2024, 10-15 Formal B Meeting Packet
AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL B FORMAT
Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and
In Person at Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers
10210 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
NOTE: Members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in-person at the address provided
above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in-person or via
Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as
“public comment opportunity.”If making a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm the
day of the meeting.
Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In
Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting
Join the Zoom WEB Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
SPECIAL GUESTS/PRESENTATIONS:
PROCLAMATIONS:
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any
subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep
comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or
discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three
minutes per person. If a person engages in disruptive behavior or makes individual personal attacks regarding
matters unrelated to City business, then the Council and/or Mayor may end that person’s public comment time
before the three-minute mark. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per
those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required.
A sign-in sheet will be provided at the meeting.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Public Hearing #2: 2025 Budget – Chelsie Taylor
\[public comment opportunity\]
2. Motion Consideration: EVSD Pedestrian Undercrossing Agreement – Bill Helbig, Tony Beattie
\[public comment opportunity\]
Council Agenda October 15, 2024 Page 1 of 2
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
3. Admin Report: Retail Strategies Annual Update – Susan Nielsen, Retail Strategies Representatives
4. Admin Report: 2025 Draft Federal Legislative Agenda – Virginia Clough, Mike Pieper
5. Admin Report: SREC Update – Erik Lamb, Chief Ellis
6. Admin Report: 2024 Budget Amendment – Chelsie Taylor
INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: General public comment rules apply.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Council Agenda October 15, 2024 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Public Hearing #2 on 2025 Budget.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on the 2025
Budget.
BACKGROUND: This marks the fifth occasion where the Council will discuss the 2025 Budget
and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2025 Budget on November 19, 2024,
Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three
public hearings to gather input from citizens:
June 11 Council Budget Workshop
August 27 Admin report: Estimated 2025 revenues and expenditures
September 17 Public hearing #1 on 2025 revenues and expenditures
October 8 City Manager’s presentation of preliminary 2025 Budget
October 15 Public hearing #2 on 2025 Budget
October 29 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2025 Budget
November 19 Public hearing #3 on 2025 Budget
November 19 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2025 Budget
This evening’s meeting represents the second public hearing on the 2025 Budget and the
purpose of the hearing is to consider input from the public on the preliminary 2025 budget.
The 2025 Budget currently includes several of the Supplemental Budget Requests that were
th
presented at the June 11 Budget. These were included in section 23 of the workshop binder.
The overall impact of the Supplemental Requests is an increase of $90,000 in nonrecurring
costs in the General Fund, $100,000 in the Stormwater Fund #402 ($50,000 in recurring costs
and $50,000 in nonrecurring), and $175,000 in the Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund
#501. The Supplemental Requests included in the General Fund are related to repairs and
replacement of equipment or buildings at the Precinct and CenterPlace. The amount in the
Stormwater Fund #402 is for the acquisition an ongoing licensing costs of a new asset
management software for Stormwater infrastructure. The amount in the Equipment Rental and
Replacement Fund #501 is for the replacement of a snow plow, and the funding for the
replacement is already set aside in that fund. The summary sheet for the Supplemental Budget
Requests is included as an attachment to this report with highlights showing the items that were
included in the draft budget.
There has been one change to the 2025 Budget worksheets since the October 8, 2024
presentation of the budget. This change was to add grant proceeds of $417,000 to the General
Fund recurring revenues for the Community Oriented Policing Hiring Grant that was recently
awarded to the City to help partially fund the 10 new officer positions included in the 2025
Budget proposal. The change is indicated in blue in the attached budget summary worksheets.
1
2025 Budget Overview:
The 2025 Budget currently includes appropriations of $149,629,785 including $58,300,103
in capital expenditures, comprised in-part of:
o $6,488,645 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects.
o $1,861,761 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects.
o $2,000,000 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation.
o $41,241,197 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects.
o $2,500,000 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund
#403 projects.
To partially offset the $56,300,103 in capital costs we anticipate $46,087,958 in grant
revenues which results in 81.86% of capital expenditures being covered with State and
Federal money.
Budgets will be adopted across 31 separate funds.
The funded full-time equivalent employee (FTE) count will decrease in 2025 by 2 to 116.25
from 118.25 in the 2024 Budget. This decrease is comprised of:
o Decrease of three vacant positions, including a Senior Engineer in Engineering, an
Office Assistant in Building, and a Maintenance Worker in Parks, that are not being
funded due to budget constraints in the General Fund.
o Increase of one new Public Safety Coordinator position that is included as part of the
first phase of increases to Law Enforcement related positions that were approved by
Council in February 2024.
Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund:
The 2025 recurring revenue estimate of $63,655,300 is $2,332,200 or 3.8% greater than the
2024 proposed amended budget of $61,323,100.
The 2025 recurring expenditure proposal of $63,236,092 is $3,583,185 or 6.01% greater
than the 2024 proposed amended appropriation of $59,652,907.
o Including the 12 new Law Enforcement related positions, costs for Public Safety
increased by 13.94% while all other General Fund Departments decreased by 5.46%.
Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $419,208 or 0.66%
of recurring revenues.
Nonrecurring expenditures total $1,523,722 and include:
o $50,000 for Information Technology expenditures including:
$20,000 to replace outdated copiers
$20,000 to replace wireless access points
$10,000 for a software contingency
o $910,000 for the replacement of police vehicles
This was originally part of the recurring expenditures but is now being done as a
nonrecurring item as funding is available due to budget constraints in the General
Fund.
o $90,000 for various Facilities items including:
$30,000 to replace the last in-ground vehicle lift at the Precinct
$60,000 to replace carpeting and wallpaper at CenterPlace
o $473,722 transfer out to the Public Safety Equipment Replacement Fund #503 for future
replacement costs of police vehicles already purchased in prior years
2
This was originally part of the recurring expenditures but is now being done as a
nonrecurring item as funding is available due to budget constraints in the General
Fund.
The total of 2025 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by
$1,104,514.
The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2025 is currently
$37,750,374 or 59.7% of recurring expenditures.
Other Funds:
2025 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $84,869,971 as follows:
FundFund2025
NumberNameAppropriation
101Street Fund9,250,085
103Paths and Trails Fund0
104Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund0
105Hotel / Motel Tax Fund923,000
106Solid Waste Fund119,289
107PEG Fund73,000
108Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund0
109Tourism Promotion Area Fund1,275,000
110Homeless Housing Program Fund344,000
111Transportation Benefit District Fund2,785,000
120CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund0
121Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund0
122Winter Weather Reserve Fund500,000
204Debt Service Fund970,950
301REET 1 Capital Projects Fund1,728,150
302REET 2 Capital Projects Fund1,891,950
303Street Capital Projects Fund6,488,645
309Parks Capital Projects Fund1,861,761
310Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund0
311Pavement Preservation Fund2,050,000
312Capital Reserve Fund4,990,123
314Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund41,241,197
315Transportation Impact Fee Fund0
316Economic Development Capital Projects Fund0
402Stormwater Management Fund5,692,821
403Aquifer Protection Area Fund1,000,000
501Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund185,000
502Risk Management Fund900,000
503Public Safety Equipment Replacement Fund0
632Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund600,000
84,869,971
Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include:
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street
Fund is anticipated to be $1,969,700.
Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and
maintenance are anticipated to be $900,000.
3
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed
street projects are anticipated to total $3,000,000.
Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are
anticipated to be $1,490,000 ($900,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $590,000 in
the Hotel/Motel Tax – Tourism Facilities Fund #104).
Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) Fees that are collected in the Tourism Promotion Area Fund
that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $1,300,000.
Vehicle License Fees that are dedicated to use on the City’s pavement management
program are anticipated to be $2,785,000 in the Transportation Benefit District Fund.
Stormwater Management Feesthat are estimated at $6,170,000.
Funding Challenges:
Revenue collections are moderating after the record high collections seen subsequent to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Growth in General Fund recurring revenues is flattening and
estimated to be approximately 1.17% in 2025, which is not keeping pace with the increase in
inflation driven recurring expenditures of 6.35%.
The City has identified the need for additional Law Enforcement personnel through a
consultant study. The study calls for 29 additional Law Enforcement related positions of
which 10 are included in the 2025 proposed budget. City Council is considering how to
implement the remaining 19 positions, which will need to include discussion of potential
additional revenue sources and balancing the cost of public safety against other City
priorities and services.
Funding pavement preservation and other transportation and infrastructure needs.
o Maintaining the City’s current street network is a high priority. It is a challenge to balance
the needs of local access streets and arterials and to provide adequate funding to
maintain the pavement condition of both. Also, due to revenue constraints, the General
Fund is no longer able to provide funding to support the pavement management
program which has historically been provided at about $1 million annually.
o Greater reliance on REET revenues to support the City’s pavement management
program will necessitate the prioritization of capital projects with grant funding in order to
maximize the City’s use of resources. This may cause streets that are not eligible for
grant funding, such as residential local access street, to degrade faster than the City can
afford to fix them.
o Railroad grade separation projects (overpasses and underpasses) and other large street
projects are exceptionally expensive endeavors and are largely beyond the City’s ability
to finance through existing sources of revenue. The City has been very successful in
securing funding for the Barker Rd. Grade Separation and Pines Rd. Grade Separation
projects; however, funding is still needed for other grade separation projects as well as
other large-scale transportation improvements within the City.
Establishing a Homeless and Housing program for the City and identifying dedicated funding
for this program.
OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on the preliminary 2025 budget; and this is the
second of such hearings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather
input from the public regarding the 2025 Budget, no action is requested at this time. However, if
Council wishes to make any changes to the 2025 Budget, this is an ideal time to communicate
those changes to staff so that they may be incorporated into the final budget book in time for
schedule adoption on November 19, 2024.
4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Given that the budget is not scheduled to be adopted by the
Council until November 19, 2024, it is possible the figures may be modified as we refine
estimates of revenues and expenditures. However, no changes are anticipated at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Power Point presentation
Summary of 2025 Supplemental Budget Requests
Draft 2025 Budget Book as of October 15, 2024, will be available under separate cover
5
$2 million in Street Fund 101$900k in Street Fund 101$3 million in REET Funds 301 & 302$1.5 million in Hotel/Motel Tax Funds 104 & 105$1.3 million in TPA Fund 109$2.8 million in Street
Fund 101$6.2 million in Stormwater Fund 402
HOMELESS & HOUSING PROGRAM
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
LAW ENFORCEMENT POSITIONS
REVENUE GROWTH NOT KEEPING PACE
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 6/11/2024
2025 Budget
Supplemental Requests
Account NumberAccount TitleDescriptionAmount
#001 - General Fund
Facilities
nPM521599-564005nPM521599-564005Capital MachinerCapital MachinerCapital Machineryyyyyyy & Equipment & Equipment & Equipment Replace last in-ground vehicle liftReplace last in-ground
vehicle lift 30,00030,000
gg Repair & Maint. Repair & Maint.Replace carpeting at CenterPlaceReplace carpeting at CenterPlaceReplace carpeting at CenterPlace 30,00030,000
nCX575500-548007BuildinnCX575500-548007BuildinnCX575500-548007Buildin
Replace wallpaper in the Great Room at Replace wallpaper in the Great Room at
nCX575500-548007Building Repair & Maint.nCX575500-548007Building Repair & Maint.nCX575500-548007Building Repair & Maint.CenterPlaceCenterPlace 30,00030,000
nTo be determinedReplacement Fund Establish asset replacement fund??
90,000
Parks & Recreation
nCP594759-564001Capital Furniture & Equipment CenterPlace Great Room audio refresh 80,000
80,000
Total General Fund170,000
recurringr0
nonrecurringn170,000
170,000
#402 - Stormwater Fund
Temp/Seasonal Wages, Taxes &
SW531000-511000/52100X
rBenefits Two interns to assist Stormwater program 56,450
nSW594319-564012nSW594319-564012Capital Computer SoftwareCapital Computer Software Asset management systemAsset management systemAsset management system for Stormwater for Stormwater
50,00050,000
Recurring licensing costs for asset Recurring licensing costs for asset
rSW531000-548031rSW531000-548031rSW531000-548031Software LicensesSoftware Licenses managementmanagementmanagementmanagement system system 50,00050,000
Total Stormwater Fund156,450
#501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund#501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund#501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund
FM594420-564006FM594420-564006Snow PloSnow Ploww replace one snow plowreplace one snow plow 175,000175,000
Total Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund175,000
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration – East Valley School District Pedestrian
Undercrossing Agreement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual Advanced Six-Year plans for
coordinated transportation program expenditures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
11/21/2021: Administrative Report discussing the City’s Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection
Project combined with the County’s Bigelow Gulch Road Project.
10/01/2024: Administrative Report outlining the proposed East Valley School District
Undercrossing Interlocal Agreement
BACKGROUND: In 2020, the City and Spokane County began a coordinated construction
effort to improve the Sullivan Road/Wellesley Avenue intersection and construct the Bigelow
Gulch Corridor Project. The efforts were coordinated as the County’s Bigelow project
connected to the City’s intersection project. Construction commenced in the spring of 2022 and
the roadway and intersection were open to the public in the fall of 2022, with final completion
given in the fall of 2023.
The new Bigelow Gulch connection through the East Valley School District’s property impacted
the District’s operations between the East Valley High School site and the East Valley Middle
School site. Additionally, students trying to cross the proposed 5-lane roadway would be in
jeopardy due to the significant increase in traffic. To mitigate the impacts to the District, the
roadway project required the construction of a pedestrian undercrossing.
In order for the District to use and provide normal maintenance of the pedestrian undercrossing,
an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) is necessary. City and District staff have developed the attached
ILA outlining the responsibilities of each agency for the undercrossing. The ILA was approved
by the East Valley School District Board on September 24, 2024.
st
At its October 1meeting, City Council provided consensus to bring the agreement forward for a
motion consideration to approve.
OPTIONS: 1) Motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement with East Valley School District, or
2) take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the
Interlocal Agreement with the East Valley School District for use of the Sullivan Road Pedestrian
Undercrossing.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. The agreement solidifies the current
maintenance practices by each agency.
STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, Public Works Director
___________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
Interlocal Agreement – Final Version
City/County Projects
Sullivan Road
Progress Road
Progress Road
Agreement Provisions
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Retail Recruitment Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Some of Council’s previous actions include:
2016, 03-08: Admin Report with CAI
2017, 09-12: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2018, 07-31: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2019, 01-19: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2021, 01-19: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2021, 09-14: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2022, 10-22: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
2023, 10-10: Admin Report, retail recruitment update
BACKGROUND: In 2015, the City engaged the services of Community Attributes, Inc. (CAI) to
develop a retail improvement strategy and action plan to enhance the City’s retail offerings. In
2016, the City updated its comprehensive plan and development regulations that incorporated
many of the strategies and actions identified in the study, such as increased flexibility for retailers,
increased residential density along commercial corridors, and new opportunities for neighborhood
commercial.
