,f-'i.Yr`•ANE VALLEY. WA. 99: UG STE£N IiO.AD Tt7 5UL11vA14 KilAD MOftIZONTAI.: nt
: ~r-rTJrai -
r
C I'Z`Y OF SPOK.ANE VA.LL:EY
Request for Council Action Necting Date: June 6, 2006 City Mstnager Sign-off:
.T.tern: Cheek aIl that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearin-,
information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGFNDA ITEM T11LE: Time-Warner fiber nptic franchise
GOVE•Ri~TNG LEGISL,ATION: RCW 35A.47.040
PREVIOUS COUNCTL ACTION TAEEN: Presented to the Cotuicil as au information only
item on May 23, 2006. BACKGROUND: StaFF was contacted in 2005 by Time-`Varner Telecom of Washington (Time-
Warner) about uegotiating a franchise ap-eement whereby Tune-Warner could place fiber optic
cable in the City right-of-way (ROW). .
In the course vf the negotiations, I had numerous ciiscussions 'with the staff attorney about
ciifferent provisions in the proposed fi-anchise agreement I sent them. Thc draft I sent was, in
essencc, a copy of what had been adopted for OneEighty, Columbia and EMA►1 Networks.
13ased on oiir discussions, I took a very close look at the language. Baseci on somc conunents by
Time-`Varner's attorney, and based in part on my awn analysis, there are some proposed changes
to what staff has previously presented to yoti as the forni fiber franchise agreemenl.
To avoid confusion, I will identify each subseantive ehangc aud explain in summary fasluon why
staff is suggestin; a change is warranted.
Section 4- Subsection 1- The primary change would be a recluction in reserved capacily from four dark strands (two pair) to two strands for use by ttie City wherever ncEded for use by
the City where it passcs a City facility far public purposes. The reason for the re,duction is that
two strands wrould provide a cremendous aniount of bandwidth for the City, inost likely mere
than it would need within the life of the franchise. FLu-thermore, having the reserved bandwidth
committed to the City means that a fiber company wrould not be able to use it for fnancial
purposes. ,
Section 4- Subsection 3- Fecleral law prohibits munieipalities from requiring
franchising businesses to pro,%ide things lo the municipality that are unrelated to the manageinent
of the ROW. The other attorney originally objected to the requirement of fnur fbers at a rate
substantially below their market rate. Based on some mutual considerations, such as the
reduction in the uumber of fibers, and a tcntative Rgreeinent that at such time as Time-Warner
eYhausts all olher capacity Nvithui the fiber buncile that the City may be accessing that the City
will increase its payment rale to the market rate, we were able to tentativcly resolve the issue. If
_ implemented, this would represent a unique term for Tune-~,TJarner in all of the franchiscs it has
across the country. Part of the reason they were willing to look at doing this is the potential
impact through use on their system. It -vvas important for them that the City does not have any
utilities such as water or sewer, does not havE its own fire department, does not have schools,
and does not have its oNvn police. Based on these factors, 'l"ime-Warner detcrmined that any
system they construct in Spokane Valley woulci not be heavily iuipacted by our use. Another
critical factor was that the City not use the fibcrs, or allow anyone else to use the fibers granted
to the City, for any scrvice that would compete with Tune-Warner.
Section 7- RCVJ 35.99 providcs some iules for what cities can and eannot requirc frdm
fralichisees. This refcrence occurs several more times, and the explanation will not be repeated.
Section 11, second paragraph - When Time-Wanier requested this, I could not come up
. with a compelling reason agauist the change.
Sectioii 13 - The City changed somc of its regulations regarding use of the ROW suace
the first fiber franchises were adopted, and this language most accuratcly reElects what the City .
wants to see happen, ,vhich is that the franchisee follow our cunently adApted codes to f x any
problem.
Section 26 - There are scveral changcs in lhis section. Mast represent some attempt at
clarifying the rights and responsibilities of the parties. The last sentence includcs a statement
lhat franchisee vvill indemnify the City for any pollution damage resulting from hazardous
substances, but ouly as long as any appl.icable statute of limitations. I think that is reasonable,
sincc the City vvould not face any liability after the expiration of any statute of limitations
anyway.
Section 30 - It seemEd reasonablE to stril:e this provision since we are generally only
concerned with existing structures. Further down Section 30, we retain the right tn request
"potential improvement plans" if we think we will actually need thcm.
. Section 31 - This change makes the franchise language consistent with olu currently -
adopted provisions regarding cxcavation, anci will be flexible for future changes in those
regulations.
Section 35 - This changc reflects a rccognition ttiat it may take a franchisee some time to
plan for, and eYCCUIe, a change in lncation of facilities in the event of a street vacation. This is
likely to be a moot point, as the City grants street vacations subject to any existing property right,
which would include a franchise.
Section 36 - This change represents the more common view of how potential liability
may be apportioned as betNveen two similarly-situated parties.
Secrion 37 - The revised language for insurance liability reflects updated languagc that .
Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), thc City's iusurer, recently requested go into .
contracts entcred into by tFic City. ,
Section 3$ - Tlus language rEflects a recognition that it gets expensive #or an entity to
continually obtain bonds to work in thc ROW each time it -vvants to do a project. This would '
ensure that an appropriate bond is available for the life of the- franchise 'to cover any non-
performance by the f.ranchisce. Il providcs a higlier Icvel of ulsurance for thc City, and is less
expensive for the fi•anchisee. The City will also have the opti4n to require a larger bond in the
unlikely event of a project that could have a repair requirement higher than $25,000.
Section 40 - This reprESents a desire by Tune-Warner that the existing provisions apply
to botli pazties equally. In its most basic form, this section states that each party vvill comPly
vvith all apPlicable local, state and federal laws that may apply to the franchise, and that the franchise can con:fonn to changes in those laNvs. This reflects a requirement in federal law on
telecommunications franchising.
Section 42 - This change could be argucd as being more reasonable froui the standpoint
of commercial reality. It also reflects language that provides adequate protection for the City.
Section 52 - Tliis reflects a requirement exiscing in federal telecommunications law that a
municipality not agree to tenns with one franchisec that are materially difierent thaii those
agreed to with another &anchisee. Tune-Warner refers to this as a"most favored nation" clause,
as did the City at various timcs tluee years ago in contract discussions. Again, this is a
restatement of a Federal rEquirement and appears reasonable.
There werc otlier requested chaiiges that attorneys for the parties discussed, and ultimately
rejected for various reasons. I woulri like to comment that the attorney for Time-Warner was
reasonable, patient and pleasant to work with throughout this process.
As the City Council understands froui these suggcsted changes, this will have spill-over effeet in
that the other lhree fiber franehises will need to bc amended to confonn to these changes if•' the
Council approves the Time-Wamer Franchise. IOlink this can be accomplished by submittuig an
addendum to the Council for consideration ancl approval to Columbia, OneEighty and EMAN
providing all of these cbanges. T would notify each of the thrce ahead of timc of the potential.
changes. If these changes are approved by the Council, each of those three would be brought
forward separately, but likely at the same ineeting. Each franchisee would then need to agree in
writing to the changed conditions.
()P"l IONS: RecommEnd changes to thc proposecl draft T'ime-Warner francfuse.
RECOIVLMFNDED ACTION OFt iVIO'1'I0N: Consensus to place the proposed ordinancc
granting fime-Warner fiber franchise on a regular agenda for first reading.
BUDGE'1lFINANCIAL IMFACTS: None
STAFF COIVTAC 1: Cary P. Driskell,l7eputy City Attoniey
ATTACIIlVILNTS: Proposed redline version of'1`ime-Warner franchise.
Draft CTTY OF SPOKA~~T VALLEY
~ SPOKA►\'E COITNTY, WASHIINGTON
ORD.IiNANCE Nn. 06-
A1V ORDINt1s\CE OF THE CTTY OF SPQKANE VALLEY, SPOKAN'E COTTiNTY,
WAS`GTON, GRAN'I'ING A nTQN-EXCLUSIVE FRAI\tCHISE TO TCME
WARNER TE.LECOM OF WASAINGTOIV LLC, TO CONSTRUCT, J1N'[Ani iTA.IN
AMD OPERATE CERTAIN FACILI"fIES Wl'THIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-V4'AY
AND PUBLIC 1'ROPE1tTIES OF '1 HE CITY OF SFUKANE VALT..EY.
WI-iEREAS, RCW 35A.47.440 autfiorizes the Ciiy to grimk, permit, arid regulate non-exclusive
franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or othGr public ways, structures or places above or below
the surface of the ground for railroads and othcr routes and facilit_ies for public conveyances, for poles,
conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and
distribution of elactrical energy, signals and otlier methocls of communication, for gas, steam and liquid
fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owmed and operated facilities for public service; and
WHEREAS, the grant of such non-erclusive franchises requires the approving vote of at least a
majority oF the entire City Cnuncil and publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City; and
WMEREAS, the Council fmds that the grmit of the franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject
to its terms and conclitions; is in the best interests nf the public.
~ NOM, 7°HERT'FORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, does ordain as follows:
• SecYion 1. Definitions. For die purpose of this Ordinance, the fallo-wing words and terms
shall have the meaning set forth belnw:
1. "Cify Manager" means the City Manager or desijnee. - 2. "construction" or "construcY" shall mean consiructing, dig,ging,
excavating, la}'i.ng, testinL, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing,
replacing, and repairing a facility.
3. "day" means a riventy-four (24) bour period beginning at 12:01 am. If a
thing or act is to be done i.n less than seven (7) days, intermcdiate Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in tlie computation of time.
4. "distribution system, system and li.nes" usecl either ni the sinbular or
plural shall mean and include the poles, conductor, pipe, mains, laterals,
conduits, f'eeders, regulators, meters, firtures, cnnnections, and all attachrnents,
appurtenances equipment and appliances necessary and incidental thereto or in
any way appertaining to the diskributinn of the serviee or prcxluct and which are
located within a right-of-way.
5. "facility" used either in the singular or plural shall mean any tanSible
~ component Qf the tratismission and distribution systcm -vvithin the right of way ar
' on pulilic property, including supporting struclures, located in the operarion ofi
Ordinance 06- Time PJaroer Franchise Page 1 of 17
Draft
activities authoriz.ed by this Franchise. The abandonment by Grantee of any
facil.ities as defined herein sliall not act'to remove the same from this definition.
~
6. "hazardous substances" shall mean any substance or tnaterial defined or
designated as hazardous or toxic waste, ha•r.ardous or toxic material, a ha'r.ardous,
toxic or radioactive substance, or other similar term, by any federal, state or local
envi.ronmental statute, regulation, or ordinance or decision of a state or federal
court or administrative agency or body, presently in effect or that may be
promulgated in the future, and as such statutes, regulations and ordinances may
be amended from time to time.
7. "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in
the replacemcnt and/or repair of Facilities; including constructing, relaying,
repai.ring, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and
excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto.
8. "Termittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been ganted a permit
by the Permitting Authority.
9. "Permitting Authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee
authorized to process and grant pcrmits required to perform work in the rights-of-
way (ie. Obstruclion Pertnits).
10. "protlucf' shall refer to the item, thing or use provided by the Grantee.
11. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owmed by the ;City. . :
12. "Public WorE:s Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Worl:s
I7irector or hisJher designee.
13. "right-of-way' shall refer to the surface of and thc space along, above,
snd below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court,
boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or road right-of- way now or
hereafter held or administered by the City.
14. "streets" or "highways"' shall mean the surfacc of, and the space above
and bclow, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City uscd or
intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to
allow the Granlee tn use them.
Sectian 2. Grant oP Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City"), hereby grazits unto Time GVarner Telecotn of Washington LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company doing business in Washington (hereinafter "Crantee"), a franchise for
a period of ten (10) years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate,
maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place facilities in, under, on, across,
over, thtough, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane
Valley, as approved undcr City permits issued pursuairt to this fi-anch.ise (hereinafter the "I=ranchis£").
i
~
Ordinance Ob- Time Warner Franchise Page 2 of 17
I
Draft
Scctioa 3. Fec. I`o right-of-way use fee is imposed for the tcrm Uf this Franctiise. Any sach
right-of-i-rny use or franchisc fee tfiai may be impased by subsequent ordinancc wuuld apply to any
suUscquent franchise, if any, batween the parties.
Sect oo . Ci Usc. lbe foUow•ing pmvisicxns shall apply rcgarding City use.
i. Grantne age~.~s to resen•e to the City the right to access two (2) dark fiber strands
st wcry location pa.ssed by Grantee's facilities within the boundaties of the City, for sole and
excl►uivc municipal use or designation, with aceess to any building or Caciliry designated by the
C'ity, subjvct to the provisioas of paragiaph 3 below of this Sectiun a. Said dark fiber shall be
reserved fQr use by the City for govcmmcntal purpases, PROV[DEll, that as to the fibcr rewuncs
~rnnted to the City under the terms of this provision, the City agrees that it will not use svch fiber
as a public utility provider of telcxommunicatians business service to the pub6c. 7be City
resmes the right to connccl its tw•o darlc fiber strands to other fifxxr netti4•ork providcrs, with the
}ual ofachicving marimum cvuncctivity fur City purposcs.
. - y• - . . . .
~ , .
4csigHak4 by !he City. Said "i fibef ,WI be res-eeed f4 use by the City fe4-gave-bi f.a. Ae.m. I-e I
,
;
LAMoses; .
the , --u-
•.s. ..44'_044a-t!irs~u
~ 2. Ttte City shall ha%e the right tc) acccss by connc:ction to the mo ~ dark fiber
strnnds ut any location served by this Franchise within the City limiis. Re City shal) provide at
least 30 days wTitten notice of intcnt to access Grantee's servicz.
3. Thc City shal) pny all costs associaied with canstructing any C'ity connection w
(I r3ii tee's Franchise service. The City shnll pay Grantee a rccurring manthly charga af $20.00 pcr
fiber pair pet mile in use by the Ciry unlGSS otherwise spacificully agreed hy both the parties in
writing. Said monthly recumng c6argo shall not be impased until such time as the fibcr is put
inta use by City. A fiber pair t-efers W tw'o stmnds of cab}e. At such time thal Grantee runs nut nf
capacity in the fiber bundte in which the City's rescrvcd 6ber pair is contaiucct, lhen the City shall
tngin paying Grantae's standard recurring monthly rate upon thirty (30) days' writtcn notice.
4. Consistent with Washingtan Ch. $3, laws of 2000, section 7, at surh time when
6rantee is constructing, relocatin& or ptacing ducts or conduits in public rights-flf •wny, the
I'ublic Works Director muy require Grantec tu pravidc the City with :ulditional duct or conduit
and related structures nec.essary to Qeces.s the c;onduit at mutunlly convenient locstions. Any
(iucts or conduits provided by Grantea under this Section shall only be used for City municipal
Purposc:s.
A. The Ciry shaU not require that the ndditional duct or conduit spsce be conneeted to the
access structures and vaults of'the Grantee.
B. This section shall not effect the provision af an institutional networl: by a cable
television provider under federal lavv.
Orc1iiFanee. i1b- I ime Warner 1=ranchice Pa_*c t If 17
Draft
C. Grantu shall notify the Puhlic Works Director al lr.ast 14 days prior to opening a
trench ai any location to allaw the City to cxercise its aptians as providui herein.
•tio 5. Rccoverv of Costs. Grantce shall be subject to all petmit fccs associatcd witii
activities undertakcn through the authoriry grantcd in this FrFSnchise or undet ardinances of the Cit,y.
Where; the City incurs costs and expenses for rtviCw or inspectian of activitirs undertal:en thmugh the
authority grxnted in this Franchise or any ordinances relating to the subjext for which a pcrmit fee is nc,t
estnbiished, Grantoe shall pay such costs and eepenscs directly to the City. In addition to the above.
c;rantee shnl) prnmptty rCimburse the City for any and all costs it reasonably incurs in respanse to an`
cmergency involving Grantce's facilities.
Section 6. \c•n-Exctusiviri. This Franchise is granced upon the express condition that it
shall ncit in any manncr prevent the Gity fmm bmnting othcr or further franchises in, under, on, across,
uvcr. Uvough, slong or below any rights-of-way, sUreeLs, avenues and any other public tands and
propertics uf evcry typc and description. This and other franchises shall, in no way, grc% rnt or pmhibit tht
City from using any of its rights-of-way, roads, strecis or othet public proprrties or affect it5 jurisdictian
over them or any part of them. The City hereby rctains full power to make all changes, relocations.
rcpairs, maintenance, establisltments, impmvcments, dedir.ations or vacation of same as the City may
dccm fit, including the dedicxtion, establishment, maintenanca, and improvement of all new rights".,C-
way, streLKs, avenues, thoroughfares and other public propcnies af every t)pe :uid Je~criptit-in.
