The URL can be used to link to this page

2009, 12-15 Study SessionAGENDA Ji 4T SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 15, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT /ACTIVITY GOAL ACTION 1TEM& 1. Mike Connelly/ Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -038 Adopt Ordinance Mike Stone Special Events, [public comment] 2. Karen Kendall Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -039 Adopt Ordinance Comp Plan Map Change, CPA 01 -09, [public comment] 3. Karen Kendall Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -040 Adopt Ordinance Legislative Zone Change, CPA 01 -09 [public comment] 4. Mike Connelly/ Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -041 Adopt Ordinance Mike Stone Firearm Restrictions [public comment] 5. Karen Kendall Proposed Resolution 09 -018: Development Approve Resolution Agreement, Zone Change CPA 01 -09 [public comment] 6. Steve Worley Pines Mansfield Change Order 436 Motion Consideration [public comment] 7. Steve Worley Pines Mansfield Change Order #37 Motion Consideration [public comment] 8. Mayor Munson Mayoral Appointments to Planning Motion Consideration Commission [public comment] NON - ACTION ITEMS: 9. Kathy McClung Area -Wide Rezone Public Notification Process Discussion /Information 10. Morgan Koudelka Court Related Services Discussion /Information 11. Councilmembers Council External Committee Reports Discussion/Information 12. Mayor Munson Advance Agenda Discussion /Information 13. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): Shoreline Management Program Update: Citizens Advisory Committee List 14. Mayor Munson Council Check in Discussion /Information 15. Dave Mercier City Manager Comments Discussion /Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Format Agenda, December 15, 2009 Page I of I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -038, Special events GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 9.41.290; RCW 9.41.300; SVMC 5.15.010, 5.15.050, and 6.05.060 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The Parks & Recreation Department is currently updating some of its administrative policies. As part of this process, City's Legal Department recommends that certain Code provisions pertaining to special events and vendors in parks be amended to be consistent with current City practice and policies. The following are the proposed Code revision amendments: (1) Currently, SVMC 5.15.010 and 6.05.050 require a special event permit for any activity on public property with an estimated attendance of 15 or more people, or a dance of five or more persons. This requirement creates unnecessarily burdensome and unrealistic requirements for City citizens. Staff recommends that these Code provisions be amended to require a special event permit for temporary activities on public property which affect the ordinary use of public property, as well as any activity where 200 or more people are estimated to attend. (2) Currently, SVMC 5.15.050 requires that a special event permit application be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Director at least five business days before the date on which the event will occur. This short notice requirement has the potential to cause significant burden on the City. Staff recommends that this provision require special event permits to be submitted at least four weeks before the date on which the event will occur. (3) SVMC 6.05.060 allows the sale of goods and services in City parks by contract with the City or by permit through the Parks & Recreation Department; however, SVMC 6.05.060 allows the sale of goods and services in City parks and facilities through written agreement with the City only. In order to make these two provisions consistent, Staff recommends amending the language in SVMC 6.05.060 to grant the Parks & Recreation Department the authority to issue permits for the sale of goods of services. OPTIONS: Seek additional information; approve with or without modifications; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 09-038. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Anticipated to be revenue neutral. STAFF CONTACT: Jandon Mitchell, Legal Intern; Mike Connelly, City Attorney; Mike Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation. ATTACHMENT: Proposed ordinance 09 -038, Special Events *;: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 09-038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 5.15.010,5.15.050,6;05;050, AND 6 ;05.060 RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENTS, VENDORS IN PARKS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections 5.15.010 and 6.05.050, which require a special permit for any activity on public property with an estimated attendance of 15 or more people; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley recognizes the need for more flexible use of public property than Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections 5.15.010 and 6.05.050 provide; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 6.05.090(L), which allows the sale of goods and services in City parks only by contract with the City or by permit issued through the Parks & Recreation Department; and WHEREAS; the City of Spokane, Valley previously adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code 6.05.060, which allows the sale of goods and services in City parks only through written agreement with the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires consistency regarding the authorization to sell goods and services in City parks. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1 . Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections 5.15.010 and 5.15.050 are hereby amended as set forth below. 5.15.010 Definitions. A. "Applicant" means the person, firm or entity making application for a permit. B. "City manager" shall mean the city manager or his/her designee. C. "Parade" means any march or procession consisting of people, animals, bicycles, vehicles, or combination thereof, except wedding processions and funeral processions, upon any public street or sidewalk which does not comply with adopted traffic regulations or controls. D. "Run" means an organized procession or race consisting of people, bicycles, or other vehicular devices or combination thereof upon the public street or sidewalk. E. "Public property" means a street or other public place (i.e., park) under the control and authority of the City. F 'Private event" means an event which uses public property for the purpose of monetary or personal gain by any person, partnership, group organization company or corporation or which is closed to the eg neral public. C 1 event A l e , run, s 4ee! danee of ..these!:..:!.. d s t a fie e G. "Special event' means: Ordinance 09 -038 Special Events Pagel of3 DRAFT 1. Any activity of a temporary nature on public property which affects the ordinary use of public rights -of -way, public parkin lots, ots, public parks, intersections, sidewalks or limited to, parades, walks /runs, street dances, fundraisers, sales, auctions, bikeathons, shows or exhibitions, filming/movie events, carnivals, circuses, car shows, horse shows, fairs and block parties, or other activity, demonstration or exhibition; or 2. Any activity, function, or event, which is open to the eg neral public, where 200 or more people are estimated to attend; or 3. A private event. 6H. "Street" or "streets" means any public roadway, sidewalk, or portions thereof in the City of Spokane Valley dedicated to the public use. III. "Street dance" means any organized dance of five or more persons-o any public street, public sidewalk or publicly owned parking lot. 5.15.050 Permit -Application - Filing. A completed application for a special event permit shall be filed with the parks and recreation director at least four weeks €ive business days before the date on which the event will occur. The parks and recreation director shall notify the applicant of approval or disapproval. Section 2 Remainder of SVMC 5.15.050 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 5.15 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 3 . Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections 6.05.050 and 6.05.060 are hereby amended as set forth below. 6 05.050 Special event permits. A soecial event hermit is reauired before the occurrence of a soecial event as defined in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15.010 r:,......_,.^ an d facilities are. available c. 4 _.._i va4 ,. use 1.....«.,,,.,^ If the Parks &Recreation Department deems necessarv, Especial event permits may be required for i°^ sehed°'ine use A f f e fli t i.._ far any nit) special event - s ,. ainn.... ° vents involving more than the routine use of a park, or a gathering e f i c or peepl Where appropriate, special conditions for the event will be established by the department and included in the permit. The department reserves the right to cancel a permit for good cause. If reasonably possible, notice of cancellation shall be given at least 24 hours in advance of the event. A cancellation or denial of a special event permit may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within 10 days of the date of the decision. Upon such appeal, the city council may reverse, affirm or modify the department's decision. 6 05.060 Sale of goods or services. The sale of goods or services in City parks or facilities shall be allowed only through written agreement with the City. or by permit issued b the he department. Section 4 Remainder of SVMC 6.05 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 6.05 are unchanged by this amendment. Ordinance 09 -038 Special Events Page 2 of 3 W:: 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 of 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 (5) days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2009. Mayor, Richard M. Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 09 -038 Special Events Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance 09 -039, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA- 01 -09. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, RCW 36.706.170 -210 and SVMC 19.30.016 associated with Ordinance 09 -015. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On December 8, 2009 the Council deliberated on comprehensive: plan amendment CPA- 01 -09. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission made a recommendation on March 26, 2009 for parcels 45242.9033, 45242.9635, 45242:9.036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051, .45242.9056 and 45242.9057 recommended to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High ,Density:Residential (HDR) with subsequent rezone from Single- family Residential District (R -3) to Multi- family High Density Residential District (MF -2) and modified the original requested proposal that parcel 45242.9032 change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and subsequent rezone to Multi- family Medium Density Residential District (MF -1). The City Council removed privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment, CPA -01 -09 at the 2 nd reading of ordinances 09 -008 and 09 -009 on May 12, 2009. The Council directed staff to conduct further research on development agreements in association with comprehensive plan amendments, specifically for CPA- 01 -09. An emergency ordinance was adopted on August 11, 2009 (ordinance 09 -015) pursuant to RCW 36.706.170 -210. The emergency ordinance established the guidelines and process to allow restrictions to be placed upon comprehensive plan amendments through a development agreement. All parties are in agreement with the proposed development agreement associated with the applicant's original comprehensive plan amendment request, CPA- 01 -09. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: Comprehensive plan amendment, CPA -01- 09, is a privately initiated proposal to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) comprehensive plan designation with a subsequent rezone from Single- family Residential District (R -3) to Multi- family High Density Residential District (MF -2) associated with a development agreement. OPTIONS: Adopt Ordinance 09 -039; proceed with Planning Commission's recommendation; or remand to Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to adopt Ordinance 09 -039. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner MENTS: (1) Draft Ordinance " " " " " " Department of Community Development ..MUMObw Planning Division City Council 2 °a Reading Ordinances 09 -039 and 09 -040 associated CPA -01 -09 December 15, 2009 December 15, 2009 2 nd Reading for CPA -01 -09 Department of Community Development WdOINOWN Planning Division ---------------------------- 4TH AVENUE ---------------------------- I I I I J � I �! 45242.9051 1 I I I I I December 15, 2009 I �I P ` I Q �O CPA -01 -09 associated with Development Agreement 0, 4J 2 "d Reading for CPA -01 -09 Department of Community Development Planning Division Questions? December 15, 2009 2 "d Reading for CPA -01 -09 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 09-039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE '06 -010 ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE, PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance 06 -010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Land Use plans and regulations as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive 'Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council) or by the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City of Spokane Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the application was submitted by the applicant to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist, staff issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on December 19, 2008 for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald on December 19, 2008, and posted the DNS on site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development was notified on February 27, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60- day notice of intent to adopt amendment to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance 09.039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a briefing on February 26, 2009 to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald on February 20,2009; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 460 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2009 at which time the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Commission, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after deliberating on the proposed amendment and information presented during the course of the hearing, continued the public hearing to March 26, 2009 for CPA- 01 -09; and WHEREAS, the Commission deliberated on CPA -01 -09 on March 26, 2009; the Commission recommended approval of amended proposal; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2009, Council reviewed the Commission's recommendations on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council removed CPA- 01 -09; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff or conduct research on development agreements in association with comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009 the emergency ordinance allowing for development plan amendnient(s); and City Council adopted ordinance 09 -015, an agreements in association with comprehensive WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009 the City Council held a public hearing on associated development agreement; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and Ordinance 09 -039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 2 of 5 WHERAS, on December 15, 2009, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time the Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for approval of the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan adopted through Ordinance No. 06 -010. Section 2 . Planning Commission Findings The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The City Council hereby adopts the following Commission's.findings: 1. Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 20, 2009 and the site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 2. Notice of the map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of affected site. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21 C) environmental checklist was required for proposed comprehensive plan map amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the comprehensive plan amendment request. Determination of Non - significance (DNS) was issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendment on December 19, 2008. 5. The DNS was published in the city's official newspaper on December 19, 2008 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. 6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2009, to consider the proposed amendment. 7. The Commission continued the public hearing for CPA -01 -09 to March 26, 2009. 8. On March 26, 2009, the Commission made recommendation on CPA- 01 -09. Section 3 . City Council Findings The City Council hereby adopts the following findings: 1. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA. 2. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed land use and zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the property. 4. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendment and area -wide rezones) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance 09 -039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 3 of 5 6. That; with the approval of thee Development Agreement, attached hereto and this by reference incorporated herein, specifically limiting certain development the council amends the Planning Commission's recommendation and rezones for the entire property as set forth below: Section 4 . Prol2egy. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A." Section 5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.073 the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Map as adopted through Ordinance No. 06 =010, is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment "A". The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is generally described as follows: File No. CPA- 01 -09: ApplicationMescription of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the designation on parcels 45242.9032, 45242:9033, 45242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057 from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Applicant: Dennis Craeo; 15321 East Mission Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99037 and Joy Swenson; 15808 East 4 Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 9903745242 Amendment Location: Parcels 45242.9032,45242.9033, 45242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057; located on the south side of 0 Avenue between Sullivan Road and Conklin Road; further located in the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: Change Parcels 45242.9032, 45242.9033, 45242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057 to High Density Residential (HDR) associated with development agreement. Section 6 Comprehensive Plan - Copies on File- Administrative Action The Comprehensive Plan Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well, as the City Department of Community Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance as set forth in Attachment "A." Section 7 . Liability The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This ordinance and its provisions are.adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. . Section 8 . Seyerability 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. Ordinance 09 -039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 4 of 5 Section 9 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) 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 December 2009 Mayor, Richard Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 09 -039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 5 of 5 Attachment A Compre hensive Plan Map CPA -01 -09 City of Spohane Valley Community Development Department Recommendation: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from LDR to HDR on parcels 45242.9032, 2.9050, 2.9051, 2.9036, 2.9057, 19056, 2.9033 and 2.9035 with a subsequent zoning of MF -2. I mill �i LEON,1 �i ■ %` ■ �■ OIL i Ild ■ ♦ �� i //� In I■ 1 CPA -01 -09 City of Spohane Valley Community Development Department Recommendation: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from LDR to HDR on parcels 45242.9032, 2.9050, 2.9051, 2.9036, 2.9057, 19056, 2.9033 and 2.9035 with a subsequent zoning of MF -2. Section 9 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) 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 December 2009 Richard Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 09 -039 Comp Plan Amendments Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑public hearing ❑ Information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance 09 -040, Official Zoning map amendments. :? GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, RCW 36.706.170 -210 and SVMC 19.30.015rassociated with Ordinance 09- 015. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On December 8, 2009 the Council deliberated on comprehensive plan amendment CPA- 61 -09. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission made a recommendation on March 26, 2009 for parcels 45242.9033, 45 242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242:9050, 45242.9.051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057 recommended to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) with subsequent rezone from Single- family Residential District (R -3) to Multi - family High Density Residential District (MF -2) and modified the original requested proposal that parcel 45242.9032 change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and subsequent rezone to Multi- family Medium Density Residential District (MF -1). The City Council removed privately . initiated comprehensive plan amendment, CPA -01 -09 at the 2 nd reading of ordinances 09 -008 and 09 -009 on May 12, 2009. Council directed staff to conduct further research on development agreements in association with comprehensive plan amendments, specifically for CPA- 01 -09. An emergency ordinance was adopted on August 11, 2009 (ordinance 09 -015) pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 -210. The emergency ordinance established the guidelines and process to allow restrictions to be placed upon comprehensive plan amendments through a development agreement. All parties are in agreement with the proposed development agreement associated with the applicant's original "comprehensive plan amendment request, CPA- 01 -09. Sites that are approved for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan Map designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: Comprehensive plan amendment, CPA -01- 09, is a privately initiated proposal to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) comprehensive plan designation with a subsequent rezone from Single- family Residential District (R -3) to Multi- family High Density Residential District (MF -2) associated with a development agreement. OPTIONS: Adopt Ordinance 09 -040; proceed with Planning Commission's recommendation; or remand to Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to adopt Ordinance 09 -040. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Draft Ordinance 09 -040 1of1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 09 -040 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 07 -015 WHICH ADOPTED THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; AND 'PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Land Use plans and regulations as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Map through Ordinance No. 07 -015; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council) or by the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to 17.80.140 of the SVMC; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City of Spokane Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the application was submitted by the applicant to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist, staff issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on December 19, 2008 for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald on December 19, 2008, and posted the DNS on site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and Ordinance 09 -040 Zoning Map Changes Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development was notified on February 27, 2009 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60- day notice of intent to adopt amendment to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a briefing on February 26, 2009, to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald on February 20, 2009; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2009, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all Property owners Within 400 feet of the subject property ; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12 2009 at which time the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation; and WHEREAS the Commission, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after deliberating on the proposed amendment and information presented during the course of the hearing, continued the public hearing to March 26, 2009 for CPA= 01 -09; and WHEREAS, the Commission deliberated on CPA -01.09 on March 26, 2009; the Commission recommended approval of amended proposal; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2009, Council reviewed the Commission's recommendations on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council removed CPA- 01 -09; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff or conduct research on development agreements in association with comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009 the City Council adopted ordinance 09 -015, an emergency ordinance allowing for development agreements in association with comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009 the City Council held a public hearing on associated development agreement; and Ordinance 09 -040 Zoning Map Changes Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHERAS, on December 15, 2009, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time the Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for approval of the proposed amendment: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official Zoning Map adopted through Ordinance No. 07 -015 in order to permit the property described herein to be used in a matter consistent with the same. Section 2 . Planning Commission Findings The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The City Council hereby adopts the following Commission's findings: 1. Notice for the proposed amendment was.placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 20, 2009 and the site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 2. Notice of the map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of affected site. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) environmental checklist was required for proposed comprehensive plan map amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the comprehensive plan amendment request. Determination of Non - significance (DNS) was issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendment on December 19, 2008. 