In late 2017, the City engaged Retail Strategies, a retail national recruiting firm, consistent with
the implementation strategy of the CAI study. Since 2017, the City has been working with Retail
Strategies on retail recruitment and market trends, specifically identifying retail recruitment and
attractions that are unique to the region and located in the City of Spokane Valley. Their work has
included identifying retail gaps, exploring national retailers moving to new geographies (west and
north), retail trade area research, regular updates of the City’s shopping center and retail
corridors, and continuing retail recruitment efforts including representation at the International
Council of Shopping Center conferences and developing relationships with retailers, brokers,
developers, and key industry contacts on behalf of the City.
Tonight, Ms. Brooke Hill and Mr. John Mark Boozer of Retail Strategies will provide an update on
their recent in-market analysis, retail recruitment successes, in-process and future retail pursuits,
retail trends, and regional retail expansions.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:. The 2025 contract is budgeted for $35,000.
STAFF CONTACT: Susan Nielsen, Economic Development Specialist
ATTACHMENTS: Retail Strategies presentation.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
informationadmin. reportpending legislationexecutive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report on the Draft2025 Federal Legislative Agenda
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The 2024 Federal Legislative Agenda was adopted on
December 12, 2023 and amended on March 12, 2024 to add a policy concerning the preservation
of the Columbia River System and Lower Snake River Dams.
BACKGROUND: Federal lobbyist Mike Pieper of Cardinal Infrastructure will join us virtually to
provide a recap of 2024 federal legislative efforts and co-present the first draft of the 2025 Federal
Legislative Agenda that includes capital projects, priority policies and support for a regional
initiative.
2025 DRAFT FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
The proposed 2025 Federal Legislative Agenda is intended as a communication tool for meetings
with our Congressional delegation, their staff and federal agencies to advance City of Spokane
Valley capital projects and priority policies.
Depending on the outcome of our two pending FY 2025 Congressionally Directed Spending
(CDS) requests, this agenda may be amended to adjust the transportation project descriptions
and funding requests.
The current draft is formatted similarly to our State Legislative Agenda with more specific policy
statements compared to previous federal agendas to provide for more proactive and targeted
engagement. The graphics on page 1 are currently being updated by our Communications
Department and will be finalized prior to Council’s adoption of the agenda.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Capital projects on the 2025 Legislative Agenda include the same four transportation projects as
the 2024 document. This year, the agenda also includes the cross country course fieldhouse,
also known as the clubhouse. Funding for this project may be available through the Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) program offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The federal request is $3.5 million, the estimated cost of the clubhouse.
Barker/I-90 Interchange
This interchange is the most important element of this regional corridor due to immense
industrial and residential growth spanning Spokane Valley, Spokane County and Liberty
Lake. The City seeks federal, state and local partnerships to replace the existing two-lane
bridge with a new four-lane bridge as well as to replace the two single-lane roundabouts
with two-lane roundabouts.
The City has a pending $3 million CDS request for FY 2025 sponsored by U.S. Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers and recently added a $1 million request on the 2025 State Legislative
Agenda to complete funding for design, estimated at $4 million.
South Barker Road Corridor
This corridor is a series of city projects and one WSDOT project from Mission Avenue to
th
the city boundary just south of 8
Avenue to improve intersections and add capacity to
better manage extensive growth in the city, county and neighboring Liberty Lake. The
projects are either planned or in process with one project completed. For more information
about the projects along the corridor, please visit www.spokanevalleywa.gov/324
.
Argonne Bridge at I-90
This project will address the critical bottleneck on this bridge over I-90 and is a companion
project to Spokane Transit Authority’s (STA) future Park and Ride Facility that is expected
to be constructed by 2028 and is fully funded by STA and WSDOT.
The city’s project will reconstruct the existing bridge and add a third lane to improve safety
and traffic flow. A new shared-use path will add pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve
safe mobility for all users. The City is currently selecting a consultant to begin initial design
and scoping and will collaborate with STA and WSDOT to deliver this companion project.
More information can be found at www.spokanevalleywa.gov/702.
A pending CDS award for FY 2025 in the amount of $2 million was sponsored by Senator
Maria Cantwell.
Sullivan/Trent Interchange
This project will reconstruct the existing interchange at Sullivan Road and Trent
Avenue (SR 290) and replace both Sullivan Road bridges over the BNSF Railway
tracks and four lanes of Trent. The existing signalized intersections will be replaced
with a "peanut" roundabout. This project seeks to improve mobility and safety for all
users including vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. A shared-use path will be added
along the west side of Sullivan Road and a new, wider sidewalk will be built on the
east side. More project information can be found at www.spokanevalleywa.gov/330.
The City has secured $10.6 million in federal and state funding for the engineering and
right-of-way phases of the project and funding continues to be sought for the construction
phase. The City is considering submitting a FY 2025 RAISE grant request.
Cross County Course Fieldhouse
On October 16, the City breaks ground on its new cross country course on 62 acres of
property on the north side of the Spokane River at Flora Road. Phase I construction will
be completed in fall 2025 and includes the course with varying lengths, restrooms and a
limited parking area.
Phase II construction will include a fieldhouse that provides a drug testing facility, packet
pick up and coaches/officials meeting room, medical room, storage for course
maintenance and equipment, restrooms for 2,000 attendees, an elevated stage area (aka
crow’s nest) for announcers at the finish line, event management room, small kitchen
space and additional parking.
Earlier this month, NCAA announced that this course was selected to host the 2027
Division I Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Regional event that will draw athletes, their
teams, officials and guests to the City of Spokane Valley. The City continues to work with
Spokane Sports to program this facility and promote sports tourism.
POLICY PRIORITIES
Policy priorities include Public Health and Safety, Transportation and Infrastructure, Housing and
Homelessness, Economic Development and Workforce and Value of Hydropower. These general
categories align more closely with the 2025 City Council’s budget priorities and recent talking
points with our Congressional delegation and federal agencies.
Public Health and Safety policies highlight funding and grant programs to address law
enforcement needs, regulating public spaces, drug addiction and enforcement (especially
related to fentanyl), drug treatment programs and safety measures concerning the
railroads.
Transportation and Infrastructure policies align with the 2024 Legislative Agenda to
continue federal partnerships and funding programs, eliminating obstacles to deliver
federal transportation projects and encouraging members of Congress to see the
extraordinary growth firsthand and how the City is delivering on its past federal awards.
This agenda includes the addition of encouraging USDOT to work with states to establish
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals on a regional rather than statewide
basis, in concert with our state legislative efforts.
Housing and Homelessness policies were added to encourage continued funding of
programs and services to respond to and address homelessness, promote construction
and preservation of affordable housing, offer federal incentives to deliver diverse housing
options for all income levels and support for HUD to adequately fund its Housing Choice
Voucher Program to create stability and certainty for Public Housing Authorities.
Economic Development and Workforce policies encourage expanding and growing the
manufacturing sectors in Spokane Valley and the region and they express opposition to
preemption of local authority to regulate utilities.
Value of Hydropower aligns with the 2024 Legislative Agenda by expressly supporting
policies that protect hydropower and asks that the federal government include a variety of
stakeholders, including local government, to participate in federal conversations.
SUPPORT FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES
This item was added to express support of local industries’ federal grant applications such as
Kaiser Aluminum’s CHIPS and Science Act submittal to expand their Spokane Valley facilities
and boost production of a critical component in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Following discussion, feedback is desired on the proposed capital projects and policy priorities
for a future motion and consideration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Virginia Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator; and Mike Pieper, Cardinal
Infrastructure, LLC.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2025 Federal Legislative Agenda, PowerPoint Presentation
2025
Federal
LegislativeAgenda
10210 E Sprague Avenue · Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5000 · SpokaneValleyWA.gov
CAPITALPROJECTS
Spokane Valley is committed to delivering nationally and regionally
projects that prioritize equity, climate and sustainability and safety for all users.
Transportation Projects
Sullivan/Trent Interchange
Total Cost: $46 Million
BarkerRoad/I-90 Interchange
Total Cost: $40 Million (Est.)
2025 CDS : $3 Million
Argonne Bridge at I-90South Barker Corridor
Total Cost: $24 Million (Est.)Total Cost: $41 Million
2025 CDS :
$
CDS = Congressionally Directed Spending
Cross Country Course Fieldhouse
The City of Spokane Valley requests $3.5 million in Economic Development Initiative (EDI) program
a drug testing facility,
medical room, storage for course maintenance
and equipment, restrooms for 2,000 attendees, ’s nest) for
This venue -collegiate and master’s level events
-barrier sport facility for our community, as only a pair of shoes is
necessary.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has selected this course to hostthe 2027 Division
guests to the City of Spokane Valley. The City
and promote sports tourismarea hotels, restaurants, retail shops and other businesses.
DRAFT 10-15-24
POLICY PRIORITIES
Public Health and Safety
Supportfor
and equipment needs including continuation of the COPS Program (Community Oriented
Policing Program) and the Bryne JAG (Justice Assistance Grant) program
.
Encourage the federal government to establish funding assistance to aid in the planning and
construction of .
Uphold local governments the ability to regulate its public
spaces, including, but not limited to, open use of controlled substances, overnight camping,
etc.
Support for federal programs and funding to increase drug enforcement and treatment
programs passing
abuse such as:
o Reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act
o Passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act
transport of hazardous materials via train through passage of the Rail Safety Act.
Enact measures requiring railroads to maintain their properties to deter trespassers,
encampments, and associated negative impacts upon adjacent businesses and
neighborhoods and requiring prompt clean up after public health and safety incidents.
Transportation and Infrastructure
Encourage Congress to continue federal participation in locally directed projects, given the
.
C
Department of Transportation to ensure that
E
E
agencies must bear the cost of travel for contracted services from larger metropolitan areas.
The City encourages members of Congress to visit our region to see
Housing and Homelessness
Continue programs and policies to respond to and address homelessness such as
Continuum of Care Program, Homeless Assistance Grants, etc.
Promote construction and through -Income Housing
Program, HOME Investment Partnership Program, etc.
Support for federal incentives to increase and diversify housing options for an array of income
-
Support for HUD to adequately fund its Housing Choice Voucher Program to create stability
and certainty for Public Housing Authorities to continue assisting families and individuals in
should run short.
DRAFT 10-15-24
POLICY PRIORITIES CONTINUED
Economic Development and Workforce
Support policies and the manufacturing sectors in the City
of Spokane Valley and across the region.
Oppose the
to regulate utilities.
Value of Hydropower
,
Ensure
public utilities, ports, local government and river users.
SUPPORT FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES
Support of local industries’ federal grant applications such as Kaiser Aluminum’s CHIPS and
Science Act submittal
highly-engineered aluminum plate, a critical component in the U.S. semiconductor supply
chain.
DRAFT 10-15-24
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date:October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational presentation on November 1, 2022, from
SREC representatives; update on June 4, 2024 to discuss recent letters between SREC and the
City of Spokane regarding Spokane’s participation with SREC; update on July 23, 2024 to
discuss.
BACKGROUND:
The Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) is a public development authority
formed by Spokane County in 2018 to serve as the regional emergency service communications
agency. SREC provides a variety of services, with a primary focus on providing 911 and Crime
Check call response and dispatch to almost all agencies within Spokane County for emergency
services, including fire, police, and medical services. The primary SREC communications center
is housed at a facility near the Spokane Community College which is owned by the City of
Spokane.
SREC is funded through a variety of funding sources. The three primary sources include a voter-
approved communication sales tax levy of 0.1%, most recently approved in 2017, a 911 excise
tax ($0.70 per month for each landline phone number, wireless phone number, and VoIP service
line), and “user fees” from partner agencies. The City is not a direct member of SREC and so
does not have a service agreement with SREC. The City pays for services through its Law
Enforcement Agreement costs through the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office. As part of this
arrangement, Spokane Valley Police Department Police Chief Dave Ellis serves on the SREC
Board, but the City does not have direct City staff or elected official representation on the Board.
Staff attend meetings and work with SREC Staff for questions related to operations and
financings. In 2023, SREC charged the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office $3,208,390. The City’s
share through the LECAP (methodology for calculating amounts owed) for 2023 was $1,321,089
(paid through its Law Enforcement Agreement).
Member agencies include Airway Heights Police/Fire, Cheney Fire, EWU Police, Kalispel Tribe
Public Safety, Liberty Lake Police, Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, Spokane County Fire Districts
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Spokane Valley Fire, and Spokane Valley Police Department.
Notably, the City of Spokane only participates with Spokane Fire. SREC was originally
contemplated as a fully regional agency with participation from all first responder agencies,
including Spokane Fire and Spokane Police. For various reasons, the City of Spokane did not
join SREC when it was created. On November 1, 2022, the Spokane Fire Department joined
SREC. Currently, SREC provides 911 response, but not dispatch services to Spokane Police.
Recent Developments
In June 2024, Chief Ellis provided an update on communications between SREC and the City of
Spokane about Spokane’s participation in SREC. While SREC was envisioned as a fully regional
agency providing emergency communications services for all law enforcement and fire agencies,
the City of Spokane did not immediately join. In 2022, Spokane Fire agreed to a service
agreement and joined SREC. As part of this agreement, the City of Spokane filled two seats on
the SREC Board with the Spokane Fire Chief and City of Spokane City Administrator. However,
at that time Spokane Police have not joined SREC. SREC continues to provide 911 services
(answering 911 calls) and forwards any calls for police service needs in the City of Spokane to
Spokane Police Dispatch.
Spokane has at various times sought to receive a portion of the taxes received by SREC to assist
in funding Spokane Police Dispatch. In order to fully resolve the issue, in April 2024, the SREC
Board voted to request from the City of Spokane confirmation of whether Spokane would fully join
SREC and if not, to then fully separate from SREC and to form and operate its own public safety
answering point (PSAP) to provide all emergency communication services for Spokane. The City
responded, requesting (1) additional time to review the financial implications of Spokane providing
its own PSAP, (2) identifying claims that SREC was overcharging members in the user fees, and
(3) requesting greater representation on the SREC Board due to the fact that if Spokane Police
calls were added, total call volume for Spokane Fire and Police would constitute more than half
of the calls received by SREC. On May 24, 2024, the SREC Board voted to agree to the Mayor’s
request for an extension to August 24, 2024.
Tonight, Staff will provide an update on the City of Spokane’s August response and subsequent
communications between SREC and Spokane.
In August, the City of Spokane identified that it had ADCOMM provide a report and assessment
of the feasibility of Spokane creating its own PSAP vs. fully joining SREC. Based on that report,
Spokane identified it did intend to join SREC, but only if the governance board included more
representation from Spokane, the user fees were be eliminated, reduced or modified, and that
there were more communications and planning involving all stakeholders. SREC responded that
it understood the City to be fully incorporating into SREC if the items identified were resolved.
SREC agreed to have the City of Spokane Police Chief added to the Governing Board, disagreed
with any changes to the financial planning and operational model of SREC, and agreed to
negotiate an interlocal for Spokane’s participation with SREC. SREC recommended creation of
a transition team to work through the timing and logistics of Spokane Police Dispatch joining
SREC once the interlocal was executed.
