Loading...
2018, 08-14 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Szott of Living Hope Community Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium,please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on Aug 14,2018 Request for Council Action Form,Total: $5,122,856.65 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 31,2018: $503,066.12 c.Approval of Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition d.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 17,2018, Study Session e.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 20,2018 Special Meeting f.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 24,2018 Regular Formal Meeting g.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 31,2018 Study Session NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-018 amending SVMC 2.75,Public Records—Erik Lamb [public comment] 3.Motion Consideration: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant(JAG)—Morgan Koudelka [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium,please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. Council Agenda 08-14-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. The Vistas at Belleaire—Lori Barlow,Ray Wright 5. Repeal of Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.40: Electronic Cigarettes—Cary Driskell,Alex Lovell 6. Surplus Property, S. Carnahan—Chelsie Taylor 7. Economic Analysis of Tourism Venues&Events—Chelsie Taylor,John Hohman 8.Aging &Long Term Care—Mark Calhoun 9.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 10.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Review the Performance of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"-1 and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3r1 and 5t1i Tuesdays. Study Session formats normally do not have time allocated for general public comments;but if action items are included,comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)720-5102 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 08-14-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: IZl Check all that apply: /1 consent El old business ❑ new business El public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 07/20/2018 45104-45105 $341,789.52 07/23/2018 7786-7805 $4,127.00 07/23/2018 45106-45160 $551,622.43 07/27/2018 45161-45200 $337,826.08 07/30/2018 7806-7842 $3,534,00 07/31/2018 45201-45226 $738,136.26 08/01/2018 6365, 6367, 6369, 6382-6384; 6386, 6395; 45227 $335,351.25 08/02/2018 45228-45233 $8,339.10 08/06/2018 7843-7876 $4,648.25 08/07/2018 45234-45276; 90545; 3916891; 4838098; 4865070 $2,797,482.76 GRAND TOTAL: $5,122,856.65 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 -General Fund Other Funds 001.011.000.511. City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 —Paths &Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 106—Solid Waste 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 120 -CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 121—Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.032.000. Public Works 204—Debt Service 001.058.050.558. CED-Administration 301 —REET 1 Capital Projects 001.058.051.558. CED—Economic Development 302—REET 2 Capital Projects 001.058.055.558. CED---Development Services-Engineering 303--Street Capital Projects 001.058.056,558. CED—Development Services-Planning 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.058.057.558 CED—Building 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 314--Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 402—Stormwater Management 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 403—Aquifer Protection Area 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 501 —Equipment Rental & Replacement 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/2012018 9:13:12AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45104 7/20/2018 006774 WILLISTON FINANCIAL GROUP 35231.1413 303.000.247.595 CIP 0247: PURCHASE OF PARCEL. 298,655.16 Total : 298,655.16 45105 7/20/2018 006774 WILLISTON FINANCIAL GROUP 35231.1413 303.000.247.595 CIP 0247: PROPERTY ACQUISITIOli 43,134.36 Total : 43,134.36 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 341,789.52 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 341,789.52 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 a vchlist Voucher List Page: _i_- 07123/2018 8:25:15AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7786 7/23/2018 006758 BENNER, ERIK PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7787 7/23/2018 006759 CACHE ADVANCE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN PAR 75.00 Total : 75.00 7788 7/23/2018 006769 FENDICH,ANGELICA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 153.00 Total : 153.00 7789 7/23/2018 006770 FINLEY, ERICA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 354.00 Total : 354.00 7790 7/23/2018 006760 FRANKLIN,TERESA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7791 7/23/2018 006761 HAWLEY, KATHERINE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 7792 7/23/2018 006756 JOHNSON, KENDRA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 762.00 Total : 762.00 7793 7/23/2018 006762 MCKINNON, STEPHANIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI 75.00 Total : 75.00 7794 7/23/2018 006753 MERRIFIELD, MELISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 236.00 Total : 236.00 7795 7/23/2018 005374 MICRIST ENVIRONMENTAL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOT 52.00 Total : 52.00 7796 7/23/2018 006763 MILLER, MALIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 7797 7/23/2018 003787 NATLASSOC OF LETTER CARRIERS, BF PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7798 7/23/2018 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD& DRUG CENTER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 75.00 Page: Jr vchlist Voucher List Page:3 —2- 07/23/2018 8:25:15AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7798 7/23/2018 000415 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD& DRUG CENTEF (Continued) Total : 75.00 7799 7/23/2018 006764 RUF,WENDY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 7800 7/23/2018 006771 SHABER, RITA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 500.00 Total : 500.00 7801 7/23/2018 006644 STOLLEY, MELISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 236.00 Total : 236.00 7802 7/23/2018 006772 STRAIN, KELL1 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 70.00 Total : 70.00 7803 7/23/2018 006765 SVENONIUS, ROBERTA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7804 7/23/2018 006775 THOMPSON, BRIDGET PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 70.00 Total : 70.00 7805 7/23/2018 006757 WOLFE, GINGER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 944.00 Total : 944.00 20 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 4,127.00 20 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 4,127.00 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page:C –1-- 07/23/2018 r07/23/2018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45106 7/16/2018 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 61835 402.402.000.531 STREET SWEEPING 81,346.26 61840 402.402.000.531 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 47,381.26 Total : 128,727.52 45107 7/16/2018 006382 AHBL INC 107820 303.303.123.595 ENGINEERING 4,333.93 Total : 4,333.93 45108 7/16/2018 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 106593 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES-SNOWPLOWS 200.69 Total : 200.69 45109 7/16/2018 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 219068 101.042.000.542 MASTIC AND PATCHER RENTAL 4,896.00 219385 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: STORMWATER 14.68 Total : 4,910.68 45110 7/16/2018 006767 ATLAS INTEGRATED 0001684 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING-SUPPORT/MAINTE 1,625.00 Total : 1,625.00 45111 7/16/2018 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 18189 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,310.00 Total : 2,310.00 45112 7/16/2018 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC 26528660 001.076.305.575 PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC 427.42 Total : 427.42 45113 7/16/2018 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC SPO-188344 001.090.000.518 1T SUPPORT 592.96 Total : 592.96 45114 7/16/2018 002562 CD'A METALS 358983 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES:SNOWPLOWS 183.98 Total : 183.98 45115 7/16/2018 000101 CDW-G NBL4622 001.090.000.518 JOAN EXECUTIVE-ROOM MANAG 683.55 NGN4351 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON-CAF 783.37 NGS8936 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON-CAF 918.38 Total : 2,385.30 45116 7/16/2018 002226 CENTRAL PREMIX 2643997 402.402.000.531 CONCRETE 333.41 Total : 333.41 Page: —1-- vchlist Voucher List Page: —2- 07/23/2018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45117 7/16/2018 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 423838 314.000.143.595 0143-DESIGN SERVICES 52,024.52 Total : 52,024.52 45118 7/16/2018 000742 DCI ENGINEERS 118935 311.000.252.595 0252-ROW ADMINISTRATION 3,470.00 Total : 3,470.00 45119 7/16/2018 003624 DEHN,SHELLY EDUCATION 001.018.016.518 EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT 1,620.00 Total : 1,620.00 45120 7/16/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 79554727 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE 3050 MICRO 231.68 79557586 001.090,000.548 COMPUTER LEASE:3 YR WORKS-I 2,286.44 Total : 2,518.12 45121 7/16/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 79577019 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 1,050.24 Total : 1,050.24 45122 7/16/2018 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 46 JG6457 L010 303.000.201.595 CIP 0201 &0259 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1,670.31 Total : 1,670.31 45123 7/16/2018 002920 DIRECTV INC 34582637175 101.042.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN 75.24 Total : 75.24 45124 7/16/2018 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 115496 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 115562 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 115563 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 115564 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 Total : 160.00 45125 7/16/2018 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4276948 101.042.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP 884.09 Total : 884.09 45126 7/16/2018 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 0618-0702-1 303.000.247.595 0247-15-073H PROPERTY APPRAIE 986,10 0618-0702-2 303.000.247.595 0247-15-073 I ACQUISITION REMEC 1,026.87 Total : 2,012.97 45127 7/16/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 495701 311.000.254.595 ADVERTISING 52.14 495704 311.000.272.595 ADVERTISING 53.72 496684 311.000.254.595 ADVERTISING 49.50 Page: --- (::7 vchlist Voucher List Page: --1.-- 07/23/2018 -3'07123/2018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45127 7/16/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC (Continued) 496686 311.000.272.595 ADVERTISING 51.00 497407 001.011.000.511 ADVERTISING 36.34 497408 001.013,000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 28.44 497409 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 57.67 497411 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 75.05 497412 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 75.05 Total : 478.91 45128 7/16/2018 003261 FEHR&PEERS 123090 001.040.042.558 BARKER/BNSF GRADE SEPARATIC 677.50 Total : 677.50 45129 7/16/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 48810 311.000.254.595 ADVERTISING 110.40 48812 311.000.272.595 ADVERTISING 112.00 48830 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 33.15 48831 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 67.15 48833 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 87.55 Total : 410.25 45130 7/16/2018 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001406717:01 101.000.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 36.99 Total : 36.99 45131 7/16/2018 003085 GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING, STAND, 02775489 001.018.014.514 GASB SUBSCRIPTION-538990 265.00 Total : 265.00 45132 7/16/2018 006766 GREAT NORTHERN CORRIDOR 18-300-2 001.013.000.513 MEMBERSHIP DUES 2,500.00 Total : 2,500.00 45133 7/16/2018 005191 HALEY, PAM EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 229.99 Total : 229.99 45134 7/16/2018 002201 HARBOR FREIGHTTOOLS 848232 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. 30.38 Total : 30.38 45135 7/16/2018 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200126033 314.000.223.595 0223-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2,543.31 Total : 2,543.31 45136 7/16/2018 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PAY APP 1 311.000.248.595 0248-CONSTRUCTION 233,574.25 Page: r-3----- 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 07/23/2018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45136 71116/2018 000313 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. (Continued) Total : 233,574.25 45137 7/16/2018 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, HRA PLAN 10146466 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 380.00 Total : 380.00 45138 7/16/2018 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 2862-274668 101.042.000.542 REPAIR/MAINT. SUPPLIES: STREE 4.61 2862-274736 101.042.000.542 REPAIR/MAINT. SUPPLIES: STREE 10.99 2862-274759 101.042.000.542 REPAIRIMAINT_ SUPPLIES: STREE -0.28 2862-279993 101.042.000.542 REPAIR/MAINT. SUPPLIES: STREE 41.76 Total : 57.08 45139 7/16/2018 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY JUNE 2018 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 750.00 Total : 750.00 45140 7/16/2018 006475 PEE IL, BRANDI EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 39.00 Total : 39.00 45141 7/16/2018 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 1N200-1017399 101.042.000.542 DATA PLAN 275.00 Total : 275.00 45142 7/16/2018 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC SI-157231 001.090.000.518 VMWARE ADDITIONAL LICENSE 6,099.50 SI157260 001.090.000.518 JUNIPER SWITCH SUPPORT RENE 1,465.44 Total : 7,564.94 45143 7/16/2018 002520 RWC GROUP 77900N 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR#204 42.30 Total : 42.30 45144 7/16/2018 002835 SCS DELIVERY INC 11878 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING 50.00 Total : 50.00 45145 7/16/2018 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 11201 303.000.259.595 0259-ROW SVCS 399.37 Total : 399.37 45146 7/16/2018 006773 SMARSH INV00384209 001.090.000.518 TEXT MESSAGING ARCHIVING CO: 544.00 Total : 544.00 45147 7/16/2018 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50317510 001.040.043.558 COUNTY IT SUPPORT JUNE 2018 14,525.09 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: "3- 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45147 7/16/2018 000090 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS (Continued) Total : 14,525.09 45148 7/16/2018 004099 SPOKANE VALLEY ACE HARDWARE 24632 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP:STRI 3.50 24670 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 29.35 24698 101.042 000 542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 274.13 Total : 306.98 45149 7/16/2018 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 247853 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 146.76 Total : 146.76 45150 7/16/2018 000854 SPW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1755.06 303.303.123.595 0123-LANDSCAPE DESIGN 2,305.68 Total : 2,305.68 45151 7/16/2018 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3383525494 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 142.59 3383525497 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES -15.23 3383525500 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 15.23 3383525502 001.011.000.511 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COUNCIUCITY 49.30 Total : 191.89 45152 7/16/2018 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L126352 001.090.000.514 SAO AUDIT OF 2017 32,170.03 Total : 32,170.03 45153 7/16/2018 005918 STRATA INC SP180210-IN 309.000.237.595 0237-MATERIALS TESTING 2,167.50 Total : 2,167.50 45154 7/16/2018 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 838486806 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 805.12 Total : 805.12 45155 7/16/2018 000717 TRANSPO GROUP INC. 22001 303.000.259.595 0259-ENGINEERING SVCS 9,065.49 Total : 9,065.49 45156 7/16/2018 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 6252018 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS 644.00 Total : 644,00 45157 7/16/2018 001887 VALMONT CD289001605 303.303.142.595 0142-SIGNAL POLES 13,325.82 Total : 13,325.82 45158 7/16/2018 000158 WELCH COMER&ASSOC. INC 51043001-003 309.000.237.595 16-058: CIP 0237 ENGINEERING S\ 12,465.73 Page: —.6— Voucher Pa —6' vchl�stList 9e: 0712312018 12:51:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45158 7/16/2018 000158 000158 WELCH COMER&ASSOC. INC (Continued) Total : 12,465.73 45159 7/16/2018 002651 WOODARD,ARNE EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 29.19 Total : 29.19 45160 7/16/2018 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 2018070003578 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE 253.25 2018070005522 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE 621.00 2018070025710 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE 234.25 Total : 1,108.50 55 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 551,622.43 55 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 551,622.43 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: —6 .vchlist Voucher List Page: --1--- 07/27/2018 1-07127/2018 2:49:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45161 7/27/2018 001081 ALSCO LSPO2046899 001.016.016.521 PRECINCT FLOOR MAT SERVICE 24.12 Total : 24.12 45162 7/27/2018 000394 AM LANDSHAPER INC Pay App 2 309.000.270.594 0270-CONSTRUCTION - CENTERPI 75,902.00 Pay App 3 309.000.270.594 0270-CONSTRUCTION CENTERPL/ 14,737.00 Total : 90,639.00 45163 7/27/2018 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES A-258331 001.076.301.571 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK: 65.00 A-258674 001.076.300.576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK: 169.00 Total : 234.00 45164 7/27/2018 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA Expenses 001.040.041.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 38.15 Total : 38.15 45165 7/27/2018 006402 ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER 1990783388 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 646.28 1990793581 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 828.19 1990803894 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 588.83 Total : 2,063.30 45166 7/27/2018 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV03311 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRI 9,115.45 Total : 9,115.45 45167 7/27/2018 000030 AVISTA June 2018 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: CPW MASTER AVISTA 25,481.84 June 2018 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 11,224.33 Total : 36,706.17 45168 7/27/2018 000148 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 010001139 001.016.000.521 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR POLICE 23.93 010097931 001.016.000.521 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR POLICE 24.14 010097950 001.016.000.521 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR POLICE 21.76 010191619 001.016.000.521 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR POLICE 21.76 Total : 91.59 45169 7/27/2018 000544 CAT TALES 616200CT 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 281.00 Total : 281.00 45170 7/27/2018 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY July 2018 001.040.041.558 PETTY CASH: 16956,59.60,62,63,64 34.21 Page: 1--- /7 vchlist Voucher List Page: -2- 07/27/2018 2:49:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45170 7/27/2018 001169 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (Continued) Total : 34.21 45171 7/27/2018 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 June 2018 309.000.237.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAYTRAIL 67.27 Total : 67.27 45172 7/27/2018 006780 CROUSE, LARRY July 2017 001.237.10.95 SURETY DEPOSIT REFUND SHP-2( 68,036.00 Total : 68,036.00 45173 7/27/2018 005046 FASTSIGNS 540-10287 001.076.301.571 SIGNS FOR REG&AQUATfCS PRO 1,148.93 Total : 1,148.93 45174 7/27/2018 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 74804 001.016.016.521 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE AT I 398.15 Total : 398.15 45175 7/27/2018 001147 HOBART SERVICE 33608069 001.076.305.575 WORK ORDER AT CENTERPLACE 597.42 Total : 597.42 45176 7/27/2018 006793 IBIS DEVELOPMENT LLC BLA-2018-0024 001.040.043.345 PERMIT REFUND: BLA-2018-0024 105.00 Total : 105.00 45177 7/27/2018 000161 IIMC 21848 001.013.000.513 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: C. KOUDEI 125.00 8688 001.013.000.513 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: C. BAINBR 225.00 Total : 350.00 45178 7/27/2018 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1299588 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 42.14 1300111 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 52.68 1300112 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 31.61 1300113 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 21.07 Total : 147.50 45179 7/27/2018 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION July 2018 105.000.000.557 2018 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 30,000.00 Total : 30,000.00 45180 7/27/2018 006812 K&P LAMONT BLD-2018-1664 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND BLD-2018-1664 106.35 Total : 106.35 45181 7/27/2018 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO June 2018 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:JUNE 2018 CPW 11,510.02 Page: S2--- /2 vchlist Voucher List Page: —3-- -07/27/2018 2:49:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45181 7/27/2018 000132 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) Total : 11,510.02 45182 7/27/2018 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 19538837 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 58.80 19538838 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 35.44 19538839 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 99.00 19538840 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 42.35 Total : 235.59 45183 7/27/2018 006768 NORTHWEST BEST DIRECT INC 5/30/2018 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING AGREEMENT 3,710.00 Total : 3,710.00 45184 7/27/2018 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R785809 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 59.73 Total : 59.73 45185 7/27/2018 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 8488578 001.016.016.521 MONTHLY SVCS AT PRECINCT 444.85 8494926 402.402.000.531 FLAGGING SVC CONTRACT: JUNE 530.94 8494990 402.402.000.531 ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING SVCS:. 6,768.53 Total : 7,744.32 45186 7/27/2018 000189 SILVERWOOD THEME PARK INC. 49733 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 71 2,772.30 Total : 2,772.30 45187 7/27/2018 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL July2018 001.076.302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: JUI 1,783.15 Total : 1,783.15 45188 7/27/2018 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE INC 623602 402.402.000.531 2018 ROADSIDE WEED SPRAYING 2,874.85 Total : 2,874.85 45189 7/27/2018 005969 SPOKANE SPORTS COMMISSION 2nd QTR 2018 105.000.000.557 2018 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 20,000.00 Total : 20,000.00 45190 7/27/2018 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010825080 001.076.305.575 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTE 68.60 Total : 68.60 45191 7/27/2018 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1317167 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION: CPW JUNE 2 547.01 Total : 547.01 45192 7/27/2018 006422 SUPPLYWORKS 444870042 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES:JANITORIAL PRECINCT 662.17 Page: --3---- /3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 07/27/2018 2:49:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45192 7/27/2018 006422 SUPPLYWORKS (Continued) 445380165 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES:JANITORIAL CITY HALL 719.63 445380173 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES:JANITORIAL MAINT FAC 158.25 Total : 1,540.05 45193 7/27/2018 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 3293 309.000.270.594 0270-ENG/ARCH/PROJ MGMT 430.00 Total : 430.00 45194 7/27/2018 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 897087 001.076.305.575 NAME PLATES FOR CENTERPLACI 17.41 Total : 17.41 45195 7/27/2018 000167 VERA WATER&POWER 005338-007 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 33.70 005338-008 309.000.237.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 28.10 005422-023 309.000.237.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 80.55 028004-000 309.000.227.595 UTILITIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 15.52 Total : 157.87 45196 7/27/2018 003175 VISIT SPOKANE June 2018 105.000.000.557 2018 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMS 5,833.34 Total : 5,833.34 45197 7/27/2018 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0067823-1518-5 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT:VACTORING WAST 5,785.20 Total : 5,785.20 45198 7/27/2018 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 10742457 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 704.43 10744769 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 76.98 Total : 781.41 45199 7/27/2018 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 030834749 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FACILITY REN 250.00 June 2018 001.076.302.576 OPERATING EXPENSES AND MGM 31,384.43 Total : 31,634.43 45200 7/27/2018 006811 YOUNG, KR[STI BLD-2018-1448 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2018-1448 157.19 Total : 157.19 40 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 337,826.08 40 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 337,826.08 Page: -4-- / vchFist Voucher List Page: -r-- 07/3012018 T`07/30/2018 9:15:12AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7806 7/30/2018 003450 ADVENT LUTHERAN CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7807 7/30/2018 006794 CAREY, JODI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7808 7/30/2018 006795 CASCADE WINDOWS PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7809 7130/2018 003348 DATA PRO SOLUTIONS INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7810 7/30/2018 006782 ERICKSON, BRAD PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7811 7/30/2018 006796 FLORY, DIANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7812 7/30/2018 006797 GAMBY, CHRISTOPHER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 300.00 Total : 300.00 7813 7/30/2018 005282 GENESIS CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7814 7/30/2018 006798 GILREATH, SARAH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 7815 7/30/2018 006799 GOULD, KATHERINE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PI. 75.00 Total : 75.00 7816 7/30/2018 005205 GSC MEALS ON WHEELS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7817 7/30/2018 006800 GUDIEL, GLENDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:BROWNS PARE 75.00 Total : 75.00 7818 7/30/2018 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION, INC. PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Page: ---4-- r vchlist Voucher List Page: '2- 07/30/2018 9:15:12AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7818 7/30/2018 001729 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION, INC. (Continued) Total : 75.00 7819 7/30/2018 005184 HEALTHCARE RESOURCE GROUP PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 75.00 Total : 75.00 7820 7/30/2018 006173 INLAND NORTHWEST CAMARO CLUB PARKS REFUND 001237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 300.00 Total : 300.00 7821 7/30/2018 006801 KIRBY,ASHLEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 7822 7/30/2018 006802 KORNEYCHUK, LANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7823 7/30/2018 006803 LIEPOLD, FONDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7824 7/30/2018 006783 MACLEOD, CRYSTAL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PAR. 75.00 Total : 75.00 7825 7/30/2018 006784 MOTZNY, SUSAN PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI' 75.00 Total : 75.00 7826 7/30/2018 006804 NAW1C SPOKANE CHAPTER 143 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7827 7/30/2018 006785 NJENGA, FAITH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7828 7/30/2018 006786 NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7829 7/30/2018 006012 PARKERT, GARY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7830 7/30/2018 006805 PATTERSON, DYLAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 7831 7/30/2018 006806 PECOR, EMMALEE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Page: / , vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/30/2018 9:15:12AM Spokane Valley Bank code : Pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7831 7/30/2018 006806 006806 PECOR, EMMALEE (Continued) Total : 75.00 7832 7/30/2018 006792 PICHINEVSKIY, KATIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7833 7/30/2018 006787 PRIM, BRANDY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN PAR 75.00 Total : 75.00 7834 7/30/2018 006788 PRITCHARD, DIANE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7835 7/30/2018 006807 PUSULURI, RAJENDRA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7836 7/30/2018 006789 ROBERSON,JOANNE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7837 7/30/2018 006808 SEABOLDT, MISTY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7838 7/30/2018 001769 SPALDING AUTO PARTS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 7839 7/30/2018 006809 SPARKMAN, WILLIAM PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 384.00 Total : 384.00 7840 7/30/2018 006790 TEGGE, DAVID PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7841 7/30/2018 006791 WAYMENT, PENNY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 75.00 Total : 75.00 7842 7/30/2018 006810 WIYRICK,JENNIFER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 37 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 3,534.00 37 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 3,534.00 Page: . '2 vchlist Voucher List Page: '1--- 07/31/2018 9:34:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45201 7/31/2018 000101 CDW-G NJC1864 001.090.000.519 OFFICE & OPERATING SUPPLIES: 299.06 Total : 299.06 45202 7/31/2018 000322 CENTURYLINK JULY 2018 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL PHONES 261.83 JULY 2018 001.076.000.576 2018 PHONE SVCS:ACCT 509 Z14- 551.78 Total : 813.61 45203 7/31/2018 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 60742 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 195.84 Total : 195.84 45204 7/31/2018 001888 COMCAST July 18-Aug 17 2018 001.090.000.518 INTERNET CITY HALL 106.17 Total : 106.17 45205 7/31/2018 000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 000-217156-00-2 101.000.000.517 2ND QTR 2018 UI TAX 597.42 Total : 597.42 45206 7/31/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 495700 303.000.273.518 ADVERTISING 60.04 496683 303.000.273.518 ADVERTISING 59.00 498267 001.011.000.511 ADVERTISING 34.50 498268 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 38.71 498269 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 83.74 498270 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 80.58 498271 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 72.68 Total : 429.25 45207 7/31/2018 003261 FEHR& PEERS 122639 001.090.000.513 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUD 5,714.80 123881 001.090.000.513 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUD 14,673.80 Total : 20,388.60 45208 7/31/2018 006781 FLETCHER &SIPPEL LLC 39664 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,054.50 Total : 1,054.50 45209 7/31/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 48811 303.000.273.518 ADVERTISING 126.40 48848 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 158,40 48850 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 44.20 48851 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 98.60 48852 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 96.05 Page: -1-1 .,c vchlist Voucher List Page: -2- 07/31/2018 9:34:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45209 7/31/2018 001447 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) Total : 523.65 45210 7/31/2018 006776 GARCIA, ERICA BLD-2018-1967 001.040.043,322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2018-1967 460.56 Total : 460.56 45211 7/31/2018 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 71851588 001.076.305.575 TELECOM SERVICES 1,350.34 Total : 1,350.34 45212 7/31/2018 006778 MAINSTREAM ELECTRIC INC BLD-2018-2009 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2018-2009 44.08 Total : 44.08 45213 7/31/2018 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. PAY APP 9 303.000.251.595 0251-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 231,998.17 Total : 231,998.17 45214 7/31/2018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 120238026001 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MGR 380.79 163612245001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS 57.97 164160021001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 391.64 164160480001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS 59.84 164293489001 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MGR -380.79 Total : 509.45 45215 7/31/2018 006777 PREMIER ROOFING CONTRACTORS BLD 2018-1994 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2018-1994 149.39 Total : 149.39 45216 7/31/2018 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 50078 001.011.000.511 CAR MAGNETS 32.64 Total : 32.64 45217 7/31/2018 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN 85749 001.040.043.558 JULY 2018 COPIER COSTS 1,165.17 Total : 1,165.17 45218 7/31/2018 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 608587771 001.040.042.558 ADOBE CREATIVE CLOUD FORTE, 3,005.13 Total : 3,005.13 45219 7/31/2018 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. 16683-02 303.000.264.595 17-066-CONSTRUCTION STAKING 1,022.87 Total : 1,022.87 45220 7/31/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100208 101.042.000.542 JUNE 2018 ENGINEERING 75,619.48 Page: T` vchlist Voucher List Page: 3-- 07131/2018 9:34:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45220 7131/2018 000001 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) Total : 75,619.48 45221 7/31/2018 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST.#1 Q2-2018 FIRE FEES 001.229.45.00 Q2-2018 FIRE FEES 31,265.36 Total : 31,265.36 45222 7/31/2018 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW,THE 499139 001.040.043.558 ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 1,230.48 Total : 1,230.48 45223 7/31/2018 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3383525507 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. 102.76 3383525516 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. 48.63 3383525521 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. 365.35 Total : 516.74 45224 7/31/2018 006446 STAUFFER, GREG EXPENSES 001.040.043.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 10.17 Total : 10.17 45225 7/31/2018 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 93571 001.018.016.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 122.00 Total : 122.00 45226 7/31/2018 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY PAYAPP 3 303.000.264.595 0264- DICKEY TO THIERMAN CONE 944.10 PAY APP 5 309.000.237.595 0237-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 364,282.03 Total : 365,226.13 26 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 738,136.26 26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 738,136.26 Page: 1- vchlist Voucher List Page: 08/01/2018 3:25:13PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6365 8/3/2018 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben81438 001.231.15.00 PERS:PAYMENT 109,628.30 Total: 109,628.30 6367 8/3/2018 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben81440 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES:PAYMENT 2,866.71 Total: 2,866.71 6369 813/2018 006345 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING Ben81442 001.231.20.00 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING: 163.33 Total: 163.33 6382 8/3/2018 0001048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben81444 001.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 34,848.54 Total: 34,848.54 6383 8/3/2018 000682 EFTPS Ben81446 001.231.13.00 FEDERAL IAXES:PAYMENT 36,071.96 Total: 36,071.96 6384 8/3/2018 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PLS BenB1448 311.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 8,273.95 Total: 8,273.95 6386 8/3/2018 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL BenB1450 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:PAYMENT 637.50 Total: 637.50 6395 8/3/2018 000582 EFTPS Ben81457 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 1,026.08 Total: 1,026.08 45227 8/3/2018 000120 AWC Ben81436 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS:PAYMENT 131,256.31 Ben81455 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS(COUNCIL):PAYMENT 10,578.57 Total: 141,834.88 9 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 335,351.25 9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 335,351.25 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 08102/2018 12:53:10PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date _ Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45228 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 6368 July 2018 001.018.016.518 NAYLOR CAREER SOLUTION 295.00 6368 July 2018 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00 6368 July 2018 001.018.014.514 WASHINGTON SOCIETY OF CPAS 299.00 6368 July 2018 001.018.014.514 CONFERENCE SOLUTIONS 1,175.00 6368 July 2018 001.013.015.515 WSAMA 15.00 Total : 1,809.00 45229 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 9713 July 2018 001.033,000.518 SILVER CLOUD HOTEL 478.20 9713 July 2018 001.033.000.518 SILVER CLOUD HOTEL 546.84 9713 July 2018 001.033.000.518 AMAZON.COM 200.82 9713 July 2018 001.040.043.558 NORFMA 375.00 9713 July 2018 001.040.043.524 TARGET 32.62 9713 July 2018 001.033.000.518 VEHICLE CAGE GATE HARDWARE 1,172.21 Total : 2,805.69 45230 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 July 2018 001.011.000.511 HOLIDAY INN YAKIMA 527.10 5214 July 2018 001.011.000.511 HOLIDAY INN YAKIMA 1,159.62 Total : 1,686.72 45231 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 July 2018 001.018.014.514 WFOA 100.00 8573 July 2018 001.090.000.518 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 30.54 8573 July 2018 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00 8573 July 2018 001.018.014.514 CREDIT: GFOA -377.00 8573 July 2018 101.042.000.542 AMAZON.COM 615.70 8573 July 2018 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00 Total : 419.24 45232 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 July 2018 001.011.000.511 PANERA BREAD 344.24 8557 July 2018 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 100.00 8557 July 218 001.011.000.511 STARBUCKS 36.88 Total : 481.12 45233 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 BOOST MOBILE 45.00 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 BOOST MOBILE 35.00 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 38.04 Page: r-71— • vchlist Voucher List Page? 2 08/02/2018 12:53:10PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45233 8/2/2018 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 30.38 8599 July 2018 001.076.305.575 GTS DRYWALL 246.17 8599 July 2018 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 170.03 8599 July 2010 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 24.40 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 PLAYERS AND SPECTATORS 209.28 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 DOLLAR TREE 18.50 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 WALMART 47.06 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 AMAZON 106.56 8599 July 2018 001.076.301.571 S&S WORLDWIDE 111.97 8599 July 2018 001.076.305.575 MILLER PAINT 54.94 Total : 1,137.33 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 8,339.10 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 8,339.10 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: --r-- 08/06/2018 'r08/06/2018 1:16:31PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7843 8/6/2018 006839 ABUNDANT HOUSE FILMS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION: ROOM 108 578.00 Total : 578.00 7844 8/6/2018 006823 ALBANO, LORETTA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU ME 75.00 Total : 75.00 7845 8/6/2018 006814 BEERS, DIANNA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 118.00 Total : 118.00 7846 8/6/2018 006824 BOUCHER, PAUL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7847 8/6/2018 006825 BROWN, JACKIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 300.00 Total : 300.00 7848 8/6/2018 006840 CHOVGAN, KRISTINA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 500.00 Total : 500.00 7849 8/6/2018 006826 CHRISTIANSON,JULEE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI 75.00 Total : 75.00 7850 8/6/2018 005921 CLINGER,TRESSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SMALL DINING 102.00 Total : 102.00 7851 8/6/2018 006744 DASH, PAMELA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 121.00 Total : 121.00 7852 8/6/2018 006827 FOX, KATHLEEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7853 8/6/2018 006835 GIBSON, DANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 7854 8/6/2018 006813 GOODELL, CARRIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 236.00 Total : 236.00 7855 8/6/2018 006841 GRIFFITH, JEREMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUI 500.00 Page: _t______ vchlist Voucher ListPagt` 08/06/2018 1:16:31PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7855 8/6/2018 006841 006841 GRIFFITH, JEREMY (Continued) Total : 500.00 7856 8/6/2018 006816 HANSON, JENNY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 26.25 Total : 26.25 7857 8/6/2018 006828 KALEY, HEATHER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PI. 75.00 Total : 75.00 7858 8/6/2018 006842 LEONE&KEEBLE INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 110 52.00 Total : 52.00 7859 8/6/2018 006836 MATTHEWS,VANESSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 7860 8/6/2018 006665 MCINTOSH,TAMMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 118.00 Total : 118.00 7861 8/6/2018 006843 MILNES,JENNIFER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUT 210.00 Total : 210.00 7862 8/6/2018 006837 PARKER, KATHARINE PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 7863 8/6/2018 006815 PATEL, DARSHAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 127.00 Total : 127.00 7864 8/6/2018 006844 SHELTERING TREE CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 7865 8/6/2018 006829 SPOKANE ROCK ROLLERS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN PARI 75.00 Total : 75.00 7866 8/6/2018 006830 STINTZI, ELISHA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7867 8/6/2018 006644 STOLLEY, MELISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 118.00 Total : 118.00 7868 8/6/2018 000888 THE INTERSECTION CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page —3- 08/06/2018 1:16:31 PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7868 8/6/2018 000888 000888 THE INTERSECTION CHURCH (Continued) Total : 75.00 7869 8/6/2018 006204 USPS SOCIAL&REC COMMITTEE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 7870 8/6/2018 000295 VALLEYFEST PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 300.00 Total : 300.00 7871 8/6/2018 006831 VALLONE, BAILEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7872 8/6/2018 006832 VAN TUYL, MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 7873 8/6/2018 006833 WAGNER, JUSTIN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7874 8/6/2018 006845 WAGSTAFF INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 108 52.00 Total : 52.00 7875 8/6/2018 006834 WENTZ, BARB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 7876 8/6/2018 006838 WILKINSON, ROBERTA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 35.00 Total : 35.00 34 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 4,648.25 34 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 4,648.25 Page: -3-- vchlist Voucher List Pagel —1- 08/07/2018 8:08:59AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45234 8/7/2018 006731 ADAMS TRACTOR OF SPOKANE 40673 101.042.000.542 BRUSH CUTTERS: STREET DEPT 669.02 Total : 669.02 45235 8/7/2018 006393 AL'S AUTO GLASS LLC 7-13-18 001.040.041.543 WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT#5-2 157.76 Total : 157.76 45236 8/7/2018 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 220229 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: BRIDGE 19.58 Total : 19.58 45237 8/7/2018 006574 AWARD CONSTRUCTION INC PAY APP 1 303.303.166.595 0166-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 250,586.87 Total : 250,586.87 45238 8/7/2018 002562 CD'A METALS 359091 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 307.24 362809 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES:SNOWPLOWS 327.74 364835 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES:SNOWPLOWS 191.38 Total : 826.36 45239 8/7/2018 000101 CDW-G NLM7721 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON-CAF 8.29 Total : 8.29 45240 8/7/2018 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC AUGUST 2018 101.042.000.543 COMMON AREA CHARGES FOR M) 291.40 Total : 291.40 45241 8/7/2018 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 604447 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 212.33 Total : 212.33 45242 8/7/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 79594958 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE 3050 MICRO 231.68 79597860 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 3 YR WORKS1 2,286.44 Total : 2,518.12 45243 8/7/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 79593707 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-0 862.93 Total : 862.93 45244 8/7/2018 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 115648 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00 Total : 40.00 45245 8/7/2018 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC CD201816796 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,243.87 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 6'4'2- 08/07/2018 08107/2018 8:08:59AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45245 8/7/2018 002075 ENV1ROTECH SERVICES INC (Continued) CD201816797 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,207.53 CD201816798 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,228.29 CD201816799 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,242.15 CD201816800 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,204.06 CD201816801 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,219.65 CD201816802 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER 5,205.80 Total : 36,551.35 45246 8/7/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 499153 001.011,000.511 ADVERTISING 34.50 499154 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 69.00 499155 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.79 Total : 183.29 45247 8/7/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 48872 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 153.60 Total : 153.60 45248 8/7/2018 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001420676:01 101.000.000.542 SMALLTOOLS/M1NOR EQUIP: SHO 23.57 Total : 23.57 45249 8/7/2018 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 118193 001.040.042.558 BOOTH AT PTAC 100.00 Total : 100.00 45250 8/7/2018 006133 HEATH, ELISHA EXPENSES 001.013.000.513 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 22.07 Total : 22.07 45251 8/7/2018 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 93.58 Total : 93.58 45252 8/7/2018 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE& FITTINGS 1012342 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 338.49 1012344 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS -135.47 1012413 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 45.61 Total : 248.63 45253 8/7/2018 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0118158 101.042.000.542 2018 TIP MAINTENANCE& UPDATE 11,976.64 Total : 11,976.64 45254 8/7/2018 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPOR02924887 101.000.000.542 DOT INSPETION#203 126.12 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: (-- 08/0712018 8:08:59AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45254 8/7/2018 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY (Continued) SPOR02927076 101.000.000.542 DOT INSPECTION#204 151.12 Total : 277.24 45255 8/7/2018 001944 LANCER LTD 0470309 001.040.041.543 BUSINESS CARDS 38.09 Total : 38.09 45256 8/7/2018 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 0538-878636 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 90.91 Total : 90.91 45257 8/7/2018 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE& SIGN CO 100242 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 54.94 Total : 54.94 45258 8/7/2018 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 084305/3 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 3.24 Total : 3.24 45259 8/7/2018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 169603782001 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 89.87 171520557001 001.013.015.515 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL 18.36 Total : 108.23 45260 8/7/2018 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER JUNE 2018 001.016.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 44,713.08 Total : 44,713.08 45261 8/7/2018 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 191420 001.040.041.543 COPY PAPER 118.59 Total : 118.59 45262 8/7/2018 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC_ 45787 101.042.000.542 2018 STREET MAINTENANCE 234,963.11 45788 101.042.000.542 2018 STREET MAINTENANCE 53,875.06 Total : 288,838.17 45263 8/7/2018 000868 POWER CITY ELECTRIC CON. INC. PAY APP 1 303.000.201.595 0201-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 170,955.92 Total : 170,955.92 45264 8/7/2018 006348 POWERS-HENDERSON, CANDICE 2ND PICTURE 001.018.016.518 "PICTURE IT'WELLNESS CAMPAIC 15,00 Total : 15.00 45265 8/7/2018 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 49710 001.033.000.518 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: CITY H/ 312.78 Page: — vchlist Voucher List Page:— 08/07/2018 8:08:59AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 45265 8/7/2018 002592 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS (Continued) Total : 312.78 45266 8/7/2018 000318 SHAMROCK PAVING INC 4169 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET 307,96 Total : 307.96 45267 8/7/2018 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-831346 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES:#206 308.76 Total : 308,76 45268 8/7/2018 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE JULY 2018 001.040.043.558 RECORDING FEES 413.00 Total : 413.00 45269 8/7/2018 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY JUNE 2018 001.016.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 673.37 Total : 673.37 45270 8/7/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100208 101.042.000.542 JUNE 2018 ENGINEERING 71,141.34 42000515 001.016.000.554 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AUG 21,178.22 51504397 001.016.000.523 JULY 2018 HOUSING 134,244.81 51504408 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE JUNE 2018 7,329.30 Total : 233,893.67 45271 8/7/2018 000710 SPOKANE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 8-1-2018 001.013.015.515 MISSED COPY COSTS FROM 2015• 25.75 Total : 25.75 45272 8/7/2018 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 685955 101.000.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP: STRI 264.17 Total : 264.17 45273 8/7/2018 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 18-33 001.033.000.518 SULLIVAN BRIDGE PICTURE 765.95 Total : 765.95 45274 8/712018 006446 STAUFFER, GREG EXPENSES 001.040.043.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 10.36 Total : 10.36 45275 8/7/2018 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 93758 001.018.016.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 305.00 Total : 305.00 45276 8/7/2018 006847 VALLEY MACHINE 23212 101,000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 231.20 Total : 231.20 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: —5'- 08/07/2018 sem08/07/2018 8:08:59AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 90545 7/31/2018 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE Q2-2018 001.076.301.589 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 2,839.80 Total : 2,839.80 3916891 7/31/2018 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE Q2-2018 101.042.000.542 COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETURN 4,025.07 Total : 4,025.07 4838098 7/31/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290201352 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT BILLING JULY 2018 1,535,279.00 Total : 1,535,279.00 4865070 8/3/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JULY 2018 001.016_000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 207,068.12 Total : 207,068.12 47 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 2,797,482.76 47 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,797,482.76 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: �5��. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 31, 2018 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 308,684.05 $ 5,475.00 $ 314,159.05 Benefits: $ 177,762.77 $ 11,144.30 $ 188,907.07 Total payroll $ 486,446.82 $ 16,619.30 $ 503,066.12 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.11.020 Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • July 31, 2018 —Administrative Report BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley manages an extensive stormwater management system. Part of this system has been acquired and developed since incorporation on March 31, 2003, but part of the system was constructed by Spokane County prior to incorporation. Most of the parcels previously owned by the County were transferred to the City around the date of incorporation. The City and County have found several parcels that are part of the stormwater system but, for unknown reasons, were never transferred to the City for ownership and upkeep. Parcel number 55172.0159 is a narrow strip of property that includes the sidewall of an existing swale. The property is approximately seven feet wide by 220 feet long. (See Attachment). This property is considered necessary for the continued maintenance of the swale immediately to the north, which the City operates and maintains. Spokane County has informed staff that the cost to acquire this property is $112.64, plus recording fees of$110. Staff requests consent to complete this transaction with Spokane County. OPTIONS: 1) Consent to the property acquisition; 2) Take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve the property acquisition for parcel 55172.0159. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Parcel 55172.0159 $222.64 ($112.64 purchase price, plus $110 recording fee). STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Graphic of Parcel 55172.0159. Stormwater Property Acquisition Parcel 55172.0159 ill- 113 ea:01,4t3 : - ".'i ;, .'t r_ ,.. ,. T.. • . „ - .•,, i , IC ' ' i:. ;;_. C i r � ` Existing ,, z :.�; � .ii r , _ .`°Stormwater —,61112F • r t r- ipi r Facility !� •:�r • fi• . . „ r , - . 4 __ ,. , i ..,.,Ittillir. . , ..,. : „. . _ , . ,,. .....„,„ .. _ . ..,. . j` . . a ill }! s {� 110 an& r " `� " Parcel ..' 55172.0159 - ....::::::,,...:„.:;:'i. io.6r � �� . • . . r e- r r -ir- r r r CAI fS, ■• ' 6 • l - •'E Boone QM DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 17,2018 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood,Councilmember Bill Helbig,City Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk,Planner Micki Harnois,Planner Karen Kendall,Planner Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. Community Recognition:Anna Priebe, Girl Scout Gold Award Recipient Mayor Higgins announced that we are kicking off our Community Recognition program with a proclamation for Ms. Anna Priebe, Girls Scout Gold Award recipient. After Mayor Higgins read the proclamation honoring Ms. Priebe, she was handed the proclamation by City Clerk Bainbridge and the audience extended a round of applause.Ms.Priebe thanked everyone in the community for everything they do in the community, as she explained that all girls scout projects are community projects. The audience again extended Ms. Priebe a round of applause. 1.Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington—Mark Calhoun; Lynn Kimball,Art Swannack City Manager Calhoun introduced Ms. Lynn Kimball, CEO of the Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington, and Whitman County Commissioner Mr. Art Swannack, who is that agency's Board Chair. Ms.Kimball gave an overview of the Aging&Long Care Agency in order to assist Council to determining whether they have an interest in joining the agency's interlocal agreement. Ms. Kimball and Mr. Swannack talked about some of the services involved with their agency,such as helping older adults and people living with disabilities stay in their homes, as the agency's mission is to promote well-being, independence, dignity and choice.She mentioned they serve five counties including Spokane,and mentioned some of their area partners,including Meals on Wheels, SNAP, and Family Home Care. They spoke of their Governing Board's structure,which meets quarterly; and of the Planning and Management Council which includes 35 volunteers from five counties, meets ten times a year, and reviews and makes recommendations to the Governing Board. Ms. Kimball explained that their budget includes 51% for contracted services,43% for direct services, and just 6% for administration; she mentioned that if Spokane Valley City were to join, based on 16 percent of our population aged sixty and over,our annual cost would be $12,026. Concerning the Governing Board, Mr. Swannack explained that board would have one member from Spokane Valley if Council is willing to join; the Board would get together and discuss what's been recommended by the Planning and Management Council in terms of budget contracts,or other management Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT issues;he said the Governing Board is the final decision maker on whether an issue is approved; he said it is nice to have people on the Board representing the citizens in their areas; he mentioned that Council has a good understanding of what is going on with the citizens of Spokane Valley so it would be good to have that representation. Councilmember Thompson said she noted on the material included, that the Governing Board has three representatives from the City of Spokane ,and that the proposal is for Spokane Valley to have one. Ms. Kimball said that would be up to Council to propose and that her agency would be willing to look at the idea of having more than one representative. Mr. Swannack said Council can ask for whatever it wants as that is part of the negotiation process.Councilmember Woodard asked about the makeup of the three people on the Planning and Management Council if those individuals are usually elected officials. Mr. Swannack replied that one individual is appointed by the governing board,for example Spokane Valley,and the other two are brought forth in the nomination process and then the Planning and Management Council recommends them to the board to be appointed, so they are at-large citizens. Councilmember Wick asked if joining this agency would give more representation within the agency since they already do much within the community and the other counties, and Ms.Kimball concurred. There was Council consensus to move this forward for consideration and action. Mr. Calhoun said staff will bring that forward for Council consideration and if Council concurs,we will include that$12,000 in our 2019 budget development process. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Lori Barlow,Marty Palaniuk,Micki Harnois,Karen Kendall Councilmember Thompson said that she lives in the Ponderosa neighborhood, about ten blocks from the Crapo property; that she has considered it, read the documents, and feels she can participate in the discussion and the decision on this being very objective and unbiased. Ms. Barlow began by succinctly explaining the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process,which includes the staff role,the Planning Commission role, and the Council role; she mentioned the gap in time between the Planning Commission public hearing and the deliberations was due to an appeal on the DNS for comp plan amendment 2018- 0003, which appeal was heard by the Hearing Examiner who ultimately denied the appeal on April 17, 2018. Ms. Barlow explained that the rules of the Growth Management Act require us to consider all requests cumulatively; and when the appeal was being considered, all the other comp plan proposed amendments were put on hold pending that appeal decision.Ms.Barlow also went over the approval criteria and noted that CPA 2018-0002 and 0007 were withdrawn by the applicant and the City respectively; and that no action was taken on either of those amendments. Planner Harnois explained that CPA 2018-0001 is a privately initiated amendment to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Multi-Family Residential(MFR)and the zoning from R-3 to MFR; she showed the area in question on the accompanying slide, and went over the difference of the development standards between the R-3 and MFR zones; said the area has no environmental restraints and there were no public comments received on this amendment; and that the Planning Commission recommended six to one to recommend approval. Council concurred to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Palaniuk explained that CPA 2018-0003 is an amendment on Sundown and Bowdish to change the land use designation from SFR to Corridor Mixed Use; and to change the underlining zone from R-2 to Corridor Mixed Use;he showed the area in question on the accompanying side,which shows a large vacant lot, and went over some of the environmental characteristics, including that it is located in a floodplain, which would require a floodplain permit,that there is a type F stream running along the railroad track which would require some buffering; that the current land use designation is single family residential, and if it were to change would become corridor mixed use. Mr. Palaniuk showed the differences of development standards from R-2 to corridor mixed use;which changes would be significantly different from the current R-2.Mr.Palaniuk noted we received some significant comments from agencies such as the Fish&Wildlife concerning protecting the stream,and that we also received some significant public comments concerning Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT traffic, access in and out of the site, and whether commercial development would fit with the neighbor character; that it is in the floodplain, and the impact on schools. Mr. Palaniuk stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Council concurred to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended. Mr.Palaniuk next explained CPA 2018-0004,an amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to Neighborhood Commercial (NC); and to change the land use zone from R-3, which is single family residential urban,to NC;the area in question is 7th and University as shown on the accompanying slide; he noted the adjacent site is owned by the same person requesting this amendment;he showed the differences in development standards; and mentioned that a single family residential use is a permitted use in the neighborhood commercial zones. Mr. Palaniuk noted some significant public comments were received, some concerning traffic in and out of 7th Avenue, and that 8th is fairly restrictive; said some felt it did not fit with the neighborhood character,and there were some concerns about the underlying plat covenants,and a letter concerning those covenants was received which letter stated the covenants specifically do not allow commercial uses. Mr. Palaniuk explained that it was the City's determination that those are private matters and it don't affect Council's ability to make a decision on the land use designation; and he said that the Planning Commission recommended seven to zero that Council approve this amendment. Councilmember Peetz asked about the covenants and why we would still be able to proceed as proposed. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said a comp plan amendment and zoning map amendment does not change or invalidate or otherwise alter or amend those covenants or the plat;he explained that is a legislative decision as to the city regulations as to what is allowed from a planning standpoint for comp plan amendments and regulatory use from a zoning standpoint; within that, the citizens who agreed to create that plat can impose whatever conditions they want; sometimes those are through the plat process and the hearing examiner imposes those, and generally those are dedication type things such as are needed for public use like easements for utilities, or border easements for sidewalks;those we would enforce so you cannot build within those; and citizens can go even further and adopt private covenants and those are enforceable solely amongst those private citizens;and in that instance,there is no government telling them what they can do or what those limits are; rather they have agreed what they want their neighborhood to look like; so to change those covenants,they set out what those requirements are;so through this action Council would not be modifying those covenants, and anyone who wished to do anything on that property would still be subject to those covenants; and so even though a NC would allow commercial use, it also allows residential use, and they could build a residential use under the covenants, but they would want to consult a lawyer and may be subject to a challenge if they tried to build something commercial. Mr. Lamb said as contained in the material, we provided a response back to the citizens,and they contacted an attorney,and their letter as well as the letter from their attorney Witherspoon Kelly is included in the materials; and the attorney acknowledged that was the view under the law;said they requested we put a notation on the parcel for any commercial development so anyone who wishes to actually build would be on notice, and could work with the neighborhood for an appropriate development if one would work out.Councilmember Peetz,to clarify,said if Council goes with the Planning Commission recommendation, they could still pursue their covenants. Mr. Lamb agreed. Council concurred to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended. Planner Kendall next explained that CPA 2018-0005 and CPA 0006 are City-initiated map amendments to correct some mapping errors; both of which are non-project actions; said the areas inadvertently bisect parcels for the land use designation and the zoning as a result of the City's 2016 comprehensive plan update. She explained that 0005's proposal is to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designed SFR and NC and zoned R-3 and NC;she explained the location of the parcel, some of the unique characteristics,and the proposed amendment,including that it is located in the 100-year floodplain and the property owner has received approval for a conditional letter of map revision,to reduce those floodplain boundaries; she mentioned the 500' Bonneville Power Administration easement that runs through the middle of the property; and that the area also includes a small stream. Ms. Kendall said the area is currently split between neighborhood commercial and single family residential; and the zoning map Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT is designated neighborhood commercial and R-3; to correct the mapping area, staff noticed an irrigation canal was bisecting these parcels; so this amendment would eliminate that bisection and correctly zone the properties, so this would expand the neighborhood commercial designation. She noted that the Planning Commission had one commissioner abstain, and the remainder voted six to zero to approve this mapping correction. Council concurred to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended for CPA 2018-0005. Planner Kendall then explained in more detail,the amendment CPA 0006 to correct a mapping error; she said this change would expand the Industrial Mixed Use designation and eliminate a split zoned property. She went over the location of the property,and said the area that contains the split zoning is a 15' area along the eastern portion of the property which is currently developed with stormwater facilities; that the split zoning is single family residential and industrial mixed use, so the proposal is to modify the entire area to industrial mixed use, and therefore change the zoning map to be consistent with that change. Ms. Kendall noted the Planning Commission voted seven to zero to approve this proposal.Council concurred to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended for CPA 2018-0006. Ms. Barlow noted that staff will bring Council a draft ordinance next week reflecting Council's direction. 3. Council Goals/Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee —Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor said tonight's discussion will include three topics:what is the lodging tax and how may it be used, what is the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and its role in the award process, and Council's role in the award process. As noted in her July 17, 2018 Request for Council Action form, Director Taylor explained the background of that tax,how it is generated and paid to the state and then to our City; she explained the award allocation process for those organizations submitting funding requests; and she went over the composition of the Lodging Tax Advisory Commission as per state statute; adding that the 2019 award process is currently scheduled for mid-October.Ms. Taylor noted the limits of use for those award funds, and the reporting requirements for those organizations receiving funds as contained in state statutes. Ms. Taylor said at the end of this discussion agenda item, staff will be seeking Council direction on any changes in the goals and priorities, which will be communicated to the members of the LTAC. She said Council could also consider prioritizing the tourism venues decided upon during the July 10 Council meeting,which included improvements to the fairgrounds, a sports complex, and expansion of the CenterPlace outdoor venue, and if Council desires,to include those as part of the goals and priorities. Director Taylor noted that we are including in the 2019 budget, the $30,000 set aside for Centerplate marketing. After Council discussion regarding the Council Goals and Priorities, state required reporting and some of the goal phraseology such as "create distinct and identifiable increases," there was apparent consensus to remove stated goal#2 and include#2's first sentence as a new first sentence for goal#1; and to remove the first sentence in the stated goal#1,but for goal#1 to keep the verbiage about distinguishing Spokane Valley as a tourism destination. There was also some discussion about omitting stated goal #6, but Council ultimately agreed to leave it as is. Director Taylor said she will work on the verbiage and bring that back to Council in track-change format for further discussion. Discussion moved to the additional 1.3%lodging tax,with Councilmember Woodard stating he would like more information and perhaps convene a meeting between the hoteliers and the motels and the school superintendents; said he feels our HUB type of project is different from a HUB type sports project envisioned by the schools and hoteliers,and before Council advises staff to put together a grant application for LTAC funds,he would like that feedback in order to come up with the right kind of project if possible, as opposed to one that won't work for anyone. Councilmember Wick said he agreed more information is needed and more feedback from the public;said he would like to add this as a goal so Council can determine a plan of what to do with those funds rather than just leaving it at the goal level; said he would also like to have more thought put into those top three venues selected previously and have a committee open house or some similar meeting to get the public input on what the public would like to see, and then turn that Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT information into an application to send to the LTAC;he said those funds have been rolling over for several years now. City Manager Calhoun said that last week Council examined those ten potential projects and narrowed the list down to a more manageable three; said the plan is to come back and "unpack' each of those three at a greater level of detail; to perhaps include a one page summary on each of those three to include where do the costs and expenditures come from not just for the capital but for operation as well; and depending on Council's input,we can set a sense of how best to move forward;he said that 1.3%continues to accumulate about$370,000 a year,plus the LTAC has set aside a portion of that 2%; so it is a balance that continues to grow so at some point we could provide a nice down payment on something. Timing was also discussed and Mr. Calhoun said he and Ms. Taylor will work on these suggestions and bring back something to Council no later than August 14;and in the meantime,that will give Council an opportunity to decide what to bring forth for the community; then maybe Council would want to present one of those three venues to the community,or perhaps even all three at the collective decision of Council. Councilmember Wick said he would still like to propose a goal to determine what to do with that 1.3,and wants to see something more than a goal. Mr.Calhoun said staff will work on these issues and we can further discuss the 1.3%and work through that, and that Ms.Taylor can work on something broad. Council agreed with that suggestion. At approximately 7:28 p.m.,Mayor Higgins called for a twelve minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. 4.Modification of Speed Limit Schedule for School Zones—Bill Helbig After City Engineer Helbig went over the proposed changes to the master speed limit schedule to accommodate new schools,there was brief discussion about where school speed limit signs are permitted, if there are ever any exceptions to those rules, and whether it is possible to re-use those signs that will be removed when or if needed in other areas. Mr. Helbig explained that he would have to confirm that information with the Washington State Department of Transportation since the signs are their property. There was consensus from Council to bring this back for approval consideration at the next meeting. 5.Avista Natural Gas Easement— Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that we received a request from Avista for the City to grant an easement to them so they can install a natural gas line; the line would be located in Bettman's Addition, and they would install a line from 14th Lane south to connect up with existing right-of-way; and that if the City needs to make any alteration to the property for a public purpose,the easement language requires Avista to move its facilities. There were no objections from Council to place this on the next Consent Agenda. 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes for the Advance Agenda. 7. Information Only The items Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement; and Ordinance 18-018 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson said as part of the Health District Board's finance committee, they met last week and she noted there will not be a fee increase for fees for this coming Fiscal Year; but she wanted to let Council know that the Board is anticipating a shortfall with their budget,and she will be reporting more as that topic is discussed further on the Health Board. Councilmember Peetz said she misspoke last week about the Appleway Trail clean up and it wasn't last week but will be tomorrow at 6:30 and she welcomed any volunteers. Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun stated that Councilmember Woodard shared that he was contacted by Traci Couture, District Director for Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, who will be here in town this Friday, July 20, from 9:15 a.m.to 10:00 a.m. Mr. Calhoun said that he has a call in to Ms. Couture to confirm the date and time, and once confirmed, he will contact each member of Council. Mr. Calhoun said the last time Representative McMorris-Rodgers visited city hall we arranged a special meeting, and said he anticipates that occurring again for this Friday,but will contact each Councilmember as soon as he has the details;that once all is confirmed, we will schedule and notice the special meeting, and will work on an agenda to include general discussion on such topics as Bridging the Valley,Barker BNSF grade separation project,a heartfelt thanks to her for helping us acquire the$9 million TIGER grant;the Pines BNSF project and issues with Burlington Northern for their two or possibly three tracks,including distance and spacing.Mr.Calhoun said again once all is confirmed, we will set up the meeting here in Council chambers and have Council, Ms.McMorris-Rodgers,and appropriate staff sit at the tables set up here on the floor for ease in discussion. Mr. Calhoun also noted that tomorrow is the 9th annual employee appreciation barbeque, from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and he noted that this is not paid for by the City,but is entirely paid for by the directors who buy, prepare and cook the food,and handle clean up as well; and said he hopes to see Councilmembers there. It was moved by Councilmember Wood, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Study Session:07-17-2018 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Meeting Spokane Valley City Council Friday,July 20,2018 9:15 a.m.— 10:00 a.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa. 99216 Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Staff Rob Higgins,Mayor [arrived 9:37 a.m.] Mark Calhoun,City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Brandi Peetz,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Ben Wick, Councilmember [arrived 9:17 a.m.] Erica Amsden, Senior Engineer Project Mgr. Sam Wood,Councilmember Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Absent: Others in Attendance: Arne Woodard,Councilmember Senator Mike Padden Mike Huffman,valley News Herald Honored Guests: Approximately 50 private citizens Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers Ms. Traci Couture, District Director for Rep. McMorris-Rodgers Deputy Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All Councilmembers were present except Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Wick and Woodard. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Wick and Woodard. WELCOME: Deputy Mayor Haley welcomed Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, serving since 2005 as the U.S. Representative for Washington's 5th congressional district, which is based in Spokane and includes most of the eastern third of the state. Deputy Mayor Haley thanked Representative McMorris Rodgers for her help with our City receiving the TIGER grant funds, and for everything she does for our community. 1. Representative McMorris-Rodgers Comments: Representative McMorris-Rodgers said that it is great to be here and she thanked Council for the opportunity to meet and hear about Council's priorities for the community; said she was proud to be part of the TIGER grant funding and that she looks forward to touring our building after today's meeting. 2.Bridging the Valley City Manager Calhoun stated that we have a variety of capital projects that are under way, but what we hope to do this morning is focus largely on the Bridging The Valley projects;he explained that the Bridging The Valley was part of a study conducted in the early 2000's that focused on the 42 mile stretch of rail line between Spokane and Athol,Idaho,and that stretch that includes 75 rail crossings,including four along the BNSF route that runs through Spokane Valley and also several others along the UP routes; said on the BN routes we have Barker, Sullivan, Pines and Park Road. Mr. Calhoun said that for Spokane Valley, freight traffic continues to increase and we currently have 56 trains a day that pass through the valley which results in approximately 160 minutes of traffic delays at each crossing each day,and we anticipate that as the train traffic grows so will the delays; all of which will exacerbate such problems as traffic congestion,train noise, Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT and safety issues with trains and cars sharing the same physical space at each crossing, and said there is also the potential damage to the aquifer if an oil train were involved in a mishap. Mr. Calhoun said that on the Barker BNSF crossing, it is noteworthy, as Representative McMorris-Rodgers is aware,that it is fully funded including $6 million in City funds, and the $9 million in TIGER grant funds, and he too extended thanks on behalf of the City of Spokane Valley for her assistance. Councilmember Wick said the Bridging The Valley is almost more of a dream coming back to the original project,where we had so many crossings between the BNSF and UP,but it started out with another phase of the project which was to combine them into a single corridor, where the UP line would go away and merge into the BN line; so we made progress with Barker and Pines, but the big cost savings would be if we could get the railroads to combine into a single corridor;he said this is more of a vision at this point as he realizes that railroads do not want to get along; said when we started this in the 2000's, they had an agreement to move forward with that,but now they have fallen apart and they don't want to combine that corridor; said it would mean so much to our community to have the corridor combined; he said there are many grade separation projects on the BN line and there are 59 grade separation projects on the UP just on that corridor; that we can't afford to do that many projects so we really need some assistance; he said unfortunately the railroads don't like to deal with local municipalities;regarding their double track project, he said the railroads think they don't even need to get a permit to do their construction,and he stressed that the railroads don't want to deal with government at our level but rather on the federal level. Councilmember Thompson said this also is a great deal about safety; she said Council previously heard public testimony about children who are at the Park Road railroad crossing climbing through the railroad tracks to get to school; this of course when the trains are stopped and other pedestrians are trying to get through; and she stressed that safety is a critical part of this. Councilmember Wick added that the elementary school is right on the intersection of Pines and Trent and the track goes right on the edge of that school. Mr. Wick also stated that when the Argonne pass was built prior to our City's incorporation,West Valley School re-routed all their school buses to go through Argonne off the side streets so they wouldn't have to cross the tracks; and he added that access from emergency management and the fire districts is also of major importance. Councilmember Wood mentioned that another crossing not on this list is Park Road, and said he feels sure that will be coming forward at some point as well, and he also extended his thanks to Representative McMorris-Rodgers for her help with the funding. Representative McMorris Rodgers said that her mom and step-dad live off Pines and Trent,so she regularly experiences that crossing and its challenges; she said that several years ago she invited the chair of the transportation committee to come, and they did a "windshield tour" of the Bridging The Valley; and a helicopter tour of the North/South; said that there will be a new chairman in the House after this fall,so we should start thinking now about having that new chairman come take a tour; infrastructure will be a big issue;we know there are huge infrastructure needs across the country and it is a priority issue now; and we should plan to spend some time with the committee and the House so they are reminded of Bridging The Valley and these priorities. Councilmember Wick asked if there is someone she can suggest we meet with in that regard,or the someone from the FRA(Federal Railroad Association);he said they are the entity that does the CRISI(Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement) Grant;he said we have a grant application in with them for 50% of the design for the Pines Grade Separation project; and he said we'd be very thankful for any support she can lend or insight into how we can be more successful with that application. Representative McMorris Rodgers said she would be happy to do that; that it is always good to meet with the Transportation Committee staff and members; so whenever you are planning to come to D.C., to let her know and her office can help schedule those meetings with the chair, the sub-committee chair,and the staff and also at the department. Councilmember Peetz also extended her thanks for meeting with her while in Washington,D.C. and that when in D.C.,she said that Representative McMorris-Rodgers arranged a meeting with the Department of Transportation,who was very generous in his time in meeting with her. Ms. McMorris-Rodgers said it always helps when Council can meet in D.C. and meet with the and bring the projects to the forefront;bringing pictures,and maps and other documentation and to remind Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT them of the history, that all that helps as they consider projects across the country; she said she is willing to explore with BNSF and UP what Council thinks is the best path with them; if we want to try to bring them in; and said she would be happy to help coordinate a meeting with that if that is Council's desire. Councilmember Wick said that would be very much appreciated;that representatives at the Spokane level aren't high enough in their organization to make those kind of policy decisions. Ms. McMorris Rodgers said they will take on that task and work to determine who would be the best person to talk with. City Manager Calhoun then introduced City Engineering Manager Gloria Mantz and Senior Engineer/Project Manager Erica Amsden. Ms. Mantz said that today she would touch on two key transportation projects: Pines and Barker; she too extended thanks for Representative McMorris-Rodger's support of the projects and of awarding the $9 million TIGER grant,thereby fully funding the project; she said staff hopes to get right-of-way acquisition in 2019 and move the project to construction no later than 2020; that as noted earlier, this project as well as the Pines project fully supports the vision of Bridging The Valley;the City recognizes the importance of separating vehicle and train traffic at Pines Road and for that reason,has set aside enough funds to move the engineering design for the project,which has been in the works since late last fall; said we are evaluating some alternatives to determine the most cost effective solution for that crossing, and those efforts allow us to deliver a cost efficient solution at approximately half the cost of the original Bridging The Valley concept. Ms. Mantz said for the Pines Grade Separation Project,we have not acquired any outside funding yet,but will continue to pursue all grant opportunities, such as CRISI and BUILD. She mentioned that with the Pines Road grade separation project, we are experiencing some challenges that have prevented us moving the project design as far as we would have liked to; and those challenges come from the BNSF second mainline track project; the project installs 4.4 miles of mainline track parallel to the existing and is scheduled to be designed and permitted in 2018,and constructed in 2019; the project impacts the Sullivan Road Grade Separated crossing and the at-grade crossings at Barker,Flora,Evergreen, and Pines Road; she said the location of the new main track at Pines Road and Sullivan Road has not yet been determined; she explained that not having the location of the main track determined, is what is slowing down our project at Pines Road; she said we had several phone calls and four coordinating meetings since the beginning of the year,we have offered solutions to BN that would allow them to put in the second location of the main track and also for the future expansion,but we have not received any direction yet,and without that direction,we cannot move the project forward,so we would appreciate any support in getting some direction. Councilmember Wick added that it would be amazing if you could design that much of a project, which includes the bridge over the water, and that many intersections in one year,and build it the following year;and if they could do that,that would be impressive. Ms. McMorris Rodgers said the average federal project takes seven years just to get it permitted and planned. Ms. Mantz added that some of the concerns we have with the BN is that it hasn't yet been determined what the impacts of that second crossing will have to those at-grade crossings;it has to have an impact to the level of service, and that emergency access hasn't been addressed by the project either; she said staff will continue to coordinate and work with BNSF to determine the final design at this location and said staff looks forward to Ms. McMorris Rodgers' assistance. Representative McMorris Rodgers thanked staff for the information; said it sounds like they are doing good work,and thinks we need to reach out to BNSF and get that meeting going to try to get some answers.Mr. Calhoun added that as Mr. Wick stated, we are striking out at the local level and would appreciate any assistance. Councilmember Wick added that when we first became engaged with them regarding their double track,their first proposal was to shut down Sullivan for at least six months, so the idea was then to work together to figure out a better solution. Councilmember Wick said for Pines,we have the money but we are trying to do a matching program through the CRISI, and hope to get 50% and we have put in a dedicated 50% match for that; that we have also applied and it looks favorable, for funding from our regional transportation council's call for project,where we asked for funding for the right-of-way phase for that; so we are hoping to move Pines fairly quickly.Mr.Calhoun added that he thinks Pines is a very strong project and there are several compelling reasons to get that done, and our City has set aside $2.4 million in Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT that effort; that each year when we reach the end of the year,we evaluate our general fund and continue to try to set money aside recognizing this is a very important regional project. Councilmember Wick added that moving forward with the Bridging The Valley has been in the City Council's top five goals for the last four or five years. Ms. McMorris Rodgers said it would be helpful in her reaching out to BNSF and UP for staff to give her an overview she could share with them, and include what the request is as well as the timeline, and Mr. Calhoun replied we would be happy to do that;and there will be an effort with our Council to make periodic trips to D.C.to visit Ms.McMorris-Rodgers as well as other federal legislators and others she might be able to line up for us to help pitch this project; and she replied she would be happy to think through what would be the best meetings to line up; and certainly so far it would be the transportation committee,for members, chair, sub-committee chair and staff, and said we would also want to do that in the Senate, and then meet with the leaders at the Department of Transportation. Ms. McMorris Rodgers also mentioned our participation with GSI Greater Region and meeting with them in the spring as they do their DC fly-in usually in April; and Mr. Calhoun noted that we had Mayor Higgins and Councilmember Peetz attend the last one. It was noted that Mayor Higgins just arrived and he too, extended thanks to Representative McMorris Rodgers for her assistance in our City receiving the TIGER grant. Councilmember Wick asked what Ms. McMorris Rodgers sees as potentially future funding opportunities at the federal level, or how does she see the environment moving forward for transportation. Ms. McMorris Rodgers replied that in the approved budget for this fiscal year,October 2017 through October 2018,there is a significant increase to the commitment of transportation and infrastructure, but not to the large transportation items; that this was more of a commitment within their annual federal budget to put more money into infrastructure,which included the BUILD grants,and that there is a significant increase in the number of BUILD grants available and she encouraged the City to submit applications for those funds; she noted that was part of the appropriation process, and they are working on the budget now, and between the House and the Senate, it would take effect October 1St; concerning the authorization process, she said that is where there will be another major transportation authorization package, and said she anticipates that will be one of the major priorities in the next Congress; said they are doing parts of that now and have moved forward with FAA re-authorization;they have moved the water resources and development package,which is another subset of transportation; and again said she anticipates major transportation priorities with the next Congress so anything our City can do now to prepare and get our projects on the priority list; and to do that at the state level as well; that when it comes to the BUILD grants, the state department of transportation will also prioritize what they believe to be the state priorities, said it is usually three,and that they are always trying to get more funds for eastern Washington,but the work our City can do to advocate with the Governor and State Transportation Depaitinent is also really important. Councilmember Wick explained that there was a railroad conflict study done at the state level which has now gone through the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board,and they prioritized the unfunded grade separation projects throughout the state, and our Pines Grade Separation Project was rated #1; and Ms. McMorris Rodgers suggested Council keep reminding people of that. Mayor Higgins added that our Park project is also on that list but hasn't quite risen to the level of necessity as the Pines project.Mr. Wick said Council has often heard that when Barker and Pines are being discussed at the same time that people get confused as to our priorities;he said we tried to focus on Barker and dropped back a bit with Pines; so now we are bringing Pines more forward; but we find ourselves in the dilemma of do we share Pines and Park, or just focus on Pines to get that funded; that when we shared too much at the state level,the state asked why we would talk to them about it since we are going after federal dollars. Representative McMorris Rodgers said from her perspective, she would keep a full court press on all fronts. Councilmember Wick mentioned Felts Field and that their tower is just on the edge of our city but has a big impact on our city and community; he said we are going through a masterplan process for that for the entire airport; and said he is sure we will be having discussions in the future as that strategic plan moves Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT forward. Representative McMorris Rodgers said it is great to see what is happening at Felts Field; in the FAA re-authorization which passed last spring, she worked to get language that would protect the contract towers; and to make sure it is in place. Representative McMorris Rodgers, in speaking to the Mayor, said we talked about getting the chair of transportation committee to come out again, it has been several years since the last visit, but with infrastructure coming to the forefront again, said she thinks it would be very timely to have the transportation committee come out and take a tour of Bridging The Valley; and said she is going to work to get a meeting with BNSF and UP to talk about some of the challenges we are facing and some of Spokane Valley's requests;and extended her appreciation to Mayor Higgins for making the trip to D.C. and meeting with the Department of Transportation,and said it makes a big difference when he is there and able to meet with some of those big decision makers. Ona different topic,Councilmember Thompson thanked Representative McMorris Rodgers for visiting the Methadone Clinic at the Regional Health District; said that she had asked about marijuana and its impact; said that she was in Burien last Monday with the Washington Traffic Safety Commission with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Deputy Director, and they talked about the impact nationwide of drug-impaired drivers; said she told Ms. Couture that it is hard to see the silos that D.C. seems to have with the Highway Traffic Safety Administration not reaching out until now to the office of Drug Control Policy and education, because this is affecting our youth and our economy; she said that Waste Management reported they can't get enough drivers because they can't pass a drug test; said that when we look at the epidemic around opioids and the legalization of marijuana, that we invest in prevention, treatment and education; and supporting clinics and recovery and school with prevention intervention specialists;she said she appreciates Ms. McMorris Rodgers watching the legislation and that we want the system to work but there are not enough rules and regulations to protect the community from the impact of impaired driving and use by the youth.Ms.McMorris Rodgers commended Councilmember Thompson for being an amazing leader on that front;said she appreciates that commitment as combatting the opioid crisis has been a priority of this Congress; said they passed several bills in that regard, there has been an additional $4 billion approved in funding to go to states and local entities to help with prevention and treatment; so we should be looking at what we can get for this community; said they are looking at doing a roundtable discussion in August about addiction and to look at what is available now in the community concerning support and treatment;and said she will be in touch regarding that.Councilmember Thompson extended her thanks and said that although there is a lot of money coming,a lot stays at the state level and our schools are not getting the funding, as schools everywhere need that support of having a prevention intervention specialist. Councilmember Wood said that he heard an earlier discussion she was having about government regulations; said we work hard here to go through and continually revise our code and regulations to make them more friendly and flexible; said he appreciates the work she has done to reduce government regulations at the highest level and we do our best to that locally,which spurs economic development and encourages businesses to come into our area and therefore creates jobs and revenues so we can do these projects. Representative McMorris Rodgers said something is wrong when it takes seven years to work through the planning permitting process for a transportation project; said she believes we have created a lot of paperwork requirements,and there is more focus on submitting forms instead of on outcomes and results; said we must have standards,but it is about giving flexibility so we can stay focused on the results and not so caught up in having to do things a certain way; or some agency doing something that another agency doesn't recognize; and all that keeps projects from moving forward; said when government talks about lifting the regulatory burden,it is to make it easier to comply while giving the needed flexibility; she noted the federal Department of Transportation's goal is to do the permitting and planning within a year; which saves an enormous amount of time and money and enables putting more money into the project rather than the process; said this Congress is focusing on work force development and expanding apprentice programs and vocational education so more will get the education and training to get the job. Councilmember Wood Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT replied that we have streamlined our permitting process and we are able to issue a permit within a day;that we have speeded up the process of reviewing plans and specs and all that makes for happy contractors and citizens. Engineering Manager Mantz also extended thanks to Representative McMorris Rodgers for her efforts to streamline those regulations in the planning stage, and urged her to also look at that for the construction phase,which is time intensive and costly.Councilmember Wick added that just we completed our Sullivan Bridge over the river,so we have gone through all the required documentation,and now going through this with the Barker, said we will be able to give Ms.McMorris Rodgers some good feedback on the regulations that could be streamlined, because we have some comparisons between state funded and locally funded projects versus the federal funded projects; and she replied that would be very helpful. Mayor Higgins said he wanted to share an observation from the GSI trip to D.C. earlier this year; said he was in the Eisenhower Executive office building speaking with executive branch people, the people who actually do the work; said he was taken aback because they usually don't comment, but this time they did and they expressed their pleasure and compliments to Ms.McMorris Rodgers and her staff in working with the executive branch to get things done on our behalf; and he again extended his thanks. Ms. McMorris Rodgers extended her thanks to Spokane Valley and its citizens; said her goal is to help us accomplish our goals; that it is important to be involved, she wants to listen, learn and help get things done; and she said today was very helpful and she asked that Council keep her posted on these issues. Deputy Mayor Haley adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Meeting Minutes 07-20-2018 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,July 24,2018 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun,City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,City Attorney Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Bill Helbig,City Engineer Sam Wood, Councilmember Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner ABSENT: Micki Harnois, Planner Linda Thompson, Councilmember Marty Palaniuk,Planner Arne Woodard, Councilmember Karen Kendall,Planner Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer of Genesis Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council,staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Thompson and Woodard. