The URL can be used to link to this page

2021, 11-09 Formal Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday, November 9, 2021 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and In Person at 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In respons -person at City Hall at the address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in-person or via Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those If wishing to make a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. Otherwise, comments will be taken in- person at the meeting in Council Chambers, as noted on the agenda below. emergency order Proclamation 20-25 reinstituting a statewide mask mandate regardless of vaccination status, all those entering or remaining in City Hall must wear a mask or face covering. Masks are available for the public at City Hall. Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting Join the Zoom WEB Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer of Genesis Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS T PROCLAMATIONS: Veterans Day; Native American Heritage Month GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY \[1\]: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required. A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers. Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity \[1\] or \[2\] and may only speak at one or the other, but not both. Council Agenda November 9, 2021 Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 21-017, Amending 2021 Budget Chelsie Taylor \[no public comment\] 2. PUBLIC HEARING #3: 2022 Budget Chelsie Taylor \[public comment opportunity\] 3. Second Reading Ordinance 21-018, Adopting 2022 Budget Chelsie Taylor 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG 2022 Projects - Chaz Bates \[public comment opportunity\] 5. Motion Consideration: Approval of CDBG Project Submittal Chaz Bates 6. 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 November 9, 2021, Request for Council Action Form: $5,630,234.68 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending October 31, 2021: $564,122.99 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2021 Study Session d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2021 Formal Format 7. First Reading Ordinance 21-019 Code Text Amendment 2020-0006, Planned Residential Development Regulations Jenny Nickerson \[no public comment\] 8. First Reading Ordinance 21-020 Amending SVMC 3.34 Dedicatory Plaques Cary Driskell \[public comment opportunity\] 9. Motion Consideration: Approval of Claim Voucher #54977 to Wick Enterprizes, LLC Chelsie Taylor \[public comment opportunity\] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY \[2\]: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required. A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers. Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity \[1\] or \[2\] and may only speak at one or the other, but not both. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Street Sustainability Committee Report Adam Jackson; Committee members 11. Advance Agenda Mayor Wick INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 12. (a) Park & Mission Intersection; (b) Appleway Trail Roadway Crossings; (c) Finance Report; (d) Parks & Recreation Report; (e) Police Department Report CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda November 9, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley PROCLAMATION City of Spokane Valley, Washington Armistice Remembrance WHEREAS, The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, known as Armistice Day, was when major hostilities of World War I formally ended as the Armistice with Germany went into effect, and WHEREAS, The originally observed Armistice day evolved in 1954 into the current Veterans Day observance; and WHEREAS, Americans across our nation recognize November 1 1th as Veterans Day for the special remembrance of and to honor the men and women who served and continue to serve to protect our freedom; and WHEREAS, Tens of millions of Americans have served and hundreds of thousands have given their lives while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States during the past century, and WHEREAS, Citizens across our nation owe a great debt to those who served in defense of this nation and that throughout the generations, their sacrifices have preserved our form of government, even though for many that sacrifice ended in permanent injury or death; and WHEREAS, It is right, fitting and proper to recognize the contributions our service men and women have made and continue to make in defense of America and for what they have done and continue to do to support our great nation, and for their continued efforts to preserve and promote enduring peace around the world. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Ben Wick, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Councilmembers, do hereby call upon all to honor VETERANS DAY and I urge Spokane Valley citizens to join me in thanking all veterans for their sacrifice and service to our country. Dated this 9th day of November 2021. Ben Wick, Mayor Spokane Valley Proc(amation City QfSPokane Varney, Washington National American Indian fferitage MM4onth WHEREAS, The history and culture of our great nation have been significantly influenced by American Indians and indigenous peoples; and WHEREAS, The contributions of American Indians have enhanced the freedom, prosperity, and greatness of America today; and WHEREAS, Native Americans' customs and traditions are respected and celebrated as part of a rich legacy throughout the United States; and WHEREAS, Native American Awareness Week began in 1976 and recognition was expanded by Congress and approved by President George H. W. Bush in August 1990, designating the month of November as National American Indians Heritage Month; and WHEREAS, In honor of National American Indian Heritage Month, community celebrations as well as numerous cultural, artistic educational and historical activities have been planned. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ben Wick, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Councilmembers, do hereby proclaim the month of November as National Native American Heritage Month in Spokane Valley, and I urge citizens to observe this month and take the opportunity to learn more about the American Indian cultures, including taking visits to the Spokane Valley Heritage Museum, and the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture. Dated this 9th day of November, 2021. Ben Wick, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 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 #21-017 which amends the 2021 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget, State law requires the Council to approve an ordinance that appropriates additional funds. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2021 Budget when it was amended on May 18, 2021. On October 12, 2021, an Administrative Report was delivered to Council regarding the need for a budget amendment. On October 26, 2021, a public hearing was held on this topic and Ordinance #21-017 was advanced to a second reading. BACKGROUND: Since the amendment of the 2021 Budget on May 18, 2021, a number of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a second 2021 Budget amendment. They include: #001 - General Fund The total of both recurring and nonrecurring revenues reflects a decrease of $424,200, which is comprised of: • $464,200 decrease in district court passthrough fees in Public Safety revenues. These are fees the City collects on behalf of the State and Spokane County which are paid to those entities after collection. A change in accounting rules in 2020 necessitates accounting for these types of transactions in a Fiduciary Fund. This is the new Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund #632 that is created with this budget amendment. • $40,000 increase for the remaining balance of a grant from the Department of Commerce to complete the Housing Action Plan. This was started in 2020 and completed in 2021. A decrease of $426,003 in appropriations (expenditures) comprised of: • $12,000 increase rental costs in the City Manager Department to reserve shelter beds for the use of the City. • $485,900 decrease in the Public Safety Department to move the passthrough district court fees to the new Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund #632 as described above under revenues. • $40,000 increase to complete the Housing Action Plan paid for by a grant from the Department of Commerce. This was started in 2020 and completed in 2021. • $7,897 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for residual costs related to the CenterPlace west lawn improvements and the CenterPlace roof replacement projects. #104 — Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund Increase revenues by $868,660 including: • $187,000 increase reflecting updated estimates of lodging tax revenues. • $21,500 decrease in investment interest due to a decrease in interest rates. 1 • $703,160 increase in transfers in from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105. This increase reflects a Council motion on December 8, 2020, as part of the lodging tax grant process for the 2021 awards. This motion stated that the remainder of lodging tax collections in Fund #105 after 2020 and 2021 award payouts would be transferred to Fund #104 so that the ending fund balance in Fund #105 is approximately $165,000 at the end of 2021. #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund Increase revenues by $398,700 including an increase of $404,000 reflecting updated estimates of lodging tax revenues and a decrease of $5,300 in investment interest due to a decrease in interest rates. Increase expenditures by $676,160 including a decrease of $27,000 to reflect actual awards for 2021 lodging tax grants and an increase of $703,130 in transfers out to the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 (see explanation under Fund #104 above). #106 — Solid Waste Fund Increase transfers out to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 by $37,776 due to 2020 receipts of the road wear administration fee related to the Waste Management collection contract exceeding previous estimates. #107 — PEG Fund Increase expenditures by $15,000 to replace broadcast equipment in Council Chambers. There are adequate reserves in Fund #107 to cover these costs. #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue is increased by $1,000,000 based on revised revenue projections and investment interest is decreased by $22,000 due to a decrease in interest rates. #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue is increased by $1,000,000 based on revised revenue projections and investment interest is decreased by $19,500 due to a decrease in interest rates. Decrease expenditures by $466,871 due to changes in the expected transfers out to the Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 to reflect current estimates. #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund Revenues and expenditures are proposed to increase by $94,000 to reflect current estimates on various sections of the Barker Road corridor. #309 — Park Capital Projects Fund This fund is being amended to reflect current estimates on several projects. Revenues are increased by $422,575 reflecting: • $7,897 increase in transfers in from the General Fund for residual costs related to the improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn and the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. • $414,678 increase in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Evergreen to Sullivan section of the Appleway Trail, improvements at Balfour Park, the water line at Sullivan Park, and the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail. Expenditures increase by $422,575, including: • An increase of $2,033 for residual costs on the Evergreen to Sullivan segment of the Appleway Trail to close out the project. 2 • An increase of $5,124 for residual costs on the improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn. • An increase of $2,773 for residual costs on the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. • An increase of $367,503 for preliminary engineering costs for phase one of improvements at Balfour Park. • A decrease of $54,858 on the Sullivan Park water line reflecting a changing of the timing on the project. • An increase of $100,000 for preliminary engineering costs for the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail. #310 — Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Revenues are decreased by $2,300 to reflect a decrease in investment interest earnings. Expenditures are increased by $3,600 in transfers out to the Capital Reserve Fund #312. This amount reflects excess investment earnings that have accumulated in Fund #310. #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund Increase transfers in from the Solid Waste Fund #106 by $37,776 due to 2020 receipts of the road wear administration fee related to the Waste Management collection contract exceeding previous estimates. Decrease expenditures by $885,473 to reflect current estimates and timing on several projects including the Broadway Preservation project from Havana to Fancher and the Evergreen Preservation project. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund Revenues increase by $1,020,500 including: • $3,600 increase in transfers in from the Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund #310 for excess interest earnings. • $109,400 increase for the proceeds from the sale of the Balfour horse arena. • $1,000,000 increase in grant proceeds from the RCO grant received for the Flora Rd park property. This grant is partially reimbursing Fund #312 for the cost of this purchase. • $92,500 decrease in investment interest due to a decrease in interest rates. Increases expenditures/appropriations of $3,585,635 include: • Increase of $14,000 in transfers to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for sections of the Barker Road corridor. • Increases of $414,678 in transfers out to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Evergreen to Sullivan section of the Appleway Trail, improvements to Balfour Park, the water line at Sullivan Park, and the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail. • Increases of $921,957 in transfers out to the Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 for the Barker Rd overpass, the Pines Rd underpass, and the Sullivan Rd interchange. • $2,225,000 for the purchase property on Sprague Ave. for potential Precinct use. #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Revenues increase by $1,849,586, comprised of: • Increase of $1,394,500 in grant proceeds to reflect current estimates on the Pines Road grade separation projects. • Decreases of $466,871 in transfers in from the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 for the Barker Road grade separation project. 3 • Increase of $921,957 in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Barker Road grade separation project, the Pines Road grade separation project, and the Sullivan Road interchange. Expenditures increase by $359,834, comprised of: • Increase of $284,834 due to updated estimates for the Barker Road grade separation project. • Increase of $75,000 for preliminary engineering for the Sullivan Road interchange project. #315 — Transportation Impact Fees Fund This is a new fund that is being created to account for the transportation impact fees implemented by the City beginning in 2021. The fees are restricted by law and therefore must be separately tracked. Revenues increase by $150,000 in estimated transportation impact fee collections for 2021, and expenditures increase by $80,000 in transfers out to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for use on eligible capital projects. #316 — Economic Development Capital Proiects Fund This is a new fund that is being created to account for capital projects undertaken by the City for economic development purposes. The first project being accounted for in this fund is the new Expo Center building at the Spokane County Fairgrounds. Revenues increase by $10,000 in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the fairgrounds building, and expenditures increase by $10,000 for preliminary design work for the new Expo Center building. #402 — Stormwater Fund Expenditures increase by $160,000 related to updated estimates and timing on capital projects. #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund Revenues decrease by $628,000 consisting of $615,000 in grant proceeds related to updated estimates on construction projects and $13,000 in investment interest. Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $580,431 including updated estimates on construction projects such as the Regional Decant Facility canopy, the Appleway Stormwater Improvements project, and various pavement preservation projects with aquifer protection updates. #632 — Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund This is a new Fiduciary Fund that is required due to a change in accounting rules. The City receives district court fees that are assessed by the State and Spokane County. These fees are required to be paid to the State or County when received. The City also collects sales taxes and leasehold excise taxes on behalf of the State, which are then remitted quarterly. Revenues increase $399,687 in estimated passthrough fees and taxes that will be collected on behalf of the State and County. Expenditures increase by $400,000 in estimated fees and taxes that will be remitted to the State and County from the passthrough collections. 4 The 2021 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 18 funds resulting in total revenue increases of $6,155,484 and expenditure increases of $4,646,664. The amendment will also create three new funds — the Transportation Impact Fees Fund #315, the Economic Development Capital Projects Fund #316, and the Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund #632. Revenue Expenditure Fund Fund Increase Increase No. Name (Decrease) (Decrease) 001 General Fund (424,200) (426,003) 104 HotelMotel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 868,660 0 105 HotelMotel Tax Fund 398,700 676,160 106 Solid Waste Fund 0 37,776 107 PEG Fund 0 15,000 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 978,000 0 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 980,500 (466,871) 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 94,000 94,000 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 422,575 422,575 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund (2,300) 3,600 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 37,776 (885,473) 312 Capital Reserve Fund 1,020,500 3,585,635 314 Railroad Grade Separation Fund 1,849,586 359,834 315 Tranportation Impact Fees Fund 150,000 80,000 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fu 10,000 10,000 402 Stormwater Fund 0 160,000 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund (628,000) 580,431 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund 399,687 400,000 6,155, 484 4,646,664 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in -part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #21-017 amending Ordinance #20-023 which adopted a budget for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, as subsequently amended by Ordinance #21-006. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action amends the estimated revenues and appropriations for the 2021 Budget that was adopted on December 8, 2020 and subsequently amended on May 18, 2021. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance #21-017 • Fund level line -item detail of revenues and expenditures. • Fund summaries for all funds affected by the proposed budget amendment. 5 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 21-017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 20-023, WHICH ADOPTED A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 21-006; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 20-023 on December 8, 2020, which adopted the 2021 annual budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 21-006 on May 18, 2021, which amended the 2021 annual budget, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the December 8, 2020 adoption and May 18, 2021 amendment of the 2021 annual budget, it has become necessary to make changes by adding new revenue, appropriations, amendments, and transferring funds in order to properly perform City functions, services and activities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to create Fund 315 Transportation Impact Fees Fund, which will be used to account for collections and expenditures of transportation impact fees imposed pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-82.02.110 and chapter 22.100 SVMC. All fees collected must be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the corresponding studies; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to create Fund 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund, which will be used to account for economic development projects undertaken by the City that are capital in nature; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to create Fund 632 Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund, which will be used to account for fee and taxes that the City collects on behalf of the State and Spokane County. These passthrough fees and taxes are required to be accounted for in a separate fund due to a change in accounting rules; and WHEREAS, the budget changes set forth in this Ordinance could not have been reasonably anticipated or known when the 2021 annual budget was passed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by amending the 2021 budget to reflect unanticipated revenue, expenditures, transfers, and appropriating the same as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: Section 1. Amended Revenues and Appropriations. Ordinance No. 20-023 adopted a budget for the twelve months beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2021, and Ordinance 21-006 amended the budget for the same period. Each item, revenue, appropriation, and fund contained in Section 1 of Ordinance 20-023, as subsequently amended by Ordinance 21-006, is hereby further amended as set forth in Attachment A to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein. Section 2. Creating Fund 315. There is hereby created Fund 315 Transportation Impact Fees Fund which will be used to account for collections and expenditures transportation impact fees within the City. Ordinance 21-017 amending the 2021 budget Page 1 of 3 Section 3. Creating Fund 316. There is hereby created Fund 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund which will be used to account for economic development projects undertaken by the City that are capital in nature. Section 4. Creating Fund 632. There is hereby created Fund 632 Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund which will be used to account for fees and taxes that are collected on behalf of and paid to other governmental entities. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this 9' day of November 2021. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 21-017 amending the 2021 budget Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Sources Uses Fund No. Annual Appropriation Funds Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Total Sources Appropriations Estimated Ending Fund Balance Adopted via Ord. 20-023 Amended via Onl. 21-006 Amended via Onl. 21-017 Total Revenues Adopted via Onl. 20-023 Amended via Onl. 21-006 Amended via Onl. 21-017 Total Appropriations 001 General 42,445,511 45,451,419 3,286,800 (424,200) 48,314,019 90,759,530 47,277,766 12,764,755 (426,003) 59,616,518 31,143,012 101 Street O&M 759,299 5,567,200 0 0 5,567,200 6,326,499 5,567,200 0 0 5,567,200 759,299 103 Paths & Trails 21,516 8,900 0 0 8,900 30,416 0 0 0 0 30,416 104 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities 2,986,573 690,840 0 868,660 1,559,500 4,546,073 0 0 0 0 4,546,073 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 798,716 352,000 0 398,700 750,700 1,549,416 708,240 0 676,160 1,384,400 165,016 106 Solid Waste 726,788 1,737,000 0 0 1,737,000 2,463,788 1,737,000 0 37,776 1,774,776 689,012 107 PEG 181,773 79,000 0 0 79,000 260,773 73,000 0 15,000 88,000 172,773 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sal 152,033 193,000 0 0 193,000 345,033 0 0 0 0 345,033 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 121 Service Level Stabilization 5,500,000 0 0 0 0 5,500,000 0 0 0 0 5,500,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve 160,043 1,900 364,440 0 366,340 526,383 500,000 0 0 500,000 26,383 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 0 1,043,850 0 0 1,043,850 1,043,850 1,043,850 0 0 1,043,850 0 301 Capital Projects 2,048,068 1,025,000 0 978,000 2,003,000 4,051,068 1,224,673 0 0 1,224,673 2,826,395 302 Special Capital Projects 5,165,924 1,025,000 0 980,500 2,005,500 7,171,424 3,698,125 0 (466,871) 3,231,254 3,940,170 303 Street Capital Projects 67,402 8,876,315 0 94,000 8,970,315 9,037,717 8,876,315 0 94,000 8,970,315 67,402 309 Parks Capital Projects 75,577 1,205,680 224,691 422,575 1,852,946 1,928,523 1,120,305 384,887 422,575 1,927,767 756 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 842,964 3,100 0 (2,300) 800 843,764 0 0 3,600 3,600 840,164 311 Pavement Preservation 5,792,145 4,146,400 0 37,776 4,184,176 9,976,321 4,726,350 0 (885,473) 3,840,877 6,135,444 312 Capital Reserve 8,503,764 100,000 11,126,343 1,020,500 12,246,843 20,750,607 2,050,524 2,052,858 3,585,635 7,689,017 13,061,590 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 793,526 13,361,980 0 1,849,586 15,211,566 16,005,092 13,796,320 0 359,834 14,156,154 1,848,938 315 Transportation Impact Fees 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0 80,000 80,000 70,000 316 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 Economic Development Capital Proje, 77,321,622 84,868,584 15,002,74 6,383,797 106,254,655 183,576,277 92,399,668 15,202,500 3,506,233 111,108,401 72,467,876 Sources Uses Revenues Appropriations Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Adopted via Amended via Amended via Total Total Adopted via Amended via Amended via Total Working No. Working Capital Funds Capital Ord. 20-023 Ord. 21-006 Ord. 21-017 Revenues Sources Ord. 20-023 Ord. 21-006 Ord. 21-017 &ppropriations Capital 402 Stormwater Management 2,159,796 2,040,000 0 0 2,040,000 4,199,796 2,626,007 13,830 160,000 2,799,837 1,399,959 403 Aquifer Protection Area 2,120,365 2,597,045 0 (628,000) 1,969,045 4,089,410 2,378,109 0 580,431 2,958,540 1,130,870 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 1,387,962 155,400 0 0 155,400 1,543,362 140,000 0 0 140,000 1,403,362 502 Risk Management 340,484 425,000 0 0 425,000 765,484 425,000 0 0 425,000 340,484 632 PassthroughFees & Taxes 313 0 0 399,687 399,687 400,000 0 0 400,000 400,000 0 6,008,920 5,217,445 0 (228,313) 4,989,132 10,998,052 5,569,116 13,830 1,140,431 6,723,377 4,274,675 Total of all Funds 83,330,542 90,086,029 15,002,274 6,155,484 111,243,787 194,574,329 97,968,784 15,216,330 4,646,664 117,831,778 76,742,551 Ordinance 21-017 amending the 2021 budget Page 3 of 3 P:1Finance12021 Budget\Budget Amendment'Amendment #212021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 11/9/2021 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #001 - General Fund Recurring Revenues District Court Passthrough 001.016.000.389.30.xx Recurring Expenditures Shelter Space Rental District Court Passthrough - Passthrough amounts moved to Fiduciary Fund #632 Total recurring revenues 001.013.000.565.40.45.00 - Reserve shelter beds for City use 001.016.000.586.30.xx.xx - Passthrough amounts moved to Fiduciary Fund #632 Nonrecurring Revenues Grant Proceeds D01.040.319.334.04.20 Nonrecurring Expenditures Professional Services Transfer out - #309 Transfer out - #309 001.040.334.558.60.41.05 001.090.0 99.597.30.00.90 001.090.099.597.30.00.90 Total recurring expenditures - Grant for Housing Action Plan Total nonrecurring revenues - Housing Action Plan study - CenterPlace west lawn improvements - costs moved from prior year due to project timing - CenterPlace roof replacement - costs moved from prior year due to project timing Total nonrecurring expenditures 464,200 (464,200) 0 (464,200) 0 12,000 12,000 485,900 (485,900) 0 (473, 900) 49,000 40,000 89,000 40,000 fl 40,000 40,000 14,876 5,124 20,000 12,227 2,773 15,000 47,897 Total of all General Fund revenues Total of ail General Fund expenditures (424,200) (426,003) Page 1 of 7 P.1Finance12021 Budget\BudgetAmendmentWmendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 11/9/2021 Account Description Account Number Description 1 Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #104 - Hotel/Motel Tax- Tourism Facilities Fund Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment interest Transfers in - #105 104.000.000.313.31.01 104.000.000.361.11.00 104.0 00.00 0.397.10.50 #105 - Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Expenditures Tourism Promotion Transfers out - #104 - Estimated increase in collections - Decrease due to economic conditions - Transfer based on Council action in 2020 Total revenues 105.105.000.313.31.00 - Estimated increase in collections 105.105.000.361.11,00 - Decrease due to economic conditions Total revenues 105.105.000.557.30.41,00 - Decrease in spending due to COVID-19 105.105.000.597.10.00.40 - Transfer based on Council action in 2020 #106 - Solid Waste Fund Expenditures Transfer out - #311 213,000 187,000 400,000 24,000 (21,500) 2,500 453,840 703,160 1,157,000 868,660 346,000 404,000 750,000 6,000 (5,300) 700 398,700 224,400 (27,000) 197,400 453, 840 703,160 1,157, 000 Total expenditures 676,160 106.000.000.597.31.00.10 - 2019 road wear fee in excess of estimates #107 - PEG Fund Expenditures Capital Outlay 1,503,000 37,776 1,537,776 Total expenditures 37,776 107.000,000.594.11.64.02 - Replace broadcast equipment in Council Chambers 33,500 15,000 48,500 Total "expend itures 15,000 Page 2 of 7 P:1Finance12021 Budget\Budget AmendmentlAmendment #212021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 11/9/2021 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest 301.301.000.318.34.00 - Estimated increase in collections 301,301.000.361.11.00 - Decrease due to economic conditions #302 - REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest Expenditures Transfer out - #314 302.302.000.318.35.00 Total revenues 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 25,000 (22,000) 3,000 978,000 - Estimated increase in collections 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 302.302.000.361.11.00 - Decrease due to economic conditions Total revenues 302.000.000.597.31.00.40 - Updated construction project estimates 4303 - Street Capital Projects Fund Revenues Transfer in - #312 Transfer in -#315 25,000 (19,500) 5,500 980,500 1,127,387 (466,871) 660,516 Total expenditures (466,871) 303.000.275.397.31,20 - Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 303.000,329.397.31.50 - Barker Rd Imp - City Limits to Appleway 0 14,000 14,000 0 80.000 80,000 Total revenues 94,000 Expenditures Barker Rd - River to Euclid 303.000.275.595.xx.xx.xx - 2021 Construction Costs 1,132,320 14,000 1,146,320 Barker Rd Imp -City Limits to Appleway 303.000.329.595_xx.xx.xx - 2021 Construction Costs 0 80,000 80,000 Total expenditures 94,000 Page 3 of 7 P:IFinancet2021 Budget\Budget AmendmentlAmendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 1119/2021 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #309 - Park Capital Projects Fund Revenues Transfer in -#001 Transfer in - #312 Expenditures Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan CenterPlace West Lawn improvements CenterPlace Roof Replacement Balfour Park - Phase 1 Sullivan Park water line Spokane Valley River Loop Trail 309.000.xxx.397.00.10 309.000.xxx.397.3120 309.000.268.595.xx.xx.xx 309.000.304.595,xx.xx.xx 309.000.305.595.xx.xx.xx 309.000.316.595.xx.xx.xx 309.000.xxx.595.xx.aoc.xx 309.000.xxx.595.xx.xx.xx #310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Revenues Investment Interest Expenditures Transfer out -#312 310.310.000.361.11.00 - CenterPlace West Lawn, CenterPlace roof Appleway Trail, Balfour Park Imp, Sullivan Park water line, Spokane Valley River Loop Trail Total revenues - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs Total expenditures - Decrease due to economic conditions Total revenues 310.000.000.597.31.00.20 - Excess interest income #311 - Pavement Preservation Fund Revenues Transfer in -#106 311.000.000.397.10.60 Expenditures Pavement Preservation Capital Outlay 311.000.xxx.595.xx.xx.xx Total expenditures - 2020 road wear fee in excess of estimates Total revenues - 2021 Construction Costs 187,103 7,897 195,000 718,008 414,678 1,132.686 0 14,876 12,227 0 152,858 0 3,100 1,500,000 422,575 2,033 5,124 2,773 367,503 (54,858) 100,000 422,575 (2,300) (2,300) 3,600 3,600 2,033 20,000 15,000 367,503 98,000 100,000 800 3,600 37,776 1,537,776 37,776 4,726,350 (885,473) 3,840,877 Total expenditures (885,473) Page 4of7 P:1Finance12021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #212021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 111912021 Account Description Account Number #312 - Capital Reserve Fund Revenues Transfer in - #310 Proceeds from sale of land Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Expenditures Transfer out - #303 Transfer out - #309 Transfer out - #309 Transfer out -#309 Transfer out -#309 Transfer out -#314 Transfer out -#314 Transfer out - #314 Transfer out - #316 Public Safety Land Acquisition 312.000.000.397.31.00 312.0 00.000.395.10.02 312.0 00.000.334.02.70 312.000.000.361.11.00 312.000.000.5 97.30.00.30 312.000.000.5 97.30.00.90 312.000.000.597.30.00.90 312.000.000.597.30.00.90 312, 000.000.597.30.00.90 312.000.000.597.31.00.40 312.000.000.597.31.00.40 312.000.000.597.31.00.40 312.000.000.5 97.31.0 0.60 312.000.000.594.21.61.00 #314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfer in -#302 Transfer in -#312 Expenditures Barker BNSF Grade Separation Pines Rd Underpass Sullivan Rd Interchange 314.000.xxx.330.0D.00 314.000.143.397.30.10 314.000.223.397.31.20 314.000.143.595.xx.xx.xx 314.000.223.595.xx.xx.xx 314.000.311.595.xx.xx.xx #315 - Transportation Impact Fees Fund Description !Justification - Excess interest income - Sale of Balfour Horse Arena - RCO grant for Flora Rd park property - Decrease due to economic conditions Total revenues - Barker Rd Corridor Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan - Balfour Park improvements - Phase 1 - Sullivan Park water line - Spokane Valley River Loop Trail - Pines Rd Underpass - Barker Rd Overpass - Sullivan Rd interchange - Fairgrounds Building - Sprague Ave. Land Acquisition Total expenditures - Updated construction project estimates - Barker Rd Grade Separation Project - Pines Rd Underpass, Barker Rd Overpass, Sullivan Interchange Total revenues - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs - 2021 Construction Costs Total expenditures Initial Budget Amendment. 0 3,600 0 109,400 0 1,000,000 100,000 (92,500) 1,020,500 0 14,000 0 2,033 0 367,503 152,858 (54,858) 0 100,000 64,192 562,123 411,582 264,834 250,000 75,000 0 10,000 0 2,225,000 3;$85 3: Amended Budget 3,600 109,400 1,000,000 7,500 14,000 2,033 367,503 98,000 100,000 626,315 696,416 325,000 10,000 2,225,000 11,508.819 1,394,500 12,903,319 1,127,387 (466,871) 660,516 725,774 921,957 1,647,731 1,849,586 9,396,870 284,834 9,681,704 4,149,450 0 4,149,450 250,000 75,000 325,000 359,834 Page 5 of 7 P:IFinance12021 Budget\Budget AmendmentlAmendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 11 /9/2021 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget Revenues Transportation Impact Fees Expenditures Transfer out - #303 315.000.000.345.85.01 - Estimate for new transportation impact fees Total revenues 315.000.000.597.30.00.30 - 2021 Construction Costs #316 - Economic Development Capital Projects Fund Revenues Transfer in -#312 Expenditures Fairgrounds Building Total expenditures 316.000.000.397.31.20 - Fairgrounds Building Total revenues 316.000.xxx.595.xx.xx - 2021 Construction Costs #402 - Stormwater Fund Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 80,000 80.000 80,000 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 10.000 10,000 Total expenditures 10,000 402.000.xxx.595.xx.xx.xx - 2021 Construction Costs 500,000 160,000 660,000 #403 - Aquifer Protection Area Fund Revenues Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Expenditures Capital Projects Total expenditures 160,000 403.000.xxx.374.03.80 - Updated construction project estimates 403.403.000.361.11.00 - Decrease due to economic conditions 2,122,045 (615,000) 1,507,045 15,000 (13,000) 2,000 Total revenues (628,000) 403.000.xxx.595.40.63.00 - 2021 Construction Costs 2,378,109 580,431 2,958,540 Total expenditures 580,431 Page 6 of 7 P:IFinance12021 Budget\Budget AmendmentlAmendment #212021 11 09 2nd Reading12021 Amendment No 2 Detail v2 for RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Amendment #2 Line Item Detail 11/9/2021 Account Description Account Number Description 1 Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #632 - Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund Revenues Passthrough Fees & Taxes 632.000.000.389.30.xx - Fees & taxes collected on behalf of others Total revenues 0 399,687 399,687 399,687 Expenditures Passthrough Fees & Taxes 632.000.000.589.30.xx.xx - Fees & taxes collected on behalf of others 0 400,000 400,000 Total expenditures Totals Across all Funds 400,000 Total revenues Total expenditures 6,155,484 4,646,664 Page 7 of 7 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\20211109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted lst Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended Revenues Property Tax 12,724,200 0 0 12,724,200 Sales Tax 22,220,000 2,980,000 0 25,200,000 Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,054,800 105,200 0 1,160,000 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,862,400 177,600 0 2,040,000 Gambling Tax and Leasehold. Excise Tax 384,000 0 0 384,000 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,215,000 0 0 1,215,000 State Shared Revenues 1,760,000 0 0 1,760,000 Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,010,200 0 (464,200) 546,000 Community and Public Works 1,908,719 0 0 1,908,719 Recreation Program Revenues 643,600 0 0 643,600 Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Department Revenue 21,000 0 0 21,000 Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 592,500 0 0 592,500 Transfers in - #105 (him fax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 30,000 Total Recurring Revenues 45,426,419 3,262,800 (464,200) 48,225,019 Expenditures City Council 631,566 7,106 0 638,672 City Manager 1,158,089 5,750 12,000 1,175,839 City Attorney 718,593 0 0 718,593 Public Safety 28,101,615 282,146 (485,900) 27,897,861 Deputy City Manager 284,844 0 0 284,844 Finance / IT 1,500,659 0 0 1,500,659 Human Resources 318,540 0 0 318,540 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 301,093 72,508 0 373,601 Community & Public Works - Engineering 2,098,642 0 0 2,098,642 Community & Public Works - Economic Dev 1,045,762 51,299 0 1,097,061 Community & Public Works - Building & Planning 2,487,066 (72,508) 0 2,414,558 Parks & Rec - Administration 356,467 (1,040) 0 355,427 Parks & Rec - Maintenance 940,003 0 0 940,003 Parks & Rec - Recreation 328,534 0 0 328,534 Parks & Rec - Aquatics 510,053 0 0 510,053 Parks & Rec - Senior Center 35,403 0 0 35,403 Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 972,214 0 0 972,214 General Government 1,297,380 0 0 1,297,380 Transfers out #204 (2016 LTGO debt service) 401,500 0 0 401,500 Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 0 160,000 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 991,843 0 0 991,843 Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 0 36,600 Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 425,000 0 0 425,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 45,101,466 345,261 (473,900) 44,972,827 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 324,953 2,917,539 9,700 3,252,192 Page 1 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2.021 11 09 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued 'NONRECURRING ACTIVITY 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted 1st Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended Revenues Grant Proceeds 25,000 24,000 40,000 89,000 Reimbursement of chamber wall repairs 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 (police vehicle replacements) 0 0 0 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 25,000 24,000 Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements City Manager (office furniture for Housing Sery empk City Manager (office furniture for Project Manager err Public Safety (replace HVAC units at Precinct) Public Safety (replace handguns) Public Safety (2 radar trailers) Public Safety (Precinct access control gate) Public Safety (Precinct fire panel replacement) Public Safety (DEMS/Tasers/BodyCams) Public Safety (vehicle for homeless services officer) Public Safety (replace carpet at Precinct) Public Safety (repaint Precinct exterior) Public Safety (tree & debris removal from back lot) Public Safety (police vehicle replacements) Economic Dev (Commerce Housing Action Plan) Economic Dev (Ecology SMP Update) Parks & Rec (repaint portico at CenterPlace) Parks & Rec (replace carpet at CenterPlace) Parks & Rec (repair plumbing systems at pools) Windstorm 2021 Cleanup Costs Financial Software Capital Costs Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations) Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace west lawn) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace roof repairs) Transfers out - #312 ('19 fund bat >50%) Transfers out - #501 (vehicle for Code Enf Supervise Total Nonrecurring Expenditures Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures 40,000 89,000 212,800 0 0 212,800 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 62,000 0 62,000 37,500 0 0 37,500 11,400 0 0 11,400 20,000 0 0 20,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 109,608 0 109,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 0 32,000 O 0 0 0 1,859,600 693,000 0 2,552,600 0 364,440 0 364,440 O 14,876 5,124 20,000 0 12,227 2,773 15,000 0 11,126,343 0 11,126,343 0 0 0 0 2,176,300 12,419,494 47,897 14,643,691 (2,151,300) (12,395,494) (7,897) (14,554,691) (1,826,347) 42,516,032 40,689,685 L 90.22% (9,477, 955) 1,803 (11, 302,499) 42,516,032 31,213,533 69.41% Page 2 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 1109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted lst Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended #104 - HOTEL 1 MOTEL TAX - TOURISM FACILITIES FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Transfers in - #105 Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Total expenditures 213,000 24,000 453,840 0 187,000 400,000 0 (21,500) 2,500 0 703,160 1,157,000 690,840 0 868,660 1,559,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 690,840 1,559,600 Beginning fund balance 2,986,573 2,986,573 Ending fund balance 3,677,413 4,546,073 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 346,000 0 404,000 750,000 6,000 0 (5,300) 700 Total revenues 352,000 0 398,700 750,700 Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 Transfers out - #104 453,840 0 703,160 1,157,000 Tourism Promotion 224,400 0 (27,000) 197,400 Total expenditures 708,240 0 676,160 1,384,400 Revenues over (under) expenditures (356,240) (633,700) Beginning fund balance 798,716 798,716 Ending fund balance 442,476 165,016 #106 - SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fee 225,000 0 0 225,000 Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 Investment Interest 12,000 0 0 12,000 Total revenues 1,737,000 0 0 1,737,000 Expenditures Education/Contract Admin 237,000 0 0 237,000 Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 0 37,776 1,537,776 Total expenditures 1,737,000 0 37,776 1,774,776 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (37,778) Beginning fund balance 726,788 726,788 Ending fund balance 726,788 689,012 Page 3 of 10 P:1Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG contribution Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted lst Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended 79,000 0 0 79,000 0 0 0 0 79,000 0 0 79,000 39,500 33,500 0 0 39,500 0 15,000 48,500 73,000 0 15,000 88,000 6,000 (9,000) 181,773 181,773 187,773 172,773 #301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 Investment Interest 25,000 0 (22,000) 3,000 Total revenues 1,025,000 0 978,000 2,003,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,775 0 0 80,775 Transfers out -#303 316,620 0 0 316,620 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,278 0 0 827,278 Total expenditures 1,224,673 0 0 1,224,673 Revenues over (under) expenditures (199,673) 778,327 Beginning fund balance 2,048,068 2,048,068 Ending fund balance 1,848,395 2,826,395 #302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 Investment Interest 25,000 0 (19,500) 5,500 Total revenues 1,025,000 0 980,500 2,005,500 Expenditures Transfers out - 4204 80,775 0 0 80,775 Transfers out - #303 1,662,684 0 0 1,662,684 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,279 0 0 827,279 Transfers out-#314 1,127,387 0 (466,871) 660,516 Total expenditures 3,698,125 0 (466,871) 3,231,254 Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,673,125) (1,225,754) Beginning fund balance 5,165,924 5,165,924 Ending fund balance 2,492,799 3,940,170 Page 4 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted lst Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended #303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 6,843,308 Developer 53,703 Transfers in - #301 316,620 Transfers in - #302 1,662,684 Transfers in - #312 0 Transfers in - #315 0 Total revenues Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersections Improvement 329,453 0 0 329,453 249 SullivanNllellesley Intersection 1,020,522 0 0 1,020,522 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 11,310 0 0 11,310 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 1,132,320 0 14,000 1,146,320 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 7,210 0 0 7,210 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 74,250 0 0 74,250 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 17,875 0 0 17,875 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 2,392,450 0 0 2,392,450 300 Pines and Mission Intersection Improvement 498,000 0 0 498,000 301 Park and Mission Intersection Improvements 693,000 0 0 693,000 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Repl 317,625 0 0 317,625 313 Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing 1,312,500 0 0 1,312,500 318 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 50,000 0 0 50,000 320 Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th 19,800 0 0 19,800 326 2020 Citywide Retroreflective Post Plates 0 0 0 0 329 Barker Road Imp- City Limits to Appleway 0 0 80,000 80,000 Mission Ave over Evergreen Deck Repair 0 0 0 0 School zone beacons 0 0 0 0 Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 Total expenditures 8,876,315 0 94,000 8,970,315 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 67,402 67,402 0 0 6,843,308 0 0 53,703 0 0 316,620 0 0 1,662,684 0 14,000 14,000 0 80,000 80,000 8,876,315 0 94,000 8,970,315 Note: Work performed for pavement preservation projects out of the Street Capital Projects Fund is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that thewere bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 5 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 1109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #312 Total revenues Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail (Evergreen to Sullivan) 0 0 2,033 2,033 304 CenterPlace west lawn improvements - Ph. 2 0 14,876 5,124 20,000 305 CenterPlace roof repairs 0 12,227 2,773 15,000 314 Balfour Park frontage improvements 565,150 0 0 565,150 315 Browns Park improvements 2020 499,805 204,926 0 704,731 316 Balfour Park improvements Phase 1 0 0 367,503 367,503 Install stage fill speakers Great Room 6,346 0 0 6,346 Repair failed pixels Great Room 6,505 0 0 6,505 Reprogram Great Room AN System 12,499 0 0 12,499 Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 30,000 0 0 30,000 Sullivan Park water line 0 152,858 (54,858) 98,000 Replace pond liner at Mirabeau 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley River Loop Trail 0 0 100,000 100,000 Total expenditures 1,120,305 384,887 422,575 1,927,767 Revenues over (under) expenditures 85,375 (74,821) Beginning fund balance 75,577 75,577 Ending fund balance 160,952 756 11 /9/2021 2021 As Adopted 1st Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended 480,530 44,730 0 525,260 160,000 27,103 7,897 195,000 565,150 152,858 414,678 1,132,686 1,205,680 224,691 422,575 1,852, 946 #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 3,100 0 (2,300) 800 Total revenues 3,100 0 (2,300) 800 Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 Transfers out - #312 0 0 3,600 3,600 Total expenditures 0 0 3,600 3,600 Revenues over (under) expenditures 3,100 (2,800) Beginning fund balance 842,964 842,964 Ending fund balance 846,064 840,164 Note: The fund balance in #310 includes $839,281.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. if the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2022 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 6 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 11 09 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #106 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Grant Proceeds Total revenues Expenditures Pavement preservation Pre -project GeoTech Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 ('19 fund bat >50%) Transfers in - #310 (excess interest earnings) Proceeds from sale of land Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #001 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #314 Transfers out - #314 100,000 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted 1st Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended 991,843 1,500,000 827,278 827,279 0 0 0 0 37,776 0 0 0 0 0 0 991,843 1,537,776 827,278 827,279 0 4,146,400 0 37,776 4,184,176 4,676,350 50,000 0 (885,473) 3,790,877 0 0 50,000 4,726,350 (579,950) 5,792,145 5,212,195 0 (885,473) 3,840,877 0 11,126,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,600 109,400 1,000,000 (92,500) 343,299 5,792,145 6,135,444 11,126,343 3,600 109,400 1,000,000 7,500 100,000 11,126, 343 1,020,500 12,246, 843 (police vehicle replacements) (Barker Corridor) (school zone beacons) (Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Ev (Balfour Park frontage improve: (Balfour Park improvements Ph (Sullivan Park water fine) (Spokane Valley River Loop Try (Pines Rd Underpass) (Barker Rd Overpass) Transfers out - #314 (Sullivan Rd Interchange) Transfers out - #316 (Fairgrounds Building) WSDOT Sullivan Park Property Acquisition Flora & Montgomery Trailhead Land Acquisition Ponderosa Park Land Acquisition Sprague Ave Land Acquisition Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 565,150 0 0 0 64,192 411,582 250,000 0 759,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 1,600,000 0 0 14,000 0 2,033 0 367,503 (54, 858) 100,000 562,123 284,834 75,000 10,000 0 0 0 2,225,000 0 14,000 0 2,033 565,150 367,503 98,000 100,000 626,315 696,416 325,000 10,000 759,600 300,000 1,600,000 2,225,000 2,050,524 2,052,858 3,585,635 7,689,017 (1,950,524) 4,557,826 8,503, 764 8,503,764 6,553,240 13, 061, 590 Page 7 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\20211109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted lst Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Developer Contributions Transfers in #302 Transfers in #312 Total revenues Expenditures 143 Barker BNSF Grade Separation 9,396,870 0 284,834 9,681,704 223 Pines Rd Underpass 4,149,450 0 0 4,149,450 311 Sullivan Rd Interchange 250,000 0 75,000 325,000 Total expenditures 13,796,320 0 359,834 14,156,154 Revenues over (under) expenditures (434,340) 1,055,412 Beginning fund balance 793,526 793,526 11,508,819 0 1,127,387 725,774 0 1,394,500 12,903, 319 0 0 0 0 (466,871) 660,516 0 921,957 1,647,731 13,361,980 0 1,849,586 15,211,566 Ending fund balance 359,186 1,848,938 #315 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FUND Revenues Transportation impact Fees 0 0 150,000 150,000 Total revenues 0 0 150,000 150,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #303 0 0 80,000 80,000 Total expenditures 0 0 80,000 80,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 0 Ending fund balance 0 70,000 0 70,000 #316 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfer in - #312 (fairgrounds building) 0 0 10,000 10,000 Total revenues 0 0 10,000 10,000 Expenditures Fairgrounds Building 0 0 10,000 10,000 Total expenditures 0 0 10,000 10,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 Page 8of10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 1109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest Miscellaneous 11/9/2021 2021 As Adopted 1st Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended 1,900,000 0 0 1,900,000 40,000 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 0 0 1,940,000 Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 538,864 13,830 0 552,694 Supplies 14,750 0 0 14,750 Services & Charges 1,320,643 0 0 1,320,643 Intergovernmental Payments 45,000 0 0 45,000 Vehicle rentals - #501 6,750 0 0 6,750 Total Recurring Expenditures 1,926,007 13,830 0 1,939,837 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 13,993 (13,830) 0 163 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 100,000 0 0 100,000 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 100,000 0 0 100,000 Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 0 160,000 660,000 Watershed studies 100,000 0 0 100,000 Stormwater comprehensive plan update 100,000 0 0 100,000 Generator for Maintenance Shop (1/2 cost to #101) 0 0 0 0 Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 700,000 0 160,000 860,000 Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning working capital 2,159,796 2,159,796 Ending working capital 1,573,789 1,399,959 (600,000) 0 (160,000) (760,000) (586,007) (13,830) (160,000) (759,837) Page 9 of 10 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Amendment\Amendment #2\2021 1109 2nd Reading\2021 Budget Summary for Amended Funds No 2 v2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Amendment ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Capital - various projects Effectiveness study Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital FIDUCIARY FUNDS #632 - PASSTHROUGH FEES & TAXES FUND Revenues Fees & taxes collected for other governments 11 /9/2021 2021 As Adopted 1st Amendment 2nd Amendment As Amended 460,000 2,122, 045 15,000 0 0 460,000 0 (615,000) 1,507,045 0 (13,000) 2,000 2,597,045 0 (628,000) 1,969,045 2,378,109 0 580,431 2,958,540 0 0 0 0 2,378,109 0 580,431 2,958,540 218,936 (989,495) 2,120,365 2,120,365 2,339,301 1,130,870 0 0 399,687 399,687 Total revenues 0 Expenditures Fees & taxes remitted to other governments Total expenditures 0 399,687 399,687 0 0 400,000 400,000 0 0 400,000 400,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 313 Ending fund balance 313 (313) 313 0 Page 10 of 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing #3 on 2022 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No final Council action has been taken on the 2022 Budget. BACKGROUND: This marks the seventh occasion where the Council will discuss the 2022 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2022 Budget later during tonight's meeting, Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: • June 15 Council Budget Workshop • August 24 • September 14 • October 5 • October 12 • October 26 • November 9 • November 9 Admin report: Estimated 2022 revenues and expenditures Public hearing #1 on 2022 revenues and expenditures City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2022 Budget Public hearing #2 on 2022 Budget First reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget Public hearing #3 on 2022 Budget Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget This evening's meeting represents the third public hearing on the 2022 Budget and the purpose of the hearing is to consider input from the public on the final 2022 budget. 2022 Budget Overview: • The 2022 Budget currently includes appropriations of $107,856,818 including $32,082,233 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $2,650,000 in Fund #001 General Fund. o $9,971,150 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects. o $4,728,520 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects. o $7,202,000 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation including $1,001,800 financed by the General Fund. o $2,775,263 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $750,000 in Fund #316 Economic Development Capital Projects. o $3,323,800 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 projects. • To partially offset the $32,082,233 in capital costs we anticipate $11,813,312 in grant revenues which results in 36.82% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 27 separate funds. • The full-time equivalent employee (FTE) count will increase in 2022 by 5 to 101.25 from 96.25. These increases include a Project Manager position in the City Manager Department, an Engineering Tech II split 0.2 to Engineering and 0.8 to capital projects, a CAD Manager split 1 0.5 to Engineering and 0.5 to capital projects, a Code Enforcement Supervisor in the Building Department, and an Assistant Engineer in Development Engineering. • Although it does not affect the City's FTE count, there is also an additional officer position being added to the Law Enforcement contract to assist in homeless services. Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2022 recurring revenue estimate of $52,432,700 is $4,207,681 or 8.73% greater than the 2021 proposed amended budget of $48,225,019. • The 2022 recurring expenditure proposal of $48,415,982 is $3,443,155 or 7.66% greater than the 2021 proposed amended appropriation of $44,972,827. • Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $4,016,718 or 7.66% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring revenues include a $1,400,000 transfer in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the replacement of police vehicles. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $5,632,119 and include: o $136,000 for Information Technology expenditures including: ■ $15,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $55,000 to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $50,000 to upgrade the City's backup solution ■ $16,000 for software upgrades o $5,000 for furniture for the new Project Manager position o $1,562,000 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $24,000 for two radar trailers ■ $55,000 for a vehicle for the new Homeless Services Officer ■ $25,000 to replace carpeting at the Precinct ■ $50,000 to repaint the exterior of the Precinct ■ $8,000 for tree and debris removal from the back lot at the Precinct ■ $1,400,000 for the replacement of police vehicles o $12,000 to repaint the portico at CenterPlace o $26,700 to replace carpeting at CenterPlace o $30,000 to repair the plumbing systems at the pools o $1,000,000 for Financial Software capital costs o $2,820,419 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund o $40,000 transfer out to the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund #501 for an additional vehicle for the Code Enforcement Supervisor position • The total of 2022 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $215,401. • The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2022 is currently $30,927,611 or 63.88% of recurring expenditures. 2 Other Funds: 2022 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $53,808,717 as follows: Fund Number Fund Name 2022 Appropriation 101 Street Fund 103 Paths and Trails Fund 104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 315 Transportation Impact Fee Fund 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund 6,039,619 0 0 601,000 1,832,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,064,800 1,357,780 2,109, 649 9,971,150 4,728,520 0 7,252,000 7,723,710 2,775,263 150,000 750,000 2,443,926 3,063,800 522,500 450,000 400,000 53, 808, 717 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted primarily to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1,904,000. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $932,000. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $3,000,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $1,000,000 ($600,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $400,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104). • Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,910,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $460,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $11,813,312 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,956,322 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $126,100 o Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation - $1,029,000 o Fund #314 — RR Grade Separation Projects - $1,560,290 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $1,881,600 3 Funding Challenges: • The COVID-19 Pandemic continues to impact revenues and consequently, as we receive updated information on tax collections and revenue sources, we will continue to monitor budgeted revenues for any adjustments needed in the coming year. • Declining revenues in the Street O&M Fund #101 are impacting our ability to deliver historic levels of service. Fund #101 is dependent upon motor vehicle fuel tax revenues and telephone utility tax revenues. o Motor vehicle fuel taxes have increased slightly due to recent State legislation; however, they are generally flat or declining in recent years due to improvements in vehicle fuel mileage. Also, the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic are still being seen in decreased fuel tax collections. o Telephone utility taxes have been declining at an average of 6.76% per year from 2009 through 2020. We believe the decline is primarily due to the elimination of land lines by individual households. The revenues from this tax reached a high of $3.1 million in 2009 (the year the tax was implemented) and is currently estimated to generate $932,000 in 2022. • Balancing the cost of pavement preservation against other transportation and infrastructure needs. o Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is relying more heavily on REET revenues due to an elimination of the contribution from the Street Fund #101 related to declining revenues and an elimination of contributions from the Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123. The fund balance in Fund #123 was entirely depleted at the end of 2016, and the fund was closed during 2017. o Reliance on REET revenues to fund pavement preservation in Fund #311 limits the City's ability to provide match funding for State and Federal grants received for other street projects. o Railroad grade separation projects (overpasses and underpasses) are exceptionally expensive endeavors and are largely beyond the City's ability to finance through existing sources of revenue. The City has secured funding for the Barker Rd. Grade Separation project; however, funding is still needed for other grade separation projects within the City. OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on the final 2022 budget; and this is the third public hearing on the 2022 budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input from the public in regard to the 2022 Budget, no action is requested at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This public hearing is the final step leading to Council consideration of a second reading of the ordinance that will adopt the 2022 Budget. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • See Agenda Item #3, which includes the draft Ordinance adopting the 2022 budget, as well as the final 2022 budget book. 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 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 #21-018 Adopting the 2022 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: To date the Council has heard presentations on the 2021 Budget on seven previous occasions including three public hearings. At the meeting on October 26, 2021, Council advanced Ordinance #21-018 adopting the 2022 Budget to a second reading. BACKGROUND: This marks the eighth occasion where the Council will discuss the 2022 Budget including three public hearings. The 2022 Budget development calendar of Council meetings on this topic follows: • June 15 Council Budget Workshop • August 24 Admin report: Estimated 2022 revenues and expenditures • September 14 Public hearing #1 on 2022 revenues and expenditures • October 5 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2022 Budget • October 12 Public hearing #2 on 2022 Budget • October 26 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget • November 9 Public hearing #3 on 2022 Budget • November 9 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget 2022 Budget Overview: • The 2022 Budget currently includes appropriations of $107,856,818 including $32,082,233 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $2,650,000 in Fund #001 General Fund. o $9,971,150 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects. o $4,728,520 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects. o $7,202,000 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation including $1,001,800 financed by the General Fund. o $2,775,263 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $750,000 in Fund #316 Economic Development Capital Projects. o $3,323,800 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 projects. • To partially offset the $32,082,233 in capital costs we anticipate $11,813,312 in grant revenues which results in 36.82% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 27 separate funds. • The full-time equivalent employee (FTE) count will increase in 2022 by 5 to 101.25 from 96.25. These increases include a Project Manager position in the City Manager Department, an Engineering Tech II split 0.2 to Engineering and 0.8 to capital projects, a CAD Manager split 0.5 to Engineering and 0.5 to capital projects, a Code Enforcement 1 Supervisor in the Building Department, and an Assistant Engineer in Development Engineering. • Although it does not affect the City's FTE count, there is also an additional officer position being added to the Law Enforcement contract to assist in homeless services. Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2022 recurring revenue estimate of $52,432,700 is $4,207,681 or 8.73% greater than the 2021 proposed amended budget of $48,225,019. • The 2022 recurring expenditure proposal of $48,415,982 is $3,443,155 or 7.66% greater than the 2021 proposed amended appropriation of $44,972,827. • Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $4,016,718 or 7.66% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring revenues include a $1,400,000 transfer in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the replacement of police vehicles. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $5,632,119 and include: o $136,000 for Information Technology expenditures including: ■ $15,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $55,000 to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $50,000 to upgrade the City's backup solution ■ $16,000 for software upgrades o $5,000 for furniture for the new Project Manager position o $1,562,000 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $24,000 for two radar trailers ■ $55,000 for a vehicle for the new Homeless Services Officer ■ $25,000 to replace carpeting at the Precinct ■ $50,000 to repaint the exterior of the Precinct ■ $8,000 for tree and debris removal from the back lot at the Precinct ■ $1,400,000 for the replacement of police vehicles o $12,000 to repaint the portico at CenterPlace o $26,700 to replace carpeting at CenterPlace o $30,000 to repair the plumbing systems at the pools o $1,000,000 for Financial Software capital costs o $2,820,419 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund o $40,000 transfer out to the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund #501 for an additional vehicle for the Code Enforcement Supervisor position • The total of 2022 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $215,401. • The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2022 is currently $30,927,611 or 63.88% of recurring expenditures. 2 Other Funds: 2022 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $53,808,717 as follows: Fund Number Fund Name 2022 Appropriation 101 Street Fund 103 Paths and Trails Fund 104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 315 Transportation Impact Fee Fund 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund 6,039,619 0 0 601,000 1,832,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,064,800 1,357,780 2,109, 649 9,971,150 4,728,520 0 7,252,000 7,723,710 2,775,263 150,000 750,000 2,443,926 3,063,800 522,500 450,000 400,000 53, 808, 717 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted primarily to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1,904,000. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $932,000. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $3,000,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $1,000,000 ($600,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $400,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104). • Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,910,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $460,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $11,813,312 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,956,322 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $126,100 o Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation - $1,029,000 o Fund #314 — RR Grade Separation Projects - $1,560,290 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $1,881,600 3 The City's 2022 Budget is adopted at a fund level as follows: Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fur 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 Transportation Impact Fees Fund 315 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 316 31,143,012 53,832,700 84,975,712 54,048,101 30,927,611 759,299 5,874,119 6,633,418 6,039,619 593,799 30,416 8,100 38,516 0 38,516 4,546,073 402,500 4,948,573 0 4,948,573 165,016 601,000 766,016 601,000 165,016 689,012 1,832,000 2,521,012 1,832,000 689,012 172,773 79,000 251,773 73,000 178,773 345,033 193,000 538,033 0 538,033 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 5,500,000 0 5,500,000 0 5,500,000 526,383 800 527,183 500,000 27,183 0 1,064,800 1,064,800 1,064,800 0 2,826,395 1,502,000 4,328,395 1,357,780 2,970,615 3,940,170 1,505,000 5,445,170 2,109,649 3,335,521 67,402 9,971,150 10,038,552 9,971,150 67,402 756 4,808,520 4,809,276 4,728,520 80,756 840,164 1,300 841,464 0 841,464 6,135,444 5,460,600 11,596,044 7,252,000 4,344,044 13,061,590 10,000 13,071,590 7,723,710 5,347,880 1,848,938 2,695,172 4,544,110 2,775,263 1,768,847 70,000 200,000 270,000 150,000 120,000 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 72,967,876 90,791,761 163,759,637 100,976,592 62,783,045 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,399,959 1,912,000 3,311,959 2,443,926 868,033 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 1,130,870 2,343,500 3,474,370 3,063,800 410,570 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 501 1,403,362 230,000 1,633,362 522,500 1,110,862 Risk Management Fund 502 340,484 450,000 790,484 450,000 340,484 Passthrough Fees & Taxes 632 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 Total of all Funds 4,274,675 77,242,551 5,335,500 96,127,261 9,610,175 173,369,812 6,880,226 107,856,818 2,729,949 65,512,994 OPTIONS: State law requires the City to adopt a budget prior to December 31. Council may adopt the budget as presented or alter it as they deem necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #21-018 adopting the 2022 Budget. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Adoption of Ordinance #21-018 concludes the 2022 Budget development process and establishes the final budget including estimated revenues and appropriations. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance #21-018 • 2022 Budget 4 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 21-018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2022 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022; APPROPRIATING FUNDS; ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, State law requires the City Manager to prepare a preliminary budget for the City of Spokane Valley at least 60 days before the beginning of the City fiscal year beginning January 1, 2022 and ending December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, in consultation with the Finance Director and department heads, has prepared and placed on file with the City Clerk a preliminary budget, together with an estimate of the amount of money necessary to meet the expenses of the City including payment of outstanding obligations; and WHEREAS, notice was posted and published for public hearings held on September 14, October 12, and November 9, 2021. The City Council met and invited public comment in the City Council Chambers during each public hearing; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given and the preliminary budget was filed with the City Clerk October 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the 2022 budget, including all allowances, and an appropriation for each fund; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley property tax levy in 2021 for collection in 2022, will be $13,199,900, which represents a 0% increase in the 2022 levy. This levy is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of State assessed property, any annexations that have occurred, and refunds made. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adoption of 2022 Budget. The budget for the City of Spokane Valley for the year 2022 is adopted at the fund level. The final budget for 2022 is attached hereto, and by this reference is incorporated herein pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075. For summary purposes, the total estimated appropriations for each separate fund, plus the aggregate total for all such funds, is set forth as follows: Ordinance 21-018 Adopting 2022 Budget Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fur 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 Transportation Impact Fees Fund 315 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 316 31,213,533 53,832,700 85,046,233 54,048,101 30,998,132 759,299 5,874,119 6,633,418 6,039,619 593,799 30,416 8,100 38,516 0 38,516 4,546,073 402,500 4,948,573 0 4,948,573 165,016 601,000 766,016 601,000 165,016 689,012 1,832,000 2,521,012 1,832,000 689,012 172,773 79,000 251,773 73,000 178,773 345,033 193,000 538,033 0 538,033 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 5,500,000 0 5,500,000 0 5,500,000 526,383 800 527,183 500,000 27,183 0 1,064,800 1,064,800 1,064,800 0 2,826,395 1,502,000 4,328,395 1,357,780 2,970,615 4,312,765 1,505,000 5,817,765 2,109,649 3,708,116 67,402 9,971,150 10,038,552 9,971,150 67,402 756 4,808,520 4,809,276 4,728,520 80,756 840,164 1,300 841,464 0 841,464 6,135,444 5,460,600 11,596,044 7,252,000 4,344,044 13,161,590 10,000 13,171,590 7,723,710 5,447,880 293,526 2,695,172 2,988,698 2,775,263 213,435 70,000 200,000 270,000 150,000 120,000 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 71,955,580 90,791,761 162,747,341 100,976,592 61,770,749 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,399,959 1,912,000 3,311,959 2,443,926 868,033 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 1,130,870 2,343,500 3,474,370 3,063,800 410,570 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 501 1,403,362 230,000 1,633,362 522,500 1,110,862 Risk Management Fund 502 340,484 450,000 790,484 450,000 340,484 Passthrough Fees & Taxes 632 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 Total of all Funds 4,274,675 76,230,255 5,335,500 96,127,261 9,610,175 172,357,516 6,880,226 107,856,818 2,729,949 64,500,698 The total balance of all funds appropriated for 2022 is $107,856,818. Section 2. Transmittal of Budget. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together with a copy of this Ordinance, shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. 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 of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 21-018 Adopting 2022 Budget Page 2 of 3 DRAFT PASSED by the City Council this day of November, 2021. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 21-018 Adopting 2022 Budget Page 3 of 3 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley WA 99206 www.SpokaneValley.org 4ui,�yl� This page left intentionally blank. Spokane Val ley City Manager's Budget Message 2022 Annual Budget Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: What a difference a year makes. When I penned this message in the fall of 2019, I noted that we existed in the longest economic expansion in United States history, and at that point observed that with each passing day we were closer to the next economic downturn. When I wrote this message in the fall of 2020, I noted that we existed in a global recession brought on by the COVID- 19 pandemic and that we were uncertain of the depth and breadth of the impact of this event on City revenues and the programs they support. The ensuing year has been fraught with uncertainty and now in the fall of 2021 it's clear the recession has ended, and the U.S. and local economy are growing at a brisk pace. With that said however, anecdotally we understand that the economic recovery has been disproportionate and has favored larger businesses but left many smaller businesses behind. This uneven economic recovery is an issue Council and Staff must constantly be cognizant of as we consider economic policy decisions in the future. Because the City has a long history of making prudent financial decisions dating back to our 2003 incorporation, because we have engaged in consistently responsible budgeting including realistic revenue projections and controlled spending, because we have restrained the growth of City programs and related spending, and because we have adhered to the key Fiscal Policies noted in following pages, we believe we are delivering a 2022 Budget that will comfortably allow the City to continue to deliver status quo levels of service throughout all of next year while at the same time financing another aggressive capital improvement program. Budget Development Goals We recognize that to ensure continued financial stability, it is imperative that we achieve two key goals within our General Fund: 1. Recurring annual revenues must be greater than or equal to recurring annual expenditures, and 2. The ending General Fund fund balance must be sufficient enough to meet cash flow needs which is no less than 50% of recurring expenditures and represents roughly six months of General Fund operations. Even in light of the financial uncertainty we've faced over the past 2 years I am pleased to report that each of these goals have again been achieved in the 2022 General Fund Budget. Beyond recurring operating activity, and due to our exceptionally strong financial position, we have been afforded the opportunity to use the portion of the General Fund fund balance that exceeds 50% of recurring expenditures for capital construction projects that are important to the City Council and Community. Following this policy of transferring the fund balance in excess of 1 50%, since 2013, City Councils have made the decision to transfer $38.9 million of excess General Fund reserves to partially finance a variety of projects including: • each phase of the Appleway Trail, • Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement, • Appleway Avenue Landscaping, • construction of a new City Hall, • the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project, • completed a new section of Garland Avenue stretching from Flora Road to Barker Road, • acquired 17.7 acres of land in the Ponderosa area for future park development, • acquired 45 acres of land located east of Flora Road and north of the Spokane River for future park development, and • acquired an additional 3.16 acres adjacent to the police precinct for potential future expansion. The City has also set aside a portion of this money for future projects including: • the Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project, • Barker Corridor Projects, • development of Balfour Park, and • a new exhibit hall at the Spokane County Fairgrounds. 2 Fiscal Policies Fiscal Health is at the Core of Providing a Good Public Service The Fiscal Policies adopted by the City Council are important for the long-range fiscal strength of Spokane Valley. These policies set a framework that the City will follow to responsibly manage resources and if necessary, the circumstances under which we will utilize reserves to sustain operations during economic downturns. Financial Management The City will strive to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with minimal resources to achieve success. 2. Minimize personnel costs and overhead by continuing to contract for services when it makes financial and operational sense to do so. 3. Continue the six -year Business Plan process. 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. 5. Minimize City debt with a pay as you go philosophy. o The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley carries an exceptionally low debt burden and currently utilizes only 1.08% of its total debt capacity, and more importantly, only 5.39% of non -voted bond capacity. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize the mid -year addition of projects and appropriations. Financial Objectives The City's financial objectives are: 1. Adopt a General Fund Budget with recurring revenues equal to, or greater than recurring expenditures. 2. Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Fund Balance of at least 50% of the recurring expenditure budget. This is adequate to meet cash flow needs and is the equivalent of six months of general fund operations. 3. If necessary, utilize a portion of the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund #121 ($5.5 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. 4. Commitment to the strategy that the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund #121 will not be reduced below $3.3 million (60% of $5.5 million) without City Council approval. If Council should deem this necessary, the City will then first replenish Fund #121 to at least $3.3 million before any annual General Fund transfers are made to Capital Reserve Fund #312. 5. Maintain the 2022 property tax assessment the same as 2021 with the exception of new construction. As in the previous 12-years, the City will forego the 1% annual increase to property tax allowable by RCW 84.52.050. We anticipate this will result in a levy of $12,724,900 plus estimated new construction of $475,000 for a total levy of $13,199,900. The allowable potential increase will be banked for future use as provided by law. 6. Grow our economy so the existing tax base can support basic programs. Commitment — By committing to these policies and the checks and balances they afford, the City will ensure financial sustainability well into the future. 3 2022 Budget Highlights City Priorities The City's chief budget priorities are: • Public Safety • Pavement Preservation • Transportation and Infrastructure (including railroad grade separations and park related projects), and • Economic Development Ensuring that we've committed adequate resources to these activities accounts for much of the effort that Council and Staff collectively dedicate to the annual development of our Business Plan and Operating and Capital budgets. Moderate Growth in Recurring General Fund Expenditures Investing in the essential core services identified by the Council and Community is the foundation of the programs and related expenditures we include in this budget. Similar to the trend experienced in most jurisdictions, we find that the cost of providing these services often increases at a faster rate than the moderate growth we see in the underlying tax revenues that support these core services. With that said however, City staff and Council collectively strive to meet the challenge of continuing to provide historic levels of service and we will again meet this challenge in 2022. The revenue and expenditure figures included in the 2022 Budget are each considerably higher than in previous years and this is a reflection of the impact of dropping into and climbing out of a recession between 2020 and 2022. Increases at the point of budget adoption over the past 9-years have been: 2022 compared to 2021 2021 compared to 2020 2020 compared to 2019 2019 compared to 2018 2018 compared to 2017 2017 compared to 2016 2016 compared to 2015 2015 compared to 2014 2014 compared to 2013 Recurring Revenues Expenditures 8.73% 2.20% 6.12% 5.56% 3.73% 4.38% 3.08% 2.72% 4.39% 7.66% 5.14% 3.00% 1.90% 1.81% 0.87% 2.79% 3.90% 4.28% Public Safety Costs Over the years Council has consistently committed to the maintenance and at times enhancement of public safety service levels and this is again reflected in the 2022 Budget where public safety costs including law enforcement, courts, prosecution, public defense and jail related services represent the City's primary operating expenditure and total $29,804,434 which is a 6.83% increase over the 2021 Budget. Noteworthy about the public safety budget are the following observations: • It represents 61.6% of the 2022 General Fund recurring expenditure budget ($29,804,434 / $48,415,982). • It is equivalent to 226% of anticipated 2022 property tax collections ($29,804,434 / $13,199,900). In other words, if property taxes were to double they alone would not be 4 sufficient to cover Spokane Valley's public safety commitment. • The 2022 Budget includes an additional Police Officer whose time would be dedicated to the purpose of responding to homelessness issues within our community. Staffing Levels The full-time equivalent employee (FTE) count will increase by 5.00 from 96.25 in 2021 to 101.25 in 2022. This includes: • a 1.0 FTE Project Manager position allocated 100% to the City Manager's office that will allow the City to address emerging issues more proactively. • a 1.0 FTE Code Enforcement Supervisor position allocated 100% to Code Enforcement that will help us to respond to complex code enforcement issues in a more timely manner. • a 1.0 FTE Assistant Engineer position allocated 100% to Development Engineering that will allow us to better respond to record setting private development which in turn improves the City's underlying economic foundation. • a 1.0 FTE CAD Manager position allocated 50% to Engineering and 50% to Capital Projects that is necessary in order to maintain our infrastructure addition and improvement programs. • a 1.0 FTE Engineering Tech 2 position allocated 20% to Engineering and 80% to Capital Projects that is necessary in order to maintain our infrastructure addition and improvement programs. The FTE count allocated among City funds is as follows: General Fund #001 Street O&M Fund #101 Street Capital Projects Fund #303 Stormwater Fund #402 2021 2022 Adopted Budget Staff Reallocation Additions Amended Budget Additions Total 76.28 7.47 7.60 3.90 (0.23) 0.00 0.00 0.23 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.05 7.47 7.60 4.13 3.70 0.00 1.30 0.00 80.75 7.47 8.90 4.13 95.25 0.00 1.00 96.25 5.00 101.25 The personnel costs for the 80.75 FTEs charged to the General Fund represent just 22.4% of recurring expenditures. Taking into consideration that we contract for police services and are served by Fire and Water districts as well as a Library District, for a city of our size we operate substantially below the normal employee count and consequently at a significantly reduced payroll cost relative to many cities across the country. Spokane Valley staff levels average about one employee for every 1,017 citizens (= population of 102,976 per the U.S Census Bureau / 101.25 FTEs) while comparably sized cities in the State of Washington have a much higher ratio of employees to citizens. Since incorporation, the City has taken a conservative approach to adding new staff and continues to have the lowest per capita employee count of any Washington city with a population of 50,000 or greater. By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley continues to be a lean, productive City government. Pavement Preservation Some may question paving roads that "don't look so bad" but the truth is the best time to repave is before a road deteriorates to the point that full reconstruction is necessary. Full reconstruction costs substantially more than pavement preservation treatments such as crack sealing or grinding 5 and repaving and this is why the City has committed critical financial resources to the preservation of our transportation infrastructure. We're proud of our fine road system and will endeavor to continue to maintain it in the best manner possible with available financial resources. Beginning in 2012, the City initiated a program of expending general fund, special revenue fund and capital project fund revenues and reserves for the purpose of financing our street preservation efforts. In 2022, our community will again see an aggressive program of caring for roadways including the potential of surface treatment programs that would be new to Spokane Valley. For 2022, we project total revenues in Pavement Preservation Fund #311 of $5,460,600 that combined with $1,791,400 of fund reserves will be applied against $7,252,000 in projected expenditures. Sources of revenue in 2022 are anticipated to include $1,600,000 from the Street Wear fee that was adopted by Council in 2018, $1,029,000 in grant proceeds and $2,831,600 in transfers from other City funds consisting of: • $1,001,800 from the General Fund • $ 914,900 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 • $ 914,900 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 While Pavement Preservation is one of our critical service and budget priorities, we find that sustaining adequate levels is a constant challenge and I address this in the portion of this budget message titled "Challenges". Transportation and Infrastructure The 2022 Budget includes $32,082,233 of capital expenditures that we anticipate will be in -part offset with $11,813,312 in grant revenues which results in 36.8% of capital projects being financed with State and Federal dollars. The capital expenditures we'll incur in 2022 partially include: • $2,620,000 from the General Fund: o $1.0 million for the replacement of financial management software. o $166,000 for Information Technology equipment acquisitions. o $5,000 for office equipment. o $24,000 for the acquisition of 2 radar trailers for Police. o $1.46 million for the replacement of Police vehicles. • $85,500 for equipment including a generator in Street Fund #101. • $33,500 for broadcast equipment from PEG Fund #107. • $9.97 million in Street Capital Projects Fund #303. • $4.73 million in Park Capital Projects Fund #309. • $7.20 million in Pavement Preservation Fund #311. • $2.78 million in Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314. • $750,000 towards the design of a Fairground Exhibit Center in Fund #316. • $3.37 million in Stormwater Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403. • $512,500 from Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund #501 that includes o $47,500 for the replacement of a shared vehicle. o $95,000 for the replacement of 2 vehicles in Engineering. o $40,000 for the addition of a vehicle for Code Enforcement. o $80,000 for the addition of a dumb bed truck for our Street operation o $250,000 for the replacement of an existing snowplow. 6 Challenges Beyond the annual challenge of balancing the General Fund budget, the City of Spokane Valley has several on -going financial challenges. 1. Declining revenues in Street O&M Fund #101 that will impact our future ability to deliver historic service levels This Fund depends upon a combination of gas and telephone tax receipts. • Gas Tax - Because this tax is a fixed amount per gallon, and because each generation of newer vehicles get better gas mileage, we have found that from year to year, this revenue source has hovered somewhere between flat or slightly declining. Added to this decline in revenues is the COVID-19 pandemic event which has led to a significant reduction in gas tax revenues because of a change in driving habits where many people chose to work from home and otherwise avoid public settings to which they would have had to drive. The reduction in gas tax revenues over the past 5-years is as follows: O 2018 - $2,205,618 O 2019 - $2,159,335 O 2020 - $1,877,040 O 2021 - $1,939,300 (budgeted) O 2022 - $2,034,200 (budgeted) • Telephone Utility Tax — This 6% tax generated $3,050,000 in the first year of collections which occurred in 2009. In the ensuing 10-years running from 2010 to 2019, as people made the shift from utilizing both land lines and cell phones to just cell phones, this revenue source declined by nearly 50% to just $1,563,981. This decay in revenues was further exacerbated in 2020 and continued into 2021 with the advent and fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic event where people were looking to cut costs and consequently cut many of the remaining land lines at an increased rate. At this point we're projecting 2022 telephone utility tax revenues of just $932,000 which is greater than 70% less than 2009 collections. • Because of the stagnant gas tax revenues and ongoing decline in telephone utility tax revenues, 2022 will be the sixth consecutive year of budgeted recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues. O We have been able to continue to deliver historic levels of service over this period by doing the following: ■ 2017 — a $328,000 operating deficit was resolved by drawing down fund reserves. ■ 2018 — a $415,000 operating deficit was resolved by drawing down fund reserves. ■ 2019 — a $907,000 operating deficit was resolved through a transfer from Capital Reserve Fund #312. This is a noteworthy departure from the historic intended use of these monies which has been for one-time capital projects. ■ 2020 — a $1,365,000 operating deficit was resolved through a transfer from Capital Project Fund #312. ■ 2021 — an anticipated operating deficit of $2,552,600 will be resolved through a direct transfer from the General Fund #001. 2022 — an anticipated operating deficit of $2,820,419 will be resolved through a direct transfer from the General Fund #001. • In the next section which addresses Pavement Preservation there is a discussion on the efforts of a Council appointed Street Sustainability Committee that addresses City's Pavement Management Program including an evaluation of current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at a recommended level of service and fully funding Street O&M Fund #101 as well as Street Capital Projects Fund #303 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. 2. Balancing the cost of pavement preservation against other transportation and infrastructure needs • Pavement preservation has historically been financed from a combination of sources including: o General Fund dollars, o Street O&M Fund dollars, o Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123 (Fund #123) reserves that were dedicated towards this purpose until their depletion in 2016. o Real estate excise tax (REET) revenues, o Grant revenues, and o Beginning in 2018, the addition of a street wear fee that was negotiated by the City as part of an updated solid waste collection contract that recognized the damage that heavily laden garbage trucks do to our road system. o Following is a table that reflects pavement preservation related revenues over the 12- year period 2011 through 2022: Fund 001 101 106 123 301/302 310 Street Civic Fac. Civic Fac. General Street O&M Wear Fee Replace. REET 1&2 Capital Grants Actual 2011 584,681 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 1,084,681 2012 2,045,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,045,203 2013 855,857 282,000 0 616,284 300,000 0 35,945 2,090,086 2014 888,823 282,000 0 616,284 368,944 0 2,042,665 4,198, 716 2015 920,000 206,618 0 616,284 502,098 0 835,224 3,080,224 2016 943,800 67,342 0 559,808 730,572 0 1,654,698 3,956,220 2017 953,200 67,342 0 0 1,320,958 0 89,208 2,430,708 2018 962,700 67,342 1,000,000 0 1,370,658 0 1,422,404 4,823,104 2019 972,300 0 1,608,028 0 1,468,600 0 2,398,330 6,447,258 2020 982,023 0 1,513,532 0 1,545,277 0 98,281 4,139,113 Total Budget 2021 991,843 0 1,537,776 0 1,654,557 0 0 4,184,176 2022 1,001,800 0 1,600,000 0 1,829,800 0 0 4,431,600 12,102,230 972,644 7,259,336 2,408,660 11,091,464 500,000 8,576,755 42,911,089 • The City used Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123 reserves over the 4-year period 2013 through 2016 in order to give the City time to determine how best to finance the pavement preservation plan in 2017 and beyond. • In the years leading up to 2020 we existed in a fairly robust economy and beginning in 2017, following the depletion of Fund #123 reserves, we began applying a portion of our strong Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) collections towards pavement preservation. During this time frame we recognized that when the economy inevitably waned in the future, so too would REET revenues, and a consequence of over reliance on that source of money could in the future limit the City's ability to provide the necessary match needed for State and Federal grants that are applied to other street construction and reconstruction projects. 8 • For a number of years Spokane Valley struggled to develop a pavement management plan that clearly delineated the pavement condition index (PCI) that should be maintained throughout our road system and define the amount of money we should dedicate annually to achieve that plan. • The results of one of our most recent studies was communicated to Council on April 2, 2019 and this answered several questions including how pavement management resources should be allocated between the local access, collector and arterial portions of our street network. This study also showed that the pavement condition index (PCI) of City streets is currently holding fairly steady at a rating of 76 (out of 100) which is considered to be in the "Good" category. • Council has historically committed to continuing to evaluate our pavement management program and has asked Staff to research a variety of pavement treatments beyond our historic use of crack sealing and grind and overlays. • In the Spring of 2021 Council appointed a Street Sustainability Committee (SSC) comprised of 23 community leaders representing a broad range of stakeholders including small and large businesses, freight, schools, social services, transportation and utilities. The SSC is using a variety of public outreach methods to gather feedback from the community including public meetings, surveys, and a combination of social, print and digital media. Staff is also providing the SSC with a wide range of information pertaining to pavement management and related financing options including information that the City currently provides annual funding of approximately $8 million while the estimated annual need fora fully funded program is a total of $16 million including Street O&M Fund #101, Street Capital Projects Fund #303 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. The work of the SSC will continue through the autumn of 2021 and at the conclusion of this process the SSC will develop a recommendation for Council consideration that: 1. Evaluates citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. 2. Identifies preferences for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long- term levels of service. 3. Investigates current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service and fully funding Street O&M Fund #101, Street Capital Projects Fund #303 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. • Based upon the work of the SSC, Council will work with Staff on developing next steps which could lead to adoption of a fully funded Pavement Management Plan. 3. Railroad Grade Separation Projects (overpasses and underpasses) Bridging the Valley is a proposal to separate vehicle traffic from train traffic in the 42 mile corridor between Spokane and Athol, ID. The separation of railroad and roadway grades in this corridor is intended to promote future economic growth, traffic movement, traffic safety, aquifer protection in the event of an oil spill, and train whistle noise abatement. The underlying study outlined the need for a grade separation at four locations in Spokane Valley. • Barker and Trent Road Overpass (fully funded at $24.7 million), • Pines and Trent Underpass (estimated cost of $29.0 million with $9.7 million of this secured thus far), • Sullivan Road Overpass improvements, (estimated cost of $26.6 million) • Park Road Overpass Because grade separation projects are exceptionally expensive endeavors and largely beyond our ability to finance solely through existing sources of internal revenue, the City has 9 pursued grant funding from both the Federal and State Governments over the past several years and will continue to do so into the future. Barker/Trent Grade Separation Project We reached the point of being fully funded for this project in early 2018. Design was completed in 2020 and we have acquired all necessary right-of-way with the exception of one parcel upon which we received notification of a Cert 3 acceptance. Construction funds were obligated in late 2020 and the project was also put out to bid. Construction on the project began in the spring of 2021 and is anticipated to conclude in the fall of 2022. Revenue sources are comprised of the following: Barker Grade Separation Project Financing Secured City of Spokane Valley General Fund reserves Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Total from Spokane Valley Federal Earmark 2017 - WA Legislature appropriation 2018 - National Highway Freight Program 2018 - TIGER 9 FMSIB (20% of total) (assume $19.0 million) $ 1,421,000 2,209,000 $ 3,630,000 719,921 1,500,000 6,000,000 9,020,149 3,800,000 $ 24, 670, 070 Pines / Trent Grade Separation Project Progress to date includes: • We anticipate the project cost will be $29.0 million and thus far we have secured $9.7 million including $4.7 million set aside by the City. Additionally, there exists an inactive Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) grant in the amount of $3.36 million. It is currently unclear whether these funds will be made available to Spokane Valley in the future. Following is a detailed list of sources secured: 10 Pines Grade Separation Project (Estimated cost of $29 million) Financing Secured City of Spokane Valley 2016 General Fund Property acquisition $ 500,000 2017 General Fund dedication 1,200,000 2017 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 721,000 2018 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 764,000 2019 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 1,500,000 Total from Spokane Valley 2018 - SRTC for ROW (FHWA) 2019 - CRISI 2 for Design 2020 - SRTC (FHWA) 4,685,000 1,890,000 1,246,500 1,905,000 $ 9,726,500 • In late 2016 the City acquired property valued at approximately $500,000 that was applied to the acquisition of property that will in -part satisfy the right-of-way needs for this project. • On July 11, 2017 Council approved a Phase 1 contract with an engineering firm valued at $124,000 with a scope of services that called for evaluating two potential sites, each of which included a roundabout and signalized intersection alternative. • Staff presented subsequent reports to Council that provided design progress updates on October 17, 2017, December 13, 2018 and June 4, 2019. • A total of five public outreach meetings were held between October 2017 and May 2019 to seek input on the design alternatives. • Input was sought from a variety of stakeholders including BNSF, the Spokane Valley Police Department, Spokane Valley Fire Department, East Valley School District, the Fourth District Legislative Delegation and freight industry representatives. • On June 18, 2019 Council approved a design alternative that moves the intersection to the east of the current location with a roundabout as intersection control. • In early June 2019 the City was awarded a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant through the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in the amount of $1,246,500. The related contract for the CRISI grant was completed in March 2020 and the proceeds are being applied towards the engineering design phase. • In May 2020 Council approved the contract to complete the engineering design phase of the project which we anticipate will be completed in the latter part of 2021. • In early 2020 the City was awarded an additional $1,905,000 towards right-of-way acquisition through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). • In July 2020 the City began acquiring right-of-way through the acquisition of three parcels. • Future property acquisitions will be necessary during the right-of-way phase of the project but this cannot be determined until the final phase of the design is well underway. We anticipate right-of-way activities will continue into 2022. • With the engineering design phase completed by the end of 2021 and right-of-way acquisition phase completed in 2022 we anticipate the project will be "shovel ready" by December 2022. 11 • For the construction phase of the project the City has applied for a variety of both state and federal grants including the TIGER, FASTLANE, CRISI, BUILD and INFRA programs as well as Congressionally Directed Spending Requests (previously known as earmarks). • We will continue to apply for grant programs as they become available. We are hopeful that having a 100% design will make us more competitive as we will then have a "shovel ready" project. 4. Continuing to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 Pandemic Event has created untold hardship across the planet, the United States and right here in Spokane Valley. It has created budget and service challenges and to date we've done a good job of responding. Helping us in this effort was the $4.35 million CARES Act funds we received in 2020 and much needed additional assistance has come in the form of $16 million of ARPA funds. Our challenge here is to identify how we can utilize this money to obtain maximum lasting benefit for our community. Economic Development To the best of our ability we focus on business retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses. Examples of economic development efforts include: Comprehensive Plan — In the latter part of 2016 the City updated its Comprehensive Plan and included an economic development element. Contained within this element is a summary of the local economy; an assessment of strengths and weaknesses; and policies, programs and projects to foster economic growth. The plan also included implementation strategies to improve retail, enhance tourism, and grow businesses in the City. Among other things, the plan also streamlined land uses by consolidating many zones and reducing many development requirements. Additionally the plan was also designed to provide flexibility in an effort to encourage market driven growth. Retail Recruitment — In 2017 the City expanded into the area of Retail Recruitment by contracting with a firm specializing in this type of service. The services we are seeking in this effort include a review of the retail recruitment strategy; conducting a market and retail gap analysis; development of a recruitment plan; identification of a strategic retail prospect list; and recruitment of retail on behalf of the City. We have again included money in the 2022 Budget to continue this effort. Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) — In the latter part of 2016 the City received a $114,200 grant from the Department of Commerce that with an additional investment of $55,000 from the City, resulted in a streamlined environmental permitting process in the northeast industrial area of our community. This study completed the environmental permitting requirements for the northeast industrial area which led to the development of a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) adopted by Council March 12, 2019. The PAO saves industrial developers a minimum of 6 weeks permitting time while providing a predictable path to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place to serve the expected developments and as a result of the PAO properties can now be marketed as truly "shovel ready". Since adoption of the PAO, 317 acres have been or will be developed in the northeast industrial area out of a total available 459 acres leaving just 142 acres available. Northeast Industrial Area — In addition to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance the City has engaged in a number of capital projects in our Northeast Industrial Area that resulted in the 12 expansion and improvement of our infrastructure and have the dual benefit of improving our road system and making the area more attractive for future economic development. These include: • In 2019 we rebuilt Barker Road from Euclid Avenue to the southern limits of the Barker Grade Separation project including the extension of sewer service by Spokane County. • In partnership with Centennial Properties, in 2020 we completed a project that began in 2019 that resulted in the construction of a new one -mile section of Garland Avenue that stretches from Flora to Barker. This new stretch of road made 150 additional acres of industrial property accessible to development. • The City began a construction project in 2020 that was nearly completed in 2021 that rebuilt Barker Road from Euclid Avenue running south to the Spokane River. Portions of the project that remain consist of a shared use path for pedestrian and bicycle traffic that will be constructed in 2022 and the portion of the road crossing the Union Pacific rail line. The Budget for 2022 Strong but Guarded Recognizing that fiscal health is at the core of providing good public services, one of the most important tests of fiscal management is the ability of a municipal enterprise to maintain basic services during an economic downturn. The creation and ongoing maintenance of financial reserves since incorporation has served the intended purpose of providing Spokane Valley the means to sustain critical public services during turbulent economic conditions including those experienced during the Great Recession that began in 2008 and the COVID-19 induced global recession we continue to experience. The 2022 Budget again reflects a prudent and guarded continuation of service delivery capabilities. As I write this message we continue to exist in turbulent times brought on by the COVID-19 Pandemic. While we remain uncertain of the depth and breadth of the impact this event will have on City revenues and the programs they support, we will in the future, as we have in the past, "continue to remain vigilant in our observance of local, state and national events and economic trends that may impact our own community and work towards capitalizing on our strengths, minimizing our weaknesses, and being ever watchful towards both threats and opportunities." Balanced Budget Means exactly what it says — recurring General Fund operating expenses and the programs they support have been balanced with known or reasonably predictable recurring revenues with no increase in property tax or in sales tax rates for the City. The budget is designed to maintain the healthy, positive fund balance at year-end which provide for the City's cash flow needs without costly borrowing. In pursuit of fiscal responsibility, special attention is given to limiting the growth in new programs and financial commitments. This approach allows available resources to be put toward sustaining services consistent with the City Council's priorities for 2022 and beyond. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the Community, City Council and Staff for a long history of financially responsible spending and sensible fiscal planning. By saving and conserving the taxpayers' money and by adopting and adhering to prudent long-term fiscal policies, the City will in 2022 continue to provide levels of service on par with those we've provided in past years. 13 The City Council continues to set a path to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the City. The management staff and employees have worked together to develop the Business Plan and 2022 Budget recommendations to achieve the Council's ongoing goal of sustainability. I hope the Citizens of Spokane Valley are proud of the programs and strong financial condition of their City. We invite your examination and questions regarding the 2022 Budget. Respectfully, Mark Calhoun City Manager 14 Spokane jUallcy FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalley.org TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director SUBJECT: About the 2022 Budget and Budget Development Process The budget includes the financial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds. Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing the budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The budget serves four functions: 1. It is a Policy Document The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to the actual day-to- day activities of the City staff. 2. It is an Operational Guide The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of the City Council. 3. It is a Link with the General Public The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City operations. The budget describes the activities of the City, the reason or cause for those activities, future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry. 4. It is a Legally Required Financial Planning Tool The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light, preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The budget must be adopted as a balanced budget and must be in place prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The budget is the legal authority to expend public monies and controls those expenditures by limiting the amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along with available cash carry -forward, to indicate funds available. The budget considers unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments. 2022 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Historically the City has utilized a budgeting approach that assumed for most functions of government that the current year's budget was indicative of the base required for the following year. However, with the volatility that was seen in the economy with the Great Recession and again with the COVID-19 pandemic, the City moved to a Budget development process that consciously reviews service levels in each department and determines the appropriate level of funding that meets Council goals relative to available resources. 15 In mid -April 2021 the Finance Department notified City Departments that their 2022 revenue and expenditure estimates were due by mid -May. Through the summer, the City Manager's office and Finance Department worked to prepare budget worksheets that were communicated to the City Council at a Budget workshop held June 15, 2021. Following the workshop, the Finance Department continued work on the budget including refinements of revenue and expenditure estimates and through September, the Finance Department and City Manager reviewed updated budget projections. By the time the 2022 Budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 9, 2021, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: June 15 August 17 August 24 October 5 October 12 October 26 November 9 November 9 Council budget workshop Admin report: Estimated 2022 revenues and expenditures Public hearing #1 on 2022 revenues and expenditures City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2022 Budget Public hearing #2 on 2022 Budget First reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget Public hearing #3 on the 2022 Budget Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget Once adopted, the final operating budget is published, distributed, and made available to the public. After the budget is adopted, the City enters a budget implementation and monitoring stage. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored by the Finance Department and department directors to ensure that actual expenditures are in compliance with the approved budget. The Finance Department provides the City Manager and City Council with monthly reports to keep them abreast of the City's financial condition and individual department compliance with approved appropriation levels. Any budget amendments made during the year are adopted by City Council ordinance following a public hearing. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within a fund; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be approved by the City Council. When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance adopted by Council after holding one public hearing. BUDGET PRINCIPLES • Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction, and for implementing them once they are approved. • The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation and administration of the City's budget. This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington statutes governing local government budgeting practices. 16 • The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems, formulating solutions and alternatives, and implementing any necessary corrective actions. • Interfund charges will be based on recovery of costs associated with providing those services. • Budget amendments requiring City Council approval will occur through the ordinance process at the fund level prior to fiscal year end. • The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services plan in a Council/constituent friendly format. • No long-term debt will be incurred without identification of a revenue source to repay the debt. Long term debt will be incurred for capital purposes only. • The City will strive to maintain equipment replacement funds in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. New operations in difficult economic times may make it difficult to fund this principle in some years. • The City will pursue an ending general fund balance at a level of no less than 50% of recurring expenditures. This figure is based upon an evaluation of both cash flow and operating needs. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING Accounting Accounting records for the City are maintained in accordance with methods prescribed by the State Auditor under the authority of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.09.20, and in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Basis of Presentation - Fund Accounting The accounts of the City of Spokane Valley are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of double -entry accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City's resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on their intended purpose. The following are the fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: Governmental Fund Types Governmental funds are used to account for activities typically associated with state and local government operations. All governmental fund types are accounted for on a spending or "financial flows" measurement focus, which means that typically only current assets and current liabilities are included on related balance sheets. The operating statements of governmental funds measure changes in financial position, rather than net income. They present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. 17 There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 1 General Fund This fund is the primary fund of the City of Spokane Valley. It accounts for all financial resources except those required or elected to be accounted for in another fund. 2. Special Revenue Funds These funds account for revenues that are legally restricted or designated to finance particular activities of the City of Spokane Valley. Special Revenue funds include: • #101 — Street Fund • #103 — Paths & Trails Fund • #104 — Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund • #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund • #106 — Solid Waste Fund • #107 — PEG Fund • #108 — Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund • #120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund • #121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund • #122 — Winter Weather Reserve Fund 3. Debt Service Funds These funds account for financial resources which are designated for the retirement of debt. Debt Service Funds are comprised of the #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund. 4. Capital Proiect Funds These funds account for financial resources, which are designated for the acquisition or construction of general government capital projects. Capital Project Funds include: • #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund • #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund • #303 — Streets Capital Projects Fund • #309 — Parks Capital Projects Fund • #310 — Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund • #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund • #312 — Capital Reserve Fund • #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund • #315 — Transportation Impact Fees Fund • #316 — Economic Development Capital Projects Fund Proprietary Fund Types A second type of fund classification is the proprietary funds that are used to account for activities similar to those found in the private sector where the intent of the governing body is to finance the full cost of providing services based on the commercial model which uses a flow of economic resources approach. Under this approach, the operating statements for the proprietary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non -current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Their reported fund equity (total net position) is segregated into restricted, unrestricted, and invested in capital assets classifications. 18 As described below, there are two generic fund types in this category: 1. Enterprise Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to the general public and are supported primarily by user charges. This type of fund includes: • #402 — Stormwater Management Fund • #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2. Internal Service Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to other departments or funds of the City. This type of fund includes: • #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund • #502 — Risk Management Fund Fiduciary Fund Types A third type of fund classification is the fiduciary funds that are used to account for activities conducted for the benefit of those outside City. Fiduciary funds have the same measurement focus and basis of accounting as proprietary funds. Under this approach, the operating statements for the fiduciary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non -current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Net position is always classified as restricted. The City uses one fund type in this category: 1. Custodial Funds These funds account for the fees and taxes collected by the City on behalf of other governments, such as Washington State and Spokane County. Custodial Funds are comprised of #632 — Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund. Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized, recorded in the accounting system and ultimately reported in the financial statements. • Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for all governmental funds. Modified accrual recognizes revenues when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. • Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for enterprise, internal service, and fiduciary funds. Under this system revenues and expenses are recognized in the period incurred rather than when cash is either received or disbursed. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Annual appropriation budgets are adopted for all funds with Governmental Funds utilizing a modified cash basis of accounting for budget purposes and Proprietary and Fiduciary Funds utilizing a working capital approach. Budgets are adopted at the fund level that constitutes the legal authority for expenditures, and annual appropriations for all funds lapse at the end of the fiscal period. 19 EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund #001 • Property Tax Property taxes play an essential role in the finances of the municipal budget. State law limits the City to a $3.60 levy per $1,000 assessed valuation, deducting from there the levy of up to $1.50 by the Spokane County Fire Districts #1 and #8, along with deducting up to $0.50 for the Library District, which leaves the City with the authority to levy up to $1.60 for its own purposes. The levy amount must be established by ordinance by November 30th prior to the levy year. • Retail Sales and Use Tax The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the 8.9% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: State of Washington City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Criminal Justice Spokane Public Facilities District Public Safety Juvenile Jail Mental Health Law Enforcement Communications Spokane Transit Authority 6.50% 0.85% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.80% * 8.90% * Indicates voter approved sales taxes. 2.30% local tax • Criminal Justice Sales Tax Local Sales Tax for Criminal Justice funding is to be used solely for criminal justice purposes, such as the City's law enforcement contract. This tax is authorized at 1/10 of 1% of retail sales transacted in the County. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and cities within the County. • Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional 0.1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This 0.1% was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. 20 • Gambling Tax Gambling tax revenues must be spent primarily on law enforcement purposes pertaining to gambling. Funds remaining after necessary expenditures for such enforcement purposes may be used for any general government purpose. Gambling taxes are to be paid quarterly to the City, no later than the last day of January, April, July and October. The City imposes a tax on the following forms of gambling at the following rates: Bingo (5% gross, less prizes); Raffles (5% gross, less prizes); Punchboards and Pull tabs (5% gross, less prizes); Amusement Games (2% gross, less prizes); Card playing (6% gross). • Leasehold Excise Tax Taxes on property owned by state or local governments and leased to private parties (City's share). • Franchise Fees Cable TV is the only franchise fee levied in the City at a rate of 5% of gross revenues. This is a fee levied on private utilities for the right to use city streets, alleys, and other public properties. • State -Shared Revenues State -shared revenues are received from liquor sales, marijuana revenues, and motor vehicle excise taxes. These taxes are collected by the State of Washington and shared with local governments based on population. State -shared revenues are distributed on either a monthly or quarterly basis, although not all quarterly revenues are distributed in the same month of the quarter. The 2021 population figure used in the 2021 Budget is 98,600 as reported by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) for Washington State on April 1, 2021. However, the 2020 Census was released subsequent to the April 1, 2021 population estimate, and the Census figure has the population at 102,976. OFM may update the population to match the Census at a future date. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. • Fines and Forfeitures / Public Safety Fines and penalties are collected as a result of Municipal Court rulings, false alarm fees, and other miscellaneous rule infractions. All court fines and penalties are shared with the State, with the City, on average, retaining less than 50% of the amount collected. • Community Development Community Development revenues are largely composed of fees for building permits, plan reviews, and right-of-way permits. • Recreation Program Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for selected recreation programs. These fees offset direct costs related to providing the program. 21 • CenterPlace Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for use of CenterPlace. Uses include regional meetings, weddings, receptions, and banquets. Rental rooms include classrooms, the great room and dining rooms. • Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax money held by the State of Washington prior to the distribution of the taxes to the City, as well as on City initiated investments. Street Fund #101 • Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax (gas tax) The State of Washington collects a $0.494 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump. Of this amount, the State remits a portion of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2022 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $19.31 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 98,600 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1, 2021) we anticipate the City will collect $1,903,966 in 2022. RCW 47.30.050 specifies that 0.42% of this tax must be expended for paths and trails activities and based upon the 2022 revenue estimate, this compute to $8,000. The balance of $1,896,000 will be credited to Fund #101 for street maintenance and operations. • Telephone Utility Tax The City of Spokane Valley levied a 6% telephone utility tax via Ordinance #08-014 with collections beginning in 2009. Telephone companies providing this service pay the tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at $932,000 for 2022. Paths & Trails Fund #103 Cities are required to spend 0.42% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts on paths and trails (please see the explanation for Street Fund #101) which we anticipate will be $8,000 in 2022. Because the amount collected in any given year is relatively small, it is typical to accumulate State distributions for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 The City imposes a 1.3% tax under RCW 67.28.181 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The revenues generated by this tax may only be used for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities. The hospitality industry, including hotels, was one of the industries affected the most by the COVID- 19 pandemic due to reduced travel from the State's stay home order. This being the case, the City experienced significant reductions in hotel/motel tax collections in 2020. These revenues began to recover mid-2021 but are still below pre -pandemic levels. This tax is estimated to generate $400,000 in 2022. 22 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund #105 The City imposes a 2% tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism -related facilities. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic described under Fund #104 above also apply to these revenues. This tax is estimated to generate $600,000 in 2022. Solid Waste Fund #106 Under the City's contract for solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., Sunshine pays an annual contract administrative fee of $125,000 to the City. Also, under the City's contract for solid waste collection services with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., Waste Management pays an administrative fee of 12.5% of gross receipts. This fee shall be used by the City for costs related to solid waste services, including costs for contract administration, solid waste planning and management, and for a portion of the City's street preservation and maintenance programs. Of the amounts collected under the fee, no more than 1% of gross receipts may be used for contract administration. PEG Fund #107 Under the City's cable franchise, the franchise grantee remits to the City in a capital contribution in support of Public Education Government (PEG) capital requirements an amount equal to $0.35 per subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the franchise. Capital contributions collected under this agreement are allocated to PEG capital uses exclusively. PEG capital uses include, in part, the set-up of equipment in the City Council Chambers that allows Spokane Valley to broadcast Council meetings both live and through subsequent reviews via digital recordings available on the City's website. Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund #108 In the year 2020, the Council authorized the City to collect the affordable and supportive sales tax, which is a rebate of the State sales tax to cities and counties. The amount received by the City is up to .0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City capped at the 2019 fiscal year taxable retail sales. The department of Revenue has estimated this capped distribution to be $193,000 for the City. The City will receive these revenues for 20 years, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing within the City or for rental assistance as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. LTGO Debt Service Fund #204 This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds also referred to as councilmanic or non -voted bonds. When LTGO bonds are issued the City irrevocably pledges the full faith, credit and resources necessary to make timely payments of principal and interest, within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non -voted general obligations. In 2003 the City issued $9,430,000 in limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond repayment (much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained $7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: 23 • $5,650,000 remained on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $3,780,000. • $1,385,000 remained on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax. At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $305,000. In 2016 the City issued $7,275,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance the construction of a new City Hall along with $6.3 million of City cash that has been set aside for this purpose. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2045. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by transfers in from the General Fund. At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on the bond issue will be $6,400,000. REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing public works capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. Stormwater Management Fund #402 A stormwater fee is imposed upon every developed parcel within the City, which is an annual charge of $21 for each single-family unit and $21 per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface for all other properties. These charges are uniform for the same class of customers and service facilities. These fees are estimated to generate $1,910,000 in 2022. Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Fund #403 These are voter approved fees, the proceeds of which are applied to aquifer protection related capital construction projects. Fees are collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City twice each year. These fees are estimated to generate $460,000 in 2022. Fees include: • An annual fee of $15 per household for the withdrawal of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of $15 per household for on -site sewage disposal by properties within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from $15 to $960 depending upon water meter size. 24 Interfund Transfers Many funds receive a portion of their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers typically represent payments for either services rendered by one fund for another or a concentration of revenues for a specific project or purpose. The following interfund transfers are planned for 2022: In. 001 101 204 303 309 311 314 316 501 502 Total Out Out: 001 101 105 106 301 302 312 315 Total In 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 1,400,000 0 1,430,000 2,820,419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,820,419 401,400 0 0 0 81,100 81,100 0 0 563,600 0 0 0 0 361,780 1,113,649 225,000 150,000 1,850,429 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,522,420 0 4,682,420 1,001,800 0 0 1,600,000 914,900 914,900 0 0 4,431,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 826,290 0 826,290 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 0 750,000 40,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 17,924,758 Total in 4,873,619 80,000 30,000 1,600,000 1,357,780 2,109, 649 7,723,710 150,000 17, 924, 758 Total out 0 #001 - General Fund is budgeted to transfer out $4,873,619 including: • $2,820,419 to Fund #101 - Street Fund as coverage of the estimated deficit in recurring activity for the 2022 Budget. • $401,400 to Fund #204 - LTGO Debt Service Fund for bond payments on the 2016 LTGO Bonds for the City Hall construction. • $160,000 to Fund #309 - Park Capital Projects Fund for park related projects. • $1.001,800 to Fund #311 - Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $40,000 to Fund #501 - Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund to fund the purchase of a new vehicle for the new Code Enforcement Supervisor position. • $450,000 to Fund #502 - Risk Management Fund for the 2022 property and liability insurance premium. #101 - Street O&M Fund is budgeted to transfer $80,000 to Fund #501 - Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund to fund the purchase of a new dump bed truck for the street's maintenance activities. #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund is budgeted to transfer $30,000 to Fund #001 - General Fund for the purpose of financing advertising at CenterPlace. #106 - Solid Waste Fund is budgeted to transfer $1,600,000 to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for the purpose of funding pavement preservation projects on local access streets. #301 - REET 1 Capital Proiects Fund is budgeted to transfer out $1,357,780 including: • $81,100 to Fund #204 - LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $361,780 to Fund #303 - Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $914,900 to Fund #311 - Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. 25 #302 — REET 2 Capital Proiects Fund is budgeted to transfer out $2,109,649 including: • $81,100 to Fund #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $1,113,649 to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $914,900 to Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund is budgeted to transfer out $7,723,710 including: • $1,400,000 to Fund #001 — General Fund for the replacement of police vehicles. • $225,000 to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund to install school zone beacons throughout the City. • $4,522,420 to Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards the water line at Sullivan Park, Balfour Park construction, and the preliminary design on the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail. • $826,290 to Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund that will be applied to grade separation projects at Barker, Pines, and Sullivan Roads. • $750,000 to Fund #316 — Economic Development Capital Projects Fund that will be applied to the preliminary design of a new building at the Fairgrounds. #315 — Transportation Impact Fees Fund is budgeted to transfer $150,000 to the Fund #303 — Capital Projects Fund that will be applied toward street construction projects. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2022 BUDGET Budget Summary for All Funds • Based upon funding levels anticipated in the 2022 budget, City staff will strive to maintain adequate levels of service. • Appropriations for all City Funds will total $108 million including $32.1 million in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $2.6 million in Fund #001 — General Fund. o $10 million in Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects. o $4.7 million in Fund #309 — Park Capital Projects. o $7.2 million in Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation projects. o $2.8 million in Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $315 thousand in Fund #402 — Stormwater Management projects. o $3 million in Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area projects. o $513 thousand in Fund #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement vehicles. • To partially offset the $32.1 million in capital costs, we anticipate $11.8 million in grant revenues which results in 36.82% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 27 separate funds. • The full-time equivalent employee (FTE) count will increase in 2022 by 5 to 101.25 from 96.25. These increases include a Project Manager position in the City Manager Department, an Engineering Tech II split 0.2 to Engineering and 0.8 to capital projects, a CAD Manager split 0.5 to Engineering and 0.5 to capital projects, a Code Enforcement Supervisor in the Building Department, and an Assistant Engineer in Development Engineering. • The 2022 Budget reflects the eighth consecutive year the City will set aside City monies in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures for pavement preservation in Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation. This 6% equals $2,831,600. • Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. • Payroll tax and benefit amounts are based on staff benefit plans. 26 • Contract costs for public safety, park maintenance, aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. • The City sets money aside in Fund #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement for the eventual replacement of its vehicles as well as a reserve to replace equipment in the kitchen at CenterPlace. 2022 General Fund Revenues • Total recurring 2022 revenues are estimated at $52,432,700 as compared to $48,225,019 in 2021, which is an increase of $4,207,681 or 8.73%. • The two largest sources of revenue continue to be Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 84.76% of 2022 General Fund recurring revenues. • The 2022 general sales tax estimate (excluding criminal justice and public safety sales taxes) is currently estimated at $27.7 million which reflects an increase of $2.5 million or 10.0% over the 2021 estimate. • The Property Tax levy does not include the potential annual increase allowed by State law. o The 2022 levy is estimated at $13,199,900. o The levy assumes we start with the 2021 levy of $12,724,920, forgo the potential annual increase allowed by State law, and finally add taxes related to new construction which we estimate to be $475,000. • Franchise fees and business registrations are primarily based on projected receipts in 2021. • State shared revenues are based upon a combination of historical collections including 2021 collections through July, and per capita distribution figures reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center. • Fines and forfeitures are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historical collections. • Building permit and land use fees are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historic collections. 2022 General Fund Expenditures • Total 2021 recurring expenditures are budgeted at $48,415,982 as compared to $44,972,827 in 2021. This is an increase of $3,443,155 or 7.66%. • The City commitment of 6% of recurring General Fund expenditures to pavement preservation equals $2,831,600 and is computed by multiplying total recurring expenditures prior to adding the pavement preservation element ($2,831,600 / $47,414,182 = 6%). The $2,831,600 that is transferred to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is comprised of the following: o $1,001,800 from General Fund #001 o $914,900 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 o $914,900 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 • 2022 Nonrecurring expenditures total $5,632,119 and include: o $136,000 for Information Technology expenditures including: • $15,000 to replace outdated copiers • $55,000 to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop • $50,000 to upgrade the City's backup solution • $16,000 for software upgrades o $5,000 for furniture for the new Project Manager position o $1,562,000 for various Public Safety items including: • $24,000 for two radar trailers • $55,000 for a vehicle for the new Homeless Services Officer • $25,000 to replace carpeting at the Precinct • $50,000 to repaint the exterior of the Precinct 27 ■ $8,000 for tree and debris removal from the back lot at the Precinct ■ $1,400,000 for the replacement of police vehicles o $12,000 to repaint the portico at CenterPlace o $26,700 to replace carpeting at CenterPlace o $30,000 to repair the plumbing systems at the pools o $1,000,000 for Financial Software capital costs o $2,820,419 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund o $40,000 transfer out to the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund #501 for an additional vehicle for the Code Enforcement Supervisor position General Fund Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Fund Balance • 2022 recurring revenues are anticipated to exceed recurring expenditures by $4,016,718. • Total 2022 expenditures are anticipated to exceed total revenues by $215,401. • The total unrestricted General Fund ending fund balance is anticipated to be $30,927,611 at the end of 2022 which is 63.88% of total recurring expenditures of $48,415,982. Our goal is to maintain an ending fund balance of at least 50.0%. Highlights of Other Funds Revenues • Motor vehicle fuel tax (MVFT) revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the City is estimated to be $1,904,000 according to per capita estimates provided by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Of this amount, $1,896,000 will be credited to the Street O&M Fund #101 and 0.42% or $8,000 to the Paths and Trails Fund #103. • Telephone taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated at $932,000. • Real estate excise tax (REET) revenue is computed by the City and is primarily used to match grant funded street projects as well as pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 general obligation bonds. In 2022 we estimate these revenues to be $1,500,000 per each '/4% for a total of $3,000,000. • Hotel/Motel tax revenues are computed by the City and are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism. In 2022 we estimate the tax will generate $1,000,000, which includes $600,000 in Fund #105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund from the 2% tax and $400,000 in Fund #104 Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund from the 1.3% tax that was effective as of July 1, 2015. • The City began receiving the affordable and supportive housing sales tax in 2020, and will receive these revenues as rebate of the State's sales taxes for 20 years. The amount received by the City is capped at 0.0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City for fiscal year 2019, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing or rental assistance within the City as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. These revenues are estimated at $193,000 in 2022 in the Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund #108. • The Stormwater Management Fee is based on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) that is equal to 3,160 square feet of impervious surface that is billed at a rate of $21 per single family residence and $21 per ERU for commercial properties (an ERU for a commercial property is computed as total square feet of impervious surface divided by 3,160). In 2022 we estimate this fee will generate $1,910,000. • The Aquifer Protection Area Fund is expected to generate $460,000 in fees that are collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County and remitted in two installments during the year. • Grant revenues that will be applied to a variety of construction projects are estimated at $11,813,312 in 2022. By fund we anticipate grant revenues as follows: 28 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,956,322 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $126,100 o Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation - $1,029,000 o Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund - $1,560,290 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $1,881,600 Expenditures • Fund #101 — Street Fund appropriations include: o $5,874,119 for maintenance of City streets, including $890,502 in snow operations and $909,000 in intergovernmental payments for services. • Fund #106 — Solid Waste Fund appropriations include: o a $1,600,000 transfer out to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for street preservation activities • Fund #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund includes a $1,357,780 appropriation to cover: o a $81,100 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund #204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a $361,780 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to partially offset the cost of street construction / reconstruction projects. o a $914,900 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for pavement preservation projects. • Fund #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund includes a $2,109,649 appropriation to cover: o a $81,100 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund #204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a $1,113,649 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to partially offset the cost of street construction / reconstruction projects. o a $914,900 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for pavement preservation projects • Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund includes an appropriation of $9,971,150 for a variety of street construction projects. • Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects includes a $4,728,520 appropriation to cover a variety of City park improvements that will be financed through a combination of a $160,000 transfer from the General Fund #001, a $4,522,420 transfer in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312, and $126,100 in grant proceeds. • Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation includes $7,202,000 of pavement preservation projects that will be financed through transfers from other City funds as outlined above under the heading of General Fund Recurring Expenditures. • Fund #312 — Capital Reserve includes $1,400,000 in transfers to Fund #001 — General Fund for the replacement of police vehicles, $225,000 in transfers to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects to install school zone beacons, $4,522,420 in transfers to Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects that will be applied toward Balfour Park construction, the water line at Sullivan Park, and design of the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail as well as $826,290 in transfers to Fund #314 — Grade Separation Projects for Barker, Pines, and Sullivan. It also includes $750,000 29 in transfers to Fund #316 — Economic Development Capital Projects for the design of a new building at the Fairgrounds. • Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects includes appropriations in the amount of $2,775,263 towards the Barker Road Grade Separation project, the Pines Road Grade Separation project, and the Sullivan Road Interchange project. • Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund includes $565,000 for nonrecurring expenditures including in part: o $315,000 for various capital projects o $100,000 for the studies related to the City's Stormwater permit and the watershed o $100,000 for an update to the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan • Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund includes a $3,008,800 appropriation to various capital projects. 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget Summary Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Func 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 Transportation Impact Fees Fund 315 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 316 31,143,012 759,299 30,416 4,546,073 165,016 689,012 172,773 345,033 300,000 5,500,000 526,383 0 2,826,395 3,940,170 67,402 756 840,164 6,135,444 13,061,590 1,848,938 70,000 0 53,832,700 5,874,119 8,100 402,500 601,000 1,832,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 800 1,064,800 1,502,000 1,505,000 9,971,150 4,808,520 1,300 5,460,600 10,000 2,695,172 200,000 750,000 84,975,712 6,633,418 38,516 4,948,573 766,016 2,521,012 251,773 538,033 300,000 5,500,000 527,183 1,064,800 4,328,395 5,445,170 10,038,552 4,809,276 841,464 11,596,044 13,071,590 4,544,110 270,000 750,000 54,048,101 6,039,619 0 0 601,000 1,832,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,064,800 1,357,780 2,109,649 9,971,150 4,728,520 0 7,252,000 7,723,710 2,775,263 150,000 750,000 30,927,611 593,799 38,516 4,948,573 165,016 689,012 178,773 538,033 300,000 5,500,000 27,183 0 2,970,615 3,335,521 67,402 80,756 841,464 4,344,044 5,347,880 1,768,847 120,000 0 72,967,876 90,791,761 163,759,637 100,976,592 62,783,045 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund Aquifer Protection Area Fund Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Risk Management Fund Passthrough Fees & Taxes Total of all Funds 402 1,399,959 1,912,000 3,311,959 403 1,130,870 2,343,500 3,474,370 501 1,403,362 230,000 1,633,362 502 340,484 450,000 790,484 632 0 400,000 400,000 2,443,926 3,063,800 522,500 450,000 400,000 868,033 410,570 1,110,862 340,484 0 4,274,675 5,335,500 9,610,175 6,880,226 2,729,949 77,242,551 96,127,261 173,369,812 107,856,818 65,512,994 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax Franchise Fees/Business Registration State Shared Revenues Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety Community and Public Works Recreation Program Revenues Grant Proceeds Miscellaneous Department Revenue Miscellaneous & Investment Interest Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 12,724,200 22,220,000 1,054,800 1,862,400 384,000 1,215,000 1,760,000 1,010,200 1,908,719 643,600 0 21,000 592,500 30,000 0 2,980,000 105,200 177,600 0 0 0 (464,200) 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,724,200 25,200,000 1,160,000 2,040,000 384,000 1,215,000 1,760,000 546,000 1,908,719 643,600 0 21,000 592,500 30,000 2022 Budget 13,199,900 27,720,000 1,276,000 2,244,000 365,000 1,215,000 1,995,500 529,200 2,636,200 652,400 260,000 21,000 288,500 30,000 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 $ I 475,700 2,520,000 116,000 204,000 (19,000) 0 235,500 (16,800) 727,481 8,800 260,000 0 (304,000) 0 3.74% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% (4.95%) 0.00% 13.38% (3.08%) 38.11% 1.37% 0.00% 0.00% (51.31%) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 45,426,419 2,798,600 48,225,019 52,432,700 4,207,681 8.73% Expenditures City Council 631,566 7,106 638,672 645,170 6,498 1.02% City Manager 1,158,089 17,750 1,175,839 1,466,305 290,466 24.70% City Attorney 718,593 0 718,593 747,890 29,297 4.08% Public Safety 28,101,615 (203,754) 27,897,861 29,804,434 1,906,573 6.83% Deputy City Manager 284,844 0 284,844 295,477 10,633 3.73% Finance / IT 1,500,659 0 1,500,659 1,571,443 70,784 4.72% Human Resources 318,540 0 318,540 330,321 11,781 3.70% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 301,093 72,508 373,601 400,020 26,419 7.07% Community & Public Works - Engineering 2,098,642 0 2,098,642 2,440,282 341,640 16.28% Community & Public Works - Economic Dev 1,045,762 51,299 1,097,061 1,188,268 91,207 8.31% Community & Public Works - Building & Planning 2,487,066 (72,508) 2,414,558 2,631,423 216,865 8.98% Parks &Rec - Administration 356,467 (1,040) 355,427 351,018 (4,409) (1.24%) Parks & Rec - Maintenance 940,003 0 940,003 950,455 10,452 1.11% Parks & Rec - Recreation 328,534 0 328,534 330,687 2,153 0.66% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 510,053 0 510,053 538,700 28,647 5.62% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 35,403 0 35,403 36,801 1,398 3.95% Parks & Rec -CenterPlace 972,214 0 972,214 970,375 (1,839) (0.19%) General Government 1,297,380 0 1,297,380 1,703,713 406,333 31.32% Transfers out - #204 (2016 L TGO debt service) 401,500 0 401,500 401,400 (100) (0.02%) Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 160,000 160,000 0 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 991,843 0 991,843 1,001,800 9,957 1.00% Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 36,600 0 (36,600) (100.00%) Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 425,000 0 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% Total Recurring Expenditures 45,101,466 (128,639) 44,972,827 48,415,982 3,443,155 7.66% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 324,953 2,927,239 3,252,192 4,016,718 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds Reimbursement of chamber wall repairs Transfers in - #312 (police vehicle replacements) 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 25,000 0 0 64,000 0 0 89,000 0 0 2022 Budget 0 0 1,400,000 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 (89,000) (100.00%) 0 0.00% 1,400,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 25,000 64,000 89,000 1,400,000 1,311,000 1473.03% Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements 212,800 0 212,800 136,000 (76,800) (36.09%) City Manager (office furniture for Housing Servemploye 0 5,000 5,000 0 (5,000) (100.00%) City Manager (office furniture for Project Manager empli 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 0.00% Public Safety (replace HVAC units at Precinct) 0 62,000 62,000 0 (62,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (replace handguns) 37,500 0 37,500 0 (37,500) (100.00%) Public Safety (2 radar trailer) 11,400 0 11,400 24,000 12,600 110.53% Public Safety (Precinct access control gate) 20,000 0 20,000 0 (20,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (Precinct fire panel replacement) 10,000 0 10,000 0 (10,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (DEMS/Tasers/BodyCams) 0 109,608 109,608 0 (109,608) (100.00%) Public Safety (vehicle for homeless services officer) 0 0 0 55,000 55,000 0.00% Public Safety (replace carpet at Precinct) 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 0.00% Public Safety (repaint Precinct exterior) 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0.00% Public Safety (tree & debris removal from back lot) 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 0.00% Public Safety (police vehicle replacements) 0 0 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 0.00% Economic Dev (Commerce Housing Action Plan) 0 40,000 40,000 0 (40,000) (100.00%) Economic Dev (Ecology SMP Update) 25,000 0 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Parks & Rec (repaint portico at CenterPlace) 0 0 0 12,000 12,000 0.00% Parks & Rec (replace carpet at CenterPlace) 0 0 0 26,700 26,700 0.00% Parks & Rec (repair plumbing systems at pools) 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 0.00% Windstorm 2021 Cleanup Costs 0 32,000 32,000 0 (32,000) (100.00%) Financial Software Capital Costs 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0.00% Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations) 1,859,600 693,000 2,552,600 2,820,419 267,819 10.49% Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) 0 364,440 364,440 0 (364,440) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace west lawn) 0 20,000 20,000 0 (20,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace roof repairs) 0 15,000 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Transfers out -#312('19fund bal>50%) 0 11,126,343 11,126,343 0 (11,126,343) (100.00%) Transfers out - #501 (vehicle for Code Enf. Supervisor; 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,176,300 12,467,391 14,643,691 5,632,119 (9,011,572) (61.54%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures General Fund Summary Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance (2,151,300) (12,403,391) (14,554,691) (4,232,119) (1,826,347) (9,476,152) (11,302,499) 42,445,511 42,445,511 (215,401) 31,143,012 40,619,164 31,143,012 30,927,611 90.06% 69.25% 63.88% 45,451,419 47,277, 766 2,862,600 12,338, 752 48,314,019 59, 616, 518 (1,826,347) (9,476,152) (11,302,499) 42, 445, 511 42, 445, 511 40, 619,164 31,143, 012 53,832, 700 54,048,101 (215, 401) 31,143, 012 30,927,611 33 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Miscellaneous 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 1,431,000 (431,000) 1,000,000 932,000 (68,000) (6.80%) 2,062,000 (262,000) 1,800,000 1,896,000 96,000 5.33% 130,600 0 130,600 130,200 (400) (0.31%) 70,000 0 70,000 85,000 15,000 21.43% 4,000 0 4,000 500 (3,500) (87.50%) 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 3,707,600 (693,000) 3,014,600 3,053,700 39,100 1.30% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,127,920 0 1,127,920 1,128,523 603 0.05% Supplies 156,050 0 156,050 176,700 20,650 13.23% Services & Charges 2,525,828 0 2,525,828 2,698,644 172,816 6.84% Snow Operations 751,652 0 751,652 890,502 138,850 18.47% Intergovernmental Payments 935,000 0 935,000 909,000 (26,000) (2.78%) Vehicle rentals - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 10,250 0 10,250 10,250 0 0.00% Vehicle rentals-#501 (plow replace.) 60,500 0 60,500 60,500 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 5,567,200 0 5,567,200 5,874,119 306,919 5.51% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (1,859,600) (693,000) (2,552,600) (2,820,419) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in - #001 1,859,600 693,000 2,552,600 2,820,419 267,819 10.49% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,859,600 693,000 2,552,600 2,820,419 267,819 10.49% Expenditures Streetlight Replacement Program 0 0 0 35,500 35,500 0.00% Generator for Maintenance Shop (12 cost to #402) 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0.00% Transfers out - #501 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 0 165,500 165,500 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,859,600 693,000 2,552,600 2,654,919 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 0 0 (165,500) Beginning fund balance 759,299 759,299 759,299 Ending fund balance 759,299 759,299 593,799 Street Fund Summary Total revenues 5,567,200 0 5,567,200 5,874,119 Total expenditures 5,567,200 0 5,567,200 6,039,619 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 0 0 (165,500) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 759,299 759,299 759,299 Ending unrestricted fund balance 759,299 759,299 593,799 34 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS FUND Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #309 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 8,700 0 8,700 8,000 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 $ 1 (700) (8.05%) 200 0 200 100 (100) (50.00%) 8,900 0 8,900 8,100 (800) (8.99%) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,900 8,900 8,100 Beginning fund balance 21,516 21,516 30,416 Ending fund balance 30,416 30,416 38,516 #104 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX - TOURISM FACILITIES FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 213,000 187,000 400,000 400,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 24,000 (21,500) 2,500 2,500 0 0.00% Transfers in-#105 453,840 703,160 1,157,000 0 (1,157,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 690,840 868,660 1,559,500 402,500 (1,157,000) (74.19%) Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 690,840 2,986,573 3,677,413 1,559,500 402,500 2,986,573 4,546,073 4,546,073 4,948,573 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 346,000 404,000 750,000 600,000 (150,000) (20.00%) Investment Interest 6,000 (5,300) 700 1,000 300 42.86% Total revenues 352,000 398,700 750,700 601,000 (149,700) (19.94%) Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#104 453,840 703,160 1,157,000 0 (1,157,000) (100.00%) Tourism Promotion 224,400 (27,000) 197,400 571,000 373,600 189.26% Total expenditures 708,240 676,160 1,384,400 601,000 (783,400) (56.59%) Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance (356,240) 798,716 442,476 (633,700) 0 798,716 165,016 165,016 165,016 35 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #106 - SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fee Solid Waste Road Wear Fee Investment Interest Total revenues 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 0 0.00% 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 1,600,000 100,000 6.67% 12,000 0 12,000 7,000 (5,000) (41.67%) 1,737,000 0 1,737,000 1,832,000 95,000 5.47% Expenditures Education & Contract Administration 237,000 0 237,000 232,000 232,000 97.89% Transfers out-#311 1,500,000 37,776 1,537,776 1,600,000 1,600,000 104.05% Total expenditures 1,737,000 37,776 1,774,776 1,832,000 1,832,000 103.22% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution 0 726,788 726,788 (37,776) 0 726,788 689,012 689,012 689,012 79,000 0 79,000 79,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 79,000 0 79,000 79,000 0 0.00% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 39,500 0 39,500 39,500 0 0.00% Capital Outlay 33,500 15,000 48,500 33,500 (15,000) (30.93%) Total expenditures 73,000 15,000 88,000 73,000 (15,000) (17.05%) Revenues over (under) expenditures 6,000 (9,000) 6,000 Beginning fund balance 181,773 181,773 172,773 Ending fund balance 187,773 172,773 178,773 #108 - AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SALES TAX Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 193,000 0 193,000 193,000 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 193,000 0 193,000 193,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 193,000 193,000 193,000 Beginning fund balance 152,033 152,033 345,033 Ending fund balance 345,033 345,033 538,033 36 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 Budget 0 0 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 300,000 300,000 0 0 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 5,500,000 5,500,000 0 0 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,900 0 1,900 800 (1,100) (57.89%) Transfers in - #001 0 364,440 364,440 0 (364,440) (100.00%) Subtotal revenues Expenditures Street maintenance expenditures Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 1,900 364,440 366,340 800 (365,540) (99.78%) 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% (498,100) 160,043 (338,057) (133,660) (499,200) 160,043 526,383 26,383 27,183 37 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204 - LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Total revenues 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 480,800 0 480,800 501,200 20,400 4.24% 401,500 0 401,500 401,400 (100) (0.02%) 80,775 0 80,775 81,100 325 0.40% 80,775 0 80,775 81,100 325 0.40% 1,043,850 0 1,043,850 1,064,800 20,950 2.01% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 480,800 0 480,800 501,200 20,400 4.24% Debt Service Payments - Roads 161,550 0 161,550 162,200 650 0.40% 2016 LTGO Bond Principal & Interest 401,500 0 401,500 401,400 (100) (0.02%) Total expenditures 1,043,850 0 1,043,850 1,064,800 20,950 2.01% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 38 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 (500,000) (25.00%) 25,000 (22,000) 3,000 2,000 (1,000) (33.33%) 1,025,000 978,000 2,003,000 1,502,000 (501,000) (25.01%) Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,775 0 80,775 81,100 325 0.40% Transfers out - #303 316,620 0 316,620 361,780 45,160 14.26% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,278 0 827,278 914,900 87,622 10.59% Total expenditures 1,224,673 0 1,224,673 1,357,780 133,107 10.87% Revenues over (under) expenditures (199,673) 778,327 144,220 Beginning fund balance 2,048,068 2,048,068 2,826,395 Ending fund balance 1,848,395 2,826,395 2,970,615 #302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 (500,000) (25.00%) 25,000 (19,500) 5,500 5,000 (500) (9.09%) 1,025,000 980,500 2,005,500 1,505,000 (500,500) (24.96%) Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,775 0 80,775 81,100 325 0.40% Transfers out-#303 1,662,684 0 1,662,684 1,113,649 (549,035) (33.02%) Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,279 0 827,279 914,900 87,621 10.59% Transfers out-#314 1,127,387 (466,871) 660,516 0 (660,516) (100.00%) Total expenditures 3,698,125 (466,871) 3,231,254 2,109,649 (1,121,605) (34.71%) Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,673,125) (1,225,754) (604,649) Beginning fund balance 5,165,924 5,165,924 3,940,170 Ending fund balance 2,492,799 3,940,170 3,335,521 39 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Developer Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 Transfers in - #315 Total revenues 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 6,843,308 0 6,843,308 6,956,322 113,014 1.65% 53,703 0 53,703 1,164,399 1,110,696 2068.22% 316,620 0 316,620 361,780 45,160 14.26% 1,662,684 0 1,662,684 1,113,649 (549,035) (33.02%) 0 14,000 14,000 225,000 211,000 1507.14% 0 80,000 80,000 150,000 70,000 87.50% 8,876,315 94,000 8,970,315 9,971,150 1,000,835 11.16% Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersections Improvement 329,453 0 329,453 1,871,500 1,542,047 468.06% 249 Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection 1,020,522 0 1,020,522 1,903,176 882,654 86.49% 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 11,310 0 11,310 0 (11,310) (100.00%) 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 1,132,320 14,000 1,146,320 0 (1,146,320) (100.00%) 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 7,210 0 7,210 0 (7,210) (100.00%) 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 74,250 0 74,250 8,250 (66,000) (88.89%) 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 17,875 0 17,875 3,575 (14,300) (80.00%) 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 2,392,450 0 2,392,450 130,017 (2,262,433) (94.57%) 300 Pines and Mission Intersection Improvement 498,000 0 498,000 1,746,643 1,248,643 250.73% 301 Park and Mission Intersection Improvements 693,000 0 693,000 0 (693,000) (100.00%) 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Repl 317,625 0 317,625 0 (317,625) (100.00%) 313 Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing 1,312,500 0 1,312,500 1,444,000 131,500 10.02% 318 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 50,000 0 50,000 572,909 522,909 1045.82% 320 Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th 19,800 0 19,800 412,000 392,200 1980.81% 326 2020 Citywide Reetroreflective Post Plates 0 0 0 142,880 142,880 0.00% 329 Barker Road Imp- City Limits to Appleway 0 80,000 80,000 250,000 170,000 212.50% Mission Ave over Evergreen Deck Repair 0 0 0 261,200 261,200 0.00% School zone beacons 0 0 0 225,000 225,000 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 8,876,315 94,000 8,970,315 9,971,150 1,000,835 11.16% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 67,402 67,402 0 67,402 67,402 Note: Work performed for pavement preservation projects out of the Street Capital Projects Fund is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 480,530 44,730 525,260 126,100 Transfers in - #001 160,000 35,000 195,000 160,000 Transfers in - #312 565,150 567,536 1,132,686 4,522,420 Total revenues (399,160) (35,000) 3,389,734 (75.99%) (17.95%) 299.27% 1,205,680 647,266 1,852,946 4,808,520 2,955,574 159.51% Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail (Evergreen to Sullivan) 0 2,033 2,033 0 (2,033) (100.00%) 304 CenterPlace west lawn improvements - Ph. 2 0 20,000 20,000 0 (20,000) (100.00%) 305 CenterPlace roof repairs 0 15,000 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) 314 Balfour Park frontage improvements 565,150 0 565,150 0 (565,150) (100.00%) 315 Browns Park improvements 2020 499,805 204,926 704,731 0 (704,731) (100.00%) 316 Balfour Park improvements - Ph 1 0 367,503 367,503 3,507,520 3,140,017 854.42% Install stage fill speakers Great Room 6,346 0 6,346 0 (6,346) (100.00%) Repair failed pixels Great Room 6,505 0 6,505 0 (6,505) (100.00%) Reprogram Great Room A/V System 12,499 0 12,499 0 (12,499) (100.00%) Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Sullivan Park water line 0 98,000 98,000 441,000 343,000 350.00% Replace pond liner at Mirabeau 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0.00% Spokane Valley River Loop Trail 0 100,000 100,000 700,000 600,000 600.00% Total expenditures 1,120,305 807,462 1,927,767 4,728,520 2,800,753 145.28% Revenues over (under) expenditures 85,375 (74,821) 80,000 Beginning fund balance 75,577 75,577 756 Ending fund balance 160,952 756 80,756 40 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #312 Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 3,100 (2,300) 800 1,300 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 $ I 500 62.50% 3,100 (2,300) 800 1,300 500 62.50% 0 3,600 3,600 0 (3,600) (100.00%) 0 3,600 3,600 0 (3,600) (100.00%) 3,100 842,964 846,064 (2,800) 1,300 842,964 840,164 840,164 841,464 Note: The fund balance in #310 includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2022 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839, 285.10. #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in - #001 991,843 0 991,843 1,001,800 9,957 1.00% Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 37,776 1,537,776 1,600,000 62,224 4.05% Transfers in - #301 827,278 0 827,278 914,900 87,622 10.59% Transfers in - #302 827,279 0 827,279 914,900 87,621 10.59% Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 1,029,000 1,029,000 0.00% Total revenues 4,146,400 37,776 4,184,176 5,460,600 1,276,424 30.51% Expenditures Pavement preservation 4,676,350 (885,473) 3,790,877 7,202,000 3,411,123 89.98% Pre -project GeoTech 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 4,726,350 (885,473) 3,840,877 7,252,000 3,411,123 88.81% Revenues over (under) expenditures (579,950) 343,299 (1,791,400) Beginning fund balance 5,792,145 5,792,145 6,135,444 Ending fund balance 5,212,195 6,135,444 4,344,044 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 ('19 fundbal>50%) 0 11,126,343 11,126,343 0 (11,126,343) (100.00%) Transfers in - #310 0 3,600 3,600 0 (3,600) (100.00%) Proceeds from sale of land 0 109,400 109,400 0 (109,400) (100.00%) Grant Proceeds 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 (1,000,000) (100.00%) Investment Interest 100,000 (92,500) 7,500 10,000 2,500 33.33% Total revenues 100,000 12,146,843 12,246,843 10,000 (12,236,843) (99.92%) Expenditures Transfers out - #001 (police vehicle replacements) 0 0 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 0.00% Transfers out - #303 (Barker Road Corridor) 0 14,000 14,000 0 (14,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #303 (school zone beacons) 0 0 0 225,000 225,000 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (Appleway Trail - Evergreen-Sullii, 0 2,033 2,033 0 (2,033) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Balfour Park frontage improvemE 565,150 0 565,150 0 (565,150) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Balfour Park improvements ph) 367,503 367,503 3,507,520 3,140,017 854.42% Transfers out - #309 (Sullivan Park waterline) 0 98,000 98,000 314,900 216,900 221.33% Transfers out - #309 (Spokane Valley River Loop Trail) 0 100,000 100,000 700,000 600,000 600.00% Transfers out - #314 (Pines Rd Underpass) 64,192 562,123 626,315 0 (626,315) (100.00%) Transfers out - #314 (Barker Rd Overpass) 411,582 284,834 696,416 724,905 28,489 4.09% Transfers out - #314 (Sullivan Rd Interchange) 250,000 75,000 325,000 101,385 (223,615) (68.80%) Transfers out - #316 (Fairgrounds Building) 0 10,000 10,000 750,000 740,000 7400.00% WSDOT Sullivan Park Property Acquisition 759,600 0 759,600 0 (759,600) (100.00%) Flora & Montgomery Trailhead Land Acquisition 0 300,000 300,000 0 (300,000) (100.00%) Ponderosa ParkLand Land Acquisition 0 1,600,000 1,600,000 0 (1,600,000) (100.00%) Sprague Ave Land Acquisition 0 2,225,000 2,225,000 0 (2,225,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 2,050,524 5,638,493 7,689,017 7,723,710 34,693 0.45% Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,950,524) 4,557,826 (7,713,710) Beginning fund balance 8,503,764 8,503,764 13,061,590 Ending fund balance 6,553,240 13,061,590 5,347,880 41 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Developer Contributions Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 Total revenues Expenditures 143 Barker BNSF Grade Separation 223 Pines Rd Underpass 311 Sullivan Rd Interchange Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 $ 1 11,508,819 1,394,500 12,903,319 1,560,290 (11,343,029) (87.91%) O 0 0 308,592 308,592 0.00% 1,127,387 (466,871) 660,516 0 (660,516) (100.00%) 725,774 921,957 1,647,731 826,290 (821,441) (49.85%) 13,361,980 1,849,586 15,211,566 2,695,172 (12,516,394) (82.28%) 9,396,870 4,149,450 250,000 284,834 9,681,704 0 4,149,450 75,000 325,000 13,796,320 (434,340) 793,526 359,186 1,307,293 1,366,585 101,385 (8,374,411) (2,782,865) (223,615) (86.50%) (67.07%) (68.80%) 359,834 14,156,154 2,775,263 (11,380,891) (80.40%) 1,055,412 (80,091) 793,526 1,848,938 1,848,938 1,768,847 #315 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FUND Revenues Transportation Impact Fees 0 150,000 150,000 200,000 50,000 33.33% Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #303 O 150,000 150,000 200,000 50,000 33.33% 0 80,000 80,000 150,000 70,000 87.50% Total expenditures 0 80,000 80,000 150,000 70,000 87.50% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 70,000 50,000 Beginning fund balance 0 0 70,000 Ending fund balance 0 70,000 120,000 #316 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfers in - #312 (Fairgrounds Building) 0 10,000 10,000 750,000 740,000 7400.00% Total revenues O 10,000 10,000 750,000 740,000 7400.00% Expenditures Fairgrounds Building 0 10,000 10,000 750,000 740,000 7400.00% Total expenditures 0 10,000 10,000 750,000 740,000 7400.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 42 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 1,900,000 0 1,900,000 1,910,000 10,000 0.53% 40,000 0 40,000 2,000 (38,000) (95.00%) Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 0 1,940,000 1,912,000 (28,000) (1.44%) Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 538,864 13,830 552,694 560,631 7,937 1.44% Supplies 14,750 0 14,750 18,150 3,400 23.05% Services & Charges 1,320,643 0 1,320,643 1,248,395 (72,248) (5.47%) Intergovernmental Payments 45,000 0 45,000 45,000 0 0.00% Vehicle rentals - #501 6,750 0 6,750 6,750 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,926,007 13,830 1,939,837 1,878,926 (60,911) (3.14%) Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 13,993 (13,830) 163 33,074 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Revenues 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 160,000 660,000 315,000 (345,000) (52.27%) Watershed studies 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% Generator for Maintenance Shop (1/2 cost to #101) 0 0 0 50,000 Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 700,000 160,000 860,000 565,000 (295,000) (34.30%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (600,000) (160,000) (760,000) (565,000) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (586,007) (173,830) (759,837) (531,926) Beginning working capital 2,159,796 2,159,796 1,399,959 Ending working capital 1,573,789 1,399,959 868,033 Stormwater Fund Summary Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance 2,040, 000 0 2,040,000 1,912, 000 2,626,007 173,830 2,799,837 2,443,926 (586, 007) (173, 830) (759, 837) (531, 926) 2,159, 796 1,573,789 2,159, 796 1,399,959 1,399,959 868,033 #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 460,000 460,000 0 0.00% Grant Proceeds 2,122,045 (615,000) 1,507,045 1,881,600 374,555 24.85% Investment Interest 15,000 (13,000) 2,000 1,900 (100) (5.00%) Total revenues 2,597,045 (628,000) 1,969,045 2,343,500 374,455 19.02% Expenditures Capital - various projects 2,378,109 580,431 2,958,540 3,008,800 50,260 1.70% Effectiveness study 0 0 0 55,000 55,000 0.00% Total expenditures 2,378,109 580,431 2,958,540 3,063,800 105,260 3.56% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 218,936 2,120, 365 2,339,301 (989,495) (720,300) 2,120,365 1,130,870 1,130,870 410,570 43 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals - #001 Vehicle rentals - #101 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) Vehicle rentals - #402 Transfer in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) Transfer in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) Transfer in - #101 (Additional dump bed truck) Investment Interest Total revenues 2021 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2022 Budget 11/9/2021 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 31,300 0 31,300 31,300 0 0.00% 10,250 0 10,250 10,250 0 0.00% 60,500 0 60,500 60,500 0 0.00% 6,750 0 6,750 6,750 0 0.00% 36,600 0 36,600 0 (36,600) (100.00%) 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 0.00% 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0.00% 10,000 0 10,000 1,200 (8,800) (88.00%) 155,400 0 155,400 230,000 74,600 48.01% Expenditures Small tools & minor equipment 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Vehicle purchase 130,000 0 130,000 262,500 132,500 101.92% Snow plow purchase 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0.00% Loader purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 140,000 0 140,000 522,500 382,500 273.21% Revenues over (under) expenditures 15,400 15,400 (292,500) Beginning working capital 1,387,962 1,387,962 1,403,362 Ending working capital 1,403,362 1,403,362 1,110,862 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 Total revenues Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 425,000 0 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% 425,000 0 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% 425,000 0 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% Total expenditures 425,000 0 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance FIDUCIARY FUNDS 0 340,484 340,484 0 0 340,484 340,484 340,484 340,484 #632 - PASSTHROUGH FEES & TAXES FUND Revenues Fees & taxes collected for other governments 0 399,687 399,687 400,000 313 0.08% Total revenues 0 399,687 399,687 400,000 313 0.08% Expenditures Fees & taxes remitted to other governments 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (313) 0 Beginning fund balance 313 313 0 Ending fund balance 313 0 0 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds Total of Expenditures for all Funds 90,086,029 21,157,758 111,243,787 96,127,261 97,968,784 19,862,994 117,831, 778 107,856,818 Total grant revenues (included in total revenues) 21,079,702 1,888,230 22,967,932 11,813,312 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 32,524,699 5,442,862 37,967,561 32,082,233 44 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget Revenues by Fund General Fund Property Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax Franchise Fees/Business Registration State Shared Revenues Service Revenues Fines and Forfeitures Recreation Program Fees Miscellaneous, Investment Int., Transfers Total General Fund 13,199,900 27,720,000 1,276,000 2,244,000 365,000 1,215,000 1,995,500 2,636,200 527,700 652,400 2,001,000 $ 53,832,700 Other Funds 101 Street Fund $ 5,874,119 103 Paths & Trails Fund 8,100 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Tourism Facilities Fund 402,500 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 601,000 106 Solid Waste Fund 1,832,000 107 PEG Fund 79,000 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 193,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 800 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 1,064,800 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 1,502,000 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 1,505,000 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 9,971,150 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 4,808,520 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 1,300 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 5,460,600 312 Capital Reserve Fund 10,000 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 2,695,172 315 Transportation Impact Fees Fund 200,000 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 750,000 402 Stormwater Management Fund 1,912,000 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2,343,500 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 230,000 502 Risk Management Fund 450,000 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund 400,000 Total Other Funds $ 42,294,561 Total All Funds $ 96,127,261 45 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 General Fund Revenues $53,832,700 Recreation Program Fees 1% Fines & Forfeitures 1% Service Revenues 5% State Shared Revenues 4% Franchise Fees/Business Registrations 2% Gambling Tax 1% Public Safety Sales Tax 2% Criminal Justice Sales Tax 4% Miscellaneous 4% atititt Property Tax 25% Other Special Revenue Funds 3% Street Fund 6% CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 City Wide Revenues $ 96,127,261 Debt Service Fund 1% Hill Hull Hill r ; Hill HillI IGeneral Fund 57% Capital Projects Funds 27% Stormwater Management Fund 2% APA Fund 3% Internal Service Funds 1% 47 Property Tax Property Tax Property Tax - Delinquent Sales Taxes Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget - General Fund Detail Revenues by Type 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Amended Budget 2022 Proposed Budget 11, 511,773 11, 977,663 11, 958,296 12, 724,200 13,199,900 197,138 187,462 127,001 0 0 11,708,911 22,642,855 1,074,037 1,906,001 12,165,125 12,085,298 24,204,763 1,149,040 2,028,789 25,238,481 1,163,313 2,049,075 12, 724,200 13,199,900 25,200,000 1,160,000 2,040,000 27,720,000 1,276,000 2,244,000 25,622,893 27,382,592 28,450,869 28,400,000 31,240,000 Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax Amusement Games 13,456 14,401 3,906 13,000 13,000 Card Games 284,720 326,721 210,466 285,000 280,000 Bingo & Raffles 1,278 2,101 421 1,000 1,000 Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 64,303 76,573 63,676 67,000 64,000 Leasehold Excise Tax 5,469 8,029 6,608 7,000 7,000 Leasehold Excise Tax (State) 11,140 13,790 0 11,000 0 Licenses & Permits General Business Licenses Franchise Fees 380,366 117,917 1,092,287 1,210,204 441,615 285,077 115,235 114,652 1,100,597 1,126,185 1,215,832 1,240,837 384,000 365,000 115,000 115,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,215,000 1,215,000 State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue 27,311 112,334 109,309 0 0 Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax 333,140 2,004 0 0 0 Payment in Lieu of Taxes - DNR 0 3,630 7,347 4,000 4,000 CJ - High Crime 268,009 263,038 275,589 0 100,000 MVET Criminal Justice - Population 27,780 29,063 30,723 32,000 34,500 CJ Contracted Services 171,356 179,012 188,640 165,000 170,000 CJ Special Programs 100,300 104,438 109,811 114,000 122,000 Marijuana Enforcement 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Excise Tax Distribution 259,242 187,547 184,812 109,000 147,000 DUI - Cities 14,004 13,038 14,712 14,000 14,000 Liquor Board Excise Tax 487,739 533,694 637,464 552,000 636,000 Liquor Board Profits 786,251 781,018 776,368 770,000 768,000 2,475,132 2,208,816 2,334,776 1,760,000 1,995,500 Service Revenues Accessory Dwelling 420 588 924 353 500 Building & Planning Fees 77,010 263,991 245,449 158,390 189,200 Planning Fees 751,859 909,688 918,230 547,702 661,000 Building Permits 1,414,420 1,508,693 1,705,159 905,216 1,376,000 Code Enforcement 15,050 10,734 18,339 6,440 11,000 Demolition Permits 4,074 4,553 4,147 2,732 4,000 Entertainment License 0 7,087 1,575 4,252 4,000 Grading Permits 22,619 26,286 26,366 15,772 16,000 Home Profession Fee 3,192 2,520 2,688 1,512 3,000 Mechanical Permits 146,519 147,879 158,269 88,727 129,000 Misc. Permits & Fees 18,492 23,968 33,558 13,128 22,000 Plumbing Permits 79,097 74,808 100,957 44,885 73,000 Right of Way Permits 204,963 197,026 164,560 118,216 145,000 Street Vacation Permits 0 4,095 2,730 1,300 2,000 Temporary Use Permit Fees 157 157 471 94 500 2,737,872 3,182,073 3,383,422 1,908,719 2,636,200 48 Fines and Forfeitures Public Safety False Alarm Services Public Safety Grants Fines & Forfeits - Traffic Other Criminal- Non Traffic Fines CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget - General Fund Detail Revenues by Type 2018 Actual 27,134 0 414,647 536,505 978,286 2019 Actual 64,845 0 428,191 459,460 2020 Actual 56,785 0 341,939 3,620 952,496 402,344 2021 Amended Budget 75,000 50,000 389,300 31,700 2022 Proposed Budget 60,000 50,000 389,200 28,500 546,000 527,700 Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees (To use a recreational facility) 459,368 526,026 130,049 460,600 469,400 Program Fees (To participate in a program) 205,289 205,914 18,140 183,000 183,000 664,657 731,940 148,189 643,600 652,400 Miscellaneous AWC Health & Wellness 949 0 0 1,000 1,000 Investment Interest 690,528 916,684 254,636 500,000 200,000 Sales Tax Interest 34,772 46,720 32,590 35,000 30,000 Interest on Gambling Tax 70 138 355 300 300 Interest on Liens & Judgments 0 187 0 1,000 1,000 Police Precinct Rent 38,244 39,178 39,888 39,000 40,000 Police Precinct Maintenance 14,694 14,717 14,523 15,000 15,000 Judgments and Settlements 0 1,686 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenue & Grant Proceeds 20,776 28,458 59,562 110,000 281,000 COVID-19 Stimulus Funding 0 0 4,352,400 0 0 Copy Charges 766 1,520 856 0 1,500 SCRAPS pass -through 1,137 1,172 1,189 1,200 1,200 801,936 1,050,460 4,755,999 702,500 571,000 Transfers Transfers in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 26,037 30,000 11,390 30,000 30,000 Transfers in - #106 (solid waste repayment) 40,425 40,422 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 (police vehicle replacements 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 Transfers in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #501 0 0 0 0 0 119,562 70,422 11,390 30,000 1,430,000 Total General Fund Revenue 46,699,819 49,401,371 53,098,201 48,314,019 53,832,700 49 101 - Street Fund Utilities tax Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Other Miscellaneous Revenues & Grants Nonrecurring Transfer in - #001 Nonrecurring Transfer in - #122 Nonrecurring Transfer in - #312 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Amended Budget 2022 Proposed Budget 1,854,641 1,563,981 1,388,026 1,000,000 932,000 2,063,390 2,018,186 1,737,864 1,800,000 1,896,000 133,525 132,637 131,847 130,600 130,200 94,571 84,704 93,033 70,000 85,000 17,504 4,022 829 4,000 500 97,958 23,911 55,441 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 2,552,600 2,820,419 0 620,000 364,439 0 0 0 907,544 1,364,706 0 0 4,261 ,589 5,354,985 5,136,185 5,567,200 5,874,119 103 - Paths & Trails Fund Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 8,703 8,512 7,330 8,700 8,000 Investment interest 390 186 71 200 100 9,093 8,698 7,401 8,900 8,100 104 - Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Hotel/Motel Tax 415,295 454,283 283,720 400,000 400,000 Transfers in - #105 250,000 275,000 0 1,157,000 0 Investment interest 24,183 43,589 11,908 2,500 2,500 105 - Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 689,478 772,872 295,628 1,559,500 402,500 646,975 743,852 443,244 750,000 600,000 7,058 8,459 2,705 700 1,000 654,033 752,311 445,949 750,700 601,000 106 - Solid Waste Solid Waste Administrative fee 182,900 252,396 219,943 225,000 225,000 Solid Waste Road Wear fee 1,108,028 1,513,532 1,537,776 1,500,000 1,600,000 Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 12,486 24,752 7,804 12,000 7,000 1,303,414 1,790,680 1,765,523 1,737,000 1,832,000 107 - PEG Fund Comcast PEG contribution 81,322 79,498 76,541 79,000 79,000 Investment Interest 971 2,096 596 0 0 82,293 81,594 77,138 79,000 79,000 108 - Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Affordable & Supportive Sales Tax Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 151,950 193,000 193,000 0 83 0 0 0 152,033 193,000 193,000 122 - Winter Weather Reserve Fund FEMA Grant Proceeds 0 10,366 0 0 0 Investment Interest 5,354 9,899 1,147 1,900 800 Transfer in - #001 490,000 120,000 500,000 364,440 0 495,354 140,265 501,147 366,340 800 204 - Debt Service - LTGO 03 Fund Facilities District Revenue 414,050 432,150 459,500 480,800 501,200 Transfers in - #001 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 401,400 Transfers in -#301 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 81,100 Transfers in -#302 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 81,100 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 1,064,800 50 301 - REET 1 Capital Protects Fund REET 1 - 1st Quarter Percent Investment Interest 302 - REET 2 Capital Protects Fund REET 2 - 2nd Quarter Percent Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2018 Actual 1,968,317 47,045 2,015,362 1,968,317 61,879 2,030,196 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 1,695,344 1,754,320 61,383 14,742 1,756,727 1,769,062 1,695,344 1,754,320 80,784 22,425 1,776,128 1,776,745 2021 Amended Budget 2022 Proposed Budget 2,000,000 1,500,000 3,000 2,000 2,003,000 1,502,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 5,500 5,000 2,005,500 1,505,000 303 - Street Capital Protects Fund Grant Proceeds 6,566,816 2,783,332 2,813,485 6,843,308 6,956,322 Developer Contributions 29,144 228,953 540,325 53,703 1,164,399 Investment Interest 0 586 0 0 0 Transfers in - #301 901,287 517,107 330,295 316,620 361,780 Transfers in -#302 1,031,071 (192,297) 149,678 1,662,684 1,113,649 Transfers in - #312 (547,287) 1,999,130 916,837 14,000 225,000 Transfers in - #315 0 0 0 80,000 150,000 7,981,031 5,336,811 4,750,619 8,970,315 9,971,150 309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund Grant Proceeds 1,605,948 1,114,049 1,334,842 525,260 126,100 Investment Interest 183 83 0 0 0 Transfers in -#001 583,206 1,334,369 2,941,166 195,000 160,000 Transfers in - #103 50,000 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 289,661 262,599 131,985 1,032,686 4,522,420 2,528,998 310 - Civic Facilities Capital Protects Fund Investment Interest 14,049 2,711,100 4,407,993 1,752,946 4,808,520 16,700 3,679 800 1,300 14,049 16,700 3,679 800 1,300 311 - Pavement Preservation Fund Grants 1,422,404 3,665,905 98,281 0 1,029,000 Investment Interest 54,724 49,593 10,960 0 0 Transfers in -#001 962,700 972,300 982,023 991,843 1,001,800 Transfers in - #101 67,342 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #106 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,537,776 1,600,000 Transfers in - #301 685,329 734,300 772,639 827,278 914,900 Transfers in - #302 685,329 734,300 772,638 827,279 914,900 4,877,828 7,764,426 4,150,073 4,184,176 5,460,600 312 - Capital Reserve Fund Sale of Land 405,056 0 0 109,400 0 Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 Investment Interest 126,565 225,908 58,187 7,500 10,000 Transfers in -#001 3,795,429 7,109,300 0 11,126,343 0 Transfers in - #309 0 0 200,000 0 0 Transfers in - #310 0 18,452 16,700 3,600 0 Transfers in - #313 0 88,589 0 0 0 313 -City Hall Construction Fund Investment Interest 2016 LTGO Bond Issue Proceeds/Premium 4,327,050 7,442,249 274,887 12,246,843 10,000 1,416 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,416 953 0 0 0 314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Grant Proceeds 571,136 1,447,398 3,394,512 2,927,000 1,560,290 Investment Interest 16,591 15,883 412 0 0 Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 308,592 Transfers in - #301 0 104,918 1,335,879 0 0 Transfers in - #302 (8,147) 0 0 287,921 0 Transfers in - #312 0 0 198,701 1,647,731 826,290 315 - Transportation Impact Fees Fund Transportation Impact Fees 579,580 1,568,199 4,929,503 4,862,652 2,695,172 0 0 0 150,000 200,000 0 0 0 150,000 200,000 316 - Economic Development Capital Protects Fund Transfer in - #312 (fairgrounds building) 0 0 0 10,000 750,000 0 0 0 10,000 750,000 51 402 - Stormwater Management Fund Stormwater Management Fee Grant Proceeds - Nonrecurring Investment Interest 403 - Aquifer Protection Area Fund Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Amended Budget 1,920,509 1,936,362 1,910,349 1,900,000 128,695 58,746 304 100,000 40,465 48,642 10,726 40,000 2,089,669 462,980 597,733 28,620 2,043,750 1,921,379 469,429 101,715 37,329 426,234 60,996 9,135 2022 Proposed Budget 1,910,000 0 2,000 2,040,000 1,912,000 460,000 1,507,045 2,000 460,000 1,881,600 1,900 1,089,333 608,473 496,365 1,969,045 2,343,500 501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Vehicle rentals-#001 30,000 30,000 28,000 31,300 31,300 Vehicle rentals-#101 21,250 21,250 14,500 10,250 10,250 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) 77,929 77,929 48,500 60,500 60,500 Vehicle rentals - #402 12,750 12,750 14,000 6,750 6,750 Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 36,600 0 36,600 0 Transfers in - #001 (Additional Vehicle) 0 0 64,072 0 40,000 Transfers in - #101 (Additional dump bed truck) 0 0 0 0 80,000 Investment Interest 19,874 26,715 6,074 10,000 1,200 502 - Risk Management Fund Transfers in - #001 198,403 205,244 175,146 155,400 230,000 370,000 390,000 410,000 Investment Interest 2,135 372,135 425,000 450,000 2,124 248 0 0 392,124 410,248 425,000 450,000 632 - Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund Fees & Taxes collected for other governments 0 0 372,072 399,687 400,000 Total of "Other Fund" Revenues General Fund Revenues Total Revenues 0 36,577,704 46,699,819 83,277,523 0 372,072 399,687 400,000 41,522,639 34,840,476 49,401,371 53,098,200 90,924,010 87,938,676 52,480,854 42,294,561 48,314,019 53,832,700 100,794,873 96,127,261 52 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget Expenditures by Fund and Department General Fund Council $ 645,170 City Manager 1,471,305 City Attorney 747,890 Public Safety 31,366,434 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 295,477 Finance 1,571,443 Human Resources 330,321 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 400,020 Community & Public Works Engineering 2,440,282 Economic Development 1,188,268 Building and Planning 2,631,423 Parks & Recreation Administration 351,018 Maintenance 950,455 Recreation 330,687 Aquatics 568,700 Senior Center 36,801 CenterPlace 1,009,075 General Government 7,713,332 Total General Fund $ 54,048,101 Other Funds 101 Street Fund 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 315 Transportation Impact Fees Fund 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement (ER&R) 502 Risk Management Fund 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund 6,039,619 601,000 1,832,000 73,000 500,000 1,064,800 1,357,780 2,109, 649 9,971,150 4,728,520 7,252,000 7,723,710 2,775,263 150,000 750,000 2,443, 926 3,063,800 522,500 450,000 400,000 Total Other Funds $ 53,808,717 Total All Funds $ 107,856,818 53 Community & Public Works 12% City Hall Operations 1% Operations & Administrative 4% Council & Executive 5% CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 General Fund Expenditures $54,048,101 Public Safety 58% General Government 14% Parks & Recreation 6% 54 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 City Wide Expenditures $ 107,856,818 Capital Projects Funds 34% Tourism Promotion 1% Street Fund 6% hhh Parks & Recreation 3% Community & Public Works 6% Council / Executive/ Ops & Admin 5% General Government 7% Risk Management 0% Debt Service 1% Public Safety 29% Stormwater & APA Funds 5% Other Activities 3% 55 City Council City Manager City Attorney Public Safety Wages, Benefits & Payroll Taxes CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department and Type Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Interfund $ 314,570 $ 5,500 $ 325,100 $ 0 $ 1,260,905 6,800 198,600 0 655,734 3,505 88,651 0 23,126 42,100 396,300 29,425,908 Capital Expenditures Total 0 $ 0 $ 645,170 0 5,000 1,471,305 0 0 747,890 0 1,479,000 31,366,434 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 254,877 600 40,000 0 0 0 295,477 Finance 1,539,543 3,400 28,500 0 0 0 1,571,443 Human Resources 302,561 1,200 26,560 0 0 0 330,321 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 205,520 27,000 167,500 0 0 0 400,020 Community & Public Works Engineering 2,144,619 30,500 265,163 0 0 0 2,440,282 Economic Development 767,023 3,200 418,045 0 0 0 1,188,268 Building and Planning 2,250,373 39,050 342,000 0 0 0 2,631,423 Parks & Recreation Administration 290,768 3,500 56,750 0 0 0 351,018 Maintenance 0 2,500 947,955 0 0 0 950,455 Recreation 239,707 12,400 78,580 0 0 0 330,687 Aquatics 0 2,000 566,700 0 0 0 568,700 Senior Center 29,976 1,600 5,225 0 0 0 36,801 CenterPlace 553,141 83,774 372,160 0 0 0 1,009,075 General Government 0 159,413 1,254,000 260,300 4,873,619 1,166,000 7,713,332 Total $ 10,832,443 $ 428,042 $ 5,577,789 $ 29,686,208 $ 4,873,619 $ 2,650,000 $ 54,048,101 56 City Council Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2021 to 2022 2021 Adopted Budget 2021 Amended Budget 301,266 5,500 324,800 308,372 5,500 324,800 631,566 2022 Budget 314,570 5,500 325,100 638,672 645,170 Difference Between 2021 and 2022 Increase Decrease) $ 6,198 2.01% 0 0.00% 300 0.09% 6,498 1.02% City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,087,699 1,087,699 1,260,905 173,206 15.92% Supplies 6,800 6,800 6,800 0 0.00% Services & Charges 63,590 81,340 198,600 117,260 144.16% Total 1,158,089 1,175,839 1,466,305 290,466 24.70% City Attorney Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 627,353 627,353 655,734 28,381 4.52% Supplies 4,185 4,185 3,505 (680) (16.25%) Services & Charges 87,055 87,055 88,651 1,596 1.83% Total 718,593 718,593 747,890 29,297 4.08% Public Safety Non -Departmental (Fines & Forfeits) 485,900 0 0 0 0.00% Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits 19,000 19,000 23,126 4,126 21.72% Supplies 52,000 52,000 42,100 (9,900) (19.04%) Other Services and Charges 277,715 277,715 313,300 35,585 12.81% Intergovernmental Services 27,267,000 27,549,146 29,425,908 1,876,762 6.81% Total 28,101,615 27,897,861 29,804,434 1,906,573 6.83% Deputy City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 243,944 243,944 254,877 10,933 4.48% Supplies 700 700 600 (100) (14.29%) Services & Charges 40,200 40,200 40,000 (200) (0.50%) Total 284,844 284,844 295,477 10,633 3.73% Finance/IT Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,476,684 1,476,684 1,539,543 62,859 4.26% Supplies 3,000 3,000 3,400 400 13.33% Services & Charges 20,975 20,975 28,500 7,525 35.88% Total 1,500,659 1,500,659 1,571,443 70,784 4.72% Human Resources Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 293,505 293,505 302,561 9,056 3.09% Supplies 1,000 1,000 1,200 200 20.00% Services & Charges 24,035 24,035 26,560 2,525 10.51% Total 318,540 318,540 330,321 11,781 3.70% City Hall Operations & Maintenance Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 106,593 179,101 205,520 26,419 14.75% Supplies 27,000 27,000 27,000 0 0.00% Services & Charges 167,500 167,500 167,500 0 0.00% Total 301,093 373,601 400,020 26,419 7.07% Community & Public Works - Engineering Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,855,308 1,855,308 2,144,619 289,311 15.59% Supplies 30,500 30,500 30,500 0 0.00% Services & Charges 212,834 212,834 265,163 52,329 24.59% Total 2,098,642 2,098,642 2,440,282 341,640 16.28% Community & Public Works - Economic Dev Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 639,017 685,316 767,023 81,707 11.92% Supplies 3,000 3,200 3,200 0 0.00% Services & Charges 403,745 408,545 418,045 9,500 2.33% Total 1,045,762 1,097,061 1,188,268 91,207 8.31% Continued to next page 57 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2021 to 2022 Continued from previous page 2021 Adopted Budget 2021 Amended Budget 2022 Budget Difference Between 2021 and 2022 Increase Decrease) $ Community & Public Works - Building & Planning Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 2,134,016 2,061,508 2,250,373 188,865 9.16% Supplies 35,050 35,050 39,050 4,000 11.41% Services & Charges 318,000 318,000 342,000 24,000 7.55% Total 2,487,066 2,414,558 2,631,423 216,865 8.98% Parks & Rec- Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 292,667 292,667 290,768 (1,899) (0.65%) Supplies 5,000 5,000 3,500 (1,500) (30.00%) Services & Charges 58,800 57,760 56,750 (1,010) (1.75%) Total 356,467 355,427 351,018 (4,409) (1.24%) Parks & Rec- Maintenance Supplies 3,500 3,500 2,500 (1,000) (28.57%) Services & Charges 936,503 936,503 947,955 11,452 1.22% Total 940,003 940,003 950,455 10,452 1.11% Parks & Rec- Recreation Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 230,484 230,484 239,707 9,223 4.00% Supplies 9,150 9,150 12,400 3,250 35.52% Services & Charges 88,900 88,900 78,580 (10,320) (11.61%) Total 328,534 328,534 330,687 2,153 0.66% Parks & Rec- Aquatics Supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% Services & Charges 508,053 508,053 536,700 28,647 5.64% Total 510,053 510,053 538,700 28,647 5.62% Parks & Rec- Senior Center Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 28,303 28,303 29,976 1,673 5.91% Supplies 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0.00% Services & Charges 5,500 5,500 5,225 (275) (5.00%) Total 35,403 35,403 36,801 1,398 3.95% Parks & Rec- CenterPlace Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 542,938 542,938 553,141 10,203 1.88% Supplies 85,537 85,537 83,774 (1,763) (2.06%) Services & Charges 343,739 343,739 333,460 (10,279) (2.99%) Total 972,214 972,214 970,375 (1,839) (0.19%) General Government Supplies 81,400 81,400 159,413 78,013 95.84% Services & Charges 813,050 813,050 1,254,000 440,950 54.23% Intergovernmental Services 372,930 372,930 260,300 (112,630) (30.20%) Capital outlays 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Total 1,297,380 1,297,380 1,703,713 406,333 31.32% Transfers out-#204 401,500 401,500 401,400 (100) (0.02%) Transfers out - #309 160,000 160,000 160,000 Transfers out - #311 Pavement Preservation 991,843 991,843 1,001,800 Transfers out - #501 36,600 36,600 0 (36,600) (100.00%) Transfers out - #502 425,000 425,000 450,000 Total recurring expenditures 45,101,466 44,972,827 48,415,982 0 0.00% 9,957 1.00% 25,000 5.88% 3,443,155 7.66% Continued to next page 58 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2022 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2021 to 2022 Continued from previous page Summary by Category Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #311 Transfers out - #501 Transfers out - #502 Non -Departmental (fines & forfeits) Intergovernmental Svc (public safety) Intergovernmental Svc Capital outlay 2021 Adopted Budget 2021 Amended Budget 2022 Budget Difference Between 2021 and 2022 Increase Decrease) $ 9,878,777 9,932,182 10,832,443 900,261 9.06% 356,922 357,122 428,042 70,920 19.86% 4,694,994 4,716,504 5,426,089 709,585 15.04% 401,500 401,500 401,400 (100) (0.02%) 160,000 160,000 160,000 0 0.00% 991,843 991,843 1,001,800 9,957 1.00% 36,600 36,600 0 (36,600) (100.00%) 425,000 425,000 450,000 25,000 5.88% 485,900 0 0 0 0.00% 27,267,000 27,549,146 29,425,908 1,876,762 6.81% 372,930 372,930 260,300 (112,630) (30.20%) 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% 45,101,466 44,972,827 48,415,982 3,443,155 7.66% 59 Fund: 001 Dept: 011 General Fund Legislative Branch Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This department accounts for the cost of providing effective elected representation of the citizenry in the governing body. The Council makes policy decisions for the City and is accountable to Spokane Valley citizens by making decisions regarding how resources are allocated, the appropriate levels of service, and establishing goals and policies for the organization. Accomplishments for 2021 • Updated and adopted a 2022 State Legislative Agenda. • Updated and adopted a Federal Legislative Agenda. • Worked with State and Federal Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of City interests including virtual lobbying efforts. • Acquired 17.7 acres of land in the Ponderosa portion of the City for future park development at a cost of $1.6 million. • Acquired 45 acres of land in the northeast portion of the City for future park development at a cost of $2.1 million. • Applied for and received an RCO grant in the amount of $1 million that partially reimbursed the $2.1 million acquisition fee. • Authorized Staff to complete frontage improvements including roads, curb and gutter and utilities surrounding Balfour Park and the site of the future Spokane County Library District library structure. • Authorized Staff to continue to collaborate with the Spokane County Library District to design a new library and renovate and expand Balfour Park. The City's portion of the project will be limited to the park but bidding the two projects together should yield a much more favorable construction price than if each entity were to bid separately. • Worked with a developer to reallign a portion of Garland Avenue so they could complete a 1.3 million square foot distribution facility that is anticipated to employ 4,000 workers. Cost of the reallignment was born by the developer. • Adopted a balanced 2022 Budget that met our goals of 1) having recurring revenues exceed recurring expenditures, and 2) maintained an ending fund balance of at least 50% of recurring expenditures. • Authorized Staff to create a Street Sustainabilty Committee whose mission was to develop a pavement management plan for the City. • Began the process of researching and discussing how to best utilize $16 million of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to address the economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Goals for 2022 1) Work with state and federal legislators towards advancing the concepts outlined in the Bridging the Valley study including obtaining financial assistance for the Pines, Sullivan, and Park Grade Separation Projects. 2)Actively pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Management Program, to include sustained financing in Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. 3) Pursue state and federal financial assistance to address transportation concerns along the entire Barker Corridor. 4) Sustain and expand where possible, economic development efforts including the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses. Too, actively partner with local, state and national partners to support the economic and community recovery from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 5) Continue to foster relationships with federal, state, county and local legislators. 6) Pursue financing for Balfour Park and Appleway Trail amenities, and continue the acquisition of park land. 7) Pursue financing for design and construction of connections between the Appleway Trail, Balfour Park, Dishman Hills, the Centennial Trail and Spokane Valley Riverloop Trail, creating where possible, a continuous loop for users. 8) Maximize the law enforcement contract to address staffing levels by enhancing recruiting efforts, minimizing out -of -service days, increasing retention, and taking steps to make the officer positions and the Spokane Valley Police Department increasingly appealing as a career path for those seeking to pursue a law enforcement career in Spokane Valley. 9) Increase community interactions, share information, and obtain feedback on current and future projects and priorities. 10) Prioritize involvement in public safety, in particular discussions regarding major policy considerations from the 2021 State Legislative Session, the jail and the criminal justice system, in order to maintain an understanding of options to keep our costs under control. (continued on next page) 60 Fund: 001 Dept: 011 General Fund Legislative Branch Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Mayor Council Total FTEs Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2019 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2020 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2021 Budget 1.0 6.0 7.0 2022 Budget 1.0 6.0 7.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 198,884 $ 262,268 $ 274,379 $ 308,372 $ 314,570 Supplies 6,923 5,489 1,716 5,500 $ 5,500 Services & Charges 197,306 295,366 252,247 324,800 $ 325,100 Total Legislative Branch $ 403,113 $ 563,123 $ 622,187 $ 638,672 $ 645,170 61 Fund: 001 Dept: 013 General Fund Executive Branch Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 013 - City Manager Division This department is accountable to the City Council for the operational results of the organization, effective support of elected officials in achieving their goals, fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the City Manager, implementation of City Council policies, and provision of a communication linkage between citizens, the City Council, City departments, and other government agencies. Accomplishments for 2021 • Worked to support City Council's 2021 Goals as referenced in the Legislative Branch Budget. • Worked with all City departments to update the 2021 Business Plan that is a precursor to the development of the 2022 Budget which is accomplished by linking community priorities, financial projections and City Council Goals. • Prepared a 2022 City Budget with status quo levels of service. • Worked with Council and Staff to prepare a 2021 State Legislative Agenda. • Worked with Council and Staff to update our Federal Legislative Agenda. • Worked with State and Federal Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of City interests including virtual lobbying in Olympia and Washington D.C. • Worked with Council and Staff in the set-up of a Street Sustainability Committee that was charged with assisting the City to develop a sustainable Pavement Management Program including Stree O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. Goals for 2022 • Focus staff efforts on the City's budget priorities that are composed of public safety, pavement preservation, transportation and infrastructure and economic development. • Work to support City Council's 2022 Goals as referenced under the Legislative Branch Budget. • Present Council with a balanced 2023 Budget that includes General Fund recurring revenues exceeding recurring expenditures and an ending fund balance that is at least 50% of recurring expenditures. • Work with Federal and State Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of the interests of our City. • Prepare the 2023 State and Federal Legislative Agendas for Council consideration. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents City Manager City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Administrative Analyst Senior Administrative Analyst Administrative Assistant (CC) Project Manager Executive Assistant (CM) Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator Total FTEs 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.5 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.5 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 783,650 $ 830,903 $ 856,945 $ 1,087,699 $ 1,260,905 Supplies 3,470 3,750 3,026 6,800 6,800 Services & Charges 48,380 53,604 22,352 81,340 198,600 Nonrecurring expenditures 7,341 0 0 5,000 5,000 Total City Manager Division $ 842,841 $ 888,257 $ 882,323 $ 1,180,839 $ 1,471,305 62 Fund: 001 Dept: 013 General Fund Executive Branch Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 015 - City Attorney Division Accomplishments for 2021 • Provided substantial assistance to Council and staff regarding response to COVID-19 pandemic, including ARPA/ CLFR funding. • Assisted with various litigation cases against the City. • Provided significant assistance to Council and other staff regarding affordable housing and homelessness issues, including issues related to funding affordable housing, available funding resources, adoption of the City's Housing Action Plan, land use issues related to affordable housing and homeless shelters including assistance with interim regulations related to transitional housing and emergency shelters, regional collaboration, and enforcement options. • Assisted in drafting amendments to chapter 7.50 relating to public camping in response to changes in state law. • Provided legal support to Code Enforcement for prosecuting and abating nuisance cases. • Assisted staff and Council in drafting legislative agenda for state and federal lobbying efforts, primarily aimed at securing additional funding for the Pines GSP, Sullivan Corridor, Spokane River North Loop Trail, and Fairgrounds projects. • Provided support to senior staff regarding pursuit of City Hall Council Chambers curved wall construction defect issues. • Assisted staff in property acquisition issues associated with capital projects. • Assisted staff on numerous issues relating to the Barker GSP, the Pines GSP, Barker Corridor, and Sullivan/ Wellesley projects. • Conducted various trainings for Council, Planning Commission, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and staff. • Assisted with 2021 lodging tax revenue distributions, including revisions resulting from COVID. • Assisted Council with analyzing future Tourism Promotion Area options. • Represented City in negotiating and drafting new SRTC interlocal agreement. • Assisted in finalizing the Flora park, Ponderosa park, and other strategic property acquisitions. • Significant involvement in a number of land use and permitting issues, including conducting administrative hearings, appeals, and litigation before the Hearing Examiner and in Superior Court. • Acted as City liaison with regional entities on a broad range of criminal justice and mental health issues, including a restructuring of the Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council. • Responded to numerous public record issues, including review of records. • Drafted updated Hearing Examiner rules of procedure for conducting hearings and appeals. • Assisted with development and adoption of City's recycling contamination reduction and outreach plan. • Provided support to City Council and staff for adoption of the City's required periodic update to its Shoreline Master Program. • Assisted with 2021 Street Sustainability Committee. • Assisted with development and adoption of transportation impact fees for North Pines and Mirabeau Meadows areas. • Assisted with responding to proposed City of Spokane utility tax that would directly impact City of Spokane Valley Goals for 2022 • To have a fully -operational City Attorney's office. - Review processes. - Monitor workload and workload changes. - Track response times. - Identify deficient areas. • To assist other departments in analyzing and mapping existing processes to determine compliance with the law and whether higher levels of customer service can be achieved. - Maintain and update all form contracts used by all departments. - Attend internal planning meetings to identify and resolve potential issues. - Review and revise administrative policies and procedures as appropriate. • Provide legal support to other departments and to the City Council to develop and adopt necessary development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. • Negotiate and draft utility franchise agreements on an as -needed basis with utility providers. - Finalize and begin negotiations to establish and update franchise agreements. • Assist Economic Development to identify options for economic development. - Assist with development of functional economic development tools. • Assist other departments in identifying and purchasing properties having long-term strategic benefit for the City. (continued on next page) 63 Fund: 001 Dept: 013 General Fund Executive Branch Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Attorney Administrative Assistant - Legal Total FTEs 015 - City A torney Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.5 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.5 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Interns 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 472,873 $ 510,618 $ 593,161 $ 627,353 $ 655,734 Supplies 1,340 1,220 1,573 4,185 3,505 Services & Charges 49,896 53,911 41,973 87,055 88,651 Nonrecurring expenditures 5,919 0 0 0 0 Total City Attorney Division $ 530,028 $ 565,749 $ 636,707 $ 718,593 $ 747,890 64 Fund: 001 Dept: 016 General Fund Public Safety Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Public Safety department budget provides funds for the protection of persons and property in the city. The City contracts with Spokane County for law enforcement, district court, prosecutor services, public defender services, probation services, jail and animal control services. See following page for detail information on each budgeted section. Recurring Expenditures: Judicial System - The Spokane County District Court is contracted to provide municipal court services. The contract provides for the services of judge and court commissioner with related support staff. Budgeted amount also includes jury management fees. Law Enforcement - The Spokane County Sheriffs Office is responsible for maintaining law and order and providing police services to the community under the direction of the Police Chief. The office provides for the preservation of life, protection of property, and reduction of crime. Jail System - Spokane County provides jail and probation services for persons sentenced by any City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court Judge for violating laws of the city or state. Animal Control - Spokane County will provide animal control services to include licensing, care and treatment of lost or stray animals, and response to potentially dangerous animal confrontations. Non -Departmental Grant expenditures $ 2,337,800 25, 392,127 1,714,507 330,000 30,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 29,804,434 Nonrecurring Expenditures: Building repair and office furniture Law Enforcement vehicles Radar trailers Total Nonrecurring Expenditures Total Recurring and Nonrecurring Expenditures 83,000 1,455,000 24,000 1,562,000 $ 31,366,434 65 Recurring: Judicial System: District Court Contract Public Defender Contract Prosecutor Contract Pretrial Services Contract City of Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 016 - Public Safety 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 836,995 $ 888,965 $ 766,207 $ 925,000 $ 1,033,823 788,302 745,088 656,464 750,000 811,915 457,949 424,896 354,499 450,000 350,000 105,793 109,783 111,666 120,000 142,062 Subtotal Judicial System 2,189,039 2,168,732 1,888,836 2,245,000 2,337,800 Law Enforcement System: Sheriff Contract 20,177,258 20,272,826 21,706,440 23,354,146 24,958,601 Emergency Management 92,296 89,425 90,324 100,000 85,000 Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 9,802 16,164 22,077 19,000 23,126 Operating Supplies 2,346 72 16,112 0 1,600 Clothing & Uniform 358 636 0 0 500 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 2,730 11,208 8,534 12,000 10,000 Professional Services 3,373 3,773 0 4,000 0 Cell Phone 278 469 0 0 0 Registration 0 70 0 0 0 Electricity/Gas 16,505 16,579 19,164 18,000 20,000 Water 1,806 1,762 1,683 2,000 2,000 Sewer 1,348 1,079 777 2,000 1,000 Waste Disposal 585 0 38 0 0 Janitorial Services 32,325 28,631 35,366 30,000 36,500 Law Enf. Bldg Repair & Maint 26,235 16,706 46,237 20,000 52,000 Taxes and Assessments 715 715 795 715 800 Equipment Rental 0 767 0 1,000 0 Miscellaneous Service 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 False Alarm Bank Fees 404 809 744 0 1,000 Subtotal Law Enforcement! Systen 20,368,364 20,461,691 21,948,291 23,762,861 25,392,127 Jail System: Jail Contract 1,249,948 1,493,325 1,282,843 1,500,000 1,714,507 Subtotal Jail System 1,249,948 1,493,325 1,282,843 1,500,000 1,714,507 Other: Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance 495,683 441,880 0 0 0 Animal Control Contract 299,139 306,509 313,046 350,000 330,000 Non -Capital Equipment for JAG Grant 0 0 30,309 40,000 30,000 Subtotal Other 794,822 748,389 343,356 390,000 360,000 Subtotal Recurring 24,602,173 24,872,137 25,463,325 27,897,861 29,804,434 Nonrecurring: Police Ahletic League Grant 0 4,069 1,263 0 0 Building Repair and Maintenance 0 0 0 92,000 58,000 Carpet and Workstation Replacement 0 59,272 0 0 25,000 Replace handguns and speed trailer 0 0 0 48,900 24,000 Law Enforcement Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1,455,000 Full Facility Generator 0 141,690 86,109 0 0 Capital outlay - DEMS/Tasers/BodyCams 0 0 0 109,608 0 Capital outlay - CAD / RMS 22,372 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Nonrecurring 22,372 205,031 87,372 250,508 1,562,000 Total Public Safety $ 24,624,545 $ 25,077,168 $ 25,550,697 $ 28,148,369 $ 31,366,434 66 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 District Court Contract, $1,033,823 $- Public Defender Contract, 811,915 City of Spokane Valley 2022 Budgeted Contract Expenditures Prosecutor Contract, 350,000 Sheriff Contract, 24,958,601 Law Enf. Jail Bldg Emergency Contract, Maintenance Management 1,714,507 Contract, Contract, ■ 52,000 85,000 Animal Control Contract, 330,000 67 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Operations & Administrative Services Department is composed of three divisions, the Deputy City Manager Division, the Finance Division, and the Human Resources Division. 