The URL can be used to link to this page

2009, 10-20 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 20, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Fiist Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL NON-ACTION ITEMS: l. Leon�rd Matarese ICMA L��v Enforcement Report Discussion/lilformation 2. Ren Thoinpson Ainending 2009 Budget Discussion/Infoi7nation 3. Gouncil�neinbers Gouncil Ezternal Cominittee Reports Discussion/Inforination 4. Ma�-or Munson Advance Agenda Discussion/Infoi7nation 5. Infor•mation Only (will vrot be c�iscussed or• re�or�ted): (a) �Shoreline Master Program Pz�blic Participation Program; (b) 2010 Sewer Pcrveback P�og�am (c) C'ommi�nity Developme�rt Block Gra�t (C'DBU) Projects ■ Ma�-or Mi�nson Council Checic in Disci�ssion/Inforination ■ Dave Mercier Cit�- Manager Comments Discussion/Inforination --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AC'TTnN TTF.M� 6. Ken Thoinpson Fee Resolution 09-01� Approve Resolution [public comment] 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acqi�isition [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)]; and Potential Litigation [RCW 4230.110(1)(i)] ADJOURN l'ote: Unless other�i ise noted abo� e, there «ill be no public conuneuts at Couucil Stud� Sessions. Ho« e� er, Council al« a� � reser��es the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. Durina meetin�s held bv the Cit� of Spokane Valle�T CounciL the Counoil reservzs the risht to takz "action" on �n�T item listed or subsequentlp addzd to thz asznda. The tzrin "action" means to deliberate. discuss, revie�v. consider. e��aluate. or malee a collective positive or ne,�tive decision. NOTICE: Individuals plannin, to attend the meetina �ti�ho require special assistance to accommodate phy�sicaL hearinQ. or other impairments, please contact the Cih� Clerk at (�09) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that an�ansements may be made. Sfid�� Session .�gznda, Octobzr 20, 3009 Paaz 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information � admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ICMA Law Enforcement Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Leonard Matarese, Director of Public Safety Services, ICMA Consulting Services of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), will lead discussion on the attached "Report for the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane Valley Police Department." OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: ICMA Police Operations Report ■r��/�r� '��r�.��/��_'■��/��r■ ■�■ ■��._��/��■ ■��■/��■ ■��'�■��■ ■f��■��■ ■��■ ■�/��■��/�■ ■��■��■ ■/��■ l�t��■ ■��■��■��■■ ■��/�■ ■I�t��i■t�■`�■ ■t��t��■■�■�■ ■■��■�■t��/��■ ■��■ ■�■��f�� ■��r��■�■��■��■��E��■■��■�■■ S okane Valle Patrol Services p Y Data Anal sis y Kenneth Chelst, Ph.D. Dov Chelst, Ph.D. . read�rs at the Cor� of Better Communi�i�s Data Collected & Anal zed y . :� 12 months — Tota I vo I u m e of ca I I s — Response Time oAll calls o High priority :� February and Aug ust (8 weeks) — Deployment — Workload by hour of day I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ...... .... ...... � .... 2 Percentage Calls per Day, by Initiator•': .... . �.. Zero 0 I � �� Police initia Other initia 5.8 Tot .:5, 1.9 teaders at the Core o . e' ��i�� oi�irii�iiti �es ■��■ ■t■�■t�■ ........ ........ ... .... ........ 42. � 18.7% .8% 2.2% 9% 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ � � Arrest Agency assist Crime Directed patrol General non-criminal Investigations )uvenile Suspicious incident Traffic Calls per Day, by Category . Categ Accid� AI a rrr� •/_�i�ii1 Assist oth�'�" Check/i nvesti Crime—perso ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ...... .... �.......... tal call ��ll5 per d ,� � ,4 ,1 Disturba � Juvenil� Miscella Prisoner—ar� Suspicious pe Traffi � Total� i� 5,4 1 r I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 Number of Units Responding, by - Other I n itiated I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 Categor � .� ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ......... ......... .... .... ......... 7 36.4% ��a•r� 24 .1% .0% 18.3°� % 15.4°!0 �� Ctl�i'��/ �/1Df �{�d�l�� ❑ Arrest ❑ Agency assist ❑ Crime ❑ Directed patrol � General ❑ Investigations ❑ )uvenile � Suspicious Q Traffic � *� � _ t. �__.��■ Deployment and Workload Weekdays: February, 2008 .. �. . . �... ....... . � �..... ■t�■ .... .... .... .... I � �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 Deployment and Workload Weekends: Aug ust, 2008 .. �. . . �... ....... . � �..... _.��■ ■t�■ .... .... .... .... � ' �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies 10 Average Response Time, by Hour of Day, for February and Aug ust 2008 � � ' �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ .......... . ......... ...... .... �.......... 11 Average Response Time Components by Category ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ .......... . ......... ....... .... �.......... �� 2 is.� .� � � ' � �� I � �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies 12 Average Dispatch, Travel, and Respons� Times, by Priority . ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ .......... . ......... ...... .... �.......... Ils ,542 I � �� 13 teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies Summar Y . :� :� ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ...... .... ........... Response Time — Priority 1 average less than 6 minutes — May be opportunity to reduce dispatch delay — Need standards for quality of life calls Workload — Traffic enforcement is large percentage — Some imbalance between workload and deployment plan during evening hours � ' �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies 14 �C�S� �I"C�►��CtIC�►�� Of � . ■ Inde endent Pol�ce De artment p p :� :� :� Start-u p costs (fi rst year) ■��■ ■�t��■��■ .�......... . ...�...... ....... .... �.......... Operating and capital costs (ongoing) Mai ntai n cu rrent contracts with the Cou nty I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 F�'ers�nnel �o�� ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... •# of staff p ro j ected by tea m m e m be rs • Salary survey showed wide variation • Study uses 2009 SCSO average salary for each position :� :� Esti mate 6% for OT, sick, hol iday, etc. Study estimates: — 95 positions — $9.78 million annually I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 F�'ers�nnel �o�� Administration Total - Administration Investigations Total - Investigations Patrol/Traffic Total - Patrol/Traffic Civil Service Property Room/Records School Resource Officers Overtime/Sick/Holiday/Sellback Total Personnel Costs 1 1 3 5 1 3 13 17 1 4 8 4 40 8 65 3 1 4 I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 Police Chief Lieutenant Admin Support Lieutenant Sergeants Detectives Lieutenant Sergeants Corporals K-9 Officers Patrol Officers Traffic Officers Mix Evidence Tech Patrol Officers ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... $ 144,405 $ 128,469 $ 189,045 $ 461,919 $ 128,469 $ 338,630 $ 1,337,777 $ 1,804,876 $ 128,469 $ 451,506 $ 823,248 $ 372,099 $ 3,720,987 $ 744,197 $ 6,240,506 $ 284,509 $ 63,015 $ 372,099 $ 553,600 $ 9,780,524 F�' r� � r��t � E u i_ m� n t� ar s�t� p Y q � ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... • Esti mate startu costs of $5, 000 er officer p p — Includes uniforms, firearms, radios, etc. • Total startu costs of $460, 000 p • Ongoi ng costs i ncl ude telephone, bu i Id i ng mai ntenance, fuel • Esti mated fi rst- ear total cost of $884, 900 y I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 F�' r� � r��t � E u i_ m� n t� ar s�t� p Y q � Startup equipment (uniforms, firearms, vests, radios, etc.) Telephone Building maintenance contract Fuel Total Equipment Costs I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... First Year $ 460, 000 $ $ $ $ $ 36, 500 120, 000 268,400 884, 900 $ $ $ $ Ongoing 36, 500 120, 000 268,400 424, 900 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ �� ■��■ � ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ • Current contracts with Spokane County . reviewe : — Property room/records management — SCOPE — Garage — Radio — Forensics • Estimated costs of $1.5 million I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 �C�UI'lt �Or1tr�CtS � Property room/records SCOPE Garage Radio Forensics Total Contract Costs � � �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies , , , , , � ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... 523, 000 44,100 121, 000 596, 000 209, 000 1,493,100 � � I � �� • Operating supplies, including: — Training equipment — K-9 ca re — Computer supplies ■��■ ■�t��■��■ ■A��■ ■ ■■i■��r�■ ■��■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■��■■ • Costs estimated at $40,600 annuall y I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 � � I � �� Training K-9 food & veterinary Computers & Miscellaneous Total Supply Costs I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 , , , 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ 10, 000 5, 600 25, 000 40, 600 �� :� :� :� Mai ntenance & operations Initial staffing — Recru itment, testi ng, etc. Insurance — Estimated at $1.44 per man-hour I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ �� Maintenance & operations Initial staffing costs Insurance Total Other Costs I � �� teaders at the Core of Better Communi�ies $ $ $ $ First Year 833, 800 100, 000 297, 700 1,231,500 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ Ongoing $ 833, 800 $ - $ 297,700 $ 1,131, 500 �� I ��I� � � • Vehicles — 33 vehicles —$25, 000 from Cou nty; $30, 000 new — K-9 vehicles add $5,000 — Replace approximately 6 cars/year I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ �� I ��I� � � :� Other Capital ■��■ ■�t��■��■ ■A��■ ■ ■■i■��r�■ ■��■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■��■■ — Estimate $50,000 annually for miscellaneous capital outlay :� K-9 — 4 K-9 units — $7,000 for dog and training — $5,000 for supplies I �� teaders at the Core of Better Communifies �� I ��I� � � Vehicles K-9 M iscellaneous Total Capital Outlay I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 � � , � , � � � First Year 845, 000 33, 000 � �� • : 111 , , , 1 , � ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ ■ ■■�■��■ ■/■1■�■ ■��■ ■ �■��■■ Ongoing 182, 750 0 50, 000 232, 750 �vE'rh��C� �OStS • Costs incurred by City —Accounting, budgeting, finance — Policy direction — Other support activities ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ ■��■ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... • Esti mate overhead at 10% of budget — First year = $1.4 million — Later years = $1.3 million I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 Tota I F�'r�' e c�e d� asts F' J :� :� :� Current Contract = $15.5 million First Year Costs = $15.8 million — I ncludes one-time startup costs On oin Costs = $14.4 million g g ■��■ ■�t��■��■ .