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Thompson and Woodard. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley,seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wick: said he attended the Chamber of Commerce Business connections meeting which had a speaker talk about outdoor recreation and its impact on the economy;went to his first Visit Spokane board meeting where they heard a presentation from Mayor Condon who talked about `experience Spokane" which included focused on their four major goals of public safety, innovative infrastructure, sustainability, and partnership projects; went to the Pacific Northwest Economic Council summit in Spokane where over 580 elected officials and business representatives from Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington,British Columbia and Saskatchewan,which summit included a reception where he sat next to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers who talked about our Bridging The Valley project as per our recent meeting with her. Councilmember Wood: said he attended the ribbon cutting for Athletic Trampoline which he said is a great business; and he and others participated in the Spokane Valley Partners Golf Tournament at Liberty Lake. Councilmember Peetz: concerning the new schools being constructed, said there will be two upcoming meetings where people can hear what we can expect in that regard, and that it will include a question and answer session;the first will be July 26 from 6-7 at Greenacres Middle School; and the second will be July 31, from 6-7:30 at University High; said she attended the City Employee Appreciation BBQ; and participated in Council's last Friday's special meeting with Representative McMorris Rodgers. Deputy Mayor Haley: said she also attended the employee BBQ,which was fun,and hot;went to two STA (Spokane Transit Authority)Board meetings where they mentioned they are trying to determine what to do Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT with some money set aside for vouchers; and they discussed some revisions to some of the routes and some timing changes. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he attended the Regional Clean Air Board meeting where it was discussed that we have a marketing problem with our marijuana; that the state agency controlling this issued too many permits for growing so with so many,the prices collapsed and it has been suggested that some might have trouble staying in business; said he went to the GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) Board meeting; visited Old Castle;went to the City Employee BBQ;gave a welcome at the American Legion Auxiliary State meeting, and the following day gave an opening address at the American Legion Building; attended the Chamber breakfast,as well as the Evergreen Fountains ribbon cutting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After going over the process,Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. Gene Strunk, Spokane Valley: spoke about a previous Council meeting where four Councilmembers removed one Councilmember from two different committees, said he understood that Councilmember had advocated to turn down funds for our city; mentioned a group of people,including himself who met some time ago for coffee, and at that meeting that Councilmember was also in attendance and wanted the coffee group to lobby four state representatives to vote for the gasoline tax proposed by the state so the funds for the North/South freeway bypass would be increased,which he said was all based on that Councilmember's communication with legislators in Olympia; said everyone at the coffee refused and said it was extortion and that project had been going on for fifty years,that the last time there was an allocation it was for one- quarter of a mile of pavement; said he recommends that maybe that Councilmember would stop trying to be on committees in Olympia and try to represent the people here. Mr. Kent Mayer, Spokane Valley: said he just started becoming involved in land use and planning and zoning; that he is tired of looking over his shoulder every time we get a development that doesn't make sense; said he knows growth is inevitable but asked about creating some laws or policies that require developers to pay for the infrastructure; if it's their idea, they should pay for it; said now the people foot the bill while someone else makes a ton of money; said community is about families and not individuals and people should benefit not the developers. Mr.Dan Allison,Spokane Valley:proposed the city set up a citizens advisory board to pay our City Council more than what they are getting paid; said he looked state-wide and is surprised at how little our Councilmembers make;said all the city employees make big wages and the Councilmembers make peanuts; concerning the Broadway,Mullan,Argonne intersection,he expressed surprise it took three months to do that job; said there were only two people working on it; said he talked to inspectors who said there weren't many people who could do the job; said he works in construction and that job should not have taken that long; said the Sullivan Mission concrete intersection was done in about ten days; but on this project,there were only two out of eight people really working. Mr. Rudy Werle, Spokane Valley: he thanked Council for listening to the people; said this was his hometown a long time ago and he just moved back;he watched development where there was vacant land designated commercial, and it ended up people have no place to park; said apparently in planning they didn't count on visitors; said any development in a residential community should be considered before mixing it with commercial use, as that creates issues for the residents of that community. Mr. Al Merkel, Spokane Valley: speaking generally about development in our city; said people talk about the pace of development and growth and how it impacts our quality of life; said it is this body's duty to find a way to balance the needs of the people with the idea of the need to grow to survive;he suggested looking at development practices,regulations and laws and put the true cost onto the individuals who create the true Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT cost; said he has heard from many people about fixing infrastructure problems created by developers who make millions off our tax money; and he challenged this body to do something about it. Mr. Galen Pavlichet, Spokane Valley: said he bought a house from a developer, and as soon as he paid the down payment, he was told it was in the flood zone; said all the silt from the property was taken from behind to level it out; said he doesn't know why the city doesn't recognize that; said one of the City employees came out and told him he needed to put in rain gutters; said gutters won't make the water soak into the ground; his water runs into his neighbor's yard; said when developers come in,they need to make sure they are doing it right. Ms. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said people don't often realize what their zoning is; said the previous owner of her property had subdivided the property and then sold it;that there was no problem in buying it but she wasn't told her house isn't residential; said when the city decided to do a comp plan and umbrella zoning it opened it up even more; when developers come in you want then to carry the cost; said there is a sidewalk that goes nowhere and didn't need to be built; said traffic goes 50-60 miles-per-hour on her street; she has talked to the Police Chief but nothing is working; said there is a school around the corner that is empty but we build new schools that aren't even in our district. Ms. Shawn Stewart, Spokane Valley: said she has lived in several big cities and has seen what rapid growth does to neighborhoods; said she knows growth is needed to survive but questioned why it can't be managed with neighborhoods in mind; said people want to live here because it is a wonderful place to live; and she wants it to stay that way and is counting on Council to help it continue being a wonderful place to live. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: concerning Hydro One merger with Avista; said there is an amazing lack of accountability for different agencies and commissions; said our sovereignty is threatened; no one knows who owns this company; a corporation in Canada; said Canada is a little suspicious and this is a national threat as they will have access to our power grid, and this needs to stop and is wrong. Ms.Ann Curry, Spokane Valley: said she likes this area;but she has seen in the last six months a tendency with developers in purchasing residential,then try to change the rules for commercial to make more money; said it is important to keep those residential areas; that we want some growth but not people stacked up on top of each other. Mr.John Scrivner, Spokane Valley: he thanked the Planning Commission and Council for their work; said he is impressed with the process and the work put in by the Commission and the Council; said when a developer comes in it seems there are always issues on how to pay for infrastructure; said it has been a battle at times with projects; said the last Ponderosa project, he had to go to court to fight the developer who finally gave up after three years, and after neighbors spending more than $30,000 in attorney fees to get the project approved; said we need to look toward what is good for the valley and the neighbors and we will be better off. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on July 24,2018 Request for Council Action Form,Total: $2,002,324.10 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15,2018: $347,580.12 c.Approval of Avista Natural Gas Easement d.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,June 12,2018 Special Meeting,Workshop e.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 3,2018 Study Session f.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes,July 10,2018 Regular Formal Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Ordinance 18-014, Comp Plan Amendment—Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance ordinance 18-014, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, to a second reading. Mayor Higgins explained that there are five sections to this ordinance;that the planners will describe each one,and we will take public comment separately on each one. Ms. Barlow gave a brief summary of the comprehensive plan proposed amendments and of the process leading up to tonight's first reading of the ordinance; that at the July 17 meeting, staff explained each proposed amendment, and Council was asked for a consensus at the end of each of the five proposed amendments; and for each amendment, there was unanimous Council consensus to move this forward as the Planning Commission recommended, and those recommendations are now captured in the ordinance; that if this is approved,the next step is to change the official zoning map,which is a companion ordinance to this ordinance. CPA-2018-0001:Ms Harnois explained the proposal to change the land use designation from single family residential (SFR),to multiple family residential, and the zoning from R-3 to MFR. Mayor Higgins invited public comment on this proposed amendment;no comments were offered. CPA 2018-0003:Mr.Palaniuk explained the proposal to change the land use designation from single family residential to commercial mixed use; and the zoning from R-2 to CMU. Mayor Higgins invited public comment on this proposed amendment. Ms. Shawn Stewart, Spokane Valley: said she is one of the residents whose property borders the land in question; said had they known all this when they looked at the home two years ago when she was told it was single family,they would not have purchased it; said she doesn't see a need for commercial mixed use in a residential area. Mr. Robert Odell, Spokane Valley: said he moved here about thirteen years ago; that it was a nice open meadow and he thought it would be good for a park; said he was told it was in the floodplain; said changing this to commercial will interrupt the wildlife;they have two new fawns in the area and he recommends it not be rezoned. Mr. Rudy Werle, Spokane Valley: said he has considerable problems with percolation; that every winter there is damage to the home because of water levels; said he can't imagine development back there; said the only ingress and egress is off a residential street; said commercial does not work well in a residential area. Ms. Michelle Grafos Hollock, Spokane Valley: said the Ponderosa area is known for its community and feel of wildlife; said people know there are multiple wetlands; said she worked at the Painted Hills Golf course and watched it flood every year,and said this amendment needs to be denied. Mr. Kent Mayer, Spokane Valley: extended his thanks to the Planning Commission and to Council for making this process available for the community to talk;said there are flood areas and fires in the ponderosa, but it is still a great place to live; said they don't want commercial mixed use or multi-family,but welcomes other families. Mr.Al Merkel, Spokane Valley: said it needs to be reiterated,as there are fears expressed by the residents, as evidenced by tonight's large audience; said people feel like government isn't listening and he is glad in this particular case that isn't the case; said it shouldn't have gone this far and regulations seem to open this Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT opportunity for developers;if there were more clear,concise regulations that address sensible development, it would not have been come this far. Ms. Ann Curry, Spokane valley: said all this is relatively new to her and she is encouraged as it seems logical; said she read the findings and others see this too as perhaps not the wisest decision in moving forward; she extended her thanks for Council hearing the concerns and she too hopes this does not move forward. Mr. Galen Pavlichet, Spokane Valley: said the six people who bought the houses that Diamond Rock built, each were told nothing would be built there except single residential homes;said this proposal doesn't make good sense. Darrel Thom, Spokane Valley: said his property it adjacent to this piece of land; it is in a floodplain and he is thankful that some understand this and agree not to approve this proposal. There were no further public comments on this proposal. Councilmember Wick said he is not sure he likes doing this individually or as a group,and we might think about that for the second reading; and agrees this proposal doesn't fit with the neighborhood. City Attorney Driskell explained that the Growth Management Act requires all proposed amendments be considered together and if we were to break any apart, an argument could be made that we were not following the law. CPA 2018-0004:Mr.Palaniuk explained the proposal to change the land use designation from single family residential to neighborhood commercial, and the zoning from R-3 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mayor Higgins invited public comment on this proposed amendment. Mr.Raymond Sebert, Spokane Valley: said he doesn't know if Council is aware that 7th and University was part of the Pine Creek Dairy built about 1895 and he gave some information to the Clerk to distribute to Council; said Council should try to get those buildings listed on the registry of historic places; said Council should check with the property owner and maybe they'd be willing to donate the property to the City; said he wants it to stay single family otherwise traffic will increase on 7th and make it unsafe. Ms.Jane Sebert, Spokane Valley: said she has lived in her home for 55 years and it is right next door to the parcel at 7th and University; said last week's Council meeting it was mentioned that notices were sent out in an 800' radius of the property; said when this was changed in 2016 they were not sent a notice and the property was not posted; said 8t'' and University is commercial but it doesn't feel right to make 7th and University commercial;asked why three tenants were recently given eviction notices and told the buildings were going to be torn down; said she knows Council knows there are protective covenants against building anything except single family so why make the neighborhood fight at great costs when it can be settled with a vote against the zone change. Ms.Debbie Glaot,Spokane Valley: asked Council to consider that this decision will affect property owners who have lived there for decades; said there is already a Maverick gas station within a few blocks and no one wants that as a neighbor; said the covenants affect more than sixty properties and have been followed by all properties for sixty years; said she doesn't agree with the proposal and if the land is changed,the only way to resolve any covenant dispute will be by court battle; said she realizes it may be a civil matter but she urges Council to consider; said when 8th and University were being considered for change, the City didn't post the property or mail notices,as it was only published in the newspapers and some handouts were offered at community events; said it doesn't seem proper. Mr. Gene Strunk, Spokane Valley: said it is important for everyone to listen carefully as Mr. Driskell touched on this; all these things are regulated by the GMA which was passed by the State of Washington; Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT said this is very meticulous and you can't change the rules written by the GMA; said Mr.Driskell is earning his money; said it is not a good thing that people are forced into something they don't want; suggested people pay attention to his opening comments about the swamp in Olympia that has given you this. Mr. Al Merkel, Spokane Valley: said this is a highly emotional issue for the neighborhood; said what we are lacking in this process is leadership from our elected officials;there are clearly two sides and someone is needed to go in between and mediate instead of letting people come to Council this way and shoving them out to the legal process; he encouraged Council to seek out these inner neighborhood problems and find ways to talk with both sides and not make a legal issue that has to be brought to court. Ms. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said she doesn't know if many people know this, but this same thing can come up again,so the question is how to fight the legislature;apparently since this is state law they can come back every year and re-apply for a rezone. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Peetz mentioned that there was conversation last week about the covenants and she asked City Attorney Driskell to address that and whether the City could be held liable if we changed our recommendation. City Attorney Driskell explained that when the property was developed, there were some covenants for the area and one was that all lots had to be for residential purposes;said purely from a legal standpoint,that is not binding upon City Council and there is no liability for the City for Council's legislative decision if you want to change the comprehensive plan and zoning designation for this property; that doing comp plan amendments is within Council's legislative authority and recognized by Washington State law. Councilmember Wick asked if this gets rezoned and someone wants a permit for neighborhood commercial, do we give them a permit. Mr. Driskell said the covenants preclude any development on that property so if it came down to a disagreement between neighbors,then a court of law would be their remedy.Mayor Higgins also noted that the Planning Commission voted seven to zero to approve this request.Councilmember Peetz asked about the difference in notification,etc.for this property now compared with what happened in the past. Mr. Palaniuk said he assumes Councilmember Peetz is referring to the adjoining property being rezoned back in 2016, and he explained that was part of the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan amendment; he said there were no on-site notices done for any of the changes during the 2016 process for the on-site zoning; and several properties were changed to neighborhood commercial;he said none of those were posted and none of the adjoining property owners were notified as it was all part of the legislative update. CPA 2018-0005:Ms.Kendall explained the city-initiated proposal to correct a mapping error by expanding the NC designation and zoning,which would eliminate the split zoning of the parcels currently designated SFR and NC. Councilmember Wick asked if the Bigelow Gulch realignment would have an impact on this and Ms. Kendall replied that this is just to correct a map error, and anything future would be between the property and current realignment. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. CPA 2018-0006:Ms.Kendall explained the city-initiated proposal to correct a mapping error by expanding the Industrial Mixed Use designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated single family residential and industrial mixed use. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation to advance the ordinance to a second reading:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 3.First Reading Ordinance 18-015 Comp Plan Amendment,Zoning Map—Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance Ordinance 18-015, Official Zoning Map amendments, to a second reading. Ms. Barlow explained that this is the accompanying ordinance to the previous ordinance, and once all approved, this Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT would amend the zoning map according to the amendments. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:35;he reconvened the meeting at 7:46 p.m. 4.First Reading Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement— Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance proposed Ordinance 18-016 granting a wireless telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc., to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell noted that this ordinance, as well as the next on the agenda,will provide this company authority to install and maintain wireless facilities to residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5.First Reading Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement— Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance proposed Ordinance 18-017 granting a fiber telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc., to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell noted that this ordinance,as well as the previous ordinance on the agenda,will provide this company authority to install and maintain fiber to residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 6.First Reading Ordinance 18-018 amending SVMC 2.75,Public Records—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 18-018 amending chapter 2.75 SVMC, to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell explained that as mentioned by Mr.Lamb previously,there have been many changes in the Public Records Act since our ordinance was last updated in 2010; and when we update ordinances,we also look to not only legislative changes,but to court case decisions, and we update or refining our grammar as well; and with our recently amended fee schedule, once this ordinance is approved, we will have the ability to charge for electronic records.Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 7. Resolution 18-006 Amending 17-017,Master Speed Schedule, School Zones—Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Resolution 18-006 amending Master Speed Limit Schedule to implement identified school speed zones.Mr.Helbig explained,as he had previously,that this amendment is to accommodate two new schools; and in regard to a previous question about signs,he confirmed the signs are managed by WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) who informed us they have needs for those signs. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 8.Motion Consideration: TIB Grant Applications—Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for TIB grant projects as listed in Table 1. [Table 1 includes University Road, 16th to Dishman Mica for CN only; Sprague and Barker intersection improvement, and Adams Road Sidewalk, 16t1i to 23rd.] City Engineer Helbig went over the information contained in the PowerPoint,which included the highlights of each project and an overall comparison of cost applications with various city match percentages,compared with TIB requests. Specifically concerning the City's recommended 40%match,he explained that not only have prices escalated,but the roadway has further degraded;that we want to get the maximum potential we can and offset 60%of the cost so we don't have to pay for the entire project. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9.Motion Consideration Bid Award Mission Ave. Street Preservation,McDonald-Evergreen—Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Mission Avenue Preservation Project- McDonald to Evergreen, CIP 0254, to Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of$713,925 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract.Ms.Mantz explained that two bids were received,with Inland Asphalt Company's bid slightly below the engineer's estimate.Mayor Higgins invited public comments;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 10.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Euclid Ave (Sullivan to Flora)—Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Euclid Avenue Preservation Project #0272 to Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of$1,034,025 for only the Schedule A portion of the project, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Ms. Mantz explained the project and the two bids,and said that although the low bidder's Schedule A bid was 10.7% lower than the engineer's estimate,the lower bidder's Schedule B was 227%higher than the engineering's estimate; and that staff feels the benefit of the ITS system does not justify the additional costs at this time; and that staff will look for other options to provide an internet connection to the City's shop. Councilmember Wood asked how we missed that figure by so much for the IT; and Ms. Mantz said she thinks the bid was unreasonably high based on other similar work, and that it is also likely a reflection of not enough companies with the ability to perform that work. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11. Review of Request for Qualifications(RFQ)for Federal Lobbyist—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that Council recently requested staff to initiate the process to contract with a government affairs firm that specializes in lobbying at the federal level; and he asked if there were any comments on the draft scope of work. After brief discussion, Council agreed that something should be added about also having a facilitator out here occasionally,and not just in the D.C. area.Mr.Calhoun noted that this was discussed at the June budget workshop, and since there will be times when we would want to travel to D.C.,in working on the 2019 budget he will add an eighth travel item for general travel for lobbyist travel for Council and staff;that when Mayor Higgins and Councilmember Peetz traveled to D.C. in April with the GSI Fly-in,expenses for each were about$3,000, so he will add $18,000 to the 2019 budget; said it is a good investment when we are looking at multi-million dollar projects. There was consensus to move forward, and Mr. Driskell said he will add the desired language and move the Request for Qualifications forward; and update Council in the future on the status of this request. 12.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed) 13. The Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun explained that each year we receive an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG), and we just learned yesterday that the application will be due August 22; he explained that Chief Werner and his staff are working to determine the Police Department needs for this grant of just over $27,000; and because of the condensed timeframe and that there is no meeting August 7, this issue will come before Council August 14 for just the one touch, a motion to authorize that grant. Council agreed. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Calhoun said that he and Mayor Higgins received a letter from the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) concerning a quadrennial review of the STA Board's composition, and asking for an elected official to represent our jurisdiction at that Review;and apparently according to statutory mandate,this type of review is done every four years. Mayor Higgins said he will appoint Deputy Mayor Haley since she is already on the STA Board. After brief discussion about the necessity of making a motion, it was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and Council unanimously agreed to the appointment of Deputy Mayor Haley to that Quadrennial Review Board. At Mr. Calhoun's request, City Attorney Driskell mentioned the letter at the dais addressed to Senator Cantwell about municipal opposition to the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, which act is an effort to have a uniform regulatory approach;but which would inhibit local decision making; and he asked permission from Council,to have us sign on with this letter as well. Council agreed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:07-24-2018 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 31,2018 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood,Councilmember Bill Helbig,City Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Marty Palaniuk,Planner Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Basinger,Economic Dev. Manager John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 18-014 Comp Plan Amendment—Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 18-014, Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Senior Planner Barlow explained that this is the third time this has come before Council;and at the July 17 Council meeting,Council by consensus determined to accept all the Planning Commission recommendations associated with this comp plan amendment, including the denial of CPA-2018-0003, all of which is reflected in the Ordinance. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Thompson said for CPA- 2018-0004,the University and 7tn Avenue,that there was a lot of discussion about the potential of increased traffic in the area, and she would like us to watch that, and if needed, make any improvements after this change to help ease traffic issues. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-015 Comp Plan Amendment,Zoning Map—Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 18-015, Official Zoning Map Amendments. Planner Barlow said the annual amendment process has two parts,the first is land use designation changes, and the second is the official zoning map which reflects those changes on our official zoning map,except as noted CPA 2018-003,which was denied. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Ms. Jayne Seybert, Spokane Valley: regarding the zoning map for CPA 2018-0004, she asked for consideration of adding a note on the map about the covenants,as their neighborhood attorney had previously asked; said he had cited two cases in Washington where if that is not added,we could be liable; and she asked to please look into putting that notice on that map.There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. Council Study Session:07-31-2018 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement—Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve proposed Ordinance 18-016 granting a wireless telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc. After City Attorney Driskell briefly explained about the proposed ten-year franchise,Mayor Higgins invited public comments.No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. Second Reading Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement— Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve proposed Ordinance 18-017 granting a fiber telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc. After City Attorney Driskell briefly explained about the proposed franchise,which works in tandem with the previous ordinance,Mayor Higgins invited public comments.No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5.Motion Consideration: Council Goals/Priorities For Lodging Tax—Chelsie Taylor It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Council goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues as written. Director Taylor went over the information contained in the Request for Council Action Form,including the suggested edits to the goals and priorities.Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she would like to see some of the money go to CenterPlace to finish it and help Valleyfest; said if there is a consideration of a sports complex, she would like to know the amount to be spent, and where it would be built. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 6. Retail Recruitment Plan—Mike Basinger, and Scott VonCannon of Retail Strategies Economic Development Manager Basinger gave a brief background leading up to the retail recruitment plan, and of the City engaging Retail Strategies in that regard, and he introduced Retail Strategies Chief Operating Officer Mr. Scott VonCannon, who in turn introduced Vice President of Development Mr. Joe Strauss. Mr. VonCannon went through his PowerPoint explaining what it is that they do, including their data collection and tracking, identification of primary trade area, determination of total market supply and demand, and discovering the opportunity gap; they talked about existing real estate and real estate under construction, as well as development of a higher and better use; they discussed building relationships locally, regionally and nationally on our City's behalf and mentioned some of the retail conferences they attend. Councilmember Thompson asked if our City having free parking helps in attracting retail, and Mr. VonCannon said it doesn't hurt, and is just one more positive on our end as retailers know that parking is important. Other discussion included our low crime rate,types of retailers,our City's expedited permitting process and "business friendly" atmosphere. Mr. Basinger said staff did extensive research to find a company to help implement our program as we needed a firm with a background of relationships,and said this firm does that for us. Mr. Calhoun said although we are not seeking any action at this time, we do recommend Council continue this relationship in the future. Council agreed. 7.Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition(Barker Road)—Bill Helbig City Engineer Helbig explained that our city manages an extensive stormwater management system, and part of the system was acquired and developed since our City's incorporation,but part was constructed by Spokane County prior to incorporation; that while most of the parcels previously owned by the County were transferred to us,several parcels have been located that for unknown reasons,were never transferred. Mr.Helbig said the parcel in question is a narrow strip of property that includes the sidewalk of an existing Swale, is critical for maintenance of the facility, is approximately seven feet wide by 220 feet long, and Spokane County informed us the cost to acquire the property is roughly $200.00, which includes a $100 recording fee. Mr.Helbig said if Council agrees,this property acquisition can be placed on the August 14 consent agenda. Council concurred. Council Study Session:07-31-2018 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 8. Quarterly Police Department Report—Inspector Lyons Inspector Lyons went over the highlights of the quarterly report,including data on SCOPE's efforts,average patrol staffing per shift,patrol statistics, a brief explanation that the increase in citizen calls for service is largely due to the Pope Francis Haven Apartments,adding that Catholic Charities has been very responsive and proactive in addressing these issues; data on the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit of persons charged and booked;amount of stolen property recovered;and property crimes reviewed.There was brief discussion about SCOPE and how tremendously important they are, especially since the Police Department is short- staffed; mention that the calls for service data does not include Crime Check; and recruitment and retirement. Council thanked Inspector Lyons for the report. 9. Recap of Association of Washington Cities Yakima Conference —Councilmembers Wick and Peetz To recap some of the workshops attended by several Councilmembers during the AWC Yakima Conference, Councilmember Peetz spoke about Community Engagement and the Case Study of the Cities of Burien, Olympia and Sequim; followed by discussion by Councilmember Wick on the Road Map to Washington's Future, which included information about the GMA (Growth Management Act), and redevelopment ideas such as the tour of empty buildings, pop-up businesses, and paint by numbers. In connection with the GMA,Councilmember Wick also mentioned the information item included in tonight's agenda packet.Other Councilmember's discussion about that conference included the values of networking, leadership and cohesiveness, working as a team, goals and values, and the idea of remote testimony, 21St Century policing,police bike patrols,and mention of the overall great conference. 10.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wick said he attended a Health Board meeting where they were discussing health statistics in the region; and said Dr. Lutz would be interested in giving us a presentation on health statistics for Spokane Valley; and suggested that perhaps this fall would be a good time. Mr. Calhoun said he will place that item on the Advance Agenda pending list, and try to set something in the near future. 11. Growth Management Planning Report This report was for information only and was not discussed or reported. 12. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Peetz stated that she was on the 911 board and what she didn't know until recently, was that the last meeting she attended was the last meeting of that board; that with the integration combining fire, dispatch and 911 under one umbrella, there is no longer a 911 board; that with the combination this policy board is now known as the SpoCom Executive Board, and said she believes they are not looking for elected officials to serve on that board; and since she no longer has any board assignments, she is willing to help with other boards. 13. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun In connection with the previous comments of Councilmember Peetz,City Manager Calhoun said that Chief Werner and Chief Collins will give Council a report at the September 4,2018 Council meeting concerning the integration of the Combined Communication Center.Mr. Calhoun noted that as mentioned previously, we have an opportunity to apply for a JAG grant and due to the compressed time schedule,that will appear on the August 14th agenda as a motion consideration; and he added that Chief Werner is working on what equipment purchases they would like to make with the approximate$27,000 grant funds. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned that during a previous Council meeting,there was a citizen comment about Council wages and that the citizen felt those wages should be reviewed. Mr. Calhoun said that last time those salaries were reviewed was 2006, so if Council is interested, we can bring forward a future administration report on methods to be used to change Council salary. They agreed. Mr. Calhoun also reminded everyone that next Council Study Session:07-31-2018 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT week's council meeting of August 7 will be cancelled so Councilmembers can participate in National Night Out. 14. Executive Session: Review the Performance of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)1 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Prior to adjourning into executive session,Mayor Higgins said Council will take a ten-minute recess, which they did at 7:50 p.m. At approximately 8:50 p.m., Councilmember Woodard returned to open session and announced the executive session would be extended another thirty minutes. At approximately 9:15 p.m.Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session,at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:07-31-2018 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing [' information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 18-018 amending chapter 2.75 SVMC. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 42.56 RCW; chapter 44-14 WAC; chapter 2.75 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard an administrative report on July 25, 2017 regarding substantial State Legislative amendments to allow fees for an expanded number of electronic records. Council heard an administrative report on the proposed amendments to chapter 2.75 SVMC on July 10, 2018 and a first reading on July 24, 2018. Chapter 2.75 SVMC was last updated in 2010. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW (the "Public Records Act"), the City has a duty to maintain and provide public records upon request from the public. The Public Records Act requires the City to adopt published rules outlining how the City will meet its obligations under the Public Records Act to provide public records. The City has done so through the adoption of chapter 2.75 SVMC. Chapter 2.75 SVMC generally tracks the specific requirements of the Public Records Act and further specifies that the City Clerk is the City's designated public records officer. During the 2017 Legislative Session, the State Legislature adopted substantial changes to chapter 42.56 RCW (the Public Records Act) to allow a variety of fees for a wide range of forms of electronic records. Further, in the eight years since chapter 2.75 SVMC was last updated, a number of other legislative changes and court decisions have occurred affecting the requirements for the City to meet its obligations under the Public Records Act. In April, 2018, the Attorney General's office updated the model rules for the Public Records Act. These rules are not mandatory, but incorporate the changes and provide guidance to agencies on best practices for responding to records requests. Accordingly, staff are proposing several changes to chapter 2.75 SVMC in order to match the changes that have occurred legislatively, judicially, and in the model rules. The changes generally include (1) changes to allow more flexibility in how the City responds, including when the City may close requests and what form records must be produced, (2) updates to allow the City to collect the fees allowable under the law due to the amendments in 2017, (3) updates to meet other requirements that have been imposed periodically, including but not limited to incorporating requirements for certain training, and allowing for denial of "bot" requests, and (4) minor grammatical and punctuation changes to update the SVMC. Note that all changes are consistent with State law. OPTIONS: Move to approve proposed Ordinance, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 18-018, amending chapter 2.75 SVMC. Page 1of2 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: City has established fees for providing public records as set forth in Resolution No. 17-019. The proposed changes are in conformance with the fee schedule and will not further impact the City's budget. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 18-018. Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 2.75 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC RECORDS,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, chapter 42.56 RCW, the Public Records Act, sets forth requirements for cities to respond to public records requests; and WHEREAS, to meet its public records request requirements pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW, the City has adopted chapter 2.75 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and WHEREAS, in 2017, the Legislature amended portions of chapter 42.56 RCW relating to how cities respond to and document requests in relation to accessing public records; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the Washington Attorney General's Office adopted updated model rules relating to public records,set forth in chapter 44-14 WAC;and WHEREAS,the City has determined that chapter 2.75 SVMC requires updates in order to remain consistent with chapter 42.56 RCW,to incorporate appropriate aspects of the new model rules set forth in chapter 44-14 WAC, and to update certain factual information such as the contact information; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 42.56.570(4),the City has consulted the updated model rules. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend chapter 2.75 SVMC relating to requests for public records. Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 2.75 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 2.75.010 Authority and purpose—Compliance with Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. A. RCW 42.56.070(1)requires each city to make available for inspection and copying nonexempt public records,as such term is defined in chapter 42.56 RCW(the"Act"),in accordance with published rules. The Act defines "public record" to include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by the city regardless of physical form or characteristics. RCW 42.56.070(2)requires each city to set forth for informational purposes every law, in addition to the Public Records Act, that exempts or prohibits the disclosure of public records held by that city. B. The purpose of this chapter 2.75 SVMC is to establish the procedures the City will follow in order to provide full access to public records as required by the Act. This chapter 2.75 SVMCese rules _provides information to persons wishing to request access to public records of the City, and establish processes for requestors and City staff that are designed to best assist members of the public in obtaining such access. C. The purpose of the Public Records Act is to provide the public full access to information concerning the conduct of government, mindful of individuals' privacy rights and the desirability of the efficient administration of government. _The Act and this chapter 2.75 SVMC will beare interpreted in favor of Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 1 of 7 DRAFT disclosure. In carrying out its responsibilities under the Act,the City will shall be guided by the provisions of the Act describing its purposes and interpretation. 2.75.020 City description—Contact information—Public records officer. A. The City is a noncharter code city governed by the provisions of Gchapter 35A.13 RCW. _The City's central office is located at 10210 11707 E. Sprague Avenn—, Spokane Valley,WA 99206._The City also has offices at CenterPlace Regional Event Center, located at 2426 N. Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 —the Public Works Maintenance Shop,. located at 10801 E. First Avenue 17002 E. Euclid:, Spokane Valley, WA 9921686x; and the Spokane Valley Police Precinct, located at 12710 E. Sprague Avenue-, Spokane Valley,WA 99216. B. The City Clerk is appointed as the City's public records officer. Any person wishing to requestlig access to public records of the City or seeking assistance in making such a request Ghould may contact the public records officer of the City: City Clerk City of Spokane Valley 1021011707 E. Sprague Avenue., Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Phone: 720-5102 Fax: 688 0191 cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org Information is available at the City's web-site at http://www.spokanevalley.org. -•• • • '.: " Records Requests. C.The public records officer will shall oversee the City's compliance with the Act,provided,however,that but another City staff members may and shall process and assist with processing the public records requests as required by the Act and public records officer to ensure City compliance. Unless otherwise stated herein, any reference to public records officer shall include any designee. Therefore, these rules will refer to the public records officer or designee.The public records officer and the City will shall provide requestors the fullest assistance, as set forth in SVMC 2.75.040; _will strive to ensure that public records are protected from damage or disorganization; and will strive to prevent the fulfilling of public records requests from causing excessive interference with essential functions of the City. City officials and staff, including the public records officer, shall periodically attend training as necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. The City shall document such training. 2.75.030 Availability of public records. A.Hours for Inspection of Records. Public records are available for inspection and copying during normal business hours of the City,Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (excluding holidays as defined in 1✓chapter 2.60 SVMC).Records must shall only be inspected at City offices,preferably by appointment. B.Records Index. The City finds that maintaining an index is unduly burdensome and would interfere with City operations due to the diversity of City departments and information systems,budget restraints and the unavailability of staff. C. Organization of Records.The City will shall maintain its records in a reasonably organized manner.The Citylshall take reasonable actions to protect records from damage and disorganization. _A requestor Almay not take original City records from City offices.A variety of records is available on the City web site: http://www.spokanevalley.org. Requestors are encouraged to view the documents available on the web-site prior to submitting a records request. Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 2 of 7 DRAFT D.Making a Request for Public Records. 1. Any person wishing to inspect or have copies of public records of the City should make the request in writing on the City's website, or on a public record request form which may be submitted in person, by email,or US mail,or fax or on the City's webiste,or by letter,fax,ore mail addressed to the public records officer,or by telephone or in person. As required pursuant to the Act,the City shall respond to any lawful record request for an identifiable record. _The request should include the following information: name of requestor; complete mailing address of requestor; other contact information, including telephone number and any e-mail address; identification of the public records sought adequate for the public records officer or dcsignceCity to locate the records; and the date and time of day of the request. Requests for public records shall be confirmed by the public records officer or designee,wWithin five business days of receipt f h quest,the public records officer or designee shall confirm the substance and the receipt of requests for public records by telephone or in person or in writing. 2. If the requestor requests wishes to have copies of the records instead of simply inspecting them, the requestor he or she should so indicate and make arrangements to pay for copies of the records or a deposit pursuant to SVMC 2.75.070. Payment mustshall be received by the City prior to release of any documents. 3.AThe City's public request form is available for use by requestors at City Hallofficcs and online at: http://www.spokanevalley.org. _ - ' . . • ' . ' . . 4. If requestors refuse to identify themselves or provide sufficient contact information, the City shall respond to the extent feasible and consistent with the law. 2.75.040 Processing of public records—General. A. Providing Fullest Assistance. The public records officer or designee shall take such action as necessary to provide the fullest assistance to requestors in accessing public records. City is charged by statute with adopting rules which describe how it will provide full access to public records,protect records from damage or disorganization,prevent excessive interference with other essential functions of the City,provide fullest assistance to requestors, and provide the most timely possible action on public records requests.The public records officer willshall process requests in the order allowing the most requests to be processed in the most efficient manner. B. Acknowledging Receipt of Request. Within five business days of receipt of the request, the public records officer will shall do one or more of the following: 1.Make the records available for inspection or copying; 2.Provide copies of the records directly to the requestor;provided,however,that the public records officer may provide such copies in installments. If copies or installments are requested for which there is an associated City fee, any such fees shall be paid prior to the release of records; 23. Provide an Internet address and/or link to the City's website to the specific records requested, except that if the requestor notifies the City that he or she cannot access the records through the Internet,then the City will provide copies of the record or allow the requestor to view copies using a City computer, if available and practical agreed upon, appropriate paper or electronic copies will be sent send the copies to the requestor. C pies and payment may also be done in installments; 4. Acknowledge that the City has received the request and Pprovide a reasonable estimate of when records or an installment of records will be available. Additional time required to respond may be based upon the need to clarify the request,to locate and assemble the records,to notify third persons affected by the request, or to determine whether any information requested is exempt; 5. Acknowledge that the City has received the request and If the request is unclear or does not sufficiently identify the requested records, request clarification from the requestor for any portion of the request that does not sufficiently identify the requested records or that is unclear. Such clarification request shall also provide a reasonable estimate of when the records will be available if the request is not clarified. Such Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 3 of 7 DRAFT clarification may be requested and provided by telephone. The public records officer may revise the estimate of when records will be available based upon any subsequent clarification received. In the event the City requests clarification for a records request in which all or a portion of the request is unclear, and the requestor fails to respond to the City's request for clarification,the City shall not be required to respond to any portion of the request that was determined to be unclear and the public records officer may close that portion of the request;or 6. Deny the request,explaining the reason for such denial. C. Consequences of Failure to Respond. If the City does not respond in writing within five business days of receipt of the request for documentsdisclosure, the requestor should consider contacting the public records officer to determine the reason for the failure to respond. D. Protecting Rights of Others._In the event that the requested records contain information that may affect rights of others and may be exempt from disclosure,tThe public records officer may,prior to providing the records,give notice of the request and City's determination to disclose the applicable records to such others whose rights may be affected by the disclosure._ Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for those other persons to contact the requestor and ask for a revision of him or her to revise the request,or,if necessary, seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected persons will shall include a copy of the request. Unless otherwise required by law, nothing herein shall require notice to third parties of any request or decision by the City to disclose applicable records. E. Records Exempt from Disclosure. Some records are exempt from disclosure, in whole or in part. If the City believes that a record is exempt from disclosure and should be withheld, the public records officer willshall state the specific exemption and provide a brief written explanation of why the record or a portion of the record is being withheld._If only a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure,but the remainder is not exempt, the public records officer Almay redact the exempt portions, provide the nonexempt portions, and indicate to the requestor why portions of the record are being redacted. F. Inspection of Records. 1. Consistent with other demands, the City shall promptly provide space for members of the public to inspect public records. No member of the public may remove a document from the viewing area or disassemble or alter any document.The requestor shall indicate which documents he or she wishes the City to copy. 2. The requestor must claim or review the assembled records within 30 days of the City's notification to him or her thatOnce therequested records are available for inspection or that-copies are ready to be paid for and picked up,the City shall be required to hold such records for inspection or collection for no more than 30 days. -The City will notify the requestor in writing of this requirement and inform the requestor that he or she should contact the City to make arrangements to claim or review the records. If the requestor or a representative of the requestor fails to claim or review the records within the 30-day period or make other arrangements,the City may close the request and refile the assembled records. G. Providing Copies of Records._After inspection is complete, the public records officer shall make the requested copies or arrange for copying. If the requestor is making copies of City records, the City may stop the requestor from such copying if, in the City's reasonable belief, such copying by the requestor is damaging the records or resulting in the records becoming disordered. H.Providing Records in Installments.When the request is for a large number of records,tThe public records officer may,upon determining that it will be most practical,determine to make copies available on a partial or installment basis. will provide access for inspection and copying in installments, if he or she reasonably determines that it would be practical to provide the records in that way. The public records officer shall notify the requestor when any installment is available and that the requestor may claim the installment Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 4 of 7 DRAFT within 30 days after payment for such installment, as required pursuant to SVMC 2.75.070. If, within 30 days, the requestor fails to inspect the entire set of records or one or more of the installments, the public records officer may close the remainder of the request and stop searching for the remaining records-aed close the request. I. Completion of Inspection. When the inspection of the requested records is complete and all requested copies are provided, the public records officer will shall indicate that the City has completed a diligent search for the requested records and inform the requestor that nonexempt records are available for inspection. J.Closing Withdrawns-e Abandoned,or Unclarified Request.If the requestor either withdraws the request, ef-fails to respond to clarify a request for clarification-ef-a-feettest, or fails to fulfill his or her obligations to inspect the records or pay the a required deposit,required fees for an installment of copies.or required fteal-payment for the requested copies,the public records officer will may close the request and indicate to the requestor that the City has closed the request. K. The City may deny a"bot" request, as such term is defined in the Act, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Act. L. Electronic Records. The process for requesting and processing electronic records is the same as for other paper records. The City may,but is not obligated,to translate, scan,or otherwise provide nonexempt copies of records in a specific electronic format when requested by the requestor. When provided, electronic copies shall be provided in the electronic format used by the City that is generally commercially available,or in a format that is reasonably translatable from the format in which the City keeps the record. Costs are set forth in the City's fee resolution, available on the City's website at http://www.spokanevalley.org. KMb. Later Discovered Documents. If, after the City has informed the requestor that all available records have been provided,the City becomes aware of additional responsive documents existing at the time of the request,the requestor will be promptly informed of the additional documents and such documents will be provided expeditiously. 2.75.050 Reserved. 2.75.060 Exemptions. A.The Public Records Act provides that a number of types of documents are exempt from public inspection and copying. In addition, documents are exempt from disclosure if any other statute exempts or prohibits disclosure. A list of the laws and regulations, outside the Public Records Act, that restrict the availability of some documents held by City for inspection and copying is kept by the public records officer. B. The City is prohibited by statutepursuant to the Act from disclosing lists of individuals for commercial purposes.(Ord. 07 006 § 2, 2007). 2.75.070 Costs for providing copies of public records. A. Costs for Paper Copies.A reasonable charge may be imposed for providing copies of public records and for the use by any person, of agency equipment, which charges shall not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the agency for its actual costs directly incident to such copying. The fees for public records shall be determined by separate resolution. There is no fee for inspecting public records, including inspecting records on the City's website or for providing documents electronically,provided the document was created Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 5 of 7 DRAFT in an electronic format.Document copies provided mailed to the requestor will shall not be provided mailed until the all applicable fees, including but not limited to, plus—postage for mailed copies, hasve been received._Before beginning to makipe the copies or processing a customized service, the public records officer may require a deposit of up to 10 percent of the estimated costs of copying all the records selected by the requestor. The City may require payment of applicable fees for the copies in an installment prior to release of the installment. The public records officer may also require the payment of the remainder of the copying costs before providing all the records,or the payment of the costs of copying an installment before providing that installment. The City will not charge sales tax for copies of public records. B._ (RCW 12.56.120) Costs of Mailing. The City will also charge actual costs of mailing, including the cost of the shipping container. DC.Payment.Payment may be made by cash,check,or money order payable to the City of Spokane Valley. Payment may also be made by debit or credit card subject to an additionalany applicable processing fees.(Ord. 10 025 § 5,2010; Ord. 07 006 § 2,2007). D . The City may waive any charge assessed when the public records officer determines such waiver to be in the public interest. E. Requests for public records may be fulfilled by providing the requestor with a link to where the documents are posted on the city's website. If the requestor does not have web access, copies will be provided as noted above,or the requester will be permitted to view copies using an agency computer.(RCW 12.56.510(1)(b)) 2.75.080 Review of denials of public records. A. Petition for Internal Administrative Review of Denial of Access. Any person who objects to the initial denial or partial denial of a records request may petition in writing (including e-mail)to the public records officer for a review of that decision. The petition shall include a copy of or reasonably identify the written statement by the public records officer or designee denying the request. B. Consideration of Petition for Review.The public records officer shall promptly provide the petition and any other relevant information to the public records officer's supervisor or other City official designated by the City to conduct the review. That person will shall immediately consider the petition and either affirm or reverse the denial within two business days following the City's receipt of the petition, or within such other time as the City and the requestor mutually agree. C.Judicial Review.At the conclusion of two business days after the initial denial, aAny person may obtain court review of denials of public records requests pursuant to RCW 12.56.550the Act at the conclusion of two business days after the initial denial. 2.75.090 Conflict with chapter 42.56 RCW. This chapter 2.75 SVMC is intended to comply with the requirements of chapter 42.56 RCW and shall in no way be construed to supersede or otherwise modify the City's requirements pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. In the event any provision of chapter 2.75 SVMC conflicts with a provision of chapter 42.56 RCW, the provisions of chapter 42.56 RCW shall govern. This chapter 2.75 SVMC shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from taking any action authorized pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. Section 3. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 6 of 7 DRAFT Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance,or a summary thereof,in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of August,2018 City of Spokane Valley L.R.Higgins,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-018,Public Records Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Justice Assistance Grant 2018 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been allocated $27,156 as part of the 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. These funds are designed to support all components of the criminal justice system. Spokane Valley staff has relied on recommendations of the Spokane Valley Police Chief to identify proposed projects to be funded with the grant. The Police Chief and the City Manager have recommended spending the funds on seven Tasers ($12,613.79), two ballistic shields ($4,035.43), 4 lidars and 2 radars for traffic enforcement ($8,105.60), four lidar and radar holsters ($1,136.96), ten tint meters ($1,011.22) for a total of $26,903, leaving $253.00 for any additional charges that may arise or changes in prices. OPTIONS: 1.) Authorize application for the JAG grant. 2.) Request amendments to the application. 3.) Deny authorization to submit grant. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Authorize the City Manager or designee to Apply for the Justice Assistance Grant for those items identified above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $27,156 in grant funds, no match required STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: JAG Application Package OMB No. 1121-032g Approval Expires 11/30/2020 U.S. Department of Justice i Office of Justice Programs ' Ari Iiureau of Justice.Assistance The U.S. De_p,artment of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is seeking applications for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. This program furthers the Department's mission by assisting state, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime and violence. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program FY 2018 Local Solicitation Applications Due: August 22, 2018 Eligibility Only units of local government may apply under this solicitation. By law, for purposes of the JAG Program, the term "units of local government" includes a town, township, village, parish, city, county, borough, Or other general purpose political subdivision of a state; or, it may be a federally recognized Indian tribal government that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior). A unit of local government also may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes; for example, in Louisiana, a unit of local government means a district attorney or parish sheriff. A JAG application is not complete. and a unit of local government may not access award funds, unless the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government(e.g., a mayor) properly executes, and the unit of local government submits, the "Certifications and Assurances by Chief Executive of Applicant Government° attached to this solicitation as Appendix A. In addition, as discussed Further below, in order to validly accept a Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 JAG award, the chief legal officer of the applicant unit of local government must properly execute, and the unit of local government must submit, the specific certifications regarding compliance with certain federal laws attached to this solicitation as Appendix B and Appendix C. (Note: this requirement does not apply to Indian tribal governments.) (The text of the relevant federal laws appears in Appendix D,) Eligible allocations under JAG are posted annually on the JAG web page. 1 BJA-2018-13526 All recipients and subrecipients (including any for-profit organization) must forgo any profit or management fee. Deadline Applicants must register in the OJP Grants Management System (GMS) at httpsJlgrants,ojp.usdci.govl prior to submitting an application under this solicitation. All applicants must register, even those that previously registered in GMS. Select the "Apply Online" button associated with the solicitation title. All registrations and applications are due by 5 p _ eastern time on August 22, 2018, For additional information, see How to Apply in Section D. Application and Submission Information. Contact Information For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants Management System Support Hotline at 888-549-9901, option 3, or via email at GMS_HelpDesk usdoi.gov. The GMS Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including on federal holidays. An applicant that experiences unforeseen GMS technical issues beyond its control that prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must email the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJR ) Response Center at graratsC ncirs,gov within 24 hours after the application deadline in order to request approval to submit its application. Additional information on reporting technical issues appears under"Experiencing Unforeseen GMS Technical Issues" in How to Apply in Section D. Application and Submission Information, For assistance with any other requirement of this solicitation, applicants may contact the NCJRS Response Center by telephone at 1-800-851-3420; via TTY at 301-240-6310 (hearing impaired only); by email at prantsWiairs.gov; by fax to 301-240-5830, or by web chat at htips:Nwebcantact.ncirs.govincichatichatisp. The NGJRS Response Center hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 0:00 a.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. eastern time on the solicitation close date. Applicants also may contact the appropriate EJA State Policy Advisor, Release date: July 20, 2018 2 BJA-2018-13626 Contents A. Program Description ,,. 5 Overview.................................... 5 Program-specific Information o... .5 Permissible uses of JAG Funds — In general 5 Limitations on the use of JAG funds 6 Requirements specific to "disparate"jurisdictions...... 10 Required compliance with applicable federal laws ............... 10 BJA Areas of Emphasis 12 Objectives and Deliverables ..13 Evidence-based Programs or Practices ,.. .,..... 13 information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities..:.., 14 B, Federal Award Information ...,... ................................. 15 Type of Award 15 Financial Management and System of Internal Controls.........,.............. ... ........ . Budget and Financial Information .............................. f .17 Cost Sharing or Match Requirement .17 Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) ................ ................ 17 Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of ConferencelMeeting/'Training Costs 17 Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable). 1 C. Eligibility Information ................... 18 D. Application and Submission Information ......,..., 18 What an Application Should Include .. .,. 18 How to Apply 31 E. Application Review Information ., 34 Review Process 34 F. Federal Award Administration Information 35 Federal Award Notices............................................... 35 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements; Award Conditions 35 General Information about Post-federal Award Reporting Requirements 37 G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) ., 38 H. Other Information 38 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 and 5 U.S.C. § 552a)..38 Provide Feedback to OJP , 38 3 B.JA-2018-13626 Appendix A: Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive 40 Appendix B: Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 42 Appendix C: Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) & (c), 1231(a)(4), 1324(a), 1357(a), and 1366(1) & (3) 44 Appendix D: Certain relevant federal laws, as in effect on June 7, 2018 46 Appendix E: Information regarding Communication with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 52 Appendix F: Additional Award Purposes 53 Appendix G: Application Checklist 56 4 BJA-2018-13626 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance (JAG) Grant Program FY 2018 Local Solicitation CFDA #16.738 A. Program Description Overview The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to states and units of local government. BJA will award JAG Program funds to eligible units of local government under this FY 2018 JAG Program Local Solicitation. (A separate solicitation will be issued for applications to BJA directly from states) Statutory Authority: The JAG Program statute is Subpart I of Part E of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Title I of Pub. L. No, 90-351 (generally codified at 34 U.S.C. 10151-10158), including subpart 1 of part E (codified at 34 U_S.C. 10151 - 10158); see also 28 U.B.G. 530C(a). Program-specific Information Permissible uses of JAG Funds— in general In general, JAG funds awarded toe unit of local government under this FY 2018 solicitation may be used to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including any one or more of the following: • Law enforcement programs • Prosecution and court programs • Prevention and education programs • Corrections and community corrections programs • Drug treatment and enforcement programs • Planning. evaluation, and technology improvement programs • Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation) • Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams Additionally, JAG funds awarded to a unit of [opal government under this FY 2018 solicitation may be used for any purpose indicated in Appendix F_ in connection with all of the above purposes (including those indicated in the appendix), it should be noted that the statute defines "criminal justice' as "activities pertaining to crime 5 B]A-2018-13626 prevention, control, or reduction, or the enforcement of the criminal law, including, but not limited to, police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, including juveniles, activities of courts having criminal jurisdiction, and related agencies (including but not limited to prosecutorial and defender services, juvenile delinquency agencies and pretrial service or release agencies), activities of corrections, probation, or parole authorities and related agencies assisting in the rehabilitation, supervision, and care of criminal offenders, and programs relating to the prevention, control, or reduction of narcotic addiction and juvenile delinquency." Under the JAG Program, units of local government may also use award funds for broadband deployment and adoption activities as they relate to criminal justice activities. Limitations on the use of JAG funds Prohibited uses of fonds— JAG funds may not be used (whether directly or indirectly)for any purpose prohibited by federal statute or regulation, inducting those purposes specifically prohibited by the JAG Program statute as set out at 34 U.S,C. § 11152. JAG funds may not be used (directly or indirectly) for security enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal justice or public safety. Additionally, JAG funds may not be used (directly or indirectly)to pay for any of the following items unless the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist, making them essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order: • Vehicles, vessels, or aircraft' • Luxury items + Real estate ■ Construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions) • Any similar items *Police cruisers, police boats, and police helicopters are allowable vehicles under JAG and do not require BJA certification. For information related to requesting a waiver to obtain BJA certification fur a listed prohibited item, or for examples of allowable vehicles that do not require BJA certification, refer to the JAG FAQs. Cap oh use of JAG award funds for administrative costs—Up to 1D percent of a JAG award, including up to 10 percent of any earned interest, may be used for costs associated with administering the award. Prohibition of supplanting; rao use of JAG funds as match--JAG funds may not be used to supplant state or looal funds but must be used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of federal funds, be made available for law enforcement activities See the JAG FAQs for examples of supplanting. Although supplanting is prohibited, as discussed under What An Application Should Include, the leveraging of federal funding is encouraged. Absent specific federal statutory authority to do so, JAG award funds may not be used as a match for the purposes of other federal awards, 6 BJP-2018-13626 Other restrictions on use of funds— If a unit of local government chooses to use its FY 2018 JAG funds for particular, defined types of expenditures, it must satisfy certain preconditions w Body-Worn Cameras (BWC) A unit of local government that proposes to use FY 2018 JAG award funds to purchase BWC equipment, or to implement or enhance BWC programs, must provide OJP with a certification(s) that each unit of local government law enforcement agency receiving the equipment or implementing the program has policies and procedures in place related to BWC equipment usage, data storage and access, privacy considerations, and training. The certification form related to BWC policies and procedures can be found at: httes:llwww.bias.qov1Fundiree/BodyVVorrnCameraCert_pdf. A unit of local government that proposes to use JAG funds for BWC-related expenses will have funds withheld until the required certification is submitted and approved by OJP. If the unit of local government proposes to change project activities to utilize JAG funds for BWC-related expenses after the award is accepted, the unit of local government must submit the signed certification to COP at that time. Further, before making any subaward for BWC-related expenses, the unit of local government JAG recipient must collect a completed BWC certification from the proposed subrecipient. Any such certifications must be maintained by the unit of local government JAG recipient, and made available to OJP upon request. The BJA BWC Toolkit provides model BWC policies and best practices to assist departments in implementing BWC programs. Apart from the JAG Program, BJA provides funds under the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC Program). The BWC Program allows jurisdictions to develop and implement policies and practices required for effective program adoption and address program factors, including the purchase, deployment, and maintenance cf camera systems and equipment; date storage and access; and privacy considerations. Interested units of local government may wish to refer to the BWC web gape for more information. Units of local government should note, however, that JAG funds may not be used as any part of the 50 percent match required by the BVVC Program. * Body Armor Body armor purchased with FY 2018 JAG funds may be purchased at any threat level designation, make, or model from any distributor or manufacturer, as long as the body armor has been tested and found to comply with the latest applicable National Institute of Justice CNIJ) ballistic or stab standards. Further, body armor purchased with FY 2418 JAG funds must he made in the United States, and must be "uniquely fitted" See 34 U.S.C. § 10202(c)(1)(A). For a definition of"uniquely fitted' and more information about requirements associated with body armor purchases, seethe JAG FACS, A unit of local government that proposes to use FY 2018 JAG award funds to purchase body armor must provide OJP with a certificati❑n(s) that each unit of local government law enforcement agency receiving body armor has a written "mandatory wear" policy in effect. See 34 U.S.C. § 10202(c). The certification form related to mandatory wear can be found at: www.bia.00viFunding/BodvArmorearCert_pdf. earCert_pdf. 7 BJA-2018-13e2e. A unit of local government that proposes to use JAG funds to purchase body armor will have funds withheld until the required certification is submitted and approved by OJP. If the unit of local government proposes to change project activities to utilize JAG funds to purchase body armor after the award is accepted, the unit of local government must submit the signed certification to OJP at that time. Further, before making any subaward for the purchase of body armor, the unit of local government JAG recipient must collect a completed mandatory wear certification from the proposed subrecipient. Any such certifications must be maintained by the unit of local government JAG recipient, and made available to CIJP upon request. A mandatory wear concept and issues paper and a model policy are available at the BVP Customer Support Center, at vestsusdoj.gov or toll tree at 1-877-758-3787. Additional information and FAQs related to the mandatory wear policy and certifications can be found at httos:Ilwww.bja.gov/Fu=ndinclJAGFAQ.pdf. Apart from the JAG program, BJA provides funds under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program. The BVP Program is designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement agencies for the purchase of ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor. For more information on the BVP Program, including eligibility and application, refer to the BVP web page. Units of local government should note, however, that JAG funds may not be used as any part of the 50 percent match required by the BVP Program, ft is also important to note that eligibility for the BVP Program is impacted by a local jurisdiction's use of funds under a local JAG award to purchase body armor. For additional information on the BVP Program, and eligibility restrictions related to receipt of JAG funding, review the BVP FAQs. ■ lntercoerable Communications Units of local government(and subrecipierrts) that use FY 2018 JAG funds to support emergency communications activities (including the purchase of interoperable communications equipment and technologies such as voice-over-internet protocol bridging or gateway devices, or equipment to support the build out otwireless broadband networks in the 700 MHz public safety band under the Federal Communications Commission Waiver Order) should review FY 2018 SAFECOM Guidance, The SAFECOM Guidance is updated annually to provide current information on emergency communications policies, eligible costs, best practices, and technical standards for state, local, tribal, and territorial grantees investing federal lands in emergency communications projects. Additionally, emergency communications projects funded with FY 2018 JAG funds should support the Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) and be coordinated with the fulltirne Statewide Interoperability Coordinator(SWIG) in the state of the project, As the central coordination point for their state's interoperability effort, the SWIC plays a critical role, and can serve as a valuable resource, Stales are responsible for the implementation of SCIP through coordination and collaboration with the emergency response community. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Emergency Communications maintains a list of Stals for each of the states and territories Contact OEC( hq.dhs.gov. All communications equipment purchased with FY 2018 JAG Program funding should be identified during quarterly performance metrics reporting, Further, information sharing projects funded with FY 2018 JAG funds must comply with DOJ's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative guidelines, as applicable, in order to 8 SJR-2018-t.3526 promote information sharing and enable interoperability among disparate systems across the justice and public safety community. Recipients (and subrecipients) must conform to the Global Standards Package (GSF) and all constituent elements, where applicable, as described at: https_lfwvwv_it.ojp.gov/gsp grantcondition. Recipients (and subrecipients)will be required to document planned approaches to information sharing and describe compliance to the GSP and an appropriate privacy policy that protects shared information, or provide detailed justification for why an alternative approach is recommended. For JAG applicants considering implementing communications technology projects, it is worthwhile to consider the First Responder Network Authority (Firsthtet) program. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.) established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. FirstNet's statutory mission is to take all actions necessary to ensure the establishment of a nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN). The NPSBN will use the 700 MHz D block spectrum to provide Long-Term Evolution (LTE)-based broadband services and applications to public safety entities. The network is based on a single, national network architecture that will evolve with technological advances and initially consist of a core network and radio access network. While mission critical voice communications will continue to occur on land mobile radio, in time, FirstNet is expected to provide the public safety entities with mission critical broadband data capabilities and services including, but not limited to: messaging; image sharing; video streaming; group text; voice; data storage; applications; location-based services; and quality of service, priority, and preemption. This reliable, highly secure, interoperable, and inniovative public safety communications platform will bring 211'century tools to public safety agencies and first responders, allowing them to get more information quickly and helping them to make faster and better decisions. For more information on FirstNet services, the unique value of the FirstNet network to public safety, and how to subscribe for the FirstNet service once your state or territory opts in, visit www.FirstNet.atov. To learn about FirstNet's programs and activities, including its consultation and outreach with public safety, the state plan's process, FirstNet's history and promise, and how it plans to ensure the FirstNet network meets the needs of public safety—every day and in every emergency visit wwrw.FirstNet.cacv+ or contact info irstnet.gov. ■ DNA Testing of Evidentiary Materials and Upload of DNA Profiles to a Database If JAG Program funds will be used for DNA testing of evidentiary materials, any resulting eligible DNA profiles must be uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS, the national DNA database operated by the FBI) by a government DNA lab with access to CODIS_ No profiles generated with JAG funding may be entered into any other non- governmental DNA database without prior express written approval from BJA. In addition, funds may not be used for purchase of DNA equipment and supplies when the resulting DNA profiles from such technology are not acceptable for entry into CODIS. ■ Entry of Records into State Repositories As appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, a condition may be imposed that would require the following: With respect to any "program or activity"that receives federal financial assistance under this solicitation that is likely to generate or upgrade court dispositions or other records that are relevant to National Instant Background Check System (MICS) determinations, a system must be in place to ensure that all such 9 13JA-2D1f-1362& NICS-relevant dispositions or records that are generated or upgraded are made available in timely fashion to state repositories/databases that are accessed by MOS, Requirements specific to "disparate"jurisdictions According to the JAG program statute, a 'disparity" may exist between the funding eligibility of a county and its associated municipalities. See 34 U. _C, § 10186{d)(4), Three different types of disparities may exist: ■ The first type is a zero-county disparity. This situation exists when one or more municipalities within a county are eligible for a direct award but the county is not; yet the county is responsible for providing criminal justice services (such as prosecution and incarceration) for the municipality. In this case, the county is entitled to part of the municipality's award because it shares the cost of criminal justice operations, although it may not report crime data to the FBi. This is the most common type of disparity. i A second type of disparity exists when both a county and a municipality within that county qualify for a direct award, but the award arneunt for the municipality exceeds 150 percent of the county's award amount, • The third type of disparity occurs when a county and multiple municipalities within that county are all eligible for direct awards, but the sum of the awards for the individual municipalities exceeds 400 percent of the county's award amount. Jurisdictions identified by BJA as disparate must identify a fiscal agent that will submit a joint application for-the aggregate eligible allocation to all disparate municipalities, The joint application must determine and specify the award distribution to each unit of local government and the purposes for which the funds will be used, A memorandum of understanding (MOU) that identifies which jurisdiction will serve as the applicant or fiscal agent for joint funds must be completed and signed by the authorized representative for each participating jurisdiction. The signed MOU should be attached to the application. For a sample MOU, go to: www_bia.gov/Funding/JAGMOU.pdf. Once an award is made, the fiscal agent will be responsible for distributing award funds to the other jurisdictions in the disparate group through subawards that include all appropriate award conditions. Unless specified differently, any reference in this solicitation to "applicant" or 'recipient" includes each fiscal agent applying on behalf of a disparate group. Further, "subrecipients" includes those disparate jurisdictions that receive award funding from the fiscal agent, rather than directly from CJP. Required compliance with applicable federal laws By law, the chief executive (e.g,., the mayor) of each unit of local government that applies for an FY 2018 JAG award must certify that the unit of local government will "comply with all provisions of[the JAG Program statute] and all other applicable Federal laws."To satisfy this requirement, each unit of local government applicant must submit three properly executed certifications using the forms shown in Appendices A, B, and C. All applicants shoLild understand that OJF awards, including certifications provided in connection with such awards, are subject to review by DOJ, including by 0.1P and by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Applicants also should understand that a materially false, fictitious. or fraudulent statement (or concealment or omission of a material fact) in a 10 M]A-2018-13626 certification submitted to OJP in support of an application may be the subject of criminal prosecution, and also may result in civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise. Administrative remedies that may be available to OJP with respect to an FY 2018 award include suspension or termination of the award, placement on the DOJ high risk grantee list, disallowance of costs, and suspension or debarment of the recipient. National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 3 percent set-aside In FY 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) formally announced its intention to sunset the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's traditional Summary Reporting System (SRS) and replace it with the UCR Program's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). By January 1, 2021, the FBI intends for NIBRS to be the law enforcement crime data reporting standard for the nation. By statute, JAG Program awards are calculated using summary Part 1 violent crime data from the FBI's UCR Program. See 34 U.S.C. § 10156. Once SRS has been replaced by NIBRS, JAG award amounts will be calculated using NIBRS data. In preparation for the FBI's 2021 NIBRS compliance deadline, beginning in FY 2018, BJA is requiring, through the application of a special condition, that direct JAG award recipients not certified by their state (or, as applicable, the FBI) as NIBRS compliant to dedicate 3 percent of their JAG award toward achieving full compliance with the FBI's NIBRS data submission requirements under the UCR Program. The 3 percent requirement will assist state and local jurisdictions in working toward compliance to ensure they continue to have critical criminal justice funding available through JAG when SRS is replaced by NIBRS in FY 2021. The requirement for a NIBRS set-aside will be applicable to all jurisdictions in a disparate group, but will not otherwise be applied to subawards. That is, the unit of local government serving as fiscal agent for a disparate group will be required by special condition to require each of the other jurisdictions in the disparate group to set aside 3 percent of FY 2018 JAG funds received by that jurisdiction to be used for NIBRS compliance activities, unless that jurisdiction receives a waiver from the BJA Director, as described below. Units of local government must clearly indicate in their application narratives and budgets what projects will be supported with this 3 percent set-aside. The following are examples of costs and projects that relate to NIBRS implementation at the state or local level that could be funded under the JAG Program: software, hardware, and labor that directly support or enhance a state or agency's technical capacity for collecting, processing, and analyzing data reported by local law enforcement (LE) agencies and then submitting NIBRS data to the FBI; training personnel responsible for the state's Incident Based Reporting (IBR) program on receiving, processing, analyzing, and validating incident-based data from local LE agencies in their state; training local agencies in how to collect and submit NIBRS data; and technical assistance for LE agency personnel responsible for(1) managing the agency's crime incident data, (2) processing and validating the data, and (3) extracting and submitting IBR data to the state UCR Program, according to the states, and/or directly to the FBI, according to the NIBRS standard. Units of local government that have been certified as NIBRS compliant by their state, or directly by the FBI, may submit a waiver to the BJA Director requesting an exemption from the 3 percent set-aside requirement. The waiver request from an appropriate local official must clearly state that the unit of local government has been certified as NIBRS compliant by their state, or directly by the FBI, and should be submitted with the application, or, as appropriate, through request for a Grant Adjustment Notice after an award is made. In any instance in which a waiver 11 BJA-2018-13626 request is submitted, the unit of local government must retain documentation on file that demonstrates the state or FBI certification of NIBRS-compliance. Such documentation must be made available for BJA review, upon request. The BJA Director will review all requests for waivers. If approved, states will not be subject to the 3 percent set-aside requirement. Note: U.S. Territories and tribal jurisdictions will not be subject to the 3 percent set-aside for NIBRS-compliance until FY 2019. Tribal jurisdictions and the five U.S. territories are strongly encouraged to dedicate a portion of JAG funding to NIBRS conversion; however, this is not a requirement for FY 2018 JAG funding. Utilizing this phased-in approach will allow the territories and tribal jurisdictions to plan for the change in funding direction and provide BJA with time to coordinate or provide any necessary technical assistance surrounding this topic. BJA Areas of Emphasis BJA recognizes that many state and local criminal justice systems currently face challenging fiscal environments, and that an important, cost-effective way to relieve those pressures is to share or leverage resources through cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement. BJA intends to focus much of its work on the areas of emphasis described below, and encourages each recipient of an FY 2018 JAG award to join federal law enforcement agencies in addressing these challenges. Reducing Violent Crime– Recognizing that crime problems, including felonious possession and use of a firearm and/or gang violence, illegal drug sales and distribution, human trafficking, and other related violent crime, vary from community to community, BJA encourages states to tailor their programs to the local crime issues, and to be data-informed in their work. States should consider investing JAG funds in programs to combat gun violence, and to improve the process for ensuring that persons prohibited from purchasing guns (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) are prevented from doing so, by utilizing technology such as eTrace and NIBIN to analyze evidence as well as by enhancing complete, accurate, and timely reporting to the FBI's NICS. States are also encouraged to coordinate with United States Attorneys Offices and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) grantees in order to leverage funding for violence reduction projects, and to coordinate their law enforcement activities with those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. Officer Safety and Wellness –The issue of law enforcement safety and wellness is an important priority for BJA and DOJ. According to the Preliminary 2017 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities Report, released by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), as of December 28, 2017, there were 128 law enforcement line-of-duty deaths nationwide in 2017. Firearms-related deaths were the second leading cause of law enforcement deaths (44) in 2017, according to the NLEOMF report. Of those deaths, the leading circumstance was officers shot while responding to a domestic disturbance (7), followed by traffic enforcement, investigative activities, and dealing with a suspicious person or vehicle-6 instances in each circumstance. Additionally, deaths due to circumstances other than firearms- or traffic-related deaths increased by 61 percent in 2017, with 37 deaths compared to 23 in 2016. Sixteen of those deaths were due to job-related illnesses, including 10 due to heart attacks. Based on the latest reports (2016 and 2015) from the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted(LEOKA) data, there appeared to be a continuing increase in assaults between 2015 and 2016. There were 57,180 assaults in 2016 versus 50,212 in 2015. Of those, 16,535 resulted in officer injuries in 2016 compared to 14,281 in 2015. The 2016 LEOKA reports that 12 BJA-2018-13626 there were 17 officers killed in ambush situations, which is an increase from 2015 when 4 officers were killed in ambush situations, BJA sees a vital need to focus not only on tactical officer safety concerns, but also on health and wellness as they affect officer performance and safety. It is important for law enforcement to have the tactical skills necessary, and also be physically and mentally well, to perform, survive, and be resilient in the face of the demanding duties of the profession. BJA encourages states to use JAG funds to address these needs by providing training, and paying for tuition and travel expenses related to attending trainings such as those available through the BJA VALOR Initiative, as well as funding for health and wellness programs for law enforcement officers. Border Security— Securing U.S. borders (and internationally accessible waterways and -airports) is critically important to the reduction and prevention of transnational drug- trafficking networks and combating all forms of human trafficking within the United States (including sex and labor trafficking of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens of ail sexes and ages). Smuggling and trafficking operations to, from and within the United States contribute to a significant increase in violent crime and U.S. deaths_ BJA encourages units of local government to enhance border, waterway, and port security by using JAG funds to support law enforcement hiring, training, and technology enhancement, as well as cooperation and coordination among federal, state, local, and tribal Paw enforcement agencies. Collaborative Prosecution and Law Enforcement— BJA supports strong partnerships between prosecutors and law enforcement, at all levels of government, in order to help take violent offenders cif the street. BJA strongly encourages state and local law enforcement agencies to foster strong partnerships with federal law enforcement agencies, and with their own prosecutors, as well as federal prosecutors, to adopt new, cost-effective, collaborative strategies to reduce crime, particularly violent crime. (BJA's Innovative Prosecution Solutions Initiative is a related effort to promote partnerships between prosecutors end researchers to develop and deliver effective, data-driven, evidence-based strategies to solve chronic problems end fight crime.) Objectives and Deliverables In general, the FY 2018 JAG Program is designed to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice. Although the,JAG Program provides assistance directly to states, through pass- through (and similar) requirements, the JAG Program also is designed to assist units of local government with respect to criminal justice. As discussed in more detail in the General Information about Post-federal Award Reporting Requirements discussion, a state that receives an FY 2018 JAG award will be required to produce various types of reports and to submit data related to performance measures and accountability. The objectives and deliverables are directly related to the JAG Program accountability measures at https:llbiaprnt_oie.govlhelpliacdocs.html. Evidence-based Programs or Practices Q.JP strongly emphasizes the use of data and evidence in policy making and program development in criminal justice,juvenile justice, and crime victim services. OJP is committed to: Improving the quantity and quality of evidence OJP generates. 