As part of the process, SREC has created a negotiation team consisting of the SREC Executive
Team, two Spokane County Commissioners, Sheriff, and SREC Executive Director to meet with
representative from Spokane to work through the items identified by each side.
The City and SREC have continued to have discussions and are apparently moving towards
Spokane fully joining SREC.
Notably, City staff have requested a position on the SREC Board by City staff, but have been told
that the Board of County Commissioners would not entertain any other changes to the SREC
Board.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City paid $1,321,089 through its Law Enforcement
Agreement for SREC in 2023.
STAFF CONTACT: Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb; Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint Presentation
ADCOMM Report from City of Spokane
Various letters from agencies regarding SREC
SREC ANALYSISREPORT
Project: City of Spokane SREC Analysis
PN0746
PREPARED FOR:DATE SUBMITTED
08/23/2024
City of Spokane
18809 Autumn Way
Sandy, OR 97055
Phone: 425-487-1361
adcomm911.com
WA Firm License ID No. 20106216
CITY OF SPOKANE | SREC ANALYSIS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
2. THE CITY’S CURRENT FISCAL COMMITMENT TO SREC911 ...................................................... 7
2.1 Emergency Call Handling and Fire Dispatching ....................................................................... 7
2.2800 MHz Trunked Radio System................................................................................................9
2.3 Radio Equipment Costs Specific to City of Spokane .............................................................. 10
2.4 Crime Check ............................................................................................................................... 10
3. TRANSITION COSTS ................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Facility Costs ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Technology Costs ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Organization and Operation Change Management Cost Considerations .......................... 13
4. PROS AND CONS OF CONTINUING FIRE SERVICES WITH SREC ............................................ 14
5. PROS AND CONS OF TRANSITIONING POLICE DISPATCH SERVICES TO SREC911 .............. 15
6. FUNDING MODEL OF SREC ...................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Concerns About Revenue Exceeding Expenses ..................................................................... 17
6.2 Concerns Regarding How Member User Fees are Determined ........................................... 19
6.3 Focus on Funding at SREC and the City of Spokane, an Observation ................................. 19
6.3.1 Context and Implications .................................................................................................... 20
7. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE SREC ............................................................................................ 21
7.1 Composition and Authority ...................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Responsibilities and Functions ................................................................................................ 22
7.3Committees and Subcommittees............................................................................................22
7.4 Meetings and Decision-Making ................................................................................................ 22
7.5Supporting Agreements............................................................................................................23
7.6 City of Spokane's Role in Fiscal and Governance Support of SREC ..................................... 23
8. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 25
8.1 Enhanced Representation ........................................................................................................ 25
8.2 Weighted Voting System ........................................................................................................... 25
8.3 Financial and Operational Subcommittees ............................................................................ 26
8.1 Regular Review and Adjustment of SLAs ................................................................................ 27
8.2 SREC must operate the 911 system in a more cost-effective manner ................................ 27
8.3 Strategic Planning and Collaboration ..................................................................................... 28
8.4 Recommendation to fully participate in SREC or initiate the process to separate ............ 29
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | ii
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Spokane requested ADCOMM perform a Public Safety Communications Analysis to
identify the fiscal, organizational, and operational impacts of two potential scenarios:
Have both Spokane Police and Spokane Fire be fully participating agencies in Spokane
Regional Emergency Communications (SREC)
Or
Have the City create and operate a dedicated primary public safety answering point
(PSAP) and dispatch center for Spokane Police and Fire Departments.
Both options were analyzed to provide benefits or roadblocks with respect to altering the
services currently provided by SREC to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. This study
provides information so that the City can make an informed decision about which scenario best
meets the needs of the City.
The City’s fiscal commitment to SREC:
1. Emergency Call Handling and Fire Dispatching: Under a Service Level Agreement (SLA)
from 2022, the City pays SREC for 911 call handling, fire/EMS dispatching, and radio
network support. Payments are made in two equal installments each year, by May 1 and
November 1, based on a User Fee Formula recommended by the Fire Service
Communication Advisory Board and approved by the SREC Governing Board. The City
currently pays SREC monthly. The SREC's funding comes from county taxes and other
revenue sources. The cost allocation for member agencies is based on factors like call
volume and dispatch workload, but the exact formula is not numerically defined.
2. Cost Allocation for Fire Dispatching: In 2024, the City of Spokane is responsible for 55%
of the fire dispatching costs, amounting to $2,415,323 out of a total cost of $4,410,730.
This is an increase from the 2023 rate due to adjustments in the calculation model.
3. 800 MHz Trunked Radio System: The City’s share of the 2024 radio system costs is based
on its 58.05% usage. This includes salaries, maintenance, and operational costs. However,
the operating reserve contribution is not detailed in the agreements.
4. Radio Equipment Costs: For 2024, the City faces costs of approximately $1,470,075 for
radio equipment replacements and $103,235 for police dispatch consoles.
5. Crime Check Costs: The City is responsible for 61% of the costs related to Crime Check
calls based on its share of the call volume.
The estimated cost and cost considerations of transition from SREC to the City:
1. Facility Costs: Transitioning requires modifying the current facility to accommodate up to
needs, which vary based on timing and the facility's layout. An architect’s input is essential
for precise cost estimates.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-1
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
2. Technology Costs: Deciding between using SREC’s technology or acquiring new systems
and maintenance. New systems require negotiations for interoperability with existing
technologies. Additionally, the cost of accessing enhanced GIS data from SREC needs to
be considered.
3. Organization and Operation Change Costs
administrative costs. Actual costs may vary based on how the new services are integrated
into existing City departments.
Overall, precise cost projections are challenging due to the need for detailed facility planning and
technology negotiations.
Review of SREC911 Services for Spokane Fire Department:
Current Services:
Call handling
Dispatch
Resource coordination countywide
Situational awareness through centralized dispatch
Pros of Continuing with SREC911:
No service disruption
No initial capital or transition costs
-training
Cons of Separating from SREC911:
Disruption due to added call handling time
Need for policy and CAD adjustments
Capital start-up costs for new technology
Transition costs and operational interruptions
Review of SREC911 Services for Spokane Police Department:
Current Services:
Initial call handling and transfers
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-2
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
CAD entry for multi-agency responses
Crime Check report-taking
Pros of Transitioning to SREC911:
Fewer call transfers
Better resource coordination and situational awareness
Improved coordination with Spokane Fire
Cross-
Opportunity to enhance City/PD and SREC relationship
Cons of Transitioning to SREC911:
Need for policy and protocol changes
Potential loss of control over dispatch processes
Risk of non-compliance with service agreements
Possible service decrease if SREC fails to meet SLAs
Risk of further straining City/PD and SREC relationship
SREC Funding Model:
1. Sales and Use Tax: Approved by Spokane County voters in 2017, a 0.1% sales tax funds
stability for infrastructure improvements and regionalization.
2. 9-1-1 Excise Tax: A monthly fee of 95 cents per phone line or device helps fund the
maintenance and enhancement of the 9-1-
3. Member Agency Fees: SREC charges its member agencies based on a Service Fee
Formula, which considers call volume and service needs. These fees cover operational
costs beyond taxes.
4. Intergovernmental Revenue: Includes state grants, like the $50,000 for 2024.
5. Miscellaneous Income and Investment Earnings: Additional funds come from various
sources and investments.
The City of Spokane, which makes up 42.46% of the county's population, contributes over 60% of
exceeding expenses by $33.2 million from 2020 to 2023, with member fees totaling $22.7 million.
This surplus has been retained to fund a future new facility, raising concerns about potential
violations of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and whether fees are equitably shared.
There are also concerns about the process for determining member user fees, which have
relationships between SREC and member agencies, particularly the City of Spokane. The intense
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-3
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
communication.
Overall, the SREC funding model, while sustainable, is facing scrutiny for its management of
The Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) is a Public Development Authority
resolution passed in 2018.
Governance Structure:
Governing Board: Composed of representatives from various public safety and
government agencies within Spokane County. Key members include the Chair (Chief Cody
s, as well as a citizen representative.
: The Board elects a Chair and Vice-Chair for one-year terms.
Responsibilities:
Chair: Leads meetings and represents the Board but can delegate responsibilities.
Executive Director: Manages SREC’s operations, including budget preparation, contract
Committees:
Financial Subcommittee: Reviews budgets, funding, and capital debt.
Operations Subcommittees
improve services and address user needs.
Meetings and Decision-Making:
Meetings: Held at least ten times a year; special and executive sessions can be called as
needed.
Quorums and Voting
majority.
Supporting Agreements:
Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
terms.
Budget and Financial Planning: Reviewed biannually; annual budget adopted by
November 1st.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-4
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
Insurance Review: Conducted annually.
City of Spokane's Role:
Fiscal Support: The City contributes through member fees and local taxes.
Governance Support: The City is represented on the Board and is involved in operational
aspects, including dispatch and reporting services.
SLAs
Overall, SREC’s governance structure includes a diverse Board, structured committees, and
support from the City of Spokane.
Recommendations:
1. Enhanced Representation: Increase the City of Spokane's representation on the SREC
Governing Board to reflect its significant population and service demand, potentially by
adding more seats or giving additional voting weight.
2. Weighted Voting System: Implement a weighted voting system to better reflect the
needs and usage of the City of Spokane compared to smaller jurisdictions. This system,
modeled after King County's approach, would allocate votes based on factors like
population size or service volume.
3. Financial and Operational Subcommittees:
1. Finance Subcommittee: Ensure regular meetings and full participation by the City
of Spokane to review budgets, funding, and capital debt.
2. Operations Subcommittees: Increase City of Spokane’s involvement in these
subcommittees and ensure proper representation, particularly in areas like law
enforcement dispatch services.
4. Regular Review and Adjustment of SLAs: Annually review and adjust Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) to match the City's needs and service usage, including cost allocation
formulas.
5. Cost-Effective Operations and Transparency:
1. Improve financial transparency by providing detailed reports and updates on how
SREC utilizes its revenue.
2. Ensure any new facility costs are clearly outlined in SLA amendments and obtain
approval from all member agencies.
6. Strategic Planning and Collaboration: Engage in strategic planning with the City of
Spokane to address operational, financial, and technological challenges, including
exploring a long-term countywide 9-1-1 strategic plan like King County’s model.
7. Consideration of Full Participation or Separation: Evaluate whether to fully participate
in SREC or consider maintaining an independent 9-1-1 system if necessary improvements
are not agreed upon. Recognize that separation may involve additional challenges and
costs.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-5
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-6
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
2. THE CITY’S CURRENT FISCAL COMMITMENT
TO SREC911
2.1 Emergency Call Handling and Fire Dispatching
The City of Spokane’s current fiscal commitment to Spokane Regional Emergency
Communications (SREC) center is described in the Service Level Agreement (executed in 2022)
between the City of Spokane and the Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC). The
services are summarized as (1) 911 Emergency Call Taking; (2) Fire/EMS Dispatching; and (3)
Radio Network devices and system support. A User Fee for said services is not enumerated, or
included as a formula, but described in Section 2 of the SLA as COMPENSATION. TIME OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Compensation. The RECIPIENT shall compensate the PROVIDER for the SERVICES according to the
User Fee Formula as recommended by the Fire Service Communication Advisory Board and approved
by the SREC Governing Board. 2.2 Time of Payment. RECIPIENT shall pay PROVIDER the total fixed fee
set forth in Paragraph 2.1 in no more than two equal installments, the first of which shall be paid to
PROVIDER no later than May 1 of each year of the Agreement and the second no later than November
1
1 of each year of the Agreement. The City of Spokane submits payment monthly to SREC.
The overall funding of SREC comes from the Board of County Commissioners approved and
designated revenues from the County generated by Enhanced 911 sales, use, and excise taxes as
th
allowed under RCW 82.14B.030 and, the 1/10 of 1% Communication tax as approved by the voters
under RCW 82.14.420 as well as other revenue generated from service fees consistent with the charter,
2
and the bylaws and Section No. 2.
The funding model and formula for member agencies of SREC is detailed in the following table:
1
Resolution 18-0772
2
Ibid.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-7
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
TABLE 1: Cost Allocation Rate Model FY 2024 (SREC)
The cost allocation rate model is based on the Service Fee Formula as defined in Resolution 18-
0772 as The allocation of costs of services determined by the SREC Board for the purposes of
3
calculating the fees assessed to entities for the funding of such services.This Resolution, the SREC
Board Charter and Bylaws, do not contain a formula in the sense that there is not a
mathematical equation nor a rule expressed in numbers. The above model summary for 2024
shows the calculations used to divide the amount of the SREC budget to be covered after the 9-1-
3
Ibid.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-8
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
th
1 excise tax and the 1/10 of 1% sales and use tax revenues are applied. The share by entity is
based on use of the system, also known as call volume, cost to dispatch, and other workload
descriptors.
The City of Spokane is invoiced for the Spokane Fire Department use of the system as 55% of the
Fire call handling and dispatch workload.
Per SREC, the 2023 rate was not increased from the 2022 rate. The rate model was applied when
calculating the 2024 rates and described as being based on Spokane Fire determined to
represent 55% of the dispatch service usage. As determined by SREC, the cost to dispatch fire
countywide is $4,410,730. The City’s percentage of use and responsibility at 55% resulted in an
invoice of $2,415,323. Note that 55% of $4,410,730 is $2,425,901, a difference of $10,578. The
reason provided by SREC for the increase from 2023 to 2024 was a low calculation for 2023 and a
catch up to the rate model for 2024. There are no protections in the City’s agreement with SREC
from substantial rate changes or language addressing how the City can address/challenge these
rate changes.
2.2 800 MHz Trunked Radio System
The SREC 2024 Projected cost of service estimate for the City of Spokane for the regional radio
system is based on measured use by the City’s agencies. Per SREC, the statistics generated from
the radio system indicate that the City of Spokane usage percentage is 58.05% of the overall
airtime utilized by all agencies. The line items are SREC radio shop salary and benefits,
maintenance and operation, administrative and technology services, and an operating reserve
contribution. Note that the operating reserve contribution is not defined nor called out in the
service level agreement nor the intergovernmental agreement between the City and SREC. The
following table is a breakdown of the costs of operating the radio system and the associated
amounts representing the City’s responsibility.
TABLE 2: City of Spokane 800 MHz Trunked Radio System Usage Percentage and Cost
800 MHz TRUNKED TOTAL SYSTEM OTHER SYSTEM
RADIO SYSTEM USAGE OPERATING COST COS % COS $ USERS
Direct Salary & Benefits $1,437,420 58.05% $834,422 $602,998
Direct M&O* $3,364,198 58.05% $1,952,917 $1,411,281
Admin/IT Services $2,336,112 58.05% $1,356,113 $979,999
Amount
Operating Reserve $269,439 58.05% $156,409 $113,029
Contribution**
$7,407,168 $4,299,861 $3,107,307
*Equipment replacement costs are calculated separately based on recent cost divided by useful life.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-9
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
**Operating Reserve contributions are calculated based on Board approved amount and apportionment of departmental
expenses.