�........ . ......... ....... .... . �.......... • Pro�ected loss of $256,000 in first ear, � y with savi n s of $1.1 m i I I ion thereafter g I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 ■��■ ■�t■�■t�■ .......... . ......... ....... .... . �.......... Tota I F�'r�' e c�e d� asts F' J Personnel Equipment County Contracts Supplies Other Total Operating Expenses , , , , , , , , , , ,, First year 9, 780, 524 884, 900 1,493,100 40, 600 1, 231, 500 13,430,624 Capital Outlay Overhead Total Projected Budget Current Law Enforcement Contract Projected Savings/(Loss) , , , , , ,, Ongoing 9, 780, 524 424, 900 1,493,100 40, 600 1,131,500 12,870,624 $ 928, 000 $ $ 1,435,862 $ $ 15,794,486 $ 15, 538, 576 $ (255,910) 232, 750 1, 310, 337 $ 14,413,711 $ 15, 538, 576 $ 1,124,865 I �� teaders at the Core of Better C mmuni�ies 0 REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AN D TH E SPOKANE VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT -- j •� " � .�' f h �- y _� ,-��; `� ` I I ' ' � I I ';, ' � I I ' ' � M � �: Pt�1 r1 ��' t� ��J .; lJ � ��b I I��J G :� C I;', 1� I �� 5 Submitted by and reply to: Public Safety Services ICMA Consulting Services International City/County Management Association 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 agarnett@icma.org 202-962-3585 �� Lea�fers at the C+�r� of Be�er Comm,unitres ICMA BACKGROUND The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is the premier local government leadership and management organization. Since 1914, ICMA's mission has been to create excellence in local governance by developing and advocating professional local government management worldwide. ICMA provides an information clearinghouse, technical assistance, training, and professional development to more than 9,000 city, town, and county experts and other individuals throughout the world. ICMA CONSULTING SERVICES The ICMA Consulting Services team helps communities solve critical problems by providing management consulting support to local governments. One of ICMA Consulting Services' areas of expertise is public safety services, which encompasses the following areas and beyond: organizational development, leadership and ethics, training, assessment of calls for service workload, staffing requirements analysis, designing standards and hiring guidelines for police and fire chief recruitment, police/fire consolidation, community-oriented policing, and city/county/regional mergers. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 1. Review of Current Contract 6 Section 3: Services Provided 7 Sections 4, 8, and 14.3: Relationships between Parties 7 Section 6: Reporting 8 Section 8: Personnel 8 Sections 10 and 11: Liability 8 Section 13.3: Appearance of Vehicles and Uniforms 8 Section 14: Enforcement Policies 9 Items Not Addressed in Current Contract 9 2. Police Department Operations 10 Administration and Management 10 Organization and Structure 12 Investigative Capabilities 14 The Precinct 18 Communications and Technology 21 Vehicles and Equipment 22 Recruitment and Training 22 Ethics and Professional Standards 30 Community Engagement: SCOPE 35 The SVPD and the SCSO: Lines of Demarcation 43 3. Data Analysis 45 Workload Analysis 45 Deployment 62 Response Times 67 4. Costs and Expenditures 75 Cost Distribution 75 Financial Sustainability 87 5. Recommendations 94 Review of Current Contract 94 Police Department Operations 95 Costs and Expenditures 102 6. Implications for a Stand-Alone Agency 103 Review of Current Contract 103 Police Department Operations 104 Costs and Expenditures 106 7. Performance Indicators/Benchmarks 112 Training 112 Ethics and Professional Standards 112 Community Relations 112 Data Analysis 113 3 INTRODUCTION The City of Spokane Valley currently contracts with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) to provide law enforcement services to the community. That contract is approaching its renewal date. The primary objective of this project is to present the city with an unbiased review of the positive and negative ramifications of renewing its contract with the SCSO. The city also seeks an understanding of the costs and implementation issues should it decide to establish its own independent municipal police agency. Using the information generated by this project, the city's elected officials will be positioned to establish a long-range strategic plan for the delivery of police services to the community. That strategy may well involve a continued contractual relationship with the SCSO. Should the city continue that relationship, ICMA Consulting Services has closely reviewed existing sheriff/city contracts both within Washington State and elsewhere to identify best practices for such agreements, and on the basis of that review, we recommend specific adjustments to the current contract to provide the city with greater input on the delivery of services to the community. Should the city of Spokane Valley decide to establish its own, independent municipal police agency, this report includes recommendations on staffing levels and procurement of the necessary equipment for such an undertaking. Regardless of the choice of delivery alternatives that the city ultimately selects, we have included in this