5. The DNS was published in the city's official newspaper on December 19, 2008 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. 6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2009, to consider the proposed amendment. 7. The Commission continued the public hearing for CPA -01 -09 to March 26, 2009. 8. On March 26, 2009, the Commission made recommendation on CPA- 01 -09. Section 3 . City Council Findings The City Council hereby adopts the following findings: 1. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA. 2. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed land use and zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the property. Ordinance 09 -040 Zoning Map Changes Page 3 of 5 4. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendment and area -wide rezones) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). 5. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. 6. That, with the approval of thee Development Agreement, attached hereto and this by reference incorporated herein, specifically limiting certain development, the council amends the Planning Commission's recommendation and rezones for the entire property as set forth below. Section 4 . Pro a The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A." File No. CPA - 111 -09: Application/Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the designation on parcels 45242.9032, 45242.9033, 45242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242:9051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057 from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Applicant: Dennis Craeo; 15321 East Mission Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99037 and Joy Swenson; 15808 East 4' Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Amendment Location: Parcels 45242.9032, 45242.9033, 45242.9035, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051, 45242.9056 and 45242.9057; located on the south side of 4th Avenue between Sullivan Road and Conklin Road; farther located in the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: Change Parcels 45242.9032, 45242.9633, 45242.903$, 45242.9036, 45242.9050, 45242.9051 45242.9056 and 45242.9057 to Multi- family High Density Residential District (MF -2) associated with development agreement. Section 5 . Zoning Map /Official Controls Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100, for the purpose of regulating the use of land and to implement and give affect to the Comprehensive Plan the City hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City as set forth in Attachment "A." Section 6 . Adoption of Other Laws To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 7 Map - Copies on File- Administrative Action The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance. Section 8 . Liability The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall rest with the permit Ordinance 09 -040 Zoning Map Changes Page 4 of 5 applicant and their agents. This ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 9 . 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 10 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) 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 December 2009 Mayor, Richard Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 09 -040 Zoning Map Changes Page 5 of 5 i1nn 10 1],., ril ILI CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -041, amending SVMC 6.05.090, and 8.45.010 relating to Firearm. Restrictions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 9.41.290; RCW 9.41.300; SVMC 6.05.090; SVMC 8.45.010. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance first Reading December 8, 2009. BACKGROUND: The Parks & Recreation Department is currently updating some of its administrative policies. As part of this process, City's Legal Department recommends that certain Code provisions pertaining to special events and vendors in parks be amended to be consistent with current City practice and policies. The following are the proposed Code revision amendments: (1) Currently, SVMC 5.15.010 and 6.05.050 require a special event permit for any activity on public property with an estimated attendance of 15 or more people, or a dance of five or more persons. This requirement creates unnecessarily burdensome and unrealistic requirements for City citizens. Staff recommends that these Code provisions be amended to require a special event permit for temporary activities on public property which affect the ordinary use of public property, as well as any activity where 200 or more people are estimated to attend. (2) Currently, SVMC 5.15.050 requires that a special event permit application be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Director at least five business days before the date on which the event will occur. This short notice requirement has the potential to cause significant burden on the City. Staff recommends that this provision require special event permits to be submitted at least four weeks before the date on which the event will occur. (3) SVMC 6.05.090(L) allows the sale of goods and services in City parks by contract with the City or by permit through the Parks & Recreation Department; however, SVMC 6.05.060 allows the sale of goods and services in City parks and facilities through written agreement with the City only. In order to make these two provisions consistent, Staff recommends amending the language in SVMC 6.05.060 to grant the Parks & Recreation Department the authority to issue permits for the sale of goods of services. In addition to these provisions and policies, Staff recommends that changes be made to Code provisions regarding firearms possession in parks and firearm discharge within City boundaries. The Washington Uniform Firearms Act (RCW Chapter 9.41) preempts City laws and ordinances regarding firearm possession and discharge (see RCW 9.41.290). RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) allows cities to enact laws and ordinances restricting firearm possession only in city- operated stadiums or convention centers. SVMC 6.05.090 enters state - preempted terrain by prohibiting firearm possession in parks and facilities. Staff recommends that the provision prohibiting firearm possession in City parks and facilities be amended to conform to state law. Many cities in Washington are reviewing and amending similar provisions at this time. Additionally, cities may enact laws and ordinances restricting firearm discharge only "where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized." RCW 9.41.300(2)(a). SVMC 8.45.010 prohibits firearm discharge within the entire City, but does not mention the existence of a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Staff recommends that this provision be amended to include such language. OPTIONS: Approve with or without amendments; seek additional information, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 09 -041. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Anticipated to be revenue neutral. 1 STAFF CONTACT: Jandon Mitchell, Legal Intern; Mike Connelly, City Attorney; Mike Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 09 -041 amending SVMC 6.05.090 and 8.45.010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 09-041 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS 6.05.090 AND 8.45.010 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FIREARM RESTRICTIONS. WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 9.41 (The Washington Uniform Firearms Act) preempts city laws and ordinances regarding firearm possession and discharge; and WHEREAS, RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) allows cities to enact laws and ordinances restricting firearm possession only in city- operated stadiums or convention centers; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code 6.05.090, prohibiting the possession of firearms in City parks and facilities; and WHEREAS, RCW 9.41.300(2)(a) further allows cities to enact laws and ordinances restricting firearm discharge only "where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized'; and WHEREAS, RCW 9.41.300(2)b) further allows restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center with certain limitations; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code 8.45.010, regulating the discharge of firearms within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as follows: Section 1 . Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 6.05.090 is hereby amended as set forth below. 6 05.090 Rules governing use of City parks and facilities — Violation a misdemeanor, G. Firearms, Weapons. (1)_No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a €rreafffl, bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a City park or facility. No person shall discharge across, in, or onto any facility a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property. This subsection shall not apply where the department issued a special event permit for such activity. (2) Possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by the city, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060: or (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms. Ordinance 09 -041 Firearm restrictions Page I of 2 DRAFT Section 2 Remainder of SVMC 6.05 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 6.05 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 3 . Amendment Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 8.45.010 is hereby amended as set forth below. 8.45. 010 Discharge offtrearms prohibited. A. Any person who knowingly discharges a firearm within the City is guilty of a misdemeanor: because there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. B. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. C. The provisions of this section do not apply to: 1. A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties; 2. Law enforcement personnel; 3. Security personnel while engaged in official duties; and 4. A person utilizing a properly licensed institutional, membership and/or commercial shooting range. Section 4 Remainder of SVMC 8.45 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 8.45 are unchanged by this amendment. 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 of 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 (5) days after the date-of publication of this Ordinance or - w summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2009. Mayor, Richard M. Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 09 -041 Firearm restrictions Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 09 -018: Development Agreement, Zone Change, CPA 01 -09 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinances 09 -039 and 09 -040; and RCW 36.708.200 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: First reading of ordinance 09 -039 and 09 -040 were presented to Council at the December 8, 2009 council meeting. A public hearing on the development agreement was held before Council December 8, 2009. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 09 -039 addresses amending the comprehensive plan by changing the classification of certain properties; and Ordinance 09 -040 addresses. amending the zoning map for the City of Spokane Valley by changing the zoning classification of said certain properties. OPTIONS: 1) Approve Resolution 09 -018; or (2) further advise staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 09 -018. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Attachment: Resolution 09-018 and-Development Agreement DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 09 -018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IMPOSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70B.070 -210 AS A CONDITION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP SET FORTH IN ORDINANCES 09 -039 AND 09 -040. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a procedure allowing the City of Spokane Valley and property owners to enter into development agreements pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070 -210 in conjunction with the annual amendment of the comprehensive plan and the resulting legislative changes to zoning classifications by adopting Ordinance 09 -015; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Ordinance 09 -039 wishes to amend the comprehensive plan by changing the classification of certain properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Ordinance 09 -040 desires to amend the zoning map for the City of Spokane Valley by changing the zoning classification of said certain properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.200 has held a public hearing on the Development Agreement which the subject of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the development agreement attached is consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70B.070 -210; and WHEREAS, this development agreement provides specific limitation on the development and _ use of the properties described therein in order to mitigate the impact of development. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Approval of Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved by the City Council and authority is given to the City Manager to execute the same. Section 2. Effective Date This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Dated this day of December, 2009 City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Mayor Richard M. Munson, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 09 -018 Development Agreement Page 1 of 1 After Recording_ Return to City Clerk City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a Washington non charter code city (the "City ") and Joy D. Swenson, Dennis A. Crapo and Melissa A. Crapo (hereinafter the "Developer "), collectively referred to hereinafter as the "parties ". RECITALS A. Developer owns property located in Spokane Valley, Washington (the "Property "). A legal description of the Property is set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. B. The Property contains 11.30 acres of land, more or less. C. Through CPA- 01 -09, Developer requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential with a corresponding zone change from Single - Family Residential District (R -3) to Multi- Family High Residential District (NE-2). Developer proposes to construct a multi - family residential project. D. To integrate the Project into the neighborhood and provide for a compatible development, the Project shall be constructed according to the laws and regulations governing land use in the City of Spokane Valley and the additional conditions agreed to by the Developer and set forth below. In general the Developers agree that the portion of the Project adjacent to the Reflections Development (Shelley Lake PUD) shall have reduced density, building height will be limited to that allowed for single - family homes, rear yard setbacks will be increased and Type 1 landscaping and a site plan approved by the City, all as set forth in Section 2.5(e) below. E. Development Agreements are specifically authorized by RCW 36.70B.170 -210 as a proper exercise of the City's police power to include standards that apply to and vest the development, use and mitigation. The development standards in such agreement include residential densities, building sizes, mitigation measures, conditions, maximum height, setback, drainage and other land use matters. Page 1 of 12 F. The parties agree that the conditions set forth below are intended to mitigate specific direct impacts resulting from the reclassification of the land to MF -2. G. A public hearing has been held before the City Council, and the City Council finds, pursuant to Ordinance # 09 -015 that the Project conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. H. Notice for this hearing has been provided in a manner consistent with City Ordinances. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth here, the City and. Developer enter into this Agreement. AGREEMENT I. For all purposes of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires: A. "City" means the City of Spokane Valley. B. "Developer" means Dennis A & Melissa A Crapo, or their successors and assigns, partners or joint venturers including any participating builder but not including any resident. C. "Exhibits" means the following documents, which are attached to and incorporated herein by this reference: EXHIBIT A — Legal description of Property EXHIBIT B — Conceptual Project Plan. D. "Project" means the 0 Avenue Cherry Wood Apartments consisting of 248 multi - family units as set forth in Exhibit `B" hereto. E. "Property" means the property located at/on Parcel #45242.9050, 15622 E 4 Avenue; Parcel 945242.9051, 0 Vacant Land; Parcel #45242.9036, 15706 E 4 Avenue; Parcel #45242.9057, 15714 E 4 Avenue; Parcel 445242.9056, 0 Address Unknown; Parcel #45242.9035, 15720 E 4 Avenue; Parcel #45242.9033, 0 Address Unknown; Parcel #45242.9032, 15818 E 0` Avenue in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A'. F. "Subsequent Project Approvals" means all Project approvals required by law or City policy after approval of this Agreement to construct the Project including, but not limited to, Clearing and Grading Permits, Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval, Binding Site Plan approval, Building Permits and Occupancy Permits. Page 2 of 12 II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 21 Compliance with Existing Rules and Re laug tions This Agreement shall not relieve Developer from Developer's obligations to comply with rules and regulations applicable to the Property and Developer's development and use of the same, and to secure such authorizations and permits as may be imposed as a condition of any work being performed on the Property. 2.2 Developer Covenants and Agreements Developer hereby covenants and agrees to the following: (a) The Project shall establish a one hundred and twenty (120) foot wide area of restriction ( "Limited Density Area ") along the eastern border of the development as depicted on Exhibit B, Sheet 1 of 2. Development in the Limited Density Area shall be consistent with the laws and regulations governing such development in the City of Spokane Valley and further shall be limited as follows; (1) The number of units shall not exceed an MF -1 density of twelve (12) units per acre, or 21 multifamily units; (2) Building height shall not exceed an R -3 building height of thirty- five (35) feet; (3) No Multi family building shall be located closer than forty (40) feet from the easterly property line adjacent to the Reflections Development (Shelley Lake PUD) (see Exhibit B, Sheet 2 of 2); (4) Following construction of the Project, a Type 1 Buffer Strip ten (10) feet wide (modified from the required five (5) foot wide Buffer Strips) shall be consistent with a landscape plan approved by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to the SVMC . (see Exhibit B, Sheet 2 of 2); and (5) Substantial conformance to attached Site Plan. (b) The Property is designated High Density Residential according to the Comprehensive Plan with the allowed density of 22 dwelling units per acre (SVDC 19.40.080), for a total of 248 permitted units; provided the density within the Limited Density Area shall not exceed 12 units per acre (SVDC 19.40.070). Final Project development including the location of buildings and improvement shall be subject to administrative site plan review according to the City development regulations. III. MISCELLANEOUS 3.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date it is fully executed by the Developer and the City following consideration and approval of the same by the City Council of Page 3 of 12 the City of Spokane Valley.(the "Commencement Date"), In the event of any appeal by a third party of the City's approval of this Agreement, the Commencement Date shall be automatically extended to the date that any such appeal is finally resolved. Developer agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City from and against any and all liability, damages, costs or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from Developer undertaking any construction activities during such appeal. 3.2 Conditions Shall Run With the Land All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon the Property, (b) runs with the Property, and (c) is binding upon each successive owner during its ownership of Property or any portion thereof, and each person having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of the property or any portion thereof, and shall benefit such party and the Property hereunder, and each other person succeeding to an interest in such Property. 3.3 Notices All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered or 48 hours after deposit in the United States mail first- class, as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following representatives of the parties at the addresses indicated below: To Developer: Dennis A & Melissa A Crapo c/o Diamond Rock Construction 2602 N Sullivan Road Spokane, WA 99216 Joy D. Swenson 15808 East 4 Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 and to: Whipple Consulting Engineers 2528 N. Sullivan Road Spokane, WA 99216 To City: Planning Department, Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Page 4 of 12 and to: Office of the City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Either party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other parry. 3.4 Entire Agreement This Agreement is complete and sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants -shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 3.5 Amendments This Agreement may only be amended in writing signed by the City and the Developer. Conditions of development imposed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, after public hearing on this matter, shall not be altered without appropriate notice and public hearing. 3.6 Recordation of Agreement This Agreement and any amendment or termination to it shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor. 3.7 Severabilitv If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of the parties have been materially altered or abridged. 3.8 Interpretation and Governing Law This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 3.9 Assignment The parties acknowledge that Development of the Project likely will involve sale, conveyance, or assignment of all or portions of the Property to third parties who will own, develop and /or occupy portions of the Property and buildings thereon. Developer shall have the right from time to time to assign or transfer all or any portion of its respective interests, rights, or obligations under this Agreement or in the Property to other parties acquiring an interest or estate in all or any portion of the Property, including a transfer of all interests through foreclosure (judicial or nonjudicial) or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. Consent by the City shall not be required for any assignment or transfer of rights pursuant to this Agreement. In any such transfer or assignment, if the transferee or assignee agrees in writing to assume the obligations herein pertaining to the Property transferred or assigned, then the transferee or assignee shall be entitled to all interests and rights and be subject to all obligations under this Agreement, and Developer who has so transferred or assigned its rights, shall be thereupon be deemed released of liability under this Agreement for the property transferred or assigned, whether or not such release is expressly stated in such transfer or assignment; provided, Page 5 of 12 however, that such Developer shall remain liable for any breach that occurred prior to the transfer or assignment of rights to another party and for those portions of the Property still owned by such Developer. 3.10 No Third Party Beneficiary This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 3.11 Further Actions and Instruments Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 3.12 Voluntary Agreement The Parties hereby represent and acknowledge that this Agreement is given and executed voluntarily and is not based upon any representation by any of the Parties to another Party as to the merits, legal liability, or value of any claims of the Parties or any matters related thereto. 3.13 Authority. The undersigned covenant and represent that they are fully authorized to enter into and to execute this Agreement. This Agreement is executed by the parties as set forth below CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By City Manager Attest: By City Clerk Approved as to form: In City Attorney Date Date Page 6 of 12 DEVELOPER: By: Joy D, Swenson Date: By: Melissa A. Crapo Date: 0 Date: Dennis A. Crapo Page 7 of 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss. County of Spokane ) On this _ day of , 200 before me personally appeared. , and to me known to be the City Manager and the City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation, that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, Residing at: My commission expires: _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of 2009, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared JOY D. SWENSON personally known to me to be the person whose names is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that s/he executed the same freely and voluntarily in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. DATED this day of 2009. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, Residing at: My commission expires: Page 8 of 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of , 2009, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared DENNIS A. CRAPO personally known to me to be the person whose names is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. DATED this day of 2009. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, Residing at: My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of 2009, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared MELISSA A. CRAPO personally known to me to be the person whose names is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same freely and voluntarily in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. DATED this day of 2009. Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC in and-for the State of Washington, Residing at: My commission expires: Page 9 of 12 Exhibit "A' Legal Description of the Property Parcel No: 45242.9050 and 45242.9051 The East 102 feet of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 E. W.M. Except the North 20 feet for 4 Avenue; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. Parcel No: 45242.9036 The West 130 feet of the West half of the. West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 East W.M. EXCEPT the North 20 feet;. Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. Parcel No: 45242.9057 The West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 E.W.M.; Except the East 117 feet; Except the West 130 feet; Except the North 20 feet for Fourth Avenue; Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. Tax Parcel Number(s): 45242.9035 and 45242.9056 The East 110 feet of the North 160 feet of the East half of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, Except the North 20 feet thereof of Section 24, Township 25, Range 44 Spokane county, State of Washington AND The East 117 feet of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter in Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 East W.M. in Spokane County, Washington Except the North 20 feet thereof for roadway. EXCEPT the East 110 feet in the North 160 feet of the East half of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, Except the North 20 feet thereof of Section 24, Township 25, Range 44 Spokane county, State of Washington Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. Parcel #45242.9033 Page 10 of 12 The West 75 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM; EXCEPT the North 20 feet thereof; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. Tax Parcel Number(s): 45242.9032 The North half of the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 25 North, Range 44 E.W.M. Except the North 20 feet thereof and Except the West 75 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 24; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. Page 11 of 12 Exhibit `B" Drawings Page 12 of 12 SEC. 24, T. 25N. R. 44 E. W.M. --------------------- 4TH AVENUE I I II I I I I ii 45242.9035 I I I I I — I 45242.9050 I I I I I I I I I I SEE SECTIC 1 I I I I SHEET 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i 45242.9036 i N I 45242.9056 I i 45242.9032 I I < I gl p l I I I E I 45242.9051 I I iPtio� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MF -2: TOTAL ACREAGE = 11.30t Ac X 22 UNITS /Ac = 248 UNITS ALLOWED OVERALL MF -1: ACREAGE = 1.78t Ac X 12 UNITS /Ac = 21 UNITS ALLOWED IN 120' STRIP 227 UNITS ALLOWED ON REMAINDER OF PARCELS \ 1 I r J 5 LANE --� w "SEE SECTION 1 o I SHEET 2 N W E J r— s a N Z W to mQ x WQ W F. mJ J N x F- It z 0 z z m 3 W J Id z Y D a m GRAPHIC SCALE 100 0 50 100 200 aH ( IN FEET) °F 1 Inch = 100 ft. z 1 I eni� \ SEC. 24, T. 25N., R. 44 E. W.M. PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) 120' 115' I TYPE 1 BUFFER STRIP 10' WIDE (MODIFIED FROM 5' REQUIRED) 5' HEIGHT DIFFERENCE— MUST BE PLANTED WTH TREES RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO THAT WILL MATURE TO 35' OR � MF —i ZONING -1 HIGHER STD d ROOF LINE REQUIREMENT: PROPOSED 3" CALIPER 4TH AND SULUVAN DEVELOPMENT EXISTING HOUSE SHELLEY LAKE P.U.D. 15' ^i 50' I40' PROPOSED SETBACI{I 40• (20' MINIMUM REQUIRED) **NOTE: BUILDING HEIGHTS REFERENCED ABOVE PER SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.40.020 AND TABLE 19.40 -1. BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINED PER APPENDIX A— "DEFINITIONS" IN THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE. 50' 35' MOORE LANE — 25' — N Z W F a L: IL m w W F. mJ J 7 N 0 I Z C F t7 Z N 3 w J J w Z a Y D IL N GRAPHIC SCALE 20 10 20 40 SHEET I Z ( IN FEET) °F 1 inch = 20 ft 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Change Order 36 Approval GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 —Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 1) Approval of Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes the Pines /Mansfield project, 2) approval of application for federal grant funding for the Pines /Mansfield Project, 3) approval of Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the TIB for the Pines /Mansfield project; 4) approval of a quit -claim on one parcel to complete right -of -way acquisition; 5) informational memo in June 3, 2008 Council Packets; 6) award of construction contract to Inland Asphalt; 7) Additional Change Order Authority for City Manager, June 2, 2009; 8) admin report and presentation to Council on Change Order #36 and #37, December 8, 2009. BACKGROUND: During the course of the Pines /Mansfield Project additional costs were incurred resulting in the need for two additional change orders requiring council approval. The first change order is for a claim by the earthwork subcontractor for delays related to utility conflicts and increased working days. The second change order accounts for the increased quantities of materials used to complete the project. OPTIONS: 1) Approve or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Change Order #36 for the Pines /Mansfield project. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds appropriated in the 2009 Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to cover these additional costs. Staff will be reviewing how the additional local funds used on the Pines /Mansfield Project will impact available local funds for future projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Attachment: Change Order #36 Washington State Amk W Department of Transportation Change Order Date 12/15/2009 Page 1 o f 3 Pages Contract Number 08 -016 Federal Aid Number Contract Title Pines- Manfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project CM -9932 (032) Change Order Number 36 Prime Contractor Inland A F Ordered by Engineer under the terms of Section 1 -04.4 of the Standard Specifications ® Change proposed by Contractor By Original Contract Amount Current Contract Amount Estimated Net Change This Order Estimated Contract Total After Change 3,061,916.95 3,323,016.72 160,500.00 3,483,516.72 Approval Required ❑ Region ❑ Olympia Service Center M Local Agency If the amount authorized in the Local Agency Agreement is exceeded and federal funds are not available for this change, the Local Agency will assume the total cost of this Change Order. Approval Recommended Approved Approved Pmjed Engineer Approvng Authority per C.A. Agreement Date Date ❑ Approval Recommended ❑ Approved Other Approval When Required By Signature Date Date Representing DOT Form 140 -005 EF Revised 10197 CHANGE ORDER Page 2 of 3 Contract No: 08 -016 Change Order No. 36 This Contract is revised as follows: Description of Work This Change Order compensates the Earthwork Subcontractor for delays incurred by utilities that were not relocated prior to beginning of earthwork. Payment Payment shall be made for the following item: New contract item: "Equitable Adjustment — Utility Delay to Earthwork Subcontractor ", Lump Sum. Contract Time Four (4) days will be added to the contract as a result of this Change Order. CHANGE ORDER Page 3 of 3 Contract No: 08 -016 Item No. I Group No. NEW 1 NEW 2 Item Description Equitable Adjustment — Utility Delay to Earthwork Subcontractor Equitable Adjustment — Utility Delay to Earthwork Subcontractor Change Order No. 36 Unit Unit Price Est. Qty. Est. Amt. Change IV I Change L.S 80,250.00 1 $ 80,250.00 L.S 80,250.00 1 $ 80,250.00 TOTAL $160,500.00 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Change Order 37 Approval GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 —Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 1) Approval of Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes the Pines /Mansfield project, 2) approval of application for federal grant funding for the Pines /Mansfield Project, 3) approval of Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the TIB for the Pines /Mansfield project; 4) approval of a quit -claim on one parcel to complete right -of -way acquisition; 5) informational memo in June 3, 2008 Council Packets; 6) award of construction contract to Inland Asphalt; 7) Additional Change Order Authority for City Manager, June 2, 2009; 8) admin report and presentation to Council on Change Order #36 and #37. December 8. 2009. BACKGROUND: During the course of the Pines /Mansfield Project additional costs were incurred resulting in the need for two additional change orders requiring council approval. The first change order is for a claim by the earthwork subcontractor for delays related to utility conflicts and increased working days. The second change order accounts for the increased quantities of materials used to complete the project. OPTIONS: 1) Approve or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Change Order #37 for the Pines /Mansfield project. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds appropriated in the 2009 Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to cover these additional costs. Staff will be reviewing how the additional local funds used on the Pines /Mansfield Project will impact available local funds for future projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten. Public Works Director Attachment: Change Order #37 Washington State Department of Transportation Change Order; Date 12/15/2009 Page I of 5 Pages Contract Number 08 -016 Federal Aid Number Contract Title Pines- Manffeld Corridor Congestion Relief Project CM -9932 (032) Change Order Number 37 . Prime Contractor Inland Asp halt ® Ordered by Engineer under the terms of Section 1 -04.4 of the Standard Specifications ❑ Change proposed by Contractor Original Contract Amount Current Contract Amount Estimated Net Change This Order Estimated Contract Total After Change 3,061,916.95 3,483,516.72 468,076.23 3,951,592.95 Approval Required ❑ Region ❑ Olympia Service Center M Local Agency If the amount authorized in the Local Agency Agreement is exceeded and federal funds are not available for this change, the Local Agency will assume the total cost of this Change Order. ❑ Approval Recommended ❑ Approved Approved project Engineer AppmeiN Authony per C.A. Agreement Date Date Approval Recommended Approved Other Approval When Required By signature Date Date Representing DOT Form 140 -005 EF Revised 10/97 CHANGE ORDER Page 2 of 5 Contract No: 08 -016 Change Order No. 37 This Contract is revised as follows: Description of Work This Change Order adjusts the final contract amount to reflect the final quantities constructed and installed under this contract. Payment Final Payment shall be made at unit prices for all items as reflected in the attached contract item listing. The final, total contract price including all change orders is revised to $3,951,532.95. Contract Time Contract time will not be adjusted as a result of this Change Order. Change Order 37: Final Quantity Reconciliation Pines - Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project Project CIP No. 0005 (Cont., 08 -016) F.A. Project No. CM- 9932(032) TIB Project Number 9 -E -032(016 )-1 Original Contract Values ++ww. TWALWRIK1 PPOIERLo94rE= ITEM NUMBER ITEM Unit TOTAL OUMITRY Unit Pace t Total G t L ; 1 ._...4 4.,.4" 7.0 COfP1,I xi.y OuNtTRY COST OUTIGE 1 MOBILIZATION Ls. i $181,000.00 $101000.00 = y _I 00X ....510 1060.00 0.00 000 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 3.57 $2,250.00 $0,032.50 i!7 _2.74 - $6,10500 -0.03 (1,867.50) 3 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION LE. 1 $25,700.00 $25,700.00;' -_�1W% $2570000 000 000 4 REMOVING CEMENT CONIC. SIDEWALK SY. 34 $825 $200.50li 220.00.0 ¢'31.515.00 185.00 1,9450 5 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB LF. 100 S3.10 $310.011 }_` 159400' }c 1: Vit,910.46 484.00 1,500.40 6 REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT sY 3,720.00 $3.10 $11532.00 x °.• 612,15935 202.50 62]35 7 REMOVINGTRAFFICISLAND 6.Y 1 292 1 $5.15 $150300 I? 38899. =}.RNII0.30 -3.01 (1550) 6 REMOVING GUIDE POST EACH 28 $1025 $266.50 S&J8:00, •- •w•$194.511 41.00 (82.00) 9 REMOVING TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LF. 13,904011 50.10 $1,390.40 }_.]989.90' 4_rA lfi.90 - 13]15.00 (1,321.50) 10 REMOVING PAINT LINE L.F. 470 $0.90 $42000;Lti391.D0 1 ,iy 9,;,$351'.90 -79.00 (71.10) At ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL CY 19,909.00 $820 $16390900 G t i1497.001 2,000.00 16,465.60 4 $WALE EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.T 1,100.00 $8.20 $9,020.00 ic:1 ,042.00 _ 1315,10440 742.00 809440 13 GRATE INLET TYPE 2 EACH 11 $2,57000 $28,210.00 11100' - 00 0.00 0.00 14 COMBINATION INLET EACH 2 $1,645.00 $3,290.00 {_ .6.00. y,'S4,935.00 1.00 4845oo 15 CURB INLET TYPE EACH 11 $770.001 $8470.00 ¢_B.00F. .' 'Sb, 160.00 4.Wl (2.310.00) 16 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE B SWALE EAOH 7 $2,000.00 514,000.001•`_. itso' iy_ -100 (2000.00) 17 ICL IV REINF. CONIC. CULV PIPE 121N. DIAM. LR 1,070.00 $514D $54990.00 t7L039A0''I 553404:60 -31 00 (1,593.40) 18 QUARRY SPALLS CY. 143 $4500 $643,50 tWT'14,TD _ _ 5043'.5(1 0.00 000 19 METAL FRAMETYPE I ANDGRATETYPE I FACH 12 $20600 $2,492001 '._ .134)2.00 0.00 000 20 METAL FRAME TYPE 2 AND GRATE TYPE 3 EACH 5 $26000 $1,300.00 P V.60 -1 , ',.,EI,?ID.bb 400 1,040.00 21 METAL FRAME TYPE 4 AND GRATE TYPE 4 EACH 7 $210.00 $1,470.00 = ( . +� -?tl .• e_$o.00 - 700 (1470.00) 22 CATCH BASIN TYPE I EACH 15 $1,540,00 $23,10000 l:.: 19.OD, "41h 609.26006 400 816000 23 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2481N, DIAM. EACH 2 $3,100.00 $6,20000 L:7i!!tYAO!tC', °__),IEQ2oat- DOO 0.00 24 SCHEDULE A STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM. LT. 1,684.00 $2550 $4294200 12/731100 _, S4_4', 140.59 47.00 1,19850 25 SCHEDULE A STORM SEWER PIPE 18 IN. DIAM : LF. 492.5 1 $51.401 $25, 314.50 1- „°y gO5.00 B1].00 -87.50 (4,497.50) 26 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE CY 5,180.00 $3825 $198.135.00 LJ 6.96:73' :- .._5261504.92 165633 63,369.92 21 ICRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE CT. 140 $69.25 $9,695.00 0; _:,..515982.96 61.92 4,287.96 28 ANTI-STRIPPING ADDITIVE Da. ESL $1,95000 $1950.00 C_ 50.00 -100 (195000) 29 CEMENT CONC .PAVEMENT - INCLUDING DOWELS D.Y. 1,191.]] $21500 $256.230.55 ' _ 12k'& 16264450.00 38.23 0.21945 30 EPDXY-COATED TIE BAR WITH DRILL HOLE EACH 262 $10.30 $269060 -;� :. '')4T.J .66.66 - 262.0D (2.69860) 31 CEMENT GONG. TRUCK APRON 81N. DEPTH S.Y. 695 Nt 00 $25,49500 IL_742.50 �. ,:. 360,u2.66 47.50 1.947.50 32 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT sY. 13,440.00 $2.00 $24,08000 $,12,2fi3,00. 7 '1r'. 1624,526.06 - 177.00 (35400) 33 ASPHALT GONG- MISCELLANEOUS AREAS SY. 445.3 $2550 $11,355.15 1'.... 1696.06'1..` :4$22_69633 444.76 11.341]8 34 HMACL VE IN PG70 -28 TON 6,965.00 $81.80 $569,737.00 L187.013]91 ',5655;52902 1,040.79 55791.02 35 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT cuc $5410.00 1 $5410.00 ES,AID 00 ( - - -. __A...__.5G 00 - 5,410.00 (5,410.00) 36 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALL $3,030.00 $3,030.00 $3,03000 t0759T.64, 6�SIj59T.64 4,56104 4,561.04 37 LONGITUOI NAL JOINT SEAL 1 1,070.00 $1.05 $1953.50 211,8]0:00: i7. _E1,B83.56 0.00 0.00 30 IRRIGATION SYSTEM L6. 1 $20,50000 $20,511000 LI .11W %F�= aoE T0000 000 0.00 39 ESC LEAD DAY 65 $14000 $9,100005 6B.DD. T`-' '.9,920.00 417.00 (5,180.00) 40 SILT FENCE LE 2,860.00 $420 $12,012.00168266.00' = 1513,69200 400.00 1,880.00 41 EROSIONANATER POLLUTION CONTROL DM. EST. $5.250011 $5550110 . - .. somoo -1.00 (5,250.00) 42 SEEDING. FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING ACRE 1.86 $2,300.00 $4,278.00 {_ _�'. ib6'. �� 35.930.11 0.74 1,702.00 O TOPSOIL TYPE. L.Y. 590 520.00 518,993.00 (_:_494.00 �' {q`514,21]20 -9600 (2,]66.80) N SOD INSTALLATION SY. 3620.00 f550 $19,91000 )44,]7000. C "�� S24;W9.00 758 o0 4,16900 45 CEMENT CONIC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER LF. 1,511.00 $8.75 $13,22125 W1,623:00'.=',,'$1<,20115 112.0 98000 46 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB LE 672 $8.75 $5,800.00 :,r 0615.00 b:.,;:GE5,38f.25 57.00 (498.75) 47 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB TYPE A LF. 1,792.00 $815 515680.00 {x.2.469.30; '�. 67730 5,926.38 48 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB TYPES LF. 3,341.00 $875 $2913375 M,39565'. 3316529,]11. 94 54.65 470.19 49 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB TYPE M L.F. 520 $1235 $8422.00 Wl,297.00.:y:j,',$ 16017.95 7]].00 9,595.95 50 ROUNDABOUT CENTRAL ISLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 75.5 $2050 51,54715 1 YF 51',56635 -200 (41.00) 51 ROUNDABOUT TRUCK APRON DEM. CONIC CURB AND GUTTI L.F. 295 $1030 $3,038.50 t-sE .00'.tX d$3.03850 0,001 0.00 52 EXTRUDED CURB 1 604 $10.30 $6,221.20 1: 7GF':P$T26.30 117.00 1,205.10 9 MODIFIED EXTRUDED CURB LF. 303 $10.30 $3,120.90 %1..10850 - ' ?iF!S p11T.55 494.50 (2,003.35) 54 TEMPORARY CONC. HARRIER LF. 110 $26.00 $2,860.00 �! -4d 32.00 !(�Srs113432D0 22011 572.00 55 TRUCK - MOUNTED IMPACT ATTENUATOR EACH 1 $5.100.00 55,100.00 x + { -• ". *4 -100 (5,100.00) 58 OPERATION OF TRUCK - MOUNTED IMPACT ATTENUATOR He 160 320 50 `- `50.00 -16000 (]100.00) Change Order 37: Final Quantity Reconciliation Pines - Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project Project CIP No. 0005 (contract 06x116) F.A. Project No. CM- 9932(032) TIB Project Number 9 -E- 032(016) - Contra tat { j" , r $X06AT,91 W961 $3,466 ,92E Original Contract Values � 707ALVKQKbi { wfi PRWECTTOOATE ITEM NUMBER ITEM Unit TOTAL QUANTITY Unit Pd.. Total tot MIJAMIIY. .. Ol TAL WST 9S K WA CHWGE GE CO5TCHM'GE 57 REPAIR TRUCK - MOUNTED IMPACT ATTENUATOR DOL. EST. 54 34,000ol) :: ' -100 4000.001 58 FLEXIBLE GUIDE POST EACH 27 53600 5972.00 E-7- 3.00'- ?: , $1,044.00 2.00 72.00 59 PAINT LINE LF. 8,98700 $025 $2,246.75 F.9,030.00 - � $2.457.50 84300 210.75 60 PLASTIC LINE LF. 8,236.00 $0.95 $7,82430 7:0,73100 $6.29445 49500 470.25 61 PLASTIC DROP LANE LINE LF. 90 $1.70 $153.00 7189'00 a - °" SE287.30 79.00 134.30 62 PLASTICWIDELINE LF. 4,07800 $2.30 $9,379.40 iU. 18000. r_ :$Ifi,514.00 3,10200 7,134.60 63 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE Be 2,404.00 $5.50 $13,22200 [-A A3260 (,L.- 7 51117600 37200 (2.046.00) 64 PLASTIC STOP LINE LF. 575 $10.50 $8,037.50 (_.31378:SOI .w3.d1E3,974.25 - 190.50 R063.25) 65 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EACH 51 $74.00 $3,774,00 ).`�,SILOOI , `i + -1.00 (74.00) 66 PLASTIC RAILROAD CROSSING SYMBOL EACH 5 $680.00 $3,400.00 �; - l$160,00 .300 (2,040.00) 67 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EACH 14 $115.00 $1, 610,00 11840.0E 2.00 230.00 60 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LF 23,030.00 $0.10 $2303.00 !:p6,691100�:� 52,069'19 - 2,339.00 (233.90) fig PERMANENT SIGNING Ls. 1 $78,350.00 $70,350.00 =5Odi . -_ Vit350,00 0.00 000 70 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM I- PINESIMONTGOMERY Ls. 1 $20,600.00 $2000000 y'.+ ;1100% = E20,6pp.00 0.00 000 71 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM 2- PINESANDIANAIWN RAMP Ls. 1 $3600000 $36,000.00 t - '�'1W %? $36,OW.00 0,001 0.00 72 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM 3- PINESMIANSFIELD LS 1 1 $71000.00 $71,000.00 :100 %4..E $71;00000 000 000 73 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM 4 -PD RAMP L6. 1 $3,90000 $3.90000 "C 100%-. 33,90000 0.00 000 74 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM FOR ROUNDABOUT L6. 1 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 ' 1 W% i5� "g821,M 00 0.00 0.00 75 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM I- PINESNONTGOMERY Ls. 1 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 lJ.: if)() i:.;�E14ll 000.00 000 0.00 75 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM 24NDIANAWB OFF RAMP Ls, 1 $64,000.00 $64,000,00 1, 160114 53 'E64;000:OU 0.00 0.00 77 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM B -PINESIMANSFIELD Ls. 1 E121300900 $126,000 .00 ., .- '100 %_ .'3126,000.110 000 0.00 78 SEQUENTIAL ARROW SIGN HR 2,960.00 $2.80 $8,20000 [.6,751!50 G�i51B 9114.29 3,791.50 10,618.20 79 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EACH 4 $2.800.001 $11,200.00 !`efj _311,20o60 000 0.00 00 OPERATION OF PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR 0,40000 $1.00 $8,400.00 �y6;062,00.'_4�.ffi 200 - 1,596.00 (1,59800) 81 OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR HR 370 $42.50 $15,725.00 L=;]]0501 L�1];]46.25 2.400,501 102,021.25 82 FLAGGERS AND SPOTTERS HR 5,280.00 $40.00 $211,200.00 50,52470 - L 340,88800 3,244.70 129)08.00 63 OTHER TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L . 1 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 rtx�_O_''000 % 0.00 0.00 84 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR L . 1 $35,250.00 $35,250.00 L :1W %% "�.Y$� 35,250.00 0.00 000 85 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS CLASS A 6F, 1,270.00 S8.20 $10,414.00 5,:077.00; ;' -- :1$8,831:40 -19300 (1,582.60) 86 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC ISLAND 6Y. 513 $23.15 511,07505 38 $780 P.' - - - 1 $6,084.00 -12920 (2,990.90) B7 CEMENT CON[ SIDEWALK aY. 3,67200 $1950 $71,60400 ('1'3;056221 fa5 )3]519526 18432 3,59x29 Be ISLANDTREATMENT sY. 140 $2300 $3,220.00 07.30'. ! 'Hy52,007:90 -52.70 (1,212.10) 89 CEMENT CONCRETE BICYCLE RAMP EACH I 8 saso.otil 52,880.00 p_ "1'.'3.001' ` ?;:'51,080 ➢0 -5.00 (1,800.00) 90 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TYPE I 6Y. 532 $30.0 $15960.00 It .5FO 2B'' - d315,308A0 -21]2 (651.60) 91 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 2 EACH 10 5740.00 $],400.00 1i.`i 2.00,;: `JK 18580.00 2.00 1,480.00 92 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 4A EACH 2 $740.00 $1.480.00 6 ? 200 x' 51,480.00 0.00 000 93 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 4B- MODIFIED EACH 4 $74000 52,960.00 [ 6.00'. __`ty,j 52.22000 -1.00 (74000) 94 CEMENT CONC. SIDEEWALK RAMP TYPE 5 EACH 0 $515.00 $4, 120.00 JJ 9p01 �`.'><�' "54,635.00 1.00 51500 95 CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 3 LE 083 51950 $17,218.50 L�801.00.:`_:$17,56950 1800 351.00 96 CEMENT CONC. CURB WALL LF. 372 $3100 $11,53200 5_�_'386.00!-a 511:9600 14.00 434.00 97 ABANDON EXISTING ORYWELL EACH 14 $515.00 $7,210.00 p ,1400;; c'.,:g5],21000 000 000 98 REMOVE AND RESET MAILBOX EACH 4 $51500 $2,08000 FVRFF 7N''s.;.: ?A'a $`i000 4.00 (2,060.00) 99 ADJUSTINLET EACH 1 3 $360001 $1,000.00 .$ -_? "-,"300.' Et',086.00 0.00 0.00 100 ADJUST MANHOLE EACH 11 $515.00 65,665.00 f "3'1.:1,.00, df.i."; a:E7,21E 00 3.00 154500 101 CLEANING EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LS. 1 $1,550.00 $1,550.00 i- :sro % 8L w'ED00 -1.00 (1,550.00) 102 ADJUST VALVE BOX EACH 6 $26000 $1,560.00 F.�'16.E0, %�_' y752,60p'00 4.00 1,040.00 103 ROADSIDE CLEANUP 00L EST. $5,00000 $5,000.00 6.f- " -1.00 (5,000.00) 104 TRIMMING AND CLEANUP L6. 1 $7.20000 $7.200.00 �K.1 oo % :F: 57200.0E 0.00 000 105 MINOR CHANGE CALC 52 00 52 00 6 - - ti '` --' 50.00 0.00 (2.00) 106 SPCC PLAN Ls. 1 560000 5600.00 LF ?_nmiis F=116roo0 0.00 0.00 107 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SEPARATION S.Y. 6,000.00 $2.10 $12,600.0 .3_ 58._°" $000 4.000.00 12.60000)) 108 AGGREGATE COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALL $4,320.00 54,32000 ._-': - 1 b0.00 0.00 (4,320.00) 109 REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIRD PARTY DAMAGE ool EST . $500 $5.00 �uO b9a2i L= 5345.60 6.01 340.60 110 LICENSED SURVEYING DOL, EST. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Yr 7f %u1.;• "59,2]7.13 -0.07 (722.07) Contra tat { j" , r $X06AT,91 W961 $3,466 ,92E Change Order 37: Final Quantity Reconciliation Plnes - Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project Project C 0005 (Contract 08416) �. F.A. Project N0. CM- 993M-993 tr 2(032) TIB Project Number 9- E- 032(016yl FINAL CONTRACT TOTAL: $3,951,532.95 Original Contract Values crr, (TOTAL SJG..J P W IECT o K - Z; To CATE ITEM NUMBER ITEM Unit TOTAL QUANTITY UOil Prica TabIC t QUANTITY ( y, LeiPL'CO5T , WPHTItt CHANGE COST CHANGE C01 TEMPORARY FENCE (added to BI #105) LS, 1 002 -1 ILLUMINATION CREDIT L5. 1 CO3 SIGN FLASHER (record in ltam when Completed) L5. 1 #105 004 -1 ROUNDABOUT ILLUMINATION DELETION LS. 1 CO5-1 GEOGRID SY 2609 CO5-2 SELECT BACKFILL Cy 1793 CO5.3 MONTGOMERY ROAD CLOSURE DETOUR L5. 1 COS PEDESTRIAN MILE (added to Bl #105) LS 1 0074 CM PVC 12 INCH DIAM LF 210 C07 -2 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE EXC. EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT L5 1 COB SUBGRADE REPAIR - CDF(added to B1#105) LS 1 C09 DUCTILE IRON PIPE 81NCH DIAM LF 60 0010 LUMINAIRE BASE RELOCATION LS 1 C011-1 SS REVISIONS- PINES /MANSFIELD INTERSECTION La 1 0011 -2 SS REVISIONS -PERRINE COURT APARTMENTS Le 1 C012 CONCRETE PANEL LAYOUT REVISIONS (added to 8I #105) LS 1 0014 -1 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A - SWALE EA 2 C014 -2 C900 PVC 81NCH DIAM tF 274 C014.3 ROCK EXCAVATION FOR DRAINAGE EST. 1 0015 RIGHT TURN WIDENING LS 1 0016 TRUNCATED DOMES -ADA TACTILE WARN EA 9 0017 25OW LUMINAIRE HEADS LS 1 0018 UPRR CONTROL HOUSE CONNECTIVITY La 1 0019 BIKE RAMP CURB REVISIONS La 1 0020 COLD WEATHER PROTECTION - OCT Ls 1 CO21 COLD WEATHER PROTECTION - NOV LS 1 CO22 IRRIG REPAIRS SE CORNER PINESIMANSF LS 1 0023 -1 OTHER TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL -ADDED DAYS Day to CO23 -2 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR - ADDED DAYS Day to CO24 IRRIGATION ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Ls t 0025 ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK AND ADA RAMPS LS 1 CO26 ADDITIONAL CONDUIT FOR UPRR CROS SING Ls t 0027 UPRR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT LS 1 CO28 RECONSTRUCT SEWER MANHOLE - MONTGOMERY LS 1 0029 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNING REVISIONS LS 1 0030 DELAYCLAIM- ELECTIRCALSUBCONTRATOR La t 0031 ADDITIONAL CURB WALL LS t CO32 -1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION DAY 40 0033 TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT La 1 0034 FENCE TIE -IN REPAIRS LB 1 CO35 ROCK EXCAVATION - PINES - MANSFIELD SIGNAL Lb t 0036 DELAY CLAIM- EARTHWORK SUBCONTRACTOR LS 1 $4,782.40 $4,78240 4':' t .54.)2210 O.W 0.00 ($8,96407) ($8964.07) ;1001 "__1- 50,964u7 000 000 $3,441]6 $3441.76 ( +x�' 1.00: b� SJ.M113."1.76 0.00 0.00 (513,0000) ($13,000.00)r T7YlAO)1. _- 513,00.40 0.00 0.00 $8.96 $2409344 �L2,689W - :232409544 GDOI 0.00 523.21 $41,615.53 1''11793.00! : -_$41,615.53 0.00 0.00 $730.24 $730.24 C-- 7W ' x$]30.24 0.0 0.00 $678.85 $67a.85 r7T 1'.1 t.•.: _'36885 0.0 0.00 $5140 $11,102.40 LL:`110A61 r�_ f1110240 000 0.00 $2,00000 $2,00000 > 1'. _W7 _'54,000.00 000 000 533583 $335.83 F+,''77$335931 000 0.00 $6000 $3,500.00 .. 180�00� -. - a. Nb4 800.40 20.00 1,200.00 $6 ,720.00 $6,72000 j'f1E✓•;105 %4t�.Y ON ODD §10,38000 $10,380.00 oo %ljf� j'l 0,38000 0.00 000 $3,920.00 $3,92000 j..ff__f00 %53,92000 odol 000 $768.40 $768.40 E7 1 T100% iz a .7$75,46 0001 0.00 $2,000.00 $4,000,00 E "-. - . i.uu L. -"r!s4,0000o 000 0.00 $25.50 $8,90]00 L.'_51!50 _ §1,313.25 - 222.50 (5,673.75) $24,523.24 $24,52324 t I _.. 1.4o C' t §14,513.24 O.00 0.00 $1,556.63 $1,556.63 (,7_,150 % %i. `^`_:51,5 553 0.00 0.0 $207.20 51.86480 4.40 ON 00 $3,414.01 $3,414.01 F -A 100 % .f3;414.01 000 000 $3,08522 $3,08522 L e'_�:1016 L' T - 53,8052'4 ON 000 $261296 $261296 10% ' 0,00 000 $1624.00 $1,62400 100 %:4 '_11 ON 0.00 $4,032.0 $4,03200;•_, 9008 t� "''-134032G0 0001 000 $4,754.01 $4,75401 1! 100% .c 15425401 000 000 $240.80 $4]3440 1 OSAO +3n 325,20400 67,0 2094960 $55104 $9,918.72 [Nr 105.00 Fa•$57,B5920 07,00 47,94040 $4205.12 $4,205.12 1 _150 %� ^=($4;205:12 000 090 $11,61588 $11,618,88 =160 % -dX..E1 .618.88 0.00 COO $1320329 $13.20329 !rv?- 100%'F 1 $13,283.29 090 0.00 $1,120.31 $1,120.31 'cf ^.1008 ;V3 0.00 0.00 $1,578.63 $1,57863 . 11161863 000 o00 $2,961.81 $2961.81 1 x _.10(k d_,76296t01 0.00 LOGO) 51463]40 514,637.48 3:P .100% ,637. 0001 000 55,201.20 5,201 28 100F 155,201126 0.00 000 $560.0 $22400.00 L's 40:0 `, 1 +S22A6o.'00 000 000 $10,332.00 $10,332.00 (_.3.160 %1. 510.332.00 0.00 0.00 $4,79212 114,792.12 105 - % 1$4,732.1] 0.0 0.00 $1,905.00 $1,905.00 __I00 %i _'31.905.0 0.0 0.00 $160,50.0 3160,50.00 c '100% i216o,5u. ON 0.00 CM1anUs ONer subtotal 5420,24].69 + 1346.