13 BJA-208-13626 • Integrating evidence into program, practice, and policy decisions within OJP and the field. ▪ Improving the translation of evidence into practice. OJP considers programs and practices to be evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through one or more outcome evaluations. Causal evidence documents a relationship between an activity or intervention (including technology) and its intended outcome, including measuring the direction and size of a change, and the extent to which a change may be attributed to the activity or intervention. Causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change. The strength of causal evidence, based on the factors described above, will influence the degree to which OJP considers a program or practice to be evidence-based. The OJP CrimeSolutions,gov website at https:I/www_crimesolutions,eov/is one resource that applicants may use to find information about evidence-based programs in criminal justice,juvenile justice, and crime victim services, A useful matrix of evidence-based policing programs and strategies is available through BJA's Matrix Demonstration Project, BJA offers a number of program models designed to effectively implement promising and evidence-based strategies through the 8JA Innovation Suite"of programs including Innovations in Policing, Prosecution, Supervision, Reentry, and others (see haps: `lw virvir a.avvil�roarams CRPPE/innovationssuife,htmI . BJA encourages states to use JAG funds to support these "crime innovation" strategies, including effective partnerships with universities and research partners and with non-traditional criminal justice partners. Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities The Department of Justice has prioritized the use of evidence-based programming and deems it critical to continue to build and expand the evidence informingcriminal and juvenile justice programs and crime victim services to reach the highest level of rigor possible. Therefore, applicants should note that OJP may conduct or support an evaluation of the programs and activities funded under this solicitation. Recipients and subrecipients will be expected to cooperate with program-related assessments or evaluation efforts, including through the collection and provision of information or data requested by OJP (or its designee) for the assessment or evaluation of any activities and/or outcomes of those activities funded under this solicitation. The information or data requested may be in addition to any other financial or performance data already required under this program. EWA Success Stories The BJA-sponsored Success Stories web page features projects that have demonstrated success or shown promise in reducing crime and positively impacting communities. This web page is a valuable resource for states, localities, territories, tribes, and criminal justice professionals who seek to identify and learn about JAG and other successful BJA-funded projects linked to innovation, crime reduction, and evidence-based practices. BJA strongly encourages the recipient to submit success stories annually (or more frequently) it a state has a success story it would like to submit, it may be submitted through My BJA account, using "add a Success Story" and the Success Story Submission form_ Register for a My BJA account using this reaistraticn link, 14 BJA-2018-13626 B. Federal Award Information BJA estimates that it will make up to 1,147 local awards totaling an estimated $84,500,000. Awards of at least $25,000 are 4 years in length, and performance periods will be from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2021. Extensions beyond this period may be made on a case- by-case basis at the discretion of BJA and must be requested via GMS no fewer than 30 days prior to the grant end date. Awards of less than $25"000 are 2 years in length, and performance periods will be from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2010. Extensions of up to 2 years can be requested for these awards via GMS no fewer than 30 days prior to the grant end date, and will be automatically granted upon request. All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by statute. Type of Award BJA expects that any award under this solicitation will be in the form of a grant, See Statutory and ReoulatorV Reouiremenlisa Award Conditions, under Section F. Federal Award Administration Information, for a brief discussion of important statutes. regulations, and award conditions that apply to many (or in some cases, all) DJP grants. JAG awards are based on a statutory formula as described below: Once each fiscal year's overall JAG Program funding level is determined. BJA works with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (RJS) to begin a four-step grant award calculation process, whioh, in general, consists of: (1) Computing an initial JAG allocation for each state, based on its share of violent crime and population (weighted equally). (2) Reviewing the initial JAG allocation amount to determine if the state allocation is Mess than the minimum award amount defined in the JAG legislation (0.25 percent of the total). If this is the case, the state is funded at the minimum level, and the funds required for this are deducted from the overall pool of JAG funds. Each of the remaining states receives the minimum award plus an additional amount based on its share of violent crime and population. (3) Dividing each state's final award amount (except for the territories and District of Columbia) between the state and its units of local governments at a rate of 60 and 40 percent, respectively. (4) Determining unit of local government award allocations, which are based on their proportion of the state's 3-year violent crime average„ If the"'eligible award amount"for a particular unit of local government, as determined on this basis, is $10,000 or more, then the unit of local government is eligible to apply directly to OJP (under the JAG Local solicitation) for a JAG award. If the 'eligible award amount' to a particular unit of local government, as determined on this basis, is less than $10,000, however, the funds are not made available for a direct award to that particular unit of local government, but 15 BJA-2018-13626 instead are added to the amount that otherwise would have been awarded to the state. (Additional requirements related to 'disparate"'jurisdictions are summarized above), Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through entities1) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements2 as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.303; (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that [the recipient (and any subrecipient)] is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in "Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the "Internal Control integrated Framework", issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor[thee recipient's (and any subrecipient's)] compliance with statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings, (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or[the recipient (or any subrecipient)] considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality_ To help ensure that applicants understand the administrative requirements and cost principles, OJP encourages prospective applicants enroll, at no charge, in the DOJ Grants Financial Management Online Training, available at https'ioinfam.webfrst.cornf. (This training is required for all CJP award recipients.) Also, applicants should be aware that COP collects information from applicants on their financial management and systems of internal controls (among other information) which is used to make award decisions. Under Section D. Application and Submission Information, applicants may access and review the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (httpsnfloio.aov/funding/Applv/ResourceslFirrarcialCapabiiity_pdf)that OJP requires all applicants (other than an individual applying in his/her personal capacity) to download, complete, and submit as part of the application. 1 For purposes of this solicitation, the phrase"pass-through entity'includes any recip,ent or subrecipient that provides a subaward rsubgrant") to carry out part of the funded award or program_ 2 The"Tart 200 Uniform Requirements"'eters to the DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R Part 2800.which adopts(with pertain modifications)the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200 BJA-2018-13526 Budget and Financial Information Trust Fund –Univ of local government may draw down JAG funds either in advance or on a reimbursement basis. Non-federal entities must maintain advance payments of federal awards in interest-bearing accounts, unless regulatory exclusions apply (2 CFR 200.305(b)(8)). Subrecipients that draw down JAG funds in advance are subject to the same requirement and must first establish an interest-bearing account. Traekinq and reporting regarding JAG funds used far administrative costs–As indicated earlier, up to 10 percent of a JAG award, including up to 10 percent of any earned interest, may be used for costs associated with administering the award. Administrative costs (when utilized) must be tracked separately; a recipient must report in separate financial status reports (SF-425) those expenditures that specifically relate to each particular JAG award during any particular reporting period. No commingling –Bath the unit of local government recipient and all subrecipients of JAG funds are prohibited from commingling funds on a program-by-program or project-by-project basis. For this purpose, use of the administrative JAG funds to perform work across all active awards in any one year is not considered commingling. Cost Sharing or Match Requirement The JAG Program does not require a match, However, if a successful application proposes a voluntary match amount, and OJP approves the budget, the total match amount incorporated into the approved budget becomes mandatory and subject to audit. For additional cost sharing and match information, see the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https://oio.clovifinancialauide/DOJAndex.htm. Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Preaward Costs), Pre-agreement costs are costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of performance of the grant award. OJP does not typically approve pre-agreement costs. An applicant must request and obtain the prior written approval of OJP for any such costs. All such costs incurred prior to award and prior to approval of the costs are incurred at the sole risk of the applicant. (Generally, no applicant should incur project costs before submitting an application requesting federal funding for those costs.) Should there be extenuating circumstances that make it appropriate for OJP to consider approving pre-agreement costs, the applicant may contact the point of contact listed on the title page of this solicitation for the requirements concerning written requests for approval. If approved in advance by OJP, award funds may be used for pre-agreement costs, consistent with the recipient's approved budget and applicable cost principles. See the section on Costs Requiring Prior Approval in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at https:/1ojp.govfliinancialnoidefDOJ/index.htm for more information. Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of ConferencelMeetingdTraining Costs GJP strongly encourages every applicant that proposes to use award funds for any conference-, meeting-, or training-related activity (or similar event) to review carefully—before submitting an application the OJP and DOJ policy and guidance on approval, planning, and reporting of such 17 BJA-2018-13625 events, available at: https:llwww_cjpgovifinancialquide/DOJ/PcstawardRequirernentslchapter3.i0a.htm, 0,1P policy and guidance (1) encourage minimization of conference, meeting, and training costs; (2) require prior written approval (which may affect project timelines) of most conference, meeting, and training costs for cooperative agreement recipients, as well as some conference, meeting, and training costs for grant recipients; and (3) set coat limits, which include a general prohibition of all food and beverage costs, Costs Associated with Language Assistance if applicable) If an applicant proposes a program or activity that would deliver services or benefits to individuals, the costs of taking reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to those services or benefits for individuals with limited English proficiency may be allowable. Reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to services or benefits may include interpretation or translation services, where appropriate, For additional information, see the 'Civil Rights Compliance' section under"Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Aareernents- FT_2018 Awards" in the OJP Funding Resource Center at https.lfoiP.crovffirndieWindex.htm. C. Eligibility Information For information on eligibility, see the title page. Note that, as discussed in more detail below, the certificetions regarding compliance with certain federal laws. (See Appendices B and C) must he executed and submitted before a unit of local government (other than an Indian tribal government) can make a valid award acceptance. Also, a unit of local government may not access award funds (and its award will include a condition that withholds funds) until it submits a properly executed 'Certifications and Assurances by Chief Executive of Applicant Government" (See Appendix A). D. Application and Submission Information What an Application Should Include This section describes in detail what an application should include, An applicant should anticipate that if it fails to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements, it may negatively affect the review of its application; and, should a decision be made to make an award, it may result in the inclusion of award conditions that preclude the recipient from accessing or using award funds until the recipient satisfies the conditions and OJP makes the funds available. NOTE OJP has combined the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative in .a single document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. See "Budget Information and Associated Documentation" below for more information about the Budget Detail Worksheet and where it can be accessed. OJP strongly recommends that applicants use appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., °Program Narrative," "Rudget Detail Worksheet," "Timelines,' "Memoranda of Understanding," 18 BJA-20t8-13626 "Resumes") for all attachments. Also, OW recommends that applicants include résumés in a single file. Please review the "Note on File Names and File Types" under How to Apply to be sure applications are submitted in permitted formats. in general, if a unit of local government fails to submit required information or documents, OJP either will return the unit of local government's application in the Grants Management System (GMS) for submission of the missing information or documents, or will attach a condition to the award that will withhold award funds until the necessary information and documents are submitted. (As discussed elsewhere in this solicitation, the certification regarding compliance with certain federal laws—which are set out at Appendix B and Appendix C—will be handled differently. Unless and until those certifications are submitted, the unit of local government (other than an Indian tribal government) will be unable to make a valid acceptance of the award.) 1. Information to Complete the Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of pre- applications, applications, and related information. GMS takes information from the applicant's profile to populate the fields on this form. To avoid processing delays, an applicant must include an accurate legal name on its SF- 424. Current OJP award recipients, when completing the field for "Legal Name," should use the same legal name that appears on the prior year award document, which is also the legal name stored in ]JP's financial system. On the SF-424, enter the Legal None in box 5 and Employer Identification Number (EIN) in box 6 exactly as it appears on the prior year award document. An applicant with a current, active award(s) must ensure that its OMS profile is current. If the profile is not current, the applicant should submit a Grant Adjustment Notice updating the information on its GMS profile prior to applying under this solicitation, A new applicant entity should enter its official legal name, its address, its El NJ, and its Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)_ A new applicant entity should attach official legal documents to its application (e.g., articles of incorporation, 501(c)(3) status documentation, organizational letterhead) to confirm the legal name, address, and LIN entered into the SF- 424. OUP will use the System for Award Management (SAM) to confirm the legal name and DUNS number entered in the SF-424; therefore, an applicant should ensure that the information entered in the SF-424 matches its current registration in SAM. See the How to Apply section for more information on SAM and DUNS numbers. Intergovernmental Review: This solicitation ("funding opportunity") is subject to Executive Order 12372. An applicant may find the names and addresses of State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) at the following website; https._y www.whitehouse,covfwo- contentfuploacts12O1711111ntergovernmental -Review- SPOC 01 2018 OFFM.p if. If the state appears on the SPDC list, the applicant must contact the state SPOC to find out about, and comply with, the state's process under E.O. 12372. In completing the SF-424, an applicant whose state appears on the SPOC list is to make the appropriate selection in response to question 16 once the applicant hias complied with its State E.0, 12372 process. (An applicant whose state does not appear on the SPOC fist should answer question 16 by 19 BJA-201a.-13526 selecting the response that the "Program is subject to L.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.") 2. Project Identifiers Applications should identify at least three and no more than ten project identifiers that would be associated with proposed project activities_ The list of identifiers car be found at www.bia.gov/funding/JAGIdenfifiers.pcif. 3. Program Narrative The following sections should be included as part of the program narrative'.: a. Description of the Issues — Identify the unit of local government's strategy/funding priorities for the FY 2018 JAG funds, the subgrant award process and timeline, and a description of the programs to be funded over the grant period. Units of local government are strongly encouraged to prioritize the funding on evidence-based projects. b, Project Design and Implementation -- Describe the unit of local government's strategic planning process, if any, that guides its priorities and funding strategy. This should include a description of how the local community is engaged in the planning process and the data and analysis utilized to support the plan; it should identify the stakeholders currently participating in the strategic planning process, the gaps in the needed resources for criminal justice purposes, and how JAG funds will be coordinated with state and related justice funds. c. Capabilities and Competencies— Describe any additional strategic planning/coordination efforts in which the units of local government participates with other criminal justice criminal/juvenile justice agencies in the state. d. Plan for Collecting the Data Required for this Solicitation's Performance Measures — OJP will require each successful applicant to submit specific performance measures that demonstrate the results of the work carried out under the award (see "General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements' in Section F. Federal Award Administration Information), The performance measures data directly relate to the objectives and deliverables identified under Objectives and Deliverables in Section A. Program Description. Applicants should visit OJP's performance measurement page at www.oip.govfperformance for an overview of performance measurement activities at °J P. Post award, recipients will be required to submit quarterly performance metrics through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT), located at: https:lfbiapmt.cjp.gov. The application should describe the applicant's plan for collection of all of the performance measures data listed in the JAG Program accountability measures at: httr s:/1bjapmt,ojp,govfhelpfjagdacs.html For inforrnatiorr on subawards(irecluding the details on proposed subawards that should be included in the application), see"Budget and Associated Documentation'under Section D.Application and Submission Information. 20 B1A-2OtR-1362 The application should demonstrate the applicant's understanding of the performance data reporting requirements for this grant program and detail how the applicant will gather the required data should it receive funding. Please note that applicants are not required to submit performance data with the application. Performance measures information is included as an alert that successful applicants will be required to submit performance data as part of the reporting requirements under an award. Note on Project Evaluations An applicant that proposes to use award funds through this solicitation to conduct project evaluations should be aware that certain project evaluations (such as systematic investigations designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge) may constitute "research for purposes of applicable DOJ human subjects protection regulations. However, project evaluations that are intended only to generate internal improvements to a program or service, or are conducted only to meet OJP's performance measure data reporting requirements, likely do not constitute "research." Each applicant should provide sufficient information for CUP to determine whether the particular project it proposes would either intentionally or unintentionally collect and/or use information in such a way that it meets the DOJ regulatory definition of research that appears at 28 C.F.R. Part 46 ("Protection of Rumen Subjects"). Research, for the purposes of human subjects protection for OJP-funded programs, is defined as "a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." 28 C.F.R. 45.102(d). For additional information on determining whether a proposed activity would constitute research for purposes of human subjects protection, applicants should consult the decision tree in the "Research and the Protection of Human Subjects" section of the "Requirements related to Research"web page of the "Overview of Legal Reguirennents Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards" available through the OJP Funding Resource Center at https:t/oiregovlfundinoiindex.htm. Every prospective applicant whose application may propose a research or statistical component also should review the "Data Privacy and Confidentiality Requirements" section on that web page. 4. Budget and Associated Documentation The Budget Detail Worksheet and the Budget Nlarrativ'e are now combined in a single document collectively referred to as the Budget Detail Worksheet. The Budget Detail Worksheet is a user-friendly, frllable, Microsoft Excel-based document designed to calculate totals. Additionally, the Excel workbook contains worksheets for multiple budget years that can be completed as necessary. All applicants should use the Excel version when completing the proposed budget in an application, except in cases where the applicant does not have access to Microsoft Excel or experiences technical difficulties. if an applicant does not neve access to Microsoft Excel or experiences technical difficulties with the Excel version, then the applicant should use the 508-compliant accessible Adobe Portable Document Fermat (PDF) version. 21 B3A-2O 18"1362r-i Both versions of the Budget Detail Worksheet can be accessed at l ttos:J/oexeovnundfn atAe lvlForms/BudaeiDetailWorksheet.htrn. a. Budget Detail Worksheet The Budget Detail Worksheet should provide the detailed computation for each budget line item, listing the total cost of each and showing how it was calculated by the applicant. For example, r;osts for personnel should show the annual salary rate and the percentage of time devoted to the project for each employee paid with grant funds. The Budget Detail Worksheet should present a complete itemization of all proposed costs. For questions pertaining to budget and examples of allowable and unallowable costs, see the DQJ Grants Financial Guide at httusiiioloroovitinancialguide/DOXindex.htm. b. Budget Narrative The budget narrative should thoroughly and clearly describe every category of expense listed in the proposed budget detail worksheet. OJP expects proposed budgets to be complete, cost effective, and allowable (e.g,, reasonable, allocable, and necessary for project activities). This narrative should include a full description of all costs, including funds set aside for NIBRS project(s) and administrative costs (if applicable). An applicant should demonstrate in its budget narrative how it will maximize cost effectiveness of award expenditures. Budget narratives should generally describe cost effectiveness in relation to potential alternatives and the objectives of the project. For example, a budget narrative should detail why planned iri-person meetings are necessary, or how technology and collaboration with outside organizations could be used to reduce costs, without compromising quality. The budget narrative should be mathematically sound and correspond clearly with the information and figures provided in the Budget Detail Worksheet. The narrative should explain how the applicant estimated and calculated all costs, and how those costs are necessary to the completion of the proposed project. The narrative may include tables for clarification purposes, but need not be in a spreadsheet format. As with the Budget Detail Worksheet, the budget narrative should describe costs by year c. Information on Proposed Subawards (if any), as well as on Proposed Procurement Contracts (if any) Applicants for CJP awards typically may propose to make "subawards." Applicants also may propose to enter into procurement 'contracts" under the award_ Whether an action—for federal grants administrative purposes—is a subaward or procurement contract is a critical distinction as significantly different rules apply to subawards and procurement contracts. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a subaward of an OJP award, specific rules apply—many of which are set by federal statutes and DOJ regulations; others by award conditions. These rules place particular responsibilities on an OJP recipient for any subawards the CUP recipient may make, The rules determine much of what the written subaward agreement itself must require or provide. The rules also determine much of what an GJP recipient must do both before and after it makes a subaward. If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a 22 BJA-2018-1.3526 procurement contract under an OJP award, a substantially different set of federal rules applies. CJP has developed the following guidance documents to help clarify the differences between subawards and procurement contracts under an OJP award and outline the compliance and reporting requirements for each. This information can be accessed online at https:lloip.novltraininnitraininq.htn. • Subawards under OJP Awards and Procurement Contracts under Awards: A Toolkit for OJP Recipients. • Checklist to Determine Subrecipient or Contractor Classification. • Sole Source Justification Fact Sheet and Sole Source Review Checklist. In general, the central question is the relationship between what the third-party will do under its agreement with the recipient and what the recipient has committed (to OJP) to do under its award to further a public purpose (e.g., services the recipient will provide, products it will develop or modify, research or evaluation it will conduct). If a third party will provide some of the services the recipient has committed (to OJP)to provide, will develop or modify all or part of a product the recipient has committed (to OJP)to develop or modify, or conduct part of the research or evaluation the recipient has committed (to OJP) to conduct, OJP will consider the agreement with the third party a subaward for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements. This will be true even if the recipient, for internal or other non-federal purposes, labels or treats its agreement as a procurement, a contract, or a procurement contract. Neither the title nor the structure of an agreement determines whether the agreement—for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements—is a "subaward" or is instead a procurement"contract" under an award. The substance of the relationship should be given greater consideration than the form of agreement between the recipient and the outside entity. 1. Information on proposed subawards and required certifications regarding certain federal laws from certain subrecipients General recuirement for federal authorization of any subaward; statutory authorizations of subawards under the JAG Proeram statute. Generally, a recipient of an OJP award may not make subawards ('"subgrants") unless the recipient has specific federal authorization to do so. Unless an applicable statute or DOJ regulation specifically authorizes {or requires) particular subawards, a recipient must have authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward. JAG subawards that are required or specifically authorized by statute (see 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a) and 34 U.S.G. § 10156) do not require prior approval to authorize subawards. This includes subawards made by units of local government under the JAG Program. A particular subaward may be authorized by OJP because the recipient included a sufficiently detailed description and justification of the proposed subaward in the application as approved by OJP. If, however, a particular subaward is not authorized by federal statute or regulation and is not sufficiently described and justified in the 23 BJA-201B-13625 application as approved by OJP, the recipient will be required, post award, to request and obtain written authorization from OJP before it may make the subaward, If an applicant proposes to make one or more subawards to carry out the federal award and program, and those subawards are not specifically authorized (or required) by statute or regulation, the applicant should: (1) identify (if known) the proposed subrecipient(s), (2) describe in detail what each subrecipient will do to carry out the federal award and federal program, and (3) provide a justification for the subaward(s), with details on pertinent matters such as special qualifications and areas of expertise. Pertinent information on subawards should appear not only in the Program Narrative, but also in the Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative. Required certifications, generally relating to various federal statutes, from any proposed subrecipient that is a state or I®celgoverrrment entity. Before a unit of local government may subaward FY 2018 award funds to another unit of local government or to a public institution of higher education, it will be required (by specific award condition, the terms of which will govern) to obtain a properly executed certification, generally relating to various specific federal laws, from the proposed subrecipient. (This requirement regarding these federal laws will not apply to subawards to Indian tribes). The specific certification the unit of local government must require from another unit of local government will vary somewhat from the specific certification it must require from a public institution of higher education. The forms will beposted and available for download at: https:llojr goo?funding1Explore/ arnpleCertifications- 8U5C 1373.htrn. 2. Information on proposed procurement contracts (with specific justification for proposed noncompetitive contracts over$150,000) Unlike a recipient contemplating a subaward, a recipient of an OJP award generally does not need specific prior federal authorization to enter into an agreement that— for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements—is considered a procurement contract, provided that (1) the recipient uses its own documented procurement procedures and (2) those procedures conform to applicable federal law, including the Procurement Standards of the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements (as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200,317 - 200.326). The Budget Detail Worksheet and budget narrative should identify proposed procurement contracts. (As discussed above, subawards must be identified and described separately from procurement contracts.) The Procurement Standards in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, however, reflect a general expectation that agreements that (for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements) constitute procurement"contracts' under awards will be entered into on the basis of full and open competition. All noncompetitive (sole source) procurement contracts must meet the OW requirements outlined at https:[Io .qovltrainino/subawards-orocurement,htm. If a proposed procurement contract would exceed the simplified acquisition threshold—currently, $150,000—a recipient of an CUP award may not proceed without competition unless and until the recipient receives specific advance authorization from OJP to use a non-competitive approach for the procurement. An applicant that (at the time of its application) intends—without competition—to enter into a procurement contract that would exceed $150,000 should include a detailed justification that explains to OJP why, in the particular circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed without competition, 24 BM-2018-13626 if the applicant receives an award, sole source procurements that do not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently $150,000) must have written justification for the noncompetitive procurement action maintained in the procurement file. If a procurement file does not have the documentation that meets the criteria outlined in 2 C.F.R. 200, the procurement expenditures may not be allowable. Sole source procurement over the $150,000 Simplified Acquisition Threshold must have prior approval from OJP using a Sole Source Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN). Written documentation justifying the noncompetitive procurement must be submitted with the GAN and maintained in the procurement tile. d. Pre-Agreement Costs For information on pre-agreement costs, see Section B. Federal Award Information. 5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement(if applicable) Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if: (a) The recipient has a current (unexpired), federally approved indirect cost rate or (b) The recipient is eligible to use, and elects to use, the "de minirnis" indirect cost rate described in the (0OJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at 2 G.F.R. 200.414(f). Note: This rule does not eliminate er alter the JAG-specific restriction in federal law that charges far administrative costs may not exceed 1 0 percent of the award amount, regardless of the approved indirect cost rate. An applicant with a current (unexpired)federally approved indirect cost rate is to attach a copy of the indirect cost rate agreement to the application. An applicant that does not have a current federally approved rate may request one through its cognizant federal agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity, or, if the applicant's accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the direct cost categories. Far assistance with identifying the appropriate cognizant federal agency for indirect costs, please contact the OCFO Customer Service Center at 1-800—a158-0786 or at ask.acfo{ usdoj.gov. If Dal is the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal at: www.oiraeov/fundine/ApplyiResourcesandirectCosts.edf. Certain OJP recipients have the option of electing to use the "de minim's" indirect cost rate. An applicant that is eligible to use the"de minim's" rate that wishes to use the "de minimis" rate should attach written documentation to the application that advises OJP of both-- (1) the applicant's eligibility to use the "de minirnis" rate, and (2) its election to do so. If an eligible applicant elects the "de minimis" rate, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The "de minim's" rate may no longer be used once an approved federally-negotiated indirect cost rate is in place. (No entity than ever has had a federally-approved negotiated indirect cost rate is eligible to use the "de minimis" rate.) For the "de minirnis" rate requirements (including additional information on eligibility to elect to use the rate), see Part 200 Uniform Requirements, at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f). 25 B]A-2018-13626 6. Tribal Authorizing Resolution A tribe, tribal organization, or third party that proposes to provide direct services or assistance to residents on tribal lands should include in its application a resolution, letter, affidavit, or other documentation, as appropriate. that demonstrates (as a legal matter) that the applicant has the requisite authorization from the tribe(s) to implement the proposed project on tribal lands. In those instances when an organization or consortium of tribes applies for an award on behalf of a tribe or multiple specific tribes, the application should include appropriate legal documentation, as described above, from all tribes that would receive services or assistance under the award. A consortium of tribes for which existing consortium bylaws allow action without support from all tribes in the consortium (i.e., without an authorizing resolution or comparable legal documentation from each tribal governing body) may submit, instead, a copy of its consortium bylaws with the application. 7. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (including applicant disclosure of high risk status) Every OJP applicant is to download, compaete, and submit the OJP Financial Management and System of Internal CentralsQuestionnaire (Questionnaire) located at httos:)/oia.govlfund na(ApplviResour s1FinancialCapabilitv.pdf as part of its application. The Questionnaire helps OJP assess the financial management and internal control systems, and the associated potential risks of an applicant as part of the pre-award risk assessment process. The Questionnaire should only be completed by financial staff most familiar with the applicant's systems, policies, and procedures in order to ensure that the correct responses are recorded and submitted to DJP. The responses on the Questionnaire directly impact the pre-award risk assessment and should accurately reflect the applicant's financial management and internal control system at the time of the application, The pre-award risk assessment is only one of multiple factors and criteria used in determining funding, However, a preaward risk assessment that indicates that an applicant poses a higher risk to OW may affect the funding decision and/or result in additional reporting requirements, monitoring, special conditions, withholding of award funds, or other additional award requirements. Among other things, the form requires each applicant to disclose whether it currently is designated "high risk" by a federal grant-making agency outside of Dal. For purposes of this disclosure, high risk includes any status under which a federal awarding agency provides additional oversight due to the applicant's past performance, or other programmatic or financial concerns with the applicant. If an applicant is designated high risk by another federal awarding agency, the applicant must provide the following information: • The federal awarding agency that currently designates the applicant high risk. • The date the applicant was designated high risk. • The high risk point of contact at that federal awarding agency (name, phone number. and email address). • The reasons for the high risk status, as set out by the federal awarding agency. OJP seeks this information to help ensure appropriate federal oversight of OJP awards, An applicant that is considered '`high risk' by another federal awarding agency is not automatically disqualified from receiving an OJP award. OJP may. however, consider the 26 BJA-2OtB-1.362 information in award decisions, and may impose additional OJP oversight of any award under this solicitation (including through the conditions that accompany the award document). 8. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Each applicant must complete and submit a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (SF-LLL). An applicant that expends any funds for lobbying activities is to provide all of the information requested on the form, An applicant that does not expend any funds for lobbying activities is to enter"N/A" in the text boxes for item 10 ca. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant" and "b. Individuals Performing Services"). 9. Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government A JAG application is not complete, and a unit of local government may not access award funds, unless the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government(e.g., the mayor) properly executes, and the unit of local government submits, the "Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government" attached to this solicitation as Appendix A. OJP will not deny an application for an FY 2418 award for failure to submit these "Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government" by the application deadline, but a unit of local government will not be able to access award funds (and its award will include a condition that withholds funds) until it submits these certifications and assurances, properly executed by the chief executive of the unit of local government(e.g., the mayor). 10. Certifications by the Chief Legal Officer of the Applicant Government The chief legal officer of an applicant unit of local government (e.g., the City Attorney) is to carefully review the two certifications attached to this solicitation as Appendix B and Appendix C, If the chief legal officer determines that he or she may execute the certifications, the unit of local government is to submit the certification as part of its application. (Mote: this requirement does oat apply to Indian tribal governments.) As discussed further in the Federal Award Notices section, a unit of local government (other than an Indian tribal government) applicant will be unable to make a valid award acceptance of an FY 2018 JAG award unless and until both properly executed certifications by its chief legal officer are received by OJP on or before the day the unit of local government submits an executed award document, 11. Additional Attachments a. Information regarding Communication with the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) and/or immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Each applicant must provide responses to the following questions as an attachment to the application: (1) Does your jurisdiction have any laws, policies, or practices related to whether, when, or how employees may communicate with DHS or ICF? (2) Is your jurisdiction subject to any laws from a superior political entity (e.g., a state law that binds a city) that meet the description in question I (3) If yes to either: a Please provide a copy of each law or policy; 27 BJA-2018-13626 • Please describe each practice; and • Please explain how the law, policy, or practice complies with section 1373. See Appendix E for a template that applicants may use to prepare this attachment Note: Responses to these questions must be provided by the applicant as part of the JAG application. Further, the requirement to provide this information applies to all tiers of JAG funding, for all subawards made to state or local government entities, including public institutions of higher education. Ali subrecipient responses must he collected and maintained by the direct recipient of JAG funding and must be made available to UOJ upon request. Responses to these questions are not required from subrecipiente that are either a tribal governmentlorganization, a nonprofit organization, or a private institution of higher education. OJP will not deny en application for an FY 2018 award for failure to submit these required responses by the application deadline, but a unit of local government will not be able to access award funds (and its award will include a condition that withholds funds) until it submits these responses. b_ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications Each applicant is to disclose whether it has (or is proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending applications for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements that (1) include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed in the application under this solicitation and (2) would cover identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted to OJP as part of the application under this solicitation. The applicant is to disclose applications made directly to federal awarding agencies, and also applications for subawards of federal funds (e.g., applications to state agencies that will subaward ('°subgrant'") federal funds). OJP seeks this information to help avoid any inappropriate duplication of funding, Leveraging multiple funding sources in a complementary manner to implement comprehensive programs or projects is encouraged and is not seen as inappropriate duplication. Each applicant that has one or more pending applications as described above is to provide the following information about pending applications submitted within the last 12 months: • The federal or state funding agency • The solicitation name/project name • The point of contact information at the applicable federal or state funding agency 28 BJA-2018-13626 Federal or State Solicitation Name/Phone/Email for Point of Contact at Funding Agency Name/Project Federal or State Funding Agency Name DOJ/Office of COPS Hirings. yJane Doge,202/000=0000 jatie.doe@usdoj.gov el Community Program Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Health & Human Drug-Free John Doe, 202/000-0000;john.doe@hhs.gov Services/ Communities Substance Abuse Mentoring and Mental Health Program/ North Services County Youth Administration Mentoring Program Each applicant should include the table as a separate attachment to its application. The file should be named "Disclosure of Pending Applications." The applicant Legal Name on the application must match the entity named on the disclosure of pending applications statement. Any applicant that does not have any pending applications as described above is to submit, as a separate attachment, a statement to this effect: "[Applicant Name on SF- 424] does not have (and is not proposed as a subrecipient under) any pending applications submitted within the last 12 months for federally funded grants or cooperative agreements (or for subawards under federal grants or cooperative agreements) that request funding to support the same project being proposed in this application to OJP and that would cover identical cost items outlined in the budget submitted as part of this application." c. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (if applicable) If an application involves research (including research and development) and/or evaluation, the applicant must demonstrate research/evaluation independence and integrity, including appropriate safeguards, before it may receive award funds. The applicant must demonstrate independence and integrity regarding both this proposed research and/or evaluation, and any current or prior related projects. Each application should include an attachment that addresses both i. and ii. below. i. For purposes of this solicitation, each applicant is to document research and evaluation independence and integrity by including one of the following two items: a. A specific assurance that the applicant has reviewed its application to identify any actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (including through review of pertinent information on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any subrecipients), and that the applicant has identified no such conflicts of interest—whether personal or financial or organizational (including on the part of the applicant entity or on the part of staff, investigators, or subrecipients)—that could affect the 29 BJA-2018-13626 independence or integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, and reporting of the research. OR b. A specific description of actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest that the applicant has identified—including through review of pertinent information on the principal investigator, any co-principal investigators, and any subrecipients—that could affect the independence or integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, or reporting of the research. These conflicts may be personal (e.g., on the part of investigators or other staff), financial, or organizational (related to the applicant or any subrecipient entity). Some examples of potential investigator (or other personal) conflict situations are those in which an investigator would be in a position to evaluate a spouse's work product (actual conflict), or an investigator would be in a position to evaluate the work of a former or current colleague (potential apparent conflict). With regard to potential organizational conflicts of interest, as one example, generally an organization would not be given an award to evaluate a project, if that organization had itself provided substantial prior technical assistance to that specific project or a location implementing the project (whether funded by OJP or other sources), because the organization in such an instance might appear to be evaluating the effectiveness of its own prior work. The key is whether a reasonable person understanding all of the facts would be able to have confidence that the results of any research or evaluation project are objective and reliable. Any outside personal or financial interest that casts doubt on that objectivity and reliability of an evaluation or research product is a problem and must be disclosed. ii. In addition, for purposes of this solicitation, each applicant is to address possible mitigation of research integrity concerns by including, at a minimum, one of the following two items: a. If an applicant reasonably believes that no actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) exist, then the applicant should provide a brief narrative explanation of how and why it reached that conclusion. The applicant also is to include an explanation of the specific processes and procedures that the applicant has in place, or will put in place, to identify and prevent (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such conflicts of interest pertinent to the funded project during the period of performance. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard may include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed. OR b. If the applicant has identified actual or potential apparent conflicts of interest (personal, financial, or organizational) that could affect the independence and integrity of the research, including the design, conduct, 30 BJA-2018-13626 or reporting of the research, the applicant is to provide a specific and robust mitigation plan to address each of those conflicts. At a minimum, the applicant is expected to explain the specific processes and procedures that the applicant has in place, or will put in place, to identify and eliminate (or, at the very least, mitigate) any such conflicts of interest pertinent to the funded project during the period of performance. Documentation that may be helpful in this regard may include organizational codes of ethics/conduct and policies regarding organizational, personal, and financial conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee that the plan, if any, will be accepted as proposed. OJP will assess research and evaluation independence and integrity based on considerations such as the adequacy of the applicant's efforts to identify factors that could affect the objectivity or integrity of the proposed staff andlor the applicant entity (and any subrecipients) in carrying out the research, development, or evaluation activity; and the adequacy of the applicant's existing or proposed remedies to control any such factors. d. Local Governing Body Review Applicants must submit information via the Certification and Assurances by the Chief Executive (See Appendix A) which documents that the JAG application was made available for review by the governing body of the unit of local government, or by an organization designated by that governing body, for a period that was not fess than 30 days before the application was submitted to BJA. The same Chief Executive Certification will also specify that an opportunity to comment on this application was provided to citizens prior to the application submission to the extent applicable law or established procedures make such opportunity available. In the past, this has been accomplished via submission of specific review dates; now, OJP will only accept a chief executive's certification to attest to these facts. Units of local government may continue to submit actual dates of review, should they wish to do so, in addition to the submission of the Chief Executive Certification. How to Apply An applicant must submit its application through the Grants Manaoemerit System (GMS), which provides support for the application, award, and management of awards at OJP_ Each applicant entity must register in GMS for each specific funding opportunity and should register promptly to meet the GMS registration deadline for this funding opportunity, especially if this is the first time the applicant is using the system, Find complete instructions on how to register and submit an application in GMS at wr,w ojp.riovlgmscbtf. An applicant that experiences technical difficulties during this process should email GivIS.HelpDesk(ctusda1_gou or call 8813-549-99011 (option 3), available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including on federal holidays. OJP recommends that each applicant register promptly to prevent delays in submitting an application package by the deadline. Note en File Types: GMS does not accept executable file types as application attachments. These disallowed tile types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: ".corn," ".bat,'' °'_exe " ''.vbs," ".cfg," " dat," " dbf," " ' ini " ".log " ° ora,"" sys," and "zip," GMS may reject applications with files that use these extensions. It is important to allow time to change the type of filets) if the application is rejected. 31 B]A-2018-13626 Unique Entity Identifier(DUNS Number) and System for Award Management (SAM) Every applicant entity must comply with all applicable System for Award Management (SAM) and unique entity identifier(currently, a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS] number) requirements. SAM is the repository for certain standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit identification number provided by the commercial company Dun and Bradstreet. More detailed information about SAM and the DUNS number is in the numbered sections below. if an applicant entity has not fully complied with the applicable SAM and unique identifier requirements by the time OJP makes award decisions, OJP may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and nay use that determination as a basis for making the award to a different applicant.. If the applicant entity already has an Employer Identification Number(EIN), the SAM registration will take up to two weeks to process. If the entity does not have an EIN, then the applicant should allow two to five weeks for obtaining the Information from IRS when requesting the EIN via phone, fax, mail or Internet. For more information about EIN, visit https:f/w nnr.irs-gorr individuals,international-taxpayersftaxpaver-identification numbers-tin. Registration and Submission Steps All applicants should complete the following steps: 1. Acquire a unique entity identifier (DUNS number). In general, the Office of Management and Budget requires every applicant for a federal award (other than an individual) to include a "unique entity identifier°" in each application, including an application for a supplemental award. Currently, a DUNS number is the required unique entity identifier. This unique entity identifier is used for tracking purposes, and to validate address and point of contact information for applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. It will be used throughout the life cycle of an OJP award. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Call Dun and Bradstreet at 868-705-5711 to obtain a DUNS number or apply online at www.dnb.coml. A DUNS number is usually received within 2 business days, 2. Acquire or maintain registration with SAM. Any applicant for an OJP award creating a new entity registration (or updating or renewing a registration) in SAM.gcv must submit an original, signed notarized letter appointing the authorized Entity Administrator within thirty (30) days of the registration activation. Notarized letters must be submitted via U.S. Postal Service Mail. Read the Alert at www.sarn.gov to learn more about what is required in the notarized letter, and read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs1 at www.gsa.govisamupd_ate to learn more about this process change. All applicants for OJP awards (other than individuals) must maintain current registrations in the SAM database_ Applicants will need the authorizing official of the organization and an Employer Identification Number (EIN)_ Information about SAM registration procedures can be accessed at https:llw►nrw.sam.gov/. 3. Acquire a GMS username aind password. New users must create a GMS profile by selecting the "First Time User" link under the sign-in box of the GMS home page. For more information on hew to register in OMS, go to v5www,oje.gavlgmscbt. Previously registered BJA-2018-13626 applicants should ensure, prior to applying, that the user profile information is up-to-date in GMS (including. but not limited to, address, legal name of agency and authorized representative) as this information is populated in any new application_ 4. Verify the SAM (formerly CCR) registration in GMS. OJP requires each applicant to verify its SAM registration in GMS. Once logged into GMS, click the "OCR Claim' link on the left side of the default screen. Click the submit button to verify the SAM (formerly CCR) registration, 5. Search for the funding opportunity on GMS. After logging into GMS or completing the GMS profile for username and password. go to the "Funding Opportunities" link on the left side of the page. Select "BJA' and 'FYI B Edward Byrne Memorial Local Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program.,, S. Register by selecting the "Apply Online" button associated with the funding opportunity title. The search results from step 5 will display the "funding opportunity" (solicitation)title along with the registration and application deadlines for this solicitation. Select the "Apply Online" button in the 'Action" column to register for this solicitation and create an application in the system. 7. Follow the directions in GMS to submit an application consistent with this solicitation. Once the application is submitted, GMS will display a confirmation screen stating the submission was successful. Important: In some instances, applicants must wait for GMS approval before submitting an application. OJP urges each applicant to submit its application at least 72 hours prior to the application due date. Note: Aaplication Versions If an applicant submits multiple versions of the same application, OJP will review only the most recent system-validated version submitted. Experiencing Unforeseen GMS Technical Issues An applicant that experiences unforeseen QMS technical issues beyond its control that prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline may contact the GMS Help Desk or the SAM Help Dock (Federal Service Desk) at https:llwww.fsd.iovifsd-gpvlhorne.do to report the technical issue and receive a tracking number. The applicant must email the NCJRS Response Center identified in the Contact Information section on the title page within 24 hours after the application deadline to request approval to submit its application after the deadline. The applicant's email must describe the technical difficulties, and must include a timeline of the applicant's submission efforts, the complete grant application, the applicant's DIJNS number, and any GMS Help Desk or SAM tracking number(s). Note: OJP does not automatically approve requests to submit a late application. After OJP reviews the applicant's request, and contacts.the GMS Help Desk to verify the reported technical issues, OJP will inform the applicant whether the request to submit a late application has been approved or denied_ If OJP determines that the untimely application submission was due to the applicants failure to fellow all required procedures, OJP will deny the applicant's request to submit its application. 33 BJA-2018-13626 The following conditions generally are insufficient to justify late submissions to OJP solicitations: • Failure to register in SAM or GMS in sufficient time (SAM registration and renewal can take as long as 10 business days to complete.) • Failure to follow GMS instructions on how to register and apply as posted on the GMS website • Failure to follow each instruction in the OJP solicitation • Technical issues with the applicant's computer or information technology environment such as issues with firewalls E. Application Review Information Review Process OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for making awards. BJA reviews the application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation. BJA will also review applications to help ensure that JAG program-statute requirements have been met. Pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by applicants. Among other things, to help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award. In addition, if OJP anticipates that an award will exceed $150,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and consider any information about the applicant that appears in the non-public segment of the integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System; "FAPIIS"). Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any information about itself that currently appears in FAPIIS and was entered by a federal awarding agency. OJP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant. The evaluation of risks goes beyond information in SAM, however. OJP itself has in place a framework for evaluating risks posed by applicants. OJP takes into account information pertinent to matters such as: (1) Applicant financial stability and fiscal integrity (2) Quality of the management systems of the applicant, and the applicant's ability to meet prescribed management standards, including those outlined in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide (3) Applicant's history of performance under OJP and other DOJ awards (including compliance with reporting requirements and award conditions), as well as awards from other federal agencies (4) Reports and findings from audits of the applicant, including audits under the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements (5) Applicant's ability to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements, and to effectively implement other award requirements 34 BJA-2018-13626 Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, the Assistant Attorney General will make all final award decisions. F. Federal Award Administration Information Federal Award Notices Award notifications are expected to be made by September 30, 2011 MP sends award notifications by email through GMS to the individuals listed in the application as the point of contact and the authorizing official. The email notification includes detailed instructions on how to access and view the award documents, and steps to take in GMS to start the award acceptance process. GMS automatically issues the notifications at 9:00 p,m. eastern time on the award date. NOTE: In order to validly accept en award under the FY 2018 JAG Program, a unit of local government (other than an Indian tribal government) must submit to GMS the certification by its chief legal officer regarding compliance with certain federal laws, executed using the forms that appear in appendices B and C. (The forms also may be downloaded at https:llo .goylfunding/Exolore/SampleCertifications-8USC1373.htm.) Unless the executed certifications either (1) are submitted to OJP together with the signed award document or (2) are uploaded in GMS no later than the day the signed award document is submitted, OJP will reject as invalid any submission by a unit of local government(other than an Indian tribal government)that purports to accept an award under this solicitation. Rejection of an initial submission as an invalid award acceptance is not a denial of the award. Consistent with award requirements, once the unit of local government does submit the necessary certification regarding compliance with certain federal laws, the unit of local government will lie permitted to submit an award document executed by the unit of local government on or after the date of those certifications. Also, in order for an applicant validly to accept an award under the FY 2018 JAG program, an individual with the necessary authority to bind the applicant will be required to log in; execute a set of legal certifications and a set of legal assurances; designate a financial point of contact; thoroughly review the award, including all award conditions: and sign and accept the award_ The award acceptance process requires physical signature of the award document by the authorized representative and the scanning of the fully-executed award document (along with the required certifications regarding compliance with certain federal laws, if not already uploaded in GMS) to OJP. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements; Award Conditions If selected for funding, in addition to implementing the funded project consistent with the OJP- approved application, the recipient must comply with award conditions, as well as all applicable requirements of federal statutes and regulations (including applicable requirements referred to in the assurances and certificatioes executed at the time of award acceptance), OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application. Applicants should consult the 'Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Gr nth and Coceerative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards,"available in the OJP Funding Resource Center at https:lloip.yovlfundirtqL33ade.x.htm. In addition, applicants should examine the 35 B3A-2018-13626 following two legal documents, as each successful applicant must execute both documents in GMS before it may receive any award funds. (An applicant is not required to submit these documents as part of an application.) • Certifications Regardinc Loblayinu, Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements • Certified Standard Assurances The web pages accessible through the "Overview of Leal Requirements Generally Applicable to CUP Grants and Cooperative Acreements - FY 2018 Awards" are intended to give applicants for OJP awards a general overview of important statutes, regulations, and award conditions that apply to many (or in same cases, all) MP grants and cooperative agreements awarded in FY 2018. Individual OJP awards typically also will include additional award conditions. Those additional conditions may relate to the particular statute, program, or solicitation under which the award is made; to the substance of the funded application; to the recipient's performance under other federal awards; to the recipient's legal status (e,g,, as a for-profit entity); or to other pertinent considerations, Individual FY 2018 awards made pursuant to this solicitation will, as appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, include conditions that will require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to do various things, with respect to the "program or activity` that would receive federal financiar assistance thereunder. Although the specific terms of each of those conditions are what will govern the awards, included among such conditions will be some that, generally speaking, will require the recipient (and any subrecipient) that accepts the award to do some or all of the following: • Not to violate 8 L.I,S.C. § 1373 (prohibiting restrictions on— (1) communication to/from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") of information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual; and (2) maintaining, or exchanging with any government entity, information regarding the immigration status of any individual). • Not to violate 8 U.S.C. § 1644 (prohibiting restrictions on communication toffrom OHS of information regarding the immigration status of an alien). • Not to violate, or aid or abet any violation of, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) (forbidding any "person," in "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has came to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law," to "conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" or to `engage in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts ... "or aid or abet the commission of any of the preceding acts''), • Not to impede the exercise of the authority of the federal government under 8 U.S.C. § 1206(a) & (c) (authorizing arrest and detention of certain aliens and providing that the federal government "shall take into custody" certain criminal aliens "when the alien is released') and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4) (relating to removal from the United States of aliens after detention/oonfinerrient at the federal, state, and local level), specifically by requiring such recipients to provide (where feasible) at least 48 hours' advance notice to DHS regarding the 36 BA-20t8-13626 scheduled release date and time of an alien in the recipient's custody when DHS requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. + Not to impede the exercise by DHS agents, "'anywhere in or outside the United States" (8 C.F.R. § 287.5(a)(1)), of their authority under 8 U.S.G. § 1357(a)(1) to "interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States,' specifically by requiring such recipients to permit ems agents to have access to any correctional facility in order to meet with an alien (or en individual believed to be an alien) and inquire as to his right to be or remain in the United States. The reasonable costs (to the extent not reimbursed under any other federal program) of complying with these conditions, including honoring any duly authorized requests from DHS that is encompassed by these conditions, will be allowable costs under the award, General Information about Post-federal Award Reporting Requirements In addition to the deliverables described in Section A. Program Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the following reports and data. Required reports, Recipients typically must submit quarterly financial status reports, semi- annual progress reports, final financial and progress reports, and, if applicable, an annual audit report in accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions. Future awards and fund drawdowns may be withheld it reports are delinquent. (In appropriate cases, OJP may require additional reports.) Awards that exceed $500000 will include anadditional condition that, under specific circumstances, will require the recipient to report (to FAPIIS) information on civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings connected with (or connected to the performance of) either the OJP award or any other grant, cooperative agreement, or procurement contract from the federal government. Additional information on this reporting requirement appears in the text of the award condition posted on the OJP website at: htps:lfoip_govlfundina1FAPIIS,htm, Data on performance measures. In addition to required reports, each award recipient also must provide data that measure the results of the work done under the award. To demonstrate program progress and success, as well as to assist DOJ with fulfilling its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-352, OJP will require any award recipient, post award, to provide accountability metrics data as part of regular progress reporting. Accountability metrics data must be submitted through 8JA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT), available at https:fibjaarnt.ojp,gov. The accountability measures are available at: haps-flbiaomt_ojo.govlhelpliacidocs..html, (Note: if a law enforcement agency receives JAG funds from a state, the state must submit quarterly accountability metrics data related to training that officers have received on use of force, racial and ethnic bias, de-escalation of conflict, and constructive engagement with the public.) Successful applicants will be required to access DJP's performance measurement page at www.eLo.ciovlgerformance for an overview of performance measurement activities at OJP OJP may restrict access to award funds if a recipient of an OJP award fails to report the required accountability metrics data in a timely manner. 37 BJA-2018-13625 G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) For OJP contact(s), see the title page. For contact information for GMS, see the title page. ft Other Information Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 and 5 U.S.C. § 552a) All applications submitted to OJP (including all attachments to applications) are subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and to the Privacy Act. By law, DOJ may withhold information that is responsive to a request pursuant to FOIA if DOJ determines that the responsive information either is protected under the Privacy Act or falis within the scope of one of nine statutory exemptions under POI, , DOJ cannot agree in advance of a request pursuant to FOIA not to release some or all portions of an application. In its review of records that are responsive to a FOIA request, 0.1P will withhold information in those records that plainly falls within the scope of the Privacy Act or one of the statutory exemptions under FOIA. (Some examples include certain types of information in budgets, and names and contact information for project staff other than certain key personnel.) In appropriate circumstances, OJP will request the views of the applicant/recipient that submitted a responsive document. For example, if OJFr receives a request pursuant to FOIA for an application submitted by a nonprofit or for-profit organization or an institution of higher education, or for an application that involves research, OJF typically will contact the applicantlrecipient that submitted the application and ask It to identify—quite precisely—any particular information in the application that applicantfrecipient believes falls under a FOIA exemption, the specific exemption it believes applies, and why. Alter considering the submission by the applicant/recipient, OJP makes an independent assessment regarding withholding information. OJP generally follows a similar process for requests pursuant to FOIA for applications that may contain law-enforcement sensitive information. Provide Feedback to OJP To assist OJP in improving its application and award processes, t3JP encourages applicants to provide feedback on this solicitation, the application submission process, andfor the application review process. Provide feedback to OJP$olicitatiionFeedback usdor.gov. IMPORTANT: This email is for feedback and suggestions only. OP does not reply to messages it receives in this mailbox. A prospective applicant that has specific questions on any program or technical aspect of the solicitation must use the appropriate telephone number or email listed an the front of this solicitation document to obtain information. These contacts are provided to help ensure that prospective applicants can directly reach an individual who can address specific questions in a timely manner. If you are interested in being a reviewer for other DJP grant applications, please email your resume to aipprsupporf usdol qov. (Do not send your résumé to the OJP Solicitation Feedback email account.) Note: Neither you nor anyone else from your organization or entity can he a 38 DJA 2018-13626 peer reviewer in a competition in which you or your organization/entity has submitted an application. 39 BJA-2018-13626 Appendix A Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government Template for use by chief executive of the unit of local government (e.g., the mayor) Visit httos:/Joit .00vffundinclt;xuaorel ampleCertifications-BU C1373.htm to download the most up-to-date version. Note: By law, for purposes of the JAG Program, the term "unit of local government " includes a town, township, village, parish, city, county, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of a state, or, it niay be a federally recognized Indian tribal government that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior). A unit of local government may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes; for example, in Louisiana, a unit of local government means a district attorney or parish sherirff, 44 BJA-2018-1362 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program FY 2018 Local Solicitation Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Gaverement On behalf of the applicant unit of local government named below,in support of that locality's application for an award under the FY 2018 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant("JAG")Program,and further to 34 U.S.C. §10153(a), I certify under penalty cf perjury to the Grtice or Justice Programs ("OJP'),U.S. Department of Justice("US®OJ"),that all of the following are true and comet: 1. I am the chief executive Of the applicant unit of local government named below,and I nave the euthonly to make the following representations nn my own behalf and on behalf of the applicant unit of local government. undorctand that these representations will be relied upon as material in any OJP decision to make an award, under the application described above,to the applicant unit of local government. 2. I certify that no Federal funds made available lay the award(ir any)that CUP makes based on the application described above will be used to supplant focal funds, but will be used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, In the abseno v Of federal Funds, be made available for law enforcement activitlei*, Z. I assure that the application described above(and any amendment to that application)was submitted for review to the governing body of the unit of local government(er.g.,oily council or county cam rnisaien),or to an organeation designated by that governing body, not less than 30 days before the date of thlscertification. 4, 1 assure that, before the date of Lhis certificatio (a)the appliaaticn described above(and any amendment to that appiioatlpn)was made public,and(b) an opportunity to comment ort that applioatlon(or amendment)was provided to citizens end to neighborhood or community-based organizations,to the extent applicable law or established procedure made such an opportunity eve iieble. 5, I assure that,for each fiscal year cite award(if any)that OJP makes based on the application described above,the applicant unit of local government will maintain and report such data,records, and Information (programmatic and financial),as DJP may reasor ably requie 6. I certify that—(a)the programs to be funded by the award(Deny)that OJP makes based on the application described above meet all the requirements of the JAG Program statute(34 U.S.C. §§10151-1015e); (b)all the Information contained in that application is correct;(c) In connection with that application,there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies,and{d)in conriectioriwilh that award Veiny), the applicant unit of twat government will comply with ail provisions of the JAG Program statute and alt other applicable federal laws. 7. I have examined oerlificati©n entitled"Stale or Lural Gavernment: FY 2018 Certification of Compliancewith U.S.O. 3§1373&1644 executed by the chief legal officer of the applicant government with respect to the FY 2018 JAG program and submitted in support of the application described above, and I hereby adopt that certification as my awn on behalf of that gevernment (This provision is riot applicable to Indian tribal government applicants.) 8. ! have examined certificatiurr entitled"State or Local Government:FY 2018 Certification Relate@ to 0 U.S.C. §§1226(a)8,(o).12310)(4), 1367(a),&1366(11)&(Sy'executed by the chief legal officer of the applicant government with respect to the FY 2018 JAG program and eubmitted In support of the application described above,and I hereby adopt that certification as my own en behalf cf that government (This provlsiun is nut applicebletoIndian tribal gavernrnentaI ieertit's.) I acknowledge that a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement(cr concealment or omission of a material fact) in this certification, or in the application that itsupperts, may be the subject of criminal prosecution Occluding under 15 U.S.C. §§1001 arrdfor 1621,andl'ar 34 U.S.C.§§10271-10273),and area may subject me and the applicant unit of local government to civil penalties and administrative remedies for[oleo e1 rrie or otherwise(including under 31 U.S.C.663729-3730 and§§3801-3612). I also acknowledge that OJP awards, including certifications provided in connection with such awards,are subject to review by US0CJ, including by OJP and by the USDOJ Office of the Inspector General, digrrature of Chief Executive of the Applicant Unit or Cate of Certification Local Government Printed Marne of Chief Executive Title of Chief Executive Name of Applicant Unit of Local Gcvernmernt 41 B)A-2018-13526 Appendix B State or Local Government: Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 Template for use by the chief legal officer of the unit of local government (e.g., the city attorney) Visit htkps:/ioip.dovlfundinWWExoloreiSampleCertifications-8t1SC1373.htm to down Load the most up-to-date version. Note: This Certification is not required by Indian tribal government applicants. 42 BJA-2018-13626 U.S. DEPAITAAENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Local Government: FY 2018 Certification of Compliance with S U.S.C. §§ 1373 8. 1544 C]n behalf of the applicant government entity named below,and in support of its application, I certify under penalty of perjury to the Office of Justice Programs(-OJF'l,{1_S_ Department of Justice("UED3J'),that all of the following are true and correct: (1) I am the chief legal officer of the State or local government of Which the applicant entity named below is a part(the jurisdiction"),and I have the authority to make this certlfrca.tion on behalf of the jurisdiction and the applicant entity,that is,the entity applying directly to OP). I understand that OJP will rely upon this cortifieotion as a material representation in any decision to make an award to the applicant entity. (2) I have carefully reviewed 8 U.S.C.§§1373(a)&(b),and 1844,Including the prohibitions on certain actions by State and local government entities,-agencies,and-officials regarding information on citizenship and immigration status. I also have reviewed the provisions set out at(or referenced in)8 U.S.C.§1551 note("Abolition .,. and Transfer of Functions`),pursuantto which references to the"Immigration and Naturalization Service"In 8 U.S.O. §§1378&1644 are to be read, as a legal matter,as references to particular components of the U.S.Department of Homeland Security. (3) 1(and also the applicant entity) understand that the U.S. Department of Justice will require States and local governments(and agencies or other entities thereof)to comply with 8 U_S_C. §§1373&1644,with respectto any "program or activity"funded In whole or in part with the federal fir ancial assistance provided through the FY 2018 OJP program under which this colification is being submitted(the"FY 2018 OJla Program"identified aelovu),specifically Including any such"program or activity'of a governmental entity or-agency that is a subrecipient(at any tier)of funds under the FY 2018 OJP Program, (4) 1 (and also the applicant entity)understand that,for purposes of this certification,"program or activity"means what it means under#its VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(see 42 U,S.c.§2000d-4a),and that terms used in this c$rtitication that are defined In 8 U.S.C.§ 1101 mean What they mean under that section 1101,except that the term"State"also shall include American Samoa(cf. 34 U.S.D.§l0251(a)(2)t). Also.I understand that, for purposes of this certification, neither a"'pm bile"institution of higher education(1,e.,one that is owned, controlled,or dirtly funded by a Stem or local government)nor art Indian tribe Is considered a State or local government entity or-agency. (8) I have conducted(or caused to be conducted for me)a diligent inquiry and review soncerning both— (a) the"program or activity"to be funded (in whole or in part)with the federal financial assistance sought by the applicant entity under this FY 2018 OJP Pray rum',and (b) any prohibitions or restrictions potentially applicable to the"program or activity"sought to be funded under the FY 2418 CLIP Program that deal with sending to,requesting or receiving from, maintaining,or exchanging information of the types described in 8 U.S.O. §§1373{a}&(b),end 1844,whether imposed by a State or local government entity, ,agency,or-official. (8) As of the date of this certification,neither the jurisdiction nor any entity,agency, or official of the jurisdiction has in effect,purports to have in effect,or Is subject to or bound by,any prohibition or any restriction that would apply to the"program er activity'to be funded in whole or In part under the FY 2018 OJP Program(which,for the specific purpose of this paragraph 6,shall not be understood to include any such "program or activity'of any subreciplent at any tier),and that deals wrath either—(1)a government entity or -official sending or receiving information regarding citizenship or immigration status as described In 0 U.S.c.§§1373(a) &1444;or(2)a gotirerriment entity or-agency sending to.requesting or receiving from. maintaining,or exchanging information of the types(and with respect to the entities)described in 8 U.S.O. §1373(b). I acknowledge that a materiallyfaise,fictitious,or fraudulent statement(or concealment or omissive ea material fact) in this certit'Ication,or in the application Oat t supports,may be the subject of criminal prosecution Including under 10 U.S.C. §§1C01 and/or 1621,and/or 34 U.S.C.§10271-10273),and also may subject me and the applicant entity to evil penalties and administrative remedies for false d ims or otherwise(including under 31 U.S.0_§§3720.3730 and§§3801-3812)_I also acknowledge that OJP awards,including certifications provided in connection with such awards,are subject to review by USDOJ, Including by OJP end by the USDOJ Office of the Inspector General. Slonature of Chief Legal Officer of the Jurfsdiction Printed Name of Chief LegalOfficer er Date of Certification Title of Chief Legal Officer of the Jurisdiction Name of Applicant Government Entity(r.e.,the applicant t0 the FY 2018 OJP Program Identified below) FY 2.018 01P Program: erne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG} Program: Local 43 B]A-2011 -13626 Appendix C State or Local Government: Certification of Compliance with R U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) & (c), 1231{a)(4), 1324(a), 1357(a), and 1366(1) & (3) Template for use by chief legal officer of the unit of local government (e.g., the city attorney) Visit https:f1oip.govifundino/Explore/SampleCertifications-8USC1373.htm to download the most up-to-date version, Note; This Certification is not required by Indian tribal government applicants. 44 B]A-2018-13625 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE QFF[Q OF JLSTicFPRO®RAnis Lacer Government: FY 2013 Certifrcaticn Relating tirti 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)&(c), 1231(a}(4), 1324.(3), 1357(a), & 1366(1)& (3) On behalf of lie applicant government entity named below. and in support of its applination,I wilily under penalty of perjury to tl°re Office of Justice Programs("OJP), U.S.Department of Justice("USDCJ),that ail of the bllcwing we true end comet 1. I am the civet legal dhow of the unit of local government df which the applicant entity named be'dw ie a part("the jurisdiction"),and t have this authority?W make this certiFica,tKin en be47a[F of the jurisdiction and the applicant entity(that is,the entity applying directly lc OJP). I understand that OJl'will rely upon this certification as a material representation in any decision to make an award to the applicant entity. 2_ I have carefully reviewed each of the Following sections of title 8.United Slates Code a. §1226(e)&(c)(authorizing arrest and detention of Certain aliens and providing that the federal government'shall take into custody' oertaet Criminal alierts'when the alien isrtdtassecr): b. g 1231(eJ(41 iredereigavernrnent May not'remove en alien who is sentenced to Imprisonment until the alien Is released from imprisonment): o. c- §1324(a)(forbidding any"person,'6n'knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has coma to,entered,or remaiis in the United States in violation of law,"to"kxncealp,harbcrp,or eniek1n from detection,or attempl[J to conceal,harhar,or shield from deledion,such alien in any place,including any building or any means of transportation"or tss'engage In any conspiracy to commit ane of the preceding ads . or aids or abetlj the commission of any of the preceding ads"); d. §1357(s)(authorizing immigration officers,-anywhere In or autistic the United States'(see 8C.F.R.§287.5(a)),to"Interrogate any alien or person believed to be en alien esto his right to be or to remain in the United Stalea'J;and a. §1366(1)&(3)(requiring the Attorney General annually to submit to Congress'a report detailing... (1)the number of illegal aiens incarcerated fn Federal and State prisons for having committed felonies.stating the number incarcerated for each type of offense; (and](S)pregram.e and pltins underway iii rhe Department of Justice to ensure the prompt removal from the United States of crl mina!aliens subject to removal'). 3. I and also the applicant entity)understand that USat7J will require States and local governments(including Slate and local government entities, -agencies,end-ofllclals),with respect to any"program or activity'funded in whole or In part with thefederal financial assistance provided through the FY 2418 DJP program under which this certification is being submitted(the'FY 2018 CLIP Program' identified below),specifically including err/each"program or activity"of a governmental entityur-agency that is sobreclplent(at any tier) of funds under the FY 2018 OJP Progrern,not inviolate,or to aid or abet any violation of,B U.5_C.§1324(a),and not to itipede the exorcise by federal officers of authority under 8 U.S.C.§1 357(e)or relating to b U.S.C.§1566{1}ik(3)or B U.S.C.§1228{4.)&(c).. 4, I(and also the applicant entity)r.ndersland that,for purposes or this i:ertificclior1,"prtflgrarri or activ'ty'means what it means under title VI or the Civil Rights Act of 1984(see 42 U.S.C.§2000d-4a),and oral terms user.'in this certification the:are defined In.t3 U.S.C.§1101 mean What they mean under that section 1161,except that the term'State also shall include American Salsa(of 34 U.S.C. §10251(a)(2)). Also,I understand that.For puri uses of this certrrvation,neither a"public'drtslilution of higher education(Ca,one tfiat is owned,centrolted,or directly funded by a State or local government)nor en Indian kik is considered a Slate or local government entity of -agency. 5. I have conducted(or caused to be conducted for me]a diligent inquiry and review concerning both— a. the'program or activity'le be funded(in whole or in part)with the federal financial assistance sought by the applicant entity under this FY 2018 OJP Prov rani;and b. any Iavrs, rules,policies,or practices potentially applicable to the"program or activity'sought to be funded under the FY 41,()JP Program that Implicate any of the requirements relating to 8 U,S.C,§g 1225(a)4 fo), 1324(2). 1357(a),&13619(1)of(s]Mal era described In11301 this certification whether imposed bye State or local government entity.