013 - Deputy City Manager Division The Deputy City Manager (DCM) supervises the Community and Public Works Department, assists the City Manager in organizing and directing the other operations of the City, and assumes the duties of City Manager in his/her absence. Accomplishments for 2021 • Initiated construction of the Barker Grade Separation Project. • Conducted Council discussions on localized and city wide traffic impact fees for new development. • Completed preliminary design of the Pines Grade Separation Project. • Continued to seek funding for the Pines Grade Separation Project through State and Federal grant programs. • Completed repairs to several City Hall systems. Goals for 2022 • Support the 2020 Goals of the Legislative and Executive Branch. • Work with the City Manager and Staff to develop the 2023 Budget and Business Plan. • Complete construction of the Barker Grade Separation Project. • Continue to seek funding of the Pines Grade Separation Project. • Complete the design for the Pines Grade Separtion Project. • Continue to oversee the repairs to City Hall. • Expand the implementation of traffic impact fees within the City. • Identify annexation areas to allow continued growth. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Deputy City Manager Office Assistant I Office Assistant 11 Total FTEs 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2019 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2020 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2021 Budget 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2022 Budget 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 354,918 $ 222,070 $ 231,245 $ 243,944 $ 254,877 Supplies 425 0 0 700 600 Services & Charges 83,335 37,162 37,933 40,200 40,000 Nonrecurring Software Purchase (Q-Alert) 13,195 0 0 0 0 Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 451,873 $ 259,232 $ 269,178 $ 284,844 $ 295,477 68 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 014 - Finance Division The Finance Division provides financial management services for all City departments. Programs include accounting and financial reporting, payroll, accounts payable, purchasing, budgeting and financial planning, treasury, information technology and investments. The division is also responsible for generating and analyzing financial data related to the City's operations. The department prepares Finance Activity Reports for review by the City Manager and City Council as well as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that is subject to an annual audit by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Accomplishments for 2021 • Coordinated and administered consulting services to determine new financial software to replace the Eden Financial System which has reached end of life. • Completed the 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the deadline of May 30, 2021, and received a "clean audit opinion." • Maintained a consistent level of service in payroll, accounts payable, budget development, periodic and annual financial report preparation and information technology services. • Worked with Finance staff to cross -train position responsibilities and knowledge base where possible. The Finance department will implement further cross training procedures among department personnel to provide adequate coverage if or when unforeseeable circumstances arise. • Implemented Office 365 for all City computers. • Continued with the ongoing process of refining the replacement program for IT resources. • Implemented Laserfische Workflow for City contract approval and invoice approval processes. • Worked with the City Attorneys Office to research the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Coronavirus Local Recovery Funds (CLFR) under that Act. Began the process of leading Council through the allocation of the City's $16 million in CLFR funds. • Worked with Community and Public Works to provide educational materials for the Street Sustainability Committee. Also, participated in meetings for the Street Sustainability Committee, including presenting on funding history and potential options for the Pavement Management Program. Goals for 2022 • Begin the implementation of new Financial System Software. • Maintain a consistent level of service in payroll, accounts payable, budget development, periodic and annual financial report preparation and information technology services. • Continue to provide adequate training opportunities to allow staff members to remain current with changes in pronouncements by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), changes in the Eden financial management system, and changes in the electronic technology that allows all City employees to be more efficient and effective. • Complete the 2021 Annual Financial Report by May 30, 2022 and receive a "clean audit opinion" from the Washington State Auditor's Office. • Continue with the ongoing process of refining the replacement program for IT hardware resources and update the existing inventory of all related equipment currently deployed. Continue to assess the City's cybersecurity risks and propose mitigating measures. Continue to implement Laserfiche Workflow for additional City processes when applicable. (continued on next page) 69 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Finance Director Accounting Manager Accountant/Budget Analyst Accounting Technician IT Manager IT Specialist GIS/Database Administrator Total FTEs 014 - Finance Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 11.75 2019 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 11.75 2020 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 11.75 2021 Budget 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 11.75 2022 Budget 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 11.75 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 1,269,966 $ 1,275,580 $ 1,300,812 $ 1,476,684 $ 1,539,543 Supplies 3,350 2,798 3,089 3,000 3,400 Services&Charges 20,667 18,113 18,131 20,975 28,500 Total Finance Division $ 1,293,983 $ 1,296,491 $ 1,322,032 $ 1,500,659 $ 1,571,443 70 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 016 - Human Resources Division Human Resources (HR) is administered through the City Manager. The HR operation provides services in compensation, benefits, training and organizational development, staffing, employee relations, and communications. The Human Resources Office also provides Risk Management services as well as Website and Mobile App design and maintenance Accomplishments for 2021 • Successfully bargain a successor Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local 270v. • Supported departments in the Cities return from COVID-19 precautions. • Increased timely completion of annual employee reviews. • Examined employee benefit options to target employee needs and reduce employment expenses. • Provided Anti -Harassment and Equal Employment Opportunity training to employees and Supervisors. Goals for 2022 • Implement personnel changes related to 2021 Collective Bargaining. • Attain the AWC WellCity Award for 2022. • Reassess City property valuation for Washington Cities Insurance Authority coverage. • Provide Anti-Discrimation training for employees of the City. • Explore opportunities to reduce employee turnover and decrease the time to fill vacancies. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Human Resource Manager Human Resource Technician Total FTEs 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 251,995 $ 268,140 $ 278,542 $ 293,505 $ 302,561 Supplies 1,227 1,888 1,482 1,000 1,200 Services & Charges 21,949 23,302 20,950 24,035 26,560 Total Human Resources Division $ 275,171 $ 293,330 $ 300,975 $ 318,540 $ 330,321 71 Fund: 001 Dept: 033 General Fund City Hall Operations and Maintenance Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director provides management and oversight of the City's facilities. This department is responsible for the overall operations and maintenance of the City Hall facility, the City's Valley Precinct facility, CenterPlace and the Street Maintenance Shop. The Facilities Department is resposible for, among other things, grounds maintenance, jaitorial services, lighting, and maintenance of the HVAC and other building systems. Accomplishments for 2021 • Continued options for cost savings related to contract services: landscape maintenance, etc. • Monitored maintenance tracking system in order to prioritize work. • Continued to coordinate maintenance activities with SVPD Precinct staff. • Continued to coordinate maintenance activities with Street Maintenance Shop staff. • Coordinated emergency preparedness drills with affected staff and coordinating agencies. Goals for 2022 • Continue options for cost savings related to contract services: landscape maintenance, etc. • Continue to monitor maintenance tracking system in order to prioritize work. • Continue to coordinate maintenace activities with City Hall staff. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with SVPD Precinct staff. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with Street Maintenance Shop staff. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activites with CenterPlace staff. • Coordinate emergency preparedness drills with affected staff and coordinating agencies. • Continue to coordinate City Hall repairs Personnel - FTE Equivalents Maintenance Worker - Facilities Total FTEs Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 2021 Budget 2.0 2.0 2022 Budget 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 74,264 $ 86,534 $ 102,136 $ 179,101 $ 205,520 Supplies 27,757 32,920 27,611 27,000 27,000 Services & Charges 163,323 156,699 183,508 167,500 167,500 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 174,807 295,923 0 0 Total Administrative Division $ 265,344 $ 450,960 $ 609,178 $ 373,601 $ 400,020 72 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Community and Public Works Department is a new department as a result of the City's reorganization effective April 1, 2017. This Department is a consolidation of the previous Public Works and Community and Economic Development Departments. It is comprised of three divisions: the Engineering Division, the Economic Development Division, and the Building and Planning Division. 041 -Engineering Division The Engineering Division combines Development Engineering from the previous Community & Economic Development Department with the engineering service provided by the previous Public Works Department. The Engineering Division includes the following functions: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans, designs, and constructs new facilities and maintains, preserves, and reconstructs existing facilities owned by the City of Spokane Valley. Development Engineering (DE) ensures that land actions and commercial building permits comply with the adopted codes for private infrastructure development through plan review and construction inspection. Traffic Management and Operations provides traffic engineering for safe and efficient multi -faceted transportation systems throughout the City (included in the Street Fund #101). Utilities oversees the City's surface and Stormwater Utility, manages the City's contracts for solid waste collection and disposal, and coordinates other utility issues on behalf of the City as assigned (included in the Stormwater Management Fund #402). Street Maintenance provides responsive maintenance and repairs for 461 center line miles of City streets. The City of Spokane Valley operates ten City -owned snow plows which are responsible for the clearing of the priority 1 and 2 roads along with selected hillsides (included in the Street Fund #101). Accomplishments for 2021 • Implemented approved capital projects. • Administered the construction phase of the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. • Advanced the preliminary engineering and right-of-way phase of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Continued pursuing opportunities to fund the completion of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Administered and manage state and federal funds received for capital projects. • Assisted in the preparation of grant applications for capital projects. • Continued to coordinate regional transportation issues with Spokane Regional Transportation Council, adjoining municipalities, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. • Developed City Code to implement Transportation Impact Fees for the South Barker Road Corridor. • Maintained development engineering plan review times of less than two weeks. Goals for 2022 • Implement approved capital projects. • Administer the construction phase of the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. • Advance the preliminary engineering and right-of-way phase of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Continue pursuing opportunities to fund the completion of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Administer and manage state and federal funds received for capital projects. • Assist in the preparation of grant applications for capital projects. • Continue to coordinate regional transportation issues with SRTC, WSDOT, and other agencies. • Begin the process of developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program. • Begin a review of the City's adopted Street Standards, providing updates where necessary. (continued on next page) 73 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Administrative Assistant Assistant Engineer City Engineer CAD Manager Engineer Engineering Manager Engineering Tech I Engineering Tech 11 Main/Construction Inspector Planning Grants Engineer Senior Dev Engineer Senior Engineer-Proj Mgmt. Water Resource Sr. Engineer Total FTEs 041 - Engineering Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 12.0 2019 Actual 2.0 0.45 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 13.275 2020 Actual 2.0 0.20 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 13.525 2021 Budget 2.0 0.70 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 14.025 2022 Budget 2.0 2.20 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.95 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 15.725 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 1,234,170 $ 1,472,750 $ 1,381,989 $ 1,855,308 $ 2,144,619 Supplies 22,772 30,616 18,187 30,500 30,500 Services & Charges 149,142 200,147 207,293 212,834 265,163 Total Engineering Division $ 1,406,084 $ 1,703,513 $ 1,607,469 $ 2,098,642 $ 2,440,282 * These positions are budgeted partially to the Engineering Division in the General Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of Capital Projects Funds, the Street Fund #101, and the Stormwater Fund #402. 74 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 042 - Economic Development Division The Economic Development Division oversees the Comprehensive Plan, the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), Community Development Block Grants and Public Relations. The Division works to build relationships with businesses, the community, and economic development partners to pursue economic development strategies ensuring long-term fiscal strength of the City. Accomplishments for 2021 • Implemented the retail recruitment strategy. • Collaborated with the private sector to facilitate the successful development of Mirabeau Point. • Continued industry recruitment, retention and expansion. • Developed marketing campaigns to promote business recruitment, retention and expansion. • Collaborated with economic development partners and related service providers. • Identified infrastructure improvements needed to foster economic development. • Used CDBG funds to support economic vitality in low and moderate income areas. • Seek grants to support economic development initiatives. • Coordinated the development and adopt the Housing Action Plan. • Facilitated the development and adopt the Shoreline Master Program update. • Reviewed and process city and privately initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. • Developed homelessness goals and policies to provide direction to City leaders. • Continued to analyze impacts of COVID-19 on city businesses and provide guidance to improve local economy. • Worked with partners to enhance existing events, including state of the city, and bring new events to Spokane Valley. • Developed marketing campaigns to promote city events in 2021 to enhance tourism. • Enhanced the Economic Development website content to attract skilled labor, with an emphasis on remote workers. • Enhanced the use of video as a communications tool and strategy on city websites and in social media. • Developed strategies to enhance business connections to Appleway Trail, as identified in 2020 CERB study. • Utilized new and existing social media platforms to increase citizen pride and the public's awareness of city services. • Produced semi-annual newsletter informing citizens of current projects, services and events. • Continued to develop a PIO group of city, county and emergency services that meets periodically. • Increased media contacts and establish and retain media relationships for greater sharing of city services. • Partnered with Parks and Recreation to publicize programs, events and related construction projects. • Created and uploaded new messages quarterly for the phone system about city services, programs and events. • Continued evaluating city website to determine potential improvements to design, navigation and content. • Gathered updated high resolution photos of City Council, CenterPlace, area parks and scenic sites. Goals for 2022 • Develop marketing campaigns to promote 2022 city events that encourage citizen participation and enhance tourism. • Develop targeted marketing campaigns to promote opportunities for business recruitment and expansion in the city. • Enhance the use of video as a communications tool and strategy on city -sponsored websites and social media. • Research and utilize new and existing social media platforms to increase citizen engagement and public awareness. • Continue producing the semi-annual newsletter informing citizens of current projects, services and events. • Continue meetings with PIO groups in city, county, and emergency services. • Increase media contacts and establish and retain media relationships for greater sharing of city services. • Partner with Parks & Recreation Department to publicize programs and events to audiences. • Create and upload quarterly on -hold messages to the phone system about city services, programs and events. • Evaluate web content, graphics and collateral to determine user experience and improvement options. • Evaluate the City's communications assets and their effectiveness. • Partner with Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce to develop and co -market workshops and State of the City event. • Utilize relationships with partners and related service providers to develop innovative econmic development programs. • Partner with Visit Spokane to develop targeted marketing campaigns to highlight city assets and generate tourism. • Identify and research strategies for a "placemaking" initiative, such as utility box wraps. • Implement effective communications to increase awareness of public works and capital improvement projects. • Implement the retail recruitment strategy. • Collaborate with the private sector to facilitate the successful development of Mirabeau Point. • Seek grants to support economic development initiatives. • Review and process city and privately initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. • Identify and develop implementation strategies from the Housing Action Plan. • Partner with Parks and Recreation to identify grant proposals from the Recreation and Consevation Office. • Collaborate with regional partners in long range planning efforts including updates to CWPP. • Partner with Greater Spokane Incorporated to attract, assist and retain businesses. (continued on next page) 75 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Economic Development Manager Economic Development Specialist Planning Grants Engineer Public Information Officer Senior Transportation Planner GIS Analyst Administrative Assistant Total FTEs Interns 042 - Economic Development Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 2.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.4 2019 Actual 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 5.0 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.77 * 1.0 5.77 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 655,942 $ 582,027 $ 609,137 $ 685,316 $ 767,023 Supplies 3,008 1,954 12 3,200 3,200 Services & Charges 294,699 333,157 350,716 408,545 418,045 Nonrecurring Expenditures 23,000 25,000 104,915 65,000 0 Total Engineering Division $ 976,649 $ 942,138 $ 1,064,780 $ 1,162,061 $ 1,188,268 * This position is budgeted partially to the Economic Development Division in the General Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of the Stormwater Fund #402. 76 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 043 - Building and Planning Division The Building and Planning Division is responsible for implementing and enforcing the State Building Code as required by state law. The purpose of the International Codes, as adopted by the State of Washington and City of Spokane Valley, is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or users of the building and structures and the general public by requiring minimum performance standard for structural strength, exit systems, stability sanitation, light, ventilation, energy conservation, and fire safety to ensure the City's comply with various codes. The Planning program's current primary responsibilities include processing revisions to the City's Municipal Code, reviewing land use applications to ensure compliance with adopted development regulations, with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)(RCW 43.21 C), and with the state subdivision law (RWC 58.17). Accomplishments for 2021 • Maintained swift permit application review timelines. • Enhanced relationships with our outside agencies by facilitating project coordination. • Completed website enhancements for better customer service. • Implemented 2018 building codes as per Washington State adoption; updated SVMC Title 24 accordingly. • Coordinated with the Office of the City Attorney on code enforcement cases. • Improved accuracy of permit statistics reporting. • Continued to improve processes for online permit submittals. Goals for 2022 • Strategize process for scanning commercial address files. • Explore options for enhacement or replacement of permit system software applications. • Further expand online permitting options and streamlined permitting options for common project types. • Continue to improve Code Enforcement program and public outreach/education. • Encourage multi -disciplined staff through cross -training. • Partner with regional permitting agencies towards creation of local/in-house training program for code professionals. • Continue knowledge -building mini -training program (weekly peer -to -peer training presentations by staff). • Maintain relationships with outside agencies and build on new strategies found successful during pandemic. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Administrative Assistant Assistant Building Official Building Inspector II Building Official Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Supervisor Development Service Coordinator Engineering Tech Office Assistant I Office Assistant II Permit Facilitator Permit Specialist/Facilitator Associate Planner Planner Plans Examiner Senior Planner Total FTEs 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 21.0 2021 Budget 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 22.0 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 21.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 1,614,264 $ 1,860,223 $ 1,950,262 $ 2,061,508 $ 2,250,373 Supplies 25,114 17,305 19,271 35,050 39,050 Services & Charges 228,090 299,929 314,903 318,000 342,000 Intergovernmental Payments 38,718 0 0 0 0 Total Building Division $ 1,906,186 $ 2,177,457 $ 2,284,436 $ 2,414,558 $ 2,631,423 77 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of six divisions including Administration, Maintenance, Recreation, Aquatics, Senior Center, and CenterPlace. The overall goal of the department is to provide quality recreation programs and acquisition, renovation, development, operation and maintenance of parks and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. 000 - Parks Administration Division The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas of the City. Accomplishments for 2021 • Completed construction of play equipment, restroom and shelter at Browns Park. • Initiated talks with DNR on the partnership for the 100 acre natural area adjacent to Mirabeau Park. • Completed three land acquisitions. • Prepared 2022 budget requests to address maintenance needs and repairs at the Valley Pools. • Refinished siding on Mirabeau Meadows restroom. • Made progress towards becoming a Tree City USA (application due after first full year under ordinance). Goals for 2022 • Complete Phase 1 construction (Park Infrastructure) at Balfour Park. • Establish partnership with DNR for the 100 acre natrual area adjacent to Mirabeau Park. • Apply for RCO WWRP Local Parks Development Grant for Phase 2 Balfour Park. • Advance Spokane Valley River Loop Trail concept. • Develop Public Access to 45-acre Flora Road Park Property. • Commence development of 6-year Parks Capital Improvement Program. • Complete needed repairs at Spokane Valley Pools. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Parks & Recreation Director Administrative Assistant Total FTEs Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 249,140 $ 266,534 $ 273,466 $ 292,667 $ 290,768 Supplies 2,626 2,778 2,400 5,000 3,500 Services & Charges 36,520 56,899 50,672 57,760 56,750 Total Parks Administration Division $ 288,286 $ 326,211 $ 326,538 $ 355,427 $ 351,018 78 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 300 - Maintenance Division The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for the contracted maintenance and upkeep of our parks and public areas including the Centennial Trail. Budget Detail Supplies Services & Charges Nonrecurring expenditures Total Maintenance Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 414 886,122 0 2019 Actual $ 381 935,374 0 $ 886,536 $ 935,755 2020 Actual $ 8,171 899,732 0 $ 907,903 2021 Budget $ 3,500 936,503 32,000 2022 Budget $ 2,500 947,955 0 $ 972,003 $ 950,455 301 - Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and service throughout the City and the City's Park system. Accomplishments for 2021 • Fostered relationships with Community partners. • Enhanced To -Go Summer Meal Programs. • Offered Drive -In movie experiences for the community. • Offered an outdoor Summer Day Camp program at Terrace View Park. • Provided a Virtual Arbor Day Celebration. `Several prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COVID-19. Goals for 2022 • Expand summer camp for teens. • Provide walking program for community members. • Continue to offer free summer meal program at 3 parks. • Offer community celebration at Terrace View Park. • Continue to foster relationships with community partners. • Plan and execute Arbor Day Celebration on the West Lawn Plaza. • Expand outdoor movie events, including Movie on the West Lawn Plaza. • Program a Valley Mission Dog Park Event. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator Recreation Coordinator Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Recreation Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 $ 128,784 3,968 65,745 $ 198,497 2019 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 $ 152,492 6,368 68,726 $ 227,586 2020 Actual 1.0 0.6 1.6 $ 139,368 6,069 21,792 $ 167,228 2021 Budget 1.0 0.6 1.6 $ 230,484 9,150 88,900 $ 328,534 2022 Budget 1.0 0.6 1.6 $ 239,707 12,400 78,580 $ 330,687 79 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 302 -Aquatics Division The City of Spokane Valley owns three pools: Park Road Pool, Terrace View Pool, and Valley Mission Pool. Services include open swim, swim lessons, swim team and facility rentals. In addition, the City leases a portion of Valley Mission Park to Splashdown Inc. for a water park. The City currently is contracting with the YMCA for all aquatic activities within the City. The YMCA provides the lifeguards and maintains the pools during the season. Accomplishments for 2021 • Maintained summer swimming programs.* • Maintained Paws in the Pool Program. • Created a New partnership with Pool World for swim lesson scholarships. • Continued to partner with Make A Splash to offer free water safety clinics at all pools. *Several prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COVID-19. Goals for 2022 • Maintain full summer swimming programming. • Expand Paws in the Pool Program. • Continue to foster community partnerships and sponsorships. • Continue to partner with Make A Splash to offer free swim sessions at all pools. • Continue to partner with Make a Splash to offer free water safety clinics at all pools. • Offer life guard training courses at the pools. Budget Detail Supplies Services & Charges Nonrecurring expenditures Total Aquatics Division Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 240 $ 37 $ 0 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 471,427 515,370 117,023 508,053 536,700 0 0 0 0 30,000 $ 471,667 $ 515,407 $ 117,023 $ 510,053 $ 568,700 80 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 304 - Senior Center Division The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department assumed operational control of the Valley Senior Center in 2003. Accomplishments for 2021 • Continued to enhance the resource and referral information at the reception desk to better handle calls. • Collaborated with the Board re -open the Senior Center under Covid-19 guidelines. • Enhanced the relationship between the Recreation Specialist and the Board. • Continued to work with Parks & Recreation Director and Recreation Coordinator on new programs for seniors. Goals for 2022 • Continue to work with the Senior Center Board and Recreation Staff to create new programs for seniors. • Improve resources to assist with the Senior Center website and newsletter. • Enhance existing Senior Center programs. • Foster relationships with Communtiy partners. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Center Specialist Total FTEs Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2020 Actual 0.4 0.4 2021 Budget 0.4 0.4 2022 Budget 0.4 0.4 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 90,998 $ 17,716 $ 27,369 $ 28,303 $ 29,976 Supplies 212 0 843 1,600 1,600 Services & Charges 870 781 477 5,500 5,225 Total Senior Center Division $ 92,080 $ 18,497 $ 28,689 $ 35,403 $ 36,801 81 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2022 Budget 305 - CenterPlace Division Construction of Mirabeau Point CenterPlace began in late 2003 and was completed mid -year 2005. The project represented the culmination of eight years of planning and fundraising by Mirabeau Point Inc. and the joint involvement of the City and Spokane County. The approximately 54,000 square foot facility houses the City of Spokane Valley Senior Center, a great room/banquet facility, numerous meeting rooms, multi -purpose rooms and a high tech lecture hall. The facility combines with Mirabeau Meadows Parks and Mirabeau Springs to form a regional focal point for Northeastern Washington and Northern Idaho. Accomplishments for 2021 • Created a new WordPress marketing website to include new West Lawn improvements. • Continued to improve Farmers Market event at CenterPlace. • Hosted several new events to CenterPlace and the West Lawn. • Hosted four "First Friday" food truck nights on the West Lawn plaza in conjunction with the Farmers Market • Added new stage fill speakers and reprogrammed the audio system in the Great Room. • Repaired failed pixels in the Great Room Video Wall. • Replaced carpet in the Sennior Center Entrance and refinished exterior decks and pergola Goals for 2022 • Replace carpet in Senior Center card room, Executive conference room and classroom 205 • Paint Senior Center exterior portico • Security camera upgrades • Implement West Lawn Plaza marketing plan • Utilize new Wordpress CenterPlace website to enhance programming Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator Administrative Assistant Office Assistant I Maintenance Worker Total FTEs 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2020 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2022 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 440,345 $ 466,281 $ 412,779 $ 542,938 $ 553,141 Supplies 74,498 98,232 56,302 85,537 83,774 Services & Charges 303,321 321,020 237,671 343,739 333,460 Nonrecurring Expenditures 8,255 0 17,086 0 38,700 Total CenterPlace Division $ 826,419 $ 885,533 $ 723,838 $ 972,214 $ 1,009,075 82 Fund: 001 Dept: 090 General Fund General Government Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The General Government Department accounts for those activities that are not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund Department or operation. Expenditures recorded here are composed of City Hall bond payments; information technology equipment and services; capital costs that benefit more than one department; support of agencies external to the City that provide social service programs and economic development services; and transfers to other City funds for property/casualty insurance premiums (Fund #502), park capital projects (Fund #309) and the pavement preservation program (Fund #311). Budget Summary Supplies Employee Recognition -Operating Supplies Office & Operating Supplies Vehicle Maintenance Supplies Small Tools & Minor Equipment Security Hardware Network Hardware - Non Capital Computer Hardware - Non Capital Computer Software - Non Capital Server Hardware Security Software Licensing Network Software Licensing Server Software Licensing Office & Operating Supplies 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 2,975 $ 3,156 $ 2,281 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 432 0 599 0 0 0 0 2,196 0 1,000 2,907 1,746 2,977 7,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 51,213 24,674 36,414 13,972 31,000 15,500 8,417 2,979 1,519 30,200 30,800 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 33,000 0 0 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 6,000 4,242 4,309 3,648 9,700 3,700 43,646 48,604 27,192 81,400 159,413 Other Services & Charges Professional Services - Misc. Studies 173,310 72,359 97,892 218,000 243,000 Accounting & Auditing 86,302 92,353 105,162 97,000 108,000 Postage 367 2,974 17 2,500 1,000 Telephone Service 12,319 12,801 13,927 13,000 28,700 Cell Phones 2,297 1,561 1,480 2,000 2,000 Internet Service 8,639 8,793 9,006 9,600 10,200 Taxes and Assessments 781 0 0 1,000 1,000 Electricity 1,462 0 0 0 0 Sewer 949 91 0 0 0 Facility Repairs & Maintenance 8,508 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 1,400 762 0 1,500 1,500 Equip Repair & Maint-Hardware Support 26,572 27,859 17,154 24,850 0 IT Support 30,312 37,474 15,517 18,000 15,500 Equip Repair & Maint-Hardware Support 0 0 0 0 4,600 Software Licenses & Maintenance 86,169 122,478 134,072 124,550 516,350 Security Infrastructure Maintenance 0 0 0 0 1,000 Network Infrastructure Maintenance 0 0 0 0 14,550 Merchant Charges (Bankcard Fees) 226 300 532 500 500 Network Infrastructure Access 4,714 5,184 5,155 6,000 6,000 Equipment Rental 4,264 4,267 4,169 4,300 4,200 Interfund Vehicle Lease 500 500 500 500 500 Printing & Binding 646 623 0 650 500 Miscellaneous Services 5,816 7,859 2,171 7,000 5,000 General Operating Leases: Computer 53,894 67,179 67,452 70,000 70,000 Economic Development -Site Selector 10,897 0 8,195 0 0 Outside Agencies- Social Svc & Econ. Dev. 148,632 174,664 168,331 182,000 182,000 Professional Services - Economic Dev. 1,176 765 0 1,000 1,000 Alcohol Treatment: Liquor Excise Tax 9,594 10,477 15,597 10,500 15,600 Alcohol Treatment: Liquor Profits 15,725 15,620 19,409 16,000 19,500 Homelessness Response Service - Park 0 0 420 0 0 $ 695,471 $ 666,943 $ 686,158 $ 810,450 $ 1,252,200 (continued to next page) 83 Fund: 001 Dept: 090 General Fund General Government Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from previous page) Intergovernmental Services Election Costs Voter Registration Taxes and assessments Spokane County Air Pollution Authority Capital Outlays Computer Hardware - Capital Debt Service: Principal Interest and Other Debt Service Costs Interfund Payments for Service Transfer out - #204 (City Hall bond payment) Transfer out - #309 (park capital projects) Transfer out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfer out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) Transfer out - #502 (risk management) Miscellaneous SCRAPS pass through Leasehold Excise Tax Pass -Through Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 0 92,000 0 134,493 2019 Actual $ 75,433 94,787 12,020 137,219 226,493 319,459 125,799 0 125,799 0 2020 Actual $ 0 100,871 12,020 140,411 253,302 40,516 40,516 2021 Budget $ 110,000 100,000 12,100 150,830 372,930 30,000 30,000 2022 Budget $ 0 100,000 12,100 148,200 260,300 30,000 30,000 600 600 0 600 600 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 401,400 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 962,700 972,300 982,023 991,843 1,001,800 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 0 370,000 390,000 410,000 425,000 450,000 1,928,650 1,960,150 1,990,073 2,014,943 2,013,200 1,137 1,172 1,189 1,200 1,200 544 530 0 800 0 1,681 1,702 1,189 2,000 1,200 Subtotal Recurring Expenditures Nonrecurring/Nonrecurring Capital IT capital replacement Heavy Duty Mach. & Equip.- City Hall Generator Computer Hardware - Capital Computer Software - Capital COVID-19 related expenditures Transfer out - #101 Transfer out - #122 (Replenish Winter Weather Resery Transfer out - #309 (Park Capital) Transfer out - #312 (capital reserve fund) Transfer out - #501 (new code enf. vehicle) $ 3,022,340 $ 2,997,458 $ 2,998,430 $ 3,312,323 $ 3,716,913 0 0 15,075 10,000 15,000 0 158,007 13,590 0 0 23,877 106,517 71,177 159,000 105,000 0 0 16,335 43,800 1,016,000 0 0 4,255,977 0 0 0 0 0 2,552,600 2,820,419 490,000 120,000 500,000 364,440 0 423,206 1,174,368 2,781,165 35,000 0 3,795,429 7,109,300 0 11,126,343 0 0 0 27,472 0 40,000 4,732,512 8,668,192 7,680,791 14,291,183 3,996,419 Total Governmental Division $ 7,754,852 $11,665,650 $10,679,221 $17,603,506 $ 7,713,332 84 Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Street Fund was established to account for the activities associated with the provision of efficient and safe movement of both motorized and non -motorized vehicles, as well as pedestrians within the limits of the City, and coordinate convenient interconnect to the regional transportation system. Maintenance work includes snow and ice control, street pavement repairs, traffic signals and signs, landscaping and vegetation control, and many other street maintenance and repair activities. Accomplishments for 2021 • Implemented new contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continued on -going roadway and bridge maintenance and repairs. • Finalized traffic signal timings along the Argonne corridor. • Continued evaluations of traffic signal timings for the Pines and Sullivan corridors. • Implemented Transportation Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor, Mirabeau, and N. Pines Transportation Subareas. • Began implementation of the 6-year Bridge Maintenance Program, prioritizing bridges requiring significant upgrades. • Continued work on a comprehensive Pavement Preservation Program, including funding source identification. • Collaborated with WSDOT and Spokane County on traffic signal evaluation and monitoring. Goals for 2022 • Continue on -going roadway and bridge maintenance and repairs. • Finalize evaluations of traffic signal timings for the Pines and Sullivan corridors. • Finalize a comprehensive Pavement Preservation Program, including funding source identification. • Work with other departments in developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program, which will include transportation operations facilities. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Assistant Engineer Construction Inspector Engineering Tech II Maintenance/Construction Inspector Mechanic Planning Grants Engineer Public Works Superintendent Senior Engineer - Traffic Stomrwater Foreman Streets Foreman Traffic Engineer Traffic Engineering Manager Total FTEs Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.35 0.00 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.725 2019 Actual 0.3 1.5 0.3 2.35 0.00 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.725 2020 Actual 0.00 1.50 0.25 2.35 0.00 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.475 2021 Budget 0.0 1.50 0.25 2.35 0.00 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.475 2022 Budget 0.0 1.50 * 0.25 * 0.50 * 0.75 * 0.375 * 1.0 0.0 0.1 * 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.475 (continued to next page) • These positions are budgeted partially to the Street Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of the General Fund, Capital Projects Funds, and the Stormwater Fund #402. 85 Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from previous page) Revenues Utility Tax Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Miscellaneous Insurance proceeds Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 1,758,370 2,063,390 133,525 94,571 17,503 22,265 11,711 2019 Actual $ 1,563,981 2,018,186 132,637 84,704 4,022 8,063 15,848 2020 Actual $ 1,388,026 1,737,864 131,847 93,033 823 55,441 0 Total revenues 4,101,335 3,827,441 3,407,034 Nonrecurring Revenues Utility Tax Recovery 160,254 0 0 0 0 Transfers in -#001 0 0 0 2,552,600 2,820,419 Transfers in - #122 0 620,000 364,439 0 0 Transfers in -#312 0 907,544 1,364,706 0 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 160,254 1,527,544 1,729,145 2,552,600 2,820,419 2021 Budget $ 1,000,000 1,800,000 130,600 70,000 4,000 10,000 0 3,014,600 2022 Budget $ 932,000 1,896,000 130,200 85,000 500 10,000 0 3,053,700 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 774,688 943,237 954,269 1,127,920 1,128,523 Supplies 94,918 100,504 128,210 156,050 176,700 Services & Charges 2,014,797 2,508,323 1,998,067 2,448,828 2,698,644 Snow Operation 580,166 1,034,064 939,416 751,652 890,502 Intergovernmental Payments 824,175 724,162 753,654 935,000 909,000 Transfers out - #001 39,700 0 0 0 0 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 67,342 0 0 0 0 Interfund Vehicle Lease -#501 (non -plow) 21,250 99,179 14,500 10,250 10,250 Interfund Vehicle Lease -#501 (plow replace) 77,929 0 48,500 60,500 60,500 Nonrecurring Expenditures Streetlight Replacement Program 0 0 0 0 35,500 Construction 21,216 0 0 0 0 Traffic control improvements 17,252 80,596 74,710 0 0 Capital Equipment 0 10,115 6,178 77,000 0 Transfer out - #501 (plow replacement) 0 0 0 0 80,000 Traffic Control Devices- Repair & Maint 10,478 83,512 15,647 0 0 Generator for Maintenance Shop (1/2 cost to #4 0 0 0 0 50,000 Total Nonrecurring expenditures 4,543,911 5,583,692 4,933,151 5,567,200 6,039,619 Revenues over (under) expenditures (282,322) (228,707) 203,028 0 (165,500) Beginning fund balance 1,067,300 784,978 556,271 759,299 759,299 Ending fund balance $ 784,978 $ 556,271 $ 759,299 $ 759,299 $ 593,799 86 Fund: 103 Paths & Trails Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The State of Washington collects a $0.494 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump. Of this amount, the State remits a portion of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2020 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $20.63 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 98,600 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1, 2021) we anticipate the City will collect $1,904,000 in 2022. RCW 47.030.050 specifies that 0.42% of this tax must be expended for the construction of paths and trails and based upon the 2022 revenue estimate this computes to $8,000. The balance or $1,896,000 will be credited to Fund #101 for Street maintenance and operations. The portion of the motor vehicle tax allocated to the Paths and Trails Fund is by State Law restricted for the construction and/or improvement of paths and trails within the City. Because the cost of such projects is typically much greater than the funds generated in a single year, we typically leave the fund balance untouched until an adequate fund balance is available. The City transferred $50,000 in 2014 and $9,300 in 2016 and $50,000 in 2018 to Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 to be applied towards the Appleway Trail projects. Budget Summary Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Transfers out- #309 Total expenditures 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 8,703 $ 8,512 $ 7,330 $ 8,700 $ 8,000 390 186 71 200 100 9,092 8,698 7,400 8,900 8,100 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures (40,908) 8,698 7,400 8,900 8,100 Beginning fund balance 46,325 5,417 14,115 21,516 30,416 Ending fund balance $ 5,417 $ 14,115 $ 21,516 $ 30,416 $ 38,516 87 Fund: 104 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of 1.3% on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the taxes imposed. Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Transfers in - #105 Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual $ 415,295 $ 454,283 $ 24,182 43,590 250,000 275,000 2021 Budget 283,720 $ 400,000 11,908 2,500 O 1,157,000 689,477 772,873 295,628 1,559,500 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 689,477 772,873 295,628 1,559,500 1,228,595 1,918,072 2022 Budget $ 400,000 2,500 0 402,500 0 0 402,500 2,690,945 2,986,573 4,546,073 $ 1,918,072 $ 2,690,945 $ 2,986,573 $ 4,546,073 $ 4,948,573 Fund: 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Hotel/Motel Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of 2% on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, acquisition or operation of tourism -related facilities, and marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. Budget Summary Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Tourism Promotion Transfers out- #001 Transfers out- #104 Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2018 Actual $ 646,975 7,058 654,033 2019 Actual $ 743,852 8,459 752,311 2020 Actual $ 443,244 2,705 445,949 2021 Budget $ 750,000 700 750,700 321,934 207,000 154,082 197,400 26,037 30,000 11,390 30,000 250,000 275,000 0 1,157,000 597,971 512,000 165,472 1,384,400 2022 Budget $ 600,000 1,000 601,000 571,000 30,000 0 601,000 56,062 240,311 280,477 (633,700) 0 221,866 277,928 518,239 798,716 165,016 $ 277,928 $ 518,239 $ 798,716 $ 165,016 $ 165,016 88 Fund: 106 Solid Waste Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget In 2003, the City of Spokane Valley entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane and Spokane County to join the existing Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System for a period of eight years. In 2011, that agreement was extended through November 16, 2014. Committed to ensuring Spokane Valley citizens are provided with solid waste services that are affordable, sustainable, and environmentally responsible, in June 2014 the City of Spokane Valley opted to contract for solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. Services provided under the contract were effective November 17, 2014, and continue for a period of ten years with options for two three-year extensions. Terms of the contract require Sunshine to pay the City an annual administrative fee of $125,000 that will be used by the City to offset contract administrative costs and solid waste management within the city, including solid waste public educational efforts. The contract also provides that a road maintenance fee will be paid by Sunshine at the rate of $1 per ton for each ton in excess of 45,500 tons in a single contract year. Payments will be made to the City by March 31 of the year following the calendar year being measured. In June 2017, the City entered a contract with Waste Management for the collection of garbage, recyclables, and compostables for the period of April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2028 with the option of two additional two-year extensions. Terms of the contract require Waste Management to pay the City a one-time fee of $47,500 upon contract execution to reimburse the City for the costs of procuring the contract. Waste Management is also required to pay the City an monthly administrative fee of 12.5% of gross receipts, which is estimated to be approximately $1,600,000 in 2022. During the years of 2013 and 2014, the General Fund #001 funded various studies and fees related to the solid waste program and transferred $60,000 to the Solid Waste Fund #106 for the purpose of providing information materials and marketing necessary to inform residents and businesses of the change in solid waste transfer, transport and disposal. The total amount paid out of the General Fund for these expenditures was $202,121. Beginning in 2015 the Solid Waste Fund will reimburse the General Fund for these costs over a 5-year period, which equated to an annual payment of $40,425 in the years 2015 through 2018, and a final payment of $40,422 in 2019. Budget Summary Revenues Administrative fees Solid Waste Road Wear Fee Investment interest Total revenues 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 182,900 $ 252,396 $ 219,943 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 1,108,028 1,513,532 1,537,776 1,500,000 1,600,000 12,487 24,752 7,804 12,000 7,000 1,303,415 1,790,680 1,765,523 1,737,000 1,832,000 Expenditures Education & Contract Administration 22,313 33,407 65,385 237,000 232,000 Transfers out - #001 40,425 40,422 0 0 0 Transfers out - #311 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,537,776 1,600,000 Total expenditures 1,062,738 1,681,857 1,578,917 1,774,776 1,832,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 240,677 108,823 186,606 (37,776) 0 Beginning fund balance 190,682 431,359 540,182 726,788 689,012 Ending fund balance $ 431,359 $ 540,182 $ 726,788 $ 689,012 $ 689,012 89 Fund: 107 PEG Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget Under the City's cable franchise, the franchise grantee remits to the City as a capital contribution in support of Public Education Government (PEG) capital requirements an amount equal to $0.35 per subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the franchise. Capital contributions collected under this agreement are allocated to PEG capital uses exclusively. PEG capital uses include in part the set up of equipment in the City Council Chambers that allows Spokane Valley to broadcast Council meetings both live and through subsequent reviews via digital recordings available on the City's website. Revenues Comcast PEG contribution Investment interest Total revenues Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV New City Hall Council Chambers Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 81,322 $ 79,498 $ 76,541 $ 79,000 $ 79,000 971 2,097 596 0 0 82,293 81,595 77,138 79,000 79,000 38,955 37,256 22,288 39,500 39,500 0 0 0 0 0 13,344 915 1,331 48,500 33,500 52,299 38,171 23,619 88,000 73,000 29,994 43,424 53,518 (9,000) 6,000 54,837 84,831 128,255 181,773 172,773 $ 84,831 $ 128,255 $ 181,773 $ 172,773 $ 178,773 Fund: 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Spokane Valley 2022 Budget In the year 2020, the Council authorized the City to collect the affordable and supportive sales tax, which is a rebate of the State sales tax to cities and counties. The amount received by the City is up to 0.0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City capped at the 2019 fiscal year taxable retail sales. The Department of Revenue has estimated this capped distribution to be $193,000 for the City. The City will receive these revenues for 20 years, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing within the City or for rental assistance as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. Budget Summary 2018 Actual Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax $ Investment Interest Total revenues 2019 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget 0 $ 151,950 $ 193,000 $ 193,000 0 83 0 0 0 152,033 193,000 193,000 Expenditures Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 152,033 193,000 193,000 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 152,033 345,033 Ending fund balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 152,033 $ 345,033 $ 538,033 90 Fund: 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund was established as a result of a covenant related to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds initially issued in 2003 and refunded in 2014. The bonds were issued for the purpose of constructing the CenterPlace facility. As a part of the bond issuance the City agreed to establish a $300,000 operating reserve account that could be used to make debt service payments on the bonds and/or pay for operating expenses of CenterPlace. If at any time the City were to draw on these reserves it would have to prepare and follow a plan for reinstatement of those funds drawn. This reserve is required to be in place for the life of the bonds which run through December 1, 2033. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 2019 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2020 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2021 Budget 0 $ 0 0 2022 Budget 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 91 Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The City has committed to maintaining an ending fund balance in the General Fund of at least 50% of recurring expenditures which is equivalent to 6-months of operations. The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund serves as an emergency source of temporary financing to the General Fund in the event a downturn in the local economy resulted in a reduction of revenues that would otherwise compromise either the General Fund's minimum 50% reserve balance or historical levels of service. If an event such as a downturn in the economy resulted in the General Fund reserves dropping below 50% of recurring expenditures, then the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund could be drawn against to maintain the fund balance minimum. The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not be reduced to less than 60% of the current $5.5 million balance, or $3.3 million, without Council approval. If Coucil should deem this necessary, the City will then first replenish Fund #121 to at least $3.3 million before any annual General Fund transfers are made to the Capital Reserve Fund #312.During 2018, this reserve balance was capped at $5.5 million and any additional interest earned was accumulated in the General Fund. This represents a Fiscal Policy of the City that is also stated in the City Manager's 2022 Budget Message located near the front of this budget document. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Budget Summary 2018 Actual 0 0 0 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2021 Budget 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 2022 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established through Ordinance No. 05-018 to provide an emergency reserve for use during unusually harsh winters and storms where the Street Fund #101 budget and fund balance are inadequate to accommodate the amount of related street maintenance, including but not limited to snow plowing, sanding, and deicing, that may be necessary. In the event the City draws against this fund in any given winter, we will strive to replenish the balance back to approximately $500,000 through subsequent years' transfers. Due to the uncertainty of when this fund might be drawn upon we actually budget the same $500,000 in both 2020 and 2021 even though we recognize there exists only $500,000 to address this issue if it should arise. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in - #001 FEMA Grant Proceeds Total revenues Expenditures Transfer out -#101 Street Maintenance Expenditures Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual $ 5,353 $ 9,899 490,000 120,000 O 10,367 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 1,147 $ 1,900 $ 800 500,000 364,440 0 0 0 0 495,353 140,266 501,147 366,340 800 O 620,000 364,439 0 0 O 0 0 500,000 500,000 O 620,000 364,439 500,000 500,000 495,353 (479,734) 136,708 (133,660) (499,200) 7,716 503,069 23,335 160,043 526,383 $ 503,069 $ 23,335 $ 160,043 $ 26,383 $ 27,183 92 Fund: 204 Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bond - Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds also referred to as councilmanic or non -voted bonds. When LTGO bonds are issued the City irrevocably pledges the full faith, credit and resources necessary to make timely payments of principal and interest, within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non -voted general obligations. In 2003 the City issued $9,430,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond payments (much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained $7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: • $5,650,000 remained on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $3,780,000. • $1,385,000 remained on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax (Funds #301 and #302). At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $305,000. In 2016 the City issued $7,275,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which will be used to finance the construction of a new City Hall building along with $6.3 million of City cash that has been set aside for this purpose. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2045. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by transfers in from the General Fund. At January 1, 2022, the outstanding balance on the bond issue will be $6,400,000. Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Total revenues Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 414,050 $ 432,150 $ 459,500 $ 480,800 $ 501,200 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 401,400 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 81,100 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 81,100 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 1,064,800 Expenditures Debt Service Payment - CenterPlace 414,050 432,150 459,500 480,800 501,200 Debt Service Payment - Roads 164,000 164,950 160,750 161,550 162,200 Debt Service Payments - City Hall/LTGO'16 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 401,400 Total expenditures 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 1,064,800 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 93 Fund: 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the first one -quarter of one -percent real estate excise tax (REET 1) that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent must be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of our comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(6), defines "capital projects" as: those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching funds for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund #303, Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in the LTGO Debt Service Fund #204. Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfers out - #314 (Barker Grade Separation) Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 1,968,317 47,046 2,015,363 82,000 901,287 685,329 (8,147) 2019 Actual $ 1,695,344 61,382 1,756,726 2020 Actual $ 1,754,320 14,742 1,769,062 2021 Budget $ 2,000,000 3,000 2,003,000 2022 Budget $ 1,500,000 2,000 1,502,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 81,100 517,107 330,295 316,620 361,780 734,300 772,639 827,278 914,900 104,918 1,335,879 0 0 1,660,469 1,438,800 2,519,188 1,224,673 1,357,780 354,894 317,926 (750,126) 778,327 144,220 2,125,374 2,480,268 2,798,194 2,048,068 2,826,395 $ 2,480,268 $ 2,798,194 $ 2,048,068 $ 2,826,395 $ 2,970,615 94 Fund: 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the second one -quarter of one -percent real estate excise tax (REET 2) that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent may only be levied by cities that are planning under the Growth Management Act and may only be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.035(5) defines "capital projects" as: public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. Noteworthy here is that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts, although it is a permitted use for street, water and sewer projects. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching funds for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund #303, Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in the LTGO Debt Service Fund #204. Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfers out - #314 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual $ 1,968,317 61,879 2,030,196 82,000 1,031,071 685,329 0 2019 Actual $ 1,695,344 80,784 1,776,128 82,475 (192,297) 734,300 0 1,798,400 624,478 2020 Actual $ 1,754,320 22,425 1,776,745 2021 Budget $ 2,000,000 5,500 2,005,500 2022 Budget $ 1,500,000 5,000 1,505,000 80,375 80,775 81,100 149,678 1,662,684 1,113,649 772,638 827,279 914,900 0 660,516 0 1,002,691 3,231,254 2,109,649 231,796 1,151,650 774,054 (1,225,754) (604,649) 3,008,424 3,240,220 4,391,870 5,165,924 3,940,170 $ 3,240,220 $ 4,391,870 $ 5,165,924 $ 3,940,170 $ 3,335,521 95 Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance street construction and reconstruction projects adopted in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Revenues to finance the projects comes from a combination of State and Federal Grants, which typically cover upwards of 80% of projects costs, with the City match portion coming from transfers from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301, REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302, and sometimes Stormwater Management Fund #402. Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds $ 6,562,793 $ 2,783,332 $ 2,813,485 $ 6,843,308 $ 6,956,322 Developer Contribution 33,032 228,953 540,325 53,703 1,164,399 Miscellaneous 136 586 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 901,287 517,107 330,295 316,620 361,780 Transfers in-#302 1,031,071 (192,297) 149,678 1,662,684 1,113,649 Transfers in - #312 - Euclid Ave - Flora to Barker (1,251,465) 5,111 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 - 8th & Carnahan Intersection 241,466 (155) 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 - Barker Corridor 428,774 1,718,874 320,254 14,000 0 Transfers in - #312 - Garland Ave 33,938 203,814 596,582 0 0 Transfers in - #312 - Crosswalk on Indiana 0 71,486 0 0 0 Transfers in -#312 - School Beacons 0 0 0 0 225,000 Transfers in -#315 0 0 0 80,000 150,000 Total revenues 7,981,032 5,336,811 4,750,619 8,970,315 9,971,150 Expenditures 000 Construction -Street Lighting 0 71,486 0 0 0 069 Park Rd Reconstruction (Repay grant) 0 285,164 0 0 0 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 3,081,873 30,696 0 0 0 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 14,722 0 0 0 0 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 1,956,617 14,544 0 0 0 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 898 0 0 0 0 166 Pines Rd (SR27) & Grace Ave. Intersect study 567,749 1,444 0 0 0 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 411,320 1,397 0 0 0 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0 24,770 121,294 329,453 1,871,500 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 15,548 0 0 0 0 (continued to next page) 96 Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget Expenditures, continued 247 8th & Carnahan Intersection Improvements 249 Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection 250 9th Ave. Sidewalk 251 Euclid Ave. - Flora to Barker 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk - SR27 to Evergreen 259 N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Projects (PE start 201 263 Citywide Signal Backplates 264 8th Ave Sidewalk 265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Garland 278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk - Boone to Broadway 279 Knox Ave Sidewalk - Hutchinson to Sargent 281 Highland Estates Connector 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 287 University Pres - Dishman-Mica to 16th 291 Adams Sidewalk Infill 292 Mullan preservation : Broadway -Mission 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 295 Garland Avenue Extension 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvement 302 Ella Sidewalk - Broadway to Alki 303 S. Conklin Sidewalk 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Repl 313 Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing 318 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 320 Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th 321 Argonne Corridor Improvement- North of Knox 326 2020 Citywide Retroreflective Post Plates 329 Barker Rd Imp -City Limits to Appleway Mission Ave over Evergreen Deck Repair School zone beacons Contingency Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2018 Actual 428,774 90,162 0 293,956 428,840 58,713 96,218 355,465 26,314 34,453 0 29,144 33,938 16,631 11,687 27,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,980,683 2019 Actual (155) 93,804 0 5,111 0 27,581 0 0 542,277 279,348 331,345 50,942 2,210,790 400,578 339,689 17,396 0 80,908 22,666 3,667 6,849 3,661 407,628 33,512 11,993 508 21,901 14,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Actual 0 102,051 0 0 0 740,384 0 0 0 1,434 77,865 1,193,099 36,176 0 0 0 235,135 0 279,947 4,822 114,526 64,703 1,067,612 78,931 57,617 45,780 325,308 110,388 16,241 52,030 24,023 187 1,067 0 0 0 0 0 5,336,450 4,750,619 2021 Budget 0 1,020,522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,310 0 1,146,320 0 0 0 0 7,210 0 0 0 74,250 17,875 0 2,392,450 498,000 693,000 0 0 317,625 1,312,500 50,000 19,800 0 0 80,000 0 0 1,000,000 2022 Budget 0 1,903,176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,250 3,575 0 130,017 1,746,643 0 0 0 0 1,444,000 572,909 412,000 0 142,880 250,000 261,200 225,000 1,000,000 8,970,315 9,971,150 349 361 0 0 0 66,692 67,041 67,402 67,402 67,402 $ 67,041 $ 67,402 $ 67,402 $ 67,402 $ 67,402 97 Fund: 309 Park Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Park Capital Projects Fund was created to account for park related capital improvements. The source of financing typically consists of an annual transfer from the General Fund #001; however, in some years the City will utilize money set aside for capital projects in other funds. This has occurred with transfers in from the Paths and Trails Fund #103 and the Capital Reserve Fund #312, which have been applied towards various sections of the Appleway Trail project and frontage improvements at Balfour Park. Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfers in - #001 (General Fund) Transfers in - #103 (Paths & Trails) Transfers in - #312 (Capital Reserve) Investment Interest Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 1,605,948 $ 1,114,049 $ 1,334,842 $ 525,260 $ 126,100 583,206 1,334,369 2,941,166 195,000 160,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 289,661 262,599 131,985 1,132,686 4,522,420 183 85 0 0 0 Total revenues 2,528,998 2,711,102 4,407,993 1,852,946 4,808,520 Expenditures 227 Appleway Trail (Pines to Evergreen) 14,860 0 0 0 0 237 Appleway Trail (Sullivan to Corbin) 2,127,384 16,791 0 0 0 268 Appleway Trail (Evergreen to Sullivan) 29,479 756,028 1,433,833 2,033 0 270 CenterPlace outdoor venue - Phase 1 204,302 0 0 0 0 271 Brown Park lighting and pathway 22,602 0 0 0 0 274 Park signs (Sullivan, Park Rd, Balfour) 13,837 0 0 0 0 280 Appleway Trail Amenities (Univ-Pines) 19,894 679,259 0 0 0 282 Browns Park volleyball courts 170,879 1,249 0 0 0 283 Electrical Upgrade Mirabeau Point Park 7,693 0 0 0 0 288 Heart of the Valley Sculpture 4,975 0 0 0 0 296 Browns Park improvements 0 1,038,701 22,765 0 0 304 CenterPlace west lawn improvements - Ph. 2 0 113,419 1,887,746 20,000 0 305 CenterPlace roof 0 9,288 795,656 15,000 0 306 Discovery Playground Surface Repair 0 20,061 0 0 0 307 Edgecliff Park Swing sets 0 36,973 0 0 0 314 Balfour Park frontage improvements 0 0 22,048 565,150 0 315 Browns Park improvements 2020 0 0 38,049 704,731 0 316 Balfour Park improvements - Ph 1 0 0 10,947 367,503 3,507,520 Install stage fill speakers Great Room 0 0 0 6,346 0 Repair failed pixels Great Room 0 0 0 6,505 0 Reprogram Great Room AN System 0 0 0 12,499 0 Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 0 0 0 30,000 0 Sullivan Park water line 0 0 0 98,000 441,000 Replace pond liner at Mirabeau 0 0 0 0 80,000 338 Spokane Valley River Loop Trail 0 0 0 100,000 700,000 Transfers out - #312 (park land acquisition) 0 0 200,000 0 0 Total expenditures 2,615,905 2,671,769 4,411,043 1,927,767 4,728,520 Revenues over (under) expenditures (86,907) 39,333 (3,050) (74,821) 80,000 Beginning fund balance 126,201 39,294 78,627 75,577 756 Ending fund balance $ 39,294 $ 78,627 $ 75,577 $ 756 $ 80,756 98 Fund: 310 Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Civic Building Capital Projects Fund was initially set-up to accumulate resources to ultimately acquire or construct a City Hall building. The initial sources of revenue to set-up the fund reserves were transfers from the General Fund during 2005 through 2007, and as recently as December 31, 2009, this fund had a fund balance of $5,828,600. During 2010 and 2011 the City determined that street repairs and reconstruction represented a more immediate City need and opted to expend nearly $2,000,000 of the fund balance for these projects. The projects themselves were part of a septic tank elimination program (STEP) initiated by Spokane County that resulted in the installation of sewer lines down many City streets. At that time the City decided to completely reconstruct the effected streets rather than patch them. In 2012 the City used this fund to finance a variety street related capital projects as well as the $2.5 million acquisition of an 8.4 acre parcel of land on Sprague Avenue that is adjacent to Balfour Park. Partially offsetting the cost of the land acquisition was the subsequent sale of 2.82 acres of this parcel to the Spokane County Library District who had planned to construct a library building consisting of no less than 30,000 square feet. In order for the Library District to actually construct a new building on this site they first had to have a successful voted bond issue to provide the necessary financing. In the event the Library District is unable to pass a bond, they may sell the 2.82 acres parcel back to the City for the original purchase price of $839,285. An amendment was made to the interlocal agreement in October 2017 which extended the agreement through October 2022 with the option to extend through October 2024. Through this amendments, the City also agreed to contribute $1.3 million, of which the $839,285 would be part, in frontage and/or joint site improvements on the Library site. In 2015 the General Fund began to make two annual transfers to this fund that were each related to the eventual construction of a new City Hall facility. These transfers ended after 2016: • The first transfer in the amount of $72,500, when added to the City's $434,600 annual lease payment for space in its current space totals $507,100 which was the amount we anticipated our annual bond repayment would be if we were to issue approximately $8,000,000 of limited tax general obligation bonds with a 2% issue cost over 30-years at 4.50%. • The second transfer was our estimate of the annual operating costs of a City Hall facility including utilities, janitorial, grounds maintenance and snow removal, and operating and maintenance supplies. The purpose behind making these transfers beginning in 2015 was to "create" this appropriation capacity within the General Fund. These amounts were transferred out to the General Fund in 2016 and 2017 in order to cover lease payments for the prior City Hall location in years in which the City had both a lease payment and a bond payment for the new City Hall building. Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #312 Total expenditures Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 14,049 $ 16,700 $ 3,679 $ 800 $ 1,300 14,049 16,700 3,679 800 1,300 0 18,452 16,700 3,600 0 0 18,452 16,700 3,600 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 14,049 (1,752) (13,021) (2,800) 1,300 Beginning fund balance 843,688 857,737 855,985 842,964 840,164 Ending fund balance $ 857,737 $ 855,985 $ 842,964 $ 840,164 $ 841,464 99 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund was created during the 2011 Budget development process for the purpose of setting money aside for yet to be determined street capital improvement projects. Since inception, the pavement preservation program has been funded through a series of transfers from other City funds as well as grant proceeds. Below is a table summarizing the funding sources for Fund #311, including actuals for 2011 through 2020 and budgeted amounts for 2021 and 2022: Fund 001 101 106 123 301/302 310 Street Civic Fac. Civic Fac. General Street O&M Wear Fee Replace. REET 1&2 Capital Grants Total Actual 2011 584,681 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 1,084,681 2012 2,045,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,045,203 2013 855,857 282,000 0 616,284 300,000 0 35,945 2,090,086 2014 888,823 282,000 0 616,284 368,944 0 2,042,665 4,198,716 2015 920,000 206,618 0 616,284 502,098 0 835,224 3,080,224 2016 943,800 67,342 0 559,808 730,572 0 1,654,698 3,956,220 2017 953,200 67,342 0 0 1,320,958 0 89,208 2,430,708 2018 962,700 67,342 1,000,000 0 1,370,658 0 1,422,404 4,823,104 2019 972,300 0 1,608,028 0 1,468,600 0 2,398,330 6,447,258 2020 982,023 0 1,513,532 0 1,545,277 0 98,281 4,139,113 Budget 2021 991,843 0 1,537,776 0 1,654,557 0 0 4,184,176 2022 1,001,800 0 1,600,000 0 1,829,800 0 0 4,431,600 12,102,230 972,644 7,259,336 2,408,660 11,091,464 500,000 8,576,755 42,911,089 Beginning in 2013, the City committed to finance pavement preservation at a level equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures, which has continued from that year through the 2021 budget development. Because this is a Capital Project Fund whose sole purpose is to provide for Pavement Preservation projects, any money not expended in a given year will remain in the fund and will be available for re -appropriation in subsequent years. The fund balance of Fund #123 was exhausted with the 2016 transfer of $559,808 as a consequence of following this funding strategy. In order to maintain the City's practice of setting aside funds for pavement preservation in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures, the City began to rely more heavily on REET funds. We have determined that the 2022 funding level representing approximately 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures is $2,831,600 and that this level of funding is sustainable through 2025 assuming a General Fund contribution of $1,001,800 and a collective contribution of $1,829,800 from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 and the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302. The City will take advantage of grant programs directed at pavement preservation as they become available. Budget Summary Revenues Transfers in -#001 Transfers in -#101 Transfers in -#106 Transfers in -#301 Transfers in - #302 Investment Interest Grant Proceeds Intergovernmental Rev. - Model Irrigation Total revenues 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 962,700 $ 972,300 $ 982,023 $ 991,843 $ 1,001,800 67,342 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,537,776 1,600,000 685,329 734,300 772,639 827,278 914,900 685,329 734,300 772,638 827,279 914,900 54,724 49,593 10,960 0 0 1,422,404 2,398,330 98,281 0 1,029,000 0 1,267,575 0 0 0 4,877,828 7,764,426 4,150,073 4,184,176 5,460,600 Expenditures Pavement preservation 3,559,755 7,954,415 2,783,129 3,790,877 7,202,000 Pre -project GeoTech 43,261 22,125 0 50,000 50,000 Total expenditures 3,603,016 7,976,540 2,783,129 3,840,877 7,252,000 Revenuesover(under)expenditures 1,274,812 (212,114) 1,366,944 343,299 (1,791,400) Beginning fund balance 3,362,503 4,637,315 4,425,201 5,792,145 6,135,444 Ending fund balance $ 4,637,315 $ 4,425,201 $ 5,792,145 $ 6,135,444 $ 4,344,044 100 Fund: 312 Capital Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund was created in 2013 to be used to account for the accumulation of resources for yet to be determined capital projects. The initial source of funds was a 2013 General Fund transfer of $7,826,207 which was followed by additional transfers from the General Fund from 2014 through 2021 in the amount of $38,916,950. Projects approved by City Council from this fund include in part: • $2,396,813 for construction of various sections of the Appleway Trail. • $1,800,000 to remove and reconstruct Euclid Ave. from Flora to Barker after County installation of sewer. • $1,421,321 towards a Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation project. • $3,485,417 towards a Pines Road / BNSF Grade Separation project. • $2,567,741 towards Barker Road corridor improvements. • $4,839,710 for park land acquisitions. • $460,715 towards improvements at the Spokane County Library's proposed Balfour site. Commitments to future projects include: • $826,290 towards Sullivan Road / BNSF Interchange project. • $3,875,023 towards Balfour Park construction. • $1,750,000 towards the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail. • $1,400,000 towards the replacement of police vehicles. • $750,000 towards the design of a new building at the Fairgrounds. Budget Summary Revenues Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #309 Transfers in - #310 Transfers in - #313 Grant Proceeds Proceeds from sale of land Investment Interest Total revenues 2018 Actual $ 3,795,429 0 0 405,056 0 2019 Actual $ 7,109,300 0 18,452 88,590 0 126,565 225,907 4,327,050 7,442,249 Expenditures City Hall Sculpture Siting Professional Services Transfers out - #001 Transfers out - #101 Transfers out - #303 - Euclid Ave - Flora to Barker Transfers out - #303 - School Beacons Transfers out - #303 - Barker Road Corridor Transfers out - #303 - Garland Ave Transfers out - #303 - Crosswalk lighting on Indiar Transfers out - #303 - 8th & Carnahan Intersectior Transfers out - #309 - Appleway Trail Transfers out - #309 - Balfour Park frontage improi Transfers out - #309 - Balfour Park improvements Transfers out - #309 - Sullivan Park water line Transfers out - #309 - Spokane Valley River Loop Transfers out - #314 - Pines Grade Separation Transfers out - #314 - Barker Rd Overpass Transfers out - #314 - Sullivan Rd Interchange Transfers out - #316 - Fairground Building Precinct property acquisition Park property acquisition Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2020 Actual $ 0 200,000 0 16,700 0 58,187 2021 Budget $ 11,126,343 0 3,600 0 1,000,000 109,400 7,500 274,887 12,246,843 2022 Budget $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 5,383 0 0 0 0 31,659 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 1,400,000 O 907,544 1,364,706 0 0 (547,287) 5,111 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 225,000 O 1,718,874 916,837 14,000 0 O 203,814 0 0 0 O 71,486 0 0 0 O (155) 0 0 0 289,661 262,599 98,991 2,033 0 0 0 22,048 565,150 0 0 0 10,947 367,503 3,507,520 0 0 0 98,000 314,900 0 0 0 100,000 700,000 0 0 125,086 626,315 0 0 0 0 696,416 724,905 0 0 73,615 325,000 101,385 0 0 0 10,000 750,000 0 226,700 0 2,225,000 0 0 84,380 2,095,710 2,659,600 0 (220,584) 3,480,353 4,707,940 7,689,017 7,723,710 4,547,634 3,961,896 (4,433,052) 4,557,826 (7,713,710) 4,427,286 8,974,920 12,936,816 8,503,764 13,061,590 $ 8,974,920 $12,936,816 $ 8,503,764 $13,061,590 $ 5,347,880 101 Fund: 313 City Hall Construction Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund was created to account for the architectural and construction costs for a City Hall building. The building was completed in Fall of 2017. Funding for the construction came from a combination of an interfund transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 in the amount of $5,162,764 and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.9 million. Land for the building site was acquired in 2015 through a purchase in the Civic Facilities Fund #310. Budget Summary Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay - City Hall Services & Charges Transfers out - #312 Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget $ 1,416 $ 953 $ 0 $ 1,416 953 0 2022 Budget 0 $ 0 0 0 9,573 0 0 0 0 5,283 0 0 0 0 O 88,589 0 0 0 14,856 88,589 0 0 0 (13,440) (87,636) 0 101,076 87,636 0 $ 87,636 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 Fund: 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund was created to account for the design and construction costs of various railroad grade separation projects that are included in the Bridging the Valley concept. Due to the anticipated size, scope, and duration of these projects, managing them in a separate fund allows for the necessary monitoring without being obscured by the variety and quantity of the other projects in the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 as well as keeping these projects from skewing the average volume of activity in Fund #303. Revenues for this fund consist of grant proceeds and transfers in from other City funds, such as the General Fund #001, the REET 1 Capital Project Fund #301 and the Capital Reserve Fund #312. Expenditures in the years of 2021 and 2022 are related to design and right of way costs for the Pines Road Underpass project and the right of way and construction costs for the Barker Road Overpass project. Design work is also beginning for the Sullivan Road Interchange. Revenues Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Developer Contributions Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 Total revenues Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 571,136 $ 1,447,398 $ 3,394,512 $12,903,319 $ 1,560,290 16,591 15,883 412 0 0 O 0 0 0 308,592 (8,147) 104,918 1,335,879 0 0 O 0 0 660,516 0 O 0 198,701 1,647,731 826,290 579,580 1,568,199 4,929,503 15,211,566 2,695,172 Expenditures BarkerBNSFGradeSeparation 562,988 1,552,316 3,792,655 9,681,704 1,307,293 Pines Rd Underpass 48,923 43,717 1,278,344 4,149,450 1,366,585 Sullivan Rd Interchange 0 0 73,615 325,000 101,385 Total expenditures 611,911 1,596,033 5,144,614 14,156,154 2,775,263 Revenues over (under) expenditures (32,331) (27,834) (215,111) 1,055,412 (80,091) Beginning fund balance 1,068,804 1,036,473 1,008,639 793,526 1,848,938 Ending fund balance $ 1,036,473 $ 1,008,639 $ 793,528 $ 1,848,938 $ 1,768,847 102 Fund: 315 Transportation Impact Fees Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget Beginning in 2021, the City began collecting transportation impact fees allowed pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-82.02.110 and SVMC 22.100. These are fees specifically allowed to address impacts from new development and they may be imposed on all developments within a designated area. The City has performed several studies to determine the impact areas on which the fees are being imposed. All fees collected must be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the corresponding study. Revenues Transportation Impact Fees Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #303 Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2018 Actual 0 0 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget 0 $ 0 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 0 0 150,000 200,000 0 0 0 80,000 150,000 0 0 0 80,000 150,000 0 0 0 $ 0 0 70,000 50,000 0 0 0 70,000 0 $ 0 $ 70,000 $ 120,000 Fund: 316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget In 2015, the City contracted with Community Attributes Inc. to develop a Retail Improvement Strategy and Action Plan. This plan led to another study with Community Attributes in 2016 to further explore tourism as an economic driver. The resulting 2016 Tourism Plan identified nine projects, including an expanded mixed -use facility around the Fairground and Avista Stadium, for future development. These projects would likely boost tourism and help anchor the City's leisure and retail community. Over the next several years, the City continued more in-depth analysis of some of the projects identified in the Tourism Plan and moved forward on several smaller projects. In 2020, the City began discussions with Spokane County regarding the concept of expanding the Expo Center to create additional space and versatility to attract and support multiple conferences and special events. The new Expo Center at the County Fairgrounds is estimated to cost $10 million. The City was awarded $750,000 in State funding for this project in 2021. Also in 2021, City Council allocated $1,000,000 from Fund #312 toward this project. Design on the building is starting in 2021. Revenues Transfers in -#312 Total revenues Expenditures Fairgrounds Building Total expenditures Budget Summary 2018 Actual 0 0 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget 0 $ 0 $ 10,000 $ 750,000 0 0 10,000 750,000 0 0 0 10,000 750,000 0 0 0 10,000 750,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 103 Fund: 402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The purpose of the Stormwater Management Fund is to account for the funds related to the cleaning, maintenance, and improvement of the City's storm drainage system. The revenue for this fund originates from a stormwater fee collected by Spokane County on behalf of the City. The annual fee is $21 for each single family unit, and for other property types a fee of $21 per each 3,160 square feet of parcel impervious surfacing is collected. Accomplishments for 2021 • Continued the evaluation efforts for the Glenrose and Central Floodplain mapping for FEMA. • Continued collaboration efforts with local, State, and Federal stormwater regulatory bodies. • Continued stormwater management and NPDES coordination efforts with other Eastern Washington agencies. • Continued the inventory and mapping of all City stormwater facilities. • Continued on -going stormwater maintenance and repairs utilizing in-house and contracted services. • Coordinated and financed stormwater system improvements with capital projects developed by the City. • Continued developing stormwater requirements to meet new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. • Began efforts in developing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the City. Goals for 2022 • Continue the evaluation efforts for the Glenrose and Central Floodplain mapping for FEMA. • Work with other departments in developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program, which will include stormwater facilities. • Continue collaboration efforts with local, State, and Federal stormwater regulatory bodies. • Continue the inventory and mapping of all City stormwater facilities. • Continue on -going stormwater maintenance and repairs utilizing in-house and contracted services. • Implement stormwater system improvements, integrating with other capital projects for efficiency. • Finalize the development and adoption of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the City. • Work with other departments in developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program, which will include stormwater facilities. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Engineer Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician 11 Stormwater Forman Assistant Engineer Mechanic Maintenance/Construction Inspector Planning Grants Engineer GIS Analyst Budget Summary 2018 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.15 0.25 0.00 4.40 2019 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.15 0.25 0.00 3.90 2020 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.15 0.25 0.00 3.90 2021 Budget 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.25 0.23 4.13 2022 Budget 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.23 4.13 Interns 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 (continued to next page) 104 Fund: 402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from previous page) Recurring Activity Revenues Stormwater Management fees Investment Interest Miscellaneous & Grants Proceeds Total revenues Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 1,920,509 $ 1,936,362 $ 1,910,349 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,910,000 40,465 48,642 10,244 40,000 2,000 0 58,746 482 0 0 1,960,974 2,043,750 1,921,075 1,940,000 1,912,000 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 403,470 436,115 381,447 552,694 560,631 Supplies 12,418 16,956 98,153 14,750 18,150 Services & Charges 1,149,170 1,135, 846 1,186,650 1,320,643 1,248,395 Intergovernmental Services 35,430 37,984 278,514 45,000 45,000 Transfers out - #001 13,400 0 0 0 0 Interfund vehicle lease - #501 0 0 0 6,750 6,750 Total expenditures 1,613,888 1,626,901 1,944,764 1,939,837 1,878,926 Recurring revenues over (under) Recurring Expenditures 347,086 416,849 (23,689) 163 33,074 Nonrecurring Activity Revenues Grant Proceeds 128,695 106,000 59,828 100,000 0 Total Nonrecurring revenues 128,695 106,000 59,828 100,000 0 Expenditures Capital - Various Projects 354,085 423,585 0 660,000 315,000 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 Watershed studies 64,541 48,576 48,336 100,000 100,000 Generator for Maintenance Shop 0 0 0 0 50,000 Total Nonrecurring expenditures 418,626 472,161 48,336 860,000 565,000 Nonrecurring revenues over (under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (289,931) (366,161) 11,492 (760,000) (565,000) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 57,155 50,688 (12,197) (759,837) (531,926) Beginning working capital 1,973,424 2,216,210 2,180,773 2,159,796 1,399,959 Ending working capital $ 2,030,579 $ 2,266,898 $ 2,168,576 $ 1,399,959 $ 868,033 105 Fund: 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget In 1985 voters of Spokane County approved a ballot proposition to create the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area (APA) as well as corresponding aquifer protection area fees with both sunsetting December 31, 2005. Boundaries of the APA included portions of unincorporated areas (including what is now Spokane Valley) and the cities of Liberty Lake, Millwood and Spokane. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley approved a resolution authorizing the inclusion of its municipal boundaries within the APA. The APA program was subsequently reauthorized through 2025 with voter approval. All fees are collected by Spokane County and include: • An annual fee of $15 per household for the withdrawal of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of $15 per household for on -site sewage disposal within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from $15 to $960 depending upon water meter size. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley (City) entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County (County) that authorized the County to collect and retain APA fees through 2010 for a variety of projects including: • up to $100,000 annually through 2010 to the Spokane Regional Health District to provide for data base management related to monitoring of septic tanks and their potential impact on water quality in the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. • a septic tank elimination program (STEP) designed to replace septic tanks with sanitary sewer systems. In the 2004 interlocal agreement the City and County also agreed that for the years 2011 through 2025 the APA fees remaining after the payment of reasonable administration and billing fees incurred by the County would be distributed annually between the County, City and City of Spokane on a proportional basis relative to the amount generated in unincorporated areas, the City and City of Spokane. The fees collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County are expended entirely on stormwater related projects that are designed to protect the aquifer. These fees plus grant monies received from a number of granting agencies finance a variety of capital projects. Revenues Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Total Revenues Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 462,981 $ 469,429 $ 426,234 $ 460,000 $ 460,000 597,733 101,715 60,996 1,507,045 1,881,600 28,620 37,329 9,135 2,000 1,900 1,089,334 608,473 496,365 1,969,045 2,343,500 Expenditures Capital - Various projects 662,402 329,829 239,081 2,958,540 3,008,800 Effectiveness study 0 0 0 0 55,000 Total Expenditures 662,402 329,829 239,081 2,958,540 3,063,800 Revenues over (under) expenditures 426,932 278,644 257,284 (989,495) (720,300) Beginning working capital 1,413,073 1,840,005 2,118,299 2,120,365 1,130,870 Ending working capital $ 1,840,005 $ 2,118,649 $ 2,375,583 $ 1,130,870 $ 410,570 106 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund (ER&R) is an Internal Service Fund that is designed to provide the funds necessary to purchase new vehicles and equipment at predetermined life cycles. This fund operates by charging each City department a monthly rental rate for the vehicles they use. The fee is based upon the estimated useful life of the vehicle and its replacement cost. The theory behind this program is that it allows City departments to budget vehicle replacement costs as a reoccurring expense over an extended period of time rather than as an intermittent capital expense that may be difficult to afford in any single year. In the event a City department requires an additional vehicle that actually adds to the fleet rather than simply replaces an existing vehicle, then that department must budget for the initial purchase price and transfer the necessary funds to the ER&R Fund to make the acquisition. In subsequent years the department will then begin paying a replacement fee spread out over the estimated useful life of the new vehicle. Beginning in 2017 a CenterPlace Kitchen Reserve was established through a transfer in from the General Fund in the amount of $36,600 per year for 5 years to build a total reserve of $183,000, which is the estimated replacement cost of the significant kitchen appliances and equipment at CenterPlace. Snow Plow Replacement Program The snow plow fleet currently consists of nine plow trucks. Six of the trucks are equipped with sanders and three of the trucks are equipped with 1,000-gallon tanks for placement of liquid deicer. Over the past five years the City has continued to improve the snow removal operations and has updated the snow plan accordingly. These improvements in snow operations have dictated that operating nine plows is a very efficient way to remove snow from the arterial and hillside roadways. Operating nine plows allows the performance of a full city arterial and designated hillsides plow in approximately 12 hours. In the future new plows will be purchased to replace the aging fleet as noted below and older plows will serve as backups and eventually be retired from the fleet beginning in 2022. The recommended snow plow fleet consists of eleven plows with two serving as backup plows. The two backup plows ensure that arterial roadways and hillside priority roadways can be cleared of snow per the snow plan. Having backup plows provides the City with additional plows that can be deployed in case of a mechanical breakdown or an accident during a winter storm event. Snow Plow Fleet Truck # Model Year YRAcquired Age at Retirement Replacement Yr Notes 207 1997 2009 25 2022 206 1996 2009 29 2025 204 1995 2009 33 2028 203 1995 2009 36 2031 Existing Fleet 205 1996 2009 38 2034 (11) Snow Plows 208 1997 2009 40 2037 209 1998 2011 42 2040 211 2000 2012 43 2043 210 2010 2011 36 2046 218 2016 2016 33 2049 219 2020 2020 32 2052 2022 2022 33 2055 207 is retired 2025 2025 33 2058 206 is retired 2028 2028 33 2061 204 is retired 2031 2031 33 2064 203 is retired 2034 2034 33 2067 205 is retired 2037 2037 33 2070 208 is retired 2040 2040 33 2073 209 is retired 2043 2043 33 2076 211 is retired (continued to next page) 107 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget (continued from previous page) Budget Summary 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Revenues Vehicle rentals-#001 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 28,000 $ 31,300 $ 31,300 Vehicle rentals-#101 21,250 21,250 14,500 10,250 10,250 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) 77,929 77,929 48,500 60,500 60,500 Vehicle rentals - #402 12,750 12,750 14,000 6,750 6,750 Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 0 Transfers in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) 0 0 27,472 0 40,000 Transfers in - #001 (Additional dump bed truck) 0 0 0 0 80,000 Investment Interest 19,873 26,715 6,074 10,000 1,200 Total Revenues 198,402 205,244 175,146 155,400 230,000 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 3,714 0 0 0 0 Small tools & minor equipment 0 122 0 10,000 10,000 Vehicle Purchase 0 0 0 130,000 262,500 Snow plow purchase 0 0 0 0 250,000 Depreciation Expense -Machinery& Equipment 47,155 47,155 59,211 0 0 Total Expenditures 50,869 47,277 59,211 140,000 522,500 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 147,533 157,967 115,935 15,400 (292,500) 1,096,283 1,243,816 1,401,783 1,387,962 1,403,362 $ 1,243,816 $ 1,401,783 $ 1,517,718 $ 1,403,362 $ 1,110,862 Fund: 502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget The City of Spokane Valley is exposed to risks of loss related to a number of sources including tort; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; natural disasters; and unemployment claims filed by former employees through the State of Washington. The Risk Management Fund was established to account for all such related revenues and expenses. Revenues for this fund are comprised almost entirely from an annual transfer of money from the General Fund and the single largest expense is typically the insurance premium the City pays to our insurance provider, the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). Budget Summary Revenues Transfers in - #001 Investment Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Auto & Property insurance Unemployment Claims Total Expenditures 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget $ 370,000 $ 390,000 $ 410,000 $ 425,000 $ 450,000 2,135 2,124 248 0 0 372,135 392,124 410,248 425,000 450,000 345,769 348,794 337,987 425,000 450,000 6,849 31,104 7,781 0 0 352,618 379,898 345,768 425,000 450,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 19,517 12,226 64,480 0 0 Beginning working capital 244,261 263,778 276,004 340,484 340,484 Ending working capital $ 263,778 $ 276,004 $ 340,484 $ 340,484 $ 340,484 108 Fund: 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund Spokane Valley 2022 Budget This fund was created during the 2022 Budget development process to account for State assessed District Court fees collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City as well as passthrough tax revenues such as leasehold excise and sales taxes. The Cit then remits the funds to the State Treasurer and County Prosecutor. These are fuduciary activities according to GASB accounting pronouncements. Budget Summary 2018 Actual Revenues Fees & Taxes collected for other govemments $ Total Revenues 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Budget 2022 Budget 0 $ 0 $ 372,072 $ 399,687 $ 400,000 0 0 372,072 399,687 400,000 Expenditures Fees & Taxes remitted to other govemments 0 0 371,759 400,000 400,000 Total Expenditures 0 0 371,759 400,000 400,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 313 (313) 0 Beginning working capital 0 0 0 313 0 Ending working capital $ 0 $ 0 $ 313 $ 0 $ 0 109 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Capital Expenditures for 2022 SOURCE OF FUNDS Capital Outlay Description 2022 Expenditure Budget #001 General 101 Street O&M #106 Solid Waste #107 PEG #301 REET1 Capital Projects #302 REET2 Capital Projects #311 Pavement Preservation #312 Capital Reserve #314 Grade Separation #402 Stormwater Managemen #403 Aquifer Protection Area #501 Equipment Rental & Replacemen Grants Developer Contributions #001 General Fund 166,000 5,000 24,000 1,455,000 1,000,000 166,000 5,000 24,000 55,000 1,400,000 1,000,000 - IT capital replacements - Office furniture for Project Manager - Radar Trailers - Police Vehicles - Finacial software capital costs Subtotal #101 Street Fund 2,650,000 1,250,000 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1,400,000 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 35,500 50,000 35,500 50,000 - Streetlight replacement program - Generator for maintenance shop (1/2 cost) Subtotal #107 PEG Fund 85,500 01 85,500 I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0 33,500 33,500 - PEG Capital outlay Subtotal #303 Street Capital Projects Fund 33,500 0 1 I 0 1 33,500 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1,871,500 1,903,176 8,250 3,575 130,017 1,746,643 1,444,000 572,909 412,000 142,880 250,000 261,200 225,000 1,000,000 1,868,866 2,634 146,962 696,249 1,059,965 8,250 3,575 26,511 103,506 114,818 1,630,025 1,800 575,138 868,862 0 572,909 412,000 142,880 250,000 261,200 225,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 205 Sprague/Barker Intersecfion Improvements 249 Sullivan/Wellesley Intersecfion 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 294 Citywide Reflectve Signal Post Panels 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 313 Barker Road/Union Pacifc Crossing 318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 320 Sullivan Preservaton: Sprague-8th 326 2020 Citywide Retroeflective Post Plates 329 Barker Road Imp- City Limits to Appleway Mission Ave over Evergreen Deck Repair School zone beacons Contingency' Subtotal #309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 9,971,150 0 1 I 0 1 0 I 361,780 1 1,113,649 I 0 1 225,000 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 6,956,322 I 1,314,399 3,507,520 441,000 80,000 700,000 3,507,520 314,900 126,100 80,000 700,000 315 Balfour Park improvements - ph.1 Sullivan Park water line Replace pond liner at Mirabeau Spokane Valley River Loop Trail Subtotal #311 Pavement Preservation Fund 4,728,520 80,000 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 4,522,420 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 126,100 I 0 7,202,000 1,001,800 1,600,000 914,900 914,900 1,741,400 1,029,000 - Pavement preservation Subtotal 7,202,000 1,001,800 1 I 1,600,000 I 0 I 914,900 I 914,900 I 1,741,400 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1,029,000 I 0 1,307,293 1,366,585 101,385 724,905 273,796 308,592 80,091 1,286,494 101,385 #314 Grade Separation Fund 143 Barker BNSF Grade Separation 223 Pines Rd Underpass / BNSF & Trent' 311 Sullivan Rd Interchange © Trent #316 Economic Development Capital Projects Fund 2,775,263 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 826,290 I 80,091 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1,560,290 I 308,592 750,000 750,000 - Capital -vadous projects Subtotal #402 Stormwater Management Fund 750,000 01 I 01 0I 01 0I 01 750,000 I 0I 0 I 0I 0I 0I 0 315,000 50,000 315,000 50,000 - Capital -vadous projects - Generator for maintenance shop (1/2 cost) Subtotal #403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 365,000 01 I 01 0I 01 0I 01 0I 0I 365,000 I 0I 0I 0I 0 3,008,800 1,127,200 1,881,600 - Capital -vadous projects Subtotal #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 3,008,800 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1,127,200 I 0 I 1,881,600 I 0 262,500 250,000 40,000 80,000 142,500 250,000 - Vehicle purchase - Snow plow purchase Subtotal 512,500 40,000 I 80,000 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 392,500 I 0 I 0 Total Capital Expenditures and Related Financing 32,082,233 2,371,800 165,500 1,600,000 33,500 1,276,680 2,028,549 1,741,400 7,723,710 1 Contngency amount is to cover unforseen overruns, costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2021 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources idenfifed. 2 Use of Fund Balance for CIP 0223-Pines Rd Underpass © BNSF & Trent is a porton of the $1,200,000 transferred from the General Fund in 2017. - Dollar figures in Italicized Bold font are paid from a combination of exisfing fund balance and fund revenue that is not attributable to a single project. 80,091 365,000 1,127,200 392,500 11,553,312 1,622,991 110 301 - General Fund City Manager / City Clerk City Attorney Public Safety Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Public Works City Hall Operations & Maintenance CPW - Engineering CPW - Economic Development CPW - Building and Planning CED - Administration CED - Economic Development CED - Development Services CED - Engineering CED - Planning CED - Building Parks & Rec - Admin Parks & Rec - Recreation Parks & Rec - Senior Center Parks & Rec - CenterPlace CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Full Time Equivalent Employees 2012 2013 2014 2015 Adopted 2016 I 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 Amended 2021 Proposed 2022 0) 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 6 6 6 6 11 10.