+ 75464,664.02 FINAL CONTRACT TOTAL: $3,951,532.95 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY' Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 12 -15 -09 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information City Manager Sign -off: ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Mayoral Appointments to Planning Commission GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 18.10 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: FIX :t I 1 Three Planning Commissioner terms expire December 31, 2009, and the three incumbents John Carroll, Marcia Sands, and Rustin Hall seek re- appointment for another three -year term and each have submitted their application. Tom Towey's recently vacated position has a term expiration of 12/31/2011; and we received eight applications for that position. According to SVMC 18. 10, members of the Planning Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority vote of at least four members of the City Council. Planning Commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations, and shall serve without compensation. Terms shall be for a three -year period and shall expire on the thirty-first day of December. A vacancy announcement was posted on the City's webpage, and was published numerous times in the Spokesman Review and in the Valley News Herald. The deadline to submit an application was November 30, 2009. OPTIONS: Confirm the mayoral appointments listed below with or without modifications; or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointments of John Carroll, Marcia Sands and Rustin Hall each for a three year term of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012; and confirm the mayoral appointment of Ame Woodward for a two -year term of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011, which will complete the unexpired term of the recently vacation position. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Munson ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ®admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Notice for legislative, area -wide zoning changes PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In September, the Council gave direction for staff to notify property owners outside the city's normal process in the case where property was being changed from community facility to zoning consistent with neighboring property. The Council asked to have this issue raised again when the city attorney was also present at the meeting. BACKGROUND: This is information from the RCA of September: "The public notification process is different depending on if the decision is quasi-judicial or legislative. A quasi - judicial decision is made regarding a particular property. In this jurisdiction, the decision is usually made by the Hearing Examiner. Examples of quasi - judicial actions are individual rezones and subdivisions. The public notice requirements include notification of the property owner and surrounding properties. A legislative decision is area -wide or policy based. The City Council makes legislative decisions. Examples include changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map, policy changes and municipal text code changes, and area -wide zoning changes made to implement changes to the Comprehensive Plan map. Public notice requirements for legislative changes do not require property owners to be notified individually. Notices are published for city wide consumption: It is understandable that the council would like to provide property owners with individual, notification when a change is made that impacts their property. The policy question is at what point should individual notices be sent? In this particular case the change impacts over 400 properties across the city. The cost of individual notice is a little over $1000 for postage and supplies that is not budgeted. That does not include staff time." Staff is currently meeting state requirements for notification. Additional notification can be added by amending the city code through the planning commission public process and adoption by the city council. OPTIONS: a) no change. b) If the Council decides to have individual notices issued for all future legislative actions, a code amendment should be made. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends no change. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Additional funds will be required if the Council decides to provide individual notice for all legislative actions. If a courtesy notice is sent for the Community Facility change, the cost for materials and postage will be about $1000. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Court Related Services Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Rescission of Termination Notice for Court Services Contract with Spokane County, November 17, 2009. BACKGROUND: As the result of Spokane County cancelling the road maintenance agreement, Council directed the City Manager to conduct an alternatives analysis of all remaining County contracts. Council decided to provide the termination notice to the County with the understanding it was to allow time to conduct an analysis of service options. The County agreed the City could rescind the termination notice by December 1, 2009. The Council approved the rescission of that notice on November 17, 2009 The City hired Anne Pflug, of the Washington State Department of Commerce, to conduct the analysis of court services and court- related services (Prosecution, Public Defense, Probation, Pre - Trial). This report examines the court- related services. OPTIONS: Continue to contract with Spokane County; contract with the City of Spokane; provide services in -house and through private contract; have a mix of the preceding options. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Comment only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 2009 Court Contract $920,000, Related Services $960,000. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Other Justice Services Report and Appendices Research Services Department of Commerce Innovation is in our nature. City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives: Other Justice Services November 2009 Executive Summary Problem Statement and Study Questions Problem Statement: Determine the feasibility of alternative justice services provision in advance of the potential loss of the current service provider, Spokane County and its District Court. Study Questions: 1. Provide an evaluation of the feasibility of three Spokane Valley court services options: ■ Spokane County District Court contract ■ City of Spokane Municipal Court contract ■ City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court 2. What are the policy, operating and service delivery considerations for the options? 3. What is the comparative projected net cost over five years, including any start-up costs, of each court services option? 4. What are the city's service delivery requirements including customer experience and criminal justice outcomes now and into the foreseeable future, that need to be addressed by any contract? 5. What are the major findings, any conclusions and recommendations? Page 2 Exe Aive Summar Spokane Valley's Circumstances and Interests Circumstances: • Spokane Valley is the largest contract service delivery city in the state. • Spokane Valley is the state's seventh largest city and contracts with the Spokane County for justice services. Other justice services contracts include prosecutor ($359,314), public defender ($337,949), probation (fee supported) and defense screener ($42,959). • Limited direct service capacity in the criminal justice arena. • Of the ten largest cities in Washington: Eight have their own probation services and two contract with counties, including Spokane Valley => Nine have in -house prosecuting attorneys and one, Spokane Valley, contracts with their county One has in -house public defense counsel (Spokane) and seven contract for public defense services with private or non - profit firms either directly or with their county; two, including Spokane Valley, contract with their county for in -house public defense services. Indicators of Interests: ■ The city does not have adopted criminal justice service goals. • Fifty percent of defendants in Spokane Valley court are residents of Spokane Valley. • The number and proportion of Spokane Valley criminal case filings (misdemeanors such as assault, theft or driving without a license) grew from 17 percent of total cases in 2004 to 22 percent in 2008. Criminal cases have increased by 539 to 2,898. Pape 3 CAUGLILIVC r1Y111111O Spokane Valley's Circumstances and Interests ■ A number of options are available to the City of Spokane Valley for provision of other justice services. ■ All of the following options are feasible from a legal, operating and financial perspective: => Contracting for probation services with the court services provider (regardless of option selected) or staffing an in -house probation service. Contracting for public defense services with Spokane County, City of Spokane, one or more private attorney firms, or a rotating list of pre - qualifled attorneys. => Contracting for prosecuting attorney services with Spokane County, City of Spokane, a private attorney firm, or staffing an in -house prosecuting attorney function. Contracting for public defense screening with the city's provider of court services or staffing an in -house screener. Page 4 Exe Aive Summ • Relationships among the current contract parties are strained. • Working relationships at the operating and judicial level are amicable and effective. • The City of Spokane Valley is ready to move into a different type of performance - based contracting relationship now that the city's start-up phase is completed. • The city has notified the county that it is exploring the feasibility of forming its own municipal court or contracting with the City of Spokane in the event that the county is no longer able to provide court services. • Both Spokane County and the City of Spokane are: => willing contractors, => want to provide service to Spokane Valley, and => do a quality job. ■ There are a large number of private attorney firms and two active legal service volunteer or non - profit programs in the Spokane area. ■ There are limited larger organizations that currently have the capacity to handle Spokane Valley's misdemeanor caseload, either for prosecution or public defense. ■ There are a relatively large number of individual attorneys with criminal litigation practices that together have the capacity to handle Spokane Valley's misdemeanor public defense caseload. Pape 5 Relationships CX@G aUn1n1a1 Relationships Conclusions: • The city and county have come a long way in re- organizing service delivery since incorporation. • Significant positive cooperative criminal justice system work has been done, and is planned, by both cities and the county to improve outcomes and reduce costs. • It is easier to implement changes to the criminal justice system and improve outcomes when there are fewer, rather than more, individual service providers working with the offender population. Recommendations: • Consider improving Spokane Valley's effectiveness as a contracting customer and/ or partner by better defining the city's expectations and goals. • Consider improving the county's contracting relationship by designating a single contract manager for Spokane Valley, responsible for improving communication. • The parties existing contract relationship is ready to mature to the next level by: => Including a set of mutually agreed service delivery goals and an operating plan. =� Including measures of results. => Exploring a longer -term partnership to create the stability and environment necessary to meet their mutual goals. Page 6 Exe Aive Summar Other Justice Services Operations ■ Spokane Valley is the only city among the state's ten largest to contract for prose- cution. All of the cities, except Spokane contract for public defense services. The City of Spokane Valley does not have a contract that covers probation services. ■ Contract services are not integrated into the city's public information program. ■ Cost savings and effectiveness gains have been obscured by Spokane Valley's caseload fluctuations and a lack of stated goals and results measurement. ■ City of Spokane and Spokane County probation, prosecution and defense cost per case fall below the state average for comparators. ■ Spokane County and City of Spokane prosecutor and defense case loads per program FTE are similar. The county's caseloads are somewhat higher and the City of Spokane's are somewhat lower. Statewide comparator jurisdictions fall in between. ■ Each service (probation, defense, prosecution, defense screening) has an electronic case database in place. All services are moving in the direction of integrating case records with the court and police, as well as moving to electronic records and away from paper file systems. Defense screening has electronic files. Prosecution and defense are moving in that direction. City of Spokane electronic records system (Justware) was implemented in October. ■ Each service has implemented one or more strategies, along with the court, to facilitate early case resolution or disposition after conviction. Page 7 cxecuEive �ummai Other Justice Services Operations Conclusions: ■ Existing operating assets provide a platform for positive criminal justice outcomes for the community. These include: a. Co- located and consolidated service delivery b. A motivated contractor (county); and c. A significant investment in integration of technology to improve customer service, reduce case processing time and cut costs. ■ Even greater improvement in outcomes can be achieved by continued focus on the points of intersection between associated criminal justice services. For example, public defense screening at first appearance or arraignment calendars, defendant's initial meeting with defense attorneys, reducing opportunities for failure to appear or comply, opportunities for early case completion after sentencing, and electronic transmission /access to case records. Recommendations: ■ Better integrate court related programs into court and city services at all existing points and modes of service. For example, an explanation of public defender services should be part of the city web site and in print form at the Police building. ■ Include the scope and performance of probation services in future service contracts. ■ Continue to incrementally integrate justice related services into case resolution efforts and the use and sharing of electronic case records. Pape 8 Exe Aive Summar Future Service Delivery ■ Regardless of which service provider operates Spokane Valley justice services, police and detention services are provided by the county - the other two major components of the criminal justice system. ■ The City of Spokane Valley has a number of feasible justice service contract options. ■ The county is under significant pressure due to citizen initiative - approved property tax limitations to become more cost effective in providing criminal justice services, which represent 71 percent of their current expense fund budget. Property tax is the predominate general fund revenue source for counties statewide (58 percent of revenue). ■ Spokane has the second largest Municipal Court by caseload in the state after Seattle. Its caseload is 34 percent misdemeanors (higher than the state average, but aligned with most urban areas) and its caseload is more diverse. ■ The Spokane Municipal Court was officially formed as a separate court with its own elected judges in January 2009. ■ Spokane has operated independent in -house prosecution and public defense services for a long time. In the past, District Court scheduled separate Spokane case calendars to better coordinate with Spokane prosecutors and public defense. ■ Spokane has operated both joint (with the county) and separate probation services over the last decade. Probation is currently an independent in -house function that also handles public defense screening. Page 9 txecuiive aummai Future Service Delivery Conclusions: • Coordinating efforts between associated justice services and the court to integrate and streamline operations would be easier to accomplish with fewer rather than more service providers. Introduction of new service providers may hamper existing efforts. • The City of Spokane Valley has at least three feasible options for provision of other justice services in each service area — probation, prosecution, defense and defense screener. • It is too early to know how the re- organized City of Spokane Municipal Court will influence other associated Spokane justice services in terms of performance and cost. • As Spokane Valley's criminal caseload changes over time it may become more similar to Spokane. Recommendations: • The city should consider consolidating its justice services contracts into a single longer -term partnership agreement with the county, and aligned with judicial election cycles in order to create an environment that would allow the parties to define and maximize their criminal justice outcomes. • In order to directly participate in criminal justice service provision, the city should consider bringing one component (prosecutor) of its justice services contracts in- house. • In the future, if Spokane Valley's case profile changes or Spokane proves to be more efficient than the county, contracting between the two cities may be in their mutual best interest. Page 10 Criminal Justice System Background — Criminal Justice System and Average Misdemeanor Costs STATE 6H CRLVAL SVI MVCLV G �:I IDELLVES DEVTVE 4 N % MDSDEMfEANANT9 FE \ TES 3 � ES 12 NIOVITI UMMI t T c EMIE 3TYANV CDVSTY fiT.4iE . \iEASOR AVD V pDSD.iNOR CASES FELONY CASES � P113Q\ OOt1D fElA \s O - + IAIL BOLTD O}:£VOFIS 1 3 T 911 DISP LPTORCE \It'd i 911 E \ DISPATCH W. D R Y CO COURT DISPATCH PROS SEAtTCES SUPER3oR P CO DEFENS ]'OR O DE. I DTOR DETENTION DEFENSE PRI R 4L AND PAROLE PRORATION TREATMENT PAE -TRL N DETENTION A T iFRNATR R V30LATION DETENTION A C cost qA erttrm: s STATE POLICY LL\IITXD RENT-NUE 70 FLVA.NCE «. and dmnbution •O I "'� Reses�rcd t...em annme. eo 4 inn st..� --v .�I•� uses a * vA mte s � I'R TAX TY SALES TAC SALESUT.T4X CO GRFF.ES ES Misdemeanor jail costs are lower in other parts of Washington, with average jail days of 8 to 10 days per misdemeanor. Spokane area average is 16 days. Average Washington City Co sts Per Misdemeanor Criminal Cost Per Percent Justice System Misdemeanor of Tot. Costs Case Cost Prosecutor $283 11% Public Defense $206 8% Court $278 10% Jail` $657 24% Probation $650 24% Total $2,692 100% Assumes an average Spokane area 16- dayjail sentence. Source: Administrative Once of the Courts fiscal notes and Local Government Fiscal Note Program Cost Survey, 2007 Court - Related Costs are 29% of Per Case Costs Page 11 Source: County Financial Health and Governance Alternatives, Department ofCommunity, Trade, and Economic Development 2007 Profile Court Caseload Caseload Profile — Spokane Valley 2008 Cases Court Case Filing Type rr: Percent Percent Filings of Total Filings Sub-Total Infractions of Traffic Violations 9,984 96% Other Code Violations 437 4% Parking Violations 773 NA All Infractions (1) 10,421 78% 100% Misdemeanors Driving with License Suspended 1,479 51% Theft 285 10% Assault — Domestic Violence 211 7% Driving Under the Influence (DUI) 185 6% Possession of Marihuana 159 5% Protection Order Violation 54 2% All Other 525 19% All Misdemeanors 2,898 22% 100% TOTAL (1) 13,319 100% 1) Parking is not counted for the profile, because comparison jurisdiction parking volume distorts the results. Total caseload Mh parking is 74,092. Source: 2008 Caseload Reports, Administrative Office of the Courts and custom caseload query data. Distinguishing Characteristics • Driving - While- License - Suspended (DWLS) cases are the dominate misdemeanor at 51 percent. County, 44 percent; statewide and Spokane 33 percent. • Spokane Valley's next highest volume misde- meanor is theft at 10 percent. 4 percent state- wide; county 3 percent; Spokane 12 percent. ■ Domestic violence is Spokane's second highest case volume. ■ Since incorporation, the proportion of Spokane Valley misdemeanor cases has steadily increased from 17 percent to 22 percent. ■ In 2008 total cases filed increased significantly after four years of decline, primarily traffic related cases. • Misdemeanants that attend court from jail are approximately 10 percent of total caseload. • A 2007 sampling found that over half of the misdemeanants in the County Detention facilities had not been in jail before and over half were employed when they entered jail. Page 12 Profile Other Justice Services Caseload Distinguishing Characteristics ■ 57 percent of Spokane Valley misdemeanor defendants should not drive themselves to appointments due to driving prohibitions. ■ 68 percent of all misdemeanor defendants in Spokane area courts use public defense attorneys. During 2008, 84 percent of active Spokane Valley misdemeanor cases used a public defender. ■ Approximately 15 percent of Spokane Valley misdemeanor cases in a year received sentences that included probation. ■ A misdemeanant offender is typically assigned to probation for two years. Spokan( County 7% Source: Custom Query, Judicial) oformation System, State ofWashington Spokane Valley Caseload 2008 Prosecutor 3,416 Defense 2,872 Probation 974 Defense Screener 2,210 Page 13 Defendant Mailing Addresses 2008 Spokane Valley Court Filings Profile Other Justice Services Operations and Facilities Spokane Valley and Spokane County Justice Services • Spokane Valley has contracted with Spokane County for probation, prosecution, public defense and defense screening services since incorporation in 2003. • The county processes Spokane Valley, county and state misdemeanor and infraction cases plus county- wide felony and juvenile cases. • Misdemeanor cases with defendants that are not in jail are heard in courtrooms located in downtown Spokane at the Public Safety Complex. • Arraignment of misdemeanor cases with in jail custody defendants are heard in courtrooms located at the Public Safety Complex linked by video to a court facility located in the jail. • Infraction cases are heard in courtrooms located in Spokane Valley at the Police /Court building on Sprague Avenue. A prosecutor attends contested traffic infraction hearings. Page 14 Profile Other Justice Services Operations and Facilities Spokane Valley Justice Services, cont. ■ Spokane Valley probation, prosecution, public defense and defense screening services are all located at the Public Safety complex in downtown Spokane. ■ Spokane Valley cases are not heard or assigned separately by the court, prosecution or defense instead they are processed in mixed groups with like cases from other jurisdictions. City of Spokane Justice Services ■ The City of Spokane operates its own prosecutor, pub- lic defense, probation and defense screener services. ■ City of Spokane courtrooms, court customer windows, public defense screening and probation are currently located at the Public Safety complex. ■ City of Spokane prosecutor and public defense offices are located in separate buildings adjacent to the Public Safety complex. ■ City of Spokane's proposed Municipal Court building which (located at Gardner and Cedar within a block of the Public Safety complex) could potentially house some justice services in addition to the court. Public Safety Complex Pape 15 Profile Other Justice Services Operations and Facilities P! l _i - Typical Spokane Valley Customers ■ 3,264 Spokane Valley citizens attended hearings or filed statements for traffic or parking tickets in 2008 ■ 1,450 Spokane Valley residents who are misdemeanor defendants (in and out of jail custody) ■ Family members, including children that accompany defendants Other Justice Services Customer Contact Modes • In- person in the courtroom • In- person at an office through appointment or drop in visit • Phone ■ Mail ■ Web -based information Public Safety Complex Page 15 Spokane Valley Police /Courts Building Performance Performance Indicator — Hearings Per Case Filed in 2008 Indicator Defined ■ Number of "touches" by the court required per case — the average number of hearings per misdemeanant case. Very Positive Results — Conscious effort by prosecutor, public defender and judges to keep the number of hearings per case low by resolving cases as early as possible in the process within the bounds of quality justice. ■ The number of hearings determines courtroom time per case and is an indicator of the number of client contacts, both of which significantly effect cost and time -to -case resolution. Statewide Averages ■ Municipal Contractors in District Courts: ■ 4.7 hearings per misdemeanor case ■ 0.55 hearings per traffic infraction case ■ Municipal Courts: ■ 3.8 hearings per misdemeanor case ■ 0.57 hearings per traffic infraction case Spokane Valley in District Court ■ 2.3 hearings per misdemeanor case ■ 0.33 hearings per traffic infraction case County and State Cases in District Court ■ 2.8 hearings per misdemeanor case ■ 0.22 hearings per traffic infraction case City of Spokane Municipal Court ■ 3.1 hearings per misdemeanor case ■ 0.60 hearings per traffic infraction case ■ A full year's data is not yet available for the re- organized city court. Page 16 Performance Performance Indicator — Revenue Collected Per Case Filed in 2008 Indicator Defined • The average collected in fines and fees per case in a twelve -month time period • The higher the average collections per case, the more likely that offenders are paying a greater proportion of the cost of community intervention in their behavior. ■ At least three factors that influence collections: the offender's ability to pay, the level of monetary assessment that is set, and the effectiveness of the collection system of the court. Statewide Averages Municipal Contractors in District Courts: ■ $177 per misdemeanor case ■ $146 per traffic infraction case Municipal Courts: ■ $108 per misdemeanor case ■ $133 per traffic infraction case Needs Discussion — Collections are low • To determine which factors influence low average collections, a comparison with a court with higher collection levels would need to be completed. • When prosecutors and /or judges are not approv- ing sentences that include the authorized mone- tary assessments allowed by law, a conversation about this practice may result in changes. • Alternatives to monetary assessments are some- times included in sentence conditions. Spokane Valley in District Court ■ $26 per misdemeanor case ■ $130 per traffic infraction case County and State Cases in District Court ■ $116 per misdemeanor case ■ $125 per traffic infraction case City of Spokane Municipal Court* ■ $46 per misdemeanor case ■ $157 per traffic infraction case Source: 2008 Caseload Statistics, Judicial Information System, Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Washington 'A full yeaK; data is not yet available for the re- organized city court Page 17 Performance Performance Indicator — Disposition of Cases Filed Indicator Defined ■ Cases completed in a year. ■ Measures whether the criminal justice system is falling behind in case processing, creating back- logs. ■ A backlog is indicated if fewer cases are being processed in a given year than filed. Performance Very Positive for Infractions, Others Mixed ■ Except for Spokane Valley misdemeanors, more cases were completed (disposed) in Spokane - area courts than filed with the court, creating no backlog in 2008. Cases Disposed in 2008 More/(less) cases disposed than filed Infra Misd Statewide disposed filed Infra Misd District Municipal Filings 22,039 1,830 21.2% 4.1% Municipal Court Filings 145,741 291 43.9% 0.2% All Courts 238,259 25,429 22.4% 8.2% Spokane County Spokane Valley 3,500 (786) 35.1% (27.1 %) Spokane' 7,143 806 40.0% 8.1% District Court (state and county) 8,755 333 1 21.1% 4.4% 'A lull year's data is not yet available for the re- organized city court Source: 2008 Caseload Statistics, Judicial Information System, Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Washington ■ Spokane Valley had a significant increase in traffic - related misdemeanor filings in 2008, which may have exceeded the capacity of the court and its officers (prosecutor and defender) to process caseloads. Page 18 Performance Performance Indicator — Cost Per Case 2008 Indicator Defined ■ Cost per case in 2008 compared to comparator jurisdictions and /or statewide averages. Positive Performance ■ Spokane County and City of Spokane prosecution, defense and probation costs per active case in 2008 are below comparator or statewide averages. Per -Case Cost 2008 City Service of County Spokane Prosecutor (2) $117 $170 ... . $283 Defense (1, 2) $141 $198 $206 Probation (3) $338 $361 $370 Defense Screening (4) $21 NA NA Notes: 1) Office of Public Defense reported statewide costper case and comparator jurisdictions for this study, see 3. 