-agency.or-officiak d. As of the date of this certification,neither the jurisdiction nor any entity,agency,or official of the jurisdiction has in effect,purports to have in effect,or la subject to or bound by,any law,rule,policy,or practice that would apply to the'program or activity'"to be dundsnd in whale or in part under the FY 2018 CJF Prugrarn(whim,for the spedtte purpose of tnrs paragraph 6,shall not be understood to include any such"program or activity'of any subrecipient at any tier],and that would or does—(1)violate,or aid or abet any violation of.8 U.S C. §1324(a),(2)impede the exercise by federal officers of authority under t.U.S.C.§1357(a); (`3}impede the exercise by federal olii;eis of authority relating to B U.S.C,§1166(1)&(3];or(d)impede the exercise by federal nflicrs of authority relating to 8 LIS_C_§12.28(a)&(o) t acknowledge that a materially false,fictitious,or fraudulent statement(or concealment or omission of a materiel fact)In this certification,or in the application that it supports,may be the subject of criminal prosecution(including under 18 U,b.t1,§§1001 endlor 1021,andkr 34 U.S.G. §§10771.10273),arid also may subject me and the applicant entity to civil penalties Rind administrative remedies for false c[aimsor otherwise (including under 31 U.S.C,§§3729-373D and§g 3001.3412). I a!soacknowledge that O,1P awards,including associated certrllca6ons,are subject to review by USD0J,including by OJP and the US DOJ Office of the inspector General. Sigr'ratUre of Chief Legal Officer Of the Jurisdiction Printed Name of Chief teal Officer Date of Certification Title of Chief Legal Officer of theJrarfedtc1lnl) Name of App'icant G ernmertit Entity(le.,the applicant to the FY 2010 JJP Prc+grarn identified below FY 2018 OUP Prograrn: Burne Justice A;isistance Grant(JAG}Program:Local 45 B3A-2018-13626 Appendix D Certain relevant federal laws, as in effect on June 7, 2018 8 U.S.C. § 1373 Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information. 8 U.S.C. § 1644 Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) & (c) Apprehension and detention of aliens (a) Arrest, detention, and release On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General-- 46 BJA-2018-13626 (1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and (2) may release the alien on-- (A) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and containing conditions prescribed by, the Attorney General; or (B) conditional parole; but (3) may not provide the alien with work authorization (including an "employment authorized" endorsement or other appropriate work permit), unless the alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise would (without regard to removal proceedings) be provided such authorization. *** (c) Detention of criminal aliens (1) Custody The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who-- (A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title, (B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title, (C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentence1 to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or (D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title, when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense. (2) Release The Attorney General may release an alien described in paragraph (1) only if the Attorney General decides pursuant to section 3521 of Title 18 that release of the alien from custody is necessary to provide protection to a witness, a potential witness, a person cooperating with an investigation into major criminal activity, or an immediate family member or close associate of a witness, potential witness, or person cooperating with such an investigation, and the alien satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding. A decision relating to such release shall take place in accordance with a procedure that considers the severity of the offense committed by the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4) (a) Detention, release, and removal of aliens ordered removed *** 4) Aliens imprisoned, arrested, or on parole, supervised release, or probation (A) In general Except as provided in section 259(a) of title 42 and paragraph (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from imprisonment. Parole, supervised release, probation, or possibility of arrest or further imprisonment is not a reason to defer removal. 47 BJA-2018-13626 (B) Exception for removal of nonviolent offenders prior to completion of sentence of imprisonment The Attorney General is authorized to remove an alien in accordance with applicable procedures under this chapter before the alien has completed a sentence of imprisonment- s. in the case of an alien in the custody of the Attorney General, if the Attorney General determines that (I) the alien is confined pursuant to a final conviction for a nonviolent offense (other than an offense related to smuggling or harboring of aliens or an offense described in section 1101(a)(43)(B), (C), (E), (I), or (L) of this title and (II) the removal of the alien is appropriate and in the best interest of the United States; or ii. in the case of an alien in the custody of a State (or a political subdivision of a State), if the chief State official exercising authority with respect to the incarceration of the alien determines that (I) the alien is confined pursuant to a final conviction for a nonviolent offense (other than an offense described in section 1101(a)(43)(C) or (E) of this title), (II) the removal is appropriate and in the best interest of the State, and (III) submits a written request to the Attorney General that such alien be so removed. (C) Notice Any alien removed pursuant to this paragraph shall be notified of the penalties under the laws of the United States relating to the reentry of deported aliens, particularly the expanded penalties for aliens removed under subparagraph (B). (D) No private right No cause or claim may be asserted under this paragraph against any official of the United States or of any State to compel the release, removal, or consideration for release or removal of any alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) Bringing in and harboring certain aliens (a) Criminal penalties (1)(A) Any person who— i. knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien; ii. knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law; iii. knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; 48 BJA-2018-13626 iv. encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or v. (v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or vi. (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— I. in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; II. in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or(v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; III. in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and IV. in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both. (C) It is not a violation of clauses (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year. (2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs- (A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or (B) in the case of- (i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, (ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry, be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of 49 BJA-2018-13626 subparagraph (B)(i) or(B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years. (3)(A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. (B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who- (i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title), and (ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection. (4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if- (A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise; (B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and (C)(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or (ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) Powers of immigration officers and employees (a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant— (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; (2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States; (3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States; (4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and (5) to make arrests- (6) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or 50 BJA-2018-13626 (7) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, (8) if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest. Under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, an officer or employee of the Service may carry a firearm and may execute and serve any order, warrant, subpoena, summons, or other process issued under the authority of the United States. The authority to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) shall only be effective on and after the date on which the Attorney General publishes final regulations which (i) prescribe the categories of officers and employees of the Service who may use force (including deadly force) and the circumstances under which such force may be used, (ii) establish standards with respect to enforcement activities of the Service, (iii) require that any officer or employee of the Service is not authorized to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) unless the officer or employee has received certification as having completed a training program which covers such arrests and standards described in clause (ii), and (iv) establish an expedited, internal review process for violations of such standards, which process is consistent with standard agency procedure regarding confidentiality of matters related to internal investigations. 8 U.S.C. § 1366(1) & (3) Annual report on criminal aliens Not later than 12 months after September 30, 1996, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report detailing— (1) the number of illegal aliens incarcerated in Federal and State prisons for having committed felonies, stating the number incarcerated for each type of offense; *** (3) programs and plans underway in the Department of Justice to ensure the prompt removal from the United States of criminal aliens subject to removal; *** 51 BJA-2018-13626 Appendix E Information regarding Communication with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Each applicant must provide responses to the following questions as an attachment to the application: (1) Does your jurisdiction have any laws, policies, or practices related to whether, when, or how employees may communicate with DHS or ICE? (2) Is your jurisdiction subject to any laws from a superior political entity (e.g., a state law that binds a city) that meet the description in question 1? (3) If yes to either: • Please provide a copy of each law or policy; • Please describe each practice; and • Please explain how the law, policy, or practice complies with section 1373. Note: Responses to these questions must be provided by the applicant to BJA as part of the JAG application. Further, the requirement to provide this information applies to all tiers of JAG funding, for all subawards made to state or local government entities, including public institutions of higher education. All subrecipient responses must be collected and maintained by the direct recipient of JAG funding and must be made available to DOJ upon request. Responses to these questions are not required from subrecipients that are either a tribal government/organization, a nonprofit organization, or a private institution of higher education. 52 BJA-2018-13626 Appendix F Additional purposes for which JAG funds awarded to a state under this FY 2018 solicitation may be used: (a) To enforce state and local laws that establish offenses similar to offenses established in 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders, by means including providing additional personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for the more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of persons who violate these laws, and to assist the victims of such crimes (other than compensation), including— (1) demand-reduction education programs in which law enforcement officers participate; (2) multi-jurisdictional task-force programs that integrate federal, state, and local drug-law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors for the purpose of enhancing inter-agency co-ordination and intelligence, and facilitating multi- jurisdictional investigations; (3) programs designed to target the domestic sources of controlled and illegal substances, such as precursor chemicals, diverted pharmaceuticals, clandestine laboratories, and cannabis cultivations; (4) providing community and neighborhood programs that assist citizens in preventing and controlling crime, including special programs that address the problems of crimes committed against the elderly and special programs for rural jurisdictions; (5) disrupting illicit commerce in stolen goods and property; (6) improving the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime, organized crime, public-corruption crimes, and fraud against the government, with priority attention to cases involving drug-related official corruption; (7)(A) improving the operational effectiveness of law enforcement through the use of crime-analysis techniques, street-sales enforcement, schoolyard-violator programs, and gang-related and low-income-housing drug- control programs; and (B) developing and implementing anti-terrorism plans for deep- draft ports, international airports, and other important facilities; (8) career-criminal prosecution programs, including the development of proposed model drug-control legislation; (9) financial investigative programs that target the identification of money-laundering operations and assets obtained through illegal drug trafficking, including the development of proposed model legislation, financial investigative training, and financial information-sharing systems; (10) improving the operational effectiveness of the court process, by expanding prosecutorial, defender, and judicial resources, and implementing court-delay-reduction programs;' (11) programs designed to provide additional public correctional resources and improve the corrections system, including treatment in prisons and jails, intensive-supervision programs, and long-range corrections and sentencing strategies; (12) providing prison-industry projects designed to place inmates in a realistic working and training environment that will enable them to acquire 53 BJA-2018-13626 marketable skills and to make financial payments for restitution to their victims, for support of their own families, and for support of themselves in the institution; (13) providing programs that identify and meet the treatment needs of adult and juvenile drug-dependent and alcohol-dependent offenders; (14) developing and implementing programs that provide assistance to jurors and witnesses, and assistance (other than compensation) to victims of crimes; (15)(A)developing programs to improve drug-control technology, such as pretrial drug-testing programs, programs that provide for the identification, assessment, referral to treatment, case-management and monitoring of drug- dependent offenders, and enhancement of state and local forensic laboratories; and (B) developing programs to improve criminal justice information systems (including automated fingerprint identification systems) to assist law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and corrections organizations; (16) innovative programs that demonstrate new and different approaches to enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of drug offenses and other serious crimes; (17) addressing the problems of drug trafficking and the illegal manufacture of controlled substances in public housing; (18) improving the criminal and juvenile justice system's response to domestic and family violence, including spouse abuse, child abuse, and abuse of the elderly; (19) drug-control evaluation programs that the state and units of local government may utilize to evaluate programs and projects directed at state drug- control activities; (20) providing alternatives to prevent detention, jail, and prison for persons who pose no danger to the community; (21) programs of which the primary goal is to strengthen urban enforcement and prosecution efforts targeted at street drug sales; (22) programs for the prosecution of driving while intoxicated charges and the enforcement of other laws relating to alcohol use and the operation of motor vehicles; (23) programs that address the need for effective bindover systems for the prosecution of violent 16- and 17-year-old juveniles, in courts with jurisdiction over adults, for the crimes of— (A) murder in the first degree; (B) murder in the second degree; (C) attempted murder; (D) armed robbery when armed with a firearm; (E) aggravated battery or assault when armed with a firearm; (F) criminal sexual penetration when armed with a firearm; and (G) drive-by shootings as described 18 U.S.C. § 36; (24) law-enforcement and prevention programs relating to gangs or to youth who are involved or at risk of involvement in gangs; (25) developing or improving, in a forensic laboratory, a capability to analyze DNA for identification purposes; and (26) developing and implementing anti-terrorism training programs and procuring equipment for use by local law-enforcement authorities; and 54 BJA-2018-13626 (b) To reduce crime and improve public safety, including but not limited to, the following: (1)(A) hiring, training, and employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel; (B) paying overtime to presently-employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel; and (C) procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law-enforcement functions; (2) enhancing security measures— (A) in and around schools; and (B) in and around any other facility or location that is considered by the unit of local government to have a special risk for incidents of crime; (3) establishing crime-prevention programs that may, though not exclusively, involve law-enforcement officials and that are intended to discourage, disrupt, or interfere with the commission of criminal activity, including neighborhood-watch and citizen-patrol programs, sexual-assault and domestic- violence programs, and programs intended to prevent juvenile crime; (4) establishing or supporting drug courts; (5) establishing early-intervention and -prevention programs for juveniles, in order to reduce or eliminate crime; (6) enhancing the adjudication process of cases involving violent offenders, including violent juvenile offenders; (7) enhancing programs under(a), above; (8) establishing co-operative task forces between adjoining units of local government to work co-operatively to prevent and combat criminal activity, particularly criminal activity that is exacerbated by drug- or gang-related involvement; and (9) establishing a multi-jurisdictional task force, particularly in rural areas, composed of law-enforcement officials representing units of local government, that works with Federal law-enforcement officials to prevent and control crime. 55 BJA-2018-13626 Appendix G Application Checklist Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: FY 2018 Local Solicitation This application checklist has been created as an aid in developing an application. What an Applicant Should Do; Prior to Registering in GMS: Acquire a DUNS Number (see page 31) Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see page 32) To Register with GMS: For new users, acquire a GMS username and password* (see page 32) For existing users, check GMS username and password* to ensure account access (see page 32) Verify SAM registration in GMS (see page 32) Search for correct funding opportunity in GMS (see page 32) Select correct funding opportunity in GMS (see page 32) Register by selecting the "Apply Online" button associated with the funding opportunity title (see page 32) Read OJP policy and guidance on conference approval, planning, and reporting available at olp,govifinancialguidelDOJ/PostawardRequirementsichapter3.10a,htm (see page 17) If experiencing technical difficulties in GMS, contact the NCJRS Response Center (see pages 2 and 33) *Password Reset Notice — GMS users are reminded that while password reset capabilities exist, this function is only associated with points of contact designated within GMS at the time the account was established, Neither OJP nor the GMS Help Desk will initiate a password reset unless requested by the authorized official or a designated point of contact associated with an award or application. Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements: _ Review the "Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements - FY 2018 Awards" in the OJP Funding Resource Center at httcs.ilei i.govifund neErredex.htm. Scope Requirement: The federal amount requested is within the allowable limits) of the FY 2018 JAG Allocations List as listed on BJA'sJAG web page. Eligibility Requirement: Only units of local government may apply under this solicitation. By law, for purposes of the JAG Program, the term "'units of local government" includes a town, township, village, parish, citycounty, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of 56 BJA-2018-13626 a state; or, it may be a federally recognized Indian tribal government that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior). A unit of local government also may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes, What an Application Should Include: Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see page 19) Intergovernmental Review (see page 19) Project Identifiers (see page 19) Program Narrative (see page 20) Budget Detail Worksheet (see page 21) Budget Narrative (see page 22) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement Of applicable) (see page 25) Tribal Authorizing Resolution (if applicable) (see page 25) Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see page 26) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (if applicable) (see page 27) Certifications and Assurances by Chief Executive (see page 27) Certification of Compliance with 8 U_S.C. § 1373 by Chief Legal Officer (Note: this requirement does not apply to Indian tribal governments.) (see page 27) ClJP Certified Standard Assurances (see pages 39-44) Additional Attachments Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see page 28) Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (if applicable) (see page 29) 57 B]A-2018-13626 2018 Justice Assistance Grant Project Identifiers Spokane Valley Body Armor—Ballistic—Resist Less than Lethal Officer Safety Traffic Enforcement JAG 2018 Program Narrative for City of Spokane Valley, WA. JAG 2018 Grant Proposal The City of Spokane Valley respectfully submits this application for the 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). The City of Spokane Valley will act as fiscal agent for the JAG. This is the ninth year the City is eligible to apply as a non-disparate single jurisdiction. The City's Grant Accountant and Senior Analyst will be responsible for grant administration details as they relate to acting as fiscal agent, to include disbursement of funds and collecting and submitting financial and performance measure reports of the JAG funding. Expenditures are tracked through individual budget lines for each federal grant received. City of Spokane Valley Projects The Spokane Valley Police Department, on behalf of the City of Spokane Valley, proposes to use their allocation of JAG funds ($27,156) for the grant program areas of law enforcement. The JAG fund allocated to Spokane Valley will be used to purchase seven Tasers two ballistic shields, four lidars and radars with holsters, and ten tint meters. This equipment will enhance the ability of patrol and traffic officers to deploy non-lethal force to control situations and prevent escalation of incidents, while also allowing the traffic unit to create safer driving environments for the community. Page 1 of 1 Purpose Area#4 E.Supplies Supply Items Computation Provide a list of the types of items to be purchased with grant funds. Describe the item and the compute the costs.Computation:The number of each item to be purchased X the cast per item. #of Items Unit Cost Total Cost Non-Federal Federal Contribution Request Pro-Tech G2 Inruder Ballistic Shields 2 $2,017.72 $4,036 $4,036 Lidar and Radar Holsters 4 $284.24 $1,137 $1,137 Lidar RLR-C and Stalker Stationary Radars 4 $2,026.40 $8,106 $8,106 Tint-Chek Tint Meters 10 $101.12 $1,012 $1,012 Taser X-2 7 $1,801.97 $12,614 $12,614 Total(s) $26,905 $0 $26,905 Narrative The 2018 JAG funds will be used to enhance the City's law enforcement program by purchasing and utilizing seven Tasers holsters,two ballistic shields,four lidar and radars and holsters, and ten video tint meters at a total cost of$26,905 A competitive bidding process will be used,ensuring that the best value will be received and JAG dollars maximized. No overhead or administrative costs will be charged against the project and all funds will be used to purchase the equipment and pay for associated installation. The identified expenditures are less than the total JAG award of$27,156 but leaves additional room should costs change prior to purchase.The City will also pay for all administrative and overhead costs. All funds are expected to be expended in the current year. 5 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Approved: OMB No. 1121-0329 OFFICE OF JCTSTICE PROGRAMS Expires 11/30/2020 Background Recipients'financial management systems and internal controls must meet certain requirements, including those set out in the"Part 200 Uniform Requirements"(2.C.F.R. Part 2800). Including at a minimum, the financial management system of each OJP award recipient must provide for the following: (1)Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the CFDA title and number, Federal award identification number and year, and the name of the Federal agency. (2)Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. (3)Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for Federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest, and be supported by source documentation. (4)Effective control over, and accountability for, all funds, property, and other assets. The recipient must adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. (5)Comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each Federal award. (6)Written procedures to document the receipt and disbursement of Federal funds including procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury and the disbursement by the OJP recipient. (7)Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with both the terms and conditions of the Federal award and the cost principles to apply to the Federal award. (8)Other important requirements related to retention requirements for records, use of open and machine readable formats in records, and certain Federal rights of access to award-related records and recipient personnel. 1. Name of Organization and Address: }}������ Organization Name: O �":4 ,811 ' x Streetl: ° ' o ir_^` � ml Streetl: i.- - C ' '§. A City: ���"�4�'%���_..... �"..�_t . .w ,n ��✓"n State: O�'I ` Zip Code: M6FM. 2.Authorized Representative's Name and Title: Prefix: First Name: -& Middle Name Last Name: 4 ' o Suffix: Title:ej,67. p �_`. . . -3`-y_ ' . "'� . ... 3. Phone: i20< ',: 4.Fax 5. Email: (D eal u ob` 6.Year Established: 7. Employer Identification Number(EIN): 8. DUNS Number: 00' 9. a) Is the applicant entity a nonprofit organization (including a nonprofit institution of higher education) as described in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)and exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a)? DYes 0 No If"No"skip to Question 10. If"Yes", complete Questions 9. b)and 9. c). Page 1 of 4 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Approved:OMB No. 1121-0329 P1,= OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Expires 11/30/2020 AUDIT INFORMATION 9. b) Does the applicant nonprofit organization maintain offshore accounts for 171 yes Q No the purpose of avoiding paying the tax described in 26 U.S.C. 511(a)? 9. c)With respect to the most recent year in which the applicant nonprofit organization was required to file a tax return, does the applicant nonprofit DYes 0 No organization believe(or assert)that it satisfies the requirements of 26 C.F.R. 53.4958-6 (which relate to the reasonableness of compensation of certain individuals)? If"Yes", refer to"Additional Attachments" under"What An Application Should Include"in the OJP solicitation(or application guidance)under which the applicant is submitting its application. If the solicitation/guidance describes the "Disclosure of Process related to Executive Compensation,"the applicant nonprofit organization must provide--as an attachment to its application--a disclosure that satisfies the minimum requirements as described by OJP. For purposes of this questionnaire, an"audit" is conducted by an independent, external auditor using generally accepted auditing standards(GAAS) or Generally Governmental Auditing Standards (GAGAS), and results in an audit report with an opinion. 10. Has the applicant entity undergone any of the following types of audit(s)(Please check all that apply): 0 "Single Audit"under OMB A-133 or Subpart F of 2 C.F.R. Part 200 0 Financial Statement Audit 0 Defense Contract Agency Audit(DCAA) Other Audit&A•enc list t pe of audit : 0 None (if none, skip to question 13) 11. Most Recent Audit Report Issued: El Within the last 0 Within the last D Over 2 years ago 0 N/A 12 months 2 years Name of Audit Agency/Firm: S • 4 tlls CG' AUDITOR'S OPINION 12. On the most recent audit,what was the auditor's opinion? El Unqualified Opinion ❑Qualified Opinion J Disclaimer, Going Concern 0 N/A: No audits as or Adverse Opinions described above Enter the number of findings (if none, enter"0": Enter the dollar amount of questioned costs (if none, enter"$0"): Were material weaknesses noted in the report or opinion? DYes El No 13.Which of the following best describes the applicant entity's accounting system: Q Manual El Automated OCombination of manual and automated 14. Does the applicant entity's accounting system have the capability to n Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure identify the receipt and expenditure of award funds separately for each Federal award'? 15. Does the applicant entity's accounting system have the capability to J Yes El No fl Not Sure record expenditures for each Federal award by the budget cost categories shown in the approved budget? 16. Does the applicant entity's accounting system have the capability to El Yes fl No fl Not Sure record cost sharing("match")separately for each Federal award, and maintain documentation to support recorded match or cost share? Page 2 of 4 / t U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Approved: OMB No. 1121-0329 a0.K •,? OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Expires 111/30/2020 17. Does the applicant entity's accounting system have the capability to 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Not Sure accurately track employees actual time spent performing work for each federal award, and to accurately allocate charges for employee salaries and wages for each federal award, and maintain records to support the actual time spent and specific allocation of charges associated with each applicant employee? 18. Does the applicant entity's accounting system include budgetary controlsLi Yes El No 0 Not Sure to preclude the applicant entity from incurring obligations or costs that exceed the amount of funds available under a federal award (the total amount of the award, as well as the amount available in each budget cost category)? 19. Is applicant entity familiar with the "cost'principles" that apply to recent 0 Yes El No Not Sure and future federal awards, including the general and specific principles set out in 2 C.F.R Part 200? PROPERTY STANDARDS AND PROCUREMENT STANDARDS 20. Does the applicant entity's property management system(s) maintain the 0 Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure following information on property purchased with federal award funds (1) a description of the property; (2) an identification number; (3)the source of funding for the property, including the award number; (4)who holds title; (5) acquisition date; (6)acquisition cost; (7) federal share of the acquisition cost; (8) location and condition of the property; (9) ultimate disposition information? 21. Does the applicant entity maintain written policies and procedures for Yes El No D Not Sure procurement transactions that--(1)are designed to avoid unnecessary or duplicative purchases; (2) provide for analysis of lease versus purchase alternatives; (3)set out a process for soliciting goods and services, and (4) include standards of conduct that address conflicts of interest? 22. a)Are the applicant entity's procurement policies and proceduresEl Yes No Not Sure designed to ensure that procurements are conducted in a manner that provides full and open competition to the extent practicable, and to avoid practices that restrict competition? 22. b) Do the applicant entity's procurement policies and procedures require Yes ❑ No Not Sure documentation of the history of a procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, selection or rejection of contractors, and basis for the contract price? 23. Does the applicant entity have written policies and procedures designed to prevent the applicant entity from entering into a procurement contract Q Yes 0 No Not Sure under a federal award with any entity or individual that is suspended or debarred from such contracts, including provisions for checking the"Excluded Parties List"system(www.sam.gov)for suspended or debarred sub-grantees ' and contractors, prior to award? TRAVEL POLICY 24. Does the applicant entity: (a) maintain a standard travel policy? 0 Yes El No (b)adhere to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)? 0 Yes Q No SUBRECIPIENT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING 25. Does the applicant entity have written policies, procedures, and/or Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure guidance designed to ensure that any subawards made by the applicant entity under a federal award--(1)clearly document applicable federal requirements, (2)are appropriately monitored by the applicant, and(3) El N/A-Applicant does not make comply with the requirements in 2 CFR Part 200(see 2 CFR 200.331)? subawards under any OJP awards Page 3 of 4 • U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Approved: OMB No. 1121-0329 ltb- OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Expires 11/30/2020 26. Is the applicant entity aware of the differences between subawards under 0 Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure federal awards and procurement contracts under federal,awards, including the different roles and responsibilities associated with each? El N/A-Applicant does not make subawards under any OJP awards 27. Does the applicant entity have written policies and procedures designed ri Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure to prevent the applicant entity from making a subaward under a federal award to any entity or individual is suspended or debarred from such 0 N/A-Applicant does not make subawards? subawards under any OJP awards • DESIGNATION AS'HIGH-RISK' BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES 28. Is the applicant entity designated "high risk"by a federal grant-making 0 Yes Q No 0 Not Sure • agency outside of DOJ? (High risk includes any status under which a federal awarding agency provides additional oversight due to the applicant's past performance, or other programmatic or financial concerns with the applicant) If"Yes", provide the following: (a) Name(s) of the federal awarding agency: (b) Dates)the agency notified the applicant entity of the"high risk"designation: (c)Contact information for the"high risk"point of contact at the federal agency: Name: Phone: Email: m=-� (d) Reason fo mmnm! eeFaee!...:rle.11'1e:..ei...:11:...l"..ie.:.:...:h.l.ei:....a ieI.�eie.e1.:......!gIa.11ee1.:. h risk .:§e..:.:.:.!.:....:...:.e...:.e...:...:.......i..:..I..ie.::....:....I4..a.:s.l.�ei.e.ta9.xe:...!.�...:..eI�:..e.�ii11:.eail11:l...l.:.e...i.!Fe.:ei...i'i:......�1.:t......�1.::...ei'i::.....ii!:.....!l.:.u.e..:e!i......!FI.e.....Fe.i...e.l.�s...::.:F.:e....e.ee:.....:...:i.:.....c:...ei.::,,.........!e:...l.e1.:....e,F.:.eee.ee�.ie11a:!.a111..:!.: sseei:.....toRe:.......:..e....:.e...�l:......Fe.el...u..i:l...P..:..e... .:.:i..i:.!:!..e.:bF:.@:i..e.:.l.R:.N:i..e. tnI..I:..:e.ehe!i.efRe.:l..11...aee11.eea:..i..: -�eMi.!®:.11ie.::.....Ta:.i�..e.:gl.11:ee.: .e ..ie....c11..ie...11..ie... e.l...i.e..y �.Fe:ei.!de...e I.Se.ee:i..":...l.I..u....e.!:l...!1.i..�I..:l... l.....l..e...!e..e...t111ei11..i!.l..!.eo.!... eie.... .l.e...'1i i..el aeii A.. o :uie:lm.m.a.:..:a:nv:::::. a :::a4 .1:6:mcT! : :mcFma : m. § va::xT9 .. : e . . .e:i:i:... ..d ,llF.ieee11.i§!Ni!!lil! ft!00 !9e!11R......... ....e..::::::11I...:e:::::::.:e„eii. e l.l .....!e.:Ae.......1.i'.i....e::�liie..i11i i,Iii.e..ie.Iee i!II.. ..9Fa:leui.e:::: 11.nh :: F11l im lim..e.e. ....e.i!.eF49.iei,::0!:.. llai.a1.e..111. eee.i.I ..9i.e.F.... e!:11e .eeF. e:.. . lii . o e.. . ,. :FF .:.A . . k ::!10::11.. 0!:::i. .i. l: eesevsv : .. 11 el1101111111111110111 u. l l:A.ie.1a ei1e"..e"T!FF...a.. .i. a'a' AF!::eIe...A...!...: ...l..m.!!1i!m!!lliiii!iipi11....e.l!eFeiei ...e ..11111iil'lliiil!I ...l 11...... Fel!e:� ... .ee.l...l.eee..e...eeee!:::ee.................... ::e�:e:::.:.:ee� .::9....e.e.....i.e.ee.le�::::e!:::e:::e�a::::?11::e�::�:::::�e:::::�::::::::..:: :le:l:�e:�::�:il:e!ee::....i....lee..........le..i........e........e..1....e...i:ee ::i:: .ii...e le....e.e..e..... 1111.i.e..... 11!i!illi'!ic1!!!ii!iF!F!iiiF!FRiii:e....i...a 1111. e..l e.ii e.. .i.1:e .e e..e.....e..:�::�::e!::::�::::::e:::lee :le::...::�::u!�:::!::..ee:!:�::e:�:::�:::1�:::::::e::..e.l..i.e.e::��:::.,;..:1::9e:::::::::::::!:�e:�::4:::!:e!e:::!e::::?:::::�::^_liiii!i11i1!i1i1:!iii..................i..e.....e.. e...i...ee..e......e..........i.el....e:ei..e.....e.... ee..i.e. ..e.............................e. ee: ....el..e................le...ee...el....e�.ee.e...l..e 4:e:i.;.;e;..e::�i:�::::::e:!1:::�:...ee.: .....I..ee...:e?.e .....i........... 1!!ii!i19i:!e:e�:��:e:lee:e�:!::�:!:::9:::::!:,..;..::�:::::c!i:e:1i....e..eee.el ee...e.e.ea....e............. eF1::::e::::::::::::::::::::::::i................ee..e:F::.....1......le._. .......e.................... .....i.e.e...1111 .e.i.e.ie..e!�::::::::e::el!::!:::!:1F:�i!i!iiiiii!ieFR!iiFiiii!iiiiii................... ....i..........ii.....e..a......e..e.......ee............ Ale::l!::e:e�e::Aee:�, :e:::::!:......i.. a�:ii::�!e::�::!..:ee::+:!!:1!ul:e::::�:::::::1�:.a .e...i.e....................e ....i.......e....e..i...ei...:e:::::::!:!:::e:e:�:i:!:9iiM!'i...e....i.........ei. .e..le 1111. ...le.1::::....e...............e..ee.:F:e:::::9::;.ep:::F:�:�:e::e::!:�:+:e:Ful:::::::�iR!:::.,...:.:.,::e;�e.e.F::!:e!:e::!::::................e... 1111 ei 1111 1111.i e.e. :!:�ille,ei:e:::e::!e��....e.le...e�:eee:e:e::ee:::!:::eee.el....il.... a .e...i 1111 ....le...ee.e....e.e.e.......e .....i...........e....e.: :el:eeF.ee.11..e�el�e::e.e.e.. !...l...l..... ....d..:ke!:1::!:::.1....e...................eee.. e!1111 e:::e:::::......................ee.!191@iii11111! 1111.ei.....e:...e......e..e...e...A ee, :::e:::::::�:::::...........ee.,,...!:e�9:::e�::e::e:::�::��::::e:F::��:::!!!Ic1F!iiii::.......1........... ...........e:.:.e::::::.i..I...e......e.....e....e....................e.e..........e.......e..e...e....................le 1111.e... .....1.:.........1...i....el.....ee.e...e...e....e.I........e..e......e.e............e... ..ei. e....i.e....e..e.e..........e.i e......e......... .....le......e.. ..... ....i......e..i.....e.e:�4:�:.ei...le.ee:!!:a:!c1i!cliiiiiiiEliiiiii!!F!!!!iiii!R!......e.e.e..............e. ....i..I.:..::::::�:!:::!............e...e..i....e. ! ....i::e��:�:e:lY Il:ei:�ii ::e:i.1111. .e..I....A..eee:4:::e�:..e. 1111 i......e...1111. ....1 el. 1111... e::e!::I!i'�ii!'iF ii!iici!!a.e,,.r!�iaaii!iil..l..l """ e.! ..:..i:ee::��:::ee:�::�eel:::::::e:::lee:::::�:��...e. ::..le 1111 ..lee.' �i... �:!l l ::::::::::::::::::: ee 1111.... ee :a.l I...i.a..11 11...ii..i.i..e...........e..e..le::Fi!iii�:c::l!ii!1i!iir!i iiiNiii�4i!i.n....l.e......e..A......i._I.............e...e.d.dec::::!:::::!::i!:�eiii iFi...i..el..e:m:::ii:ei'!!Rii!ii!i:le.e....a!lle!eol. .W 11:e i... it i. ii!FF�FF�.1111 ...1..e:a .e...i.....1111 .e..1.1... e...l..e.. .....i ..I.... i!i!!iilii....e.e..i e.el.lle::.e.e...I....a!::e::�::::e:l e:::e!:e::e:�::e�e!:e:!:::::!::::::::�::...e:i:!e:le::e�::e!!:�::�:::ee 1111.e...ee.e e!ile::::�:::e:i::?:�:e......e.e.e ee:e:e::::e�:::::::e:e:::.a........:::e�e:��:1:.....e I::e::::e::::i:ee::::�e:�::9 el!:::le...!Ile n:: .....i..i.l....e.........e...........e......l.........e...e........e...........e..e 1111..1111...1111.e.....e....e...e.l.....e..e.......e...Ae........e..................e.... ....i.i........................e..e.eii..l..i....ei e.. 1111..... �,::::�e:!:e:1!:e,!li9!i:;,:,:! y::��:e ....1::�::9e.......e..!e::::::�::::�� 1 li'e::::::e::::?:::::::::ee:i:::i::::!ei:::::::::e!e?�e:e:ee�::!::1:......e...::e!�:!::::::::::!!!ii:....e... ��::9e!e�:::::!1 1111 .e..l..e..e e.....i..... a e....le.ee..I...........e...........1..... .....le....... ....1.:::::!e:::::!:::!:::::e:�e::::!!4iiliiiil .I.e....l ::::1111.... Riilliii:i ''iFiiii:... .,.eel�:? :::::i!::::... ....i e.i ee..ee.e.....eeilii .,,......e�.:::;:;:.:::i!;ii ee..... a e::e::-:�:: e..... 1111.... e........i.si!iiF.Fim.:ii.::c::...el.e......e..nn:eii:::!!d?:p:.::!,:li !e l!iia....e.a e�le!e::�::::::::�:: is:��::::c!!:::ii!iiii!iFi!.........L.:::�cF!:u !? !9� ...e..,.�:1!:� .l.1.... 1111 11:::: l e:.....l Il:el:9e:e:.1.e. ii.li X11:9�. ! ''ii!1!e......................1111 .....l...ele.il._4:...e..ei.ii.......e..........ee.e.ee! �ih:iiie:i,eiiiiiicl'i!,,:i!Feee..I ..e.i.i..........1111. e.i�::ee::�::1111 ....i...........e.e..l...e.• .......le I.e...e.lee.1111 e....l.e. ..1:::::!!:�:?e:��:::!::!::::e:::::::::!:........._!e..............e.......l...e..........e..e.....ee.0�i......1111. .....le........x.ee:e�:::.....1111 11 i.ee.e:�:!.........: .......e..........................i...............e.le....e........ee..................e...l.............e..e...i...........e...........e...........i...........e.........ee.....e.i...e.i.e.ee.............ei................d.e........................ee:...eel!!e:e::::::1:::Fei::. ::u!i::::::::i:!::e:::::::::::e::e!:::::::e!:::!eL::e:!::e:!!::!:::::::e:ee::!::e!:!::11!:e::iileeee::!I:lea:::il:eeeeee:e:::elei::eeeeee::eee::ee:eeeeeileee:leee:eele::e:lee::ae::ei:cele:eleeeeee:eeeeelueeele:eixexueexlexleliewiecce:eeeeMweeaewe:uxeeeeuuwueeneeeeeeee:exeeeeeeeeeeeeeleeu •- CERTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ENTITY 1111 ; . 1111. ,._ 1111 , '1111.. (Must be made by the chief executive, executive director, chief financial officer designated authorized . 1111 representative("AOR"), or other Official with the requisite knowledge and authority) On behalf of the applicant entity, I certify to the U.S. Department of Justice that the information provided above is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have the requisite authority and information to make this certification on behalf of the applicant entity. .. Date ° 6; re'f .Name: B Title: [,Executive Director Q Chief Financial Officer 0 Chairman Q Other: 7.,., =Q:, „ Phone: (0,9..0, Page 4 of 4 DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES Approved by OMB Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352 0348-0046 (See reverse for public burden disclosure.) 1. Type of Federal Action: 2. Status of Federal Action: 3. Report Type: b a. contract 11a. bid/offer/application a a. initial filing b. grant b. initial award b. material change c. cooperative agreement c. post-award For Material Change Only: d. loan year quarter e. loan guarantee date of last report f. loan insurance 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity: 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is a Subawardee, Enter Name Q✓ Prime ❑ Subawardee and Address of Prime: Tier , if known: City of Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spoakne Valley,WA 99206 Congressional District, if known: Congressional District, if known: 6. Federal Department/Agency: 7. Federal Program Name/Description: N/A CFDA Number, if applicable: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 9. Award Amount, if known: 10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Registrant b. Individuals Performing Services (including address if (if individual. last name. first name. M/): different from No. 10a) N/A (last name, first name. M/1: N/A 11.Information requested through this form is authorized by title 31 U.S.C. section Signature: Mark Calhoun 1352. This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier above when this transaction was made Mark Calhoun or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This Print Name. information will be reported to the Congress semi-annually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be Title: City Manager subject to a civil penalty of not less that$10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each such failure. Telephone No.: (509)720-5000 Date: Federal Use Only: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form LLL(Rev.7-97) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program FY 2018 Local Solicitation Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government On behalf of the applicant unit of local government named below, in support of that locality's application for an award under the FY 2018 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant ("JAG") Program, and further to 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a), I certify under penalty of perjury to the Office of Justice Programs ("OJP"), U.S. Department of Justice ("USDOJ"), that all of the following are true and correct: 1. I am the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government named below, and I have the authority to make the following representations on my own behalf and on behalf of the applicant unit of local government. I understand that these representations will be relied upon as material in any OJP decision to make an award, under the application described above, to the applicant unit of local government. 2. I certify that no federal funds made available by the award (if any) that OJP makes based on the application described above will be used to supplant local funds, but will be used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of federal funds, be made available for law enforcement activities. 3. I assure that the application described above (and any amendment to that application) was submitted for review to the governing body of the unit of local government (e.g., city council or county commission), or to an organization designated by that governing body, not less than 30 days before the date of this certification. 4. I assure that, before the date of this certification—(a)the application described above (and any amendment to that application) was made public; and (b) an opportunity to comment on that application (or amendment)was provided to citizens and to neighborhood or community-based organizations, to the extent applicable law or established procedure made such an opportunityavailable. 5. I assure that, for each fiscal year of the award (if any) that OJP makes based on the application described above, the applicant unit of local government will maintain and report such data, records, and information (programmatic and financial), as OJP may reasonably require. 6. I certify that—(a) the programs to be funded by the award (if any) that OJP makes based on the application described above meet all the requirements of the JAG Program statute (34 U.S.C. §§ 10151-10158); (b) all the information contained in that application is correct; (c) in connection with that application, there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies; and (d) in connection with that award (if any), the applicant unit of local government will comply with all provisions of the JAG Program statute and all other applicable federal laws. 7. I have examined certification entitled"State or Local Government: FY 2018 Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 & 1644"executed by the chief legal officer of the applicant government with respect to the FY 2018 JAG program and submitted in support of the application described above, and I hereby adopt that certification as my own on behalf of that government. (This provision is not applicable to Indian tribal government applicants.) 8. I have examined certification entitled "State or Local Government: FY 2018 Certification Relating to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) & (c), 1231(a)(4), 1357(a), & 1366(1) & (3)" executed by the chief legal officer of the applicant government with respect to the FY 2018 JAG program and submitted in support of the application described above, and I hereby adopt that certification as my own on behalf of that government. (This provision is not applicable to Indian tribal government applicants.) I acknowledge that a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement(or concealment or omission of a material fact) in this certification, or in the application that it supports, may be the subject of criminal prosecution (including under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and/or 1621, and/or 34 U.S.C. §§ 10271-10273), and also may subject me and the applicant unit of local government to civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise (including under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3730 and §§3801-3812). I also acknowledge that OJP awards, including certifications provided in connection with such awards, are subject to review by USDOJ, including by OJP and by the USDOJ Office of the Inspector General. � c �° n C ctcr�c Q C �Lf Signature of Chief Executive f the Applicant nit of Date of C rti ication Local Government Printed Name of Chief Executive Title of Chief Executive Name of Applicant Unit of Local Government U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Local Government: FY 2018 Certification Relating to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)&(c), 1231(a)(4), 1324(a), 1357(a), &1366(1)&(3) On behalf of the applicant government entity named below,and in support of its application,I certify under penalty of perjury to the Office of Justice Programs("OJP"),U.S.Department of Justice("USDOJ'),that all of the following are true and correct 1. I am the chief legal officer of the unit of local government of which the applicant entity named below is a part("the jurisdiction'),and I have the authority to make this certification on behalf of the jurisdiction and the applicant entity(that is,the entity applying directly to OJP). I understand that OJP will rely upon this certification as a material representation in any decision to make an award to the applicant entity. 2_ I have carefully reviewed each of the following sections of title 8,United States Code: a. §1226(a)&(c)(authorizing arrest and detention of certain aliens and providing that the federal government'shall take into custody' certain criminal aliens"when the alien is released'); b. §1231(a)(4)(federal govemment may not"remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from imprisonment"); c. §1324(a)(forbidding any"person,"in"knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to,entered,or remains in the United States in violation of law;to"concealp,harborp,or shieldp from detection,or attemptp to conceal,harbor,or shield from detection,such alien in any place,including any building or any means of transportation"or to"engage in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts...or aidp or abetp the commission of any of the preceding acts'); d. §1357(a)(authorizing immigration officers,"anywhere in or outside the United States"(see 8 C.F.R.§257.5(a)),to"interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States");and e. §1366(1)&(3)(requiring the Attorney General annually to submit to Congress'a report detailing... (1)the number of illegal aliens incarcerated in Federal and State prisons for having committed felonies,stating the number incarcerated for each type of offense; (and](3)programs and plans underway in the Department of Justice to ensure the prompt removal from the United States of criminal aliens subject to removal"). 3. I(and also the applicant entity)understand that USDOJ will require States and local governments(including State and local government entities,-agencies,and-officials),with respect to any"program or activity'funded in whole or In part with the federal financial assistance provided through the FY 2018 OJP program under which this certification is being submitted(the"FY 2018 OJP Program" identified below),specifically including any such"program or activity'of a governmental entity or-agency that is a subrecipient(at any tier) of funds under the FY 2018 OJP Program,not to violate,or to aid or abet any violation of,8 U.S.C.§1324(a),and not to impede the exercise by federal officers of authority under 8 U.S.C.§1357(a)or relating to 8 U.S.C.§1366(1)&(3)or 8 U.S.C.§1228(a)&(c). 4. I(and also the applicant entity)understand that,for purposes of this certification,"program or activity"means what it means under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(see 42 U.S.C.§2000d-4a),and that terms used in this certification that are defined in 8 U.S.C.§1101 mean what they mean under that section 1101,except that the term"State"also shall include American Samoa(cf.34 U.S.C. §10251(a)(2)). Also,I understand that,for purposes of this certification,neither a"public"institution of higher education(i.e.,one that is owned,controlled,or directly funded by a State or local government)nor an Indian tribe is considered a State or local government entity or -agency. 5. I have conducted(or caused to be conducted for me)a diligent inquiry and review concerning both— a. the"program or activity"to be funded(in whole or in part)with the federal financial assistance sought by the applicant entity under this FY 2018 OJP Program;and b. any laws,rules,policies,or practices potentially applicable to the"program or activity'sought to be funded under the FY 2018 OJP Program that Implicate any of the requirements relating to 8 U.S.C.§§1226(a)&(c),1324(a),1357(a),&1368(1)&(3)that are described In¶3 of this certification,whether Imposed by a State or local government entity,-agency,or-official. 6. As of the date of this certification,neither the jurisdiction nor any entity,agency,or official of the jurisdiction has in effect,purports to have in effect,or is subject to or bound by,any law,rule,policy,or practice that would apply to the"program or activity"to be funded in whole or in part under the FY 2018 OJP Program(which,for the specific purpose of this paragraph 6,shall not be understood to include any such"program or activity"of any subrecipient at any tier),and that would or does—(1)violate,or aid or abet any violation of,8 U.S.C. §1324(a);(2)impede the exercise by federal officers of authority under 8 U.S.C.§1357(a);(3)impede the exercise by federal officers of authority relating to 8 U.S.C.§1366(1)&(3);or(4)impede the exercise by federal officers of authority relating to 8 U.S.C.§1226(a)&(c). I acknowledge that a materially false,fictitious,or fraudulent statement(or concealment or omission of a material fact)in this certification,or in the application that it supports,may be the subject of criminal prosecution(including under 18 U.S.C.§§1001 and/or 1621,and/or 34 U.S.C. §§10271-10273),and also may subject me and the applicant entity to civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise (including under 31 .S.C.§§3729-3730 and§§3801-3812). I also acknowledge that OJP awards,including associated certifications,are subje` o rev b OJ,in lu by OJP and the USDOJ Office�offythe Inspe` r G oral. L� C.av / • r/5 tee,1) • Sig of Chie gal Officer of the Jurisdiction PrintedNae of Chie Legal Officer vN,( 0 � C.'/ / Pr-A f Dat f Ge • tion J Title of ief Legal Officer of the Jurisdiction D F' S 00k� l�a 11 Name of Applicant Entity(i.e.,the applicant to the FY 2018 OJP Program identified below FY 2018 OJP Program: Byrne Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)JProgram:Local 45 BJA-2018-13626 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS State or Local Government: FY 201 Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 On behalf of the applicant government entity named below, and in support of its application, I certify under penalty of perjury to the Office of Justice Programs("OJP"), U.S. Department of Justice("USDOJ"),that all of the following are true and correct: (1) I am the chief legal officer of the State or local government of which the applicant entity named below is a part("the jurisdiction"), and I have the authority to make this certification on behalf of the jurisdiction and the applicant entity(that is, the entity applying directly to OJP). I understand that OJP will rely upon this certification as a material representation in any decision to make an award to the applicant entity. (2) I have carefully reviewed 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)and(b), including the prohibitions on certain actions by State and local government entities, -agencies, and-officials regarding information on citizenship and immigration status. I also have reviewed the provisions set out at(or referenced in) 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note("Abolition ... and Transfer of Functions"), pursuant to which references to the"Immigration and Naturalization Service"in 8 U.S.C. § 1373 are to be read, as a legal matter, as references to particular components of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (3) I (and also the applicant entity)understand that the U.S. Department of Justice will require States and local governments(and agencies or other entities thereof)to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, with respect to any"program or activity"funded in whole or in part with the federal financial assistance provided through the FY 2017 OJP program under which this certification is being submitted("the FY 2017 OJP Program"identified below), specifically including any such"program or activity"of a governmental entity or-agency that is a subrecipient(at any tier)of funds under the FY 2017 OJP Program. (4) I (and also the applicant entity)understand that,for purposes of this certification, "program or activity" means what it means under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(see 42 U.S.C. §2000d-4a), and that terms used in this certification that are defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 mean what they mean under that section 1101,except that the term"State"also shall include American Samoa(cf.42 U.S.C. §901(a)(2)). Also, I understand that,for purposes of this certification, neither a"public" institution of higher education(i.e., one that is owned, controlled,or directly funded by a State or local government)nor an Indian tribe is considered a State or local government entity or-agency. (5) I have conducted (or caused to be conducted for me)a diligent inquiry and review concerning both— (a) the"program or activity"to be funded(in whole or in part)with the federal financial assistance sought by the applicant entity under this FY 2017 OJP Program; and (b) any prohibitions or restrictions potentially applicable to the"program or activity"sought to be funded under the FY 2017 OJP Program that deal with sending to, requesting or receiving from, maintaining, or exchanging information of the types described in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)or(b),whether imposed by a State or local government entity,-agency, or-official. (6) As of the date of this certification, neither the jurisdiction nor any entity, agency, or official of the jurisdiction has in effect, purports to have in effect, or is subject to or bound by, any prohibition or any restriction that would apply to the"program or activity"to be funded in whole or in part under the FY 2017 OJP Program (which, for the specific purpose of this paragraph 6,shall not be understood to include any such "program or activity"of any subrecipient at any tier), and that deals with either—(1)a government entity or-official sending or receiving information regarding citizenship or immigration status as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a);or(2)a government entity or-agency sending to, requesting or receiving from, maintaining, or exchanging information of the types(and with respect to the entities)described in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(b). I acknowledge that a materially false,fictitious, or fraudulent statement(or concealment or omission of a material fact)in this certification, or in the application that it supports, may be the subject of criminal prosecution(including under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and/or 1621, and/or 42 U.S.C.§3795a), and also may subject me and the applicant entity to civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise(including under 31 U.S.C. §§3729-3730 and§§3801-3812). I also acknowledge that OJP awards, including certifications provided in connection with such awards, are subject to review by USDOJ, including by OJP ad by Office of the Inspector General. /�/ ( /_A.sop Y'IS i I Signat o Chi e• Officer of the Jurisdiction Printed N e hief al Officer �y 301 7o/g (L I-{urns Dat f Ce' fication Title of CC ief Legal Officer(of the Jurisdiction cI a 'F cpa k .u.►. .. V a)),e Name of Appli nt Government Entity (i.e., the applicant to the FY 2017 OJP Program identified below) FY2017OJP Program: Byrne Justice Assistance Grant ("JAG") Program City of Spokane Valley Disclosure of Pending Applications 2018 JAG The City of Spokane Valley does not have pending applications submitted within the last 12 months for federally funded grants or subgrants (including cooperative agreements) that include requests for funding to support the same project being proposed under this solicitation and will cover the identical cost items outlined in the budget narrative and worksheet in the application under this solicitation. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14,2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: The Vistas at Belleaire Subdivision (SUB-2017-0008) — Project Status Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Title 20 Subdivision Regulations SVMC, and chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures SVMC PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN:None BACKGROUND: On December 14,2017 the City received the Vistas at Belleaire Subdivision application to divide 81.5 acres in 226 residential lots. The property lies in the southeastern portion of the City and is contiguous with the Morningside neighborhood located in Spokane County. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.030 a Preliminary Subdivision Application is a Type III application and subject to review and approval by the Hearing Examiner(HEX). The HEX's decision is appealable to Superior Court if an appeal is received within 21 days of the decision. The project recently completed the preliminary subdivision review process. A public hearing was conducted by the Hearing Examiner on August 2, 2018. At this time,the Hearing Examiner's Decision is expected around August 20,2018. Due to the significant public interest in this project staff will present a project overview to the Council, discuss the major traffic concerns, and answer questions regarding the approval process or project. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner and Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: A.Preliminary Plat Map B.PowerPoint Presentation SUB-2017-0008 RCA for Administrative Report ACT'H' r'4 VI" 41111111k . (.4 3 erneNio.FfEY35 ..• `. I1 .,, � • 4 29 mik-IPAtioNtrosiiiiiiiirc7-. .,.:- p� ,....1:1,. . ‘,....,.,, „. • „,,, IL ( ,„ ." • 3 1 'Th 'j, • h r° PeuiIIIFPAFI, Isw.ler-Frer S. ''' IIII ''II411111111111111*On PAR✓=0.NAI9EN Slfi]9ase fI P I 11-. (�`_{E,�� a 9 1D so arreAooRess� NarasefsNeo j •) 1 p T .fl ! GROSS AREA SINFCRES 4 / 21 [ 26 1. y.. 11 GRmak OSS ARDASE eta AC FAMftr AAIIIIIIII •'' /1 r' . *it 1G PPRROPOS DENSITY 28uMRPENA C 12 I I�' 1 �� 0IP1'1 1l 20NMffi R] :k 11...:”( I Z 25 P C°AIP PIAN SfMGLE FAMfLY 16 13 11 SEYLER PNRUO(SPoln #. I •-I lill20Nthr VERA[vAYERw1 1 ff I Ji I'rL I 19 III. _ 1 12 RaADs Ptreuc 1+ I �� ( lAid 1 MIN LoJINN t AREA EER ONE.STAT AT SEMEN 111 1 0...: _ - Ii. 9 13 AmMU hater SP£P.. SETEnCRSPER • viii, MIA 11111111111 20 21 22 23 21 25 - 26 27 . 19 +� RDMEovnvER'•ASSN; HILA RE GREAT. 14 MAINTAIN STORMNA/ERr 0 __- 3 16 3 cnMMaNAREA AmT s I toTCONFlSURAnav fs PAELLtpNMV L[ ` '' � FROMAfrESSHU,IT1 HFREaNARE AFFRI V� 1 �V.I..y- 16 '2 17 111111110 I scaL,SET T°REVISION PRMA nvAL RAT ' Slit 2 BE OEPE DENTirl5PAEiRocEr r FTNAL I I , _ BEOEPEkaENF[Wgv.MARAE'TopNOLn9 -IG 9£SIWGSHOANOAPPELIMA THECT _ I +. 15 . 11111110F aVALLEYAAIpN M FINAP PLAT OFEACHPI IAACT 6 'I'JJ4. f 5•UlivollLfnESAlff Nar SHpLSNGV1Mi r !�' R[Af alrf SH<I1 SEC0o18''LW.TEaP4TN - nutV COMZONrESYRrOR TOFEML P!A / ... "' 1 \ y ]} I11 1 `f TNETYPE Yl'SiREALA/N SSDGAT£Df T L yfINN UI1P"F . Ji. 1 2\ \. \4 ,_ 5,, \ }r1141y \ 1l'114i`.I \\ +\ 1 1 I_DOPDTHE SAT TWE OF TYPE MS1 AL -17- Milli �IS,\ '• 1 �� �\`k h 3 \ \ 5 TRACT ISA N OUFE TRAVEL°ORPop01 '4 MA- Ift, t\\h I,_ sMErvTAmDMIrfaAnonPL j"11� Ir11�1` :AREAu:SsAIS,SEL0s17.4..RAN,I.PTIGAwszirON.APL[s PYtaanrwlvaa BlauJ111 I1��1 I ( 11 STORMwATENFACEPRESM I ml 1.�., 1 [ D I6STIaN TRAC T a MTH PR '1 a I !s. rt m; RE5iDENTS OF rPE NSTAB 4pll {gt / t^ WFD 7a ADGE551NALTA 1 .Q i)1e?mere 15 T°at RETAINED ar nre otw. �l 1`}1 m MdRN1NG5IDEHTS.DR, I( I^+ MAY OEDEEDEDTOPARTIES OTHER T11 t i _ \"w` i j i i i 1 I ! i' QEPICTSLOCAnINLB OF h_'flsnNOSLOPESS w I I aA£ATER.HNAL GRADlNO ANb LOrbEVE1r ' MAY OCCVfl INrRP!SAIp]LOPEAREAS M[ ! i ( C COMPLIES NSTH OEDTECHNIwi RECOMMEA •'µ.1�'jI Sl i I Ff 11 - ,r" L '� T•-1 AND OTTOF SPOKANE VALLEY RECHPREAfs i - Icy f-•-•:"t.'-;' e '� :, 4V- +: -i � 1 � - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: r5 ( T IL __I rr 1.I. " THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QVAATER Of5EC710N 19,T25N,R45E,N+.M. J H PRELIMINARY PLAT 0] rh }I 'I '1,-).,.4-v. �' .I TOGETHERWITH THAT P©RRON OF THE NORTHWEST OF THE SDUTHWESF4DAATER WEST I;} ��•}ix; .11, 1 \..�, OFSAID5FL170N]9MOAEPAATICUTAALMOE3CAIREOASFOILOWS: �� 5- -� 4U1.4RTWGATTHE NORTHWEST CORNER DSECAONt9,A1508FfNGFINESOUTFIWEST 040ORNOFTUEN�ONHN NG 'THB VISTAS AT BELLE.AI� 1 LOCATED fNT11ETHE SOUILfHALF OFTHE 5IN1R1WE4T(1UARTEROf5EC770N14,T.25N R45F W.M GTYOFSPOKANE' Ar-11 1" {'S._., ' 1 r ,-, Vr EASTEALYALONGTHESOUTHSIXI`rENRIONEOF24IDSECRONI9ADISTANCEOF75215FEET,• I,II I` TNENCE N72'S9'S3"WA DISTANCE OF 259,61 FEET;THENCE&A4'AI'17"WA 015TANCf OF !t_ I 1.-1, A 143.1GFEET;THENCE 578'44'52"1VADf5TANCf01347.48TOTHE POIINTOFEEGINNING Parametrix MI1.1[ r.� I '�I A.I.I.SITUATE IN THS CITYOFSPOKANE VALIAY,SPOKANE COUNTY,.WASHINGTON. ,,, - �w MI.,.SCINCH LE R Obi -... z� .1 Goagttl777e s�I�t ow nrnc.euE Jj. 1 :lnl MOW. MT.ATSN[UM JOB Ile. F1 ]n-M5,1110 14.1.0. 05¢ IT+,r The Vistas at Bellea ire Subdivision ( SU B - 2017 -0008 ) City Council Project Status Update - August 14, 2018 S4OI ' jUalley f"�"'.1""k�_.. - -. w a- war....cr..y e:.. _ _ _-..__-,i,�.T. , ...—, __ _.,..•. . . .. • . ,.: • - ,� . ' BARKER .. a, ri. ;,, fir - _ TheVit ••s as at �f ROAD r p.r Belleaire • . .. , '- , . . ,.. ; . _ _ . ._ . . . • • to .1, a Subdivision . .. ..• . . .• - ,> • • • �'' a ? ia4%'-iA1.F ,a:sT• , Overview: Divide Ar �, 6 81.5 acres into 226 t • • •S• yw r ;` residential lots , ..� :x �. c= k • ` " /10,10' q N • i• ' M rY F } 1 MI A ` s .I. r F • IT 't..- . Urban Growth •- tolffirt,_y.. . . . - • . Area _.. F ,.,... . . .- ... r . . i ....„::' ''. ,''''' --,..,-,- - . ., j..-.. -i,..- ..,,. . ,!,-.. _-, .._:,.. - .. _ f,i,,,,-,,4,0„... --,...i.- - : , 4.: . ,, i. 1 . = 1111,.. _ i 411, 7: 1. :••.' l''' "m'''' -ime7 , � ,u I _ ' F• off. T k _ s!i-' r P 0 Y 6 r x i ,. 4.,..,..... s "4' • - • • • 3 .., The Vistas at Belleaire Subdivision ._ _ +, . °Z1 _ 4 5, rg7 , S. .ti su. 3s+ iin fl r li- NMI u� m 1 �v 61O['. / 4 71 11 9.f x ala :�r ®ar:5 na sa. \ �m `4 s y _' • _ X12 h ,.. . ,di c, } 4j r.q i�rxr. NI �.4 :�. 10 � , F Lot Area: , 1 7 R v,. im+xr. 111142j. fr 14 o-rx sr. i 5 ,�4il. rt>.v. $� '+ 4 • II ,..,. 1 .' .r ? m �an.x A sla sr. 1 o wca�sr - III , r ti w. 6,637 to ri 19 I IIITT 111.11r IMN]-mM1U1 -. yln .. 2 V. 33 'y' I ', r arwr .8.®+o11EIT Mr `Is.. .. '. . aera w. rams u' - a I + k+i fYnaffYrw03{�EY F9F GLDk6Yip rLr _ i IMAM PALATNOI V ISPUWA7-00MT N A _ let 2 3 812 4 II n u .r PC IN, Ni rr / P v r.¢sr. / r`� t,-.4%., Q., v 11 3 ,J K ern,+. MU r J ., Ir..SF. i W at I r ff 7 Fr. '�rm v - _ ] t di 8a @ C l�ry' EgINI 111 l f ve9[t iirrl sr rts w i�v �N` 111 I R' z f.... ' y u J Y '' IN 21 3:1:4 yyfy ik} a ISS#Sr 4 `r $ a xer.f. I I OW SI. Ma.. ►m S. ['mr V.kW sr.i�ar. rk u c. I 1 21 ra v . 1 r .w' I [ k _ lin= WRNS1 e n7wi sr. ---0 IPis 3E 31 25 G s® ti i �4 �S! Is�v. ><P wo+.r�lo-U sY ,y ms.u" Emr v. Ila= INIMI Density : 14. i4; rn.0 J .[u sr k I I b .oar. Sar M1 se y _ 2 77 C • airmail I i.' 1 . Yi 2 I 'I Y[ m'w ' L 111111/. $Ski cif :. TRACTr' 1per acre h II;4 L 14 're 1 1 I IN Ir R u [II I _ 1 S. ls i xr _MKT nar zr cee.sr. & t u I 5 e � Ine a +�ir. IR S2 �51Ys�ar. 7. ° 4 Application P ,:L 7, c o E Published .. c .o •� o ct July 13, 2018 & as ,', o •� O° 7.1.0 '-' CO °' o0N : July 20, 2018 •- cl o .. , o A '—' o0Ct 00 °. CJ CO • c4i �; Mailed ct oN A-, ,oma A °' u . a July18, 2018 : N_ o .H ti ti © •.. a ... v •7) v •_, �. ti a) cio Posted cli E © : c July 18, 2018 0.0 A C..) w 4 110( V( d [yr vir 1,00( Today 5 Application P PUBLIC COMMENTS 7,1 .. . : RECEIVED .1- . .,r:-, '. °° •. _. o CZ cc Z g N o I, 1E3 o k Specific Concerns Need more access on east or west .1 7;5 4; k ,-:.1 1 t o , • Need access to north for fire or Q E o evacuation © 4 • More control of speeders/children safety • Inadequate project noticing V( Mi Vr 6 Application P Published Mailed Posted July 13, 2018 & July 18, 2018 July 18, 2018 ota o July 20, 2018 •- •. •,—, ,— Ct -a 0. ;I 12".; E= C.. C,] '—I e—I ' --,_ ;'./....!01,J4.4/r7r.{.06rAtafrOfiree:4-2r4reWiliP#P,A/71:.r**77.N'%7141:1:17--LITIE:11:1'111 47° 411 A 44 f CZ (1) Ct (1) O. ..,,,, A.:.:440:toka:441::::::::44:44;:::44 0:4441:,11 'V •- G� 'i 0 0 'ilk ":::::****:+::::::::+:$40:$051$41:****::t:$:::e, -2 - . © ct U V + C. p - ct O • ;::• e 0:41 '112 •v © IMIIP- , , • , • No:Y © �' ms`s �a a • .f W 1Iø '+q` -� g „,,,A„pwirmze.y..0.+144,..vwx,w4e.w.gow-te..14.6. R ri3 ; 'C1-1-11111 :: ill .m11:,411:41 _'..'lip:lit gi=irdif-Arial;m1'1 rrii rilri'_z: Vile. I Vil - VI/ 11(' 1Vir. .m .lam -iv z&V° --1H I NM 1 FA'Il 7 Subdivision Review Criteria • Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Spokane Valley Municipal Code - SVMC Title 19 — Zoning Regulations — SVMC Title 20 — Subdivision Regulations — SVMC Title 21 — Environmental Controls — SVMC Title 22 — Development Standards 8 liliiiiit X 1 1110r :LIZ maw ill _ ..,.. .. iniumnow Alibi 0111111BI _ - __ I _ II 1.2.: 1=1.•4.1==.1=10MI i ,_, S '4`4 4 ■E1:1N 1 _ -.-7 .. limo= am +' X1111! ! �m arPreiansia Plan t . r rD /ft � 1 Amur.In ifialar � err' Ifi ' o► I "1 ► 1P0. SF `canr % • I ,. r Ii I ID� }15 � � � r AF III I ■ MU IIIIr\IC 1b71? ' ■ pos SF E 77th Cr #11ii-:./41 County alit_ f viiitirl- i 4,-,r,ohe, Y Comprehensive Plan g 'in si .. v Land Use Designation ,. --. - :mum=anew "-2.iliEM_LI 1 .. ,Zoning jL1. INi_ .- ;7;4,-, . In 1141 0 I I if ,r7,--u-, __ -t 11 ljak' , . 11111% - immni :11". ! r rrrr, ell Ilir . Sig gill 4411 44 MFR e,114 t. ua,} r ., j Irl- - '411111111,41:467Ve ' n 0 n) 4.411if : . . -- LDfYlfi€ li��il " `+ +f/ 4 -entt7I'44 R1 '� '#" t R-3IL 1 to ,0e/, i !yf / ms /� dy lith Aye 3 / i, 12h ■ pos J �'/. 414,...** V;f;e/MF "1P 0:ow r NC ,,,,,, 4$17,4 ■ CMU 104* _`.' ■ Il County 10 mi I . L c31-0 2 Trip enerati on & Distribution Project Trip Generation, Vistas at Belleaire AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Weekd In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Homes 226 homes 2130 42 11124 167 141 e: lIE T , Generabon Manual C ''Edi ) 11 Title 21 - Environmental Controls SVMC Chapter 21 .20 —MDNS Mitigation Measures • Installation of pedestrian crossing with median island and signage at ♦ '_ . 4 Chapman Road and Morningside ' -- - __ �` - ' Heights Dr. J., , ..,P - sy • Voluntary mitigation fee of ei , $48,997for Sprague Ave./Barkertimma Road improvements 1 Iiiii1Pr 12 MDNS Mitigation Measures continued. . . • Install radar signs for Ridgemont Neighborhood • Two stubs connecting to the north • for =.r. F __„_,... _. : _.,, �- easterly . ,,,, - i . , • . _ ..t. ____ <—' connection to . , a�`'f1 ._ _ Future stubs „ - - - Chapman Rd .11'1 - - __ •_ ' —_---- A — i ITow -I I ME , — -".-4 . -1— . .. ' lei' 'UM= SAL. -1-112'ZA \ yT 7 - _ y• r ini I! 'kJ I I - ,I-::. a I y { n. I'll 1 01 �. nsn_ - - wv M€�rnn _gsi ae heights Drive - II 13 �" 'NGT'Fr i II > a '111 411,P25 25 i' 26 7} 5Q 100 'I r I 7 / • 1S 18 '7 tako 2. # / 31 . i ...Ill 5 _,— ii I " v:. ' ; 7.0.U-T 70.'' ' • ' 36 1L 1 , • Slopes greater than 30 percent TT i ' ( : + CO. Alt 21 111111 Geo-hazard mitigation plan where site •15 will be disturbed III ,1 'rte �1E1 ' #IMMIIIMN 11 - t �. 12 I• I I I li t�\ 'x ;..I 15 =-+ 0 001. r5 Ifi 17 1H 'a 27 21 2a 23 54 n2o- 27a f7 4 1: 13 . A 1 1 _ t + 'I WI. 5 1.1 7.} 12 7O 4 d 7 6 i .i 7 I L f £ 1= 7 j ! 15 + ,x. ..� 1 4 II Title 21 — Environmental Controls . : '= ' � SVMC Chapter 21 .40 - Critical Areas 14 }MA Sr rr. - , •1 PIOrJTitle 21 7 �1 RI. rum kr - Z . Fs I • Fr 34 - — Environmental Controls w i Xrd SVMC Chapter 21 .40 - Critical Areas ��X191 1itiiYi...EM4Y10111117.YY.AN:Ila r 1�fL�YANIrc.0;..11:1.0. {L.i.r41 ..7� ..as.i of , f llllll,,{lpCS IC{lA-y�yF:�t7,C9•SCye�1S•]7'LySTk F ,d` .-,./. .` '{ No wetlands on site ! -.... 2:: 419 CI'� Type N stream 50 . �sr. ..Ltr.cr' 79 ' J n ■ diY sir. \ N:1 c„.. � I • foot buffer 1 . n • Wildlife Travel •lw.r •rn>a. o ld • LelL p.rY. Corridor , ,., , �. 415" 1.-m"r.as'p. / • �:,. � - -11'a,... 'm Ir. y.. d ▪ cp. 1 r 15 Questions ? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14,2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ®admin.report ❑pending legislation ❑executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report—repeal of chapter 7.40 SVMC—Electronic Cigarettes and Related Devices. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 7.40 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of chapter 7.40 SVMC through adoption of Ordinance 11-003 in 2011. BACKGROUND: In 2011, the City Council adopted chapter 7.40 SVMC, governing electronic cigarettes and related devices,to protect minors from hazardous nicotine products and other products with little regulatory oversight. The chapter was intended to be temporary until state or federal law of a substantially similar nature was adopted. In 2016 the Washington state legislature passed S.S.B. No. 6328, which amended chapter 70.155 RCW and recodified the section as chapter 70.345 RCW, which now governs vapor products and prohibits the sale of vapor products to minors. The state law is substantially similar to chapter 7.40. SVMC in that it prohibits sales to minors,regulates vapor product advertisements and places of use,and provides penalties for any violation of the chapter. RCW 70.345.210 preempts political subdivisions from enforcing requirements for the licensure and regulation of vapor product promotions and sales. The chapter 7.40 SVMC requirements and prohibitions on the sale of electronic cigarettes and related devices would be preempted under state law. As chapter 70.345 RCW is substantially similar to chapter 7.40 SVMC, staff is recommending this chapter be repealed in its entirety. OPTIONS: (1) Place on a future agenda for an ordinance first reading; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for an ordinance first reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell,City Attorney,Alex Lovell,Legal Intern. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance repealing chapter 7.40 SVMC. Proposed Repeal of 7 . 40 SVMC Cary Driskell, City Attorney Alex Lovell, Legal Intern August 14, 2018 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Background In Zoic, the City Council adopted chapter 7.4o SVMC: • Governs electronic cigarettes and related devices • To protect minors from hazardous nicotine products and other products with little regulatory oversight. • Intended to be temporary until state or federal legislation was enacted. In 2016 the Washington state legislature adopted chapter 70.345 RCW. Regulates vapor product advertisements, prohibits sales of vapor products to minors, and includes penalties for violations City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Impact RCW 70.345.210 preempts political subdivisions from enforcing requirements for the licensure and regulation of vapor product promotions and sales. SVMC 7.4o.o9o(B) provides: "this chapter shall be repealed on the day that state or federal legislation goes into effect incorporating either the same or substantially similar provision as are contained in this chapter, or in the event that a pertinent state or federal administrative agency issues and promulgates regulations preempting such action by the City." City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Recommendation The Office of the City Attorney recommends repealing chapter 7.4o SVMC in its entirety. Chapter 70.345 RCW is substantially similar to chapter 7.4o SVMC; Repealing chapter 7.4o SVMC would remove a preempted section of the SVMC. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-0** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REPEALING CHAPTER 7.40 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND RELATED DEVICES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City adopted chapter 7.40 SVMC, Electronic Cigarettes and Related Devices, in 2011 to protect minors from the hazards of nicotine and the dangers of electronic cigarettes and other devices; and WHEREAS, the City intended chapter 7.40 SVMC to be temporary until state or federal law governing electronic cigarettes and sales to minors was enacted; and WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature in 2016 adopted chapter 70.345 RCW, which regulates vapor product advertisements,prohibits sales to minors,and also preempts local ordinances from regulating the advertisement of vapor products and the sale thereof; and WHEREAS, RCW 70.345.210 preempts political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing requirements for the licensure and regulation of vapor product promotions and sales at retail; and WHEREAS, SVMC 7.40.090(B)provides: "this chapter shall be repealed on the day that state or federal legislation goes into effect incorporating either the same or substantially similar provisions as are contained in this chapter, or in the event that a pertinent state or federal administrative agency issues and promulgates regulations preempting such action by the City"; and WHEREAS, chapter 70.345 RCW is substantially similar to chapter 7.40 SVMC and preempts local ordinances from enforcing requirements on the advertisement or sale of vapor products, it is appropriate to repeal chapter 7.40 SVMC to remove a preempted section of the SVMC. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to repeal chapter 7.40 SVMC because substantially similar state laws have been adopted, and repeal will remove a preempted chapter of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Section 2. Repeal. Chapter 7.40 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause,or phrase in this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Ordinance **Repealing chapter 7.40 SVMC—Electronic Cigarettes and Related Devices Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Passed by the City Council this day of , 2018. City of Spokane Valley L.R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance **Repealing chapter 7.40 SVMC—Electronic Cigarettes and Related Devices Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Surplus Property, S. Carnahan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.49.020 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council approved the purchase of 707 S. Carnahan at the November 1, 2016 meeting and the purchase of 729 S. Carnahan at the June 19, 2018 meeting. Council also approved right-of-way acquisition remediation for the property at 707 S. Carnahan at the March 27, 2018 meeting. BACKGROUND: The City purchased real property at 707 and 729 South Carnahan Road in two parcels (35231.1412 and 35231.1413, respectively) for the purpose of providing right-of-way to accommodate future improvements at the intersection at 8th Avenue and Carnahan Road. The City determined the right-of-way needed to accommodate the intersection improvements and recorded the dedications with Spokane County on August 7, 2018. The remainder of the parcels are not needed for the future intersection improvements. The City will make interim improvements to the intersection in the fall of 2018 with full intersection improvements made after funding is secured for the project. The unused portions of 707 and 729 S. Carnahan are proposed as surplus to the City's needs as the City has or anticipates no practical, efficient, or appropriate use for the property, as is outlined as one of the criteria for a declaration of surplus in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) section 3.49.020(A). City department directors have been notified of the surplus nature of this property, and no department has any desire to acquire or use the proposed surplus property. A draft Resolution to declare this property surplus is attached to this RCA. If the Resolution is approved by Council, the City Manager will be authorized to dispose of the surplus personal property pursuant to SVMC 3.49.020(B), which states that, for surplus real property, the City Manager shall secure a market value appraisal and proceed to sell the same by public auction or through other procedures the City Manager deems to be in the best interests of the City. OPTIONS: Consensus to bring this Resolution back on August 21, 2018 for approval consideration by Council; or, request additional information as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to bring this Resolution back on August 21, 2018 for approval by Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Sale proceeds are unknown at this time, but will be at least the fair market appraised value of the property. Proceeds will be deposited into Capital Reserve Fund #312 which is the fund from which the property acquisitions were initially made. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director and Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING REAL PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE AND EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO SELL SAID REAL PROPERTY,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.49.020(A)requires that real property be declared surplus by the Spokane Valley City Council prior to its disposal; and WHEREAS,the criteria for a declaration that the property is surplus to the needs of the City are set forth in SVMC 3.49.020(A),and includes the following: 1. The City has or anticipates no practical,efficient,or appropriate use for the property. WHEREAS,upon such a declaration passed by resolution of the Spokane Valley City Council,the City Manager is authorized to sell surplus real property as set forth in SVMC 3.49.020(B); and WHEREAS, City department directors have been notified of the surplus nature of this property, and no department has any desire to acquire or use the proposed surplus property; and WHEREAS,the City purchased real property at 707 and 729 South Carnahan Road in two parcels (35231.1412 and 35231.1413, respectively) for the purpose of providing right-of-way to accommodate future improvements at the intersection at 8th Avenue and Carnahan Road. The City determined the right- of-way needed to accommodate the intersection improvements and recorded the dedications with Spokane County on August 7, 2018. The remainder of the parcels are not needed for the future intersection improvements; and WHEREAS,The City will make interim improvements to the intersection in the fall of 2018. Full intersection improvements will be made when funding is secured. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Surplus. The Spokane Valley City Council hereby declares that the real property identified as: Lot 7,Block 6,Caroline,as per plat recorded in Volume"S"of Plats,page 12,records of Spokane County; EXCEPT the West 20 feet thereof; Situate in the City of Spokane Valley,County of Spokane, State of Washington And Lot 6,Block 6,Caroline, as per plat recorded in Volume"S"of Plats,page 12,records of Spokane County; Resolution 18-XXX—Declaring Items as Surplus Page 1 of 2 DRAFT EXCEPT the West 20 feet and the South 20 feet of said Lot 6; AND ALSO EXCEPT that portion of said Lot 6 described as follows: Beginning at a point 20 feet north of the south line of said Lot 6 and 20 feet east of the west line of said Lot 6; Thence East, parallel with the south line of said Lot 6 to a point 40 feet east of the west line of said Lot 6;Thence Northwesterly to a point 20 feet east of the west line of said Lot 6 and 40 feet north of the south line of said Lot 6; Thence Slouth 20 feet to the Point of Beginning; Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington are surplus to the needs of the City, and the City has no practical, efficient, or appropriate use for the property. The property being declared surplus is set forth in Attachment 1 to this Resolution. Section 2.Authorization to dispose of surplus property.The City Manager is authorized to dispose of the surplus personal property identified in Attachment 1 to this Resolution pursuant to SVMC 3.49.020(B), which states that, for surplus real property, the City Manager shall secure a market value appraisal and proceed to sell the same by public auction or through other procedures the City Manager deems to be in the best interests of the City. Section 3.Effective Date.This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this day of August,2018. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 18-XXX—Declaring Items as Surplus Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT1 EXISTING Lc, y c 5 `4 25 '1j .D ;7 (L.48021 2.4 11 110.70 24 $,i. R 65 �' 1 - 1.1442 1.132 cD 23 '4\11' 71 1.1332 '4433S 2 11 .1 . - 1.1321 .r.- 2C 0 15 al 2.9060 1.1443 1.1441 rF w -'' 1 1.1331 206 - 63 '.. 60 as ?'. 5124 - -'11:4 r* cCsar - •0e''_ '' i A= q Ga 3i €1 29061 SI I -Ha s3 A�. 60 2fl6 1.1411 1.1444 �A° • '1.1415 s'— OQ 6 2.4901 2..I is s 132 o,e, .1465 1.1416 44 131} r; 1.1412 7 73 73 4 g g . 2.490 j i i �" 127005 5 2.49D4 2.4903 SD ED 30� 7 . �` '' OL11�VL9r 4 1.1466 1.146 ' 1.141? . '7'♦ 2 .2 Z . _ ra + N �p _ 150 130 G� 0,. 8TH AVE D d " 1251 1 118 -3_3017 3 ' 1 I c-)0 N 5 I � Z n� 'C^ 2 �o5 4_9099 3.3003 1 Z �' 2 3.3022 Q 5 2 U 1 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED a� r I ,z, , ,,,, ,,,,,\ .�O A . Q0 1 Q,,o I G 20 •2 5°.0 1 I1.1412 b I 36,660 sf 80' Irn 1.1413 1 0� 30,659 sf \ N.-- -'.'' ms 260' b I _ 4� 300' N r- �0 - To8THAVE - - I N 0 w I Z I Q z rI Q U 2 OF 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 14, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Economic Analysis of Tourism Related Venues and Events GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • March 8, 2016, Council heard a report from Community Attributes, Inc. (CAI) on the Retail Improvement Study, as well as the Tourism Enhancement Study. • August 16, 2016, Council authorized staff to move forward with the analysis of six potential tourism enhancement projects. • November 30, 2016, Council and staff attended a special Council meeting to hear about and discuss the CSL Feasibility Study, the purpose of which was to consider a potential sports complex on land located near the HUB facility, and for potential major enhancements to Spokane County's existing Plante's Ferry Sports Facility. • December 20, 2016, Council heard a report from CAI on an update to the Tourism Enhancement Study, including analysis of the six projects approved by Council as well as the Plante's Ferry expansion and the HUB Complex. • Also, Council heard at the November 17, 2017 Council meeting that staff was having CAI perform an analysis on expanding the outdoor venue at CenterPlace in addition to the other projects in the Tourism Enhancement Study. • February 13, 2018 and May 29, 2018, Council heard administrative reports on this topic. • July 10, 2018 Council approved a motion to limit future discussions of this topic to the fairgrounds and stadium district, a sports complex, and CenterPlace west lawn expansion. BACKGROUND: At the July 10, 2018 meeting, Council approved a motion to narrow the discussion of economic venues and events to the fairgrounds and stadium district, a sports complex, and the CenterPlace west lawn expansion. Staff has prepared financial analysis of these three venues, and our analysis is based upon three separate consultant prepared documents: • CAI report titled Spokane Valley Tourism Analysis— Phase II Project Profiles dated March 2017, • CSL Feasibility Study from November 2016, and • CAI report titled CenterPlace Expansion Economic Impact Assessment dated April 2018. Fairgrounds and Stadium District The fairgrounds and stadium district project is discussed on pages 54-61 of the CAI Report titled Spokane Valley Tourism Analysis — Phase II Project Profiles. This project involves demolishing one of the existing buildings at the fairgrounds and constructing a larger structure in its place. This is projected to increase capacity at the fairgrounds by 10 to 30 events annually. At baseline attendance, the project is estimated to draw an additional 57,600 visitors per year resulting in 8,300 estimated hotel nights. The cost of the project is estimated at $8.4 million and would require LTGO bonds in the amount of$6.5 million after the use of$1.9 million in estimated fund balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 as of December 31, 2018. The bond payment would be about $410,000 annually, of which the 1.3% lodging tax would provide $390,000. The annual net cash inflow from this project is estimated at $29,600 after factoring in revenues and expenses from operations, projected increases from Spokane Valley sales taxes from additional visitor spending in the City, the 1.3% lodging tax assumed to partially pay for the LTGO payment, and the LTGO bond payment. Sports Complex The sports complex project is discussed in the CSL Feasibility Study. This project involves the construction of 12 fields, including four full-size flexible baseball fields and eight softball/youth fields. The site would need to be 48 to 72 acres in size to accommodate the fields. At year three of operation, which staff is using as a mid-line for potential operating activity, the project is estimated to draw an additional 310,750 visitors per year resulting in 10,992 estimated hotel nights. The cost of the project is estimated at $27.9 million and would require LTGO bonds in the amount of $26 million after the use of $1.9 million in estimated fund balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 as of December 31, 2018. The bond payment would be about $2 million annually, of which the 1.3% lodging tax would provide $390,000. The annual net cash outflow from this project is estimated to be about $1.7 million after factoring in revenues and expenses from operations, projected increases from Spokane Valley sales taxes from additional visitor spending in the City, the 1.3% lodging tax assumed to partially pay for the LTGO payment, and the LTGO bond payment. CenterPlace West Lawn Expansion The CenterPlace west lawn expansion project is discussed in the CAI report titled CenterPlace Expansion Economic Impact Assessment. This project involves improvements to the west lawn at CenterPlace to make the area more conducive to outdoor events. The improvements are projected to increase the number of large events held at CenterPlace by 20 events annually. At 75% occupancy, the project is estimated to draw an additional 148,601 visitors per year resulting in 1,800 estimated hotel nights. The cost of the project is estimated at about $2 million and would not require LTGO bonds to complete the capital construction due to the $200,000 committed in the 2018 Budget for this purpose and the use of $1.9 million in estimated fund balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax—Tourism Facilities Fund #104 as of December 31, 2018. As there would not be an annual bond payment, the $390,000 annually from the 1.3% lodging tax would be available for use on other projects. The annual net cash inflow from this project is estimated at $174,000 after factoring in revenues and expenses from operations and projected increases from Spokane Valley sales taxes from additional visitor spending in the City. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 is estimated to have an ending fund balance of $1,873,777 at the end of 2018. Revenues in that fund are currently estimated at $390,000 in the preliminary 2019 Budget which would finance approximately $6,228,100 in bond proceeds. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager and Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • a. PowerPoint Presentation • b. Financial Analysis of Fairgrounds and Stadium District o Analysis of potential tourism enhancement o Bond payment calculation o Sales tax increase calculation • c. Financial Analysis of Sports Complex o Analysis of potential tourism enhancement o Bond payment calculation o Sales tax increase calculation • d. Financial Analysis of CenterPlace West Lawn Expansion o Analysis of potential tourism enhancement o Sales tax increase calculation • e. CAI report titled Spokane Valley Tourism Analysis — Phase II Project Profiles dated March 2017 • f. CSL Feasibility Study from November 2016 • g. CAI report titled CenterPlace Expansion Economic Impact Assessment dated April 2018 Economic Analysis of Tourism and Events August 14, 2018 John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 0.°1°111\ft%6 Sii' iikane Valley® Retail Improvement S 2015 hired CAI to develop a retail improvement strategy and action plan Analyze Retail Trade Area, demographics, retail demand Identify opportunities for retail growth • Develop strategic work program actions Cal attributes ny Identified strong connection between retail and tourism A retail improvement strategy action was to explore potential tourism anchors and study those projects Retail I m rovement Strategy: Trade Capturep Primary Trade Area MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS 199% Trade capture is41=11. relatively strong GENERAL MERCHANDISE 1$ but lags in tourism CLOTHING AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES i 171% related categories SPORTING GOODS, HOBBY, BOOK AND MUSIC 153% BUILDING MATERIAL AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT 133% GASOLINE STATIONS 133% MISCELLANEOUS RETAILERS, NON—STORE RETAILERS 120% ELECTRONICS AND APPLIANCE 113% FOOD SERVICES AND DRINKING PLACES 1C7% FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS 104% ACCOMMODATION FOOD ,AND BEVERAGE STORES $1°di Data Source Department of Revenue PERFORMING ARTS,SPECTATOR SPORTS Office of Financial Management 67% 2014 Data,published 2015 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Trade Capture 3 Retail Improvement SRetail Sales $1.514 $2,038 FOOD SERVICES AND DRINKING PLACES ,1 r1�, E ACCOMMODATION Spokane Valley PERFORMING ARTS,SPECTATOR SPORTS $73 rflS.500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Taxable Retail Sales Per Capes City lags behind in retail sales per capita in tourism retail sectors Data Source Department of Revenue Office of Financial Management 2014 Data, published 2015 Tourism Strategy raicommunity attributesinc Phase I - Existing conditions & development of strategies Phase II - Technical evaluation of strategies Phase III - Implementation ( Projects) Phase I : a En ement with Tourism Industry gg r - w Conducted interviews with stakeholders Developed a survey to identify r _' opportunities and challenges Convened workshops ,.- , 5r4p• Iwa . _ miear : - -- {0 �_. _ . - 1St workshop: develop strategies and ., ',- ` __ identify potential investments/projects r 2nd workshop: review goals, strategies and - t- n select projects for further study Phase I: Existing Conditions & Strategy Development Inventoried and profiled key tourism assets in the City Special events, lodging facilities, retail and dining destinations, convention, recreation, sports Identified strengths and deficits in tourism based on regional and local spending on tourism activities Compiled case studies of tourism investments Initial investment, ongoing operational costs, impact on tourism Developed a list of potential strategies or investments with stakeholder input Phase II : Investment Opportunities and Strategies Funded by Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Study feasibility of projects identified in Phase Evaluated strategies for potential investment Whitewater and Waterfront Park Trail Development and Public Art Fairgrounds and Stadium District Balfour Park Redevelopment Special Events (CenterPlace supplemental) Arts and Entertainment Venue Sports Complex (Spokane County - CSL Study) Phase II : Investment Opportunities and Strategies Analyzed the economic feasibility of each strategy: Market opportunity Potential development costs Operational challenges and other anticipated barriers Analyzed the project economic impacts and return on investment: Projected operational revenues (e.g. ticket sales) Direct fiscal impacts (e.g. retail sales tax, property tax, lodging tax) Ability to become self-sustainable Phase III - Current Tourism Projects Fairgrounds and Stadium District Outdoor Sports Complex CenterPlace West Lawn Expansion Fairgrounds/Stadium District - Why Increase market share in event hosting Need for renovation or replacement of existing facility Capitalize on existing visitors to the Fair and Expo Center and Stadium Capture existing demand in winter Spokane County will maintain and operate new facility Create a multifaceted stadium or entertainment district Fairgrounds/Stadium District - Details .. :3.- �, , ,_. Demolition of an aging 24,000 )� t.ra►h. square foot building --- - - t +..... mil. I .I.1 ,.. ...., ,,, „ Construction of a new 50,000 v ip square foot multi-purpose building 7 l f` with insulation, concrete floors and 1 , I i , r —r A § other finishes o ` f Increases capacity by 10-30 events ` �� , ,�, �� per year 1 � a, 44.0 _" l -7 7.c d ,ter Fairgrounds - Financial Analysis Total Attendance Days im Low Baseline I High Visitors _ Total Visitors 28,000 57,600 86,400 Estimated Hotel Room Nights (2) h 8,300 Capital Costs _ Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 8,417,000 $ 8,417,000 $ 8,417,000 Less: Estimated Fund #104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) Remaining capital cost to finance $ 6,543,223 $ 6,543,223 $ 6,543,223 LTGO bond payment $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 409,733 - 30-year bond @ 4.5%, issue costs @ 2% - 1.3% lodging tax may provide up to $390,000 annually for the payment (1) Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 61. (2) Not calculated. Fairgrounds - Financial Analysis, continued Total Attendance Days Low Baseline I High Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues $ 230,400 $ 460,800 $ 691,200 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 16,779 $ 33,558 $ 50,320 $ 637,179 $ 884,358 $ 1,131,520 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses ' $ 445,000 $ 445,000 $ 445,000 - Bond payment $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 854,733 $ 854,733 $ 854,733 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ (217,554) $ 29,625 $ 276,787 Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City $ 1,974,000 $ 3,948,000 $ 5,920,000 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 16,779 $ 33,558 $ 50,320 Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 61. Sports Complex - Why High demand noted among local and non-local softball and baseball leagues, clubs and tournament producers Enhanced sports and recreation opportunities Reduce the need for residents to leave the region for sports Synergy with the other sports, recreation, entertainment and leisure facilities leading to increased tourism activity Enhanced community pride, self-image, exposure and reputation Improved regional exposure Sports Complex CSL stud - Details y Minimum of 8 tournament softball fields (existing demand) 12 fields are recommended to address long-term growth 4 full size flexible baseball fields .. •• kv'"rL ti.. 8 softball/youth baseball fields �_, P `.or v Sites . . .. ... 