.~'Sctinn 7. Nun-Intcrfereme with Existin¢ Hacilities. I1ie Citv shall Ime pricr and superi<ir
rigfit to the use of its roads, streets, and alleys, and publie properties for installation and niaintenance uf
its faciliries nnd other governmental purposes, and should in the sole discretion of the Ciry a contlict arise
«ith the Grantc-a's fscilitics, tt►c Grantee shall, st its own expense and cosl, conform to the CitN's faciiities
ana othec governmcnt purposes uf the City, unlcss RCW 35.99.060 provides othcrwise.
Ilie ovt-ners of all utilities, public ar privatc, installed in or an such public properties prior to the
installstion of the lines and facilities of the Grantec, shall liave prefercnce as to the posiiitining and
lc.x.ation of such utilitics so installod with respeci to the Gtantec. Such preterenct shall continue in the
cvent of the neccssity of rclacaiing or changing the grucie of any such public propertics.
Grnntee's sysicro shall be canstructcd and maintained in such manncr as nat to intrrfere w•ith any
puhlic u-jc:, ar with any othcr pipes, wirz,:. conduiu rn other fscilities that rnn}• have hecn laid in the right-s-
ot=%% ay by or undcr the City's authorsty.
tiectjon 8. Riyht to Raads Not Suucrsedad. Ilie('ity. in thegrantin~ ~,f thi; t-rancf~i~e. ~lc~e,
not «aive any rights which it now 6olds ar may hereaftc:r acquire, and this Fninchise stiall not be
ccrostrued so as to deprive the City of any powccs, rights, ar privileges which it now hss, or may hercafter
acquirr, inctuding the right of emincnt domain, to regulaTe the usc and control of its raads covcrcd by this
Franchise, ar to go upon any and all City roads and highways fur any purix)sc including conswcting,
repstiring, or improving the same in any such manner as the City, or its representatives may elect. Thr
Ciry shall ret<iin tull authoritativc potver in the s.3mc aild like manner as though this Fr.inchise had ncver
bcen granied.
Nothing in this Franchisu shall be coetstrued to prevent the City Gorn constructing facilitirs,
o uding, paving, repairing ancilur aliering any street, or (a}•ing down, repairing or remaving facilities or
construrting oc establishing any o[her public wurk or impcovcment. All sueh work shal) be done, insnf'ar
as practicable, so as to not abstivct, injure or prevent the unrestricted use and opetation of the facilities nt I
the Grantee under this Franchise. If, however, any of the Granteds facilities interfere with City projccts.
Grantee's facilities shall hc removr.d or replaced upon reASonable written notice tu Grantee. Any and all
Ordinancc:116- T imr Wurncr f~r.inchisc ('aQe a uf 17
I
Draft
such rcmnval or rcplaccment shall be at the sole cxpense of the GrantLe, unless RCW 35.49.060 pruvides
othcrwise.. Shauld Grantcc fsil to retnove, adjust or relocate its facilities by the datc eswblished by the
Pubtic Works Director's written notice to Grantce and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may
cause andlor effect sueh rrmoval, adjustrnent or re2ocation, and the expense thereof sha11 ba paid by
Cirantce.
Section 9. Cammencement of Construetic,n. Construction of the facilities cantemplated by
this Franchise may cummence within five (5) days af the effertive date of this Ordinance, provided that
such timc timit shall not xpply to dclays causaci by acts of God, szrikc or othct occurrrnccs over which
Grantee has no control. Failure to begin conswction uf facilities wi[hin onc (1) year of this franchisa
shull automaiically result in tcrminasion af this tranchisr.
Sectino 10. Cansmiction StnndArds. Ali facilities shall be instellod in confcxmity with the
plans nnd specifications filed with the City, escept in instances in wfiich dcvirilion may be allowed in
vvriting by the Public Works Dirrctor pursuant tn application by the Grantx. All plans and spocifcations
•hall sperify the class and rype of maicrial and cquipment to be useci, manncr of excavaeion, ccrostrtictic►n
and installation, backfill, crcction of tertiporary structures, crrction of pcrmancnt strvctum, and the traffic
conWl mitigation measures as provided by the Manual on [.'rciform T'raf'fie Ccmtrol Devic.es, or similar
,;;tandards as may be applicable from time to rime. 7fie ptans must mect al) Federal, State, County nnd
City Cadcs and [hc l.'tility AccacTirnodation Plan Si.3ndnrds,
tiuw,ithstanding any provisian herein to the cuntrar}, any cxcavatiuns and installations by the
Grantcc in any uf thc public propr,nies within the curporatc limiLy af cltic City shsll be done in accordance
with such rrasanable rules, regulatiocu, and resolutic+ns of geaeral application naw enacted or to be
enacted by Ciry Council, rclaeing to excuvations in public pmperties ot the Ciry, nnd authorized by the
t'ublic Works Dirertor_ Said rules, regulations, authorizBtions, and resofutions shall be for the purposes
uf fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primciry use snd purpclsr of public
pmpcriies, and nat fot rzlieving the Grantce of any duty, obligaiian, or rcsponsibility tix the wmE+ettnt
efesign, construction, maintensnce, and aperation nf its tacilities. Grantee is responsible far the
supen•isian, condition, and quality of the wock done, wfiether it is by itself or by eontractors, assigns ar
aitencies.
Section 11. 5S13ecial ConstruCti4n 5tandards. During any peri«i of a•oric relating to Grantae's
tacilities, all surface strurturr3 and cquipmont, if any, shai) bc orrcted snd uscd in such placcs and
positions within or adjacent to public ribhts-Lif-way and uther public pmperties so as to interfere as little
as nossible with the free passage of vehiculnr and pedestririn traffiic and the free use of adjoining propcrty.
i;rantee shall, at atl time4, post and maintsiin proper barricades and campfy with all applicable safety
regulaiions during such period of canstructiun as required by the ordinanees of the City, conditions of
permiis, and laws and regularions of the StaLc of Washington, specifically including RCW 39.04.180 far
the con~;trvctian of trench safety systems.
If Grantee shal) at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this
Urdinancc, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other fianchisees and uiilities to
share such excavated trenches, providcd that: (I) such joint use shall not unreagonably delay the wotk of
the Grantec; and (2) such joint use shall nul adversely afi'ect Granteo's raciliac.s or safety ehEreof. Whom
by ihe C-4y-Joint usccs w ill lx rcquircd tu contribittc to the casts of cxcavation and
11IIIl1it O[1 i1 l1N-t'ill3 E7d51i~'!:--=-i--r'=rs'_.~-='~Cf'_`:j•. .f*ii-s'a »g;ta::7~-..a:~'t t<~-:~ rti._•3~-=i~~~ .:::{:1:'
Section 12. Ke-stc~mtian ARer Constru ion, Grantee shall, after abandonment appruved
ur.tkr Sextiun 29 herein, or any other installatiun, wnstruction, reloralion, maintenance, or repair of
facilitics within the area nfthis Fr3nchisr, rzstore the surface of the riF;ht-of-way or puhlic Propcrtv to at
(}rJu1.c1cc 00- 1-1r.9t: Warncr Vranch;:e f a:;e > ~A"1'
r
D raft
least the cumently adopted City standards cir w; reyuirei hy the 1'ublic WorS., Du«:tor thruugh a riY.~ht-oC-
way permit, dcpending upon special circumstanccs. Grantee agrres to promptty complete all nstoration ~
%Wrl: and to prompUy repair any damage rau:ed hy ;uch %+urk ithin thc arca of thiti (=nnchi~e or other
atlertcd area at its soic cost and cxpcnk .
ti"tion 13. I3nmarre and NRn-L'ompliance. Any and sll damage, ur injury, done ur causwd tn
l.ity righht-of-way, City facilities, or any portion theTCaf in the canstruction, opzrsiion, maintenance or
mpair of Grantre's facilities shall be immedintely repaired and reccinstnicted in ccinforrnancc itli city
ordin,sncc, m.gulatian or pulicy as adoptod or hereby amendecf.
. _ _ . 4afflage, _ . . - ; ~~,~.-t-~f-~~-~i=-;
-cfCti~=ir-'ri,ec ' . : t fGfeniae's - -
- i8$i.~r"fl+H-f~dw-. Diw;er. . .
.,.1 . . !r~f-and flt+onAFHet said~
. - - . _ - . • - - - - . _ _ !i, ' _a.,i.' _
ci-- .
!4-•ff-~'.'►~Sci*~-~'=.'t ~!~ii~-c--:~-iii~i 1rf't:'::c'c-iir-~r.~•~,.yt~=: :ir~~Ct.'~f 4:•'-=t~:+-ti;~{:!r;~rcc---~_
.r
. _
Ci;y. -
..j _ - . . 1'.
'
:t=!e . ~ip:1in'9T. . . ~ .•t... ,.t'J 4:4
• - r;'~-?~?~t`~-?~?i " - - ~l• . ~~i~c~-~ ~ . - = . _
Seetion 14. Protcxtipn of onumcnt~.. Befare any work is pcrfimncd under tfiis Fraiichise
-which may affect any cxisiing monuments ar marlcers nf any naiure relaling eo subdivisiaiu, plats, roads,
and all other surveys, the Grantee shatl mfennce all such monuments and markers. 1"hc reference point;
shall be so {ocated that they will not be disturbed during the Grsntee's operations under this Franchise.
[ hc mcihod of referencing these monuments or othcr points to be cefereaced shall be npproved bv thc
Public Works Director All eoneciete rnutsed recordCo monuments which have been disturbed or
tlisplaced by such wark shall be rCStored pursuant to State and Fedetal standards wid sp~.~cifications. 'Thc
nplncement ot all such monuments or markers disturfied during eonstruetion shall be made a-,
cxpeditiousty ss the conditions permit, and a-q directed by the Public Wor{cs Uireeinr. Ttte cost ci1
monuments or other mark-crs IQSt, destm}'ed, or disturbed, and the expense of replacement of appro%c-i
rnanumems ani1 i,,her markrr tii:s whicli have been re-c.tahlished or ciisturhed shall hr Ix7rne by the
( iratttc`c'.
1--'ection 15. [)cainav~e. It thc: work dunu under this Franchise interfcres in any %tiay ith the
drainage of a City right-of wtty, the Grsintea shflll tivholly and at its ovrri expense mnke such provisions
neccs&ary tu climinate the interferenc.e to the drainage to the satisfaction of dic Public Works Dircct~.~r.
Section 16. Ubstrvction Petmils Reyuired. Whcncver Grante~e sIiall occupy or excavate in
any public right-af-way or other public propcrty t'(ir the purpase of installa2ion, construc:tion, repair,
maintenance or relocaiion of its facilities, it shall upply ta the City for a permit to do su, tugether «-itli
cletniled plans attd specifications showing the position, depdi, and tocatiun of al) such facilities in relation
to existing rip,hts-af-way, mads, stneets, or otlier public property, hercinafter callectively refeRed to as the
"I'lans." All wark within any public rights-of-way or on other public property s[iall be pursuant to a vnlid
ue:rmit. 'lhe faeilities shal) be insulled ar eonstructcxd in rxact conformiry with said Plans cxecpt in
instances in which deviatian may bo allowed by the City, in wTiting, in response to written application hNGnantee. -1lie I'lan, shall specify the clnss and type of m:itcrinl nnd equipmeiit to be useci, manner of
i)r.lu1Luicc 116- lmir 1Varner l r.uidii:c i'.ie..: h ~~i 17
Draft
cxcsvatiun, conswction, instnllation, backfill, ercctiun uf tcmporary structun.~s and facilidcs, erection of
pernixnrnt swctures and facilities, traffic conirol, tr-af'fic turnuuts and road obswctions, and all othcr
noccssary int'ormation including a schcdulo for the work. During the progra.S of the work. Grantoz shall
not unneccssarily obsvuct the passage or proper cue of the rights-of-way. Grantee shall filc as-built plans
and mnps with the City showing the final location of the fatilities. All restaratian of rights-of-way, roads,
streeLS, sWrm dtainage and the s-urface of uther public pmpetty shall be in confarmnnce with City
standards, and conditions of the pc.~rmit.
SectiQa 17. `taintensttce, Grantec shall pravide and put in ux all facilities nects;ary to
eantrol und carry Grantee's products so as to preti•ent injury tn the City's pmperty ar propcrty telonging to
any person w•ithin the Ciry. Grantee, solely at its ovm expense, shall repuir, renew, change, and improvc
said facilities from time to time as may be nccessary to maintain the snme in good condition_ Grantce
shall not construct its facilities in a mannrc that requires any custumer to install cables, ducis, eonduits, or
ottier facilities, in, under, or over the City's rights- of-way.
Sertioo 18. Emcreencv Resaonsc. The Gtantce sba11, within six months of the exocution of
this rranc6ise by the Grantee, prcpare and file with the City and adhere to an Emcrgency Management
Plan (the "Plan") fcr rcsponding to any spill, break, ar other cmcrgcncy condition. 'Ile Plan shall
desig,natr reqxmsiblc officials and emergency 24-hour an-call personnel and the pnxedures tn be
followed v►•hen responding to an rmergcncy. When dereloping such Plan, the Grantee shall work with the
Public Works Diroctoc and the City's Police Ih:psrtment to determine when and hnw the same should be
cuntacted during emergencies. After beins notificd of an emergeacy, Grantee shall cooperate with the
City and make evcry cffort to immediately respond w•ith actian to minimize dIImabe and to prota:t the
health and safety ufthe public.
ln the event the Grantee refuses to promptty tnke the directed action or fails to fully campty with
such directian, or if emergrncy conditions exsst which require immcxiiare action to prevent imminent
injury or damages to persQns or property, the City may talcc such actions as it beGeves are ooccssary to
protect pcrsons or property and the Graistee sha11 bc respansibte to rcimbursa the City far its costs and any
expenses.
5ection 19. Emeraencv Work. In the cvent of any cmcrgcncy in which any af Grantee's
facilitics Ureak, am damaged, or if Grantec's facilities or construction areas IIre othcrwisc in such a
candition as to immediaLely endanger any property. (ife, hcalth. ur safcty. Grantee shall immediately
infortn the City ofthe iocation snd crndition and shall immodiaicly taka all necrssary actions to rclsir its
facilitics, snd tn ctue ar trmrdy any dangtmus conditions. Such emergcncy v►•c,rk may he eommenced
,without first upplying for and obtaining a permit us required by this Franchise. Howcver, this provisinn
shall not rclicva Grfuitee from the requirement af obtaining any permits necessary for this purpose, and
Grantoc shall apply for al) such permits not laier than the next succceding day during which the Ciry is
nNn fior husiness_
Section 20, One-Call Svstem. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible far becAming
farniliar witht and understanding, the provisions of Washingtan's Oae-Cal) siatutes. Grantec shall
c:,mply with the terms and canditions set forth in the One-Call statutes.
Section 21. Ins m-tions and Fees. All woric performed by Grantre shaU be subject to
in.Tcction by and approval of the Ciry. Thc Cirantre shall reimbursc the City far all expenscs incurred by
rhe City in the examinatian, inspection, and appmval of Gmntee's wark. Such reimbursement shall be in
aJcfition tu anv otlicr tees ov charge; levicd bv the Ci[~.
(Irdinar,•cl- ilG_ Fsmc 1k;arn,:r Fryncl;i;r ('.i _,e 7 17
Uraft
tioo 22., Safeh.. '1'he Grantee, in acwrdancc with appliuiblc feciernl, state, and Iocal
safety rules and regulations, shall, at nll times, employ ordinary care in the ins-tallation, abandonmcnt,
reiocation, consvuction, maintenance, ancUor rcpair, utilizing methods and devices caRUnonly accepted in
dicir indLLStry of operation to prcvent tailums and accidents that nre likely to cause dsmagc, injury, nr
nuisance W persons or properiy. All of Grantee's facilities in the rights-of-way shal) be canstructed anii
maintained in a safe and operational condition. Gratttee shall follow all ssfeh• r.cdes and othcr applicahle
regvlntions in the installaiioti, aperation, and maintenance of the facilities.