2) Local Government Fiscal Notes cost survey, 2007 and comparator jurisdictions for this study, see 3. 3) Comparatorjunsdictions. Yakima, Bellevue, Tacoma, Vancouver, Kent, Renton, Pasco, Everett and Lynnwood. 4) Was most often conducted by court or probation. Page 18 Alternative Locations for Other Justice Services Current and Potential Facilities Accessibility • Easy to find, good transit service • Parking congested and limited Safety and Privacy • Common seating, childcare • Some in- custody hearings in jail • Entry search, close police re- sponse • No private consultation space Efficiency Features • Jail is adjacent, current misde- meanor facility (Geiger) 15 min- utes. • Public defense and probation on Accessibility • Easy to find, good transit service • Shared parking for 65 vehicles Safety and Privacy • Common seating, no childcare • Some in- custody hearings in jail • Entry search, close police re- sponse • No private consultation space Efficiency Features • Jail is 30 minutes, current misde- meanor facility is 40 minutes. • Public defense and probation in Spokane. Accessibility ■ Easy to find, two blocks to good transit service ■ Parking for 40 vehicles Safety and Privacy ■ Not yet designed Efficiency Features • Not yet designed. • Jail is two blocks, current misde- meanor facility is 15 minutes. • Public defense and probation on or adjacent to Public Safety campus. Page 22 City of Spokane Gardner Bldg. Spokane County & City Court Spokane Valley Court Facility Public Defense — Alternative Service Delivery Provision of Misdemeanor Public Defense — State Status Report 2008 Provision of Public Defense in 2008 Cray -County Agency Pubr.L- Defender Of)5cr Gray Speckled - Contmct with o Non - Profit PubFc Dsfense Offer Gray Striped - PubAc Deferue Ccordinotar Wh [te - rhibQc Defense Contrccts or List Apvoin Men is Source: Washington State Office of Public Defense Page 23 Whateom By 2008, changes made — Okanogan rwrT 14'101 StVWf unding by ;�, - Skagit counties include a new ! �;, �:;.�,;:'. y :- •. ._..._. ._.`.; countypublicdcfendcr -.. ..: ,., t`.: �`•: agcncyin Coxditr. and Grant counties, a new ROR•profiCpublic _ ::•:: defenderofftcein ;' . _ r: Lincoln Orclan County, new r;:.': public defense moo•, :;i; : r.`f` coordinators in Benton. CR+9y a:sot xtttitaa rranklin, Clark, Xitsap. Harbor Pierce 1[dasns and Lewis counties, and the continuation of pac3G , defense con tracts o r list appointment systems in Yakima c, 21 counties. Cowtilz Walla W - we:- .`....., sit Walla f miadtat Cray -County Agency Pubr.L- Defender Of)5cr Gray Speckled - Contmct with o Non - Profit PubFc Dsfense Offer Gray Striped - PubAc Deferue Ccordinotar Wh [te - rhibQc Defense Contrccts or List Apvoin Men is Source: Washington State Office of Public Defense Page 23 Prosecution, Probation and Screening Alternative Service Delivery Methods Prosecution ■ In -house prosecution provided by city employed attorneys (large- and medium -size cities) Contract with a private attor- ney firm at a contract hourly rate or by monthly retainer (medium -size and small cities) Contract with another govern- ment for prosecution services (small cities) Probation ■ Contract with another govern- ment for probation services ■ In -house services provided by city employees supervised by court ■ In -house services provided by city employees supervised by city administrative officer ■ Monitoring only, provided by the court Public Defense Screening ■ Contract with another government for public defense screening ■ A part of probation services ■ A part of court services administered by judicial officers ■ A part of court services administered by court staff ■ In -house services provided by city employees who also supervise public defense services Page 24 Question 1: Alternatives Feasibility Evaluation Spokane Valley In -house Services Location Assumptions ■ Rented office space for 14 to 15 staff and customer space for three functions, 4,360 sq. ft. ■ Municipal court Is located in Spokane Valley at Police /Court building with mental health court and in- custody hearings in Spokane. Staffing Assumptions ■ Prosecutor — 6 FTE ■ Public Defense — 5.1 FfE ■ Probation and Public Defense Screening — 3.2 FTE Feasibility ■ Permitted by state law. ■ Earliest functions could operate would be January 1, 2011. ■ City has existing staff with supervl- sory experience for some functions. ■ To maintain separation of duties prosecutor and defense functions are operated separately. ■ City would have start-up costs of $361,000. Net cost over five years estimated in today's dollars at $7.25 million. Short-Term Impacts ■ Higher costs due to start up. ■ Would stretch city operating resources, since majority of operations are contract. ■ City would be responsible for Implementing operating plan, adopt- ing procedures and installing facilities, technology, phone /web services, collections, and cashiering. ■ Likely take from three to five years to match existing level of efficiency and automation. Mid- to Long -Term Impacts ■ Potential for greater influence over effectiveness and cost through technology, case management and sentencing practices. ■ Increase In convenience for Spokane Valley residents and law enforcement. ■ Agreements may be required to consolidate cases with other jurisdictions. ■ Travel costs for public defense, prosecutor and probation to court hearings In Spokane. ■ Customer confusion, Increasing failure to comply and report rates, with change In locations and separate (now three) courts. Page 25 Question 1: Alternatives Feasibility Evaluation Contract with City of Spokane Location Assumptions • Rented office space (3,280 sq. ft.) in Spokane for 16 to 17 staff due to Spokane space limitations. • Spokane Valley would lease court- room space from the county for misdemeanors. Infraction hear- ings would continue in Spokane Valley. • Contract with county for Mental Health court and in- custody calendar space. Staffing Assumptions ■ Prosecutor — 6 .5 FTE ■ Public Defense — 5.6 FTE ■ Probation and Public Defense Screening — 4.2 FfE Feasibility • Permitted by state law. • Earliest functions could operate would be January 1, 2011. • City would have start up costs of $146,000. Net cost over five years estimated in today's dollars at $9 million. Short-Term Impacts • Spokane wishes to contract in 2012 or later to allow time to implement facility decisions and develop their own operation. • Spokane Is eager to develop practices that reduce jail use, reduce recidivism and create value for the community. • Cities would have to agree on ways to meet both their needs. • Transition plan would be required, Including resolution of space Issues. Mid- to Long -Term Impacts • Negotiate improvements to effectiveness and cost through technology, case management and sentencing practices. • Potentially easier to consolidate cases with Spokane, agreement required for consolidation of county or state cases. • Customer confusion, Increasing failure to comply and report rates, with any change in location and/ or separate courts. • Travel costs for public defense, prosecutor and probation to court hearings in Spokane Valley. Page 26 Question is Alternatives Feasibility Evaluation Contract with Spokane County Location Assumptions ■ Assumes same facility, service and staffing pattern continues. ■ Assumes that misdemeanors would be heard at the Public Safety Complex. ■ Assumes that Spokane Valley courtroom would continue to be used for mitigation and contested traffic court. Staffing Assumptions ■ Spokane Valley would continue to contract with District Court based on the same contract terms as the current agreement. • Prosecutor — 5.8 FTE • Defense — 4.8 FTE • Probation — 3.7 FTE • Defense Screening — I FTE Feasibility ■ Permitted by state law. ■ Continue to operate under exist- ing contract or negotiate changes. ■ Net cost over five years estimated in today's dollars at $7.3 million. Short-Term Impacts ■ None, unless contract is modified ■ County is a willing contractor. ■ Spokane Valley's criminal justice contracts are a significant compo- nent of the county's revenue and operations. ■ The county is positioned to con- tinue implementing measures that would increase the effectiveness and reduce criminal justice unit costs. Mid- to Long -Term Impacts • Spokane Valley and the county have enough in common to form a partnership with a foundation in common interests. • The county will be motivated to reduce costs long term due to structural revenue constraints. • Spokane Valley's caseload may continue to change over time. In order to track results long term, the city would need to evaluate its criminal justice system goals, system unit costs and indicators of performance. Page 27 Question 1: Alternatives Feasibility Evaluation Contract with Mix of Providers Location Assumptions ■ Assumes County would continue to provide court, probation and public defense screening. ■ Assumes Spokane Valley would rent 1,700 sq. ft. of space for 6 FTE (prosecutor). ■ Assumes private attorneys providing public defense services would use their own offices for client meetings. ■ Assumes that misdemeanors would be heard at the Public Safety Com- plex. Assumes that Spokane Valley courtroom would continue to be used for mitigation and contested traffic court. Staffing Assumptions ■ Prosecutor (SV) — 6 FTE ■ Defense (Private) — 5.1 FTE ■ Probation (County) — 3.7 FTE ■ Defense screening (County) — 1 FfE Feasibility ■ Permitted by state law. ■ Continue to operate under existing court and defense screening contract or negotiate changes. ■ City would advertise for and quality in- dividual defense attorneys who would be assigned cases off a list by city staff. ■ City would provide in -house prosecutor. ■ Net cost over five years estimated in today's dollars at $8.2 million with $147,000 in start-up costs. Short-Term Impacts ■ District court is a willing contractor and eager to work with the city to meet its needs. In order to be efficient separate court calendars for Spokane Valley may be needed. ■ Termination of county prosecution and defense contracts would be a financial and management Issue for the county. Transition could be difficult. ■ A transition plan, including technology, would be required In order to seam- lessly handle active cases. Mid- to Long -Term Impacts ■ Potential for greater Influence over effectiveness and cost through case management and sentencing practices. Integrated technology may be more difficult. ■ Agreements may be required to consolidate cases with other jurisdic- tions. ■ Depending on office location, there may be travel costs for public defense and prosecutor. ■ Likely customer confusion, Increasing failure to comply and report rates, with public defense change. ■ The county will be motivated to reduce costs long term due to structural revenue constraints. ■ Spokane Valley's caseload may continue to change over time. In order to track results long term, the city would need to evaluate Its criminal justice system goals, system unit costs and Indicators of performance. Page 27 Question 2: Justice Services Considerations Policy Considerations • Willing and active partner • Motivation and capacity to meet mutual criminal justice goals • Impact on quality of justice provided including respect for the individual • Impact on speed => Processing of cases � Customer satisfaction and convenience ■ Impact on cost � Overall long -term criminal justice cost impacts � Net cost of operating court Page 28 Question 2: Justice Services Considerations Operating and Customer Service Considerations Working relationships • Contract terms Include scope, goals, participation in operating plan and results measures • Effective elected official and management communication, clear oversight roles • Good working relationships at operating level • Effective problem solving and dispute resolution Common criminal justice goals • Goals defined • Common scope • Common justice system operating plan • Common caseload profile Results and performance • Regularly measure a few key results • Current performance in key areas • Proven ability to meet goals, solve problems and innovate Features of Service • Capacity to handle caseload • Case processing practices and philosophy • Degree of use of electronic files and information • Customer experience Includes fairness and respect • Accessible, convenient customer service modes — courtroom, customer counter, phone, web and mail — ability to resolve cases in one visit • Accessible plain language information in multiple modes at all stages of process • Accommodations for persons with disabilities, children or language barriers Facilities • Accessible and convenient location • Transit service during court hours • Minimize transportation of in jail defendants • Adequate capacity • Co- location with related services (public defense, prosecutor, law enforcement, probation, victims advocate, child care, defense screening, detention and detention alternatives) • Safe environment for all court users and staff • Accommodations for persons with disabilities, children or language barriers • Future capacity Page 29 Question 3: Comparative Net Cost Over Five Years Summary Financial Analysis, 2011 -2015 • All four options are financially feasible. • County contract option is least expensive in short and medium term with the exception of probation services. • City of Spokane contract option is the most expensive in the short and medium term. Spokane staff compensation levels and lower caseloads Increase costs compared to other options. ■ Spokane Valley in -house option has the highest start-up costs, and is close to or less than the county option for prosecutor and probation /screener services in the medium term. ■ The mixed provider option falls In the middle In terms of cost. ■ Additional details of the financial analysis, capital facility and operating assumptions appear in Appendix B. Revenue $399,029 Revenue $399,029 Operating & Capital Costs Operating & Capital Costs Personnel - Prosecutor $2,516,357 Personnel - Prosecutor $2,982,960 Personnel - Pub. Defense - $2,410,343 Personnel - Pub. Defense - $2,916,009 Personnel - Probation - $1,588,192 Personnel- Probation(2) - $1,749,984 Personnel - Screener - $303,048 Other Operating, Capital $146,900 $1,769,391 Other Operating, Capital - $876,032 Total Costs - $7,693,972 Total Costs $146,900 $9,418,344 Net Revenue (Expense) - ($7,294,943) Net Revenue (Expense) ($146,900) ($9,019,315) O, Option Combination 2011-2015 Revenue - $399,029 Revenue - $399,029 Operating & Capital Costs Operating & Capital Costs Personnel - Prosecutor $73,399 $2,570,139 Personnel - Prosecutor $73,399 $2,570,139 Personnel - Pub. Defense $73,513 $2,573,671 Personnel - Pub. Defense (1) - $3,332,345 Personnel- Probation(2) $32,987 $1,155,056 Personnel - Probation - $1,588,192 Other Operating, Capital $181,515 $1,351,860 Personnel - Screener - $303,048 Other Operating, Capital $73,743 $782,996 Total Costs $361,414 $7,650,726 Total Costs $147,143 $8,576,721 Net Revenue (Expense) ($361,414) ($1,251,691) Net Revenue (Expense) ($141,143) ($8,117,692) 0) Pubic Defense personnel costs include opere8ng by contract. All cost comparison for 2011: County $475,966 SV 488,795; Private $627662: Spokane $610,597 (2) Probation includes pubic defense screening Page 30 Question 4: Service Delivery Requirements All Options Spokane Valley Criminal ] ustice Goals ■ The city does not currently have formally adopted or commonly understood criminal justice goals. Service delivery requirements should be tied directly to the community's goals. ■ Based on Spokane Valley's court caseload profile and assuming that the city wishes to reduce the overall cost of criminal justice (monetary and social) to the community, the steps outlined below may assist the city In achieving Its goals. Requirements based on assumed goal ■ Enter Into a "partnership" agreement with the court services operator, regardless of option selected. ■ A partnership would allow the parties to work together over a sustained contract term (the term should be at least six years) to achieve a mutually developed set of goals through a mutually developed and approved operating plan. ■ An operating plan would Include a statement of desired goals and methods that will be used to achieve them and monitor results. At minimum, three to four key indicators tied to the parties' goals should be measured. Suggested Performance Indicators 1. Reduce the number and percentage of repeat defendants within a rolling five -year time window. Using case data, determine how many individuals are repeat defendants over a five -year period. If recidivism, measured in a standard way, is reduced from year to year over time, then the cost of the system can decline. While ten years is a typical time for felony offenses, five years should provide an adequate practical measure for misdemeanors. 2. Increase average collections per misdemeanor and infraction per year to at or above the state average. This performance indicator provides some measure of how much offenders, versus taxpayers, are contributing for justice services. 3. Maintain or reduce the average number of hearings per misde- meanor filed and the average number of in- person hearings per infraction filed. This performance indicator provides some measure of the time (and therefore cost) required for case resolution by the court. 4. Reduce the aggregate number of in- custody jail days served by misdemeanor offenders that are beyond the typical sentence for the individual's charge. For example, if a defendant spent 10 days in jail prior to sentencing and the judge would typically have ordered a seven -day jail sentence then, three days of the sentence would be added to the aggregate pool for comparison with the next measured period. Likewise, if the judge would have typically ordered ten days of in -home detention then ten days of jail time would be added to the aggregate pool. This performance indicator provides some measure of the criminal justice cost of time -to- resolution of in- custody misdemeanor cases. Page 31 Question 4: Service Delivery Requirements All Options Requirements based on assumed goal, cont. • Regularly report on progress toward goals and the three or four key indicators of performance to elected officials. • Target the highest volume misdemeanor case type: Encourage the court services operator to implement procedures or programs, individually or with others, that would reduce Driving -with- License - Suspended case volume in the court and therefore in the Criminal Justice System. • Invest further in, and encourage conversion step by step to, business system(s) that allow all court officers (judges, court staff, prosecutors, public defenders and probation) to have access to and process cases with electronic case files/ documents / forms /tracking systems in order to remove repetitive data entry and paper file preparation, processing, storage and retrieval from court operations. • Think about, and report, costs in terms of unit costs rather than aggregate costs so that changes in case volumes do not obscure results. ■ Effectively use and adapt all existing court facilities available to Spokane Valley (including in- custody jail based video courtrooms) for court operations rather than investing in different facilities. This strategy would allow the city to maximize customer convenience and compliance with court requirements while at the same time avoiding additional cost and customer confusion with new facilities. Better define the scope of court service desired from Spokane Valley's court operator, for example including: location and type of adjudication or in- person service at each site; types and modes of transactions that are available to customers; hours of service; the minimum type and level of accommodations offered for persons with special needs; level of collection effort; connections to city public information, staff training, volunteer programs and city services at city locations; and experience of judicial officers. ■ Determine whether it is important to the city, for operating or policy reasons, to be able to participate in selecting one or more judicial officers to sit on the majority of city cases. Page 32 Page 33 Appendices Appendices A. Legal Memo and Timeline B. Five Year Operating and Capital Cost Comparison Detail C. Customer Service Detail D. Comparative Court Web Page Screen Shots E. Municipal Court Start-up Check List F. Spokane Area Courts Caseload Profiles G. Notes on Methodology H. National Center for State Courts - Ten Core Performance Measures for Trial Courts I. Example DWLS 3 Programs J. Bibliography Page 34 Children's Art Wall — Court Drop -In Child Care Contact Information C S�l� n `y��l INM') a\� Anne L Pflug Research Services 509- 925 -2608 anne.pflug @commerce.wa.gov Cell: 425 - 785 -8557 www.commerce.wa.gov Department of Commerce PO Box 42525 906 Columbia St SW Olympia, WA 96504 -2525 Page 35 Research Services Department of Commerce Innovation is in our nature. City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendices City of Spokane Valley 3ustice Services Alternatives Appendices: A. Legal Memo and Timeline B. Five -Year Operating and Capital Cost Comparison Detail C. Customer Service Detail D. Comparative Court Web Page Screen Shots E. Municipal Court Start-Up Check List F. Spokane Area Courts Caseload Profiles G. Notes on Methodology H. National Center for State Courts - Ten Core Performance Measures for Trial Courts I. Example DWLS 3 Programs J. Bibliography Page 2 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix A: Legal Memo and Timeline Page 3 City of Spokane Valley Just Services Alternatives OFFICE OF THE Spokane Valley CITY ATTORNEY Memorandum To: Anne Pflug, Department of Commerce From: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Date: September 16, 2009 Re: Legal questions regarding municipal court options This memorandum is in response to your request for an opinion regarding options the City may choose to take for provision of municipal court services, whether they be through a City- operated court, or through a contract with either Spokane County or the City of Spokane. 1) Can you lay out, based on the current District Court agreement and state law the time line and actions that Spokane Valley would follow if it was to create its own Municipal Court? I am particularly interested in: • The actions, options and timing of Judge selection including whether there would be an opportunity for the City to initially appoint a judge(s). Which city official under state law and municipal code would be responsible for appointing the judge if this is an option? • Contract and statutory notice and /or legislative actions required to form the Municipal Court. • Timing requirements or considerations. • Is the city restricted from returning to the District Court by contract and /or statute? The contract provides for a 180 day notice for termination, but staff believes that is likely in violation of RCW 3.50.810, which requires that notice be given not less than one year prior to February 1 of the year in which all district court judges are subject to election. Based on the statute, here is the projected timeline: a. Last day to notify county of Court contract termination: January 28, 2009 b. Last day to pass ordinance establishing municipal court: December 1, 2010 c. Last day to appoint and confirm judge: December 31, 2010 Page 4 City of Spo Valley Justice Services Alternatives d. Contract for court services through Spokane County end: December 31, 2010 e. Municipal court start date: January 1, 2011 f. Election of judge if full -time: November, 2014 In response to the inset questions, above, the short answer is that we can appoint a judge, but only if they are less than full -time. The full analysis is set forth in the response to question 4, below. RCW 3.50.040 states that the mayor is responsible for initially appointing a judge, whether full or part-time, with confirmation by the legislative authority. This approach conflicts with the council /manager form of government, wherein the responsibilities of the mayor are very limited. In fact, RCW 35A.13.080(2) specifically states that "if the municipal judge of the code city is appointed, such appointment shall be made by the city manager subject to confirmation by the council, for a four year term." Prior to giving notice to Spokane County on January 28, 2009, the City secured an agreement with the County and District Court for the ability to withdraw its notice of termination before December 1, 2009, or in other words, no later than November 30, 2009. There are no statutory or contractual prohibitions to our entering into a subsequent interlocal agreement with Spokane County for judicial services, although such a contract would require two willing parties. Under subsection (b), above, I mentioned a requirement for adopting an ordinance to form the municipal court. This requirement is mentioned in both RCW 3.50.010 and .040. 2) Is there anything in statute that would prevent the city from appointing a commissioner as one of its judicial officers to hear contested or mitigated infractions or parking violations? Who at the city would literally be responsible for the selection and appointment? There is nothing in Washington law that would preclude such an appointment, and in fact, it is specifically allowed under RCW 3.50.075. A court commissioner may be appointed only by a judge of the municipal court, and would hold office at the pleasure of the appointing judge. 