1. y . .1..6 48 to 72-acre site ` �" -` �� a 'L L.L L e.1 retia4 a.:1" ` `i 75 parking spaces per field k' L��.._ 4t ki 6i.L .Y • „ do_ii.o ili. ig Ilf f T L .ter Ill- svrr�aas+�Y 16 Sports Complex - Financial Analysis Year of Operation - Range of Operation Year 1 Year 3 I Year 5 Visitors Total Visitors 175,875 310,750 313,150 Estimated Hotel Room Nights 4,826 10,992 11,179 Capital Costs Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 27,880,000 $ 27,880,000 $ 27,880,000 Less: Estimated Fund #104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1 ,873,777) $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) Remaining capital cost to finance $ 26,006,223 $ 26,006,223 $ 26,006,223 LTGO bond payment $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 - 20-year bond @ 4.5%, issue costs @ 2% - 1.3% lodging tax may provide up to $390,000 annually for the payment Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CSL report pgs. 77, 92, and 95. Sports Complex - Financial Analysis, continued Year of Operation - Range of Operation Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues $ 754,300 $ 1,268,430 $ 1,277,901 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 24,670 $ 56,195 $ 57,001 $ 1,168,970 $ 1,714,625 $ 1,724,902 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses ' ' $ 1,277,110 $ 1,399,296 $ 1,428,683 - Bond payment $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 3,316,353 $ 3,438,539 $ 3,467,926 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ (2,147,384) $ (1,723,914) $ (1,743,025) Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City $ 2,902,331 $ 6,611,195 $ 6,705,965 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 24,670 $ 56,195 $ 57,001 Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CSL report pgs. 77, 92, and 95. CenterPlace West Lawn ( Phase II ) - Why CenterPlace is a popular venue Increase the number of large events Currently there is limited space for event expansion Attract new types of special events Carve a regional niche Enhanced community pride, self-image, exposure and reputation CenterPlace West Lawn ( Phase II - Details ____ _ „Ira , Demolition & earthwork Expanded utilities, electrical & lighting It Plaza and street construction Performance/wedding area z Buildings - restroom & storage � 9 New landscaping & irrigation Perimeter fencing 4 • . — tip, s CenterPlace West Lawn - Financial Analysis Occupancy 50% I 75% I 100% Visitors Total Visitors (1) 99,067 148,601 198,135 Estimated Hotel Room Nights 1,200 1 ,800 2,400 Capital Costs Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 2,014,967 $ 2,014,967 $ 2,014,967 Less: Estimated Fund #104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1 ,814,967) $ (1 ,814,967) $ (1 ,814,967) Other City Funding Source $ (200,000) $ (200,000) $ (200,000) Remaining capital cost to finance LTGO bond payment - N/A - bonds not needed to fund capital construction Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 14. CenterPlace West Lawn - Financial Analysis Occupancy 50% I 75% I 100% Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues $ 79,250 $ 118,875 $ 158,500 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax $ - - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 54,927 $ 82,391 $ 109,863 $ 134,177 $ 201,266 $ 268,363 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 - Bond payment - $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ 107,177 $ 174,266 $ 241,363 Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City $ 6,462,000 $ 9,693,000 $ 12,925,000 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 54,927 $ 82,391 $ 109,863 Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 14. Questions? H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/7/2018 Analysis of Potential Tourism Enhancements Fairgrounds Redevelopment Total Attendance Days Low I I Baseline I High Visitors Total Visitors (1) 28,000 57,600 86,400 Estimated Hotel Room Nights ' 8,300 Capital Costs Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 8,417,000 $ 8,417,000 $ 8,417,000 Less: Estimated Fund#104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) Remaining capital cost to finance $ 6,543,223 $ 6,543,223 $ 6,543,223 LTGO bond payment $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 409,733 - 30-year bond @ 4.5%, issue costs @ 2% - 1.3%lodging tax may provide up to $390,000 annually for the payment Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues(1) $ 230,400 $ 460,800 $ 691,200 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 16,779 $ 33,558 $ 50,320 $ 637,179 $ 884,358 $ 1,131,520 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses(1) $ 445,000 $ 445,000 $ 445,000 - Bond payment $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 409,733 $ 854,733 $ 854,733 $ 854,733 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ (217,554) $ 29,625 $ 276,787 Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City $ 1,974,000 $ 3,948,000 $ 5,920,000 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 16,779 $ 33,558 $ 50,320 Number of jobs created (1) 22 43 67 - Capital cost per job created $ 382,591 $ 195,744 $ 125,627 - The majority of jobs created are assumed by staff to be part-time, minimum wage jobs (1) Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 61. (2) Not calculated. Fairgrounds H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/7/2018 Estimated Annual Bond Payments Fairgrounds Redevelopment Mid-range capital cost $ 8,417,000 (1) Less Fund#104 @12/31/18 $ (1,873,777) Remaining cost to finance $ 6,543,223 Net bond proceeds needed $ 6,228,100 Lesser of mid-range capital cost or amt financed by lodging tax Bond issue costs $124,562 Assumed at 2%of bond issue Bond issue amount $ 6,352,662 Interest Repayment period (yrs.) Rate 20 25 30 Annual Bond Payment 3.00% $ 426,999 $ 364,820 $ 324,108 3.50% $ 446,980 $ 385,442 $ 345,403 4.00% $ 467,440 $ 406,646 $ 367,375 4.50% $ 488,368 $ 428,417 $ 390,000 4.75% $ 499,005 $ 439,510 $ 401,548 5.00% $ 509,754 $ 450,737 $ 413,250 5.25% $ 520,615 $ 462,097 $ 425,101 5.50% $ 531,587 $ 473,587 $ 437,097 Financing on remaining amount: Net bond proceeds needed $ 315,123 After amount financed through lodging tax Bond issue costs $6,302 Assumed at 2%of bond issue Bond issue amount $ 321,425 Interest Repayment period (yrs.) Rate 20 25 30 Annual Bond Payment 3.00% $ 21,605 $ 18,459 $ 16,399 3.50% $ 22,616 $ 19,502 $ 17,476 4.00% $ 23,651 $ 20,575 $ 18,588 4.50% $ 24,710 $ 21,677 $ 19,733 4.75% $ 25,248 $ 22,238 $ 20,317 5.00% $ 25,792 $ 22,806 $ 20,909 5.25% $ 26,342 $ 23,381 $ 21,509 5.50% $ 26,897 $ 23,962 $ 22,116 (1) Value for capital costs was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 61. Bond pmt- Fairgrounds H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/7/2018 Calculation Estimated Increases to Sales Tax Collections - Fairgrounds Redevelopment Total Attendance Days Low I Baseline I High Estimated Visitor Spending $ 1,974,000 $ 3,948,000 $ 5,920,000 COSV Sales Tax Rate 0.85% 0.85% 0.85% Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 16,779 $ 33,558 $ 50,320 (1) Value for estimated visitor spending was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 61. Sales Tax Calc- Fairgrounds H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/7/2018 Analysis of Potential Tourism Enhancements Sports Complex Year of Operation -Range of Operation Year 1 I I Year 3 I Year 5 Visitors Total Visitors (1) 175,875 310,750 313,150 Estimated Hotel Room Nights 4,826 10,992 11,179 Capital Costs Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 27,880,000 $ 27,880,000 $ 27,880,000 Less: Estimated Fund#104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) $ (1,873,777) Remaining capital cost to finance $ 26,006,223 $ 26,006,223 $ 26,006,223 LTGO bond payment $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 - 20-year bond @ 4.5%, issue costs @ 2% - 1.3%lodging tax may provide up to $390,000 annually for the payment Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues(1) $ 754,300 $ 1,268,430 $ 1,277,901 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 24,670 $ 56,195 $ 57,001 $ 1,168,970 $ 1,714,625 $ 1,724,902 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses(1) $ 1,277,110 $ 1,399,296 $ 1,428,683 - Bond payment $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 2,039,243 $ 3,316,353 $ 3,438,539 $ 3,467,926 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ (2,147,384) $ (1,723,914) $ (1,743,025) Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City $ 2,902,331 $ 6,611,195 $ 6,705,965 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 24,670 $ 56,195 $ 57,001 Number of jobs created (1) 58 131 133 - Capital cost per job created $ 480,690 $ 212,824 $ 209,624 - The majority of jobs created are assumed by staff to be part-time, minimum wage jobs (1) Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CSL report pgs. 77, 92, and 95. Sports Complex H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/7/2018 Estimated Annual Bond Payments Sports Complex Mid-range capital cost $ 27,880,000 (1) Less Fund #104 @12/31/18 $ (1,873,777) Remaining cost to finance $ 26,006,223 Net bond proceeds needed $ 6,228,100 Lesser of mid-range capital cost or amt financed by lodging tax Bond issue costs $124,562 Assumed at 2%of bond issue Bond issue amount $ 6,352,662 Interest Repayment period yrs.) Rate 20 25 30 Annual Bond Payment 3.00% $ 426,999 $ 364,820 $ 324,108 3.50% $ 446,980 $ 385,442 $ 345,403 4.00% $ 467,440 $ 406,646 $ 367,375 4.50% $ 488,368 $ 428,417 $ 390,000 4.75% $ 499,005 $ 439,510 $ 401,548 5.00% $ 509,754 $ 450,737 $ 413,250 5.25% $ 520,615 $ 462,097 $ 425,101 5.50% $ 531,587 $ 473,587 $ 437,097 Financing on remaining amount: Net bond proceeds needed $ 19,778,123 After amount financed through lodging tax Bond issue costs $395,562 Assumed at 2%of bond issue Bond issue amount $ 20,173,685 Interest Repayment period yrs.) Rate 20 25 30 Annual Bond Payment 3.00% $ 1,355,989 $ 1,158,532 $ 1,029,246 3.50% $ 1,419,442 $ 1,224,019 $ 1,096,870 4.00% $ 1,484,415 $ 1,291,357 $ 1,166,646 4.50% $ 1,550,875 $ 1,360,494 $ 1,238,494 4.75% $ 1,584,652 $ 1,395,719 $ 1,275,168 5.00% $ 1,618,789 $ 1,431,373 $ 1,312,327 5.25% $ 1,653,280 $ 1,467,447 $ 1,349,961 5.50% $ 1,688,120 $ 1,503,935 $ 1,388,058 (1) Value for capital costs was taken directly from the CSL report pg. 77. Bond pmt-Sports Complex H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/7/2018 Calculation Estimated Increases to Sales Tax Collections - Sports Complex Year of Operation - Range of Operation Year 1 I I Year 3 I Year 5 Total Economic Output $ 4,465,125 $ 10,171,069 $ 10,316,869 Estimated Distribution to Spokane Valley 65% 65% 65% COSV Sales Tax Rate 0.85% 0.85% 0.85% Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 24,670 $ 56,195 $ 57,001 (1) Value for estimated visitor spending was taken directly from the CSL report pg. 95. Estimated 65% of activity is in Spokane Valley. Sales Tax Calc-Sports Complex H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/7/2018 Analysis of Potential Tourism Enhancements CenterPlace West Lawn Expansion Occupancy 50% I I 75% I 100% Visitors Total Visitors (1) 99,067 148,601 198,135 Estimated Hotel Room Nights 1,200 1,800 2,400 Capital Costs Mid-Range Capital Costs $ 2,014,967 $ 2,014,967 $ 2,014,967 Less: Estimated Fund#104 @ 12/31/18 $ (1,814,967) $ (1,814,967) $ (1,814,967) Other City Funding Source $ (200,000) $ (200,000) $ (200,000) Remaining capital cost to finance LTGO bond payment - N/A -bonds not needed to fund capital construction Analysis of Annual Activity Annual cash inflows - Operating revenues(1) $ 79,250 $ 118,875 $ 158,500 - 1.3% COSV lodging tax - - Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 54,927 $ 82,391 $ 109,863 $ 134,177 $ 201,266 $ 268,363 Annual cash outflows - Operating expenses $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 - Bond payment - $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 Annual net cash inflow(outflow) $ 107,177 $ 174,266 $ 241,363 Analysis of Other Economic Impacts Estimated visitor spending in the City(1) $ 6,462,000 $ 9,693,000 $ 12,925,000 - Corresponding increase in sales tax $ 54,927 $ 82,391 $ 109,863 Number of jobs created (1) 62 92 124 - Capital cost per job created $ 32,499 $ 21,902 $ 16,250 - The majority of jobs created are assumed by staff to be part-time, minimum wage jobs (1) Values for number of visitors, capital costs, operating revenues, operating expenses, estimated visitor spending in the City, and number of jobs created was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 14. CenterPlace H:\Tourism Study Info and Analysis\2018 08 14 Admin Report\Analysis for Fairgrounds Sportsplex CenterPlace.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/7/2018 Calculation Estimated Increases to Sales Tax Collections - CenterPlace West Lawn Expansion Total Attendance Days Low I Baseline I High Estimated Visitor Spending $ 6,462,000 $ 9,693,000 $ 12,925,000 COSV Sales Tax Rate 0.85% 0.85% 0.85% Estimated increase in sales tax collections $ 54,927 $ 82,391 $ 109,863 (1) Value for estimated visitor spending was taken directly from the CAI report pg. 14. Sales Tax Calc-CenterPlace SPOKANE VALLEY TOURISM ANALYSIS PHASE II PROJECT PROFILES Varch, 2017 PRESENTED TO City of Spokane Valley PREPARED BY Community Attributes Inc. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Tourism Analysis Phase II Si okane Walley 11707 E.Sprague,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 • aicommunity attributes inc 1411 4th Ave,Suite 1401 Seattle,WA 98101 WWW.communityattributes.corn CONTENTS Introduction and Summary Findings 1 Project Profiles 13 I. Whitewater and Waterfront Park 15 II. Trail Development and Public Art 35 III. Fairgrounds and Stadium District 53 IV. Balfour Park Redevelopment 62 V. Special Events 85 VI. Arts and Entertainment Venue 103 Appendix A-1 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page i Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page ii Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY FINDINGS Background and Purpose The City of Spokane Valley approached GROW 5P0/,ANE VALLEYS PRESENCE IN 610NAL EVENTS ANO 01.101E LOCAL 0E5l1NATIONS Community Attributes to conduct an analysis I '�Pq"�"`tE;O f P°K NE MYER NpE8EA ON 4C NI E5 ..1 lmow.n«.uana En.c. of the City's tourism sector and to identify I y�srPoN�F$e�tn„ann��n6 opportunities for economic development I a s a ,t zv.rs based on tourist activity. Phase I, completed inA° = e�� July 2016, identified current tourism drivers EmaNaANo ----- and analyzed Spokane Valleys tourism IM • �' secs rile feasVirty df nsir Ct a industry. This portion of the analysis was �� - 5 $p, av-ems 'R . intended to help Spokane Valley develop 7100,1, appropriate strategies and actions to improve its tourism economy, including identifying a ; potential projects for further study in Phase II. Six prospective tourist features were evaluated in this second phase: • Trail expansion and public art implementation • Launching and promoting a new special event hosted by Spokane Valley • Creation of a waterfront and whitewater park • Establishment of a new arts and entertainment venue • Expansion of the fairgrounds and stadium district • Redevelopment of Balfour Park The projects were selected for further study through a survey of project stakeholders and a review with the Spokane Valley City Council. The project selected for further analysis were judged to be the most suitable and actionable for the City to consider. It is also important to note that results and trends identified in the Spokane Valley Retail Analysis and Comprehensive Plan Update were leveraged to inform the analysis. Along with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the tourism and retail strategies combine to form the backbone of the City's economic development strategy. Methods and Approach The projects are evaluated based on their potential costs, economic drivers and other measures of feasibility. The focus for each project profile is to ascertain and compare potential project economic impacts compared to upfront and ongoing costs where possible. The analysis is dependent on detailed case study research. Case studies were selected by identifying comparable endeavors in regions similar Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 1 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles or comparable to Spokane Valley. Development costs, maintenance costs, visitor spending, and visitation data, among other relevant information, derived from these case studies are leveraged to inform a visitation based economic impact model. Visitation was segmented into day visitors and overnight visitors where possible with the assumption that some potential projects would result in longer stays in Spokane Valley. For example, a new multi-day special event would likely result in overnight stays in Spokane Valley while regional patrons of a new arts venue wouldn't need overnight accommodations (Refer to the appendix for more details on the methodology, data and research utilized for the analysis). Project Typologies and Drivers of Tourism Direct Drivers of Tourism Indirect Drivers of Tourism • People visiting from outside the • Projects/Long-term improvements region for a specific facility or that will attract people from within events and outside the region to the City • Hotel stays • Includes projects related to civic • Spending at local restaurants and attractions and facilities that stores improve the quality of life and sense of place for both residents and visitors Key attributes and measures analyzed for each profile include the following: • Visitation to the facility/event • Potential hotel stays resulting from the facility/event • Visitor spending at the facility as well as visitor spending outside the facility • Wages and jobs • Fiscal impacts to the City of Spokane Valley • Upfront capital/development costs as well as ongoing maintenance costs where possible Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 2 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles SUMMARY RESULTS The following table describes each project and provides background on the original intent of the project as identified in Phase I of the Tourism Study. Following the table is more detailed information and findings for each project. Exhibit A. Summary of Tourism Projects I.Waterfront and Whitewater Park Develop a new waterfront park along the Spokane River in tandem with a whitewater course and venue in the Spokane River.The analysis would focus on successful examples throughout the country and potential locations operational attributes specific to Spokane Valley.The analysis would focus on key development and operational attributes and the ability of the facility to draw visitors and events. II. Multimodal Trail Development and Public Art Design and develop trail connections to the north and south connecting to river, recreation amenities and neighborhood clusters.As part of trail development, explore feasibility of an arts walk along the river or near the City's civic facilities with permanent and temporary exhibits. Analysis would focus on understanding potential impacts of said facilities and success stories from other regions. Ill. Fairground and Avista Stadium Redevelopment Redevelop and/or expand facilities on county owned fairground property and potential connections with Avista Stadium.The analysis would focus on exploring expansion and improvement opportunities with the County fairgrounds and potential connections with Avista Stadium. IV. Balfour Park Redevelopment Study potential uses for the Balfour Park with tourism oriented elements such as a visitor center "launch pad" or a year round farmers market/market hall.The analysis would focus on researching suitable uses for the site and their potential colocation with other retail and commercial uses. V. Special Events Promotion Fund new special events within the City to complement Valley Fest and Cycle Celebration.The events could build on the City's existing success with Valley Fest while focusing on the City's recreational amenities and access.The analysis would focus on learning from other City led events throughout the region to better understand their costs and benefits. VI.Arts and Entertainment Venue Develop a multifaceted arts and entertainment venue in partnership with local arts organizations, galleries and theatre production companies.The analysis would focus on potential facility and operational attributes. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 3 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles I. Whitewater and Waterfront Park Why is Spokane Valley Interested in a Whitewater and Waterfront Park? • Community has indicated that the river is an underutilized amenity • Excellent access to the Spokane River with whitewater activity already occurring • Recreation anchor and lifestyle amenity • Building on past efforts in Spokane • Observed economic benefits in other communities Project Characteristics • Sullivan Park would be expanded and improved with children's' playground equipment, a small boat rental facility, additional benches, tables and fountains and upgrades to existing park facilities. • A small, secondary parking lot would be provided near the rapids along Flora Rd. • A non-paved trail would be developed along the 1.6 miles of river frontage, from Sullivan Park to the rapids. • Seven in-channel whitewater features would be constructed in the Spokane River as well as a put-in and take-out for boats Between users and spectators, total visitation is projected to be 231,600 in the baseline scenario. It is estimated that 25% of these visitors stay overnight; = t . spectators are assumed to be local or regional users that do not require hotel accommodation. Total visitor spending exceeds $2.5 million in the baseline �"+ ,�� scenario, and includes spending on food and beverage, lodging and miscellaneous retail. This level ..� g g of visitation and spending could create 31 FTE jobs 'r and $931,000 in associated wages. •- The initial capital costs for this project are heavily dependent on specific design assumptions for the park; full buildout assumes the acquisition of 15 acres of land, new park facilities, and the construction of seven whitewater features for a total up-front cost of approximately $2.6 million. There are opportunities to phase development of the park with future land purchases and major capital improvements not prerequisite to short-term implementation. Operating costs for the whitewater features are estimated to be minimal, but could be more significant for a waterfront park. Potential Strategy: Develop a phasing plan that identifies initial implementation opportunities that could precede a larger and costlier buildout of the park and whitewater facilities. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 4 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles II. Trails and Arts Walk Why is Spokane Valley Interested in implementing new trails and public art'? � kt �_ .•:,. }. 1 ;I u • Coupling this endeavor with art and f historical features could assist the City in continuing to establish a clear identity. • In 2014, total outdoor recreation expenditures in Spokane County totaled $1.3 billion (Earth Economics, 2015). 1E14, • Capitalize on its natural assets: The City has a relatively small amount of trail offerings but benefits from being adjacent to or directly connected to a number of major recreational amenities, such as the Spokane River and the Dishman Hills. • The City is currently working on expanding trail capacity and infrastructure, including the already funded Appleway Trail. Project Characteristics • Being evaluated based on the potential draw of the trail/arts and associated spending at local businesses. • The Analysis analyzes the following: - Development of a north/south urban trail connecting the Centennial Trail to the City's Appleway Trail; - Enhancement of the Appleway Trail with public art Initial capital costs for this project are heavily dependent on specific design assumptions; this profile assumes development of a new trail segment ranging from 1 mile to 3.5 miles in length and art installations along the Appleway Trail with a total development cost range of$1.6 to $5.6 million. Operating costs for the trail are based on current trail maintenance costs in the City and County and could range from $3,600 to $12,600 annually depending on the length of the trail. Total visitation is expected to be 397,000 in the baseline scenario and represents a mix of users on foot and bicycle, based on regional usership rates. A large majority of these users are assumed to be daytime visitors. Total visitor spending exceeds $2.5 million in the baseline scenario, and includes spending on food and beverage and miscellaneous retail. This level of visitation and spending could create 32 FTE jobs, paying an estimated $986,000 in wages. Potential Strategy: Study potential routes for a north/south trail connector; meet with local arts organizations/artists to gauge interest in installing art along a section of the Appleway Trail. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 5 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles III. Fairgrounds and Stadium District Why is Spokane Valley Interested in the Stadium District and Fairgrounds? • Opportunity to increase market share in event hosting and to compete with the Convention Center • Need for renovation or replacement of existing facility • Opportunity to capitalize on existing visitors to the Fair and Expo Center and Avista Stadium • Existing demand in winter could be captured with a new facility • Long-term potential to create a multifaceted stadium or entertainment district Project Characteristics • Demolition of an aging fairgrounds facility • Construction of a new 50,000 square multi-purpose foot building with insulation, concrete floors and other finishes • Increased capacity for 10 to 30 events per year In the baseline scenario, annual visitation is estimated at 57,600, which assumes that the new facility would host 20 new events annually. The "low" and "high" attendance estimates are based on 10 and 30 new events, respectively. Approximately - 1mikillfigilimp,- 40% of these visitors are expected to stay overnight in Spokane Valley. Visitor spending is in excess of $3.9 million in the baseline scenario, and includes spending on food and beverage, lodging and miscellaneous retail. rr . At the baseline visitation and spending o , levels, an estimated 43 FTE jobs could be 1 "aa created with $1.5 million in associated up wages. The capital costs required for this project are estimated to be $8.4 million with annual operating and maintenance expenses of$445,000. Operating revenues range from $230,000 to $690,000 annually. Potential Strategy: Work with Spokane County, fairgrounds staff, Avista Stadium operators and surrounding property owners to facilitate development of an overall vision and master plan for the area. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 6 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles IV. Balfour Park Redevelopment Why is Spokane Valley Interested in redevelopment of Balfour Park? • The City owns a majority of the site and has a vested interest in successfully redeveloping the property • The site is centrally located near the City's new City Hall and Appleway Trail • A conceptual design has been established for the site that included a library/civic use Project Characteristics • Uses: For the purposes of the analysis the following uses are considered: - Library/civic uses - Public Park Space - Public Farmers Market/Market Hall Space • Private redevelopment of the site is studied but not under consideration • Density: modeled at a modest scale to reflect past planning efforts and current buildout patterns near the site Land utilization scenarios represent the various economic activities that may occur on-site and assumers approximately 1/4 of the site is dedicated to redevelopment as a civic use. The civic scenario indicates that the equivalent of 30 jobs could be 4 r located on-site at the proposed library use. A privately-developed, mixed use commercial scenario is not contemplated for the site. Alternatively, a public market development scenario could result in direct fiscal impacts to the City from sales tax revenue, but would rely greatly on the number of vendors and types of goods associated with a public market. - -- Initial capital costs would depend on the RMS ¢ development program of the site with the park = = ` - component of the site costing approximately $3.9 million and a new market venue costing in the --- r-,� - range of$2.8 million to $4.0 million. Potential Strategy: Explore interim, short-term uses of the property for special events, such as a seasonal farmers market; consider implementation of the expanded park portion of the property. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 7 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles V. Special Events Support Why is Spokane Valley Interested supporting special events? • The Spokane region is known for a variety of special events including major sporting events like Hoopfest • Spokane Valley has a signature event in Valleyfest but lacks other major events • Community input indicates the desire for more local events • Special events can vary greatly in their draw and impact but can be an effective way to attract visitors from outside the area, especially in a place like Spokane Valley with its existing retail draw Project Characteristics • The baseline scenario is modeled after Valleyfest and its overall attendance • Major capital improvements are not required and therefore not included based on conversations with local event promoters and analysis of other major events in the area In the baseline scenario, total visitation is estimated to be 40,000, which assumes support and implementation of a new major event similar1011(111P in size and scale to Valleyfest. Other modeled scenarios also reflect implementation of a smaller event with 20,000 in attendance and a larger scale event with 80,000 in attendance—the latter represents a major event or festival taking place in the City. The three scenarios modeled reflect varying percentages of overnight visitors ranging • from 5% of visitors for the smallest event to 20% . • .1 " of visitors for the largest. (3 Total spending is projected to be $2.6 million in _ the baseline scenario, and includes spending on 70! . ) food and beverage, lodging and miscellaneous ►A ., A/a* 1retail. Implementation of an event would not Iyf necessarily require capital improvements, but would likely require contributions from the City in the form of lodging tax dollars and in-kind services. Potential Strategy: Conduct meetings with local event promoters to evaluate interest and identify potential opportunities for event hosting in the City. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 8 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles VI. Arts and Entertainment Venue Why is Spokane Valley Interested in an arts and entertainment venue? • Was cited as a facility or amenity currently lacking in the City by project stakeholders • The City has a limited number of arts venues but is home to an active arts community • Spokane has an existing concentration of performing arts venues to build on • A venue of this type could attract a new demographic of visitors Project Characteristics • Smaller scale venue - 200 seat capacity • The space is assumed to be flexible and would host both performances and private events (rentals) • Would host an "anchor tenant" in the form of a local theater group, orchestra, or other established group with frequent performances, it will also host other performers throughout the year The initial year(s) of operation for this project would likely have lower overall attendance, resulting in negative net A.ow- —.NW operating income. A successful and well- utilized ell utilized venue of this size would require _w , *,,, , , Es itf annual visitation approximately 28,000 patrons (stabilized year). Total visitor spending is estimated at approximately 44, $1.6 million at stabilized operations and includes on-site spending (direct) and off- I11110. '4 site spending (associated spending). This level of visitation and spending could M create 20 FTE jobs and $638,000 in wages, including those at the venue itself. Much like other projects, initial capital costs are heavily dependent of specific design assumptions; this profile assumes the development of a 200-seat facility build from the ground up, with total construction costs ranging from $3.1 to $4.5 million (excluding the cost of the land). In order for the venue to be successful, it would need to generate $340,000 annually, assuming the City contributed to 15% of overall operated revenues (based on analysis of similar venues). Potential Strategy: Conduct outreach with local arts, music and theatre groups to evaluate overall interest and potential leadership opportunities. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 9 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit B on the following page summarizes detailed findings for each project analyzed as well as two projects evaluated by Spokane County (see below for more details). The summary findings provide data (where available) for the following topic areas: • Visitation • Economic Impacts • Construction and Operations Plante's Ferry Enhancement and HUB Complex Development. For comparison purposes select findings from a 2016 study commissioned by Spokane County have also been included in the summary analysis. The study titled Feasibility Study for Potential New Outdoor Multi-use Sports Facilities in Spokane County, Washington by Conventions, Sports & Leisure, is a detailed feasibility assessment of two projects under consideration by the County. The projects consist of an enhancement of existing facilities at the Plante's Ferry Sports Complex in unincorporated Spokane County as well as an expansion/development of the existing HUB Sports Complex located in Liberty Lake, WA. Both projects are located adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley. The purpose of their inclusion is to provide context for City of Spokane Valley policy makers. In addition, development of a sports complex (whether indoor or outdoor) was identified as a potential project by tourism stakeholders during Phase I of the project. A sports complex also ranked high among tourism stakeholders and council members in the aforementioned survey conducted for this study. Please note the following when comparing projects from the City of Spokane Valley analysis the analysis commissioned by Spokane County. • Spending patterns between the two studies varies based on the types of projects and overall project methodology • Indirect and induced impacts have a substantial impact on overall spending and different approaches to these impacts were utilized for each study • Estimated jobs from the Spokane County study include full-time and part-time employees Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 10 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit B. Summary of Investment Profiles ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY COMPARISON Whitewater/ Trails and Arts Special Events Arts&Enter. Fairgrounds Balfour Park4 Plantes Ferry' Hub Complex Waterfront Park Visitation Total Visitors 397,000 40,000 231,600 28,000 57,600 * 585,469 313,150 Overnight/Out of Town * 4,000 9,650 11,200 23,000 * 76,313 84,913 Estimated Hotel Nights * 1,400 1,740 4,100 8,300 * 10,968 11,179 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending2 $2,572,000 $2,635,000 $2,537,000 $1,640,000 $3,950,000 * $5,723,438 $6,368,438 Wages $986,000 $758,400 $931,000 $620,000 $1,544,000 * $3,245,189 $3,352,982 Jobs Created 32 27 31 20 43 * 83 86 Total Fiscal Impacts $219,000 $221,000 $225,000 $172,000 $437,000 * To the City of Spokane Valley $22,000 $21,000 $31,000 $26,000 $56,000 $12.5K to$25K To other jurisdictions $197,000 $200,000 $194,000 $146,000 $381,000 * Construction and Operations3 Initial Capital Costs $1.6M to$5.6M * $2.1M to$2.6M $3.15 to$4.5M $8.4M $3.9M to$7.9 $5,861,000 $27,880,000 Annual Operational Revenues * * * $342,500 $460,800 * $1,469,890 $1,277,901 Annual Expenses(City or $4k to$13k $60,000 $180,000 $341,000 $445,000 * $1,750,352 $1,428,683 Operational) 1 Values for Plan te's Ferry and the Hub Complex are cited from the"Feasibility Study for Potential New Outdoor Multi-use Sports Facilities in Spokane Cou ny"2016 Final Report. 2 Total visitor spending includes direct,indirect,induced and associated spending on and off-site. 3 Expenses vary by project and represent costs to operate the facility or costs born by the City.Revenues represent operational revenues associated with the project where applicable.Revenues and expenses may be born by the City or an operator.For example,the hypothetical Fairgrounds project would be owned and operated by the County. 4 The analysis of Balfour Park focused on land use scenarios and does not include many directly comparable investment attributes *Values not calculated,see project profile for more details Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 12 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 13 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles PROJECT PROFILES This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 15 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles I. WHITEWATER AND WATERFRONT PARK INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to evaluate the investment potential of a waterfront park and whitewater course in the City of Spokane Valley. These projects were suggested by a 2016 tourism strategy commissioned by the City. This is a preliminary assessment. Should the City elect to pursue this investment, professional design services and more detailed economic analyses will be required. What is a Whitewater Park? A whitewater park is a place where boaters access constructed whitewater features for a variety of recreational activities, including whitewater rafting, kayaking, canoeing and tubing. Fundamentally, whitewater parks are either built in an existing, natural stream or river or are constructed, self-contained structures that use pumped or recirculated water. Understanding the different types of whitewater parks is important, because each type is characterized by different site and design criteria, operational requirements, costs and user groups. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 16 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Natural or Enhanced Whitewater Parks Natural whitewater parks use man-made features or enhancements to create whitewater features (or rapids). These parks come in two varieties—in-channel and bypass parks. IN-CHANNEL In-channel whitewater parks are the most common type and are defined by the placement of structures and other simple modifications to the course of a natural stream or river to produce whitewater features of various sizes and intensities. Examples are relatively common and include the Truckee River Whitewater Park in Reno, Nevada, the Clear Creek Whitewater Park in Golden, Colorado, the Buena Vista, Colorado River Park, Kelly's Whitewater Park in Cascade, Idaho and the Manchester, Iowa Whitewater Park, among others. This type of whitewater park tends to be less expensive to construct than other types, but becomes cubically more expensive on wider bodies of water. However, the natural flow and slope of existing rivers and streams usually present cost-effective designs. - .. - - t :w istaisiO t s'ir'FL'" 411110- r p` tom_ +4 ti"". - ,...v..".. , ,r 4 i • 'K - -- - - ' - .� An in-channel whitewater park on the Arkansas River in Buena Vista, Colorado is popular with kayakers, surfers and stand-up paddleboarders alike. Spectators often gather to watch. Though these parks can be difficult to permit due to real and perceived impacts of construction and activity on riverine habitats, they are often the primary option for cities with direct access to open water. BYPASS Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 17 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Bypass whitewater parks are so-called because they use a watercourse outside the main channel of the river or stream. These parks can be based on a man-made side channel or a non-natural diversion. They do not rely on the naturally occurring, steep gradients found in mountainous states, but they do tend to have higher construction costs than in-channel parks, and they are sometimes affected by ownership issues since the creation of the bypass channel may be a legacy of hydroelectric generation, wastewater disposal or other similar functions. No bypass channels currently exist in Spokane Valley's stretch of the Spokane River. Pumped or Recirculated Whitewater Parks Pumped whitewater parks are constructed outside the natural course of a river or stream and are entirely self-contained, relying on a pumping system to continuously recirculate the same water through the whitewater course. These facilities are sometimes referred to as "whitewater superparks" and they often include other recreational amenities like zip line courses, mountain bike trails and rock climbing walls, as well as on-site retail and event space. Examples include the U.S. National Whitewater Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, Adventure Sports Center International in McHenry, Maryland, Riversport Rapids and Adventures in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and the Olympic venues in Sydney, Australia and London, U.K. Pumped whitewater superparks are typically the most expensive variety of whitewater parks, and are (with the exception of Olympic venues) almost always privately-owned, but they are efficient and allow a tremendous degree of wave customization and flow control. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 18 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles .rye -r '-'"•ate , I y , SFR � s 49)1 yam. • _ •- - 1.40^ �.` - ., }r . J Above: The U.S. National Whitewater Center, located just outside Charlotte, North Carolina, represents the archetypal whitewater superpark and includes an array of recreational activities and related facilities, plus a self-contained whitewater course. Why is Spokane Valley Interested in a Whitewater and Waterfront Park? There is established interest in a whitewater park in the greater Spokane region, and the City of Spokane Valley is evaluating the feasibility of constructing such a park on its section of the Spokane River. The City's interest stems from several factors. A Recreation Anchor Spokane Valley's fortuitous location on the banks of the Spokane River offers the primary reason why the City is considering construction of a whitewater park. Thanks in part to the river, the greater Spokane region enjoys a thriving whitewater paddling scene. Natural rapids like Bowl and Pitcher, Devil's Toenail, Zoo Wave and Trailer Park, among others, attract locals and visitors alike for exciting rafting and kayaking. In addition, the scenic qualities of the river make it attractive to flatwater paddlers alike. Whitewater features exist within the city limits of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Post Falls and other area communities, but many of the commercial rafting operations Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 19 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles operate in the lower Spokane River gorge and Riverside State Park. This section of the river offers class Ill whitewater and is a tremendous paddling asset. The Spokane River through Spokane Valley offers natural whitewater features for paddlers, but also may be a good fit for a constructed whitewater park. The average gradient of the river within the City of Spokane Valley about 12 feet per mile (fpm), but certain sections of the river offer steeper gradients that are better suited to whitewater paddling. An expanded and updated waterfront park also has the potential to serve as a location for events that would bring more day visitors, including races and festivals. The general location specified for this project is depicted in the map below. Exhibit 1-1. Spokane River Whitewater Features , 4.1.111111.1111111 —11' 11011 — 1:'1' I s' I Judd's New Hole Pero Road *: Acte>s` `Barker Road Ac Sullivan Park (Mini Climax Wave Roca Road South Access ewe 1 p Spo ,, an Road Access Sullivan Hole lone�d// 1 IGreenacres Parkl MISSION AV Whitewater Play Area PJ' Missran Avenue Access City of Spokane Valley • Centennial Trail Access Ccnter,rtinf I",-ail T Whlletvater Play Spot Interstate 90 D Raid, C Clly Ferk r Interstate 90 scare Rrepvtr a .no a Y A4 BROAQWA A These activities are important to Spokane Valley residents and visitors and they form the basis for an emerging recreation cluster that includes hiking, biking and skiing as popular pursuits. Many individuals who are interested in recreation enjoy several of these activities, and creating a critical mass of attractions may increase visitor-ship, accelerate business creation and even convince people to relocate permanently to the region. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 20 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Past Efforts: A Whitewater Park in Spokane In 2007, area advocacy groups, including the Spokane River Forum, initiated an effort to create a large whitewater park on the Spokane River, downstream of downtown Spokane. The project was conceived as both a recreation amenity and a potential boost for tourism and economic development. Due to concerns about the park's impact on the habitat of native Redband Trout, the City of Spokane did not secure an aquatic lease from the Department of Natura I Resources, and the development of the park has since stalled. Nevertheless, significant local interest in a whitewater park remains, and some locations along the Spokane River may offer park designs that have negligible (or positive) impacts on fisheries. An Identified Economic Development Priority Between 2015 and 2016, the City of Spokane Valley commissioned a tourism strategy. The document included 21 projects for further study, as well as dozens of action items that would support implementation of these projects, and suggested investing in outdoor recreation amenities like waterfront parks and whitewater features to drive tourist traffic and overnight hotel stays. Key stakeholders were surveyed to determine which of the 21 identified projects should be prioritized for immediate study, and of those 21 projects a waterfront park ranked first and a whitewater park ranked eighth. For practical purposes, the City decided to study investment in a whitewater course in conjunction with a waterfront park component. Potential Economic Benefits Proponents of whitewater courses believe that there are significant economic benefits that these courses bring to their communities, and there is a significant body of literature to support these claims with quantitative analyses. Economic benefits accrue because the people who visit whitewater parks spend money at other establishments—to rent gear, purchase meals, and find lodging, for example. Furthermore, because these courses generate significant foot traffic, they create a captive audience for adjacent parcels, potentially leading to redevelopment and increased property and sales tax revenues. In addition to drawing new daytime and overnight visitors, the addition of a whitewater and waterfront park could convert some existing daytime visitors to overnight visitors, increasing their spending locally. The combination of active recreation and other retail and open space amenities also draws spectators to the area; these "dry-side"visitors often outnumber direct park users by five or ten-to-one (S2O Design). Investing in a waterfront park alongside the Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 21 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles whitewater features is an important consideration in luring these spectators, who are attracted by the whitewater but more directly benefit from standard park amenities like playgrounds and picnic facilities. METHODS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Evaluation Approach This investment profile will study several whitewater parks from around the country and will leverage findings from these case studies to estimate the economic impacts of constructing a whitewater park on a selected stretch of the Spokane River within Spokane Valley and a multiuse waterfront park. Findings from the case studies will be supplemented by data from other economic impact studies of existing and proposed whitewater parks, as well as data from Washington State and federal surveys of participation in relevant recreational activities. The key components of the method are outlined below, and are discussed in detail later in this investment profile. • Estimate visitation o Users (daytime and overnight) o Spectators • Assign spending patterns • Estimate attributable spending • Calculate selected impacts Notably, this study focuses on impacts that are relevant to the City of Spokane Valley's decision to invest (or not) in the creation of a whitewater and waterfront park. The findings from this investment profile are not intended to be compared to economic impact studies for other whitewater parks, as they may differ significantly in methodology. Applying the Case Studies This study relies on several case studies to better understand how whitewater parks function, the visitation they generate, and their associated economic impacts. The case studies also provide anecdotal evidence for key design features and associated development. Detailed case studies are included in the project appendix and include the parks: • Truckee River Whitewater Park, Reno, Nevada • Clear Creek Whitewater Park, Golden, Colorado Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 22 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles • Kelly's Whitewater Park, Cascade, Idaho Key attributes for other parks are also provided in a summary table. The detailed case studies suggest the following lessons for a whitewater park in Spokane Valley. • Amenities are critical drivers of visitation. Nearby parks and local businesses draw spectators, magnifying the park's impact. Parks in Reno and Golden are in downtown locations, allowing for significant riverside development. Kelly's Whitewater Park is outside a small town, but bike and pedestrian connections, as well as a visitor center with retail operations, make the park a multifaceted destination. • Non-paddlers are essential, and park designs should reflect their needs. In Reno and Golden, in particular, inner tubing, swimming, and other activities likely bring more users to the parks than kayaking or rafting. The design for a new park can provide facilities for these users to encourage their participation. • Programming and events improve the financial feasibility. All three parks rely on traffic from multiple competitive events throughout the year. These events can draw hundreds of competitors and thousands of spectators that patronize local businesses. Implementation Opportunities The case studies presented illustrate several types of whitewater parks, which vary not just by park type, but also by their surrounding land use patterns and the degree to which they are developed. In fact, the latter may be a larger factor in their daily visitation and economic impact than is the former, though certainly larger, pumped parks have the ability to avoid major fluctuations in visitation resulting from variable flows, ambient and water temperatures and other seasonal factors, and benefit from a greater capacity to host national and international events. As a general rule, larger parks in more urban settings provide opportunities for greater economic impacts. Larger parks tend to draw higher numbers of visitors, and parks in urban settings are more likely to capture visitor spending before those visitors leave the area. Project Parameters Identifying a Site Given the City's location along the Spokane River, as well as the River's characteristics through the City, a natural, in-channel whitewater park would make the most sense. The section of the Spokane River from N. Flora Rd. to Sullivan Park is approximately 1 .4 miles long with an average gradient of 16 fpm. Though this section is longer than comparable whitewater courses, the section does contain a Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 23 Tourism Analysis Phase H Project Profiles series of rapids with steeper gradients that could form the basis for a shorter whitewater play park with sufficient, and more consistent, drop. This section may also offer lower-cost options—such as a slalom course—if permitting for in-river whitewater features becomes infeasible. This stretch of water appeals to other users, as well, such as swimmers and inner- tubers, because the Spokane River above Sullivan Rd. is a losing reach, with colder water percolating through the gravelly soils along the river bed and into the underlying aquifer. This means that water temperatures in this section of the Spokane River remain warmer year-round and are therefore more enjoyable to many river users. This location is characterized by reasonable, publicly-owned access at Sullivan Park, though the park's steep riverbanks present a challenge. To provide excellent access and ensure high visitation, additional improvements with roads, parking and boat access points would be necessary. Surrounding complementary uses are important in driving economic impacts and most Spokane Valley's river frontage is not currently characterized by urban development. However, the case studies make it clear that those impacts are magnified when spectators have a pleasant waterfront park to visit near the rapids, when visitors can find food, equipment and lodging nearby, and when nearby development draws people who may not come explicitly for the whitewater park. To this end, the City should identify sites that are appropriate for complementary development adjacent to and near the site of the whitewater park. Spokane Valley does have a major development site at Mirabeau Point, which is approximately one mile downstream from Sullivan Park. There is a significant opportunity to pursue development that complements the whitewater park and magnifies its economic impact at this site, and future planning efforts for the site should mind the recreational potential of the Spokane River. Preliminary Design Concept This investment profile assumes the following project characteristics: • Improved park facilities: the profile assumes that Sullivan Park would be expanded and improved, with specific improvements including children's' playground equipment, a small boat rental facility, additional benches, tables and fountains and one-time upgrades to existing park facilities. A small, secondary parking lot would be included near the rapids along Flora Rd. and a non-paved trail would be developed along the 1 .6 miles of river frontage, from Sullivan Park to the rapids. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 24 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles • _ 44"e , A- i - - IF 10111 U ^° '• ,,� .arse � l k. Y. .._' ' ' • ♦ __ "ie. .411211Aat Above: The Ocoee Whitewater Center was built to host the whitewater events of the 1996 Olympic Games (Atlanta), which was the first time these Olympic events were held in a natural river. The facility supports the whitewater park today with restrooms, conference space, a gift shop and other amenities. Photo courtesy of murphymountainliving,corn. -• • K _ j Above: This view of the Spokane River from the Sullivan Rd. bridge (looking east) highlights the section of the north bank that would be utilized as park space in the assumed scenario. • Constructed whitewater features: the profile assumes seven constructed in-channel whitewater features in the Spokane River on the 1/2 mile stretch that is characterized by a consistently high gradient Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 25 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Market Opportunity There appears to be significant demand for a whitewater park in the area. Based on the 2013 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office's (RCO) Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Washington residents participate vigorously in several activities that could be accommodated by a whitewater park in Spokane Valley. Those activities are listed, along with statewide participation rates and the average number of user days per participant, in Exhibit 1-2. Exhibit 1-2. Washington State Participation in Activities Supporting Whitewater Parks, 2012 Recreational Activity %of Residents Mean Days per Currently Participating Participant Swimming in Natural Waters 35.70% 14.50 Fishing or Shellfishing 34.10% 15.00 Innertubing or Floating 17.10% 8.00 Boating--canoeing,kayaking,rowing or manual craft(freshwater) 9.00% 15.10 Boating--whitewater rafting 2.80% 6.10 Surfboarding 2.10% 6.10 Source: Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office's(RCO)Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2013. Furthermore, the RCO report indicates that only 59% of demand for non-motorized boat access points has been met, and an additional 5.9% of residents indicated that, while they don't currently participate in canoeing or kayaking, they would like to do so. Inner tubing and floating, fishing and canoeing and kayaking are also getting more popular in Washington, as they all ranked higher in participation rate in 2012 than they did in 2002. In addition to established demand, the region also faces little competition. Though there are natural features on the Spokane River that attract whitewater and flatwater paddlers, as well as commercial rafting operations on the Spokane, Salmon and other rivers in the region, the closest whitewater parks to Spokane are in Missoula, Montana (188 miles), Cascade, Idaho (298 miles), Bend, Oregon (389 miles) and Boise, Idaho (415 miles). Given the magnitude of potential demand, it seems that the whitewater features in Riverside State Park and upstream, below the Post Falls Dam, would contribute to a whitewater cluster rather than compete for traffic from paddlers. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 26 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Potential Costs Determining specific costs for the construction and operation of a whitewater park in Spokane Valley will require a detailed feasibility study conducted by experts in whitewater park design and construction, as well as landscape architecture. However, there are known cost categories that the City should prepare for, as well as contextual information about the cost of other whitewater parks. Known Cost Categories There are at least three key cost categories that the City should be aware of. These include the following: • Construction: "hard" costs (e.g. materials and labor) and "soft" costs (e.g. permitting) are significant drivers of total project cost. These vary considerably by feature size and type, river size and flow, environmental and regulatory constraints and other factors. Anecdotal evidence from past attempts to create a whitewater park on the Spokane River suggest that permitting costs may be especially significant. Construction costs are also not limited to the whitewater features themselves, but include habitat improvements and landscaping. For this profile, anticipated permitting and construction costs were derived from the case study analysis, interviews with whitewater park designers, and from design documents produced for the proposed Spokane Whitewater Park in 2006. • Facilities and Amenities: Sullivan Park is an existing asset in the chosen location, and already includes the following amenities: o 151 parking spaces o 2 covered picnic shelters with electricity o Picnic tables and restrooms o Spokane River access o Western Dance Hall o Radio Controlled Car Club Track However, further investment may be needed. This profile assumes that new amenities will be added and a new trail will be developed (see: Determining Project Characteristics). Approximate costs for the construction and maintenance of park facilities were provided by the City of Spokane Valley Parks Department. • Land Acquisition: this profile assumes that land acquisition will be necessary to expand Sullivan Park and develop a trail along the Spokane Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 27 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles River, and the model accounts for the purchase of approximately 15.4 acres. These costs are calculated based on a sample of assessed land values for vacant, riverfront land, though the specific price for acquisition would be subject to negotiation between the City of Spokane Valley and the relevant public and private landowners. In lieu of outright acquisition, the City may be able to negotiate public access to private lands or obtain an easement for trail development. Trail development along the Washington State Parks parcels on the north bank of the river may be critical. • Maintenance: no maintenance costs are anticipated for the in-water whitewater features, but general maintenance costs for access points and other out of water components would require some funding. This assumption is standard for whitewater park planning and design, as demonstrated by the detailed feasibility study of the proposed Spokane Whitewater Park: Generally, whitewater structures are maintenance free. However, periodic inspection and a commitment to the ongoing maintenance of the whitewater park would ensure the integrity of the in-water structures and other features. Responsibility for maintenance of the whitewater park has yet to be firmly established. It will likely involve a partnership with the City Parks Department, the local paddling community and nearby neighborhoods. The Annual River Cleanup conducted in this area over the last three years is a good example of the potential for a partnership. This partnership would provide ongoing cleanup of the in-water structures to remove flotsam and jetsam, as well as removing litter and garbage from the adjacent trail and access points. The City of Spokane would provide maintenance as part of its routine parks and facilities service. No additional costs or annual maintenance fees are anticipated for in-river structures (Recreation Engineering and Planning, 2006). Cost Comparisons Based on the case studies, it is evident that natural, in-channel parks (as assumed here)tend to be more cost-effective than other designs. Pumped superparks can cost upwards of five million dollars; the U.S. National Whitewater Center generates significant revenues, but it cost $38 million to construct and currently costs nearly seven million dollars annually to operate. In-channel parks have seen construction costs as low as $150,000 (Clear Creek Whitewater Park), though the cost of most multi-feature whitewater parks usually exceeds this figure. For example, the 11 -feature park on the Truckee River in Reno, Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 28 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Nevada cost $1,500,000 and a single feature—Brennan's Wave—in Missoula, Montana cost $300,000. Though the case studies are not conclusive, they suggest that the improvements to adjacent park space and access points may be larger drivers of cost than the whitewater features themselves. Potential Funding Sources The Spokane River Forum, a local non-profit organization that is interested in paddling opportunities and an advocate of a local whitewater park, had funds available to aid in the construction of this type of facility in Spokane, but those funds may not be available any longer or for a location in Spokane Valley. Some grant funding may be available for projects that include habitat restoration and fisheries improvements in the project design, particularly through the Recreation and Conservation Office. Implementation Considerations Permitting Due to the potential presence of native Redband Trout populations, the permitting costs for a whitewater park on the Spokane River could be significant. S2O Design volunteered a preliminary, non-binding estimate of permitting costs for a park in this location at $600,000-$900,000, largely based on the firm's experience with prior attempts at creating a whitewater park in the greater Spokane region. There is also significant value to fish habitat, both for environmental and recreational reasons. Park designs that improve aquatic habitat, which are typically included in professionally-produced design documents, may help the City navigate permitting challenges while expanding the potential user base and contributing to the City's baseline sustainability. Seasonality Winters in eastern Washington will curtail visitor-ship seasonally. Some dedicated park users will continue to kayak and surf during winter months, but the majority of annual visitation will occur during summer months. This provides some degree of uncertainty regarding potential economic impacts, and requires proactive planning. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 29 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Users brave the cold waters of the Clark Fork River during winter in Missoula, Montana. Photo courtesy of riversurfco.wordpress.corn. Flow Stability Late summer flows in Spokane Valley can be low. In times of drought, this may limit the usability of and visitation to a whitewater park. Feature design can mitigate the effects of low flows, but severe instances may still curb usage. Adjacent Development Opportunities As noted previously, the selected stretch of river is not characterized by urban development, yet adjacent retail uses typically magnify the economic impacts associated with whitewater parks. Identifying development opportunities near the proposed park will be critical to maximizing the park's potential. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic impacts accrue as people visit the whitewater park and spend money at local establishments. This increased spending, in some cases, creates additional employment in Spokane Valley, thereby magnifying the overall impact. Other potential benefits, such as property taxes derived from increased property values, are also important considerations; however, those impacts are outside the scope of this study. Visitation The population aged 15 or older across the Spokane, Spokane Valley and Coeur d'Alene combined statistical area (CSA) as defined by the United States Census is 552,157 (2015). However, not all of these people have an interest in actively using a Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 30 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles whitewater park. To adjust for this fact, we use the 2012 RCO report discussed earlier in this study to quantify the population that regularly participates in the activities (Exhibit 1-2) that contribute demand for whitewater parks. Exhibit 1-3, below, identifies a subset of the activities identified in Exhibit 1-2; these three activities are thought to be the principal potential drivers for a whitewater park in Spokane Valley. The remaining activities (in Exhibit 1-1, but not Exhibit 1-2) are negligible for the purposes of calculating economic impacts. Exhibit 1-3. Participation Rates for Core Whitewater Park-Supportive Activities, Washington State, 2012 Activity Percent Whitewater rafting 2.8% Canoeing, kayaking or rowing 9.0% Inner tubing or floating 17.1% Percent of Potential Users 28.9% Source: Washington State Office of Recreation and Conservation, 2013 According to the RCO study, though only 2.8% of Washington residents regularly participate in whitewater rafting, a total of 28.9% of Washington's population regularly participate in activities that could be done at a whitewater park. RCO also provides the average number of days each user spent participating in each activity. Multiplying the percent of interest in a whitewater park by activity with each activity's mean days of use and the total population provides a potential total of 1.6 million visits to a whitewater park developed in Spokane Valley. However, it is very unlikely that any proposed whitewater park would capture every potential user-days. Firstly, the RCO percentages of interest and days of use reflect a sample of a survey and may not directly translate to reality. If the sample is not representative, participation rates and total user-days could be higher or lower than suggested by the study. Secondly, there are other competing sites for canoeing, kayaking or rowing and inner tubing or floating which can also impact the capture of users to a specific whitewater park. For example, some of the total user-days for kayaking and whitewater rafting will be used in Riverside State Park, rather than in Spokane Valley. These stipulations limit the number of visitors to a potential whitewater park in Spokane Valley. The baseline impacts for a whitewater park assume a total yearly usership number of 38,600 of which 75% are assumed to be day visitors (28,950) and 25% are Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 31 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles assumed to be overnight visitors (9,650). This reflects a capture of 1% of all whitewater visitor days, 2.5% of all canoeing, kayaking or rower visitor days and 2.5% of inner tubing or floating visitor days. While the selected capture rates are low at first glance, the total yearly user figures are very much in line with user ship figures from other whitewater parks around the country with similar metro areas. A further 193,000 visitor-days are expected to use the whitewater park as 'spectators' who do not use the whitewater facilities of the park but would visit the park in some capacity (such as a walk or a picnic). The 193,000 figure represents 5 spectators for each of the 38,600 users. Spending The spending profile for a visitor in Spokane County is calculated separately for an overnight user and a day user. Overnight spending patterns are calculated by looking at the share of overnight visitor spending in Spokane County as estimated by Dean Runyan (2015). The total overnight visitor spending is then calculated across a range of taxable retail sales in Spokane County on a per overnight visitor basis. The day visitor spending profile mirrors the overnight spending profile except for a few key differences. Firstly, a day visitor is assumed to spend no money on accommodations, since they are visiting for just a day and do not stay overnight. Secondly, a day visitor is assumed to spend half as much on food service (such as a restaurant) or food stores (a grocery store) as an overnight visitor. The spectator visitor profile is assumed to reflect 10% of the day visitor spending profile. The low-level spending described in the spectator visitor profile is meant to reflect the fact that many spectators are going to be from around the Spokane Valley area and in many cases, will not spend any money while at the whitewater park. Economic Impacts The combined economic impacts of total user-days and spectator-days is represented in Exhibit 1-4. There are no direct revenues projected because whitewater parks are typically public parks with no admission fees involved but there are associated revenues,jobs and wages based on the typical spending profile for overnight users, day users and spectators for each visitor-day. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 32 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 1-4. Projected Revenue for a Baseline Economic Impacts of a Whitewater Park (2015$) Estimated Impacts Industry Sectors Impacted Total Impacts (Impacts of Direct,Indirect, Induced&Associated Transportation Arts, Recreation, & Food Service& (Sum of all Industries) Revenues) Retail Sales &Gas Accomodation Food Stores Total Revenue $1,386,000 $71,000 $636,000 $444,000 $2,537,000 Direct Project Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Indirect and Induced Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Associated Revenue $1,386,000 $71,000 $636,000 $444,000 $2,537,000 Total Jobs 16 - 8 7 31 Direct Project Jobs - - - - - Indirect and Induced Jobs - - - - - Associated Jobs 16 - 8 7 31 Total Wages $553,000 $31,000 $204,000 $143,000 $931,000 Direct Wages $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Indirect and Induced Wages $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Associated Wages $553,000 $31,000 $204,000 $143,000 $931,000 Sources:American Community Survey, 2016; Washington Department of Revenue; 2016; City of Spokane Valley; 2016; Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016; Washington Office of Recreation and Conservation, 2013; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The impacts from above are compared to the projected costs for the construction, operation and maintenance of these park facilities in Exhibit 1-5. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 33 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 1-5. Whitewater Impact Summary Table ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY Total Attendance Days Visitation Low Baseline High Total Visitors 115,800 231,600 463,200 Estimated Hotel Nights 1,740 Visitor Segmentation Daytime Users 14,475 28,950 57,900 Daytime Spectators 96,500 193,000 386,000 Overnight Users 4,825 9,650 19,300 Overnight Spectators 0 0 0 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending $1,265,000 $2,537,000 $5,070,000 Direct Spending(on-site) N/A N/A N/A Associated Spending(off-site) $1,265,000 $2,537,000 $5,070,000 Wages $464,000 $931,000 $1,861,000 Jobs Created 15 31 64 Total Fiscal Impacts $113,000 $225,000 $452,000 To the City of Spokane Valley $16,000 $31,000 $63,000 To County and State $97,000 $194,000 $389,000 Construction,Operations and Maintanence Initial Capital Costs $2.1 M to$2.6M $2.1 M to$2.6M $2.1 M to$2.6M Waterfront Park' $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 Whitewater Park $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 Operating Expenses $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 Waterfront Park $170,000 $170,000 $170,000 Whitewater Park $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Direct Operating Revenues 2 N/A N/A N/A Approximately 67%of intial capital costs for the waterfront park are attributed to land acquisition;pursuing a plan that involves the acquisition of less land would significantly reduce the initial capital costs for park development. 2 Under the assumptions used for this project,the City would not operate any facilities that generate revenue;should the City choose to operate revenue-producing facilities as part of this project,those revenues could be evaluated at a later date. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 34 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Qualitative Community Benefits Non-quantifiable benefits include health and wellness derived from recreation and other outdoor activities. Furthermore, health and wellness amenities—particularly in recreation activities—can affect decision-making for individuals and families regarding where they will live, work and play, so the City may benefit indirectly by providing such amenities. These benefits should affect the decision-making process behind investment. Even in situations where the quantifiable benefits don't justify City investment, the combined benefit of qualitative and quantitative impacts may warrant reconsideration. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 35 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles II. TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC ART INTRODUCTION In Phase I of Spokane Valley's Tourism Strategy, Community Attributes identified leveraging existing recreation corridors and trail assets as a key strategy to augmenting the City's regional tourism presence. Specifically, the City should focus on linking green spaces to establish a cohesive recreation network within Spokane Valley. One such example included linking the City's trail network to the popular Centennial Trail through a direct North-South link, providing a dedicated connection for bikers and hikers to explore Spokane Valley. This would allow the City to harness a portion of the 2 million patrons who use the Centennial Trail each year. Implementation of arts in Spokane Valley was also cited as a major component of the Tourism Strategy. The incorporation of art installations along the Appleway trail aligns with the original vision for the trails and overall beautification goals for the City and its public infrastructure. In addition, public art can serve as a draw to public open space and trails, demonstrated in several locations throughout the Pacific Northwest. What are trails and arts in the City of Spokane Valley? The City is interested in exploring implementation of trails and arts in the City, as outlined in the Tourism Strategy recently developed by the City and regional stakeholders. The City wishes to design and develop trail connections to the north and south connecting to river, recreation amenities and neighborhood clusters. As part of trail development, the City wishes to explore feasibility of an arts walk near the City's civic facilities with permanent and temporary exhibits. The analysis focuses on understanding potential impacts of said facilities and success stories from other regions. Why is Spokane Valley interested in trails and public art? An economic analysis of outdoor recreation in Washington State found that, on average, Washingtonians spend 56 days per year recreating outdoors. According to recreation surveys and public land records, there were a total of 446 million participation days' a year spent on outdoor recreation in Washington, accounting for $21 .6 billion in annual consumer expenditures in 2014. Walking, running and 1 Participation days are defined as a singular visit to a recreational land or a one-time engagement by one individual in a recreational activity. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 36 Tourism Analysis Phase H Project Profiles jogging, wildlife viewing and photography, and bicycle riding were the top four recreational activities by participation days. In 2014, total outdoor recreation expenditures in Spokane County totaled $1.3 billion (Earth Economics, 2015). Additional trails would allow the City of Spokane Valley to continue to capitalize on its natural assets. Coupling this endeavor with art and historical features could assist the City in continuing to establish a clear regional identity. Currently, the City only has approximately 15 miles of dedicated trails, a large part of which is made up by the Centennial Trail. The City has a relatively small amount of trail offerings but benefits from being adjacent to or directly connected to a number of major recreational amenities, such as the Spokane River and the Dishman Hills. In addition to recreation, the city lacks major non-motorized facilities for bikers like urban trails. A trail and arts walk alone is unlikely to draw significant numbers of out-of-town visitors, but when coupled with other tourist attractions, additional trails and public art has the potential to result in longer visitor stays. In effect, trails and art could augment other tourist features by offering a unique way to further explore Spokane Valley. METHODS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Evaluation Approach Evaluation of the project is based on an analysis of two distinct types of projects: arts and trails. There are two key trail typologies for the City to consider: in Spokane Valley there exists a (a) destination recreation trail (the Centennial Trail) as well as well as (b) an urban connector/corridor trail (the Appleway Trail). The former describes recreation trails that span multiple city and county jurisdictions. Urban Connection trails have a wide array of purposes, including linking existing amenities, connecting green spaces, providing non-auto commuter options, increasing beautification and identity within a city, and offering a venue for urban recreation. Common across both trail typologies is how they impact a regional economy. Trails and public art do not have direct revenues (such as admission fees) so all impacts are calculated as associated impacts. In summary, the profile consists of case studies and impacts associated with the following: 1) Development of a north/south urban trail connecting the Centennial Trail to the City's Appleway Trail; 2) Enhancement of the Appleway Trail with public art Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 37 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Applying the Case Studies The following section includes a series of case studies that encompass different examples of trail development and public art implementation. The case studies represent a broad range of project types and represent efforts that were led or facilitated by public jurisdictions and/or entities. Because of the complexity associated with development of an urban trail and the variety of forms arts can be implemented, the case studies are organized into the following categories: • Local Trail Infrastructure • Trail Case Studies • Arts Case Studies Detailed case studies are included in the project appendix and include the following locations: Trail Case Studies: • Trail: Boise River Greenbelt Location: Boise, Idaho • Trail: Ruston Way Trail Location: Tacoma, Washington • Trail: Burke-Gilman Trail - Kenmore Stretch Location: Kenmore, Washington Arts Case Studies • Public Art: Tacoma Municipal Art Program & Publlc Art Location: Tacoma, WA • Public Art: Denver, Colorado Urban Arts Fund Location: Denver, Colorado • Public Art:Joseph, Oregon Art Walk Location:Joseph, Oregon Each case study offers varying degrees of detail and data. Generally, the following information is being collected where possible (see Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2): • Development/implementation costs • Ownership and development structure - who built it, who owns it? • What types of facilities are included? • Operations and maintenance attributes and costs • Impacts associated with the project/facility - Attendance and/or user-ship - Benefits attributable to the project Baseline Regional Trail Inventory Spokane Valley has two primary trails: the Centennial Trail and the Appleway Trail. The Centennial Trail follows the Spokane River, spanning 37.5 miles from Lake Spokane to the Washington/Idaho state line. Once it reaches the state line, it Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 38 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles connects with the Northern Idaho Centennial Trail. These two portions together total more than 60 miles of recreational trail. Planning for the Appleway Trail Corridor began in 2013. Formerly a rail corridor, the stretch is owned by Spokane County, who agreed that the corridor could be an asset to the Spokane Valley community by converting it into a multi-use trail. The Appleway corridor parallels Sprague Avenue through the heart of Spokane Valley's commercial district. Once complete, the path will stretch 5.2 miles, and provide a non-motorized travel option to connect transit, business districts, and schools (City of Spokane Valley, 2013). In addition to the above trails, there are several proposed trail additions and connections in Spokane Valley. The following links were identified in the City's 2013 Parks and Trails Master Plan: • Great Northern Trail-3 miles, on abandoned rail line from eastern city limits along Boone and Barker, then north along Barker to Mission and Centennial Trail. • Spokane Valley Loop-Eastern Segment-1.5 miles, begins at the Great Northern Trail and travels north to the Centennial Trail. • Spokane Valley Loop-Southern Segment-3.5 miles, runs east-west from Sullivan Road to Dishman Road, generally following 2nd Ave. • Spokane Valley Loop—Western Segment-3.5 miles, runs north-south mostly within the Park Road right-of-way. The trail eventually turns east to connect to Argonne Road where it crosses the River and connects to the Centennial Trail. • Chester Creek Connection-1 mile, connects the Spokane Loop at 32nd Ave. with Chester Creek. • Spokane Valley Loop-Southeastern Segment-4 miles, runs north-south along Conklin and Flora from the Centennial Trail to 32nd In 2013, the Spokane Valley parks and recreation budget totaled $2.6 million, accounting for 6.2% of the total general fund expenditures. In the same year, the City spent approximately $789,000 for park maintenance, which equated to roughly $4,790 per acre of developed park land. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 39 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-1. Trail Case Study Summary Table Attribute Findings Development Costs • One-mile segments of the Appleway Trail range in cost from $1.2 to $1.9 million. • Development costs ranged from $100,000 to $2.5 million per mile for trails that were researched. • Paved trails require significantly more up-front costs than non-paved options. Preventative investments, such as tree root mitigation and appropriate draining to prevent soil erosion and shifting are costly initially, but can decrease future asphalt maintenance costs over the life of the trail. Paved trails are recommended for Spokane Valley. • Development costs are also directly tied to trail width. Multi- modal trails are typically 10-12 feet wide to allow for separate pedestrian and cyclist lanes in both directions. • Trail funding can be derived from a combination of federal grants, non-profits, donations, and city or county budgets. Ownership and • Trails that span multiple jurisdictions rely on multi-county and Management city cooperation. Frequently, non-profits are created to provide additional guidance and oversight to trail development and maintenance. • Trails that are confined to one city are typically solely managed by the local parks and recreation department. Trail Typologies • All trails presented in case studies were paved. • The Boise River Greenbelt is a destination recreation trail, similar in characteristics to the Centennial Trail. • The Ruston Way and Kenmore stretch of the Burke-Gilman Trails are closely related to the Appleway Trail and the potential north/south link between the Appleway and Centennial Trails. Operations and • The Spokane County Parks Department spent an average of Maintenance $2,400 to $2,600 per mile to maintain trails in 2015. • Depending on the type of trail, operations and maintenance have a substantial cost range. For researched trails, these costs ranged from $100 to nearly $1 million (a major trail rebuild) per mile depending on trail attributes and the severity of repairs. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 40 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Attribute Findings • The presence of lighting, intersections with right-of-way traffic, landscaping, and art increased the cost of trail maintenance. • Operations and maintenance costs are highly dependent on the quality of initial trail development. Visitation Attributes • The Ruston Way urban trail in Tacoma, WA drew 28,400 visitors from outside the city and 39,200 local resident users in 2010. • Trail counts on the Kenmore portion of the Burke-Gilman Trail totaled an average of 400 cyclists per day during peak season. Peak season is typically defined by May to September, roughly a third of the year. Peak season visitors to Kenmore are calculated to be 43,800 in 2015. • Destination recreation trails have a higher number of annual visitors than urban trails. However, urban trails that connect to larger recreation trail networks can conservatively capture 5-10% of recreation trail ridership. Based on this assumption, a north/south connection could allow the Appleway Trail and associated amenities to draw 100,000-200,000 of the 2 million annual Centennial Trail usership. Benefits and • Increased patronage of nearby off-trail amenities, such as Economic Activities restaurants and retail • Decreased reliance on cars to travel through city centers • Amplified property values near trails and greenbelts • Augmented community identity Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 41 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-2. Arts Case Study Summary Table Attribute Findings Development Costs • Cost of art installations range depends on the type of installation, materials, artist status, and project management fees. Denver examples range from $3,500 for a mural to over $1,000,000 for a large sculpture by a well- regarded artist, with projects spread throughout that range. Another, smaller sculpture from a less well known artist cost $12,000. • The standard artist's fee is 20% of the art project budget. If the artist is physically making the artwork themselves, they should also be paid for materials and labor. • Funds should be set aside at the outset for future maintenance. Both Portland and San Francisco set aside a percentage of their "2% for public art" dedications for maintenance. The Cities of San Jose and Seattle have both hired professional conservators to oversee and make plans for public art maintenance. Ownership and • In some cities, public art is developed and managed by a Management local arts agency or commission or a private nonprofit entity. • Depends on the project. For some mural programs, property owners are responsible for art on private property. For other types of art on public property, the City may be the owner. In Joseph, sculptures are donated to the city. • The most successful programs, such as in Joseph, build on existing arts communities. Supporting the arts community itself works hand in hand with a public arts program. Trail and Art Typologies • Murals and sculpture are most common for public art, but some cities also commission music and dance performances or temporary art installations in public spaces. These temporary installations can be used to activate underused spaces in cities like vacant storefronts, and draw tourism. Operations and • Differs by type of program. In Denver, the City provides Maintenance funding to artists, but only maintains installations on public Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 42 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Attribute Findings property. Installations are otherwise maintained by the property owner. Visitation Attributes • According to a 2001 survey by the Travel Industry Association of America, "two-thirds (65%) of American adult travelers say they included a cultural, arts, heritage, or historic activity or event while on a trip of 50 miles or more, one-way, in the past year. This equates to 92.7 million cultural travelers. Of the 92.7 million adult travelers who included a cultural event on their trip, 32% (29.6 million travelers) added extra time to their trip because of a cultural, arts, heritage, or historic activity or event." • Nonprofit arts attendees spend an average of$24.60 per person, beyond the cost of admission. For those living outside the county of the event, this rises to $39.96. (Americans for the Arts, 2012) Benefits and Economic • Public art installations offer an opportunity to express local Activities identity and define a unique sense of place. • In Denver, murals are funded with a high priority placed on "graffiti hot spots" defined by the Denver Police Department. Student participants in mural painting programs also receive education on the difference between graffiti art and vandalism, and other lessons related to encouraging legal artistic expression. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 43 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Implementation Opportunities Implementing Trails and Art Through conversations with the City of Spokane Valley, the Appleway Trail was identified as the best possible location for a concentrated arts walk. The Appleway Trail is an urban connection trail that runs east/west through the primary business corridor in Spokane Valley. To complement this trail expansion, Community Attributes recommends the City consider a north/south connection between the Appleway and Centennial trails. This trail is congruent with the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan for a Spokane Valley loop trail system that encircles Spokane Valley, fully linking the Appleway and Centennial trail systems. Implementing Art Key Considerations Best Practices - Public Art Many cities with large public art programs have plans guiding their programs, similar to comprehensive plans. These plans can guide the goals, management, and funding of public art. Further, they can be used to establish goals and strategies for building on and growing the local arts community. Smaller cities, such as Spokane Valley, have to put a concerted effort into developing funding, design and approval structures. Recently, the City has applied for a New Town Grant to develop an Arts Master Plan, which has an estimated total cost of$100,000. The grant will match Spokane Valley's contribution of $50,000. For specific public art projects, the first step is in researching similar successful projects. There are a number of national public art publications, and Americans for the Arts produces annual lists of notable projects. In addition, public art consultants can be hired to provide guidance in any step of the process. Once the project has been defined, prepare a budget based on benchmarks from similar projects. Project costs can vary widely depending on materials, project type, and the artist's status. The artist should know the full project budget, and additional budgets for future maintenance and management should also be developed. The standard artist fee is 20% of the art project budget. If the artist is physically making the artwork themselves, they should also be paid for materials and labor. A professional conservator can be consulted to advise on the maintenance needs of the artwork. There should be a clear agreement on who is in charge of repairing damaged artwork - typically it should be the artist who created it, another individual approved by the artist, or a professional conservator. This agreement can specify time periods as well, for example stipulating that the artist is responsible for the first year. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 44 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Artists can be selected through an open RFP or RFQ process, invitations of pre- qualified artists, or directly approaching an artist. These artists should be selected and screened by an individual or group experienced in the arts, and ideally knowledgeable of the local arts community. Many cities have arts commissions, and some have hired professional conservators to oversee public arts collections, including the City of Seattle. The artist will be bound by a contract, like one prepared for any other design or construction project. This contract should include specific milestones to guide the timing over project, often tied to the release of payment Project Parameters For the purposes of this analysis the following project parameters have been established so the potential so that the potential costs and associated benefits can be estimated. The parameters are based on case study, research, interviews and conversations with City Staff and regional stakeholders and represent realistic scenarios for the City to consider for implementing trails and arts in the City. Programmatic assumptions Trails: North/south urban trail connecting major trails corridors that exist or are under construction (Centennial Trail and the Appleway Trail) Arts: Art installations along the Appleway Trail (an arts walk), which could be implemented on built or unbuilt portions of the trail. Location and Size Trails: A north/south trail connection will likely range between 1 mile and up to 3.5 miles. The total length will depend largely on the location and route and existing right of way constraints Arts: The footprint of the arts installations depend on the form of the art (sculpture, murals, monuments, etc...) and the nature of the installation with options for permanent and temporary exhibits for example. Arts would likely be implemented along a specific and intentional section of trail and based on planning development of the trail would be a 1 mile segment where is concentrated. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 45 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The following section provides a cursory review of feasibility for trails are arts implementation in the City. The section is based on the case study research, interview with local stakeholders and knowledge of local planning. Evaluation of the project was based on an analysis of two distinct types of trails: destination recreation and urban connections. The former describes recreation trails that span multiple city and county jurisdictions. These trails are typically destinations for recreators in the surrounding region. Urban connection trails have a wide array of purposes, including linking existing amenities, connecting green spaces, providing non-auto commuter options, increasing beautification and identity within a city, and offering a venue for urban recreation. These trail typologies have differing tourism impacts. Destination Recreation trails have a larger tourism draw than Urban Connection trails as stand-alone features within a city. Urban connections can intersect with destination recreation trails in order to capture some of the users of larger, regional trail networks. These links can connect other tourism amenities, such as parks, retail, and restaurants within cities to potential urban trail users. Expanding the urban Appleway Trail and enhancing it with public art features in addition to a north/south trail connection between the Appleway and Centennial Trail, could create a major recreation destination for the region. Market Opportunity The Centennial Trail draws more than 2 million visitors per year. In addition, trail use is a major recreation activity in Washington State. According to a recent survey state from the Washington State Department of Recreation, over a third of the state's population participates in jogging activities and more than 70% participate in walking activities (Exhibit 2-3). Centennial Trail users, the majority of which are Washington based, enter the trail from the City of Spokane where parking can be constrained and lodging prices are typically higher than in Spokane Valley. An urban arts walk in tandem with a north/south connection to the Centennial Trail could be leveraged to position Spokane Valley as an ideal entry-point to the larger, regional trail network. Alternatively, the proposed north/south connection would be relatively short—between 1 and 5 miles depending on the intersection point—and could serve as an entry point from the Centennial Trail to the City for visitors who desire a break from recreating or need to restock supplies. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 46 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-3. Trail Use Participation Estimate Detail, Washington State, 2013 Recreational Activity Percent of Population Mean Days Spent Annually Participating Walking 71% 97.8 Jogging or running 36% 66 Bicycle riding 37% 35.5 Source: Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2013; Community Attributes, 2016. Spokane Valley has roughly 15 miles of locally operated trails, equating to an approximate ratio of 6,000 people per linear mile of trail. This ratio is relatively low compared to other cities with similar characteristics to Spokane Valley. Expanding the local trail network would positively impact residents and any other additional tourism projects the City opts to pursue. Potential Costs Proposed development on the Appleway Trail has an estimated average cost of$1 .6 million per mile. All planned sections of the Trail are all fully funded. Federal and state grants, private sector contributions, and non-profit support are all viable sources of funding for trail network expansion. Considering the high variability of arts implementation costs, the City should form a committee or non-profit that can provide clear stylistic and cohesive direction for arts projects. This group could be funded through a portion of the City's lodging tax diverted for the specific purpose of arts development within Spokane Valley. The Spokane Valley Arts Council and the Spokane Valley Heritage Museum could be used as resources for these efforts. Development Costs The average costs per mile vary considerably across trails in the region (Exhibit 2-4). The Boise River trail has the lowest estimated average development cost per mile, while the Burke-Gilman trail has the highest average cost per mile. The recent Appleway trail connection developments range in cost from $1.2 to $1.9 million with an average cost per mile of$1.6 million. Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley were consulted regarding trail maintenance costs. Both the County and City cited the variability of costs based on the location of a given trail. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 47 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-4. Estimated Development Costs Average Development Trail Trail Type Cost per Mile Boise River Destination $107,500 Ruston Way Urban $500,000 Centennial Destination $884,000 Appleway Urban $1.6 million Burke-Gilman- Kenmore Urban commuter, recreation $2.5 million Source: City of Boise, 2015; Metro Parks Tacoma, 2016; Friends of the Centennial Trail, 2015;Appleway Trail Corridor Concept Design Report, 2013; University of Washington, 2015; Community Attributes, 2016. A major variable is the amount of vandalism on a given section of trail, which can dramatically impacts maintenance costs. In Spokane Valley trail maintenance costs varied from $3,000 per mile for the Centennial Trail to $3,600 per mile for the Appleway Trail. Exhibit 2-5 illustrates trail maintenance costs in the County and the seasonal nature of trail usage and maintenance costs in the region. Exhibit 2-5. Average Trail Maintenance Costs, Spokane County, 2016 Trail Type Hard Surface Soft Surface Month (Centennial Trail) (Backcountry January $600 $360 February $600 $360 March $720 $360 April $1,380 $1,800 May $2,025 $2,325 June $2,550 $2,550 July $2,550 $1,725 August $2,550 $1,725 September $1,800 $1,800 October $1,620 $1,620 November $600 $600 December $600 $600 Total Cost per Year $23,595 $21,825 Approximate Mileage we Mane 9 9 Average cost per Mile $2,621.67 $2,425.W Note:2016 Estimate for Trail Maintenance costs represent an example of an "average"year. These can easily increase due to weather conditions or concerns from both the public and local officials. Source: Spokane County, 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 48 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Costs for arts are highly variable and largely dependent on the type of art location and commissioning costs. Key costs to consider for art installations are the costs associated with installation and upkeep. Because of this variability the City should focus on creating a structure and organization for funding and ownership of arts in public places. In the City of Spokane Valley costs for art installations have been dependent on the type of art, location and required site prep. Estimates for installation and site work ranged from $2,500 to $7,500 (not including the cost of the art installation) COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Visitation Potential user attributes: who, where and how many? For the purposes of the analysis potential usership/visitation is driven by the potential for recreation/commuting along trails found in the region. The arts component is assumed to be encompassed by this visitation. The arts installation would provide a civic anchor to draw the large number of users from the Centennial Trail for example. Potential visitation is largely segmented by the following potential users: • Runners • Walkers • Bikers For calculating economic impacts, visitation is simplified to include foot traffic and bicycle traffic. A key component of estimating potential impacts is the amount of visits a particular project can draw. The participating audience of trail users in the Spokane region is significant based on the amount of users found on other trails, like the Centennial Trail. In addition, data on recreation participation in Washington State was collected for the Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP) and is leveraged to estimate potential visitors to an urban connector trail in Spokane Valley. Put simply, the potential number of users is estimated based on the regions population and rate of participation in trail activities (walking,jogging, running and bicycle riding). The estimate is based on conservative capture rates of all potential participant days (Exhibit 2-6). Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 49 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-6. Trail Use Participation Estimate Detail, Washington CORP, 2013 Recreational Percent of Population Mean Days Spent Capture Total Potential Activity Type Participating Annually Estimate Participant Days Walking Foot 71% 97.8 0.50% 193,000 Jogging or running Foot 36% 66 1.00% 132,000 Bicycle riding Bike 37% 35.5 1.00% 72,000 Source: Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2013; Community Attributes, 2016. The estimated annual visits to a trail is estimated at approximately 397,000, which for context is compared to estimates established for the Appleway Trail which were produced in 2015 (Exhibit 2-7). The comparison illustrates the assumption for the new segment and the type of usership estimated for the analysis. The CORP regional demand estimate represents a conservative estimate of potential users on a connector trail, which is less than what might be expected on the Appleway Trail but still a significant number of visitors. Exhibit 2-7. Trail Use Participation Estimate Detail, Washington CORP, 2013 Trip Estimates Activity WA Corp Regional Demand Appleway Impact Analysis Bicycle 72,000 91,615 Foot 325,000 412,085 Total Estimated 397,000 503,700 Source: Economic Benefits of the Appleway Trail, 2015; Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2013; Community Attributes,2016. Economic Impacts The following section discusses the potential economic impacts and benefits of implementation of an urban trail and arts along the Appleway Trail. The economic benefits are expressed in the following manner: • Visitor potential (number of visits, overnight stays, users or overall attendance) • Expected revenues for the facility • Direct fiscal impacts (e.g. retail sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) • Employment directly associated with the facility (if applicable) The baseline impacts for a new trail system in Spokane Valley assume a total yearly user ship number of 397,000, which are all considered to be day visitors. This Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 50 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles reflects a regional capture rate of 0.5% of all walking visitor days, 1.0% of all bicyclist visitor days and 1.0% of jogging or running visitor days (see trail user participation exhibits). The baseline for a new trail system is used in order to represent the possible addition of a north/south trail connection to link the Appleway and Centennial Trails. These capture rates are conservative because many of these activities do not necessarily require the need for a new trail (for example,jogging around the neighborhood could be considered a competitive activity to the use of a new trail). The combined economic impacts of total user-days on a potential trail is represented in Exhibit 2-8. There are no direct revenues projected because trails generally have no admission fees involved but there are associated revenues, jobs and wages based off of the typical spending profile for a trail user located near Spokane Valley's retail establishments. If there are 397,000 visitors in a trail in Spokane valley, the total revenues are estimated to be $2.57 million which supports 32 jobs directly tied to the typical spending pattern of a trail user. A further $931,000 in wages paid out to those jobs. The largest contributor to these impacts are from retail sales with accounts for over half of all projected revenue and jobs and almost 60% of all wages paid out by those associated jobs. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 51 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 2-8. Trails and Art Impact Summary Table ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY Total Attendance Days Visitation Low Turnout Baseline Turnout High Turnout Total Visitors 357,000 397,000 436,000 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending $2,313,000 $2,572,000 $2,826,000 Direct,Indirect and Induced Spending(on-site) N/A N/A N/A Associated Spending(off-site) $2,313,000 $2,572,000 $2,826,000 Wages $886,000 $986,000 $1,083,000 Jobs Created 29 32 36 Total Fiscal Impacts $196,000 $219,000 $240,000 To the City of Spokane Valley $20,000 $22,000 $24,000 To County and State $176,000 $197,000 $216,000 Construction,Operations and Maintanence' Initial Capital Costs - - Trails Development $1.6 to$5.6 Mil $1.6 to$5.6 Mil $1.6 to$5.6 Mil ArtsWalk2 $15kto$40k $15kto$40k $15kto$40k Operating Expenses - - - Trails Development $3.6k to$12.6k $3.6k to$12.6k $3.6k to$12.6k Arts Walk(see footnotes) NA NA NA Direct Operating Revenues NA NA NA 1 Development and maintenance costs for trails and art installations is dependent on the size and type of facility. Cost estimates are based on real trail maintenance and development costs found in the City. Maintenance costs for art installations is often associated with vandalism and general upkeep and is dependent on the location and type of art. 2 Based on the cost to install approximately 5 art installations. Costs will vary based on how the art is commissioned and procured. Qualitative Community Benefits The following are the key qualitative community benefits that have been identified for this project: • Increase recreational opportunities • Improved health and wellness for local citizens • Improved access for recreational users and commuters Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 52 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 53 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles III. FAIRGROUNDS AND STADIUM DISTRICT INTRODUCTION The Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, including Avista Stadium, are currently located within the City of Spokane Valley on Spokane County-owned property. These County properties encompass approximately 91.4 acres. The Fairgrounds hosts dozens of events annually, including the Spokane County Fair. These events attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to Spokane Valley each year. Avista Stadium, the home of the Spokane Indians, the Short Season (A) affiliate of the Texas Rangers, is located adjacent to the fairgrounds. The Indians play dozens of games at Avista Stadium between June and September of each year; thirty-eight home baseball games are scheduled for 2017, and the stadium's capacity is about 6,800 people. • -4 - Q�`i. .qty �.^� .5 1 ff _ ^4 -.�• �.` -���,� ..� - ill -yx', .+i.{ K r _a-.ti' '.- Avista Stadium is the 6,800-seat home of the Spokane Indians; the blue roof of the Spokane County Expo Center is visible over the left field walk, and the scenic Dishman Hills can be seen past right field. While the Fairgrounds, Expo Center and Avista Stadium are already one of Spokane Valley's most significant tourism drivers, there may be an opportunity to improve the economic performance of all three through a combination of targeted investment and broad-based economic development planning. The location of multiple facilities in one part of Spokane Valley points, specifically, to an opportunity to create a stadium or entertainment district, though even an investment in a single, strategic facility could potentially draw additional visitors to the area. This investment profile explores these opportunities and the related economic impacts. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 54 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles . a -,". . ` 34 ; gam � � ' S- 4,. _fig r. r ;.} «fit Fi ` s - >:-';',,-r?- te-! r �_• y 2 .. r' „do A car show drives visitors to the Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, which hosts indoor and outdoor events year-round, in addition to hosting the Spokane County Interstate Fair every September. What is a Stadium or Entertainment District? Increasingly, professional sports stadiums are interested in encouraging the colocation of entertainment uses—such as restaurants, bars, hotels and other retailers—with their stadiums. This has the potential to increase game attendance and capture more spending, especially if visitors enjoy a destination enough to stay overnight. These stadium-anchored mixed-use areas are often referred to as stadium or entertainment districts. Washington residents need look no further than Seattle for an example: the location of Safeco Field and Century Link Field (homes to the Seattle Mariners and the Seattle Seahawks, respectively) has been redeveloped with bars and restaurants, breweries, boutiques, offices and high-rise residences. Similar development patterns are noticeable in Houston, Texas' Ballpark District,Jackson Florida's Sports Complex, Columbus, Ohio's Arena District, Atlanta, Georgia's Ballpark District, Los Angeles, California's L.A. Live and Detroit, Michigan's planned district around the proposed Detroit Redwings hockey area. Smaller cities are capitalizing on these ideas as well, with Reno, Nevada and Lansing, Michigan investing in similar districts. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 55 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles 41 • a44, .M • L.A. Live, developed around the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California, is the epitome of a stadium district. It includes restaurants and other retailers, offices, a theater, hotels and apartments, and a convention center. Compared to stadiums, fairgrounds tend to have unique financial and operational characteristics, and they require a significant amount of land to accommodate a wide variety of year-round activities. However, in certain cases, fairgrounds are finding an economic incentive to locate near stadiums because they can both drive traffic to nearby establishments while sharing resources like parking. The planned Michigan State Fairgrounds (Detroit), the Mid-South Coliseum and Fairgrounds area Memphis, Tennessee, and the Fairgrounds in Nashville, Tennessee offer examples. These examples illustrate that stadiums and fairgrounds are not just compatible, but can be complimentary and can even anchor entire entertainment districts. Why is Spokane Valley Interested in Studying the Fair and Expo Center? Spokane Valley is interested in studying the Fair and Expo Center because few cities benefit from having two major drivers of tourism in such close proximity. These existing assets—the Fair and Expo Center and Avista Stadium—drive hundreds of thousands of unique visits annually. The City's interest in studying the opportunities to expand the Fair and Expo Center stems from a chance to either increase the number of unique visits or to convert existing daytime visitors into overnight visitors. Aside from the opportunity to significantly increase the economic impacts associated with increased daytime and overnight visitation to the Fair and Expo Center, the projects studied herein have been suggested by the recently- commissioned Spokane Valley Tourism Strategy (2016) and have been highly-ranked by key stakeholders. Both an improvement to the Fairgrounds and the development Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 56 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles of a Stadium District are therefore recognized as key economic development priorities. Spokane County has also indicated that one of the aging existing buildings at the Fairgrounds is in need of extensive work, and that the condition and size of the building prevents the Fairgrounds from hosting additional events. This creates an opportunity for Spokane Valley to get involved. The redevelopment of the Spokane County Fairgrounds and Avista Stadium has the potential to contribute to the long-term vitality of Spokane Valley's tourism economy while helping to define the City's unique identity. This project could be a draw for regional visitors and add value for Spokane Valley residents. Complementary land uses—including retail, commercial, and recreational—on County-owned or nearby privately-held parcels would further augment an emerging fairground and stadium district. METHODS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Evaluation Approach This investment profile assesses the economic impacts associated with distinct scenarios for investment in the Fair and Expo Center. The profile relies on data from the Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, the Spokane County Assessor, and several case studies. For each scenario analyzed, these data inform assumptions about facility size and programmatic elements, nearby development opportunities, cost and revenue drivers, anticipated visitation and potential visitor spending. The calculation of community and economic benefits accounts for these factors. Applying the Case Studies Case studies were compiled for four different fairgrounds and/or minor league ballparks throughout the country. The detailed case studies are located in the appendix and include the following: • Reno, Nevada (Reno Aces and the Freighthouse District) • Lansing, Michigan (Lansing Lugnuts) • Vallejo, California (Solano County Fairgrounds) • Nashville, Tennessee (The Fairgrounds Nashville) These case studies suggest the following lessons for the redevelopment of the Spokane County Fairgrounds. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 57 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles • The colocation of a fairgrounds and a stadium is a unique combination that does not exist in many place, creating a unique opportunity for Spokane Valley and Spokane County • Year-round programming is essential for these spaces, which otherwise are only active during certain seasons or at certain times during the year • Developing a broad range of amenities in and around the Fairgrounds and the stadium will likely lead existing visitors to stay longer, spend more and possibly covert their day trips to overnight stays • Cooperation and partnership with nearby landowners can create a willingness to participate in larger planning processes for entire districts, which may be anchored by a fairgrounds, stadium, or similar use • Regulatory challenges often exist because fairgrounds and ballparks do not always exist in an urban context that supports mixed-use development; creating supportive zoning and development regulations is essential to realizing a larger vision for the district Implementation Opportunities The introduction and the case studies presented in this investment profile illustrate a range of implementation scenarios. Investments in the Fairgrounds and Expo Center could be narrowly tailored and could focus on a single facility, or could be part of a larger effort to create an entertainment or stadium district that leverages existing attractions. This range of opportunities would, of course, result in different economic impacts, but would also require different levels of investment from the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, and other stakeholders. Project Parameters The economic impact calculations presented in this profile pertain to a narrowly tailored project, but are compatible with a larger vision for the area surrounding the Fairgrounds, if the City desires to pursue it. This profile assumes that Spokane County would replace the current, aging indoor arena with a new, 50,000 square foot facility. This multipurpose arena would represent an addition of about 26,000 square feet of capacity to the Fair and Expo Center after demolition of the old space, and would include insulation, finished concrete floors and other critical amenities. INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Market Opportunity Current operators of the Fairgrounds and Expo Center believe there is an opportunity to offer additional events if an appropriate facility can be constructed. The facility, which would be appropriate for hosting trade and livestock shows, concerts and small sporting events, forms the basis for the first scenario analyzed in Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 58 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles this profile. Henceforth, this scenario is referred to as the "multipurpose indoor arena", as distinguished from a longer-term redevelopment vision for a larger stadium or entertainment district. Potential Costs Direct development costs have not been estimated by Spokane County. The City of Spokane Valley is unlikely to bear a significant portion of these costs in any case, and the City will not bear any costs for associated development on nearby private properties. Nevertheless, a rough estimate of the cost to construct a new structure in its place may fall between $7.5 million and $9.5 million, excluding demolition. Maintenance and operation costs would be borne exclusively by Spokane County. Implementation Considerations Some barriers exist to redevelopment of the Fair and Expo Center, but replacing one aging and dilapidated building with a newer building of larger size is unlikely to face significant regulatory challenges. Spokane County has indicated that grant funding may be available to offset some of the costs associated with such development. Pursuing a stadium or entertainment district would involve regulatory changes, possibly allowing a wider range of uses and higher building intensities in and around the Fairgrounds. Though not proposed for this part of the City, the recently adopted Mixed-Use land use designation may be appropriate for advancing these interests, should the City decide to pursue this district concept. Timing offers another challenge, as stadium and entertainment districts can take many years to develop organically. If the City wanted to speed implementation, it could work with property owners to provide redevelopment incentives or participate in land-banking to ensure that properties are available for a developer that is willing and able to create the critical mass that such a district requires. One final challenge is coordination with the City of Spokane. The western border of Spokane Valley is Havana Street, and the Fair and Expo Center abuts Havana Street on its west side. Redevelopment may require cooperation between the two cities, and a district may be more successful if jointly implemented. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 59 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Community and economic impacts are largely derived from the retail sales and taxes that accrue from visitor spending, as well as from the spending that occurs directly at the Fair and Expo Center or Avista Stadium. The diagram below illustrates these impacts, and the summary table in Exhibit 3-1 describes the potential economic impacts of investment in this new facility, and Exhibit 3-2 quantifies those impacts in relation to approximate costs. Exhibit 3-1. Economic Impacts of Fair and Expo Center Operations • iFBi{tiid e't3ifid T� FAIR&EXE Local Business gE H 1. Non-Event Income Income Advertising? Concessions FODd & sponsorships? Merchandise Retail L dgirig Parkin g State and Local Taxes Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 60 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 3-2. Fairgrounds Redevelopment Impact Summary Table ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY Total Attendance Days Visitation Low Baseline High Total Visitors 28,000 57,600 86,400 Estimated Hotel Nights 8,300 Visitor Segmentation Daytime Visitors 17,280 34,560 51,840 Overnight Visitors 11,520 23,040 34,560 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending $1,974,000 $3,948,000 $5,920,000 Direct,Indirect and Induced Spending(on-site) $609,000 $1,218,000 $1,827,000 Associated Spending(off-site) $1,365,000 $2,730,000 $4,093,000 Wages $771,900 $1,543,900 $2,316,800 Jobs Created 22 43 67 Total Fiscal Impacts $220,000 $437,000 $658,000 To the City of Spokane Valley $28,000 $56,000 $86,000 To County and State $192,000 $381,000 $572,000 Construction,Operations and Maintanence Initial Capital Costs' $8,417,000 $8,417,000 $8,417,000 Operating Expenses2 $445,000 $445,000 $445,000 Direct Operating Revenues $230,400 $460,800 $691,200 1 The amount presented represents an average of the high and low cost estimates provided. 2 The amount presented represents an average of the high and low cost estimates.Additional data will be provided by the Fair and Expo Center prior to completion of the investment profile.Operating and maintenance expenses and revenues would be born by the County as it is the operator of the facility. Qualitative Community Benefits The Fairgrounds and Expo Center—including Avista Stadium—is already a valued community asset. To the extent that investments can improve the offerings at the Fairgrounds, the community will realize additional benefits. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 61 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles IV. BALFOUR PARK REDEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION Balfour Park, located along Sprague Avenue, is a centrally located city owned property. The site is located across Sprague Avenue from the City's new City Hall (currently under construction). The property is made up of five parcels. Two of the parcels make up the existing Balfour Park (located on the eastern side of the property. The remainder of the property is made up of three undeveloped parcels, one of which is currently owned by the Spokane County Library District with the others under City ownership (Exhibit 4-1). Exhibit 4-1. Balfour Park Properties ;_ ! y. 45174".2513 451/4.2444 T S t 6 451742613 - 1 f { d gyp- 4 E Main r, • + 451 a • 45174.90591 Alt 45174.9031 ::. '45174.90610 MI11 X451749051 -III r ■ 45174.261 I,45174.9060- n ! y ,451749042 a 451749003 •04 E 4 I• "- Q Sprague MO 45200 i ' � �I. ,. =4 - :E I 45201.0122 45201.0119 E'. Source: Spokane County, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The Balfour Park property was originally purchased with the intent to develop a new library and community Park. The City is now exploring options for use and redevelopment of the property. The City's recently completed Tourism Strategy calls for redevelopment of the property with consideration of tourism supportive uses. The investment profile leverages past planning work on the site to evaluate Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 62 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles potential long term usage of the site to inform future planning and funding decisions. Below is an excerpt from the City's Tourism strategy illustrating the applicable goal, action and project identified in the plan: II GOAL: Invest in long-terms improvement to create a more attractive tourist destination ACTION:4.3.1 Leverage the New City Hall: Encourage the establishment of a concentrated business district around the new City Hall building by collaborating with developers and land owners. PROJECT IDEA: Develop and implement a redevelopment plan for City owned Balfour Park property and consider a wide range of civic uses and potential public-private partnerships II Property Background. A vision and conceptual master plan for the site was approved in 2013 that included detailed plans for the park expansion (see Exhibit 4- 3 on following page). A bond measure was proposed to City voters that same year. The bond measure, rejected by a narrow margin, would have provided funding for development of the library in Balfour Park along with funding for other library facilities/upgrades elsewhere in the City. An additional bond measure was attempted in 2015 and was also narrowly rejected by voters. The City and Library District are now considering their options for the property, including exploration of other funding sources and whether a new library is still feasible from a funding standpoint. The site remains an important option for library, therefore analysis of the site and potential assumes that any future development could include a library use. What could redevelopment of the Balfour Park Property entail? At over ten acres the Balfour Park property is large enough to host a broad variety and mix of uses. Currently zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), a number of commercial uses are permitted on the site. In addition to the aforementioned actions called for by the City's tourism strategy, it also calls for consideration of tourism oriented uses and elements such as a visitor center "launch pad" and a year-round farmers market/market hall (or both) within the City. Those types of uses are also contemplated for the Balfour Park property in the analysis. Based on the past planning for the site and the uncertainty regarding potential future uses CAI Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 63 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles made the following assumptions to facilitate an evaluation of the site and potential development scenarios: • The analysis is based on the existing design of the property - the library site and park location • The analysis focuses on the use of the library parcel and how it might generate economic activity Exhibit 4-2. By the Numbers, Balfour Park Property 10.97 acres Total property acreage 2.82 acres Currently owned by Library District $22,000,000.00 Proposed Bond Measure-2 libraries, 1 upgraded facility $10 to$15 million Estimated cost of single new library $3,900,000.00 Proposed park improvement costs $839,285 Cost to purchase land from Library District Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2016; City of Spokane Valley, 2016; Corn munity Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 64 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 4-3. Balfour Park Master Conceptual Plan, City of Spokane Valley, 2014 i FRE ACCESS ROUTE [ �. • " e '—'\'' \ ' _ - — - SHELTER AND RI-AIA �� .-' L / " FRONTING ONTO OPEN 414 444 RAY SPACE 44 ! r lv' \\\ MEANDERING PATH SYSTEM -_- a i ' PNEW BASKETBALL LARGE OPEN PLAY AREAI �, r 101. COURT POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKING �Iilly ® +""4. � ,: •R 1 , EXPANSION sF _-_ 10 EXPANSION OF EXISTING :.<' STREET TREE LANDSCAPING 1' ' lot PLAYAREA/EQUIPMENT AND BUFFER PLANTINGS I. _ f 'I :E 7' I 1 EXISTING VOLLEYBALL--- I t, A COURT TO REMAIN TRASH ENCLOSLIR -i - ! 1' I7�' ``" 'I I �•u } - �.. * , - • - -! y ,I, CHILDRENS SPLASH PAD ilk 4 _444 y READING GARDEN,WITH MINI_ — 1si • - { �11i S ••Y l'.. AMPHITHEATER ADJACENT TO ", aL} ^1 9. %-"y - fel • A•1 '"� M1 ..RECONFIGURED CHILDREN'S ROOM IN LBRARY �� �, - �•' i ° � � i• •� - I BALF{7UR BARK , 5.' l \ i ...+ .. ::.:0 L' PARKING LOT NEW'MULTI-PURPOSE SHELTER -- lL -} ` -4 j N WFTH KESS RCC'I STAGE/MOVIE ' / �I�A `1A '. k SCREEN ADJACENT TO ti., .i1 PERFORMANCE SEATING SPACE -'';,J (:;.,04 '�6•� c*..y `� L11DECORATIVE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING a ` SHARED PARKING FOR P� ' ,r � ] 3iP rr� Pte- LIBRARY AND PARK,119 CARS N _ IT" - 1116' LIBRARY ] �` ,`!r 1+• - _ GATEWAY SIGNAGE 1. I 1 BUS DROP OF' - �', .r, �,.^7 FP' c\' 4'' '" — AMPHITHEATER ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES-. 4 4.. �(r• N%X• ` ' - - SEATING MULTI-USE CIVIC PLAZA SPACE_t eltT. s`,;1111,011‘. / r: _ V WITH DECORATIVE CONCRETE �' I R §itts RIVER PATTERN AND NATURAL .,:. ''�• 4++�•r ' FIRE STATION LANDSCAPE BOULDERS rr•J. " .:. � y ��,��IIII, \•v • L 1) •SITE LIGHTING-- — 'f- r''Y, .. - °I - SIL PUBLIC ART OPPORTUNITY-- - _ .. t t ,� ti - SHARED PARK AND - V" ' LIBRARY ENTRY PLAZA WITHi rr __t r..., VP LBRARY PARKING FOR WATER FEATURE,BUS STOP AND '*"' - - - 99 CARS INTERPRETIVE DISPLALY m 1 ' OPPORTUNITIES IN I- _ _ _ '� -„__"..y. 'THE GROVE”CULTURAL FRE ACCESS ROUTE _ .� • ...,.. � >� _�� � HISTORY COURT CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN i _ • ,:�, - -- . CROSSING AT DARTMOUTH r Source: BWA Bernard Wills Architects, 2014. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 65 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Why is Spokane Valley interested in redevelopment of the Balfour Park Property? The Balfour Park property is a critical investment of the City not only because of the potential economic and recreational activity that could occur on the site but also because of its adjacency to other civic assets. The City's new City Hall facility will be located across the street and the recently developed (and growing) Appleway Trail is also located within close proximity to the property. Funding efforts for the development of a major civic asset, a public library, have fallen short but the City still retains control of any future development of the property and it remains a major asset that the City can leverage. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the site location and its central location within the City's emerging civic center. Within a ten minute walk are both City Hall and the Appleway Trail. In addition, the site readily accessible to Spokane Valley residents nearby retail concentrations along Sprague Avenue. Exhibit 4-4. Balfour Park Vicinity Map 4 . + --- -- .- _ 5 Min WalkTime = u __� 3; 10 Min WalkTime _ f Wild Library/CIvicUse „,,,yr,ve t +^ ,•+�^.. o ^7. c sF,r„gn,41A,r a s, rgSioyl • ' n ng Field ZE59nnq Field Ave __I V y r 11.411 Ave a g I F Allo Ave R 2 c- fnY .s A i = 9 g Op rRve x 11 il: EVaII II vA+. enol -.. 1 - .F Ln ur Arr 19 ; 3 L-Mein.5 ' e MiY } 1 4Rive radar g . 71/J ! A... T n. "7MPrague Ave E Sprague Ave J r r,', Future N k City Hali c - E.SI Ars � Z. - - -- - A ApplewayTrail Give N'.7r 61rtl _ ... 6 3Y1 A ' Alliniiiir... �" AL E 3rJ•ASti _ .a _ Source: Community Attributes, Inc, 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 66 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Evaluation Approach Evaluation of the project is based on an analysis of potential redevelopment options for the property. As there are many options for redevelopment, including the aforementioned library and park concept, the analysis focuses on the potential feasibility and impacts of development at a planning level. The analysis focuses on the types of uses that the site may host, the types of economic activities that could occur on site and where possible, the potential fiscal impacts associated with various uses. The analysis is meant to provide policy makers with an orders of magnitude sense of what is possible on the site and what type of capacity the site has for future development, whether civic or private. Key variables include the following: • Site utilization: the portion of the site dedicated to civic uses, park space and/or private commercial development • Density: What is an appropriate size and scale for the site? For the purposes of the analysis buildout of the size is modeled at a modest scale to reflect past planning efforts and current buildout patterns near the site • Uses: The types of uses planned for the site will in part determine the level of economic impact the site. For the purposes of the analysis the following uses are analyzed in three distinct land use scenarios: - Library/civic uses - Private commercial uses (office and retail) - Public Park Space - Public Farmers Market/Market Hall Space • Economic Activity: Estimates are provided for the types of economic activities that may occur on the site based on a hypothetical buildout program and include the following: - Retail sales activity - Employment capacity - Assessed Value - Property taxes Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 67 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles CASE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITIES The following section includes a series of case studies that encompass different examples of civic spaces and uses. The case studies represent a broad range of project types and represent efforts that were led or facilitated by public jurisdictions and/or entities. Because of the variability and broad spectrum of civic uses that that can be developed by a city or public entity and the many ways in which they can be implemented, CAI analyzed projects that reflect uses that have been previously contemplated by the City (such as a library) as well as uses called out in the City's Tourism Strategy. As such, the case studies include information on: • Public Markets • Library/Civic Centers • Visitor Centers Each case study offers varying degrees of detail and data. Generally, the following information is being collected where possible: • Details on the formation and management of the use/space • Development costs • Attendance/usage • Design/size • Revenues and operations Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 68 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Case: Depot Market Square Location: Bellingham, WA The City of Bellingham's farmers market was created in the early 90s in a downtown parking lot. As it became established and popular, the market committee began to work with the City "� to identify a more permanent location, - _ and the concept for the Depot Market � ''i' `' f1-11I Square was born. The City owned "� another large downtown parking lot, and - mi■ •ui agreed to offer the site for the market. +�� �a._ s The initial estimated development cost - for the structure was $2,500,000, of which the City would contribute around $1,950,000 and the market committee would provide the rest through private fundraising. The City's contribution was funded through REET, State CTED, a City Arterial Street Fund, a Whatcom County Economic Development Grant, and a City Wastewater Fund. The shape of the building itself is designed to mimic the historic rail depot which previously occupied the site. The building is 5,200 square feet, with a large area that can adapt to a variety of purposes and seasons, plus restrooms and a prep kitchen. The remainder of the .76-acre site still operates as a paid parking lot when not in use for the market, but also has permanent shelter structures to support the outdoor portion of the market. The total assessed value of the improvements is currently just over $1 million. . :,...y lown•111.1.4!Mlmt=fie nmIt The City has retained ownership of the . r site, and the parks and recreation Ai. • department manages renting the site for 71 Awe. events from weddings to beer festivals. 1 ® g Rents range from $700-$1,000 per day for �} the building alone, or $1300 for the building Y and courtyard. The Market ►i , = Committee has a long term lease for the market's operation. Case: Sammamish Commons Location: Sammamish, WA Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 69 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles The City of Sammamish is a predominantly residential suburb located east of Seattle and Bellevue. Ten years ago, the City embarked on a plan to develop a mixed use town center, the core of which would be the civic-anchored "Sammamish Commons". The 10-acre area includes a library, city hall, police department, and YMCA. The local farmers market currently operates in a parking lot on site as well. It is located immediately adjacent to a 30 acre park, and immediately south of what is envisioned to be the future core of the town center. The City issued a bond to help cover the more than $4 million required to acquire the sites for the 10 acre civic portion of Sammamish Commons. The library itself was built on a portion of the property that had been previously been partially developed for a skate park, basketball courts, and climbing wall. The portion for the library was sold to the county library system for $825,000 in 2008, who then developed the library. It is just over 19,000 square feet in size, not including the parking garage. • 1 OA. ---_, Ik-i -__ I. ' � _____ m mliii Ari Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 70 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Case: Nampa Library Square Location: Nampa, Idaho The Nampa Development Corporation (NDC) was _ formed with the purpose of encouraging the revitalization of downtown Nampa through public- private partnerships. The NAMPA PUBLC NDC is an Urban Renewal Agency independent of the ' City, and works in urbanilk, renewal districts defined by City Council. '- rt } , 11111k - a The City's library was popular but crowded and outdated, and the police station also had to be replaced. The newly-formed NDC established the two new buildings as top priority, and made a plan to first develop a new police station, then develop the library on the newly-vacated block of the previous police station. The NDC contracted with the Gardner Company to develop the site, and issued a $18.3-million bond to cover construction costs. In addition to the new library, the development also included a large parking garage and commercial spaces, all oriented around a new public space called "Library Square". When the bond matures in 2031, library ownership will be transferred from the NDC to the City. The new library is twice the size of the previously library, and addresses serious issues limiting the old library, including accessibility issues for people with disabilities. Over the course of the year the new library was first open, the number of card holders checking out materials rose from 4,458 to 5,270, and new registrations went from 350 in August 2014 to 662 in August 2015. This is despite ongoing funding challenges for the library, which have resulted in more limited hours than libraries in neighboring communities. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 71 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Case: Pybus Public Market Location: Wenatchee, WA The Pybus Public Market, which opened in 2013, has a similar intent to Seattle's Pike Place Market, with 20 permanent vendors and restaurants selling items ranging from produce to wine, all housed in a 25,000 square foot historic structure. The facility itself was built out of an old steel warehouse, conveniently located a few blocks from downtown Wenatchee just off a popular trail system. The permanent year-round vendors all have spaces inside the building with roll down door fronts, and a farmers market is also operated seasonally outside. It also features a demonstration kitchen for cooking classes. The $10 million project was started by a local businessman, who wanted to provide a venue for quality products from local businesses, as well as support local artisans and nonprofits. He then established a nonprofit organization to run the market, contributed $4.5 million, and won a $1.4 million federal grant. The Port of Chelan County purchased the building, and issued an 80-year lease to the market nonprofit for operation. . iramri ill r i 111 4(mow+' ` " ,w 11 1 ru I ' '9 'A r OP , . lE - 'I =�,'It 1 �II Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 72 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Case: Coeur d'Alene Convention & Visitor Bureau Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID The Coeur d'Alene Convention & Visitor Bureau is located on a .4-acre lot, on a prominent corner leading into downtown. The building is owned by the local Chamber of Commerce, and in addition to the visitors center, houses the Chamber and has private rented office space. While the property is tax exempt, its total current assessed value is $2.5 million. A comparable visitors center in Casper, Wyoming serves 27,000 people per year, costs $79,000 per year to operate, and requires approximately 1.5 full time staff to operate. nvo lEgittIT Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 73 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles The following table summarizes findings from each case study and organizes them by key attribute. Exhibit 4-5. Case Study Summary Table Attribute Findings Development Costs • Costs vary depending on the type of project and the nature of the partnership. • A study for a proposed market in Yakima estimated it would cost $7,522,056 to develop a 15,000-square foot market with basement and mezzanine. Other markets studied ranged from $2.5 million to $10 million. • The City's contribution of a site is a large benefit for the financial viability of a project. This contribution should be quantified when establishing any partnership for development. Ownership and Management • In many cases, the City plays a key role in securing a site and leveraging public funding sources on behalf of a private partner. Private donations can also be a significant source of funding in these cases. • Successful partnerships are born out of existing interest which the city can support - an existing farmers market looking to grow or a local businessman looking to invest locally, for example. Ideally, the City isn't creating something out of nothing. Operations and Maintenance • Ongoing library operations can be intensive, and limit the amount of services provided. While the City of Nampa struggles to expand hours in its new library due to funding constraints, the City of Sammamish opted to join the King County Library System to take advantage of a larger network. • The Yakima market study estimated yearly revenues of nearly $450,000 for the proposed public market, with annual operating expenses around $400,000. Visitation Attributes • In Nampa, Idaho, after a new, modern library was built, the number of new cardholders nearly Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 74 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Attribute Findings doubled and the number of cardholders checking out material rose significantly • A visitor's center in Casper, Wyoming serves 20,000 people per year Benefits and Economic • These types of projects can serve as catalysts to Activities encourage development in new areas before the market has arrived. In partnering directly with private entities, the city has the opportunity to shape this new development before it happens. • The value of the British Library was estimated to be $4.40 per $1 of budget for one year. (Economic Value of Public Libraries in the UK) A similar study of 17 public libraries in Florida assessed benefits to adult library users, and determined that the libraries created approximately $6.40 in value per $1 of budget. • Libraries can be important workforce development tools, in providing instruction in computer skills, literacy, and language. • Flexible sites can be rented for a variety of events - in Bellingham, site rental is around $1,000 per day. • For every $100 spent at a farmers market, $62 stays in the local economy, and $99 stays in state. (Farmers Market Coalition) • In Iowa and Oklahoma, every dollar spent at farmers markets led to an additional $0.58 - $1.36 in sales at other nearby businesses. (Farmers Market Coalition) Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 75 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Implementation Opportunities This section needs to describe what the specific implementation of the project looks like (or could look like) in Spokane Valley. As previously mentioned, there is a desire to explore redevelopment of the Balfour Park Property, but the overall mix of uses and vision for the property is still under consideration. Based on the implementation scenarios above, this section defines the most likely scenario(s) for Spokane Valley and assesses the challenges and opportunities for implementation. 1. Baseline: Civic Oriented Redevelopment This scenario assumes that the property is developed with a library and park. This reflects a baseline scenario for the purposes of evaluating the site and also acknowledges the past and ongoing efforts to establish a new library on the site. The scenario also represents the original intent of the property purchase, which originally entailed development of a destination community park. 2. Civic Alternative: Farmer's Market/Market Hall This scenario illustrates a hypothetical development of a permanent year-round farmers market/market hall. The overall concept for the development reflects assumptions developed through case study research and CAI's own experience in developing business plans for local farmer's market organizations. 3. Mixed Use: Commercial Oriented Redevelopment (not under consideration) This scenario assumes a hypothetical mixed use development on the portion of the property currently owned by the Library District. It maintains the overall footprint of the original park plan but assumes redevelopment of a portion of the property for office and retail. It also maintains space for a smaller civic component such as a visitor center or community meeting space. Note: The scenario is not considered desirable by the City based on current market conditions. In addition, the City own relatively little property in the City and has prioritized civic uses for the property. The scenario is included here for illustrative purposes only. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 76 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles PROJECT PARAMETERS AND FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Project Parameters For the purposes of this analysis the following project parameters have been established so potential costs and associated benefits can be estimated. The parameters are based on case study research, interviews and conversations with City staff as well as review of past planning efforts for the Balfour Park property. Programmatic Assumptions As previously mentioned, the site is assumed to maintain a public park component. The previously adopted master plan for the site and current parcel ownership structure drive the analysis of potential land utilization. Exhibit 4-6 illustrates the scenarios that drive potential programming of the site. Exhibit 4-6. Site Utilization by Scenario, Balfour Park Property Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Sq Ft % Sq Ft % Sq Ft Office 0% 0 0.0% 0 5.0% 23,886 Retail 0% 0 0.0% 0 20.0% 95,544 Civic 26% 124,207 26.0% 124,207 0.0% 0 Park 74% 353,513 74.0% 353,513 75.0% 358,290 Total 100% 477,720 100.0% 477,720 100.0% 477,720 Source: Community Attributes Inc.,2016. Of note is the inclusion and evaluation of a public farmer's market/market hall concept. The scenario is included for illustrative purposes and is meant to represent a realistic development scenario that could be accommodated on the Balfour Park property. More detailed planning and analysis would be needed to fully assess the feasibility of a permanent farmer's market concept. In addition, no project partners have been identified to lead development or operations of such a facility. Such facilities are driven not only by visitation and the ability to attract local, regional and out of town shoppers, but also their connection to local food producers and farmers. Exhibit 4-7 summarizes farmer's markets in Washington State (including year round facilities) and their distribution by total sales. Only 16% of markets in Washington State generated more than $500,000 annually, with more than half generating less than $250,000 annually. A year round permanent facility would likely need to have broad public support and participation. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 77 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 4-7. Farmers Markets by Total Annual Market Sales, Washington State, 2013 Sales Category Number of Markets Percentage $5,000 or less 3 3 $5,001 to $25,000 13 15 $25,001 to $100,000 23 26 $100,001 to $250,000 18 20 $250,001 to $500,000 17 19 Over$500,000 14 16 Total 88 100 Source: Washington State University, 2013. Development Costs Development costs will vary greatly depending on the type of development and management structure of the property. Development costs will also depend on whether the City elects to act as a developer of the land versus a land owner that leases the land. Past planning work on the site provided cost estimates for the park portion of the property, providing a realistic estimate of what it may cost for the City to improve that portion of the site. Below is a summary table of development costs to consider (Exhibit 4-8). Exhibit 4-8. Potential Development Costs, Balfour Park Property Improvement Type Cost range Total Per Acre/Sq Ft Park Improvements $3.9 million $350,000 per acre Library Development' $10-$15 million $300 or more per SqFt Market Hall Development2 Variable $140-$200 1 Based on informal estimate of cost to develop single new library 2 Market Hall development costs are highly variable and dependent on the structure type and format.Costs shown are based on case study research as well as a review by City of Spokane Valley permitting staff. Source: City of Spokane valley, 2014; Spokane County Library district, 2015; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 78 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Ownership and Operations Property ownership is currently split between the City and the Spokane County Library District. The agreement between the City and the Library District calls for the City to maintain control of the entire property for buyback of the Library District portion if a library is not to be developed. With a planned public park and civic component it is likely that the property or a portion thereof will remain in public ownership. The analysis herein assumes that a public park will be developed on a majority of the site. The library or civic portion of the property (currently owned by the Library District) is evaluated for other uses in private development and development of other civic uses. Ownership and management options for any future civic or private uses may range from land leases, land sales or ownership/management by the City itself. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 79 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS The three scenarios considered for the Balfour Park Property are outlined in Exhibits 4-9 through 4-11. Each exhibit illustrates the how the potential utilization of the site may drive future economic activities and fiscal impacts accruing to the City. The analysis does not account for all economic activities that may be associated with the hypothetical buildouts, but provides a comparison of different uses and the primary drivers of economic activity associated with each. Of importance is the assessed value and associated property taxes generated by a given use and the ability of the site to generate retail sales on site and in turn driving taxable retail sales in the City. Also considered is the amount of employment that could occur on site. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 80 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Scenario 1 - Baseline Civic Oriented Redevelopment As previously mentioned, this scenario provides a baseline understanding of the original development plan for the site developed in 2013. The site is dedicated to public uses with ownership of a substantial portion of the property remaining with the Library District. Exhibit 4-9 illustrates the site buildout as previously planned. Although a library use would not have direct impacts on property taxes or retail sales, the library would relocation would add significant employment to the site. It is also important to note that the current Spokane Valley Branch is among the busiest and most well utilized library branches in the entire Spokane County Library District, meaning the library use would drive significant visitation to the property. Exhibit 4-9. Land Use Analysis, Existing Civic Redevelopment cenario 1-Existing Site Plan Site Utilization and Uses Site Utilization Site Utilization Total Square Use (%Distribution) (SqFt) Bldg.Footprints Height/Floors Footage Civic(Library) 26% 124,207 30,000 1 30,000 Park 74% 353,513 400 1 400 100% 477,720 30,400 NA 30,400 Assessed Value Potential Taxable Annual Use Est Ass Value Assessed Value Local Levy Property Tax Uses exempt from local property taxes Taxable Retail Sales Potential Retail Sales/Total Retail Sales Use SqFt Potential Civic and park uses will not generate taxable retail sales Direct Employment Capacity Employment Use SF/Job Capacity On-Site Civic(Library) 1,000 30 Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 81 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Scenario 2 - Civic Alternative Farmer's Market/Market Hall The second scenario modeled illustrates a hypothetical scenario in which a portion of the Balfour Park property is developed as a year-round farmer's market/market hall. The hypothetical concept illustrates a publicly owned model (meaning no property taxes) but assumes that the space would serve as a driver of retail sales. The market size is based on markets either proposed or developed in Washington State in cities like Bellingham, Yakima and Wenatchee. For the purposes of the analysis, the market concept shown assumes overall visitation of approximately 150,000 people per year (based on visitation at other similar facilities) and sales per square foot of$150 annually. It is important to note that such a facility would require a more detailed and comprehensive analysis and business plan. Such facilities vary greatly in form and operations and include other major revenue sources beyond taxable retail sales, such as facility rentals and event. Exhibit 4-10. Land Use Analysis, Civic Alternative w/Market Concept Scenario 2-Farmer Mar et Mar et Ha Concept Site Utilization and Uses Site Utilization Site Utilization Total Square Use (%Distribution) (SqFt) Bldg.Footprints Height/Floors Footage Civic Space (Market) 26% 124,207 20,000 1 20,000 Park 74% 353,513 400 1 400 100% 477,720 20,400 NA 20,400 Assessed Value Potential Taxable Annual Use Est Ass Value Assessed Value Local Levy Property Tax Uses exempt from local property taxes Taxable Retail Sales Potential Retail Sales/Total Retail Sales Use SqFt Potential Civic Space (Market) $150 $3,000,000 Park $0 $0 Economic Activity of New Commercial Space Employment Use SF/Job Capacity On-Site Civic Space (Market) NA 2-5 Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 82 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Scenario 3 -Alternative Mixed Use Commercial Oriented Redevelopment Scenario 3 illustrates a hypothetical development scenario wherein a portion of the site is privately developed with retail and office uses. The park portion of the site is assumed to remain the same in terms of size and scope as scenario 1 . The scenario reflects a conservative buildout of retail and office on the site based on a .5 FAR and calls for approximately 50,000 square feet of retail and 12,000 square feet of office development. This mix of uses is meant to illustrate the relative impact that this kind of private development might have. The feasibility and success of any such development would require a willing private partner and would be subject to market conditions and successful recruitment of commercial tenants. Exhibit 4-11. Land Use Analysis, Private Alternative (for comparison only) Scenario 3-Mixed Use Site Utilization and Uses Site Utilization Site Utilization Total Square Use (%Distribution) (SqFt) Bldg.Footprints Height/Floors Footage Office 5% 23,886 11,943 1 11,943 Retail 20% 95,544 47,772 1 47,772 Park 75% 358,290 400 1 400 100% 477,720 60,115 NA 60,115 Assessed Value Potential Taxable Annual Use Est Ass Value Assessed Value Local Levy Property Tax Office $164 $1,957,064 1.5255 2985.500664 Retail $141 $6,746,329 1.5255 10291.52442 Taxable Retail Sales Potential Retail Sales/Total Retail Sales Use SqFt Potential Office $0 $0 Retail $300 $14,331,600 Economic Activity of New Commercial Space Employment Use SF/Job Capacity On-Site Office 300 32 Retail 800 60 116.1 I Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 83 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INVESTMENT SUMMARY Exhibit 4-12 provides an overall investment summary for the Balfour Park Property, reflecting potential costs and impacts associated with two development scenarios analyzed for the site. Unlike other investment profiles developed for the overall analysis, this investment summary does not depend on potential visitation to the site, but rather potential redevelopment scenarios and land uses. It is important to note that any civic use on the property will generate visitation to the site and therefore likely result in ancillary spending impacts at surrounding uses. The impacts themselves on local businesses and municipal finances will largely be dependent on the type and scale of the facility. Exhibit 4-12. Balfour Park Investment Summary Table ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY Scenarios Land Utilization 1.Civic 2. Public Market Office 0% 0% Retail 0% 0% Civic Space 26% 26% Park 74% 74% Building SqFt by Use Office 0 0 Retail 0 0 Civic Space 30,000 20,000 Park 400 400 Jobs(Capacity)2 30 2 to 5 Fiscal Indicators Property Tax Potential $0 $0 Sales Tax Potential $0 $12.5Kto $25K Construction,Operations and Maintenance Initial Capital Costs $3.9M $6.7M to $7.9M Annual Expenses3 $36,000 $36,000 1 The analysis of Balfour Park redevelopment was conducted based on two land use scenarios(with a third scenario not shown here). Economic impact indicators differ from other methodologies and represent the potential impacts associated with potential land use scenarios and building uses. 2 Employment for Scenario 1 describes the potential employment capacity of the site base don the staffing needs of a new library. Scenario 2 illustrates the potential full time employment associated with market operators/staffing. 3 Annual expenses represent the cost to maintain the park based on data provided by the City of Spokane Valley Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 84 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 85 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles V. SPECIAL EVENTS INTRODUCTION Special events are a key component of the City's Tourism Strategy. The goal of growing Spokane Valley's presence in regional events and promoting local destinations is aimed at leveraging the potential assets of the City's existing event spaces. Tourism stakeholders cited a lack of new special events in Spokane Valley and described the need to promote more events that take place within the City limits. Applicable Phase I Strategies • Grow Spokane Valley's presence in regional events and promote local destinations. • Sustain Spokane Valley's existing high-value and high-volume tourism segments. • Create new attractions that assert Spokane Valley's position as a superior tourist destination. During development of the City's Tourism Strategy stakeholders stated that new special events should complement Valleyfest and the Annual Cycle Celebration. Of these, Valleyfest is the largest, most established event the City hosts. Stakeholders suggested the City should focus on Spokane Valley's recreational amenities and access to other tourist attractions in the development of a new event. Such a focus would build on the City's existing success with Valleyfest. In order to understand the potential for a new event, the following analysis delves deeper into the two above events in addition to a survey of other annual regional events in the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene region. The analysis culminates in an examination of three hypothetical special event scenarios and their potential impacts on the local community. How can the City support and promote Special Events? There are a number of approaches to how City's support the implementation of special events. In order to facilitate the establishment and continued success of a new special event, the City of Spokane Valley could develop a funding strategy, likely from lodging tax revenue streams. One approach leveraged by Cities is the formation of special events management committees or boards that oversee the continued development of new special events and their access to public funds and Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 86 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles facilities. The subsequent analysis will explore other city-led events throughout the region to better understand their cost and benefits. In addition, regional event stakeholder feedback suggests Spokane Valley has ample public open space well-suited for another event on the scale of Valleyfest. Flat green space with simple stages for music performances coupled with ample electrical hookups throughout are the preferred characteristics for hosting a new event. For example, based on these traits, the City has vacant land across from City Hall that could potentially play host to a new event. Why is Spokane Valley interested in supporting special events in the City? Special events can vary greatly in their draw and impact but can be an effective way to attract visitors from outside the area, especially in a place like Spokane Valley with its existing concentration of retail anchors. The Spokane region is known for a variety of special events, including major sporting events like Hoopfest; food festivals like Pig Out in the Park; and cultural celebrations like Oktoberfest and the Chinese Lantern Festival. Those events impact hotel stays and retail establishments in Spokane Valley and have a proven track record of success. As existing events expand or new ones are proposed Spokane Valley should be an option for event promoters to consider. In addition, Spokane Valley has a signature event in Valleyfest and an up and coming event in Cycle Celebration but lacks other major events. Augmenting its existing catalogue of special events could lead to additional tourism spending in Spokane Valley on lodging and retail. Investing in new, unique special events would also help Spokane Valley to carve a regional niche and develop a distinctive identity for the City. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 87 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles METHODS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Evaluation Approach This profile is primarily based on an inventory of annual, reoccurring special events in the Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Coeur d'Alene region as well as analysis of special event operations and implementation. A taxonomy of these special events by size, location, time of year, and type of activity is provided later in the section. Where available, admissions costs are also included for these events. Recommendations for new special events in Spokane Valley are based on market opportunities determined from the analysis of existing events and festivals in the region. Valleyfest is used as a size and scale baseline for several portions of the analysis including in development of special event scenarios described later in the analysis. Economic impacts are estimated based on three event scenarios and their potential attendance. Similar to other project profiles, the impacts are dependent on spending at the event or outside of the event during an attendee visit to the event/facility. The key components of the method are outlined below, and are discussed in detail later in this investment profile and appendix. • Estimate visitation - Daytime - Overnight • Assign spending patterns • Estimate attributable spending • Calculate selected impacts A comparison of other cities' investments in special events versus their recouped costs is also provided to estimate potential revenue streams for a new event. As previously mentioned, the research conducted is intended to build upon the analysis of three hypothetical special event scenarios, wherein the impacts and costs of special events is analyzed based on overall event attendance. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 88 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Applying the Case Studies The following is a representation of regional events in Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Coeur d'Alene. The focus is on annual, reoccurring events because the City has expressed an interest in furthering its regional presence and identity through a premier event that draws regional visitors. We begin with a close examination of Spokane Valley's two premier events. Valleyfest Valleyfest began in 1990 with the goal of • r► showcasing and celebrating Spokane Valley's • e assets. At its inception, the event was a one-day 1P-1 �j • • 3 festival. Over the years, it has evolved into a - three-day showcase with a budget in excess of s ��. r $200,000. A 2013 Economic Development • A a .C. ; 14 Report found that Valleyfest had an average i I impact of$1.8 million per year on the Spokane ley Valley economy through hotel/motel stays, restaurant patronage, and retail purchases (Source: Valleyfest, 2016). At Valleyfest 2015, there were 280 separate booths featuring arts and crafts, social services, commercial vendors, and sponsors. Parade attendance totaled approximately 10,000 individuals, including the thousands of people who were in the parade itself. Mirabeau Point Park attendance during the three-day festival was between 30,000 and 35,000 people, making it Spokane Valley's largest special event. Revenues and expenses for the event were around $211,000 and $150,000, respectively. In 2016, sponsor-related income accounted for almost one-third of Valleyfest-wide income, the largest source of income for the event. Valleyfest is not yet self-sufficient, and relies on lodging tax revenue for funding. Valleyfest is a 501 c(3) nonprofit organization, and the event is largely run by volunteers—volunteer hours totaled more than 5,300 for Valleyfest 2015. In addition to volunteers, two part-time staff plan the event with interns from local education institutions. 2016 Valleyfest wages totaled $22,000 for the two part-time staff. Key Takeaway. To parallel the City's desire to further establish Spokane Valley's identity and celebrate its assets, it would be beneficial to pursue development of a multi-day event similar in structure to Valleyfest. Valleyfest's growth since the establishment of Spokane Valley as a city in 2003 has been impressive. Creating a new, recurring event dissimilar to any other in the greater Spokane region has significant economic development potential. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 89 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Spokane Valley Cycle Celebration The Cycle Celebration began in 2013 in + 'k a 1yT �� �p partnership with Valleyfest to celebrate the �� , tenth anniversary of the City of Spokane Valley. Riders can choose between a 10-mile, 25-mile, or 50-mile bike ride. All cyclists begin at the iW Centennial Trail Head across from Mirabeau � ��� � Point Park Meadows. The goal of the event is to highlight the Centennial Trail, Spokane River Trail, and Spokane Valley's trail system to a regional audience. Cycle Celebration 2016 had roughly 300 registered riders. Of these, approximately 40 participants traveled 50 miles or more to attend the event. It is estimated that Cycle Celebration resulted in 15 paid lodging nights, where one lodging night represents one or more persons occupying one room for the night. The 2016 Cycle Celebration broke even—income and expenses related from the event both totaled $9,000. Key Takeaway. Cycle Celebration represents an example of local event promoters leveraging the success of an existing event. A similar example could be followed for future events. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 90 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Overview of Annual Regional Events Exhibit 5-1 provides a summary of major events in the Spokane region with attributes focused on the type of event, location and overall annual attendance. The analysis provides an overview of the large slate of events that take place in the region and the location and season they are concentrated in. Many of the events are registered nonprofits including Valleyfest, the Bloomsday Run and Art on the Green amongst others. Exhibit 5-1. Special Event Summary Tables, Spokane Region EVENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION TIME OF EST. ADMISSION YEAR ANNUAL COST ATT. BLOOMSDAY A 12-kilometer run that Downtown Spokane Early May 50,000+ Race RUN begins and ends in registration is Downtown Spokane. This is $18; spectators the cornerstone event of a are free weekend that features several tradeshows. LILAC FESTIVAL A weeklong festival that Spokane Third week in 150,000 Free coincides with lilac blooms. May Highlights include a car show, a parade, and restaurant events. PRIDE WEEKEND The event features several Riverfront Park, Second week in 6,000 Free parade floats, live music, Spokane June dance performances, art vendors, and a beer garden. CAR DIANE A classic car show that Downtown Coeur Father's Day 35,000 Car cruise and features numerous d'Alene Weekend show entry is vendors, a parade, and $35; spectators award show. are free HOOPFEST The world's largest 3-on-3 Downtown Spokane Last weekend 250,000 $0-$180 basketball tournament. in June depending on team ability/age SPOKANE Participants explore Centennial Trail, Late July 300 $20 VALLEY CYCLE Spokane Valley during 10- Spokane Valley CELEBRATION mile, 25-mile, and 50-mile bike ride options. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 91 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles EVENT DESCRIPTION LOCATION TIME OF EST. ADMISSION YEAR ANNUAL COST ATT. ART ON THE A three-day celebration of North Idaho College First weekend 50,000 Free GREEN arts,featuring hundreds of Campus, Coeur of August booths,food, and d'Alene children's art projects. TASTE OF THE Numerous food and craft Lakeside Park and First weekend 50,000 Free,tasting COEUR vendors feature their Downtown, Coeur of August fees range in D'ALENE'S products during a d'Alene price weekend-long festival. IRONMAN A 2.4-mile swim, 112-mile Coeur d'Alene End of August 15,000 $655+ COEUR D'ALENE bike, and 26.2-mile run all completed in succession. SPOKANE A traditional fair that has Fairgrounds, Spokane Early to mid- 190,000 $7-10 COUNTY FAIR more than a 100-year Valley September tenure. CHINESE The event features lantern Riverfront Park, Mid-September 80,000 $10-15 per day; LANTERN displays,traditional Spokane through late $60 for the FESTIVAL Chinese arts October whole festival performances, and interactive activities. PIG OUT IN THE A 6-day food festival that Riverfront Park, Labor Day 200,000 Admission free, PARK begins in late August. Spokane $9.95/tasting VALLEYFEST A weekend-long event Mirabeau Point Park Late 35,000 Free;various celebrating local and CenterPlace, September activities range businesses and people. Spokane Valley in price Festivities include hot air balloons, a parade, live music,fishing, and more. OKTOBERFEST The German-inspired Spokane Convention Late 8,000 Weekday: $10; event features German Center September/ weekend: $15 beer,food,singing, and early October GA dancing. HOLIDAY LIGHT America's largest floating Lake Coeur d'Alene Thanksgiving 30,000 Lake cruises are SHOW holiday light and laser weekend $7.50 per child show. through and $22.25 per Christmas adult FIRST NIGHT The New Year's celebration Downtown Spokane New Years 35,000 $15, kids 10 and NEW YEAR'S EVE features more than 50 under are free performers and artists and 150+shows. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 92 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Implementation Considerations The following is a summary of key considerations for the City to consider when evaluating implementation of special events. This includes topics ranging from funding to permitting and operations. • Sponsorships. Similar to Spokane Valley's budget for Valleyfest, sponsors are an integral source of funding for the aforementioned events. In particular, reaching a regional market requires the financial boost of sponsorships to supplement the host city's contribution. In exchange for financial support, these sponsors are typically featured prominently in event advertising and/or receive premier vending spots. • Marketing. Recruiting participants, vendors, volunteers, and other crucial event components requires a targeted marketing plan. Traditional methods of outreach, such as television, radio, and print advertising are important, however, social media presence is crucial. • Staffing. Host cities or counties typically reserve a minimal number of part- time staff to chair event production. Parallel to Valleyfest's structure, a significant number of the events described in Exhibit 5-1 have dedicated non-profit operations that employ 1-2 part-time employees. This number is inadequate to run an event with thousands of attendees. As such, these events can rely heavily on volunteers at each stage: planning, production, operation, maintenance, and deconstruction. Alternatively, many of the region's larger events hire paid promoters and organizers. • Location. Interviews with event marketers and producers yielded a preference for open, flat event spaces with ample electrical hookups. Some of the case study events, such as the holiday light show in Coeur d'Alene and the athletic events, require more specialized facilities and equipment. All the events described above are purely outdoor or indoor/outdoor in order to accommodate larger crowds. Spokane Valley should leverage its many parks and open spaces, such as the vacant property across from City Hall, as potential event sites. • Parking. Spokane Valley residents and regional visitors are likely to drive to an event. The City has an advantage in this category—there is ample parking in Spokane Valley, particularly compared to neighboring Spokane and Coeur d'Alene. • Permitting and ticketing. Permitting for an event is crucial, especially if alcohol is involved. In the interest of flexibility, the City should pursue permitting alcohol consumption in its parks when associated with a special event. Ticketing is also key, whether they're sold online or at the door. A local Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 93 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles event promoter expressed frustration with other jurisdiction's event restrictions surrounding permitting and ticketing. For example, there are cities where all events hosted have to use the same online ticket processer, which takes a portion of each sale. The permitting City in turn expects the event promoter to absorb this cost. If the City of Spokane Valley can be flexible throughout its permitting and ticketing processes, it will have a regional advantage in recruiting new events. • In-kind services. As the City of Spokane Valley continues to explore methods for funding special events, it may be able to negotiate providing in-kind services, such as waving street closure and police presence fees for events, in lieu of the full monetary contribution. As the City's capacity to establish continued funding for events continues, it should budget for such expenses. City Services and Contributions There are a variety of unavoidable direct costs associated with hosting special events, specifically: • Building and/or site rental costs • Permit fees • Police costs for crowd control and security • Insurance coverage • Specialized audio or visual equipment rental • Marketing costs There are also several indirect costs to consider depending on the type of event. These can include, but are not limited to: • Personnel and supply costs for signage and marketing • Barricades and enclosure costs • Street signal modification for closed streets • Street sweeping • Personnel and overhead costs related to sponsorships • Salaried City employees involved in event planning and volunteer management Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 94 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles City funding of special events varies greatly and there is a broad range of approaches taken by cities across the country. An analysis conducted for the City of Portland illustrated the range of cost recovery for a variety of special events nationwide. The majority of cities surveyed in the analysis recuperated between 30% and 90% of the full cost of the event. Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane all fell within this category. Notably, only three of the surveyed cities reported full cost recovery (Exhibit 5-2). The study illustrates that cities consistently support special events through in kind services and funding, but the rate at which they do so varies greatly. Exhibit 5-2. Estimated Percentage of Cost Recovery for Surveyed Cities, 2009. Full Cost Recovery 30-90%Cost Less than 30% Recovery Cost Re cove ry Las Vegas, NV Albuquerque, NM Milwaukee, WI New Orleans, LA Austin, TX Portland, OR San Francisco, CA Charlotte, NC Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Denver, CO Eugene, OR Fort Worth, TX Houston, TX Indianapolis, IN Kansas City, MO Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN Oklahoma City, OK Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Spokane, WA Tacoma, WA Tucson, AZ Source: City of Portland Special Events Program, 2009. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 95 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles A common source of funding for special events is through local lodging tax revenues. One such example is the City of Scottsdale, AZ which hosts a number of major events annually. The following exhibit (Exhibit 5-3) illustrates the number of overnight room stays required to cover the costs of three events of varying sizes in Scottsdale. In order to recuperate 30-90% of the cost of an event solely through lodging tax revenues, the City of Scottsdale would need to generate 797 to 2,391 room nights for an event that cost the City $30,000. Exhibit 5-3. Funding Levels and Room Night Requirements, Scottsdale AZ, FY 2015/16 Special Event Average Daily Scottsdale Sales Required Room Funding Room Rate & Bed Tax Rate Nights $30,000 $169.90 6.65% 2,656 $15,000 $169.90 6.65% 1,328 $5,000 $169.90 6.65% 443 Source: City of Scottsdale, 2015 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 96 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Market Opportunity and Project Parameters The market opportunity for special events can be measured in a number of ways. For the purposes of this analysis Community Attributes conducted a cursory review of event potential by examining current offerings (see profile of major regional events in Exhibit 5-1). Exhibit 5-4 summarizes major regional events by total estimated attendance while Exhibit 5-5 categorizes the events by major category. Exhibit 5-4. Event by Attendance, Spokane Region, 2015/2016 Attendance 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 . ■ , ■ ■ 0 • a�¢a�a`4�y�a�3��°��r8 G�a�re °o4F� ��c`o° t�� `�P¢�,,`aP�°e °���� `p���� ¢4a ,°\\h� 4Oe`��S~ �` o�s Ae�`y�az • e G c e f9 xe e+ p > as ok c 5 ei mac <6 y Event Source: City of Spokane, 2016; City of Spokane Valley, 2016; City of Coeur d'Alene, 2016; Community Attributes, 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 97 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles It is possible to do a cursory evaluation of the saturation of events by typology. Niche events, holiday events, and food and drink festivals represent the most promising categories to pursue for the creation of new event in Spokane Valley. Exhibit 5-5. Regional Events by Category Athletic Events Bloomsday Run Hoopfest Cycle Celebration Ironman Coeur d'Alene Cultural Celebrations Pride Weekend Chinese Lantern Festival Oktoberfest Holiday Events Holiday Light Show First New Year's Eve Food/Drink Festivals Taste of the Coeur d'Alene's Pig Out in the Park Fairs and Regional Lilac Festival Celebrations Spokane County Fair Valleyfest Niche Events Car d'Lane Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Potential Costs Special event production costs vary widely by the type, size and scale of a given event. Key factors include: • Location • Number of attendees • Staffing requirements • Permitting fees • Donations and volunteer opportunities • Facility improvements (tents, stages, etc.) Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 98 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 5-6 details the costs associated with services and facilities that could be potentially required for the three scenarios of events analyzed. The costs are largely based on the current services and funding provided by the City for Valleyfest and represent a point of reference for potential future contributions and the type of financial assistance that may be required. A detailed breakdown of costs and revenues associated with Valleyfest are provided in the project appendix. Exhibit 5-6. City Funding Scenarios City Cost by Type and Scenario Potential Contribution City Costs by Event Size Low Event $13,000.00 Baseline Event $26,000.00 High Event $52,000.00 Lodging Tax by Event Size Low Event $18,000.00 Baseline Event $37,000.00 High Event $73,000.00 Combined City Funding by Event Size Low Event $31,000.00 Baseline Event $63,000.00 High Event $125,000.00 Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 99 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Community and economic impacts are largely derived from the retail sales and taxes that accrue from visitor spending, as well as from the spending that occurs directly at the event itself. The following section discusses potential visitation to a special event and the impacts associated with its implementation via the economic impact summary table. In addition to estimating visitor spending, the analysis is also based on the following: • The baseline scenario is modeled after Valleyfest and its overall attendance • Major capital improvements are not required and therefore not included based on conversations with local event promoters and analysis of other major events in the area • Special events will likely require City services in the form of management and coordination or other in kind services Visitation and Spending The ability of an event to draw patrons is a key driver of the economic impacts associated with it. Visitation to the hypothetical event is reliant upon a number of factors, including the type of event, its intended audience and its ability to draw local, regional and out of town patrons. Out of town visitation is largely dependent on the uniqueness of the event when compared to other regional offerings. The events as modeled illustrates three sizes of events (see Exhibit 5-7) and varying scenarios of spending (at the event versus outside the event) The smaller event assumes a more localized event with more spending directly associated with event activities. The other two events are larger in scale with more out of town visitation and associated spending. This figure does not represent a demand assessment for such events in Spokane Valley, rather it represents the number of visitors that various events might draw (if successful) based on attendance figures for other events in the region. It is important to note that attendance values this substantial would require that the given event be effectively managed and marketed, likely requiring the leadership of a paid event specialist. In many cases, the ability for an event to draw people requires multiple years of implementation and buildup to full/peak attendance, which is the case for many successful events in the region. Exhibit 5-7. Visitation Scenarios, Special Events Event Typology Assumptions Low Scenario Baseline High Scenario Scenario Attendance 20,000 40,000 80,000 Proportion of visitor spending directly at event 75% 50% 50% Out of town/overnight visitors 5% 10% 20% Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 100 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Economic Impacts The following table summarizes key attributes of a new a special event in Spokane Valley for each scenario modeled and includes details on visitation, economic impacts as well as potential financial contributions by the City. It is worth noting that as the event size grows, the number of projected overnight visitors also increases. For a more detailed breakdown of potential revenues and impacts refer to the project appendix. Exhibit 5-8. Special Events Summary Table ANNUAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY Total Attendance Days Visitation Small Event Medium Event Large Event Total Visitors 20,000 40,000 80,000 Estimated Hotel Nights 1,400 Visitor Segmentation Daytime Users 19,000 36,000 64,000 Overnight Users 1,000 4,000 16,000 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending $1,259,000 $2,635,000 $5,650,000 Direct,Indirect and Induced Spending(on-site) $729,000 $1,500,000 $3,095,000 Associated Spending(off-site) $530,000 $1,135,000 $2,555,000 Wages $359,600 $758,400 $1,660,400 Jobs Created 14 27 62 Total Fiscal Impacts $101,000 $221,000 $486,000 To the City of Spokane Valley $9,000 $21,000 $53,000 To County and State $92,000 $200,000 $433,000 Construction,Operations and Maintanence' Initial Capital Costs NA NA NA Operating Expenses $31,000 $63,000 $125,000 City Services $13,000 $26,000 $52,000 Lodging Tax Funds $18,000 $37,000 $73,000 Direct Revenues $476,750 $964,750 $1,968,500 1 Costs for special events are highly variable and depend on the type of activity, venue and financial resources.An example of recent funding by the City of Spokane Valley for ValleyFest included the following:$36,600 in lodging tax funds and$25,774 in City services such as police, transportation, or other minor city services. Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 101 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Qualitative community benefits Beyond the potential economic and fiscal impacts of special events, community impacts would also be felt by residents and visitors. Potential qualitative community impacts include: • Growth in the City's overall brand and name recognition • Special events could help distinguish Spokane Valley from the region and heighten awareness of its offerings and amenities • Provide more entrepreneurial opportunities for small businesses that can leverage special events to reach a broader and more diverse audience • Expose the City to a more diverse range of demographics and household types • Opportunity for the City to participate directly in the expansion of cultural amenities without requiring major upfront investment Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 102 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles This page was intentionally left blank Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 103 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles VI. ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUE INTRODUCTION An arts and entertainment venue was identified as a project for consideration during Phase I of the Tourism Strategy. Tourism stakeholders cited a lack of such facilities in Spokane Valley and also described the need for a facility that could serve existing arts groups and organizations. The Tourism Strategy called for an assessment of the following: Develop a multifaceted arts and entertainment venue in partnership with local arts organizations, galleries and theatre production companies. The analysis should focus on a potential facility and operational attributes. What would an Arts and Entertainment Venue look like? An arts and entertainment venue can take many forms and several facility types are discussed later in the profile. For the City of Spokane Valley the analysis focuses on development of a performing arts oriented towards a local theatre, music and other types of performances. There are a number of such facilities located throughout the region and there are also examples of City's serving in leadership roles for such facilities across the state. The facility imagined for the purposes of the analysis reflects this and is analyzed to realistically portray how such a facility might be implemented in the City of Spokane Valley. Why is Spokane Valley interested in Arts and Entertainment Venue? During development of the City'sEle retail strategy (see Spokane ,, • Valley Retail Strategy, 2015), 43r, 6 Community Attributes identified ` Ignite i, Group, arts and entertainment as an ""' Spokane Va y, WA area where the City could ` improve retail sales and overall trade capture. Specifically, the City could focus on developing more attractions related to performing arts venues, museums and other similar facilities that are more prevalent in Cities like neighboring Spokane. This analysis is designed to complement approaches developed in Phase I of the City's tourism strategy. In summary, rationale for consideration of such a venue included: Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 104 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles • Such a venue was cited as a facility or amenity currently lacking in the City by project stakeholders • The City has a limited number of arts venues but is home to an active arts community • Spokane has an existing concentration of performing arts venues to build on • A venue of this type could attract a new demographic of visitors METHODS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS Evaluation Approach Evaluation of the project is based on an analysis of other local theatre and entertainment venue options in the area as well as case studies of similar venues recently developed by cities or public entities across the state. In addition, where available operating budgets and pro formas were leveraged to help develop a realistic operating pro forma for a venue in Spokane Valley. The case study research is leveraged to define venue typologies as well as development and operating attributes. An overview of facilities in the Spokane region also provides background on competing revenues and overall market opportunity in the City. In summary, the analysis draws upon other venues operating in Washington State to define a potential venue for Spokane Valley. A hypothetical operating pro forma is developed to illustrate the operational attributes of such a facility based on the proposed venue size. If desired, future analysis could focus on a more detailed assessments of project partners, facility location, design and size needs. The analysis herein provides an orders of magnitude assessment of size, cost and operations of such a venue. Applying the Case Studies Exhibit 6-1 details findings from several case studies conducted for the analysis. The case studies draw from local communities as well as similar facilities found throughout Washington State and the country. Complete case studies can be found in the appendix. • Case: Federal Way Performing Arts Center Location: Federal Way, WA • Case: Kirkland Performance Center Location: Kirkland, WA • Case: Spokane Civic Theater Location: Spokane, WA • Case: The Modern Theater Location: Spokane, WA and Coeur d'Alene, ID • Case: Edmonds Center for the Arts Location: Edmonds, WA • Case:Jack's Urban Meeting Place (JUMP) Location: Boise, ID • Case: Arlington Arts Incubator Location: Arlington, VA Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 105 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 6-1. Case Study Summary Table Attribute Findings Development Costs • Development costs are varied, and depend on both scale and facility typology. Ownership and • In many cases, the facility will be owned by the City, either Management directly or through a Public Facility District, and have a lease or other agreement with a nonprofit arts organization for facility management. Other common ownership and management structures, not all necessarily applicable to a city-backed project: o Private philanthropy funding for facility development, nonprofit ownership and management o Single entity models: ■ Nonprofit ownership and management ■ For-profit ownership and management o No one physical facility, government entity facilitates finding free and low cost spaces for arts groups Operations and • In 2012, the 1,600-seat Martin Woldson Theater at the Fox in Maintenance Spokane employed 11 full time staff. Visitation Attributes • The Spokane Civic Theatre draws 35,000-40,000 audience members per year (Spokane Journal of Business) • The Federal Way Performing Arts Center estimates a range of approximately 108,000 to 130,000 in annual attendance including conferences and other events • The Edmonds Performing Arts Center most recently estimated annual attendance at 65,000 Benefits and • The City of Federal Way estimates that construction of its new Economic Activities Performing Arts Center will pump $59 million into the economy, including: o 389 construction-related jobs and 35 permanent positions o Will leverage the creation of nearly 1,500 new permanent jobs from related new development • The Martin Woldson Theater at the Fox has an estimated economic impact of$16 million annually (Boise report, 2012) Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 106 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Implementation Opportunities The typical civic-backed performing arts venue will be appropriate for a range of events. While it may have an "anchor tenant" in the form of a local theater group, orchestra, or other established group with frequent performances, it will also host other performers throughout the year and rent the facility to outside parties. In these cases, the City will typically retain ownership of the facility, either directly or through a Public Facilities District. The latter is more common due to the increased funding options and business opportunities available to PFDs. There will then typically be a nonprofit organization formed to manage the facility - booking acts, coordinating facility rentals, raising funds for operation, etc. This organization may have a long-term lease of the facility. In addition to supporting the venue through ownership and maintenance with the PFD, cities typically contribute a portion of required annual operating funds. The portion required will depend on the specifics of the case, and will decrease if other funding partners using the space like educational institutions and foundations can be found. The facility itself may be new construction, or developed through adaptive reuse or renovation of an existing facility. Below is a summary of management typologies surfaced through case study research: • PFD ownership of facility, nonprofit long term lease for operations • Private philanthropy funding for facility development, nonprofit ownership and management • Single entity models: o Nonprofit ownership and management o For-profit ownership and management • No one physical facility, government entity facilitates finding free and low cost spaces for arts groups Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 107 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Project Parameters Exhibit 6-2 provides a hypothetical operating pro forma for a 200 seat arts and entertainment venue. The pro forma includes an estimate of initial year operations as well as those at stabilized operations. It is important to note that the pro forma is based on case study research and operating pro formas of existing or planned venues in Federal Way Washington, Edmonds Washington and Kirkland Washington. The pro forma illustrates what would be required for a successful venue and also illustrates the subsidy that would be required for such a venue on an annual basis. In the case studies analyzed cities contributed to annual operating budget of the facility, in the range of 10-15% of total venue operating budgets. Exhibit 6-2. Potential Operating Pro Forma, Spokane Valley Arts and Entertainment Venue Operating Pro Forma Venue Seats 200 Square Footage 9,000 Visitation Initial Year Stabilized 15,000 28,000 Operating Revenue Ticket Sales/Fees 27% 27% Rental Revenue 17% 21% Concessions &Advertising 7% 8% Contributions-Operating* 48% 44% Total Operating Revenue $180,259 $342,527 Operating Expenses Salaries & Benefits 43% 42% Presenting, Education, Theatre Expense 23% 22% Advertising & Marketing 10% 10% Operations, Box Office, Concessions 20% 21% Development, Volunteers 4% 5% Total Operating Expenses $232,362 $341,286 Net Operating Income ($52,103) $1,241 *Assumes City contributions to operating budget of 10%-15%oftotal revenues with amount declining overtime Source: Community Attributes Inc, 2016; City of Federal Way, 2013; Edmonds Performing Arts Center, 2013; Kirkland Performing Arts Center, 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 108 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles INITIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Market Opportunity Measuring the market opportunity for an arts and entertainment venue such as the one modeled for the analysis requires an in-depth review of supply and demand. Supply can be assessed by reviewing current offerings in the region and the number of opportunities people have to attend local theatres for music, plays and other similar events. Exhibit 6-4 on the following page provides an overview of regional arts and entertainment venues along with their location, size and usage. The Spokane region has venues ranging in size, function, operation and tenant. The City of Spokane is home to the most venues with larger performance venues like the Knitting Factory and the INB Performing Arts Center playing host to major touring acts. Smaller venues are also prevalent and range in size from approximately 80 to 300 seat venues. Spokane Valley is home to Ignite! Community Theatre with a 100- seat auditorium hosting the community theatre group. An evaluation of demand focuses on local demographics and spending power. In 2015 CAI conducted a retail analysis for the City and found that the City performs well in overall retail trade capture for a number of major retail spending categories. One category that lagged was capture of spending on arts and entertainment, especially when analyzing the City's ability to draw from the larger Spokane region (Exhibit 6-3) Exhibit 6-3. Spending per Capita Comparison, 2014 51,E FOOD AND BEVERAGE STORE $2,039 $1,649 ACCOMMODATI0IS $3 $572 Spokane Valley PERFORMING ARTS,SPECTATOR SPORTS $ 12 Spokane $78 99 $181 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Taxable Retail Sales Per Capita Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2014. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 109 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Exhibit 6-4. Existing Spokane-Area Venues Venue Name Location Capacity Usage The Bartlett Spokane 150 people (standing room Concert venue and bar only) Bing Crosby Theater Spokane 756 seats Local theater, smaller touring acts, film, community events Blue Door Theater Spokane 82 seats Improv theater Ignite! Community Spokane 100 seat auditorium in Community theater Theatre Valley Spokane Valley Partners building INB Performing Arts Spokane 2700 seats Large events, including Center Broadway, national touring acts, ballet, conventions. Knitting Factory Spokane 1,500 people (standing Concert venue Spokane room only) Liberty Lake Theater Liberty Lake Leased space in former Community theater warehouse Martin Woldson Spokane 1600 seats Spokane Symphony& Theatre at the Fox Opera, other symphony groups, weddings, _ community events The Modern Theater Coeur 160 seats Professional theater Coeur d'Alene d'Alene The Modern Theater Spokane 250 seats Professional theater Spokane Service Station Spokane Auditorium seating 400 as a Concert and event venue theater, conference room, convert venue accommodating 1,100 standing people Spokane Civic Spokane Two auditoriums, one with Community theater Theatre 336 seats and the other with 85 seats Stage Left Theater Spokane 62 seat theater in Theater converted retail space Source: Community Attributes, 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 110 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Potential Costs Costs for performing arts venues vary greatly depending on the size, type and overall design of the facility. CAI has analyzed development costs of a number recently developed facilities and found that development costs for a ground up facility would likely be in the range of$350 to more than $500 per gross building square foot (Exhibit 6-5). Alternatively, development costs would likely be less if the City or leading arts organization elected to remodel or repurposes an existing facility. Facilities in the Spokane region, such as the INB Performing Arts Center in Spokane are owned and operated through a Public Facilities District, while smaller community theatres like the Spokane Civic Theater as well as the Ignite Theatre group in Spokane Valley are funded through ticket revenues, donations and volunteer efforts. Exhibit 6-5. Potential Development Cost Range, Spokane Valley Arts and Entertainment Venue Development Costs(new facility) Low High Notes Total Cost per Square Foot $350 $500 Based on costs found in recently developed Estimated Cost $3,150,000 $4,500,000 facilities and surveys of historical costs Documented City Contribution to 10%- 15%of Revenues Based on Federal Way performing Arts Operations center detailed revenues estimate Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016; City of Federal Way, 2015; RS means, 2016; Implementation Considerations Theater Group Typologies and Business Demands Type. Theater groups can be roughly divided between professional and community theaters. As the name implies, professional theater groups hire and pay professional performers and techs, while community theaters are more dependent on volunteers. While community theaters do not have the financial burden of a large payroll, costs for theater productions are still high. For one, the cost of securing the rights to the well-known plays and musicals that will attract new potential season ticket holders runs in the thousands of dollars. (Though this is dependent on a number of factors, including ticket prices and number of performances.) Revenue. Ticket revenue is typically not enough alone to cover the costs described above. Other common sources of income are corporate sponsorships, local government contributions and grants, individual donors, and facility rentals (for those groups that own their facilities, which is rare). The Spokane Civic Theater also rents pieces from its extensive costume library to the public. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 1 1 1 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Management. Due to the high costs, difficulties in management over time, and specific talent requirements, (Directors, choreographers, musicians, etc.) it is very difficult to start and sustain a theater group, whether professional or community. To maximize the potential for success, cities seeking to promote performing arts will invest where there is existing interest and energy. Arlington County, Virginia has six principals that guided the development of its successful Arts Incubator, which are outlined below: 1. Generate support for the arts 2. Seek out untapped resources 3. Connect arts support to community benefit 4. Maximize resources through creative sharing 5. Adopt a flexible approach to arts support 6. Enable artistic risk taking Theater Typologies and Design The appropriate size and form of a theater is highly dependent on the types of performance and desired audience experience, which will have implications on the acoustics, space, and equipment required. As a result, it is critical to have an idea of performance types and audience sizes, including how variable they could be, before settling on a theater design. Non-musical theater is highly adaptable to different venues, and many smaller theaters (Typically seating between 50 and 400) can operate out of converted spaces like retail storefronts and industrial parks. Such theaters can range from being completely flexible "black boxes", where the audience and performers occupy the same space, to more standard orientations with fixed seating and raised, separate stages. There is likely only one level of seating, but not always, and certain orientations are better for productions involving music than others. When theaters reach the 300-900 seat range, seating will typically be in multiple levels, and stages tend to be of the "proscenium" type, where the stage and auditorium are essentially in two separate, adjoined "rooms". There are many variations of theaters this size to serve specific purposes, like opera houses and symphonic concert halls. The largest theaters, in the 1,200-2,400-seat range, are often designed to serve multiple purposes - symphony, opera, musical theater, ballet, and other large scale productions. While acoustics are heavily influenced by the needs of symphonies, these theaters are also designed to be adaptable to many types of performance, both in terms of spaces and acoustics. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 112 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Community and economic impacts are largely derived from the retail sales and taxes that accrue from visitor spending, as well as from the spending that occurs directly at the venue itself. The following section discusses visitation to the venue and the impacts associated with its operation via the economic impact summary table. Visitation The amount the facility is visited is a key driver of the economic impacts associated with the facility. Visitation to the hypothetical venue is reliant upon a number of factors, including the management of the venue and its ability to draw local, regional and out of town patrons. The venue as modeled assumes that upon stabilized operations the venue would draw approximately 28,000 visitors per year, which would be a combination of performances and rentals. This figure does not represent a demand assessment for such a venue in Spokane Valley, rather it represents the number of visitors that would be required to make such a facility successful. The value is based on other venues and the rate at which people visit, rent and attend events (Exhibit 6-6). It is important to note that attendance at this rate would be challenging and require that the venue is well-used by both local theatre groups and touring acts as well as other parties using the facility for rentals. For example, at stabilized operations the facility would need to host events approximately 150 times a year. This value is reflective of other venues in the state. In general, such facilities require relatively high rates of usage in order to drive sufficient revenues. Exhibit 6-6. Arts and Entertainment Venue, Visitation Assumptions Theatre/Music Production Year 1 Stabilized Notes Ticket Price Average $12.00 $12.00 Based on ticket prices found at other venues in Spokane Area Number of Annual Events 100 150 Based on programs for other similar theatre venues(Edmonds, Federal Way) Occupancy 75% 80% Assumes that events are on average well attended Estimated Visitation 15,000 28,000 Represents estimates of total potential visitation to the facility including rentals Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 113 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Economic Impacts The following table summarizes key attributes of the hypothetical arts and entertainment venue and includes details on visitation, economic impacts as well as development operations costs. It is important to note that the analysis includes several major assumptions regarding visitor rates and spending. For this particular project it is assumed that at stabilized operations 40% of visitors to the facility would be overnight visits. The type of theatre, operations and performance will impact the percentage of people visiting from outside the area and thus impact the relative impact of the facility on local businesses and municipal finances. Exhibit 6-7. Arts and Entertainment Summary Table Annual Investment Summary Total Attendance Days Visitation Initial Year Stabilized Year Total Visitors 15,000 28,000 Estimated Hotel Nights 4,100 Visitor Segmentation Daytime Users 9,000 16,800 Overnight Users 6,000 11,200 Economic Impacts Total Visitor Spending $880,000 $1,640,000 Direct, Indirect and Induced Spending(on-site) $170,000 $312,000 Associated Spending(off-site) $710,000 $1,327,000 Wages $331,500 $620,200 Jobs Created 9 20 Total Fiscal Impacts $92,000 $172,000 City of Spokane Valley $14,000 $26,000 To County and State $78,000 $146,000 Construction,Operations and Maintanence Initial Capital Costs $3.15M to $4.5M Operating Expenses $232,362 $341,286 Direct Operating Revenues 1 $180,259 $342,527 City Contribution to Revenue @15% $34,854 $51,193 1 Based on review and analysis of performing arts venues operating pro formas. The analysis reflects a potential operating pro forma fora venue of this size. Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 114 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles Qualitative Community Benefits Beyond the potential economic and fiscal impacts of such a facility, community impacts would also be felt by residents and visitors. Potential qualitative community impacts include: • Support and growth of local arts community as well as local youth programs • Improvement of City image and reputation - sending a message that the City is a supporter of the arts • The facility would provide a unique venue for local events, concerts, retreats, etc. that does currently exist outside of the City's current meeting facility • Depending on location and design, such a facility could complement other nearby civic assets or help spur revitalization of a particular area. In particular, such a venue can be complimentary and in some cases transformative for commercial districts with restaurants and retail Spokane Valley March 2017 Page 115 Tourism Analysis Phase II Project Profiles APPENDIX SPOKANE VALLEY TOURISM ANALYSIS - PROJECT PROFILES Varch, 2017 .000Valley 11707 E.Sprague,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 • aicommunity attributes inc 1411 4th Ave,Suite 1401 Seattle,WA 98101 WWW.communityattributes.corn METHODOLOGY — ESTIMATING VISITOR SPENDING Research and interviews Community Attributes consulted with a number of experts in applicable fields related the projects under consideration. The interviews provided supplementary information leveraged for project parameter development and economic impact modeling. Interviews were conducted with the following people and/or organizations. • John Patrouch , Spokane Whitewater Park • Steve Bailey , Spokane Whitewater Park • Scott Shipley, S20 Design • Kelly's Whitewater Park, Cascade Idaho • Truckee River Whitewater Park, Truckee Colorado • Recreation Engineering and Planning • Rich Hartzell, Spokane County Fairgrounds • Doug Chase, Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department • Tom Stebbins, Event Promoter • Chad Meinert, Manager of Recreation at the City of Golden, Colorado • Carolyn Thomas, Department of Revenue in Colorado Estimating Visitation in Spokane Valley The population aged 15 or older across the Spokane, Spokane Valley and Coeur d'Alene combined statistical area (CSA) as defined by the United States Census is 552,157 (2015). Whenever possible, this total population base is further informed by studies and analytics that show the potential usership of a tourism development. Examples of include utilizing the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office usership studies to estimate the potential usership at the whitewater park development or studying the potential capacity at a new art and entertainment venue by square foot. In some cases, CAI chose a target visitation number that would represent a successful tourist development and then estimated the likely breakout between different types of visitors (e.g. overnight and day visitors). Understanding Visitor Spending The spending profile for a visitor in Spokane County is calculated separately for an overnight user and a day user. Overnight spending patterns are calculated by looking at the share of overnight visitor spending in Spokane County as estimated by Dean Runyan (2015). The total overnight visitor spending is then calculated across a range of taxable retail sales in Spokane County on a per overnight visitor basis. Overnight visitor totals to Spokane County is also provided by Dean Runyan (2015) (Exhibit Al). Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-2 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit Al. Overnight Visitor Per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $61.9 61.4% Food Service $9.7 9.7% Food Stores $3.4 3.4% Local Transportation and Gas $1.2 1.2% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.7 0.7% Retail Sales $23.9 23.7% Person-Day Expenditures $100.8 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The day visitor spending profile mirrors the overnight spending profile except for a few key differences. Firstly, a day visitor is assumed to spend no money on accommodations, since they are visiting for just a day and do not stay overnight. Secondly, a day visitor is assumed to spend half as much on food service (such as a restaurant) or food stores (a grocery store) as an overnight visitor (Exhibit A2). Exhibit A2. Day Visitor per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $0.0 0.0% Food Service $4.9 15.0% Food Stores $1.7 5.3% Local Transportation and Gas $1.2 3.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.7 2.1% Retail Sales $23.9 73.9% Person-Day Expenditures $32.4 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Occasionally some events have a 'spectator' component to them for such as the whitewater park. Here, the spectator visitor profile is assumed to reflect 10% of the day visitor spending profile (Exhibit A3). The low level spending described in the spectator visitor profile is meant to reflect the fact that many spectators are going to be from around the Spokane Valley area and in many cases will not spend any additional money at a tourist attraction. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-3 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit A3. Spectator Visitor per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $0.0 0.0% Food Service $0.5 15.0% Food Stores $0.2 5.3% Local Transportation and Gas $0.1 3.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.1 2.1% Retail Sales $2.4 73.9% Person-Day Expenditures $3.2 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Estimating Hotel Stays Hotel revenues are reflective of half of the estimated overnight visitation for each studied tourism project. Spokane Valley was assumed to have a baseline capture rate of half of all overnight visitors to Spokane valley. The subsequent revenue generated was calculated by using a visitor spending profile for accommodations in Spokane Valley and applying it to the number of overnight visitors expected to stay in Spokane valley for any given event. Fiscal impacts for hotel revenues were calculated by looking at the hotel tax instituted by the City of Spokane Valley and applying that rate to the potential revenues from hotel visits accrued for each tourism project. Economic Impact Modeling The primary tools for estimating the broader impacts of tourism projects in Spokane Valley was the Washington State Input-Output (1-0) Model for year 2007, published in 2012, and IMPLAN. The Washington State 1-0 Model provides a data-rich rendering of the state economy across 52 sectors. The transactions table, which underpins the 1-O model, provides estimates of intermediate purchases, sales, and final demand across all modeled sectors. The complex analysis of the model, published online by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, allows analysts to model the impacts of economic activities when output, labor, wages, and first round direct purchases/requirements are known. In order to apply the input-output model for multiple years of analysis, implicit price deflators were used to adjust previous year totals to 2013 (the most recent modeling year). Direct requirements for selected tourism sectors were calculated based on shares of purchases for each sector to each year of output, derived from the 2007 transactions table, as well as IMPLAN social accounting matrices, and interviews. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-4 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix The economic impacts of the tourism projects include direct (for all associated and at site spending), indirect, and induced effects (where indirect and induced effects are calculated for at site spending only). The total impact is represented as the sum of these impacts. Analysis begins with a transactions table, constructed from multiple data sources by Beyers and Lin.'This table captures all transactions between and within industries and final demand, the latter including personal consumption expenditures (i.e., household consumption), domestic and foreign exports, investment, and federal, state, and local expenditures. Total output in an economy is thus the sum of inter- and intra-industry purchases, also referred to as intermediate transactions, and final demand. The input-output transactions table is governed by an important accounting identity requiring that all purchases in an economy must equal all output. Within the transactions matrix, the sum of each column represents all purchases by an industry or source of demand, and will equal the amount sales and output by that activity. For example, in the latest transactions table, the input-output sector "Software Publishing and Internet Service Providers" in 2007 purchased nearly $5.3 billion in non-labor inputs from other industries in Washington. Added to this, the sector paid $9.7 billion in wage and salary outlays (including non-wage benefits), plus $8.3 billion in other value added activities (e.g., profits, dividend payments) and $10.1 billion in imported (domestic and foreign) inputs; these amounts total $33.4 billion, exactly equal to total sales, or output, by this industry in Washington. The columns of a transactions table thus represent production functions for each modeled industry. Direct requirements coefficients, also referred to as technical coefficients, are the share of total purchases for each input. For example, in 2007, again return to the Software Publishing and Internet Service Providers industries in Washington, firms belonging to this grouping purchased $240.4 million in goods and services from the industry category"Architectural and Engineering /Computer Systems Design and Related Services," translating into a direct requirements coefficient of 0.0072, or 0.72% of all purchases made by Software Publishing and Internet Service Providers based in Washington State ($240.4 million / $33.4 billion). Once a matrix of direct requirements is calculated, a series of equations are used to relate changes in demand in one sector of the economy to changes in gross output to across the entire economy. Inter-industry transactions, denoted "0," is equal to a 2 Beyers, W. & Lin, T.-w. (2012). The 2007 Washington State Input-Output Model. Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Financial Management. Retrieved from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/io/2007/1-O_2007_report.pdf. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-5 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix vector X of gross output per industry multiplied by the matrix of direct requirements, denoted "A." (1) O = AX The vector of gross output per industry, X, is the sum of inter-industry output (transactions) and final demand. In the above example, $41.7 billion in total output in aerospace is equal to $842.8 million in inter-industry sales plus $40.8 billion in final demand. (2) X = O + D Combining equations (1) and (2) results in industry gross output equaling the sum of industry output multiplied by direct requirements plus final demand: (3) X = AX + D Rearranging this equation: (4) D = (1-A)X, a n d (5) X = D(1-A)-1, the (1-A)-1 inverse matrix referred to as the "Leontief Inverse." Finally, input-output modeling is primarily used to assess economy-wide changes given a change in one or more activities, resulting in equation (6): (6) OX = (1-A)-1OD Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-6 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix WHITEWATER PARK Detailed Case Studies Though only a few case studies are presented in detail, several parks were analyzed at a survey level for relevant information. The complete list of parks is available below in Exhibit A4 (following page). Parks that are included as detailed case studies are highlighted in blue. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-7 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix -I l„ Exhibit A4. Whitewater Park Case Studies - Summary 0 -0 C o •V1. a) Water Section Annual Visitors Start Elev.(ft.) Finish Elev.(ft.) Distance(mi.) Avg.Gradient(fpm) County Pop. Nv SpokaneRiver(WA) Spokane Valley City Limits not available 1,986 1,918 5.83 11.7 > v SpokaneRiver(WA) N.Flora Rd.to Sullivan Park not available 1,957 1,935 1.41 15.6 479,398 flJ a o SpokaneRiver(WA) E.Flora rapids not available 1,955 1,940 0.67 22.4 ut "< o. `^ Spokane River(WA) Riverside State Park-Bowl and Pitcher Area not available 1,652 1,636 0.95 16.8 71" Clear Creek(CO) Golden Water and Sewer to Vanover Park 14,000 5,678 5,649 0.69 42.0 551,798 0- Cu Boise River(ID) Planned-no details available not available U1 (D Truckee River(NV) Wingfield Park-North Channel 33,333 4,515 4,502 0.24 54.2 433,731 Payette River(ID) Kelly's Whitewater Park 16,638 4,735 4,723 0.22 54.5 9,862 Cedar River(IA) Charles City Whitewater Park(Riverside to 200th) not available 983 978 0.16 31.3 16,092 Maquoketa River(IA) Manchester Whitewater Park not available 945 930 0.19 78.9 17,534 Deschutes River(OR) Bend Whitewater Park not available 165,954 E E Colorado River(CO) Gore Canyon Whitewater Park 25,960 14,289 D 9K.1 Las Animas(CO) Durango Whitewater Park not available 53,284 n Yampa River CO Steamboat Springs Whitewater Park 25,167 24,130 N Blue River(CO) Breckenridge Whitewater Park 1,800 28,649 Q O Gore Creek(CO) Vail Whitewater Park 1,150 52,460 X J Weber River(UT) Riverdale Kayak Park not available 4,336 4,329 0.09 77.8 238,519 Clark Fork River(MT) Missoula Whitewater Park(Brennan's Wave) not available 111,807 Arkansas River(CO) Salida Whitewater Park not available 18,510 Arkansas River(CO) Uptown Wave to LoDo Wave(Buena Vista River Park) not available 7,926 7,905 0.50 42.0 18,510 St.Joseph River(IN) East Race Waterway 20,000 687 676 0.40 27.5 266,931 Huron River(MI) Ann Arbor Millrace not available 773 761 0.28 42.9 354,240 0. m' Wisconsin River(WI) Wausau Whitewater Park not available 1,184 1,161 0.39 59.0 135,416 Fox River(IL) Marge Cline Whitewater Course not available 576 569 0.20 35.0 119,348 Charlotte(NC) U.S.National Whitewater Center(Long Course) 173,333 67.0 990,977 McHenry(MD) Adventure Sports Center International not available 29,889 a E a' Oklahoma City(OK) Riversport Rapids 156,000 718,633 Lee Valley(United Kingdom) Lee Valley Whitewater Centre not available N/A Cu CfQ (D Sources include American Whitewater,jurisdictions and other organizations that manage these whitewater parks,and existing literature in the form of feasibility and impact studies.Annual visitors provided for each park is only an estimate and D does not include spectators.Gradients vary significantly based on the site and size of each park.County population is provided by the U.S.Census Bureau American Community Survey.Parks highlighted in blue are provided as detailed case i studies;the yellow highlighting represents the porposed site for Spokane Valley's whitewater park. CO Truckee River Whitewater Park The Truckee River Whitewater Park is located in Reno, Nevada and the park opened in 2004. It consists of two channels and 11 class II-Ill whitewater features that are popular with kayakers, swimmers and other river users. The longer of the two channels is approximately 1/4 mile in length, and the two channels combine for 2600 feet of usable river. Winfield Park exists on an island that divides the two channels and draws non-river recreationists as well. This section of the Truckee River is in the heart of downtown Reno and has helped catalyze the Riverwalk District, with cafes, galleries and other retail amenities. +'eGC ti t Vr10106, 4;f NIAy . r > '. sh _ 4by '' '.. a ;',- -..0'.."i' _ - V..erti it --e.� G am '' .: i "s - , .,' 7.'-, ,----....„,.. 444-g ..., . �0. L. Above: Spectators gather on the banks of the Truckee River to watch a kayaking competition at the Truckee River Whitewater Park. The context for the park is decidedly urban, and nearby casinos, as well as other downtown amenities, drawing significant traffic to the area. Nevertheless, estimates of whitewater users (including spectators) range from 80,000 to 100,000 annually. Large, competitive whitewater events buoy this tally. Spectators are common and far outnumber canoeists, kayakers, rafters and tubers. Reno is located in Washoe County, which has a population of 433,731 (2013). This metropolitan setting makes the park accessible for a large number of users and spectators and helps the park maintain its high visitor-ship. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-9 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix In 2004, the park cost $1,500,000 to construct. However, this park was more expensive than many comparable whitewater parks because it required the removal of an existing dam. The construction process also required more than 7,000 tons of rocks and boulders to be brought into the river, as well as the creation of supportive pedestrian amenities. Clear Creek Whitewater Park The Clear Creek Whitewater Park is located in Golden, Colorado. Officially, the park is about 800 feet in length, but in practice, boaters use a stretch of Clear Creek that is about 3/4 mile in length, with an �. average gradient of 42 fpm. 4 9� yil Golden is a small town, but it u ms 3 stlil resides in the Denver - ,� 16. metropolitan area and Jefferson T . County, which has a population of } - ' 551,798 (2013). The course was � built in 1998 and, at the time, cost less than $170,000, supplied through a Conservation Trust # 'T y ;ate . _ Fund. Though Clear Creek is a relatively small body of water, it regularly hosts major competitive w t events and, thanks in part to its location in downtown Golden, it is frequently visited by spectators. Non-spectators (users) are estimated at 14,000 annually, though visitation may be significantly higher than the annual numbers suggest on peak days during the summer months. The City of Golden has counted more than 200 unique boaters during a three-hour period. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at peak times, tubers and swimmers significantly outnumber boaters. Above:A stand-up paddleboarder surfs a standing wave on Clear Creek in downtown Golden; pedestrians in the downtown area, as well as users of the adjacent trail system, periodically stop to watch. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-10 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Kelly's Whitewater Park Kelly's Whitewater Park is located in Cascade, Idaho, a town of about 1,000 people in Valley County. The County is home to 9,862 people (2010) in total. The whitewater park is located on the Payette River. It was built in 2010 and hosted approximately 40,000 unique visitors in 20113. Some of these visitors are not paddlers (users), but spectators or passersby on an adjacent trail system ("the Strand"). The park's ability to host popular competitive events, such as the National Kayak Championships and the Payette River Games, is critical because the local and regional population is limited. The park is also popular for fishing, as the rapids have created excellent habitat for trout. r r.C. Above: Kelly's Whitewater Park includes in-river and dry-side amenities to sustain different types of visitors of longer periods of time. The case studies presented illustrate several types of whitewater parks, which vary not just by park type, but also by their surrounding land use patterns and the degree to which they are developed. In fact, the latter may be a larger factor in their daily visitation and economic impact than is the former, though certainly larger, pumped parks have the ability to avoid major fluctuations in visitation resulting from variable flows, ambient and water temperatures and other seasonal factors, and benefit from a greater capacity to host national and international events. 3 University of Idaho Extension,"2011 Economic Impact of Kelly's Whitewater Park in Cascade, Idaho", Willem Braak, et. al. 2012. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-11 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Based on these factors, whitewater parks may fit into a taxonomy that is useful for the purposes of understanding economic benefits. This taxonomy, with examples, is presented below (Exhibit A5) Exhibit A5. Taxonomy, with Examples, of Whitewater Parks by Construction Type and Development Intensity I In-Stream Bypass Pumped Smaller towns or lower o populations with lower U.S. National Whitewater proximate FAR,such as N/A co3 Kelly's Whitewater Park, Center, NC Ce ID t v A Smaller towns or lower a r7 = populations with higher c Z Yorkville, IL N/A w proximate FAR,such as .0 I— L z = Buena Vista, CO 0 _ cc0 0 H u Z cW °i G t 3 OJ Larger towns or higher W populations,but with Ann Arbor, MI;Wausau, Lee Valley Whitewater 1:..3 > co lower proximate FAR, WI Centre (UK) z m C such as Riverdale, UT 0 �' sqp Larger towns or higher 2 populations,in Cdeveloped or downtown South Bend, IN Oklahoma City,OK $ r- areas,such as Reno, NV mor Golden, CO >generally higher economic impact> Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016 As a general rule, larger parks in more urban settings provide opportunities for greater economic impacts. Larger parks tend to draw higher numbers of visitors, and parks in urban settings are more likely to capture visitor spending before those Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-12 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix visitors leave the area. The scenario selected for analysis in this study may be understood in the context of this taxonomy. Economic Impact Calculations Estimating Visitation The population aged 15 or older across the Spokane, Spokane Valley and Coeur d'Alene combined statistical area (CSA) as defined by the United States Census is 552,157 (2015). However, not all of these people have an interest in actively using a whitewater park. To adjust for this fact, we use the 2012 RCO report discussed earlier in this study to quantify the population that regularly participates in the activities that contribute demand for whitewater parks. Exhibit A6, below, identifies a subset of the activities identified in aforementioned exhibit; these three activities are thought to be the principal potential drivers for a whitewater park in Spokane Valley. Exhibit A6. Participation Rates for Core Whitewater Park-Supportive Activities, Washington State, 2012 Activity Percent Whitewater rafting 2.8% Canoeing, kayaking or rowing 9.0% Inner tubing or floating 17.1% Percent of Potential Users 28.9% Source: Washington State Office of Recreation and Conservation, 2013 According to the RCO study, though only 2.8% of Washington residents regularly participate in whitewater rafting, a total of 28.9% of Washington's population regularly participate in activities that could be done at a whitewater park. RCO also provides the average number of days each user spent participating in each activity. Multiplying the percent of interest in a whitewater park by activity with each activity's mean days of use and the total population provides a potential total of 1.6 million visits to a whitewater park developed in Spokane Valley. However, it is very unlikely that any proposed whitewater park would capture every potential user-days. Firstly, the RCO percentages of interest and days of use reflect a sample of a survey and may not directly translate to reality. If the sample is not representative, participation rates and total user-days could be higher or lower than suggested by the study. Secondly, there are other competing sites for canoeing, kayaking or rowing and inner tubing or floating which can also impact the capture of users to a specific Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-13 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix whitewater park. For example, some of the total user-days for kayaking and whitewater rafting will be used in Riverside State Park, rather than in Spokane Valley. These stipulations limit the number of visitors to a potential whitewater park in Spokane Valley. Understanding Visitor Spending The spending profile for a visitor in Spokane County is calculated separately for an overnight user and a day user. Overnight spending patterns are calculated by looking at the share of overnight visitor spending in Spokane County as estimated by Dean Runyan (2015). The total overnight visitor spending is then calculated across a range of taxable retail sales in Spokane County on a per overnight visitor basis. Overnight visitor totals to Spokane County is also provided by Dean Runyan (2015) (Exhibit A7). Exhibit A7. Overnight Visitor Per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $61.9 61.4% Food Service $9.7 9.7% Food Stores $3.4 3.4% Local Transportation and Gas $1.2 1.2% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.7 0.7% Retail Sales $23.9 23.7% Person-Day Expenditures $100.8 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The day visitor spending profile mirrors the overnight spending profile except for a few key differences. Firstly, a day visitor is assumed to spend no money on accommodations, since they are visiting for just a day and do not stay overnight. Secondly, a day visitor is assumed to spend half as much on food service (such as a restaurant) or food stores (a grocery store) as an overnight visitor (Exhibit A8). Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-14 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit A8. Day Visitor per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $0.0 0.0% Food Service $4.9 15.0% Food Stores $1.7 5.3% Local Transportation and Gas $1.2 3.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.7 2.1% Retail Sales $23.9 73.9% Person-Day Expenditures $32.4 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The spectator visitor profile is assumed to reflect 10% of the day visitor spending profile (Exhibit A9). The low-level spending described in the spectator visitor profile is meant to reflect the fact that many spectators are going to be from around the Spokane Valley area and in many cases, will not spend any money while at the whitewater park. Exhibit A9. Spectator Visitor per Capita Spending Profile (2015$) Person-Day Expenditures Value Share Accommodations $0.0 0.0% Food Service $0.5 15.0% Food Stores $0.2 5.3% Local Transportation and Gas $0.1 3.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $0.1 2.1% Retail Sales $2.4 73.9% Person-Day Expenditures $3.2 100.0% Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-15 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix TRAILS AND ARTS Baseline Regional Trail Inventory Spokane Valley has two primary trails: the Centennial Trail and the Appleway Trail. The Centennial Trail follows the Spokane River, spanning 37.5 miles from Lake Spokane to the Washington/Idaho state line. Once it reaches the state line, it connects with the Northern Idaho Centennial Trail. These two portions together total more than 60 miles of recreational trail. The Spokane River Centennial Trail supports more than two million users per year. In Spokane Valley, the Centennial Trail provides recreation, biking, and river walking to users as well as access to the 31-acre Myrtle Point Park. The Centennial trail draws an estimated 2 million users annually (Friends of Centennial Trail, 2016). Planning for the Appleway Trail Corridor began in 2013. Formerly a rail corridor, the stretch is owned by Spokane County, who agreed that the corridor could be an asset to the Spokane Valley community by converting it into a multi-use trail. The Appleway corridor parallels Sprague Avenue through the heart of Spokane Valley's commercial district. Once complete, the path will stretch 5.2 miles, and provide a non-motorized travel option to connect transit, business districts, and schools (City of Spokane Valley, 2013). At present, the trail's length is just over two miles, with the next one-mile phase between Pines Road and Evergreen Road are fully funded and slated for completion in 2017. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-16 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit A10. Regional Trails and Tourism Assets, City of Spokane Valley City df Spokane Valley Touri4,m Concept Map \ — —_I14 -._- CeMe.NaIrrxi/spokah.mga Min mamma,aev.conieat \\SPquke varier Mali M,'-••===.1`.".,=;',r-M,m _ -75,,iiii*t nja.: _, r1v417: 4 4,_.1. _, „ 1 __.1 ____ f- -- .r..,7-'t i FD - , ____j �° n ao 1,s A® �1 F \ l ak a o rr - ; . Ip APP.,...,R Morn Point Park SUaFv kr COLk,F3 ExG, hr.' \ �� law.ea,. '•a U.F�k , "-- ]Mede lead . `.,. `\ EE r I E L FT` s Leg..., 1 ad Cal. a ., k ,�. ESWAG Cb ttMil CertgW © 0rna= w ,. ted,ow aprur SoaN Raw Cdl. .:.... /- .‘"Nall .r ems," l/ •� �' Y. In addition to the above trails, there are several proposed trail additions and connections in Spokane Valley. The following links were identified in the City's 2013 Parks and Trails Master Plan: • Great Northern Trail-3 miles, on abandoned rail line from eastern city limits along Boone and Barker, then north along Barker to Mission and Centennial Trail. • Spokane Valley Loop-Eastern Segment-1 .5 miles, begins at the Great Northern Trail and travels north to the Centennial Trail. • Spokane Valley Loop-Southern Segment-3.5 miles, runs east-west from Sullivan Road to Dishman Road, generally following 2nd Ave. • Spokane Valley Loop—Western Segment-3.5 miles, runs north-south mostly within the Park Road right-of-way. The trail eventually turns east to connect to Argonne Road where it crosses the River and connects to the Centennial Trail. • Chester Creek Connection-1 mile, connects the Spokane Loop at 32nd Ave. with Chester Creek. • Spokane Valley Loop-Southeastern Segment-4 miles, runs north-south along Conklin and Flora from the Centennial Trail to 32nd Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-17 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix In 2013, the Spokane Valley parks and recreation budget totaled $2.6 million, accounting for 6.2% of the total general fund expenditures. In the same year, the City spent approximately $789,000 for park maintenance, which equated to roughly $4,790 per acre of developed park land. Trail Case Studies Community Attributes researched several dozen trail and art installation case studies to estimate the costs and benefits associated with the development of a trail with art and/or history features within the City of Spokane Valley. The following examples represent locations and attributes with the most likeness to those in Spokane Valley. Trail: Boise River Greenbelt Location: Boise, Idaho Population: 218,281 (2015) The Boise River Greenbelt connects downtown Boise with neighborhoods and the business district as well as the Boise State University campus. The trail spans 46 miles along its namesake river, beginning at the Lucky Peak Dam and traveling to the Snake River. The greenbelt trail system navigates across land and water, and supports walking, biking, horseback riding, bird watching, river paddling, and fishing. While the trail is primarily used as a recreation destination, 1.7 miles of the greenbelt travel through urban Boise (Boise River Trails Coalition, 2009). In 1987, the Boise River Trail Foundation was created to manage and maintain the greenbelt. Because the trail crosses city and county jurisdictional boundaries, there is also a Boise River Trail coalition composed of county, city, non-profit, and citizen representatives in addition to the non-profit. This enables cooperative legislation surrounding trail improvements and maintenance. The Boise River Trail is heavily used. According to a 2012 survey, 77% of trail patrons reported using the trail more than once per week. In order to support this heavy usage, it is estimated that, on average, Idaho trails require between $100 and $200 per mile to maintain (Murri, 2016). Areas adjacent to the greenbelt have benefitted from increased property values and commercial business. Restaurants, gas stations, hotels, retail, and commercial recreation establishments have all experienced a rise in income due to the trail. A raft and tube rental shop near the trail grosses more than $300,000 annually from greenbelt visitors (Boise River Trails Coalition, 2009). Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-18 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Trail: Ruston Way Trail Location: Tacoma, Washington Population: 207,948 (2015) The Ruston Way Trail runs along the water of Commencement Bay in the Old Town neighborhood of Tacoma. The trail begins at Jack Hyde Park and travels 2.5 miles to the former site of the American Smelting and Refining Company. A series of small waterfront parks are accessible from the trail. Lodging, retail, and restaurants also line the trail, in addition to Point Ruston, a mixed-use waterfront development. The $1 billion project entered the second phase of development in the summer of 2014. Restaurants and retail storefronts line the walkway, and 45 condo units fill the top floors. Condominium residents report frequent use of the Ruston Way Trail and its commercial amenities (Gillie, 2014). According to a 2010 survey, Tacoma residents reported visiting the Ruston Way parks and trails a median number of 20 times per year, while non-Tacoma residents reported visiting a median number of 8 times per year. Of those surveyed, 59% of respondents were from Tacoma and 41% were residents of other areas. Median spending for the 39,200 annual Tacoma resident patrons was $3 per person to the Ruston Way trail and parks for a total estimated impact of$117,600 per year. The 28,400 non-Tacoma residents spent $15 per visitor on the trail and the adjoining parks, and an additional $8 in the City of Tacoma for a combined annual impact of $652,800 (Herbert Research, Inc., 2010). The Ruston Way Trail is wholly owned and maintained by Tacoma Metro Parks. In 2015, construction began to on a 0.6-mile addition to the Trail to connect its current amenities with Point Defiance. The 2012 estimated cost for this extension was budgeted at $300,000 (2012$) (Metro Parks Tacoma, 2012). -NN I{f l�Ykl YY - _ - r• i�IGr� rt A pedestrian strolls along the Ruston Way Trail. Image source: Metro Parks Tacoma Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-19 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Trail: Burke-Gilman Trail - Kenmore Stretch Location: Kenmore, Washington Population: 22,030 (2015) The Burke-Gilman Trail begins at Golden Gardens in Seattle and borders Lake Washington for the majority of its 19 miles, ending in Bothell. The Burke-Gilman is popular amongst cyclist commuters and recreationalists alike. Though the Trail travels through several cities, it is jointly maintained by the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (City of Seattle, 2016). The Trail travels through Kenmore for slightly more than 2 miles. In a cyclist count, the City of Kenmore concluded that an average of 100 cyclists travel the stretch in the mornings and 300 travel through the corridor in the afternoons during the late spring and summer months. Local breweries especially noticed these travelers as a potential source of revenue since the Burk Gilman travel through the Seattle neighborhoods of Ballard and Fremont, both of which have a high concentration of breweries. There are currently three new micro-breweries on the Kenmore section of the trail. As a collective, they estimate 50-90% of their business is derived from trail patrons alone. In order to further boost patronage from cyclists, these business owners have invested in covered bike storage and shelters so riders can stop in with ease (Kukes, 2015). Development cost data for the '- Kenmore corridor was unavailable, however, a4 At1,0 University of Washington study ° � ` "� " for revitalization and expansion Bldg of the University District section of the Burke-Gilman similar in length to the Kenmore stretch was estimated to be $5.1 million. This cost included lighting, landscaping, and intersection redesign (SvR Design, 2011). A brewery on the Kenmore section of the Burke- Two Kenmore section of the Gilman. Image source: Woodinville Weekly Burke-Gilman underwent maintenance in early 2016-189 linear feet of asphalt was repaved in areas where the trail was slumping and damaged due to a landslide. The cost of these repairs totaled $35,000 (Kunkler, 2016). Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-20 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Public Art Case Studies Community Attributes researched several dozen trail and art installation case studies to estimate the costs and benefits associated with the development of a trail with art and/or history features within the City of Spokane Valley. The following examples represent locations and attributes with the most likeness to those in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-21 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Public Art: Tacoma Municipal Art Program & Public Art Location: Tacoma, WA Population: 207,948 (2015) The City of Tacoma has employed funding and planning efforts to not only develop art in public spaces, but to encourage the creative economy as a foundational component of the City's economy. Under the Municipal Art Program, 1 % of construction costs from public capital projects are dedicated to public art. The City has several arts funding programs, serving groups from individual artists to large, anchor institutions, and for multiple purposes. These programs are guided by the new "ArtFull Tacoma" plan. This plan, which is not tied to additional arts funding, goes beyond individual art installations .i to set strategies to encourage the ""<< creative economy more generally. ° Tacoma's "Prairie Line Trail" is a bike •f`i` J and pedestrian trail project in progressis;;gyp: that will provide public art and local : historical interpretation along with an active destination. The trail, which has ; received funding from a National .. Endowment for the Arts planning grant, will occupy a mile-long historic rail corridor and link important destinations and districts in the City's downtown with an existing trail system. Before construction began, the City developed a plan to guide public art investments for the trail, centered around four overlapping strategies. First, before the trail is completely built, immediate short-term installations would be placed along the ultimate path of the trail, to provoke public awareness. Second, artwork should be incorporated into the infrastructure of the trail and nearby cityscape. The plan stressed spaces designed for storm water management. Third, artwork should be developed for specific locations along the trail, either that currently exist or will come into being when the trail corridor is finalized. Finally, special, unique projects should be considered throughout the design phase, even if design plans need to be adjusted. Throughout these strategies, collaboration between all parties involved is stressed - the University, City, Art Museum, and trail users. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-22 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Public Art: Denver, Colorado Urban Arts Fund Location: Denver, Colorado Population: 682,000 The City of Denver's Urban Arts Fund is a graffiti prevention and youth development program which facilitates the creation of new murals in areas of the cities that are frequently vandalized. Youth volunteers participating in painting the murals also receive art education, with a specific focus on the difference between graffiti art and vandalism. Volunteers must also sign a pledge against vandalism. The fund is housed within the City's Arts and Venues department, which receives funding through ticket sales in public venues, including Boettcher Concert Hall and Red Rocks Amphitheatre. In addition, the city draws 1% from capital improvement budgets exceeding $1 million for the arts. As of 2016, the program has facilitated 115 new murals, covering over 200,000 square feet of walls. One example of these murals, called "City of the Sun", was funded through a $3,500 award to a local artist. It was one of 17 projects funded in 2016 through the Urban Arts Fund, with $65,000 funded in total. Exhibit All. Public Art Costs, City of Denver, 2016 The Cost Of Denver's Public Art Cast 'Light Chamber„at the Denver Justice Center $1,044,000 "I See What You Mean"at the Colorado Convention Center 400,000 "Virga"at Cherry Creek's Delgany Pedestrian Bridge ■88,000 "National Velvet"at the Highland Pedestrian Bridge .53,000 "PlayingApart"'performance throughout downtown Denver 120,000 "Twilight Twist"at Ruby Hill Park 112,000 CPR Haws Data:Denver Arts and V Office Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-23 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Public Art:Joseph, Oregon Art Walk Location:Joseph, Oregon Population: 1,000 Joseph, Oregon had been an economically depressed former logging town. However, in 1982, a bronze foundry opened in a closed sawmill, and began to draw sculptors and a national reputation for quality bronze sculpture. Vp; , i ,:„.-,--....,: .---.7-% . vw. J-, ',2, 4, ,, ,1`,:t,01,a ,,,,4,:..,„- _--:.# . � u .:: 'ii>, 1-:-.'., ' , ,,-,' :rs ,,,-45., ,7 „, . • j0, a; P ons.i, —1 4---, - Adlli, ,,.:"%zeiti.i0.- — - i _ - - , ,. „_, _ . ___— — P t "' irri �6a 1p �� . 11 I 1 'M ,i --. '_-;; , , to Main Street,j ose h, OR"'� _ .,� .:;I, ..�" I! i� . .r J p While the town is located in an area of great natural beauty, the town itself was not a draw for anything beyond the bronze foundries. One local sculptor, Shelley Curtiss, was elected to City Council and appointed Mayor, and began to pursue a downtown renovation centered around bronze sculpture installations. Curtiss asked the Council for $500 to go toward the effort, if she could get a match from downtown business owners, and was successful. The local business community was so supportive of the idea that they taxed themselves $10,000/year for five years to gather $50,000 in matching funds, making them eligible for large grant programs. This fund grew to $3.8 million, and was used to improve the main street streetscape with pavers, buried power lines, landscaping, and large donated bronze sculptures. Since the Main Street remodel, "visitor spending has gone up in Wallowa County from over $18 million to over $26, and the number of jobs in the arts, entertainment, and recreation [sectors] has climbed from 95 to 133." (Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2015) Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-24 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix FAIRGROUNDS AND STADIUM DISTRICT DETAILED CASE STUDIES Reno, Nevada (Reno Aces) The Reno Aces Stadium was developed on the site of a former railyard in 2009. The almost 10,000-seat stadium was the first portion of a $231 million sports and entertainment district public-private investment. Reno officials actively lobbied to bring the Reno Aces, an affiliate of the Arizona Diamondbacks, to the City. Private developers purchased the team for $15 million in 2006, and partnered with the City of Reno soon after. The City agreed to contribute $31 million to development costs in addition to a $40 million tax-increment financing effort (New York Times, 2008). Approximately two years after the stadium and nearby restaurant construction was complete, the private developer added 300,000 square feet of retail development to create an entertainment plaza adjacent to the stadium, called the Freight House District. The developer purposely limited parking capacity at the stadium to encourage patrons to park in nearby office buildings and walk past the retail offerings. This strategy lends credence to the idea that retail and sporting events reinforce each other. Attendance was expected to be 5,000 each game. With 72 home games per season, the entertainment district realizes an average 360,000 visitors annually (New York Times, 2008). Since 2009, the Reno Aces Stadium has experienced 27 sold-out crowds, boosting visitation to the district (Reno Aces, 2016). 41 i 4 11 :101 +` ' � L ,fir-; � —� 41464r wort 4- .74-iWPr 111, 411110 join. - 1 1111111111.1 011 Oil ,11-1 Igo 0011.1011111111 wafts. tffir_ IPqI - - t 4ji • , l - _— n eulti Piss E1GIHUSC • t° • • id Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-25 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Restaurants and retail at the Freight House District, home of the minor league Reno Aces, draws hundreds of thousands of visitor annually. Lansing, Michigan (Lansing Lugnuts) The Lansing Lugnuts, a minor league baseball team, are a key component of the Downtown Lansing revitalization plan. The Cooley Law School Stadium, home of the Lansing Lugnuts, is located in the Stadium District along with the Lansing City Market, the Lansing Brewing Company and the Lansing Center. Merchants offer locally-produced beer and wine, produce, artisan cheese, baked goods, BBQ, gifts and souvenirs at the City Market. Kayak and canoe rentals for use on the adjacent Grand River are also available at the Market. Further, the Market hosts a variety of community events, most of which are free to the public (Lansing City Market, 2016). Other uses—the brewery and Lansing center included—drive traffic to the district, increase spending among existing visitors, and provide amenities for residents in the three new apartment buildings. The Lansing Center is also a rentable venue for special events, conferences, and conventions (Lansing Center, 2016). 110 w , , .._ E°44.97,4 1%,, toV IPPP �TBATr�Arit � l.E. < WATERFRONT BAB&DELL I. Er • The Lansing City Market is an amenity that drives daily traffic to the Stadium District, while also providing an additional retail option for visitors to the stadium on game days. The Cooley Law School Stadium was renovated in 2015. Upgrades included new seats, scoreboards, restaurant, suites, concession stands, and group venue sites. A playground and playing surface was also added. The cost of these improvements totaled $25 million (Downtown Lansing, 2015). In addition to these public investments, a private developer, Gillespie Group, invested $11 million to develop Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-26 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix The Outfield Apartments. The 84-residential unit complex overlooks the Cooley Law School Stadium, and began leasing to residents in 2016 (Gillespie Group, 2016). 't '- ' A4111 —meq s The Lansing Brewing Company, located just past the outfield wall of the Lansing Lugnuts' home stadium, is a daily attraction for visitors and a pre- and post-game anchor. In 2011, retail, food, and drink sales within a half-mile radius around the downtown core totaled nearly $125.5 million (Downtown Lansing, 2013). The Cooley Law School Stadium can host 11,000 and frequently captures more than 5,000 visitors per game (Lansing Lugnuts, 2015). As retail and residential development has increased near the stadium, the area's contribution to total taxable retail sales in the greater downtown area has been amplified. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-27 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix ' - r -- . —.-urs ,. �►,- r��• '' ,. Gam.`w - - ,--- , .11,I.,-,. Pi't% iii\" p 1 i .^ '' - ..4pit- ,,' , it', - " ,} • Fl 11', : +� 1. • iv__ 11 ft 1 1 - ' / , 0 40 tor a, - '',., ' , 'j: - . • At the home stadium of the Lansing Lugnuts, retail and residential uses complement the stadium's operations. Vallejo, California (Solano 360) In 2008, the City of Vallejo and Solano County began a collaborative effort to redevelop the Solano County Fairgrounds. This redevelopment effort was launched to generate increased revenues for the City and the County, establish a unique identity, and capture additional visitors already traveling to the area to visit existing anchors, like the Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (Solano County, 2013). The redevelopment plan for the 149-acre property includes several elements that improve access to public and private areas alike. The fairgrounds themselves account for 32 acres of the property. These 32 acres contain an expo hall, event lawn, amphitheater, and a demonstration farm. Roughly 19 acres will be devoted to an Entertainment Mixed Use and Commercial district, supporting localized retail and commercial space. There are also plans for adjacent sports fields, hospitality, and a transit center (Solano County, 2013). The total cost for the project is $93.5 million. Project-specific backbone infrastructure, such as building and road construction, will total $37 million. Costs to demolish existing fair buildings are projected at $4.5 million, and upgrading existing fair buildings will account for $49.5 million (Solano County, 2013). Many of these expenses are due to the expressed desire to create a community commercial and Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-28 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix entertainment district that supercharges fair operations while driving year-round visitation. Nashville, Tennessee (The Fairgrounds Nashville) Prior to the redevelopment plans for the Fairgrounds Nashville, no investments in the site had been made for fifteen years. The site is located two miles from Downtown Nashville, and hosts about 1.4 million visitors per year. The 117-acre property currently has a 40-acre speedway, fairgrounds, and 8 climate-controlled expo buildings. The Nashville Speedway features dirt track auto racing and can seat 14,000 people. In 2015, the Fairgrounds had more than 700 event days, where each day-long event represents one event day. The size of the Fairgrounds Nashville allows operators to host multiple events on one day. In addition to auto racing, MMA boxing and wrestling are popular non-fair events. Fairgrounds Nashville has also hosted the Tennessee State Fair since 1906. Expo center space is available for business meetings, garden shows, gun shows, and a monthly flea market. The flea market is extensive-2,200 booths are filled by more than 400 vendors. This event generates more revenue for the City of Nashville tha n any other Fairground programming. Vendors from all over the country travel to the flea market, and many of them stay in nearby Nashville or in the Fairgrounds 87- space RV park. Now, the Fairgrounds is undergoing an extensive, $15 million renovation that includes updates to five expo buildings, demolition of other dilapidated structures, creation of multi-purpose sports fields, a dog park, and improvements to public access. Up to ten acres of the site will be devoted to parks and green space, and the County has plans to partner with the parks department to develop greenbelts to connect the Fairgrounds to Downtown Nashville. With the fairground improvements, Metro Nashville is confident the sporting events could reinforce the expo and fair-related events. Currently, the location of the Fairgrounds in relation to Downtown Nashville has been an asset. Events such as gun shows and MMA matches have a larger regional draw for overnight visitors, while fair patronage is more localized to Davidson County residents or nearby day visitors. Nearby, a new apartment complex is being developed. ECONOMIC IMPACT CALCULATIONS The redeveloped expo center is estimated to be constructed at a size of 50,000 square feet and would likely have a maximum occupancy of more than 3,500 people. Exhibit Al2 below, shows a baseline scenario with associated impact of 20 additional expo events. If these expo events were approximately 80% full, this would Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-29 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix lead to an additional 35,200 visitors to Spokane Valley. Because expo events have a share of traveling sales teams, the estimated share of overnight visitation could be as high as 40%. Direct impacts associated with the expo center are through revenue generated from ticket sales and concession sales at expo events. Total revenue inclusive of direct, indirect, induced and associated visitor spending is estimated to be over $2.4 million of which $253,000 is tied to ticket sales and a further $28,000 is tied to concession sales. Direct jobs tied to the expo center is estimated to be around 2 jobs while the total jobs generated is estimated to be approximately 27 jobs. The wages paid out to those jobs is estimated to total $938,400 of which $180,800 are paid out directly through the new full and part time workers hired due to the development of this expo center. Exhibit Al2. Baseline Impacts (20 Additional Expo Events and 35,200 Visitors) Estimated Impacts Industry Sectors Impacted Total Impacts (Impacts of Direct,Indirect, Induced&Associated Transportation & Arts, Recreation, & Food Service (Sum of all Revenues) Retail Sales Gas Accomodation &Food Stores Industries) Total Revenue $842,000 $42,000 $1,130,000 $393,000 $2,407,000 Direct Project Revenue $0 $0 $253,440 $28,160 $281,600 Indirect and Induced Revenue $0 $0 $417,560 $41,840 $459,400 Associated Revenue $842,000 $42,000 $459,000 $323,000 $1,666,000 Total Jobs 10 - 12 6 27 Direct Project Jobs - - 2 0 2 Indirect and Induced Jobs - - 4 0 4 Associated Jobs 10 - 6 5 21 Total Wages $426,400 $18,000 $370,000 $124,000 $938,400 Direct Wages $90,400 $0 $81,300 $9,100 $180,800 Indirect and Induced Wages $0 $0 $141,700 $10,900 $152,600 Associated Wages $336,000 $18,000 $147,000 $104,000 $605,000 Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016; City of Spokane Valley, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 The total estimated taxes collected by the City of Spokane Valley is shown in Exhibit A13. A total of$34,000 in tax revenue is expected to be collected of which $2,000 is collected through the taxation of concessions sales with an additional $4,000 accrued due to spillover effects into the wider local economy. In terms of hotel taxes specifically, an estimated $14,200 in tax is directly from hotel revenue. Total hotel revenue is projected to be $430,800 which translates to approximately 5,100 extra hotel stays over a calendar year. This represents a 4% increase over the annual hotel stays of 128,782 experienced in 2014. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-30 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit A13. Estimated Fiscal Impacts (20 Additional Expo Events and 35,200 Visitors) Fiscal Impacts City of Spokane Valley State of Washington Spokane County Misc. Public Taxes (Tax Rate) 0.9%(3.3%in lodging taxes) 6.5% 0.2% 1.0% Direct Fiscal Impacts $2,000 $18,000 $0 $3,000 Indirect and Induced Fiscal Impacts $4,000 $30,000 $1,000 $5,000 Associated Spending Fiscal Impacts $28,000 $156,000 $2,000 $17,000 Total Fiscal Impacts $34,000 $204,000 $3,000 $25,000 Sources: Washington Department of Revenue;2016; City of Spokane Valley;2016; Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Three scenarios were developed to look at the potential revenue, job, wage and fiscal impacts associated with an increase of 1 0, 20 and 30 expo events at the Spokane County Fairgrounds (Exhibit A14). As expo events increase there is a natural increase in the expected impacts the City of Spokane Valley could experience. Exhibit A14. Scenario Analysis (10, 20 and 30 Additional Expo Events) Impacts Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three (Summary of direct, indirect,induced 10 Events:(17,600 20 Events:(35,200 30 Events:(52,800 and associated impacts) visitors) visitors) visitors) Number of Visitors 28,800 57,600 86,400 Total Revenue $1,974,000 $3,948,000 $5,920,000 Total Jobs 22 43 67 Total Wages $771,900 $1,543,900 $2,316,800 Total Fiscal Impacts $220,000 $437,000 $658,000 Oty of Spokane Valley $28,000 $56,000 $86,000 Other Taxes $192,000 $381,000 $572,000 Source: Dean Runyan, 2015; Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Washington Office of Financial Management, 2016; City of Spokane Valley, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-31 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Impacts Summary - Stadium or Entertainment District The follow tables summarize the potential impacts of a hypothetical development program for approximately 6.5 acres of the Fair and Expo Center site. Assumptions about the development program are informed by development patterns observed in the case studies, but is purely intended to illustrate the relationship between built space and economic impacts. Exhibit A15. Economic Impacts Summary for Hypothetical Stadium/Entertainment District Scenario Stadium or Entertainment District I Site Utilization Site SgFt Bldg. Footprints Height/Floors Total SgFt Office 5.00% 14,401 14,000 3 42,000 Retail 40.00% 115,212 86,000 1 86,000 Residential 40.00% 115,212 57,000 4 228,000 Hospitality 15.00% 43,204 12,000 6 72,000 100.0% 288,029 169,000 NA 428,000 Assessed Value Taxable Annual Est Ass Value Assessed Value Local Levy Property Tax Office $164 $6,882,414 1.5255 $10,499 Retail $141 $12,144,860 1.5255 $18,527 Residential $75 $17,100,000 1.5255 $26,086 Hospitality $225 $16,200,000 1.5255 $24,713 Total N/A $52,327,275 N/A $79,825 Taxable Retail Sales Potential Retail Sales/Sq Total Retail Collectable Ft Sales Potential Sales Taxes Office $0 $0 $0 Retail $300 $25,800,000 $2,244,600 Civic Space $0 $0 $0 Park $0 $0 $0 Total N/A $25,800,000 $2,244,600 Economic Activity of New Commercial Space Potential Direct Employment on Use Type SF/Job Site Office 200 168 Retail 500 172 Hospitality 2,000 36 Total N/A 376 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-32 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix SPECIAL EVENTS Spokane Valley Events Facilities Three existing facilities in Spokane Valley serve as significant event drivers for the City and region: the Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, CenterPlace and Avista Stadium. The following provides a review of these facilities. Spokane County Fair The Spokane County Fair is hosted at the Spokane Valley Fairgrounds every year and is a major event driver in the City and region. In 2015, the fair had 273 commercial and food vendors. Total revenues for 2015 were almost $2.5 million. Historically, fair attendance has been inconsistent with a general trend towards decreased attendance. In 2015, over 190,000 individuals attended the fair, up about 5,000 people from 2014. Compared to 2008, the year with the highest fair attendance, 2015 had almost 48,000 fewer attendees. As a result of fluctuating attendance, fair revenues have also been inconsistent from year to year (Exhibit A16). Exhibit A16. Historical Spokane County Fair Attendance and Performance, 2006-2015 Year Attendance Attendence % Revenue Commercial Food Growth (2015$) Vendors Vendors 2006 218,790 13.20% $2,170,910 209 37 2007 235,010 7.40% $2,450,690 206 40 2008 242,160 3.04% $2,274,230 210 40 2009 227,080 -6.23% $2,240,480 221 40 2010 195,260 -14.01% $2,292,970 220 43 2011 2012 207,550 9.30% $2,422,760 231 42 2013 188,070 -9.38% $2,434,870 230 42 2014 189,450 0.73% $2,391,810 239 41 2015 194,420 2.60% $2,476,970 233 40 Note: Data unavailable for 2011 . CenterPlace CenterPlace is a 54,000 square-foot event facility located in Mirabeau Meadows Park in Spokane Valley. It hosts banquets, conferences, musical entertainment, weddings, and more. Between 2013 and 2014, the number of special events hosted at the facility increased by 32, and the number of meetings/seminars increased by 91. Overall attendance between events and meetings increased by 15,670. During the same Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-33 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix time period, net revenues grew by almost $52,500 while expenditures rose by $28,450 (Exhibit 17). Exhibit A17. CenterPlace Overview, 2013-2014 2013 2014 Change 2013-2014 Attendance 108,960 124,630 15,670 Out of Town Guests 5,220 5,970 750 Total Events 812 844 32 Meetings/Seminars 521 612 91 Net Revenues $319,080 $371,570 $52,490 Total Expenditures $772,990 $801,440 $28,450 Avista Stadium The Avista Stadium is home to the Spokane Indians, a minor-league baseball team. Between 2010 and 2015, the operating revenues ranged from $3.5 million to $4.3 million. During the same time period, operating expenses ranged from $3 million to $3.5 million. Avista Stadium supports 15 full-time, year-round employees. Seasonal employees total 5 full-time and 265 part-time employees. In 2015, 38 Indians games and approximately 100 non-game events were hosted at the Stadium. Total estimated attendance for all Indians games was 188,000 people. For non-game events, total attendance exceeded 200,000 individuals. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-34 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix ValleyFest Additional Details Valleyfest Income and Expenses The following exhibits provide additional details on Valleyfest funding and operations. The values were leveraged to establish a baseline special event scenarios and to evaluate the potential impacts of special events. Exhibit A18. Valleyfest City Funding Estimates, Spokane Valley, 2016 Department Funding Estimate CenterPlace $8,258.00 Parks $10,640.00 Staffing $3,701.00 Police $3,176 Total $25,775.00 Source: City of Spokane Valley, 2016 Exhibit A19. Valleyfest Income/Expense Breakdown, 2016 Income Value Percent Expenses Value Percent of Total of Total Auction Income $25,000 11.8% Auction Expenses $9,000 4.3% Booth Income $31,000 14.7% Booth Expenses $1,500 0.7% Cycle Celebration Income $9,000 4.3% Car Show Expenses $500 0.2% Hotel Motel Grant-Cycle Celebration $3,000 1.4% Children Activities $7,000 3.3% Hotel Motel Grant-Valleyfest $30,000 14.2% Contract Services $1,500 0.7% Economic Development Grant $21,000 10.0% Credit Card Fees/Processing $1,250 0.6% Misc. Income $10,000 4.7% Cycle Celebration Expenses $9,000 4.3% Multi-Sports Registration $6,000 2.8% Entertainment Expenses $20,000 9.5% Publication Income $10,000 4.7% Equipment Rental $17,500 8.3% Sponsor Income $65,000 30.8% Fitness Expenses $2,500 1.2% Washington State Arts Council Grant $1,000 0.5% Hot Air Balloon Expenses $5,000 2.4% Total Income $211,000 100.0% Marketing Expenses $49,500 23.5% Misc. Expenses $10,000 4.7% Miss Spokane Valley Pageant $1,000 0.5% Multi-Sports Expense $7,500 3.6% Office Expenses $15,000 7.1% Parade Expenses $2,000 0.9% Publication Expenses $10,000 4.7% Security Expenses $5,500 2.6% Sponsor Expense $3,750 1.8% TotFest Expense $5,000 2.4% Valleyfest Children's Foundation $2,000 0.9% Volunteer/Employee Expenses $3,000 1.4% Wages $22,000 10.4% Total Expenses $211,000 100.0% Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-35 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Economic Impact Detail Exhibits A20 through A22 provide a detailed breakdown of economic impacts described in terms of potential spending impacts and revenues as well as jobs and wages. Also included is a breakdown of fiscal impacts associated with the medium visitation scenario. A comparison of different event scenarios is provided under the final exhibit. Exhibit A20. Projected Project Revenues Medium Visitation Estimated Impacts Industry Sectors Impacted Total Impacts (Impacts of Direct,Indirect, Induced&Associated Transportation& Arts, Recreation, & Food Service (Sum of all Revenues) Retail Sales Gas Accomodation &Food Stores Industries) Total Revenue $1,552,000 $49,000 $257,000 $777,000 $2,635,000 Direct Project Revenue $710,250 $0 $40,000 $214,500 $964,750 Indirect and Induced Revenue $123,750 $0 $66,000 $345,500 $535,250 Associated Revenue $718,000 $49,000 $151,000 $217,000 $1,135,000 Total Jobs 16 - 3 8 27 Direct Project Jobs 8 - 0 3 11 Indirect and Induced Jobs 0 - 1 2 3 Associated Jobs 8 - 2 3 13 Total Wages $413,400 $22,000 $83,000 $240,000 $758,400 Direct Wages $81,800 $0 $12,800 $69,000 $163,600 Indirect and Induced Wages $44,600 $0 $22,200 $101,000 $167,800 Associated Wages $287,000 $22,000 $48,000 $70,000 $427,000 Sources: Dean Runyan,2016; City of Spokane Valley,2016;Washington Department of Revenue,2016; Community Attributes Inc.,2016 Exhibit A21. Projected Fiscal Impacts Fiscal Impacts City of Spokane Valley State of Washington Spokane County Misc. Public Taxes (Tax Rate) 0.9%(3.3%in lodging taxes) 6.5% 0.2% 1.0% Direct Fiscal Impacts $2,000 $17,000 $0 $3,000 Indirect and Induced Fiscal Impacts $5,000 $35,000 $1,000 $5,000 Associated Spending Fiscal Impacts $14,000 $126,000 $2,000 $11,000 Total Fiscal Impacts $21,000 $178,000 $3,000 $19,000 Sources: Dean Runyan,2016; City of Spokane Valley,2016;Washington Department of Revenue,2016; Community Attributes Inc.,2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-36 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Exhibit A22. Comparative Visitation Impacts Impacts Small Event Medium Event Large Event (Summary of direct, indirect, (Valley Fest) induced and associated impacts) Number of Visitors 20,000 40,000 80,000 Total Revenue $1,259,000 $2,635,000 $5,650,000 Total Jobs 14 27 62 Total Wages $359,600 $758,400 $1,660,400 Total Fiscal Impacts $101,000 $221,000 $486,000 City of Spokane Valley $9,000 $21,000 $53,000 Other Taxes $92,000 $200,000 $433,000 Sources: Dean Runyan,2016; City of Spokane Valley,2016;Washington Department of Revenue, 2016; Community Attributes Inc.,2016 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-37 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUE Arts and Entertainment Case Studies Case: Federal Way Performing Arts Center Location: Federal Way, WA The City of Federal Way broke ground on its new performing arts center in fall 2015, and expects to open in 2017. With an array of flexible facilities, the 44,000-square foot center will serve as a multipurpose venue for arts performances, conferences, meetings, and other events. These facilities include a 700-seat, two-tier theater, 8,000 square feet of event facilities, a catering kitchen, and more. The catering kitchen will also provide a home for a new Native American Culinary Institute, developed in partnership with the Muckleshoot Tribe and Institute of American Indian Arts. The center will also host five nonprofit arts organizations serving the local population. As a city that is large and diverse, yet lacking a distinct urban identity, the City of Federal Way began to acquire property to redevelop into a new Town Center in 2007. In 2014, as part of this effort, the City acquired the four-acre site that would be home to the Performing Arts Center. The Performing Arts Center has a total estimated development cost of around $32 million. Funding sources include the City of Federal Way, the State of Washington, King County 4Culture, and local donations secured by the Federal Way Coalition of the Performing Arts. The Coalition set a goal of$1 million in local donations. - ihiugliiiiii1 . I rire l 1 i'l 7 ri �. �i• ter. :' TL ! 1lfl. ' 1 1' •gyp0 2 .r" - • Case: Kirkland Performance Center Location: Kirkland, WA When a local theater group was searching for a facility in the 1980s, Kirkland's local leaders rallied together around the idea of a professional theater located Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-38 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix downtown. While the theater group found a facility elsewhere, the momentum for a Kirkland theater remained. The City and its partners were able to raise $5.8 million over a ten-year period from a combination of government agencies, corporations, foundations, and private donors. The 397-seat, 17,000 square foot theater was opened in 1998, and is owned by the City of Kirkland. The Kirkland Performance Center (KPC) nonprofit organization has a rent-free long term lease to operate the facility. The City of Kirkland supports the Center by returning all admissions taxes collected from KPC ticket sales to KPC, and also annually contributes funds for operation expenses. In addition to their work in hosting local arts organization, the KPC also runs educational programs for local schools. OOD**RD MARCH 5 ANDY µC1IEE poli JACK E THE BEANSTALK PROM NEU Fp DIA104414f1(1 (MA ill Lfllf) PSA LII - "� ! r � : ANIMIE Case: Spokane Civic Theater Location: Spokane, WA The nonprofit Spokane Civic Theater has been in existence since 1947. Not only one of few community theater groups to own its own space, it has two performance spaces - a main theater that seats 339, and a more intimate 88-seat space. The group has a $1.2 million annual operating budget, nine full-time and 15 part-time workers. Still more work depends on its approximately 500 volunteers. The Civic Theater derives a great deal of its income from corporate sponsorships, in addition to individual donors, season ticket holders, and grants. It also has a side business renting its extensive costume library. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-39 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix a • 4 f • r i .110011111 r ' ..% aSkimmo Elif . - a • te-•, - 121 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-40 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Case: The Modern Theater Location: Spokane, WA and Coeur d'Alene, ID The Modern Theater operates two theaters, one in Coeur d'Alene, with 160 seats, and another in Spokane, with 250 seats. The nonprofit operates with a $700,000 annual operating budget and has more than 1,000 season ticket holders. While its finances are "strong", according to a 2015 Spokane Journal of Business article, expenses can be high. Each show costs from $7,000 to $40,000 to produce, often more for musicals. It operates as a professional theater, so all performers and crew are paid. In addition, it took on $100,000 of debt from a struggling Spokane theater company when it expanded into their space, though the debt was nearly all paid in 2015. The original Coeur d'Alene venue has an 85% occupancy rate, while Spokane's was 38 percent in 2015, with a goal to reach 50 percent this year. Unfortunately, the Modern Theater revealed its decision to close the Spokane location at the end of 2016, citing high overhead costs and declining profits. Case: Edmonds Center for the Arts Location: Edmonds, WA The Edmonds Center for the Arts is owned by the Edmonds Public Facilities District and managed by a nonprofit organization also called the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA). The 704-seat auditorium serves more than 65,000 people per year for events that include concerts, theater productions, and more. The facility also includes a large lobby that can serve many purposes, two multipurpose meeting rooms with capacity for 49 each, and one multipurpose room with a capacity of 300. The Center building was originally built in 1909 as the original Edmonds High School, closed in 1975 and subsequently occupied by Puget Sound Christian College. In the early 2000s, the City of Edmonds established a Public Facilities District to study the potential for an arts center, and selected the recently vacated school's auditorium. After purchasing the property in 2002, the City embarked on an $18 million renovation project to turn the building into a modern center. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-41 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Case:Jack's Urban Meeting Place (JUMP) Location: Boise, ID Jack's Urban Meeting Place (JUMP) is a unique case, with elements of performing arts centers, community centers, incubators, and event centers rolled into one. The general intention is to provide shared spaces for people to come together and be creative in any sense. The on-site studios include dance studios, an industrial kitchen, fabrication studio with 3D printer, and spaces for events and performance. The building itself is inspiring, with multistory slides and an adjacent park that features a collection of antique tractors. The scale of this 7.3-acre project comes with an equivalent cost - $70 million, largely funded through the estate of J.R. Simplot. The facility is managed by a nonprofit organization. While this particular case is very large, the concept could be accomplished at a smaller scale. _tr. - VL _ 1 +0, -;:4---t.... NI, .�� •iv . ■ ' i '4 - , I[-0-, L,. , L .....„.., r+.. 7�.. - 4 { �. . ti. - 4 Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-42 Tourism Analysis Phase H Appendix Case: Arlington Arts Incubator Location: Arlington, VA While Boise's JUMP provides a beautiful example of a centralized incubator space, the concept can also work in the complete absence of such resources. In 1986, Arlington County decided to actively support the arts by forming a Commission for the Arts and developing a system of competitive grants for local artists. A few years later, an Arts Incubator was established, allowing the City to repurpose underutilized spaces for the arts. In addition to offering underutilized public space, the Incubator secures vacant private spaces like warehouses, retail, and conference centers through partnerships with local businesses and nonprofits. As a result, the number of local arts groups grew from 11 to 25 from 1990 to 1996, and the number of arts events increased from 200 to 1,300. The program has been effective in supporting the arts but also cost effective - while the grant program was only $97,000 in 1997, the annual savings in rent to organizations using the subsidized spaces exceeded $400,000. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-43 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Economic Impacts Tables The following tables provide detailed findings related to economic impacts for the Arts and Entertainment Venue (baseline/stabilized scenario). Exhibit A23. Arts and Entertainment Revenues and Impacts Detail ($2015) Estimated Impacts Industry Sectors Impacted Total Impacts (Impacts of Direct,Indirect, (Sum of all Induced&Associated Transportation& Arts, Recreation,& Food Service Revenues) Retail Sales Gas Accomodation &Food Stores Industries) Total Revenue $670,000 $34,000 $607,000 $328,000 $1,639,000 Direct Project Revenue $0 $0 $91,421 $27,744 $119,200 Indirect and Induced Revenue $0 $0 $150,579 $42,256 $192,800 Associated Revenue $670,000 $34,000 $365,000 $258,000 $1,327,000 Total Jobs 8 - 7 5 20 Direct Project Jobs - - 1 0 1 Indirect and Induced Jobs - - 1 0 2 Associated Jobs 8 - 5 4 17 Total Wages $305,200 $15,000 $197,000 $103,000 $620,200 Direct Wages $38,200 $0 $29,300 $8,900 $76,400 Indirect and Induced Wages $0 $0 $50,700 $11,100 $61,800 Associated Wages $267,000 $15,000 $117,000 $83,000 $482,000 Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Exhibit A24. Fiscal Revenues Detail ($2015) Fiscal Impacts City of Spokane Valley State of Washington Spokane County Misc.Public Taxes (Tax Rate) 0.9%(3.3%in lodging taxes) 6.5% 0.2% 1.0% Direct Fiscal Impacts $1,000 $8,000 $0 $1,000 Indirect and Induced Fiscal Impacts $2,000 $13,000 $0 $2,000 Associated Spending Fiscal Impacts $23,000 $107,000 $2,000 $13,000 Total Fiscal Impacts $26,000 $128,000 $2,000 $16,000 Source: Community Attributes Inc., 2016. Spokane Valley March 2017 Page A-44 Tourism Analysis Phase II Appendix Feasibility Study for Potential New Outdoor Multi-Use Sports Facilities in Spokane County, Washington SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Conventions, Sports and Leisure International (CSL) was engaged by Spokane County, with funding participation and collaboration by the City of Liberty Lake, the City of Spokane Valley, the Central Valley School District, and the Regional Sports Commission, to study the feasibility of potential new outdoor multi-use sports facilities in Spokane County. This document presents a summary of study findings, while Appendix A presents additional supporting information on the study's research, analyses and conclusions. Appendix A should be reviewed in its entirety to gain an understanding of the study's methods, limitations and implications. Introduction and Background The purpose of this study is to analyze the market, programmatic, financial and economic feasibility of potential new/improved outdoor multi-use sports facilities in Spokane County for the purpose of driving new revenue and economic impact to Spokane County, as well as enhancing rental, practice and other special event facility alternatives available for County residents. Two specific facility concepts were identified to be the subjects of the study effort: (1) enhancement of Plante's Ferry Sports Complex in Spokane Valley and (2) development of a new sports complex at the HUB location in Liberty Lake. - amp e5.7, Initial Concept# 1: amo Plante's Ferry Enhancement 1=1 Currently offer 13 soccer fields and 5 softball fields.Project would convert two existing grass soccer fields into synthetic turf fields with LED field `+ lighting and modify the 5 existing softball fields to Wei,_ include synthetic turf infield,backstop upgrades, permanent home run fencing and LED field lighting for 2 fields,add safety netting around play equipment as needed,pursue parking o improvements,irrigation system enhancements Parking and misc. repairs/improvements. T� C [']ALIF *3703 ROM ... . � - e.E. Initial Concept#2: • I. ': r L '�• HUB Complex Development . Land acquisition for the potential development of 8 "tournament quality"softball fields(one designed sur to be multi-use softball/baseball)with synthetic turf 'Ia infields,LED field lighting,parking,equipment _i " ?'1 storage building,playground g g, and misc. site furnishings. �i r` ", The study process consisted of detailed research and analysis, including a comprehensive set of market-specific information derived from the following: 1. Experience garnered through more than 500 sports, recreation and event facility feasibility, planning and benchmarking projects throughout the country. CONVENTIONS(� rel j1I71u I i''s i UDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY SPORTS csisSummary of Findings Page 1 LEISURE I 2. Local market visits at the outset of the project, including community and facility tours,and discussions with study stakeholders. 3. In-person and telephone interviews, meetings and focus groups with more than 50 local Spokane County area individuals, including representatives and individuals affiliated with Spokane County, Spokane County Parks/Golf/Recreation, City of Liberty Lake, City of Spokane Valley, Central Valley School District, and Regional Sports Commission, local sports organizations/associations/clubs, local educational institutions, sports/recreation/visitor industry stakeholders, and other individuals. 4. Research and analysis of local market conditions, existing facilities and infrastructure and amateur sports and recreation trends. 5. Benchmarking research and analysis of facility data and interviews conducted with management of in excess of 50 competitive and comparable sports and recreation complexes located throughout the region and country. 6. Comparative analysis of socioeconomic data from competitive/comparable facility markets. 7. Completed telephone interviews with more than 50 representatives of sports and recreation organizations/governing bodies with local, state, regional and/or national tournament scope. Local Market Conditions The strength of a market in terms of its ability to support and utilize sports and recreation facilities is measured, in part, by the size of the local and regional market area population and its age, income and other characteristics. Other local market characteristics have relevance when considering the attractiveness of a particular community as a host for major amateur sports facilities, including transportation accessibility, climate, existing local inventory of athletic facilities, and visitor amenities. In addition to the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the local and regional market, transportation access to and from potential new/improved Spokane County outdoor multi-use sports facilities represents a key element of the viability of any potential facility or facilities. Convenient local access to any potential facility will be paramount to the local and regional sports participants who will represent the majority of users of a potential new/improved facility, while regional access characteristics will likely influence the ability of the venues to attract tournaments drawing teams from throughout the greater metro area, surrounding region and beyond. Industry research indicates that participants in youth and adult sports tournaments are willing to drive, on average, up to three hours to participate in regional tournaments. The population within a 180-minute drive time of the proposed facility sites is more than 1.5 million, providing an important population base from which the proposed facilities could draw tournament participants. While a number of sports and recreation fields exist throughout Spokane County, with the exception of Plante's Ferry for soccer, the Spokane Valley/Liberty Lake area is lacking a significant concentration of quality fields in a single location. Many communities have seen that developing new sports facilities benefits the local sports market by consolidating activities and facilities/facilities at one single site, and such developments have assisted in recreational activity participation growth in a given area. Moreover, any envisioned Spokane County outdoor multi-use sports complex designed with appropriate quality and amenity standards would allow the area to be a more marketable tournament destination—in terms of offering a quality facility with a critical mass of fields in one location that would serve as the central tournament location, rather than spreading games across a number of limited field sites/facilities(which tends to be much less desirable, particularly for major traveling tournaments). Non-local participating teams at any potential new sports facilities would have a positive impact on the Spokane County, Spokane Valley, and Liberty Lake economies by supporting area hotels, restaurants and other CONVENTIONS rLFsjiuiu 1 I 's i uDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY SPORTS csig Summary of Findings Page 2 I LEISURE l establishments during their visit to the area. Economic impact generated by non-local participants and their families is typically a critical reason for the consideration of public investment in these types of larger sports and recreational facilities. Offering an appropriate number of facilities to attract a critical mass of non-local tournament participants is an important factor in generating this economic impact. However, the ability of the local market to provide an adequate number of hotels that are within reasonable driving distance from the potential facilities is also a key element for ensuring that the economic benefit created by hosting amateur sports events is maximized within the local community and a key consideration for sports organizations selecting potential tournament, meet or competition destinations. Market Demand Analysis results suggest that unmet market demand exists to support investment in the Plante's Ferry Sports Complex and the proposed HUB sports complex concepts. These projects would enhance the quality baseball/softball and soccer/multisport field inventory serving the Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake areas within Spokane County and better meet local and nonlocal demand. Single, high quality field complexes,focused around common field types, could serve to enhance revenues, satisfy unmet local needs, allow for the growth of local sports and recreation programming, and generate incremental economic impact through the attraction of new non-local tournaments. Plante's Ferry Field Complex (soccer/multisport + softball) 1. Existing Conditions: a. Condition and quality of fields are limiting the marketability and available use hours. b. Physical improvements are required to elevate to industry standard conditions. c. Quality is also hindered by limited County funding support to maintain soccer fields. d. For an all-natural-surface complex of its type and condition, the soccer fields are highly utilized. e. Certain organizations/clubs desire to have greater access to the complex. 2. Soccer Field Demand: Number of fields is estimated to be sufficient to accommodate current and potential new local demand at current rectangle fields, assuming the conversion of 2 fields to synthetic turf plus lights, which will importantly expand use hours. 3. Softball Field Demand: Added capacity exists to accommodate incremental demand at softball fields; however, configuration and quality of fields limits appeal to local clubs and non-local organizations. Synthetic turf infields and LED lights for 2 fields will expand usable hours and reduce maintenance costs. HUB Outdoor Field Complex (softball + baseball) 1. Demand: Moderate to high demand levels noted among local and non-local softball and baseball leagues, clubs and tournament producers. 2. Supply & Demand Issues: Minimum of 8 fields is required to meet existing demand; however, 12 fields are believed to be needed to address long-term growth. 3. HUB Site: Original HUB site plan envisioned 35-acre site for 8 fields. Based on industry standards(including parking, circulation, support facilities, etc.), between 4.0 to 6.0 acres per triangle field is CONVENTIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY SPORTS csig Summary of Findings Page 3 I LEISURE appropriate for planning purposes. A 12-field complex would suggest a 48- to 72-acre site. Industry standards for modern complexes of this nature are 75 parking spaces per field. 