2.3 Radio Equipment Costs Specific to City of Spokane
In addition to the overall system usage and operating costs, SREC manages the equipment, i.e.,
consoles, portables, mobiles. The 2024 budgeted amount for radio equipment replacement is
based on the number of radios in use and cache for the City, which is 1,153 with an annual
replacement cost of $1,275 per unit for a total of approximately $1,470,075. The City has
11 police dispatch radio consoles that have an annual replacement cost of $9,385 per unit for a
total of approximately $103,235.
2.4 Crime Check
SREC uses data provided from the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system to determine that the
City of Spokane accounts for 61% of all the Crime Check calls received. The following table is a
breakdown of the costs to perform Crime Check and the amounts representing the City’s
responsibility.
TABLE 3: Crime Check Services
TOTAL CRIME
CHECK OTHER SYSTEM
OPERATING COST USERS
CRIME CHECK SERVICES COS % COS $
Direct Salary & Benefits $3,389,875 61.00% $2,067,824 $1,322,051
Direct M&O -- 61.00% -- --
Admin/IT Services $1,649,263 61.00% $1,006,050 $643,212
Amount
Operating Reserve $190,220 61.00% $116,034 $74,186
Contribution*
$5,229,358 $3,189,908 $2,039,450
*Operating Reserve contributions are calculated based on Board approved amount and apportionment of departmental
expenses.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-10
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
3. TRANSITION COSTS
The cost of transitioning call handling, dispatch, and report writing services from SREC to the City
of Spokane cannot be completely projected as there are decisions that must be made regarding
the following:
Modifications needed to the repurpose the current facility to best accommodate a new City
operation. Associated costs are impacted by the timing of a transition of Spokane Fire services
from SREC to the City, and by SREC’s timeline for relocating operations.
3.1 Facility Costs
The following table estimates potential renovation and upgrade costs that may be associated
with repurposing the current facility to house an expanded City of Spokane Police and Fire
operation. This is based on an approximation of renovating a 3,000 square foot (SF) area of the
building to accommodate up to 15 call handling/police/fire consoles and associated administra-
tive and support services. These figures should only be used for discussion purposes as facility
programming by an architect or facility planner is necessary to determine actual space needs
once decisions are made about what will be housed in this facility. The figures are based on the
non-residential range of construction costs for secure purpose-built critical facilities.
TABLE 4: Renovation Cost Estimates
COSTS/SF APPROX. COSTS
Renovation/Expansion $96 $288,000
Interiors $125 $375,000
Mechanical* $90 $90,000
Electrical* $60 $60,000
Subtotal $813,000
Contingency 20% $162,600
Total $975,600
Soft Costs (if needed)
A/E Fees 10% $97,560
Total $1,073,160
*Improvements if needed.
3.2 Technology Costs
Technology replacement and interoperability costs vs. costs to continue to use SREC technology.
This decision should be made system by system. Service to citizens and responders is best
preserved through continued shared technologies. The continued use of SREC maintained
systems will require negotiating costs for initiation and for ongoing use and maintenance of
system components, connectivity, equipment and data. Should the City desire to acquire new
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-11
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
systems, voice and data interoperability must be negotiated and memorialized in a system
access and data-sharing agreement(s).
The costs associated with voice and data interoperability are not quantifiable without finalizing
what the level of use and access will be to the radio, telephony, and logging recorder systems.
The City also maintains and shares City-specific Geographical Information System (GIS) data
countywide, and SREC uses this data to provide enhancements to mapping tools to all member
agencies. There may or may not be a cost associated with access and use of this enhanced data,
such as recent fire evacuation data. If the City chooses to transition out of SREC, then planning
must include an assessment of what GIS data is available at no cost and what costs may be
associated with replicating the enhancements SREC has produced.
The following table contains estimated costs associated with new systems and connectivity.
These are a sampling of potential costs and the items noted as existing must be considered if
impacted by a separation from SREC. Items requiring negotiations with SREC for access and use
are specified as the radio system components, though all technologies and systems access and
use can be negotiated.
TABLE 5: Technology Cost Estimates
INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST ESTIMATED COST MAINTENANCE
SYSTEM QUANTITY
Software Licensing 1 $250,000 $250,000 $45,000
CAD Servers/Storage 2 $50,000 $100,000 $18,000
Personal Computers 24 $2,250 $54,000 $10,000
Computer Monitors 30 $500 $15,000 $5,760
Remote PC Installation 1 $75,488 $75,488 $0
Mobile Data Existing $0 $0 $0
LERMS Existing $0 $0 $0
FRMS Existing $0 $0 $0
ePCR Existing $0 $0 $0
9-1-1 Answering
Existing $0 $0 $0
Equipment
Telephony 1 $80,000 $80,000 $14,400
Fiber Connection (PSDN) 1 $50,000 $50,000 $0
Radio Dispatch Consoles 15 $100,000 $1,500,000 $144,000
Radio System To be negotiated $0 $0 $0
Radio System
To be negotiated $0 $0 $0
Connectivity
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-12
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
INDIVIDUAL TOTAL ESTIMATED
SYSTEM QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED COST MAINTENANCE
Logging Recorder1 $115,000$115,000$20,700
Dispatch Protocol
1 $93,609 $93,609 $16,850
Software
Fire Station Alerting Existing $0 $0 $0
System Furniture 15 $19,000 $285,000 $5,000
Dispatch Chairs (24x7) 15 $1,500 $22,500 $3,000
Electrical/Cabling Existing $0 $0 $0
UPS Existing $0 $0 $0
Generator Existing $0 $0 $0
Master Clock 1 $30,000 $30,000 $0
Security/Access Control Existing $0 $0 $0
Flat Panel Wall Displays 4 $1,500 $6,000 $2,000
Cable TV 1 $500 $500 $500
Audio Video Switching 1 $50,000 $50,000 $9,000
Total $2,727,097 $294,210
3.3 Organization and Operation Change Management Cost
Considerations
Costs associated with organization and operation changes may be manageable in support of the
Spokane Police but will be significant for the Spokane Fire, call handling, and report writing
(Crime Check). The transition to a newly created City department or the addition of the services
under an existing department will require significant planning, application of existing and new
personnel, administrative support transition, operations staff recruitment, hiring, training, and
supervision. A cost consideration that cannot be accurately quantified is the time investment
necessary to address the response coordination between Spokane Fire and other fire districts
that will continue to be dispatched by SREC.
Costs that the City should expect include salary and benefits for approximately 20 additional
staff to handle the fire dispatching and associated call handling. From the SREC operations
budget, the City can expect this cost to be around $8,600,000 or more based on the
requirements of the current collective bargaining agreement for dispatch staff. The employee
pay table in the current agreement shows position pay ranges from Report Technicians annual
pay of $44,579.05 through Supervisor 3 Three Disciplines annual pay of $87,803.26. The
estimated $8.6mil figure is inclusive of administrative staff, and support staff and programs for
training and quality assurance. Actual costs may be higher or lower depending on decisions
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-13
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
regarding City support for a new department or incorporating these functions within an existing
department(s).
4. PROS AND CONS OF CONTINUING FIRE
SERVICES WITH SREC
Current fire services from SREC include call handling, dispatch, coordination of resources for
response countywide, situational awareness via centralized dispatch, new CAD planned with
continued and enhanced integration to/with fire records management.
Pros for continuing service with SREC:
a. No disruption to current service
b. Continued coordinated response with other fire and law services
c. No capital start-up costs
d. No transition costs and operations interruption
e. Continued efforts to cross-train all SREC staff to address staffing, back fill, and surge
staffing needs
Cons to separating service from SREC:
a. Disruption of current service by adding call handling time via transfers
b. Reframing policy and CAD responses to allow coordinated response with other fire and
law services
c. Capital start-up costs for purchasing or adapting technologies
d. Costs and operations interruption for transitioning space, organization, operations, and
technology
e. Creation within new organization of hiring, training, and retaining staff, and cross-training
potentially within fire and police dispatch staff.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-14
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
5. PROS AND CONS OF TRANSITIONING POLICE
DISPATCH SERVICES TO SREC911
Current services include initial call handling to determine response. If only Spokane PD, then
transfer. If multi-agency/discipline response, then enter in CAD for PD while continuing to
process complete call, then may transfer. Crime Check report-taking which is a countywide
service and is assumed to remain at SREC.
Pros of transitioning dispatch services to SREC:
a. Reduction in transfer of emergency calls
b. Enhanced coordination of resources within SREC and in the field
c. Enhanced situational awareness within SREC and in the field
d. Enhanced coordination between Spokane Police and Fire
e. Cross-trained staff for staffing, back fill, and surge staffing needs
f. Overall cost efficiencies through negotiated user fees vs capital and ongoing costs
associated with creating and maintaining a City PSAP
g. Opportunity to improve relationship between City/PD and SREC
Cons of transitioning dispatch services to SREC:
a. Required policy, procedure, and protocol change/creation and coordination via
agreement(s) between City and SREC
b. Process changes and potential indirect control of call handling and dispatch processes
c. Either side of City and/or SREC not adhering to negotiated service agreement(s) and
governance arrangements
d. Potential decrease in service if SREC does not or is not able to meet SLA due to staffing,
funding, or other unknown issue
e. Further straining relationship between City/PD and SREC
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-15
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
6. FUNDING MODEL OF SREC
The funding mechanism supporting Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC)
involves the following revenue sources.
1. Sales and Use Tax: A significant portion of SREC's funding comes from a local sales and
use tax. In 2017, Spokane County voters approved Proposition 1, continuing a 1/10th of
1% sales tax to fund emergency communication systems and services. This tax provides
financial sustainability through 2028 for improvements and maintenance of the
emergency communications infrastructure, including regionalization efforts.
2. 9-1-1 Excise Tax: Spokane County residents pay a monthly fee of 95 cents on their cell
phone, landline, or pre-paid mobile phone bill. This excise tax funds both current and
future enhancements and maintenance of the 9-1-1 phone system, as well as staffing for
managing initial emergency communications.
3. Member Agency Fees: SREC charges its member agencies for the services they provide.
These charges contribute to staffing and support services, ensuring operational funding
beyond the sales and excise taxes.
The allocation of member agency fees to each agency within SREC is guided by a cost
allocation formula, known as the Service Fee Formula or Cost Allocation Matrix, which is
determined by the SREC Governing Board. The SREC Governing Board designs this
formula to equitably distribute the costs of services among the member agencies,
considering their specific usage and requirements.
a. Key Points on Member Agency Fee Allocations:
i. Service Fee Formula: The Service Fee Formula considers various factors,
including the volume of calls handled, the specific services provided to each
agency, and any additional resources or support required by the agencies.
This ensures that the costs are proportionally shared among the agencies
based on their actual use of SREC services.
ii. Annual Budget Review and Recommendations: The SREC Financial
Subcommittee reviews the previous year's revenues and expenses to make
certain the cost allocation meets the established principles and concepts.
This review occurs twice a year: once in the first quarter to assess the
previous year and again in the third quarter to prepare the budget for the
following year.
iii. Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Each member agency has a Service
Level Agreement (SLA) with SREC, which outlines the scope of services
provided, the financing terms based on the cost allocation formula, and
provisions for termination, insurance, and indemnification. These SLAs are
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-16
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
integral to defining the financial obligations and service expectations for
each agency.
iv. Transparency and Accountability: SREC emphasizes financial responsibility
and transparency. Regular audits and financial reviews ensure that funds are
managed effectively, maintaining trust and accountability among member
agencies and stakeholders.
In summary, the cost allocation formula within SREC allocates the member
agency fees, considering the unique needs and usage of each agency. This
approach is intended to ensure an equitable distribution of costs, supporting
the sustainability and efficiency of emergency communication services across
the region.
4. Intergovernmental Revenue: The 2024 budget includes additional intergovernmental
funding from a state grant of ($50,000).
5. Miscellaneous Income and Investment Earnings: SREC also earns income from
miscellaneous sources and investment income.
The City of Spokane represents 42.46% of the population of Spokane County per the 2020 U.S.
Census, however, the City of Spokane’s residents and visitors consistently contribute over 60% of
all Sales tax. Data from the Washington Department of Revenue shows the City Sales tax
contributions for 2021 as 65.90%, 2022 as 64.25%, 2023 as 64.22%, and first quarter of 2024 as
66.26%.
In summary, SREC is primarily funded through a combination of sales and excise taxes, and
member agency fees. A lesser amount of funding is derived from intergovernmental revenue
and miscellaneous income. SREC also benefits from strategic use of reserve balances. These
diverse revenue streams confirm the sustainability and enhancement of emergency
communication services in Spokane County.
6.1 Concerns About Revenue Exceeding Expenses
SREC has consistently received revenue in excess of expenses since 2020, even after accounting
for capital improvement and replacement costs. While revenue exceeding expenses is not
normally a cause for concern, especially within the private sector. The amount of the surplus is
significant. As a governmental organization, these surplus raises concern.
From 2020 through 2023 SREC revenue exceeded expenses by $33,182,210 (SREC Annual Reports
from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023). The Member Agency Fees charged during this period total
$22,701,424 (SREC Annual Reports from 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023).
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-17
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
During the four-year period noted, SREC could have returned 100% of member agency fees and
would have maintained an overage of $10,480,786.
SREC Revenue vs. Expenses
2020-2023
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$-
2020202120222023
Revenue Expenses
FIGURE 1: SREC Revenue vs. Expenses
During interviews with the SREC Executive Director, we learned that the SREC Governing Board
decided to retain the revenue surplus each year to fund a future new facility. However, each of
the annual reports evaluated (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) had a revenue category for Capital Outlay.
SREC budgeted for capital improvements however, these overages were also intended for capital
improvements, specifically a new facility.
This funding mechanism for a new facility was not negotiated between the two organizations
(SREC and the City of Spokane) and might violate the existing Service Level Agreement (SLA)
between SREC and the City of Spokane. The existing SLA does not have a specific provision that
allows SREC to bill the City of Spokane for costs associated with building a new facility. In
addition, since user fees are based on the current percentage of use of SREC’s operations, the
City of Spokane may be unintentionally funding a new facility at a rate that exceeds its
percentage of future use.
This type of funding should be clearly defined and negotiated between the organizations. If there
is an intention to use member fees to fund a new facility, it is essential that such a decision is
transparently communicated and formally agreed upon by all member agencies, including the
City of Spokane.
At the very least, this type of surplus retention does not foster trust between the two
organizations and suggests that the City of Spokane’s financial constraints and concerns are not
being adequately addressed.
There is an appearance that SREC is operating with a private sector mindset of making money.
Acquiring a $30M surplus without clear understanding of the intention of that surplus by its
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-18
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
member agencies may not be in-line with the mindset a government agency should have when it
is responsible for the financial stewardship of public funds.
6.2 Concerns Regarding How Member User Fees are
Determined
Currently, SRECdetermines its expenses for the year and determines the amount that will not be
covered by tax revenue. The amount not covered by tax revenue is made up of user fees. This
approach has some limitations as the need projected routinely is more than the actual need,
contributing to the overages as described.
Additionally, the process does not provide member agencies with price stability nor predict-
ability. Over the four-year review period, from 2020-2023, member user fees increased 64%.