3) Who would literally be responsible for the selection and appointment of pro -tern judges? Pursuant to RCW 3.50.090, the presiding municipal court judge may designate one or more pro tem judges to assist the court due to judicial absence or disability. Page 5 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice S ervices Alternatives 4) Could the city have an employment contract with one or more of its judicial officers? Which city official under state law and city code would be responsible for the administration of the contract(s)? The answer to this question depends upon whether the City would need a full time judge or not (35 or more hours per week, RCW 3.50.055). If the City required a full -time judge due to the case load, we would not be able to utilize an employment contract, since the judge would be elected by the citizens, and thus not subject to contract terms. If we did not have a full time judge, then we could enter into an employment agreement for a judge. If an employment agreement were possible, the City Manager would administer it. 5) Could the city contract with the City of Spokane for municipal court services? Are there any restrictions or requirements that would apply to this contracting arrangement especially related to contracting for judicial services? Could the City of Spokane Valley select its own independent municipal court judge as an alternative under a City of Spokane contract? The City could contract with Spokane for the full gamut of court services pursuant to RCW 39.34. It is likely the City could contract with Spokane for just judicial services. Unfortunately, there is an ambiguity in RCW 3.50.040, which states that a city has the authority to appoint a district judge as its municipal judge (under a circumstance in which the City forms a municipal court), but only if the district judge would not be required to serve full time. There is no similar provision for an appointment of another city's municipal judge. Given this lack of specific authority, there is at least some chance a reviewing court could determine the appointed judge from Spokane does not have jurisdiction. However, I note that 3.50.815 identifies that cities have the ability to contract by interlocal agreement for court services with another city. It is not clear how a court would interpret the fact that there is no express authority on appointment of another city's judge. I also note that 3.50.003 defines a "hosting jurisdiction" as meaning a county or city providing judicial services to a contracting city, and 3.50.020 provides that a hosting jurisdiction shall have exclusive original criminal and other jurisdiction as described in that section for all matters filed by the contracting city. In looking more closely at the provisions cited, and based on the attention the court placed on statutory construction in the Rothwell v. Spokane decision that came out September 3, 2009, as it related to the interplay of the various provisions of RCW 3.46 so as not to get to absurd results or to render any provision meaningless, I think the provisions of .003, .020, .815 and 39.34.180 provide sufficient authority for a hosting jurisdiction to have jurisdiction to hear cases for another city. Page 6 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Additionally, we could form our own municipal court, contract with Spokane for provision of court services, and elect our own judge from within the city limits if it was to be a full -time position. Similarly, if the case load required a judge that is less than full time, with the remainder of the work being performed by a court commissioner, the City could appoint and contract with a municipal judge. 6) Could the city locate its Municipal Court outside the city limits (say in the City of Spokane)? Would the city be required to make specific findings or take specific actions in order to locate the court in Spokane? Yes, we could locate it outside the City. There used to be a requirement in RCW 3.50.020 that the court was limited in jurisdiction to violations "in which the municipal court is located ", but that was removed in 2008. We currently have our courtrooms outside the City under our contractual relationship with Spokane County. Additionally, RCW 3.50.080 states, in pertinent part, that "the city shall provide a suitable place for holding court and pay all expenses of maintaining it." This does not provide any limitation on location within or without a city. I am not aware of any specific findings necessary, but it may be advisable in approving such a situation to identify that it is in the public's benefit to locate it in X location, citing fiscal or other bases that apply. 7) Under what conditions would the city qualify for the state to reimburse a portion of a Municipal Court judge's salary? This is set forth in RCW 2.56.030(22): The administrator for the courts shall, under the supervision and direction of the chief justice: (a) Administer and distribute amounts appropriated from the equal justice subaccount under RCW 43.08.250 for district court judges' and qualifying elected municipal court judges' salary contributions. The administrator for the courts shall develop a distribution formula for these amounts that does not differentiate between district and elected municipal court judges. (b) A city qualifies for state contribution of elected municipal court judges' salaries under (a) of this subsection if: (i) The judge is serving in an elected position; (ii) The city has established by ordinance that a full -time judge is compensated at a rate equivalent to at least ninety - five percent, but not more than one hundred percent, of a district court judge salary or for a part-time judge on a pro rata basis the same equivalent; and Page 7 30/28/2009 City of Spokane Va Justice Services Alternatives (iii) The city has certified to the office of the administrator for the courts that the conditions in (b)(i) and (ii) of this subsection have been met; What is not clear is what amounts under subsection (a) would be appropriated, as there does not seem to be a set amount, but instead woulc be pursuant to a formula that may be subject to change. Reimbursement would also be tied to paying the elected judge at least the pro -rata equivalent of 95% of a district court judge. If the state reimbursement was a relatively low amount it may end up being a net loss for a city since it is indexed to district court judge salaries. Additionally, the City would be required under RCW 3.50.480 to set up a "court improvement account ", anc shall contribute, "An amount equal to one hundred percent of the state's contribution for the payment of the city's or town's municipal court judges' salaries shall be deposited into the account. Money in the account shall be used to fund improvements to the municipal court's staffing, programs, facilities, or services, as appropriated by the city or town legislative authority." In the long term, this could completely offset any gain the City realized from the state paying a portion of the judge's salary. 8) As an alternative to selecting its own independent municipal court judge, could the city form a Municipal Court and contract with the District Court or the City of Spokane only for judicial services? Would the contract judicial officer have to meet the requirements for a municipal court judge as to residence? The City could contract with either Spokane County or Spokane pursuant to RCW 3.50.815 and RCW 39.34.180 for judicial services. RCW 3.50.040 appears to limit such appointments of district court judges to situations where there is less than full time work (less than 35 hours a week, RCW 3.50.055). Furthermore, RCW 3.50.055 requires that "each full -time equivalent judicial position shall be filled by election." If more than one is needed, any additional positions in excess of part-time must also be filled by election. As noted in response to question 5, above, there is a lack of specific statutory authorization for the City to contract for judge -only services from another city, and it is limited to contracting for less than a full -time judge from district court. Despite this lack of specific language for another city's judge, I believe the language in RCW 3.50.003, .020, .815 and RCW 39.34.180 provides sufficient authority if this were the choice. A contract judge would not need to be a city resident, but would have to be a resident of the county, pursuant to RCW 3.50.057. 9) If the City of Spokane has a separate parking enforcement program could the city of Spokane Valley contract for services separate from or together with municipal court services? Page 8 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives I spoke with Howard Delaney, Spokane City Attorney, regarding this matter. He advised that all parking issues go before their parking judge, who is part of their municipal court. If we contracted with Spokane for court services, this would be included. This would cover the limited parking issues Spokane Valley has, such as handicap and fire lane violations. 10) Are there any restrictions or requirements in existing contracts, statute or city code that the city must meet in order to contract with another local government or a private attorney firm for prosecution or public defense services? The only one I am aware of is the 180 day notice in our contracts. Obviously, any private contract provider would need to meet case count guidelines, and similar restrictions. 11) Are there any restrictions or requirements in existing contracts, statute or city code that the city must meet in order to contract with another local government or a private attorney firm for probation and /or pre -trial services? The only one I am aware of is the 180 day notice in our contracts, except that the court may feel that GR 29 of the Court Rules would apply with respect to the probation department. GR 29 has been interpreted by some judicial personnel to require that probation staff must be under the supervision of the court system, since they are monitoring people convicted of violating the court's orders. Page 9 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix B: Five -Year Operating and Capital Cost Comparison Detail Page 10 10/28/2009 of Financial Analysis: Court Alternatives i It)ption 1: Continuing District 01 Court Revenue Costs e Valley Justice Services Alternatives 2012 2013 2014 ,026,760 $1,094,012 $1,323,374 Personnel - Judicial Officers 270,287 280,982 292,102 303,663 315,683 Personnel- Court Operations 552,120 577,683 604,430 632,415 661,696 Travel 5,453 5,835 6,243 6,680 7,148 Operating Costs 21,133 22,065 23,036 24,054 25,115 Facility M &O 16,952 17,173 17,931 18,722 19,548 Indirect Costs 149,671 156,270 163,161 170,358 177,874 One -Time Operating Capital - - - - - Building Remodel - - - - - Total Costs 1,015,204 1,060,104 1,107,004 1,155,996 1,207,173 Net Revenue (Expense) $11,556 $33,909 $58,666 $86 $116,201 Page 11 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Option 2 Confr'act with City of Spokane Municipal Court One -Time 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Court Revenue $1,026,760 $1,094,012 $1,165,670 $1,242,022 $1,323,374 Costs Personnel - Judicial Officers Personnel - Court Operations Travel Operating Costs Facility M &O Indirect Costs One -Time Operating Capital Building Remodel Rent/Lease Total Costs Net Revenue (Expense) 38,651 233,688 249,111 265,553 283,079 301,763 - 676,055 703,976 733,050 763,325 794,851 5,453 5,835 6,243 6,680 7,148 124,383 130,304 136,525 143,063 149,934 13,791 14,274 14,773 15,290 15,825 75,509 79,106 82,884 86,852 91,019 100,000 - 35,277 36,963 38,730 40,581 42,521 138,651 1,164,156 1,219,569 1,277,759 1,338,871 1,403,061 ($138,651) ($137,396) ($125,557) ($112,088) ($96,849) ($79,687) Page 12 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives ;Option 3: Spokane Valley Municipal_ Court, ,_ One -Time 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Court Revenue $1,026,760 $1,151,958 $1,289,094 $1,439,191 $1,603,354 Costs Personnel - Judicial Officers Personnel - Court Operations Travel Operating Costs Facility M &O Indirect Costs One -Time Operating Capital *Building Remodel Rent/Lease Total Costs Net Revenue (Expense) 38,651 233,688 249,111 265,553 283,079 301,763 118,843 648,641 691,451 737,087 785,734 837,593 - 90,493 96,828 103,606 110,858 118,618 6,501 37,310 39,772 42,397 45,195 48,178 16,009 33,139 34,299 35,500 36,742 38,028 31,373 175,760 187,360 199,726 212,908 226,960 200,000 - - - 300,000 - $711,378 1,219,031 1,298,822 1,383,868 1,474,517 1,571,140 ($711,378) ($192,271) ($146,864) ($94,774) ($35,326) $32,215 Page 13 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Five -Year Court Alternatives Pro -forma Assumptions Assumptions for Spokane Valley Municipal Court - • 1.5 Judicial Officers assumed; 0.75 Judge, 0.75 Commissioner. • Contract with county for mental health court and in- custody calendar space for Spokane Valley judge or contract for District Court judge to use when hearing in- custody cases. An alternative would be to hold in- custody hearings by video only. The intent of this assumption is to avoid increased costs related to security, holding and transport for in- custody defendants. • Assumes 7.3 to 9 staff per judicial officer (calculated at 8.4 FrE) with probation as separate function and phone /web based payment and case resolution transaction customer service to supplement courtroom, customer window and mail. • Hold all court in Spokane Valley at Sprague Avenue Police /Court Building courtrooms. Convert most of existing holding space to smaller (800 -900 sq ft) courtroom and office space for two judicial officers and 11 to 13 staff - relatively crowded conditions assuming existing court space and 2000 sq ft of additional space in the building was used for court. There would not be space for associated staff like prosecutor, public defense or probation. Assumed a need for 120 sq ft per staff member and 200 sq ft per judicial officer for space estimates. • Assumes that entire existing holding facility would be demolished and converted to courtroom and office space or replacement space for displaced uses. • Security will be an issue for the second courtroom. If front door security is used for both courtrooms then an internal entrance to the second courtroom would have to be constructed just beyond the public restroom walls off the public waiting area. • It is assumed that a jury box would be constructed in the large courtroom and that the current break room would become a dual purpose break room and jury room. • It would be desirable to have one or two office spaces with doors accessible from the public waiting area that can be used for private conversations with defendants or victims. These rooms could be used by victim advocate, public defense screener or attorneys consulting with clients. It would also be desirable to have a locked mailbox system in the public waiting area for attorneys to pick up or drop off material for each other or the court /police. These spaces were not assumed in the estimate. • The assumed staffing level would require the court to operate with a moderate to high level of electronic transaction, data and file use vs paper and dual entry of police, attorney and /or probation information. If this can not be achieved, then additional clerical staff would need to be added - 2 to 4 staff per judicial officer. Page 14 10/28/2009 City of Spoka Valley Justice Services Alternatives • It is assumed that the staffing of the court would be phased in over six months prior to the Court's opening day (analysis assumed January 1, 2011). • Contingency and start up costs are estimated for furniture, fixtures, equipment, phone transaction and information system, web transaction and information system, courtroom electronics, start up customer information and court training program, cash receipting, bulk mail and electronic records systems. • Revenue growth is assumed at 6.5 percent per year (based on prior year's experience) and increasing misdemeanor revenue per case incrementally to the state average in 2015. All Spokane Valley case revenue in District and Municipal Court is assumed to come to the city during transition years. 2. Assumptions for Contract with City of Spokane for Municipal Court services - • For the purpose of the financial comparison a contract with the City of Spokane was assumed to start January 1, 2011. In fact, it is unlikely that any contract would start on that date. See legal memo (Appendix A) and text of main report. • It is assumed that Spokane would locate its courtrooms in the Gardner and Cedar building and vacate the courtrooms and most of the office space and public service windows that are currently used by the city in the Public Safety complex. • It is assumed that Spokane Valley would "rent" courtroom space (like Spokane is now) from the county for Spokane Valley court calendars. At least initially, it is likely that only one courtroom equivalent with jury accommodations would be required. • Operating costs of the space would be the only charge (not market rent, depreciation or capital contributions). Public service windows would be available to Spokane Valley clients at the same location as the courtrooms. Operating costs are assumed at $5.50 to $7.00 per square foot including janitorial. $5.50 represents cost city currently pays for Police /Court building. • Contract with county for Mental Health court and in- custody calendar space for Spokane Valley judge or contract District Court judge to use when hearing in- custody cases. An alternative would be to hold in- custody hearings by video only. The intent of this assumption is to avoid increased costs related to security, holding and transport for in- custody defendants. • Contested traffic and traffic mitigation hearings would continue to be held in Spokane Valley with public service window staffing for Spokane Valley and Spokane clients. • Assumes 1.5 judicial officers compensated at rates that match the City of Spokane rates. The judicial officers would be City of Spokane judicial officers. Assumes 0.75 Judge and 0.75 Commissioner. The city Page 25 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley ]ustice Services Alternatives of Spokane Valley would adopt an ordinance creating a Municipal Court prior to contracting. Y Assumes 9.4 staff per judicial officer (Spokane's current ratio). a Assumes usage ratio of 24 percent (based on 35 percent of infractions, 23 percent of misdemeanors with 2.3 hearings per case filed). C $100,000 in start up cost is assumed to modify City of Spokane existing systems to add Spokane Valley information and revise customer windows at the Public Safety building. Any added judicial officers are assumed to start prior to the opening day of court. C Revenue growth is assumed at 6.5 percent per year (based on prior year's experience). All Spokane Valley case revenue in District and Municipal Court is assumed to come to the city during transition years. 3. Assumptions for contract with Spokane County District Court - Assumed that Spokane Valley would continue to contract with District Court based on the same contract terms as the current agreement. • Assumed that the existing staffing pattern continues through 2015. • Assumed that the Spokane Valley usage rate would remain at 20 percent which is the equivalent of 1.3 judges (after subtracting Superior Court, Civil and Deer Park /Cheney). • Assumes that space use would be charged based on operating costs only. • Assumes that Spokane Valley courtroom would continue to be used for mitigation and contested traffic court and that the customer service window would continue to be operated. • Revenue growth is assumed at 6.5 percent per year (based on prior years' experience). Page 16 10/2812009 City of Spokane Financial Analysis: Other Justice Services Alternatives (Option 1: Continuing Spokane County Contracts Justice Services Alternatives One- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Time Revenue $70,013 $74,599 $79,485 $84,692 $90,239 Costs Personnel - Prosecutor 458,776 480,017 502,242 525,496 549,826 Personnel - Public - Defense 439,448 459,794 481,083 503,357 526,662 Personnel - Probation 289,555 302,962 316,989 331,665 347,021 Personnel - Screener 55,251 57,809 60,486 63,286 66,216 Operating Costs - 62,794 65,029 68,040 71,190 74,486 Facility M &O Indirect Costs 97,447 101,959 106,680 111,619 116,787 One -Time Operating Capital Building Remodel Total Costs 1,403,271 1,467,570 1,535,51 1,606,61 1,680,99 8 3 9 Net Revenue - ($1,333,2 ($1,392,9 ($1,456, ($1,521, ($1,590,7 (Expense) 58) 71) 033) 921) 601 * Facilty M *O is 17.83% of indirect costs. Page 17 10/28/2009 of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives (Option 2: Contract with City of Spokane One- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Time Revenue $0 $70,013 $74,599 $79,485 $84,692 $90,239 Costs Personnel- Prosecutor 549,306 571,993 595,616 620,215 645,830 Personnel - Public - Defense 536,977 559,155 582,248 606,295 631,335 Personnel - Probation 322,256 335,565 349,424 363,856 378,883 Personnel - Screener Operating Costs - 89,204 92,888 96,724 100,719 104,879 Facility M &O 88,560 91,660 94,868 98,188 101,625 Indirect Costs 149,174 155,335 161,750 168,431 175,387 One -Time Operating Capital 114,100 Building Remodel 32,800 - - - - - Total Costs 146,900 1,735,478 1,806,595 1,880,63 1,957,70 2,037,93 0 3 7 Net Revenue ($146,9 ($1,665;4 ($1,731,9 ($1,801, ($1,873, ($1,947,6 (Expense) 00) 65) 96) 145) 011) 98) Page 18 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives 'Option 3: Spokane Valley In -house Services One- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Time Revenue $0 $70,013 $74,599 $79,485 $84,692 $90,239 Costs Personnel - Prosecutor 73,399 450,505 480,239 511,934 545,722 581,740 Personnel - Public Defense 73,513 451,293 480,992 512,647 546,388 582,351 Personnel- Probation 32,987 202,463 215,826 230,070 245,255 261,442 Personnel - Screener - - - - - Operating Costs 8,995 55,213 58,853 62,733 66,868 71,277 Facility M &O 28,400 117,720 121,840 126,105 130,518 135,086 Indirect Costs 71,114 75,802 80,800 86,126 91,804 One -Time Operating Capital 100,520 - - - - Building Remodel 43,600 - - - Total Costs 361,414 1,3 48,309 1,433,552 1,524,28 1,620,87 1,723,69 9 7 9 Net Revenue ($361,4 ($1,278,2 ($1,358,9 ($1,444, ($1,536, ($1,633,4 (Expense) 14) 96) 53) 803) 186) 601 Page 19 10/28/2009 of Sookane Vallev Justice Services Alternatives IOption 4: Combination of County, In-house and Private Sector lContracting .. = .... - -. .. ........... One- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Time Revenue $0 $70,013 $74,599 $79,485 $84,692 $90,239 Costs Personnel - Prosecutor 73,399 450,505 480,239 511,934 545,722 581,740 Personnel - Public - Defense* 627,662 646,492 665,887 685,864 706,440 Personnel - Probation 289,555 302,962 316,989 331,665 347,021 Personnel - Screener 55,251 57,809 60,486 63,286 66,216 Operating Costs 3,670 39,766 42,050 44,470 47,034 49,749 Facility M &O 11,073 45,900 47,507 49,169 50,890 52,671 Indirect Costs 56,045 59,212 62,563 66,109 69,862 One -Time Operating Capital 42,000 - - - - - Building Remodel 17,000 - - Total Costs 147,143 1,564,685 1,636,270 1,711,49 1,790,56 1,873,69 8 9 9 Net Revenue ($147,1 ($1,494,6 ($1,561,6 ($1,632, ($1,705, ($1,783,4 (Expense) 43) 71) 71) 012) 878) 601 Notes: - Rental is included in facility M &O - Revenue excludes potion of probation fees included in court study. - Travel costs are included in court analysis because they are a direct result of the court's location. * Public Defense personnel costs include operating by contract. All cost 2011 comparison County $475,966; Spokane $610,597; SV 488,795, Private $627,662 Page 20 10/28/2009 - City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Assumptions - Other Justice Services Alternatives Scenario 1- Spokane Valley In -house Services All city staffed services in a combination of Public Safety Building and City owned /leased Spokane Valley based space. The city would hire staff for all functions at the same time as a Municipal Court was formed. (City will have facility costs they do not have now and cost of service may be more than county cost because Spokane Valley may wish to /already pay more than county.) Contract with county for mental health court and in- custody calendar space for Spokane Valley judge to use when hearing in- custody cases or contract for District Court judge to hear those cases. An alternative would be to hold in- custody hearings by video only. The intent of this assumption is to avoid increased costs related to security, holding and transport for in- custody defendants. Hold all court in Spokane Valley at Sprague Avenue Police /Court Building courtrooms. Convert most of existing holding space to smaller (800 -900 sq ft) courtroom and office space for two judicial officers and 11 to 13 staff - relatively crowded conditions assuming existing court space and 2000 sq It of additional space in the building was used for court. There would not be space for others like prosecutor, public defense or probation. Assumed a need for 120 sq ft per staff member and 200 sq ft per judicial officer fors ace estimates. It would be desirable to have one or two office spaces with doors accessible from the public waiting area that can be used for private conversations with defendants or victims. These rooms could be used by victim advocate, public defense screener or attorneys consulting with clients. It would also be desirable to have a locked mailbox system in the public waiting area for attorneys to pick up or drop off material for each other or the court /police. These spaces were not assumed in the estimate. The assumed staffing level would require the court to operate with a moderate to high level of electronic transaction, data and file use vs paper and dual entry of police, attorney and /or probation information. If this can not be achieved then additional clerical staff would need to be added - 2 to 4 staff per judicial officer. Phase in is assumed for three months prior to start up. Mental Health Sales tax is assumed to cover MH court costs Scenario 2 - Contract with City of Spokane Contract with the City of Spokane for all services in a combination of Public Safety Building and City owned /leased Spokane Valley based space. The city would create a Municipal Court and contract with Spokane for court and all auxiliary services. (This will likely again be the most costly option because Spokane pay rates are a lot higher for most positions and their caseloads are lower plus SV would have facility costs you do not have now. For the purpose of the financial comparison a contract with the City of Spokane was assumed to start January 1, 2011. In fact it is unlikely that any contract would start on that date. See legal memo (Appendix A and text of main report. It is assumed that Spokane would locate its courtrooms in the Gardner and Cedar building and vacate the courtrooms and most of the office space and public service windows that are currently used by the city in the Public Safety complex. It is assumed that Spokane Valley would "rent" courtroom space (like Spokane is now) from the county for Spokane Valley court calendars. At least initially, it is likely that only one courtroom equivalent with jury accommodations would be required. Operating costs of the space would be the only charge (not depreciation or capital contributions). Public service windows would be available to Spokane Valley clients at