Section 23. 13uildine Moving. Whenever uny person shall have ubtainzd permission frovn
the City tu use any right-of-wny fur the purpose of moving any bailding or other oversizod structure.
C;rantec, upon fourtaen (14) ciays' wriucn notice from the City, shall raise or remove, nt the expcase oFthc
Permittee desiring tn mova the building or structure, any of rrantee's facilities that may abstruct the
movement thercaf; provided, that the path far moving such building or structure is the path of least
interfemnce to Grantce`s facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good causc shown by Grantee, thc
City may rcquire more than 14 days' nutice to Grantae tu move its facilities.
Section 24., Acauirina New Fecilities. Upcm Gcantee's acquisition of any new fa,:ilitics in
the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or anncxation to the Ciry oi'any area in wfiich Grantee retains any
such fscilities in the rights-0f-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City u written statement describing all
iacilitics involved, whether suthorized by Franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the
Iocation of all tiuch tacilities. Such facilicies shall immeiiiately be subject to the terms of this Franchisc.
fiection 25. f)ancemus Conditions - Authoritv of lirv to Abate. W-hencver excavutirn,
ins2a11sii0it, conswction, repair, mairitenanca, or reloeation of frtcilities guthorized by this Franchise hns
~ caused c>r eontributcd tu a eondition thai aApeaf,--4}-substantially impairs the latera) support of the
sdjoining right-of-way, ruad, street or other public place, ar endangers the public, acijoining public or
Private property or sUcet utilities, the City may direct Grantcc, si Grantee's sale etpense, to take all
necessary aetions to protect the publie snd property. Thr Cit}' may requirc that such action hc: rompleted
w ithin a presrribed timc.
In the event that Grantct tails or rcfuscs tu promptly takc: the actions directed by the City, or fails
to fully comply widi such directions, or if rmergency conditions exist which require immediato actian, the
City may enter upon the propcrty and take such actions as aro nocessary to pratect the puUlie, adjacent
public or private property, or street urilities, or to maintain the latetsl support thereof, and al) other actinnS
~ deemed by the Ci►y to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfam;---f_:~ an~!
Grantce shall be lisblu to dit City for all costs and exprnses thercof to the extent cat~sed by Grantcc.
5ection 26. Harardous Substances. Grantee slinll comply with all applicable staie and
fe,~ernl laws. statutes, rcgulations and ardrrs conccrning hszardous substancxs relating tu Grantee's
f'aciliiies in the rights-of-Hey. Grnntee shell maintain and inspect its facilitics located in ttic rights-of-
wny. [Jpon reasonable written notice ta Grantee and in the presence of an xutllorired represcntativc of
Grantee, the City may inspect, at City's so)e cost,'rnntee's facilities in the rights-of-way tu dr.termine it'
any release of hazarcious substances has occurred, ur may occur, Gom or related to Grantee's fitcilities.
This inspection is not to remove the burden of inspcction from the Grantee Qn a periodic basis of its
fzcilitirs for hazardaus suhstnnces, nor is to removc tlie responsibility af the harardous substance frum thc
Grantce. In rcmoving or modifying Grantee's facilities us provided in this Fmnchise, Grantee shall alsc►
rcmove all residue uf haT.ardous substanccs caused by Grantee's ownership or operaiion of its facilities
within the City's right-of-way in compliance with applicablz environmental clesn-up standards mlatcd
~ thrreta. Grantee agrees to indemnify the Ciry agginst any claims, costs, and expenses, af anv
kind, whetlicr dircci or indirert, incurred h} the C'ity arising out af the relcase or threat of release of
Ordinauicc 06- Tlme Wurner Franchise I'agz 8L) f 17
U raft
halardous subsuznces csiused by Grnntee's ovmership or opcration of iU tacii+ti~~ within the Ciry's right-
nf-wiy, hut not be}'ond any applicable statute of limitations period.
Sect3oq 27. Env-irostmental- Grantoe shall comply with all cnvirunmcntal protection Imtis.
rules, rc.rommendaiions, and regulatians of the United Statei and the Stntc of Washington, and their
various subdivisions and agencies as they presendy exisi or may hereaRer be enacted, pramulgated, er
amended, and shaU indemnify and hold the City harmlcss from any und all damnges arising, or which
may arisc, or be caused by, or result fmm the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules,
necommendations, or regulations, Rhether or not Grantcc's acts. or activitics were intentional ar
unintentional. Gsantee shall further indcmnify the City sgainst all losses, cosLs, and expenscs (inc:ludinst
Icaa) expenses) which the City mny incur as a rcsutt of the requircinent of ttny govcrnmrnt or
sovernmcntnl subdivision nr agcncy to clean andfor remove any poIlution caused or permittcd by
Gr.intcv:, whr:thrr said requirement is during the term of the Franchise or subsequent to ils terminatian.
Scction 28. Relocatian of Fecilities, Grsntce ggrces and covenants, at its sole cost and
expxnu, to prvtect, support, tempi.irarily disconnect, celocate or remove from any stre:et any of i1s
f~Icilities when so required by the City in accardance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, ~~4
~ - f. - . _ . . - _ . -Ir-i~'c~ft~+i~FczEif~lt-e+
publieprovided thnl Grantre shall in all such cases have the privilege to
tempcrrarily bypass, in the authorizeci portion of the same strert upon approval by the City, sny section of
thcir farilitirs rcquircd to be tcmpararily disconnectod or removed.
lf the City detecmines ttsat the projoct necessitates the relocation of Grantoe's thrn- cxisting
faLilitics, the City shall:
a) At least sisiy (60) days prior to the commencement of such improvement projxt,
provide Grantoe u-ith v►Titten norice requiring such rclocation; srtd
b) Provide Grantee with oopies of pertinent pottions of the plans snd specificaiions
fur such improvemeirt project and a praposeai }ocation for Grantce's facilities so that
(irdntec may relocstc its facilitics in other City riglits-of-way in ordcr to acrommodatc
such improvcmcnt projert.
c) ARer raceipt of such notice ur►d such plans and specification, Cirantec shall
complctc rrlucation of its facilities nt no charge ar cxpcnsc ta the City so ns to
accommodate the improvemcnt projoct si lcast tcn (10) dnys prior to commencemcnt of
tbe project.
Cirantee may, gRrr neceipt of written notice re.questing a relucation of its facilities, submit to the
Cin• «ritten altcrnatives to sach relocation. The Ciry shal) evuiuate such alternativts and advise Grantee
in writing if one or more of the alternativts am suitablc to actommodatc the w•ork which would otherwise
neccssitxte relocation of the facilities. If so requestrd by the City, Grantec shall wbmit additional
infc+rmatiun to assist the Ciry in making such evaluatian. The City shall givic each altcrnative proposecf by
Granicc full and fair consideration. tn the event the City ultimatety dcterminzs that there is no othrr
rea.sonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its facilitie$ as otherwise provided in this Scctian.
i
I7ie pruvisions of this Scction shall in na manner preclude ur restrict Gtantee frum tnaking any
;irningemcnts it may decm appropriate when m-sponding to a requesi far rt;locatian of its facilities by any,
persnn or entity atfier than the City, where the facilities to bc: constructeci by ssid person or entity are not
ur will nnt bccome City rnwnecl, oprr.itcd c>r iTtaintained facilities, provided that nich nrmngemrnt5 do not
Ordin;inct_ Ufi- 1'itnc 1V:itnrr i-randhi=_• !'a:;c 9 of 17
Draft
unduly, dclay a City construction prujrct.
Section 29. Aband4nment of Granter's Facilities. No facility cotistructed ur uwned by
e;rantee muy be atxindoned w-ithout the express written cvnsent af the City. Any plan for abandonment or
remova) of Grantee's facilities must he first approved by tha City. and all neressary permits mu-q be
oUtainesl prior ta such work_
ti'ectioa 30. Records. As .s condition of this Frfsnchise, and at its 5.o1e exprnsc, Grantee
~ agrces to provide the City with available as-built plans, -,---t+;tia1ptii-as; firld lucaies, maps.
plats, spcxifications, pcofiles, and records of its facilities within City rights-of-way upon request. Such
documents shall bc pruvided upon request by Grantor within five business days af Grantor's cequcst.
'These necords shall be in a digital elextronic forrosit acceptable to the City, unless the Public Works
Director deems it to bc a hardship to die Grantee, in which case a hard copy in a format ucceptable to the
Pubtic Works Director shall bc providecl.
Tu thc extent such rcquests are limited to specific facilitics at a given Incaiion within the
Fmnchix area in connecUon with the construction of :any City project, Grantee shall provide to the Citx,
upan the City's teasonable request, cnpics of availabte drawings in use by Grantee showiru3 the iac82ioii
of such facilities. Grantee shal) ticld locate its facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of Cit,,
improvement pnajects.
Upon writtco requcst of the C'ity. Grantee shall provide the Ciry with the most recent upcl;it,
available of any plan uf potential imprd<<ements to its facilities w7thin the Franchise an:a; pmvided,
howCVCr, any such plan so submiued shall be dcemed confidential and for informational purposes only.
and shall nat obligate Grantee to underlake any sperific impnavcments within the Franchise arr:+.
'Ihe parties agrx td periodically shate Geogaphic Information Svstcm (G1S) tiles upc?n written
rcquest, provided Grantoc's GIS files nre to be uscd solely by Grantor for governmental purpc►ses.-;-=.-t:`t
Any files providcd tD Grantce shall be restricted tn infortnation requirrd for Graniee's
engincering needs far instaUation, repair or rcplacement uf facilities diat are the subject of dhis franchise.
(irantec is pmhibited from sellinb any GIS information obtainaci from Ciry to any third pairtic;.
Public Uisclosurc Act: C;rwitee acknoHlcdgcs that inform3tinn submitted to thc City may be
subject to insprc:tian ttnd eupying under the Wrsshington Public Uisclosure Act codified in chapter 42.17
RCW. Grantee shall mark as "CQNFIDEN"rIAL" earh page c►r pcirtion thereof of any
documrntationlinfarmation which it submits to die City and which it believes is exempt From public
inspection or copying. 'Ile City agrces to pravide the Grantee with a cnpy of any public disclosurc
rrquest to inspcct or copy documentatioNinformation whicii the Gtantee has provided to thc City aiid
markcd as "CUNFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing uny inspection and'or copying as weU a.s pmvidG thc
C;rantec with a time frume, cunsistent wit6 KCW 42.17.320, to provide the City wittt it4 written basis for
non-disclosura of the requestcd ducumentntion./infonnation. In the event the City disagrees with the
Grunte9e's basis for non-disclosure, the City agrers tu withhold rolcasc of the requestcd
documentaLionlinformation in dispute for twenty (20 days until thc Grantee can tilc a legal acticm undcr
KCW 42.17330.
Sertion 31. Limitation on Future Wark. In the e►ent tlhat the City conswcts a new sm,~et
or re~c:onstnucts an existimg strect, the Grantee shall not he pennitted to cxcaraie such strect except as set
torth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations.
5hfilE--Ret--be--pef-Mk-_-1-:-,
_ . . ~ -i-~'•--- . ~ . _ _ . - .
f 1fi~;S1::11C~I~h• I 1l2lC W,,izi,r f r3Cli1!I':C
n raft
~
Section 32. Rcservation af Ri is by Cityl Tbe City mserves the right to refuse any c+equest
for a pernlit to extend franchisv facilities. Any such refusal shall bc suppoctm by a writtcn stgtcment
from the Public Worlcs Director that eYtending the Ganchise facilities, as proposed, would interfere with
~ the public health, safety ar
Scction 33. Remcdies to Fnfarcc Ccsrrmpliance• to addition to any othcr rcmcdy provided
turein, the City reseives the right to pursue sny ncmady to compcl ar forcx Grantes and/or its successors
and assigns to comply with the terms heraof, and the punuit of nny right or rcmady by the City shall not
prevent the City fmm thereafter declaring a!'orfeiture or nwocatian far breach of the conditians hcrein.
Sec6an 34, Citv Ordinsnces and ReRUlations. Nothing herein shall be deemeed to direct or
restrict the City's ability tu adapt ahd enforce al) nexessary and appropciate ordinances regulating the
perf'ormancc of the conditiQns of this Franchise, including any reasunable ordinances made in the rxerciw I
o1 its police powers in the interest of public safety and for & we[fan: uf die public. The City shall have
the autharity at aU times to convol by appropriatc regulriiians the locaiian, elevaiian, and manner of
cnnstruction And maintenn»ce af any facilities by Grantee, and Grsntee shall pmmptly ccmform with all
5uch regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to vialate ot!►er requirements of law.
Sccdoa 35. VacaLion_ The City may vacaie any City road, right-af-way or other City
pft-jperty which is subjcct to rigiits granted by this Franchisr bccause said raad, right-of-way ar othcr City
pmperty is no langer nacessary for public use. Any rclocation of facilitits resulting from a strcM vacation
shal) require a minimum of 180 days notice as grovidod for in Scciian 47.n, a! an:--t==Te, aht! sh
..v,• - ~--~t~~€'-~w - • - _ ight!rsr"Ied by t
. , .
-
- . _ 'fi " -
r .
._.^?1-C . ...........Yl-ttt+t-b@-~lB~1'C'-fer- $zi~`'attltttWecy-±i-lk .
Sertion 36. Indecnnificatian. Grantce hcrcby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees
w inJcmnify, defend and hold harmlt5s the City, its officers, employees. agcnts and reprcsentniives from
any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability ta any person, including claims by Grantro's owi
employees to which GrnnteE might ocherwise be immunc undcr Tit1e 51 RCW, arising from injury or
death of IIny person ar dtunngc to property of which the negligent acts or omissions of Grmttee, its agents,
xrvants, officers or emplnyces in performing scn•ices undrr this Franchise arc the proximate crsuse.
Gmnter F'urther rrleases, caveruants aot to bring suit snd agrroas ta indcmnify, dcfend and hold harcnless
the City. ItS OPfICCfS 8Dd CtripJOyces from any and all claims, costs, judgmrnts, awards or Iisbility to any
persan, including clsims by Grantcc's own employres to which Grantee might othcnvise havc immuniiy
onder 'I'itlc 51 RCW, arising against the City sole{y hy virtue of the City's oNti-nership or conUol cf the
rights-of-way or other public propertics, by virtue of Grantee's c;xercise of the rights grnnted herein, or by
virtuc af the City's permitting Grantec's use of the City's rights-of-way or other public propcrty based
upan the inspectian or lack of inspxtion of work performed by Grantre, its agcnts and scrvants. officcs-s
Lsr emplayees in conncction with work authorixed an tlic Cit}rs prvperty or property over which thc City
hss contml, pursuant to this Franchise cH- pursuant to any ather peRnit or apprvval issuod in conncctian
with this Frartchise. This covenant of indemnification shall include, but not lie limitect by this reference, to
claims against the City arismg as a result nf the negtigent acts ar omissions of Grantet, its agents,
servants, ofTicers or employees in bamcnding, instituting trench safeV s}•stems or providing adec{uate
:%arnings of any e!ccavation, constntction, or w•urk in any public right-of-way ar othw public place in
rxrfcirnianer of work or urvices permitted under this Franrhi;e.
l)rdinartrc 06- f'imc W'arncr 1'nznchisc Na~~c I I of 17
Uraft
lnspe.~,tion or acccptance by thc Cit} oi'any work pertornied b}' Vruiitee at the time ni c(nnpletinn
oI'c.onstruction shal) not be grounds for avaidancc of any of tbese cavenants of i»demnification, except to~
the extent of thc negligence or %4illful misconduct of City, its olliccrs, employees or agcnts. Said
indemnification obligations shall extend to etaims w•hich are not reduced to a suit and any claims which
may bc compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigatiun.
ln ttse event thal Cirantee refvses to ococpt thc tender of defense in any suit or nny clnim, said
tender hsving brcn made in w-riting punuant to tfie indemnificatiun clauses contained herein, and said
refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdictian (or sucli other tribunal diat the parties
shall agrce to decidc the matter), to have baen a wrungfu) refusal on the part of Gran[cr, then Grantcc
shall pay all of thc City's cosu for dcfcnse of the action, including sll rea.sonable eapert N%7tness fees and
re35onable attarne}'s' feas and tho rcasonsbic costs of the CitN, including na!wnahle attorne}s' fecs +,f
recovrring under this inderunilicaliun clause.