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 2 2 2 2 2 2 7.5 7 7.375 7.375 7.375 6.375 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2.5 2.65 4 0 0 0 11 11 10 6 8 7 0 0 0 8.5 8 8 0 0 0 12.75 11.5 12.5 14 14 15 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Difference from 2020 to 2021 + (-) (2) (3) 7 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 1.000 (5) 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 4 0.000 0 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.120 (4) 3 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.000 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 1 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.88 1.92 0.040 12.5 13.275 13.525 13.025 14.025 15.725 1.700 (4) 6.375 6 6 6 5.77 5.77 0.000 (5) 18 20 21 21 20 21 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.000 1 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.000 5 5 5 5 5 4.84 (0.160) (4) Total General Fund 74.75 72.25 73.625 73.625 73.775 74.125 74.125 74.025 75.775 76.275 77.045 80.745 3.700 101 - Street Fund 4.5 5 5.375 5.725 5.725 5.725 5.725 7.725 7.475 7.475 7.475 7.475 0.000 303 - Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 8.1 8.1 7.6 7.6 8.9 1.300 (4) 402 - Stormwater Fund 4.5 4.5 4.75 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.13 4.13 0.000 (5) Total FTEs 87.25 85.25 87.25 87.25 87.4 87.75 89.25 93.75 95.25 95.25 96.25 101.25 5.000 (1) FTEs for 2017 reflect the reorganization that was effective in April 2017. The original 2017 Budget had FTEs of 88.4. (2) FTEs for 2018 reflect the budget amendment approved on May 29, 2018. (3) The 2021 Budget was amended to increase FTEs by 1, which was split 0.77 to Economic Development and 0.23 to Fund #402. (4) Existing FTEs were reallocated to reflect actual time worked at various facilities. (5) Five FTEs added in 2022 - Project Manager in City Manager, Engineering Tech 11 in Engineering(0.2) and fund #303 (0.8) CAD Manager in Engineering (0.5) and fund #303 (0.5), Code Enforcement Supervior in Building, and Assistant Engineer in Engineering. 111 2021 Work Force Comparison The 31 Washington Communities with a Population of 30,000 to 100,000 CITY POPULATION FULL-TIME PART-TIME Auburn 83,950 432 2 Bellingham** 90,620 885 16 Bothell 48,920 339 2 Bremerton 42,560 329 11 Burien 53,290 77 5 Des Moines 32,820 145 2 Edmonds* 42,780 208 11 Federal Way 99,590 334 9 Issaquah 39,840 215 6 Kennewick 85,940 389 0 Kirkland 92,110 617 10 Lacey 54,780 279 2 Lake Stevens 35,460 92 3 Lakewood 60,330 202 6 Longview 38,530 299 52 Lynnwood* 41,020 289 9 Marysville 70,040 286 3 Mount Vernon 36,540 216 25 Olympia 55,010 568 14 Pasco 79,580 360 0 Pullman* 32,450 220 30 Puyallup 43,040 279 12 Redmond 71,180 618 19 Richland 59,570 498 22 Sammamish 66,130 124 2 Shoreline 57,860 167 13 Spokane Valley 98,600 94 2 University Place 33,730 46 7 Walla Walla 34,110 277 10 Wenatchee 35,810 175 2 Yakima 97,340 681 17 AVERAGE 314 10 Source: AWC 2021 Salary and Benefits Survey, organization profile *2021 data not reported. Numbers from 2020. **2020-21 data not reported. Numbers from 2019. 112 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 2022 Position Title Grade 2022 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 22 11,920.14 - 17,277.75 City Attorney 21 10,738.86 - 15,550.10 Finance Director 21 10,738.86 - 15,550.10 Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director 20 9,664.85 - 13,996.12 City Engineer 19 8,698.21 - 12,596.64 Senior Deputy City Attorney 19 8,698.21 - 12,596.64 Human Resources Manager 19 8,698.21 - 12,596.64 Planning Manager 18 7,829.40 - 11,336.42 Building Official 18 7,829.40 - 11,336.42 Engineering Manager 18 7,829.40 - 11,336.42 Traffic Engineering Manager 18 7,829.40 - 11,336.42 Economic Development Manager 18 7,829.40 - 11,336.42 Senior Engineer 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 Accounting Manager 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 Assistant Building Official 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 Public Works Superintendent 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 Senior Administrative Analyst 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 IT Manager 17 7,046.06 - 10,202.36 Deputy City Attorney 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 City Clerk 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Engineer 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Senior Planner 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Development Services Coordinator 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Database Administrator 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Accountant/Budget Analyst 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Project Manager 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 CAD Manager 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Code Enforcement Supervisor 16 6,340.81 - 9,181.53 Associate Planner 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Assistant Engineer 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 IT Specialist 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Engineering Technician II 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Economic Development Project Specialist 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Senior Plans Examiner 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Public Information Officer 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Administrative Analyst 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 Maintenance/Construction Foreman 15 5,707.52 - 8,263.95 GIS Analyst 15 5,707.52 8,263.95 Mechanic 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Human Resource Analyst 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 CenterPlace Coordinator 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Planner 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Building Inspector II 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Plans Examiner 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Engineering Technician I 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Senior Permit Specialist 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Code Enforcement Officer 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 14 5,137.08 - 7,438.13 Recreation Coordinator 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Deputy City Clerk 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Building Inspector I 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Executive Assistant 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Planning Technician 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Human Resources Technician 13 4,623.00 - 6,694.06 Senior Center Specialist 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Permit Facilitator 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Help Desk Technician 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Accounting Technician 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Administrative Assistant 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Recreation Specialist 12 4,162.22 - 6,024.50 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,744.85 - 6,024.50 Permit Specialist 11 3,744.85 - 5,422.31 Office Assistant II 10-11 3,370.14 - 5,422.31 Custodian 10 3,370.14 - 4,878.94 Office Assistant I 9-10 3,033.50 - 4,878.94 Note: Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System. 113 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 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: Public Hearing: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — Potential Projects Program Year 2022 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: CDBG — Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 24 CFR § 570; Chapter 39.34 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: October 15, 2019, the City adopted Resolution 19-014; June 9, 2020, the City entered into a three-year agreement (2021, 2022 and 2023) to participate in the Spokane County CDBG/HOME Consortium. October 26, 2021, City Council heard an Administrative Report on potential 2022 sidewalk projects. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County CDBG Consortium. Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County. On June 9, 2020, the City entered into an agreement with Spokane County that includes a set -aside of the County's entitlement based on the City's share of the Consortium population. Although the City has a guaranteed set -aside, we must participate in Spokane County's annual CDBG application process. To be eligible for CDBG funding, projects must serve low- and moderate- income people either as an area -wide benefit or on an individual basis. Proposed projects must also be ranked as a "high priority" in Spokane County's Consolidated Plan. High priority infrastructure projects include water, sewer, street improvements, and sidewalks. Currently, Spokane County is accepting requests for proposals for the use of CDBG funds for program year 2022. The CDBG application deadline is November 11, 2021. On October 26, 2021, City Council by consensus identified the two CDBG applications for sidewalks identified below. # Proposed CDBG Sidewalk Project Estimated Cost 1 Park Road — Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue $400,000 2 4th Avenue — Eastern Road to Catherine Johnson Apts. $350,000 Consistent with our new agreement, the County's application process requires applicants to identify if the proposed project or program will serve Spokane Valley residents. Applications that serve City residents will be presented to Council for their recommendation and prioritization at the January 4 and 11, 2022 meetings. Any applications submitted by the City will be included in the list presented to Council for Council prioritization. OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Hold Public Hearing. After the public hearing, a motion consideration will be heard by Council as the next agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: CDBG grants are funded at 100 percent of the application request. Project costs include a City share of project design, engineering management, and related stormwater improvements. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner; Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Presentation and 2022 CDBG Sidewalk Project Maps Community Development Block Grant 2022 Program Year Public Hearing November 9, 2021 Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Spokane _..fl Valley Project Selection and Methodology 11/09/2021 Legen Eti sting 'Sidewalks SP.tS Gaps in LMI Parcels crossed by 60. eurer Low ; Moderate Income Area 2008 4,000 6,000 8,000 10.000 Feet High Priority in Consolidated Plan includes sidewalks Identify Sidewalk Gaps CDBG Target Areas (LMI) Close to schools Consistent with comprehensive plan Within right-of-way In primarily residential area 2022 CDBG Potential Projects - Public Hearing Project Description - 1 of 2 • Park Road Broadway to Cataldo Sidewalk on west side of street (-600 feet) Completes gap to Seth Woodard Elementary Proximity to transit stop Approximate cost $400,000 11/09/2021 2022 CDBG Potential Projects - Public Hearing CDBG 2021 Project: Park Road Sidewalk Broadway to Cataldo Legend Qualifying Census Blocks CDBG Projects Safe Routes to School MI Schools Library Transit Center Bus Stop Fire Station Existing Sidewalks Appleway Trail 0 40 80 120 160 200 Feet `Project location for illustrative purposes only 3 Project Description - 2 of 2 11/09/2021 CDBG 2021 Project: 4th Ave Sidewalk Eastern to sidewalk at CJ Apts Legend -i- El s Qualifying Census Blocks CDBG Projects Safe Routes to School Schools Library Transit Center Bus Stop Fire Station Existing Sidewalks Appleway Trail 0 30 60 90 120 150 Feet *Pro ecf focefron for illustrative •urposes on! • 4thAvenue - Eastern to Catherine Johnson Apt -- Sidewalk on west side of street (-500 feet) - Completes gap to Eastern Rd - Safe Route to School - - Spokane Housing Ventures applied for project in 2018 — Approximate cost $350,000 2022 CDBG Potential Projects - Public Hearing Recommendation and Next Steps Recommendation Submit both projects Prioritize sidewalk projects Next Steps Motion Consideration tonight Submit application by November 11 Prioritize applications that serve Valley residents in January 11/09/2021 2022 CDBG Potential Projects - Public Hearing G... n1 F. 61 CA1.4ti1 M4x>4 u: W yT Aa7m ' -. SIINSL,rwl YP!a. Fdai" yr:: s", 1-0.1 Slreci f,,,,y.x�+: ,a, a l writ. � 51 1%11 el.tp„ d 1 Ms Rnw' ❑wvr. LF114 tct d trall spl,Aor . y c 1 :; r� w.L * .wwd * �) PFWO e..- .-40 an r.el 11*A mitt a tta Amy ,te60. e. a ' x,+.ru•K �°" ".n 11.,,,~„ua. �.. d "'Wm.., o,ra-:+t rF �.radn�im• �-�"~� ^.,..:,tea.-.vx .(M1 r •c_ wry S. .s.E..ER CSMys 5 Questions Sib'lane Valley° 11/09/2021 2022 CDBG Potential Projects - Public Hearing 6 E Ca'ta'ldo Ave - IS) Broadway CDBG 2022 Project: Park Road Sidewalk Broadway to Cataldo Qualifying Census Blocks CDBG Projects Safe Routes to School Schools ® Library Transit Center • Bus Stop to> Fire Station Existing Sidewalks Appleway Trail 0 40 80 120 160 200 Feet *Project location for illustrative purposes only. CDBG 2022 Project: 4th Ave Sidewalk Eastern to sidewalk at CJ Apts Legend Qualifying Census Blocks CDBG Projects Safe Routes to School Schools • Library _. Transit Center • Bus Stop Fire Station Existing Sidewalks Appleway Trail 0 30 60 90 120 150 Feet *Project location for illustrative purposes only. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 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: Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — Potential Projects Program Year 2022 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: CDBG — Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 24 CFR § 570; Chapter 39.34 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: October 15, 2019, the City adopted Resolution 19-014; June 9, 2020, the City entered into a three-year agreement (2021, 2022 and 2023) to participate in the Spokane County CDBG/HOME Consortium. October 26, 2021, City Council heard an Administrative Report on potential 2022 sidewalk projects. On November 9, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed CDBG sidewalk projects for 2022 BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2021, City Council reviewed a list of potential sidewalk projects. On November 9, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on the CDBG sidewalk projects. The following sidewalk projects are proposed to be submitted to Spokane County CDBG program for program year 2022. # Proposed CDBG Sidewalk Project Estimated Cost 1 Park Road — Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue $400,000 2 4th Avenue — Eastern Road to Catherine Johnson Apts. $350,000 OPTIONS: Move to authorize staff to prepare grant applications as recommended or amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize staff to prepare and submit CDBG applications for the proposed sidewalk projects of Park Road — Broadway to Cataldo Avenue, and 4th Avenue — Eastern Road to Catherine Johnson Apartments. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: CDBG grants are funded at 100 percent of the application request. Project costs include a City share of project design, engineering management, and related stormwater improvements. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner; Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Presentation and 2022 CDBG Sidewalk Project Maps, attached with agenda item #4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ['old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 10/18/2021 54950-54978 (- 54977) 242,409.88 10/21/2021 54979-54999, 14271245, 14271324, 14457144 4,382,747.81 10/25/2021 55000-55009 637,076.45 10/27/2021 55010-55014 10,120.87 10/27/2021 55015-55039 279,307.13 10/28/2021 55040 122.14 11/01/2021 55041-55058 78,450.40 GRAND TOTAL: $5,630,234.68 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.040.041. Engineering 001.040.042. Economic Development 001.040.043. Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571, Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 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 Serv. 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 & Eco. 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 Preser. Other Funds: 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 107 — PEG Fund 108 — Affordable & Supplemental Housing Sales Tax 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501— Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management 632 — Passthrough Fees & Taxes 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 10/18/2021 7:21:44AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 54950 10118/2021 001107 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 54951 10/18/2021 006382 AHBL INC 54952 10/18/2021 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 54953 10/18/2021 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO 54954 10118/2021 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 54955 10/18/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC 54956 10/18/2021 008454 COTE, KATHRYN M 54957 10/18/2021 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 54958 10/18/2021 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 54959 10/18/2021 008139 E & H ENGINEERING INC 54960 10/18/2021 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 54961 10/18/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 0000030661 127586 63863 90227007 90227010 IN-035242 CSROW 21216 CSROW 21217 55202.0301 55202.0301 495640 RE 46 JG6453 L011 SV-AI210903 4319814 615508 303.000.299.595 303.000.329.595 311.000.323.595 314.000.143.595 314.000.143.595 001.040.043,558 303.000.205.595 314.000.223.595 303.000.205.595 303.000.205.595 314.000.143.595 314.000.223.595 403.000.317.595 001.040.041.543 309.000.338.595 Description/Account Amount 299: ARGONNE INDIANA TO MONTGOA 29,394.73 Total : 29,394.73 0329- BARKER RD IMPROVEMENTS Total: 0323- EVERGREEN RD PRESERVATIOI Total: CIP 0143: PROGESS BILL#3A CIP 0143: PROGRESS BILL#5 Total: HEARING EXAMINER: INTERLOCALAC Total : 0205-RIGHT--OF-WAY SERVICES 0223-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES Total : CIP 0205: TCE 55202.0301 CIP 0205: PARCEL ACQUISITION 55202 Total : 0143-DESIGN SERVICES Total: 0223 PINES RD AGREEMENT JG-6453 Total : 0317 APPLEWAY STORMWATER MP Total : FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP VEHU Total : 37,225.00 37,225.00 3,555.00 3,655.00 12,324.97 2,700.69 15,025.65 2,830.00 2,830.00 4,611.69 663.49 5,276.18 372.00 7,971.00 8,343.00 12,714.59 12,714.59 1,693.92 1,693.92 16,069.50 16,069.50 1,261.01 1,261.01 ADVERTISING: CIP 0338 45.82 Page: 1 vchlist 10/18/2021 7:21:44AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 54961 10/18/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 54962 10/18/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 54963 10/18/2021 005353 INTERMOUNTAIN MATERIALS 54964 10/18/2021 008453 KOTTKAMP, YEDINAK & ESWORTHY 54965 10/18/2021 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 54966 10/18/2021 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 54967 10/18/2021 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 54968 10/18/2021 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY 54969 10/18/2021 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 54970 10/18/2021 008455 RING CENTRAL INC (Continued) 616250 161142 52233 13348 13351 2477 2478 388874 391310 209215 209226 209230 209232 SEPTEMBER 2021 September 2021 200-1033037 CD 000305918 CM468611 INV2332526 309.000.338.595 001.013.000.513 309.000.338.595 309.000.314.594 303.000.299.595 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 314.000.311.595 403.000.308.569 101.042.000.542 303.000.299.595 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 632.000.000.589 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 Description/Account Amount ADVERTISING: CIP 0338 Total : ADVERTISING: PAVEMENT MGMT PRO ADVERTISING: CIP 0338 RFQ Total : 0314- MATERIALS TESTING 0299-ARGONNE RD CONCRETE PVMT Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : PROJECT 311 PHASE 1 ANALYSIS PROJECT 308 CONSTRUCTION SERVII Total : SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT: ST CIP 0299: CONSTRUCTION/TRAFFIC C CREDIT RE INVOICE 209215 CLASS III BARRICADE W/ RED Total: STATE REMITTANCE DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL DATA PLAN Total : Total : Total : TELEPHONE SERVICE 9/2/2021-8/30/2C REFUND - FREE WEEKS OF SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE 8/31/2021-8/30/2 43.50 89.32 302.00 100.80 402.80 3,205.80 7,497.20 10,703.00 960.00 720.00 1,680.00 550.40 1,778.36 2,328.76 1,115.14 114.35 -1,115.14 1,051.97 1,166.32 30,965.23 30,965.23 1,350.00 1,350.00 272.50 272.50 10, 530.57 -7,929.24 26, 811.42 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 10/18/2021 7:21:44AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 54970 10/18/2021 008455 008455 RING CENTRAL INC (Continued) Total : 29,412.75 54971 10/18/2021 002520 RWC GROUP RA106002350:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR SERVICE #203 4,350.00 Total : 4,350.00 54972 10/18/2021 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 10988177 101.042.000.542 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 531.43 Total: 531.43 54973 10/18/2021 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50320844 001.040.043.558 COUNTY IT SUPPORT: SEPTEMBER 20 11,989.27 Total : 11,989.27 54974 10/18/2021 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY SEPTEMBER 2021 632.000.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION REM 485.65 Total : 485.65 54975 10/18/2021 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP210299 311.000.325.595 0325: LOCAL ACCESS STREETS 4,978.15 Total: 4,978.15 54976 10118/2021 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1816677 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW SEPTEMBEI 1,227.91 Total : 1,227.91 54977 PRIZES LLC 21338 981.013:99&5#3 ADVERTISING: BALFOUR PARK& PMP 6 9 21370 001.013.000.613 A ERTISING: ONLINE £URVCY PMP 34846 Teta14 9.6646 54978 10/18/2021 007867 WIDENER & ASSOCIATES 333 314.000.223.595 0223-ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 7,089.20 Total : 7,089.20 29 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Baelf4otal- 243;366.13 29 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 24336633 242,409.88 - kw Page: 3 vchlist 10/21/2021 6:37:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 54979 10/21/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 54980 10/21/2021 001041 CAPSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO INC 54981 10/21/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 54982 10/21/2021 004813 FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICES 54983 10/21/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 54984 10/21/2021 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST 54985 10/21/2021 008452 JACOBS II, ROBERT 54986 10/21/2021 008450 JOHNSON, CARLY 54987 10/21/2021 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 54988 10/2112021 001944 LANCER LTD Description/Account Amount 1CF3-H4QH-JYQX 001.040.041,543 BLD-2021-1949 618669 618670 618671 618672 618673 618674 328309 52291 52294 52295 52296 PC001525953:02 SIGN-2021-0107 EXPENSES SPOIN4816054 0481131 001.040.043.322 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 041.040.043.558 101.042.000.542 001.040.043.322 001.013.015.515 101.000.000.542 001.040.043.558 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT: 55 509.83 Total: 509.83 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2021-1949 Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total: COFFEE SERVICE AT CENTERPLACE Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : PERMIT REFUND: SIGN-2021-0107 Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : 962.86 962.86 24.00 26.86 102.70 102.70 80.58 82.16 419.00 135.31 135.31 56.00 97.75 92.65 93.50 339.90 45.41 45.41 224.00 224.00 11.20 11.20 290.46 290.46 BUSINESS CARDS 69.69 Page: - 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 10/21/2021 6:37:48AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54988 10/21/2021 001944 001944 LANCER LTD (Continued) Total : 69.69 54989 10/21/2021 007595 MATHEUS LUMBER CO INC 66931-93 101.043.000.542 BRIDGE DECKING 4,544.09 Total : 4,544.09 54990 10/21/2021 008456 ROSS, GREG APP-2021-0002 001.040.043.345 PERMIT REFUND: APP-2021-0002 500.00 Tota[ : 500.00 54991 10/21/2021 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL OCTOBER 2021 001.076.300.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHARGES OCT( 1,246.76 Total : 1,246.76 54992 10/21/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35241.4101 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATERJAQUIFE 127.46 45033.0308 314.000.223.595 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 88.71 45033.0309 314.000.223.595 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER FEES 45.57 45093.0646 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER FEES 873.99 45105.9010 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 1,412.58 45114.9015 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 419.61 45121.9118 101.042.000.543 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATERIAQUIFE 411.86 45162.0327 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER FEES 552.72 45174.9059 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 28.40 45182.9132 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 214.46 45201.0122 001.033.000.518 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 358.41 45222.0227 001.016.016.521 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 357.61 45222.0230 001.016.016.521 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER FEES 39.80 45271.9007 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATERJAQUIFE 81.03 45271.9008 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER FEES 151.20 45273.9036 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 226.16 45332.1517 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 153.71 55072.0318 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 39.69 55072.0324 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATERIAQUIFE 124.32 55182.1553 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 40.94 55162.1624 001.076.000.576 2ND HALF 2021 STORMWATER/AQUIFE 105.72 Total : 5,853.95 54993 10121/2021 000202 SRCAA 16615 001.090.000.553 4TH QTR 2021 ASSESSMENT 37,707.50 Total: 37,707.50 54994 10/21/2021 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3489244588 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PERMIT CTR 65.42 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 10/21/2021 6:37:48AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54994 10/21/2021 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE (Continued) 3489244589 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PERMIT CTR 60.44 3489244590 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PERMIT CTR 133.91 Total: 259.77 54995 10/21/2021 007625 T LARIVIERE {NC PAYAPP 3 403.000.317.595 0317-APPLEWAY STORMWATER IMPR 297,401.74 Total : 297,401.74 54996 10/21/2021 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 452816 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MGR 421.45 Total : 421.45 54997 10/21/2021 008451 WANGAI, GEORGE AFH-2021-0030 001.040.043.345 PERMIT REFUND: AFH-2021-0030 67.50 Total: 67.50 54998 10/21/2021 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0074880-1518-6 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT: VACTORING WASTE SE 4,048.41 Total : 4,048.41 54999 10/21/2021 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 2021100003578 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 287.22 2021100005522 001.090.000.518 fNTERNET SERVICES 626.70 2021100025710 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 247.33 Total : 1,161.25 14271245 9/30/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290202030 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT SEPTEMBER 2021 1,863,483.00 Total : 1,863,483.00 14271324 10/5/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER SEPTEMBER 2021 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 158,067.73 Total : 158,067.73 14457144 10/15/2021 008458 SPOKANE INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS EGR-2020-0098 001.237.10.95 CASH PERFORMANCE SURETY RELE/ 2,004,977.00 Total : 2,004,977.00 24 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 4,382,747.81 24 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 4,382,747.81 Page: vchlist 10125/2021 9:48:54AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept 55000 10/25/2021 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 55001 10/25/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 55002 10/25/2021 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 55003 10/25/2021 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 55004 10/25/2021 000506 ASCE 55005 10/25/2021 000030 AVISTA 55006 10/25/2021 008140 CORRIDOR CONTRACTORS LLC 55007 10/25/2021 002920 DIRECTV INC 55008 10/25/2021 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 55009 10/25/2021 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 71429 71430 71431 1JMC-4Q9Q-XRRX 072146 092150 EXPENSES 1044978415 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAYAPP 3 051738547X211005 563073 564265 AR212012 AR212013 AR212014 AR212015 AR212016 AR212017 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.518 001.000.322.518 001.000.322.518 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.076.302.576 303.000.299.595 101.042.000.543 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.011.000.511 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.040.043.558 DescriptionfAccount Amount HYDRO -EXCAVATION STORM DRAIN CLEANING SEPTEMBEf STREET SWEEPING SEPTEMBER 2021 Total : SMALL TOOLSIMINOR EQUIPMENT Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : MEMBERSHIP DUES: ERICAAMSDEN Total : UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA SEI Total : 0299- ARGONNE/MONTGOMERY CON( Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE Total: TRANSMISSION PURCHASE - FLEET 4- CORE RETURN FOR TRANSMISSION F Total: COPIER COSTS: WEST WING/COUNCII COPIER COSTS: IT COPIER COSTS: HR COPIER COSTS: OPS/ADMIN COPIER COSTS: LEGAL COPIER COSTS: PERMIT CTR 672.24 21,255.30 31, 354.10 53,281.64 21.07 21.07 1,723.50 443.95 2,167.45 39.20 39.20 270.00 270.00 10,570.80 10,570.80 565,717.62 565,717.62 81.24 81.24 4,849.94 -1,089.00 3,760.94 107.01 3.62 64.12 164.60 103.52 33.76 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 10/2512021 9:48:54AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 55009 10/25/2021 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. (Continued) AR212018 001.040.041.543 COPIER COSTS: CPW-ENGINEERING 342.44 AR212019 101.042.000.542 COPIER COSTS: MAINTENANCE SHOF 39.82 AR212020 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS: CENTERPLACE 307.60 Total : 1,166.49 10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 637,076.45 10 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that l am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 637,076.45 Page: �2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10/27/2021 10:36:38AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 55010 10/27/2021 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 35232.1304 001.090.000.594 RECORDING FEE: SATISFACTION OF. 207.50 Total: 207.50 55011 10/27/2021 001796 SPOKANE CO CLERK CERTIFIED COPIES 001.090.000.594 CERTIFIED COPY FEE: SATISFACTION 6.00 Total : 6.00 55012 10/27/2021 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL SEWER CHARGES 001.090.000.594 SEWER ACCOUNT NO: 38149-110510 6,466.45 Total : 6,466.45 55013 10/27/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35232.1304 001.090.000.594 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FOR QUIT C 485.00 Total : 485.00 55014 10/27/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35232.1304 001.090.000.594 2021 PROPERTY TAX: QUIT CLAIM DEE 2,955.92 Total : 2,955.92 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 10,120.87 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 10,120.87 vchlist 10127/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 55015 10/27/2021 007965 ARGUS JANITORIAL 55016 10/27/2021 008216 BERRYDUNN 55017 10/27/2021 000796 BUDINGER &ASSOCIATES INC 55018 10/2712021 002213 ED-KA MANUFACTURING INC. 55019 10/27/2021 007871 EMPIRE SPRAY SERVICE INC 55020 10/27/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 55021 10/27/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 55022 10/27/2021 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 55023 10/27/2021 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITTINGS 55024 10/27/2021 001016 ITE 55025 10/27/2021 006328 KREM-TV 55026 10/27/2021 001640 MAINTENANCE SOLUTIONS INC INV11366 408116 M21685-1 04082600-B 950 617882 52275 64186 1075788 1008408 1088473 09-2021 SUMMARY BILL 092925101 092925103 101.042.000.543 001.090.000.513 001.000.322.518 101.000.099.594 001.033.000.518 106.000.000.537 106.000.000.537 001.040.041.558 101.000.000.542 101.143.70.00 001.143.70.00 001.040.042.558 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRECII~ 10,054.86 Total : 10,054.86 CONSULTING SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLOW Total: Total: Total : FALL BROADLEAF SPRAY: CITY HALL Total : ADVERTISING: SOLID WASTE RATE Total: LEGAL PUBLICATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : SNOW PLOW REPAIR HOSES/FITTING Total : 2022 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES J. C 2022 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES R. E Total: ADVERTISING Total: 5,340.00 5,340.00 441.85 441.85 17,227.98 17,227.98 266.81 266.81 24.75 24.75 54.40 54.40 2,730.00 2,730.00 1,862.52 1,862.52 327.00 60.00 387.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 SNOW SEASON SUPPLIES 948.30 SNOW SEASON SUPPLIES 737.43 Page: /Q vchlist 10/27/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept 55026 10/27/2021 001640 MAINTENANCE SOLUTIONS INC 55027 10127/2021 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 55028 10/27/2021 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 55029 10/2712021 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 55030 10/27/2021 004621 OREILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 55031 10/27/2021 004130 PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP 55032 10/27/2021 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 55033 10/27/2021 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 55034 10/27/2021 004535 SHRED -IT USA LLC 55035 10/27/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) 092925104 092925105 462 9-30-2021 480 - 9-30-2021 499 - 9-30-2021 0538-076262 201076154001 2862-128711 2862-128811 2862-130394 2862-130538 2862-130570 2862-131320 70431 70201 B14139741 8000101582 14801792 42000933 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.013.015.515 314.000.143.595 001.013.015.515 501.000.000.548 001.018.014.514 501.000.000.548 101.042.000.542 501.000.000.548 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 101.000.000.542 001.090.331.514 001.016.016.521 001.013.000.565 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.566 001.016.000.554 Description/Account Amount SNOW SEASON SUPPLIES DISINFECTANT, SANITIZING SUPPLIES Total PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT- ALL FLEET Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Total: VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: SHOP TOC VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. ALL FLEET VEHICLE REPAIR & MAENT.: 4-010 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT.: 4-007 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT,: SNOW FLE Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES: PRECINCT Total : Total : ADOBE ACROBAT DC FRO TOM ANKEE Total : DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total : 936.14 993.15 3,615.02 2,905.20 11,423.86 213.50 14,542.56 90.52 90.52 53.46 53.46 73.50 51.17 146.99 80.87 43.52 40.95 437.00 130.00 130.00 123.88 123.88 117.45 117.45 322.20 322.20 3RD QTR 2021 LIQUOR/EXCISE TAX 7,087.75 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR NO 22,716.93 Page: /7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 10/27/2021 1:53:4SPM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 55035 10/27/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) 51506066 001.016.000.523 OCTOBER 2021 INMATE HOUSING 138,714.15 Total: 168,518.83 55036 10/27/2021 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 October 2021 #1 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR OCTOBER 202 769.86 Total : 769.86 55037 10/27/2021 001903 SPOKANE TRAFFIC CONTROL INC 6288 402.402.000.531 TRAFFIC CONTROL 489.75 Total : 489.75 55038 10/27/2021 008346 STALKER RADAR 392050 001.016.000.594 STALKER LIDAR RLR- W/ BT, DL, FTC, ; 6,014.76 Total : 6,014.76 55039 10/27/2021 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L144722 001.090.000.514 AUDIT 54010 33,691.67 Total : 33,691.67 25 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 279,307.13 25 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 279,307.13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 10128I2021 8:19:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55040 10/28/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35232.1304 001.090.000.594 2021 PROPERTY TAX: QUIT CLAIM DEE 122.14 Total : 122.14 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 122.14 1 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, 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 Councl member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 122.14 Page: �F vchlist 11/01/2021 3:52:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 55041 11/1/2021 008462 ABSCO SOLUTIONS 55042 11/1/2021 002607 HUB SPORTS CENTER 55043 11/1/2021 001944 LANCER LTD 55044 11/1/2021 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 55045 11/1/2021 007741 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DIST 55046 11/1/2021 002520 RWC GROUP 55047 11/1/2021 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 55048 11/1/2021 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 55049 11/1/2021 007008 SPOKANE HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 55050 11/1/2021 007107 STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC 55051 11/1/2021 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 79896 001.090.099.594 2021 #1 2021 #2 0481263 200401620001 202931261001 16276082-00 16276083-00 16277824-00 16277824-01 16277829-00 XA106019481:01 8534-2 October 2021 #2 G73745 1837343 240017538-00 105.000.000.557 105.000.000,557 001.040.042.558 001.018.016.518 001.076.305, 575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 101.000.000.542 001.016.016.521 402.402.000.531 001.016.016.521 001.040.043.55E 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount VICON CAMERA PROJECT: CENTERPL 33,086.13 Total : 33,086.13 2021 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBUR: 2021 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBURE Total: POSTERS OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS Total: Total : REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF CHANNEL SUPPORTS FOR GAS LINE CHANNEL SUPPORTS FOR GAS LINE ( CHANNEL SUPPORTS FOR GAS LINE E Total: SNQW FLEET REPAIR 1 MAINT ITEMS Total : SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : WATER CHARGES FOR OCTOBER 202 Total : NEW BACK DOOR @ PRECINCT - OUT Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total: 13,271.77 11,630.26 24,902.03 21.78 21.78 10.55 30.64 41.19 143.09 -143.09 1,054.20 210.84 23.44 1,288.48 1,473.07 1,473.07 191.26 191.26 1,168.60 1,168.60 1,379.85 1,379.85 1,257.50 1,257.50 VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES 850.69 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/01/2021 3:52:12PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 55051 11/1/2021 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 240017543-00 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES 427.22 Total: 1,277.91 55052 11/1/2021 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 644282485 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 492.53 Total: 492.53 55053 11/1/2021 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 845110599 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 855.19 Total : 855.19 55054 11/1/2021 001660 TITAN TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 1306693 101.042.000.542 TRUCK EQUIPMENT 1 SUPPLIES 4,333.97 Total: 4,333.97 55055 11/1/2021 008067 TK LANDSCAPE & LAWN SVCS LLC 2507 001.016.016.521 LAWN SERVICE: PRECINCT/CITY HALL 1,528.96 Total : 1,528.96 55056 11/1/2021 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9890924708 001.076.302.575 OCTOBER 2021 CELL PHONEIDEVICE 2,604.06 Total: 2,604.06 55057 11/1/2021 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 8904222 001.016.015.521 PEST MGMT SERVICES: PRECINCT 198.96 8904224 001.033.000.518 PEST MGMT SERVICES: CITY HALL 169.23 Total : 368.19 55058 11/1/2021 007742 WHALEN TIRE SPOKANE INC 858812 101.0130.000.542 TIRE I MOUNT- SNOW FLEET -TRUCK 2,179.70 Total : 2,179.70 18 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 78,450.40 18 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 78,450.40 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 09,2021 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 October 31, 2021 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 340,136.94 $ 10,265.00 $ 350,401.94 Benefits: $ 200,758.17 $ 12,962.88 $ 213,721.05 Total payroll $ 540,895.11 $ 23,227.88 $ 564,122.99 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 DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Study Session Format Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at approximately 6 pm. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council, staff and some members of the public participating in person; and some members of the public participating remotely via Zoom meeting. Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Bottelli, Parks, Rec & Facilities Director Dave Ellis, Police Chief Kevin Richey, Assistant Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Jerremy Clark, Sr Traffic Engineer Bill Helbig, City Engineer Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEMS; A. Motion Consideration: Expo Expansion Project Grant Opportunity — Mike Basinger [added item] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for the ARPA Tourism grant for the Expo Center Expansion Center project in conjunction with Spokane County. Mr. Basinger said he had some good conversations with the County today; and through his PowerPoint briefly explained about Economic Development Administration's (EDA) ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) for Tourism, and of the total ARPA funds available; said the application due date is January 31, 2022, and that the County is required to be a co -applicant; and that the expenditure date of the tourism funds is expected no later than September 30, 2027. Mr. Basinger noted the estimated $10 million project cost for the Expo Expansion Project with our ARPA request of $3 million; our own funds of $1 million, 2022 Lodging Tax Recommendation of $3.5 million, Washington State Legislature funding of $750,000, and Spokane County potential $1,250,000; said that with these funds, the project could be $500,000 shy of being fully funded. Mr. Hohman said that in discussions today, County Commissioner French suggested they might have some additional leftover funds from re -financing PFD bonds that the County might be able to apply to this. Mr. Basinger added that the County wants to sign on with this application, and he continued through the remaining slides showing some of the Expo expansion details and layout renderings. In reference to the west elevation slide showing a possible Bar & Grill, Mr. Hohman explained that we will make sure this is a family -oriented project with a family atmosphere, and that we can modify that rendering. Councilmember Thompson also mentioned we would want a family engaging restaurant. There was discussion about the amount of ARPA funds to seek with Mr. Basinger explaining that the EDA stressed we need to be careful how much we ask for as there is great competition, and that we don't want to ask for too much and risk not receiving any funds. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Meeting Minutes Study Session: 10-19-2021 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 1. Motion Consideration: Sullivan Park Waterline Interlocal Agreement — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement with Trentwood Irrigation District #3 regarding the Sullivan Road Waterline Project. Mr. Helbig went over the background of this project and of the need for the construction of the waterline. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS; 2. SCRAPS Update — Morgan Koudelka, SCRAPS Director Lindsey Soffes Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said it has been a while since we have had an update on SCRAPS, and he introduced SCRAPS Director Lindsey Soffes. Mr. Koudelka mentioned our twenty-year contract began 2014 so will continue through the end of 2033; said our cost debt service element allows us to take advantage of the new facility as we pay $45,000 annually toward that; adding that the $242,000 first -year operating cost is adjusted annually for CPI (Consumer Price Index) changes. Ms. Soffes went through her PowerPoint showing the animal impounds and save rates over about the last six years as well as the animal impound rates for Spokane Valley; she showed a chart of field service requests; and briefly discussed law enforcement reform, animal licensing, veterinary services and challenges due to Covid. Deputy Mayor Peetz brought up some complaints that she has received about dangerous dogs, and lose animals, and of the difficulty in getting someone at SCRAPS after hours, as well as the issue of people who want to report anonymously. Ms. Soffes explained that they have an after-hours service which is reachable 24/7; and that officers respond to any public safety dangers; she said they take anonymous complaints but enforcement might vary as in the absence of the one making the complaint, they are somewhat limited. Councilmember Woodard asked about barking dogs. Ms. Soffes stated that barking dogs also present a challenge and there are times when the complainant will be asked to keep a log showing when the problem occurs; adding that often times without such a log, any citation might not be enforced by the courts; she said officers go out for nuisance circumstances but a citation doesn't always mediate the concern; said they don't have any heavier authority and at some point it becomes a civil issue. She was also asked about nuisance regulations. Ms. Soffes said there would need to be something put in place specifying barking and potential consequences in order to allow officers to enforce such an ordinance. City Attorney Driskell said that we also have an interlocal agreement that requires that we have animal control regulations identical to that of the County, so changing regulations is not something we could easily do on our own unless the County were also to discuss making similar arrangements. 3. Spokane Valley Police Department Vehicle Replacement — Morgan Koudelka, Assistant Police Chief Kevin Richey Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka stated that we are currently in a five-year contract for Law Enforcement Services that expires the end of 2022, which interlocal agreement could terminate with 24- hour notice within the first three years of its term, and that we are currently in that window. In going through his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Koudelka mentioned the number of Spokane Valley Police Department dedicated officers and the number of Spokane Valley Police Department vehicles, motorcycles, and their cost; he went over the history of County funding for vehicles, and that our City usually pays for 42-45% of vehicles; that we receive eleven new vehicles per year under the current budget, and that the eleven vehicles for 2021 have not yet been received. Mr. Koudelka explained that we currently pay depreciated costs for vehicles and that the County buys the vehicles and contributes the entire funds at the time of purchase and that we only pay for vehicles as we use them. However, he explained that we have negotiated terms with the County, subject to Council approval, that would have us pay for vehicles up front for dedicated Spokane Valley positions; and he further explained the process as shown on slide 6. There was some discussion about the replacement schedule; what would occur if we were to terminate the contract; salvage costs, maintenance with mention that the Sheriff's Office has their own garage with repair Council Meeting Minutes Study Session: 10-19-2021 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT personnel, and we have our own garage at the precinct. Concerning ownership, City Attorney Driskell mentioned that there is some complexity because of insurance. Mr. Koudelka said staff is working on an amendment to the law enforcement agreement which will be brought forward to Council; he also stated that we have asked about implementing fleet management software so we can track the vehicles so we can be made aware of the right time to replace a vehicle; and that this will hopefully save us money and keep the officers in well -maintained cars. Council had no objection to bringing forth an amendment to the interlocal. 4. Housing Action Plan Implementation Measures — Chaz Bates Senior Planner Bates went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the background of the Housing Action Plan (HAP), including the Plan's strategies and recommended actions including a recommendation to modify the zoning code to encourage production of townhomes and cottages; to evaluate the idea of a multiple family tax exemption program for the City; and to modify regulations for accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Woodard said that he likes the word `evaluate' as he is not a big proponent for exemptions, but would like to see the evaluation, and other members of Council agreed. There was also some discussion about bonus density, what it is, and that we don't have bonus densities now. Council agreed they are open to hearing more and exploring other options, and there was no objection for staff to come back with further information. Mr. Hohman said more work needs to be done for the multi -family tax exemption as staff wants to give Council an overview of how that works; that staff will further develop some of the other ideas and will return to Council with at least one more touch before the issue goes to the Planning Commission. 5. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Process Update — Chaz Bates After Mr. Bates gave a brief synopsis of the CDBG and our three-year participation agreement, as shown on the PowerPoint slides, he discussed the objective of CDBG, mentioned the partners and their roles, discussed the project types and funding limits, noted our revised agreement which among other things, increased our representatives to four, went over the timeline for 2022 funding, and noted the upcoming Council meetings in January. Councilmember Woodard suggested we submit a project because if we don't have a project, the one who submitted will get fully funded and the balance will go toward the rest of the County's project; said he brought this up at yesterday's Agenda meeting; that he also suggested we should submit a project, and mentioned the idea of Mr. Hohman checking with Tim Crowley, Manager of the County's Housing and Community Development Division, to see if there is a need on Barker Road; he also mentioned that just because there is a set -aside, doesn't mean that it has to go to our projects; and said we should make sure we have something for Spokane Valley. Mr. Hohman said staff looked at the possibility of coming forward with a project; that in the agenda meeting yesterday, we spoke about an opportunity to see if any other residents along the Barker homes sewer project that were under construction for the last two years, that needed sewer; said he will discuss this with Mr. Crowley but has not connected with him. Mr. Hohman stated that staff have identified three sidewalk gaps that we can bring forward, and said we have just enough time to have those discussions with Council and to have a public hearing; said the projects include two sidewalk gaps on Park Road in the vicinity of Broadway and Mission, that there is one just north of the sidewalk we put in, and one just south of the sidewalk we put in; said those two are very viable connection points; and said that the third possible project is on 4th west of Thierman where there is a gap in that sidewalk near an affordable housing complex; he noted there is no sidewalk on the north side of 4th Avenue; said he thinks those are very viable sidewalk projects that will fit within the criteria and budget that we'd be looking for, and that with Council concurrence, staff will bring these forward at a future meeting. There were no objections. Mayor Wick said that the last time we renewed our agreement for CDBG, we also included HHAA funding; and as a vote to choose or have a conversation about options comes forward, he wants to make sure we highlight that, and Mr. Hohman agreed. Council Meeting Minutes Study Session: 10-19-2021 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6. No -Parking Regulations and Procedures — Cary Driskell, Jerremy Clark City Attorney Driskell explained the background leading up to tonight's discussion on no -parking; he mentioned past discussions with Council including Council's request that staff obtain a full inventory of all posted signs restricting or prohibiting parking; he said various signs were posted by the County prior to incorporation and the City has had various signs posted after incorporation; but it appears there is no comprehensive record of where all signs are located or the rationale for their placement. Mr. Driskell also mentioned the scanning of all streets as part of the City's pavement management program, and to use the scanning company to compile a full inventory of all signs in the rights -of -way; he noted staff learned that the contracted company's estimated time to provide the sign inventory was the end of July, 2021; but apparently that will take longer because all of the video would need to be reviewed by someone, with each sign categorized manually and marked in the geographic information system. Mr. Driskell stated that once we get the full inventory, it will be transferred to a master list; but in the meantime, Council needs to decide whether to have the no -parking issue included in the City's code. Mr. Driskell noted that we have adopted the Model Traffic Ordinance (MTO), which gives the traffic engineer certain authority, as noted in the PowerPoint slides. Mr. Driskell then offered three options for Council consideration: (1) assert full Council authority; (2) delegate full staff authority; or (3) a hybrid approach, and he noted what each option would entail. After discussing the options, there was Council consensus to move forward with the hybrid approach which is that the traffic engineer would continue to exercise the limited authority granted by Council in adopting the MTO to establish no parking zones; that Council would by ordinance grant itself broad authority to determine whether to add or remove `no parking' zones except for the authority delegated to the traffic engineer. Mr. Driskell noted that any determination by Council must include a traffic engineering analysis of surrounding traffic conditions which forms the recommendation to Council as to whether the no parking zone is appropriate at that location from an engineering standpoint. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Mayor Wick said that this is the time of year for the AWC Community Scholarship awards and he would like this topic brought forward on a future agenda. A majority of Councilmembers agreed. 8. Council Check -in — Mayor Wick There were no additional comments from Council. 9. City Manager Comments — John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman stated that we closed on the White Elephant property yesterday and he extended thanks to City Attorney Driskell for his diligence in getting the property closed. Mr. Hohman said that a building evaluation will be upcoming and once that is completed, staff will report back to Council. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes Study Session: 10-19-2021 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: Draft MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council, staff and some members of the public participating in person; and some members of the public participating remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Chaz Bates, Senior Planner John Bottelli, Parks, Rec & Facilities Director Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Sr. Traffic Engineer Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: There was no invocation as a pastor was not in attendance. 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Thompson: said she chaired the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Large Cities Advisory Committee where they discussed the 2020 legislative list for AWC which dovetails into many city agendas; said they discussed how other cities are dealing with the Blake decision and the changes to law enforcement and to find ways to fix the unintended consequences that came out of that legislation but to also be proactive in how to support getting the tools to law enforcement and make sure the community is safe, including looking at other alternatives; said they talked about the federal package, infrastructure and the legislative work at the congressional level; said the City Action Days will be virtual again this year. Said she is on a National League of Cities (NLC) task force for re -imagining public safety in the nation, and that was published and will be distributed with a 'roll out' of the task force's recommendations at the NLC virtual conference held in mid -November; said it is about seeking guidance from peers, cities, etc. and sharing resources of what has worked, and being able to talk about our behavioral health work, the training for law enforcement, and how to connect with community partners. Councilmember Higgins: no report. Councilmember Haley: reported that she attended some STA (Spokane Transit Authority) board meetings; said they will have a type of budget meeting to discuss how to allocate the new money that is coming from this administration, that they are very positive about transit, about electric; said we will have a lot of battery electric buses in Spokane; we currently have ten in service, and another thirty have been ordered; said she will be attending the in -person Expo the second week in November, where there will be lots of classes, Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: Draft vendors, and looking at the 'first mile last mile' and how to service that because if people can't get that last mile home, they won't use transit. Councilmember Woodard: said that on Thursday he went to a Spokane County Housing Development Advisory Committee meeting which was for the allocation of the HHAA Funds, and said that everyone was fully funded except our city; said we got our outreach person and nothing for the policeman, as according to staff, part of the reason is the policeman doesn't qualify; said one of the concerned staff mentioned the issue is with the expensive cost of two employees. Councilmember Woodard said he didn't get a chance to rebut the comment about the policeman as it was taken off the table; said he suggested to the staff and committee that Spokane Valley will be working with our legislators to get the laws changed on HHAA funds because the funds are derived from our citizens with every recorded document; said it is $657,000 a year currently and will go to $1.3 million next year since by law the cost to record a document doubled; said we asked for a pittance of the total to do something that no one else is doing, and that we should be able to come back and prove next year and onward, how successful our homeless program is; said we need that officer; said one of the people said since this is already in our City's budget, why would this program pay for it; and he said that is the purpose of the grant; said with everyone else getting funded, the difference was our $165,000 for our policeman; suggested that in the future, maybe we'd have a better chance of getting what we needed if we ask for a smaller amount; but we got the $100,000 for the outreach person. He also noted that the County just got their second round of .20 of DETAP funds, which are given to help people with their rent; they just got $12.5 million in the county to help people with their rents; said they don't have rules yet, and that funds will go to SNAP to help people catch up in rents and in moving forward to help people get back on their feet; said it doesn't help with mortgage payments, although SNAP has some programs for that; and that they have until 2025 to put that out. Councilmember Hattenburg: regarding the STA, said part of their ten-year plan is to extend commuter express, non-stop service to our City and to Liberty Lake; and in their two-year plan they are looking at a park and ride in the Cheney Spokane corridor, somewhere near Highway 195; said their feasibility study is to increase sixteen hours on Sundays throughout the entire system; said they are $20 million above sales at this point; paratransit ridership is up 70% but overall ridership is still down about 25% which is still an improvement from the previous year; regarding the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials, said he found out how well we are doing and extended appreciation to Mr. Bates and Mr. Basinger for the job they are doing for zoning in the R4 zone, and the compact areas for infill of land that isn't being developed within our boundaries; and added that they are working on an updated county -wide plan for the state. Deputy Mayor Peetz: said she attended an `Adult and Teen Challenge' dinner at the addiction recovery center and said it was enlightening, and she gave some statistics about drug and alcohol issues across the country; said she attended the TPA (Tourism Promotion) committee meeting where they had the 2022 application presentations; said there are two funds of money for TPA, one which is very small where people can apply for tourism, and the large fund is split between Visit Spokane and the Sports Commission; said she attended the Visit Spokane meeting where she is chair of the bylaws committee and that they are wrapping up that process; said the 2020 annual report shows $881 million that came in through tourism; said she attended the Washington Traffic Safety Commission meeting where our grants engineer Mr. Adam Jackson gave a great presentation talking about traffic safety; said they are implementing public comment in their meetings and they are using some of our language and process to import that in their meeting; she mentioned that Senate Bill 5485 related to traffic safety and police officers, which didn't pass last session so this might be something we want to examine; and that she attended the Chamber Manufacturing Matters Event where they talked about free markets. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Wick said he also attended the Steering Committee of Elected Officials meeting; that as we try to get more affordable housing, a way to do that is through the adjustment of the Urban Growth Boundary; said it seems it will be a long process; said he didn't realize the County has been out of compliance with the GMA for several years, so before we can look at what the boundaries are, there is the need to get the County back in compliance; said the committee passed a resolution to try to encourage them through one Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: Draft of the check -marks that was in their settlement agreement; said the Regional Health District's budget has a $3 million shortfall so the committee is working hard to close that gap by prioritizing programs and other means, and that there is about $2 million that the County usually contributes so the committee is working on receiving that; said the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met which had some good outcomes which will come to Council in the future; said that the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) came up with a regional priority list for the legislative session, which he said he'll distribute to Council later, said our projects fared well more are in the top tier of that list than anywhere else; said we'll see what the second tiers produce; said if Councilmembers have any feedback after reading the list to please let him know; said the Office of Financial Management is working to finalize the population counts since the last census; said we are in the comment period but at the moment they have our city at 102,000 with 104,000 estimated for 2021, which once the figures are finalized, would make us the 9th largest city in the state; and said he was selected by the Fairchild Air Force Base to be an honorary commander for the next two years. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 111: Mayor Wick invited public comment. Mr. Dan Allison, Spokane Valley: said a few months ago we brought up the issue of abandoned shopping carts and he sked that someone get back to him to give him an update. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: spoke of the Governor's mandate and extended emergency and use of the word emergency; said that it would be interesting if he could be given the statutory authority where a mandate supersedes constitutional law 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2021 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor Mayor Wick opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. Finance Director Taylor went over the events that have necessitated this amendment to the 2021 budget, as noted in her October 26, 2021, Request for Council Action form. Mayor Wick invited public comment. No comments were offered and Mayor Wick closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. 2. First Reading Ordinance 21-017, Amending 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 21-017 Amending the 2021 Budget, to a second reading as proposed. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 3. 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 October 26, 2021, Request for Council Action Form: $3,165,799.26 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending October 15, 2021: $403,169.46 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2021 Study Session d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2021, Formal Format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. 4. Second Reading Ordinance 21-016, Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 21-016 levying regular property taxes for 2022. Finance Director Taylor briefly explained the purpose of the ordinance, adding that it does not include the increase allowed by state law but does include revenues from new construction. Mayor Wick invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Ordinance 21-018 Adopting 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 21-018 Adopting the 2022 Budget to a second reading. Finance Director Taylor gave an overview of the 2022 budget; noted the newly shown changes in the 2021 budget amendment just Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: Draft discussed in the previous agenda item, will not affect these budget numbers. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 6. Proposed Resolution 21-008: Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) — Erik Lamb It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to pass Resolution 21-008, giving notice of termination of the City of Spokane Valley's participation in Amendment No. 3 and Restatedlnterlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, as well as the originallnterlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area or as amended in 2008 and 2009 as that original TPA agreement may continue to have any legal effect, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute any documents or actions necessary to accomplish the same. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said this is in follow-up from the October 5 report given by City Attorney Driskell about submitting a resolution terminating the City's participation in the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area interlocal agreement; said this resolution will give the required notice of termination and if approved, will take effect December 31, 2022; and that staff will come forward in the future with discussion about possible next steps. Mayor Wick invited public comment; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Peetz said she is on the TPA committee, said in the past it was at times difficult to see where our money went; that the current CEO of the TPA is doing an amazing job, and that we hope to keep good relations with the TPA as well as with Visit Spokane. Mayor Wick added that he thinks this will help in the relationship with Visit Spokane as it puts us in a better position to work with them to best use those marketing dollars. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: City Hall Holiday Closure — Mark Calhoun It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the closure of City Hall and CenterPlace, at noon Wednesday, November 24, 2021, to allow staff time to prepare for their Thanksgiving Holiday; and to close at noon Thursday, December 23, 2021; that this closure will affect only normal administrative functions of the City, however, all pre planned events at CenterPlace will take place as scheduled. City Manager Calhoun stated that Council has historically been very generous in giving additional time off; that this was discussed at the Agenda Committee a few weeks ago; that this year Christmas and New Year's Day fall on a Saturday, so the observed holiday will be Friday before, and that the Committee supported closing at noon on Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and at noon on Thursday, December 23, but not for the New Year holiday, which is more of a minor holiday. Mayor Wick invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Awards - Chelsie Taylor It was moved by Councilmember Hattenburg and seconded as follows: to award 2022 Outside Agency funding as follows: Elevations; a Children's Therapy Resource Foundation - $5,837; Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels - $18, 408; HUB Sports Center - $5, 000; JAKT Foundation - $12, 051; NAOMI - $6,179; Northwest Winterfest - $4, 571; Project id - $12, 714; Spokane Valley Arts Council - $15, 500; Spokane Valley Heritage Museum - $11,622; Spokane Valley Partners - $36,945; Spokane Valley Summer Theatre - $7,643; Spokane Valley Performing Arts Center - $6, 357; Teen & Kid Closet - $9, 051; Valleyfest - $17, 214; and Widows Might - $12,908. Finance Director Taylor went over the background of the outside agency grant awards, and of the method used since 2013 to determine the allocations, as noted in her Request for Council Action form. Mayor Wick invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she remembers when the Winterfest group came before Council a few years ago and all they wanted was use of the property, then they came back and wanted $100,000, then $75,000; she questioned what's going on because of a comment a person made, and she read: `there is a group of us dedicated to see you win the next election, this is not over yet.' A point of order was called with Mayor Wick cautioning Ms. Howard not to get into election material. Ms. Howard said she wasn't using anyone's name; said the same thing was with the arts and said she doesn't understand why; said she questioned who did they go to as it sends up red flags for her. There were no other public comments. Deputy Mayor Peetz said she struggled with the allocation; said we have two Councilmembers who were on a board that is receiving money in these allocations; said there is something in our Governance Manual that talks Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: Draft about us being on a board and financial ties; said this particular organization is a great organization and said she appreciates what they do in our community and that she doesn't want to punish them, but said she feels even if those Councilmembers resign from the board there is nothing that says they can't go back on the board once these allocations have been made; said she knows that there's other Councilmembers who used to participate in this process but can't because they are a Councilmember now; so said she feels they should have sit out a year and then come back to us a year later so it wasn't a conflict of interest; said she doesn't know if she needs to make an amendment and zero -out Project id, or have a discussion first. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said we looked at this issue because we did have some Councilmembers who identified that they were on the board, and it is his understanding that they have resigned from that board and that they did so prior to this process, so that would not create a current conflict; said that under the state law it would not create a conflict for them to participate in this process. Councilmember Haley said that this was fully checked out with City Attorney Driskell and Deputy City Attorney Lamb before the process was started, and said they were assured there was no conflict there; said we had talked about recusing ourselves but in order to do that we'd have to recuse ourselves off of everything, which would then mean that there wouldn't be enough votes to do anything because of the way we do our process; she said that where the Governance Manual discusses being on a board, that it probably means are you going to benefit from the money that's coming there; just like Mayor Wick has the Current where we advertise, and we determined that's not a conflict of interest even though he receives money directly from the City; said we don't get anything from anything that Project id does and if anything, said she spent a lot of money toward Project id as they do amazing work; said there are multiple people here on many of our things, who have not only held big fundraising parties for members who are on the council currently, who also did not recuse themselves when they were actually receiving the benefit of the money; something that she and Councilmember Higgins never did. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wick, and Councilmembers Thompson, Haley, Higgins, Hattenburg, and Woodard. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Peetz. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Mayor Wick invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she appreciates what Mr. Calhoun has done for the City, hates to see him leave and she thanked him for his work; she then announced that she would be running against; at which point Deputy Mayor Peetz called for a point of order, and Ms. Howard stopped her comments. Ms. Marshal Jones, Spokane Valley: extended thanks to Council and to Parks and Recreation and to Mr. Glenn Ritter and others for all the work they all are doing for Balfour Park; said there were several neighbors who couldn't be here tonight, including one with kids looking forward to the playground; said they are also looking forward to the library and appreciate the City working together with the Library to make a beautiful place; and she extended thanks to Council and staff for the work on Appleway Trail, and asked to please remember to have the trees watered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 9. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Potential Projects — Chaz Bates Mr. Bates explained the application process and purpose of the CDBG grant program; he mentioned project selection and methodology such as identifying gaps in sidewalks; then went over the three suggested projects for inclusion in the process as well for the upcoming public hearing , i.e. the Park Road Broadway to Cataldo, Park Road Nora to Baldwin, and 4th Avenue, Eastern to Catherine Johnson Apartments; and there were no objections from Council for staff to include Park Road Broadway to Cataldo, and 4th Avenue, Eastern to the Catherine Johnson Apartments. It was also noted at an upcoming meeting, Council will have the opportunity to prioritize the projects. There were no objections to moving forward as proposed. 10. Balfour Park Design Update — Bill Helbig, John Bottelli Mr. Helbig noted the updated site plans distributed to Council tonight; said they are different as the consultant was still working on the project when this Council packet was distributed; he and Mr. Bottelli spoke of the phase 1 construction with estimated cost of $3 million, and showed what we can do with those funds. There was discussion about a veterans memorial or flagpole as that is not shown on the drawing. Mr. Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: Draft Bottelli explained that the veterans memorial is not part of that $3 million for phase 1, with Mr. Helbig adding that the park will definitely have a flag pole, but the final design has not yet been vested. Deputy Mayor Peetz asked if there is a theme for the park, and she asked that they remember to include areas of shade, and lots of seating. Mr. Bottelli said a theme has not been discussed except for the downtown campus, and that this park will tie that together as it is in the heart of the city. Art sculptures were also mentioned and Mr. Bottelli said those details are still to be worked out; and the sculptures will be incorporated into a park design in a subsequent feature phase. Mr. Calhoun mentioned about time to fully vet the design and still be in a position to go out to bid in January with the library. After further brief discussion about amenities and concepts, it was noted by Mr. Bottelli that staff will be bringing forward more details in the future. 11. Code Text Amendment 2020-0006, Planned Residential Dev Regs — Jenny Nickerson Building Official Nickerson talked about the Planned Residential Development (PRD) regulations and of the ordinance adopted by Council last year, that established a one-year moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification and approval of PRDs; that the concern was that the range of housing allowed within a PRD regulations is inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding existing uses in single family zoning districts; and after Ms. Nickerson explained the conclusions of the Planning Commission, there was no objection from Council in moving forward as proposed with Code Text Amendment 2020- 0006, which if approved, will eliminate SVMC Chapter 19.50, PRD regulations. 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Deputy Mayor Peetz suggested having an 'info only' report included in an upcoming agenda packet, about mandates and what our City can and can't do, or what is our jurisdiction or authority. A majority of Councilmembers agreed. 13. Department Reports The Department reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Calhoun reminded everyone that due to next week's election, there will be no Council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential Litigation IRCW 42.30.110(i)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately 15 minutes to discuss potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:44 p.m. At 7:56 p.m. Mayor Wick declared Council out of executive session, as which time it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 10-26-2021 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['Admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance No. 21-019, CTA-2020-0006 PRD Code Text Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040, and RCW 36.70A.106. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: November 17, 2020: During advance agenda discussion, City Council agreed to have staff review the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC November 24, 2020: Adoption of Emergency Ordinance 20-028 establishing a one-year moratorium on new planned residential development applications October 26, 2021: Administrative Report BACKGROUND: CTA-2020-0006 is a City initiated code text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and eliminate the Planned Residential Developments (PRD) regulations. As part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the city initiated an amendment to amend the goals and policies for alternative housing types with regulatory changes that included establishing the R-4 zone and the implementing regulations. The amendment was intended to address citizen concerns regarding the influx of duplex developments and develop appropriate locations for higher density alternative housing. CPA-2020-0007 established the R-4 zone in areas supported by transit and services that support denser housing and housing affordability. Additionally, duplex minimum lot sizes in the R-3 zone were increased to be compatible with neighborhood character. On November 17th, in response to citizen complaints, Council directed staff to review Chapter 19.50, SVMC to ensure that the PRD regulations were consistent with the intent of CPA-2020-0007 and identify any "loopholes." On November 24, 2020, Council adopted Ordinance 20-028 establishing a one-year moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of PRD applications. The moratorium has no effect on applications submitted prior to the effective date of Ordinance 20-028 and currently under review but prohibits new applications from being considered. The moratorium also established a work plan for the City to review PRD regulations and adopt any changes or deletions determined to be appropriate. Staff conducted a review of PRD regulations in adjacent jurisdictions and compared various elements including land uses, density, density bonuses, minimum site size and open space requirements. Our current regulations were also evaluated for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Additional research included a review of vacant and partially developed properties meeting the five acres minimum site requirement to identify the extent the city could be impacted by such developments. This analysis identified the number of potential properties and associated zoning of the properties. The analysis highlighted that the PRD regulations allowed incompatible land uses in predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods which is inconsistent with several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically contrary with the Council's recent efforts to protect the single-family residential character of the R-3 zone. As a result, the City initiated a code text amendment to eliminate Chapter 19.50 SVMC thereby prohibiting PRDs. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the September 9, 2021 meeting. On September 23, 2021, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. At that meeting, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2020- 0006 be approved. On October 14, 2021, the Commission adopted Findings and Recommendation. City Council received an administrative report on October 26, 2021 and consented to advance the proposed amendment to a first Ordinance reading. Since the proposed CTA-2020-0006 completes the workplan established in the moratorium on PRDs, the moratorium will be terminated once the amendments are approved. OPTIONS: Move to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 21-019; or move to advance Ordinance No. 21-019 to a second reading with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance No. 21-019 deleting Spokane Valley Municipal Code chapter 19.50 . BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official, Community and Public Works Dept. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 21-019 Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 9/13/2021, 9/23/2021 and 10/14/2021 Staff Report CTA-2020-0006 Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 21-019 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON DELETING CHAPTER 19.50 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SECTIONS OF TITLE 17, TITLE 18, TITLE 19 AND APPENDIX A OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO STRIKE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES, AND TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION, ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, MODIFICATION, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) relating to zoning and land use regulations, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, City Council passed Ordinance No. 20-028, which established a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of applications for planned residential developments (PRDs). Ordinance No. 20-028 also established a work plan for the Planning Commission (Commission) and City Council to consider the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of planned residential developments and the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC under the Comprehensive Plan, and to take such actions as determined necessary; and WHEREAS, City staff have proposed an amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 SVMC and amend SVMC 19.40.100(A), 19.70.020, 17.80.030(A), 17.80.170(C), 18.20.030 and Appendix A of the SVMC to delete PRD references; and WHEREAS, on September 3 and 10, 2021, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, the Commission conducted a study session; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the Washington State Depaitinent of Commerce was notified on September 13, 2021, thereby providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, the Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2021, the Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments as proposed by staff; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and Commission Findings and Recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2021, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 1 of 13 Draft WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, chapters 17.80, 18.20, 19.40. 19.50, 19.70 SVMC and Appendix A of the SVMC as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, the moratorium established pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-028 is no longer necessary upon adoption of the amendments set forth in this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to delete PRDs as a development option under the SVMC by deleting chapter 19.50 SVMC and the Planned Residential Development regulations, as well as all references to PRDs within the SVMC. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. Goal LU-G1: Maintain and enhance character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Policy LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Policy LU-P7: Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Policy H-P6: Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing incompatible housing types to locate in residential zones where the use would not otherwise be allowed has an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and is out of character with the scale, form and function of low density residential neighborhoods; eliminating the PRD regulations as they allow incompatible uses in residential zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protects the interests of surrounding properties; the proposed amendment recognizes that the SVMC provides for alternative housing options necessary to meet the wide spread housing needs of the community in a manner consistent with the character and intent of the implementing zoning district. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 2 of 13 Draft 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F). Section 3. Amendment. Chapter 19.50 SVMC is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: Chapter 19.50 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Sections: 19.50.010 Purpose. 19.50.020 Where permitted. 19.50.030 Pennitted uses. 19.50.010 Relationship to other SVMC provisions. 19.50.050 Development standards 19.50.060 Open space standards. 19.50.070 Administration. 19.50.080 Homeowners' or property owners' association required. 19.50.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of Chapter 19.50 SVMC to: A. Encourage imaginative design and the creation of permanent open space by permitting- greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is generally permitted by other sections of the SVMC; B. Preserve or create environmental amenities superior to those generally found in conventional developments; C. Create or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the residents; D. Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural characteristics of the land including, but not limited to, topography, natural vegetation, waterways, and views; E. Encourage development of a variety of housing -types; and F. Provide for maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements and infrastructure. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.50.020 Where permitted. Planned residential developments (PRDs) are permitted in all residential zoning districts in the City. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.50.030 Permitted uses. The following -uses are permitted in a PRD; provided, that they meet the standards and criteria established in Chapter 19.50 SVMC: A. Those uses permitted as a matter of right in the underlying- zoning- district; B. Residential developments of all types as defined by Chapter 19.50 SVMC; and C. As a secondary use, uses permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district may be permitted in a PRD of 10 acres or larger. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19 50 non RclaE;onship Eo other SVMC p A. SVMC Title 19, Zoning Regulations. The provisions of Chapter 19.50 SVMC pertaining -to land use of the underlying zoning district shall govern the use of land in a PRD. The specific setback, lot size, height limits, and other dimensional requirements are waived and the re_ lations for PRDs shall be those indicated in SVMC 19.50.050. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 3 of 13 Draft B. SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Requirements. A PRD shall be exempt from the specific design requirements of SVMC Title 20 except that when any parcel of land in a PRD is intended for individual ownership, sale, or public dedication, the subdivision and procedural requirements of SVMC Title 20 and applicable state laws pertaining -to subdivision, c nvcyancc of land, and the prcparation of maps shall be followc C. Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. A PRD is a Type III permit type and shall require a public hearing -before the hearing examiner consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.80 SVMC. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). The following standards shall govern the administration of Chapter 19.50 SVMC: A. Relationship of PRD Site to Adjacent Areas. The design of a PRD shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the PRD on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the PRD. B. Site Acreage Minimum. The minimum site shall be five acres. C. Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of the SVMC do not apply in a PRD. D. Density. The hearing examiner may authorize a dwelling -unit density up to 20 percent greater than that permitted by the underlying zone, rounded to the nearest whole number. E. Maximum Coverage. Lot coverage shall not exceed the percentage permitted by the underlying zone. F. Landscaping Required. All common open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping -plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the hearing examiner. Natural landscape features which are to be plan. G. Setback and Side Yard Requirements. 1. Setbacks from the exterior boundary line of the PRD area shall be comparable to or compatible with those of the existing development of adjacent properties, or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the type of development which may reasonably be expected on such properties given the existing zoning. 2. Setbacks or Side Yards Between Buildings. The standard setbacks and yard requirements between buildings may be waived in a PRD. Buildings may have common walls. H. Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 22.50 SVMC, Off Street Parking and Loading - Standards. I. Secondary Use Limitations. 1. Commercial uses shall comply with Chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review. Site plans shall be included in the application for the PRD; 2. The gross floor area of the commercial use shall not exceed the product of 50 square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling -units within the development; and 3. Construction of at least 35 percent of the residences in the PRD shall be completed before issuing any building -permits for the construction of commercial uses, except this shall not prohibit a sales office. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). r .50 n60 Opcn standardh. Each PRD shall dedicate at least 30 percent of the gross land area for common open space for the use of its residents. Common open space areas shall meet the following criteria: A. Location. The open space shall be entirely within the PRD and within reasonable walking distance of all dwelling - units in the PRD. Where practical, the common open space shall be located adjacent to other established or planned Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 4 of 13 Draft park and recreational areas in adjacent developments, schools, or City parks; provided, that such dedication would increase the overall benefit to the residents of the PRD and conform to other criteria in SVMC 19.50.060. B. Access. All dwelling -units within the PRD shall have legal access to the proposed common open space at the time of final PRD approval. Private or access streets, trees, or other landscaping may separate the common open space area; however, access may not be blocked by major obstacles such as arterial, collector streets, or significant natural features such as rivers, streams, or topographic features. Active recreational open space areas shall have reasonable access from street frontages. C. Types of Open Space. 1. Land dedicated for open space shall be usable for either greenbelts that serve as a buffer between land uses, protecting critical areas. 2. Except as provided in SVMC 19.50.060(C)(1), a minimum of 30 percent of the required common open space area shall be suitable for active recreation. The topography, soils, hydrology, and other physical characteristic;, of the active recreation area shall provide a dry, obstacle free space in a configuration which is suitable for active recreation. 3. The percentage of active recreational areas may be increased to as high as 50 percent if it is determined that anticipated recreational needs require a larger percentage. In increasing -this percentage, the following standard shall be used: the ratio of one acre to 125 residential units. /I. The percentage of active recreational area may be decreased to as low as 15 percent if it is determined that: a. Inclusion of buffers or critical areas better meet the open space needs of the residents of the PRD; or b. A higher percentage would lead to the detrimental grading or other disturbance of the natural setting. D. Open space area shall not include: 1. Accessory buildings and areas reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of an individual tenant or owner; 2. Public rights of way, private streets, residential driveways, parking areas, loading or storage areas, or setback areas; 3. Floodplain (100 year), flood prone areas, drainage easements, natural drainage areas, or creeks. E. Implementation. The open space area shall be dedicated in common to the property owners within the plat or to a property owners' or homeowners' association. Maintenance and operation of the open space shall be the responsibility of the property owners' or homeowners' association. 1. The City may choose to accept dedication, maintenance, and operation responsibilities when the common open space area is in the public interest and complies with at least one of the following: a. Is greater than 10 acres; b. Is adjacent to an established or future City park or school grounds; c. Is an access to a body of water greater than three acres in size; or d. Is a critical area. 2. The dedication shall be identified on the PRD plan. F. Improvements. The following improvements to the open space area may be required prior to final approval of the PRD: 1. Removal of construction debris and hazards; and Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 5 of 13 Draft 2. Rough grading- and establishment of grass cover over those portions of the site suitable for playfields. G. Equivalent Facilities. When proposed open space areas do not meet the criteria for dedication in Chapter 19.50 as to be equivalent in result to the intent of Chapter 19.50 SVMC. The city manager or designee shall determine if the proposal is equivalent based on the following guidelines: 1. The proposed land and improvements shall create recreational opportunities generally equivalent to or greater than the land required for the residents within the PRD; and 2. The proposed land and improvements shall not significantly disturb or alter a critical area, unless otherwise allowed by the City. H. Stormwater Facilities. Stormwater facilities may be allowed by the City as open space subject to the following criteria: 1. The stormwater facility shall drain fully within 72 hours after a storm event unless the facility is designed a, an aesthetic amenity; vegetated; 3. If the stormwater facilities are located adjacent to or near a natural, year round stream or wetland, these systems shall be left in natural or near natural condition; I. The stormwater facilities shall be landscaped in a manner which is both aesthetic and able to withstand the inundation expected; 5. The stormwater facility shall not be fenced or otherwise rendered unsuitable or unavailable for recreation use during dry weather; and 6. In the case of joint use of open space for stormwater and recreation, the homeowners or homeowners' association shall be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater facilities. restrictive covenants or other restrictions: 1. The right to locate recreational facilities, such as tennis courts, swimming -pools, picnic tables, and fireplaces (accessory to picnic tables) for the exclusive use of residents of the PRD and their guests; 2. The right to locate pedestrian, bicycle, and bridle paths; 3. The right to protect and maintain the common space area or to correct a hazardous condition posing a threat to life or limb; I. The right to regulate access to the open space land and the duty to maintain it (Ord. 17 001 § 3, 2017; Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.50.070 Administration. A. Building -permits and other required permits for the development of property under the provisions of Chapter 19.50 SVMC shall be issued only when, in the opinion of the city manager or designee, the work to be performed meets the requirements of the final plan and program elements of the PRD. B. Minor and Major Adjustments. 1. Minor adjustments may be made and approved by the city manager or designee when a building -permit is issued. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of buildings, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of buildings approved in neither the final plan, the density of the development, nor the open space requirements. Such dimensional adjustments shall not vary more than 10 percent from the original. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 6 of 13 Draft 2. Major adjustments are those which, in the opinion of the city manager or designee, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other requirements of the PRD. When, in the opinion of the city manager or designee, a change constitutes a major adjustment, a building or other permit shall not be issued without prior review and approval by the hearing examiner of such adjustment. C. Parties Bound. Once the preliminary development plan is approved, all persons and parties, their successors, heirs, or assigns, who own, have, or will have by virtue of purchase, inheritance, or assignment, any interest in the real property within the proposed PRD, shall be bound by the conditions attending the approval of the development and the provisions of Chapter 19.50 SVMC. (Ord. 17 00] § 3, 2017; Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). In a PRD, a property owners' or homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of ownership, maintenance, and management of open spaces, common areas, and private streets as required by the provisions of the SVMC. (Ord. 16 018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 7 of 13 Draft Section 4. Amendment. SVMC19.40.100 is hereby amended as follows: 19.40.100 Development standards — Townhouses. A. In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks along one side are allowed, provided a two -foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plan. B. Townhouses located on individual lots shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements shown in Table 19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: 1. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; 2. Townhouse unit shall not be constructed above another townhouse unit; 3. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; 4. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint; provided, that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Section 5. Amendment. SVMC 19.70.020- is hereby amended as follows: 19.70.020 Residential standards. Residential development shall meet the standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Standards for alternative residential development are set forth in Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options, and standards for planned residential developments are set forth in Chapter 19.50 SVMC, Planned Residential Developments. Table 19.70-1— Residential Standards R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFRo> Minimum Front and Flanking Street 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Yard Setback Garage Setbackm 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area(3) Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.(6) 4,300 sq. ft. N/A(4) Maximum Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60.0% Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 8 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Heights) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 8 of 13 Draft Table 19.70-1— Residential Standards R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFRo> (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. Section 6. Amendment. SVMC 17.80.030 is hereby amended as follows: 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80-1 below: Table 17.80-1— Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross - Reference Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official Multiple Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home business permit 19.65.180 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.030 Right-of-way permits 22.130.100 Site plan review 19.130 Small cell permit 22.121; 22.122 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan 20.30.060 Type II Alterations — preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final binding 20.60 site plans (where there is no alteration of a public dedication) Binding site plan — preliminary and final 20.50 Minor alterations — preliminary subdivisions 20.50 Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 9 of 13 Draft Table 17.80-1— Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross - Reference SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision — preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Vacation — short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is no vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use 20.70 Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Alterations — final subdivisions (where a public hearing is requested) 20.50 Alterations — preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final binding 20.60 site plans (where there is alteration of a public dedication) Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential development;, 19.50 Type III Subdivisions — preliminary 20.30 Substantial alterations — preliminary subdivisions 20.50 Vacation — subdivision; short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use 20.70 Variance 19.170 Zoning map amendments (site -specific rezones) 19.30.030 IV Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 Area -wide zoning map amendments 17.80.140 Development Code text amendments 17.80.150 Section 7. Amendment. SVMC 17.80.170 is hereby amended as follows: 17.80.170 Vesting of applications. A. Purpose. The purpose of SVMC 17.80.170 is to implement local vesting regulations that are best suited to the needs of the City and consistent with state law. B. Vested Rights. Except for rezones, an application for a land use or development application type set forth in Table 17.80-1 shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date a fully complete application is filed, pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100. C. Vested Rights for Subsequent Building Permits or Land Disturbing Activity Permits. Building permit or land disturbing activity permit applications that are filed subsequent to and related to a prior development permit or application of the types listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1) through (14) shall be considered under the development regulations in effect at the time a complete application listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1) through (14) is filed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 10 of 13 Draft 1. Accessory dwelling unit; 2. Boundary line adjustment or elimination; 3. Floodplain development; 4. Site plan; 5. Binding site plan; 6. Shoreline substantial development permit; 7. Shoreline conditional use permit; 8. Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review; 9. Shoreline variance; 10. Shoreline letter of exemption; 11. Short subdivision; 12. Conditional use permit; and 13. Planned residential development; and 143. Subdivision. However, an applicant filing a complete application for any subsequent building permit or land -disturbing activity permit application shall only have such rights as described herein if it is submitted prior to the expiration date of the permit(s) or approval(s) applied for in the application types listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1) through (14). D. Development Regulations. For the purpose of SVMC 17.80.170, "development regulation" means those provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 24 that exercise a restraining or directing influence over land, including provisions that control or affect the type, degree, or physical attributes of land development or use. For purposes of SVMC 17.80.170, "development regulation" does not include fees or procedural regulations. E. Applicability of Current Building Code. A complete building permit application shall always be subject to that version of SVMC Title 24 in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted. F. Rezones Not Acquiring Vested Rights. Notwithstanding any other provision in SVMC 17.80.170, any application dependent on approval of a rezone application shall not acquire vested rights to any particular development regulations until the underlying rezone is approved. At that time, the application dependent on approval of a rezone shall be considered under the development regulations in effect at the time the underlying rezone is approved. G. Waiver of Vested Rights. At any time during the processing of an application, an applicant may voluntarily opt to have all applications for a project be governed by development regulations in effect on a date later than the date provided pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170(B) through (F). The applicant may exercise that option by delivering a written and signed waiver to the department stating that the property owner agrees: 1. To waive all rights provided pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170(B) through (F) and any related vested rights claim they may have with the application; 2. To have all applications for the project be governed by all development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver, subject to the limitations set forth in SVMC 17.80.170(B) through (F); 3. That any change or modification to the project required or desired pursuant to new development regulations may result in a new determination of whether the application is still fully complete based upon the changes In the event the application or project is changed such that it is no longer fully complete, the applicant shall provide such information as is required to render the modified application fully complete and the applicant shall agree to reset the time period for permit review and processing to the date the modified application is determined to be fully complete; and 4. That any change or modification to the project may require additional review and processing, revised public notice, and additional public hearings as required pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. In the event an applicant delivers a written and signed waiver meeting the requirements of SVMC 17.80.170(G)(1) through (4), the application shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver or, if necessary, the new date a modified application is determined fully complete, and any other Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 11 of 13 Draft subsequent building permit or land disturbing activity permit applications subject to SVMC 17.80.170(C) shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver, or if necessary, the new date a modified application is determined fully complete. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Section 8. Amendment. SVMC 18.20.030 is hereby amended as follows: 18.20.030 Powers and duties. A. The hearing examiner shall be under the administrative supervision of the city manager B. The hearing examiner shall have the following powers and duties: 1 Annually provide a written report to the city manager or designee and city council that states the number and type of hearings conducted and decisions issued during the past year, the outcome of such decisions, recommendations for improving the hearing examiner system, and pertinent observations and recommendations regarding land use policies and development regulations. 2. Upon request, meet with the city manager or designee or city council to discuss the written report. 3. Receive and examine available information, make site visits, take official notice of matters, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof, and enter findings, decisions or recommendations. 4. As a part of the conduct of public hearings, the hearing examiner shall have the authority to: a. Conduct pre -hearing conferences; b. Require the submittal of information; c. Schedule and continue hearings; d. Rule on all evidentiary and procedural matters, including motions and objections appropriate to the proceedings; e. Receive evidence and cause preparation of the record; f. Regulate the course of hearings and the conduct of the parties and their agents; g. Maintain order during the hearing process; h. Render decisions and issue written findings and conclusions; i. Include in a decision the conditions of approval necessary to ensure that the application complies with the applicable criteria for its approval; and j. Revoke any approval for failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the hearing examiner where specifically authorized by the UDC or state law. 5. The hearing examiner shall hear the following matters: a. Variances; b. Conditional use permits; c. Special use permits; d. Shoreline letter of exemption appeals; e. Preliminary plats; f. Appeals from any administrative decision of the department of community development or the building official in the administration or enforcement of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code or other land use code or regulation; g. Appeals on State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations; h. Site -specific zone changes of property, including any environmental determination (under SEPA); and i. Planned unit developments, including- any environmental determination (under SEPA); and i}. Any other applications or appeals that the city council may refer by motion or ordinance, specifically declaring that the decision of the hearing examiner can be appealed to the city council. 6. All hearings before the hearing examiner shall be scheduled and conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix B. Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 12 of 13 Draft 7. Appeals of any decision of the hearing examiner shall be as is set forth in Chapter 17.90 SVMC. Section 9. Amendment. Appendix A SVMC is hereby amended as follows: Planned residential development (PRD): A residential development project meeting -the requirements of Chapter 19.50 SVMC characterized by flexibility in the reg-ulations of a residential zoning- district. Project permit: Any land use or environmental permit or license required for development or construction including, but not limited to, building permits, short plats, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, site plan review, permits, or approvals required by Chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas, site -specific zone reclassifications, manufactured home parks, and change of condition request. Section 10. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 17, Title 18, Title 19 and Appendix A of the SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Section 11. Moratorium terminated. The moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of any applications for PRDs established pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-028 is hereby terminated. The City Council hereby finds that the work plan set forth in Ordinance No. 20-028 is hereby completed by the adoption of this Ordinance and the amendments set forth herein. Section 12. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 13. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of November, 2021. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 21-019 — PRD Amendment Page 13 of 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0006 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with. December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2020-0006 is a City -initiated text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones and other related housekeeping items that include striking PRD references in SVMC 19.40.100.A, 19.70.020, SVMC I7.80.030.A, 17.80.I70.C, 18.20.030 and Appendix A. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on September 23, 2021. The Commissioners voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Five Commissioners were present, but one Commissioner was not present during the public hearing and therefore did not participate in the vote. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: LU-G I Maintain and enhance character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P5 Ensure the compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. H-P6 Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing incompatible housing types to locate in residential zones where the use would not otherwise be allowed has an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and is out of character with the scale, form and function of low density Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Pltuming Commission CTA-2020.0006 Page I of 2 residential neighborhoods; eliminating the PRD regulations as they allow incompatible uses in residential zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protects the interests of surrounding properties; The proposed amendment recognizes that SVMC provides for alternative housing options necessary to meet the wide spread housing needs of the community in a manner consistent with the character and intent of the implementing zoning district. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2020- 0006 as proposed. Attachment: Exhibit I — Proposed Amendment CTA-2020-0006 Approved this 14th day of October 2021 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations or the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0006 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall September 9, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Commissioners and staff stood and recited the pledge of allegiance. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took attendance and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl. Granrath Walt l-Ianeke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers, arrived at 6:15 p.m. Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the September 9, 2021 agenda as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the August 12, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Beaulac and Commissioner Robinson stated that they will not be able to attend the September 23, 2021 meeting. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: Planned Residential Development Code Text Amendment A brief recess was called due to a technical glitch with Senior Planner Lori Barlow's microphone. Commissioner Rieckers joined the meeting at 6:15 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 6:16 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff presentation regarding the City -initiated code text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and prohibit Planned. Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones. She 1 09-09-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 explained that the PRD is a flexible development tool that provides flexibility in design, preserves environmental amenities, preserves open space, preserves natural characteristics, and encourages a variety of housing types. Planned Residential Developments are currently allowed in all of the residential zones and allow development standards of the underlying zoning to be relaxed for better site design, land use relationships, and conservation of natural resources. Ms. Barlow explained that City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of PRD's. The moratorium was passed on November 24, 2020 and will expire on November 24, 2021. The reason for the moratorium was due to community concerns that the range of housing allowed within the PRD regulations is inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding existing uses in single-family zoning districts. Ms. Barlow stated that the adoption of CPA-2020-0007 (Ordinance 20-0008 & 20-0009, effective September 23, 2020) was also a contributing factor to the moratorium of PRD's. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment added additional housing policies to the SVMC that helped address community concerns about the influx of duplex developments and provided areas within the City for denser housing options that are supported by transit and services (the creation of the R-4 zoning district). It also helped to preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage developments. Ms. Barlow outlined that staff conducted a review of PRD regulations in adjacent jurisdictions and compared various elements including land uses, density, density bonuses, minimum site size, and open space requirements. Staff also did a review of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. During this review it was found that PRD's are not consistent with four of the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan. Additional research included a review of vacant and partially developed properties meeting the five -acres minimum site requirements. It was found that there are 33 sites that meet the criteria and 22 of those parcels are located in the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow outlined the following staff conclusions: • The current PRD regulations are inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies • Sites meeting size criteria are predominantly located in the R-3 zone. • Approximately half of those sites.are impacted by critical areas. • CPA-2020-0007 addressed community concerns regarding incompatible housing and density issues in the R-3 zone. • Current PRD regulations allow for incompatible land uses in the residential zones. • The City has numerous alternative housing options that allow a variety of housing types, • Critical areas present a unique challenge to development. Ms. Barlow stated that staff recommends eliminating the PRD regulations and code references (SVMC Chapter 19.50) and continuing to evaluate the need for PRD regulations as they relate to sites with critical areas. 2 09-09-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Beaulac asked if projects that have already been submitted would be affected by this change. Ms. Barlow answered that there is only one project awaiting approval, the Painted Hills PRD. Since it was submitted prior to the moratorium date, it will continue through the process and will not be affected. The project is currently going through the environmental review. This item will return for public hearing on September 23, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac stated that he would like to see the new library or a City park named after long-time residents Sally Jackson or Chuck Hafner. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the rrmeeting at 6: S8 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 3 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall September 23, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. The meeting was delayed due to a technical glitch. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac, absent Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers, arrived late Sherri Robinson, absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commissioners to excuse Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Rieckers, & Commissioner Beaulac. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the September 23, 2021 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the ;notion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke ;;roved to approve the September 9, 2021 minutes as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0006: Planned Residential Development Code Text Amendment The public hearing was opened at 6:22 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff presentation regarding the City -initiated code text amendment to delete Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 09-23-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 and prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones. She explained that the PRD is a flexible development tool that provides flexibility in design, preserves enviroiurnental amenities, preserves open space, preserves natural characteristics, and encourages a variety of housing types. Planned Residential Developments are currently allowed in all the residential zones and allow development standards of the underlying zoning to be relaxed for better site design, land use relationships, and conservation of natural resources. Ms. Barlow explained that City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of PRD's. The moratorium was passed on November 24, 2020 and will expire on November 24, 2021. The reason for the moratorium was due to community concerns that the range of housing allowed within the PRD regulations is inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding existing uses in single-family zoning districts. Ms. Barlow stated that the adoption ofCPA-2020-0007 (Ordinance 20-0008 & 20-0009, effective September 23, 2020) was also a contributing factor to the moratorium of PRD's. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment added additional housing policies to the SVMC that helped address community concerns about the influx of duplex developments and provided areas within the City for denser housing options that are supported by transit and services (the creation of the R-4 zoning district). It also helped to preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage developments. Ms. Barlow outlined that staff conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. During this review it was found that PRDs are not consistent with four of the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan. Ms. Barlow outlined the staft'conclusions: • The current PRD regulations are inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies • Sites meeting size criteria are predominantly located in the R-3 zone. • Approximately half of those sites are impacted by critical areas. • CPA-2020-0007 addressed community concerns regarding incompatible housing and density issues in the R-3 zone. • Current PRD regulations allow for incompatible land uses in the residential zones. • The City has numerous alternative housing options that allow a variety of housing types. • Critical areas present a unique challenge to development. Ms. Barlow stated that staff recommends eliminating the PRD regulations and code references. The proposed change will eliminate SVMC Chapter 19.50 and make changes to other chapters within the code that reference PRD's so that the Comprehensive Plan is consistent throughout. The public hearing was closed at 6:48 p.m. Commissioner Rieckers joined the meeting at 6:49 p.m. 09-23-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Miller asked if staff is going to continue to evaluate the need for PRD regulations as they relate to critical areas. Ms. Barlow stated that the current proposal is to delete the chapter in the Comprehensive Plan regarding PRD's. However, staff will continue to review if there is a need for development criteria that addresses critical areas. Any additional regulations would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Granrath and Commissioner Haneke expressed that they are in support of deleting the chapter from the cocle, but they would like staff to continue to research options for the development of properties that have critical areas. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend that City Council approve CTA-2020-0006 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Rieckers abstained from voting because he was not in attendance during the presentation. This item will return for findings of fact on October 14, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley said that there will not be any meetings held during the month of November due to holidays. Staff will be presenting a street vacation for discussion and public hearing during the month of October and the Findings of Fact will be held at the first meeting in December. However, if any issues arise with the street vacation, a special meeting could be called during November to discuss the project further. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:05 p.m. The vote on the motion was, five in favor, zero against, and the 'notion passed. 7k4o/r/ Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary DRAFT — Minutes Excerpt Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 14, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath, absent Walt IIaneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the October 14, 2021 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the September 23, 2021 minutes as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Rieckers and Commissioner Beaulac abstained from the vote due to being absent at the last meeting. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson mentioned that the application for Planning Commission appointment is available on the City website at www.spokanevalleyorg/volunteer. She stated that members with terms that expire at the end of 2021 or any members of the public who are interested in appointment to the Planning Commission can submit those applications to the City Clerk. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0006: Planned Residential Development Code Text Amendment 10-14-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented the Findings of Fact for CTA-2020-0006 which eliminates Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and will prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones. She stated that the Planning Commission held a study session at the September 9, 2021 meeting regarding the proposed CTA and a public hearing was held at the September 23, 2021 meeting. She explained that the approval of the Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that will be made to the City Council. Commissioner Miller moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Recommendations for CTA-2020-0006 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Rieckers and Commissioner Beaulac abstained from the vote due to being absent at the last meeting. sp�kane .00Valley. COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: September 16, 2021 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 23, 2021 beginning at 6:00 p.m.; Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, , this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.orglplanningcommission. Proposal Description: A city -initiated code text amendment (CTA) to delete chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which would prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in Residential zones, and other housekeeping items. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed deletion of chapter 19.50 SVMC is consistent with the minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Procedural Action Date SEPA — DNS Issued September 3, 2021 Published Notice of Public Hearing: September 3 and 10, 2021 Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment September 13 2021 Background: Chapter 19.50 SVMC regulates PRD's. The regulations identify that PRD's are allowed in all residential zones so long as certain criteria are met and subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner. As the regulations are currently written all residential uses are permitted, and if the PRD is at least 10 acres than neighborhood commercial uses are also allowed. The range of residential uses include single family, duplex, townhomes, and multifamily regardless of what housing type is permitted in the underlying zoning. Additional standards in the chapter include a 5-acre minimum site acreage, Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006 density bonus up to 20% above the underlying zoning district density, and open space equal to 30% or more of the gross land area. Standards of the underlying zoning districts that are waived to allow design flexibility include minimum lot size, setback and side yard requirements. The City's PRD regulations were adopted in 2007 by Ordinance No. 07-015 and modified by Ordinance No. 09-036. Ordinance No. 16-018 repealed the development regulations as part of the 2016 Legislative Update and adopted updated titles, which included chapter 19.50 SVMC, although no substantive changes, if any, were made at that time. The chapter was further modified by Ord. 17-004 with housekeeping items. Generally, the regulations have remained substantively the same since 2007. As part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the city initiated an amendment to amend the goals and policies for alternative housing types with regulatory changes that included establishing the R-4 zone and the implementing regulations. The amendment was intended to address citizen concerns regarding the influx of duplex developments and develop appropriate locations for higher density alternative housing. CPA-2020-0007 established the R-4 zone in areas supported by transit and services that support denser housing and housing affordability. Additionally, higher density housing types, such as cottages and townhomes were prohibited in the R-3 zone but allowed in the R-4 zone. Duplex minimum lot sizes in the R-3 zone were increased to be compatible with neighborhood character. On November 17th, in response to citizen complaints Council directed staff to review Chapter 19.50, SVMC to ensure that the PRD regulations were consistent with the intent of CPA-2020-0007 and identify any "loop holes". On November 24, 2020 Council adopted Ordinance 20-028 establishing a one-year moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification, and approval of PRDs. The moratorium has no effect on applications currently under review but prohibits new applications from being considered. ANALYSIS: Currently Chapter 19.50 SVMC allows PRD's to locate in all residential zones and allows a range of residential uses, as well as neighborhood commercial uses, so long as criteria is met. A PRD is subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. The proposed amendment: 1. Eliminates the opportunity for incompatible residential and neighborhood commercial uses to locate in residential zones using the PRD development tool. As noted above the PRD regulations allow a range of residential uses in any residential zone that may include housing types prohibited in the underlying zoning district. For example, the R-2 zone allows single family residential dwellings, but if a PRD were approved the site could include any combination of single-fatnily dwellings, duplexes, townhomes, and/or multifamily. Additionally, if the site met the size criteria neighborhood commercial uses could be included. Certain housing types, such as townhomes and multifamily are typically found in higher density areas. The scale, design, and function of a multifamily structure in particular is out of character in a single-family residential neighborhood. Issues with noise, privacy, and traffic may result from the integration of a higher density multifamily structure located immediately adjacent to single family homes located in low density residential areas as multifamily structures function differently by design. Established residential uses found in the R-2 and R-3 zones are typically on large lots. The typical single-family home has living areas located on the first floor with bedrooms either on the same floor or upper and/or lower floors. Active living spaces are at, or just above, ground level. Larger windows are typically provided on the ground level to allow for views and light and are often facing the street Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006 or back yard. Each lot generally has a front yard and back yard Single family homes access their lots with individual driveways distributed along the street, dispersing the neighborhood traffic among the blocks. Back yards are large enough to accommodate open areas, play structures, gardens, and other uses commonly enjoyed as private amenities typical of a single- family dwelling. Single family residential development in the R-4 or MFR zone has a distinctly different character as the lots are small with backyards that are often not greater than the setback requirement associated with the Building Code. Yards are often not large enough for amenities and public open space is generally provided in close proximity, which has the affect of shifting outdoor activities to those larger public sites. In contrast, multifamily developments are designed around common use of the driveway into the site thereby funneling all traffic at one or two points, causing more traffic at site specific areas rather than distributing the traffic. Common play areas or open spaces are provided for all residents to use and enjoy that create a concentration of people and noise that is dissimilar to activities occurring in a private back yard on large lots typical of the R-2 and R 3 zone established properties. Last, multifamily structures allowed by the PRD regulations could allow multistory buildings, so long as the height standard is not exceeded. Multistory multi -family buildings are most frequently designed as stacked units, often described as garden style walkups. Each floor of the building would contain complete dwelling units. The second -floor units would naturally have both active living areas and bedrooms on the second floor with large windows in the living areas to provide for light that typically include balconies for the private outdoor space. The consequence is living areas overlooking the large adjacent back yard typical of the R-2 and R-3 zone. The disparity of the structures affects the typical use and enjoyment of the single- family property owner in areas developed with large lots. The PRD allows uses within the R-I, R-2, and R-3 zones that function differently than those uses allowed in those zones affecting the character and use of adjacent properties. As described above this affect is limited to the developed low -density zone, as high density uses and structures are not found to have the same impact on various housing types in the high density zones as the neighborhood residents utilize spaces differently by design. Last, multifamily zones are also typically located on or near arterials where the traffic is commonly restricted into both multifamily projects and new subdivision development of small lots. 2. Recognizes the impact of PRD regulations on the R-3 zone. Staff conducted a GIS survey of properties to identify potential sites where PRD's could be allowed based on the minimum site size criteria for both vacant properties and partially developed properties. The review found a total of 20 vacant lots with 14 of those lots located in the R-3 zone, and a total of 16 partially developed lots, with 10 of those located in the R-3 zone. The review was expanded to consider common ownership of vacant or partially developed properties that could be aggregated to meet the minimum 5-acre size and identified 33 vacant lots and 20 partially developed lots. Again, the majority of the lots were in the R-3 zone. It appears that lots in the R-3 zone are the most likely areas for PRD development. Number of Parcels >= 5 acres that are Vacant or Partially Developed by Residential Zone Zone Vacant' Partially developed Vacant with adjacent properties with same ownership2 Partially developed — adjacent properties with same ownership2 >= 5 ac. >= 5 ac. >= 5 ac. >= 5 ac. R-1 1 1 R-2 4 5 4 5 R-3 14 10 22 14 R-4 Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006 MFR 2 7 Total 20 16 33 20 'A number of parcels identified in the vacant or partially vacant land survey have received preliminary plat approval and presumably will be developed as such. 2The method to determine the number of parcels utilized common ownership of adjacent properties that totaled 5 acres of more. CPA-2020-0007 was initiated in response to community concerns that the R-3 zoned neighborhoods were being overwhelmingly developed with duplex housing that was out of character with the low -density single-family neighborhoods. As described above the CPA modified the development regulations to incentivize single family development in the R-3 Zone and established an R-4 zone where higher density housing types, including duplexes, were encouraged with minimal development standards to maximize development options. The R-4 zone was established to offer increased housing development options in areas support by transit and services that support the denser housing. The review indicates that the PRD regulations provide an opportunity or "loophole" for housing types in the R-3 zone contrary to the intent of CPA-2020-0007. 3. Preserves the use of alternative housing options that are consistent with the underlying zoning code. Chapter 19.40 SVMC Alternative Residential Development options provide regulations to guide the development of accessory dwelling units, cottage development, duplexes, manufactured home parks, and townhouses consistent with the zoning districts. Chapter 19.60 SVMC Permitted Uses identifies the zoning district where each housing type is allowed. The housing types are allowed in the zones that are consistent with the function and form of the character and intent of the zoning district. The City recognizes the need to allow a variety of housing options that meet the widespread needs of our community. Chapter 19.40 provides regulations to support housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. 4. Eliminates the conflict between the City's Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. As indicated above, Chapter 19.50 allows for the range of housing types in a PRD regardless of what housing type is allowed in the zone. The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies strive to maintain and enhance character and quality of life, ensure compatibility between residential and commercial uses, protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses, and preserve single family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing (Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, LU-GI, LU-P5, LU-P7 and H-P6). The analysis above showed that the PRD regulations allow housing types and neighborhood commercial uses not otherwise allowed in the zones, and that the impacts from those uses conflict with the intent of several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006 i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies: LU-GI Maintain and enhance character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P5 Ensure the compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. H-P6 Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing incompatible housing types to locate in residential zones where the use would not otherwise be allowed has an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and is out of character with the scale, form and function of low -density residential neighborhoods. Eliminating the PRD regulations as they allow incompatible uses in residential zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protects the interests of surrounding properties. The proposed amendment recognizes that the current SVMC provides opportunities for a variety of housing types across all residential zones. . b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2020-0006 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has not received any substantive agency comments to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0006 B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to delete chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which would eliminate Planned Residential Developments (PRD) as a development tool in Residential zones, and other housekeeping items is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: Fl Check all that apply: n consent n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation n executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance 21-020 amending 3.34 increasing the maximum size for dedicatory plaques. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020; RCW 35.21.100; chapter 3.34 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: April 19, 2017 administrative report; June 6, 2017 adopted Ordinance 17-009 Acceptance of Donations; October 20, 2020 administrative report on proposed amendments to chapter 3.34 SVMC; November 20, 2020 adopted Ordinance 20-018 amending SVMC 3.34. BACKGROUND: In November of 2020, Council amended chapter 3.34 SVMC to permit donors providing donations valued at $5,000 or greater the option to also provide a dedicatory plaque in recognition of the donation. All costs associated with creating, installing, and replacing plaques shall be paid by the donor. The plaque must comply with specific requirements, including size and content. It has been brought to staff's attention that the current maximum size for dedicatory plaques — five inches by seven inches — is unduly limiting in some situations. Staff proposes increasing the maximum size of the dedicatory plaques to twelve inches by twenty-four inches, with larger sizes permitted only upon further approval by the City Manager. OPTIONS: (1) Move to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 21-020; (2) move to advance the ordinance to a second reading with or without amendments; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance No. 21-020 amending chapter 3.34 SVMC. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Carly Johnson, Legal Intern. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 21-020 amending chapter 3.34 SVMC. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE 21-020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF DEDICATORY PLAQUES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted chapter 3.34 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code relating to the acceptance of donations and gifts from private citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley recognizes that increasing the maximum size of dedicatory plaques will provide additional flexibility for those seeking to provide donations to the City, and for the City to properly acknowledge such donations; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley recognizes the importance of community involvement, active participation throughout the community, and the acknowledgment of such activities; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 3.34 of the SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 3.34.060 Acknowledgement of donors and dedicatory plaques. A. Acknowledgement of Donors. Upon request by a donor, the City shall deliver to donor a written confirmation that the City received the donation, which shall contain a statement that the donation is exclusively for public use. A written confirmation of a donation may include a statement identifying the City as the organization receiving the donation, the amount of a monetary donation, a description of the nonmonetary donation but not its fair market value, and a statement that no goods or services were provided by the City in return for the donation. B. Dedicatory Plaques. 1. Upon approval of the City, donors providing donations valued at $5,000 or greater may elect to provide a dedicatory plaque in recognition of the donation given to the City. Any plaque for this purpose is subject to the following conditions: a. The dedicatory plaque may not exceed twelve inches by twenty-four inches five inches by seven inches and may include a name, date, and dedication wording, such as "donated by," "donated for," "in recognition of" or "in memory of." A dedicatory plaque may exceed the maximum ifwith further approved by the City Managerapproval. b. All plaque information will be entered on the donation/sponsorship guide order form. The donor shall be required to compensate the City for all plaque -related expenses prior to being ordered. The City shall have final authority on any content of the plaque. c. All plaque expenses shall be borne by the donor. The City shall assume ownership and maintenance of the plaque, but the City shall not assume plaque replacement costs, including any damage due to vandalism or theft. Ordinance 21-020 Amending SVMC 3.34 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT d. All plaques shall remain as a donated item during its useful life. e. The City reserves the right to remove and/or relocate the plaque at all times. 2. Any recognition shall not suggest in any way the endorsement of the donor's goods or services, or any proprietary interest of the donor. 3. The City shall have final authority regarding the placement of any dedicatory plaque. The City shall make its placement decision pursuant to the following: a. Any physical form of on -site recognition on City property shall not interfere with visitor use, routine recreation, park operations, or other public purpose. b. Plaques recognizing persons donating to a specific park should be placed in a designated centralized location on the park premises. Section 2. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of chapter 3.34 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. 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 of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary therefor in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of , 2021. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 21-020 Amending SVMC 3.34 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of Claim Voucher #54977 to Wick Enterprizes GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.23.070 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Similar situation occurred 12/18/2018, and 01/08/2019 BACKGROUND: RCW 42.23.070 identifies among prohibited acts for Councilmembers, that contracts with Councilmembers are prohibited with some exceptions, in that if a municipality wants to use a business owned by a Councilmember, it can but the expenditures cannot exceed $1,500 per month, and any such contract must be maintained in a publicly accessible database. Claim Voucher #54977 was removed from the 10-18-2021 claim voucher lists in order to be discussed separately. This is a payment to Wick Enterprizes in the amount of $956.25, which represents $318.75 to advertise the Balfour Park Community Workshop, and $637.50 to advertise our online pavement management program survey. We use Mayor Wick's publication on several occasions over the years as we do with other publications, so it is not favoring one publication over another. As Mayor Wick has done in the past, he would not be able to participate in the vote. OPTIONS: Move to approve Claim Voucher #54977 to Wick Enterprizes, in the amount of $956.25; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Claim Voucher #54977 to Wick Enterprizes, in the amount of $956.25. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $956.25 to be paid from the City Manager Department's budget (Account number 001.013.000.513.10.41.17). STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Claim voucher list containing claim voucher #54977 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 10/18/2021 7:21:44AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 51970 10/18/2021 008165 008455 RINC CENTRAL INC (Continued) Total : 29,412.7i 54971 1011842-021 002520 RWC CROUP 511972 10118/2021 000700 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 51973 10/18/2021 000000 SPOKANE CO -INFO SYSTEMS RA106002350:01 101.000.000.512 REPAIR SERVICE #203 4,350.00 Tatar 449040 10988177 101.012.000.512 805 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 634-43 Y 634:43 50320811- 004 n4n.nwo 65grrn COUNTY IT SUPPORT: SEPTEMBER 2C 11,989.27 Total : 11,989.27 �n 18/2021 nnneno convnn E CO PROSE i iTIN/ ,.�i SEPTEMBER 2021 632.000.000.689 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION REM 485.65 v� v�� o u a c vv i� crn�cocm-av-ni--r-i- Total : 48449 54976. 10/18/2021 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP210299 311.000.325:59.6 0325: LOC", ^,SCEs`. STREET-c 4,078.15 Teta#-s 4,879.19 64976 10/18/2021 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1816677 101.012.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW SEPTEMBEI 1,227.91 Total--; 1,227.91 54977 10/18/2021 005002 WICK ENTERPRIZES LLC 54078 10/18/2021 007867 WIDENER & ASSOCIATES 29 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 29 Vouchers in this report 21338 21370 333 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 314.000.223.595 ADVERTISING: BALFOUR PARK & PMP ADVERTISING: ONLINE SURVEY PMP Total: 0223 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Total : 637.50 318.75 956.25 7,089.20 7,089.20 24 2724643 Total vouchers : 2.43,366.13 956.25 - kw Bank total : Page: 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Final Report: Streets Sustainability Committee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 — Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Street operations, maintenance, and pavement preservation have been topics of discussion for each City Council since shortly after the City's incorporation, having discussed the topic at least 54 times. BACKGROUND: On March 23, 2021, City Council approved the creation of the Streets Sustainability Committee to help the City's public outreach efforts as related to the long term goals of its Pavement Management Program. The committee included 22 members from a variety of community stakeholder groups throughout the City. Between April and September 2021, the committee conducted six unique meetings discussing the various needs and opportunities of the City's Pavement Management Program. An optional seventh committee meeting was held to give committee members the opportunity to discuss the Draft Report. The committee had the three following goals: 1. Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. 2. Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long- term levels of service. 3. Investigate current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. For this presentation, staff has shared the final report summarizing the public outreach findings. OPTIONS: Discussion Only. Staff seeks Council feedback on the findings contained in the Final Report and requests direction from Council on proceeding forward. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No formal action requested at this time. Staff requests a Council discussion on proceeding forward. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson — PMP Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Final Report: Streets Sustainability Committee, under separate cover Final Report: Streets Sustainability Committee November 9, 2021 Presentation Team Mark Calhoun — City Manager John Hohman — Deputy City Manager Adam Jackson — PMP Coordinator Dr. Joy York — Committee Facilitator Linda Pierce — Subject Matter Expert Diana Wilhite — SSC Citizen Rep. Chris Moan — SSC Citizen Rep. Kathe Williams— SSC Citizen Rep. Pavement Management Program Budget - Annual Cost to Maintain: $16 M/Yr Historical Expenditure: $8 M/Yr Preservation The street surface you actually drive on. Budget: $10 M/Yr Historical: $5 M/Yr Maintenance Everthing else to make the street system work. Budget: $6 M/Yr Historical: $3 M/Yr Final Report Evaluation of pavement Management program March 28,2019 ;!NCE Pena,. 89509 City of Spokane Valley mien a Splame Avon. Sp0Fene YAlky,WA 99998 Introduction • GOAL: A sustainable PMP • Preservation vs. Maintenance • 2019 NCE Evaluation of PMP • What does our community value? 2 2021 Public Outreach Process Public Meetings & Workshops ti, Media Releases Social/Digital/Print Streets Sustainability Findings <illiCommunity Surveys EVALUATE IDENTIFY INVESTIGATE 2021 Public Outreach Milestones May 11 Mar 23 SSC Mtg #2 City Council : PMP ioi - creates the u Pavement SSC ; Condition, Methods, and Targets 0•0 Aug 31 Jul 12 Jul 28 V Aug 18 SSC Mtg Sept 7 , Sept 8 #5 1k Greater Spokane Inland Questionnaire 1 Spokane Public Spokane Valley Rotary Northwest review & Valley Meeting Valley ; Associated ; surplus ; Kiwanis : (Virtual @ Chamber of ' General ' funding 6:3oPM) Commerce i Contractors i discussion i (Gov't Action Cmte.) * Sept 14 SSC Mtg # 6 Final questionnaire & survey results i 1 1 0 •0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 I Greater Spokane Valley Spokane Chamber of Funding ' Regional Spokane Valley ; Public Meeting Commerce ; Public Meeting PMP ioi - Options: Pros i Transportation ; Senior Center (Virtual @ (Meeting @ (City Hall @ Introductions Funding vs. Cons ' Council at CenterPlace Noon) Noon) : 4:3OPM) Apr 13 Jun 8 Jul 20 *SSC Mtg *SSC Mtg L SSC Mtg Aug 12 Aug 19 S Sept 2 Sept 8 s Sept i3 #i #3 #4 July -September: Media Outreach (print, digital, video etc.) It Nov 9 Final Report 1. EVALUATE citizen interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggestion pavement condition goals 600 500 in aU c 400 0 i N 7 200 Z 100 33 0 38 20 463 505 Excellent Good A. The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. B. The PMP should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. Public Survey: Pavement Condition 389 381 354 Fair 444 Pavement Rating Category 99 Overall Arterial/Collectors Local Access 87 120 37 11111111111111 29 Poor Very Poor 35 2. IDENTIFY preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long-term levels of service A. Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. B. Implement surface treatments in the PMP. C. Increase PMP funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. a � c 0 0. in 0 ce 0 E 1 z 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Public Survey: Street Prioritization by Class 404 Arterials 495 Equal Priority Street Classification 114 Locals 3. INVESTIGATE current and potential revenue sources for sustaining the recommended level of service A. Do not reduce funding to other City programs to increase funding of the PMP. B. Transportation Benefit District is the most preferred funding option. C. Survey respondents indicate that new funding should evenly distribute costs to everyone. D. PMP funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. Ranked Funding Options (1-8) Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift MINIM MINIM Transportation Benefit District — Vehicle License Fees Transportation Benefit District — Sales & Use Tax Transportation Benefit District — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Re -allocate Existing Funds Least Preferred 41-1110. Most Preferred Goal Item Finding 1. Evaluate A The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. B The PMP should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. A Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. 2. Identify B Implement surface treatments as part of the PMP. C Increase PMP funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. 3. Investigate A Do not reduce funding to other City programs to fund the PMP. B Transportation Benefit District is the most preferred funding option. C New funding should evenly distribute costs to everyone. D PMP funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. "1604- Committee Comments Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report Sfiokan jUalleye Community & Public Works Department Si"po�ane�♦ .00jValley. CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1 Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 4 A History: Spokane Valley's Pavement Management Program (PMP) 4 Recent PMP Developments 5 2021: The City's PMP Today 6 2. Purpose & Methodology 8 Purpose: Streets Sustainability Committee Goals 8 Methodology: A Broad -Reaching Effort 8 Methodology: A Detailed Process 9 3. Key Findings 13 Goal #1: Evaluate 14 Goal #2: Identify 15 Goal #3: Investigate 18 4. Process Review 23 5. Conclusion 26 Appendices 27 Appendix A — Street Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Response Forms Appendix B — Public Survey Response Summary Appendix C — Categorized Public Comments Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report Spokane .000 Val ley ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On March 23, 2021, City Council confirmed the membership list for the Streets Sustainability Committee. This report is the product of multiple committee meetings and many hours of educational review and discussion pertaining to Spokane Valley's Pavement Management Program. The City of Spokane Valley thanks the Streets Sustainability Committee for its time and effort. Spokane Valley City Council Rod Higgins (Position 1) Arne Woodard (Position 3) Pam Haley (Position 5) Brandi Peetz (Position 2) - Deputy Mayor Ben Wick (Position 4) - Mayor Tim Hattenburg (Position 6) Linda Thompson (Position 7) Streets Sustainability Committee Name Lance Beck Cheryl Stewart Category Employer Business — General Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Business — General Assoc. of General Contractors — Inland NW Frank Tombari Business — General Banner Bank Kyle England Business — Large Kaiser Aluminum Jesse Granado III Business — Large Waste Management Kevin Person Business — Large Wagstaff Greg Repetti Business — Large MultiCare Deaconess and Valley Hospitals Robin DeRuwe Business — Small Fitness Fanatics Tom Dingus Business — Small Dingus, Zarecor & Associates, PLLC Chris Moan Diana Wilhite Kathe Williams Citizen Representative Citizen Representative Citizen Representative Matt Ewers Ben Small Cal Coblentz Freight Schools Social Services Inland Empire Distribution Services Central Valley School District Spokane Valley Partners Mike Frucci Transportation Washington State Dept. of Transportation Kelly Fukai Transportation Washington State Transportation Commission Karl Otterstrom Transportation Spokane Transit Authority Joe Tortorelli Transportation Spokane Good Roads Association Kevin Wallace & Lois Bollenback Transportation Spokane Regional Transportation Council Todd Henry Melanie Rose Utility Company Utility Company Vera Water and Power Avista Utilities Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 1 Spokan' ems` EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Street operations and maintenance, pavement preservation, and associated funding mechanisms, have been a topic of discussion for city councils shortly after Spokane Valley's incorporation in 2003. Over the years, the Pavement Management Program has been recognized as a priority; however, the City has struggled to secure a consistent, reliable funding source that could sustain a long-term program. Purpose & Methodology The City's Pavement Management Program has identified a total annual cost of $16 million to sustain the City's paved street network in its current overall "good" condition. The City has historically spent $8 million each year, or approximately 50% of the recommended PMP amount. The $8 million shortfall is an indicator that City streets are deteriorating at a faster rate than current available funding can sustain. City Council created the Streets Sustainability Committee to assist the City's public outreach efforts as it relates to the long-term goals of the Pavement Management Program. The goals of the Streets Sustainability Committee included: 1. Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. 2. Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long-term levels of service. 3. Investigate current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. THE COMMITTEE The 22-member Streets Sustainability Committee served as staff's primary resource to seek input and to connect with the community at large. Participants were leaders in their respective fields and helped gather input from their respective peer groups. The Committee included 19 invited members from different for- and nonprofit businesses, transportation backgrounds, and three citizen -representatives who applied to, and were recommended by Mayor Wick to participate on the Committee. The Committee membership was confirmed by the City Council on March 23, 2021. The fundamental assumption that guided the process was the use of open-ended questions to address the Committee goals. This format promoted a descriptive process rather than a prescriptive process, describing public opinion instead of seeking agreement for a particular agenda or focus. In other words, to find out how the public felt about the City's Pavement Management Program, the City would ask and listen to the responses. This fundamental assumption shaped the Committee meetings, public meetings, and the public survey. Public Meeti & Worksh Media Releases \ Social/Digital/Print Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 2 Spokan' ems` THE COMMUNITY City staff worked with the Committee to develop a public outreach plan to share information with and gather feedback from the community, including public meetings, community surveys, and paid social/print/digital media. Through an iterative review process, City staff and the Committee finalized a public survey that was used to gauge public opinion on the three goals of the Committee. The survey was open to the public from mid -June to mid -September. Key Findings The key findings of the public survey and the Committee activities are summarized in Table 1. The City's public outreach process resulted in 22 Committee responses and 1,018 public survey responses. Table 1. Executive Summary - Key Findings by Committee Goal Goal Item Finding A The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. 1 B The Pavement Management Program should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. 2 A Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. B Implement surface treatments in the Pavement Management Program. Increase Pavement Management Program funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. 3 A B C D Do not reduce funding of other City programs to increase funding of the Pavement Management Program. Transportation Benefit District is the most -preferred funding option. Survey respondents indicate new funding should evenly distribute costs to everyone. Pavement Management Program funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. Process Review The process used by the City replicated the process used by other local agencies: informational material was developed and provided, and Committee members were asked to actively participate, formulate opinions on pavement management activities, and engage with the public to collect feedback. In comparison with other agencies, the Committee process was well -attended, participants openly and willingly provided comment, and were engaged and supportive in satisfying the Committee goals. The process proved to be beneficial to both the Committee participants and the City. Should the City proceed to implement a new revenue stream, the Committee members stressed the importance of transparent, thoughtful, and intentional public messaging. Further, the Committee acknowledged the time and effort expended on this 2021 public outreach process and shared reservations that the findings would only be considered by City Council with no action taken. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 3 Spokan" 1. INTRODUCTION A History: Spokane Valley's Pavement Management Program (PMP) The topics of street operations and maintenance, pavement preservation, and associated funding mechanisms have been a topic of discussion for city councils since shortly after Spokane Valley's incorporation in 2003. Over the years, the PMP has been recognized as a priority; however, the City has struggled to secure a consistent, reliable funding source that could sustain a long-term program (Figure 1). Historically, the City has focused its PMP efforts on the arterial and collector network. These streets were prioritized because they impacted the most users and businesses. Arterial and collector streets were also eligible for grant funding, and local access neighborhood streets were not. While arterial and collector streets received the needed pavement preservation and maintenance treatments, local access and neighborhood streets required fewer treatments because they were generally in "new" condition and carried lower traffic volumes. Spokane County's septic tank elimination program (STEP) during the 1990s and early 2000s resulted in newly paved residential streets that have performed well over the last 20 to 30 years. However, over the last 10 years, the aging local access street 2014 Focus on sustainability of Street Preservation program beyond 2016. 2015 Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street fund to address concerns beyond the year 2019. 2016 Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund #311 to address concerns beyond year 2020. 2017 Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 to address concerns beyond year 2021. 2018 Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program, to include sustained financing for the Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 2019 Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program, to include sustained financing for the Street O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 2020 Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program, to include sustained financing in Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. 2021 Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program, to include sustained financing in Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. Figure 1. Recurring City Council Goals for the PMP* *For the purposes of this report, the various program titles used in Council Goals, such as Street Preservation, Street Fund #101, Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and Pavement Preservation Program, are all considered to be synonymous, or included within, the City's Pavement Management Program. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 4 Spokan" network has required, but not received, additional maintenance and preservation measures to keep them in the "good" and manageable condition. The City's first street inventory assessment was completed in 2007 and is updated every four to six years. Over time, these periodic assessments have resulted in a consistent outcome: the paved street network is in "good" condition (mainly due to the ongoing annual work on the City's arterials), but the program is underfunded, and pavement condition will continue to degrade over time. Recent PMP Developments In 2018, staff issued a Request for Qualifications to consult with a subject matter expert for the completion of an in-depth assessment and evaluation of the City's pavement preservation practices. Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) was selected to complete the work and Dr. Linda Pierce, P.E., was tasked as the project lead. NCE's deliverable work product included findings and recommendations for program improvements and strategies and is viewable under "Resources" on the city's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/pmp. In March 2019, NCE delivered their findings and recommendations (Figure 2). NCE found that the City's preservation practices were satisfactory, but improvements were suggested: 1. Improve software capabilities and data collection frequency. 2. Identify pavement condition targets 3. Identify revenue to achieve targets 4. Engage the community Since 2019, the City has been actively working to address the NCE recommended improvements. The City took immediate action on the first NCE recommendation. In fall 2019, the City contracted with a new pavement condition assessment company, StreetScan, that utilizes state-of-the-art data collection equipment and a user-friendly pavement management software interface. StreetScan provides 100% street network assessment every three years at a lower cost than the previous consultant, who surveyed 100% of the street network every four to six years. Final Report Evaluation of Pavement Management Program Man:h 28, 20L9 City of Spokane Valley ,.. al*W992O avan<vaiw.wnanoc Figure 2. NCE Final Report - March 2019 While City Council and staff had regularly discussed recommendations 2 and 3, the City had yet to reach out to the public and solicit feedback regarding the PMP (recommendation 4). Staff evaluated how other similar agencies had engaged their community and found that a stakeholders committee would be critical to gathering the necessary feedback from the public. Throughout 2020, City Council and staff discussed the creation of a PMP-related ad -hoc committee that would help the City perform its first PMP-related public engagement effort. These efforts are the basis of this report. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 5 Spokan' ems` 2021: The City's PMP Today Spokane Valley's paved street network includes approximately 1,000 lane miles (or 450 centerline miles) and nearly 1,900 acres of pavement. The streets are functionally classified into four categories: principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local access streets (Figure 3). Principal Arterial 968,930 11% Local Access 6,150,455 67% Minor Arterial 1,406,316 15% Collector 670,842 7% Paved Area (square yards) Figure 3. Spokane Valley Streets by Functional Classification The 2019 pavement condition survey provided a pavement condition index (PCI) score from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent) for every street within the City's paved street network. As a network average, the City's PCI score was 76, which is in the "good" rating category (Figure 4). Average PC1 By By Func•,onti CIas, 60 40 20 0 Collector Local 79 tndPCI Rating Scale Failed Figure 4. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Map of the Paved Street Network Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 6 The PMP consists of two elements: pavement preservation and street maintenance (Figure 5). As mentioned, the PMP has historically focused on arterials and collectors, the City's busiest streets, and therefore have sustained their overall condition. However, due to limited funding, the PMP has not provided the needed preservation and maintenance efforts on its less travelled, local access and neighborhood streets. The City's PMP has identified a total funding amount of $16 million per year to sustain the City's paved street network in its overall "good" condition. The work associated with this $16 million annual cost includes additional pavement preservation projects necessary to prevent the decline of the overall condition of the paved street network and the annual funding shortfall that is offset by surplus fund transfers to support street maintenance and operations. The City has historically spent an average of $8 million each year, or approximately 50% of the recommended PMP amount (Table 2). This is an indicator that city streets are deteriorating faster than available funding can sustain. Pavement Management Program Budget - Annual Cost to Maintain: $16 M/Yr Historical Expenditure: $8 M/Yr Preservation The street surface you actually drive on. Budget: $10 M/Yr Historical: $5 M/Yr Maintenance Everthing else to make the street system work. Budget: $6 M/Yr Historical: $3 M/Yr Figure 5. PMP Elements: Preservation & Maintenance Table 2. Existing Average Annual PMP Revenues Revenue Amount Revenue Sources Comments $1.7 million Gas Tax $0.9 million Telephone Tax $2.0 million Grant Awards $0.9 million General Fund $1.5 million Street Wear Fee +$1.0 million Real Estate Excise Tax Expected to decline slowly over long term Declining annually, rapidly State/Federal grants, not guaranteed but historically reliable 6% of recurring General Fund expenditures to Fund #311 Initiated in 2018, prioritized for local access streets Matching funds for grants & excess revenues from positive years $8.0 million Existing Revenues +$8.0 million Historical Average of Existing Revenue Sources Unknown Annual funding shortfall required to fulfill $16 million $16.0 million ' Annual funding required to maintain today's level of service Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 7 Spokane` 4.0.iValley. 2. PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY On March 23, 2021, City Council created the Streets Sustainability Committee to help inform the City's public outreach efforts as it relates to the long-term goals of the PMP. The following summarizes the process and findings of the Streets Sustainability Committee activities. Purpose: Streets Sustainability Committee Goals The goals of the Streets Sustainability Committee included: 1. Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. 2. Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long-term levels of service. 3. Investigate current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. Methodology: A Broad -Reaching Effort The 22-member Streets Sustainability Committee served as staff's primary resource to seek input and to connect with the community at large. Participants were leaders in their respective fields and helped staff gather input from their respective "base." The Committee included 19 invited members from different for -profit and non-profit businesses, transportation backgrounds, and three citizen - representatives who applied, and were recommended by Mayor Wick, to participate on the Committee. The Committee membership, as recommended by the Mayor, was confirmed by the City Council on March 23, 2021. Media Releases \Social/Digital/Print The fundamental assumption that guided the Committee's process used open-ended questions to address the goals identified above in Purpose: Streets Sustainability Committee Goals. This format promoted a descriptive process rather than a prescriptive process, describing public opinion instead of seeking agreement for a particular agenda or focus. In other words, to find out how the public felt about Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 8 Spokan' ems` the City's PMP, the City would ask and listen to the responses. This fundamental assumption shaped the Committee meetings, public meetings, and the public survey. Methodology: A Detailed Process THE COMMITTEE City staff contracted with Dr. Joy York to facilitate the Committee process. Dr. York is a professor of Communication Studies at Whitworth University, and her research and scholarship focus is on communication in relationships, organizations, and leadership. Dr. York's expertise shaped the format of the Committee meetings and guided the steps taken to share information and ensure that all participants were given a supportive and open platform to share opinions and ask questions. Notably, Dr. York guided and facilitated the creation of informational videos used to educate the Committee and public at large. Committee meetings were held virtually and included large and small group discussions to maximize participation amongst the participants and give everyone equal opportunity to participate. Committee meetings were open for viewing to the public, but public comments were not permitted; however, during each meeting, public viewers were explicitly invited to email any questions, comments, or concerns to the City staff. From April to September, the Committee held its monthly virtual meeting. Meeting agendas were provided prior to the meeting date to allow the Committee to prepare for the discussion. The Committee was provided with prepared educational videos made available at the City's websites: https://www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee and https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp. The Committee members were asked to view the videos prior to each meeting to inform members on the days' PMP topics (PMP history, best -practices versus current practices, and funding). All Committee meetings were recorded and made available at: www.spokanevalley.org/pmp. Figure 6 details each of the Committee meetings and the topics discussed. Meeting 1 April 13 •PMP Overview •Guidelines & Introductions •Introduction of Educational Videos Meeting 2 May 11 •PMP History & Best Practices: Goals and Methods •Public Engage. Options •Review Draft Public Survey Meeting 3 June 8 •PMP Funding History & Options •Public Engage. Schedule •Finalize Public Survey Meeting 4 July 20 •Evaluate the Pros/Cons of each Funding Option •Review Public Outreach Meeting 5 August 31 •Review Public Outreach •Review Survey Responses •Reliance on Surplus Funding Meeting 6 Sept. 14 •Review Public Outreach •Review Survey Responses •Final Review: Questionnaire •Reflection: Process Figure 6. Streets Sustainability Committee Meeting Topics Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 9 Spokan' ems` The "Breakout Rooms" feature of Zoom was frequently used to facilitate small group discussions amongst committee members. A staff person was in each "room" to record and support the discussion, so all committee members had a chance to contribute their perspective. The "Breakout" discussion topics were intentionally phrased in an open-ended way to maximize the feedback of the committee members. This allowed for multiple committee member perspectives on the topics. This format enriched the discussion and promoted participation, ultimately supporting the process of informing and engaging the committee members. THE COMMUNITY: MEDIA, MEETINGS, & SURVEY Leading up to the first Committee meeting, staff worked to formulate a public engagement plan. As part of the first three Committee meetings, staff and the Committee worked together to shape the final public engagement process. Through this coordination, City staff and the Committee identified a variety of public outreach methods to gather feedback from the community, including public meetings, community surveys, and social/print/digital media. First, the City staff created PMP websites describing the program and the Committee, including the videos discussing the PMP topics. Second, a public survey was drafted, reviewed, and revised by the Committee and released to the public in June 2021. The survey was published online through SurveyMonkey and in print through the City's semi-annual publication of the Spokane Valley View newsletter. A copy of the publication is viewable under "Resources" on the city's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/pmp. Third, the City advertised the Committee's efforts to seek public opinion on the PMP through a variety of media releases and public meetings. Various media outlets shared the PMP information and provided opportunity for the public to participate in the survey. A summary of the public messaging is summarized in Figure 7. Social Media Facebook (11x) Twitter (9x) Print Advertising Spokesman Review (2x) Digital Media Campaigns Facebook Boosted Post (paid) Earned Media Television (3x) Media Press Releases Instagram (5x) Linkedln (4x) The Current (2x) SV News Herald (1x) Paid digital campaign targeting SV residents Newspaper (5x) August to September: 4 different emails sent, 6,421 recipients July 26 August 25 Figure 7. Public Messaging Summary August 12: email to school districts The public messaging efforts ran parallel to the City's public meeting engagements. The Committee's public outreach milestones are further identified in Figure 8. Through the assistance of the Committee, staff was able to connect with seven unique community interest groups to share its PMP information and ask people to participate in the community survey. In addition to participating in seven community group meetings, the City hosted three public open -house meetings. Ten meetings in total occurred, either in -person or virtually, and engaged approximately 100 individuals. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 10 Mar 23 City Council creates the SSC 2021 PMP Public Outreach Milestones May SSC Mtg #2 PMP tot - Pavement Condition, Methods, and Targets •�• •• Introductions Apr 13 SSC Mtg #1 • Jul 12 Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce (Gov't Action Cmte.) PMP tot - Funding Jun 8 *SSC Mtg #3 1,1)Ju128 i Spokane I Valley Rotary • • Funding Options: Pros vs. Cons Ju12o SSC Mtg #4 Figure 8. 2021 PMP Public Outreach Milestones • Aug 18 Inland Northwest Associated General Contractors •.• Spokane Regional Transportation Council 6 Aug 12 Aug 19 * Aug 31 SSC Mtg #5 Questionnaire I review & I surplus funding discussion •.• Q Sept 7 I Spokane Valley Kiwanis • Sept 8 Public Meeting (Virtual @ 6:3oPM) *Sept 14 SSC Mtg #6 Final questionnaire & survey results Nov 9 x Final Report Spokane Valley 1 Public Meeting Senior Center 1 (Virtual @ I at CenterPlace 1 Noon) Sept 2 Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce (Meeting @ Noon) bSept 8 Sept 13 July -September: Media Outreach (print, digital, video etc.) Public Meeting 1 (City Hall @ : Draft report 4:30PM) 1 review • Oct 12 *-SSC Mtg #7 (Opt.) 11 The community survey was available to the public from June 14 to September 21, 2021. All public outreach efforts from City staff and the Committee attempted to direct the public to the City's website and its community survey. Parallel to the online information, the View newsletter was published and included a postage paid return -envelope for completed survey responses (Figure 9). The survey was the most responded -to survey ever conducted by the City, totaling 1,018 responses. The regular collection of new survey responses was shared with the Committee at meetings 4, 5 and 6. These meetings allowed for the Committee discussion to consider public survey responses received to date to help inform their evaluation of the PMP. Survey findings are discussed in Section 3. Key Findings. CREATING A DELIVERABLE PRODUCT Figure 9. Community Survey The Committee's efforts culminated with the delivery of 22 unique questionnaire responses submitted by each member (Appendix A). The Committee was not asked to provide a single formal recommendation to City Council. Instead, each member was asked to provide their informed perspective on the PMP and how it relates to the Committee's three goals, resulting in 22 distinctive perspectives to help inform the City Council. Through all the steps described within this section, the Committee was positioned to document their final opinions as related to the City's PMP. These perspectives are based on time spent with the Committee and through the personal and professional experiences of each member. 12 Siokan' ems` 3. KEY FINDINGS The City's public outreach process resulted in 22 Committee responses and 1,018 survey responses from the public (Figure 10). Submitted Committee member questionnaires are provided in Appendix A and the public survey response summary is provided in Appendix B. A list of all comments received throughout the public engagement process are included in Appendix C. Findings from the City's public outreach process are a blend of high-level feedback from the public (via survey) and a detailed evaluation of the PMP from the Committee (via questionnaire) (Table 3). Table 3. Summary of Findings by Committee Goal Public Survey Responses 1,018 Total Responses (Survey Question 1) Works Here 69 7% Lives & Works Lives Here Here 684 � 238 67% 23% Figure 10. Survey Responses Neither 27 3% Goal Item Finding 1 A The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. B The PMP should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. A Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. 2 B Implement surface treatments in the PMP. C Increase PMP funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. 3 A Do not reduce funding of other City programs to increase funding of the PMP. B Transportation Benefit District is the most -preferred funding option. C Survey respondents indicate new funding should evenly distribute costs to everyone. D PMP funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 13 Spokan e\�' Goal #1: Evaluate Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. A. The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. (Survey Questions 2, 3, 4) The public survey divided the pavement condition rating into the following categories: excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor. Respondents were asked to evaluate the pavement condition of the City street network considering (1) the overall system, (2) focusing on arterial and collector streets only, and (3) focusing on local access streets only (Figure 11). Across all three focus areas, 87% of survey respondents described the streets as "fair" or better. 46 • 200 600 CU 500 fl- 400 a) v 300 Public Survey: Pavement Condition 465 z • 100 34 39 21 1111 Excellent 507 390 447 382 356 Overall II Arterial/Collectors Local Access 100 87 120 • Good Fair Poor Pavement Rating Category Figure 11. Public Survey: Pavement Condition 37 29 35 min Very Poor The Committee was not specifically asked to respond to this question as part of the questionnaire; however, unofficially, the Committee was asked to respond to this question prior to its first meeting and all committee responses were also "fair" or better. Public survey responses helped align the Committee's position with the public's position as related to the City's pavement condition. B. The PMP should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. (Survey Question 7) Ninety percent of survey respondents indicated the PMP should be a budget priority for the City. The purpose of this survey question was to ensure the Committee's baseline assumption was correct. The Committee was not asked to respond to this question because it was a baseline assumption. Unofficially, the Committee validated and supported prioritizing and funding the PMP as discussed in Goal 2 and Goal 3 in the following pages. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 14 S ioliane• Goal #2: Identify Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long- term levels of service. A. Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. (Survey Question 5) Sixty percent of survey respondents supported increasing the City's prioritization of local access streets. Currently, the PMP prioritizes the City's arterial streets over local access streets. This prioritization occurs because the PMP has historically operated under budget limitations that are unable to provide the needed preservation and maintenance measures for all streets. As a result, the City has prioritized arterials because they are most eligible for grant funding, most -travelled and impact the most users. Figure 12 illustrates the received public survey responses to street prioritization by roadway class. a c 500 0 (9- 400 a) cc 300 46 v 200 E 100 Z 0 600 Public Survey: Street Prioritization by Class 496 406 116 Arterials Equal Priority Locals Priority by Street Classification Figure 12. Public Survey: Street Prioritization by Class The Committee was not specifically asked to respond to this question as part of the questionnaire; however, the Committee did answer it indirectly through Questionnaire Response #7. This question asked Committee members to select which PMP services should be considered for reduction if funding would not support a complete program. Responses indicate that most Committee members would not reduce funding to the arterial/collector streets but would consider reduced funding to the local access street network (Figure 13). 20 a) ar 0 15 O. a) ar 4- 10 0 ar E 5 z Z 0 Committee Survey: If fuding is limited, which street type should reduce services? 3 15 ■ Yes - Reduce Services ■ No - Do not reduce Services 12 7 Arterials/Collectors Local Access Street Classification Figure 13. Committee Survey: Street Prioritization by Class Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 15 Spokan' ems` B. Implement surface treatments in the PMP. (Committee Questionnaire Question 1 and Survey Question 6) Surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals, are an important element for an effective PMP. All Committee members supported and recommended the City consider industry best practices and use all available tools to effectively implement the PMP, including use of surface treatments. During the 10 public meetings held in July, August, and September, meeting participants were asked their opinion regarding surface treatments. Participants were able to listen to information regarding surface treatments and to ask questions or provide comments. Amongst these responses, 90% of meeting attendees were in favor of implementing surface treatments. Public survey responses included 65% in favor of surface treatments, 14% against surface treatments, and 21% unsure of surface treatments. Survey responses indicated a portion of the community requires additional information related to surface treatments. Discussions throughout the Committee process strongly encouraged a thorough public messaging effort to help inform the public about surface treatments prior to any potential implementation in the future. Figure 14 summarizes how the support for surface treatments trended upward based on the increased level of engagement between City staff and the respondents. Committee members were provided a detailed review of how surface treatments can support the PMP, and unanimously (100%) supported surface treatment implementation. Attendees at the 10 public meetings were provided a high-level introduction to surface treatments along with informed discussion with staff, and resulted in a 90% concurrence for surface treatment implementation. Finally, public survey respondents were provided various methods for obtaining information on surface treatments (including websites, print newsletters, and social media content), and 65% agreed with surface treatment implementation. In -Favor of Surface Treatments by Engagement Type Public Survey 65% Public Meetings 90% Committee 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 14. % In -Favor of Surface Treatments by Engagement Type Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 16 Spokan' ems` C. Increase PMP funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. (Committee Questionnaire Questions 2, 3 and Survey Questions 8, 9) Eighty percent of survey respondents were against the City continuing with the current $8 million annual PMP funding amount and allowing the overall street condition to decline. Further, 83% of survey respondents supported increasing the PMP funding to complete the additional projects needed to maintain the overall network condition. Figure 15 was used during public meetings as part of presentation materials to stress the importance of adequately funding the PMP. Committee responses support the public survey respondents and indicate the City should fund the PMP at a level to either maintain or improve the overall condition. This equates to funding an additional $8 million annually in addition to current $8 million of funding, for a total of $16 million annually, to prevent the overall decline in pavement condition. More $ 100 Preservation: $10 Mil/Yr Maintenance: $6 Mil/Yr Total: $16 Mil/Yr Any funding less than $16 M results in the continued decline of neighborhood streets. 85 70 Less $ ss 40 25 10 Fair Poor ;ery Poor Figure 15. Excerpt from Public Meeting presentation No Committee members recommended to reduce the overall condition of the City streets. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 17 S ioliane• Goal #3: Investigate Investigate current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. The City's identified available funding options, and the financial impact of each, are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Available Funding Options Funding Method Approval Method Cost Impacts Est. Annual Revenues Notes Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift TBD: Vehicle License Fee Council Voter Council - up to $50 Voter — over $50 TBD: Sales & Use Tax Voter TBD: Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Voter $7.60 per $100,000 of $878,000 assessed property value $1.17 per $100,000 of assessed property value for every 1% increase Start: $20 license fee Year 2: Up to $40 Year 4: Up to $50 Max Fee: $100 Added tax up to 0.2% $1.10 per $100,000 of assessed property value for every 1% increase Council or Min: $0.33 Voter Max: $13.68 (monthly) 1% increase generates $136,000 $20: $1.4 M $40: $2.9 M $50: $3.6 M $3.3 M to $5.9 M 1% increase generates $127,000 Min: $86,000 Max: $8.1 M Uses remaining "taxable" amount on property values. Used after Property Tax Banked Capacity is implemented. Fees can increase in 2-year increments without voter approval until fees exceed $50. Revenue varies based on economic trends. Typically, only lasts for a one- year duration. Varies on which utilities are taxed, and at which rate. Public survey participants were provided the same informational materials (through the PMP and Committee websites) as provided to the Committee, but were not required to view it prior to completing the survey. Instead, the public survey provided a high-level description of the general types of funding and who would be impacted by the various options. This allowed the survey to gauge the general feelings of the overall public without overwhelming survey respondents with an in-depth evaluation of the various funding mechanisms. Alternatively, the Committee took an in-depth evaluation of each funding option during Meetings 3, 4, and 5. This allowed a focused discussion on the pros and cons of each option and how each option might impact the community. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 18 Spokan' ems` As indicated in Goal #2: Identify, all participants indicated preference for the City to maintain the overall pavement condition at the current levels. The following provides additional insight on the preferences and impacts of the various available funding sources to secure an additional $8 million each year to fully fund the PMP. A. Do not reduce funding of other City programs to increase funding of the PMP. (Committee Questionnaire Questions 4, 6 and Survey Question 10) Seventy four percent of public survey respondents were against reducing funding to other City programs or services (such as law -enforcement or parks and recreation) to make additional funds available for the PMP. The Committee's findings align with the public survey findings. Each committee member was asked to prioritize the available funding options. When evaluating all responses, re -allocating existing funds was found to be the least -preferred method (Figure 16). B. Transportation Benefit District is the most -preferred funding option. (Committee Questionnaire Question 4, 6 and Survey Questions 11, 12, 13) Public survey respondents identified TBD-Vehicle License Fee (61% favorable) and TBD- Sales & Use Tax (60% favorable) as the most favorable funding options, while a Utility or Property Tax was rated as the least favorable option (46% favorable). Public survey participants were not asked to prioritize between the different property taxes or a utility tax. The reason for this was to simplify the survey to differentiate between how the various revenue sources might impact the participant and the community overall. For this reason, a utility tax or the various property tax options were grouped together because they are all applied towards property owners (i.e., residents or business owners). Public survey responses are graphed on page 21 (Figure 17). Consistent with the Committee's intent and process, the Committee conducted a detailed evaluation of each potential funding option. Each Committee member ranked the available funding options from 1 (most preferred) to 8 (least preferred). The results show that Transportation Benefit District (TBD) — Vehicle License Fees and Sales & Use Tax were ranked 1 and 2, respectively, followed by Utility Tax with a rank of 3 (Figure 16). Ranked Funding Options (1-8) Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift Transportation Benefit District — Vehicle License Fees Transportation Benefit District — Sales & Use Tax Transportation Benefit District — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Re -allocate Existing Funds Least Preferred t ► Most Preferred Figure 16. Committee Ranked Funding Options (1-8) Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 19 Spokan' ems` Considerations in the funding options that impacted the rankings included, but were not limited to: • How much revenue is generated by each option? (Is revenue enough? Is it worth implementing?) • How is each option implemented? (Via voter approval or by council action?) • Who pays into the new revenue stream? (Residents, businesses, visitors, etc.?) Transportation Benefit Districts: Vehicle License Fees and Sales & Use Tax Committee members generally agreed the TBD — Vehicle License Fees and Sales & Use Tax options are the most applicable revenue sources that can generate a substantial amount of revenue for the PMP. Survey respondents agreed with the Committee in relation to TBDs. Both the TBD-Vehicle License Fee and the TBD-Sales & Use Tax funding options were favored by at least 60% of survey respondents. Utility Tax Committee members generally agreed a Utility Tax is a viable funding option. A Utility Tax is a widely implemented method in the greater Spokane region, which Spokane Valley has historically not used to generate funds except for the telephone utility tax. A combination of various utility taxes has the capacity to fully fund the PMP's annual need. However, concern was expressed that utility taxes do not have a direct connection to the PMP and could unfairly burden certain population groups more than others. Public survey respondents did not prefer new revenues based on utility or property taxes. Preferred Funding Options: Talking Points • A consideration noted by the Committee is the impacts of voter -approved versus council - approved funding options. The TBD-Vehicle License Fee starts out for the first six years as a councilmanic option that generates a smaller dollar amount than the TBD — Sales & Use Tax option, which is voter -approved. After certain thresholds are met, a TBD-Vehicle License Fee requires a voter approval. Utility Taxes are council -approved for up to 6% on all utilities and have the capacity to wholly fund the PMP's funding shortfall. • A scaled approach across all funding options should be considered (Finding 3.C). • Table 5 summarizes comments from the Committee regarding TBDs and Utility Tax options. Table 5. Talking Points: Preferred Funding Options Transportation Benefit Districts "Directly related to use of roads." (Veh. Lic. Fee) "...easy to implement..." (Veh. Lic. Fee) "...consistent with how other cities fund streets." (Veh. Lic. Fee) "...spreads the burden out evenly among businesses, residents and visitors." (Sales & Use) "Sales taxes are generally preferred by voters..." "Voter approval needed." (Sales & Use) Utility Taxes "Has potential to raise significant dollars." "Common tactic around the region." "Tax rate could decrease if paired with other funding options that increase over time." "Disproportionate impact on businesses." "Will be a hardship for some residents such as low income and seniors." "Does not require voter approval." Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 20 Spokan' ems` C. Survey respondents indicate new funding should evenly distribute costs to everyone. (Survey Question 14) Public survey respondents' preference of any single funding option varied between 46% to 61% approval, depending on the funding method. However, there was 77% approval from public survey respondents for the City to pull from all available options to distribute the cost of a fully funded PMP evenly to all groups (Figure 17). 100% 80% c 60% a Q 40% 20% 0% Funding Option Approval Rates Property or Utility Taxes 46% Combination of Options TBD-Vehicle License Fee TBD-Sales & Use Tax 61% 60% Figure 17. Public Survey - Funding Option Approval Rates D. PMP funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. (Committee Questionnaire Question 5) The public survey did not specifically ask respondents for their input in on this topic. The Committee discussed the topic extensively in Meeting #5 and questionnaire responses indicate that the City should stop using annual surplus fund transfers to offset deficits of the PMP (Figure 18). Excerpts shown in Figure 19 are taken from questionnaire response comments provided by various Committee members. Completed questionnaires are included in Appendix A. 77% Continue surplus funds transfers to offset annual PMP defecits? Yes 20% No 80% 4 Figure 18. Annual Surplus Funds Transfers Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 21 "If the economy slows then people should expect less spending." Kevin Person "The City needs to find a way to get the funding of roads out of the general fund." Frank Tombari "Surplus funds are not a reliable consistent form of revenue. Surplus funds are best used for one-time projects and unexpected expenses." Tom Dingus St okane�` 40,jValley. "PMP should have its own reliable source of income because regardless of the state of the economy, the road network must be maintained." Matt Ewers "General fund should not be relied upon for the existing system maintenance." Kelly Fukai "Maintenance and preservation of the pavement asset in our city needs to be funded from a reliable and sustainable source that does not fluctuate between years of excess and years of no funding available." Mike Frucci Figure 19. Surplus Funds - Committee Comments If necessary, which services should be considered for reduction? (Committee Questionnaire Question 7) Most Committee responses indicated that the following services should first be considered for reduction: • Roadside landscaping • Litter/weed control • Pavement preservation on local access streets Secondary to this list, five to eight Committee members recommended a reduction of pothole patching, sidewalk repairs, street lighting, schools beacons, and crack filling. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 22 Spokane Va1ley 4. PROCESS REVIEW The process used by the City replicated the process used by other local agencies: informational material was developed and provided, and Committee members were asked to actively participate, formulate opinions on pavement management activities, and engage with the public. In comparison with other agencies, the Committee process was well -attended, participants openly and willing provided comment, and were engaged and supportive in meeting the Committee goals. The process proved to be beneficial and informative to both the participants and the City. A key component of a successful PMP is public opinion — evaluating how well pavement management decisions meet agency goals and how the public perceives the City's implementation of its PMP activities. This public engagement effort set out to maximize public participation. As a result, the City received its highest public participation for any City -issued survey to date. Out of the 1,018 surveys received, 387 unique comments were received, providing additional insight to the perspective of the public (Figure 20). Received comments are included in Appendix C and are categorized as follows: funding (102 comments), pavement (33 comments), services (38 comments), surface treatment (117 comments), and other miscellaneous (97 comments). Survey Comments Recieved Figure 20. Public Survey Comments Recieved The high rate of participation by the public engagement can be directly attributed to the steps taken by the Committee. The Committee make-up fostered an open discussion of the issues and offered options for engagement that were based on each member's experiences. The Committee members' opinion on the overall public outreach process, their time spent on the Committee, and the effectiveness of the Committee were captured in the questionnaire responses (Appendix A). Throughout the Committee meetings, three topics of interest regularly presented themselves during discussions: Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 23 Spokan' ems` • First, should a new revenue option be implemented: Committee members stressed the importance of transparent, thoughtful, and intentional public messaging. It's critical for the City to clearly communicate to the public exactly who is responsible to pay into any new revenue stream and how that new revenue will be expended. The Committee reiterated how transparency and accountability are key attributes of a successful implementation. Should the City seek to implement new revenue options: the Committee suggested that City staff provide a project list based on the available revenues and available treatment options utilized by the PMP, outlining which projects would be completed over specific program years. It was confirmed by City staff that the PMP has the resources to complete this type of projection given the different variables that may be considered (i.e., available funds, types of treatments available, prioritized street types, etc.). • Second, Committee members felt it important for the City to clearly communicate that any new utility tax revenues intended for the PMP and required by the City, would be generated by the utility agency but the utility agency acts only as a pass through for the City. Example: Should the City implement a new utility tax, that tax would show up on utility bills from the various purveyors and the public may perceive that as a new tax implemented by the utility company rather than the City. In this scenario, the utility company is a 'pass -through' for the City to collect the utility tax revenue. "If the City Council decides to pursue a utility tax, it is critical that the communication be clear that it is a 'pass -through' tax. It's not Avista or Modern or Inland or Vera raising their rates, it's the City of Spokane Valley collecting more money in the form of a utility tax to use for streets." - Melanie Rose, Avista Utilities • Third, the Committee expressed reservations about how the public outreach findings would be received by City Council. The Committee acknowledged how the findings of its work, partnered with the findings of the public survey, support increasing revenues for the PMP to sustain current conditions. Given the extensive time commitment and amount of effort and resources expended throughout this process, the Committee expressed reservations and concerns that City Council would choose to do nothing, effectively negating the Committee's time. The final questions of the questionnaire provided opportunity for open-ended comments from the members. Excerpts from the Committee member comments, along with a word cloud capturing the most frequently used keywords, are shown in Figure 21. Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 24 � 1 "...be sensitive to the fact that the committee was not made up totally of people who live within the City of Spokane Valley..."— Diana Wilhite J Well done in spite of the Pandemic. The breakout sessions were particularly effective. - Karl Otterstrom meetings effective citizens I look forward to and hope that council truly considers the committee's recommendations. - Lance Beck "Would have liked to dive deeper. Easy to speak up and ask questions. Worked great. - Chris Moan survey sessions process Lot important valley I would love to see sidewalks provided in all areas of the city. It is very costly but I think it is necessary for safety. - Ben Small J participation great committee funding think good staff city made virtual organized learned time infrastructure want iked I find this very interesting and being in this committee has taught me so much about various challenges Cities face to maintain funding and how they go and develop different strategic ideas/plans to develop revenues. Amazing! —Jesse Granado III The community responses show that there is interest in improving local streets over arterials. That should not be ignored...The city staff should be commended for their efforts to make this process successful. It was very well organized, and the committee was provided ample resources and information to understand the challenges and imagine the solutions. Having a professional outside facilitator for the committee process was another major advantage. Great job! - Calvin Coblentz Figure 21. Committee Comments & Word Cloud Excellent process. — Joe Tortorelli Most enlightening and enjoyable...It's deepened my commitment to the City... — Kathe Williams 1-1 have been impressed with the high level of engagement during each meeting — even over the summer months! I am hopeful that the City Council will thoughtfully consider our recommendations, along with the input of the 940+ citizens who completed the survey, as they decide how best to move forward with a dedicated funding mechanism for the PMP in 2022. There is clear consensus that our streets are in good condition now and we agree that we need to keep them that way! - Melanie Rose Great process, well prepared, good information. - Cheryl Stewart J 25 5. CONCLUSION Street operations and maintenance, pavement preservation, and associated funding mechanisms, have been a topic of discussion for city councils shortly after Spokane Valley's incorporation in 2003. Over the years, the Pavement Management Program has been recognized as a priority; however, the City has struggled to secure a consistent, reliable funding source that could sustain a long-term program. The PMP consists of two elements: pavement preservation and street maintenance. The PMP has identified a total annual cost of $16 million to sustain the City's paved street network in its overall "good" condition. The City has historically spent an average of $8 million each year, or approximately 50% of the recommended PMP amount. While City Council and staff have regularly discussed the challenges of a fully funded, sustainable PMP, the City has never conducted a formal public outreach process to seek feedback from the community. On March 23, 2021, City Council confirmed the creation of the Streets Sustainability Committee to help inform the City's public outreach efforts. The 22-member Committee served as staff's primary resource to seek input and to connect with the community. Members were leaders in their respective fields and helped staff gather input from the members' "base." Collectively, the Committee generated 22 unique perspectives and facilitated a PMP survey that collected 1,018 responses from the public. Findings from this public outreach processes (the Committee and the public survey) are summarized below and align with the initial goals of the Committee. Goal 1: Evaluate citizens' interest and support for maintaining city streets and suggesting pavement condition goals. A. The pavement condition of City streets is described as "fair" or better. B. The PMP should be prioritized in the City's budget planning process. Goal 2: Identify preference for maintaining city streets, types of treatments used, and long-term levels of service. A. Survey respondents support increasing the prioritization of local access streets. B. Implement surface treatments in the PMP. C. Increase PMP funding to maintain the streets in their current condition. Goal 3: Investigate current revenues and potential future funding sources for maintaining city streets at the recommended level of service. A. Do not reduce funding of other City programs to increase funding of the PMP. 8. Transportation Benefit District is the most -preferred funding option. C. Survey respondents indicate new funding should evenly distribute the cost to everyone. D. PMP funding should not rely on annual surplus fund transfers. In review, the public survey had the City's highest ever participation rate. The Committee process was highly effective and fully engaged its members. Should the City opt to implement a new revenue option, effective public communication would be critical. The process proved to be beneficial and informative to both the participants and the City. 26 Spokane \alley APPENDICES Appendix A — Street Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Response Forms Appendix B — Public Survey Response Summary Appendix C — Categorized Public Comments Streets Sustainability Committee Final Report 27 APPENDIX A Streets Susta i na bi l ity Committee Questionnaire Response Forms Questionnaire Response Forms are provided in the same sequence as the Acknowledgements table with one exception: a summary response questionnaire has been created and is at the start of the Appendix. Name Category Employer 1 Lance Beck Business — General Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce 2 Cheryl Stewart Business — General Assoc. of General Contractors — Inland NW 3 Frank Tombari Business — General Banner Bank 4 Kyle England Business — Large Kaiser Aluminum 5 Jesse Granado III Business — Large Waste Management 6 Kevin Person Business — Large Wagstaff 7 Greg Repetti Business — Large Valley Hospital 8 Robin DeRuwe Business — Small Fitness Fanatics 9 Tom Dingus Business — Small Dingus, Zarecor & Associates, PLLC 10 Chris Moan Citizen Representative 11 Diana Wilhite Citizen Representative 12 Kathe Williams Citizen Representative 13 Matt Ewers Freight Inland Empire Distribution Services 14 Ben Small Schools Central Valley School District 15 Cal Coblentz Social Services Spokane Valley Partners 16 Mike Frucci Transportation Washington State Dept. of Transportation 17 Kelly Fukai Transportation Washington State Transportation Commission 18 Karl Otterstrom Transportation Spokane Transit Authority 19 Joe Tortorelli Transportation Spokane Good Roads Association 20 Kevin Wallace & Lois Bollenback Transportation Spokane Regional Transportation Council 21 Todd Henry Utility Company Vera Water and Power 22 Melanie Rose Utility Company Avista Utilities Sitio'lane .Valley. Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Summary of Responses This summary has quantifiable responses only. For questions that included open-ended written responses, please refer to each individual questionnaire response form for each member. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? 21 21 14 7 Select one: Z Yes (21) ❑ No (0) (1 abstained) 0 0 Yes No 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. (8) Z Maintain the current overall level of service. (13) ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. (0) (1 abstained) 14 13 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Improve Maintain Reduce 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. (0) ❑ $1-$3 million additional. (0) Z $4-$7 million additional. (3) Z $8 million additional. (13) Z Over $8 million additional. (4) (2 abstained) Number of Responses 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 3 ■ 13 4 ■ $0 $1-3 M $4-7 M $8 M > $8 M Recommended Additional Funding a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Select one: Z Yes (17) Z No (1) (4 abstained) 20 17 15 10 5 0 1 Yes No 1 Summary of Responses 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See individual response forms for written comments. 5. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: Z Yes (4) Z No (16) (2 abstained) 20 15 10 5 0 16 4 Yes No 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. (2 abstained) Property Tax Banked Capacity 4.29 Levy Lid Lift ••••••••• 3.25 Transportation Benefit District — Vehicle License Fees Transportation Benefit District — Sales & Use Tax Transportation Benefit District — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) NIONNIONNWN•••••= 3.35 3.3 Re -allocate Existing Funds Least Preferred 2.6 5.5 6.9 6.8 Most Preferred 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? (2 abstained) Crack filling School beacons Pavement Preservation: Arterials/Collectors Pavement Preservation: Locals Street lighting Litter/Weed control Sidewalk repairs Roadside landscaping Pothole repairs Snow plowing % deicing • ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmuuumummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi •ummmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmu • ummmmmmmmmmmmmmi • mmmmmmmmuummmmmuu uwmmmmmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmmuummmmmuiumuuu • ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmu • ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmWWWWmmmmmimmmmmmnmmmmummmmmmmmmmimmmmmmnmmmmu • ummmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmmimmmmmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmuummmmmi • ummmmmmmmmmmu mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmmml �ummmmmmmmuummmmmmmmmuu 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Responses • No, do not reduce services ■ Yes, reduce services 2 Lance Beck pokane 4.00Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Lance Beck Date: 2021-8-19 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Extends the life of the surface. Projects are typically able to be completed quickly. Cost effective solution b. Additional Comments: Click or tap here to enter text. Cons Not a permanent fix. Viewed as cheap fixes that are also visually unattractive. 1 Lance Beck 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. I believe our road infrastructure is one of the most impactful elements of building our community prosperity. Solid investment in this infrastructure will continue to allow for steady growth and development of our local economy. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. They both drive diminished returns. 2 Lance Beck The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. Z Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. My preferred funding method would provide enough revenue to accomplish more than maintaining the status quo. As a community our infrastructure is something that if maintained at the highest level, we should expect to see a greater return. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. I'm not interested in seeing the community slowly move backwards. We can look to our neighbors in Spokane to see exactly how a poor plan for maintaining infrastructure creates a backlog that is incredibly hard to build out of. Spending up front in this area will likely create a higher overall return. 3 Lance Beck 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Levy Lid Lift Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. TBD — Vehicle License Fee Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. TBD —Sales & Use Tax This is the only option that fiscally accomplishes the needed goals and spreads the cost across all users of the system. This assumption is based the projected continued economic growth of the City's economy and the presumed under- estimate of 2021 actual receipts in the numbers used as projections. Voters must be willing to invest in their community and this will take a well -crafted campaign to pass. TBD — Excess Property Tax Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Utility Tax: Some combination could get us the needed revenues. Not equitable across the users of the system. Also, not equitable across the providers. 4 Lance Beck 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: This is not a sustainable funding plan. Absent a long-term dedicated funding system for maintenance and preservation, the infrastructure system will slowly deteriorate. 5 Lance Beck 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 8 Property Tax Banked Capacity 7 Levy Lid Lift 5 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Using a combination of TBD Sales & Use tax and Utility tax would be possibly needed but with current projections I feel strongly needed revenues could be achieved with continued emphasis on local economic growth using the TBD sales and use tax. 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax 2 Utility Tax If using Utility tax — there would have to be a tax implemented over multiple utility services to reach anything near the revenue needed. Ultimately this would require a lot of work to find the balance that is functional and would likely end up still being inequitable across the tax payers. 4 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 3 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Sales and Use tax has the best narrative behind it. The method spreads the cost out across the entire user base and not just those that live in the area or own property. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: This spreads the cost out equitably. 6 Lance Beck Strategic Message #2: This actually generates enough revenues to improve system at the needed level to maintain the expected level of service. c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Move onto the utility tax. You have cover then that you gave the voters the best option to solve the problem. If they choose not take option #1, it is your responsibility to do what is best of the community. 7 Lance Beck 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Roadside landscaping likely creates a compounding deficit due to ongoing maintenance of the landscaping. Beautification cannot come as the cost of the functional primary usability of the system. Please provide additional comments: You will not save your way to problem solving for this subject. 8 Lance Beck 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: LTAC Policy and use review. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: This has been very educational and enjoyable work to be involved in. I look forward to and hope that council truly considers the committee's recommendations. 9 Cheryl Stewart Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Cheryl Stewart Date: 8/21/21 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Low Cost Extends the life of the road b. Additional Comments: Cons Must be used strategically Not appropriate for all areas 1 Cheryl Stewart 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. I believe an additional investment is needed to keep the system from deteriorating further. That being said, I do believe the City does a good job of maintaining its current assets. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. 2 Cheryl Stewart The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. Z Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes — cities will need to continue to invest more to maintain their infrastructure and plan for future growth. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. 3 Cheryl Stewart 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Only taps citizens for increased cost and not visitors Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee Easy to collect and can be don incrementally. Only taps citizens for increased cost and not visitors Difficult to pass when voted on by citizens. Repeatedly rejected in the past. TBD — Sales & Use Tax More equitable tax for all of those living and working in the city to maintain roads. Possibly easier to pass than a license fee. TBD — Excess Property Tax Only taps citizens for increased cost and not visitors Utility Tax: No direct nexus to transportation. Only taps citizens for increased cost and not visitors 4 Cheryl Stewart 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Inconsistent and makes planning difficult 5 Cheryl Stewart 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 4 Property Tax Banked Capacity Does not generate enough revenue 5 Levy Lid Lift Does not generate enough revenue 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee Some can be done by council 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Most equitable 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax Council passed and generates significant revenue 6 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Not reliable 7 Re -allocate Existing Funds While infrastructure needs to be a priority, tough messaging to reduce other services. a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? I think the easiest to pass would be the sales tax or the utility tax. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? 6 Cheryl Stewart Response: PMP gets more expensive the longer it is delayed. You cannot keep kicking the can down the road. 7 Cheryl Stewart 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Please provide additional comments: 8 Cheryl Stewart 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 9 Frank Tombari s� 11ey Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name:=rankTombar Date: August 30, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: ❑ xYes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Less expensive Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. b. Additional Comments: Click or tap here to enter text. Cons Residents not familiar with process Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. 1 Frank Tombari 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. ❑ xx Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. I think that the residents will be hard pressed to vote for a major tax increase if the roads look to be in good shape and the main valley arterials are in good shape. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. The "Improve" will require a major tax increase and the valley voters do not usually vote for tax increases. The "Reduce" option will not help maintain the streets. The city needs to find a way to fund streets from sources that are not totally based in the general fund but in a dedicated fund 2 Frank Tombari The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ xx $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes a snouia maintain wnat tney aireaay nave b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. This is the most palatable option to present to the voters for a tax increase c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. The City did not move forward or maintain with the pie first 3 options. The last option is to rich for the voters to approve. 3 Frank Tombari 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Fu 0 Prope Banke Levy Li TBD — Licens TBD — Use Ta TBD — Prope Utility nding ption Pros Cons ty Tax I Capacity Click or tap here to enter text. Does not raise enough money d Lift Click or tap here to enter text. Does not raise enough money Vehicle Fee This has some potential if done with another funding option It will require some explanation to the voters Sales & K Sales tax can be paid by individuals that do not live in the City that purchase product in the Valley Click or tap here to enter text. Excess ty Tax I do not think that the voters will vote for a property tax increase Tax: This has potential to fund all of it but I think that you want to not put all of your eggs in one basket Click or tap here to enter text. 4 Frank Tombari 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes ❑ xx No a. Please explain: This does not protect the funding mechanism from swings in the general fund budget. The City needs to find a way to get the funding of roads out of the general fund 5 Frank Tombari 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. 5 See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee Comments or Assumptions TBD — Sales & Use Tax TBD — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? The residents will not be excited about a tax in any manner so the campaign will ,eed to specifically let the voters which roads are to be repaired so that shows accountability. You may have to consider a sunset provision in the ballot b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: List the roads that will be repaired and improved in the ballot so the voters know what to experct Strategic Message #2: Click or tap here to enter text. 6 Frank Tombari c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Continue the process of using surplus funds and grant money where they can 7 Frank Tombari 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not l reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ X Pothole patching X Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping X ❑ Sidewalk repairs X ❑ Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control X ❑ Street lighting X ❑ Pavement preservation: Locals x ❑ Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ X Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons X ❑ Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ X Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Click VI Lap 1Id c LU CI MCI LCAL. Please provide additional comments: Click or tap here to enter text. 8 Frank Tombari 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Click or tap here to enter text. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 1,111.IC VI Ilel ICXI. 9 Kyle England From: To: Subject: Date: England, Kvle Adam Jackson City of Spokane Valley Street Sustainability Survey Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:01:34 PM [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good Evening Adam, On behalf of Kaiser Aluminum, I would like to thank you and the City of Spokane Valley for inviting us to participate in the Streets Sustainability Committee process. This was a good opportunity for us to form a better understanding of road maintenance in the Spokane Valley, as well as the funding required to sustain our streets. As you know, we are a large employer and manufacturer in the City of Spokane Valley, but we do not have expertise in road management, or the funding mechanisms associated with roadway maintenance. Accordingly, we have chosen to abstain from completing the committee survey for publication with the committee report. What we would note is the City of Spokane Valley should consider each funding mechanism carefully to fully understand the potential unintended consequences on any given group; including, but not limited to the business sector. Increases to property and/or utility taxes could place businesses at a competitive disadvantage to those outside the Spokane Valley. I would appreciate to continue to be involved and informed as funding decisions are made to ensure Kaiser is aware of any potential cost/tax implications. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you Kyle Kyle P. England Kaiser Aluminum I Flat Rolled Products Sr. Director, Trentwood External Affairs and HR Integration Mobile: 509-995-5452 Jess Granado III Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Jesse Granado III Date: 09-21-2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Less expensive to maintain b. Additional Comments: Cons Possibly quick less effective fix? 1 Jess Granado III 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. As the City continues to grow, more traffic is on the streets and we need to continue to focus on methods to better service the roads to sustain growth and maintenance. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. I felt this option to ensure good quality roads. 2 Jess Granado III The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, with the rapid growth, costs will continue to increase, and this would allow for additional road projects. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. This would allow the City to maintain the roads along with additional needed projects related to streets. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. Other selections would under deliver and others would over deliver. 3 Jess Granado III 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Generally, property tax cannot increase more than 1% per year making more favorable for council to pass. City cannot go back and collect unused taxes left behind. Levy Lid Lift I feel minimum impact to homeowners $1.18 per $100,000. Banked capacity would need to be used first. For some, this could be an issue. TBD — Vehicle License Fee Depending on fee amount, we can expect $1.4 mil to $3.6 mil. Would need to start at $20 and that rate would need to be in place for 2 years prior to increasing to $40 and up. More lengthy process. TBD — Sales & Use Tax Estimated annual revenue $3.9 mil to $5.9 mil. This tax would need to be approved by majority voters so crucial information would be needed as first response on raised taxes is no. TBD — Excess Property Tax Increase of $1.10 per $100,000 which would be more appealing to voters. Minimal revenue at $127,000 Utility Tax: No limit on the use of utility revenues. Depending on tax %, revenues from $1.4 mil to $8.2 mil. 4 Jess Granado III 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: If we can ensure the proper amount needed to maintain the PMP, we should not rely on other surplus funds. 5 Jess Granado III 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 4 Property Tax Banked Capacity 5 Levy Lid Lift 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Vehicle license fees b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: In room meeting to review facts and ask for their input for better messaging to voters. 6 Jess Granado III 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control 11 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling 0 0 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: I feel none should be eliminated but possibly reduced to focus on more priority repairs to save funding where needed. Please provide additional comments: 7 Jess Granado III 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Nothing as I feel they have explored many options and very well thought out and informed. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: I find this very interesting and being in this committee has taught me so much about various challenges Cities face to maintain funding and how they go and develop different strategic ideas/plans to develop revenues. Amazing! 8 Kevin Person Sjckanc ,ralle Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Kevin Person Date: 8/27/2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Fast to complete Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. b. Additional Comments: Click or tap here to enter text. Cons Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. 1 Kevin Person 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Overall road condition is less than desirable and needs to be improved. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. Road conditions would only decrease. 2 Kevin Person The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes and it will stop overall deterioration of the current street conditions. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. See a above c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. Fewer $ are not effective. More $ are not needed in my opinion. 3 Kevin Person 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Easy to implement. Maintained roads support property owner's investments. Property values are already increasing rapidly. Levy Lid Lift Not limited in amount. Banked capacity must be implemented. TBD — Vehicle License Fee Vehicles use the roads. This justifies the fee. No voter approval could alienate voters. TBD — Sales & Use Tax Spreads out the impact to visitors to Spokane Valley. Up and down amounts follow economic conditions. Idaho has lower sales tax rate. TBD — Excess Property Tax Can be implemented without implementing Property Tax Banked Capacity. Annual voter approval costs. Utility Tax: Large potential to address$8.0M shortfall. Other local cities already have more utility taxes. Could be complicated in arriving at a palatable solution with voters on the individual's utility rates. 4 Kevin Person 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. lithe economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please explain: lithe economy slows then people should expect less spending. 5 Kevin Person 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 6 Property Tax Banked Capacity 7 Levy Lid Lift 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 4 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 5 TBD — Excess Property Tax 8 Utility Tax 2 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 3 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Vehicle License Fee and Sales / Use Tax because they are closely related to use of the roads. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Click or tap here to enter text. Strategic Message #2: Click or tap here to enter text. c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Re -allocated existing funds (except not re -allocate law enforcement funding) 6 Kevin Person 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Roadside landscaping, Sidewalk repairs, school beacons Please provide additional comments: Click or tap here to enter text. 8 Kevin Person 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: or tap nere to enter text. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: or tap Here to enter text. 9 Greg Repetti Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Greg Repetti Date: The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Less expensive Allows for more streets to be updated Cons Not as effective as complete rebuild for long term b. Additional Comments: This alternative should be looked at especially for non -arterial roads. 1 Greg Repetti 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Valley needs to focus on the arterial roads which as a rule are in good shape/ b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. I did not choose improve because of cost and in general the roads are in good shape. I did not choose reduce as we have been able to perform at current levels and that seems a good compromise. 2 Greg Repetti The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. Z $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes it grows the spend in a reasonable manner b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Government needs to continue to sharpen their pencils to provide highest value to the taxpayers. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. The other alternatives do not allow for us to maintain current levels of service.Taxpa 3 Greg Repetti 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Land owners in the Valley fund the project. Easy to implement. Small increase in funding Levy Lid Lift Voice of people is needed. Does not generate enough dollars for the work TBD — Vehicle License Fee Hits the road users for the funding. Could generate significant dollars. Needs voter approval to get enough dollars. TBD — Sales & Use Tax Could generate significant dollars. Needs voter approval. TBD — Excess Property Tax None Juice is not worth the squeeze. Utility Tax: Could raise significant dollars Need voter approval to get to significant dollars. 4 Greg Repetti 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please explain: Road maintenance is a key function of government. 5 Greg Repetti 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 8 Property Tax Banked Capacity 7 Levy Lid Lift 5 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 4 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 1 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 2 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Anything that doesn't require new taxes. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Our roads are vital to our ability to thrive as a community. Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Move forward on all fronts that are available. 6 Greg Repetti 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: I have no opinion on this question Please provide additional comments: 7 Greg Repetti 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 8 Robin DeRuwe Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Robin DeRuwe Date: The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Chip seals NO Slurry seals smother b. Additional Comments: Cons Very ruff, loose gravel 1 Robin DeRuwe 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. WE need to maintain, not sure we can afford to improve b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. 2 Robin DeRuwe The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: yes, helps keep us from spending more in the future b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Keep us at a good level without totally braking the bank c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. I don't want to see the road deteriorate 3 Robin DeRuwe 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee TBD — Sales & Use Tax Lots of money To hard to pass TBD — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax: 4 Robin DeRuwe 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Need to plan for a rainy day 5 Robin DeRuwe 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 1 Property Tax Banked Capacity 6 Levy Lid Lift 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 7 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 8 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 4 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 5 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: 6 Robin DeRuwe 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Please provide additional comments: 7 Robin DeRuwe 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 8 Tom Dingus Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Tom Dingus Date: 9-14-21 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Less expensive Cons Not long lasting Not bike friendly b. Additional Comments: This is a difficult question to answer with just yes or no. I think it would depend upon the street and a lot of variables. I think for some streets this is a viable option and others it is not. The City would need to develop a policy for which streets to use these surface treatments. 1 Tom Dingus 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Our streets appear to be in good condition. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. We are having difficulty funding the current level of service so improving the overall level of service is unrealistic. Reducing the overall level of service would be short- sighted and not fiscally conservative (it would cost us more later.) 2 Tom Dingus The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, we should maintain the current condition. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. We need to keep the overall street condition from getting worse. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. Spending more is unrealistic when there is resistance to even maintaining current levels. Less is short-sighted and will eventually cost more later to improve street conditions and eventually decrease the appeal of Spokane Valley. 3 Tom Dingus 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity --Council approved — the council is elected to make these decisions ("republic" form of government vs. "direct democracy.") --Broad-based tax that correlates with the benefit from good streets --Easy to implement -- Local residents only; not all users -- Political cost to raising property tax -- Only would only provide a small part of the funding solution Levy Lid Lift -- Same as property tax banked capacity --Requires voter approval -- Same as property tax banked capacity TBD — Vehicle License Fee --Council approved -- This option generates significant revenue -- It is the option consistent with how other cities fund streets -- It is correlated with direct street use -- Transparent on connection to streets Transparent — citizens will be very aware of this revenue stream and likely be opposed (more likely to not oppose revenue streams that are less transparent Close second to property taxes in revenue streams citizens oppose TBD —Sales & Use Tax This option generates significant revenue Includes visitors and is broad based Not as transparent as property taxes and vehicle license fees Voter -approval is required Idaho sales tax is lower Not tied directly to streets Possibly impacts poorer residents disproportionately to their income TBD — Excess Property Tax See property taxes above. See property taxes above. Utility Tax: Council approved This option generates significant revenue Not as transparent as property taxes and vehicle license fees Does not tie directly to streets It is broad based Some businesses will be significantly impacted 4 Tom Dingus 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Surplus funds are not a reliable consistent form of revenue. Surplus funds are best used for one-time projects and unexpected expenses. 5 Tom Dingus 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 4 Property Tax Banked Capacity Not significant enough to justify the effort. 6 Levy Lid Lift Not significant enough to justify the effort. 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee This is most significant source and is how other cities fund streets. 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Significant revenue source. 5 TBD — Excess Property Tax Not significant enough to justify the effort. 3 Utility Tax Significant revenue source. 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Should be used for one-time projects and unexpected expenses. A "surplus" by definition is not a regular revenue source. 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds Assuming existing funds serve a valuable purpose a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Magic — endless surpluses!! b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Connect specifically with streets that would be improved Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: I think the City Council needs to start with options they can approve with the power we grant them (vehicle license fee and utility taxes.) 6 Tom Dingus 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: None — all needed. Please provide additional comments: The Council will need to be committed to explaining why additional revenue is necessary. It is a hard conversation; but the City can not rely on surpluses forever and taxes are necessary to have a vibrant community. The solution to street funding is mostly likely three -pronged. 1. We need a new, sustainable revenue source. 2. We can use surpluses to some degree (just not exclusively and be ready for years without surpluses.) 3. Use of surface treatments that are less expensive when viable and appropriate. 7 Tom Dingus 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Nothing to add. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Nothing to add. 8 Chris Moan Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Chris Moan Date: 8/29/2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Cheaper than full replacement Slows aging Easy to implement b. Additional Comments: Cons Poor for bicycling Not as smooth a road surface Is not long term fix 1 Chris Moan 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. We have learned that the City's roads are deteriorating and there is not a dedicated amount of funds available to maintain the roads in the condition they are currently in. Therefore it would be in the City's best interest to improve the level of service in order to ensure the roads are maintained at the "good" condition they are currently in. Maintaining the current level or reducing the level will lead to worse roads and a greater strain on the City's budget. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. See above. 2 Chris Moan The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: No, it will at minimum maintain the current condition b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. I selected this option because I believe this is the minimum that the City should be trying to get. This will be enough to keep the roads in their current condition, which is good. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. I think any additional funding no matter the amount will be beneficial. The City already allocates funds to the roads out of other city budgets, but this money is not guaranteed. If we get less than the 8 million, there is still a potential to use those same general funds to make up the difference. Getting more than 8 million would be great, but it sounds like it will be a struggle to get even the 8 million we need, so to try for more might be too cumbersome. 3 Chris Moan 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity *Could bring in almost a million *Can be approved by the Council *Doesn't raise property tax a lot ($29.27 on avg house) *Raises property tax the most out of options *Doesn't bring in as much as some of the other options Levy Lid Lift *Doesn't raise property tax much ($4.53 for avg house) *Voter approval needed *Doesn't bring in much money ($136,000) *Would likely need to do Banked Capacity before this option TBD — Vehicle License Fee *Directly related to use of roads *Common tactic within State/region to get funds *Can increase $50 without vote; common is more like $20 *Can bring in 1.4+ million *Creates separate legal entity (increase City operational costs?) *Spokane just voted to reduce vehicle tabs so may not be supported by public *Would take 4 years to increase $50 TBD — Sales & Use Tax *Can bring in large amounts of money *Common tactic in Washington *Voter approval needed *Creates separate legal entity *Has 10 year limit (not permanent solution) TBD — Excess Property Tax *Wouldn't be much of an increase on tax ($4.24 on avg house) Voter approval needed *Creates separate legal entity *Property values are increasing currently and people are already paying more *Doesn't bring in much money ($127,000) * Only typically lasts a year Utility Tax: *Can be Council approved *Can bring in large amounts of money *Common tactic around the region *Possible Voter Approval *No logical connection to road use, may be hard to convince voters if needed 4 Chris Moan 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: It would be the preference to have the amount of funds needed to maintain the current condition of the roads guaranteed and dedicated to roads. And then use the general funds on surprise or additional road projects if it is available, or have it available for other City needs. 5 Chris Moan 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 4 Property Tax Banked Capacity 6 Levy Lid Lift 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee This would have to be part of 2 or 3 funding options to get to the 8 million. 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax This would have to be part of 2 or 3 funding options to get to the 8 million. 5 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Seems like utility taxes and sales & use taxes are supported by other area communities or have been supported by the City residents in the past, so probably these have the best chance for support. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Something about the direct financial impact poor or worse roads has on residents (i.e. car repair costs, safety, etc.). Strategic Message #2: Something about quality of life and recreation on... useable sidewalks, with working street lights, on safe and smooth bike trails/lanes, etc. 6 Chris Moan c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: I would suggest trying again for voter approval with different tactics. I think it is better for your community if you get approval from your voters when attempting to get more funds from them, then forcefully taking more money from them. 7 Chris Moan 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: All these services have value so I don't think any should be eliminated. Please provide additional comments: I would prefer none of these are reduced, but probably each of them would need to be reduced at varying amounts if reduction is needed. 8 Chris Moan 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: N/A 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: It has been interesting taking part in this committee. I am a "less talk, more action" person, so I would like to have taken more time to dive deeper into these options and then start actually looking around to see if really any of them are feasible, but I understand that was not our role here. I fear the committee might suggest a path that turns out to be unrealistic or that the City doesn't have the expertise or resources to make happen and then either nothing comes of this or the committee just helped create a bigger mess. 9 Diana Wilhite ppwk .ne Valley Streets Sustaina oility Committee Questionnaire Name: Diana Wilhite Date: 9/14/2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevafey.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: ❑x Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Prolong the life of a street Click or tap here to enter t .xxt. Click or tap here to enter text:. Click or, tap here to enter text. Cons Who would do the chip sealing, etc? Big price tag for the citizens Cick or tap here to enter text: Click or tap here to enter text. b. Additional Comments: Have to create a scenario that will convince the citizens of the need to raise the amount of $$ to do all this work. Suggest using a phase approach to doing the management program showing citizens what streets would get the maintenance in what year. 1 Diana Wilhite 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. ❑x Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Most citizens think the streets of Spokane Valley are in pretty good shape. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. Reducing the overall level of service would lead to our street's deterioration. I don't know that the citizens would support the $$ needed to improve the overall level of service. 2 Diana Wilhite The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Click or tap here to enter text. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Think you can justify raising additional $$ for street improvement c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. We need to have some additional monies for street repair but the $8m price tag or more may be more than the public is willing to pay for. 3 Diana Wilhite 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.orgLstreetscornmittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Click or tap here to enter text. Doesn't raise that much $$ Levy Lid Lift Click or tap here to r ntz r text. Can't do it until you use up all the banked capacity TBD — Vehicle License Fee Can implement without a vote of the people Click or tap here to TBD — Sales & Use Tax Taxes non -citizens who use our roads Must keep the sales tax percent under 10% TBD — Excess Property Tax Click or tap here to enter texi. People are already upset about the increase in property taxes Utility Tax: Spreads the cost over all the citizens Hurts the low income people the most 4 Diana Wilhite Spokane Valley Streets Sustainability Committee Form 1: Funding Options Pros & Cons Name: Diana Wilhite Date: July 10, 2021 Task: Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the next page for funding descriptions and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Click or tap here to enter text. Property Tax Banked Capacity Click or tap here tip enter text. Levy Lid Lift Property taxes have already gone up a substantial amount Can't do until you use banked capacity TBD — Vehicle License Fee TBD — Sales & Use Tax TBD — Excess Property Tax Using this impacts those using the roads This type of tax will get revenue from those who use the roads but do not live in Spokane Valley There is no pro Utility Tax: If we can tax all the utility companies in the Valley, it will spread the cost over all residents Click or tap here to enter text. Adding to the sales tax may cause more people to shop across the border Property taxes have gone up substantially already this year Hurts those in the low income bracket more as these are essential services 5 Diana Wilhite 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ® Yes O No a. Please explain: The council should use a % of any surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP as they already have a rainy day fund for the budget. 6 Diana Wilhite 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and wvvw.sRokanevalley.orgLstreetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 5 Property Tax Banked Capacity 1 Levy Lid Lift 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax �n TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 4 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Click or tap here to enter text. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Click or tap here to enter text. Strategic Message #2: Lack or tap here to e c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Click or tap here to enter text. 7 Diana Wilhite 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 0 Pothole patching ■ X Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building O & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ■ ■ Sidewalk repairs E ■ Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control 6 ❑ Street lighting X ■ ■ X Pavement preservation: Locals Pavement preservation: Arterials 0 ❑ Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons • ❑ Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ■ X Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Click or tap here to enter text. Please provide additional comments: Click or tap here to enter to 8 Diana Wilhite 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Click or tap here to enter text. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Click or tap here to enter text. 9 Kathe Williams Siokane 4.0000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Kathe Williams Date: September 9, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Lower cost than some of the treatments used now Prevents further road deterioration Cons Rougher road treatments that are unpopular with some residents b. Additional Comments: The City should implement cost-effective methods to preserve the conditions of the roads. 1 Kathe Williams 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. The City should maintain the current "good" road conditions, looking for sources of $8M in funding to improve the roads that aren't currently being maintained due to the budget shortfall. We don't want our roads to deteriorate to be comparable with those in the City of Spokane. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. Improving the level of service requires funding over/above the $8M shortfall and my fellow citizens don't have the disposable income required or the willingness to fund beyond our current "good" standard. Reducing the overall level of service risks turning the City's road system into what's in the City of Spokane — their roads are terrible. Terrible roads do not attract business or encourage healthy growth that are vital to our community. 2 Kathe Williams The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, the roads should not be permitted to deteriorate any further. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. $8 million is what's required — if the City is going to mount a campaign to raise taxes, this is the most sensible solution vs. under/overfunding what's needed. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. It'II take a lot to convince the City's residents to approve funding so I favor asking for exactly what's needed — no more and no less — to make the request reasonable given our current economic environment. 3 Kathe Williams 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Council vote needed - Raises 10% of $8M needed for shortfall - Must be combined with other solutions to meet $8M target - Impacts property owners only Levy Lid Lift - Voter approval needed - PTBC must be implemented first - Impacts property owners only - Must be combined with other solutions to meet $8M target - $680K (5%) equivalent to 8.5% of $8M target TBD — Vehicle License Fee - Council vote needed - At $50 max raises 45% of $8M needed - Incremental solution over 6 years - Vehicle license fees may be unpopular; 9 TBDS with fees $20-$40 and none at $50 - Impacts vehicle owners only TBD —Sales & Use Tax - Impacts all who use the City roads: tourists, businesses and residents - Proportional to spending - Raises 73.75% of $8M needed - Voter approval needed - Dependent on continued economic success TBD — Excess Property Tax - Voter approval needed - Short term solution with 1 year duration - Impacts property owners only - Must be combined with other solutions to meet $8M target - $635K (5%) equivalent to $7.9% of $8M Utility Tax: - Council vote if less than 6% - 6% increase raises $8.1M exceeding $8M target - Scalable if combined with other solutions - Detrimental to attracting business - Base impacted is majority of households and businesses, second only to TBD- Sales & Use Tax 4 Kathe Williams 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: These surpluses should not be used to fund priority projects around the PMP when they take away from other potential priority projects. Instead, the PMP should have a continuing, dedicated funding supply that is sustainable and available specifically for the roads. Good roads are a priority — treating them as such is important! 5 Kathe Williams 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions Property Tax Banked Capacity 5 — Too small to make much of a difference at $878K max. Council approval. Levy Lid Lift 6 — Requires PTBC first, minimal impact of $136K/1%. Council approval. TBD — Vehicle License Fee 3 — Relatively common in other cities, including City of Spokane. Council approval. TBD — Sales & Use Tax 1— This option spreads the burden out evenly among businesses, residents and visitors. Ballot measure. TBD — Excess Property Tax 4 — Puts more of a burden on property owners (business and private). Ballot measure. Utility Tax 2 — Can raise more $, also very common in other cities. Council approval w/cap @ 6%. Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 7 — Not sustainable, affects bond rating and doesn't make roads a priority. Re allocate Existing Funds 8 — Not sustainable and doesn't make roads a priority. a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Sales & Use Tax if the public is educated about why the money is needed (with this funding, you will see "XXX Rds" paved and maintained) and how the funds will be obtained (visitors/residents/businesses). "Tie the vote to the results" as Ben Small recommended. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Keep the Valley's roads the best in Spokane County! Strategic Message #2: Recognize the benefits of good streets for visitors, residents and business. 6 Kathe Williams c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Escalating vehicle licensing fees followed by property tax banked capacity followed by utility tax implementation with a total amount raised of $8M. 7 Kathe Williams 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Only if needed to reduce the budget shortfall, though it's hard to know what to eliminate without knowing the costs associated with each one. The services indicated above can be cut back or eliminated because they're not critical to citizen safety. Please provide additional comments: As shown above, I'd recommend eliminating litter/weed control first, landscaping second and pavement preservation finally. I'd also recommend finding additional ways to get options litter/weed control and landscaping done through volunteer groups, etc. 8 Kathe Williams 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: How to curb speeding on roads residential access roads such as Evergreen/McDonald through roundabouts or other means. Nuisance neighbor ordinance enforcement feedback. Creating an identity for the City of Spokane Valley to attract families, tourism and continued economic growth. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Most enlightening and enjoyable — there's been much to learn about the City's PMP from the City's website and the other committee members. It's deepened my commitment to the City, made me appreciate even more how great our roads already are given the complexity of the PMP and created an advocate for road improvement in the City of Spokane Valley. 9 Matt Ewers Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Matt Ewers Date: August 31, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Faster and less expensive Extends the life of the road surface b. Additional Comments: Cons Some people complain because it is not as smooth as a newly paved surface. As a biker, it does not matter because the surface is much better than loose gravel. 1 Matt Ewers 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. A city with a well -maintained road system benefits all citizens via appearance, traffic fluidity, efficient freight movements, multimodal options, etc. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. These assets belong to the citizens of the city and should be maintained for ourselves and our visitors. Delaying the inevitable only results and a higher overall cost to the citizens. 2 Matt Ewers The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. Z Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, because a city with a well -maintained road network is a pleasant place to live and for visitors who will notice upon arrival. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. We want to be proud of our city and thus maintaining streets, bridges, sidewalks, pathways in ideal condition should be our objective. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. At some point in time, either the unmaintained asset will deteriorate beyond normal use and thus will need to be completely rebuilt from the substrate to the surface. This is extremely expensive for the life of the asset. 3 Matt Ewers 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Steady and reliable source of income. Properties improved with housing or businesses create economic development but require a viable road network for goods and people. Perhaps some funds should be allocated for adjacent roads, sidewalks and pathways. This can be a problem for too many people on fixed incomes even though they use the road network directly or indirectly Levy Lid Lift Undermined TBD — Vehicle License Fee Absolutely one of the best options because of the nexus. If you operate a vehicle or truck, you should pay for the road network. None TBD — Sales & Use Tax It is said that a fine road network encourages economic growth which translates into additional sales tax revenue, so securing a small percent to transportation is appropriate. None TBD — Excess Property Tax Unsure Unsure Utility Tax: None Illogical, no nexus 4 Matt Ewers 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: MPM should have its own reliable source of income because regardless of the state of the economy, the road network must be maintained. The negative effects of not maintaining the roads will cause a decline or further decline in our standard of living. Surplus funds may be better used for the Police Department staffing or one-time project funding. 5 Matt Ewers 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 3 Property Tax Banked Capacity 6 Levy Lid Lift 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 8 TBD — Excess Property Tax 7 Utility Tax 5 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 4 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? TBD sales and use tax. Because of the nexus. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: 6 Matt Ewers 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: All services are needed for a well operated city. Please provide additional comments: 7 Matt Ewers 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 8 Ben Small Spo.000%.„,„ kane ,jValley Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Ben Small Date: 9-20-2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https:[[www.spokanevallev.org[pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: © Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Cost effective ............. Extends the life Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. b. Additional Comments: Cons During the application public may not like it Some might not see it as worthy of their investment Surface is not the best for non vehicle traffic Click or tap here to enter text. I think it needs to be used sparingly and the application evaluated per set criteria. 1 Ben Small 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select orie: ® Improve the overall level of service. O Maintain the current overall level of service. O Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. believe that we should set the bar high and then work to create a vision citizens can buy into. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. am not sure people will invest more money to maintain or lessen the status quo. 2 Ben Small The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: El $b additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. El $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline Tess than if it were funded at a lower level. El $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. D Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: 1 believe it will b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. My selection goes is driven by the level of satisfaction in the final product. if we are clear that 8 million is the amount, then we should defend it by seeking that amount and showing how we are meeting the expectations. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. We have to trust that we have the right estimate on cost. If we do not have the right cost estimate then we should adjust the cost estimate before proposing a solution. have found that setting the appropriate expectation of what can and should be done with any solution is the best path forward. 3 Ben Small 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Levy Lid Lift Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. TBD — Vehicle License Fee Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. TBD — Sales & Use Tax I am convinced that this is the best option as it spreads the burden out across non residents that utilize our existing infrastructure. It is sensitive to economic downturn. TBD — Excess Property Tax Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Utility Tax: Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. 4 Ben Small 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes © No a. Please explain: It is hard to answer this question in absolutes. I think funds could be used as stop gaps but should not be used as a long-term solution. I would rather see surplus funds invested in one time spending to improve the economy. 5 Ben Small 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 7 Property Tax Banked Capacity 6 Levy Lid Lift 2 TBD —Vehicle License Fee 1 TBD —Sales & Use Tax 4 TBD — Excess Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 8 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 5 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Click or tap here to enter text. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Click or tap here to enter text. Strategic Message #2: Click or tap here to enter text. c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Click or tap here to enter text. 6 Ben Small 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ■ El Pothole patching a ■ Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ® ❑ Sidewalk repairs ■ 0 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ® ■ Street lighting ® ❑ ❑ Pavement preservation: Locals © Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ IZ Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons Cl IZI Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ® ■ Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: I think everything on the list is important in order to maintain a vibrant thriving community. Please provide additional comments: Click or tap here to enter text. 7 Ben Small 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: would love to see sidewalks provided in all areas of the city. It is very costly but I think it is necessary for safety. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Thank you for allowing me to serve and provide my input. This topic is necessary to solve. I think the City staff did an amazing job of putting together topics and information in a way that was easily understood. Thank you again. 8 Calvin B. Coblentz Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Calvin B. Coblentz Date: 9/22/2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Extends the life of the pavement More cost-effective long term b. Additional Comments: Cons Chip seal has a bad reputation Would need to properly market to the public Some limitations in locating contractors for all applications 1 Calvin B. Coblentz 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. The roads are in pretty good shape now according to input from the committee, city staff, and from the public survey responses. We will save money over time by maintaining them at this acceptable level. Letting them deteriorate will lead to total replacements, which are much more expensive than maintenance. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. It is estimated that we need to find an additional $8 million to maintain at current condition. It will be challenging to come up with that funding annually and going above and beyond that may be an unrealistic goal. To reduce the condition of the service means to allow the roads to deteriorate, which will be more costly in the long run. 2 Calvin B. Coblentz The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: In the current market a $16 million budget will accomplish that ($8 million additional). Some of the revenue options that may be chosen to get to this number may decrease or increase based upon future economic factors, but the population and industry growth in the Valley may also allow these revenue sources to grow and meet any increases in maintenance costs in the future. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. $8 million is a goal that we hope we can meet to continue a proper maintenance schedule. It may be difficult, and we might fall short of that goal, but that should be the target as you develop your funding strategies. If efforts do not reach the $8 m mark, we should get as close as possible within the $4-7m range. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. $0-3 million is not an option based upon my earlier comments. The roads would deteriorate rapidly, and some routine maintenance (snow removal, weed control etc.) might have to be reduced. Over $8 is a hard reach in the opinion of the committee and may not be realistic considering the amount of taxation it would require; hard to sell to 3 Calvin B. Coblentz the public. According to the public survey, they want the roads maintained at current levels. 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity It's an easy option It doesn't produce much money Levy Lid Lift Requires voter approval Small amount of money TBD — Vehicle License Fee Road users are taxed, which is an appropriate target There is a negative history in our region surrounding tab fees. It may be unpopular and would require persuasion. TBD — Sales & Use Tax It could produce a large amount of revenue ($3-6 million). Also targets users who don't live in the Valley Requires two taxes and the state tax rates are already high, compared to our neighbors in Idaho. TBD — Excess Property Tax Targets people living in the valley and using the roads. Single year tax that would have to be accomplished annually. Doesn't produce large capital. Utility Tax: Mostly untapped resource so far. Other municipalities are using it. Some limitations with water companies' ability to administer the tax. May burden the poor and hit some businesses harder than others. 4 Calvin B. Coblentz 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Surplus funding should not be "relied" upon as sustainable revenue for the PMP. For the reasons listed above (they can fluctuate based upon future economic factors), they are not reliable. However, surplus funding should still be considered if you fail to reach the $8 million in additional funding, or the revenue options put in place fluctuate or maintenance costs go up. It's an option for consideration for one time shortfalls, but it should not be part of the sustainment strategy. 5 Calvin B. Coblentz 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 4 Property Tax Banked Capacity First step if other property taxes are to be explored. Less than a million, one-time revenue, but opens up other opportunities. 5 Levy Lid Lift Very small amount of funding and would require stirring up the voter base. 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee Est. the TBD and employ marketing campaign along with other TBD actions, even though it probably won't require public vote. Limit it to $20, which would bring a projected $1.4 m. annually. 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Est. the TBD and market the reasons for the tax increase to the public. A positive for Valley residents is that it collects revenues from tourists and outsiders also. Increases would have to be reasonable, but it has potential to raise a lot of funding and reach our target budget. 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax Est. the TBD and consider this option. It won't raise a lot of money but in order to reach the $8m additional sustainable revenues it will require a combination of revenue sources. 3 Utility Tax Modest rates could be imposed by council without voter approval, however, might be good to get voter consensus regardless. Can capture large revenue and might be crucial to meeting the overall budget. 8 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Last resort in my opinion. 7 Re allocate Existing Funds I'm not sure what these existing funds would be, we didn't discuss this much, just briefly. However, there does seem to be opportunity to look at some of the revenues that are currently going to other budget items to see if they can be redirected to the PMP. a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? The public survey indicates that they want the budget to increase to maintain good roads and they don't want other services to decrease to accomplish it (i.e. parks/law enforcement). That's encouraging factor. Again, the survey showed a more favorable response to vehicle tab fees and sales tax and was more split on property and utility taxes. I think it's appealing to valley residents to try to raise some of the funding from non -valley visitors. 6 Calvin B. Coblentz b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Emphasize quality of valley roads don't want them to become like surrounding areas. Strategic Message #2: A priority with new funding will be local streets that are less well maintained than arterials. c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: If all voter items were rejected, I would advise council to act in the ways they have available to raise the necessary funding without a vote, i.e. banked capacity, vehicle tab fees, and utility taxes. I would also look at other revenues currently going to other budget areas to see if they can be redirected to the PMP. 7 Calvin B. Coblentz 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: I cannot imagine eliminating any of these components. However, safety actions should have top priority over appearance actions. Please provide additional comments: The community responses show that there is interest in improving local streets over arterials. That should not be ignored. 8 Calvin B. Coblentz 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: The city staff should be commended for their efforts to make this process successful. It was very well organized and the committee was provided ample resources and information to understand the challenges and imagine the solutions. Having a professional outside facilitator for the committee process was another major advantage. Great job! 9 Mike Frucci pa�ar�e .a1Yey. Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Mike Frucci Date: Sept. 14, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevallev.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Proven low-cost methods to extend pavement life All of these (including chip seal) do not have to be placed full width — e.g. leave shoulders / bike lanes untreated or apply something more bike friendly like fog or slurry seals Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Cons Chip seal treatment is not desirable in all locations due to impacts on bike riders Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. b. Additional Comments: An effective program needs to have a variety of solutions available to the decision makers so that each location and situation can receive the best low-cost solution. IT would be unfortunate to 'tie the hands' of decision makers via legislated decision to not allow a certain treatment type in the City's program. 1 Mike Frucci 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. The data shows that the current level of service is good. This is supported by my own personal observations as a system user and the explanations of the subject matter experts. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. It does not appear that increased spending associated with increasing the level of service would result in a public benefit. Reducing the level of service will result in system decline which data shows will accelerate over time. That decline will ultimately lead to far greater funding needs for major rehabilitation of the streets as the conditions cross over from needing preservation treatments to needing major reconstruction/replacement. 2 Mike Frucci The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: yes b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. My understanding is that this level of funding is supported both by past investment level experience and by the subject matter expert modeling tool. Continuing efforts to maintain the current pavement conditions seems to me to be the most responsible fiscal solution. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. Funding at lower levels simply kicks the problem down the road for others to deal with (at a much higher cost) in the future. This is not a question of is this investment needed, but what is the appropriate level to maintain a lowest life cycle cost system condition. It appears that funding at a higher level is not necessary if the proposed increase of $8 million achieves the lowest life cycle for the desired condition level. 3 Mike Frucci 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Levy Lid Lift Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. TBD — Vehicle License Fee System users pay Impacts lower income households much differently than higher income levels. Does not collect from system users that do not live in the City limits TBD — Sales & Use Tax Pulls revenue from a broad base Click or tap here to enter text. TBD — Excess Property Tax Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. Utility Tax: Potential to cover the whole need with one tax. Makes it more visible / understandable to those of us outside of City budgeting as opposed to solutions that pull funds from a variety of sources. Potential for public perception that it is the utility charging this fee. 4 Mike Frucci 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Using the house analogy, homeowners fund and do the maintenance and repair of items that sustain the building when it is needed. When the roof leaks they repair it. Sure, ultimately, they save enough for a new roof, but the repair and occasional maintenance is what extends the roof to its design maximum life. A sustainable pavement management system which extends the system components to their design maximum life relies on a sustainable and reliable funding stream. Putting off needed maintenance and repairs rarely saves money in the long run because as the pavements deteriorate the repairs become much more expensive. The same is obvious in the house roof analogy — ignoring the leak does not save money and cannot be subject to the whimsy of a surplus fund. The surplus fund should be retained for the system additions or major rehabilitation efforts. When available and applied as match for grants and Federal funds, it is a dollar multiplier. While we benefit greatly from these system addition and enhancement projects, they become somewhat meaningless if the big picture system is allowed to decline into disrepair becoming too expensive to operate at an acceptable level. Maintenance and preservation of the pavement asset in our city needs to be funded from a reliable and sustainable source that does not fluctuate between years of excess and years of no funding available. 5 Mike Frucci 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 5 Property Tax Banked Capacity I think all the property tax related options have problems ranging from the small amounts generated to the fact that one or more of them have limitations on time (one year, etc.) 6 Levy Lid Lift I think all the property tax related options have problems ranging from the small amounts generated to the fact that one or more of them have limitations on time (one year, etc.) 2 TBD —Vehicle License Fee This should be on the table. Only reason it is not my top choice is that it does not generate the full need. I suggest a combination of Utility, TBD, and perhaps Sales & Use 3 TBD — Sales & Use Tax This is the option that pulls funds from system users that live outside the City. 7 TBD —Excess Property Tax I think all the property tax related options have problems ranging from the small amounts generated to the fact that one or more of them have limitations on time (one year, etc.) 1 Utility Tax Capacity to fully fund the need from a single source 4 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Perhaps an acceptable source as a transition to a sustainable decision. Long term this is an undesirable source in my opinion Re allocate Existing Funds Don't have enough information to rank this one. Assuming the existing budget does not have much room to pull funds from other priority areas a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Interestingly, as much as the Vehicle License Fee is/could be a user tax specific to roads, it does have some difficult perceptions and related baggage and therefor has a difficult public support road. The Utility tax generates a lot of funds but in very small monthly amounts at the household level. This situation is much easier for the citizenry to budget for and absorb, and perhaps to support. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. 6 Mike Frucci Strategic Message #1: Seeing the success of work the City of Spokane accomplished, this effort needs a clearly articulated plan of what will be done, and clearly articulated and regular updates of progress. The proposal should consider a sunset at which time the Council can go back to the citizenry to report and rediscuss effectiveness prior to continuation. Strategic Message #2: Click or tap here to enter text. c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: set aside personal and political aspirations, use the data and the subject matter expert knowledge to make informed decisions. The job here is to protect the investment the citizens have made in this very important public asset. 7 Mike Frucci 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Click or tap here to enter text. Please provide additional comments: LICK or tap nere to enter text. 8 Mike Frucci 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: . IILi� vi U i ici c w ci I lcl LE'XL. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: This effort was well planned in that it engaged a good cross section of interests and expertise. 9 Kelly Fukai Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Kelly Fukai Date: The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Highly Effective Moderate cost Already experience using b. Additional Comments: Cons Not desirable for all users Small construction window Not for all types of streets 1 Kelly Fukai 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. To improve the whole system is too costly. We already have good streets and that should be maintained along with targeted/prioritized improvements. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. We do not want to lose quality we want to maintain through a balanced both in cost and priority system that allows for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods and services. 2 Kelly Fukai The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, it will allow for maintain the existing good condition. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Users of the system should pay for the type of system they expect. This meets the current need but does not address future growth of the city. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. If we don't address the existing shortfall the opportunity for more rapid deterioration exists. 3 Kelly Fukai 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Uses existing tool There isn't enough money in this to fully address the need. Levy Lid Lift Needs voter approval Not large enough dollars TBD — Vehicle License Fee Nexus to the system Not sufficient to meet the need TBD — Sales & Use Tax Large enough opportunity to meet the need. Easy to apply/collect Captures all users of the system including those who don't live in the Valley but travel to the Valley Needs a vote TBD — Excess Property Tax Large enough to meet the need. Easy to apply/collect Doesn't apply to all users Needs a vote/political Utility Tax: Could be large enough Already exists Too political Declining revenues 4 Kelly Fukai 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: General fund should not be relied upon for the existing system maintenance. It could be used for special circumstances or projects. 5 Kelly Fukai 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 1 Property Tax Banked Capacity 4 Levy Lid Lift 3 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 5 TBD — Excess Property Tax 6 Utility Tax 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Sales and Use Tax b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Everyone pays — even outsiders Strategic Message #2: Maintain the Valley Quality c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Vehicle Fees 6 Kelly Fukai 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: N/A Please provide additional comments: 7 Kelly Fukai 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: 8 Karl Otterstrom Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Karl Otterstrom Date: 9/24/21 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Allows more road preservation activities per season and stretches dollar b. Additional Comments: Cons Must be done well to be acceptable, especially along residential streets 1 Karl Otterstrom 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Reflects the system is in a state of good repair while reflecting the need to maintain and prioritize it. Balance the objective with other municipal services (parks, public safety, economic development) b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. The case against reducing the overall level of service is compelling. The costs would eventually catch. Improving the overall level of service would be more compelling if the City's maintenance and preservation practices were severely behind, which they are not. 2 Karl Otterstrom The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: I believe so. b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Aligns with my recommended target condition and reflects solid analysis from staff and consulting engineers hired by the City to evaluate preservation and maintenance practices. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. 3 Karl Otterstrom 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Provides some funding withing existing taxing authority Insufficient on its own Levy Lid Lift Voter -approved Appears to be unpreferred TBD — Vehicle License Fee Motor vehicles contribute most to damage of pavement Only paid by cars registered in the City and not other users. TBD — Sales & Use Tax Collected on all retail activity in the City, including visitors; is palatable to voters in most instances Sales tax is considered a regressive tax from a socioeconomic standpoint TBD — Excess Property Tax Voter approved Annual voter approval is excessively tedious for funding a basic government function Utility Tax: Current rates are effectively zero (besides solid waste), suggesting a tax increase would still position the City favorably when compared to other jurisdictions Concerns of lack of support because it does not require voter approval at the ballot 4 Karl Otterstrom 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: PMP reflects a core service of the City and is about maintaining assets and should be addressed in the baseline budget and financial projections. 5 Karl Otterstrom 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 5 Property Tax Banked Capacity This has benefits but doesn't provide enough revenue. 4 Levy Lid Lift It requires a vote which can be good for public accountability. However, there is little support for it. 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee Motor vehicles, as opposed to other non -motorized vehicles and users, contribute the most to pavement wear. However, this tax has limited revenue capacity and does not incorporate other users of the roadway that frequent businesses and activities in the City. It should be considered a part of the revenue strategy but not excessively. 3 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Sales taxes are generally preferred by voters, likely because they are paid incrementally and at the point of sale (rather than to a tax collection mechanism like a car tab bill or property tax bill). The fact the collection covers visitors, commuters and others who use roads but don't pay VLFs or Utility Taxes is appealing. 8 TBD — Excess Property Tax This gets confusing and problematic to communication and doesn't generate enough funding 1 Utility Tax Utility consumption reflects business and residential intensity and is analogous to road consumption. The tax increase can be done without placing businesses and residents at a strategic disadvantage, since the tax rate could still be lower than many surrounding jurisdictions. 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Not a long term strategy. 6 Re allocate Existing Funds The benefit of reallocation is it forces hard choices about city services and determines which are desired by the council and community. It may be an exercise that helps determine if new tax revenues are needed for programs that are of particular interest to voters. a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? TBD Sales & Use Tax because it is less visible and it must be voted upon. 6 Karl Otterstrom b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Have a clear plan before the measure that communicates the Council's intent. Will the Council support PMP without a voter -approved tax measure and instead one requiring council -approval only? 7 Karl Otterstrom 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: No Please provide additional comments: If funding is not approved for road maintenance (either by the Council or by the voters) other city priorities should be prioritized. However, if there is a risk to other programs that are a lower priority, the Council should afford citizens the opportunity to preserve with new revenue. For example, disapproval of a tax to maintain roads should not be taken as a sign to cut parks and recreation, only if first parks and rec services have a chance to go to voters for their services. 8 Karl Otterstrom 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Buildout of sidewalk network, particularly on arterials and collector streets. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Well done in spite of the Pandemic. The breakout sessions were particularly effective. 9 Joe Tortorelli Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Joe Tortorelli Date: The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Cheap repair Extend life of road surface Slurry makes it look new b. Additional Comments: Cons Chip seals create rough surface Difficult to ride a bike on Leaves tar marks on other surfaces 1 Joe Tortorelli 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Good roads indicates that the city and residents are invested in the community. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. If you start with a high level you always strive to improve 2 Joe Tortorelli The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. Z Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Strive for an 80% in good repair b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Increases quality of roads c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. Not enough 3 Joe Tortorelli 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Not enough for the pain Levy Lid Lift Not enough for the pain TBD — Vehicle License Fee Takes a step process by vote of $20,$40, plus Adds to individual car tabs TBD — Sales & Use Tax Everyone pays thru increase in retail sales including people from out of the area that use our roads. TBD — Excess Property Tax Doesn't add enough Utility Tax: Not enough and taxes one utility to fund another 4 Joe Tortorelli 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: 5 Joe Tortorelli 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 5 Property Tax Banked Capacity 6 Levy Lid Lift 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 3 TBD — Excess Property Tax 7 Utility Tax 4 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Will take an information campaign b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Everyone pays even visitors from out of the area that use our roads Strategic Message #2: Be proud of our streets c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: Keep trying! 6 Joe Tortorelli 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ ❑ Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ ❑ Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ ❑ Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ ❑ Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ ❑ Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Please provide additional comments: 7 Joe Tortorelli 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: Toll roads, extend Appleway to Sullivan Rd. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Excellent process 8 Lois Bollenback Siokane 4.0000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Lois Bollenback Date: September 22, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Cons b. Additional Comments: There are many resources available outlining best practices in pavement management that recommend various surface treatments intended to extend the functional life of a road. These best practices recommend preventive maintenance programs that utilize various low-cost surface treatments as mentioned above. 1 Lois Bollenback 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. ❑ Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Studies have generally shown that the driving public expects a high level of service. There are also some safety benefits to maintaining surface friction and other attributes associated with various pavement levels of serviceability. That being said, as a staff & technical representative, I am not in a position to recommend a service level to a policy board. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. 2 Lois Bollenback The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. Studies show that deferring lower cost preventive maintenance leads to higher costs in the long term by decreasing the time cycle for rehabilitation of a roadway. Budgeting for a program is dependent upon resources available to the City and the desired level of service determined by the policy board. Determining the appropriate level of funding is a question for the City Council. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. 3 Lois Bollenback 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee TBD — Sales & Use Tax TBD — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax: 4 Lois Bollenback 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes ❑ No a. Please explain: I believe questions regarding what the City "should" do with regards to funding allocation are best determined by the City Council and not by technical staff. That being said, ongoing maintenance programs generally function more effectively when the revenue streams required to administer the program are predictable. 5 Lois Bollenback 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions Property Tax Banked Capacity Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee TBD — Sales & Use Tax TBD — Excess Property Tax Utility Tax Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? As stated in my responses to other questions, this is a policy decision that is more appropriately addressed by the City Council. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: 6 Lois Bollenback 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ ❑ Pothole patching ❑ ❑ Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ ❑ Sidewalk repairs ❑ ❑ Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ ❑ Street lighting ❑ ❑ Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ ❑ Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ ❑ Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ ❑ Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ ❑ Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: Best practices that involve lower cost/efficient maintenance practices are effective strategies for managing budget constraints. Similarly, it's possible to consider strategies that involve small reductions across categories. Setting priorities like this, however, are policy decisions that are more appropriately addressed by the City Council. Please provide additional comments: 7 Lois Bollenback 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: As a newcomer to Spokane, I am less equipped to comment on the preservation and maintenance challenges being faced by the City. I have referred, however, to the implementation of best practices for system preservation and would encourage the City to consider some benchmarking efforts with cities of a similar size that may help determine budgeting parameters and areas of potential improvement. 8 Todd Henry SOmilkane alley Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Todd Henry Date: 8/30/21 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevallev.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Multiple options for different road purpose Cons Managing citizen opinions on what should be applied for their use. b. Additional Comments: These treatments seem like an option if others in the region are using them. I do not have enough information to make that decision and would leave that up to city staff to evaluate. 1 Todd Henry 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: Z Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. The target level somewhere between maintain and improve service. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. 2 Todd Henry The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. Z $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. ❑ $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. 3 Todd Henry 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity City council candidates have and are running with "no new tax" campaigns. Levy Lid Lift TBD — Vehicle License Fee Burden falls on users of the roads Increase in transportation costs = increase in end users cost TBD — Sales & Use Tax Spreads the costs to visitors and the citizens to pay City council candidates have and are running with "no new tax" campaigns. TBD — Excess Property Tax Voter COSV Core Belief is to not raise property tax Utility Tax: Potential to multi tax one citizen/entity/property owner if multi tax sources are used. City council candidates have and are running with "no new tax" campaigns. 4 Todd Henry 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please explain: 5 Todd Henry 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevalley.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 3 Property Tax Banked Capacity 4 Levy Lid Lift 1 TBD — Vehicle License Fee 2 TBD — Sales & Use Tax 6 TBD — Excess Property Tax 5 Utility Tax 7 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) 8 Re -allocate Existing Funds a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? Vehicle license fee, shared burden goes to the users. b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: The burden for all city services falls on the city council, staff and its citizens to maintain the level of service the citizens expect. Strategic Message #2: c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? 6 Todd Henry 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: none Please provide additional comments: 7 Todd Henry 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: Opinion: It is challenging discussing raising taxes for these services when the COSV voters elect candidates that run on "no new tax" platforms. Elected COSV council members should uphold their promise that got them elected and not raise taxes. This leaves the option of putting these on the ballot and let the voters decide. I would assume these would not be popular votes with the COSV voters, so that pushes it back to the COSV City Council to not handcuff the COSV staff and make the tough decision to fund these services, by the only options that they are allowed. • COSV Core Belief "We believe that the economic and commercial job base of the community should be preserved and encouraged to grow as an alternative to increasing property taxes. We believe it imperative to have an expanded and diverse economic base." 8 Melanie Rose Siokane 4.000Valle . Streets Sustainability Committee Questionnaire Name: Melanie Rose, Avista Date: Sept. 14, 2021 The following questions refer to the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP). Please visit https://www.spokanevalley.org/pmp for additional information. 1. Should the City implement surface treatments, such as chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals? Select one: Z Yes ❑ No a. Please identify your pros and cons for surface treatments: Pros Extends the life of roadways Relatively inexpensive Cons Chip seals are unpopular Not a long-term fix Public education will be needed b. Additional Comments: Nearly 65% of survey respondents said "yes" to use of surface treatment strategies 1 Melanie Rose 2. What is your recommended "target" level of service the City should fund and implement? Select one: ❑ Improve the overall level of service. Z Maintain the current overall level of service. ❑ Reduce the overall level of service. a. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. We need to maintain our roads in their current "good" condition and strive to improve beyond this level when funding permits. There are multiple funding mechanisms available to fund the 'gap' to achieve this target level of service. b. Please explain why you did not select the other two options. Improving the overall level of service is too expensive and reducing the overall level of service will be more costly in the long run. 2 Melanie Rose The City has determined an additional $8 million would be needed beyond current spending in order to maintain the streets in their current condition. Knowing the funding tools available to the City to generate revenue, answer the following. 3. How much additional annual revenue should the City secure to satisfy your expectations of a practical and realistic PMP? Select one: ❑ $0 additional. Dedicate no additional funds and allow a continued decline of the street network. ❑ $1-$3 million additional. Dedicate some additional money to complete an extra one to three projects each year but still allow the street network to steadily decline, but at a slower rate than we see today. ❑ $4-$7 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra four to seven projects each year but allow the street network to steadily decline less than if it were funded at a lower level. Z $8 million additional. Dedicate additional money to complete an extra eight to 10 projects each year and stop the overall deterioration of the current street condition. ❑ Over $8 million additional. Dedicate more funds in order to improve the overall condition of City streets to a condition that is better than the current status today. a. Will this budget satisfy your recommended "target" condition level of service in Q2? Please explain: Yes, because it will stop overall deterioration and keep the current street conditions as they are, which are generally "good". b. Please explain why you selected your preferred option. I am in favor of maintaining the condition of our streets, which means we need to fund the $8 million gap. The survey results (Q9) clearly show public support for dedicating additional funding to maintain the current condition of our streets, but survey respondents seemed to stop short of allocating more funds to improving the streets (vs. maintaining current condition). We should fully fund the $6.5M gap to improve and maintain local streets first, since this is what the citizen survey results prioritize, before allocating more funds to arterial streets (which are also eligible for grant $). c. Please explain why you did not select the other options. We can't afford not to maintain our streets. At the same time, the survey results do not indicate public support to dedicate more than $8M more per year to improve the overall condition of streets. And funding mechanisms to cover more than the $8M gap are likely not realistic or palatable for city residents, at this time. 3 Melanie Rose 4. Please list your pros and cons for each of the available funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Funding Option Pros Cons Property Tax Banked Capacity -Stable, available funding -Easy to implement with council approval -$7.60/$1000 is steep tax increase to generate only $878,000/year -Disproportionate impact on low income and seniors Levy Lid Lift -Hard to identify a pro for this option -Tax impact for property owners is less than Banked Capacity -Restricted time period per voter approval, so not a long-term solution -Doesn't raise much $ vs. tax impact -Forced to implement Banked Capacity first TBD — Vehicle License Fee -Assessed on users of the streets so connects revenue to users -Relatively easy to implement -Raises significant funds, over time -Doesn't raise enough to cover entire $8M gap -Misses street users from outside city -'Tab fees' are generally unpopular TBD — Sales & Use Tax -Generates the highest revenue of the three TBD options -Captures revenue from residents, businesses and city visitors -More difficult to implement (voter approval) -Annual revenue varies, making planning more difficult -Disproportionate impact on low income and seniors (regressive) TBD — Excess Property Tax -Focuses on users of street system — city property owners -Restricted duration, so not long term solution -Doesn't raise much $ vs. tax impact -More difficult to implement (voter approval) Utility Tax: -Raises the most $ vs. tax impact -Easy to implement with council approval -Could potentially solve the $8M gap with a single funding option -Flexible - amounts; utility types; % tax rate could decrease if paired with other funding options that increase over time -Will be a hardship for some residents such as low income and seniors -Disproportionate impact on businesses (depending on industry) -Taxing solid waste may lead to more code enforcement violations -CLEAR COMMUNICATION needed so taxpayers know the increase goes directly to City, not utilities raising rates 4 Melanie Rose 5. The City has historically set aside General Fund surpluses from previous years to fund priority projects such as grade separating key intersections that cross the BNSF railroad tracks, new economic development initiatives, or needed improvements to city parks. Since 2019, the City has been relying on some of these surplus funds to offset deficits in the maintenance portion of the PMP (street lighting, snow plowing, pothole repair, etc.). This has reduced the amount of surplus funds available to apply towards priority community projects. The amount of General Fund surpluses depends on the economy. If the economy were to decline, it is possible that surplus funds would no longer be available to support the PMP. Should the City rely on surplus funds to offset deficits of the PMP? Select one: ❑ Yes Z No a. Please explain: Although it is tempting to tap into surplus funds to support the PMP, this is a risky strategy and is not what the community survey respondents say they want. It is time for the City to identify and implement a dedicated funding mechanism (or multiple mechanisms) to fund the $8M gap in the PMP to ensure the sustainability of the streets in their current 'good' condition. This leaves the General Fund surpluses available to apply toward other priority community projects. 5 Melanie Rose 6. Please rank the available funding options in order of preference as necessary to satisfy your responses to Questions 2 and 3. Rank #1 is your most preferred funding option and Rank #8 is your least preferred funding option. Specify any notable assumptions associated with the selected funding options. See the last page of this questionnaire for supplemental funding descriptions and information and www.spokanevallev.org/streetscommittee for video and PowerPoint files. Rank Funding Option Comments or Assumptions 7 Property Tax Banked Capacity Steep tax increase with very little $ generated will generate unhappy residents and businesses 8 Levy Lid Lift Hard to identify a pro, other than this is less of a tax impact than property tax banked capacity (PTBC) but forces use of PTBC first 2 TBD — Vehicle License Fee Assessed on users of the street system; easy to implement and can be increased over time 1 TBD — Sales & Use Tax Of the 3 TBDs, raises the most revenue vs. tax impact and also captures visitor (street user) revenue 4 TBD — Excess Property Tax TBD focuses on users of the system; Not a long-term solution and doesn't raise much $ vs. tax impact 3 Utility Tax Raises the most $ vs. tax impact; could potentially solve $8M gap with a single funding option or combine with one (or more) of the TBD options; may have disproportionate impact on businesses 5 Annual Surplus Transfers (if available) Use to fill any unexpected funding gaps 6 Re -allocate Existing Funds This could be an option, although used gently and sparingly a. Which of these funding options do you believe the community would most likely support? Why or why not? I believe the community is most likely to support a 'user tax' form of funding first — meaning taxing the users of the streets. This lends itself to two of the TBD options — Sales & Use Tax and Vehicle License Fees. The community survey results indicate support and understanding for an additional funding mechanism to pay for the PMP and maintain the condition of the City's streets (especially local streets). Regardless of the funding option(s) selected, I believe it is important for the City to 1) place a 'sunset' on the funding mechanism and 2) communicate clearly and often with taxpayers about how the funding is being spent. Transparency is key to gain trust, going forward. 6 Melanie Rose b. Considering voter -approved funding options, please suggest at least two strategic messages that could resonate with voters and create support for voter approval. Strategic Message #1: Save Our Streets Strategic Message #2: Preserve Our Streets c. Considering voter -approved funding options, if voter -approval is not received, what recommendations would you suggest to City Council? Response: I would recommend the council implement the $20 vehicle license fee to start. This is a direct assessment on the users of the street system. Allocate the full $1.4M in funding raised from this fee toward local streets to show citizens that the desire they expressed in the survey to improve local streets has been heard and is being acted on. Demonstrating transparency and building trust will help with future requests for voter -approved funding options. If the council desires to fund the full $8M, the next non -voter -approved option to consider implementing is a utility tax — at the lowest rate possible to fill the remaining $6.6M funding gap. If the utility tax option is pursued, it might be a good idea to get additional input from citizens and businesses, in terms of the specific utility(ies) to be taxed and to what extent. 7 Melanie Rose 7. If surplus funds are not available and a sustainable revenue source is not implemented, please identify which existing PMP services should be considered for reduction? Select all that apply. Yes, reduce service No, do not reduce service Snow plowing & deicing ❑ 11 Pothole patching ❑ 11 Bridge repairs Service cannot be reduced Maintenance building 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Roadside landscaping ❑ 11 Sidewalk repairs ❑ 11 Vehicle/equipment 0 & M Service cannot be reduced Litter/weed control ❑ 11 Street lighting ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Locals ❑ 11 Pavement preservation: Arterials ❑ 11 Traffic signals & signs Service cannot be reduced School beacons ❑ 11 Striping & markings Service cannot be reduced Crack filling ❑ 11 Of the existing PMP services that should be considered for reduction, should any be eliminated? Please identify which services and why: I don't think any PMP services should be eliminated. However, if in dire financial straits, I'd eliminate roadside landscaping and litter/weed control. You might be able to fill the void with a team of hard-working and much -appreciated community volunteers. Please provide additional comments: Current snow plowing & deicing measures do not cover all the City streets (for example, IF my residential street is plowed, it is many days after the storm, which is very frustrating.) Since this is a safety issue — especially for schools - I would not reduce service in this area. 8 Melanie Rose 8. What additional questions or topics should the City consider for the future? Please explain: The City of Spokane Valley prides itself on low taxes, which makes fully funding the PMP a tricky issue. The citizen survey clearly shows the desire to support additional funding to maintain the streets as does the work of the Street Sustainability Committee. The question is which funding mechanism(s) to pursue. As I've stated earlier, clear and frequent communication is key, as is transparency. If this goes to the voters, they may be more willing to approve a tax to pay for streets with a sunset clause. The City would be wise to use this time period to clearly articulate what you are going to do with the funding — then do it — and report out transparently that you spent the taxpayer dollars as you said you would. This builds trust and support for future ballot measures. 9. If applicable, please provide any additional comments you may have regarding your involvement with the Streets Sustainability Committee: I have appreciated the opportunity to serve on the Streets Sustainability Committee with so many dedicated business, civic and community representatives. Each meeting required us to complete 'homework' ahead of time and come prepared to engage in rich discussion around this important and complex issue. I have been impressed with the high level of engagement during each meeting — even over the summer months! I am hopeful that the City Council will thoughtfully consider our recommendations, along with the input of the 940+ citizens who completed the survey, as they decide how best to move forward with a dedicated funding mechanism for the PMP in 2022. There is clear consensus that our streets are in good condition now and we agree that we need to keep them that way! Kudos to the City staff for an efficient, thorough and educational committee experience. Thank you for the opportunity to serve, Melanie Rose - Avista 9 APPENDIX B Public Survey Response Summary (1,018) Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q1 Regarding your time spent in the City of Spokane Valley, check all that apply: I Live here. I work here. I do not live or work here ANSWER CHOICES I live here. I work here. I do not live or work here. Total Respondents: 1,018 Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 90.57% 922 30.16% 307 2.65% 27 1/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q2 How would you describe the current overall pavement condition of Spokane Valley's streets? Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent ANSWER CHOICES Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 3.63% 37 9.82% 100 37.52% 382 45.68% 465 3.34% 34 1,018 2/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q3 Arterial streets (such as Sprague Avenue, Bowdish Road and 4th Avenue) are generally busier with more traffic, including semi -trucks. How would you describe the current overall pavement condition of our arterial streets? ANSWER CHOICES Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent TOTAL 'swered:1,018 Skipped: 0 Very poor Poor MM I Fair Good Excellenti 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 2.85% 29 8.55% 87 34.97% 356 49.80% 507 3.83% 39 1,018 3/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q4 Local access streets (such as Valleyway Avenue or Pierce Road) generally have less traffic and typically serve residential neighborhoods or provide access to businesses. How would you describe the current overall pavement condition of our local access streets? ANSWER CHOICES Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent TOTAL 'swered:1,013 Skipped: 5 Very poor' Poor Fair Good Excellenti 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 3.46% 35 11.85% 120 44.13% 447 38.50% 390 2.07% 21 1,013 4/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q5 Given budget constraints, which street type should be prioritized for preservation and maintenance? Arterials Local access Equal priorit ANSWER CHOICES Arterials Local access Equal priority TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 1141111111111111111111111110 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 39.88% 406 11.39% 116 48.72% 496 1,018 5/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q6 Surface treatments, like chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals, are regularly used by local governments in our region to extend the life of a street before it needs a more -costly repair. Should the City implement surface treatments? No Unsure ANSWER CHOICES Yes No Unsure TOTAL 'swered:1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 65.32% 665 13.95% 142 20.73% 211 1,018 6/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q7 The city should prioritize the Pavement Management Program in its budget planning process. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agrec ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 3.44% 35 6.97% 71 63.85% 650 25.74% 262 1,018 7/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q8 The city should limit the Pavement Management Program to current annual spending or less, even though overall street quality will get worse. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agre ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 27.11% 276 53.14% 541 17.29% 176 2.46% 25 1,018 8/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q9 The city should increase the Pavement Management Program's annual spending to complete the needed additional projects that will prevent streets from getting worse. Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree ■ Strongly Agrec ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 3.73% 38 12.97% 132 59.72% 608 23.58% 240 1,018 9/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q10 The city should reduce other programs or services in its annual budget (such as law enforcement or parks and recreation) to free up additional funding for the Pavement Management Program. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agre ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 27.41% 279 47.05% 479 20.53% 209 5.01% 51 1,018 10 / 17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q11 The city should consider additional revenue sources for the program that impact motorists using the street network (e.g. vehicle license fee). Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 Strongly Agrec ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 14.73% 150 24.75% 252 47.84% 487 12.67% 129 1,018 11/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q12 The city should consider additional revenue sources for the program that impact city residents without regard to their use of the street network (e.g. utility or property tax). Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agre ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 lim 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 18.37% 187 36.05% 367 39.00% 397 6.58% 67 1,018 12/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q13 The city should consider additional revenue sources for the program that impact city residents as well as visiting tourists (e.g. retail sales and use tax). Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 Strongly Agrec ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 11.79% 120 28.00% 285 49.80% 507 10.41% 106 1,018 13/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q14 The city should consider additional revenue sources for the program that pull from all available options to most evenly distribute the cost to everyone. Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Answered: 1,018 Skipped: 0 Strongly Agrec ANSWER CHOICES Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TOTAL 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 6.29% 64 16.60% 169 60.81% 619 16.31% 166 1,018 14 / 17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q15 The city has provided information on the Street Maintenance Program, including videos, both online and in this magazine. Did you review the information? Answered: 1,014 Skipped: 4 Yes No I did not review the... ANSWER CHOICES Yes No I did not review the materials. TOTAL 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 65.29% 662 34.71% 352 0.00% 0 1,014 15/17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q16 How helpful was it when completing this survey? Very helpful Somewhat helpful ANSWER CHOICES Very helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful TOTAL Answered: 649 Skippec. 0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 38.37% 249 56.24% 365 5.39% 35 649 16 / 17 Streets Sustainability Public Survey Q17 Please share any additional comments here: See Appendix C for Categorized Comments 17 / 17 APPENDIX C Categorized Public Comments Funding Related Comments Page 1 Pavement Related Comments Page 10 Services Related Comments Page 12 Surface Treatments Related Comments Page 15 Miscellaneous Other Comments Page 20 Funding Related Public Comments 1 Our infrastructure is deteriorating and we need to raise taxes to keep it in serviceable condition and meet its life cycle. 2 Additional funds can be secured without raising anyone's taxes. We need more enforcement on the current laws, not more taxes. Parking violations, speeding tickets and general law violations can contribute to the city budget. Thank you for your time. 3 An 'additional' 8 million dollars needed EACH YEAR is absolute hogwash! Find a way to do it right the 1st time with materials that will last for years & years to come. You don't see bridges needing this kind of maintenence EACH YEAR!! Quit using this as an excuse to take in money from the people of Spokane!! The crews who specialize in this KNOW what would make our streets not deteriorate. Quit with the quick & easy simple pot hole fixes & make our streets last. Oh that's right. Like EVERYTHING else in this country now, things are purposely made to NOT last so all these companies can keep screwing people left & right out of their hard earned money. It's absolutely sickening to see how this country is run now, compared to the 70's when I was being raised. 