the same location as the courtrooms. Operating costs are assumed at $5.50 to $7.00 per square foot Page 21 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives including janitorial. $5.50 represents cost city currently pays for Police /Court building. Contract with county for Mental Health court and in- custody calendar space for Spokane Valley judge to use when hearing in- custody cases or contract District Court judge. An alternative would be to hold in- custody hearings by video only. The intent of this assumption is to avoid increased costs related to security, holdin and transport for in-custod defendants. Contested traffic and traffic mitigation hearings would continue to be held in Spokane Valley with public service window staffing for Spokane Valley and Spokane clients. Mental Health Sales tax is assumed to cover MH court costs Scenario 3 - Contract with Spokane County Continue contracting with Spokane County for all services at their present locations. (This will likely continue to be your least net cost option. Quality of service may be lowest in Prosecutor, Probation /screening is a moving target - the more alignment between judges, probation and outcomes the higher the quali Assumed that Spokane Valley would continue to contract.with District Court based on the same contract terms as the current agreement. Assumed that the Spokane Valley usage rate would remain at 2008 levels. Assumes that space use would be charged based on operating costs only. Assumes that Spokane Valley courtroom would continue to be used for mitigation and contested traffic court and that the customer service window would continue to be operated. Mental Health Sales tax is assumed to cover MH court costs Scenario 4 - Combination of In -house and Contracting with Private Sector Rather than contracting for or staffing all auxiliary services with one entity, selectively contract with someone other than the host entity or bring in -house one or more justice services. Potential examples: in -house prosecutor, contract with Spokane for probation /screener or p rivate contract /rotating list public defender. Assumes in -house prosecutor supervised by the City Attorney. Assumes public defender would be provided by private contract or through a rotating pre- q ualified list of private defenders paid a standard rate coordinated by a city staff member. Assumes a contract with the City of Spokane for Probation and Public Defense screener services. Assumes space would be provided by the City for prosecution and public defense coordination. Mental Health Sales tax is assumed to cover MH court costs Page 22 10128/2009 City of Spokane V J Services Alternatives Appendix C: Customer Service Detail Page 23 10/26/2009 City of Spoka Valley Justice Services Alternatives Customer Service Detail Phone Based Customer Service Spot testing of phone customer service was conducted for Spokane County District Court and the City of Spokane Municipal Court. Each court was called at least twice on a Monday or Wednesday morning. The caller identified themselves as a customer seeking information and kept track of how long it took to get various responses. (Check report body and tables below to be sure they are aligned) Summary of Phone Based Customer Service Response (Shaded boxes indicate "best practice ") Phone Based Spokane County District Court Spokane Municipal Court Customer Service 509 477- 4770 509- 625 -4450 Speaking to a person All lines busy. Immediate response. instead of a recording Recording referred caller to website, gave the option to call back later and then Informed caller they would be disconnected. Time to receive verbal As above. Immediate response. driving directions to the court Directions for making Automated -less than 10 seconds Immediate response from a payment by credit or via extenslon 5. receptionist who described the debit card options. Directions for making Automated -less than 10 seconds Unclear. Receptionist stated payments on the web via extension 5. this option was available but did not know the website address. Speaking to somebody Caller could press 1, case Immediate response from about challenging a management. It took less than 5 receptionist who described the parking or traffic seconds to reach a staff person options. ticket who told caller to mark the ticket "contested" and send It to the court. Access a recording or Option not offered. Option not offered. a person to speak in a Receptionist stated that once language other than somebody has a court date English. they can have somebody call or come In to request an interpreter. Page 24 10/28/2009 C o f Sp Valley Justice Services Alternatives Web Site Customer Service Web site customer service was reviewed by assessing the clarity of information, accessibility, and ease of navigation for customers seeking information or web based transactions compared to a sample of other courts with similar size and /or composition caseload. The City of Spokane Municipal Court does not currently have a website. The City of Spokane's web services were not able to be evaluated. Prior to January 2009 their website was part of the website for the Spokane County District Court. According to the Court Administrator, they are currently developing a website that would include similar information and transaction capability as the District Court website. The City of Spokane's website lists municipal court contact information under "Services." Court Website Customer Service Comparison (Shaded boxes indicate "best practice ") Access to Spokane Vancouver Everett Tacoma Information County District District Court Municipal Municipal and Services Court btt p_/ /www.cg.rla Court Court rk.wa.us/court h= LLwwvLspok tt : 1.www.e tt. /www.city anecounty.org /di stripl rettwa org /defa oftacoma.org /P strictcourt co to u lt.aspx7ID =24 age aspx?hld =1 Shared with the nt asox ?c =1551 557 Clark County District Court Site Access Information in menu Not able to Main menu Main menu about how to 2 n° Item locate has link to provides a get to court Printable directions. directions. link to map Main page Printable directions. • Unable to provides a map No map. find link to map of each Unable to Unable to transit routes floor of the find link to find link to to court. courthouse. transit transit routes to routes to court. court. Information in No Information Not able to Main menu other languages information on most find any provides a located in topics in two information link to a other different in other paragraph - languages or languages. languages. written in option to Main menu, Not able to English - translate. 6`" tab links find about • No to "Intepreter information Interpreter information Services." on how to services. on how to Interpreter request an Page 25 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives request a court Interpreter Reasonable accommodation Site does not provide any Information on requesting reasonable accommodations Access to services such as public defense, domestic violence victim advocates. Access to other web based services Web payment - general options rrovioes a link for mental health therapeutic court and the public defender. • No information located regarding access to an interpreter or advocate. Ability to search to find your court date, access various court forms, and to send a question or comment by email. Main menu, 3' item • Provides payment options and link to payments on line. The online page provides directions and a customer assistance Tickets I No distinct Services page can be displayed In Russian or Main menu, 7 "' tab links to page defining reasonable accommodation and how to request. Main menu, 8 "' tab provides a link to a video that can be played In English, Russian, or Spanish. Customer's computer not able to play video. Main page, 13' tab of Clark County site provides "Links" to other legal resources, department, and local papers. • Main menu, 2 nd tab • Provides link to website to pay online. Not able to find interpreter. Not able to find information on how to request reasonable accommodation S. No information located. Limited access to other web based services. Provides links to Info on probation and several other Main menu, 1'' Item Does not provide ability to pay online. a Main menu provides link to a statement that all facilities are accessible and hearing devices are Main menu provides link to information on assigned counsel. The link does not provide contact information for the Office of Public Defender. Limited access to other web based services. • Main menu provides a link to information on paying fines. • Does not provide option to pay online. • Limited Info Page 26 10/28/2009 City of Spoka V J Services Alternatives "Make a for traffic "Paying payment" clients tickets and Fines" and can pay fora associated on another ticket on -line. payment tab on right options. side of page. • Site does not provide option to a online. Information on Defines eligibility Not able to find Not able to find No Traffic Infraction criteria and this information. this Information Deferral provides three information. easily Program options to located. request entry There is Into the some program, Information Including an on under the line option. parking tickets tab. Other payment Main menu, 3' Main menu, 2" • Main menu, Limited options Item Website item links to 1� Item Information defines four "Court Website provided under payment Payments." defines tab "Paying options: online, payment Fines." In person, by options but mail, or by does not phone. provide ability to a online. Information on Particl atin In or Attendin Court Proceedin Information for No specific tab. Not able to find General Not able to find defendants However, this Information. Information is this regarding what customers can provided under Information. to expect If you access the tab are a defendant Information by selections for In court going to the criminal, Public Defender parking, or tab and selecting traffic tickets. "Clients and Families" where they will find 10 selections with basic Information about court proceedings, jail, posting bond, and other related information. Filing a Defines eligibility Not able to find • Provided as No statement of criteria and this Information. one of three Information mitigating provides the options easily circumstances option to fill out presented on located. or contesting a and submit a the traffic Some traffic ticket on form on line. tickets tab Information line under found mitigation under the hearin "Traffic Page 27 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Page 28 10/28/2009 Does not and provide Parking option to file Tickets" a statement menu. on line. Information on No information Main menu, 9 Not able to find Not able to find Drivers License located. Item. this information. this Status and /or information. re- licensing programs Child Care at Not able to find Not able to find Notable to find Not able to find Court this Information this information this Information this Information Information for Readers must " Clark County Main menu Not able to find Jurors scroll down the Court Site, 4` option this first page under Item. provides a Information Resources Site provides link to Jury header, links you general duty page to Jury information which refers Management on jury duty user to the Information and specific Snohomish Page. The page information County site. provides ability on how to The to check in and a report, Snohomish number to call if postpone, County site people have reschedule, or provides 14 more questions. contact the tabs with jury manager. information regarding orientation, special needs, and other resources. Witness Not able to find Not able to find Not able to find Not able to find Information on this information this Information this information this basic court Information proceedings and expectations Information about Sentencin Information Main page Not able to find Not able to find Not able to find about deferrals provides a tab this information this Information this "e- Deferrals" Information that describes how to request a deferral and presents three options to do so (at clerks office, at court hearing, or via the website ). Information No specific tab Not able to find Provides a link to Not able to find about probation for probation or this Information "Probation" and this and /or jail jail. Under basic Information Information "Resources" aboutthe viewers can Probation select the Jail De artment. No Page 28 10/28/2009 of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Page 29 10/26/2009 Inmate Roster phone number Is and link to the provided. county Sheriff's page. The page has Information aboutthe mission, goals, and jail locations. Information Not able to find Not able to find Not able to find Not able to find about this Information this information this Information this sentencing Information maximums and alternatives Page 29 10/26/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternati Appendix D: Comparative Court Web Page Screen Shots Page 30 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Spokane County District Court Web Site htto 7 / /www, spokanecounty.org/d istrictcourt/content aspx?c =1551 SPOKA111 COUN Y Jump to searchfor.. earc W A S It 1 n 0 1 ON � 109J r! J)Mjl� o:u 7y11, c; and liln tai 91 7p9d.1119 1J119/ .nld , Distilo Conn Public Safety Uuildin9 1100 West Mallon Spokane, WA 99260 Contact Us Home> County Index> District Court Mitigation Guidelines Fridayfrom 1:30 to 5 pm kth Judge John Cooney in courtroom 2 on the eDeferrals second floor of the Public Safety Building. eMitigations Information Request Forms Page 31 10/28/2009 Welcome to Spokane County District Court District Court Homepage Court Locations and Hours Serving Spokane County and the cdies or Spokane Valley andLiberty Lake Make a Payment Note to Attorneys and Law Enforcement Find Your Court Date Spokane County District Court holds an Ex Parts docket Monday through Mitigation Guidelines Fridayfrom 1:30 to 5 pm kth Judge John Cooney in courtroom 2 on the eDeferrals second floor of the Public Safety Building. eMitigations Information Request Forms Page 31 10/28/2009 of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Vancouver (Clark County District) Court Website htto / /www co clark.wa us /courts /district/ District cowl - Courts - Clam COMA) Washington Page l oft httpJ,lt% c.co- cla*.aa.uslcowW( istdcb' Page 32 9 10/28/2009 nomA 1 Mad w 1 A -z sass I wwrlmrrtas a n�r� Iz�llfr toaR.n u. _._ nar�lb*s,- t� cwmv Cava s Obben tent cinkC um, supc'ar C9urt thick carat District Court Lt[Nnbt2[Ln Cav <faynrnp Vision M District Court earecmns Make a poLWe difference n pwpk`s [) G by O.N teal Oecat bY.weninq before hme slble damage otters yam to the person or the communay. i - Fee Samut spm a C. About this District Court or. lAx,m Olst Vt Cant Is Me cCtut of Lin i ed nmmaue^ Jurtsdu n, It serves as the Insist court for rtmuomis mlgdgmeanor} and Inf attlans as vrelt as Fee small claims W tl 11 aW suns Involving amounts up b *75,090. Ctl b Re0 volume filed ed a year. In Tbere a I Casut every I n scare were of a ,7 c ases 7]% x, flial, appro lmMtly u6,ed C9vay tlert Weis es o ke n ses cgnprbes of 40th mused n- Tra/lfc onases 9enerelly Mat a tva ge ]w SeNO person's driving pnvilepes and arc cyd" in nature, se R Is necessary t at proceedings arc fair and evpufitious. To further assist"pubf t. Interprets, Servlo ahrnnNe programs have bean espbred, such as: the Ddvees License ack Fbbcy pe5lDnation program, Night COud and the creation of sperlaltMd courts. D VbYKe Vktae Ira Croat, bbbid Court MNNbYOr: itaaels Salsa Co uR lloam atnet Add.: lam Frenl9n Suess. Vann '. WA DEMO Maln Vps: (Ha) 341M21 "Ors 11 11: dbtA6dark. paammnb WpvWW aaCY Oniclalr%hn r. tlapvnwr, Raalrq]uaaa Ce s� ^•• 1 W 1621o0n I ae..e a.i...,.. 12NS I (mta¢IG inks FMls' amen: ftn4 pw /wnr_m.GVt.ra.uYmnrWeuttrcV last upErtm: 09/04"09 WS934 Fcr Questiee tt commenb reperdla] .Oink tkunry Web 4m: W eLluslera[blwy.tcr O 2 W 9 Uah W^Ry WL'Y41pCn 1 nenmmer sna `6 u roala I taehll NhIM1ffON FrM%Y httpJ,lt% c.co- cla*.aa.uslcowW( istdcb' Page 32 9 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Everett Municipal Court Web Site httc)://www.everettwa.orcildefauIt.asi)x?ID=245 Mrmicipal Court m E%Trett E VERETTYASI IINGTON J8 /. Page I of I r - Na ,. ., . m. ; W" laa> mov", • a - ,BlP�b: r1h/$ar1®B— 1t�11! a[(! Ma¢> CONai> Pe6 a dc+2e! -rrt> " "- EYL`EICev! B.n me r2l MGnww Court •Bmkei r -m � db6" aOB �r`VBIImiI�COM.BrIt<we" kaaalp(CiICttL!.^.Cfi�al62 Mim.IEm2e: � iY��L ",IEE�EGIE 1fg31 RHW , cm coorcr ayall'alall�d � Bcaamkceroao�r rapala`rMpaan�EE araerprwl�reH kBXCtpmKB CO damn aue E�mneanEa GUX¢ a�alY[111EaE!lGSio0dE0�EC �sasauawr cn GWBrur cant Bernet »�IWagpon sta a Gaamr.c Gro / up 7 �� 1e0�at11a� � a�t, �na,um+fas _MINNCIPALCOUfR �lar+'aa�eraoOS/r �eMY� Q arnr..aB,w! rwcm PCepVft� ��'N �)r� a+rrair nrormBrs Tecmuopr N."Lmom c..arwa.w leax G.3r Fay,-L Cr OXedbrc Ynw�rraM+atraaal LLnry C_r� /31 tf.:[ttdLUl'axy 1E931 f26P3ft T. a>iasMra r. aaranaan Elapya Ai lce:ser6 ParVIgTCkn_ PmE..G�n CtrunnerGm�tie>eM.vG.m u.roepa r mrr Bcavrgs eeunwr� neacests rorremG3a Tm'C. G:lGts axGO.la H.�grt•ghta. Prtttvu GCCeI rv�oaoen +ov M team mearcn yyy ne TAT- Y[C[56 ]flnJ: G�muor iw% aer leyai iCeS.w'M Repurt-Cr �e:cea: TTIk oast 1 r:rcXXOmooX> Pore Ec:n_ Ca':nEar Gn'3 , y [vnp! iXa atap lepL aan CGwmanlry W ekB f4wn. C+Y:r � /V' ua'vma.yn' .•H V.'.r1-.w� / r�yy�. yaf ".afMngvf. G.tV'r, N�4 GIifr :API/R k::re:. . bttp /ANw .everettwa.org'debidt.asps?ID=49 924.2009 Page 33 10/26/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Tacoma Municipal Court Website ht to ( /www.citvoftacoma oro /Page.asox ?hid =1557 City of Tacoma - General Info Page I of 4 rn �( E}apenry Mtnyvn 1 Hen+ -lbw aea 1 C:1F \1 Tacoma gILM 7 nobWk a A&MIManaa / Gwwa, kimnabon Ltv,�J,i��eiv.city'oflacoma or&Tage.aspx =1557 9Q4r2M Page 34 �F„'iM1:, -- .'r� D�eeelc�PoeM ff•� 7vi ti !- l Court i 1 . empq D ReOremEn1 ; �°epa� ♦ Humai Resovces i Hurin RG�WtLR2n I:9NM6 rmda�la� M!J•Waa .MCmeOm llgaaarnnawera4wwatramc I reer�y w�(7ara1lai Mwl+a\�y Ala aQw..m wn.c endfifts, { s\�twl"NINOWINVALTO Fte oeEam,cn IIA�a1aa 7� { Le9A 0taL0\a!!wt lNNINLEW I. FCE d b lOmYa PLOT �Pnlrla at��waarwraarr\a�rn aWU.rmms 5 a.awa�\a.taw�r�3��attr iraw\aennwr� ta.ran.ce� aM pan mOp+\r. �' atlp° Coad P we ��Q COOH waenam C\nlgt OM 1\p\I llH1p. ♦ Cerav ammaron GvYmm F.Mmelrn i a�maTmlmr TtYn: OTen.c » TrEh a P11Tp Tk4C F.ar�ia Fmuarrf ti, rage COntaah 6 CR:ILIee ana Ila�als) f Paley FXI13Es Now to Contact the Court ; vats wiw 1t1NC1Pa,curt„Ofaaa 253 591 -535 1 wmrcA<aar,®7 Fax 253 573 -231 j Famyey R AOMMMMON F CuMues a FlallC IVMs lwtrw IIHaC abnYY~17 C.3O a.m. b 4:30 Pm i T %ara Rflti Mary Anlsa coy o< Tac�ma Mun�pal Count r 6cHaq nwvinG 1 A'O TdWM4 Avenue Sal . R0OM W � j PORC MkPrA 0n Tawny. WA Wa 2131 Hoarto CoM Rlfifiates INC FWnG "MS. MO 1 -8 8-289 90 Ltv,�J,i��eiv.city'oflacoma or&Tage.aspx =1557 9Q4r2M Page 34 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix E: Municipal Court Start -Up Check List Page 35 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Municipal Court Start -Up Checklist If Spokane Valley creates a separate Municipal Court then there will be one- time start -up "costs" which occur in the form of real costs and any lost or delayed revenue collections. The city would have several types of costs: 1. Renovating space for the court and entering into agreements for specialized courtrooms or court services. 2. Recruiting and selecting the Judge and staff of the court based on a phased in staffing plan. 3. Developing and implementing operating procedures for back office operations and the court. 4. Providing office equipment, computer software, a receipting system and training and getting the court set up prior to its first day of service. 5. Development of a web site and automated phone service. 6. Contracting for security, collections, interpreter and jury management if desired. 7. Implementation of a public information program and orientation for other officers of the court such as attorneys, probation and police officers, victim's advocates and public defense screeners. 8. Development and implementation of a transition plan with the county that includes public information, any case transfers, disposition of revenue and case consolidation agreements. Finally, the case volume of a new court will take a while to build up as the police department shifts case filing to the new municipal court. Unless there is an agreement to transfer cases from District to Municipal Court, the city would be prosecuting cases at both the old court and in the new municipal court until the District Court caseload is fully disposed. Dual operations could have added costs for transportation and dual preparation of calendars. Most, or all, of this issue could be avoided if the parties agree to transfer cases to the new court. Revenue will follow the pattern of case filings, unless cases previously filed in the old court are transferred to a new court and /or older case revenue continues to be transferred to the city after the Municipal Court is operating. Case volume will take from six to twelve months to build to historic levels, and revenue could lag behind case filings. During the start-up phase, the city will have higher costs and may have lower revenues with which to contend. In the year prior to the new court beginning operation the city would have, at a minimum, continuing District Court contract costs, capital facility costs, various operating and development costs and start up staffing costs. These costs will occur prior to the new court beginning operation (likely on January 1), so the budgetary effect of a municipal court start-up would span two fiscal years. Adequate time and funding needs to be available for each customer service mode including Page 36 City of Spoka Valley Justice Services Alternatives phone system and web site development. Each customer service mode will have a process and software that will need to acquired and implemented prior to opening day. In the second year of operation, the filing volume would likely peak and then level off in years three and four, as the police department adjusts to the new court. These filing volume changes are a common experience among new municipal courts. In addition, this pattern of start-up costs assumes that policing programs, especially traffic enforcement, stay constant and that old court cases are not re -filed in a municipal court. Start up -costs vary significantly, depending on capital improvement requirements, the number of months staff are hired prior to opening the court and the length of time it takes for revenue to build to prior levels. A detailed transition plan should be developed between the District Court and the city to plan the transition and provide estimates for costs and revenue lag the city will need to finance. The following checklist is a guide for cities implementing municipal courts to use in starting up new courts. It is not intended to be exhaustive but is intended to be comprehensive: 1. Transition plan • Agreement with the District Court on operations, case transfer, case consolidation, revenue remittance, customer service and public information before and after change. Any on -going services that would be provided by the county such as mental health court, video arraignment, in- custody courtroom space, jury management, interpreter coordination, pro -temp judges, etc. Include orientation and training of county staff. • Development of criminal justice goals and results measures to be included in material for recruitment of personnel and contractors • Public information plan for city and county before, during and after start -up. 2. Operating Decisions • Ordinance creating a municipal court • Appointment of a lead person to manage the start up for the city • Start-up budget and operating plan • Judicial officer number and mix and a decision about whether to elect or contract for judges • Court rules and selection of presiding judge (see statutes and General Court Rule 29) • Staffing plan for the court • Facilities — co- location decisions, design and renovation. • Determination about how in jail custody defendants will be handled. • Determination about which ancillary services will be purchased (probation, public defender, prosecution, public defense screener, Page 37 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives video - assisted hearing set up, advocates, interpreters, jail alternatives programs, collections, security, etc.) Recruitment and selection of employees or contractors based on the staffing plan — including development of job descriptions, reporting structure, compensation schedules, clarification of union membership, determination of whether to contract for service of some judicial officers, and contract service terms. Remember that the city often has to find another source of revenue to pay for recruitment and compensation of employees in place prior to court opening and during any time that full revenue collections are not available due to lag in case filing and collections after sentencing. Phasing in is highly recommended. • Court administrator • Judge(s) • Court commissioner • Court clerks and leads • Security 4. Appointment of other court officers. Often the city chooses to employ or purchase many of these services, and both take time. Try to establish reporting relationships, performance measures, scope of service and fees in advance. • Appointment of pro -temp judges and /or commissioner • Jury selection, if contracted • Mental Health or Drug court services for selected defendants • Domestic violence advocate • Interpreter panel or service • Intervention services panel (alcohol and drug abuse assessment and treatment, life skills training, anger management, driver safety education, etc) Technology • Web page development along with services, forms and information the court wishes to offer via self service on the web • Phone system and phone information, payment, notification or reminder programs • Connection to city's computer network, e-mail system and standard software suite(s) and training • Connection to police, prosecutor, public defense or probation "network" or software • Connection to State of Washington Justice Information Network and training • Video and audio recording system for courtroom proceedings • Video assisted - hearing system • Cash receipting and handling set up • Credit and debit card handling and set up • Security equipment — screening, video, door locks, police notification or silent alarm system Page 38 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Suite of software or connectivity for electronic or imaged records, e- citation (Sector), police electronic records system interface, prosecutor /defense attorney electronic records interface, etc. 6. Facility -- building remodel which could include: • creation or modification of courtrooms, judges chambers, jury room, offices and public counter and waiting areas; • electronics (see technology); • office equipment and furniture; • changes necessary in a pre -owned building to meet ADA requirements inside and outside the building; • changes necessary to bathrooms and parking in order to accommodate large numbers of people at peak usage 7. Development of internal operations • Operating hours • Information and /or training materials or media for citizens - jurors, victims, witnesses, defendants, advocates, interpreters, etc. • Security system and procedures - in public areas, courtrooms and for handling of in- custody defendants • In- custody defendant transportation and in- custody arraignment procedures • Off -hour court order procedures • Forms • Warrant system • Purchase of resource materials or web services for: bench books, court rules, etc. • Juror selection, notification and payment procedures • Witness fee payment procedures • Scheduling of police officers for court appearances • Sentencing supervision and probation monitoring procedures • Court calendar -- where and when hearings of various types will be held for each city involved in the court • Collection procedures and policies for fines, fees, recoupment of public defender, interpreter, witness, warrant and booking charges, stay of proceedings costs, probation and sentencing monitoring costs. • Cash, debit and credit card receipting procedures and technology • Deferred prosecution procedures • Public defender screening procedures • Local court rules • Designation of a presiding judge Determining how routine activities will be accomplished • Bank Deposits • Purchasing • Budget • Cleaning • Office Equipment Page 39 and Technology Maintenance 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives • Emergency Procedures and Closure Notification • After Hours Building Security • Phone and Web Access Backup • Staff and Judicial Break, Sick and Vacation Backup Page 40 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix F: Spokane Area Courts Caseload Profile Page 41 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Caseload Profile - Statewide 2008 District and Municipal Courts Court Case Filing Type 2008 Filin s Percentage of Total Filings Percentage of Sub -Total Infractions Traffic Violations 1,030,270 97% Other Code Violations 32 3% Parking Violations 795,776 NA All Infractions 1 1,062,721 77% 100% Misdemeanors . 