Should a court of compctcnt jurisdi-.:tion wr .4uch ~thcr vibunal thst ;he p:uti-~; tihall agree to
decide the matter) determine that this Franchise, ar work conductad under autlwrity of this Franchise, is
subject to RCW 4.24.115, thcn, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injurv to persans
ur damages to property r.aused by or resulting from the concumnt negtigence of Grantee and the City, :t:
officecs, employees and agcnts, Grantee's liability hereunder shnll bc only to the extent of Grantee's
negligence. !t is further specificaUy and erprealy understuM that the inciemnification provideri herein
constitutes Grantee's waivcr of immunity under Titlc 51 RCW, solety for the purEwsc of this
indrmnification. This waiver has bcrn mutually negotiated by the parties.
Thc provisians of this Section 36 shall survive the expimtion ar tercnination of thi; f'ranchise
ageement, for a{xriod of three (3) years, unless the applicable statute of limitaiions periai i` Ic.-;. in
which case the provisions shall survive no longer than the applicable stefute of limitations pxriad..
Secdon 37. Insuiance. Grantee shal) prucure and maintain for the dumtion of the l=ranchi;C.
insurancc against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arice fmm or in
cc>>mection with the exercise of the tights, privileges nnd authority granted hcreundLr to ic.;
agenLs, representatir•es or rmployees.
Appli.,ant's mainteciance of insurance as n;quind by this franchix shall not be wnserucd to limit
tfie liubility of the Grantee to the covcrage provi.icti f,%- su,h insur.ince. or otherti%ise litTiit the Cit}'S
recrur_,e to any retnedy available at Isw ar in equity.
l Automobile Liability insuranre wiili l;miis n,, tlian 51.000,000 L't!nihi;fe:i Sin~.,!e
I.imit per accident for bodify injury and property damagr. 1-his uuwance shall wver all
owned, non-owned. hind or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverake
shall bc: %4•rittzn on Insurance 5crvices Ufiiee (TSO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute fi>n-n
providing cquivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the poficy shall be endorsed i~,
provide contractual liability coveragc; and -S~.4-4iiibilify 46r~h~e~~~-tw~j: :
. J. /r~~--~~ tfi -~2-P£'FAM$~-- . = ._--a-fl-.~~:
•~-if}i?~.~~. . _ _ _ ~!E►H;--e!i-~
Commercixl General Liabiliry insurance shall be %titten on Insurancc Smices Officc
J (ISO) occumencc furm CG 04 01 or a~un:titutc !+orrii and shall covcr products liabiiity.
T7ie City shol) be a named as an insured under tha Applicant's Commcnial General
Liability insumnce pulicy using ISO Additionnl lnsured-Statc or Aolitical Subdivisions-
Pernlits CG 20 12 oc a substitute cndorement providing cguivalent cuvcnge. Cavera~e
orlin :ncc O6- 1 ime Wamrr Fninchi;c Pugc 12 ui' 17
Uraft
shc►11 be written on an c►ccurrence basis %nth limits no Icss than $I,000,000 Combined
Single Limit per occurrencc and S2,000,000 general aggreptc for pcrsanal injury, badily
injury and pmperty damage. Covcra.ge shall include but not be limited to: blanket
contractual; products/compkted operadons; broad form property; explosiun, collapse and
underground (XCU); and Employces Liability.
- . - ciamd io-z~-~#-§i--t~e~-~e}~►t
sr'tSiaad-:^:=,.:ic-cr
. ---r-f'-s3Meh kiil;-the-E^t{~--N$**~'_-"- c_ cs _:s:._. , r : :l:C .i:-~TV:
insumes -4v~p3ft - • • ~ , • ~ - _ . - ~ . .
Gmnwe- +
5 s itS • SMOW9,
~ y
Y". . •
..r. r, v .
! •
: , , ~ _ .
r volumeeps . - - The
'
~d r FvTUM . _ ~-'?+4tiYH8-i e Cff~-:
The insurance policies are to contain, ar be Gndarsad to conta.in, the follow•ing provisions far
Commencial Gcner.i) t.iabilitv insurance:
1. The €mnelis~rantcr's ituuranee coverage shall be primary insurance w-ith respect to
ihe CITy 3= nutlined 1(I file !?1d~ff1ll11)cI'_rion +_Y•t?i[1 ~~i thi; agrremcn . Any If1Sltl8I1CC,
self-insurance, or insurance poa) coverage muintained by the City shalt be in escess of
ilze franchisee's insurancc and shall not contribute with it.
2. The 4&,+ ~1- Jransoc's insurance shall be endorsed to state thai cavcrage sfiall not be
cancellcdb5 eitheF paFfy, except aftrr thirty (30) days prior written notioe has been given
tn the City.
Insurattcu i~; to he plnced .4ith in;urer,; ti,. ith n currcnt A.!11_ Be,t rating uf not less than A:V11.
~ Grantm shaU fumish thc City %%ith orieinal certificatcs and a copy -::e amendatarrcndorsements, including the additinnal insured endursement, evidencing the insurance requiremcnts of the
Gmntce -a-:,-~- ifieate y - prioc ta the adoption of this
Urdinance.-.ap#-= i_ E►: - :t;$;!-ev:--lenee:
Any failun: to comply widi the m-polting provisions of the policies required herein shell not nffect
ccivznce provideci to the City, its olTicrrs, officials, empto}•eei or voluntcers.
Sectioa 38. Bond. Before undertaking anv of the work, installation, itnpmvements,
conswction, rrpair, relocation or maintensnce aut3iorizrd by this Franchise. Grantoe, or a»y parties
Grantcc contracts tvidi to pcrform labor in the perfomiance of this franchisr, shall, upon the request of the
Ciry, fumish a bond executed by Grantee or Gcantee's contractors and a corparaiz surety authorizeci tn
nperate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and apFroved by the City,
not to exce4d twcnt}•-fve thousand dollar:s, a.5 suf'ficient to ensijre perfnrmance of Grantee's tihligation.
()rcitnancr oh- i irr:e 1l'srncr Fr,:nclii'.: N4e 13 ut 17
Draft
under tliii rrajuhise. I-he txind Shall be cunditiuncd tio thnt c;rantee shall «hsene nll the cn%enanb, terntis
and conditsons and shall faithfully perfurm all of the obligaiions of'this Franchisc, and tn reFair or mplace
any defective woric or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or pruperty. Said bond shall rcmain
in effect for the life of this Franchise. !n the event Grantee proposes to ccrosbvct a projrct For which the
atwve-mentioned bond would not ensure perfnrmance of Grantee's obligttians under this Franctiise, thr
City is cntitlod to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under dhe circumstance,..
Section 9. Modifir.ation, The City and Grantee hereby reu.rve the right to uiter, amencl or
modify the terms and conditions of thiti Franchise upoci tikrittt» akr~ement kif hoth pariies to <ucli
altrr.ition, amendment or modificatian.
S-ectinn 40. Com~l~i,ance With Ncw RCgulatiuns. (inuttLe: shall promptly uompty with all
1aw-tul City orclers, ncsalutions, ardinance and provisions of thc City's cude related w Grantre's operation of
the facilitics; prnvided that (a) thc same eithet (i) am not irx:onsistent with this Cranchise or (ii) a.te a law-ful
e\ercise of the City's police power, nre limited to reasonably regulating time, place and manner of Grantce's
r.ntry onto or ncrivity within Gity's rights-of-wAy and (b) Grsntee shall not be subjext to any fees,
curnpettsaiion or uthct payTnents except tbose pmvided for under this Pranchise, if rsny, subject to Section 5 .
. l-he City and Graniee euch resen•e the right to reyuest that this Pranchise be changei, amended, modified.
or amplifiad to conform to any applicnblc Fcxferal or State stntute or judicial or a,,iministrative decisiun,
5uite and Narianal Cades, Stnndards, and Rcgulations as tnay herraftcr be cnar.icd, adopted or
promulgxted. Further, Grantee reserves the right tu cc>ntest any provisian of this Franchisc under aii-,
spplicable Federal or State statute c.~r judicial or administrative decision. Siate and Netiana! Codes.
Standards, and Regulations as are in effect upon thc efl'ectivc date of this Franchise or as may hereafter te
cnactcd, adopted or promulg,atod. lf the Grantee fails to comply +vith its terms nnd conditions, or if thc
Grantee fails tn compty wiili such changes, amcndments, modifications, attcllor amplifications, this
Franchise may bc° tcrminated at any time upen ninety (90) da} s' writtrn notice to the Cirtntee to ternlinate
this Franchise.
_ Tt3-m!A3{e swtiie, ~ . • =
- , - , o ' -
:!ia+:i@'d; 3dep£e--e~f . . y ' , .
. . . -
• iball he-$- kipen . ~5t~t's ~c'-'.---
, : r~'e4L WideF . . 'c"'ri~ v-rcmrv scr!{i--faF-aRS'-=e
. , - ,r~4C : ..i
. . . _ -i . .
. - ' - r . . . - - .
`ectiuo 41. Porfeiture and Ite% ocatian. lf Grantec willfulty vialates or fails to compl}
with any uf thc pcowisiuns of diis Pranchise, or through willful or utiressonablc tiegligencc fails to heed or
comply with any notice given Grantre by the City under tlie ptvvisions of lhis Franchise, and an adequatc
opportunity to cure the violatian or nan-compliance has becn given in w-riting to Grantee, thrn Grantee
shall, at the electioa of the City, forfeit alt ri~,rhts conferred hereunder and this I=ranchise may be revokrkf
or annulled by the Ciry after a hearing held upon reasonablc notice to Grantee. Thc City may elect, in licu
-,-f ilte above and without any prcjudice to any of its othcr legal rights and remedies, to obtain an «rder
from the Spokane Counry Superior Court cnmpelliag Grantee to comply witli the provisions of ihis
Franchise and to recover damagts and custs incurted by the City by rr:ason of Grantee's failuro to eomply
Section al. ~Vssignment. This Franchise may not ba assigned or transferred without il~e
written apprnval of the City, excent that Grantce can assign this Franchise withuut approval of but upon
nrtice to the City to any parent, affiliatc c,r suhsidiary of Grantce or to any rntity thai acquires aU ur
( t;iiinancz 00- 1 ii=ie \ti'<:r,cr f-r-, ;i cLi~,c V' :ce 14 (q 17
nraft
substantially all the asscLs ar cquity of Grantcc, by mergar, sale, consolidatioa or Mhetwise.
- - - iiei+-~~A 4 ike-C-i-ty-
t!ft any finmeiRga er ref -
t-;-,.. .
_s aC. II - .
S"tion 43. Acceotance. Not latcr than thirty days after passage and publication of this
Urciinunco, die Grantee rnust accept the rranchise hercin by tiling witfi the City Clerk An unconditional
written acceptance dirrcof. ['ailuce of Grantce to so aceept this Franchise w-ithin said period of time shsll
be deemcd a rejection thercof by Grantcc, and the rights and privilrgcs hcrein granted shall, aftcr the
espimtion of the thirty days period, absolute0y cease, unless the time pcriod is extended bv ardinaiicc du1y
passeil }or that purrx)se.
tiE'CIIAD 44. Survivai. All of the provisions, eanditions and rzquirements of Scxtions: 4, 5, 13,
25,26, 27, 36 and 48 of this Franchise shal) be in addition tu any and all other obligations and liabitities
Ur.unteo mny have to the City at common law, by statute, by ardinance, ar by contract, and shall survive
tcrmination of this Franchise, ar►d any renewals or extensions hereaf. All af the provisiQns, conditians,
regulations and roqu'ucments contained in this Franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs,
successars, extrutors. Administrators, legal mpresentatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all
privileges, as well as all o6ligations and liabilitics of Grantee shall inurv to +ithcir respective heirs,
successors and assigns equally as if they were spctifically mentiottod
Secti4n 4 5eyerabilitv. If any section, scntence, clause or phisse af this (?rdinaacc shauld
tx: held to bo invalid or anconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionntity shall not afFect the validity ar cvnstitutiona]ity of any other section, sentence, clause ar
phrase af this Ordinance. !n the evcnt that any af the pro-s-isiQns of the Franchise arc held to be invalid by
a couri of comprtent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to rmonsidcr the grant of the franchise and
may amend, rcpcal, add, mplacc or modify tinv uther provision nf the Franrhisc, or may teRninatc the
Fr.inchi;e.
Scctioo 46. Renewal. Applicatian for extettsion or renewal of the term of thu Ftanchise
shull bc made no later thnn one ycar before exPiratian thrceof. [n the cvcnt the time pcriod granted by
this Franchise expirrs without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hmrnf shaU cantinue
in effect until diis Franchicc is eithrr renewed ar terminatcd by the City.
Scttioa 47, ti~it.ice. Any nuticc or infarmalion tequired or pcnnitted to be givcn by or to
the parties under this Franchise may be sent to the following addrrsses unlcss otherw•ise spcciticd, in
N% riiing:
rne c;cv: c;ty nfspokane valiey
ncm: ciry clerk
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106
Spotcane Valley, WA 99206
Graititre: Time Warner 7'elocom of Washington LLG
Attn: V1'. & Deputy General Cnunse)
1047> Park Mcsdou s nri% c
(?r.'.ln.uicc Ob- l'izric 1V.uner Franchisc Pae- 15 of 1'
Draft
Lictletan, CU 8012-1
Phonc: (30i) i66-1~79
F,Lt: ( ;U;1 4 66- 10 10
Scction 48. Choice of Lmv. :1ns litiutEon br<w«.n tfhe Citv anJ Grantcc ari~Pint under ur
regarding this Franchise shall occur, if in the stale courts, in the Spol►ane County Superior stin, and if in
the fedcral courts, in the Unital Staics District Court for the Eastern District of Washingt~-%ri.
Secdoo 49. Non-Waiver. T'he City shall be vested witfi the power and ;iuthority tti
reasonably regulatc the cxercise of the privileges pcrmittcd by this Franchise in the public interest.
Grantce shal) nut be rtlirved of its obligations to camply with any of the provisions of this Franchise b~-
reasun of any failure ofthc Ciry to enforce pmmpt compliance. nur .Ioes the Cit~~ %%,ai% ror limit any of ik
rights under this Franchise by resuon of wch failuro or neglect.
Sectioo 50. Entire A ment. Iliis Nranchise constitutes ttie cntire undtr~.tanJin~ aiiJ
.xve agreement betwexn the paities as to the subject mattcn ccrcin and no othzr agmemerits ur understanJings.
written or othetwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon exetution and aaaepiance hereaf. 71ii"
Franchise shnll alsn supersede and cancrl any previuus right or claim nf Grantce to a;cupy the Count~
roads as hcrein described.
5ection 51. ECfectivc Datc. T1iis Urdinance shall be in full forre and effect 6ve days aRcr
Cublicatian of the ordinancc or a surnman thcn-t'c-ccuri in the u(licial ne«,~paNr of tlic City (1f"tipokane
Valley as provided by lavv.
Sectioo 52. 11ost Favurcd Nation Status. lC at a►iy <<mC 5ub~,eau«nt co the e.ecution or tE,is
Franchise, anv other pruvider af telccommunications services shal) enter into an agreement w-ith the C'ity
governing the use of public rights-of-way wfiose material terms and conditions are more favorable to thac
provider than nre the terms of this Franchise ta Grantee, tfien this Franchise shaU be modified such that
the material tertns and conditions as applicable to Gnintte, are jtist as favorable as the matcrial terms i:nd
condition of such other agrecment are to such other tricrommunications pravider.
PASSEI) bv the CitN' Coiincil this dav of . 2006.
I )ian:~ Wilhite. Ri;cNor
ATTEST:
('Eiri-:Iinc (,itN ('IerG.
Approveci its to Forin:
Cay I'. Urlskell. Ueputy Cit,- .1ttornev
Iaate of Publication:
Effcctive Untc:
Ordinaricc 06- Tiric \L';:rirr Fr,mchisc f'a~c 16 of I''
Draft
~
Accepted by Time Wamer Tclecom of Washington LLC,
By: Time Warner Telecom Woldings lnc.,
!ts sole member By:
The Grantce, Time Warner Telecom of Nashington LLC., a li.mited liability company, for itself,
and for its suecessors and assigns, does accept all of t,he terms and conditions of the foregning franchise.