4 You need to decrease salaries and put that money towards our streets. Get rid of the pork and budget better and put it towards our streets. Thats what the citizens want. Nothing more. 5 We must all realize that to maintain roads in our city might mean raising taxes to do so, I'm alright with that, as should most citizens, unless we want roads like our neighbors to the West, aka Oregon trail 6 If the city is doing this survey to find more sources of revenue then perhaps the city should stop expanding roadway system. The city should instead develop more attractive neighborhoods above expanding the mileage of roadways 7 The street review gave no support for total cost nor alternate cost for Fair street rating. 8 Again. Taxing people to death, politicians should take payout to pay extra, not the people. City doesn't pay or fix street light that HOA pays for. Not happy. 9 The balance is very important but we really need to invest in this important infrastructure. 10 Something to collect funds from folks that live out of state but use our roads. Public services such as STA should not be exempted but maybe a lower rate. 11 This survey is a total set-up! The wording is as if someone is leading a witness in a jury trial. One can easily see the the city is lazy and wants to implement or increase taxes. The easy way out! Why don't you do your job properly and think outside the box. Use a bit effort people!!!! So discouraged and angered by such a blatant attempt and poor excuse to unethically justify a tax increase. Who ever thought of these questions and idea should be ashamed of themselves and disgraced. Do not raise taxes! Think of another way! Do your jobs!!!! 12 Our streets are used in one way or another by everyone. Everyone should help pay to maintain them. We have better streets than Spokane or Spokane County and we should take pride in that, and work to maintain the level they are and not allow them to get any worse, which would require MORE money to get them to a good, useable condition. Funding should be shared, by drivers/users first, but everyone uses the streets, even people who don't live here. I am proud our streets are not as crappy as other cities/county and we should work to try and find a way to keep them in as decent shape as we can. 13 What happened to using the taxes that people pay on cannabis? I thought that is what it went toward to fix streets and help pay for school repairs 14 Increased property tax is extremely unfair. Property tax is already extremely unfair as the property owners small as well as large property owners are paying plenty for what everybody benefits from. 1 Funding Related Public Comments 15 Please review all of your revenue streams. Where do they come from? Are they still serving the intended purpose? Is there any wasteful spending? Should we study different revenue models - like changing the way you tax - What works for the liberals in Seattle, does not work for Spokane. I would wager that becoming independent of Seattle by forming a new state would be a great first step. We could redesign EVERYTHING, and get rid of what is not working. There are so many options. I would study other revenue models that other states or even countries use in their cities. Look at the land line taxes. $25 of every bill is taxes, so most people dump those. The gasoline taxes are ridiculous. 65 cents of every dollar spent is just taxes. If we dump western Washington, we could have a state income tax and dump all of the dinosaur revenue streams that do not serve our best interests. We could put more people to work by dumping background checks, making a person have to reveal felonies only. More people would be working, and off of the social services. They would pay taxes instead of use tax funded welfare programs. These things were voted in, but look how many people cannot find gainful employment. Now they absorb tax payer dollars. This is NOT working. This change will increase revenue streams and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. 16 Streets will deteriorate but it should absolutely not be pulled away from our law enforcement or emergency teams or park and rec 17 Do not cut law enforcement funds!!!! 18 Live within your means. Cut the number of police officers. There are too many. 19 STOP asking for more MONEY! I shouldn't become homeless because the roads needs upkeep 20 I know it's difficult to financially support everything. But streets are daily I use and important for Emergancy support vehicles and public. Important priority. 21 To much is spent on arks and Rec. Pull some of their spending to fix the road. 22 A small property tax increase or charge developers and contractors impact fees to generate funds for street maintenance 23 Where does all of the legalized marijuana money go? 24 A utility tax is not a fair way to pay for street Maintanence. Impact fees for development are better along with licensing fees. The idea that the city had said all along about eliminating the phone tax because it was only "only a few million dollars". Is stupid can the city not tax cell phones or internet? 25 We have to live within our budgets, why can't the city. Your taxing & implementing new fees all the time. Close the border & use some of the money being spent their billions. No new taxes or fees. I live on SS & I can bearly get by, Where the hell am I supposed to get any more money? Where did the funds go that were supposed to be dedicated to the roads & maintenance?? Where is all of the money from the property taxes going there has to be a huge bonus of funds coming in from the property values going sky high? 26 Maintaining quality streets is less costly than full rebuilds. This should be funded soon before rapid deterioration. 27 Higher assessed home and apartment values should fund all of your needs for many years. 28 Street condition and cleanliness are some of the first things visitors to the city see. Pavement, especially on the arterials, should be preserved and present well. I don't believe we should shuffle funds from law enforcement to PMP, but there may be opportunities for other services to become more self -funding. I think we should be careful about adding tax based solutions as they will hit the lower and middle class incomes the hardest. 29 Funding Source should have nexus to transportation 2 Funding Related Public Comments 30 So who came up with costs doubling for next year? I don't see wages doubling and if the costs of materials is doubling then a new source needs to be looked into to reduce the costs. Doubling the cost from year to year is only filling somebody's pockets that don't need filled. 31 law enforcement should not be cut 32 survey -except interim seals- ignores overbearing costs of repairs -people are already losing homes due to property taxes -highest sales taxes etc 33 cant afford more taxes , retired . being tax out . 34 There is Enough new people move in into Spokane and houses being built that taxes should not be raised 35 I live in Spokane and work in Spokane Valley. On the whole, Valley streets are MUCH better than city streets. If it is true that more money is needed to maintain the current condition of streets, then the best course would be to draw that revenue from other expenses that are not central to the role of government (the government's role is to punish the wicked in order to protect the innocent). For example, do NOT reduce funding of law enforcement to pay for streets. But DO reduce funding of government education and social services, as these realms are not within the central role of government. (Streets are partly within the government's role as they are necessary for critical actions like law enforcement.) 36 Type of mode should pay for type of improvement. Infrastructure that supports bicycles and EV vehicles should be funded by the users of those modes. Need to partner with transit and give priority to funding and mode split if you are seriously thinking about the future. Spokane Valley is growing incredibly fast and will need to accommodate its own population in addition to the increasing populations of Post Falls and Coeur D' Alene that will work/shop here. 37 Hit the developers for more street money!!! 38 Law Enforcement and public parks are very important to the community, please do not take away from them, especially law enforcement and other first responders. One source of potential revenue is from out of state employees from Idaho. They use our roads every day but live and typically buy their gas out of state, they should pay their share through a tax in their pay checks. 39 I do not support pulling the money for this project from Parks & Rec or from housing initiatives, but do support pulling money for this project from the current law enforcement budget. 40 Use the money you currently take from us more wisely. 41 Where are many funding sources that are not being considered. B&O tax. Commercial road improvement taxes 42 The same pavement has been in front of my house and a large surrounding area for 49 years. My taxes from $450. per year to $4,500 per year and five times more people. Five times more income and five times more people should balance out. Cuts to city government could be a start. I always voted down another layer of government and the creation of the Valley city. Even Sally Jackson saw the light, rest her sole. 43 Do better on spending the money YOU HAVE FIRST' 44 The city should be adding fees to new construction, to the builders who are throwing up housing indiscriminately with no thought to how it affects infrastructure, including roads and schools. The planning department should be held accountable for this indiscriminate growth. The COUNCIL needs to pay better attention to what's been rammed through. 45 Electric vehicles that use the roads but do not pay the fuel taxes should be accounted for. 3 Funding Related Public Comments 46 The bulk of the money for street maintenance and repairs should be built into fees paid to the city by the builders of the apartment complexes. This is where the bulk of the traffic is generated from and these apartment dwellers contribute little else to the city other than lots of traffic, law enforcement issues and a density of population which makes the homeowners a minority in the city they support and contribute to. 47 Maintaining roads before they become worse and cost more is a high priority. I don't think taxes or fees should be increased as we already pay a lot. Possibly additional fees for truck usage would be in order. I don't know if it's possible to allocate funds being used for new trails and park expansions to roads but I don't think we need more trails or parks. Maintain the wonderful parks and trails we have and prioritize roads over building anything new. For example, why do we need a 10 mile loop river trail? Most people aren't going to walk a 10 mile loop and we already have the Centennial Trail. This is just one example. I've read of other expansions happening as well when possibly the money could be spent on roads. 48 Make developers pay to improve roads! 49 Tax the Californians and people from the west side moving in here. When they register their cars here (from out of state only) tax on a $500 out of state tax. 50 I do agree our roads and things need to be fixed but have you thought about raising the money in different ways such as having fundraisers car wash silent actions thi gs like that that people can enjoy and be willing to spend money on so that way you can have the money to fix things instead of always hiking up are taxs and so on 51 We are hurting economically. Don't make it harder on the people that live here by asking for more money. Be fiscally responsible, which doesn't include spending millions on your own office space. 52 tHERE HAS GOT TO BE BETTER WAYS TO FUND THE STREETS RATHER THAN TAX UTILITIES OR RAISE PROPERTY TAES. Usage fee such as car tabs could work if a reasonable fee was charged but NO to a gas tax. 53 Can you look at additional revenue from red light cameras and tickets for red light violations. Some of the intersections are so dangerous because of this. 54 STOP raising taxes! We can't afford it. Make big business pay more or even tax the railroad company 55 Money the city is already receiving needs to be managed much better. 56 As the city grows so should the budget. As a community we need to come up with a way to increase and keep the city beautiful and growing. 57 Make developers pay an impact fee, pay to play 58 stop dumping money into bloated Park projects and event centers and use it on infrastructure. stop allowing mass housing developments on streets that cannot handle increased volumes of traffic. 59 I'm fine with raising taxes, just keep the roads in good condition. 60 Put in place a one time fee for all the people moving in the Valley. The construction on Argonne and Montgomery is a waist of money. That money should have been allocated to roads in worse shape. That intersection was redone when they added the turn lanes. 61 Tax on cell phones to replace revenue lost on land lines. 62 Revenue has to come from developer and a business tax. This source can be passed on. 63 Tax business and property more for the roads sales taxes are already to highy 4 Funding Related Public Comments 64 Spokane Valle and Spokane COunty shoul impose traffic impact fees for all development. These fees should be charged for the impact plus a capital cost for the as build community investment. There should be no free rides. Government should provide public services fire, water, police and roads not economic development. That money could be spent on roads and needed infrastructure. 65 Need revenue? How about parking enforcement? Residential roads are littered with wrong way parkers. 66 If you need more money why are you just now asking for it you probably have needed it for years that you know of stop being dumb ass Republicans if you need the money you need the money 67 What about federal money? Can you get additional funding from WSDOT local programs? 68 City should try to get funds from the state for road repairs as the state takes an unfair large amount of gas taxes that is not used in our local streets. 69 Obviously more money is needed which is never popular but cutting parks and rec would be a let down. 70 By the look of my new property assessment and my neighbors, you should have an abundance of funds coming. Since my homes worth is now way inflated and then after reading the magazine your going to put apartments in my neighborhood. How do you think I'm supposed to respond? I might feel more generous if I wasn't taxed to the hilt. My mortgage has gone up $75 ever year since I moved here. Pretty soon I won't be able to afford to live in my house. And now with Bidenflation I'm supposed to support more money going to the city? Get real. 71 Consider using pandemic -response federal funds for one-time special projects to enhance our city. A large pavement maintenance project could be one of those items. 72 The City should raise impact fees from residential and commercial development and construction to help pay for necessary road maintenance. I have to say the crafting of this 'survey' illustrates one of the most biased efforts I have ever seen in my career. I'd be fired if I wrote something this way. 73 Pay for roads before you buy more fun parks 74 Local developers should contribute significant funding to pavement improvement in conjunction with projects, based on traffic studies. 75 Just because the street maintenance fund has been raided by other special projects like bike paths and such that do not provide any revenue to the city, lets charge bike riders fees to use this infrastructure because I know the projects that have been approved were way over the amount needed to maintain our roads. 76 With the increase each property owner is paying in property taxes due to increased valuations and all of the additional properties being developed, the city should utilize those additional revenues first to fill the gap. 77 There's no free lunch. The city needs additional revenue to maintain our streets. The city has proven that it can be trusted to spend our money wisely. The reality is that we all need to pay a little more to keep our good roads. I'm tired of those in government who keep cutting revenue while demanding good roads and other government services. 78 Unlike our brethren to the west, whose streets are like a trip down the Oregon trail, we have awesome roads! We need to however keep it that way and I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for and we the citizens should pay for it. If additional taxes are required to maintain a Oregon trail free arterial, then so be it! 5 Funding Related Public Comments 79 Any revenue generating fee or tax increases must be dedicated to this program and must be protected from council redirection. Tax & fee increases should come with accountability and perhaps a sunset clause - say 10 years 80 Some of your questions need more choices for answers such as question #4. You should have added somewhat poor as some are in good conditions but others need repair. And why list Bowdish and 4th when Sullivan, Evergreen or University would have been better examples. Under question 8, the answer should have been less, same, a little more or another $8 million. The way the choices are stated if you agree, you are agreeing to spending another $8 million. The wording of question 9 means that the person agrees to spend an additional $8 million so that should have been deleted as question 8 should gage the amount of how much to increase annual spending for streets. 81 We should spend more on maintaining our streets in better condition. 82 #16 I answered as I didn't quite get out of info was, why when we build a city, isn't money put away for maintaining these streets that are built to preserve, protect and/or replace when the time comes so we aren't in a position to raise taxes. But, that money needs to be left alone. Not used for other expenditures, that people feel free to use as they approve of. Know what I mean? I do not want to see our valley looking like the City of Spokane. That is a mess. 83 Reallocate funding from police services and ensure our road solutions are environmentally friendly. We need better public transport in the INW! 84 #10 You should not reduce law enforcement or Parks & Rec. You're adding more problems doing this. #12 Our taxes are high enough. You're not thinking about the retired citizens of this city who are on fixed incomes. #13 Retail sales tax the citizens of this city will pay a majority because we live here. Don't do what the City of Spokane has done. You're running people out of the area. A hotel tax will affect out of town visitors. Our taxable value of our home went up $45,000! You're making the citizens of this city who are on fixed incomes worried about being able to survive. We are not the ones who are driving up the price $ of homes. It's people who are coming from out of the area. We are not opposed to paying our fair share but let's make it affordable (keep it). You know 20 yrs ago that we would see a growth in Spokane Valley. Why didn't you make the developers pay their "fair" share 1- helping $ with infrastructure 2 - Parks 3 - School Development 4 - Streets Impact 85 I believe we need to secure the bulk of the funding needed for road repair and maintenance from those who are building high density housing (multifamily apartments, condos), commercial properties and larger housing developments. The majority of the traffic that overburdens the streets in Spokane Valley comes from those living and or working in these three categories. There is no reason to put the burden of street construction and maintenance on the senior citizens and the poor as they use the streets the least of anyone. Spokane Valley also needs to put a moratorium on building any type of building served by Pines Rd north of Broadway. This street is very overcrowded as it is and the huge apartment complex where the old Elks location was off Robie has yet to be built. This apartment complex alone will drop another 1100 vehicles a day onto an already overcrowded street. The other thing that needs to be addressed is adding another arterial to the area between Bowdish and Mirabeau Parkway north of Indiana. This arterial needs to go over or under the railroad tracks. These railroad cars carry ammonia to fertilizer plants and if the railroad car is ruptured ammonia can kill in large numbers. If one of those cars ruptures there are literally no roads anyone can take out of the highly populated area between Mirabeau Parkway and Montgomery as all three of those roads over the tracks can be blocked simultaneously by a long train. If such an accident were to occur, thousands of people living in this are would die trying to get out. Please think of everyone before making these decisions. 6 Funding Related Public Comments 86 I believe in taxing larger businesses like Amazon and taxing developers new areas infrastructure. They have resources money to pay city growth. I believe large business tax B & 0 Business occupation tax and tax new residential developers. They should be paying fair share no excuses. I don't believe trickle down economics. They should be paying for streets and new infrastructure. 87 Maintaining existing pavement conditions is not enough in many cases. My street is classified as "very poor" in the pavement condition map presented on your website. The city, and the county before it, have neglected residential roads for decades. Maybe they were hoping the Asphalt Fairy would visit. Vera Crest Drive was constructed circa 1978 and has never been resurfaced or repaved. The means of paying for repair and maintenance should have some relationship to the reason roads exist in the first lace. Certainly the telephone tax was never in that category. The most relevant funding source is the property tax. If no one owned property we wouldn't need roads. The city's misguided dedication to not raising property taxes along with the decline in telephone tax receipts has a lot to do with why we are where we are. It is past time for those of us who own property to step up to the plate and fund what is needed to keep all of our streets in decent condition. There is no free lunch and we should not diminish other important city services and facilities to pay for this problem. Let me summarize my position as a homeowner. I expect high quality services from the city and I expect to have to pay for them. Some argument might be made for funding street maintenance through the vehicle registration fee. However, vehicle registration fees imply that everyone benefits somewhat equally. Yet people who have property in Spokane Valley but reside elsewhere would pay nothing. I suggest that the more you are invested in property within the city the more benefit you derive from the road system and the more you should pony up to maintain it. As for sales or utilities taxes, I fail to grasp any significant connection to the road system and they tend to be regressive in nature. Renters of course pay property taxes indirectly so there is no need to implement an additional tax that affects them directly. 88 As per item 12 - whether it is using a crosswalk, riding the bus, using handicapped transportation, bikes or skateboards, everybody uses the street system. I am not proposing a political, socialistic view; a use fee of any type is a tax because government has no money of its own, but only what it taxes the people for. Since it is a tax (even by another name), it should be spread evenly between everybody. It should also be used only for what it was collected for. But make no mistake -everyone uses the street system, even if Meals on Wheels is delivering their food. A road use fee and a property fee may be appropriate for each use category. 89 Land line tax is unreasonable as cell phone users don't share the cost. Business land lines are a tax write off. Residential land lines are not allowed to write off. Cell phone escape any cost. 6%?? 90 I don't understand the disrepair of our streets. I'm getting another alignment on truck tires. You don't use the funds correctly. On top of Federal, State and Local tax money you get a portion of lottery money, oh, don't forget pot tax money. There are pot shops all over the Valley making millions. The City and state get a huge chunk of that. Not to mention all the federal stimulus crap their giving away for infrastructure. I never see what all those monies are spent on. All the local and state government does is raise taxes while everything goes to shit. The state and city needs a true accountant and business manager. I know we all pay everyones wages. 7 Funding Related Public Comments 91 Thank you for asking for our feedback and for keeping us informed. I would hope the city would consider the multiple options to fund city street preservation so as not to put the majority of the burden on any one sector (citizen or business). I would hope the city considers putting additional responsibility on things that impact the wear & tear on our streets. Examples, extra taxes/fees for trucks or studded tires. Another example would be additional permit or taxes on large housing developments like Painted Hills as this will add tremendous traffic & wear on major arterials feeding the development. I also hope you consider getting feedback on what expenses we might reduce in order to increase funds for streets. Example: Law Enforcement is priority and then streets, then parks in my opinion. 92 I would like to see the City of Spokane Valley live within its budget. Roads are important to the infrastructure, if the City does not have enough budgeted then I feel they need to look at their budget and pick something less vital to pull the funds from. Not increase taxes or fees. Be responsible with the funds you have. The average family budget has to do that. If a vital thing like replacing a roof on a families house came up, most people have to go through their budget and sacrifice something or things out of that budget to cover a cost of a vital repair. So should the City. Do not increase taxes and fees, find a way to make it work please. 93 I have owned my current residence near 34th and VanMarter for 37 yrs. In that time (not a thing) has been done to our street. It needs paving bad. We have to clean the weeds from the curb at least 3 times a summer. My property taxes are $3500 this year and going up again next year. $300 a month to live in your home for property tax. What am I getting for this, absolutely nothing and don't say good schools, we pay extra for that. I haven't had kids in school for 30 years. Maybe tax apartments as much as homeowners because they fill up the schools. With all the new houses on the tax rolls funding streets should not be an issue in my opinion. 94 #10 Funding for roads should never come from funding DUE to the law enforcement departments i.e. our SAFETY! Expanding parks services as a priority over roads maintenance?? Why?! Use Lotto and gas taxes for that which it was designed originally for to minimize need for additional revenue program development. The "general" public lives on a lower income - public officials should re -consider their income which could be reduced - an effort that would instill more trust in the population they claim to represent. 95 #6 - While chip sealing may increase useful life of the surface for Automobiles, it becomes a hazardous surface when used by alternate transportation such as Motorcyles, bicycles and those who need to use a wheel chair. Part 2 Funding. How could a budget be in effect that is 50% off? Who was responsible for and approved a budget with this much shortfall to begin with? In my opinion, this "Survey" was written to justify additional financial burden to the residents of the City of Spokane Valley. In my opinion it's pretty clear that the thought process is more $$ will fix the problem, pretty common when you are spending other people's money and pretty much the ONLY this Goverment is good at doing. 96 We need audit for use of funds and street budget. You can not keep raising taxes. Each new unit of housing should pay for themselves i.e. road, sewer, etc. You will be getting infastructure funds for bridges etc. Stop building more apts, condos, townhouses until the street issue is solved. We have too many being built without access, i.e. only 1 way out. Do an audit of all the money for everything (parks etc) to see where the waste is. No new parks, giving money to charity until you have the money to maintain. 97 With the influx of people to the areas, I see no reason to raise taxes on anything. We have a larger number of people paying. I think you need to learn to use the money we have and budget better. It's what I do at home! 8 Funding Related Public Comments 98 Perhaps the city could reallocate the funds in the budget. Instead of the use it or lose it approach, maybe funds from street cleaning or snow removal could be used if its a light snowfall year or something else of that nature. 99 The city should consider limiting, eliminating programs that have little contribution to the majority of county residents. Use this money to pay for roads and not always think raising taxes is the only option. 100 roads & public safety are #1. Look at other areas of the budget that can be cut before looking at new taxes and fees. 101 Q 13: Strongly disagree: Take a good look at Spokane: They've already gutted the downtown of parking and access with all the sports stadiums. No parking, no way to get from one place or another unless (you pay!!) Not a good plan from where I stand. 102 It is cost effective to maintain the roads in good condition. If not maintained it will cost much more to repair them later. There should be a big effort to increase the amount spent on roads currently. 9 Pavement Related Public Comments 1 A guiding thought for long-term cost evaluation should be, "How many times will I partially fix this before I have to fully replace it anyway, and should I instead make a better repair earlier and save the costs of minor repairs?" 2 Havana is horrible between Sprague and 8th. 3 Our street 4700 E 15th has a drainage issue which has now caused the pavement to deteriorate, so looking at or fixing the whole issue, rather than one issue at a time seems like a better long term money saving option 4 Local access is important. The current fiasco between Trent and the freeway on Argonne isn't acceptable. 5 the level of road maintenance currently in place does not need to be increased. Spk Valley roads are in great shape. 6 Please pave Wellesley Ave. in Otis Orchards. There are pot holes everywhere 7 Please replace or completely resurface Mohawk Dr 8 My issue is with the Argonne -Broadway road project. I am very concerned that the road finish be completed correctly. I've escalated this concern to city engineering. Current "patches" on road are uneven and not in finished state. My hope is this will be completed professionally to ensure a smooth surface transition across patches. 9 Omg..just getting to work is hazardous with all the road work. Finish up one project before doing it all at once 10 I believe Spokane Valley streets are in better shape than Spokane, so keep up the good work. 11 The drop off at the side of Euclid between Barker and Harvard needs to be looked into. The road is narrow and with increased large vehicle traffic, it is dangerous if you have to give any extra room 12 Please avoid using hot blacktop asphalt for local access streets. It's too hot outside for that shit. Thanks. 13 The number one reason I don't work in the City of Spokane is their poor roads! 14 North south roads need improvement 15 The Valley's streets are infinitely better than the City of Spokane. I want them to stay that way and even improve. For example I see with my own eyes that Bowdish needs some attention currently. 16 arterial and other local access roads like valleyway and pierce are fine but the roads that citizens live on are in terrible condition and they should be fixed!! not as regularly upkept but definitely fixed, potentially repaved. 17 25th Ave between SR 27 and Pines Rd. gets a lot of traffic and should be considered an arterial. 18 Northwood roads are beyond trashed....please fix them. 19 I appreciate that our city has streets that are in such better condition than many neighboring areas. Please maintain them well, sustainably and efficiently. 20 The residential street are getting bad due to use of large deliverie trucks using residential roads to save time and miles. This needs to change. 21 I drive a lowered car with stiffened suspension. A rough drive is too be expected, but some of the pot holes and bumps and extremely jarring. I often have to swerve to avoid them. 22 These roads suck. It sucks to live next to a state like Idaho, which has a lot less capital and they seem to keep their roads and infrastructure in a lot better shape. Not to mention in all the new roads that they make. 10 Pavement Related Public Comments 23 I have been a delivery driver through spokane valley for nearly a decade, everything from box trucks to 18 wheelers. The biggest issues with the roadway (from an uneducated observer) are uneven surfaces resulting from sloped roads for water channeling to pressure induced depressions which cause jolts. Ultimately, the city's roads will be judged most harshly on the busier streets, so they should be a priority. Level out arterials, as we are seeing reduced precipitation these past few years, smooth, uniform surfaces, and emphasize longevity of weight bearing areas to prevent ruts. 24 I would like to see a complete remodel of Sullivan(South of the Freeway) and Sprague(Greenacres to University) with beautiful landmarks such as ornamental grass and other landscaping and hardscaping, waterfalls and statues of the Spokane Indian Tribe and Sacajawea. 25 Every pavement repair process tried here has had horrible results after just 1 winter season. RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. 26 I just notice 3 places I drive on that I think could use some attention. 1st place: 4th and Farr intersection is too small when you make the turn on 4th, people are parking and causing congestion there, the driveways so close doesn't help, sometimes you have to drive in oncoming traffic lane. Also there planning on putting a 245 unit apt complex 1/2 block from there, it should be twice as wide as it is. 2nd problem: the intersection at 4th and University by bus station, the cement intersection is great but when you go the asphalt there's a big bump (shakes the whole car). You ground 1 of them off ( E bound on 4th) but the other 3 need it (S bound on U) (N bound on U) and W bound on 4th. The last one: at 1st and Willow (by Falcos) when you turn R on Willow they didn't put any asphalt in the corner, its turning into a big mud hole. I don't know why who ever did that thinks that that is o.k. it not! 27 Please don't let our streets get in the condition that Spokane streets are. (Ruttersville) 28 Try driving on 29th Ave between Vercler and Highway 27. Hunting roads are better. 29 Part 1, #6 a. Find a product that is more durable for our climate. Consider solar roads - developed in Idaho. Concrete Part 1, #3 b. Consider separating large freight (semi -trucks) from passenger vehicles. Have freight only arterials from point of pick-up to destination facility; Freight will be loaded into smaller vans / trucks to deliver into local business districts. This would allow appropriate weight limits on roads prolonging useability of road surfaces. Funding Street Maintenance c. The city should consider taxing major corporations that use semis to ship freight throughout city of Spokane boundary. i.e. Walmart, Amazon„ Major grocery chains, etc. 30 Trucks, except for local delivery or a one time only i.e. moving van, should not be allowed on residential streets. These roads are not made to withstand the weight of semi trucks. Trucks, as well as motor homes should not be allowed to park on public right of way or residential streets for more than 24 hours except to allow for loading and unloading. They also create a hazard in an emergency situation. 31 Need to set higher standards when utility companies cut up roads as the patch work is unacceptable. 29th Ave. from Vercler to Guthrie is undriveable. Amazing the Midilome has been repaved and newer neighborhood. Priorities are terrible. 32 Why don't they use good material on our roads the first time, so they don't crack or get potholes in the winter, or melt in the hot summer. That way they wouldn't waste money. 33 Some areas have very bumpy roads. For eg. the roundabout on Mansfield & Montgomery. I hope these are considered to be fixed as well. 11 Services Related Public Comments 1 Please improve stoplight sensing and timing. Better pavement won't help if we have poorly functioning signals that back up traffic unnecessarily. 2 NEED TO BUDGET FOR MORE STREET LIGHTS AT INTERSECTIONS. LIGHTING AND TREE GROWTH HAS MADE VISUBILITY POOR. INFLUX OF NEW RESIDENTS AND STREET WORK HSVE CREATED HAZARDS. INTERSECTIONS NEED STOPLIGHT NOT SIGNS YOU CANT SEE IN THE DARK. 3 City is generally doing a great job keeping roads operational. I find it difficult when all is being done at same time. When one route is closed, other alternate routes are impassable at same time. Argonne/Mullen road project is a prime example of this. 4 Please turn the turn lane at sprague and adams to a blinking yellow after a solid green arrow 5 Potholes seem to only get fixed after they have become large enough to cause damage to vehicles 6 In the winter, it seems to me that by the time the plows start in my neighborhood the plows just make it harder for us to get about. The burms in front of our driveways is almost impossible for our older neighbors to remove. 7 I feel the street maintenance should be a priority. The city of Spokane has let their streets deteriorate and are now playing catch up, which may be more expensive in the long -run. 8 Scheduling of construction work should take into consideration the traffic flow. Currently 4 main north south arterials have road construction pushing more traffic onto Pines (which has train delays as well). Commuting during construction periods is frustrating. Prioritizing commuting needs while also improving the roads needs better balance. 9 The Valley has done an amazing job of improving the streetts.. 10 Trent is very dangerous. Solid flow of traffice from 6am-8am and 4pm-6pm. It is so hard to merge. Too many large trucks. Too many speeders doing 65mph. Please lower the speed limit to 45mph and trucks so we can merge with the traffice properly without risking our lives. Thank you. 11 Everyone benefits from well -maintained streets, even those who don't drive on them. Civilization is not cheap. Everyone needs to chip in so that we can all have a city that is a pleasant and safe place to live. 12 Along with street maintenance, would you please consider plumbing all of the street name signs, many are leaning which have the appearance of being neglected. Thank you. 13 on the west side of the state the streets are pothole patched then chip sealed nearly every 5 years.the pea/gravel and tar substance seems to do a great job at preserving errosion. althou they dont have major factors such as heavy grain trucks and frost nearly as much but they do a hyper job at chip sealing roads nearly every 5 years.ln battleground wa area. 98604/98606/99601/98601 14 Get more effective contractors for repairs. on time, on budget 15 I feel the Valley streets are well taken care of as compared to the City of Spokane streets. 16 Greater emphasis on active transportation and public transportation needed than is presently provided. 17 the city wastes money on the current company that clean the streeets, they do a poor job and timing is usually bad„just before a big wind storm or when its poor weather,,,they speed down the streets and do a poor job...also save the money when it doesnt snow for road maint..cut down on uncecessary OT,,,,double time and a half 18 Definitely would save money with the street cleaner. My side street does not need to be cleaned twice in a month. 12 Services Related Public Comments 19 Freeway off/on ramps for Spokane valley need some serious attention/ hardscape. Rock landscape etc. Spokane valley sign would be nice. Looks horrible. Need more road work/maintenance done. It took over 3 years just to fix a hazardous curb line at Indiana and Sullivan. Pot holes are bad. 20 Understand how difficult it is to meet all street needs w/o additional funding, but infrastructure (roads, bicycle lanes, bridges, roundabouts, etc) are vital to all residential as well as commercial enterprises. BUT, Argonne Rd, for instance, is a nightmare situation overloaded with trains, heavy trucks, residential traffic, poorly timed lights, bottle neck at "Liberty" street (no L turn lane or) and is only getting worse as more housing and growth in business park escalates. Perhaps roundabouts could be considered or working with BNR to schedule trains crossing major arterial roads at slower traffic times. Pedestrians are like chickens or quails crossing Argonne... 21 Add more bike lanes/infrastructure, or neighborhood greenways for non -motorized travel 22 Street maintenance should be a priority and actually saves money in the future. 23 Residential streets have taken a back seat to arterial streets long enough. It should be a little more equal. 24 Finish forker to Sullivan NOW!! 25 As the area population grows, many of our streets are experiencing congestion where the roads haven't been upgraded such as Barker and Sprague. There needs to be a priority to fix these intersections and have the proper amount of lanes as we are already years behind doing these projects. 26 traffic is increasing in the valley. a long term plan needs to be planned such as widening roads, adding turn lanes, etc, we need to think about the future, not just near term fixes to roads. with the new funds from covid this is the perfect time to do this. 27 Before tearing up the valley's north/south roads, make a SAFE detour for the roads you're tearing up. It's a disaster. 28 Road maintenance should be a high priority in my opinion, especially in light of all the population growth and extreme weather. Some roads rarely if ever get fixed and are hard to drive on. Like Mission Road and parts of Broadway Avenue. There are too many people here now driving on the roads. 29 You really need to put some focus on Barker rd-especially where it intersects wit E Sprague. Please!! 30 With the volume of building streets do not have the infrastructure for the traffic. Barker road is an absolute nightmare from appleway to 24th during any trafficked hours of the day. There is only one way in and out and this needs to be remedied or the building needs to stop. 31 Build bike lanes and keep them clean so they can be used. 32 Bowdish from Sprague to 16th Ave. looks very run down and does not have sidewalks on both sides from 8th up to 16th. On the school side is one sidewalk only to 12th. There is no connecting sidewalk from 12th to 16th and that is close to 450 feet of road that is very narrow with not much room to walk near the road for safety. Mdcdonald and Evergreen look so nice from Sprague to 16th with Sidewalks on both sides. This feature makes those neighborhoods look more put together. 33 Please consider all members of the cycling community when planning street repairs and building new streets, roads. Contractors / developers need to provide cycling paths in all new developments. 34 Pines should be a traffic priority. 13 Services Related Public Comments 35 Road maintenance is important. 36 Prioritize "when" work is done. Working on major roads at one time at the same time is not helpful to traffic flow or commerce which we definitely need now. 37 It's difficult to know if some of our roads/streets are city maintained or state/county ie. Sullivan, Pines, Trent. 38 Q 10: Strongly disagree: I think the city should start at the top: if you want to reduce services, it should be your pay: since the city fails to complete started projects. I.E. Mission Ave: for 15 years this street from Center to Park Rd has not had sidewalks or gutters provided. Park Rd was done this past summer. Trent Ave bus stops or sidewalks not cleared of snow in winter months (hazardous for bus riders). New service station going in on Park and Broadway, no turns provided for large vehicles (traffic divided in middle of Park Rd. (Poor Planning). Close to City swimming pool and school playground. 14 Surface Treatment Related Public Comments Use Surface Treatments? 1 Preservation to prevent full -depth reconstruction is critical for the City. Yes 2 Just don't use huge chips on a chip and seal. Yes 3 anything to keep them from deteriorating more Yes 4 Original ridgemont streets need attention Yes 5 Dishman Mica Rd South of Appleway Ave needs repaving Yes 6 Surface treatments are good for smaller vehicles as the gaps are more problematic for smaller wheels. While the small vehicles cause less damage to roads Yes Yes to lesser damaged areas and replacement to greater damaged areas; this 'sealing solution' is not a one size fits all approach. Yes 8 I believe these are fine, less costly options which will extend the life of pavement while we look for ways to shore up the funds to pave our streets properly Yes 9 if it is more cost effective to do this while waiting for full repaving. Yes 10 Within reason. I'd rather have a route closed for pavement replacement than an open street filled with uneven bumpy repairs. Yes 11 Better safe than sorry! Yes 12 Stop wasting resources on the sidewalks. I understand most that money comes from grants but let's be real.. Yes 13 Using quality, proven products would be advised...not just a quick patch job. Yes 14 It's a temporary fix or can be used to limp along until more funding becomes available. Spokane Valley streets sure are better than the Spokane proper so keep up the good work! Yes 15 I would be willing to pay a tax to keep our streets well maintained. It's either that or car repairs because of bad streets! Good streets shows that a city cares. Yes 16 Not as a replacement for serious damage, but as a band aid Yes 17 Yes assuming that there are significant cost savings for doing so, and it does not create a situation that costs more when you do a full repaving later. Yes 18 Chip seals are wonder longer term fixes, but are dirty, dusty, and can be dangerous (especially for motorcycles). More media and neighborhood outreach may be necessary for this fix. Yes 19 Theyve done that for 42yrs. time to repave our streets Yes 20 I don't like chunky chip seal Yes 21 Extending the life of infrastructure is essential and cost effective. Yes 22 But don't make this a fix make it temporary and fix the roads right. Yes 23 If deemed feasible, sounds promising Yes 24 Don't know much about these treatments and options Yes 15 Surface Treatment Related Public Comments 25 With the rapid rise in home values, I think you'll be well funded for a long time, without tax increases. Also, were you aware of the proposal from Whipple Engineering and developer Dave Black to tbring in many thousands of dumptruck loads of dirt to their Painted Hills proposed development? Whipple wants to "raise " the proposed apartment footprints above the flood zone level, necessitating 30 to 40 thousand truck loads of dirt. buildings Yes 26 If products used are environmentally friendly. Yes 27 If they save money over time. Yes 28 This should be one tool of many that the City uses, not to be used as a cure- all. And, good judgement should be used by a qualified engineer. I grew up in Spokane; it seems like in some areas, more than others, surface treatments are more prone to rapid weathering and deterioration, not long after they have been applied. Use, and freeze -thaw behavior should be considered with these applications, as well as the mixture. Yes 29 chip seal is used on the west side of the state always. Yes 30 Yes, however there comes a point that the only remedy is a full replacement. Yes 31 As long as the surface treatments do not become a permanent solution Yes 32 More maintenance HAS to be better than less. Yes 33 Not sure what the disadvantages are of trying to prolong the life. Yes 34 I don't think chip seals in residential areas are good. Too messy. Yes 35 I live on 4th. Everybody drives 4th which is frustrating as they prefer 4th over Sprague. Need more police on 4th to keep cars at 25 MPH. They drive 40-45 all the time and children play near that street. Yes 36 WHEN WE REPAVE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CTR TURN LANE AND THE BIKE LANES ARE IN GOOD SHAPE. JUST PAVE THE TRAFFIC SECTION OF THE ROADS Yes 37 General maintenance and upkeep can extend the roadway minimizing costly repairs. It makes good budgeting sense. Yes 38 It's better than pot hole but should be fixed the right way. Yes 39 Being proactive is cheaper and more effective than being reactive Yes 40 Thaw -freeze situation in our county creates constant potholes especially in winter, so would hope greater attention (sooner) to fill these temp surface treatments would be great. Yes 41 Yes of course maintenance is always more cost effective. Yes 42 chip seal would be economical on the side streets and usually holds up very well Yes 43 but roads such as Harvard north of the river need re -surfacing Yes 44 You have to keep up regularly to save money! Yes 45 Wellesley which is a high traffic Street is in terrible repair has been for a long time and only a couple places have been patched and all the street is just awful Yes 46 Arterials to be determined for sure residential Yes 47 Do not use chip seal on main arterials, only side streets. Yes 48 A chip seal usually makes the pavement last longer. Yes 16 Surface Treatment Related Public Comments 49 This is a cheaper method to extend pavement life rather than traditional grind and overlay or full pavement replacement . Yes 50 How about you start ACTUALLY listening to residents instead of making us feel stupid with every interaction? Think it doesn't happen? Then you're probably guilty of it! YOU are part of the problem!!! Yes 51 If it helps extend the life of the street while also help to address pot holes, I think it is very useful. Yes 52 I would like to see a total remodel of Sullivan(South of the Freeway) and Sprague(From Greenacres to University) that has beautiful landmarks to divide the road such as ornamental grass and other nice landscaping and hardscaping, waterfalls, statues of the Spokane Indian Tribe, Sacajawea, etc. Yes 53 It makes sense to have an interim fix until the more costly repair is needed rather than leaving it untreated which would make the long term repair more costly Yes 54 I believe the City is already doing chip seals. Yes 55 Unless the treatment is being used in a street that really needs repair, like too many potholes for just patches to be done Yes 56 Semi trucks driving on and parking in neighborhood streets needs attention and fines. Especially all overnight parking. That is a business expense for them!!! Yes 57 Bowdish from Sprague to 16th should be like Mcdonald from Sprague to 16th and Evergreen from Sprague to 16th, Meaning, Sidewalks on both sides please. Bowdish is probab more used then the before mentioned streets and it looks very run down. ly Yes 58 The Arterial Broadway needs at least a chip seal, and Pierce road should have a slurry seal soon, as many houses have been added along these streets, and as a consequence, have resulted in the roadway beign cut and a patch added. The patches are constructed with materials that have weathered and result in rough roads. Yes 59 Street specific treatments Yes 60 This question needs a bit more explanation to make it clear that the City isn't currently using these treatments. Yes 61 Strategically, not programmatically. Chip seal may increase road noise and generally are not embraced in bike lanes Yes 62 Anything that can be done to prolong the life of a street should be used. Yes 63 not chip seal Yes 64 Excellent for Arterials but not local access streets Yes 65 Depends on how bad are the areas bandaids are not always a good idea Unsure 66 Having a consultant from a major metro area that manages snow, such as as Minneapolis needs to be considered. Arterial roads can also have construction at night to minimize day time traffic and complete projects in a reasonable amount of time. Unsure 67 Need to understand environmental impact Unsure 68 People answering this survey are not nearly qualified enough to have an opinion on this Unsure 69 Higher traffic streets with heavier vehicles seem to be the worst Unsure 17 Surface Treatment Related Public Comments 70 I am not familiar with surface treatments and I have no idea how long the treatments will last to make them coat effective. Unsure 71 Just fix the road... don't just patch them year after year....Barker Rd needs widening and also 32nd heading up to chapman....widen and fix total road do over... needs widening not patching only Unsure 72 Mohawk Dr needs more than these bandaids! It's as bad as the Thor and Freya interchange! Please replace it. Unsure 73 We have extreme weather. Whenever possible make long term repairs. Temporary fixes nay be necessary during adverse weather conditions. Unsure 74 Certain arterial streets such as 4th Ave feel like a local access street and ought to be widened to make it feel like an arterial and given sidewalks. Unsure 75 The whole area seems to be a patchwork instead of fixing the roads correctly Unsure 76 This is an engineering and economics decision. The City government is in the best position to make a safe and economic decision. How would I know which is better in any particular situation? Unsure 77 Concerned the band -aid approach brings us to a critical mass where surface treatments are no longer viable and full re -construction comes due on too many streets at once. Without enough funding to cover the glut, an unworkable/unaffordable backlog might be created. Unsure 78 More focus needs to be placed on people running studs out of season and even in season. Unsure 79 Generally prefer that long-term repair be prioritized, but temporary repair, including surface treatments, is important in some cases.. Unsure 80 Depends upon how long the surface treatment will last and how much of an improvement it provides. The smaller the "chip" in the chip seal, the better. Unsure 81 If the cost isn't close to properly repairing then maybe we could try a "test" area to measure and record before and after results. If favorable results, then move forward with additional discussion on the subject and practice. Unsure 82 Depends. If we pay for a "temp fix" vs repairing the street then will the cost to repair later be higher due to more damage? If so then there is money being used for the temp fix and the cost to repair vs just spending the money when the road needs it and fixing it then, which should save money in the long run. Unsure 83 These options don't seem to help for long, not sure if the cost is worth it Unsure 84 What is the environmental impact of surface treatments? I need more information to make an informed decision. Unsure 85 Chip seal is fine for cars, but consideration also needs to be given for bicycles. The sharp rock presents a hazard for bikes. Unsure 86 I am concerned about the environmental impacts and health effects of these treatments. Especially considering we would likely come in contact with them through run off, wind and more. I lean towards just planned repair. Unsure 87 Why are you asking me know your job and do it or reincorperate to spokane where they seem to know how to do the job Unsure 88 spend that money on building the road correctly from the beginning. over build the road the first time and you will spend less in maintenance. Unsure 89 I'm not sure that helps much because eventually the street is paved over anyway. Unsure 18 Surface Treatment Related Public Comments 90 HatHate chip seal when riding my cycle on those streets / roads. Unsure 91 Makes road conditions worse!!! No 92 This was done on our street and it just postpones the real fix No 93 fix is correctly the 1st time. No 94 Ban the damn studded tires! No 95 Just repave stop wasting time/money No 96 It's things like eroding sides of the road that need help. Roads need to be wider and with shoulders. No 97 The treatments never work No 98 Spokane is doing this over pot holes and as soon (its not soon at all) as they cover them a plow rips them back up again. No 99 Full build and grind/overlay options are better in the long run No 100 When the problem is in the base, fix the real problem don't try to hide it. No 101 These type of maintenance fixes don't last. No 102 The people of Spokane valley will pay for the damage done to there cars. No 103 Surface treatments are very dangerous for motorcycles and bicycles. No 104 I feel chip and fog seal is less efficient than full replacement. It is less costly but must be done repeatedly and seems to lead to potholes. No 105 Fix it once and fix it right. Follow the example of some of the cities in the Midwest (Toledo) and use better materials. No 106 upriver west of argonne had gravel everywhere after it was done, thought i was in idaho! awful job No 107 Just fix them and then use prolong treatments No 108 Chip seals causes an expense for residents due to glass and paint damage. No 109 Chip seals break windows, chip paint, and promote ruts in the road. It's also more dangerous for motorcycles. No 110 They should take the initiative and just have the roads repaired the right way instead of adding bandages, for years and years. No 111 Negative experiences with poorly done chip seals in past No 112 The roads aren't that much better after maintenance No 113 Chip seals damage cars. No 114 Though patch repairs can temporarily smooth the surface, in higher volume areas these repairs seem to break down fast, resulting in road debris as well as the original issue patched. No 115 These treatments do not seem to last long enough to be cost-effective. No 116 All processes I've witnessed overwhelming years are extremely poor and don't last 1 season. Don't waste my money on them. CDA's processes work much better. Check them out. No 117 These surface treatments are inferior and present a less than desireable image No 19 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 1 So hey there I don't know if this would work but when you get a bid take the lowest one and cut it in half and then tell them I can pay you that much 2 The City needs to review its sweeping contract with AAA Sweeping. My residential street is swept multiple times per year. Once would suffice. That would save many $$$. 3 Our homeless crisis should be #1 priority. People are dying on the streets. We are already being taxed out of our homes, where is all this money going? Developers need to pay for the infrastructure needed to support the new developments. The Mission/Flora development is a train wreck and public safety is not being prioritized. Flora overpass needs lights and safe pedestrian access! 4 There is so much waste and lack of budget management 5 I hope the city is also reviewing road updates around areas where increased apartment development will also increase road usage. I have particular concerns about Valleyway/Flora/Conklin area. 6 Washington needs to ban studded tires before they implement anything else. 7 Prioritize streets. If Spokane is becoming Seattle we want to make sure we are Bellevue. Think outside the box. Spokane is limited on the height of a building, are we? Streets impact everyone and everyone has money right now. Consider a temp tax to upgrade and streets and add parks etc. Homeless are starting to appear everywhere in the valley. Let's solve this problem before we end up like Spokane. 8 You suck 9 Change the speed limit in Evergreen Rd. between 16th and 24th to 25mph. Then maybe people will stop driving 50mph in that stretch. ;) 10 Stop building Appartments and build homes. 20 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 11 This 'consensus' survey is fairly vague and a more detailed look at management of how the current money is being managed/allocated is needed. A larger burden should be incurred by the numerous developer and businesses that are coming into the valley (i.e. bare the burden of upkeep, betterment, modernization of our traffic system and pavement management program). The housing and apartment boom currently underway all have one thing in common it seems - developers and businesses are only responsible to make investments up to their property lines and that is about it.... their construction impacts and continues to affect the community well outside the borders of their properties. A more wholesome burden needs to be placed on those who want to develop and make financial gains off of our community. I pay my taxes and am happy to do, perhaps even more; but with the speed of housing and business development it seems the developers (housing or otherwise) don't bear any responsibility for community or commerce impacts outside of their property lines. This is frustrating as it seems most developers and owners don't even live in the area where they build or do business but they don't mind putting the 'beyond my property line' burden rather, on the surrounding and impacted community and residence. I don't think its just purely a residents only solution but a greater Spokane Valley solution. If you want to build, develop, or open a business here you need to have some skin in the game and most developer do the bare minimum to meet city standards and building code requirements (Alot of them seem to try and dodge that even or get 'grandfathered in under lesser or older requirements). If its worth doing, its worth doing right! We have enough temporary patching of roads, sidewalks, streets, etc. We all use it, we can all fund the upkeep of it. If you touch it leave it for the better; don't leave it as was or less than it was to begin with. If you cant afford to do it right the first time, don't make the investment. Lastly perhaps CSV can look to team up with or look for assistance from outside (of course qualified) and non -city but local contractors for some of these infrastructure repair needs. Spending money outside city -only contractor puts money into the 'local' hands of the community. In commercial construction (in the City of Spokane) we are typically required to improve as a part of doing business in the city, the reasonable surrounding area of which we are doing our work... pretty standard expectation in my experience. 12 I've lived here my whole life and have always been proud of our roads in Spokane Valley, let's keep them in great shape for future generations! 13 There should be an obvious place for people to submit complaints about roads. For example. Pines Rd near Mansfield Ave is horrible. They desperate need a center turn lane added here. Traffic flow is horrible. Also, on Barker Rd near 11th Ave is horribly narrow and needs widening and a shoulder. The road is just crumbling off itself and it's too narrow - very very dangerous. This city has HORRIBLE roads and it's inexcusable. Road affect everyone - so please use money on them and less on other things (parks, etc) as that only affects some people and isn't as big of a safety risk as the road conditions are. 14 Does the Spokane Valley have any income from State government coming from State Lottery income? Is there anyway the city can tap into those kinds of revenue streams? 15 I wonder about folks who live East of Havana, but have tax dollars going to Spokane City. Why do we not pay to Spokane Valley projects? 21 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 16 I have honk the city needs to really Rethink allof these apartments and what it means to the traffic and the wear and tear that wouldn't be happening if we had less of this "boom". It is incredible to have homeowners carry most of these costs through our property taxes! We didn't ask for this growth influx which is killing our neighborhoods! How about charging each new apartment dweller a "heads in apartment beds " fee?! The builders get exceptions, but they are not called that but rather incentives, allocations and breaks on their taxes for building all these atrocities called apartments. We are sick of all this planning and rezoning! Look what happens to our schools, roads, our parks, our spaces! More and more people flock to this area every day, but we truly lack the infrastructure to support it all!quit with the "let's build it and they will come" mentality! 17 I would like to see Spokane Valley streets such as Sprague and Sullivan look more like Coeur d Alene streets with the street divided with statues, ornamental landscaping and water falls. 18 When you have people on the council such as Peetz who can't handle her own finances, why should they be in charge of the people of the valley's ? 19 We need to somehow tap into the undocumented residents who use the streets as well to help pay for the upkeep. 20 Keep up the good work 21 I know you'll do the best for our citizens. But keep it honest, please. 22 This survey had weaknesses. For instance it made statements about the costs of maintaining our roads at the current levels, but did not say who was claiming that, or to that end. In addition, the survey tentative say A or B. A slight increase in spending, I would find acceptable, but doubling by 6 million was a bridge to far. 23 The state and federal grants should be fully tapped for najor projects.Sales tax increases for additional funds as deemed needed. 4th stree needs to be improved! Developers should ve asked to pay fees to help. 4th street has no continuos sidewalk or bike/ walking paths! There are apartments in thesr areas. Children walk and ride bikes on 4th street. Please post dead end or no outlet sign on morrow! Many people erroneously turn on Morrow 24 I'd like to see more sidewalks alongside the streets to benefit pedestrians, children, the disabled, etc. We're ridiculously behind any other city i've ever visited or lived in. 25 The city does a great job taking care of the roads. They now.need to do.a.better job of letting residents take care of and improve on their own properties. Rolling back to county property line and size rules with regard to outbuildings and detached garages would be a good start. 26 The workers take long lunches I'm Idaho for the love of God. Are we really paying fair prices to begin with? And roundabouts are a weird fix to areas that don't really have car accident problems. 27 The survey was to vague on the overall city streets and only addressed a few of the issues and problems 28 Housing project being built up off of Vera Crest. All these new homes being put in and our roads are already in bad shape. Adding 3 to 4 more cars per home onto our roads are only going to cause more damage! How are you going to fix this? Are you going to repave our roads before the houses are built and sold? 29 Good work 22 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 30 Large new developments (of which there are many now) should pay a special fee that covers street installation and maintenance to serve all the residents that will live there. These new developments add particular pressure to local arteries and surface streets. Because they are adding so much to the problem, they should pay in kind. 31 Map hard to read 32 This survey was a great idea. If available, grants and federal or state funding should also be considered. Is there a way to make the existing roads more lean without sacrificing current quality of work? Thank you! 33 I feel that maintaining the roads is important. Everyone should share equally in the cost even if they do not drive. They have friends, relatives, delivery people that use the roads to get to their homes. 34 Thanks 35 As I see projects where roads are paved, dug up & repaved, I question how much forethought is given to the process and cost involved 36 The city keeps allowing homes and apartments to be built in any small open spaces there were left id think you must be gaining a lot of tax revenue from all of that alone. 37 Stop looking at the core areas. The city is much larger than the Sprague corridor, the north side of the city limits is in very poor shape. Central Valley should not be your only concern. Make the other areas more appealing for more revenue. 38 If planning for new housing, you should also plan on improvements to roads, STOP WAITING UNTIL WE HAVE MORE TEAFFIC ON ROADS.*SPOKANE VALLEY, LIBERTY LAKE NEEDS TO IMPROVE LANDSCAPING ALONG INTERSTATE 90 ESPECIALLY AT THE IDAHO/WASHINGTON BORDER AND OTHER CITY LIMIT ENTRYWAY 39 Police force (number of officers) shouldn't be impacted but budget for vehicles and or military grade weapons and equipment should be cut. Police should be focusing on property crime more and less with issuing driving infractions. Spokane should also consider the impacts of additional people moving into our area and try to limit that number. Resources will get very strained in our area and traffic, home prices and many other things have already increased. With more people coming in we will need more sewage treatment plants, and have a greater impact to our aging water infrastructure. We only have one water source here and global warming will impact our water levels. The city should look into water table restoration and possibly relocate beavers back into local streams and creeks in an effort to raise the water stability. The homeless problem here is also horrible - if we let that go too long Spokane will turn into Portland and be a bum village with homeless defecating on our streets and littering everywhere with needles and beer cans and trash. Fixing our street is a very small portion of the problems ahead of us. If you are in a position to make positive changes to our great city and are reading this I hope you have the conscious to do the right things for our city and future generations. Some hard decisions need to be made and it shouldn't be in the form of increasing taxes 40 We found the "View" magazine very informative. We look forward to the next issue. 41 More police patrols on 4th ave. The speeding tickets will EZ pay for a lot of road improvements 42 You should have had more 'unsure' options. Why did the city get to this point in the first place? Did the city place new projects as a priority over maintence? That seems unwise. 43 I like that our streets are better than Spokane's. Let's keep it that way. 44 With growth Management act, It would seem that we wouldn't have the bottle neck in traffic as we do. ie. Barker, south of the freeway 23 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 45 There should be more spots for other answers/places to type for questions 46 Paving is important. Again I prefer to be proactive to reactive. Our city will only continue to grow as outsiders move here for many positive reasons. Paving and traffic flow need to be looked at as items of value and importance, not just for today but with an eye to the future. Examine areas for population growth and prepare accordingly. 47 do it right the first time, stop letting crooks steal our tax dollars with shoddy work and long delays, get road work done faster. 48 I live on a short subdivision and we are having trouble with two of the neighbors refusing to kick in on our street maintenance so I understand the problem of finding resources to pay for them. 49 I have no additional comments. Props to all City officials for your hard work! 50 I appreciate the city seeking public feedback. 51 I think the city council is doing an excellant job. I wish you would do a survey on how we feel about all the apartments going up everywhere. thank you 52 THIS IS bs> 53 The city needs to do a better job of informing citizens of planned and ongoing street repairs. 54 the cheaper you build something the more money you will spend in maintenance 55 Continue to be transparent with out valued tax dollars. 56 Thank you for info 57 Spokane is the best 58 More information on street projects is always interesting 59 Child safety seats have not been demonstrated to actually improve child safety. If child safety seats are mandated, they measurably supress birthrates, which is extremly alarming due to our sub -replacement fertility rate. No jurisdiction should ever mandate the use of child safety seats. 60 Vally streets are PRISTINE compared to the city. 61 Please address the increase in population and add MORE roads 62 The city should open bids up to all possible sources to get work completed more quickly and cost effectively. 63 Thank you. 64 Spokane Valley should see how poorly the City of Spokane has prioritized street management and avoid repeating their failures. Examples include FREQUENTLY tearing up the same recently reconstructed roads because of a failure to get all of the tasks done. For example, Mission between Division and Hamilton has been torn up at least four times since 2010. 65 There was no additional information or videos to review. Good luck ignoring my responses on your way to doing whatever you want to do. 66 Thanks for however it is you are managing to keep our streets in useable condition. One of the main reawsons I try to avoid going anywhere into the City of Spokane is the mess their streets are in! 67 I look forward to the Committee's findings. 68 Thank you! 24 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 69 If the new construction of apartment complexes and housing developments were assessed properly there would be plenty of money coming in for the additional traffic on the roads as well as fire and law enforcement requirements. Quit giving the rich contractors tax breaks. 70 Hate road construction but love new streets! 71 I don't like how some of the questions were written. Some of it I agreed with but then in the same question was something I didn't agree with. There was no "neutral" response. I also would like to know more about the funding and priorities at a citizen open house or zoom call where we can ask questions to have more detailed information. Semi trucks are ruining our neighborhood roads and we need more law enforcement because we are already down 10 officers. Not good. 72 Thank you for educating the community. Great work! 73 I've lived in Spokane Valley and lower south hill. The streets downtown and south hill are atrocious. I think Spokane Valley street may be in better condition. 74 I back the COSV 100% 75 Market the message well! 76 To questions 8, 11, 12 and 13, please add Pavement Management Program - it's confusing otherwise. 77 I still feel like more information is needed. 78 Videos are clear and informative 79 #7 Maybe less over-staffing/crew members standing around doing nothing on the clock would save a lot of money. We certainly would not be allowed to stand around and have (up arrow) staff at our jobs. I know employees of the City - of Inland Asphalt and Central Pre -Mix. They talk -it's a big joke. Excellent pay for (down arrow) skills and actual time spent "working". There goes the budget. City Hall could save money also if they actually turn off the lights at night. Balfour Park/new library - Bulldoze "meth manor" apts on Herald and Main. 1st too many felons, tweekers live there and pollute that park now. #16 very closed minded on what we see. Idaho license plates galore. Road crews standing around laughing, etc. We are taxed out with school levys and property taxes. We need our homes - would rather drive on dirt roads than be homeless. 25 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 80 Sounds like you are determined to increase taxes no matter what the citizens say. Things are tough all over. Only have 4 sheriffs in the valley is naive, we need more! Sprague, Appleway, Sullivan, Argonne, Mullan, Pines are all freeways. Use the monies from traffic violations to help fund more officers and street maintenance. When was the last time you have driven North of Barker in the commuting hours? It is backed up past Appleway. Drivers trying to enter Barker cannot because the intersections are blocked. Why not install red light cameras? I've come close on several occasions of almost getting hit from a driver speeding to get through the yellow and not making it. No one is concerned about getting a ticket because they rarely see officers cars out and about. Your commissioners are granting all kinds of building permits but not doing anything about the residential streets that were made almost 100 years ago. They were made for small vehicles, not the big ones of today that speed, run stop signs, and drive down the middle of the street. When is the building going to stop? Need more taxes? Offer up more building permits without doing any improvements on the infrastructure. Citizens have to live on a budget, therefore so should governments. As it is, seniors are being taxed out of their homes. Enforce the tools you have at hand now. More communication between people on the streets and City Hall would benefit all. Example, I asked why businesses are not fined when they do not shovel the sidewalks at their location. Answer, give address and we'll check into it. You cannot tell me that workers at city hall driving to work do not see this. Why are the swales along Appleway drying up? No one sees this, the contractor does not communicate with the city? One hand puts an answer off to another office, sad. Enough ranting for this letter, I have more. 81 I enjoyed filling out this survey. I notice some parts of the survey I got stuck on some areas. I looked thru the magazine but I did not know that there was a survey hidden among the pages. I did the best I could by reading each question. And I answered honestly to the sentences. In the near future I would very much like to keep filling out surveys/ questionnaires, to help assist Spokane in the growth of the city! 82 I am in a wheelchair. The roads and sidewalks are very important. Cracks & holes in the pavement is a serious hazard. Any effort to keep the roads in good order is worth the cost. Snow removal is also important to avoid more freeze thaw. Snow removal is a weakness for the city. Sidewalks are almost never cleared. You need to fine those that do not shovel the sidewalks, use this revenue to pay for repairs. Mandate any parking lot with disabled parking be cleared within 24 hours after a snow storm. One or two fines will get the point across. Overall you are doing a very good job. 83 I see two main problems. First, the issue isn't only pavement, it's sidewalks. We have pedestrians in the city and all road plans must focus on also assisting pedestrians. For instance, winter road snow being plowed onto Sprague's sidewalks is a danger to pedestrians, forcing them to walk on street or slide and fall on icy piles. Second, your definition of arterials is pathetic. Question 3 lists "4th" as an arterial. No, it's a residential street. 32nd is built out to be an arterial. 4th Ave isn't and you allow it to be so, making it dangerous. It's a narrow, residential street with houses close to a street and no sidewalks. You get people racing down a 25 mph street at 35-40 mph all the time. Part of road management is to enforce residential restrictions and demand people who need an arterial move four streets over to Sprague. If you want to make 4th an arterial, there's significant work needed, including widening, adding sidewalks and adding lights as it intersects actual arterials. Those of us on 4th would probably agree that isn't preferred and rather you enforce the residential nature; but if you make the other choice, make it an actual arterial. 26 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 84 Attn: Mayor Ben Wick, I feel that you have not yet fixed problem at Pines and Trent. I thought you spoke fixing overpass at the train tracks. Why hasn't it been done? We pay taxes to have it done! The trains should not be allowed to blow their horns from 9 pm to 6 am and bang against the train cars together between these times either. You need redoing the streets that already been done the year before! So, why should we have to continue to paying taxes, when our streets aren't being fixed and our streets are, overwhelmingly busy. You keep building more apartments on Pines but where's the compensation to Pines and Trent railroad tracts. So what are you going to do about it? It was suppose to have been started already! We should not have to pay an increase in taxes since our street is being ignored -once again!! I do not see clean streets. There is all kinds of garbage laying all over; such as Indiana, Pines, Montgomery, etc.!! Maybe you should drive around!! I think anyone taking garbage or yard waste to the dump sites should be charged if don't have a cover over all of it. Well, what's going to happen regarding my concerns? 85 Sidewalks! We need sidewalks, I live between Sullivan and Evergreen on 4th and we desperately need a safe place for walking same goes for 8th, its dangerous. We're either on home owners' lawn or walking in the street. Please do something for our safety. 86 I was hoping when, a few years back, it made National News that Spokane had the worst air quality in the nation, it would prevent people from moving here. With our population growing, more traffic will be hard on roads, so we need to spend money now to prevent them from deteriorating. Plus - how many more people can our aquafer support? Didn't we receive "government money"? Why can't that be used for streets? We need good roads. We need to protect our water supply (even asking people to water less frequently). We need to use less power. (Avista may still have designated area power outages to protect grids) The world is heating up and we need to protect all of our resources. Housing & rents are unaffordable. It will end up with only the well-to-do living here; we may become another Seattle - which will raise the costs of everything. We need affordable housing. I know you only asked about street funding. How on earth can it cost a few million to resurface 10 blocks? Are you seeking the highest bid? I could not believe the price on these construction projects! It's enough to give anyone nightmares! 87 Dear Ben Wick, Mayor of Spokane Valley Thank you for doing an awesome job thus far. I'd like to ask the question ... Why have we not made another North / South arterial on Evergreen crossing the Spokane River, skirting around both sides of Kaiser Aluminum which is greatly needed, and connecting on the other side to Evergreen and Trent? Seems like this could be a project more people could get behind. PS Looking forward to the new River Loop Trail and the expansion of Balfour Park and new Spokane Valley Library! Thank you for the View Newsletter. 88 Hello. As we know, the streets in the city of Spokane are a disaster! Our city has very good surface streets. Please don't go the way of the city of Spokane. We need to keep our streets in good repair! I am willing to pay additional taxes for street maintenance. 89 The valley should consider sidewalks for part of their road repair & maintenance. I live and own a business in the CVHS neighborhood & there are many streets where people continually speed (40+ in a 25) where the school children from CVHS, Adams Elem, Progress Elem, & St Mary's do not have a safe sidewalk to get home on. I hope the pavement management (i.e. Street Maintenance) or some other committee would work this into the repair & renewal in this neighborhood. 90 Start enforcing the no street beggar law. We need law enforcement patrols on Centennial Trail. Your ruining the quiet and scenery by building on Centennial Trail. No more apartments, homes, businesses on trail it's ruining the wildlife. 27 Other Miscellaneous Public Comments 91 Due to the large number of multi family housing units on Broadway, traffic on that corridor has increased exponentially. Changing the road back to a four -lane would help this problem. Also, I suggest to not spend money on putting in new curbs and sidewalks, and use that money to help maintain the roadways. 92 1. We need to take a better look around our city - to enhance its construction and maintenance and not let it go down and make it look like a "slum city". ie Tagging and painting on walls, buildings, RR crossing. This causes additional and necessary maintenance. We need to somehow have our owners, around sidewalk, streets etc. and property side of fences that show little care of weeds that spread throughout the community besides spreading and causing allergies - They're ugly. Maybe asking property owners to cut grass on the other side of their fences instead of dumping their grass cuttings. 93 I'm 90 years old and don't drive or much as I used too. I'm sure you do the best you can, and your doing a good job. 94 This city oligarchs are raging ignoramus! They fix streets with nothing wrong and don't where there is severe damage. 95 All the streets, especially arterials and local access could use more sidewalks not just Centennial and Appleway trails. 4th could use a sidewalk. 96 Has a city traffic engineer studied 1-90 off ramp at Sullivan traffic patterns lately? Very inefficient. 97 Q16: 1 do not think anything will change as long as the Spokane Valley City council is staffed with career council members you know who!!! 28 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of November 3, 2021; 11:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Nov 16, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due by Noon, Wed, Nov 10] Proclamation: Honoring Recipient of Girl Scout Gold Award; National Apprenticeship Week ACTION ITEMS; 1. Second Read Ord 21-019 Code Text Amendment 2020-0006 Planned Res.Dev Regs—J. Nickerson (5 min) 2. Second Read Ord 21-020 Amending SVMC 3.34 dedicatory plaques — Cary Driskell (5 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance 21-021 Amending SVMC 2.40.010 Oath of Office — Chris Bainbridge (5 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Adopting 2022 State Legislative Agenda — Cary Driskell, John Hohman (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Determining Interim City Manager Appointment Process — John Whitehead (10 mins) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. 2022 Comp Plan Docket — Chaz Bates 7. Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection Project Update — Gloria Mantz 8. LTAC Recommendations to Council — Chelsie Taylor 9. Update on Yellowstone Pipe Line Franchise — Cary Driskell 10. Council Salary Commission Update — Cary Driskell 11. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Nov 23, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: 2022 Comp Plan Docket — Chaz Bates 3. Admin Report: 2022 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor 4. Admin Report: SVPD Update — Chief Ellis 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100 mins] [due Tue Nov 16] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Nov 30, 2021, Study Session (possibly cancelled: Thanksgiving Holiday Week) Dec 7, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Dec 14, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Resolution 21- Amending Fees for 2022 — Chelsie Taylor 3. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Awards for 2022 — Chelsie Taylor 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick [*estimated Dec 21, 2021, Study Session (with action items), 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 30] (5 minutes) [due Tue Dec 7] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 25 mins] [due Tue Dec 14] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes [normally on the Dec 28 meeting]) (5 minutes) 2. Mayoral Appt, Nomination of Student for AWC Ctr for Quality Communities Grant Award — Mayor (5 min) 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally on 4th Tue) [*estimated meeting: mins] Dec 28, 2021, Formal Meeting (possibly cancelled: Christmas Holiday) Draft Advance Agenda 11/4/2021 1:02:53 PM Page 1 of 2 January 4, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Swearing in of newly elected councilmembers [Note: This is NOT a special meeting, but an opportunity to administer the oath of office to newly elected councilmembers.] Jan 4, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Council Officer Selections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor — Chris Bainbridge 2. CDBG Project Prioritization — Chaz Bates 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Jan 11, 2022, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointments: Planning Commissioners 3. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members 4. Mayoral Appointments: Citizens to misc. agency appointments 5. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to various committees and boards 6. Motion Consideration: CDBG Project Prioritization — Chaz Bates [due Tue Dec 28] (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes ) [due Tue Jan 4] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Training Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings — Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb (30 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 mins] *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Artwork & Metal Boxes Consolidated Homeless Grant Core Beliefs Resolution Governor Authority/Emergency Situations (info only) HHAA Funds Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Neighborhood Restoration No Parking Zones Park Lighting PFD Presentation Prosecutor Services Residency Ridgemont Area Traffic St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Sign Draft Advance Agenda 11/4/2021 1:02:53 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 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: Information Report— Park Road at Mission Avenue Traffic Revisions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • March 6, 2003 — Adoption of Ordinance 047 which codified as SVMC 9.05.020 which adopted by reference the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance (WMTO). • September 14, 2021— Council Consensus for Traffic Signal Removal BACKGROUND: The span -wire traffic signal system at the intersection of Park Road and Mission Avenue had been a subject of monitoring for several years. Two of the four strain poles holding the span wires had been struck by vehicles on numerous occasions, which caused damage to the poles resulting in visible leaning of the pole and increased sagging of the span wires and traffic signal heads. Since 2019, City and County personnel actively collected measurements to monitor the poles and span wires. The northbound and southbound signal heads were converted to horizontal heads due to clearance limitations. Between May of 2019 and May of 2021, the northbound span wire height over the roadway was reduced 3" due to strain and sagging. The pole on the northwest corner was struck again on or before Friday, September 3rd. The signal heads were again measured and the height shown to be further reduced by 2". The increased sagging of the span wires, leaning of the strain poles, and damage to the poles raised concerns that the configuration could have failed unexpectedly without reduction or removal of the signal loading. On September 14, 2021, staff presented to Council a recommendation that the traffic signal be removed and replaced with an enhanced all -way stop control. Council consensus to follow staff's recommendation was given. Subsequently, the signal system was removed on September 21 st Since modification of the intersection control, there have been several inquiries from the public regarding pedestrian safety and night-time intersection visibility. As noted in the September 14th Council Meeting, staff continues to monitor the intersection operation. The attached Memorandum provides operational information of the intersection since the change, which shows that the intersection meets level of service standards for traffic movement and safety. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager; Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: • Park & Mission Traffic Revisions (October 21, 2021) Memorandum to Mark Calhoun, City Manager Spokane _Valley v COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE / Engineering Mgr. —TRAFFIC 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Email: jclark(ajspokanevalley.org DATE: October 21, 2021 TO: Mark Calhoun City Manager, Spokane Valley RE: Park & Mission Traffic Revisions The traffic control at the intersection of Park Road (Minor Arterial) and Mission Avenue (Major Collector) was revised from full signalization to all -way stop -control on September 21, 2021. This change was a result of continued damage to the signal components as described below: • The City has been monitoring the span -wire traffic signal system at the intersection of Park Road and Mission Avenue for several years. The signal was installed before the City was incorporated. Two of the four strain poles holding the span wires have been struck by vehicles on numerous occasions, which caused damage to the poles resulting in visible leaning of the pole and increased sagging of the span wires and traffic signal heads. • Since 2019, City and County personnel have actively collected measurements to monitor the poles and span wires. The northbound and southbound signal heads were converted to horizontal heads due to clearance limitations. Between May of 2019 and May of 2021, the northbound span wire height over the roadway reduced 3" due to strain, sagging, and/or leaning. • The pole on the northwest corner was struck again on or before Friday, September 3rd. The signal heads were again measured and the height shown to be further reduced by 2". The increased sagging of the span wires, leaning of the strain poles, and damage to the poles raised concerns that the span wire configuration could fail unexpectedly without reduction or removal of the signal loading posing a significant threat to the travelling public. Staff recommended that the traffic signal be removed and replaced with enhanced all -way stop control including flashing overhead beacons to reduce the strain on the poles and span wires. This was discussed both with West Valley School District and with Seth Woodard Elementary personnel. The situation was also discussed with the Spokane Valley City Council on September 14th where with consensus to move forward with the modifications was given. Intersection Operations A traffic count was conducted at the intersection after the signal was removed to evaluate operations under all -way stop control. Based on the turning movement volumes collected on October 5, 2021, the intersection is shown to be operating acceptably for vehicular level of service (LOS) during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach is the highest volume movement for both peak periods. The AM peak hour is estimated to experience an average of nearly 15 seconds of delay per vehicle in the northbound approach (LOS B). The PM peak hour is estimated to experience an average of just over 23 seconds of delay per vehicle in the northbound approach (LOS C). Both of these delay measures are within engineering standards and City LOS criteria (LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections). The PM peak hour was found to have a higher volume than the school release period. Park & Mission Traffic Revisions; Page 2 Public Feedback Since the revision on September 21, staff has received numerous calls from citizens, most of whom are concerned about pedestrian safety. The removal of the signal included the removal of the pedestrian signal heads, which provided a sense of safety to pedestrians by informing them of when to cross the street. Under all -way stop control, all vehicles must stop, and therefore pedestrians do not have to wait for a pedestrian signal phase. However, in the days immediately following the revision, concerned citizens observed many "close calls" where vehicles stopped but did not yield to pedestrians as required by law. Through discussions with the concerned citizens, staff has shared the historical information and also that a cost estimate to upgrade the intersection and to install a signal meeting current design standards is $1.5 million, for which funding is not available. Staff will continue to monitor the intersection safety and operations and to seek funding for further improvements There has also been stated concern regarding the amount of lighting provided at the intersection. It is important to note that none of the overhead streetlights were moved or removed with the signal removal. As shown in the images below provided by the citizen, the intersection itself is very evident when approaching from Park and from Mission. The overhead flashing light and the retroreflective signs and sign posts effectively identify the intersection and approaching traffic control. Figure 1. Park Road, traveling north Park & Mission Traffic Revisions; Page 3 Figure 2. Park Road, traveling north Figure 3. Mission Avenue, traveling west Park & Mission Traffic Revisions; Page 4 In summary, the traffic signal was removed at the Park and Mission intersection due to the concerns related to reduced clearance and public safety. Initial and subsequential operational evaluations show that the intersection meets current LOS standards in its all -way stop control configuration. Traffic engineering staff will continue to monitor the intersection for operations, safety, and overhead clearance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or comments. I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, erremy CI�fk, PE, PTOE City of Spokane Valley Cc: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, City Engineer CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. Report' pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Information Report— Appleway Trail Roadway Crossings. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A for this Topic BACKGROUND: City Council requested information on any documented safety issues that have occurred on the Appleway Trail at its roadway crossings. The attached Memorandum provides a detailed review and summary of the information. There are 18 Appleway Trail roadway crossings that have various crossing enhancements in place. These enhancements range from high visibility crosswalk markings and lighting to a full pedestrian hybrid crossing signal. The Memorandum identifies the crossing enhancements at each crossing, along with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance related to pedestrian safety at crossings. Since the opening of the first segment of the five and a half miles of Appleway Trail and its completion in 2019, there have been two documented pedestrian/bicycle crashes with vehicles, both in 2021, one at Evergreen Road and the other at Adams Road. Both crashes involved personal error and would not have been mitigated with additional crossing improvements. As with all pedestrian and traffic safety issues, staff will continue to monitor the crossings as trail usage and roadway volumes continue to increase within the City. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager; Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: • Appleway Trail Street Crossings (October 21, 2021) Memorandum to Mark Calhoun, City Manager Spokane 1.Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE / Engineering Mgr. —TRAFFIC 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Email: jclark@spokanevalley.org DATE: October 21, 2021 TO: Mark Calhoun City Manager, Spokane Valley RE: Appleway Trail Street Crossings At the request of City Council, the information in this memorandum is provided to summarize the crossing improvements at minor streets along the Appleway Trail and to identify any documented safety issues that have occurred at the crossing locations. The final segment of the Appleway Trail between Evergreen and Sullivan was completed in 2019, which resulted in the "completion" of the trail between University Road and the eastern City limits. Across this length of over 5 1/2 miles, there are 18 roadway crossings along the trail. Three of these crossings are at existing traffic signals, four of them include new RRFB installations, and one includes a new PHB installation. The remaining 10 crossings are relatively standard crosswalks with high visibility markings and advanced signage, as summarized in the table below. Lighting is included along the trail facility. The assessment of improvements at the trail crossing locations is consistent with the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations published in 2018. This report builds on prior analyses by identifying recommended countermeasures based on roadway speed, traffic volume, and roadway width. As an example, two lane roads with low traffic volumes (less than 9,000 vehicles per day) and low speeds (less than 30 mph) are recommended for high visibility crosswalk markings, and warning signs as well as pedestrian lighting and adjacent parking restrictions. Recommendations for the consideration of enhanced elements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB) typically occur at speeds over 40 mph, volumes over 9,000 vehicles per day, and/or 3 or more roadway lanes. An excerpt of the study is provided as an attachment to this document. Table 1. Annlewav Trail Crossings # Cross Street Crossing Treatment Street Volume No. of Lanes Posted Speed 1 University Road Existing Traffic Signal 16,100 5 35 2 Bowdish Road RRFB & Median Refuge 7,400 2 35 3 Union Road Crosswalk & Signage Unk. 2 25 4 Robie Road Crosswalk & Signage Unk. 2 25 5 Pines Road / SR-27 PHB 19,700 4+ 35 6 McDonald Road RRFB & Bulb -out 6,400 2 35 7 Blake Road Crosswalk, & Signage Unk. 2 25 8 Evergreen Road RRFB & Median Refuge 15,000 4+ 35 9 Adams Road Crosswalk & Signage 3,800 2 25 10 Progress Road Crosswalk & Signage Unk. 2 25 11 Sullivan Road RRFB & Median Refuge 22,700 4+ 35 12 Conklin Road Crosswalk, Signage, & Median Refuge 6,200 3 25 13 Steen Road Crosswalk & Signage Unk. 2 25 14 Flora Road Crosswalk, Signage, & Bulb -out Unk. 2 25 15 Tschirley Road Crosswalk & Signage Unk. 2 25 16 Corbin Road Existing Traffic Signal 4,900 2 35 17 Greenacres Road Crosswalk & Signage (Stop Control) Unk. 2 25 18 Barker Road Existing Traffic Signal 9,300 4 35 Appleway Trail Street Crossings; Page 2 As noted in the table, there are several crossings with unknown (Unk.) volumes on the crossed street. While the City has a program in place to collect volumes on all federally classified arterial and collector roads, these unknown volumes are on local access streets with typically low volumes. With the exception of Progress Road, these local streets do not have through connectivity and typically only provide access to a limited number of parcels. Progress Road is assumed to have a similar traffic volume as Adams Road. Additionally, an independent evaluation was completed in 2019 to determine the recommended crossing treatments at the Evergreen and Sullivan crossings. The study found that the crossing did not meet the pedestrian and vehicular volume warrants provided in the MUTCD for either location with the installation of a median refuge island. There have been three pedestrian or bicyclist crashes in the vicinity of the trail since the completion of the Appleway Trail in 2019, each of them occurring in 2021. One of the crashes was unrelated to the trail crossing but involved a pedestrian crossing Evergreen between the trail crossing and Sprague Avenue. The two crashes related to the trail are summarized below: • A motorized wheelchair was crossing Evergreen Road on 7/13/21 with the RRFB lights activated. The vehicle in the outside lane stopped, but the vehicle in the inside lane did not stop and struck the motorized wheelchair. The driver was charged with DUI based on the collision report. • A vehicle and a bicyclist both came to a stop at the Adams Road crossing on 4/7/21. The driver saw that the bicyclist stopped and proceeded to accelerate through the intersection. The bicyclist also started to proceed through the intersection and was struck by the vehicle. Based on the crash history available, there has not been a documented or recurring crash problem at the Appleway Trail crossings that would be mitigated by additional crossing improvements. Traffic Engineering staff will continue to monitor the crossings as trail usage and roadway volumes increase. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or comments, I appreciate your feedback. erremy C i'k, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineering Manager City of Spokane Valley Cc: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, City Engineer Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Table 1 provides initial countermeasure options for various roadway conditions. Each matrix cell indicates possibilities that may be appropriate for designated pedestrian crossings. Not all of the countermeasures listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be installed at a crossing. For multi -lane roadway crossings with vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked crosswalk alone is typically insufficient (Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more substantial crossing improvements (such as the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian crash potential. abie I. Hppiication of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway realure. Roadway Configuration 2 lanes (1 lane in each direction) 3 lanes with raised median (1 lane in each direction) 3 lanes w/o raised median (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left -turn lane) 4+ lanes with raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) 4+ lanes w/o raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) Given the set of conditions in a cell, # Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. • Signifies that the countermeasure should always be considered, but not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. O Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified countermeasures.* The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may Abe considered following engineering judgment. Vehicle AADT <9,000 Posted Speed Limit and AADT Vehicle AADT 9,000-15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 35 mph >_40 mph <_30 mph 35 mph >_40 mph <_30 mph O ,O 0 0 ,O 0 ,O 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 7 9 0 0 7 9 0 CO 7 9 7 9 O ©O ©O 3 O ©O 00 ©O 00 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 7 9 0 0 7 9 0 00 0 7 910 0 0 O 2 3 0 00 ©0 3 0 ©0 ©O ©O ©O 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 9 7 9 0 7 9 0 0 0 7 9 0 0 O 00 ©O ©O 00 ©O 00 ©O 00 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 0 8 0 8 0 0 8 0 80 80 O ©O ©O ©O ©O ©O ©O ©O ©O 5 6 5 0 5 0 5 0 50 5 0 50 50 50 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 0 8 0 8 0 0 8 0 80 80 1 High -visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs 2 Raised crosswalk 3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line 4 In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign 5 Curb extension 6 Pedestrian refuge island 7 Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon (RRFB)** 8 Road Diet 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)** *Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. **It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location. This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/,; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/, Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners. Select Countermeasure(s) 16 Sp kane Valley Memorandum FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: October 29, 2021 Re: Finance Department Activity Report — September 2021 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of September 2021 and included herein is an updated 2021 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of September. 2020 Year-end Process The 2020 books were closed in April and the annual financial report was completed and filed in May. The State Auditor's Office issued an unmodified opinion on the audit of the financial statements for the fiscal year 2020 and the Federal single audit on September 23, 2021. We expect the accountability audit and related exit conference to be completed later this fall. 2021 Budget Amendment #2 As we have progressed through 2021 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen. Council review will take place at the following meetings: • October 12 • October 26 • October 26 • November 9 Admin Report Public Hearing First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2021 Budget Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Development The 2022 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March, and on April 6th we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid -May. By the time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 9th, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including three public hearings. • June 15 Council budget workshop • August 17 Admin report on 2022 revenues and expenditures • September 14 Public hearing #1 on the 2022 revenues and expenditures • October 5 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2022 Budget • October 12 Public hearing #2 on 2022 Budget • October 26 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget • November 9 Public hearing #3 on the 2022 Budget • November 9 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 09 30.docx Page 1 2022 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2022 are expected to account for approximately 25.13% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: • September 14 Public hearing on 2022 revenues including property taxes • September 21 Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2022 property taxes • October 12 First reading of ordinance levying 2022 property taxes and confirming tax levy • October 26 Second reading of ordinance levying 2022 property taxes and confirming tax levy Outside Agency Funding in the 2022 Budget The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2022 Budget currently has $244,000 collectively available for this, with $62,000 being set aside for contracted economic development. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • July 16 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers • August 13 Agency requests are due at City Hall • September 21 Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council • October 26 Council makes final determination of awards Lodging Tax The schedule leading • August 27 • October 1 • October 13 • November 9 • December 14 to awarding funds is as follows: Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers Grant applications due at City Hall Grant applicant presentations to lodging tax advisory committee Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2022 Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2021 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2021 Budget was adopted is located on pages 6 through 19. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2020 Annual Financial Report. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 09 30.docx Page 2 • Columns of information include: o The 2021 Budget as adopted o September 2021 activity o Cumulative 2021 activity through September 2021 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 6): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 78.89% of the amount budgeted with 75.00% of the year elapsed. • Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2021 are $7,509,785 or 59.02% of the amount budgeted. • Sales tax collections represent only eight months of collections thus far because taxes collected in September are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of October. Collections are currently at $21,141,489 or 83.89% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $220,964 or 57.54% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with third quarter payments due by October 31s1 • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2021 we have received $713,943 or 58.76% of the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, marijuana excise tax, and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through September we've received remittances totaling $1,709,931 or 97.16% of the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through September we've received remittances through the month of August with receipts of $314,436 or 31.13% of the amount budgeted. This amount is lower than average this year because of a change in accounting rules that requires the City to account for the passed through District Court revenues in a separate custodial fund. There will be a future budget amendment moving those passed through revenues to the new fund. • Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at $3,902,914 or 204.48% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $252,431 or 39.22% of the amount budgeted. This amount is lower than average due to closures and restricted activities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Recurring expenditures are currently at $30,631,917 or 67.40% of the amount budgeted with 75.00% of the year elapsed. Investments (page 20) Investments at September 30 total $83,935,642 and are composed of $78,841,625 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,094,017 in bank CDs. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 09 30.docx Page 3 Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 21) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through September and total $23,648,966 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $5,523,023 or 30.47% greater than the same eight -month period in 2020. Economic Indicators (pages 22 — 24) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 22) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 24) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 22 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2012. • Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $5,089,918 or 31.71%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2020 of $25,238,481, besting the previous record year of 2019 when $24,204,762 was collected. Page 23 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2012. • Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $175,973 or 65.90%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2019 of $743,851, and subsequently decreased to $443,243 in 2020. • The decrease in 2020 reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Page 24 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2012. • Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $1,411,371 or 69.00%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $3,800,432. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstandinq (page 25) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2021 is $11,553,065,482. Following the December 1, 2020 debt service payments, the City has $11,120,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 6.42% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.28% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $4,100,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1 % sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $450,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. o $6,570,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are to be repaid with General Fund revenues. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 09 30.docx Page 4 Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 26 and 27) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: Page 26 provides a 10-year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2012. • Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $140,209 or 12.81 %. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million and have generally ranged around $2 million in the years 2012 through 2020. Page 27 provides a 10-year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2012. • Compared with 2020, 2021 collections have decreased by $256,157 or 26.79%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently, there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. • Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. • The 2021 budget is set at $1,000,000. We will watch actual receipts closely as the year progresses. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 09 30.docx Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 12,724,200 137,037 7,509,785 (5,214,415) 59.02% Sales Tax 25,200,000 2,623,934 21,141,489 (4,058,511) 83.89% Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,160,000 118,653 905,133 (254,867) 78.03% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 2,040,000 209,171 1,602,343 (437,657) 78.55% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 384,000 301 220,964 (163,036) 57.54% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,215,000 16,865 713,943 (501,057) 58.76% State Shared Revenues 1,760,000 491,182 1,709,931 (50,069) 97.16% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,010,200 36,502 314,436 (695,764) 31.13% Community and Public Works 1,908,719 363,878 3,902,914 1,994,195 204.48% Recreation Program Revenues 643,600 26,071 252,431 (391,169) 39.22% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 21,000 5 20,872 (128) 99.39% Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 592,500 14,415 117,163 (475,337) 19.77% Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 48,689,219 4,038,015 38,411,404 (10,277,815) 78.89% Expenditures City Council 638,672 31,049 389,525 249,147 60.99% City Manager 1,163,839 91,235 758,471 405,368 65.17% City Attorney 718,593 55,962 520,372 198,221 72.42% Public Safety 28,383,761 2,232,352 19,696,508 8,687,253 69.39% Deputy City Manager 284,844 20,032 224,757 60,087 78.91 % Finance / IT 1,500,659 112,782 960,794 539,865 64.02% Human Resources 318,540 24,651 225,620 92,920 70.83% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 373,601 32,439 260,590 113,011 69.75% Community & Public Works - Engineering 2,098,642 160,768 1,272,024 826,618 60.61 % Community & Public Works - Econ Dev 1,097,061 86,569 686,140 410,921 62.54% Community & Public Works - Bldg & Plan 2,414,558 167,741 1,751,152 663,406 72.52% Parks & Rec - Administration 355,427 24,805 233,419 122,008 65.67% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 940,003 16,999 558,237 381,766 59.39% Parks & Rec - Recreation 328,534 17,591 146,264 182,270 44.52% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 510,053 124,329 213,774 296,279 41.91% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 35,403 2,412 22,530 12,873 63.64% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 972,214 64,960 544,134 428,080 55.97% General Government 1,297,380 128,983 656,399 640,981 50.59% Transfers out - #204 ('16 LTGO bond debt service) 401,500 33,458 301,125 100,375 75.00% Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 13,333 120,000 40,000 75.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 991,843 82,654 743,882 247,961 75.00% Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 27,450 9,150 75.00% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 425,000 35,417 318,750 106,250 75.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 45,446,727 3,563,571 30,631,917 14,814,810 67.40% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 3,242,492 474,444 7,779,487 4,536,995 Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds 49,000 0 113,831 64,831 232.31 % Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 0 0 8,003,246 8,003,246 0.00% City Assistance for LE and CJ 0 0 389,399 389,399 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 49,000 0 8,506,476 8,457,476 17360.16% Expenditures City Manager (office furniture for Housing Servempl 5,000 0 2,969 2,031 59.39% Public Safety (replace HVAC units at Precinct) 62,000 0 0 62,000 0.00% Public Safety (replace handguns) 37,500 0 0 37,500 0.00% Public Safety (radar trailer) 11,400 0 0 11,400 0.00% Public Safety (Precinct access control gate) 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00% Public Safety (Precinct fire panel replacement) 10,000 0 0 10,000 0.00% Public Safety (Equipment for bike patrols) 0 0 4,570 (4,570) 0.00% Public Safety (DEMS/TasersBodyCams) 109,608 0 0 109,608 0.00% City Hall Repairs 0 30,217 261,521 (261,521) 0.00% City Hall (replace light pole) 0 0 3,655 (3,655) 0.00% Community & Public Works (Ecology SMP Update) 25,000 0 10,585 14,415 42.34% Community & Public Works (Housing Action Plan) 0 0 44,992 (44,992) 0.00% Windstorm 2021 Cleanup Costs 32,000 0 31,984 16 99.95% General Government - IT capital replacements 212,800 0 0 212,800 0.00% General Government (Covid-19 Related Costs) 0 9,124 16,744 (16,744) 0.00% Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations) 2,552,600 253,967 1,790,700 761,900 70.15% Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) 364,440 0 0 364,440 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace west lawn) 14,876 0 0 14,876 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace roof repairs) 12,227 0 0 12,227 0.00% Transfers out - #312 ('19 fund bal >50%) 11,126,343 0 0 11,126,343 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 14,595,794 293,308 2,167,719 12,428,075 14.85% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (14,546,794) (293,308) 6,338,757 20,885,551 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (11,304,302) 181,137 14,118,243 25,422,545 Beginning fund balance 42,445,511 42,445,511 Ending fund balance 31,141,209 56,563,755 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 1,000,000 85,251 699,881 (300,119) 69.99% Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 1,800,000 184,737 1,229,134 (570,866) 68.29% Multimodal Transportation 130,600 32,698 98,120 (32,480) 75.13% Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 2,360 16,651 (53,349) 23.79% Investment Interest 4,000 56 226 (3,774) 5.66% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 194 56,977 46,977 569.77% Total Recurring Revenues 3,014,600 305,295 2,100,990 (913,610) 69.69% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,127,920 84,134 769,961 357,959 68.26% Supplies 156,050 11,509 112,771 43,279 72.27% Services & Charges 2,525,828 326,091 1,942,964 582,864 76.92% Snow Operations 751,652 77,553 471,419 280,233 62.72% Intergovernmental Payments 935,000 109,294 580,160 354,840 62.05% Transfers out - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 10,250 854 7,687 2,563 75.00% Transfers out - #501 (plow replace) 60,500 5,042 40,333 20,167 66.67% Total Recurring Expenditures 5,567,200 614,477 3,925,296 1,641,904 70.51% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (2,552,600) (309,181) (1,824,307) 728,293 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Insurance Proceeds (traffic signal cabinet) 0 8,374 54,702 54,702 0.00% Utilities Tax Recovery 0 0 50,472 50,472 0.00% Transfers in - #001 2,552,600 253,967 1,790,700 (761,900) 70.15% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 2,552,600 262,341 1,895,874 (656,726) 74.27% Expenditures Traffic Control Devices -Repair & Maintenance 0 0 13,079 (13,079) 0.00% Emergency Traffic Control Repairs 0 0 9,406 (9,406) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 22,485 (22,485) 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,552,600 262,341 1,873,389 (679,211) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 (46,840) 49,083 49,083 Beginning fund balance 759,299 759,299 Ending fund balance 759,299 808,382 #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest 8,700 779 5,184 (3,516) 59.59% 200 2 14 (186) 6.96% Total revenues 8,900 781 5,198 (3,702) 58.41% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,900 781 5,198 (3,702) Beginning fund balance 21,516 21,516 Ending fund balance 30,416 26,714 Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #104 - TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 213,000 65,724 287,601 74,601 135.02% Investment Interest 24,000 192 1,785 (22,215) 7.44% Transfers in - #105 453,840 0 0 (453,840) 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #105 - HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 690,840 65,916 289,386 (401,454) 41.89% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 690,840 65,916 289,386 (401,454) 2,986,573 2,986,573 3,677,413 3,275,959 346,000 101,171 442,987 96,987 128.03% 6,000 72 564 (5,436) 9.39% Total revenues 352,000 101,243 443,551 91,551 126.01 % Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Transfers out - #104 453,840 0 0 453,840 0.00% Tourism Promotion 224,400 10,479 15,850 208,550 7.06% Total expenditures 708,240 10,479 15,850 692,390 2.24% Revenues over (under) expenditures (356,240) 90,764 427,701 Beginning fund balance 798,716 798,716 Ending fund balance 442,476 1,226,417 (600,839) #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 0 125,287 99,713 55.68% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 0 1,013,083 486,917 67.54% Investment Interest 12,000 107 900 11,100 7.50% Total revenues 1,737,000 107 1,139,270 597,730 65.59% Expenditures Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Education & Contract Administration 237,000 1,829 33,865 203,135 14.29% Total expenditures 1,737,000 1,829 33,865 1,703,135 1.95% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (1,721) 1,105,405 (1,105,405) Beginning fund balance 726,788 726,788 Ending fund balance 726,788 1,832,193 #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Investment Interest 79,000 0 36,490 42,510 46.19% 0 12 113 (113) 0.00% Total revenues 79,000 12 36,603 42,397 46.33% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 39,500 0 0 39,500 0.00% Capital Outlay 33,500 4,389 8,966 24,534 26.76% Total expenditures 73,000 4,389 8,966 64,034 12.28% Revenues over (under) expenditures 6,000 (4,376) 27,637 (21,637) Beginning fund balance 181,773 181,773 Ending fund balance 187,773 209,410 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #108 - AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TAX FUND Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Tax 193,000 22,641 125,408 67,592 64.98% Investment Interest 0 16 125 (125) 0.00% Total revenues 193,000 22,658 125,533 67,467 65.04% Expenditures Affordable & Supportive Housing Program 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 193,000 22,658 125,533 67,467 Beginning fund balance 152,033 152,033 Ending fund balance 345,033 277,567 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 o o 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,900 9 81 (1,819) 4.25% Transfers in - #001 364,440 0 0 (364,440) 0.00% Subtotal revenues Expenditures Snow removal expenses Transfers out - #101 366,340 9 81 (366,259) 0.02% 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (133,660) 9 81 (866,259) Beginning fund balance 160,043 160,043 Ending fund balance 26,383 160,124 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 480,800 0 80,400 (400,400) 16.72% Transfers in - #001 401,500 33,458 301,125 (100,375) 75.00% Transfers in -#301 80,775 6,731 60,581 (20,194) 75.00% Transfers in -#302 80,775 6,731 60,581 (20,194) 75.00% Total revenues 1,043,850 46,921 502,687 (541,163) 48.16% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 480,800 0 80,400 400,400 16.72% Debt Service Payments - Roads 161,550 0 8,275 153,275 5.12% Debt Service Payments -'16 LTGO Bond 401,500 0 115,750 285,750 28.83% Total expenditures 1,043,850 0 204,425 839,425 19.58% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 46,921 298,262 (1,380,588) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 298,262 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget 1,000,000 333,781 1,706,247 706,247 170.62% 25,000 213 1,769 (23,231) 7.07% 1,025,000 333,995 1,708,015 683,015 166.64% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,775 6,731 60,581 20,194 75.00% Transfers out - #303 316,620 0 50,534 266,086 15.96% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,278 0 0 827,278 0.00% Total expenditures 1,224,673 6,731 111,115 1,113,558 9.07% Revenues over (under) expenditures (199,673) 327,264 1,596,900 (430,543) Beginning fund balance 2,048,068 2,048,068 Ending fund balance 1,848,395 3,644,969 #302 - SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes 1,000,000 333,781 1,706,247 706,247 170.62% Investment Interest 25,000 383 3,442 (21,558) 13.77% Total revenues 1,025,000 334,164 1,709,689 684,689 166.80% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,775 6,731 60,581 20,194 75.00% Transfers out - #303 1,662,684 0 357,561 1,305,123 21.51% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,279 0 0 827,279 0.00% Transfers out - #314 1,127,387 0 208,522 918,865 18.50% Total expenditures 3,698,125 6,731 626,664 3,071,461 16.95% Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,673,125) 327,433 1,083,025 (2,386,773) Beginning fund balance 5,165,924 5,165,924 Ending fund balance 2,492,799 6,248,949 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Developer Contribution 53,703 0 0 (53,703) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 6,843,308 286,776 2,769,296 (4,074,012) 40.47% Transfers in - #301 316,620 0 50,534 (266,086) 15.96% Transfers in -#302 1,662,684 0 357,561 (1,305,123) 21.51% Transfers in - #312 0 0 565,342 565,342 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 217 217 0.00% Total revenues 8,876,315 286,776 3,742,949 (5,133,366) 42.17% Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 329,453 7,808 72,755 256,698 22.08% 249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection 1,020,522 2,747 82,426 938,096 8.08% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 0 0 2,231 (2,231) 0.00% 267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 11,310 0 0 11,310 0.00% 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 1,132,320 64,694 1,660,988 (528,668) 146.69% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 7,210 0 0 7,210 0.00% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 13,308 352,108 (352,108) 0.00% 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 74,250 143 7,791 66,459 10.49% 294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels 17,875 72 3,072 14,803 17.19% 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 2,392,450 947,075 1,524,638 867,812 63.73% 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvements 498,000 12,587 45,646 452,354 9.17% 301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvements 693,000 753 355,314 337,686 51.27% 303 S. Conklin Road Sidewalk 0 0 162 (162) 0.00% 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. 317,625 1,042 230,024 87,601 72.42% 313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing 1,312,500 5,254 43,921 1,268,579 3.35% 318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 50,000 5,186 20,907 29,093 41.81% 320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 19,800 3,940 5,792 14,008 29.25% 321 Argonne Corridor Impry - North of Knox 0 0 1,916 (1,916) 0.00% 323 Evergreen Road Preservation 0 0 258,658 (258,658) 0.00% 326 2020 Citywide Retroreflective Post Panel 0 0 108 (108) 0.00% 329 Barker Road Imp - City Limits to Appleway 0 623 38,136 (38,136) 0.00% 332 NE Industrial Area - Sewer Extension 0 23,663 46,474 (46,474) 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 8,876,315 1,088,895 4,753,069 4,123,246 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (802,119) (1,010,120) (9,256,612) Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 67,402 (942,718) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. 53.55% Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 525,260 127,392 225,699 (299,561) 42.97% Transfers in -#001 187,103 13,333 120,000 (67,103) 64.14% Transfers in - #312 718,008 0 2,033 (715,975) 0.28% Investment Interest 0 0 20 20 0.00% Total revenues 1,430,371 140,726 347,752 (1,082,619) 24.31 % Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 0 2,033 (2,033) 0.00% 304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 14,876 263 19,700 (4,824) 132.43% 305 CenterPlace Roof Repair 12,227 378 15,383 (3,156) 125.81% 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 565,150 6,122 223,631 341,519 39.57% 315 Brown's Park 2020 Improvements 704,731 1,370 682,994 21,737 96.92% 316 Balfour Park Improvements - Phase 1 0 1,463 9,781 (9,781) 0.00% 328 Sullivan Park Waterline 152,858 647 1,224 151,634 0.80% 337 CP Great Room AV System Updates 25,350 36,951 36,951 (11,601) 145.76% 338 Loop Trail Project 0 134 134 (134) 0.00% Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Total expenditures 1,505,192 47,327 991,831 513,361 65.89% Revenues over (under) expenditures (74,821) 93,399 (644,080) (1,595,980) Beginning fund balance 75,577 75,577 Ending fund balance 756 (568,502) #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 3,100 49 486 (2,614) 15.68% Total revenues 3,100 49 486 (2,614) 15.68% Expenditures Transfers out - #312 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 3,100 49 486 (2,614) Beginning fund balance 842,964 842,964 Ending fund balance 846,064 843,450 Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 991,843 82,654 743,882 (247,961) 75.00% Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000) 0.00% Transfers in - #301 827,278 0 0 (827,278) 0.00% Transfers in - #302 827,279 0 0 (827,279) 0.00% Avista Contribution 0 29,011 29,011 29,011 0.00% Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 265 2,832 2,832 0.00% Total revenues 4,146,400 111,929 775,725 (3,370,675) 18.71% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 4,676,350 0 0 4,676,350 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 0 8,129 (8,129) 0.00% 286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher 0 0 281 (281) 0.00% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 17,708 542,501 (542,501) 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 1,018 (853) 853 0.00% 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 0 837 13,524 (13,524) 0.00% 320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 0 0 130 (130) 0.00% 323 Evergreen Road Preservation Project 0 8,596 1,404,512 (1,404,512) 0.00% 325 2021 Local Access Streets: South Park Rd 0 16,072 91,821 (91,821) 0.00% 334 Sprague Avenue Preservation 0 3,929 3,929 (3,929) 0.00% Total expenditures 4,726,350 48,160 2,063,974 2,662,376 43.67% Revenues over (under) expenditures (579,950) 63,769 (1,288,249) (6,033,052) Beginning fund balance 5,792,145 5,792,145 Ending fund balance 5,212,195 4,503,896 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 11,126,343 0 0 (11,126,343) 0.00% Transfers in - #310 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 100,000 381 4,469 (95,531) 4.47% Proceeds from Sale of Land 0 0 109,403 109,403 0.00% Total revenues 11,226,343 381 113,872 (11,112,471) 1.01% Expenditures Transfers out - #303 0 0 565,342 (565,342) 0.00% Transfers out - #309 718,008 0 2,033 715,975 0.28% Transfers out - #314 725,774 0 585 725,189 0.08% Land Acquisition 2,659,600 0 1,603,327 1,056,273 60.28% Total expenditures 4,103,382 0 2,171,287 1,932,095 52.91% Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,122,961 381 (2,057,415) (13,044,566) Beginning fund balance 8,503,764 8,503,764 Ending fund balance 15,626,725 6,446,349 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Leasehold Excise Tax Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 Miscellaneous Revenues 11,508,819 0 174,313 (11,334,506) 1.51% 0 0 427 427 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1,127,387 0 208,522 (918,865) 18.50% 725,774 0 585 (725,189) 0.08% 0 1,329 13,271 13,271 0.00% Total revenues 13,361,980 1,329 397,118 (12,964,862) 2.97% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 9,396,870 895,538 981,690 8,415,180 10.45% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 4,149,450 34,581 318,764 3,830,686 7.68% 311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project 250,000 10,788 148,626 101,374 59.45% Total expenditures 13,796,320 940,908 1,449,080 12,347,240 10.50% Revenues over (under) expenditures (434,340) Beginning fund balance 793,526 Ending fund balance #315 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Revenues Transportation Impact Fees Investment Interest Total revenues (939,579) (1,051,961) (25,312,102) 793,526 359,186 (258,435) 0 0 72,089 206,829 206,829 0.00% 12 59 59 0.00% 0 72,101 206,888 206,888 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 72,101 206,888 206,888 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 206,888 Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,900,000 20,752 1,237,426 (662,574) 65.13% Investment Interest 40,000 157 1,509 (38,491) 3.77% Miscellaneous Revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 20,909 1,238,935 (701,065) 63.86% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 552,694 28,241 240,234 312,460 43.47% Supplies 14,750 1,230 11,567 3,183 78.42% Services & Charges 1,320,643 150,698 762,948 557,695 57.77% Intergovernmental Payments 45,000 0 20,916 24,084 46.48% Vehicle Rentals - #501 6,750 563 5,063 1,688 75.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,939,837 180,732 1,040,726 899,111 53.65% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 163 (159,822) 198,208 198,045 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 100,000 0 95,000 (5,000) 95.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 100,000 0 95,000 (5,000) 95.00% Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 0 3,122 496,878 0.62% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 0 7,940 (7,940) 0.00% 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 0 0 468 (468) 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 0 1,373 (1,373) 0.00% 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 0 2,253 3,915 (3,915) 0.00% 325 2021 Local Access Streets: South Park Rd 0 0 252 (252) 0.00% Watershed Studies 100,000 7,579 20,987 79,013 20.99% Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 700,000 9,832 38,057 661,943 5.44% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (600,000) (9,832) 56,943 656,943 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (599,837) (169,654) 255,152 854,989 Beginning working capital 2,159,796 2,159,796 Ending working capital 1,559,959 2,414,948 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 239,829 (220,171) 52.14% Grant Proceeds 2,122,045 0 57,182 (2,064,863) 2.69% Investment Interest 15,000 70 1,100 (13,900) 7.33% Total revenues 2,597,045 70 298,111 (2,298,934) 11.48% Expenditures Capital -various projects 2,378,109 496,528 1,227,532 1,150,577 51.62% Total expenditures 2,378,109 496,528 1,227,532 1,150,577 51.62% Revenues over (under) expenditures 218,936 (496,458) (929,420) (3,449,511) Beginning working capital 2,120,365 2,120,365 Ending working capital 2,339,301 1,190,945 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease - #001 31,300 2,608 23,475 (7,825) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 10,250 854 7,688 (2,563) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 (plow replace) 60,500 5,042 45,375 (15,125) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #402 6,750 563 5,063 (1,688) 75.00% Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 27,450 (9,150) 75.00% Investment Interest 10,000 84 800 (9,200) 8.00% Total revenues 155,400 12,201 109,850 (45,550) 70.69% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 0 7,566 22,681 (22,681) 0.00% Small tools & minor equipment 10,000 247 2,805 7,195 28.05% Equipment repair& maintenance 0 0 41 (41) 0.00% Vehicle purchase 130,000 33,161 33,161 96,839 25.51% Total expenditures 140,000 40,974 58,688 81,312 41.92% Revenues over (under) expenditures 15,400 (28,773) 51,162 (126,862) Beginning working capital 1,387,962 1,387,962 Ending working capital 1,403,362 1,439,124 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in - #001 0 17 30 30 0.00% 425,000 35,417 318,750 (106,250) 75.00% Total revenues 425,000 35,433 318,780 (106,220) 75.01% Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 425,000 0 365,384 59,616 85.97% Unemployment Claims 0 0 7,398 (7,398) 0.00% Total expenditures 425,000 0 372,782 52,218 87.71% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 35,433 (54,001) (158,438) Beginning working capital 340,484 340,484 Ending working capital 340,484 286,483 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 FIDUCIARY FUNDS #632 - PASSTHROUGH FEES & TAXES Revenues Passthrough Fees & Taxes Total revenues Expenditures Passthrough Fees & Taxes Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital Budget Year Elapsed = 2021 75.00% 2021 Budget Actual Actual through Budget September September 30 Remaining % of Budget 0 31,270 286,167 286,167 0.00% 0 31,270 286,167 286,167 0.00% 0 457 285,503 (285,503) 0.00% 0 457 285,503 (285,503) 0.00% 0 313 313 30,812 664 571,670 313 977 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds Per Revenue Status Report Difference 105,088,303 105,088,303 6,224,632 6,224,632 64,806,390 64,806,390 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 113,185,114 7,355,327 52,200,831 Per Expenditure Status Report 113,185,114 7,355,327 52,200,831 Difference - Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 34,839,586 2,659,368 12,143,843 Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021\2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 Beginning Deposits Withdrawls Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 105 Hotel/Motel 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 315 Transportation Impact Fees 316 Economic Development Capital Proj 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management 632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes "Local Government Investment Pool 10/25/2021 LGI P" NW Bank CD #2068 Banner CD #9161 Total Investments $ 80,966,205.34 $ 3,088,005.28 $ 2,003,991.03 $ 86,058,201.65 3,869,659.21 0.00 0.00 3,869,659.21 (6,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (6,000,000.00) 5,760.59 0.00 2,020.46 7,781.05 $ 78,841,625.14 $ 3,088,005.28 $ 2,006,011.49 $ 83,935,641.91 matures: 7/23/2022 rate: 0.50% 12/9/2021 0.40% Balance Earnings Current Period Year to date Budget $ 49,723,609.52 $ 7,458.95 761,462.60 55.64 21,385.81 1.56 2,622,601.88 191.62 989,688.91 72.31 1, 467, 800.50 107.25 167,645.65 12.25 222,208.67 16.24 0.00 0.00 5, 500, 000.00 0.00 128,188.88 9.37 2, 921, 493.01 213.46 5,236,340.93 382.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 675,232.75 49.34 3,620,548.85 264.54 5,216,603.28 381.15 0.00 0.00 165,626.27 12.10 0.00 0.00 2,147, 501.98 156.91 961, 931.34 70.28 1,156,424.63 84.49 229, 346.45 16.76 0.00 0.00 48,801.15 $ 500,000.00 226.38 4,000.00 13.92 200.00 1,784.71 24, 000.00 563.57 6,000.00 899.69 12, 000.00 113.47 0.00 124.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.81 1,900.00 1,768.52 25, 000.00 3,441.94 25,000.00 216.66 0.00 19.66 0.00 486.01 3,100.00 2,831.61 0.00 4,468.69 100, 000.00 427.27 0.00 59.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,509.09 40, 000.00 1,100.07 15, 000.00 800.14 10, 000.00 30.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 83,935,641.91 $ 9,556.82 $ 69,767.45 $ 766,200.00 Page 20 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021\2021 09 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Nine -Month Period Ended September 30, 2021 Month Received 2020 2021 10/25/2021 Difference February 2,559,296.59 2,934,890.06 375,593.47 14.68% March 2,015,206.15 2,445,374.71 430,168.56 21.35% April 1,897,614.47 2,571,438.34 673,823.87 35.51% May 1,847,551.89 3,369,522.86 1,521,970.97 82.38% June 1,875,335.44 3,095,705.00 1,220,369.56 65.07% July 2,570,769.98 3,127,275.84 556,505.86 21.65% August 2,677,467.88 3,153,001.10 475,533.22 17.76% September 2,682,700.17 2,951,757.95 269,057.78 10.03% 18,125, 942.57 October 2,540,248.50 November 2, 731, 249.99 December 2,602,181.93 January 2,451,245.65 23,648,965.86 28,450,868.64 23,648,965.86 5, 523, 023.29 30.47% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.9% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.40% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.80% * 8.90% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 21 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2021\sales tax collections 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - For the years 2012 through 2021 January February March April May June July August Collected to date 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 1,589,887 1,009,389 1,067,733 1,277,621 1,174, 962 1,290,976 1,302,706 1,299,678 1,671,269 1,133, 347 1,148, 486 1,358,834 1,320,449 1,389,802 1,424,243 1,465,563 1,677,887 1,170, 640 1,201,991 1,448,539 1,400,956 1,462,558 1,545,052 1,575,371 1,732,299 1,197, 323 1,235,252 1,462,096 1,373,710 1,693,461 1,718,428 1,684,700 1,863,225 1,316,682 1,378,300 1,640,913 1,566,178 1,641,642 1,776,653 1,746,371 1,992,273 1,369,740 1,389,644 1,737,933 1,564,119 1,751,936 1,935,028 1,877,899 2,078,412 1,536,252 1,564,282 1,926,551 1,762,119 1,871,077 2,053,961 1,980,940 2,240,908 1,648,657 1,549,275 1,955,470 1,946,112 2,067,987 2,232,342 2,121,051 2,253,852 1,776,898 1,687,355 1,627,596 1,651,937 2,291,842 2,368,495 2,393,597 2,615,326 2,185, 876 2,317, 671 3,029,090 2,768,743 2,795,920 2,804,930 2,623,934 10/1/2021 2020 to 2021 Difference ok 361,474 408,978 630,316 1,401,494 1,116, 806 504,078 436,435 230,337 16.04% 23.02% 37.36% 86.11% 67.61 % 21.99% 18.43% 9.62% 10,012,952 10,911,993 11,482,994 12,097,269 12,929,964 13,618,572 14,773,594 15,761,802 16,051,572 21,141,490 5,089,918 31.71% September 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 1,816,923 1,946,689 2,019,198 2,223,576 2,258,489 0 October 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 2,005,836 2,134,985 2,431,920 0 November 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 1,925,817 2,064,504 2,317,685 0 December 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1,441,904 1,664,983 1,856,989 1,918,411 2,019,895 2,178,815 0 Total Collections 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 22,642,856 24,204,762 25,238,481 21,141,490 Budget Estimate 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 22,917,000 21,784,000 25,200,000 Actual over (under) budg 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 1,760,956 1,287,762 3,454,481 (4,058,510) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61 % 106.23% 108.43% 105.62% 115.86% n/a % change in annual total collected 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% 7.37% 6.90% 4.27% n/a % of budget collected through August 70.46% 71.55% 67.59% 68.62% 69.97% 68.60% 70.75% 68.78% 73.69% 83.89% % of actual total collected through August 64.90% 65.78% 65.84% 66.43% 65.02% 64.58% 65.25% 65.12% 63.60% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 25,000,000 August • August 20,000,000 15,000,000 , ■July •June • May • April • March . 10,000,000 5,000,000 ... Al Ill(' • February •January 0 ■ _ 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 22 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax \2021 \105 hotel motel tax 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - August Actual for the years 2012 through 2021 January February March April May June July August Total Collections 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 10/1/2021 2020 to 2021 Difference 21,442 24,185 25,425 27,092 31,887 27,210 28,752 31,865 36,203 26,006 (10,197) (28.17%) 21,549 25,975 26,014 27,111 27,773 26,795 28,878 32,821 31,035 31,041 6 0.02% 25,655 27,739 29,384 32,998 34,330 31,601 31,906 40,076 37,395 30,536 (6,859) (18.34%) 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 57,664 59,117 24,959 44,476 19,517 78.20% 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 51,777 53,596 16,906 49,002 32,096 189.85% 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 62,048 73,721 28,910 66,262 37,352 129.20% 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 71,865 84,628 41,836 94,495 52,659 125.87% 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 79,368 91,637 49,772 101,171 51,399 103.27% 312,273 327,262 354,707 373,420 390,538 394,906 412,258 467,461 267,016 442,989 175,973 65.90% September 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 97,531 59,116 0 October 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 77,932 50,844 0 November 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 39,694 0 December 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 26,573 0 Total Collections 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 443,243 442,989 Budget Estimate 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 346,000 346,000 Actual over (under) budg 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 97,243 96,989 Total actual collections as a % of total budget 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% 128.10% n/a % change in annual total collected 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% (40.41%) n/a % of budget collected through August 72.62% 66.79% 66.93% 67.89% 67.33% 68.09% 71.08% 77.91% 77.17% 128.03% % of actual total collected through August 63.73% 63.10% 64.58% 64.25% 65.49% 64.11% 63.72% 62.84% 60.24% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2012 2013 1 2014 2015 August 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 um August ■ July ■ June • May ■ April • March • February • January Page 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2021\301 and 302 REET for 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through August Actual for the years 2012 through 2021 January February March April May June July August 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 46,359 56,115 71,730 86,537 111,627 124,976 101,049 106,517 56,898 155,226 72,172 90,377 116,165 139,112 128,921 117,150 61,192 67,049 81,724 105,448 198,870 106,676 208,199 172,536 96,141 103,508 165,868 236,521 165,748 347,421 217,375 202,525 104,446 83,583 220,637 205,654 192,806 284,897 248,899 231,200 153,661 124,514 282,724 169,060 202,734 248,768 449,654 472,420 239,437 146,892 310,562 218,842 646,397 277,424 302,941 261,626 120,809 199,209 193,913 347,528 263,171 465,044 327,636 300,312 212,512 242,927 203,774 197,928 258,784 329,801 234,040 365,838 277,311 283,644 497,974 470,817 380,347 408,246 666,645 471,991 Collected to date 704,910 10/27/2021 2020 to 2021 Difference 64,799 40,717 294,200 272,889 121,563 78,445 432,605 106,153 30.49% 16.76% 144.38% 137.87% 46.97% 23.79% 184.84% 29.02% 876,021 1,001,693 1,535,107 1,572,124 2,103,535 2,404,121 2,217,622 2,045,604 3,456,975 1,411,371 69.00% September 63,517 174,070 152,323 179,849 178,046 187,348 259,492 335,824 381,224 0 October 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 584,792 225,216 381,163 0 November 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 263,115 319,161 370,449 0 December 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 288,912 235,726 479,586 0 Total distributed by Spokane County 1,185,707 1,321,650 1,567,429 2,131,578 2,353,822 3,007,573 3,800,432 3,333,549 3,658,026 3,456,975 Budget estimate 875,000 975,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Actual over (under) budget 310,707 346,650 467,429 731,578 353,822 1,007,573 800,432 533,549 1,658,026 1,456,975 Total actual collections as a % of total budget 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% 126.68% 119.06% 182.90% n/a % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through August % of actual total collected through August 23.22% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% 26.36% (12.28%) 9.73% n/a 80.56% 89.85% 91.06% 109.65% 78.61% 105.18% 80.14% 79.20% 102.28% 172.85% 59.45% 66.28% 63.91% 72.02% 66.79% 69.94% 63.26% 66.52% 55.92% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 4,000,000 August ■ August •July 3,500,000 3,000,000 •June 2,500,000 • May ■April • March 2,000,000 I ■ 111 l ■ February ■January 1,500,000 1,000,000 ■ 500,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Pa ge 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2021\debt capacity 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 3/22/2021 2020 Assessed Value for 2021 Property Taxes 11,553,065,482 Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2020 Capacity Utilized 115,530,655 173,295,982 288,826,637 288,826,637 866,479,911 0 115,530,655 11,120,000 162,175,982 0 288,826,637 0 288,826,637 11,120,000 855,359,911 0.00% 6.42% 0.00% 0.00% 1.28% 2014 LTGO Bonds Road & LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 Bonds 12/1/2015 Repaid 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 12/1/2020 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 255,000 290,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 140,000 360,00 300,00 315,000 320,000 365,000 395,000 430,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 520,000 555,000 595,000 1,550,000 935,000 2,485,000 705,000 3,190,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 195,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 900,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 '05,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 15,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 2'0,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 2. ,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 23.,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 246,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260, 1 00 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,0 0 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,0 0 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 635,000 675,000 725,000 615,000 660,000 705,000 600,000 515,000 465,000 450,000 415,000 370,000 415,000 260,000 270,000 280,000 290,000 305,000 315,000 330,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 375,000 390,000 4,100, 000 450,000 4,550,000 6,570,000 11,120,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14, 310, 000 Page 25 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2021\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - August For the years 2012 through 2021 January February March April May June July August 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 159,607 135,208 144,297 153,546 144,670 159,827 160,565 164,050 146,145 145,998 135,695 156,529 151,595 167,479 155,348 173,983 152,906 148,118 131,247 156,269 156,850 161,965 157,805 172,308 152,598 145,455 140,999 157,994 156,259 164,872 168,205 186,277 163,918 163,037 145,537 167,304 171,829 157,737 177,427 177,567 150,654 164,807 138,205 168,000 174,211 174,838 177,019 195,780 162,359 175,936 139,826 168,796 193,986 144,308 194,267 205,438 148,530 181,823 131,009 144,080 185,669 175,985 169,733 195,107 152,686 170,461 146,280 90,589 130,168 128,359 138,932 136,633 143,576 150,882 117,784 141,080 175,706 156,670 163,103 185,516 Collected to date 1,221,770 1,232,772 1,237,468 1,272,659 1,324,356 1,343,514 1,384,916 1,331,936 1,094,108 1,234,317 September 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 180,874 180,605 195,550 0 October 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 158,062 162,187 160,272 0 November 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 199,282 196,240 175,980 0 December 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 148,960 155,728 119,282 0 Total Collections 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 2,072,094 2,026,696 1,745,192 1,234,317 Budget Estimate 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 2,039,500 1,715,000 1,808,700 Actual over (under) budg (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) 10,994 (12,804) 30,192 (574,383) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 96.91 % 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% 100.53% 99.37% 101.76% n/a % change in annual total collected (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% 1.54% (2.19%) (13.89%) n/a % of budget collected through August 64.11% 65.96% 66.30% 68.14% 65.78% 65.57% 67.19% 65.31% 63.80% 68.24% % of actual total collected through August 66.15% 65.99% 65.88% 65.47% 65.75% 65.83% 66.84% 65.72% 62.69% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 August 1 10/1/2021 2020 to 2021 Difference ok (9,110) (5.97%) (19,579) (11.49%) (28,496) (19.48%) 50,491 55.74% 45,538 34.98% 28,311 22.06% 24,171 17.40% 48,883 35.78% 140,209 12.81% August ■ July ■ June ■ May ■ April ■ March ■ February ■ January 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 26 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2021\telephone utility tax collections 2021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - August For the years 2012 through 2021 January February March April May June July August 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 193,818 261,074 234,113 229,565 227,469 234,542 226,118 228,789 217,478 216,552 223,884 214,618 129,270 293,668 213,078 211,929 210,777 205,953 208,206 206,038 210,010 210,289 205,651 205,645 177,948 212,845 174,738 214,431 187,856 187,412 190,984 185,172 182,167 173,971 177,209 171,770 174,512 170,450 174,405 171,909 162,734 163,300 162,536 157,285 161,506 156,023 157,502 150,644 130,196 164,060 158,416 146,519 149,434 150,780 147,281 148,158 136,615 132,538 138,727 126,455 135,704 129,602 130,723 127,303 123,292 121,596 121,938 120,016 118,018 117,905 120,922 112,351 7,399 155,911 100,566 83,108 94,864 85,948 86,834 85,251 10/27/2021 2020 to 2021 Difference ok (115,893) (94.00%) 34,315 28.22% (21,372) (17.53%) (36,908) (30.75%) (23,154) (19.62%) (31,957) (27.10%) (34,088) (28.19%) (27,100) (24.12%) Collected to date 1,835,488 1,720,477 1,662,569 1,531,386 1,396,393 1,271,530 1,194,844 1,057,667 956,038 699,881 (256,157) (26.79%) September 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 170,476 155,977 141,290 128,018 91,866 0 October 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 166,784 153,075 142,925 127,214 90,272 0 November 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 166,823 151,208 139,209 125,027 88,212 0 December 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 161,115 140,102 126,226 92,242 0 Total Collections 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 2,069,308 1,892,905 1,758,370 1,564,152 1,318,630 699,881 Budget Estimate 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,600,000 1,521,000 1,000,000 Actual over (under) budg (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (270,692) (107,095) (141,630) (35,848) (202,370) (300,119) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% 92.55% 97.76% 86.69% n/a % change in annual total collected (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) (7.11 %) (11.05%) (15.70%) n/a % of budget collected through August % of actual total collected through August 61.18% 59.33% 60.46% 59.70% 59.67% 63.58% 62.89% 66.10% 62.86% 69.99% 67.10% 67.14% 67.55% 67.85% 67.48% 67.17% 67.95% 67.62% 72.50% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1 1 1 August 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 • August ■ July ■ June • May • April ■ March • February • January Page 27 Spokane _Valley THIRD QUARTER REPORTJULY—SEPTEMBER 2021 PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATIO CONTRACTS WORKED ON: • Recreation Services Agreement for Dance Classes • Recreation Services Agreement for Outdoor Movies in the Park • Amendment to Agreement for Services for Microsite Design & Development for CenterPlace Website • We continue to meet monthly with the "homeless huddle" group. The group has grown, and we appreciate the communication and continuing efforts to address these important issues affecting our parks and community. • Two Police Department Bicycle Patrol Officers provided much needed presence in the park system this summer. • During this quarter alone, we worked with organizers of special events such as: three fun runs, bicycle ride, CRAVE food and drink celebration, salmon BBQ feed, mobile food bank distribution days, and Valleyfest. Unfortunately, Valleyfest and one of the fun runs were cancelled due to concerns about COVID-19. AINTENANC • We are nearing the end of our park facility reservation season, which is October 15. Our summer was definitely busy, and the public was able to make reservations again, after not being able to in 2020 because of COVID-19. We had 272 park shelter reservations from April 15 to September 30. (There are just a few more scheduled in October.) This number is compared to around 350 in pre- COVID-19 years. • Parks staff got to work in August mapping existing features on the newly acquired 17-acre Ponderosa property. The City's new GIS Analyst customized the stormwater "Collector" application to allow for GPS field mapping. The data acquired will help us begin to develop a property management plan. 1 ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE, continued • The long-awaited dedication ceremony/ribbon cutting for the Browns Park Playground, Restroom, and Shelter project was held on July 2. During the ceremony, a home plate shaped plaque was unveiled that recognizes and thanks the Brown family for their contribution to our community. We had a great turnout with the public attending and already enjoying the playground. • Momentum continues to build towards the envisioned Spokane Valley River Loop Trail! The Parks Director, City Manager and Deputy Mayor met with State Parks to tour the City's new Flora Road Property and north bank of the Spokane River discussing a future partnership for construction of the new trail. Public Works, Economic Development, and Parks Staff also met with representatives from Kaiser Aluminum at their facility across from Mirabeau Point Park to discuss options and strategies for routing the trail in the vicinity of their important facility. The Parks Director also made presentations to the Visit Spokane Board of Directors and the Friends of the Centennial Trail Board about the project. • The Balfour Park final construction design effort continues. We are thrilled to be working with Public Works and our selected design team to get down to details on the fully integrated future library and park site. This quarter, a community workshop and open house was held. We anticipate presenting a fully developed project design by the final quarter of the year and going out to bid for Phase 1 of the project in January or February of 2022. 2 CENTERPLACE REGIONAL EVENT CENTER • CenterPlace booked 61 events this quarter not including the events that were cancelled. There are 366 events reserved for 2021 and 620 booked for 2022. We have processed 254 cancellations so far this year due to COVID-19. We saw an increase in reservations until the mask mandate was reinstated. Groups that are booking space are smaller and are booking with very short notice. Sufficient part-time staffing continues to be a concern for not only CenterPlace but the linen services, catering, and janitorial as well. • In July, we hosted our first wedding ceremonies on the new West Lawn Plaza. • Mayor Wick's State of the City presentation was held at CenterPlace, in partnership with the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. The event was well attended and interesting to hear about all the positive things that are happening within our community. • The final day of the Spokane Valley Farmers Market was September 17. The market saw higher attendance than previous years and sales amongst the vendors were stronger than previous years. • New carpet was installed in the Senior Center reception area, and the carpet in Room 212 was repaired as the seams were coming apart. • The Great Room sound system was updated in August to include programming of the A/V system and additional speakers in the front of the room. Programming has been simplified to allow presenters to adjust their own microphones from the podium. • With assistance from the Economic Development Department, CenterPlace has contracted with Atlas Integrated, LLC to create a new website to assist in promoting the CenterPlace Campus. • In September, CRAVE food and drink celebration enjoyed their first ever sold -out event. The event was held on the West Lawn Plaza and hosted over 500 attendees. 3 RECREATION • The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Dept. partnered with the Spokane Parks Foundation, Make a Splash in a Kids Life, to offer swimming lesson scholarships and free swim clinics! Due to this sponsorship, scholarships were awarded to community members for discounted swimming lessons. We had 73 kids who participated in FREE drowning prevention swim clinics. • We partnered with Pool World and the YMCA to sponsor discounted swim lessons and free lifeguard classes. The Spokane Region experienced an extreme lifeguard staffing crisis for 2021 . • Park Road Pool provided much needed reprieve from the summer temperatures and operated for nine weeks in 2021! Valley Mission and Terrace View Pools suffered from unexpected maintenance issues, operating for two -week sessions each. • Working within Washington's safe start COVID-19 guidelines, limited open swim, swim lessons and Drowning Prevention Courses were conducted at each of the three outdoor pools. Additionally, Park Road Pool offered swim team, water exercise and lap swim options for our community. There were 584 children who participated in swim lessons, and 102 participated in swim team. The ever popular water exercise was a hit with 589 participants this season! • The Free Summer Meal Program is a seven -week program at Terrace View, Valley Mission and Edgecliff Parks. Free "to -go" breakfasts and lunches were provided to all children under age 18 by East Valley School District Meal Program. Recreation staff were at the parks distributing these meals along with to -go activity kits. We also partnered with the Spokane County Library District to offer book bins at each meal site for children to check out and return "discarded" library books. This year, 1,324 children received free meals through this summer meal program. • Terrace View Park was the new home for our 2021 Summer Day Adventure Camp. There were 145 campers, aged 6-11, who participated in the five - week outdoor camp. Each week had a theme and campers were greeted with games, crafts, and visitors to celebrate the theme. Eight energetic counselors helped to make our Summer Day Camp a great adventure for everyone this summer. • The Parks and Recreation Department offered two Drive -In Movies this summer. "Karate Kid" was shown on July 23, and "Cars" on August 6. Both drive-in movies were shown at the south parking lot of Valley Mission Park, and we had great weather each time. Registration was required for both movies. Movies were sponsored in part by WSECU. Both citizens and staff enjoyed these fun events. We look forward to offering these events in the future! • The Valley Mission and Park Road Pool season came to end as 36 dogs participated in Paws in the Pool on August 22, while their owners stayed dry on the sidelines smiling and laughing. Pet Vet, in Spokane Valley, helped to sponsor and attended this event. 4 ANE VALLEY SENIOR CENTER • The Spokane Valley Senior Center Association has appointed two new board members, both with multiple years of volunteer and professional work experience. • The front desk and copier room carpet was replaced in July. Now the lobby and offices are updated and looking pretty spiffy. • Several new volunteers are helping with front desk assistance and as activity leaders. • Many regular activities have been added back to the schedule including bridge tournaments, pinochle, cross stitching and chess. • The Silver Cafe, run by Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels, began again on August 2. Meals are served from 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. • ACT 2 classes are back at the Senior Center. Watercolor, multimedia open art, aerobics and pilates classes are currently taking place at the Senior Center through the partnership with Spokane Community College. • The Senior Center partnered with the City of Spokane Valley pavement management program staff to have seniors participate in a focus group. Six seniors were able to participate. • The Senior Center hosted a Medicare seminar in September for both members and community members. Total Attendance 524 832 853 New Members 16 19 17 A place for community and connections. t,;L Silvcr Catc CrSCrnealunwhcclurg Meals on Whe-"- Greater Spokane County Sign Up • Volunteer • Donate 5 Dave Ellis Chief olPolice Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezo i' cli Shenf TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Dave EIlis, Chief of Police DATE: October 25, 2021 RE: Monthly Report September 2021 ADMINISTRATIVE: New deputies commissioned on September 1st: Travis Moser is 42 years old and is a Spokane native who graduated from Mead High School in '97. He is married and has three children. He comes to us from Spokane County Detention Services, where he has been employed for the past 13 years. Christopher Sagely is 28 years old and grew up in a law enforcement family in Camarillo, California. He was previously the Operations Manager for the Guitar Center, located in Oxnard, California. He grew up racing motocross and still races and builds bikes in his spare time. Nicolas Pittman is 24 years old and grew up in Medical Lake and then Spokane Valley. He attended Central Valley High School for one year until his family moved to southern California, where he graduated from El Camino High School in Oceanside. He has worked as a freight train conductor with BNSF for the past four years. Thomas "Ross" Wilbanks is 42 years old, married and has two children. He comes from a military family and moved quite frequently while growing up. He is a veteran, having served in both the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army over the past 24 years. He has a Bachelor's Degree in. Criminal Justice and a Master's Degree in Psychology. Chief Ellis attended the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Spokane Regional Stabilization Center in mid -September. The center is located at 1302 W. Gardner and is a partnership of the WA State Health Care Authority, Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Better Health Together, WA State Department of Commerce, NAC, Baker Construction, Providence and Multicare, and WA Department of Social and Health Services. The SRSC will be Spokane County's first true pre -booking Page 1 jail diversion option for eligible individuals, and the first in Washington state to offer a full range of medical, mental health, and substance use treatment services all at a single location. The primary vision of the SRSC is to prevent and reduce chronic recidivism and unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice and emergency medical systems. The Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force's monthly Board of Directors meeting was held in mid -September, attended by Chief Ellis and others from local law enforcement. The Spokane Regional Emergency Communications Board also held its monthly meeting in mid -September, which Chief Ellis attended. Chief Ellis attended (virtually) the Washington Association of Sheriffs and. Police Chiefs (WASPC) Legislative Committee meeting in late September. At the Legislative Committee's June brainstorming meeting earlier this year, they proposed that the primary focus of WASPC's 2022 legislative advocacy should be on proposing fixes to the recently -enacted law enforcement reform legislation. With the consent of the committee, WASPC will recommend that the 2022 legislative agenda consist solely of WASPC's proposed fixes to the recently -enacted law enforcement reform legislation, more specifically, HB 1310 (use of force) HB 1054 (tactics), SB 5051 (decertification), and SB 5066 (duty to intervene). WASPC has been working to identify politically realistic proposals to address unintended consequences, conflicting provisions, and ambiguities in the new laws. A discussion was held on the specific provisions within each of these bills that they believe need the most immediate attention. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of September, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training (six new volunteers) • Spokane Interstate Fair (we had volunteers working there all 10 days of the fair, providing over 500 hrs) • Meeting with Spokane Valley Dick's Sporting Goods planning Shop -With -A - Cop event in December • • • Radar speed trailers being located throughout Spokane Valley on a regular basis by our volunteers S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers patrolling neighborhoods and businesses. S.C.O.P.E. Abandoned Vehicle Team out at least two days a week following up on citizen requests September 2021 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Sp Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total hours Central Valley 4 21.5 8 29.5 East Valley* 21 190.5 416 606.5 Edgecliff 6 80 0 80 Trentwood 3 50.5 31.5 82 University 16 275.5 52.5 328 West Valley* 18 366 50 416 TOTALS 68 984 558 1542 Volunteer Value ($31.72 per hour) $48,912.24 for September 2021 Page 2 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team was given 55 eases for the month of September for latent prints; 33 of those cases were for incidents in Spokane Valley. Of the 33 cases in Spokane Valley, 15 vehicles were processed and printed where prints were found on 8 of those vehicles. The team is looking for more people to join and help out with latent fingerprinting. Due to low staffing, they are primarily staying in the sallyport of the Valley Precinct. SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Disabled Infractions Non - Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 0 0 0 0 0 April 4 7.5 0 20 0 May 2 5.2 0 11 0 June 2 8 0 7 0 July 2 5 2 2 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 3 6.5 2 3 0 YTD Total 13 32.2 4 45 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 3 6.5 0 9 0 April 0 0 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 2 5 2 2 0 August 2 11 3 2 0 September 2 6.5 0 3 0 YTD Total 9 29 4 16 0 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 63 on -scene hours (including travel time) in September; 3 of those hours in September were for incidents in Spokane Valley, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. There were no Page 3 special events in September. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 944 for September; total for 2021 is 8,336. Three out of four new members have been fully trained and added to the team. September's hours were down about 13% compared to 2020, and down 25% from 2019, but we expect hours to increase soon to pre-Covid levels. Abandoned Vehicles July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 Tagged for Impounding 42 54 55 Cited/Towed 0 2 1 Hulks Processed 15 7 25 Total Vehicles Processed 125 129 172 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 965 1094 1266 OPERATIONS: Major Crimes Detectives Investigating Vicious Domestic. Violence Assault - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives investigated the violent assault of a female victim in her late seventies. The victim was transported to the hospital with life -threatening injuries. The 56- year-old male suspect had not been located when the initial investigation was completed. In mid - September, at approximately 3:35 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a residence in the 9300 block of E. Cataldo for the report of a woman who was possibly assaulted. The caller said he found his mother bloodied, and it appeared she had been beaten. Multiple deputies arrived and secured the home, allowing Spokane Valley Fire and AMR personnel to safely enter and provide medical attention to the severely injured victim. Due to the violent nature of the assault and the life -threatening injuries suffered by the victim, Major Crimes Detectives and Forensic Unit Technicians were called to the scene to continue the investigation and collect evidence. The victim's son, who discovered her and called 911, stayed at the residence and spoke with investigators. From initial information, detectives identified a 56-year-old male as a suspect in this investigation. The male, a younger son of the victim, was believed to have left the residence prior to her other son discovering her and calling 911. A search for the male suspect by a K9 Unit and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was unsuccessful. Approximately one week later, Major Crimes Detectives along with the assistance of the Pacific Northwest Violent Offender Task Force developed information on a possible location for the suspect. He was located and arrested without incident at Sprague and Pines. He was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault 1st Degree (DV) and an unrelated misdemeanor warrant. He remains held on a $100,000 bond. The victim remains hospitalized in serious but stable condition. Deputies Arrest Suspect for Felony Assault and Kidnapping - Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a female who was severely beaten. The victim was provided medical attention for serious, non -life -threatening injuries. Through the investigation, deputies developed probable cause to arrest a 38-year-old male for Assault 2" Degree (DV) and Kidnapping 1st Degree (DV). In mid -September, just after midnight, Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a witness reporting she passed a female arguing with a male. She turned around and located the female, injured and bleeding, on the side of the road. The 38-year-old male suspect left the area driving a red Subaru hatchback. Deputies, Spokane Valley Firefighters, and AMR personnel Page 4 arrived and provided medical aid to the adult female victim.. Due to the severity of her numerous injuries, she was transported to the hospital for additional care and observation. Deputy Kim Sipes spoke with the witness who said she was going through the roundabout on Barker Road, north of I-90, and noticed the victim laying on the ground next to the passenger's side of a dark red 1990's Subaru hatchback. The victim was crawling away from the vehicle on her hands and knees and appeared frightened and injured. The witness made eye contact with the male suspect as she drove past. The male suspect left in the Subaru as the witness turned around and contacted the victim. Deputy Veronica Van Patten observed and noted the victim's extensive injuries to her face and body. At the hospital, the victim told Deputy Sipes her boyfriend (the suspect) assaulted her. They are both from Montana, and she recently tried to break up with him, but he found her and told her to get in his car. Due to the suspect's violent history with the victim and her fear of being harmed or possibly killed, she got in the car. The suspect then drove to Spokane, where they had been staying for the last three days. During that time, the male suspect told her she could not leave and remained with her the entire time. The victim said she did not feel free to leave due to the suspect's threats and violent past. Earlier in the evening, at approximately 7:00 p.m., the suspect told the victim to get in the Subaru. He said he was driving to the airport to take a flight, and she could take his car and drive back to Montana. The male suspect got lost on the way and began slapping the victim. As he continued to drive around, the suspect began beating her with a closed fist. This went on for several hours, with the victim unsuccessfully pleading for the suspect to take her to the hospital. The male suspect continued to drive around, threatening to kill the victim as he continued to assault her. Fearing she would die, she tried to exit the vehicle when the suspect stopped on Barker Road. The suspect tried to stop her, but she fought back and struggled free, falling to the ground on the side of the road where the witness found her. She said the male suspect then drove away, and the witness helped her. With this information, probable cause was established to arrest the suspect for Assault 2nd Degree (DV) and Kidnapping 1st Degree (DV). Deputies learned of a possible location for the suspect and located the Subaru parked there. After making contact with the suspect, he eventually agreed to exit the residence and was arrested. The male suspect was advised of his charges and his rights. Agreeing to provide a statement, he said the victim began hitting and kicking him while they were out on a drive, and that he never assaulted her in any way, instead insisting that the victim hit herself in the face with her fists causing her injuries. He explained she had done this in the past and was "really good" at making herself bleed. At one point, he asked the victim if she wanted to go to the hospital and said he drove her to one, but the victim refused to get out of the car. The suspect stated that he later stopped the vehicle on the side of the road to check on the victim, and she began screaming hysterically. He said that's when the witness drove by. The male suspect said he never talked to the witness or asked the witness to call 911, explaining he doesn't like to call 911, and drove away. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault 2tid Degree (DV) and Kidnapping 1s1 Degree (DV), where he remains with his bond set at $50,000 by the courts. Driver, a Convicted Felon, Arrested for a Felony Warrant and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm after Failing to Follow Traffic Commands - Spokane Valley Deputies, at the scene of a one - vehicle non -injury crash, contacted the driver of an unrelated car after he accelerated twice before slamming on his breaks. A sergeant directing traffic around the scene believed he might be struck by the vehicle until the driver stopped. The driver appeared agitated and continued to be defiant. A check of the driver's name showed an active felony warrant for his arrest. After he was told he was under arrest, the driver began to reach around inside the vehicle. He was quickly restrained and placed in handcuffs. A loaded pistol was later found wedged next to the driver's seat. In mid -September, at approximately 3:45 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies were Page 5 investigating a non -injury crash involving a car that hit a fence. Sergeant Mosher, assisting with traffic control at the scene, observed a dark -colored sedan approaching. The 45-year-old male driver sped up instead of slowing as he drove toward Sergeant Mosher's location. Fearing he might be hit by the car, Sergeant Mosher quickly flashed his flashlight and looked for a safe escape route. The male driver accelerated again, then slammed on his brakes and came to a stop. Sergeant Mosher contacted the male driver and two female occupants. The suspect looked down at the gear shifter and appeared to be considering shifting the car into reverse to flee as Deputy Christopher Kyle approached the passenger's side. The male suspect placed the transmission in park and turned the car off. When it was explained there was a crash scene, and he nearly bit Sergeant Mosher, the male suspect said he was confused. Appearing very nervous, he said he didn't have his driver's license on him but verbally provided his name and date of birth. Following a name check, Sergeant Mosher was informed, via his radio, that the male suspect had an active felony warrant for his arrest. He advised the suspect he was under arrest for the warrant and told him to step out of the vehicle. Instead of doing as instructed, the suspect quickly spun his body toward the passenger, attempting to kiss her. As he did, his left hand/arm dropped out of view. Deputies opened the door and took control of the male suspect's arms. As he exited the vehicle, Deputy Becky Lederle, seeing a handgun next to the driver's seat where the suspect was digging around, quickly moved to the driver's side, instructing the passengers to place their hands in view. It is not known if the male suspect was reaching for the weapon or trying to hide it from view. The passengers followed commands, were safely detained, and later released without charges. Spokane Valley Investigative Unit Detectives recovered a loaded pistol, a small amount of heroin and methamphetamine, and a sap from the vehicle. The male suspect, a convicted felon (Possession of a Controlled Substance, Assault 3rd Degree), is prohibited from possessing a firearm. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm lst Degree and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon. He was also booked on a felony Department of Corrections, Escape Community Custody Hold. .. SHERIFF slitflF oT C D.I1,1E2CVICII Washington State Deputies and SAU Detectives Locate and Arrest Suspect for Rape - Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a reported rape of a 17-year-old female. Through the investigation, the suspect was identified, located, and arrested. A replica handgun was recovered inside the 7-11 store, where the suspect was contacted. Sexual Assault Unit (SAU) Detectives continue to investigate. Forensic Unit Technicians assisted with evidence collection and scene documentation. In early September, at approximately 4:15 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a possible rape near Pines and Mansfield in Spokane Valley. After contacting the 17-year-old victim, deputies learned she met the 50-year-old male suspect during the evening. They went into the access alley, behind the row of businesses, running north/south, between Page 6 Mansfield and Indiana. The male suspect gave her Methamphetarnrne, which she had never taken before. She explained she was extremely "high" and could not "feel her body." The male took her behind an outbuilding, placed a piece of cardboard on the ground, and told her to sit down. 'I he suspect removed what she believed to be a real pistol from his waistband and placed it on the ground next to her. He forcefully pushed her onto her back and raped her. She said she was afraid for her life after seeing the gun, and due to the high level of impairment caused by the Methamphetamine, she was unable to struggle as the suspect firmly held her on the ground. Later, she left and went to a friend's home, and the incident was reported. Deputies learned the male suspect was observed at the 7-11, near the location the rape occurred. Deputy Cinkovich and Deputy Moore pulled into the store parking lot and observed a male matching the suspect's description in front of the store. Deputies called out to him, but the male suspect walked into the store, walked down an aisle, and then walked back outside. He was quickly detained without incident. Deputy Moore contacted the store clerk and asked where the male suspect had gone when they arrived. The clerk walked down the aisle where the suspect had been, and Deputy Moore noticed a black semi -auto handgun sitting on top of a box of snack foods. Without touching the evidence, Deputy Moore described the pistol as having a magazine inserted in the mag well. "Glock" was stamped on the side of the grip, and the number "17" was stamped on the side, indicating the model number of a Glock handgun. He stated the pistol looked like a real Glock handgun, but once removed from the shelf and collected as evidence, it was easily determined to be a realistic -looking BB gun. SAU Detectives and Forensic Technicians arrived to continue the investigation and collect evidence. With the information gained during the ongoing investigation, SAU Detective Tom Keys developed probable cause to charge the male suspect with Rape 15t Degree. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for the charge and an unrelated misdemeanor warrant. This remains an active investigation, and additional charges are possible. He remains incarcerated on a $250,000 bond. SHERIFF OZZIED 14IIEZOVP. Report of Possible Weapon at High School Unfounded - Spokane Valley Deputies, working with East Valley High School (EVHS) Administrators, briefly placed the high school in modified lockdown (students stay in classrooms) for the safety of students and staff, while a possible threat was quickly investigated. The student reported overhearing the conversation of some fellow students and thought a weapon was mentioned. The students involved in the discussion were quickly identified. They were very cooperative with deputies and EVHS Staff. No weapon was located, and this appears to be a misunderstanding. We appreciate the student who reported this information out of concern for the safety of students and staff. In mid -September, at approximately 11:50 a.m., an East Valley High School student contacted East Valley High School Resource Deputy Bruner. The student said they overheard part of a conversation between some other students during a break and thought a weapon was mentioned. Deputy Bruner contacted EVHS Administrators, and for the safety of all students and staff, the school was briefly placed on a modified lockdown (students remained in classrooms). Additional deputies, assisted by Liberty Lake Police Officers, responded while the students involved in the discussion were identified. The students were very cooperative, and it was quickly determined this was a misunderstanding. After a search, a weapon was not found, and it was safe to continue normal operations at the school. The student who Page 7 reported this information acted correctly and with the safety of fellow students, teachers, and staff in mind. As always, the safety of students and staff is the priority for the East Valley School District, the Spokane Valley Police Department, and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. We will continue to work together with students, parents, and staff to provide a safe school environment. Major Crimes Detectives Investigating Shooting in Hotel Parking Lot - Spokane Valley Deputies and Major Crimes Detectives were at the scene of a shooting in the parking lot of the Ramada at 905 N. Sullivan in Spokane Valley. The suspect(s) fled the scene, and one adult male victim is deceased. In mid -September, at approximately 10:46 am., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a reported shooting at 905 N. Sullivan in Spokane Valley. Several callers reporting hearing gunshots and screaming corning from the parking area near the pool. Arriving deputies located an adult male victim who was unresponsive and not breathing. The scene was secured, and Spokane Valley Fire personnel began to provide medical aid. Unfortunately, the male was pronounced deceased at the scene. Major Crimes Detectives and Forensic Unit Technicians responded to continue the investigation. Initial information indicates this deadly incident began as some type of disagreement that quickly escalated. Witnesses were interviewed as investigators continue to work to piece together what occurred and identify the suspect(s) involved. The Spokane County Medical Examiner's Office will release the name of the decedent at a later time, when appropriate. Major Crimes Detectives urge witnesses or anyone with information regarding this incident to call Crime Check at 509- 456-2233, reference 110124808. This remains an active investigation, no further updates or information is available at this time. L7 " LOCK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE ITEMS IN AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED YOUR TRUNK UNATTENDED We encourage residents who have operational surveillance cameras outside their home to go to the Sheriff's website and register their home and video cameras. Thank you. a VIP Video Identification Program CLICK HERE to voluntarily jtln the VIP program https://www.spokanecounty.org/1080/Sheriff Page 8 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 IBR Count by District Time Period: September 2021 Spokane Valley Districts Unincorporated Districts IBR offense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DP FF LAH ML MW RF SPA WAV OTHER TOTAL 09A Murder/NonNegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09B Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 Kidnapping/Abduction 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11A Rape - Forcible 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11B Sodomy - Forcible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11C Sex Assault With Object 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11D Fondling- Forcible 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 120 Robbery 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13A Aggravated Assault 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 4 27 13B Simple Assault 9 5 5 9 7 7 1 3 3 1 2 4 6 1 0 2 0 0 11 1 1 0 0 15 93 13C Intimidation 3 6 3 4 1 4 6 1 2 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 51 36A Incest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36B Rape - Statutory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 64A Human Trafficking - Commercial Sex Acts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 648 Human Trafficking- Involuntary Servitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 Violation of Protection Orders 7 3 5 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 36 Total Crimes Against Persons 22 20 17 24 10 16 8 8 10 4 6 8 12 10 0 3 0 0 15 4 2 1 0 28 228 200 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 210 Extortion/Blackmail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 Burglary/Breaking & Entering 12 13 5 5 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 9 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 82 23A Theft - Pocket -Picking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 Theft- Purse Snatching 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DO 0 0 0 23C Theft - Shoplifting 29 6 5 10 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 62 23D Theft From Building 6 3 5 8 3 4 3 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 48 23E Theft From Coin Operatied Machine 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23F Theft From Motor Vehicle 25 26 15 24 6 11 6 13 4 12 1 13 9 2 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 24 197 23G Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 10 11 4 6 2 2 3 4 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 57 23H Theft - All Other 16 15 5 7 6 18 8 5 3 3 5 4 10 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 14 128 240 Motor Vehicle Theft 12 12 2 3 1 3 6 2 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 56 250 Counterfeiting/Forgery 1 3 0 7 0 1 0 3 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 23 26A Fraud - False Pretense/Swindling 9 9 3 10 4 5 5 7 3 3 1 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 74 268 Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 5 6 3 5 2 5 2 5 0 6 0 6 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 59 26C Fraud- Impersonation 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 17 26D Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26F Identity Theft 3 4 4 3 4 3 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 32 26G Hacking/Computer Invasion 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 IBR Count by District Time Period: September 2021 Spokane Valley Districts Unincorporated Districts IBR Offense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DP FF LAH ML MW RF SPA WAV OTHER TOTAL 270 Embezzlement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 280 Stolen Property Offense (Receiving, etc.) 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 290 Destruction/Vandalism 26 44 23 26 10 17 8 21 12 13 4 13 16 10 0 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 37 290 Total Crimes Against Property 158 155 76 117 43 79 49 66 32 48 25 57 60 32 0 10 0 0 8 15 3 0 0 114 1147 35A Drugs/Narcotics Violation 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 35B Drug Equipment Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 Pornography/Obscene Material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 39A Betting/Wagering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39B Gambling - Operating Promoting Assisting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39C Gambling Equipment Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40A Prostitution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40B Prostiution - Assisting/Promoting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40C Purchasing Prostitution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 520 Weapon Law Violation 1 3 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 720 Animal Cruelty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Crimes Against Society 1 4 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 09C Justifiable Homicide 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 90A Bad Checks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90B Curfew/Loitering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90C Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 900 Driving Under Influence 4 6 1 3 1 3 4 1 0 1 1 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 45 90F Family Offense - Nonviolent 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 90G Liquor Law Violation 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 90H Peeping Tom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90J Trespass of Real Property 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 24 90Z All Other Offenses 5 7 3 9 8 5 1 0 0 2 0 4 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 74 Total Group B Offenses 13 15 9 16 10 13 7 3 1 3 1 6 21 8 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 29 161 NR Not Reportable 2 14 2 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 7 48 Total All Offenses 196 208 107 161 63 113 65 79 43 57 34 73 96 50 0 15 0 0 26 26 5 2 0 181 1600 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Burglary - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 55 51 33 40 53 February 52 26 20 56 45 March 42 33 37 53 43 April 49 36 35 70 40 May 47 34 57 69 47 June 58 29 38 69 42 July 51 44 48 63 51 August 56 51 57 58 51 September 77 38 50 67 42 October 37 48 46 68 - November 32 49 41 57 - December 34 47 40 63 - Grand Total 590 486 502 733 414 * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking & Entering 220 Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOI<ANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Rape - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 AbINAl°11*411A 4110 A4it k t u 2 k as • as as as - sa E o E E OJ 4--,• U > U 0. 0 aJ au z 0 6..P --4— 2017 2018 -iL-2019 2020 —)K-2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 9 15 2 2 2 February 2 4 3 2 1 March 2 8 4 2 5 April 7 7 4 - 4 May 7 9 2 3 5 June 2 6 5 4 2 July 6 5 3 1 3 August 4 3 5 2 3 September 2 3 9 4 3 October 7 1 4 1 - November 1 7 2 3 - December 2 7 3 5 - Grand Total 51 75 46 29 28 *IBR Offense: Rape - Forcible 11A, Sodomy - Forcible 11B, Sexual Assault with Object 11C Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Assault - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 96 83 71 93 71 February 94 64 61 96 50 March 77 101 74 80 65 April 89 88 68 95 67 May 93 80 87 85 65 June 94 101 79 103 51 July 94 113 104 88 74 August 74 83 95 99 64 September 92 82 72 79 56 October 89 84 68 80 - November 85 78 85 73 - December 84 91 79 63 - Grand Total 1,061 1,048 943 1,034 563 * IBR Offense: Aggravated Assault 13A & Simple Assault 13B Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOT<ANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Robbery - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020.2021 January 3 6 3 8 8 February 6 2 8 12 7 March 7 5 4 6 5 April 3 6 4 8 9 May 2 9 6 3 7 June 1 3 2 8 3 July 4 7 8 5 5 August 1 6 11 6 6 September 4 6 8 8 4 October 4 5 7 6 - November 3 3 12 3 - December 1 4 10 5 - Grand Total 39 62 83 78 54 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced:10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Motor Vehicle Theft - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 47 36 35 32 29 February 37 27 22 32 25 March 47 27 20 31 25 April 42 26 30 29 23 May 27 25 34 29 27 June 28 24 25 33 25 July 43 40 32 25 23 August 36 20 30 27 39 September 43 27 37 27 33 October 39 32 25 31 - November 33 45 36 29 - December 29 32 34 29 - Grand Total 451 361 360 354 249 * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Theft From Motor Vehicle (Vehicle Prowl) - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 99 75 51 66 87 February 104 33 44 98 106 March 94 77 73 58 75 April 130 62 122 75 86 May 79 71 140 85 68 June 107 67 84 80 66 July 97 107 114 77 60 August 69 88 99 148 106 September 118 85 80 130 107 October 70 105 97 116 - November 52 112 96 90 December 69 71 112 97 - Grand Total 1,088 953 1,112 1,120 761 * IBR Offense: Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced:10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Damage/Destruction/Vandalism (MAIMS) - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 —41-2017 2018 —i 2019 2020 - 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 158 146 125 113 132 February 148 95 67 142 121 March 137 120 122 105 104 April 173 127 143 157 128 May 139 143 161 116 126 June 144 141 133 154 151 July 178 142 156 146 125 August 154 131 144 172 163 September 159 156 142 190 146 October 119 166 165 174 - November 131 155 141 151 - December 108 126 175 144 - Grand Total 1,748 1,648 1,674 1,764 1,196 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Homicide - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January - - - - - February - - - 1 1 March - - - - 1 April - - - - 1 May - - - 1 - June - 1 - - - July 1 - - - 1 August - - - - 1 September - - - - - October - - - - - November 1 - - - December - - 1 1 - Grand Total 2 1 1 3 5 *IBR Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Identity Theft - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 7. a t- 1 L 7 Ctl Q cca _ a u- c L CU L L a v 0J a E o ▪ E E s� - j U Q o ak v Z 0 vl 2017 2018 --2019 2020 —*--2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021. January 9 19 17 17 12 February 24 16 10 17 18 March 22 13 13 12 20 April 16 22 20 17 23 May 31 21 13 442 17 June 19 17 5 47 9 July 23 14 12 26 13 August 12 15 8 28 22 September 17 13 15 16 21 October 15 21 17 18 - November 18 23 12 15 - December 24 16 7 17 - GrandTotal 230 210 149 672 155 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOT<ANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 DUI - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 22 19 32 26 21 February 25 18 22 28 24 March 32 39 22 8 15 April 19 14 27 17 18 May 19 32 18 15 20 June 28 23 24 27 29 July 26 17 25 25 17 August 24 28 24 22 7 September 20 37 37 22 18 October 24 32 27 27 November 18 28 31 21 - December 20 23 19 22 - Grand Total 277 310 308 260 169 * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Drugs - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 202.0 2021 January 23 39 51 45 31 February 28 38 40 62 36 March 28 58 57 51 4 April 38 55 63 36 2 May 2,3 39 39 64 4 June 21 54 29 51 1 July 17 55 46 38 - August 25 38 55 35 2 September 25 33 49 39 1 October 21 50 47 37 - November 32 38 54 41 - December 27 47 44 30 Grand Total 308 544 574 529 81 * IBR Offense: Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A and Drug Equipment Violations 35B Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Fraud - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 26 69 63 69 65 February 36 46 32 58 57 March 37 59 63 49 96 April 43 55 58 62 96 May 53 67 55 85 61 June 57 64 50 73 60 July 61 64 65 66 81 August 54 64 65 70 88 September 65 49 55 67 70 October 65 60 75 76 - November 53 56 68 62 - December 42 60 49 61 - Grand Total 592 713 698 798 674 * IBR Offense: Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A, Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 268, and Fraud - False & Fraud - Impersonation 26C Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Forgery - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 9 18 20 23 13 February 11 10 13 12 8 March 20 24 17 14 10 April 19 21 14 14 10 May 26 21 10 10 10 June 15 15 14 7 6 July 21 15 10 9 12 August 15 17 13 10 3 September 20 14 12 3 12 October 18 11 14 7 - November 9 21 21 9 - December 9 13 15 15 - Grand Total 192 200 173 133 84 *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 10/12/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Theft - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 207 237 237 239 198 February 200 166 188 199 185 March 217 209 213 197 193 April 201 201 206 181 184 May 235 230 230 152 153 June 252 224 232 217 181 July 236 238 236 195 149 August 223 211 256 168 163 September 212 194 233 218 187 October 236 235 240 204 - November 218 198 205 219 - December 199 251 231 230 - Grand Total 2,636 2,594 2,707 2,419 1,593 * IBR Offense: Theft - Pocket -Picking 23A, Theft - Purse -Snatching 238, Theft - Shop4ifting 23C, Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin -Operated Machine 23E, Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G, ancl Theft -All Other 23H Produced: 10/12/2021 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Response Times by Priority September 2021 Spokane Valley Priority Create To Dispatch Dispatch To Arrive Create To Arrive 1 00:02:27 00:03:14 00:05:41 2 00:10:27 00:07:31 00:17:58 3 00:31:20 00:09:36 00:40:56 4 01:07:52 00:07:35 01:15:27 SCSO Unincorporated Create To Dispatch Dispatch To Arrive Create To Arrive 00:02:22 00:08:19 00:10:41 00:13:24 00:11:40 00:25:04 00:34:27 00:14:11 00:48:38 00:22:59 00:07:38 00:30:37 SCSO All Create To Dispatch Dispatch. To Arrive Create To Arrive 00:02:25 00:05:47 00:08:11 00:11:45 00:09:20 00:21:05 00:32:44 00:11:40 00:44:23 00:47:45 00:07:36 00:55:21 Totals 0:23:01 0:08:39 0:31:40 0:25:19 0:12:59 0:38:18 0:24:02 0:10:35 0:34:37 1:26:24 1:12:00 0:57:36 a 0:43:12 0 m 0:28:45 0:14:24 0:00:00 -41—Priority 1 —o-•Priority 2 —0-Priority 3 —Priority 4 Spokane Valley - Create to Dispatch by hour grouping 00:00 - 04:00 - 08:00 - 12:00 - 16:00 - 20:00 - 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:01:45 0:00:00 0:02:13 0:03:17 0:12:05 0:08:55 0:09:51 0:11:36 0:13:33 0:06:47 0:24:17 0:26:09 0:27:24 0:42:04 0:38:13 0:15:58 0:00:00 0:00:00 1:30:24 0:51:47 1:26:34 0:46:35 Duration (hh:mm:ss) 00:12:58 00:11:31 00:10:05 00:08:38 00:07:12 00:05:46 00:04:19 00:02:53 00:01:26 00:00:00 Spokane Valley - Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping 00:D0 - 03:59 04:00 - 08:00 - 07:59 11:59 —Priority 1 00:00:00 00:00:00 -Priority 2 00:05:26 00:05:30 tPrtority 3 00:07:43 D0:07:39 —Priority 4 00:00:00 DQ:00:00 12:00 - 16:00 - 15:59 19:59 00:04:36 00:00:00 00:01:42 00:08:46 00:09:42 00:05:49 00:09:26 00:10:15 00:07:36 00:07:40 00:10:45 00:08:32 20:00 - 23:59 00:02:38 00:06:16 00:08:34 00:11:05 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Response Times by Priority September 2021 Duration (hh:mm:ss) SCSO Unincorporated- Create to Dispatch by hour grouping 0:50:24 0:43:12 0:36:00 0:28:48 0:21:36 0:14:24 0:07:12 0:00:00 • 00:00 - 04:00 - 08:00 - 12:00 - 16:00 - 20:00 - 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 #Prioirty 1 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:03:20 0:D1:43 0:02:43 0:01:19 - Priority 2 0:06:50 0:08:53 0:10:08 0:15:00 0:21:16 —4,-• Priority 3 0:17:23 0:29:26 0:31:19 0:38:05 0:46:36 t Priority 4 0:05:24 0:00:00 0:17:00 0:33:08 0:38:34 0:12:02 0:22:55 0:11:08 Duration (hh:mm:ss) 1:26:24 1:12:00 0:57:36 0:43:12 0:28:48 0:14:24 0:00:00 —0—Priority 1 ---Priority 2 — o— Priority 3 - Prioirty4 SCSO All - Create to Dispatch by hour grouping •�• 00:00 - 04:00 - 08:00 - 12:0▪ 0 - 16:00 - 20:00 - 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:02:17 0:01:43 0:02:33 0:02:37 0:09:53 0:08:54 0:21:59 0:27:47 0:05:24 0:00:00 0:09:59 0:13:22 0:16:39 0:09:01 0:29:17 0:40:24 0:42:11 0:1.9:06 1:10:23 0:42:54 1:10:34 0:26:53 Duration (hh:mm:ss) SCSO Unincorporated- Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping 00:20:10 00:17:17 00:14:24 00:11:31 00:08:38 00:05:46 00:02:53 00:00:00 • --Priority 1 �• Priority 2 - Priority 3 Priority 4 .144010)0144110111frIPPV,... 00:00 - 04:00 - 08:00 - 12:00 - 16:00 - 20:00 - 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:10:23 00:01:38 00:13:54 00:01:48 00:11:39 00:09:25 00:13:42 00:12:46 00:12:00 00:09:08 00:12:19 00:14:01 00:13:54 00:13:46 00:17:15 00:11:11 00:13:03 00:00:00 00:14:45 00:07:03 00:11:14 00:05:10 Duration (hh:mm:ss) 00:17:17 00:14:24 00:11:31 00:08:38 00:05:46 00:02:53 00:00:00 t Priority 1 —g—Prioirty 2 — 4oPrioirty 3 t Prioirty 4 • 00:00 - 03:59 SCSO All - Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping 04:00 - 08:00 - 12:00 - 16:00 - 20:00 - 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:06:32 00:01:38 00:09:50 00:02:21 00:08:02 00:07:18 00:10:45 00:11:10 00:09:24 00:07:29 00:09:15 00:10:48 00:11:43 00:11:44 00:13:50 00:09:45 00:13:03 00:00:00 00:08:15 00:07:20 00:09:26 00:07:48 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Call Activity Heat Maps - Spokane Valley September 2021 Citizen Calls by Day of Week and Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday, Friday 0 17 13 12 14 16 8 1 16 10 11 17 10 6 2 22 10 7 15 12 8 3 10 14 3 9 11 6 4 8 4 11 11 7 3 5 7 8 10 7 9 9 6 10 13 6 22 14 10 7 15 18 18 30 23 19 8 27 27 22 32 30 28 9 21 24 30 33 37 33 10 27 25 38 33 33 28 11 26 30 30 41 39 33 12 24 21 43 49 49 29 13 27 26 35 48 31 38 14 33 28 34 47 48 38 15 44 30 51 53 58 58 16 31 36 46 54 56 40 17 35 35 39 42 52 38 18 31 27 37 55 55 41 19 35 38 32 42 51 31 20 29 29 37 30 39 31 21 28 22 20 30 28 30 22 18 20 27 25 29 28 23 24 18 13 22 19 29 Saturday 28 17 14 5 6 9 8 12 19 21. 31 30 32 31 34 32 31 36 27 14 34 32 29 21 Total 108 87 88 58 50 59 83 135 185 199 215 229 247 236 262 326 294 277 273 243 229 190 176 146 Total 565 526 612 761 756 622 553 4395 Total Deputy Involved Incidents by Day of Week and Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 11 11 15 2 5 5 10 16 15 12 17 20 11 15 25 20 17 16 17 25 18 18 12 18 10 5 2 10 3 4 9 17 21 23 14 24 13 21 22 10 21 18 15 24 21 16 19 16 5 9 5 1 6 10 16 27 30 24 25 31 26 26 24 35 26 16 20 22 15 13 15 11 13 14 9 5 6 6 22 35 45 42 33 44 49 42 33 32 29 18 29 25 25 26 21 13 12 10 13 7 9 19 25 18 34 22 29 30 31 34 35 34 23 28 33 24 18 21 22 12 3 12 9 3 5 8 20 17 17 22 24 12 20 26 41 20 18 26 17 19 28 19 16 12 15 9 4 5 9 7 10 17 16 20 15 13 16 17 17 10 22 8 7 15 18 23 15 75 67 65 38 35 48 91 150 163 168 153 187 154 171 181 190 157 131 143 153 137 137 130 111 Total 351 358 438 616 538 414 320 3035 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Citizen Call For Service (CFS) - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 3,088 3,405 3,351 3,521 3,680 February 2,942 2,862 3,170 3,638 3,342 March 3,546 3,597 3,711 3,504 4,052 April 3,416 3,460 3,839 3,405 4,078 May 3,987 4,331 4,516 3,941 4,415 June 3,955 4,006 4,349 4,153 4,810 July 4,459 4,467 4,976 4,570 4,992 August 4,204 4,286 4,680 4,319 4,583 September 3,799 4,048 4,318 4,259 4,395 October 3,718 3,927 4,072 3,909 November 3,353 3,582 3,646 3,392 December 3,406 3,530 3,668 3,678 Grand Total 43,873 45,501 48,296 46,289 38,347 *excludes calls handled by Crime Check only Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Citizen CFS With Deputy Response - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 1,941 2,208 2,189 2,319 2,295 February 1,787 1,865 2,011 2,364 2,072 March 2,224 2,375 2,386 2,321 2,399 April 2,119 2,230 2,418 2,416 2,475 May 2,478 2,731 2,851 2,650 2,605 June 2,416 2,516 2,654 2,677 2,712 July 2,609 2,685 2,983 2,660 2,543 August 2,589 2,639 2,852 2,708 2,527 September 2,336 2,555 2,725 2,524 2,310 October 2,292 2,510 2,547 2,462 November 2,131 2,350 2,416 2,170 December 2,157 2,314 2,402 2,301 Grand Total 27,079 28,978 30,434 29,572 21,938 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOT<ANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Citizen CFS Without Deputy Response - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 1,147 1,197 1,162 1,202 1,385 February 1,155 997 1,159 1,274 1,270 March 1,322 1,222 1,325 1,183 1,653 April 1,297 1,230 1,421 989 1,603 May 1,509 1,600 1,665 1,291 1,810 June 1,539 1,490 1,695 1,476 2,098 July 1,850 1,782 1,993 1,910 2,449 August 1,615 1,647 1,828 1,611 2,056 September 1,463 1,493 1,593 1,735 2,085 October 1,426 1,417 1,525 1,447 November 1,222 1,232 1,230 1,222 December 1,249 1,216 1,266 1,377 Grand Total 16,794 16,523 17,862 16,717 16,409 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Deputy Initiated Incidents - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 1,446 1,694 2,024 1,601 1,114 February 1,328 1,481 1,608 1,518 983 March 1,870 2,063 1,614 1,166 1,000 April 1,425 1,683 1,650 1,172 997 May 1,553 1,789 1,157 1,567 1,003 June 1,503 1,699 1,724 1,070 1,155 July 1,504 1,793 1,600 1,036 767 August 1,737 1,637 1,565 1,130 567 September 1,671 1,773 1,779 1,285 725 October 1,560 1,595 1,472 1,239 November 1,732 1,841 1,487 1,164 December 1,574 1,661 1,436 1,208 Grand Total 18,903 20,709 19,116 15,156 8,311 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Total Deputy Involved Incidents - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 L • U ▪ rp C N tlJ 7 roc Q - 9- 1 LdLt. u} November + 2017 -1F- 2018 -II-- 2019 2020 -*-- 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 3,387 3,902 4,213 3,920 3,409 February 3,115 3,346 3,619 3,882 3,055 March 4,094 4,438 4,000 3,487 3,399 April 3,544 3,913 4,068 3,588 3,472 May 4,031 4,520 4,008 4,217 3,608 June 3,919 4,215 4,378 3,747 3,867 July 4,113 4,478 4,583 3,696 3,310 August 4,326 4,276 4,417 3,838 3,094 September 4,007 4,328 4,504 3,809 3,035 October 3,852 4,105 4,019 3,701 November 3,863 4,191 3,903 3,334 December 3,731 3,975 3,838 3,509 Grand Total 45,982 49,687 49,550 44,728 30,249 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Crime Check Call For Service (CFS) - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 44111 -mory ki,?„ } f_ L L u `C C �n Q7 aJ al a) PO co L d n £ - . D 7 to Q O • E aJ ice-. 0 • a1 ..-7 LL a0 a) a) z 0 v) —•-2017 —III-2018 —J-2019 2020 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 612 662 631 627 622 February 608 488 504 689 659 March 647 659 651 690 760 April 667 602 703 684 739 May 699 697 763 1,113 767 June 698 703 630 793 736 July 712 727 717 782 723 August 690 673 731 837 729 September 667 626 655 812 656 October 667 713 747 735 November 571 661 615 643 December 635 609 683 668 Grand Total 7,873 7,820 8,030 9,073 6,391 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Ticket Counts Date Range: September 2021 Ticket Type Criminal Non Traffic Criminal Traffic Infraction Non Traffic Infraction Traffic Parking Spokane Valley Districts Ticket Count Charges Count 58 67 34 37 0 0 164 201 2 2 Unincorporated Districts Ticket Count Charges Count 61 79 58 64 0 0 110 139 4 4 All Districts Ticket Count Charges Count 119 146 92 101 0 0 274 340 6 6 Totals: Ticket Type Criminal Non Traffic Criminal Traffic Infraction Non Traffic Infraction Traffic Parking 258 307 233 286 491 593 Deer Park Ticket Count Charges Count 2 1 3 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 Medical Lake Ticket Count Charges Count 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 2 1 1 Millwood Ticket Count Charges Count 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Totals: 6 6 8 8 3 3 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Ticket Charge Details - Spokane Valley Date Range: September 2021 Charge Count (blank) 26.50.110,1: ORDER, PROTECT VIO DV 46.12.550.1: OPERATE VEH W/O VAL CERT OF TITLE 46.12.650.7: FAIL TO TRANSFER TITLE W/I 45 DAYS 46.16A,030,2: OPER VEH W/O CRNT/PRPR REG & PLATE 46.16A.030.5.L: FL RENEW EXPIRED REG <= 2 MTHS 46.16A.030.5.0: FL RENEW EXPIRED REG >2 MTHS 46.16A.180.1: FAIL TO SIGN/CARRY/DISPLAY VEH REG 46.16A.180,2: OPER/POSSESS VEH W/O REGISTRATION 46.19.050.2: DISABLED PARKING UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PLACARD 46.19.050.4: DISABLED PARKING SPACE 46.20.005: DRIVING WITHOUTA LICENSE 46,20,015; DRIVING MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN EXPIRED LICENSE WITH VALID IDENTIFICATION 46.20.342.1A: DWLS 1ST DEGREE 46.20.342.1B: DWLS 2ND DEGREE 46.20.740: MV IGNITION INTERLOCK DRIVE VEH WO 46.30.020: OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT INSURANCE 46.37.420: TIRES, ILLEGAL USE STUDDED OR NON -PNEUMATIC TIRES 46.37.685,1A: DISPLAY NON -MATCH LICENSE PLATE 46.52.010,2.C: HIT AND RUN UNATTENDED-AID/ABET 46.52.020.2A: HIT/RUN-ATTENDED VEHICLE NON INJURY 46.52.020: OLD CODE:VEH(HIT/RUN PERSON AT 46.61.050: DISREGARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIGN 46.61.055.4: FAIL TO STOP AT SIGNAL MARK 46.61.055: FAIL TO OBEY TRAFFIC CONTROL LEGEND 46.61.140: IMPROPER LANE USAGE 46.61.145.1: FOLLOW VEHICLE TOO CLOSELY 46.61.180.1: FAIL TO YIELD TO VEHICLE APPROACHING INTERSECTION 46,61.185,1: FAIL YIELD LEFT TURN MOTOR VEHICLE 46.61.190.2: FAIL STOP AT STOP SIGN/INTERSECTION 46.61.200: FAIL TO STOP AT INTERSECTION/STOP SIGN 46.61.205.1: FAIL YIELD PRIVATE RD MOTOR VEHICLE 46,61.235.1: FAIL TO YIELD FED IN CROSSWALK 46.61.305: FAIL TO SIGNAL STOP -TURN UNSAFE LANE 46.61.400.05U: SPEED 5 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46,61.400.07U; SPEED 7 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.1: SPEEDING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS 46.61.400.10U: SPEED 10 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 45.61.400.11U: SPEED 11 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.12U: SPEED 12 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.13U: SPEED 13 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400,14U; SPEED 14 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.15: SPEED 15 OVER (OVER 40) 46.61.400.15U: SPEED 15 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400,16: SPEED 16 OVER (OVER 40) 46.61.400.16U: SPEED 16 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.17U: SPEED 17 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61,400,18: SPEED 18 OVER (OVER 40) 46.61.400.18U: SPEED 18 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.19U: SPEED 19 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.51.400,20U: SPEED 20 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.21U: SPEED 21 OVER (40 OR UNDER) Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Ticket Charge Details - Spokane Valley Date Range: September 2021 Charge Count 46.61.400.22U: SPEED 22 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.30: SPEED 30 OVER (OVER 40) 46.61.400.30U: SPEED 30 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.32U: SPEED 32 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.400.48U: SPEED 48 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 46.61.440.06-10: SCHOOL/PLAYGROUND CROSSWALK SPEED 6-10 MPH OVER 46.61.500: RECKLESS DRIVING 46.61.502 GM: VEH(DUI/DRUG) 46.61.502: OLD CODE:VEH(DWUIL/DRUG)NEW 46.61.504: OLD CODE:VEH(PHY/UNIL/DRUG)NEW 46..61.525: NEGLIGENT DRIVING 2 DEGREE 46.61.530: STREET RACING - replaced/now included in: 46,61.500 RECKLESS DRIVING 46.61.560: PARKING ON HIGHWAY 46.61.575: PARKING VIOLATION 46.61.590: LEAVE UNATTENDED VEHICLE ON HIGHWAY 46+61.605.1: UNSAFE OR IMPROPER BACKING 46.61.670: VEH DRIVE WITH WHEELS OFF ROADWAY 46.61.672.1: PER ELECTRONIC DEVICE WHILE DRIVING 46.61.688: FAIL TO WEAR SAFETY BELT 9.41.050.1A: CARRY CONCEALED PISTOL W/OUT PERMIT 9.41.230: WEAPONS VIO, AIM -DISCHARGE FIREARM -DANGEROUS WEAPON 9.41.250: WEAPONS VIO, POSS DANGEROUS WEAPON [POSSESS] 9A.36.041.2: ASSAULT 4TH DEGREE 9A.48.090: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF-3 9A.52.070: TRESPASS 1 9A.52.080: TRESPASS 2 9A.52.100.1: VEHICLE PROWLING 2ND DEGREE 9A.56.050 [26A] GM: THEFT 3D (DINE & DASH) 9A.56.050: OLD CODE: THEFT-3D 9A,76.020.A: OBSTRUCT LAW ENFORCE OFCR ATTEMPT 9A.76.020: OBSTRUCT LE OFF 9A.76.175: OBSTRUCT GOVT-MAKING FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVANT 9A,84,030: DISORDERLY CONDUCT 9A.88.010.2A: INDECENT EXPOSURE C-05.04.070(7): DOGS(ALLOW TO DISTURB PERSONS)-1D 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 13 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 36 2 1 1 2 16 6 1 2 3 2 12 2 3 3 3 1 1 Grand Total 308 Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional intelligence Group 9 Criminal Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 152 176 207 173 124 February 140 130 174 185 129 March 165 195 172 140 117 April 102 149 171 153 118 May 116 175 132 154 96 June 149 179 186 171 107 July 165 184 172 130 76 August 147 147 168 153 69 September 125 169 174 162 92 October 164 178 176 175 November 163 157 169 130 December 148 188 168 133 Grand Total 1,736 2,027 2,069 1,859 928 *Ticket type of Criminal Non Traffic & Criminal Traffic Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 Non - Criminal Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018.2019 2020 2021 January 398 367 357 198 195 February 238 338� 261 268 173 March 422 472 226 133 166 April 110 219 299 111 195 May 241 385 130 164 198 June 380 489 421 128 318 July 295 499 359 217 270 August 357 257 297 204 123 September 461 480 306 205 164 October 365 387 272 140 November 330 366 253 195 December 274 254 253 239 Grand Total 3,871 4,513 3,434 2,202 1,802 *Ticket Type of Infraction Non Traffic & infraction Traffic Produced: 10/11/2021 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Regional Intelligence Group 9 All Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley Time Period: September 2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 550 543 564 371 319 February 378 468 435 453 302 March 587 667 398 273 283 April 212 368 470 264 313 May 357 560 262 318 294 June 529 668 607 299 425 July 460 683 531 347 346 August 504 404 465 357 192 September 586 649 480 367 256 October 529 565 448 315 November 493 523 422 325 December 422 442 421 372 Grand Total 5,607 6,540 5,503 4,061 2,730 *A!l ticket types except parking Produced: 10/11/2021