1 _,� ¢_ Driving w License Suspended 101,288 1 33% Driving Under the Influence DUI 34 11% Assault 16 563 5% Theft 11 914 4% Possession of Marihuana 9,981 3% No Valid Operators License 6,752 2% All Other 128 836 42% All Misdemeanors 309,356 23% 100 TOTAL 1,372,077 100 1) For the profile parking is not counted, the City of Seattle parking volume distorts the results. Source: 2008 Caseload Reports, Administrative Office of the Courts and individual caseload query data. Caseload Profile - Spokane District Court 2008 County and State Cases Court Case Filing Type 2008 Filings Percentage of Total Filings Percentage of Sub -Total Infractions Traffic Violations 40,830 98% Other Code Violations 714 2% Parking Violations 4 253 NA All Infractions 1 41 85 100 Misdemeanors ` Driving with License Suspended 3,345 44% Driving Under the Influence DUI 1,275 17% Possession of Marihuana 415 5% Assault - Domestic Violence 355 5% Theft 214 3% Reckless Driving 204 3% All Other 1,758 23% All Misdemeanors 7,566 15 100 TOTAL 49,110 100 1) For the profile parking is not counted, the City of Seattle parking volume distorts the results. Source: 2008 Caseload Reports, Administrative Office of the Courts and Individual caseload query data. Page 42 City of Spoka Valley Justice Services Alternatives Caseload Profile -- Spokane Valley 2008 Cases Court Case Filing Type 2008 Percentage of Percentage of Filin Total Filin Sub -Total 2008 Filin Infract�dns Percentage of Sub -Total Infractions Traffic Violations 9 984 Traffic Violations 96% Other Code Violations 437 Other Code Violations 4 Parkin Violations 773 Parkin Violations NA All Infractions 1 10 421 78% 100% 66% Misdemea_n`ors .. Misdemeanors; ; ; Drivin with License Sus 1479 3 313 S1% Theft 285 1 220 10% Assault - Domestic Violence 211 1 180 7% Under the Influence DUI 185 588 6% — Drivin g Possession of Marihuana 159 329 6% Protection Order Violation 54 310 2% All Other 525 19% All Misdemeanors 2 898 22% 1) For the profile parking is not counted, the City of Seattle parking volume distorts the results. Total Caseload with parking Is 14,092. Source: 2008 Caseload Reports, Administrative Office of the Courts and individual caseload query data. Caseload Profile -- City of Spokane Municipal Court 2008 Cases (2) TOTAL 13,319 100% 1) For the profile parking is not counted, the City of Seattle parking volume distorts the results. 2) City of Spokane Court was re- organized as of January 1, 2009. A full year's data is not yet available. Source: 2008 Caseload Reports, Administrative Office of the Courts and individual caseload query data. Page 43 10/28/2009 Court Case Filing Type 2008 Filin Percentage of Total Filin Percentage of Sub -Total Infractions Traffic Violations 17 866 92% Other Code Violations 1 608 8% Parkin Violations 62 689 NA All Infractions 1 19 474 66% 100% Misdemeanors; ; with License Sus 3 313 33% — Drivin g Assault - Domestic Violence 1 220 12% Theft 1 180 12% Under the Influence DUI 588 6% — Drivin g Possession of Marihuana 329 3% Assault 310 3% Other 525 19% All Misdemeanors 2 898 22% 100% TOTAL 13,319 100% Court Case Filing Type 2008 Filin Percentage of Total Filin Percentage of Sub -Total Infractions Traffic Violations 17 866 92% Other Code Violations 1 608 8% Parkin Violations 62 689 NA All Infractions 1 19 474 66% 100% Misdemeanors; ; with License Sus 3 313 33% — Drivin g Assault - Domestic Violence 1 220 12% Theft 1 180 12% Under the Influence DUI 588 6% — Drivin g Possession of Marihuana 329 3% Assault 310 3% All Other 3 032 31% All Misdemeanors 9 972 34% 100% TOTAL 29,446 100% City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix G: Notes on Methodology Page 45 City of Spokane Valley Ju stice Services Alternatives Notes on Methodology Project Team Anne Pflug, Project Manager, Department of Commerce Research Services Lea Mitchell, Department of Commerce Research Services Steve Salmi, Department of Commerce Research Services Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst, Spokane Valley Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney, Spokane Valley Data Sources 1. City of Spokane Valley contract files 2. Judicial Information System, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2003 to 2008 annual caseload reports, http: / /www.courts.wa.gov /caseload/ and custom queries. 3. National Center for State Courts website, CourTools, htti)://www.ncsconline.orci/D Research /CourTools /tcmp courttools htm 4. Jail Data provided by Spokane County Detention Services 5. State of Washington, General Administration Department, Real Estate Services 6. Washington State and Spokane County Bar Association web sites 7. Department of Commerce, Research Services, Local Government Fiscal Notes, annual survey of criminal justice costs. 8. Local Government Financial Reporting System, Washington State Auditor's Office, http• / /www2 sao wa oov /applications /Igfrs/ 9. Association of Washington Cities, Annual Salary and Benefits Survey data for cities and counties, 2008, http• / /www awcnet orci/portallStudioNew asp ?ChannelLinkID= 5499&Artic IeID =O &webid =l &mode =Bl 10.Data provided on caseload from public defender, prosecutor and probation offices of Spokane, Spokane County, comparator jurisdictions and the Washington State Office of Public Defense. 11.Population, social and economic data on Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley, Community Indicators Initiative of Spokane, htti)://www.communityindicators.ewu.edu/indicators.cfm?id=l 12.Population, social and economic data on Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, State of Washington, http• / /www.ofm.wa.gov /forecasting /default.asp 13.Spokane Transit Authority, Trip Planner service, http://www.spokanetransit.com/rideSTA/TripPlanner.asp Page 46 City of Spokane V alle y Justice Services Alternatives Interviews Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke, Chair Spokane County Commissioners Marshall Farrell, Spokane County Chief Executive Officer Judge Richard White, Presiding Judge, Spokane District Court Judge Gregory Tripp, Spokane District Court Virginia Rockwood, District Court Administrator John Witter, Operations Supervisor, Spokane District Court Shannon Koutecky, Chief Probation Officer Steve Tucker, Prosecuting Attorney Brian O'Brien, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Ronald Miles, Superior Court Administrator John Rodgers, Public Defender Director Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich Captain John McGrath, Detention Services Commander Cheryl Tofsrud, Pre -trial Services City of Spokane Judge Mary Logan, Presiding Judge, Spokane Municipal Court Cindy Marshall, Court Administrator, Spokane Municipal Court Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, Spokane Police Department Thomas (Ted) Danek, City Administrator Dorothy Webster, Director of Administrative Services Howard Delaney, City Attorney Donna McBride, Chief Probation Officer Kathy Knox, Office of the Public Defender Jim Bledsoe, City Prosecuting Attorney Spokane Valley Mayor Richard Munson David Mercier, City Manager Michael Connelly, City Attorney Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Page 47 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Other David Steelman, Senior Consultant, National Center for State Courts Julie McKay, Cheney Prosecutor Arlene Fisher, Cheney City Administrator Jenni Christopher, Administrative Office of the Courts, State of Washington Olympia Municipal Court, Court Administrator Snohomish District Court, Bob Lenz, Operations Manager When data about city of Spokane Valley residents was sought the following zip codes were used: 99212 (80% city) 99206 (90% city) 99216 (95% city) 99037 (70% city) 99016 (50% city or about 5,000 population) Page 48 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix H: National Center for State Courts Ten Core Performance Measures for Trial Courts Page 49 City of Spokane Valley ]ustice Services Alternatives Page 50 aeea o mmeau � as •vm d n mm Pommaemn M bt�l4lOtlt$elpl 10/28/2009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alte Appendix I: Example DWLS 3 Programs Page 51 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Example DWLS Programs - Overview This section summarizes three different approaches to addressing driving with a suspended driver's license in the third degree (DWLS 3) cases through programs that focus on relicensing as opposed to criminal prosecution of DWLS 3 cases. Statewide, criminal filings associated with DWLS 3 charges represent over 33% of the criminal filings that must be processed by local courts. In 1985, they represented only about 8 % of the cases. The increase in DWLS 3 charges is primarily the result of a Supreme Court ruling and subsequent legislation that made license suspension mandatory under certain specified conditions (PCW 46.20). The increased caseload has required an increased percentage of the available court time as well at staff time for public defenders, prosecutors, probation officers and other officers of the court. As a result, jurisdictions across the state have developed several approaches to streamlining the processing of DLWS 3 cases. The following summarizes three examples. Three Approaches to Reducing DWLS 3 Staff and Caseload Demands Bail Forfeiture — City of Olympia This model provides the option to let the defendant post bail instead of going through the criminal prosecution process. The case is often settled at the first appearance and closed. As a result, demands on public defense, prosecution, pretrial and trial calendars are reduced. The City of Olympia is one of several Washington courts known to offer bail forfeiture. According to the Court Administrator, the use of bail forfeiture has reduced case referrals to the public defender by over 40 %. However, the majority of defendants do not pay bail ( $200 for the first offense and increasing thereafter). Although the criminal caseload is reduced, each case still requires time to prepare for, schedule, conduct, and document the arraignment. Under current conditions, there is no revenue source to help finance the costs of these cases. In addition, according to the City of Olympia's 2009 operating budget, in cases where the court has successfully collected outstanding fines and fees, an increasing percentage of the collected revenue is required to go to the State of Washington and this reduces the beneficial impact of an emphasis on revenue collection. DWLS Diversion - Snohomish County District Court Pre - filing programs are generally designed to help qualifying defendants get their drivers license back without going through court procedures or prosecution. Snohomish County created a program in 2008 and King County Page 52 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives has had a program since 1999. This summary profiles the Snohomish program. In Snohomish County, the DWLS 3 charges are not sent to the court. Instead, they are referred to the prosecutor's office for a determination of eligibility. Eligibility is determined by reviewing police and other associated reports along with the person's criminal and infraction history. If the prosecutor determines the person is eligible for the program they send them a letter offering to drop the criminal charge of DWLS 3 if the person reinstates their license within 90 days. The letter also states that if Department of Licensing records show they did not reinstate their license within 90 days then they intend to file a criminal charge and will send a Summons to appear in court for an arraignment hearing and that failure to appear could result in a warrant for their arrest. The county does not charge any fee for citizens to participate in their Driving While License Suspended Diversion Program. Based on statistics for the first twelve months of the program, the office reviewed 3,200 referrals for eligibility and determined 1,128 (35 %) were eligible and 2,072 (65 %) were not. Of the 1,128 defendants that were eligible, 475 (42 %) successfully completed the diversion program. In the first twelve months of the program, the county saved $32,000 due to reduced staffing requirements. In addition, by keeping 475 cases out of the court they were able to schedule more time for other traffic cases. As a result, they are not at risk of violating the "120 day speedy trial rule" and they are collecting more revenue from traffic infractions. Post- Filing Relicensing - Spokane's regional program Six jurisdictions currently participate in the Relicensing Program operated in the Spokane Region. The City of Spokane Valley participates in this program through Spokane County and their associated service contracts to process criminal cases. Unlike Pre - filing programs, Post - filing programs generally require the case and its original charge to be filed with the court. The driver receives a summons as part of their police citation to appear in court for a first appearance hearing. At the hearing, the driver learns about the relicensing program. If the driver meets the eligibility requirements, chooses to participate, and completes the requirements of the program, the charges are dismissed. If the driver does not complete the program, the case proceeds in the court. The program is administered by the prosecutor for the City of Spokane, staffed by two Spokane County employees, and assisted by a grant that Spokane Valley received from the Office of Public Defense. The program has four core features: 1) an education element for participants; 2) a regional approach that allows other cities to participate; 3) required fees for Page 53 10/28/2009 of Spokane Vallev Justice Services Alternatives participation ($100) and the educational class ($50); and 4) repayment options that allow participants to pay back their fines in small increments over a period of time. Program administrators use a tiered approach that defines three types of participants and associated requirements that vary depending on the driver's past record and other associated factors. For example, Tier 1 participants (69 %) are not required to attend the educational class because they are determined to already have the basic skills that the class teaches. According to the program administrator, the relicensing program has helped DWLS 3 cases go from about 33% of the adult misdemeanor caseload to 20% and this reduction has freed up court time, reduced jail demands, and generated an average of $20,650 /month in revenues collected from outstanding fines associated with DWLS 3 cases. In the first twelve months of the program (May 2008 -June 2009), 1,334 people graduated from the program. In the 12 months of 2008 there were 8,137 DWLS cases in Spokane area courts. If this was approximately the same as the twelve months above then the percent graduating would be 16 %. State Statute Chances Passed 2007 -SSB 5732 — Relicensing diversion programs for driving with license suspended in the third degree The superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction are authorized to participate or provide relicensing diversion programs to persons who commit the offense driving while license suspended in the third degree (DWLA 3) due to failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, failure to appear at a requested hearing, violation of a promise to appear in court, or failure to comply with the terms of a notice of traffic infraction or citation. In jurisdictions that do not have a relicensing diversion program, a person who commits DWLS 3 due to failure to appear at a hearing or failure to respond or pay a traffic infraction will be given an abstract of his or her driving record by the court or the prosecuting attorney, a list of the person's unpaid traffic offense - related fines, and contact information for each jurisdiction or collection agency to which the money is owed. Subject to available funds, counties and cities must provide information regarding their relicensing diversion programs to the Administrative Office of the Courts for analysis and development of a best - practices model. Page 54 10/2812009 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Appendix 7: Bibliography Page 55 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives Bibliography 1. City of Bellevue White Paper on Court Operating and Capital Alternatives, The Other Company Consulting, June 2008. 2. City of Spokane Courts Task Force Report to Mayor Mary Verner, 2008. 3. City of Spokane Municipal Court Power Point presentation, Cindy Marshall, Municipal Court Administrator, 2009. 4. City of Spokane Re- licensing Project Power Point presentation, Howard Delaney, City Attorney, 2009. 5. City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 - Housing cuments /Comprehensive Plan /ChaplIntroCOSpokane ValleyCompPlanUpdated73108. pdf 6. City of Spokane Valley Transition Team, Courts Subcommittee Report to the Spokane Valley City Council, 2003. 7. County Financial Health and Governance Alternatives, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, 2007. 8. Draft report to the City of Spokane Valley on the Provision of Law Enforcement Services to the Community, ICMA Consulting Services, July, 2009. 9. Draft report to the Spokane County District Court, August 2009, National Center for State Courts, David Steelman, Senior Consultant. 10. Driving While License Suspended, Report to Director Lowell Porter, Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. Prepared by Bob Lenz, August 18, 2009. 11. King County Cities' Municipal Court Alternatives, Case Studies and Analysis, The Other Company Consulting, 2003. 12. National Center for State Courts CourTools, Customer Satisfaction Surveys (Access and Fairness survey) http://www.ncsconline.or(i/D Research /CourTools /tcmp courttools ht m 13. National Center for State Courts, CourTools, Performance Measurement http://www.ncsconline.orci/D Research /CourTools /tcmp courttools.ht m 14. Office of Public Defense State of Washington, Driving While License Suspended 3rd Degree Survey of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, 2008. httr)://www.opd.wa.(iov/TrialDefense/090602 DWLS3Survey.odf Page 56 City of Spokane Valley Justice Services Alternatives 15. Office of Public Defense. State of Washington Indigent Defense Service Contract Best Practices, May 2009, htto : / /www.opd.wa.gov/TrialDefense /090528 CountyCityContractMe mo.odf 16. Office of Public Defense, State of Washington, Standards for Indigent Defense Services, http:/ /www.opd.wa.gov /TrialDefense /090528 Standards.pdf 17. Review of the City of Spokane's Criminal Justice System, The Spangenberg Group, February 2003, RFP No. 3055 -02. 18. Spokane County Budget Outlook, June 1, 2009. 19. Spokane County Corrections Needs Assessment Master Plan Draft, Integrus Architects in Association with David Bennett and Donna Lattin Consulting, February 14 2008, http: / /www.si)okanecounty.org/ data /countysheriff /iep /Needs %2OAss essment %20(5Mb).pdf 20. The Re- licensing Project power point, June 1, 2009, City and County Prosecutor's Offices, Spokane and Spokane County. Page 57 10/28/2009 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information N admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council External Committee Reports GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: City Councilmembers serve on various local and /or regional committees. The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity for the Council representative to confer with the entire Council and shape a corporate position or significant policy questions before the various committees. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmembers ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of December 9,2009; 1:45 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings December 22, 2009, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 141 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: minutes] December 29, 2009, No Meeting January 5, 2010 Study Session Format, 6:00 p:m. Action Items: 1. Oath of Office for Newly Elected Councilmembers 2 Council officer elections — Chris Bainbridge Non - action Items: 3. Gambling Ordinance Amendment — Ken Thompson 4. Info Only: Paveback; CenterPlace Food Service Contract January 8 -9: AWC's "Elected Officials Essentials" Doubletree Spokane City Center, 322 N Spokane Falls Court [due date Mon, Dec 28 (20 minutes) (10 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] Winter Retreat (Special Meeting) — January Date to be Determined. CenterPlace Conf Rm 3:00p.m. — 7:00p.m Tentative agenda items: (5) Workplan (1) Paveback (6) six -year business plan (2) snow plowing long -term plan (7) brainstorming (3) review 2010 Council Budget goals (4) financial forecast January 12, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Jan 41 Proclamation: Human Tracking 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance Amending Gambling Ordinance —Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amend 17.100.030, file in Sup.or Dist Ct) (suspend rules ?)C. Driskell (5 min) 4. Motion Consideration: Paveback —Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 5. Admin report: CenterPlace Food Service Contract - Mike Stone (10 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 40 minutes] January 19, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Jan 11] 1. Franchise Agreements — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] January 26, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Friday, Jan 151 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending Gambling Ordinance — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. Second Read Proposed Ordinance Amend 17.100.030, file in Sup.or Dist Ct) C. Driskell (5 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Food Service Contract — Mike Stone (5 minutes) 5. Info: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 12/9/2009 1:41:34 PM Pagel of 2 OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS ADA Plan Adult Entertainment Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts), Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) City Hall Sales Purchase Agreement Comp Plan Qrtrly Update (Jan, April, July, Oct) Concurrency Council Broadcasting Develop. Agremnt Ord 09 -015 expires 2 -26 -2010 East Gateway Monument Structure # Law Enforcement Study Follow -up Lexipol Policies Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance (2010) Planned Action Ordinance SARP Periodic Updates — Scott Kuhta Site Selector Review (March 2010) Sprague Appleway Corridor EA Transportation Benefit Dist (20 10) a. Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts [ N = Awaiting action by others; • = doesn't include time for public or council comments] Request for eariv Consideration 1. Wastewater Policy Advisory Board Briefing 2. Pending Litigation Briefing 3. Retreat Planning 4. Appointments to Boards & Commissions, i.e.: Cable Advisory Board (citizen appointment) Chamber of Commerce Convention Visitor's Bureau Greater Spokane, Inc. Finance Committee (Spokane Valley) Growth Management Act Steering Committee of Elected Officials Health District Board, HCDAC (Housing & Comm Dev) International Trade Alliance Lodging Tax (citizen/business appointment) Governance Manual Solid Waste Liaison Board Solid Waste Advisory Committee (BoCC Confirms) Spokane Regional Transportation Council Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Wastewater Policy Advisory Board Draft Advance Agenda 12/9/2009 1:41:34 PM Page 2 of 2 Spokane ,;,oSValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhalt@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager From: SMP Update Team CC: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Date: December 15; 2009 Re: SMP Update — Shoreline Advisory Committee On October 27, 2009, City Council approved a Public Participation Plan for the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. A key component of the Plan is to assemble a Shoreline Advisory Committee (SAC) whose purpose is to provide significant input into the development of the SMP, primarily the program goals, policies, and supporting development regulations. Attached for Council's information is the list of groups who will populate the SAC. The Committee includes property owners, neighborhood group representatives, industry, special interest groups and individuals with technical expertise. Please contact any of the SMP Update Team members below with questions you may have throughout the SMP Update process. Scott Kuhta, Project Lead - (688 -0049) Lori Barlow, Associate Planner — (688 -0262) Micki Harnois, Associate Planner - (688 -0048) Greg McCormick, Planning Manager - (688 -0023) Spokane Valley Shoreline Management Program Update Shoreline Advisory Committee (SAC) Member List Industry Kaiser Aluminum Inland Paper Avista Corporation Central Pre -Mix Government COSV Parks and Recreation Department Department of Ecology Spokane County Conservation Futures Spokane Indian Tribe Spokane County Conservation District Other / Special Interest Groups Spokane Homebuilder's Association Spokane River Keeper's Futurewise Homeowners Shelley Lake Homeowner's Association Riverwalk Neighborhood Representative N. Greenacres Neighborhood Representative Recreational River Users Friends of Centennial Trail Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club Trout Unlimited Spokane Fly Fishers Spokane River Forum December 2, 2009