IN NVITNESS NArHEREOF, has sigiied this day of_
. 2006. Subscribed and sworn before me this _ day of .2006.
Nbtary Public in and for the State of VVashington,
residing in
My commission expires
~
,
Ordinaace 06- Time Wamer Franchise Page 17 of 17
DRAF"r
ADVANCE AGENllA
For Pla.nnicig l7iscussion Furposes Only
as of 1Vray 31, 2006 1:30 p.m.
Please note lhis is awork in progress; items are tentative
Tp: Council & Staff
From: City vtanager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
Wednesclav, June 7, 2006,10:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. Joint Nleetine with Board of Countv Commissioners
County Courfhouse, public hearing nn- confirmcd [1"entative City topics: Mihvaukee ROW; long-term criminal justice]
June 13, 2006, Regulsr Mceting. 6:00 .m. [duc datc Thurs, June 11
1. PUBI,TC NFA. .R.T.NG: Cablc Franchise - Morgfin Koudelka [30 minutes]
2. Consent Agenda: VlinuCes, Claims, Payroll (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2006 F3udget - Ken Thonlpson , [5 minutes]
4. First Reading, I'roposed Orclinancc Amending SVNIC Title 10, Construction Work and Activity
Within Right-of-way (SVMC 1 itle 10.05.070-10.05.250)- Tom Scholtens/Cary L7riskell [15 minutes] .
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Time Warner Franchise - Cary I7riskell [10 minute.s]
6. Proposed ResoluCion Adopting 2007-2012 TIP - Steve NVorley [10 minutes]
7. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments Student tldvisory Council -Councilmeinber DeVleming[10 min]
8. Mation Consideration: Co. SewerMOUAmenclment-Neil Kersten [15 minutes]
9. Motion Consideration: (t) Converting Broadway to Three Lanes; (2) Change Orcler - Neil K.ersten [15 min:l
10. Administi-ative Iteports: (a) Cable Franchise Update - vlorgan Koudelka [10 minutes]
(b) Sion Code Update - Mike Connelly [15 minutes]
l 1. Infoeination Qnly: Model Jail and Geiger Agreement- Morgan Koudelka; (b) Approved .
Plan.ning Commission Minutes; (c) Response to Public Comments [estimated meekinb: 140 minuteS*1
Wed, .Iunc 14. 2006, G D.m. Conversation w/Communirv. Greenacres Christian Church, 1801$ F. Mission Ave.
Sxt, June 17, 2006; 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 o.m.; M.id-Year CounciUStaff Retreat [duc date, Monday, June 121
(Cauncilcnember Denenny's Cabin) '1'erilalive agenda itents inchule: •
1. Cotazcil Goals for 2007 4. Updated Finmrcial x'orecast
2. Co:mcil Goals for 2006 (scrb-crrea plannir:g?) S. Joinl Platining
3. I3u5iness Pltrnning Template Info Only.• Workplari Updnte
Annexution Approaches
June 19, 2006: Joint Mceting with CTED, Board of Countv Commissioners, et a1,11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
lntergovemmental Cooperal'ion Seminar: joint planning. ENW River Point Campus, Health Services Building,
Room I 10 A RR B. (lunch provided) a►vaitingfill cor:frrmation June 20, 2006, NO MEETiNG. (Cowicil attends AWC Anuual Conferencs June 20-23, 2006)
June 27. 2006, Re.eular Mee6ne, 6:00 n.m. [due date Thurs, June 151
1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [S minutes] '
2. Second Reiding, Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC Tiele 10, Construction Work and Activity
Wilhin Right-of-way (SVMC Title 10.05.070-10.05.250 - Tom ScholcenslCary Driskell [15 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Time Warner Franchise - Cary Driskell [10 minutes]
4. First Reading Proposed Qrdinance Amending Property Maintenance Code -Cary Driskell ' [10 minutes]
5. Proposcd Resolution: Amending Fee .Resolution (appeal fees, fire fees, etc) `[10 minutes]
6. vlotion Consideration: Cost of Living Adjustmcnt for rzon-represented Employees - Dave Mercier [S min]
7. Vlotion Consideration: Jail and Geiger Agreements - Nlorgan Koudelka [15 minutes]
Dra[t Advance Agenda 5131f2006 125 PM F'age 1 of 2
8. Administr3tive Report: (a) 911 Board Ugdate - Lorlee Mizell [15 minutes]
. (b) Fire District #1 Report -Ken Thompson [15 m.inutes]
(c) Development Code Update - Mike Connelly/Mariiia Sukup [ 15 minutes] ~
(d) Comp Pla.n Amendment Process - Mike Connelly/Marina Sukup [15 minutes]
9. Information Only: (a) Department Vlonthly Reports
(b) Approved 1'lanning Cornmission Minutes
(c) Response to Public Comments [estimated meeting: 130 minutes*]
Ju[y 4 - NO MEETT.NG
Julv 11, 2006, Reaular Meetinf!, 6:00 n.m. [due dxte Thurs, June 291
1. Consent A~enda: iMinutes, Claims, l'ayroll [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance tlmending I'roperty Maintenance Cocle - Cary 17riskell [10 minutes]
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation STV 01-06 - Karen Kendall [5 minutes]
Julv 18, 2006. Studv Session, 6:00 n.m. fdue date Thurs. Julv 61
1. WSDO`C- Round-abouts -Neil Kersten/Brian Walsh of WSDOT (20 minutes)
' Julv 25. 2006, Retular Meetine, 6:00 n.m. Jclue date Thurs. Julv 131
1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims,l'ayroll [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading 1'roposed prdinarice for StreeC Vacation STV 01-06 - Karen Kendall [5 minutesJ
3. Administrative Repor[.s:
4. Inforrr►ation Only: Department Monthly Reports Aueust 1, 2006 - NO WETING - NATYOYAL NIGAT OUT
Auaust 8, 2006. Reeular vleeHng, 6:00 n.m. [due date Thurs July 271
1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes]
August 15, 2006, Studv Scssion, G:QO ti.m. Jdue date Aup-ust 31
August 22, 2006, Reeular MccHng, 6:00 p.m. Jdue date Thurs. Augiist 101
1. Consent Ag
,enda:lVlinutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes]
3. Administrative Reports:
4. Information Only: Department vlonthly Repnrts
OTIiER PENDIiNG AN])/017 UPCOMIi~'G tSSUFS/1VIEETINGS:
Joint Council/Planning Commission Session for Sprague Corridor Subarea: Thursday, October 12, 2006
Joint Council/Planning Co .mmission Session for Sprague Corridor Subarea: °I uesday, January 16, 2007
Pandemic Response Strategies - I'ire DistricC # 1 Chief Mike Thompson
Pristn/Plus/Padal (Parcel Data Locator) System - Chris Berg
Central Valley School District Impact Fee Request
I'roposed Sidewalk Ordinance
Sewer Collection $ystems-Neil Kersten
SEPA Mitigation Strategies - Cary DriskelUGreg McC4rmick/Neil Kersten
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Policy Issues - Marina SukupMike Connelly
Dale Stedman, Jerry Lenzi - to report on the North/South T'reeNvay
CH2VI Hill Valley Corridor EA A.mendment-Neil Kersten .
estimated meeting [ime does not include time for public conunents]
Drssft Advance Agenda 5/3 I/200b 125 PM Yagc 2 of 2
c~ n c~
Spokane .
,,;OoOA*7a11ey 11 707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Informational Memo
Date: May 26, 2006
To: David Mercier, City Manager and Members of City Council
From: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Cc: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Re: 2006 Sewer Paveback Update •
Back in March staff presented to Council an infonnational memo providing an update on the
status of the c4sts for the sewer paveback projects. At that time two of the three County sewer
projects had been bid (1/eradale Heights, Electric RR) and an estimate was provided for the
third project (Vera Terrace). The Vera Terrace Project bid opening is schetluled for
Wednesday, June 7.
Because of only one bidder and higher than expected bid prices, the cost to the city for full-width
paving and drainage improvements was higher than originally anticipated. For example the -
Electric Railroad Project saw a 50% increase in bid prices for all Stormwater related facilities
compared to 2005 bid prioes. . .
It is anticipated that the total costs to the city for all three projects will exceed the total amounts
identified in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and Spokane
County for reimbursement of full-width paving and drainage facility costs.
The previous informational memo stated that staff would bring back to Council a proposed .
amendment to the MOU once we had the final costs. The following table shows the original approved budget and revised costs based on this year's
actual bids. These revised costs include additional structures added during construction and
consultant design and inspection services. The project shortfall for paveback and drainage
facilities is shown at the bottom.
Project aPproved MOU Budget ~ Revised Costs based on Bids
Paveback ~ Drainage ~ Paveback ~ Drainage
Electric Raifroad I $77,000 I $52,000 I $87,369 I $76,000
Vera Terrace" I $241,000 I $41,500 I$341,264"` I $48,000"
Veradale Heights I $357,000 I $37,000 I$430,256 I $45,000
Contingency I $100,000 I $19,500 I $75,000 I $31,000 .
Total Costs I $775,000 I $150,000 ~$933,889 I $200,000
"Estimated Costs ~ Shortfall ~ -$158,889 ~ -$50,000
~ Informational Memo 5/26/2006
2006 Sewer Paveback Update Page 2
The Electric Railroad and Veradale Heights Projects have been awarded. To fully fund the full-
width paving and drainage facility costs for the Vera Terrace Project the MOU with Spokane
County will need to be increased $159,000 for paveback costs and $50,000 for drainage related
costs.
For the additional paveback costs, approximately $50,000 can be funded with the CDBG funds
received for the Vera Terrace Project.
The remaining $109,000 in paveback costs can come from the Street Capital Project Fund
(303), Other Preservation Projects line item. There is $1,033,843 currently budgeted in that line
item. We have decided to ciefer all preservation projects from that line item this year until the
Street Master Plan is completed in 2007. This will allow us to use the funds as determined by
the new Street Master Plan. The funds in the preservation line item remaining from 2006 can
be rolled over into 2007.
The additional drainage related costs can come from the Stormwater Management Fund (402),
which has $350,000 budgeted for Capital Outlay. There are sufficient funds in this line item to
cover these sewer projects costs.
We will bring to Council on June 13 an amendment MOU for approval with adjusted project
costs for the Vera Terrace Project based on the actual bids received on June 6,h.. ,
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.
~ - , ~ . - ~
' I
C'OUNCIL MEF.TING.~ .ILINE 6. 2006 ,
ATTACHED AR.E ADUI'"IONAL MATFRIAGS FOR ACENllA 1TFMS 2. 3. ~ ' rio ~
` r Spokane County, WA
F ut~u re S ewer R~a~fi - s
Spokane Valley City Council Presentation
June 6, 2006 ~
.
FCS"GRO:UP.;
.Solutlons-Oilented;&nsuldng
~ • .
. , ; ~4; • ~,r.~
Agenc~a
. . ~:R~ti•.~=~c1..,..~~ ~~r_~_~F~?T.
. u . ._~w..::~~'J• .
> Sewer Utility Rates Outlook
> Rate Options for Low Income Seniors/
Disabled Customers
t>FCS GROUP-
~
~
`1
. ~ /
~i
i
v ~
= 4
_ ~ e er U~iliiy 4utlook
,
,
---o.~Q-
. > In 1996, the County undertook an aggressive sewer
construction program, which is expected to be completed in
2010-2011
> A number of revenue sources have been dedicated to
support this rapid growth
> In addition to eactending the system, other major capital needs
include:
• Funding Water Quality Improvements to City Plant
• Addressing Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Costs
■ Expanding Treatment Capacity
■ Building Reserves for the Replacement of Collection System
k> FCS GROLFP
_..o...M 4
l
~
V
u . d~r~g So~rces Summary
I Revenue Sourco I Purpose I wsROry
S1rsDo Gran.s Pro9ram Costs 20 year Orant oi $3,76 miGon par year
APA Clwrgo 'locfll Alalch of qroqnm' RcautAaL.•ed in 2005 Oo provida fundng for
lA'atar Qualy
General FeclWes Chargo Trea:maM Expansim% Interceptors, Ghacgo cn New CuslccrcerB for Treatmwif Cohs,
(GFC) en0 PLrny Sta;bn. lirietceptors, and Purrp Statiens
Ce-pIIEd FadIWoS Rato Prngram PaHiaf of Treatmenl Gandnod GFC and locW trafge tor atstOmerG
(CFR) E.Vonsion cnd Prograrn Cosls tn Sawminp ProWam.
0.RIA Opcratfons mC Idainteimnce of Cirronfry $Z 1.00 pcr monlh
Edstlnp Fadli;ks
Ra1o Stakiliza:~an Ctcarge UpgraOe of Ezlsfinfl Traaimwif Cirrenlly 58.6B per maMh
Cavacitr
FC.S GCtOUP
~ ' .
. . . . -.r
..d
Lon~g erm Financial Planning ts,sues
. ' _ • . . - . • ~ crvi3?4t]p
> Substantial Rate Impacts of Capital Programs
> Trade-offs Among Various Rates and Charges
> Evolution of Subsidy Policies as Sewer
Construction Program is Completed > Expected Rate of Customer Growth
FCS GROUP
. • ~...~.w:..~e c...~.k 6
~
. ~
ssn
Policy ~ uest~ian's
, . . ~ - V.~. . _r
➢ Timing/magnitude/composition of rate increase
9 Growth - Financial forecast is heavily dependant on
growth. Higher rate increases may be needed in future
if non-program growth is less than projected.
• ➢ Treatment Costs - Costs for O&M and capital are
estimated at this time. Significant changes to those
costs could cause substantial revisions to forecast.
➢ Replacement Reserve - What level of funding should current customers pay for replacement of system?
r•cs cROUp
e
Rate Opt~io s farLow tncome
Sen,ior/Disa~bled ~ustomers
, ut ority
v RCW 74.38.070 is the primary Washington State Statute that
provides the authority to offer reduced rates for low-income senior citizens or other low-income cifizens. D Eligibility Requirements - Levels are set by the governing body and
can include restrictions on income level, age, disability, and
property ownership. State and/or Federal guidelines can be used to
help to define parameters, such as:
• H.U.D.'s Median Famify Income
■ H.M.S.'s Poverty Guidelines
• Social Security Administration (S.S.A.)
• RCW 46.16.381 (1) (6-0, fnr disabled citizens .
-:jFCS GROUP
~
' • •
Existi g Programs _
- • . ' . --diyi:''1.~.... i
> Kitsap County - Offers a 15% discount to sewer rates
- Must first qualify for property tax exemption (owner occupied)
• 61 years or older; Income level below $35,000 .
> City of West Richland - Offers a 30% sewer rate discount
• 61 years or older, Combined Disposable Income level below $30,000
> Spokane County Assessor - Administers Property Tax Exemptions
. • 62 years or older, Combined Disposable Income level less than $35,000
> Communiry Aquifer Protection Assistance Program (CAPA) - Offers
sewer connection assistance (CFR)
• 65 years or older, Offered to Iow and moderate income customers
based an a percentage of inedian family income
•;>FCS GROUP .
w~.. . .e a-~sv 10
O
~'ot cy ~o ~siderations
• _ `,T.t'7s¢~YJtlV
r Customer Base - Will the rates apply to Low-income Seniors or
include low-income disabled customers as well?
> Eligibility Parameters - What should the requirements be for...?
• Income, Age, Property Ownership, and Disability
> Level of discount - 20%, 30%, 40%, other?
➢ Using the Tax Assessor's database of eligible customers for
property tax exemption
• Can this be easily transfeRed to Ihe current billing system?
F.CS GROUP
11
• -r-• Rate t~ pti o n~s
Current Monthly Rates:
• For sewer seMce (O&M) - $21,00 .
• Far Wastewater TreaUrtent Plant - S8.68
• Total Comb9ned Rate = E27.68
* Discount Rates of:
For Discounted ERUs NW20}%~l1lllllll11lI' M3D96j=' j~40•°~is~
Sewrr Serv6ui $16.99 $14.95 1 $12.89
Wastewater Treatrnent Plant $5.41 $4.76 S4,10
Comblnod Rate 522.40 $19.71 $16.99
Changatmrn Curtcnt Rabo (5.28) (7,97) (10.69)
Foc All Other ERUs X~ MQI
SAwer SErvice $2124 $21.36 $21.49 I
Wastowatsr Treatmenl Plant $6.76 $6.80 $6.83
Combined Rate $28A0 $26.16 $28.32
Cnsnye trom CwreM Re:a 0.32 0.48 0.64
FCS CROUP. ~w . . c..~s.. 12
I~
~
- - - : •r~>
Rev~enue mpact~s
> Estimated ERU Breakdown:
Ap Other ERUs 39,426
Discounted ERUS + 2.360
Totat ERUs 41,786
> Total Monthly Revenues Generated:
• Total Revenue fs maintained fram curcent rate scenario.