This increase outpaced the rate of inflation over the same period which was 21.39% per the US
Department of Labor.
Member User Fee's
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2020202120222023
FIGURE 2: SREC Member User Fees
6.3 Focus on Funding at SREC and the City of Spokane, an
Observation
During observations at the City of Spokane and SREC, it was noted there is a significant and
pervasive focus on financial matters at all levels of each of the organizations. This concern is
particularly evident in how staff are preoccupied with either SREC receiving its fair share of
funding from its member agencies and/or the member agencies concerned that they are being
overcharged for services. This intense focus on financial aspects appears overly emphasized,
especially at the operational level, potentially detracting from the core mission of providing
efficient and effective emergency communications.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-19
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
6.3.1 Context and Implications
1. Operational Impact: The preoccupation with funding and cost allocation may lead to an
environment where financial considerations overshadow operational efficiency and
service quality. Staff members at various levels may feel pressured to justify expenditure
and ensure adequate funding, which could divert attention from their primary
responsibilities.
2. Interagency Relations: This focus on funding has strained the relationship between
SREC and the City of Spokane. Member agencies and SREC might perceive financial
negotiations as contentious rather than collaborative, potentially impacting the overall
effectiveness of the regional emergency communication system.
3. Employee Morale and Culture: An environment that is heavily focused on financial
matters can have an impact on employee morale. Employees may perceive a greater
emphasis on financial metrics in evaluating their performance, rather than their
contributions to public safety and service quality. This could undermine the supportive
and cohesive culture that SREC aims to build.
Employee morale at both SREC and the Spokane Police Dispatch operations are negatively
impacted by the current discourse between the two organizations. For instance, while
SREC operations staff shared physical space with the Spokane Police Dispatchers, a
physical wall was built to separate the employees of the two organizations. Politics,
relationships, and finances are noted reasons for the building of the wall. The current
environment is fractured and in need of repair.
Ensuring that funding mechanisms are fair and equitable is important in maintaining a strong
and healthy organization. However, in this case, concerns about funding have penetrated so
deeply that even front-line employees appear preoccupied.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-20
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
7. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE SREC
7.1 Composition and Authority
1. Establishment and Legal Basis:
SREC, a Public Development Authority, was established by Spokane County, Washington,
under RCW 35.21.730 through 35.21.757 and Resolution/Ordinance No. 2018-0245.
2. Governing Board Composition:
The Board consists of individuals established in Article VII of the Charter. Members serve
without compensation and must be duly appointed and acting in their official capacities.
The Board of Directors for Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) is
composed of various representatives from different public safety and government
agencies within Spokane County. The specific composition includes:
a. Chair: Chief Cody Rohrbach, Spokane County Fire District 3, representing the EMS &
Trauma
b. Vice Chair: Chief Brad Richmond, Airway Heights Police Department, representing NW
Leadership Small Cities/Towns.
c. Members:
o Sheriff John Nowels, Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.
o Chief Frank Soto, Jr., Spokane Valley Fire Department.
o Assistant Chief Tom Williams, City of Spokane Fire Department.
o Scott Simmons, CEO Spokane County.
o Chief Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Department.
o Assistant Chief Howard Johnson, Spokane County Fire District 4.
o Maggie Yates, Deputy City Administrator, City of Spokane.
o Gayne Sears, Citizen Representative.
3. Officers and Elections:
The Board elects a Chair and Vice-Chair from among its members. The term of office for
both is one year. Officers can be removed by a 5/7ths vote of the Board.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-21
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
7.2 Responsibilities and Functions
1.Duties of the Chair:
The Chair presides over all Board meetings, acts as the spokesperson, and represents the
Board in various capacities. The Chair may delegate these duties to other Board
members, as necessary.
2. Executive Director:
The Executive Director administers SREC’s programs and policies as adopted by the
Board. This includes preparing budgets and strategic plans, negotiating contracts, hiring
and managing staff, and ensuring the effectiveness of operational subcommittees.
7.3 Committees and Subcommittees
1. Financial Subcommittee:
Reviews and provides recommendations on operating budgets, funding, cost share
distributions, and long-term capital debt. The Subcommittee includes members from the
Executive Committee, the Finance Director of Spokane County, SREC’s Finance Manager,
and the Executive Director.
2. Operations Subcommittees:
Three Operations Subcommittees (Law, Fire Service, and Technical Operations) provide
subject matter expertise, clarify user expectations, and formulate continual
improvements based on strategic planning initiatives.
7.4Meetings and Decision-Making
1. Meetings:
The Board meets at least ten times a year. Special meetings can be called by the Chair or
a 5/7ths majority of the Board. Executive sessions and closed meetings can be convened
as needed.
2. Quorums and Voting:
A quorum consists of five members. All votes require a 5/7ths majority to pass. The Board
aims to reach consensus but will vote if necessary.
3. Parliamentary Procedure:
Board meetings follow Roberts Rules of Parliamentary Procedure unless otherwise
specified by the Bylaws or state laws.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-22
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
7.5 Supporting Agreements
1.Service Level Agreements (SLAs):
SLAs define the scope of SREC’s services, financing terms, termination provisions,
insurance, and indemnification. These agreements are necessary for the provision of
consolidated 9-1-1 communications and regional radio system services to member
agencies.
2. Budgeting and Financial Planning:
The Financial Subcommittee meets biannually to review the previous year’s finances and
prepare the budget for the following year. The Board adopts the final budget annually by
November 1st of each year.
3. Insurance Review:
The Board annually reviews SREC's liability and other insurance coverage to ensure
adequacy and compliance with relevant laws.
4. Amendments and Dissolution:
Bylaws can be revised or amended by a majority vote of the Board. The provisions for
dissolution are established in the founding resolution and subsequent amendments.
7.6 City of Spokane's Role in Fiscal and Governance
Support of SREC
1. Fiscal Support
a. Member Agency Fees:
The City of Spokane contributes to the funding of SREC through member agency
fees, which are a significant part of SREC’s revenue. These fees are used to support
staffing, operational support, and other essential services provided by SREC.
b. Revenue from Sales and Excise Taxes:
SREC is also funded by 1/10th of 1% local sales tax and a 9-1-1 excise tax. These
taxes help fund the public safety communication system and other related
services. The City of Spokane, as part of Spokane County, contributes to this
revenue through its residents and businesses. The City of Spokane represents
42.46% of the population of Spokane County per the 2020 U.S. Census.
2. Governance Support
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-23
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
a. Board Representation:
The City of Spokane is represented on the SREC Board by the Deputy City
Administrator and the Assistant Chief of the Spokane Fire Department.
Should the City decide to re-engage the Spokane Police to SREC membership, the
SREC Charter and Bylaws will require Board action to modify representation. This
re-entry to the SREC Board by Spokane Police will require a new Service Level
Agreement and modification to the SREC Charter and Bylaws as detailed in the
Recommendations outlined in slides 24-30.
The Board of Directors is composed of various representatives from member
agencies, ensuring that the City of Spokane has a voice in the governance and
strategic direction of SREC.
b. Operational Integration:
The City of Spokane’s integration into SREC’s operations, particularly through the
Crime Check reporting system and the 9-1-1 call receiving and dispatching services,
reflects its active role in supporting regional emergency communications.
3. Service Level Agreements (SLAs):
The City of Spokane has specific SLAs with SREC. For example, SREC provides all
call receiving and dispatching for the City of Spokane Fire Department and handles
all Crime Check reporting for the Spokane Police Department. These agreements
define the scope of services and the financial contributions from the City.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-24
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Enhanced Representation
The City of Spokane represents 42.46% of the population of Spokane County per
the 2020 U.S. Census.
Given the City of Spokane’s significant population and service demand, it would be
beneficial to enhance its representation on the SREC Governing Board. This could
involve increasing the number of seats allocated to the city or providing additional
voting weight to its representatives.
8.2 Weighted Voting System
Implementing a weighted voting system on the SREC Governing Board could
ensure that decisions more accurately reflect the proportional use and needs of
the City of Spokane compared to smaller jurisdictions. This system could allocate
votes based on population size or the volume of services used.
Example of weighted voting systems:
The King County Washington 10-year strategic plan includes weighted voting to
ensure stakeholders of the 9-1-1 system are fairly represented. A weighted voting
system such as the one developed by King County may be beneficial for decision
making for the Spokane 9-1-1 system.
In King County, the stakeholders involved in decision making are mainly Public
Safety Answering Points (PSAP’s) operated or governed by local municipalities or
governmental agencies. Each municipal agency is unique in how they operate and
the populations they serve. For instance, the City of Seattle operates two PSAP’s
within the county in a heavily populated urban area. Conversely, the City of
Enumclaw operates a PSAP serving a mostly rural area with needs that are
different than a highly populated urban center. Additionally, there are several
non-traditional PSAP’s such as the Port of Seattle and the University of
Washington. These agencies each have unique needs and prior to the 2017
strategic plan struggled with a decision-making process where each agency felt
their needs were heard.
Through a collaborative process, the municipalities of King County developed a
decision-making process which balanced the needs of larger communities with
heavy use of the 9-1-1 system with smaller and non-traditional users of the 9-1-1
system.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-25
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
King County implemented a weighted voting system as part of their governance
structure. The governing board operates with one voting position for each PSAP
and operates by consensus as much as possible. If voting is required, a two-part
test must be met. For a vote to pass, it must be approved by (1) 40% of the PSAP’s
present and voting and (2) PSAP’s representing 60% of the call volume of the King
County regional 9-1-1 system. The plan also lays out a specific process for
decisions and appeals as a conflict resolution process.
The rules and structure of the weighted voting system provide clarity in how
decisions are made and the process for a vote to be moved forward and passed.
Additionally, providing a roadmap for decision making fostered additional
collaboration amongst the participating municipalities. Municipal players worked
together to obtain consensus prior to voting in many instances and the
relationships between stakeholders improved.
8.3 Financial and Operational Subcommittees
The Finance Committee membership is the Finance Director of Spokane County,
Finance Director of the City of Spokane, the SREC Finance Manager, the SREC
Executive Director, and a Representative from the SREC Executive Committee. The
SREC Executive Committee is comprised of the Chair of the SREC Board, the Vice-
Chair of the SREC Board, and the Past Chair of the SREC Board.
The Financial Subcommittee reviews and provides recommendations on operating
budgets, funding, cost share distributions, and long-term capital debt. It is
recommended that the Finance Subcommittee consistently meet and reschedule
any canceled meetings. It is also recommended that the City of Spokane continue
to participate fully in this subcommittee.
Three Operations Subcommittees (Law, Fire Service, and Technical Operations)
provide subject matter expertise, clarify user expectations, and formulate
continual improvements based on strategic planning initiatives. During
ADCOMM’s interviews with stakeholders in the City of Spokane, many of the
stakeholders were unaware these subcommittees existed.
The Operations Subc
Operations Designees, all Fire Chiefs or Operations Designees. These meetings are
also attended by the SREC Executive Director or Designee. These Committees
operate by consensus with each attendee having a vote in resolving issues brought
to the subcommittee.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-26
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
It is recommended that the City of Spokane participate fully in these
subcommittees. Attendees from the City should be hand-selected to represent the
operational interests within the Spokane Fire Department beyond the SREC Board
representative of the Fire Chief’s designee.
8.1Regular Review and Adjustment of SLAs
Annually reviewing and adjusting the Service Level Agreements to ensure they
reflect the current and projected needs of the City of Spokane can help maintain a
fair and effective partnership. This includes updating cost allocation formulas to
match service usage.
8.2 SREC must operate the 911 system in a more cost-
effective manner
The strategy of how SREC utilizes its revenue should be more transparent among
its communities and member agencies.
Enhancing financial transparency through detailed reports and regular updates
can help the City of Spokane better understand and manage its contributions and
the benefits received from SREC.
Formal Amendment to SLA:
Any decision to allocate member fees for a new facility should be formally
incorporated into the SLA through an amendment. This amendment should clearly
outline the purpose, scope, and financial implications of such an allocation.
Member Agency Approval:
Seek explicit approval from all member agencies, ensuring that they agree to the
use of their fees for this purpose. This can involve a vote or a formal agreement to
ensure consensus.
Transparent Communication:
Maintain transparent communication with all member agencies regarding the
need for a new facility, the benefits it will bring, and the specific financial
contributions expected from each agency.
Equitable Cost Distribution:
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-27
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
Ensure that the cost distribution for the new facility is equitable and reflects the
usage and benefits each member agency will receive. This might involve a
proportional fee structure based on agency size or service usage.
Transparent Fee Calculation Methodology:
SREC and the City of Spokane should clearly document and communicate the
methodology used to calculate user fees, including the rationale behind each
component. Provide detailed breakdowns in each financial report.
Review and Oversight:
Establish a review and oversight mechanism to monitor the use of funds and the
progress of the facility project. Regular updates and financial reports should be
shared with all member agencies to maintain trust and accountability.
8.3 Strategic Planning and Collaboration
Continuing to involve the City of Spokane in strategic planning and collaborative
initiatives can strengthen the overall governance and operational effectiveness of
SREC. This could include joint planning sessions, regular feedback mechanisms,
and shared initiatives to address emerging challenges in emergency
communications.
We recommend SREC, and the City of Spokane jointly explore developing a
detailed 10-year countywide 9-1-1 strategic plan to resolve the operational,
financial, and technological challenges.
In 2017, King County published a comprehensive regional E-911 strategic plan
which provides:
A system to integrate with the state’s E-911 system and local jurisdictions.
A ten-year technology investment strategy.
A ten-year sustainable financial plan; and
An ongoing decision-making governance structure.
The King County E-911 Strategic plan produced a governance structure that
balanced the needs of multiple jurisdictions of various sizes and needs. The new
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-28
PROJECT NAME| REPORT TITLE
APPENDIX B
governance structure improved many of the intergovernmental relationships and
laid a foundation for continued collaboration.
Additionally, developing a 10-year financial plan provided municipalities with
financial stability and predictability while ensuring the 9-1-1 system would be on
solid financial footing for the next decade.
Finally, a ten-year technology investment strategy ensured the residents and
visitors of King County would interact with a 9-1-1 system powered by a secure and
resilient 9-1-1 network.
By implementing these recommendations, SREC can ensure that the City of
Spokane’s role in fiscal and governance support is fair, transparent, and reflective
of its contribution to and reliance on regional emergency communications
services.
8.4 Recommendation to fully participate in SREC or
initiate the process to separate
Regionalization of 9-1-1 services makes sense academically and can achieve cost
and operational efficiencies over time. However, the current structure of SREC is
not one we currently recommend the City of Spokane join. There are some
integral changes required of SREC and the City to resolve the issues mentioned in
this report prior to full participation by the City of Spokane. If improvements are
not agreeable to both parties, it may be beneficial for the City of Spokane to
maintain an independent 9-1-1 system. The City must understand that separating
from SREC is not a cost effective or operationally efficient path and there may be
additional hurdles for the City to overcome with regards to its integration in the
County’s 9-1-1 system and the State of Washington’s emergency services IP
network and funding mechanisms.