4. Alternative Site: If the HUB site cannot be expanded to at least 48 contiguous acres, consideration of alternative sites for a larger complex and/or future growth should be considered. Supportable Program & Development Costs Based on the results of the market analysis, the following conclusions have been reached with regard to market supportable programmatic elements of the two proposed projects: Plante's Ferry Field Complex (soccer/multisport + softball) • Soccer/Multisport Fields: • Existing 13 fields at Plante's Ferry (plus other local field supply) expected to be sufficient to accommodate existing and future local/non-local demand. • Conversion of two fields to synthetic turf with lighting would importantly expand utilization, availability, and marketability. • Contemplated strategy of regrade, irrigation & equipment improvements is appropriate. • Softball Fields: • Supply of 5 fields is appropriate. • Conversion of infield dirt to turf on all 5 fields and addition of lights on 2 fields would reduce maintenance costs and significantly increase available use hours. • RECOMMENDATION: • Original concept. • 13 soccer fields (2 turf, 11 grass). • 5 softball fields (all infield turf). • Lighting and other improvements as planned. HUB Outdoor Field Complex (softball + baseball) • 4 full synthetic turf baseball fields: • utilizing a wheel configuration with portable mounds and adjustable base lengths (including 60', 65', 70', 80'and 90' bases) and fences up to 320'with portable fencing. • 8 full synthetic turf softball/youth baseball fields: • utilizing dual wheel configuration with portable mounds and adjustable base lengths (including 60', 65', 70'and 80' bases) and portable fencing allowing for configurations of 200'to 300'. • Other: • Lighting for all fields to maximize utilization periods. • Restroom and concession facilities. • Pavilion &field operations building. • Warm-up areas. • Park entrance signage. • Paved parking lot, parking capacity for min. of 75 spaces per field. • RECOMMENDATION: • 12 fields (larger concept than originally envisioned is indicated to optimally accommodate local and nonlocal unmet demand). • 4 full size flexible baseball fields. • 8 softball/youth baseball fields. • All fields full synthetic turf&scalable. CONVENTIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY SPORTS csig Summary of Findings Page 4 I LEISURE l An analysis was conducted to estimate order-of-magnitude construction costs pursuant to the supportable building program for the two proposed projects. Construction costs tend to vary widely among comparable sports facility projects. Many variables exist that influence actual realized construction costs, including type of facility, size, components, level of finish, integrated amenities, costs of goods and services in the local market, location and topography of the site, ingress/egress issues, and other such aspects. Importantly, a detailed architectural concept, design and costing study would be required to specifically estimate construction costs for the projects. The following exhibit presents a summary of assumed/estimated construction costs associated with the two projects. Plante's Ferry Project HUB Complex Project Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost • Estimated costs for Plante's Ferry I Playing Surfaces I improvement project provided by County. Softball Synthetic Turf Fields EA 12 $ 600,000 $ 7,200,000 • Description: Plante's Ferry park was initially Natural Grass Fields EA 0 $ - $ - developed in 1952 and was expanded to Total Softball Cost $ 7,200,000 include the sports stadium (13 soccer fields IA)Total Playing Surface Cost $ 7,200,0001 and 5 softball fields) from 1997-2002 through IB)Site Buildings I Site Maintenance Bldg. SF 1500 $ 100 $ 150,000 a partnership with the Spokane Valley Junior Tournament Headquarters SF 2,500 $ 175 $ 440,000 Soccer Association. Conceptually, this project Concessions/Restroom SF 3,000 $ 200 $ 600,000 would convert 2 existing grass soccer fields IC)Total Building Costs(A+B) $ 8,390,0001 into synthetic turf fields with LED field ID)Other Construction Costs I lighting, modify the 5 existing softball fields Fixed Equipment 2%of Building Costs 2% $ 170,000 to include synthetic turf infield, backstop General Sitework 5%of Building Costs 5% $ 420,000 Landscape 2%of Building Costs 2% $ 170,000 upgrades, permanent home run fencing and Parking Per Space 900 $ 1,250 $ 1,130,000 LED field lightingsafety for 2 fields, add LigeSFA 71200 $ 5 $ 220,000 Lighttinging EAA 12 $ 185,000 $ 2,220,000 netting around play equipment as needed, Fencing 2%of Building Costs 2% $ 170,000 Community Features 2%of Building Costs 2% $ 170,000 pursue parking improvements, irrigation system enhancements and misc. repairs/ IE)Total Construction Costs(C+D) $ 13,220,000 improvements. Replacement of existing IF)Other Project Costs I Soft Costs 20%of Construction Costs 20% $ 2,640,000 dilapidated restroom. General Planning Contingency 10%of Construction Costs 10% $ 1,320,000 Site Acquisition Client Provided $ 10,700,000 • Total Estimated Project Cost: $5,861,000 (Total Estimated Project Costs(E+F) $ 27,880,0001 Note:Hypothetical order-of-magnitude estimates.Detailed architectural concept, design and costing analysis would be required to specifically estimate construction costs. Business Model An evaluation of the various options regarding the management and operations of the proposed outdoor multi- use sports facility projects was conducted. Different management structure alternatives each have their own unique advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered when making decisions regarding the management of the facilities. Further information providing these options is provided in Appendix A. A summary of key recommendations is as follows: Plante's Ferry Field Complex • Additional funding support is required to elevate soccer field product quality to expand availability and attract new local and nonlocal business. Current soccer club operator(Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association) is believed to be operating and maintaining the fields to as high of a level as possible, given limited resources. Improvements and new turf will increase pressure to elevate product quality and operational efficiency. • Greater efficiencies could be achieved by consolidating management/operation of soccer and softball fields. CONVENTIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY SPORTS cg Summary of Findings � T Page 5 ILEISURE l • Private management for the full complex (soccer and softball fields) should be bid. RFP should outline clear expectations for scheduling, rates, and financial and economic impact outcomes. Contract covering a three to five-year term, with renewals. • Negotiated contract should be designed in accordance with industry best practices and include appropriate County oversight and approval of calendar, rates and scheduling. Regular meetings of County, operator and tenants should occur for purposes of season scheduling and tenant contracting. Would work to mitigate current challenges associated with availability and scheduling concerns expressed by some interested user groups. • A management fee would be paid to the contracted operator(base plus incentive fee). Operating deficit would be responsibility of the County. Management contract could define annual County subsidy caps, if necessary. HUB Outdoor Field Complex • County-owned, contracted private management. Contract covering a three to five-year term, with renewals. • Negotiated contract should be designed in accordance with industry best practices and include appropriate County oversight and approval of calendar, rates and scheduling. Regular meetings of County, operator and tenants should occur for purposes of season scheduling and contracting. • A management fee would be paid to the contracted operator(base plus incentive fee). Operating deficit would be responsibility of the County. Management contract could define annual County subsidy caps, if necessary. • Possibility to award management of both complexes to a single operator. This could lead to greater efficiency and a more advantageous financial arrangement for the County. The existing HUB owner/operator could also be a potential operator candidate. Utilization Levels A detailed utilization model was developed to consider a large number of variables and inputs to analyze each sport/use for the two facility projects analyzed. For instance, when considering different types of usage (i.e., use from local leagues/clubs versus non-local tournaments/meets versus clinics/camps/lessons versus open recreation, etc.), separate assumptions were used for the development of usage and attendance (participants and spectators). The following exhibit presents a summary of total estimated attendance by use type for the two analyzed project concepts through a stabilized year of operation (assumed fourth year of operations for Plante's Ferry and the fifth year for a new HUB outdoor field complex). Estimates have been made regarding use and attendance levels at the existing Plante's Ferry fields (including both soccer and softball fields). Spokane County Sports Complex -Plante's Ferry Spokane County Sports Complex -HUB Field Complex Initial Stabilized Initial Stabilized Existing Year Year Year Year Complex 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Total Attendance: Total Attendance: Leagues 108,000 135,000 140,400 145,800 145,800 Leagues 58,500 70,200 81,900 81,900 81,900 Practices 212,625 265,781 276,413 287,044 287,044 Practices 43,875 52,650 61,425 61,425 61,425 Camps 7,500 11,700 14,700 18,000 20,250 Camps 3,750 6,300 8,400 9,600 10,800 In-House Tournaments 39,750 49,125 49,125 49,125 49,125 In-House Tournaments 8,250 31,875 41,250 41,250 41,250 Third-Parry Tournaments 37,500 73,875 83,250 83,250 83,250 Third-Party Tournaments 61,500 84,950 117,775 117,775 117,775 TOTAL ATTENDANCE 405,375 535,481 563,888 583,219 585,469 TOTAL ATTENDANCE 175,875 245,975 310,750 311,950 313,150 Tournaments: Tournaments: In-House Tournaments 8 9 9 9 9 In-House Tournaments 2 6 7 7 7 Third-Party Tournaments 4 9 10 10 10 Third-Party Tournaments 12 17 23 23 23 Total 12 18 19 19 19 Total 14 23 30 30 30 ONV FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY CSPORTENSTIONS Summary of Findings CS T Page 6 L I LEISURE I Financial Operations An analysis of financial operations was conducted to estimate the operating revenues and expenses for the proposed outdoor projects. The assumptions used in this analysis are based on the results of the market analysis, industry trends, knowledge of the marketplace, existing local area facility operations, and financial results from comparable facilities. Upon completion of further planning, revenue and expense assumptions should be updated to reflect changes to the assumptions made herein. These changes could significantly affect the analysis of future operating results. This presentation is designed to assist project representatives in estimating the financial attributes of the proposed Spokane County outdoor facility projects identified herein and cannot be considered to be a presentation of expected future results. Accordingly, this analysis may not be useful for any other purpose. The assumptions disclosed herein are not all inclusive, but are those deemed to be significant; however, there will be differences between estimated and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and these differences may be material. Key assumptions used to estimate the potential financial operations of the proposed Spokane County outdoor facility projects include, but are not limited to the following: 1. The Plante's Ferry improved complex and the new Hub Complex will consist of the respective market indicated programs previously outlined herein. 2. Baseball, softball and soccer leagues/tournaments will be operated by both in-house and through third- party organizers who will pay rental fees to the Complexes. 3. The Complexes will be owned by Spokane County or some other public or non-profit entity and therefore will be exempt from property taxes. 4. Both the Complexes will be operated and managed by a professional, competent and experienced private management company under contract. 5. The Complexes will be aggressively marketed and provide competitive rates. 6. The chosen management company (or companies) will promote STAFFING ASSUMPTIONS events and uses in keeping with the County's goals of community Plante's Ferry involvement, quality of life for residents, and economic impact. Position Salary 7. The baseball/softball diamonds and soccer fields will be built to Executive Director(x1) $85,000 tournament-quality standards and will be well-maintained. Director of Operations(x1) $65,000 Events Operations Manager(x1) $42,500 8. Ample parking will be provided to accommodate demand. Marketing Manager(x1) $47,500 Facility Manager(x1) $30,000 9. There are no significant or material changes in the supply or quantity Facility Interns $18,000 of existing venues in the marketplace. Administrative Assistants $25,000 Maintenance/Custodians $85,000 10. Stabilization of operations is assumed to occur by year 4 for Plante's Total Payroll $398,000 Ferry, year 5 for a new HUB complex. Benefits Factor 1.3 11. Figures are presented in terms of 2016 dollars. SALARIES AND BENEFITS $517,800 12. Figures do not include debt service, depreciation or other non- operating costs (with the exception of an assumed annual capital STAFFING ASSUMPTIONS reserve expense for future end-of-life synthetic turf replacement). HUB Field Complex 13. Pre-opening services/activities would be contracted via the selected Position Salary private manager. These expenses would be expected to be Executive Director(x1) $85,000 negotiated via a monthly fee paid to the private contractor and are Directorof Operations(x1) $65,000 Events Operations Manager(x1) $42,500 included in the soft costs associated with the construction budget. Marketing Manager(x1) $47,500 Pre-opening expenses would be expected to approximate between Administrative Assistants $25,000 $300,000 to $500,000 for the HUB and $100,000 to $200,000 To000 for Maintenancetal /Custodians s45,000 Payroll $310,000 Plante's Ferry. Benefits Factor 1.3 14. Assumed staffing levels for each of the projects under private management are shown to the right. SALARIES AND BENEFITS $407,550 ONV rel j171u I o' I VDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY CSPORTENSTIONS Summary of Findings CS T Page 7 L I LEISURE I A summary of the estimated annual financial operations (until assumed stabilization of operations) of the two proposed projects is presented below. Plante's Ferry(soccer/multisport+softball) HUB Complex(softball+baseball) Stabilized Stabilized Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 Operating Revenues Operating Revenues League,Practice and Camp Rentals $841,969 $877,088 $912,206 $912,206 League,Practice and Camp Rentals $393,750 $477,500 $556,250 $556,250 $556,250 Tournament Rental Income $33,000 $37,000 $37,000 $37,000 Tournament Rental Income $60,000 $85,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 In-House Tournament Registration Fees $207,200 $207,200 $207,200 $207,200 In-House Tournament Registration Fees $50,400 $209,200 $279,200 $279,200 $279,200 Sponsorship $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Sponsorship $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Concessions(Net) $184,466 $195,278 $206,570 $213,484 Concessions(Net) $75,150 $110,595 $142,980 $147,640 $152,451 Other Revenue $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Other Revenue $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Total Operating Revenues $1,366,635 $1,416,565 $1,462,977 $1,469,890 Total Operating Revenues $754,300 $1457,295 $1,268430 $1,273,090 $1,277,901 Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Salaries&Wages $517,803 $528,159 $538,722 $538,722 Salaries&Wages $407,550 $419,777 $432,370 $445,341 $458,701 Tournament Expenses $82,880 $82,880 $82,880 $82,880 Tournament Expenses $20,160 $83,680 $111,680 $111,680 $111,680 Utilities $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 Utilities $96,000 $98,880 $101,846 $104,902 $104,902 Repairs&Maintenance $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 Repairs&Maintenance $86,400 $86,400 $86,400 $86,400 $86,400 Materials and Supplies $123,750 $123,750 $123,750 $123,750 Materials and Supplies $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 Insurance $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Insurance $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 General&Administrative $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 General&Administrative $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 Other Miscellaneous $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Other Miscellaneous $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Management Fee $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Management Fee $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Operating Expenses $1599,433 $1,609,789 $1,620,352 $1,620,352 Total Operating Expenses $1417,110 $1495,737 $1,139,296 $1,155,323 $1,168,683 Operating Income/(Loss) ($232,798) ($193,224) ($157,376) ($150,462) Operating Income/Ross) ($262,810) ($38,442) $129,134 $117,768 $109,218 Other Expenses Other Expenses Replacement Reserve $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Replacement Reserve $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 Total Net Income/(Loss) ($362,798) ($323,224) ($287,376) ($280,462) Total Net Income/(Loss) ($522,810) ($298,442) ($130,866) ($142,232) ($150,782) Note:Figures presented in 2016 dollars.Does not include debt service associated with development costs.A replacement reserve has been assumed to account for replacement of the synthetic turf(every 15 years)and other major capital improvements that would be expected.Costs for these replacement have been amortized over a 15 year period. Economic Impacts and Other Benefits Many of the most important benefits related to the operations of the proposed Spokane County outdoor multi- use sports facilities cannot be quantitatively measured. Firstly,the estimated quantitative impacts of the proposed facilities do not include benefits that may be generated from other private sector investment surrounding the facilities such as hotel, restaurant, other retail, and entertainment establishments, spurred by increased visitation to the sub-area. Additionally, other potential qualitative benefits for Spokane County, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake and their respective residents could include: • Enhanced sports and recreation opportunities for local youths and adults; • Reduction in the need for residents to leave Spokane County, Spokane Valley, or Liberty Lake for sports and recreation activities; • Synergy with the other sports, recreation, entertainment and leisure facilities leading to increased tourism activity; • Enhanced community pride, self-image, exposure and reputation; and, • Enhanced regional exposure. Beyond these qualitative benefits, the annual operations of the proposed facilities would be expected to provide important new quantifiable benefits to the County, Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake. Specifically, the annually recurring impacts of the proposed amateur sports field complexes begin with the initial direct spending made during operations related to participant fees, camps, clinics, facility rentals, concessions, advertising and other income as well as expenditures made before and after events throughout local hotels, restaurants, retail, entertainment and other establishments. Initial direct spending is generated during construction on materials CONVENTIONS u Y-CdiJ1L71L1 I I 5 I L.I Y' i--UK 1'6I Liv 11d'L INLvv Uu I DOOR MUL 11-uSE SPUR I S i-AC IL1 11tS IN SPUKA'i LUuiv I I SPORTS Summary of Findings CS T Page 8 L I LEISURE I and labor and during operations at events on registration fees, facility rentals, concessions and advertising, as well as before and after events throughout local hotel, restaurant, retail and other establishments. In order to estimate the incremental economic impact benefits generated to the local economy, certain adjustments must be made to initial direct spending to reflect the fact that all spending is not likely to impact the local economy. Adjustments must be made to account for the fact that a certain amount of spending associated with the proposed projects will be made by local residents (i.e., residents of Spokane County) and, therefore, likely represents money already spent in the economy in another form. This phenomenon is called displacement and reduces the overall net new impacts. This type of spending is not considered net new to the local economy. Additionally, not all spending associated with the proposed projects will take place in the local economy. A portion of this spending is likely to occur outside the immediate area and also outside the County. This phenomenon is called leakage and reduces the overall impact. Economic impacts associated with the proposed facilities will likely be further increased through re-spending of the net new direct spending. The total impact is estimated by applying an economic multiplier to initial direct spending to account for the total economic impact. The total output multiplier is used to estimate the aggregate total spending that takes place beginning with the direct spending and continuing through each successive round of re-spending. Successive rounds of re-spending are generally discussed in terms of their indirect and induced effects on the area economy. Each is discussed in more detail as follows: • Indirect effects consist of the re-spending of the initial or direct expenditures. These indirect impacts extend further as the dollars constituting the direct expenditures continue to change hands. This process, in principle, could continue indefinitely. However, recipients of these expenditures may spend all or part of it on goods and services outside the market area, put part of these earnings into savings, or pay taxes. This spending halts the process of subsequent expenditure flows and does not generate additional spending or impact within the community after a period of time. This progression is termed leakage and reduces the overall economic impact. Indirect impacts occur in a number of areas including the following: (1) wholesale industry as purchases of food and merchandise products are made; (2) transportation industry as the products are shipped from purchaser to buyer; (3) manufacturing industry as products used to service the sports and recreation complex, sports franchise/tenants, vendors and others are produced; (4) utility industry as the power to produce goods and services is consumed; and (5) other such industries. • Induced effects consist of the positive changes in spending, employment, earnings and tax collections generated by personal income associated with the operations of a sports and recreation complex. Specifically, as the economic impact process continues, wages and salaries are earned, increased employment and population are generated, and spending occurs in virtually all business, household and governmental sectors. This represents the induced spending impacts generated by direct expenditures. The appropriate multipliers to be used are dependent upon certain regional characteristics and also the nature of the expenditure. An area which is capable of producing a wide range of goods and services within its border will have high multipliers, a positive correlation existing between the self-sufficiency of an area's economy and the higher probability of re-spending occurring within the region. If a high proportion of the expenditures must be imported from another geographical region, lower multipliers will result. The multiplier estimates used in this analysis are based on the IMPLAN system, which is currently used by hundreds of universities and government entities throughout the country. IMPLAN is a computer program that performs regional input-output analysis based on approximately 530 industry interrelationships. The exhibit on the following page presents a summary of the estimated annual economic impacts associated with the operations of the two sports facility projects identified herein. Estimates relating to the geographic areas that would be the beneficiaries of the economic impact are also identified, resulting from an analysis of the location of likely visitor amenity products (i.e., hotels, restaurants, retail stores, etc.) that would be the recipients of direct spending by nonlocal facility attendees and spectators/families/guests. CONVENTIONS I eassiuiu IIS I uu I' I UE.POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPUR `s i-ACILITItS IN spuKANL COUN i I SPORTS cl Summary of Findings � T Page 9 I LEISURE Plante's Ferry (soccer/multisport+ softball) Initial Stabilized Estimated Distribution Existing Year Year Spokane Liberty Other Complex 1 2 3 4 Valley Lake In-County Total Attendee Days 405,375 535,481 563,888 583,219 585,469 Total Non-Local Visitor Days 42,375 67,350 73,538 75,188 76,313 Total Hotel Room Nights 8,625 13,704 15,002 15,398 15,668 70% 10% 20% Direct Spending by Type Hotel $1,334,813 $2,121,525 $2,316,431 $2,368,406 $2,403,844 70% 10% 20% RestaurantMeals 1,048,781 1,666,913 1,820,053 1,860,891 1,888,734 85% 10% 5% Entertainment/Leisure 254,250 404,100 441,225 451,125 457,875 50% 10% 40% Retail/Shopping 349,594 555,638 606,684 620,297 629,578 70% 15% 15% Other 190,688 303,075 330,919 338,344 343,406 70% 15% 15% Total $3,178,125 $5,051,250 $5,515,313 $5,639,063 $5,723,438 73% 11% 16% Indirect/Induced Spending $1,970,438 $3,131,775 $3,419,494 $3,496,219 $3,548,531 70% 10% 20% Total Economic Output $5,148,563 $8,183,025 $8,934,806 $9,135,281 $9,271,969 70% 10% 20% Personal Earnings $2,574,281 $4,091,513 $4,467,403 $4,567,641 $4,635,984 70% 10% 20% Employment 66 105 115 118 119 70% 10% 20% (full&part-time jobs) HUB Complex (softball+ baseball) Initial Stabilized Estimated Distribution Year Year Spokane Liberty Other 1 2 3 4 5 Valley Lake In-County Total Attendee Days 175,875 245,975 310,750 311,950 313,150 Total Non-Local Visitor Days 36,750 61,563 83,713 84,313 84,913 Total Hotel Room Nights 7,425 12,439 16,911 17,055 17,199 65% 1.5*.,, 20% Direct Spending by Type Hotel $1,157,625 $1,939,219 $2,636,944 $2,655,844 $2,674,744 65% 15% 20% RestaurantMeals 909,563 1,523,672 2,071,884 2,086,734 2,101,584 65% 25% 10% Entertainment/Leisure 220,500 369,375 502,275 505,875 509,475 45% 20% 35% Retail/Shopping 303,188 507,891 690,628 695,578 700,528 60% 25% 15% Other 165,375 277,031 376,706 379,406 382,106 60% 25% 15% Total $2,756,250 $4,617,188 $6,278,438 $6,323,438 $6,368,438 63% 20% 17% Indirect/Induced Spending $1,708,875 $2,862,656 $3,892,631 $3,920,531 $3,948,431 65% 15% 20% Total Economic Output $4,465,125 $7,479,844 $10,171,069 $10,243,969 $10,316,869 65% 15% 20% Personal Earnings $2,232,563 $3,739,922 $5,085,534 $5,121,984 $5,158,434 65% 15% 20% Employment 58 96 131 132 133 65% 15% 20% (full&part-time jobs) Note Figures presented in 2016 dollars.Only reflects spending byestimated visitors who are not local residents. As shown, the estimated annual total output (direct spending plus indirect/induced spending) for the proposed Plante's Ferry project in a stabilized year of operations (assumed fourth full year of operation) is estimated at $9.3 million (or$4.1 million over existing Plante's Ferry levels). The estimated total output for the proposed HUB field complex is estimated at $10.3 million annually (upon stabilization). These spending levels associated with the two facilities are estimated to annually support between $2.1 million (net) for Plante's Ferry and $5.2 million for the HUB in earnings (or personal income) in the Spokane County economy, along with between 53 (net) and 133 full and part-time jobs throughout the Spokane County economy, respectively. CONVENTIONS i-LLSSibiLi I i S I uta r' r Uri ry I Liv I IAL ivLvv vu 11-)60K I'OiUL 11.-USL SrUr<I S i-ACILI 11IS IN SPUKANL LOuiv I I SPORTS cl Summary of Findings csisPage 10 LEISURE APPENDIX A: STUDY FINDINGS & SUPPORTING INFORMATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POTENTIAL NEW OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITIES IN SPOKANE COUNTY ICONVENTIONS Appendix A: Study Findings&Supporting Information SPORTS csis LEISURE argils- w-wor�aD r - - _-- ecxs _w �,_ _ �j �, _-•-:'' -,roe .� ,,,,, ,._.4,...",x..___.,_„..,-,1 - 4i' w-P--_ . ^amu • ..__------ n . _ r - 4 p4. l �y { --1 yiy 11 ori / APPENDIX A: STUDY FINDINGS & SUPPORTING INFORMATIONk. FeasibilityStudyfor Potential New Outdoor Multi-Use F r{F ;rg _._ Sports Facilities in Spokane County, Washington • I �fy p. .',� - •z CONVENTIONS ``� ► ` SPORTS ci sis ,,,,, ,. -- c.. .� • , ---\\ , _ , ‘ , , - , s q' 1 LEISURE marriisf 0 s, ri l � q StudyBackground & Purpose , ,, , Initial Concept # 1 : ,. Plante's Ferry Enhancement :' ;_°- " , ni2ti i L. 4 Currently offer 13 soccer fields and 5 softball e, 4 vA 13 fields. Project would convert two existing grass f soccer fields into synthetic turf fields with LED field "' ` 1 P rtfrh Ars +-, lighting and modify the 5 existing softball fields to wfp iminami ;;��,cr _. , . ,_ so m include synthetic turf infield, backstop upgrades, 4 "" O O #SnaiV U permanent home run fencing and LED field arab lighting for 2 fields, add safety netting around play m cu - _ °"` equipment as needed, pursue parking p g „ „ n ..gin :# zQ Z improvements, irrigation system enhancements t * . - a a[T, and misc. repairs/ improvements. ' -" >7 N N t CL U Initial Concept # 2: �. �. , x z Y're W ti o LL HUB Complex Development r •J` ;,� 1011' ,, S4� 0 -Land acquisition for the potential development of 8 �. '';`+ "tournament quality" softball fields (one designed k2'41' "' , �,-` o .� ` ;°, , ^^'' 0 to be multi-use softball/baseball) with synthetic turf -ei s ` _ ._ 4 }' "' 1 MEN infields, LED field lighting, parking, equipment "• " t r r i . ' 4 N storage building, playground equipment, and misc. r % " I, n F f t 2 _ `.• R !•ut s nrL+Cant ICi , „.., /c6 z site furnishings. _ $ _ ,g � 4L*n _*'' 0. , r' _ `� , p .. .._, W 5 �! _ _ - - µ CC a 4 �l. 1.,� f.r•w= wrwr yyr e. L - Y�9r.as•+tar. s, c . . . StudyComponents ... . . PHASE 1 : PHASE 2: Market Demand Analysis Cost/Benefit Analysis o S 1 . Existing Market Conditions 1 . Development Options O 0 -0 u 2. Industry Trends 2. Financial Operations m v co 3. Historical Facility Usage 3. Preliminary Construction Costs z a z 4. Competitive Facilities O 4. Economic Impacts TD5. Comparable Benchmarking — 5. Ownership/Management o .47) 6. Market Demand a t U 6. Costs/Benefits 1. Kick-off meeting/tours �O 2 D 2. In-person interviews N 7. Summary Report Q3. Local stakeholder&user telephone interviews O (51- 0 4. Non-local user telephone interviews 8. Final Presentation LN 5. Supply vs. demand analysis N H 7. Market Supportable Program 3 co IONS Z SPORTS °' CSL 2 I LEISURE Industry Participation Characteristics Estimated Local Participation Estimated Frequent Participants Q Spokane 30-minute 90-minute 180-minute Washington County Drive Time Drive Time Drive Time CBSA c Market Population: 453,853 470,861 682,884 1,394,391 6,547,766 pO Z -49 v 0= NationalRegional National Regional National Regional National Regional National Regional _ Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate O C I_ co Basketball 8,993 8,184 9,330 8,490 13,531 12,314 27,630 25,143 129,745 118,068 N 0 Q Soccer 6,122 6,428 6,351 6,669 9,211 9,672 18,809 19,749 88,323 92,739 Z Tennis 5,096 5,249 5,287 5,446 7,668 7,898 15,657 16,127 73,523 75,729 TD L r , Volleyball 5,270 4,848 5,467 5,030 7,929 7,294 16,190 14,895 76,024 69,942 �•/ Swimming 4,206 3,785 4,363 3,927 6,328 5,695 12,922 11,630 60,678 54,610 c N F- Baseball 4,450 3,115 4,617 3,232 6,696 4,687 13,672 9,571 64,202 44,941 -, }, Softball 3,957 3,047 4,105 3,161 5,954 4,584 12,157 9,361 57,086 43,956 a ;-_ Gymnastics 2,343 2,671 2,431 2,771 3,526 4,019 7,199 8,207 33,806 38,539 Tackle Football 3,472 2,812 3,602 2,917 5,223 4,231 10,666 8,639 50,084 40,568 O u_ Touch Football 1,521 1,642 1,578 1,704 2,288 2,471 4,672 5,046 21,939 23,694 n Flag Football 1,116 1,294 1,157 1,343 1,679 1,947 3,428 3,976 16,096 18,671 O Ice Hockey 1,362 1,198 1,413 1,243 2,049 1,803 4,183 3,681 19,643 17,286 Q Wrestling 1,387 1,137 1,439 1,180 2,087 1,711 4,260 3,494 20,006 16,405 V) (./) I- Cheerleading 1,147 929 1,190 964 1,726 1,398 3,525 2,855 16,551 13,406 > 0) (f) Lacrosse 572 498 593 516 861 749 1,757 1,529 8,253 7,180 D D AVERAGE 3,401 3,123 3,528 3,240 5,117 4,698 10,448 9,593 49,064 45,049 'N a--+ Q Note:Population numbers only include ages 7+ co m Source:SGMA,2016 'lv,NSIONS Zsi uRT °' 2 CSL 1 LEISURE I __,... 1;„ Industry Participation Characteristics r ,,. ' Comparison of Frequent Participation Rates _ & Pacific Region . r LFrequency National Adjusted 0 o z Participation Frequent Pacific v — Definition Participation Pacific Participation Outdoor Sports: (times annually) Rate Index Rate z 0- Soccer 40+ 1.3% 105 1.4% 73 L U Baseball 50+ 1.0% 70 0.7% �„ Softball 40+ 0.9% 77 0.7% I- 4_, �; Touch Football 50+ 0.3% 108 0.4% a .0 Q Tackle Football 50+ 0.8% 81 0.6% o0 LL CL Flag Football 50+ 0.2% 116 0.3% Lacrosse 60+ 0.1% 87 0.1% o i= c% c/ I— > N I Note: National Index is 100. , N Source:SGMA. ID 1. 5 N +-' 0 ORTsI2 j22 CS9L N 1 LEISURE Industry Participation Characteristics National Participation Levels (in millions) of Outdoor Sports ■Frequent ■Occasional Infrequent Q Soccer 3.9 4.0 12.8 p 0 U 0 Baseball 2.8 5.1 3.8 11.7 = N _ O c I_ co NO " Softball * 4.1 3.4 10.0 Z _ To c _U Touch a) N 1- Football 1.0 4.8 8.8 N 0 O a Tackle 2 2 2,6 7.5 �O L.L_ Football cn -0 O CC Flag V) cm I- Football 3.0 6.8 N = Lacrosse 2.8 *N +7, 0 6 co I�cI:s';I:L IORTtiIONS ILI LL 2 Source: SGMA,2016 LEISURE II _ . Industry Participation Characteristics National Outdoor Sports Participation Levels (in millions) by Age Q 7-11 12-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Baseball c ° o Z N O Flag Football 23% — O c I coQ zLacrosse 23% 4: 4........ TD L U c v N Soccer 34% O 84- LL CL Softball 14% m O C c% c� I— Tackle Football 24% 41% 13% 12% > N a_+ D _ �.r ID •- +_+ Q Touch Football 19% 21 13% 24% 13% 7 coN - CONVENTIONS m __ SPORTS LL Source: SGMA,2016 ,t �.i- f, ..{ Vi, ,. �\ ,, ` cEIIIld Industry Participation Characteristics Average Household IncomL Lacrosse $81,746 Soccer $76,211 c o o z Urn 0 Baseball $75,687 O c L_ c� Q Softball $74,181 L c N o �; Touch $67,628 a •� Q Football o a Flag o Football $67,189 c% cm I— cu a_+ N Tackle D Football $64,514 +) p 8 co �oNVENTIONS Source: SGMA,2016 I sloxTti` LL CSL SURE Location & Accessibility C/) Driving Distance to Regional Citie Z O ii ,_Ii ,� Distance from Drive Market 1110i d Ci Spokane Time Population Vancouver City P ' Coeur d'Alene, ID 24 mi. 0:28 138,494 Yakima, WA 203 mi. 2:53 247,687 Missoula, MT 197 mi. 3:03 112,684 Tin' 0 cAa'A'E' Seattle, WA 279 mi. 3:59 3,671,500 MOUNTAINS Helena, MT 311 mi. 4:27 77,414 Lr Olympia, OR 320 mi. 4:39 265,900 Z Portland, OR 352 mi. 5:10 2,348,200 111lI I l 0 � 1Seattle Salem, OR 397 mi. 5:53 404,000 -49 U 0 �� P 11111' S okane • Bend, OR 385 mi. 5:54 170,400 M I,nq i,� Missoula Boise, ID 426 mi. 6:08 664,400 o C ( Vancouver, BC 415 mi. 6:13 603,500 CD �/ • Eugene, OR 461 mi. 6:47 358,337 QJ C Idaho Falls, ID 510 mi. 6:50 138,266 Z S I iiu LI Calgary, AB 429 mi. 7:01 1,518,800 WLi -%. Billings, MT 540 mi. 7:22 166,885 CD S =. C (. _ T - I v Ii +— Fully„,,,Portland i. /O - F3)d11E ,. , .iii 2 �i N310nr1 , iN Il.I NS 0 IJ 2 . c.: u r" .MWNFA7Nb ,°b - t t hallo) C •,‘ i ...i _ ht�lional O 4 o Bob*roost a + ^"�� I'Ia r,UII 1-ri) 0"11 11`.1111 •' TUN '• E» QJ < > 'Boise 4 T ' GREAT SANDY Boise ' r U •, DESERT I , • ,.d w N 0 ''' f r 1 ORTtiIONS f6 CU ' HARNE `i8AS! tr. ; . ,,; , Li_ G , i. csig I „ ., 1 Source: Google Maps,Esri,2016 LAie. 1 I LEISURE 1 II. Demographics z Key Snok ne County Area Metrics O Spokane State of Demographic Variable County 30-minute 90-minute 180-minute Washington U.S. Population (2000) 417,939 424,703 615,302 1,237,965 5,894,121 281,421,906 Population (2010) 471,221 486,386 703,400 1,439,237 6,724,540 308,745,538 Population (2016 est.) 495,689 516,973 745,832 1,532,298 7,177,994 316,296,988 oo z % Change (2000-2016) 18.6% 21.7% 21.2% 23.8% 21.8% 12.4% 0 m a) O Population (2021 est.) 515,637 542,424 781,451 1,607,078 7,585,878 327,981,317 O c U % Change (2016-2021) 4.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.9% 5.7% 3.7% Z cu s Avg. Household Inc. (2016 est.) $ 51,621 $ 49,237 $ 50,175 $ 49,938 $ 60,959 $ 72,809 c- Li6 s W Avg. Household Inc. (2021 est.) $ 53,528 $ 51,661 $ 53,018 $ 53,205 $ 69,214 $ 83,937 + % Change (2016-2021) 3.7% 4.9% 5.7% 6.5% 13.5% 15.3% vv a .47, Median Age (2016, in years) 37.7 37.4 39.1 37.0 38.1 37.7 zQL 4_ N C Businesses (2016 est.) 22,820 25,799 35,115 64,366 315,107 24,262,035 -0 4-, G Employees (2016 est.) 287,375 316,341 398,955 735,958 3,534,566 141,523,742 Employee/Residential Population Ratio 0.58:1 0.61:1 0.53:1 0.48:1 0.49:1 0.45:1 > cua = � U 10 .NCO LL 2 -I CSL Source:Esri,2016 I LEISURE i v) Local Market Conditions Z Market Hotels in Spokane Count OHALF MOON = Key Hotel Rooms PR tRfE < 4 H \ _ y crzan ef�rr 1 Mirabeau Park Hotel& Convention Center 236 h" * 2 Oxford Suites Spokane Valley 128 r' y l 3 Super 8 180 O m Z N 4 Hampton Inn& Suites Spokane Valley 106 O0 Nine Mile / +.� U PEONE PRAJR1E Fallsf / 5 Comfort Inn& Suites Spokane Valley 104 ntry O CU . Homes Monies Mead 6 Best Western Pluss Peppertree Liberty Lake Inn 76 "�SI� li` 7 Quality Inn&Suites at Liberty Lake 69 'Aa14Patk Town and Orcaa,d Newman I' cdun try P,a,r�P Pleasant Lake 8 My Place Hotel Spokane Valley 64 Z CD— Li W' 3 Orchards 9 Baymont Inn& Suites Spokane Valley 61 '47) '"C + '" lrenhvoo l C (.1 i ', :/ Millwood eL• — < Spokane t-9 A 8 v, 4 ,_' Lake L c \`2 Spokane orshman Valley 1 '' _ O L.L - - - 1.W~2�—I-90•W _ z M• i 4) e r- •�' ..rQ Sokane 5e% f ....§6- Airport Vy Linen (n ((i) �\9� _ ' Lake P;... in 1 ci, ;,,,,,,,,, '7 ' Vi\\‘‘‘‘..' -.*-..*Larc - I �/ o T5860. 11 N a--+ 0 • rtik :"S4Zi‘ NielL CD . cuNVENTIONS 1•Aca SPORTS Source:Spokane Google Earth,2016 I LEISURE I v) Local Market Conditions Z Triangle Field Organizations in Spokane County OOrganization Sport Season of Sports Age Range Frequency of Sport HSpokane Cnty Parks,Rec&Golf Dept. Rec Adult Softball Spring,Summer,and Fall 15+ 5-7 times per week 121 Spokane Parks and Recreation Department Rec Adult Softball Spring,Summer,and Fall 18+ Once a week ..... Spokane Girls Fastpitch Softball Association Competitive Youth Softball Spring and Summer 10U-18U 2-3 times per week O '5 ZCorrpetitive Full TearrVAll Star Baseball,Rec O O Spokane Indians Youth Baseball and Softball Youth T-Ball/Baseball,Rec Youth Softball Spring,Summer,and Fall 9u-12u 2-4 times per week • U 0 Spokane Valley Girls Softball Association Competitive Youth Softball Spring and Summer 6U-18U 2-3 times per week M N O C U Spokane Youth Sports Association Rec Youth Baseball/Softball Spring,Summer,and Fall 4U-15U 2-3 times per week CD Club Spokane Dodgers Competitive Youth Baseball Year Round 16U-18U 2-4 times per week Z C Crew Baseball Club Competitive Youth Baseball Year round 8U-19U 2-4 times per week — Li Lll CD E Island Northwest Men's Baseball League Competitive Adult Baseball Summer and Fall 18+ Once a week C• VRiverview Little League Competitive Youth Baseball Spring 5U-12U 2-3 times per week a-, a--+ 1..I Spokane American Legion Baseball Competitive Youth Baseball Summer 12U-20U 3-4 times per week a •U aSpokane Christian Athletic Association Rec Adult Softball Spring 16+ Once a week L f6 O U 2Spokane Crash Softball Competitive Youth Softball Year Round 10U-18U 3-4 times per week • }' Spokane Dodgers Competitive Adult Baseball Summer and Fall 18+ Once a week L I . Q Spokane Lion Pride Competitive Youth Baseball Summer 18+ Once a week Li) Li) aa->••+ Q) Spokane Senior Softball League Rec Adult Softball Spring 50+ Once a week — N / ` Spokane South Little League Competitive Youth Baseball Spring 4U-12U 2-3 times per week I ? v Spokane Valley Baseball Rec Youth Baseball Spring 4U-13U 1-2 timer per week ZZ •N a m O Therapeutic Recreation Services Rec Youth Baseball Spring 12U-18U Once a week lc SPORTS ON5 1132 2 -I Organizations currentlyutilizingSpokane Valleyfacilities and/or expressed interest in utilizingcurrent and/or additional facilities. CLL 9 p p I LEISURE I v) Local Market Conditions Z Multipurpose Field Organizations in Spokane County 0 Organization Sport Season of Sports Age Range Frequency of Sport FC Spokane Competitiw Youth Soccer Spring,Summer,and Fall U5-U18 2-3 times per week Inland Empire.Youth Soccer Association Competitie Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) UO-U19 3-4 times per week Q Inland Northwest Soccer Association Rec Adult Soccer Spring,Summer,and Fall U18+ 2-3 times per week Spokane Breakers Competitie Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) U1O-U17 2-4 times per week 4—,-, O c Spokane Foxes FC Competitive Youth Soccer Spring and Summer U10-U19 3-4 times per week OSpokane Pumas FC Competitie Youth Soccer Spring and Summer U9-U14 3-4 times per week (., 7 Spokane SC Shadow Competitie Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) U9-U19 3-4 times per week M OSpokane Scotties Competitie Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) U1O-U19 2-4 times per week 0 C U Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association Rec Soccer Spring U8-16+ Once a week Spokane Valor Competitie Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) U1O-U19 2-4 times per week zSpokane Youth Sports Association Comp.Youth Soccer,Rec Youth Soccer,Rugby,Lacrosse Spring,Summer,and Fall U4-U18 2-3 times per week 1 1 1 CD E Washington East Soccer Club Competitie Youth Soccer Summer U8-U18 2-3 times per week W Boys and Girls Club of Spokane Valley Competitive Youth Football,Rec Youth Soccer Spring,Fall U7-U12 2-3 times per week `` t7` CitySide Lacrosse Competitive Youth Lacrosse Summer U5-U18 Summer Camp ■w' Happy Feet Rec Youth Soccer Summer U2-U6 Once a week aLilac City Lacrosse Competitive Youth Lacrosse Summer and Fall U7-U19 3-4 times per week L •coRhino Lacrosse Competitive Youth Lacrosse Summer U8-U18 Summer Camp 0 u_ 2Spokane Junior Soccer Rec Youth Soccer Fall U4-U16 2-3 times per week > . Spokane Parks and Recreation Department Adult Football,Rec Youth Football,Rec Ultimate Frisbee Summer and Fall U5-U12,18+1-2 times per week —0 " M O Spokane Pop Warner Rec Youth Football Fall U8-U14 3-4 times per week a", Q Spokane Razorbacks Rugby Competitive Adult Rugby Summer 18+ 2-3 times per week Spokane Youth Lacrosse Rec Youth Lacrosse Spring U5-U8 3-4 times per week V1 Storm FC Rec Youth Soccer Year round(indoor training during winter) U8-U19 2-4 times per week I ? U Valley Youth Soccer Rec Youth Soccer Fall U5-U17 2-3 times per week 13 N _4-1 O Wolfpack Competitive Adult Football Year round(indoor training during winter) 18+ 4-6 times per week co m CONVENTIONS YMCA Rec Youth Football Fall U8-U13 3 times per week SPORTS siu°2I C Organizations currently utilizing Spokane Valley facilities and/or expressed interest in utilizing current and/or additional facilities. I LEISURE v) Local Market Conditions Z Baseball/Softball Facilities in Spokane County O °. Youth a L I !.t i O fV £ Map #of Sball/ Adult Adult PR I R1 E .c Key Facility Name Fields Bball Bball Sball w'; • y'-. (Green Bluff 1 Dwight Merkel Sports Complex 6 0 0 6 ;,,,L 898m ^' Q - 1:..:. 2 Franklin Park 5 5 0 0 ` :0171- N L 3 Plante's Ferry 5 0 0 5 u O N 4 University High School 4 3 1 0 (1) 0 Nine Mlle . Faiiwood PEONE PRAIRIE 5 Lewis and Clark(Hart Fields) 4 2 2 0 4_,, Falls M 0 Coimtry Mead 6 East Valley High School 3 2 1 0 (2) o ( , • Homes 7 Central Valley 3 2 1 0 co U RN6rsbde SlatgP�rk Town and 8 Ferris High School 3 3 0 0 .,� Orchard Nclvmon Country Parr r0 P I e e s e n r L3ka 9 Shadle Park High School 2 1 1 0 3 Z S I Pcar.�e 9 ( ) !d f6 S W 0 ,cOU I- 10 Jefferson Elementary School 2 1 1 0 (4) '47) + '" O v enr;or.a Total 37 19 7 11 C Li a) .0) i= MillwoodIncludes fields at Chester Elementary and Horizon Middle School;does O47, f"@'�- L, en,/ y not include 2 non-tournament quality fields CL •U2 I Spp` kane~1 90•E-1-yo w— • t F - (2)Does not include 6 non-tournament quality fields without fencing L f6 a Spokane Dcshman Valley L L 1 W�2' �I yo•w ® _ (3)Does not include 2 non-tournament quality fields vy i - (4)Does not include 4 non-tournament quality fields,2 of which are at > 4--) / \ 4E0 0 0 ifi Sacajawea Middle School L m 0 Spakaria in' is 4--i 0 Inl'1 4.- GS, ' AlrpartJ5. _ ). Lit i•ii `y0 N `a0•� - -� UT\1 , x7, : to z.-� 14 O R :;\ k '1 cuNVENTIONS 0 3 h.' s Vie., �� /\/SP�O'RTSTLL ., a .�. )..., �J LJ Source:Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department,Google Earth,2016 I LEISURE l v) Local Market Conditions Z Multipurpose Field Facilities in Spokane County 0Map No.of Full- Youth MOON = Key Facility Name Fields Sized Fields PIRE K _ ` Green Muff Southeast Complex 14 3 11 898m ^' 2 Plante's Ferry 13 9 4 c / y 3 Mead Sports Complex 13 1 12 — L _ O m Z s 4 Andrew Rypien 12 2 10 }, U• O O • Nine Mile 6 - PEONE PRAIRIE 5 Dwight Merkel Sports Complex 8 8 0 Falls rauwood �' 3 M N cdiwr; Mead 6 Farwell Elementary School 7 1 6 0 CU , Horn..: f6 v „ 7 Unthersity High School 6 2 4 (1) StMaParxRom and I Orchard II.-.,,,;,,, 8 Polo Fields 5 3 2 Z 0 H ,-,:i mil-, P.pu.e PA2,Yaor 9 Central Valley 3 2 1 f� oils e 3 -oichards 10 East Valley High School 3 3 0 '47) •" 50 T nnyaod Lll �' l u 11 Argonne 2 2 0 N N i= uu,Vood /J/ O 4-'7) Liberty 2 U 4 opbkane !'9p.E Lake _ (1)Includes fields at Chester Elementary and Horizon Middle School L f6 a Spokane /Dishman Valley9 o u_ .gay W�2' �l 190•W - .s- ants T >.• a + G s ,, � 1 7 a m 0 Spr*ane ye'' 3 4--I CD_ Ird'1 i9 �G� AvpgrlOS ' ! .N‘44141:4t40-' \\11.\\-. - ".111K.\'':‘ 40-4.[Fr . 15 c6 m O 3 0 2 r o SPSPORTS � ORTSIONS CSL Source:Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department,Google Earth,2016 I LEISURE I Local Market Conditions Plante's Ferry Sports Comple l0 : FACILITY: Plante's Ferry Sports Complex 4�' ^ ,,, City,State: Spokane Valley,WA a �. P " tlt Owner: Spokane County Parks and Recreation i1� � I Operator: Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association(soccer fields)/ 0 0 ii-) ' • \ Spokane County Parks and Recreation(softball fields) m N , o . - Facility Specs: 13 soccer fields 0 C= Q 5 softball fields - 225 parking spaces • _ Additional unpaved overflow parking z S w.. ''';'''''117131"/ '` /'0� 0 Development: Initially developed in 1952. Spokane County entered into a 20 n �_ year agreement in 1996 with the Spokane Valley Junior Soccer }+ - 1 _ Association,who helped fund the construction of the soccer field �` �/ and building improvements,to operate and maintain the 35-acre a) N i= �r 'f'o li parcel. The agreement was updated in 2012, providing(among r- -o other things)fora 15-year extension,to go into effect in 2017 Ci- .0 P r I V a t e �' �y�. pending approval from the County. f6 LL C Pr 0 p e f t y r Users: Spokane County Parks and Recreation Adult Softball League, ]. 4-) G — Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,Inland Northwest 0 Soccer Association(INSA),FC Spokane,Spokane Shadow Club, I . 0 Spokane Foxes/Pumas,Spokane Sounders Academy,PSPL V) V) - - � P161." Development League,Inland Empire Youth Soccer(IEYSA), > Q) a _ Washington East Soccer Club,Breakers,Idaho Thunder,CDA Sting,Academy of Idaho,PSPL Surf Academy,Washington Youth _o I `/ Soccer 161 ra — Rental Rates: Soccer Fields: CONVENTIONS N Practices,Training/Camps:$20/hour I SPORTS IL Youth&Adult Games:$80/hour CL `_ Tournaments:$3,500(fields&facility) I LEISURE I . _ . Local Market Conditions Plante's Ferry Sports Complex — Soccer Field Usage (2015) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 Field 9 Field 10 Field 11 Field 12 Field 13 < January 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 ,,W.3 L 0:00 0:00 <. February 2:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Average March 74:30 32:30 41:30 44:30 75:00 65:00 53:00 66:30 49:00 63:00 55:00 54:30 56:30 hours per L 4 < April 58:30 51:00 59:00 54:00 65:30 61:30 44:00 31:00 57:30 60:30 59:00 57:30 49:00 grass field o \` May 61:00 63:30 63:30 56:00 57:30 61:30 24:00 27:00 33:30 43:30 39:30 38:00 33:00 in 2015= O June 43:30 34:30 34:30 34:30 55:30 61:30 49:30 34:30 34:30 34:30 34:30 34:30 34:30 554.47 �+' oa July 43:30 112:30 103:30 82:30 51:30 91:30 53:00 70:30 62:00 67:30 67:00 66:00 64:30 hours 0 N QQ c August 142:30 160:30 144:30 144:30 130:00 207:30 143:30 139:30 133:00 127:00 128:30 129:00 134:30 CD September 78:15 64:30 60:00 81:30 69:30 58:00 65:00 62:30 63:00 48:30 34:30 21:30 57:30 N 0 HOctober 100:30 75:00 75:00 83:00 69:00 72:30 66:30 84:00 47:00 36:00 21:00 16:30 86:00 Z S Nmember 27:00 12:00 12:00 28:00 28:30 30:30 17:00 38:00 16:00 9:00 4:00 7:30 22:00 !.6 W CD E December 0:00 0:00 0:00 2:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 C Total 631:15 606:00 593:30 610:30 602:00 709:30 515:30 553:30 495:30 489:30 443:00 425:00 537:30 O a •U a Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 Field 9 Field 10 Field 11 Field 12 Field 13 S— f6 0 U— 2 Monday 57:30 75:00 62:00 60:00 33:30 48:30 a.,3s) 53:30 28:30 21:00 21:00 19:30 48:30 > 4—) Tuesday 66:00 65:00 74:00 67:00 72:30 97:30 49:30 53:00 38:30 61:30 41:00 42:00 61:00 m p Wednesday 58:00 87:30 76:30 66:30 68:30 97:30 52:30 49:00 40:00 55:30 34:00 44:30 52:30 Thursday 64:00 68:00 70:30 59:30 71:30 96:30 66:00 49:30 37:00 65:00 38:30 46:00 62:30 te+ N < Friday 77:30 75:30 75:30 57:30 61:30 57:30 57:30 59:30 57:30 57:30 57:30 57:30 77:30 Saturday 192:45 154:30 154:30 191:30 180:00 195:30 171:30 166:00 164:00 156:00 182:00 150:30 157:30 V_0 1 Sunday 115:30 80:30 80:30 108:30 114:30 116:30 110:00 123:00 130:00 73:00 69:00 65:00 78:00 17 _N +' 0 Total 631:15 606:00 593:30 610:30 602:00 709:30 515:30 553:30 495:30 489:30 443:00 425:00 537:30 cSPORTSIONS LL CSL Source:Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,2016 I LEISURE I _ . Local Market Conditions Plante's Ferry Sports Complex - soccer Field Usage (2015) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 Field 9 Field 10 Field 11 Field 12 Field 13 70% L a o ' F- 60% ° a M cuCI O50% c6 — N C HZ s — Li Lll f6 c 40% --- ate-' 4 , a• - 30% --- — U L co O LL2>` i 20% -- — - - c% c� Na 10% - - - --- - = � U 18 — 0 �uNVENTIONS com 0% �, SPORTS LL 2 —I January February March April May June July August September October November December CS LL Source:Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,2016 I LEISURE I Plante's Ferry Soccer Fields v) Z Usage By User Group By Month O . 100% II AVG. 90% Annual /o 42 40% Usage 80% ° 42% 41% FC Spokane Q 14% L L 70% 5% 62% 58% 0 m 0 16% Inland Empire Youth Soccer 472 U O 60°rd '`- 80% Alliance m cu O c U 50% - 100% 13% Spokane Shadow Z ill t 40% F 9% Spokane Valley Jr. Soccer c6 S W 49% 15°a Association c30% 14% 16% 19% 9% Inland Northwest Soccer s` o 1..' 20% � !1•71/011 5% Association 27% 10% Puget Sound Premier a '0 Q10% 3°r° 6% 6% 3% League 2 O LL 12% 14% 5% 4% 11% 7% 11% II >- + 0°i° 0°i° 4% 3% s% 2% Other co m 0 ��Ja� �`Ja� ��`c-' PQM\ \- ,��� ,�� J. e� ' G�o4' e�4' e�4' V) V) J Q� P osq� 0 c. e, UDoes not include organizations that have either expressed interest and/or are currently consuming less than one percent of total usage at Plante's Ferry in 2015, ! including the Spokane Youth Sports Association(SYSA) 19 .7) a7 O co m Note:FC S okane's U9-U10 ro rams art of SPVJSA are counted in FC S okane usa e;The IEYSA and FC Spokane are art of the Puget Sound Premier League SPORTS UNS P P g (P ) P 9 P P 9 9 L.L 2 _I Source:Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,2016 CISL LEISURE I _ . Local Market Conditions Plante's Ferry Sports Complex — Softball Field Usage (2015) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 January 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 . Average -' February 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 March 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 hours per L a April 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 field in O 2015= O May 75:00 75:00 75:00 60:00 60:00 U < - - -- June 75:00 75:00 77:30 55:00 55:00 266 hours 0 O July 40:00 37:30 40:00 32:30 35:00 O August 52:30 65:00 65:00 40:00 50:00 O O ` September 10:00 15:30 18:00 7:30 7:30 Z 1 October 5:00 8:00 8:00 5:00 5:00 CD i W November 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 C ( December 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 O OJ }, - Total 277:30 296:00 303:30 220:00 232:30 Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Oui 2 ). 4-; Monday 32:30 30:00 30:00 12:30 12:30 -0 0 - Tuesday 37:30 40:00 42:30 37:30 37:30 Wednesday 40:00 40:00 42:30 37:30 37:30 OJ < Thursday 42:30 42:30 42:30 40:00 42:30 Friday 32:30 32:30 32:30 22:30 22:30 _0 1 `/ Saturday 10:00 10:00 10:00 7:30 7:30 20 +' O I SPOoNVRTS Sunday 82:30 101:00 103:30 62:30 72:30 cENTIONs °' 2 J LL Total 277:30 296:00 303:30 220:00 232:30 QS-L Source:Spokane County SURE II . _ . , Local Market Conditions Plante's Ferry Sports Complex — Softball Field Usage (2015) iField 1 —a—Field 2 Field 3 iField 4 Field 5 25% " I ao � m cu \o 0 Z o H 15% c6 c , A \ W a) N 10% Ci_ Q . oco U- 2 -0 0 5% U 10% 21 .7) '470 • ,g't1 ���1 ����` P��\ v ,Jc0 ��y� peg o� �Pt ��t coNVENTIONs co m ,raC� 0•0� P� `QCT Gl 0� e I SPORTS CI cfiCi Source:Spokane County I LEISURE _ . Local Market Conditions Dwight Merkel Sports Comp.LA :".;;- sr-{ 4; FACILITY: Dwight Merkel Sports Complex _ City,State: Spokane,Washington "'�.. - - f Owner: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation i I-y /r "1 " -- Operator: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation -411 O ` -47' �. O Facility Specs: 76 acre facility U -_' �` � `'. -+^ � * 6 full size natural grass soccer fields M N ^ ,' f•*! r , �, Mme— 2 full size synthetic athletic fields with lights Q C= -* ` 6 ball diamonds(5 of which are lit) f6 '� fir' . . \`, • Concessions,rest rooms and meeting space N O . - �' „ BMX track with lights and timing equipment Z S' _ i a , Neighborhood park with playground and splash pad W "` `` _ 3 1-mile long paved perimeter trail that leads down to Riverside }, t-t State Park's trails NN �/ .� Development: In 2007,voters approved of a$7.8 million renovation of the +' - LL ' complex.Recently completed a Facility Light Evaluation Study O = 4i�ri' = < .:- Wit' that will result in lighting upgrades O li 2 " -4c-....;_a. I Users: Spokane Parks and Recreation Leagues,Spokane Youth Sports a + t. `� y- f j Assoc.,Spokane Shadow,Spokane Scotties,Spokane Indians i _ •`y if:= Youth Baseball,Spokane Foxes/Pumas and YMCA Recreation Qri -.i+ Leagues ') (n ty <` a_.- M Q) < — _ t Rental Rates: Adult Softball:$30/hour Youth Ball Field:$17/hour ( I, . tNI Adult/Youth Combo:$25.50/hour �/ , Adult Soccer Turf:$55/hour co m Youth Soccer Turf:$45/hour coNVENTIoNs O * Adult Soccer Grass:$35/hour I SI ORTSS� N ' CrL.L � � ,�,� 4_ ,� 57, Youth Soccer Grass:$25/hour Field Lights:$12/hour I LEISURE I Local Market Conditions Dwight Merkel Sports Complex — Rectangle Field Usage (2016) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Turf Field 5 Turf Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 < January 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 139:30 85:00 0:00 0:00 Average < February 0:00 0:00 0w00 0:00 125:00 113:30 0:00 0:00 hours per March 0:00 0:00 0:00 172:30 175:30 0:00 , 0:00 April 73:00 81:30 93:00 98:00 166:30 164:00 68:30 73:30 grass field La May 112:30 110:30 111:00 109:00 110:30 137:30 74:30 65:00 in 2016= June 79:00 104:30 116:30 107:00 118:30 110:30 91:00 111:00 636:30 July 105:00 117:00 87:00 121:00 83:00 91:00 71:00 89:00 742, (- August 28:00 34:00 47:30 39:30 31:00 45:00 25:00 31:00 hours m N O c Q September 140:30 137:30 102:00 102:00 194:00 206:00 83:30 81:30 CD October 160:00 160:00 114:00 114:00 231:30 244:00 80:00 70:00 Nmember 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 145:30 123:00 0:00 0:00 Average Z F ` December 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 70:30 21:00 0:00 0:00 hours per W f6 S Total 698:00 745:00 671:00 690:30 1588:00 1516:00 493:30 521:00 turf field in '47) 2016= `` 1552:00 Q) 2 n/1..` Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Turf Field 5 Turf Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 hours O +_+ Ci- Monday 312:00 197:30 51:00 60:00 360:00 297:00 69:00 72:00 U a Tuesday 136:00 183:30 59:00 115:00 136:00 , 360:00 69:00 54:30 i f6 0 u_ 2 Wednesday 138:00 201:30 52:00 115:00 297:00 173:00 118:00 54:30 Thursday 143:15 197:30 56:00 60:00 138:00 173:00 197:30 69:30 >` Friday 136:00 201:30 59:00 60:00 136:00 136:00 118:00 56:00 m 0 Saturday 136:001111111111MI 344:00 59:00 60:00 136:00 360:00 69:00 72:00 4—i Q Sunday 173:00 300:00 55:00 66:00 136:00 136:00 197:30 56:00 `› V' � N a a-+ Total 1174:15 1625:30 391:00 536:00 1339:00 1635:00 838:00 434:30 = , U 23 0 c6 SPORTS CU LL G ctL Source:Spokane Youth Sports Association I LEISURE l _ . Local Market Conditions Dwight Merkel Sports Complex — Rectangle Field Usage (2016) -a-Field 1 -a-Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 iField 7 iField 8 , 70% " O m a� 60% O o � oam cu Q 150% —co N O Z W 40% - c6 Li s O N ^/ 30% — - - — - O o 20% -- - - • V12 i -0 " k\ IIPN 4-) Q 10% J N � N / U 0% 24 c6 .47. 0 J�6 ��6 �NGr QQ�\ `S�� ,.��° , a,�y� res Or�` r�s p�` CONVENTIONS ,raC, ��� P� �0� G� 0� e I SPORTS Source:Spokane Youth Sports Association,2016 QS-L SURE I Local Market Conditions Average Monthly Grass Field Usage — Plante's Ferry vs. Dwight Merkel +Plante's Ferry Dwight Merkel Dwight Merkel Turf Fields 70% T 60% o ° 0 1 ° a+' U 50%M cu — 0 C 0c6 N 0 H 40% Z L W C6 s C N 30% 4-, .47, 10 ......0.#00/ ..) 11k ,,\_ O •— a S— co 20% O LL 2 >. 4_, m O 10% cn ° a X = ( , 0% �6 ��6 ���r PQM\ ��� �J�e �J�� ��y� ��� o��� �0k �0k 25 0 �(/)\� ��•p� �` PJ ���ca� O�� �o��� O�G�� I uxTSloNs LL CFd Source:Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,Spokane Youth Sports Association,2016 I LEISURE I _ . Local Market Conditions Dwight Merkel Sports Complex — Softball Field Usage (2016) Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 <: January 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Average - February 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 hours per March 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 field in ia April 107:00 107:00 107:00 107:00 124:30 105:30 O0 0 May 289:15 267:00 267:00 267:00 312:15 184:00 2016= UJune 192:00 192:00 192:00 192:00 192:00 137:00 1269:15 July 221:00 221:00 221:00 221:00 221:00 126:00 hours O s` Q August 185:00 185:00 185:00 185:00 185:00 19:00 CO September 200:00 200:00 200:00 200:00 200:00 56:00 O O H October 204:00 204:00 204:00 204:00 204:00 23:00 Z S November 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Li W CO December 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 C vTotal 1398:15 1376:00 1376:00 1376:00 1438:45 650:30 : N N i= O — •V < Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 S- f6 O LL 2 Monday 62:00 42:00 183:30 197:30 176:30 55:30 Tuesday 70:30 36:00 195:30 201:30 176:30 48:00 -0 4-) Wednesday 204:30 73:00 183:30® 34 168:30 42:00 m 0 * Thursday 143:30 196:30 201:30 183:30 168:00 42:00 (/) (/) Friday 62:00 196:30 195:30 201:30 180:30 42:00 > O < Saturday 59:30 48:00 183:30 183:30 160:30 48:00 — N ` Sunday 62:00 37:00 197:30 183:30 168:00 42:00 I ? v Total 664:00 629:00 1340:30 1495:00 1198:30 319:30 G 6' 1e co m 0 l NVENTIONs a)LL G IT Source:Spokane Youth Sports Association cL4L p p SURE I . _ . , Local Market Conditions Dwight Merkel Sports Complex — Triangle Field Usage (2016) i Field 1 i Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 < 70% tF L- t 60% o Q 0 ° , ,, o Q _ . 0 C Q 50% CU Z c 40% / aV y C N N ^/ 30% -, 47, LI rj co p 220% 10% a) a U 27 N 0 �� �?� �N k. P'Q ,J� ,J tb �� 0 �0eic 0 0e's CONVENTIONS �a� ��� `S P� ��� c, e e I si uRTs T LL G c0 Oesci Source:Spokane Youth Sports Association,2016 I LEISURE I . . Local Market Conditions Average Monthly Softball Usagr — Plante's Ferry vs. Dwight Merkel +Plante's Ferry Dwight Merkel 70% 60% o ° 0 1 ° a+' U 50% N QCD N 0 H 40% Z L W c6 s C N � 30% O •— LI a S— co 20% O LL 2 >. 4_, m O 10% CA CD_ ,T \444N14\\ ° a • N 0% _0 1 a6 ,A6 �Gr QCT rd� J,C`O J\� J5� 00� �P,� �0c �P,� N +' 0 �J �`? d P ' J� �` �8 CC 28c6 �� ��a �` �0��� O�' �o�� O�G� I uxTSloNs LL N G CFds_ Source:Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association,Spokane Youth Sports Association,2016 I LEISURE l Local Market Conditions Southeast Sports Complex r If- - 1 FACILITY: SOUTHEAST SPORTS COMPLEX City,State: Spokane,Washington 4'' ( 1, Owner: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation -ILL- O ° 161 ,,, Operator: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation O 0 11, 1 Facility Specs: 17 acres M N o p 3 full-sized soccer fields c1 - i► 11 youth soccer fields 3 softball fields (non-tournament quality) z SJ 4t__._ - ,*A 116 parking stalls c6 i W Development: City recently presented the Master Plan for the complex +' - .- -"- which will include: Q) Q) i= C. '- - L. '.t`" Expanded parking,four large soccer fields,two U10/11 p +' LL �Q lei soccer fields, one softball/baseball field, one a 'v a \;2 , softball/multi-use field, plaza/active street space and a O LL 2 � �,.e �� neighborhood park. >. 4_, w! L, . * ,_°i Tenants: Spokane Indians Youth Baseball, Breakers,Spokane Youth -0 i O t:- Sports Association,Spokane Shadow (! _ _ Rental Rates: Adult Softball: $20/hour N r Youth Ball Fields: $12/hour Ute • _ Adult Soccer Grass: $25 Youth Soccer Grass:$20 29 `n O cSPORTSIONS CSL I LEISURE I Local Market Conditions Franklin Sports Complex - " `' .: FACILITY: FRANKLIN SPORTS COMPLEX ‹ - ' it ='1 City,State: Spokane,Washington i is • . , ,, . _ _ � A Owner: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation O H - Operator: City of Spokane Parks and Recreation O }J rill1' il/ Facility Specs: 43 acres oN O c CI 2 full-size soccer fields ca 1 youth soccer field z jr r 5 softball fields - q 1 Development: Originally established in 1914 CD i '4 r• Fields underwent upgrades in 2014 L, - O O �// a� % _-a Tenants: Spokane Girls Fastpitch Softball Association, IEYSA, 0 +-+ LL p r [Iarifly" Spokane Parks and Recreation Recreational Leagues, OIN CL v /r � _ Spokane Indians Youth Baseball,WIAA,Spokane Youth O co \` - gi:�„ Softball,ASA,Spokane Crash,Spokane Shadow R2ental Rates: Adult Softball: $20/hour , g 4 " - Youth Ballfield: 12 hour 4 CD_ 4- Adult/Youth Combo:$16.50/hour t 21 It L. Adult Soccer Grass: $15/hour >., NIII Youth Soccer Grass:$10/hour 300 ` 7 r NIC NVEN IONS ` ir r` 1 LEISURE I ... .. , Regional Facilities 6 Facility Location Dist.(1) VIctoria 1 Skyline Sports Complex Bend,OR 396 Southeast Sports Complex Spokane,WA 10 EvereR 3 Spokane Polo Club Spokane,WA 15 ne. ' 4 Starfire Sports Tukwila,WA 290 r,. 11 '�\ ar 5 Sixty Acres Park Redmond,WA 291 • -. •,,,. 3 12 6 Northwest Soccer Park Bellingham,WA 337 4 20 2 7 Washington Premier FC Complex Puyallup,WA 302 4: 17 8 Capital FC Soccer Complex Salem,OR 408 L 7 18 1 3 9 Crystal Lake Sports Fields Corvallis,OR 445 O 1.. O 1 11 1 r ' 10 Franklin Park Complex Spokane,WA 12 7:50 � )) J/111 Dwight Merkel Sports Complex Spokane.WA 15 a + 1 skims / n 12 Canfield Sports Complex Coeur d'Alene, ID 26 OM ..11J fb� t� 13 Paul Lauzier Memorial Athletic Park Moses Lake,WA 115 �-__-14tenneeick LaiA'>lan CD ��� •n_hor2 14 Pasco Sporting Complex Pasco,WA 148 11mm,11, 15 Southridge Sports Complex Kennewick,WA 151 CU 0 Nairn a Z 24 •F":a 16 Eenter 235 7 U 2621ond " z 18 Puyallup,WA 303 ++ — 22 - r, � ` 19 Regional Athletic Complex Lacey,WA 322 4 20 Ravensdale Park Ravensdale,WA 278 O a--+ 31°`�`" i,,,m a, 21 Harmony Sports Complex Vancouver,WA 354 CL $ ,Q,r'722 Hood View Sports Complex Happy Valley,OR 359 L co < 9 -� 23 Owens Sports Complex Portland,OR 360 o u_ \ 24 Luke Jensen Sports Park Vancouver,WA 366 N 25 Howard M.Terpenning Rec.Complex Beaverton,OR 371 iZ 26 Gordon Faber Rec.Complex Hillsboro,OR 375 O Euyene 24end -I--+ Q O 1 3U 27 Settlers Park Meridian, ID 376 28 Simplot Sports Complex Boise, ID 386 ate+ CU 27 28> �" 29 Pine Nursery Park Bend,OR 392 N ' ^ 30 Big Sky Park Bend,OR 393 D V31 Wallace Marine Park Softball Complex Salem,OR 407 -0 i a + 32 U.S.Cellular Park Medford,OR 569 31 =Trian le Complex CONVENTIONS � g p SPORTS u°2 2 LL =Rectangle Complex c s i., 32 (1)Distance in miles fromSpokane Valley =Multi-Sport Complex I LEISURE Regional Facilities ix, ., >- _ Ol N — N C i1i N1 O C EL 2 N F m (n d m to N . to r r ' r O. a� N — • a� N 7 7 ' Facility Location Dist.(1) 5 11.1 Skyline Sports Complex Bend,OR 396 Out 0 - - - 4 - 4 - - - <? Southeast Sports Complex Spokane,WA 10 Out 14 3 11 - 0 (2) 3 'Spokane Polo Club Spokane,WA 15 Out 5 3 2 - 0 :. (1)Dstance in riles from Spokane Valley 4 Starfire Sports Tukwila,WA 290 In/Out 12 9 3 - 0 (3) (2)Does not include 3 non-tournament qualdy softball fields L L 5 Sixty Acres Park Redmond,WA 291 Out 25 16 9 - 0 (3)Outdoor stadium ith 4,000 seating capacity,does not include 2 indoor fields O W 6 Northwest Soccer Park Bellingham,WA 337 Out 28 3 25 - 0 (4) (4)Doesnotinclude4namntrnamentquebalaftty softball Yields O O (5)hcludes 3non-tournament qualdy baseball fields 7:57 Washington Premier FC Complex Puyallup,WA 302 Out 11 8 3 0 (6)BMX Track -I--I v 8 Capital FC Soccer Complex Salem,OR 408 Out 10 6 4 0 (7)hdoor Sports Pavilion used for indoor sports (8)Softball field#2 converts into a full-size soccer field a 9 Crystal Lake Sports Fields Corvallis,OR 445 Out 9 9 0 8 5 3 (5) (9)Baseball field converts into afull-size soccer field CO 10 Franklin Park Complex Spokane,WA 12 Out 3 2 1 5 5 - (10)Does not include aquatic center,15 tennis courts,10 basketball courts, 2 skate parks,and a roller hockey rink 11 Dwight Merkel Sports Complex Spokane.WA 15 Out 8 8 - - 6 - 6 - - - (6) CU 0 (11)Baseball field is converts into a full-size soccer field z Q 12 Canfield Sports Complex Coeur d'Alene, ID 26 Out 4 2 2 - 6 1 - 1 4 - (12)Does not include 7non-tournament quality fields — Cr ) 13 Paul Lauzier Memorial Athletic Park Moses Lake,WA 115 Out 3 - 2 1 5 2 3 - - - (13)Includes 16-courtpickleball complex CD E 14 Pasco Sporting Complex Pasco,WA 148 Out 34 11 23 - 6 - 6 - - - (14)BMX Track,softball field is converts into soccer field a + 15 Southridge Sports Complex Kennewick,WA 151 In/Out 2 2 - - 4 - 4 - - - (7) (1) 1••1 1 16 Perry Sports Complex Yakima,WA 218 Out 4 3 1 - 0 -I-I 1— � 17 Petrovitsky Park Renton,WA 281 Out 2 2 - - 4 - 1 3 - - a — 18 Heritage Recreation Center Puyallup,WA 303 Out 6 4 2 - 5 1 3 1 - - =Triangle Complex U 19 Regional Athletic Complex Lacey,WA 322 Out 6 6 - - 5 1 - 4 - o LL 20 Ravensdale Park Ravensdale,WA 278 Out 5 5 - - 6 2 - 3 1 - 1— =Rectangle Complex N < 21 Harmony Sports Complex Vancouver,WA 354 Out 9 7 2 - 7 1 - 3 3 - (5 L+, =Multi-Sport Complex Z 22 Hood View Sports Complex Happy Valley,OR 359 Out 1 1 - - 4 - 4 - - - (8) am-+ 0 O 23 Owens Sports Complex Portland,OR 360 Out 9 7 2 - 7 - 5 2 - - 24 Luke Jensen Sports Park Vancouver,WA 366 Out 2 1 1 - 3 1 - - 2 - (9) teCU a + 25 Howard M.Terpenning Rec.Complex Beaverton,OR 371 In/Out 5 5 - - 7 2 1 4 - - (10) N 26 Gordon Faber Rec.Complex Hillsboro,OR 375 Out 1 1 8 2 5 1 (11) D V 27 Settlers Park Meridian, ID 376 Out 6 2 1 3 8 2 - 3 3 - a-1 28 Simplot Sports Complex Boise, ID 386 Out 35 10 25 - 8 2 - 2 4 - (12) 29 Pine Nursery Park Bend,OR 392 Out 20 4 - 16 4 - 4 - - - (13) CONVENTIONS 2 30 Big Sky Park Bend,OR 393 Out 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 (14) I SPORTS L Li 31 Wallace Marine Park Softball Complex Salem,OR 407 Out 2 2 - - 5 - 5 - - - C 32 U.S.Cellular Park Medford,OR 569 Out 6 6 - - 9 2 5 2 - - I LEISURE _ . . Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies j,I , e FACILITY: REGIONAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX j ;u --C+— 0 City,State: Lacey,Washington < % Owner: City of Lacey/Thurston County 0 ISI �� 7� p K Operator: Cityof Lacey/Thurston ._ d \ h— p Y/T County Q q q © Facility Specs: 68 acres O e , / _ A 5 full-size baseball fields (turf infields) O W �' _^ � , ' ,y wilisi 6 regulation size multipurpose rectangle fields(1 turf) (> j' y tan "` 500 paved parking spaces; unpaved overflow for additional 500 M C o \ c q q f4 Development: Partnership between the City of Lace and Thurston County for the CO development,construction and operation of the RAC. O OOpened in 2009 at an approximate cost of$18.9 million +r- Funding: S v +,-• _-_ ' $12.3 million in local Public Facilities District(PFD)financing .2 $2.4 million in City of Lacey funds C= N LL . � $1.9 million in Thurston County Conservation Futures funding ++ a., ,. $1.7 million in Lacey Parks Bond revenue O a .0 $523,000 in grand funding from the Washington State Recreation and R * Conservation Office(RCO) Oli < Jr ' Potential Phase 3 development of adjacent 26 acres ++ ` - .�ti�„�.. Tenants: - - � � z 0 0eil 0_ -- his Rental Rates: }' N Annual Events: In 2014 the RAC had approximately 2,281 field bookings and nearly V : a .t _o 1a ,,_ 75,000 league and tournament participants •I W In 2016,the RAC will host approximately 58 CONVENTIONS 33 tr, co N 2 =N1 tournaments sloRr� LL � - CISL �., i;.,_. I LEISURE I _ . . Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies - - 1 FACILITY: SOUTHRIDGE SPORTS AND EVENTS COMPLEX ' •••• City,State: Kennewick,Washington ,� - - ',, Owner: City of Kennewick i L -y Operator: City of Kennewick O 0 W 4 `a ' U ' �� Facility Specs: 52 acres N \ 2 full size multi-use soccer fields O C 4 multi-use/softball fields with lights CO •- 7I 30,000 sf indoor pavilion with 3 full-size basketball courts and multi- �c purpose room (! ( Development: Opened in 2012 at a total cost of approximately$13.6 million f6 S � $ --- 6.,:: - _ Additional 7 acres of developable land for future phased expansion c 3 e C rr 0 +-+ e "rti, Cc-p a f �•° t`C„ ---- •'" _ Tenants: O +—' �t ° m'C ` O y c.r �t •:,.-°r" C ` a U to °° °� L` L<,<fe V.* �✓ F ' ° p Rental Rates: Softball/Multi-Use Fields:$12/hour and$19/hour with lights L p - - L- r L`I n- . p;..E y Multi-Use Fields:$8/hour O LL �! tt ti... ccn ! ® G' ® a r c Z` ` °° m CLI' _ -7. a.K,- • cc c nc Annual Events: In 2015,the Southridge Sports and Events Complex hosted 23 tournaments 4( / v/ 0 - L' .,v;.47,., P ,7 E curklflE 34W l NVEN IONS `i2 I CSL LT I LEISURE 1 _ . Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies �, _ - _ °=": -.t FACILITY: PASCO SPORTING COMPLEX lit ' f T .=".* '% ..Y >r City,State: Pasco,Washington < _�.� Owner: City of Pasco !Jimmie�o ....x - �� Operator: City of Pasco xy, 1„ ` Key Facility 6 softball fields L Li) _�° °', Components: 3,700-seat Gesa Stadium o W `"`+•.."'�,., ,.'f • ,�, �' R , 10 competitive soccer fields U ,. _, .. ' 1 high school soccer field M N H - ",+"'�i' 2 sand volleyball courts Water play area ca i N O Tenants: Tri-City Dust Devils NWL minor league baseball Z I Tri-Cities Youth Soccer Association i '�`"""' , - "'.2 Rental Rates: Softball: a • • ;4 N $7/hour for residents&non-residents N :•, °� $25 Field Prep Fee $19/hour fee for lights a .0 .. 1. -.tri #�' �;,•",., ' iYrs; r '`� $15/hour Supervisor rate i Soccer/Baseball fields not public m 0 z ` Annual Events Cor van der Meer Soccer Tournament 4j)) 0_ O Sounders Soccer Camp (n `'' >, N 0 T ,, , i fi i: •- V II ' ''' - 111 '''' I 4 4 : i CONVENTIONS _ SPORTS 1132 2CsL I LEISURE i _ . Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies l y ,,+�+• FACILITY: STARFIRE SPORTS 4 l, l►o a , 4 City,State: Tukwila,Washington y Owner: Starfire Sports - • ,.r• 4: Operator: Starfire Sports 4Key Indoor 2 indoor Astroturf soccer fields L (i) ;.. ;G m NE. gm Facility 3 Meeting rooms p m W �r 1.I iii7 _ Components: Mens/Womens Locker rooms 73 (> — Arcade a-, .4R+- M N H - + � -- '� PI offices c6 Restaurants/Retail Key Outdoor 5 grass soccer fields N O ' it 5 turf soccer fields z Q 0~" •. • s� Facility Y — Lir' U .. : . ' ; . ;' -,-..01,.. Components: Adidas Field (turf) •c .""'Pi �; j 4,500-seat Starfire Stadium (turf) a N N L 17 (Fr' 'j. - Tenants: Seattle Sounders FC -, +-+ %r` rs Sounders Women Ci_ .0 �` Rental Rates: Indoor Fields: 0 f6 \\ ti /_ y–` Lt_ a Youth:$39-$78/hour(min. 1 hour) Adult: $59.50-$119/hour(min. 1 hour) � oz Y C ,, ) @ Late Night: $102.50/hour Q O "'f Outdoor Fields: ' i'i i` r Youth:$39 $78/hour -I-1N� A�� *-1111=1111M-. if'` -A,md1kilh Wr' ;iLi Adult: $61-$122/hour ( n Late Night: $50.25-$94.50/hour ! '7) a+ W Annual Events: 15 youth and adult tournaments annually hosting over 36 co �/ - 100,000 visitors CONVENTIONS I SPORTS u°2 2LL ; ....4 t"" Starfire Academy cs.L., Seattle Sounders FC training LEISURE I Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies FACILITY: (PHILLIPS 66) NORTHWEST SOCCER PARK r ' vvi, ft vim,lir�y i.-! �, MI City,State: Bellingham,Washington %' .. y Owner: Whatcom Sports&Recreation ► . 1 Operator: Whatcom Sports&Recreation O 0 W ,• " ' U Key Facility 13 outdoor full-size soccer fields M N H Components: Park will add 2 turf fields with construction beginning early O c — 2016 ca -IM Received a$700,000 corporate donation from Phillips 66 O OTenants: Whatcom County Youth Soccer Association Z 0- — V' U 1111111 Whatcom County Adult Soccer Association c<C Annual Events: Wilson Motors Baker Blast(185 teams) N N LL _ Adult Soccerfest 2018 Tournament 4-, lizOr- 2016 Phillips 66 Rimland Challenge a U '•� - ' *I Hammers FC Soccer Academy o2Q it ION M O Turf Construction 1 +., 0_ 0 4. • L2 -23 cn cn '"' """'' Project Area - -o +-+ N 8 _ D jj 21 m ® 11 12 +, I '�' 25 22 m 14 13 7 37 W ® ,CO CONVENTIONS 24 2+� iCO �J SPORTti�TT �i LL 10 9 IC St I LEISURE Competitive Facilities Competitive Outdoor Facility Case Studies = �,: FACILITY: U.S. CELLULAR COMMUNITY PARK o ,s City,State: Medford,Oregon Owner: City of Medford W _o A Operator: Medford Parks and Recreation Department i H _ 1 t; - 11 Key Facility 3 full-sized baseball fields ht_ Components: 7 baseball/softball fields 0 u - h_. 6 multipurpose fields, including a 1,300-seat stadium field O O - _ All fields are lighted with FieldTurf synthetic grass OCD U f,,e. - Development: $32.5 million, 132-acre park. Phase II opened in 2008 with 5 [ '..a softball/baseball fields. Phase III opened in 2009 with 6 multi- purpose fields. Phase IV opened in 2015 with 3 additional CU C - - z ballfields c6 W - Funding has come through a combination of issuing bonds, and > _,r.. d" -- transient lodging tax, car rental tax,and park utility fee proceeds. irimN }, - . - + U.S. Cellular paid$650,000 for 6 years of naming rights in 2005. moi . v , USCCP is the largest municipal installation of FieldTurf in the OLi Hr United States with nearly 1.5 million square feet of synthetic grass. >' Tenants: American Legion Medford Mustangs m 0 I"�"I ,. .._ -- - Medford Rogues V) (n �- _'_7:24.-%-‘,.:--V.,-- Rental Rates: Softball/Baseball: $20-$25/game }, CU2 Y .. ,}_ Ai'; ,s F. - Multi-purpose: $30-$40/hour _ T •L Annual Events: 2014 saw$10.2 million in economic stimulus from tournaments }, _ -mss__` _ and other special events with 1,415 teams competi • '• u• 38 c6 O - than 4,400 games(44 tournaments). CONVENTIONSSPORTS LL 2 U An estimated 194,000 people visited the park in 20 cs,,L, I LEISURE I Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies FACILITY: 60 ACRES SOCCER COMPLEX City,State: Redmond,Washington i -A — r, Owner: King County 0 V )1 0 m -- - - - O W 1 Operator: Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association 4-,7:5 U M N HO C Facility Specs: 25 natural grass soccer fields cis 6 full-sized fields N 0 14 U-12 fields z 0- 5 U-9 fields U i _ _ Development: 30-year use agreement between LWYSA and King County a ' -V"� �"� "'- <' LWYSA responsible for all development and maintenance N vim. O * 25}."`�' '" Planning replacement of 1 to 6 grass fields with turf CL .v 20 22 24 23 Rental Rates: June through November: 21 1 O co x 18 19 Single field under 50 people-$50 per hour ' . 17 -- . ` 7 3 4 $ Multiple fields up to 500 people $500 per hour 11 8 December through May: 0 '' - - 14 71) 12 Q 10 Single field Under 50 people $50 0 15 13 Multiple fields up to 500 people $500 N N 16 Tenants: Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association V _o 1 V - Annual Events: Select Cup V1 3g , US Club Regional Tournament cONVENTIONC — I „qk.u [ I SPORTS LL 1�.'C ECNL National Playoffs CS.I.,Nike Crossfire ChallengeI LEISURE Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies FACILITY: SIMPLOT SPORTS COMPLEX City,State: Boise, Idaho ..- . itti , L_ �= v) „ ,..,._., , , , m,_, - .„, 4 „.. Owner: City of Boise O O 0 ” ' ; 1 --- Operator: City of Boise 7:5O _ -. 0 C .-Ira oi -- - Facility Specs: 20 natural grass soccer fields % 1 _ - 2 full-sized baseball fields O O 11 youth-sized baseball fields Z2 youth softball fields Lir' v i - _ Development: Opened in 1995 c , a `� Soccer tenants pay for capital projects and expansions N LL L M __ City shares maintenance costs with baseball tenants O — $ t R p' Tenant pays for infields and bases a v ° H�I°° A 9 , �i r� va Rental Rates: Free when authorized bytenants I ' � �� Q ��l �- Z .... imN i o o' a.,w,, s R o ' k.i Tenants: Idaho Youth Soccer Association Rush Soccer Club 4t71) CD_ 0 - r"i -..\—,` J i� �j Q° East Boise Youth Baseball and Softball — a,m 0 M.r 1- T 14 kE, gN "� ~ "aw°^" t 5, , Annual Events: Far West Re ional Soccer Tournament _ ? o .. _ 61 g p Y , ,,, lar k 90 soccer games per year on each soccer field N 4 '. + �+�+ I r^1 a Rei" M 4!J t �uNzstIoNS � �22 2 /// � � I SPIRTS �� I LEISURE I Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies cJ FACILITY: HOWARD M. TERPENNING RECREATION COMPLEX • .r-,,,, Q.. Et�5 .2 o s) ems.. City,State: Beaverton, Oregon < : A 0 _ _ Owner: Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation Department I1-rt �* I„' rt. �i���4 Ni Operator: Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation Department toil I,- O'� �J —:7 Key Indoor Tennis Center with 4 indoor courts L (i) �_�= - ��� � y J„ Facility 10-lane,50-meter pool with platform diving towers: O p W i 1® ; - �r i� i T Components: • (2) 1-meter springboards 7:5 0i •Sr°� _ r�:,' � • (2)3-meter springboards QJ Ill — - d O C Key Outdoor 3 grass soccer fields j , f kor Facility 2 synthetic turf soccer fields N p _ Components: 7 lighted softball/baseball fields Z Q ' PP' Art ,, = T 6 lighted outdoor tennis courts _ c!” v 2 S < • Skate park, roller hockey rink C= �T �-N Tenants: Aquatics: +' +_+ • Tualatin Hills Swim Club i_ a - Tualatin Hills Dive Club S— co =-.x ,� .� • Tualatin Hills Synchronized Swimming 0 u_ a n �� • Tualatin Hills Barracudas -V I T 4 Y • Tualatin Hills Water Polo Club m Q ., . , ..• ' , = Rental Rates: Aquatics: up to 25 guests: $129/hour 0 .,r ,C'. f E ""s -1111: r 7r- 26-50 guests: $149/hour >" •,•: 'IR" "�`' int:`" =` +as; 51-75 guests: $169/hour a--' cn ( n _ va. ;=' 76 or more guests: $189/hour }, l "*� Annual Events: Revenues: $470,000 41 o , +q �r _ k i' CONVENTIONS co # 1.410.0_. 11 Expenses:$1.25 million sloRTsLL ! Operating Deficit: $783,000 CI T ..-�..� d 1�� I LEISURE I ' _ . Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies ,�� ,-µ ms F -. . 4, - FACILITY: WALLACE MARINE PARK SOFTBALL COMPLEX •.w • !� ` } r. City,State: Salem, Oregon i 111°,` ( /141.04/ Owner: City of Salem W 0 TM-. '{ tir-� *. Operator: City of Salem 7:5+-I U s, 0N H ! `" — - ' Facility Specs: 5 lighted softball fields i - v.1 p 2 lighted soccer fields O 0 Seating for more than 1,000 people Cr U \ , _ -"'� Development: First star complex opened to the public, in June 1986. ac " ": r Rental Rates: Ranges from $25-$55/game slot, plus a$20 application ON LL fee and a$100 tournament fee • O a .0 _I 4...' _ r..._11.,8 :...1 ;_l.__._s i - - Annual Events: Around 18 large softball tournaments annually, including: i co ASA Men's Open West Fast Pitch National Tournament LL a - , y USSSA Northwest National Championships ? _` � ■i _ __ _ Men's Slow Pitch National Tournament a_+ N a SD 1 '`__,_ _- C + ONVENON 42 co m 1 . Aill--- co SPORTSTIS LL _ csi, I LEISURE Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies ~ •. -* - FACILITY: GORDON FABER RECREATION COMPLEX City,State: Hillsboro, Oregon /1 h1_I ':-� Owner: City of Hillsboro O V 1 - - — — • 0 4::, W OMIffi_ 1,' P.WM r Operator: Hillsboro Parks and Recreation a--+ U I .ianmi+r, i. _ Facility Specs: 6 natural grass softball fields CO Ron" � •' Ron Tonkin Field(baseball) O O y 4,500 seats Z Q •.I ` ' r-- Can be striped for soccer and lacrosse _ - - �. Hillsboro Stadium f6 — - j J 7,000 seats ++ '� Can fit 2 full-sized turf fields(can be rented out) O N - -. Development: Multiple phases of development: a + a , - CL — } ply zr — Hillsboro Stadium(opened in 1999)-$10 million U development used funding from the city and an Urban i co ---3-`+c O IL '� " - Renewal District aN, - Tonkin Field(opened in 2013)$15.5 million development i m O _:. 1— ,, '~"> Operations: Complex generated$755,000 in revenue in FY 2015 }' CL O " M Approximately$871,000 in direct expenditures in FY 2015 (n (n >. N N . Tenants: Hillsboro Hops +_+ p .. � �� rt j T Century High School _o 1 V '— * s " - Portland Stags 43 co ��. _ _ Triple Crown Baseball Tournament SPORTS N 2 CONVENTIONS Annual Events: 372 events in FY 2015 L L csig I LEISURE I Regional Facilities Regional Outdoor Facility Case Studies FACILITY: CAPITAL FC SOCCER COMPLEX City,State: Salem, Oregon /•) - Owner: Capital Futbol Club _• O ,, Operator: Capital Futbol Club 4 U M N Ha_ •3` � ," Facility Specs: 10 natural grass soccer fields ca - - 6 full-sized fields 411PO O 3 U-8 to U-9 fields Z Q - 1U 10toU11field E Development: Privately funded a , _ r C a A Considering adding at least one turf field •O I 9 6A Annual expenses for maintenance approximate$50,000 O } CAP MBEF RC Club makes$700,000 in annual revenue CL •U �_ � � � $500,000 comes from membership fees O LL a ti Venue`Rules Receives donations > Z —I NO D..h.. Rental Rates: Club makes around$30,000 in revenue per year for Z 3 I NO Soliciting 0 No Smoking outside rentals 4-+ Q SIO weekend V) O parking Tenants: Capital Futbol Club > N — 2 a + N V 6 -0 I = Annual Events: Capital Cup 44 • +' WCO M i __ 10 200,000 unique visitors per year CONVENTIONS �i LL �/ � . ,- Approximately 15,000 athletes use the fields I SPORTS 2 _ , per week cs.L., ILEISURE i Comparable Triangle Facilities Triangle Facilities Summar, C/') No. of W Year Const. Cost Triangle 4 ':' Facility Location Opened (in millions) Fields o Grand Park Westfield, IN 2014 $49.0 26 o _ O U Legacy Park Lee's Summit, MO 1997 N/A 24 1 Q Mid America Sports Complex Shawnee Mission, KS 1994 $3.9 24 a, Q — z v, Elizabethtown Sports Park Elizabethtown, KY 2012 $29.0 13 To c Lll T j Chappapeela Sports Park Hammond, LA 2013 $17.0 12 a) v o }' •� Rocky Mount Sports Complex Rocky Mount, NC 2006 $12.0 11 ocl- .2 U.S. Cellular Community Park Medford, OR 2008 $32.5 10 722 o Q Ballfields at Craig Ranch McKinney, D( 2005 $25.0 10 n c- Ci— Grand Park Athletic Complex Myrtle Beach, SC 2010 $22.0 9 FA) D Art Van Sports Complex Rockford, MI 2014 $7.0 9 0 45 c Simplot Sports Complex Boise, ID 1995 N/A 8 (CONVENTIONS CSL LEISURE Comparable Triangle Facilities Triangle Facility Demographic Summary Comparable Markets Spokane Valley,WA (1.) % of Rank j W Low High Average Median Estimate Avg. (out of 12) - F Population o M - 30-Minute Drive 140,600 1,920,000 596,000 450,400 517,000 87% 5 O O 90-Minute Drive 340,900 7,268,000 2,518,700 2,664,000 745,800 30% 10 U - 180-Minute Drive 1,015,300 14,672,900 7,391,700 6,013,000 1,532,300 21% 10 N V 1 Q Average Household Income N O30-Minute Drive $55,300 $104,400 $74,000 $71,900 $65,800 89% 8 Z Q 90-Minute Drive $56,900 $84,400 $68,600 $69,100 $66,800 97% 8 cls TD - W 180-Minute Drive $59,500 $77,900 $66,800 $67,500 $66,300 99% 9 . '- c N 4-) '47) • 2 m Median Age O = 30-Minute Drive 35.2 42.5 37.8 36.9 37.4 99% 5 eL z a 90-Minute Drive 34.5 45.1 38.1 37.1 39.1 103% 3 co O LL i= 180-Minute Drive 35.4 42.7 37.7 37.5 37.0 98% 9 m o Q^ Corporate Base cj c� O.,2 30-Minute Drive 5,100 80,600 26,000 20,900 25,800 99% 5 N 90-Minute Drive 17,000 270,600 97,700 104,200 35,100 36% 9 180 Minute Drive 42,400 542,000 285,500 251,100 64,400 23% 10 46 0 � � I`" uxTSloNs LL vCSLL Source: Esri,2016 I LEISURE i Comparable Rectangle Facilities Rectangle F No. of LII Year Const. Cost Rectangle • — Facility Location Opened (in millions) Fields "•_-. m — Grand Park Westfield, IN 2014 $49.0 31 - • oo 0 73 u — Chappapeela Sports Park Hammond, LA 2013 $17.0 27 O c � MD SoccerPlex/Discovery Sports Ctr. Boyds, MD 2000 $22.1 24 v o LLL Simplot Sports Complex Boise, ID 1995 N/A 20 z 0- co c LJ..I Mike Rose Soccer Complex Memphis, TN 1998 $13.0 16 a v Elizabethtown Sports Park Elizabethtown, KY 2012 $29.0 12 +7) CO CL —0a Legacy Park Lee's Summit, MO 1997 N/A 12 8 o LL CC Overland Park Soccer Complex Overland Park, KS 2009 $36.0 12 oQ James W. Cownie Soccer Park Des Moines, IA 1998 $5.5 12 4( c51- Rocky Mount Sports Complex Rocky Mount, NC 2006 $12.0 8 N2D Heritage Recreation Center Puyallup, WA N/A N/A 6 47 "' +� 0 coI� `" uxTSloNs LL v CSL LEISURE Comparable Rectangle Facilities Comparable Rectangle Facility Demographic Summary Comparable Markets Spokane Valley, WA (1.) % of Rank '§‘4 --; W Low High Average Median Estimate A . (out of 12) >. I- - , Population O M - 30-Minute Drive 140,600 1,170,200 586,400 552,300 517,000 88% 7 0 U_ I 90-Minute Drive 745,800 8,693,600 2,964,200 2,694,000 745,800 25% 12 U` 180-Minute Drive 1,015,300 19,081,800 8,103,800 5,877,400 1,532,300 19% 11 N v O c 1 Q Average Household Income OO Z 0- 30-Minute Drive $55,300 $135,400 $80,100 $74,800 $65,800 82% 10 W 90-Minute Drive $64,200 $110,300 $75,800 $71,300 $66,800 88% 10 TD 180-Minute Drive $57,900 $93,700 $70,700 $67,600 $66,300 94% 10 c N a) o '47) m Median Age a '0 < 30-Minute Drive 35.2 40.8 37.0 36.6 37.4 101% 4 S- LL 90-Minute Drive 35.0 39.1 37.1 37.1 39.1 105% 1 i 180-Minute Drive 35.4 38.4 37.6 37.8 37.0 98% 10 CL Corporate Base > N 30-Minute Drive 5,100 51,000 24,600 22,700 25,800 105% 5 (f) 2 90-Minute Drive 30,400 337,400 117,400 107,000 35,100 30% 11 _o 10 48180-Minute Drive 42,400 740,300 318,800 242,000 64,400 20% 11 'N '47) � � I - I�IORTtiIONS LL UCSL Source: Esri,2016 I LEISURE I Comparable Facilities Comparable Facility Case Stud' i.41110741:_*:,, FACILITY: GRAND PARK ^ , ''' City,State: Westfield, Indiana Li) _ a 1 ¢i�,' 13'LI . f' Lll �( °" ' �'— r Owner: City of Westfield ip ° 't. � I` i1J `, ,r- { Operator: Indiana Bulls, Indiana Sports Properties ' I I� ,. , , • I Key Indoor 8 basketball/volleyball/futsal courts • ! ii... '` �..' - 1 1, 1 C= 1-: -TM—s•.; Facility 3 full-sized soccer fields pa' k 1. _� � , Components: O _ lk 1 , U ham. .. Key Outdoor 26 baseball/softball fields N UFacility 31 soccer fields(8 lighted) `_` Components: o I r, _moi_ '- O O ` j�� �¢ + +' +'�- Development: Adjacent to 220 acre entertainment district Grand Park Village Z Q _ $49 million complex opened in 2014. aii� , — ,. The goal was to fund it entirely through TIF and sponsorship revenues,but CD W 1 _+ a + • _ $ t• the City Council lent the project$6 million from an infrastructure fund N 31'+ $8.5 million fieldhouse opened in January 2016 O N _1 $20 million privately funded,370,000 square foot arena under a-+ a-+ CO O _ construction,should open Summer 2016,which the city will lease for 25 CL 'v /r - — --_ -- years at$53 million(with interest) i co \L Tenants: • Diamond Sports—Operated by a subcontracted entity(Indiana Bulls/ 42 - 1: _ Bullpen Tournaments)who receives revenues and pays City a i commission m O -- - 1 • Multi-Sport Area—Managed by Indiana Sports Property(Management +m+ Q ra •�r:r _ r, Contract)who is paid a management fee - • Concessions—Operated by a subcontracted entity(Urick Concessions) N.-1-1 2 who receives all revenue and pays City a commission NLL D Rental Rates: _0 ! +' O Annual Events: Approximately 514,240 visitors during its last full year of op: 49 co mU _ 75 tournaments during 2015. CONVENTIONS � C�L IL Annually estimated$18 million in visitor spending LEISURE I Comparable Facilities Grand Park — Continued — 201S Event Overview (/) W 2015 Tournaments by Sport 2014-2016 Visitors by Type ' Soccer and Field Sports Baseball and Softball ■Baseball Softball Soccer Lacrosse o O _I • Overnight • Day Trip(1) Local 807,625 - 701,133 744,241 N Q c '` 5% 637,394 190,067 158,026 N 0 510,882 248,181 z Q 27% 225,619 183,480 191,323 c6 ll 209,863 386,414 C L 51% 163 823 180,205 -, CO 177,444 a —v < 139,037 S— 402,735 426,235 O li 247,952 272,747 108,610 -0 N 161,982 i < 100,360 O 4(j 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 4?: 0.) 2 D 50 _o I N ++ 0 •� � I - MIT LL V CI. Source: Event Activity Provided by Grand Park Management,2016 Note:Daily Utilization Numbers Include Camps,League Games,Tournaments,and Training Events LEISURE Comparable Facilities Comparable Facility Case Stude FACILITY: MID-AMERICA SPORTS COMPLEX & OKUN FIELDHOUSE , ^ ` T`w� : - I4 " City,State: Shawnee, Kansas V l h. 4-Lll ` " t4_ -,--- Owner. Johnson County Park& Recreation District _ Operator: Johnson County Park& Recreation District� Key Indoor 56,000 square foot fieldhouse with 4 basketball courts or 8 volleyball O C= - Facility courts O �On , .- � Components: 10-stall batting cages U - - ii" ------L..• Key Outdoor 10 lighted softball fields (adult complex) N U Facility 12 additional softball fields (youth complex) O / ... - M/G.AMERICAeWIlit%t WI t1 I+ Components: 2 multipurpose fields for soccer,football, and rugby /V` moo.,:,�,, A a.MI,..111 '' O O Na.Ncoun . Development: Mid-America Sports Complex was built in 1991 by private owners and z .. "' ' acquired by the Johnson Country Park and Recreation District(JCPRD) - - - b - ~�� in 1994 at a cost of$3.9 million. CD LI —" Nearby, Mid-America West Sports Complex(MAWSC) built in 1989 as • i i 1 the Johnson County Girls Athletic Complex. Became MAWSC in 2004 O - • 4-1 • ' �► it when the JCPRD permanently acquired the facility. ` it Okun Fieldhouse was built in 1999. S— coa U a Tenants: O LL N _- Rental Rates: Multipurpose:$25/hour Annual Events: In 2014, held over 32 regional and national baseball and softball m0 ^�^ • ♦ tournaments and 25 in 2015, accommodating more than 120,000 V) 1..� -O 'a �. participants and visitors. The complex operates at about breakeven,with revenues and N2 d expenses around$1.5 million. _o 1 - 51 `n +-� O co m N rSPO TSIONS L.L ___ CSL ILEISURE I Comparable Facilities Comparable Facility Case Studies FACILITY: OVERLAND PARK SOCCER COMPLEX ^ A � 4 City,State: Overland Park, Kansas : '§‘ Lll _ANIL" __. (.1) � � �* Owner: City of Overland Park r Operator: City of Overland Park >: QIERLAND -PARK SOCCER COMPLEX Key Facility 96 acres i Components: 12 lighted, regulation-size synthetic turf fields 00 m - '" ' "� % ip - Field cooling system to regulate turf temperature : "m4 ..o_ __,.. U _ e T, '" "` Basketball and Tennis courts a-+ , B ," v 0 4 rG rt I. N o 0V ? a 1,100 square feet of meeting space O �; coag_ i4':Ilk;,t: _Pone =f Development: Opened in 2009 at a total cost of$36.0 million funded by a hotel O "f d 5 :e app° " ' i. k2 14 tax increase from 6%to 9%. CU a, 7. Y' a z o LL `__„ a�_ �° Tenants: Heartland Soccer Association �, sr .d . •e;a , — Sporting Blue Valley C- W m r= r rl „iee_"a",1 1. WONG Overland Soccer Club 'Pr/ • c N/�� —.— ! p. 1 k ,,;rR 23 local and regional club soccer teams O }, s ir.,-- ' POD"— • �, y; � Rental Rates: Range from$24 to$400 per hour depending on event type, Cl- .— - ell �� 1 9 I 1 2 :`,'A_,,,,;� - length of time,and field size. U Oco �/ is —''> -- �- m " A . Annual Events: Hosted 23 tournaments in 2014, including the Kansas State Cup, i= - USYSA Region II President's Cup, US Adult Soccer Regional and r� ',` National Championships, USYSA National Championships, and -0 0 = -_ til VW Masters. ,-■ ,' 996,000 visitors in 2014: 176,000 league and tournament N • a' t, _ }� _.. -- participants, 702,000 spectators,and 118,000 weekday .4-, v) 2 ,' participants. $1.2 million in revenue in 2013: $850,000 from soccer field O -�'' ""�' - - „ rentals, $350,000 from sponsorships, leases, and 52 co m § -- ^` q IORspoNS N _ concession revenue. `T IL V I 2013 expenses were$1.0 million. CI L . I LEISURE I .. Comparable Facilities Overlyark Soccer Complex SCHEELS OVERLAND PARK SOCCER COMPLEX SCHEELS OVERLAND PARK SOCCER COMPLEX RENTAL RATES FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Full Field Half Field Practice Field Rentals (per hour) (per hour) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Blue Valley Soccer Club/Overland Park Soccer Club $34 $24 ; H Heartland Soccer Association/Non-HSA clubs/Schools $43 $33 Revenues Adult League $75 N/A Field Rental $782,615 $784,351 $842,044 $983,578 $794,557 OO m J Per Day/ Per Day/ Concessions $257,964 $274,768 $327,722 $317,920 $289,816 0 O Per Field Per Field Sponsorships $65,000 $45,500 $76,500 $72,000 $88,300 }, C.) �` Games (5 hrs) (10 hrs) Other Rental Income $94,506 $90,078 $98,398 $96,380 $84,648 (1) ( / Blue Valley Soccer Club/Overland Park Soccer Club $150 $300 Q C v Non-HAS/BVSC $200 $400 Other Revenues $18,510 $13,907 $92,826 $18,136 $25,547 Per Day/ Total Revenues $1,218,595 $1,208,605 $1,437,491 $1,488,013 $1,282,868 CU O LIL Tournaments Rental Fee Per Field Z Q Saturday&Sunday;can include Friday 5-11 PM $14,000 $400 Expenses Cr I '�+' Per Hour/ Salaries,Wages and Benefits $395,272 $393,331 $442,623 $475,086 $452,811 �+ CD LLeague Per Field Utilities $206,255 $248,675 $214,779 $219,671 $251,724 C (n Non-BVSC(Adult) $75 Repairs and Maintenance $186,616 $232,433 $250,321 $278,797 $210,437 Per Hour/ / a + a--+ a a HContractual Services $47,959 $57,985 $63,451 $59,331 $47,830 0 _ Camps/Clinics/Schools,Non-soccer or other sports Per Field Q •V < All camps,clinics,schools,non-soccer or other sports $50 Operating Supplies $26,139 $10,864 $28,280 $42,403 $30,412 f6 Field House Per hour Insurance and Bonds $46,472 $50,254 $53,850 $56,635 $47,489 0 LLRegular hours' $40 Construction Supplies $12,027 $2,551 $12,485 $8,191 $4,244 ki- III], 4-)V1 N+ Prime hours $50 Communications $4,502 $5,732 $6,115 $7,318 $5,272 -0 0 aQ < Equipment Rental Fixed Leases/Rentals $25,981 $7,176 $4,952 $12,257 $9,873 I . Projector Screen $10_ Office Expenses $8,886 $3,378 $3,473 $6,060 $2,259 V) (f) • Podium $10 -I-) N Microphone $10 Total Expenses $960,107 $1,012,380 $1,080,328 $1,165,748 $1,062,352 V1 2 Easel $5 D Video Projector $40 EBITDA' $258,488 $196,225 $357,163 $322,265 $220,516 I •N .4_J0 *All rentals outside of regular operating hours will be subject to a2hourminimum 'EBITDA is defined as ea rnings before interest,taxes,depreciation and amortization. 53 - CONVENTIONS 'Regularhours:M-F8AM-SPM;Sat7AM-4PM;Sun12PM-SPM Source:CityofOverlyndPark. SPORT LL 2 U Prime hours(M-F 5PM-lOPM;Sat 4PM-8PM;Sun 5PM-8PM C st, Source:Sch ee Is Overland Park Soccer Complex LEISURE Comparable Facilities Comparable Facility Case Studie , '_...7 FACILITY: ELIZABETHTOWN SPORTS PARK /� ,... .-:-.7,k.:,._-:•� , City,State: Elizabethtown, Kentucky V 1 ' Lll4.. ,.._„.•-- _ t ,,. ,_:.. Owner: City of Elizabethtown ...in/19 ..----- --— Operator: City of Elizabethtown �' i }, Key Facility 12 baseball/softball fields O m Components: 10 multi-purpose natural grass fields O 0 `"`'^.• ( . 2 synthetic turf championship fields with stadium seating, permanent 7:5 U � - `'�` football and soccer striping and permanent goal posts N 6 full-sized concession stands w. c6 - ,,,,,,,,,f„„..,,,...,..5, Development: Opened in 2012 at a total cost of$31 million financed through a 2% z Q . .1 ;' 1 -ft City of Elizabethtown restaurant tax(in 2014, it brought in$2.7 million, exceeding the$1.0 million expected, allowing the city to Wr 'IL7�'l ' "�°'O cover the debt obligation and fund an account for future capital cN ' II "i_ "`` _ '` �i' N �' improvements. O N L, !� .J OCO �s I Rental Rates: Range from $125 for a half day to$450 for a full day. S— co �/ II it r' Annual Events: The sports park hosts 50 major events annually, of which 20 are `~ LL _ _..iniA tournaments. -0 i � _ ", Estimated economic impact is between$11.9 and$14.1 million � Q � � - /CL 74/ annually. / — •:I-)• v) 2 . 54 N co m CONVENTIONS _ lc SPORTS °' U CSL l LEISURE Comparable Facilities Elizabethtown Sports Park — Continued ELIZABETHTOWN SPORTS PARK ELIZABETHTOWN SPORTS PARK . (J'' RENTAL RATES FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ' W 2013/2014 2014/2015 Type of Field Field Fee Light Fee Estimated Budgeted Field Size (Per Field) (Per Field) Revenues L C Recreation Fees $621,000 $638,656 0Synthetic Soccer/Football(Fields 10&11) Full Size $450/day $40/hour Expenses 7:5 $275/half day $40/hour -1-1 0Salaries,Wages and Benefits $916,300 $988,777 U Natural Grass Soccer Fields(Fields 1-9,12) Full Size,10 U,or 12 U Contractual Services: O � $200/day................................._$30/hour Advertising $1,000 $1,000 $125/half day $30/hoU.r...... 1 < ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Utilities $184,235 $156,950 Baseball Multi use Fields 1&2 60',65'(Bases);210'(Fence) $175/day $30/hour Insurance $30,230 $34,500 CU 0 LL Z Q $125/half day $30/hour Other $18,040 $83,550 Cr Total Contractual Services $344,855 $276,000 CD C< W Baseball-Multi-use Fields 3&4 50',60',65'(Bases);200'(Fence) $175/day $30/hour Materials 8,.Supplies: .N Vehicle Parts&Labor $1,450 $4,500 $125/half day $30/hour ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ N N O Baseball-Baseball Fields 5&6 60',65',70',80'(Bases);250'(Fence) $175/day $30/hour Repairs_ &Maintenance Materials 35,000 75,800 -1-1 a + CO ..................................................................................................... Agricultural&Technical Supplies $100,142 $127,500 CL •_ $125/half day $30/hour Food&Concessions $131,000 $125,200 U .... s_ c6 Baseball Multi-use Fields 7&8 60',65',70',80'.(Bases);250'(Fence) $175/day $30/hour Other $7,500 $31,700 42 N $125/half day $30/hour Total aterials&Supplies $314,592 $364,700 Other Expenses: Baseball-Baseball Fields 10&12 60',65',70',80'(Bases);250'(Fence) $175/day $30/hour League Fees&Awards $0 $0 m O $125/half day $30/hour _ Sports Equipment $0 $22,000 a—+ Q ^ (......... ) ( �..... ......... Miscellaneous Expensex $3,636 $200 V) 1••� Baseball-Baseball Fields 9&11 90'(Bases);345' Fence $175/day $30/hour Total Other Expenses $3,636 $22,200 ._ N2 $125/half day $30/hour Total Expenses $1,598,783 $1,651,677 Miracle Field 45'(Bases);110'(Fence) $175/day N/A ++ O $125/half day N/A EBITDA' ($977,783) ($1,013,021) 55 c6 m 'EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest,taxes,deprec `TNTNTIONS c:SPORamortization. yo. T 1 N U Source:City of Elizabethtown I( I_L Source:City of Elizabethtown. LEISURE Competitive Facilities Comparable Facility Case Studie 01FACILITY: U.S. CELLULAR COMMUNITY PARK City,State: Medford, Oregon Owner: City of Medford W „ Operator: Medford Parks and Recreation Department c. ''1 Key Facility 3 full-sized baseball fields - AZ•`;: P`.akti 41 Components: 7 baseball/softball fields 0 M .. o6 multipurpose fields, including a 1,300-seat stadium field 73 O O - _ All fields are lighted with FieldTurf synthetic grass . ':— N ( ) \ fi Development: $32.5 million, 132-acre park. Phase II opened in 2008 with 5 o r'-- softball baseball fields. Phase III opened in 2009 with 6 multi-purpose ca a fields. Phase IV opened in 2015 with 3 additional ballfields CU C Z - - - _ - Funding has come through a combination of issuing bonds, and W _ - - - . - transient lodging tax,car rental tax, and park utility fee proceeds. \ -v*----- - U.S. Cellular paid$650,000 for 6 years of naming rights in 2005. N -may O - - USCCP is the largest municipal installation of FieldTurf in the United Ci_ v States with nearly 1.5 million square feet of synthetic grass. > Tenants: American Legion Medford Mustangs - O W __ - Medford Rogues t x i Rental Rates: Softball/Baseball: $20-$25/game (1) "`a) •¶ - Multi-purpose: $30-$40/hour 4-, 2 v, '` • Annual Events: 2014 saw$10.2 million in economic stimulus from tournaments and •N }, pT, = - other special events with 1,415 teams competing in more than 4 400 56 O = _ games (44 tournaments CONVENTIONS SPU ) RTS LL 2 U r -- .- T ,-- ,-- .= An estimated 194,000 people visited the park in 2014. I L I LEISURE I Competitive Facilities U.S. CPlli1Iar Community Park — Continued Weekend Tournament Utilization (2014) 2014 Event and Attendance Data (/) January July , 27 (Leagues and Tournaments) Z: W 2 28 Softball 3 Softball 29 Softball Spectators Total Non- 4 30 Softball Participants Non-Local per Local 5 31 Softball Local Teams Non-Local Teams per Team Participants Participant Attendance 0 O February August Adult Softball 153 146 15 2,190 1.5 5,475 7:5U 6 32 Softball Baseball 42 4 13 52 1.5 130 4_, 7 33 Fastpitch 67 175 15 2,625 1.5 6,563 O CCUU 8 34 Soccer(2) Football 12 7 20 140 2.5 490 1 < 9 35 Baseball Soccer 266 217 12 2,604 2.0 7,812 N 0 March September Youth Baseball 89 115 12 1,380 2.5 4,830 Z S 10 Softball 36 Softball Special Olympics 38 84 15 1,260 3.5 5,670 11 Baseball 37 Softball CD 1 1 Total 667 748 10,251 30,970 CD ._ Lll 12 Softball 38 Baseball C ( 13 Softball 39 Softball ► > April October ' 0 — 14 Baseball 40 Baseball U 15 41 Softball According to Medford Parks and Rec Officials, the USCCP runs: 11 16 Softball 42 tn 17 Softball 43 Softball • Approximately $600,000 in operating expenses per year May November _ m 0 18 Baseball 44 19 Softball 45 Baseball • Approximately $300,000 in operating revenues per year ate+ 0 20 Softball 46 Softball to2 21 Softball 47 • Average operating loss of$300,000 per year D 22 Softball 48 _0 ! •N a--+ 0 June December 57Calendar Key CONVENTIONS (p M 23 Softball 49 I SPORTS 0 2 U 24 Baseball 50 TournanentBooked � � LL 25 51 Faciky unhooked 26 Other 52 Holiday I LEISURE Comparable Facilities Comparable Facility Case Studies : FACILITY: MARYLAND SOCCERPLEX/ DISCOVERY SPORTS CENTER City,State: Germantown, Maryland - Owner: Maryland Soccer Foundation W 'w u . .. Operator: Maryland Soccer Foundation Imo'-`?« Key Indoor Discovery Sports Center: s_ c''' c — hj ' Facility 8 basketball/volleyball courts OO _ � ` - ,b. Components: 2 synthetic turf fields for indoor soccer 73 (> • , i , 50,000 square feet of meeting space and locker facilities N U L -._-• ' .; ,.-',} r ,r,:- Key Outdoor 20 full-size natural grass fields `�"' + +" `- Facility 3 lighted synthetic turf fields ca a , a- Components: Championship field with seating for approximately 4,000 spectators N O z Q w° S.-;'",?,,.... :7"..N.„ ,-;.,.._ F� °^� Development: The SoccerPlex cost approximately$22.1 million to develop, and is 9'� ``"' �� `4 part of the South Germantown Recreational Park that opened in e' L !''= fir '< � I IN October 2000. Nr i�►, Y 11111(1114D Funding of the complex was derived through a public/private ++ }, • Nit partnership between the State of Maryland, Montgomery County and O = t „ the Maryland Soccer Foundation. Cl- .0 a ` j • )'� r Awn 1 .3 Tenants: Washington Freedom of Women's Professional Soccer CD • ;00 4O LL �/ �, _ • .r '„ _," Washington Spirit (NWSL) cr) LL a � � � a, .g � �� ..� I D.C. United (MLS) has hosted several Open Cup matches -0 O .. r. y/ 1* '- Rental Rates: Range from$80 to$190/hour, depending on field size and lighting }' Q `` n d � `'"` "' :¢ Annual Events 15-18 local, regional,and national soccer tournaments each year, (n (n �+ !oo®w..,,..,_p....A.uu r 4 " ' _ including the Maryland State Cup Finals, Mid-Atlantic Cup, and the US N2 ¢ [AIM '.$""aL A.N•Eire.J Geer@ ." _iYouth Soccer National Championship, each with 200-325 teams. ♦" '^ "� 000"w "