WttwrerV.! M209`0MIll M30%07~■ IW4OYr6Mli
from Ofscaun4ee:f ERUs S 65,325 $ 52s857 $ 46,515 I$ 40,101
from Adl Other ERUs S 1,091`312 $ 1,963.780 $ 1.110,121 $ 1,116,536
Total Revenuo $ 1,155,636 $ 1,156,636 I $1.156.636 I $ 1,156,636
-e:*PCS.GROUP
is
Q
~'oli y Qeci~sio s Needed
> % Reduction for Low-Income Seniors . > Subsidize Disabled too?
v Utilizing the Assessor's Property Tax Exemption database for
identifying eligible customers, for which the eligibility
parameters are already defined. , n Implementation Strategy
FGS GAOUP ' ,..ic..o+..s.o..~a 14
O
` j
, ` '4~~:~: _e~.g4: •ut5~a. /
Y • i`
Ne + Steps
➢ Update financial analysis once revised capital needs are available -
Late 2006
> Project rate increases and generate scenarios - Eady 2007
v Develop implementation strategy - Earty 2007
➢ Gonsider changes in rate structure (including low income
senior/disabled class) '
' f> FC$ GROi1P
' we.:oL.re~o.ay 15
\
. ~
. ~
AGENDA ITEM #3
ID1,N« $UCHERr WILLIS & RATL1FF
lDIMP1L. CORPORATIO N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Hayes (SRTC)
FROM: Mi1ce Pawlalc
SIJBJECT: Pxoject5tatrxsUpdate
[}ATE. june 2, 2006 Projecf # 200-M4.0l
1
The purpose of this me.tnoeandum is to provide SRTC st-aff arid member jurisdictions wi#h a
brief statrxs report of praject pragress. Flease do not hesitake ta share this update with the
various merattrers o# your organization artd their staff and elected offici.als.
PrQXect Kic1c-aff Meetings. The utiitial efforts consisted of tiwo meetings with representatives of =
the Spakane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), on 1VlarclY 2l?O6. A meeting between
tltc Consultant Team menn;Iaexs and staff inernbers frvrrr SRTC mexxtbex jurisc8uctuibs was held
in the morning. The purgose of that rneetirtg was #o conduct a detailed review of the project
scope and schedule; atd identify, discuss and cotxfirrn the ~oals and expectatians vf both the
SRTC representatives and the Consultant Teagn In the afternoon, on that same day, the
Cotxsultant 'Feam made a brief gresentatiort of the scope and schedule to the SRTC Board.
Again ashort disc-wsion of Soard Members' expeckations was helci,
Data Collection, Analysis and Reports. Af#er receiving irukial input and eoYtfirniation of gaaLs
and expectations from both the Board and sfafF 1evels of the SRTC, the Consul#.ant Team
praceeded with data col7ec#ion artd initiakion of the various analyses. SRTC stafff assisted by
pxouadittg existing stuciies, report,s and other data that wouZd be needed for cortduckistg th,e
study.
Aliterature rev-iew was accamplished in whieeh CorL5ultant Team mentbers aeviewed data
grovidecl by SRTC as we11 as other studies and documentation relatzve to regional concurr+ency
programs and policiies frorn other areas, both inside and outside of WA State, Lnfoa-mation
revzewed ineluded studies aecomplished fvr cities in tkte CerttraX Puget Sound Region and in
areas withirt the State of Florida. Technical Mernorandum #2 was tIien prepared, outIirtirtg the
mateiials reviewed and reiposting the4 various finding,; in tlxose Fi~ports. Tech 1vlezno #2 vvas
subrritted to SRTC on hrlay 4th , for review and wrikte-n cornnnents,
An additi-onal review of historica1 informadon was accornpl.ished during the mottth af May on
Transportation Per#orn-Lance Measures considered and in use in other parts af khe coclrrtry. In
parkicular, this review considered measures tttat have been coasidererl in the Puget Sound
Region stuclies a.ttd rn(?asures that are already in use in FIorida. A discussion of Florida
rneasures tftat may be perrnatted ttrrder the WA State Growffi T'viannagement Act was also
inclrided. Tech iviemv #3 was subm.itted tv SRTC on Jun~ 2,,~, for zeview and written
cvrnmen#s,
A review of WA, State Iegislation and case Iaw regarding growth management and concurrency
was conducted. The review aLso included legislation imacted in other states and case law from
a 720 OLnVE'WAv, SuiTE 1200 r SEATrLE, V'WASHiNGraN 9$101-1 867 0 2061448-2123 9 FAJC: 2061441-1622 ■
BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED)
June 2, 2006 - Page 2
those states. A Technical Memorandum #4 was prepazed outlining the document review and
analysis. The Tech Memo discusses the various situaHons surrounding concurrency
requirements and pitfalls whereby jurisdictions might be found as preventing property owners
from the freedom of using their own private property. The Tech memo outlines certain case
law that has upheld jurisdictional actions and others that have found that public policy has
over-reached its bounds. Tech Memo #4 was submitted to SRTC on June 15t for review and
written comments.
All three technical memorandums will be reviewed and disrussed at the upcoming
Stakeholders' Workshop.
Stakeholders' Workshop. On June 14th, the Consultant Team and SRTC Staff will be holding a
Stakeholder~s Workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to review the work that has been
accomplished so far, and to seek input hom SRTC members and other stakeholders on
expectations and concerns. The discussion will identify the advantages and disadvantages of
regional concurrency and seek input/ reaction from jurisdictions, developers, contractors and
other members of the communities. The continuing analyses that will result in strategic
recommendations for the SRTC will consider the input received at the June 14th Workshop.
Closing. The information presented in this memarandum/progress report is a brief ovcrview
of the efforts accomplished thus far on the regional roncurrency study.
LDRTAT(Ot{4COh1{URR(NCY SKS1ElA- ffi,SPOKkNE: A FEASIBII:IT~ STUDY.
h
STUDY UPDATE
~ore~ ro
I_
Hrmrad bY
In dssorfedfon wtth
m sucHER, wIuIS & AnniFF CORPOR/1T10N
June 5, 2006
PURPOSE OF STUDY
❖To develop an evaluation of the advantages
and disadvantages to aommunity
stakeholders from implementation of a
regional transportation concurrency system
in Spokane County.
1
STUDY TASKS
Fas" Task 5 72sir5
rrofed trpal wzu,unent rrew ana Coro
MmlrJstrNlan . , . ArylYmy
I
- Task'S T~sk A- - Tssk 10
:Agericy/ sc.k.naa.r I
Inrolvamant ►eYtlo~ ~n0 focfo- R~
(Wortshep) KonomicA , . ~ t
i
Task 3 ~ ~aak'
- Concumeney ConaeraneY
Uteratura aivieW R~vl~ ~ropsr
I Tsd~Nd Mpmcts
Task 4 - , 72y"
rranspo`sndon;;;,- w~nury~npNaten~~
SwMm Portorrnsnq T i rtatlon
Meaturet /or Fadlltles
Concucrency
i
PROJECT TIMELINE & DELIVERABLES
TA9C DESCRI9TION MONTMS AFfFR NOTI(E TO PItOCM
DtbeRM'iYitistratlm
fefk 2 Ayecyl5taladKilcle Imdvenent
a) CmdWdm wO SttTC
D) TeitnYCal AdvYurY CairrWfee MctlM~pt •
c) Warkficy wft tocai Amodp10iK
QI Fdlow uo 1nDOrvW4 vrlh 5talcehoWers I
T~rLM7l~Ms7nrs~alim I l
raac a conana++cr uowaara toeaew I I I
0
T
~4 MeBgjm
T p I i I I
r,di sLeor, _ t I I
Ta9c 6 Pdlual Q Saoo-EmnmMC AssesndK I I
r ~
T&* ' `°T'a"a" R""M' P'°°lm I I I ( I
a Tru
~ e ~ I I I
Tu► t0 Repou
a) DraR Ryart 1or SFtC aeview :J
b) Finai Repat far 4iTC Revkw LJ
c) Pres[nlatlm a FYdm m TfC, SRT'C
awLt ard Othw nartles
2
J
STUDY PROGRESS
❖ Completed the literature review on various
concurrency implementation strategies (Task 3)
❖ Completed the review of transportation system
performance measures for concurrency applications
(Task 4)
❖ Completed the legal assessrnent (Task 5)
❖ Draft technical memoranda for Tasks 3 to 5 were
submitted to SRTC for review
❖ A workshop is scheduled for 7une 14"h to discuss
with stakeholders the findings of Tasks 3 to 5 and to
gather input for the remaining study tasks
IMPLICATIONS OF A REGIONAL CONCURRENCY SYSTEM
TO JURISDICTIONS IN THE SPOKANE COUNTY
❖ Advantages
>Better addre.sses the issue of pass-through traffic
between jurisdittions
rAllows for coordinated efforts in corridor
improvements
➢Better coordination of land use and transportation
decisions
➢Can allow for more leverage in securing project
funding
UD.
3
IMPLICATIONS OF A REGIONAL CONCURRENCY SYSTEM
TO JURISDICTIONS IN THE SPOKANE COUNTY
Disadvantages
➢Reduced control in establishing regional priorities
>Reduced control in certain land use decisions
>Requires increased interjurisdictional
coordination
4
Agenda Item 84
ai-gelow c
Forker Road
Urban Connector
Spokane County Engineers
1026 W Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
509-477-3600
~S
j . ..ya,. . . z~'h-i,~~ - ! ,~:~x
~-,..a ■ t ~ 'rS~,~ ~ ~ ~ •~f~a'i~','r : .
. .
1 ~'a, .~f ' '~a J.
.
~
" ~ • . ;
~ • ~ ....mi
. " ~r .4s a;` ~~'..~w : la,•_.
x4 ~f, ~ . ~y~ . L~
} ~ 1 3 rav . t~ ti . .FF!~ •
~ •.~a.yp {~'?i`T , + 'Y"~.~,~~ e/. . ~~,~y'_~„~ 1r7~ f ' ~.J ~1Y :.t
* ~I
.
c
~
s ~i ~ d ~ ; ~ * . i ; • _ , ~~a'y+, ,;r~T°
2 - 1v~~',,y~ i. { ~ ~ ~'s"• .,~~~-t ~.d:
. , ,
r
~k : 3ti ; : . ¢ t~ ~1I . ; ` . •'r ya #i ,
}
~ ~ ~ I~ - i~'•, ,"+rt~~~~ i~~' `si r.". b+ J i~ .
: i
.
n
~ ♦
~1~!y
C
~ ~K • kw~ 4~.
~ ~y L~ •r'~ .~~e tiw`:Y~'
J ~ : ~ i ~rt 't ~'t ~.rq. ~i rS
s.-
I Oi~ f 1; c h. ♦ a~~iah~JO 5 a~/ Y~ y- :
f .Y~.✓~ ~ s ~ ~ - .
v,.,'h. ',~'~Y i~ - r .r~~}~' i!,
• . r'.. ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ .
. .s- _ y~~.~~ i • . . '
. ~r , .Y',1 x ~ n?~a _ .t . ♦
. { 5t ' a_ ~ ~K'y } . 1~•~ ' m~' . ~
. , ',F t • 1• ~ . c r,F' i. {r~' , . . ,1' . i
O1dELpM! aVU~
~ . ` , . sT `1~'1~►: ` , z~~ ; j . ' ~ ' r.
NA'VAKA ` ~'~1+~7 ~ ~ ~ w~..":"'~~,. , ~ t, ~ , ~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a{♦ Yl ~ 7 . A*
l ~ C .fi. ? lti1. '^9'".t ~ s~ ~ ` °fc~ FV F~.ti. 1~~': y , ~f" 4 }li~ ~ .
. ~
~
!
~
_ , .
~~i t,. _ .~,!2~l
- "
. .
i
~ .I a. .y~ ~t;Y., j `u~ j :~~~'~'~}a ~ y
~ ~ K ,~;,x 1 ,a4 r •
~ ~y' ~R, ~ i r h~"~, ~ ° ~r' t b ''t R
- ~ ~~;T~iy'~ ~4 'q~ y : ri-. ~t `~Cr a.~~ f•..
'.4,~ t`' ' ~ f ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ` X,4.
'k
' .~~Y~hr ~~r ~r
~ x
n'- ♦ `ki: ~yn L'y„ cJ+n~y .51~
. ~ I,~ _`1 'Y'h.~- , •Y~ ~ ~ M f~~' ~,~ET ` ; Jo .l .T.`~ 1(JN
•rx1 c 1,,,t~f p~ ~r: ~ ~ .t.' .~:M ~ . , p ` A"~ r. ..~c`l
` ~ .'1'' O"~R ~A 6~• ; ~ , l ~ r:. ~~e
y°'~" 'r: Cl ~h~ k~` ,I' ~ , A , b' ~ ' f ?
~~,,'at'1~ ~`iy.'!'~~ f , . . L fa,p. w.,~• r _~l'Ir,, t~.~:~ - 1 t y ~ -
' !f"~„tiP~ ° f ~ ~S7 eta~"`` tfU ~ , ~,r ~ , ~ ~ ~ f a w .'sry~`«4-~ti•~ a ~YK x • Fi r~Fi :t ~ ~ ~ . f~,~,,,~a, . ~ f r ~ 5 , 'Fi ~ • ~ ~ ra.,L~ • + :
~ ~~r. a.:~ ~`^T.,~~~ '~f" 7'"'~ i •~~!'Y. ~ '
.-r ♦ t J ~ ' `L}. ~~~f.+- ~~'~r ..y A^L r~ ' M ; . t.
y ~?~tr ~ <; 3~~~~ ~ 7~ t ' e titi 'f ~ r .
r
i + .
'~.Y`7 ii . + L'1 ' 7,1~. l+.r `x ~ ~ • ±~~1 ~ - ~ ~ :'S1 , ~ ~ ' ~4'~ '
~j.u~..~ ~1~ r _ 7 ~`.r~ t'•'$;`.av`~ ~[.p~,~^~ti~~
~
s~.~.•~(~j+','~t S y, ii ' : 1S ~vt'i
.M"" It ee ' ~ ~ " t~ v. ~j. ~~?r!~i 1' i4~ .sVr/~ ~'~~,y . i'1
-t~!x; TR t C,~-, ~ r T~:.~ ir•- . ~ '.~'[r H k 7~ ~~~*5 ~a"r~'7~ 1 f~~ ~
,tii +.'t, ' ~ ~ e,, ~ t~ .+~~-.f~~C ~t}~ rS,,. w ~ t^' ~k,,,7yt+•~1 r 4~1
Y" ~ .w' ~ l ti ,s'tii~. y~. 'r a~." ~ i~ b ~ r { ..•~St. ~ ry ~A~ ~i a .
7+e"fiJ~ h T t i"4 ~ i,}:: +'T .?Y'y~''~" ~ .
. ~I rr
y
~ ~ 'r- : . . } 3i~i;~
i+'L` { y K`t~ ~ :K, + v ~w. " •h~~`~ - ~ ~j'~.4 1 t.°Y ~t~~•w~t ~~i~ jM~ ~~i~
d~'i
~j7' ya. ,L 1`~tf'~p ~ i ,~~t .tL~• ~~,5 . <a a4 ~ { ~ (
' ~i ' t y ✓ . > S'1 . - i 4 cj ~ - ' . .r .~i~ . '~►~.~~,L.y ~ ~r R- E ~ ~ ~ ~
M~
v i
r~C
~fFKy~, i f
lV.~, 1.~.~i~?, . i t,4J ~ ~ : ` •4,,q. ~If~~ t ~f Y~ r1.~~~, 1 ~ t''~;l~ LR'~~ ~
~,~Ck..yY'~'a ocwii;
tt ~ !(~1~~~ ! ~ ~ ':e, ? ' - '~~}s ~ ~~5~ ~ #'rtF ~ . ,~j:++~ ~ ~ y- '
, .f ~j y'~° ap y~ j~~f~ ~j~ y~.. 1•' y y i 7F~, t ~,s.+~
~~!qa`~l~i7di~*li' ..,1 +gr ~ ..°~re~f, ~ " i .r ! ~ • `'si. :~;s . .f'~~"'~ 1 }~~Y~`~.Y~,.9_ ['.~s~ ~
~~i ! _sYA~' '_FiF~ . 'e ~ ✓ r!; fi1~~` _n• i.•.