PN0746 ADCOMM ENGINEERING LLC | B-29
SREC Revenue vs. Expenses
2020-2023
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$-
2020202120222023
Revenue Expenses
TQPLBOFDPVOUZGJSFDPNNJTTJPOFSTBTTPDJBUJPO
9916!O!Hsffoxppe!Tusffu-!Tqplbof-!XB!::319!!Q;!)364*!:81.9355
QSFTJEFOU;!Qbusjdl!Cvsdi!}!WJDF!QSFTJEFOU;!Fjmffo!Xfzsbvdi!}!TFD0USFBT;!Ojdpmf!Dbtujmmjbop
Ejsfdups;!Jtmb!Evsifjn!!!.!!!Ejsfdups;!Njlf!Lftufs!!!.!!!Ejsfdups;!Csjbo!Nbuifs
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
QSFTJEFOU;!Qbusjdl!Cvsdi!}!WJDF!QSFTJEFOU;!Fjmffo!Xfzsbvdi!}!TFD0USFBT;!Ojdpmf!Dbtujmmjbop!
!
Ejsfdups;!Jtmb!Evsifjn!!!.!!!Ejsfdups;!Njlf!Lftufs!!!.!!!Ejsfdups;!Csjbo!Nbuifs!
e 92 of 187
g
1
Q
Pa
4
47.5%
24.2%
2
0
2
4
Q
3
Nbef!xjui
16.9%16.9%
24.4%
2
0
2
3
Q
3
17.0%
24.5%
2
0
2
2
Q
3
47.3%47.3%47.3%
2
0
2
1
Q
3
47.6%2
0
2
4
Q
2
47.7%
16.9%16.9%16.9%
2
0
2
3
Q
2
16.7%
48.0%2
0
2
2
Q
*4 QuarterRolling Average
2
24.7%24.7%24.7%24.7%24.7%16.5%
48.4%
2
0
2
1
Q
2
25.1%
16.3%
48.3%
2
0
2
4
Q
2024
1
48.1%25.6%
2
16.9%
0
2
3
Q
Unincorporated Spokane County
1
25.8%16.1%16.1%
47.8%2
0
2
2
Q
1
16.3%
47.4%2
26.0%
0
2
1
Q
1
25.7%
47.2%2
16.6%
0
2
Ă
0
2
47.6%25.0%16.8%
0
2
3
Q
0
48.2%
24.6%
2
0
2
2
Q
0
16.7%16.7%
48.7%24.2%
2
0
2
1
Q
0
49.3%16.6%
2
0
2
4
Q
9
16.1%
49.8%
1
0
2
3
Q
9
16.5%
1
49.6%
0
2
2
Q
9
16.1%
49.9%1
0
2
1
Q
2019
9
15.5%
1
50.6%24.0%24.0%24.0%24.0%24.0%
15.5%
0
2
Taxable Sales by Quarter
Percentage of Countywide
The percentage of Taxable Retail Sales has been increasing steadily in
Spokane CitySpokaneValleyUnincorporated SpokaneCounty
1620 N. Rebecca St.
Spokane, WA 99217
SREC911.org
Response Letter to Mayor Brown
September 9, 2024
CODY ROHRBACH – Chair
Spokane County Fire District 3
Mayor Lisa Brown
BRAD RICHMOND – Vice Chair
City of Spokane
Airway Heights Police
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.
Department
Spokane, WA 99201
JOHN NOWELS
Spokane County Sheriff’s Office
Dear Mayor Brown,
FRANK SOTO, JR.
Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) received your letter and a copy of
Spokane Valley Fire
your consultant’s report by ADCOMM Engineering. SREC’s Governing Board and
Department
administration have spent time reviewing the position of the City of Spokane (“City”) in
SCOTT SIMMONS
detail. We appreciate the effort the City has taken to fully understand all the
Spokane County
components of the regionalized emergency communications system.
HOWARD JOHNSON
From your letter and our subsequent meetings, we understand that the City will be
Spokane County Fire District 4
moving forward with fully incorporating its agencies within SREC—meaning the
DAVE ELLIS
Spokane Police Department (SPD) will join the regionalized model if the City can resolve
Spokane Valley Police
key issues noted in your letter and the associated report. The SREC Board convened on
Department
August 29, 2024 to discuss the key issues in detail in preparation of this response. The
TOM WILLIAMS
Board concluded that we agree on more than we disagree and that clarifying the intent
Spokane Fire Department
of the City will be crucial in determining next steps.
MAGGIE YATES
Governance Model
City of Spokane
The City requests greater representation on SREC’s Board and we agree. As ADCOMM
GAYNE SEARS
states in the report, “Overall, SREC’s governance structure includes a diverse Board,
Citizen Representative
structured committees, and specific agreements to ensure effective management and
operations, with significant input and support from the City of Spokane.” SREC’s Board
LORI MARKHAM
recommends the addition of the City of Spokane Police Chief once the City joins SREC.
Executive Director
This is consistent with the original intent of Board composition at the time of inception.
This will provide the City with three direct Board seats. Further, the City has additional
representation on the Board through the Inland Empire Fire Chief’s Association and the
EMS Council, giving the City more representation than any other entity (current
Washington State Office of Financial Management census data indicates the City holds
42% of the population within Spokane County). Please note that the current
governance model prioritizes regional public safety over individual entities and any
entity with a majority controlling power would not be consistent with the intent of a
regional governance model.
Financial Model
The City expressed concerns over SREC’s financial model, specifically the City’s belief
that user fees are unnecessary and excessive. ADCOMM notes in their analysis that
SREC’s financial model is a sustainable model, which is an enduring priority the SREC
Board has for the agencies and communities we serve. ADCOMM further states in the
City’s report that SREC is funded through a combination of sales and excise taxes and
member agency fees (user fees). The report continues, “\[t\]hese diverse revenue
streams confirm the sustainability and enhancement of emergency communication
services in Spokane County.” At this time, the Board cannot commit to eliminating
1620 N. Rebecca St.
Spokane, WA 99217
SREC911.org
or reducing user fees. The SREC Board believes that planning for known future capital and operating
expenses while minimizing debt is the most cost-effective way of conserving tax payer resources to
achieve the economies of scale to which SREC has committed. SREC’s Finance Committee and Board
continually evaluate sales and excise taxes, user fees, operating expenses and capital based on the
needs of member agencies and desired service levels. We hope the City will continue to participate in
these discussions and decisions.
Please note that prior to the creation of SREC, when the City managed emergency communication
services under the Combined Communications Center (CCC), the City charged user fees for all
regional fire agencies; with the exception that the City paid a 50% reduced rate compared to other
member agencies, which some member agencies viewed as inequitable.
Reserves & Service Levels
SREC currently holds $33M in reserves, $14M of which was transferred to SREC by Spokane County
in 2021. The Board unanimously voted to commit the $14M for identified future facility capital
needs, which are currently projected to be more than $30M.
The other $19M in reserves was realized over ve years and committed by the SREC Board for
identified future projects, including maintaining three full months of operating reserves. In the event
of an unforeseen economic downturn, this will ensure SREC can continue to operate, providing critical
public safety services to the community for up to three months without the need for additional taxes to
fund these essential services.
The ADCOMM report recommends that accrual and expenditure of capital reserves be formally
adopted in Service Level Agreement(s) (SLA); specifically, allocations for new facility construction. The
SREC Board supports establishing an SLA between the City and SREC, including an SLA for Spokane
Police Department, to meet the needs of each entity. The Board is willing to discuss including potential
allocations for facility needs as part of the SLA and recommends that any proposals be brought in front
of the established Operational Groups for Law & Fire and/or the SREC Board for further discussion.
The SREC Board has and will continue to weigh and evaluate viable funding options for public safety
priorities. The Board believes that appropriately saving for identified future needs is an integral part
of being good stewards of regional tax dollars.
Inaccurate Tax Revenue Numbers
Your letter states that 65% of SREC’s annual tax revenue is contributed through sales tax generated
within the City, so a user fee for the City would constitute a “second tax” on City residents. According to
data directly from the Washington State Department of Revenue for Spokane County, the percentage of
taxable retail sales in the City is 48%. Furthermore, a significant portion of the sales tax revenues
generated within the City are from non-City residents.
Sales tax revenues alone do not cover the cost of effectively managing and maintaining an emergency
communications center at the service level that our communities expect. User fees are an integral part
of a regionalized model andare an equitable way to ensure all agencies are proportionally investing
in essential emergency services. User fees are funded by our member agencies out of their existing
funding, not as a second tax.
1620 N. Rebecca St.
Spokane, WA 99217
SREC911.org
Lack of Context for User Fee Data
The ADCOMM report highlights that SREC user fees have increased 64% over 5 years. This percent is a
total overall increase from 2020 to 2024 across all agencies but is misleading given the lack of context.
The majority of this increase is due to the City of Spokane Fire Department (SFD) joining SREC in 2022, at
the request of the City, which increased the total amount of user fees collected. Outside of the increase
caused by SFD joining, SREC user fees increased 19% over five years. This rate is below average inflation
rates and due primarily to rising salary and benefits costs for our valued employees.
Spokane Fire Department User Fees Explained—Additional Context
SFD user fees increased approximately 30% from 2023 to 2024. This is because SFD’s initial move to join
SREC in November 2022 was on an emergency basis, at the City’s request. At that time, user fees for the
upcoming year were already established for existing member agencies. Given the emergency nature and
timing of the request, initial fees for SFD were not established until an accurate assessment of workload
could be conducted. Once actual workload was assessed and it was understood that SFD was paying
at a reduced rate in comparison to other member agencies, rates were adjusted to accurately
reflect the costs of service delivery and ensure that rates were equitable across all member
agencies. More importantly, SFD still realized a cost savings by joining, as well as reduced call times
of approximately 30 seconds per call.
Transparency, Accountability, and Collaboration
SREC will continue to practice transparency, accountability, and collaboration, as it has always done.
SREC appreciates the continued participation from the City’s representatives in SREC Board and
committee meetings. Existing SREC Board policies and practices allow for transparency, accountability,
and collaboration. We look forward to continued engagement from the City.
Substantial Costs and Duplication of Services for City Run PSAP
SREC’s number one priority is the safety of our citizens—and 911 calls will continue to be
answered through this transition, regardless of the path the City chooses. ADCOMM’s analysis
cost investment as well as substantial ongoing costs, while also duplicating services that SREC
already provides to 21 of our 22 emergency service agencies across Spokane County. Additionally,
ADCOMM’s projections show that the City’s share of tax revenues would not cover these expenses,
far exceeding the cost of participating as a member agency of SREC. We hope the City evaluates
the conclusions from the ADCOMM Report in support of a regionalized model that creates
of services and tax dollars for our community.
Moving Forward
Based on the SREC Board’s understanding that the City will be moving forward with SPD joining SREC,
the SREC Board recommends engaging in a number of planning activities with the City should the
following critical items be satisfactorily addressed:
The City agrees to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County whereby the City would
agree to forego any current and future apportionments of emergency
1620 N. Rebecca St.
Spokane, WA 99217
SREC911.org
B
should see any value in taking on the
of invoices and
payments. We believe this should be accomplished no later than October 31, 2024.
Commissioners of adding one (as part
of SPD joining) .
Once the above items are agreed to and completed, the SREC Board recommends the formation of a
transition team to begin working on the timing and logistics of SPD dispatch joining SREC. We believe
this work could start November 1, 2024 or sooner if the above items are finalized. The transition team
would focus on planning activities including but not limited to the following:
Development of a service agreement acceptable to both SREC and SPD
Establishment of a formal date whereby SREC would take on SPD dispatch services once
plan for all current SPD dispatchers who wish to join SREC—it’s
important to note that SREC welcomes all current SPD dispatch employees to SREC and
Once part of SREC, your Board members, who should be fully empowered by you and the City Council to
make decisions, can work to advocate items important to the City such as user fee model analysis and
other suggestions to improve our system. The SREC board requests your decision on the above by
September 16, 2024.
If given SREC’s position, particularly on the governance model, user fees, and apportionment of sales
and excise taxes, the City decides to change course and stand up its own PSAP, you will need to notify
SREC immediately. We are at two critical juncture points that will determine the near-term future of
regional emergency communications—the implementation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system and facility planning—we simply cannot continue to extend the conversation, but instead need
to act to ensure the best possible outcome for our community.
Should the SREC Board not receive clarification on direction from the City by September 16, 2024, we
will assume the City will be moving forward with establishing themselves as a Primary PSAP. SREC will
then begin the planning efforts for the City to become its own PSAP and set a date for transitioning 911
calls to the City, including SFD dispatch responsibilities. We would also work with Spokane County to
appropriately apportion both the Emergency Communications sales taxes and the 911 excise taxes to
the City. SREC will endeavor to work on a seamless transition that does not create a detrimental impact
to the other 21 public safety agencies we serve.
In closing, the SREC Board strongly believes that we are better together and that leveraging our
collective resources and technology will provide the best outcome for the City as well as our 21
members agencies—creating a strong regionalized model that serves our citizens well.
1620 N. Rebecca St.
Spokane, WA 99217
SREC911.org
We hope this letter clarified any questions you may have had of SREC and that you in turn can clarify
your decision no later than September 16, 2024.
Respectfully,
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Chief Cody Rohrbach, Chairman Chief Brad Richmond, Vice Chairman
Spokane Regional Emergency Communications Spokane Regional Emergency Communications
Cc: Chris Jordan, Spokane County Commissioner
Amber Waldref, Spokane County Commissioner
Josh Kerns, Spokane County Commissioner
Mary Kuney, Spokane County Commissioner
Al French, Spokane County Commissioner
Spokane City Council
City of Spokane Valley City Council
John Hohman, City of Spokane Valley City Manager
Erik Lamb, City of Spokane Valley Deputy City Manager
Cheney City Council
Chris Grover, Cheney Mayor
Albert Tripp, Airway Heights City Manager
Liberty Lake City Council
Mark McAvoy, Liberty Lake City Administrator
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT
Date: 09.09.2024Kelly Conley
Communication and Media Manager
(509) 822-1846
kelly.conley@SREC911.org
SREC welcomes City of Spokane Police Department to
Regionalized Emergency Communications
Next steps include development of transition team
September 9, 2024,Spokane, Wash.TodaySpokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC)
Department (SPD) joining the regionalized emergency communications center. Currently, 21 of Spokane
City of Spokane Fire Department.
next steps for the formation of an official transition committee to start the important work of welcoming
SPD to the regionalized system. Among the key issues addressed in the letter are Board Governance,
servicelevels.
Board Chair and Spokane County District 3 Fire Chief Cody Rohrbach,emphasized the importance of
collaborationand partnerships, stating, "The SREC Boardremains committed to a cooperative approach
that prioritizes our communityssafety.Our commonalities far outweigh our differences, and through
united efforts, I am confident that we will further enhance regional emergency communications for all of
our agencies and the communities that they serve. Concurrently, we remain committedtoensuring
operational efficiency and responsible use of taxpayer funds.
About Spokane Regional Emergency Communications
Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) is a regionalized emergency response communications
organization formed in 2018 as a Public Development Authority. Located in Spokane, Washington, SREC serves
more than 550,000 citizens throughout the countyas the primary PSAP for the region. In addition to answering
emergency and non-emergency calls, SREC provides Fire and Law Dispatch services to 14 local Fire Protection
Authorities and 7local Law Enforcement Agencies in Spokane County21 of the 22 agencies. These services span
more than 1,700 miles, and include management of more than 4,900 radios, 23 tower sites, and a backup center.
SREC also writes reports for most of the law enforcement agencies in the region. We currently employ
approximately 137employees across the organization. Our mission is to get the right resources to the right location
with an uncompromising focus on responder and citizen safety.
ϔϔϔ
BOARDOFFIRECOMMISSIONERS
2120 N. Wilbur Rd
SpokaneValley,WA99206
September14,2024
(509)928-1700Main
(509)892-4125Fax
CityofSpokane
spokanevalleyfire.com
808WSpokaneFallsBlvd
Spokane, WA 99201
DearCityofSpokane,
The ongoing discourse between the City of Spokane and our regional communication system,
SpokaneRegionalEmergencyCommunications(SREC),has raisedseveral concerns thatwefeel
need to be addressed directly. Our primary focus remains on providing exceptional public safety
services, and we are committed to ensuring that this remains our top priority.
1.TheEffectivenessofOurRegionalCommunicationSystem
Oursystem,whichoperateswiththecollaborationof21top-tieragencies(includingtheCityof
SpokaneFireDepartment),hasbeenfunctioningexceptionallywell.Theclaimsthatsuggest
otherwisearenotsupportedbytheoperationalresultsandfeedbackfromtheinvolvedexperts.Itis
dishearteningtoseesuggestionsofinadequacywhenthesystem’sperformancespeaksvolumes
about its effectiveness.
2.ConcernsOverIncreasedGovernmentInvolvement
TheCityofSpokane’sproposaltogaincontroloverthiswell-functioningsystemraisesconcerns.
Webelievethatintroducingadditionallayersofgovernmentoversight,particularlyfromthoseless
familiarwithpublicsafetyoperations,couldjeopardizethehighlevelofservicecurrentlybeing
provided.Thisisnotaboutresistingchangebutaboutprotectingthequalityofpublicsafety
services that our community relies on.
3.FinancialConsiderations
Thereseemstobeamisunderstandingormisrepresentationregardingthefinancialmanagementof
the system. Here are some clarifications:
•UserFeesandReserves:Userfeesarenotallocatedtoreservesbutarespecifically
designated for operational costs.
•FundingAllocation: The1/10of1%taxisdedicated tocriticalareassuchas CADsystems,
radios,andnewfacilities,ensuringthatourtechnologyandinfrastructureareuptodate.
•Contributions:TheCity'sfinancialcontributiontothesystemisactuallydecreasing(down
3.1%since2019),whilethecounty'scontributionisincreasing(up1.4%since2019),per
WADepartmentofRevenue.Thisreflectsashiftinfundingresponsibilitiesandshouldbe
understoodinthebroadercontextofregionalfinancialdynamics.
4.TheCity'sProposalforBonds
We are puzzled by the City’s desire to issue bonds when a strategic plan is already in place to
manage and utilize existing funds effectively, as stated at the SREC Board meeting on August 29,
2024. Issuing bonds could impose additional tax burdens on our community, contrary to our goal of
cost-efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
5.CallforConstructiveEngagement
If the City of Spokane believes it can enhance public safety by creating an independent system, we
welcome that initiative. However, if the current system is indeed performing with “issues” as
suggested,itraisesquestionsastowhytheCitywouldwanttojoinit,pertheCityofSpokaneSREC
Analysis report. Our stance is clear: our system is operating effectively, and we are not inclined to
negotiate based on political motivations.
Inconclusion,ourdedicationtomaintainingatop-tiercommunicationsystemremainsunwavering.
We are committed to serving the public’s safety and ensuring efficient use of taxpayer resources.
We urge the City of Spokane to consider these points carefully and work collaboratively tosupport
the ongoing success of our regional communication system.
Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.
JohnGuarisco
JohnGuarisco(Sep14,202411:29PDT)
JohnGuarisco
FireCommissioner–BoardChair
PatrickBurch(Sep14,2024,12:13PDT)
PatrickBurch
FireCommissioner–BoardViceChair
MikeKester(Sep14,2024,13:37PDT)
MikeKester
FireCommissioner
BrianAsmus(Sep14,2024,13:39PDT)
BrianAsmus
FireCommissioner
RickFreier(Sep14,2024,13:42PDT)
RickFreier
FireCommissioner
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 15, 2024 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: consent old business new business public hearing
information admin. report pending legislation executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2024 Budget Amendment.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget, State law
requires the Council to approve an ordinance that appropriates additional funds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2024 Budget
when it was amended on June 4, 2024, for the first time.
BACKGROUND: Since the amendment of the 2024 Budget on June 4, 2024, a number of events
have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a second 2024 Budget
amendment. They include:
#001 - General Fund
The total of both recurring and nonrecurring revenues reflects an increase of $263,200, which is
comprised of:
$1,183,000 decrease in sales tax due to updated estimates.
$100,000 decrease in grant proceeds due to not receiving a grant that was anticipated
during the 2024 budget development process.
$1,546,200 increase in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 including estimated
total costs for the repairs to City Hall during 2024 of $1,424,000 and costs related to the
Police and Public Space Planning study of $122,200.
An increase of $6,311,232 in appropriations (expenditures) comprised of:
$15,000 increase in the Council Department professional services to cover the cost of third-
party investigations.
$150,000 increase in outside legal service costs in the City Attorney Department. This
increase is related to a significant increase in complex land use issues requiring outside
expertise as well as the use of contracted services for third-party investigations and other
Council related legal issues.
$26,200 increase in the Facilities Department to cover window and carpet cleaning at City
Hall as well as chair mats to protect City Hall carpeting.
$1,424,000 related estimated total costs for the repairs to City Hall during 2024.
$122,200 for professional services related to a Police and Public Safety Space Planning study.
$155,000 for the demolition of the Balfour Facility discussed at the October 1, 2024, Council
Meeting.
$21,000 for professional services for an audit for the Energy Retrofit Grant at CenterPlace
which was approved at the September 17, 2024, Council Meeting.
$4,397,832 transferred to Capital Reserve Fund #312 which represents the 2022 yearend
fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.
#121 – Service Level Stabilization Fund
Increase revenues by $688,000 to reflect updated estimated interest income of $288,000 and a
transfer in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 of $400,000 that was approved by Council at the
December 19, 2023, Council Meeting for the purpose of building the reserve balance.
Page 1 of 4
#302 – REET 2 Capital Projects Fund
Increase expenditures by $499,534 due to changes in the expected transfers out to the Street
Capital Projects Fund #303 and the Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 to reflect
current estimates. See further explanations below.
#303 – Street Capital Projects Fund
Revenues and expenditures are proposed to increase by $992,711 to reflect current estimates on
various projects. The most significant changes include:
The Barker Road Improvements – Appleway to I-90 project is being increased by $221,000
due to the updated timing of the project.
The Trent Ave. Access Control Safety Improvements project is being increased by $419,000
due to the updated timing of the project.
th
The 16 Ave. Preservation – Evergreen to Adams project is being increased by $352,711 due
to the updated timing of the project.
#309 – Park Capital Projects Fund
This fund is being amended to reflect current estimates on several projects. Revenues are
increased by $326,299. This is primarily due to an increase in transfers in from the Capital
Reserve Fund #312 related to the Balfour Park – Phase 1 project.
Expenditures increase by $532,000, including:
$530,000 increase for Balfour Park – Phase 1 project due to updated timing on the project.
$2,000 increase for the Sullivan Park Water Line project due to updated timing on the project.
#311 – Pavement Preservation Fund
Revenues are increased by $358,362 consisting of an increase in grant proceeds due to updated
project estimates.
Increase expenditures by $2,120,165 to reflect current estimates and timing on several projects,
th
including the 16 Ave. Preservation – Evergreen to Adams project and the Indiana Ave.
Preservation – Sullivan to Desmet project for $1,122,539 and $1,670,000, respectively.
#312 – Capital Reserve Fund
Revenues are increased due to a transfer of $4,397,832 from General Fund #001 which
represents the 2022 yearend fund balance in excess of 50% of recurring expenditures.
Increase expenditures/appropriations by $2,599,384, including:
Increase of $1,424,000 in transfers to the General Fund for estimated total costs for the
repairs to City Hall during 2024.
Increase of $122,200 in transfers to the General Fund for professional services related to a
Police and Public Safety Space Planning study.
Increase of $400,000 in transfers to the Service Level Stabilization Fund #121 that was
approved by Council at the December 19, 2023, Council Meeting for the purpose of building
the reserve balance.
Increase of $326,299 in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 related to an
updated timing of the Balfour Park Phase 1 and the Sullivan Park Water Line projects.
Increase of $326,885 in transfers out to the Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314
related to updated timing of the Pines Rd Underpass and Sullivan Rd Interchange projects.
#314 – Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund
Revenues increase by $ 4,138,411, comprised of:
Increase of $ 3,356,111 in grant proceeds to reflect current estimates on the grade
separation projects.
Page 2 of 4
Increase of $308,592 in developer contributions for the Barker Road grade separation
project.
Increase of $146,823 in transfers in from the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 for the
Sullivan Road Interchange grade separation project.
Increase of $326,885 in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Pines Road
grade separation and the Sullivan Road interchange projects.
Expenditures increase by $3,859,378, comprised of:
Increase of $2,226,326 due to updated estimates for the Pines Road grade separation project.
Increase of $1,633,052 for preliminary engineering for the Sullivan Road interchange project.
#402 – Stormwater Fund
Expenditures increase by $1,110,000 for updated capital project costs. Council discussed the
Stormwater Improvement Plan at the September 3, 2024, Council Meeting.
#502 – Risk Management Fund
Revenues increase by $4,800 related to updated interest income estimates.
Expenditures increase by $125,000 as a result of increased costs of insurance for the City beyond
the original estimate.
#632 – Passthrough Fees and Taxes Fund
Revenues and expenditures increase by $100,000 for updated estimates of passthrough fees and
taxes collected by the City on behalf of other public agencies.
The 2024 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 11 funds resulting
in total revenue increases of $11,269,615 and expenditure increases of $18,249,404.
RevenueExpenditure
FundFundIncreaseIncrease
No.Name(Decrease)(Decrease)
001General Fund263,2006,311,232
121Service Level Stabilization Fund688,0000
302REET 2 Capital Projects Fund0499,534
303Street Capital Projects Fund992,711992,711
309Parks Capital Projects Fund326,299532,000
311Pavement Preservation Fund358,3622,120,165
312Capital Reserve Fund4,397,8322,599,384
314Railroad Grade Separation Fund4,138,4113,859,378
402Stormwater Fund01,110,000
502Risk Management Fund4,800125,000
632Passthrough Fees & Taxes Fund100,000100,000
11,269,61518,249,404
OPTIONS: Future options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff seek Council consensus to move forward with
amendments to the 2024 Budget as presented. If approved, we anticipate the following calendar
of events leading to Council approval of the amending ordinance.
October 29, 2024 – Public hearing on the 2024 Budget Amendment.
October 29, 2024 – First reading of Ordinance #24-0XX amending the 2024 Budget.
November 19, 2024 – Second reading of Ordinance #24-0XX amending the 2024 Budget.
Page 3 of 4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Once approved, this action amends the estimated revenues
and appropriations for the 2024 Budget that was adopted on November 21, 2023 and amended
on June 4, 2024. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
__________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
• Fund level line-item detail of revenues and expenditures.
• Fund summaries for all funds affected by the proposed budget amendment.