Bigelow Gulch Project - Roadway Section
I ~A~ I ~smue '
~~.`~-I
j
iffirw
~
BIGELOW GULCH PROJECT TYPICAL SECTIONS: PROJ'ECTS 1-5
+ (
~ i roir w~~c- u cc r[aAw, .a sMow. SMKL, s " ~
ur~7 ~TfY T~/RN • ~ T`'
BIGELOW GULCH PROJECT TYPICAL SECTlON: PROJECT 6
~cmaw wr oaMs x w wr
a ~os rrn
aM ~ qy~
~ ir LL[M U[ H' QfAt DP
~ IM/ i[N I (4.t IirtaO[~ ~
~
= T-1`1
'l` 1 ti ~
~0.f[ AAJt . . , , f~I
~ euc
NOISE M1?1GATION CONCFPT
_ . . . . ~ , . . • ~ -t~!~- a i~ t'~' w
~
x r~ s
; o tin~,;~y~g . 9 ~ I
~ r
~ ~ ~ i f `y•' 11~~~~ ~ ~ . . ~t ~ ' . . ~'..~f 1f } f
i t •
~ ' Fii~ 1 ) _ ♦ . _ _ y.--". / . ~ 1. A
' k. .t C~j~ •r +asii'.'r+r.._r_..-~" _ ',,,".P i~ *
~ r 4 i >3+• 'G{~l~~ x , ~ ' ~ -
-
~ jy~
:.t 'n~ 4 . ~ ~ 1 ;
r ..~^~t ~ •I► ~ ` f
~...f4 ,
, ~T
~
g ~
.
,
~ .
:
,R, ~ ~ . , ~'}n .
•kk , ~ fk ~ ~ ' T,~.,, R c'. ~
l i~ ~•1 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~t~._ . . . F.
. . . . ~ _ . - . . ~t
~ ~t' ~ , . 2 Y . ♦ ?
_ ~ 8. ~
i M 2 ~ P`{r~
~ r^T ~
.,.r ~ '.I
f ~
~
~r
I yg~• S I ~Y .~,Y.
r t~ y•• f
Y j
r
. .
-
s
.
.
. , .
r ~,`,~1[. i. y~. ~ Y
' o, T F'f~.~ ~ ~a~~,f,r>,,, r
. " ~ ~ .j ' 1 ; ,y
.
~'t ~ ~,b •:p . ~ .r ` t. I
t-
,
~ _ • ''~4u ~ ~ ~
, -
-
S, •'y . ~ ~ ~µ~~,j t py 4rt Y ~~i -,{~r-;. i~~;,.. ''i=-`~,,. i 4~ '•x~" r ~j~ g~~ ~ ~~~A~,
,j ' . n, : , . ~J.,~ -.t JY j's+ ~ ,3~ •
~
, ` w; < F' ~
f'~ „i',~`~; r y'~•,,~,~ ~ . ~ k
. y ~ ~ ~
t ~ ~ '
~ Y t ~ t t~=, • , d ~
Js I~ .a~l* a~i.r. ~'_;~'~~fi,"~.~•~..
V
~
i
~
a .IaW .
~~Y yti~ 'tiW .rF`-~. " s' y ~,'Z•~
ti~, ' ~ "l ~ t tr . T.
• ~ ,I~ . ~ ~M~` ~*wT' ' ' ~ L
° . . ~.S ~ ` `j 4~ Y n. .
"i'~~i •y' N Y~ !
006.
~ ~ ~
a +C,~lr _~ti~~''.sr' ~~s. {4~ a ~ ~
F ~ .~~t• v~f-~ ' - ~ _
~ y~', ~ ~d" 3 ,r,~`~,~F'+~ • . ,
~ ~ ~ 'R _ . n a ~ ~ 1 i s . ~ • l
OE SAC
' M 'k" . '~v tr: r'• . . „4t' 1
`
AL'MR►NtETI''`R
.
S' ~r 1 ^pr.-. f
. ~ ~ Y s ~ ~ ~~r~
' L't+r.. ;_i. ~n~?+ .i . I~ • . . - . ~f ' .{4' ~ , , ' e £'I~~~ c n •yr n
' K ~ : ,h,: . . . ~ ~s. m.t ! ~r . , `•.~t~. ~ 1
~
",'r ~ ~,•i~ ~ ~ ` - L,~- _ ~ . _ _ ~ -
_ . t b.'
. , : . _ -
inr Gufch, Project 3
.
, .
^ ~ . - ' ' ' _ . ~ '<a i T,.. .
~ f i ~ ~ .ti~„ ~ ti:.r(
~ _ `Ir' . _ , ~ ~
-a ~
.,f ~y - _ ~ ' " . ~ • . ..4.w . + ~ _.`J~`.
~ ~j ~ r , y~~~,T, ~ r ' . ~ : ~ • `Yr. ~'t~'~' `tT , ' . : 4+~ -
~ . . ~ ~ . . . ~ . ~ k~ , ~ . . r ~•{Y
~
,A 7'~~ . ~'fi ~h ' ~ . . 1
~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 i "y~' • ~ i "4 ~ ~ ,ri
" ~~'T~s_ At~ g <
• L
~
r
~ .
.
~ a
r . . `(r' ^ l'+tc .r~~• ~f ~~~i'
I \ . rdf ~ "M 4 ~.:L Ml•~u
11 r _~-~''r~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~r E •'r+~ ~
O
i i . . . . . . .
i ..ti ~ ~ l•s A ..a l M w . ' , yl ' r ~'r . . . ~ ~.t . , ~ r~•.
• ~
,
:
~ ~ : ' - - , ~,.,t~'~, ~ . ~
~
,
S R ~ , . . , n. - ► • - , ~ ` ~ r • ~ ""f~"'~
.
~
, .
a.. " ~
_ . _ ~ ~ . . ~ t~';,'~
- - . . •i:.,~'
`P i . . . _ - . . . 'l`~-; ♦
RM~~~ . F
y. .1..
.
~ - -
. . . . . w. _ . . .
P'reiiminarY Concept - Fron'ge Ro~d
.
~ ~ ':.~u~ ~-~t~ IS
s . ,y~ r~'~' ~r l y~~' ~ , " ` i.4 ~ ~
~ ~ L - .,4 ~ R~~x ~i° . _ r~y ~ -`;7
_ r'-
r
~ 4."~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~1 . { • , .s,
~'~..r a.•viy ~'14k~'+'~ ,-'t.' : Y _.s4.' , 4 ' ~ ' ~ ~ -i . . 'I
~ ► ~ . . . . II
~ - Y
.r•~ . . ~ ~ ' . '1 wY_'Y4l~p
i
_ _ ~ ~
. . 'r.~. . ~
~ .i . ~ X~ I
. ;E: 1 , ~ ~ •~,s ~ ; • ~
I <pw r , , . .
• • ~ I se~ ?5~~~,+i ~
:1;~5l~: '"f'' . . ♦ iYj'S'S- f.
~F . . •r~~e ( a ~1.~'i i;~
. C • ~ . . . 'f*~~~'x'.~.~~~:~l1 ~
} 1 ~ ~
~ ♦ ~ ~~4'.
l . 4!
d. t
,ItGal"""`
VI
~
y;
i
!
,
p ~ , . ~ o ~ F~ ~ ` , ~ ~ i~~ ~ , - ' • • . .
K 4,~~y , ~~1 ~ S • r ~ yl
T r r i,~~. s ``•'c ~ ,Mt1 " ~l ~F ~i~ ! Stl~ , 4 c;.F~S._,
~ i ~ ~ :F•n~ j ."9~ f 2 : ~ . .
r•
~ . j » ' t . ~ 7'~ y ~r t~ . ' 1 . " . ~Ok 1 • K . , .
ti ~
'f ~ ~ + ~~a : *s''~. . µ
• , u, k' ' . , ;
a~i .I
1
~
'r ~ ~ s,~ • r
~ ~5- • - , ~ R~ j ~
>.~y. . . " ~ _ . . . . . , ~,r t . S .
~ . . . 1~~ 7p~ R'f.'.5 • r..,~~ ~ ~ ,
~ ; ~ r ~ . . . . . .
~ e
~h
. . . .
~n. . . . . ~ . . _ '{t .#~s~• ~:.ra_ . 1~" Y ,~L2~ a:.1r~ ~Z fb.~~ `•.w~~r.- '^~i:t,~i:
- . - ~ - -
- . , . ~ = . r
-
.
.
.
•'a'
. . . . . ~~r {-~1
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~..r w~'11 ~rl~.~ ` ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ Yr' -
~ ~ 'v ! ti
~ f ~,-r ° ~ ~ `s.t~~ -a~'^ h ~ t ~t:.. . . ~ . . . ~ . ~ryp't-F~ h ~i
~ t f . ~ - + +t..>
.,t~ ~ . .
.
VY . = {1 ~tir p a}S,~~i ~ •
} +l . 1~ . 4} } ~ .
~
~ YA7) h.z a1~
S~ aF ' „ q
1
. , . . . " . . - ~ • - . . . . , . . . . . 2. . t.- .
. _ ~ . . . . . ' . , . . . - ~ a ~ . '
1 •
' r .
, ...-..r. W . . - - ` - - - - . . _ _ _ - ~ , _ . _
~
t,/
1. ~.t,.
~~•_.~`v 6
~
, .
~
- ~ .1~=. ' " . .
» ~u .~,a.. , . . . . . . ~
NC=d
. , . - . . . : ' _ ~-✓3„~!. i ~ - . ~ .
-
n lf r r~ w. r ~ ~ -r~ 'i
i-
^as.A.
. ~r < I
~1' l,~ • s~' ' D ,.:f ~ ~
r:'+; t ~ ~ ♦ ,i~., ' ~
.i , .~r
'-i . ~+.y ~ • - '~e~w.. - ~ ~ ~n ~ 'al ~ , ~ ♦
,,t
~
_ r:_ !d.'x'y►f ' ~',4` . k . R - _ -
♦ tf .•i 1 ~~M,.' Y ~ ~ ~ro~ p ~~1~~~~ ;s
y : y • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3^ ~ R = rx2..
~ r ` ~ y ''4 i
. . . e. - .t } ~.l,,i.
. i
F v
i`
4 +t K ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ` h~~~. j, ~n
is'~ ~t~, v . ~ ~'1
.•i ~ . . ° i~ ~t~1 . . ' .
~I^ t~, -L't, -,5~ v1
• F~ ~ + . ~ ~ ~ ~F i'' . ~ .
wc
w~ •
a
, . .
~ ~ r - .~ke~n~1C ~ J., i ~ ~ ~ ~I i .
.y [ I ly _ #
~
_ ~ , • ~f' }.7 y k` . A ~ ~ ; ~'f'~ ~
..~,~4,► a ~ ' - ~ i.;~,- "A'w t~~' ~ d
4Y~
wr
S ' .k ; 0~ l~~- 1 ~
-~6
~ ~R~';,~. . .A~' .I'
• - ♦ •
r ~
r-.~~{i~i~.r ~~y. ~~..~N... T~"~
r..
~
WA
1 ~ ' k t;'i~~" ~I °•c'.'7:~ H - ~I ~ y'~ ~t[',yc~ ` .}j •'71:Y~ 'ss~,~t ~ ' ~ i
.
.
.
~ t^ .
.
,
~ p 9
~ r,r , r •S ~ ~.~),}~,~,,G~•
•I ~ .
5
i~ • 3`L j 4
' ~
~E Y 1.~♦ ,~'~i 4 ~ . • ~ Z{N'nQ^x~~ ~4
~ J ' ~''t ¢
ti, n
t
•I
k
_ • t. :a.~ ~f~}~ ~T,,+ • i ~
. ~ ~ '
hr~ ~ • r.._ ~R
•Sb r + ~_H ..f~
J ~ . y N
~ V~ ~ ~ • ~I F ~n
yy~.. ~ ,~J~, `t.; , r y'.,
-
t I IN
u..
4 - - _ . _ r
I
;r• ~ r w ~it1~'
~ ~j ~'k~~ 1 ~ . Vy r ~~~~i~~~~ }i~ a~;+" „ . ~~i y~~~f ~ .
n `
- . ' ~r'
~,!o
t~
f ~ . , ,r ~ , ' "y~' j~ M ~ ~ f ~ Y a • ~T,t a.ti ~
S 'f
'
~ ~r s
. • ~i.~ . . : ? ~'~q,t.SM - `r~ ~ r,
.
• r ".•y . ~ ~ .,`r`~
.
v 1 ' `
. ~ . : . . t "
N~ ~3. ' . . , . _ ? ~ ~ ~V
n i _ . t7
, r. w - r ~ - ~ ~ . . - - „'v~,~' • :h~'+~
. . ,k
, • ~ . . j~, a ~ , ~ _ _ ~ ~
t ~ • . "',~{'~1. i fr'-. "f~dryy?~ ~i ~ vT , v i~,'° ~ , ~ ;~.t ~ ; 5,~ .
/1It ~ ~ s1 V.!. f'.w~m~ '4 . ~ +~~RO~'~ ~ s ' 4.M 9 ~t^`~ S ? _ ~
~ E~ 5;. ~ , ,
~r , . ' ~ 6. , - ' ;
• i - . . ~
~ ' , .
.~.•h .'+~,,,.c~ ` ~y.T ~ ~Y . , ; ~ ia~--_=~
~ V ~ • ~ ~ i R 1~' . . . : , r . J"k,r ~ a v ~ P, ~ ~.+-.S°"'
+x~•-
-r ~ ~ , ~ . 4 a~ ( {~~'9~t'v 3 . ~~"~~T i`.+~'i " ° ` j,
~~;r.t. - «z•' y~ /,3 ~ f~y!'i' ~ .r ~ h~ r~,~t
y} ^ . _ ~
s@~ . - ~ 5'~`L'fl `~ya~s ~a ~ ~ :•C•~ I
74m
` i •~'y".~A~~l.•V4,~;,~ ~ .v, . ,
I
~Y
~ ,r ~ • ~ r ~i.'~A' *t ~~Yo~ ~ `*`~"~'~.a ~y ~7 . r
3 y` ~ ~ '~i,
PR : FyYp ~ " . . ~ . ! ~1 . -t . . ~ :1~.
~ ! • ' . ` L'►•,
^W' i iA
,
• ~ = S ~~'r, ~
I
~
, t ;y ~
~ ~ ~ .