Page 4 of 4
Budget
10/15/2024
CA
t
015,00015,0000288,000288,0000400,000400,000
7,0008,20015,200
40,00018,00058,000
100,000(100,000)0100,000150,000250,000
33,709,600(1,183,000)32,526,600
Total recurring revenues(1,283,000)
Total recurring expenditures191,200
Total nonrecurring revenues1,546,200
Total nonrecurring expenditures6,120,032
Page 1 of 4
City Hall Repairs01,424,0001,424,000Police & Public Safety Space Planning0122,200122,2002022 #001 fund bal > 50%04,397,8324,397,832Total of all General Fund revenues263,200Total of all
General Fund expenditures6,311,232Total revenues688,000
-City Hall Repairs01,424,0001,424,000-Police & Public Safety Space Planning0122,200122,200-Demolition of Balfour Facility0155,000155,000-CenterPlace audit for energy retrofit grant021,00021,000-Updat
ed estimate
OrganizationObject2024Amended
SR121000361100
A
t
s
s
Accoun
DescriptionCodeCodeDescription / JustificationBudgetAmendmen
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Amendment No 2 Detail v1 for R
s
Sales TaxGG313110311100-Updated estimate based on 2024 trendsGrant ProceedsCM337000330701-Grant not received in 2024Professional Services - CouncilCC511600541005-Costs for third-party
investigationsOutside Legal Services - City AttorneyCA515410541004-Increased need for outside legal counselSmall Tools & Equipment - FacilitiesCH518300535001-Chair mats to protect City
Hall carpetingBuilding Repairs & Maintenance - FacilitiesCH518300548007-Window and carpet cleaning costs at City HallTransfer in - #312GG397099393120-Transfer in - #312GG397099393120-City
Hall Repairs32251830541005Professional ServicesPS521299541005Professional ServicesBM518399541005Professional ServicesCX575599541005Transfer out - #312GG597099500312-Investment InterestTransfer
in - #312-Transfer approved by Council 12/19/23
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, W
2024 Budget - Amendment #2Line Item Detail#001 - General FundRecurring RevenueRecurring ExpendituresNonrecurring Revenue#001 - General Fund - continuedNonrecurring Expenditures#121 -
Service Level Stabilization FundRevenue
Budget
10/15/2024
CA
t
0221,000221,000
440,437352,711793,148182,500146,823329,323440,437352,711793,148220,000326,299546,299
6,949,896419,0007,368,896
Page 2 of 4
Updated construction project estimatesUpdated construction project estimatesTotal expenditures499,534Updated construction project estimatesUpdated construction project estimatesUpdated
construction project estimatesTotal revenues992,7112024 Construction Costs 0221,000221,0002024 Construction Costs 0419,000419,0002024 Construction Costs 0352,711352,711Total expenditures992,711Updat
ed construction project estimatesTotal revenues326,2992024 Construction Costs 20,000530,000550,0002024 Construction Costs 02,0002,000Total expenditures532,000Updated construction project
estimates0358,362358,362Total revenues358,3622024 Construction Costs 3,500,0002,120,1655,620,165Total expenditures2,120,165
-------------
OrganizationObject2024Amended
R2597000500303R25970005003143485951054100535459564563000PP595300563000
0
s
A
t
Accoun
DescriptionCodeCodeDescription / JustificationBudgetAmendmen
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Amendment No 2 Detail v1 for R
sss
Transfer out - #303Transfer out - #314Grant ProceedsSP330000330000Developer Contributions34836700361201Transfer in - #302SP397000393020Barker Road Improvements- Appleway to I9Trent Ave
Access Control Safety Improveme3495956456300016th Ave Preservation - Evergreen to AdamTransfer in - #312PC397000393120Balfour Park - Phase 131659476563000Sullivan Park Water Line32853410563000Grant
ProceedsPP333200332020Pavement Preservation Capital Outlay
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, W#302 - REET 2 Capital Projects FundExpenditures#309 - Park Capital Projects FundRevenue
2024 Budget - Amendment #2Line Item Detail#303 - Street Capital Projects FundRevenueExpendituresExpenditures#311 - Pavement Preservation FundRevenueExpenditures
Budget
10/15/2024
CA
t
01,424,0001,424,0000400,000400,00002,0002,0000308,592308,592
20,000324,299344,29920,094367,906388,00061,698(41,021)20,677
182,500146,823329,323806,792326,8851,133,677
2,112,5303,356,1115,468,641
Page 3 of 4
Sullivan Rd InterchangeTotal expenditures2,599,384
Total revenues4,397,832City Hall RepairsPolice & Public Safety Space Planning0122,200122,200Balfour Park Improvements - Phase 1Sullivan Park Water LinePines Rd UnderpassUpdated construction
project estimatesUpdated construction project estimatesUpdated construction project estimatesUpdated construction project estimatesTotal revenues4,138,4112024 Construction Costs 273,6742,226,3262,50
0,0002024 Construction Costs 2,153,9481,633,0523,787,000Total expenditures3,859,3782024 Construction Costs 1,500,0001,110,0002,610,000Total expenditures1,110,000
---Transfer approved by Council 12/19/23----------
OrganizationObject2024Amended
A
t
Accoun
DescriptionCodeCodeDescription / JustificationBudgetAmendmen
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Amendment No 2 Detail v1 for R
ss
Transfer in - #001CR397000390010-2022 #001 fund bal > 50%04,397,8324,397,832Transfer out - #001CR597000500001Transfer out - #001CR597000500001Transfer out - #121CR597000500121Transfer
out - #309CR597000500309Transfer out - #309CR597000500309Transfer out - #314CR597000500314Transfer out - #314CR597000500314Grant ProceedsXXX33320332020Developer ContributionsXXX36700361201Transfer
in - #302XXX39700393020Transfer in - #312XXX39700393120Pines Rd Underpass22359550563000Sullivan Rd Interchange31159550563000Capital ProjectsSW595499563000-
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, W#312 - Capital Reserve FundRevenue#314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects FundRevenue
2024 Budget - Amendment #2Line Item DetailExpendituresExpenditures#402 - Stormwater FundExpenditures
Budget
10/15/2024
CA
t
04,8004,800
500,000100,000600,000500,000100,000600,000
Page 4 of 4
Total revenues4,800Increase in insurance premiums700,000125,000825,000Total expenditures125,000Total revenues100,000Total expenditures100,000Totals Across all FundsTotal revenues11,269,615Total
expenditures18,249,404
-
OrganizationObject2024Amended
RM518900546001PT3863003830XX-Updated estimate PT5860005080XX-Updated estimate
A
t
Accoun
DescriptionCodeCodeDescription / JustificationBudgetAmendmen
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Amendment No 2 Detail v1 for R
ss
Investment InterestRM361100361100-Updated estimate Auto and Property InsuranceFees & Taxes Collected for Other GovernmentsFees & Taxes Remitted to Other Governments
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, W#502 - Risk Management FundRevenue
2024 Budget - Amendment #2Line Item DetailExpenditures#632 - Passthrough Fees & Taxes FundRevenueExpenditures
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
#001 - GENERAL FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Property Tax13,824,9000013,824,900
Sales Tax33,709,6000(1,183,000)32,526,600
Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,600,800001,600,800
Sales Tax - Criminal Justice2,818,500002,818,500
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax485,00000485,000
Franchise Fees/Business Registration1,370,000001,370,000
State Shared Revenues2,469,400002,469,400
Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety500,60000500,600
Community and Public Works3,481,900003,481,900
Recreation Program Revenues607,20000607,200
Grant Proceeds120,0000(100,000)20,000
Miscellaneous Department Revenue87,0000087,000
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest1,211,200001,211,200
Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising)30,0000030,000
(recording fees H&H Services)
Transfers in - #110 0290,0000290,000
Total Recurring Revenues62,316,100290,000(1,283,000)61,323,100
Expenditures
City Council721,407015,000736,407
City Manager863,88319,0910882,974
City Attorney932,98018,402150,0001,101,382
City Services1,301,72522,84301,324,568
Public Safety35,251,2480035,251,248
Deputy City Manager595,02315,2030610,226
Finance1,422,45834,69801,457,156
Human Resources380,5338,5840389,117
Information Technology446,17811,2060457,384
Facilities1,313,68512,03826,2001,351,923
Public Works Administration400,4279,0050409,432
Engineering2,015,43041,25102,056,681
Building2,240,95644,70602,285,662
Economic Development1,189,80618,70801,208,514
Planning1,081,09018,04301,099,133
Parks & Rec - Administration720,793(211,611)0509,182
Parks & Rec - Maintenance1,398,583935,58202,334,165
Parks & Rec - Recreation 346,3103,6370349,947
Parks & Rec - Aquatics569,20000569,200
Parks & Rec - Senior Center33,994788034,782
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace675,9809,2320685,212
General Government1,707,540001,707,540
Transfers out - #204 (2016 LTGO debt service)398,95000398,950
(park capital projects)
Transfers out - #309 160,00000160,000
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation)1,021,900001,021,900
(IT equip reserve)
Transfers out - #501 86,5000086,500
Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium)700,00000700,000
(public safety equipment)
Transfers out - #503 0473,7220473,722
Total Recurring Expenditures57,976,5791,485,128191,20059,652,907
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures4,339,521(1,195,128)(1,474,200)1,670,193
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
#001 - GENERAL FUND - continued
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds (CLFR)0159,0000159,000
Grant Proceeds (Comp Plan amendment)
325,00000325,000
(City Hall Repairs)
Transfers in - #312 001,424,0001,424,000
Transfers in - #312 (pub safety space planning)00122,200122,200
Total Nonrecurring Revenues325,000159,0001,546,2002,030,200
Expenditures
General Government - IT capital replacements152,50000152,500
Public Safety (UTV)
36,0000036,000
(public safety space planning)
Public Safety 00122,200122,200
Facilities (Precinct repairs & improvements)155,00000155,000
(electric man-lift)
Facilities 20,0000020,000
Facilities (CenterPlace repairs & improvements)241,00000241,000
(Clean building requirements)
Facilities085,000085,000
Facilities (Demolish Balfour Facility)00155,000155,000
(CenterPlace audit for energy retrofit)
Facilities0021,00021,000
Parks & Rec (replace banquet chair at CP)150,00000150,000
(motorized shades for Great Room)
Parks & Rec25,0000025,000
Communications (Police staffing comm outreach)017,000017,000
City Hall Repairs001,424,0001,424,000
CLFR Related Project Expenditures03,131,00003,131,000
Financial Software Capital Costs0550,0000550,000
Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations)4,592,923(1,392,500)03,200,423
('22 fund bal >50%)
Transfers out - #312 004,397,8324,397,832
Transfers out - #501 (park maint vehicles)085,000085,000
(Public Safety Equip Replc)
Transfers out - #503 01,000,00001,000,000
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures5,372,4233,475,5006,120,03214,967,955
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures(5,047,423)(3,316,500)(4,573,832)(12,937,755)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures(707,902)(4,511,628)(6,048,032)(11,267,562)
Beginning unrestricted fund balance50,122,45050,122,450
Ending unrestricted fund balance49,414,54838,854,888
Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures85.23%65.13%
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
#121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest00288,000288,000
Transfers in - #312 00400,000400,000
Total revenues00688,000688,000
Expenditures
Operations0000
Total expenditures0000
Revenues over (under) expenditures0688,000
Beginning fund balance5,651,8545,651,854
Ending fund balance5,651,8546,339,854
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
#302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 2 - Taxes1,500,000001,500,000
Investment Interest100,00000100,000
Total revenues1,600,000001,600,000
Expenditures
Transfers out - #303440,4370352,711793,148
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation)1,170,350001,170,350
Transfers out - #314182,5000146,823329,323
Total expenditures1,793,2870499,5342,292,821
Revenues over (under) expenditures(193,287)(692,821)
Beginning fund balance5,278,6305,278,630
Ending fund balance5,085,3434,585,809
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds6,949,8960419,0007,368,896
Developer588,1300221,000809,130
Transfers in - #301897,31200897,312
Transfers in - #302440,4370352,711793,148
Total revenues8,875,7750992,7119,868,486
Expenditures
300Pines and Mission Intersection Improvement1,599,256001,599,256
313Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing50,0000050,000
320Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th5,000005,000
321Argonne Corridor Imprv - North of Knox19,6080019,608
3262020 Citywide Retroreflective Post Plates0000
327Sprague Stormwater & Crossing Project2,365,000002,365,000
329Barker Road Imp- City Limits to Appleway50,0000050,000
346Bowdish Sidewalk 12th to 22nd2,106,777002,106,777
347Broadway and Park Intersection410,13400410,134
348Barker Road Improvements- Appleway to I9000221,000221,000
349Trent Ave Access Control Safety Improvements00419,000419,000
351Barker Road Imp - Sprague to Appleway595,00000595,000
35416th Ave Preservation - Evergreen to Adams00352,711352,711
366S. Sullivan Preservation - 8th to 12th0000
367Subarea Transportation Plan0000
Argonne Bridge675,00000675,000
Contingency1,000,000001,000,000
Total expenditures8,875,7750992,7119,868,486
Revenues over (under) expenditures00
Beginning fund balance1,969,3551,969,355
Ending fund balance1,969,3551,969,355
Note: Work performed for pavement preservation projects out of the Street Capital Projects Fund is for items such as
sidewalk upgrades that the were bid with the pavement preservation work.
#309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds0000
Transfers in - #001160,00000160,000
Transfers in - #312220,0000326,299546,299
Total revenues380,0000326,299706,299
Expenditures
316Balfour Park improvements Phase 120,0000530,000550,000
328Sullivan Park water line002,0002,000
Greenacres Park Phase 2200,00000200,000
Total expenditures220,0000532,000752,000
Revenues over (under) expenditures160,000(45,701)
Beginning fund balance338,459338,459
Ending fund balance498,459292,758
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Revenues
Transfers in - #0011,021,900001,021,900
Transfers in - #3011,170,350001,170,350
Transfers in - #3021,170,350001,170,350
Grant Proceeds00358,362358,362
Total revenues3,362,6000358,3623,720,962
Expenditures
Pavement preservation3,500,00002,120,1655,620,165
Pre-project GeoTech50,0000050,000
Total expenditures3,550,00002,120,1655,670,165
Revenues over (under) expenditures(187,400)(1,949,203)
Beginning fund balance4,127,3474,127,347
Ending fund balance3,939,9472,178,144
#312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Transfers in - #001 ('22 fund bal >50%)004,397,8324,397,832
Investment Interest 500,00000500,000
Total revenues500,00004,397,8324,897,832
Expenditures
Transfers out - #001 (City Hall Repairs)001,424,0001,424,000
(pub safety space planning)
Transfers out - #001 00122,200122,200
Transfers out - #121 (Stabilization Reserve)00400,000400,000
(Balfour Park Improvements Ph
Transfers out - #309 20,0000324,299344,299
Transfers out - #309 (Sullivan Park water line)002,0002,000
(Greenacres Park Ph2)
Transfers out - #309 200,00000200,000
Transfers out - #314 (Barker Rd Overpass)725,00000725,000
(Pines Rd Underpass)
Transfers out - #314 20,0940367,906388,000
Transfers out - #314 (Sullivan Interchange)61,6980(41,021)20,677
WSDOT Sullivan Park Property Acquisition0759,6000759,600
Total expenditures1,026,792759,6002,599,3844,385,776
Revenues over (under) expenditures(526,792)512,056
Beginning fund balance11,996,25911,996,259
Ending fund balance11,469,46712,508,315
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds2,112,53003,356,1115,468,641
Developer Contributions00308,592308,592
Transfers in #30180100801
Transfers in #302182,5000146,823329,323
Transfers in #312806,7920326,8851,133,677
Total revenues3,102,62304,138,4117,241,034
Expenditures
143Barker BNSF Grade Separation725,00000725,000
223Pines Rd Underpass273,67402,226,3262,500,000
311Sullivan Rd Interchange2,153,94801,633,0523,787,000
Total expenditures3,152,62203,859,3787,012,000
Revenues over (under) expenditures(49,999)229,034
Beginning fund balance117,460117,460
Ending fund balance67,461346,494
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
#402 - STORMWATER FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Stormwater Management Fees5,600,000005,600,000
Investment Interest40,0000040,000
Miscellaneous0000
Total Recurring Revenues5,640,000005,640,000
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes1,316,97632,34601,349,322
Supplies44,7000044,700
Services & Charges2,422,317002,422,317
Intergovernmental Payments48,0000048,000
Vehicle rentals - #50113,0000013,000
Total Recurring Expenditures3,844,99332,34603,877,339
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures1,795,007(32,346)01,762,661
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds0000
Miscellaneous0000
Total Nonrecurring Revenues0000
Expenditures
Capital - various projects1,500,00001,110,0002,610,000
Watershed studies150,00000150,000
Asset management software system0000
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures1,650,00001,110,0002,760,000
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures(1,650,000)0(1,110,000)(2,760,000)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures145,007(32,346)(1,110,000)(997,339)
Beginning working capital4,550,1584,550,158
Ending working capital4,695,1653,552,819
P:\\Finance\\Budgets\\2024 Budget\\Budget Amendment\\Budget Amendment #2\\2024 10 15 Admin Report\\2024 Budget Summary for Amended Fund No 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/15/2024
2024 Budget Summary for Amended Funds
2024
As1st2ndAs
AdoptedAmendmentAmendmentAmended
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
#502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest004,8004,800
Transfers in - #001700,00000700,000
Total revenues700,00004,800704,800
Expenditures
Auto & Property Insurance700,0000125,000825,000
Miscellaneous0000
Total expenditures700,0000125,000825,000
Revenues over (under) expenditures0(120,200)
Beginning fund balance460,525460,525
Ending fund balance460,525340,325
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
#632 - PASSTHROUGH FEES & TAXES FUND
Revenues
Fees & taxes collected for other governments500,0000100,000600,000
Total revenues500,0000100,000600,000
Expenditures
Fees & taxes remitted to other governments500,0000100,000600,000
Total expenditures500,0000100,000600,000
Revenues over (under) expenditures00
Beginning fund balance00
Ending fund balance00