' a1'• 4."~, . • E
Estimated Project Construction Schedule
■ Project# 1 Construction 2007
■ Project #2 Construction 2007
■ Project #3 Construction 2007
■ Project #4 Construction 2009
■ Project #5 Construction 2008
■ Project #6 Construction 2008
BI+~~LOW GULCH American Disabiliti~s Act
FORKER ROAD CORRIDOR (ADA) Information
ENVI~~NMENTAL ASSESSll~~~~ Why do we need this projeW rF-&cUPW=.:I
l. TC3fIic SatQtgr(:aA)
2. Trafric Volumc Exccods Cxisting Capwity
3. Tr'8iispxl=ion oiid Tidghi CCfmmioa t? -2.s a ;.,.n
Whc'!l 1s the p1.Lrp{~~ of t}11s pTQjecr, Pcmmawith d~se~il~Eisu mny rrquest iMt rfris infonnaaion hc peepwrd
~ ainrJ suppliad in a11eTn;pte foflns Uy selling Cluc S4'S1301' ADA
: AcmoomoditiDn EPOLliN solled 2~fi-31tv-2x39. ]'cMnsWsLh,•islnn ar
1. 1Ck7pi(?YC ROad1Yay S$i{C[y hearang irnpatrnmlhs muy aCocss ihc WA Swe Telcoan7rnuicaiim9
lmprove TratYSportaliom $ystem L..inicttge : ~~lay serviw a, -r-r i -&)0-n343x9. 76>-Elm,ltc I•~43~4-185, oT :
3~. Acc+~m~nncl~t~Fr~i~h~'1°~!Y'ic Voic4aa~~tff~r~c~~36a7os-x~r. ;
4. lnvr+casc ~apacity
7l5c fUll F:[lvino6me+~i +~,s3~~1Ff~."t1~ duCUlmeo~ 9S iY~~~~ ~+pF l~'Vitrih' ~r "4k'ashio%ioci Sca4e Che7rnmcm9 af Tmupareaiun qWS010T11uaeEry gi,+r.s pu6lie ecwicc d,ai;L i4
ihc poL,ey crf dtc r,lccparsmenl9o asawr Cull enmp[ianec wnts Tu1c vl QF16c C34-i1 Eti&s Ace af
thvA,rgoanc Publie Librmy 1 $G4, 1},c Cl4'IL RiO[F MkCRiOfM]CUY ACI 4C I gIr. L•IfttuUvc Or&d 12M Yrd 1}YC ]'~lako l76drLCY
~ md rep1ajira,, :n a!i pragEaan¢ and asfiWiks, tiLle YI rmp4= Oar no paran in wr lhwoi
S1131es atA,rieawn Lha1i. ne, tlx pmnde afrosr, calarerm r2ainml wigm mr bwinrame.Frt
'fhe D[DW'Ii~owll PubltC LIbIaZ)+ GS914*d hIA701bC M61YCYp5LIOkS iNol.c 01miCd Ibe 6cme~alJ o[. arUcoihrnaiwcsUitjWW 19
eli"minorion undar any pm,yrxrn,resecMky foru-hich W4D0?rcctit-" fAeral axsium=•
w3d ix availnblq odl'1w a1;
www.sgokanecaunkytt]~rg/6n~~~~rlb~ef~wgukitiforkerowwoe±Ctcfi.asp
Caniflucilrs ~~ti hO tWrJC vnlioc oe in wri4ug tbrcwigb tv1are1i 13tb, 2006.
..r.-rj~' •3 N. r •~'t^t ~i~ :r.. ~ ~ M1~~
Traffic Q ~ A
.
June 6th, 2006
~ 1<',A,~JAI 'T-_/.'~} ~ 4..~~~
. '`s J~ i ,xy I nga Note
John Hohman
Neil Kersten
r ,wx.`4.
. 'r 'r" ~ ~ A ~ I-~ y~
~yy . t ~ ~:•i, ',l~'~ ~ : i
.s . .
~
! K, :1K' _ ~i
~
~►'2 -5 ~3l~t r ~
.lFh~ F~ k^.
.
Traffic Laws and Standards
• RCW and WAC Model -*o=n
Traffic Ordinance
~
• 2003 M UTC D w/ VIIA
BEI~ ~
revisions I~~ ~
AAS ~ .
HTO A Policy on V%w~a
Geometric Design
'M1;~ ►ra+~+a.r. s~a sa.ce~
• WSDOT Standard Plans -
1
1
- -;r:_ ,
4
(1` ~
irT Ia 3._
Authorities of the Traffic Engineer
Per WAC 308-330-265
g'S~ . !
- ,,.3
Place & maintain Traffic Control Devices (stop signs, yield signs, ~
signals, etc.)
- • Designate crosswalks for
pedestrians.
• Mark lanes of travel.
• Regulate timing of traffic signals.
. 3..
Authorities of the Traffic Engineer
• . ~~r='' Per WAC 308-330-265
• Impose size and weight restrictions.
Y • lssue special use permits for roadway.
• Establish bus stops.
: . Establish small no-parking zones.
• Review collision reports.
a..:,
• Test new traffic control devices.
2
L~ t
. r
; }t 71:.~? r tr
Authorities of the Governing Body
WAC 308-330-270
5
• After an engineering and traffic investigation by the
^r R~:~ traffic engineer, the local authority may by resolution:
Reduce or increase speed limits I SPEED`
Establish, regulate and limit parking `IMIr
30
Establish and regulate parking meter zones
- Temporarily close roadways to any or all traffic NO '
- Designate one-way roadways ~,AHNG
- Designate arterials T.'_.
,
one
•,f..
. •:9r t je:''.~' t . t:''.
~ Speed Limit Process
i Request for review of speed limit
from staff or citizens.
z. Public Works conducts
Engineering and Traffic -
Investigation:
Field review
Speed study
Make recommendation p n rx , -
C•' t,"i
s. Resolution to Council for approval.
6
3
MUTCD guidance on Speed Limits
."When a speed limit is to be posted, it should
be within 5 mph of the 851n_%tile speed of
free-flowing traffic".
• Other factors to consider:
- Road characteristics
- Pace speed
- Roadside development
- Parking and pedestrian activity
- Reported crash experience for 12-month period
7
Speed Limits - 85%tile
."The targe majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent,
do not want to have a crash, and desire to reach their
destination in the shortest time possible."
Nwq M NwM
T~w~w 14~
, _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . I
Nfp_M
_ n+.ww a &r.y+.
- ~
I
~ w
I ~S j I
4
~ . t~,~j,"TiC~,~~~1 7
11~ .r, rt t . ; s. -
Speed Limits - Current Efforts
• Arterials with no posted limit
- Indiana East of Sullivan
4~~~'~~•' • Discrepancies between County code and posted
- speeds
- Appleway Avenue
- Mirabeau Parkway
• Citizen & Staff requests for review
- Sullivan from Spokane River to Trent
- Park Road north of Trent
~
,
M4''~ 1 1 I, `r.~• i . .
MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants
1) S-hourvolume „&...C-f.M-W:f. , W.M.01fth-
M.,
♦
2) 4-hour volume
3) Peak hour volume
a) Pedestrian volume
S) School crossing ~ p ,
,'Y'~.'t1 ~ ns _
s) Coordinated signal - ~ - ~ `
s • w + w s .r w rw
System waR srrIWr-Tmra oF emH rrrr+oAcNa-
V94ClLS VER NOUF {VPQ
r ~ Crash experienoe
~ ~ s) Roadway network
.;y.. ;
. Y.. f -
5
.-.x,~~r L. ~lS~ -s i 2'f r•JN I
~ ~ Cl .•"rY) f :~K ~ ✓t
y: . . ~ •'3
MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants
~:•sy~
• Most agencies require that 2-3
warrants be met before installing a
signal.
-
Not related to Concurrency at this time.
~
~k~±1? *1, r• ~~s.~~'r'
.a..•~ 'Y'
µ{`s•:'.-r .
y~r
Traffic Signal Coordination Process
}f F~
,!.,i•*..~ ~.N
^q Process for coordinating Signals
1. (s ooordination feasible?
.SP8CIf19
r..:. .
- - Cycle requirements
~ ~ - Equlpment
2. AM, mid-day, PM, weekend?
a. Collect traffic counts
4. Build traffic model and optimize timing
s. Implement new timing in field ~
rw
s. Monitor and adjust in field ~
0
6
4 , - ~!+`a - ; '•'k'2.y:~3 ~
.y_'' ~•(N_t'•
. .
t.-• . .a.
+~t.~,• .
Traffic Signal Coordination
• Corridors with coordinated signals
- Valley couplet (Fancher to Bowdish)
• Plans for future coordination -
~ •
=~-s-` - Argonne (Mission to Trent)
Sullivan
- Sprague (Progress & Adams)
- Valley couplet (evening)
- Requests?
Traffic Signal Coordination
;
~ New controllers
- Compatible with WSDOT signals.
Able to communicate with TMC.
Connec6on from desktop worlcstation via
~ fiber or radio.
- Installing on Argonne corridor,
Additional units needed for coordination
of other comdors:
• SulNvan
• Evergreen
14
~
7
~
~jti.. .,1..r'--1]~.~._7' •
f • e
School Zones
RCW 46.61.440
'It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to SC- 00L
mmoulow
operate the same at a speed in excess of 20 MPH ' SPEED
....when fully posted with standard school speed LIMIT
limit signs 2
V
Options for School Zone 20 Signage
• - z~~
"When Children Are PresenY OR
Ouring specific hours ~
~ =a'•: i: e
Flashing beaoon with "When Flashing'
oR
: %Y M+
r<: NON-f'RI ~
School Zones
y .7
z 'WAC 468-95-370
~ #'J Deflnition of "When Children are PresenY"
` - School children are oocupying or walking ~ ~
wHEN
within the marked cxosswalk. CNILQREN
School chifdren are waiting at the curb or on `ARE pRESEtiT
•s: • the shoulder of tfie roadway and are about to -
cross the roedway by way of the marked
- crosswalk.
'•~"%Y - School children are present or walking along
the roadway, either on the adjacent sidewalk
or, in the abssnce of sidewalks, on the
shoulder within the posted school speed limit
zone extending 300 feet, or other distance
established by regulativn in either direction
from the marked crosswalk.
16
8
School Zones - Other Agencies
Washington
Lakewood (non-arterials 7am - 5 pm)
- Puyallup (7am - 4 pm)
~ - Spokane {high schools 7:30am - 3:30pm
Spokane County (Mead High 7:30-9:00 and 2:00-3:30)
V Oregon
Statewide (School days 7am - 5pm)
SPEED
- - Or °When Flashing' uMn
20
F"r-~ ruwr~
.
tpt
School Zones
Central Valley Request
~.,',n r, Speed 20 from 7:00 - 5:00
School days only
- Frontage vs. off-campus cros5walks
Consistency (afl zones, other districts)
r~. .
- SR-27
- Elementary vs. Middle and High School
x14 - MUTCD (fulfill a need, command attention, simple and
clear, command respect, adequate response time)
9
I
~
I
~ Questions?
~
19
10
.~';7~i~+. 'si '3 ~~~`'4K'K~ ~~'c~2~ ~ Y~✓.„
~~t.~,.It'Mt '•Z 1 ~ /~-Myti ri~ . . N_q - i~ / . L";
_ 'K' i^'.'•Y.
~=;;~?>.•r
~Broadway Avenue
Conversion to 3-Lanes continued...
June 6th, 2006
F ^
r ~5 r 1.^ y '
Inga Note
Steve Worley
Neil Kersten
. ¢ -.,,y~ 4. ..w '(~✓ti- ~ , :
~ti~~ t ry~~6; S ;2ti• ~ w .S
' r r - - - -
Outstanding Questions
ar• Intersections that would benefit from trafFc
lights, modified phasing to correct through-
left collision pattern.
• Impact on concurrency.
• Impact on emergency vehicles and schools.
o Historical volumes on Mission.
• Lake Washington Blvd.
3-lane to 4-lane transitions at intersections
1
r New Traffic Signals
• Purpose: To correct through-left collisions at
unsignalized intersections
• Broadway/Progress - Warrants not met
Broadway/Adams - Warrants not met
• Cost: per signal - $250,000 - $300,000
3
- Split Phasing for Broadway/McDonald
Purpose: To correct through-left collisions at
intersections
• Cost: $20, 000 - $30, 000
• LOS: declines from B to C
4
2
•1~-
C''S*-3^..........._.__.-'_'~..,..»..~
Impact on Concurrency - Signals
f4'', • 3-lane and use of permissive or
protected/permissive lefts improves LOS.
- BroadwaylMcDonald: B --+A
- BroadwaylEvergreen: C B
• Intersections can take more traffic before
improvements are needed.
;
T
w
~
` >3
- - _ '
Impact on Concurrency -
- ~ Stop Controlled
;
No change from 4-lane to 3-lane.
- Broadway/Adams: C C
- Broadway/Progress: C C
. 3-lane will meet signal volume warrants
sooner if L4S declines.
3
~ on Emergency Vehicles
~ w~wr swuai ~41E YIILIEY FlRE DEPAR4IF/1T
A~w
*0 Krorn P.+~ n_a
1t707 E 8ptapm A~nrNr Suir 1:4
BOdar Vrd. WA Yi20E
M~I KMYirr
iM $[4Ai» vylA m Ihe V~y nM ninitw U Nras a~ Era#ray
N0a lar b lvr. Flon M &TwOxrc! MW~ l.._ w riN W ma.
Ornqn TAdc ew UArcM1Y oM qMI n M:n" taft MO W iurrow tsws tas I~
APMY h mMy b h~fY aa IM/ a~ YYnO p~lp~ v!~ o~r Wldu. VM Nfl hr
MOM I-MR ~ M~~1t k► tN~n to mw~ b pe ~t b YC m0 x~ Mait Pa a[ow b nu.c In
- • M csMw Wr b pm Y I Wtmw rorwy
hw~ M w 4w f w m Or W/wFw anWn" m IMe ~+pw1aE bsue.
7 ML . .
~
t
Impact on Central Valley School District
.
wr a~. ~ooe
w.r K...n.~,
i ~ Q e°~ac••a ~sn. ~ oe
aow..o., vr.r. ww w¢cw
n..~.w r.~. r r.. v~. m. om..nr w
I~ww ~1~Iwn RNO'r fYr. w• s~ er.. o~ a. • ~Ir1n~r ^
~ w- vwrMr .houu e. _ ne... v.. •.f.w b.. r... ,n .ra
r~e Irr~ ro.-WA OY . Ywn NM.
f Ow9w . . M/I- ww 11w~ N! M+~ ~*.7r~~1 f' 6efnd r~l Oumrtw DaMM. YM~ w.. . ~iww~ ~ .
Mr~ ~
. b IIM ~yNIM~ r M yw/ M~wp~.
~MW unY~t ~ M . . . . . . . . Ilvw M K~~~1 fM~ `ouY Y'W1~1
H f~M ~r M w. W Y~vu~ ~
4
L~,L p y
Missian Ave. Volumes
~;Y...
ADT on Missloo Ave.
~
+'n.~t~]) >`t y: u v. ~y rt ti,. v-
01925
120OC r t.~' J . ;t„~~••r~?, . ~ . ■ 14%
a y~: r. -~~y~t z. ❑ t997
~ 1000i
t ~ 4' b ~ t S.i•1■2001
a:002
->i. • 2Cpl
1000 ~t
2000 02004.
p;..
O . . .s `
L:+s; jr cuC or -.v.ei of
Nu1w lXrwmty Pnq Mc[brold Cxvyven BWirn
:J
• Y!
Local 3-Lane Examples
Lood S-Lu» E:arrpln
30.000
zs,a-r~ ~ _
20.0[ci
F
~ 1S oco 7~ vS-.Y,, :..a•} ~V~r ' -
to.ox
~ RY
o -
3~M ~ra~] Z:f,~~ +itR1n i:«riirj Hahtr Gr,a1..o~
(Vyl") (SPlAW16) iSPokz* ISPakrwl Homea (W+aol)
t?r. ~ cca.,H1
~~:::i
~J
Kirkland - Lake Washington Blvd.
I
I
• ADTs
2002 - 24,188
2001 - 24,783
2000 - 24,930
1999 - 24,965
• No phone calls regarding difficulty exiting
driveways.
11
R'
e-
, ~ •s~; . ~
I
i
~
~ . ~
i•
~
•r
6
.
~ ~
:
.
r " .
t,
~ :
1 ~.ri;' ~ ~
i
r+ ~
l 'Fe~
. 1
,
`~tu~~{
i
~h, :
~ :F~..~
..~:i ,
~r~,,{ * ` lM~~I~'
~ ~ i.,~ ~ , - ~..^'Fr
I.
• ~
, ' ~ t
t ,,y.~' ~y. ~ i
h ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~
~ ~i''~ ~a
~ ~
, ' , ~ ~
V: \ y ~
~ ~
1 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti.
Y a~
32"d & PIneS
3 Lane to 4 Lanes
.
~Y
Typical at 32nd 8 University, 16th $ University, 161" & Pines,
Evergreen & Sprague, Mission 8 Mullan, Mission 8 Pines
15
!roadway Avenue
Conversion to 3-Lanes
Questions?
16 :
8
~
i
►
~
.M•
r
ry
"It
46
~ r.
i
■
~ -
>
~
,
10
~ ~e 11~
y
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
Spokane County Commission/Spokane Valley City Council
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
10:00 a. m. -12 :00 p. m.
Spokane County Courthouse Hearing Room
TENTATIVE DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDE (but are not limited to):
9 Milwaukee Right-of-Way
➢ Long-Term Criminal Justice
NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who requfre speaal assistance to acoommodate physicaf,
hearing, or other impairments, please oontad ifie City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that
arrangements may be made.
June 7, 2006 Jo(nt Meeting, Counal & Board of County Commissfoners