report recommendations concerning appropriate management and operational practices that should be implemented. In addition, we have identified performance metrics that should be routinely used to measure law enforcement's activities in service to Spokane Valley. The project involved data analysis of the activities of what is referred to as the Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD)—in fact, a division of the SCSO—conducted by the three- member data analysis team of ICMA. This work involved large data dumps and analyses of the SVPD's records. Most of this work was accomplished off site. Additionally, ICMA staff and consultants conducted on-site reviews of departmental operations, ranging from high- level staff ineetings with the sheriff and his management team to "ride alongs" with line patrol officers and meetings with detectives and other personnel. 4 This project involved many hundreds of staff hours by the ICMA Public Safety Services unit, members of Spokane Valley's professional staff, and the leadership of the SCSO. We wish to thank City Manager David Mercier and Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich as well as their respective staffs for their cooperation and assistance in this effort. We anticipate that the city leadership will have many questions and seek additional clarifications. We look forward to those interactions at an on-site presentation by our team to be scheduled shortly. Leonard A. Matarese Director Public Safety Services ICMA Consulting Services 5 1. REVIEW OF CURRENT CONTRACT In evaluating the contract for law enforcement services between the City of Spokane Valley (the City) and the Spokane Valley Sheriff (the Sheriff), ICMA's review team made comparisons between the existing contract and similar contracts from King County, Washington; Pierce County, Washington; and Miami-Dade County, Florida. Additionally, it held discussions with two officials in Miami-Dade County, Florida, who are uniquely situated to provide background insights inasmuch as they have both functioned as the police chief on behalf of a county contracting with a city to provide law enforcement services, and subsequently as city officials—namely, as a city police chief and a town manager in the same cities they served as county police chiefs. An initial review of all contracts must begin by noting that all involve consideration in the form of monetary promises in exchange for the provision of law enforcement services. All appear to be valid contracts authorized by underlying state laws. Provisions that relate to numbers of personnel and equipment provided are related to specific costs. Provisions that relate to standards, philosophies, and the control of personnel and resources are more complex. All contracts that were examined are characterized by one factor that sets them apart from most contracts that a governmental unit or private entity may consider: the cities involved, should they wish to purchase law enforcement services by entering into a contract rather than providing the services directly, lack an array of vendors from which to choose. The ICMA team conducted the review by comparing the contract between the City and the Sheriff with the other contracts on comparable provisions, as well as on the backgrounds provided by the officials identified above. For certain provisions and where warranted by differences noted or background information obtained, comments are included in sequence and designated by Spokane Valley contract section number. Following the review, we also discuss items that are not addressed in the City's contract but are noted in the other contracts or background and that the City may wish to consider for inclusion in future contracts. In addition, we have made recommendations for use in future contracts; in some instances, these include recommended language. The ability to make changes to the contract in the future depends heavily on the relative bargaining power of the parties. The Sheriff's bargaining power derives mainly from the fact that the Sheriff's Office is the only available source for contracted police services. The City's bargaining power appears to 6 derive mainly from the fact that the Sheriff's Office would face a drop in revenue and need to reduce personnel should the City decide to operate a municipal police department. SECTION 3: SERVICES PROVIDED In any future contract, the City may wish to include specification of average emergency and nonemergency response time benchmarks. While many variables affect response times, agreed-upon benchmarks would provide measurable indicators of performance. Response times are mentioned and defined in Section 6 in terms of designing patrol areas with the intent to minimize response times. Therefore, while descriptions of patrol areas and desired response times are appropriate in Section 3, required reports detailing average response times would seem to be more appropriate in Section 6. SECTIONS 4, 8, AND 14.3: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARTIES Relations between the parties to the contract naturally depend heavily on the working relationship between the city manager and the police chief. Selection of the police chief appears to be critical to that relationship, as is the potential for removing someone who proves to be unsuitable. The relationship between the city manager and the police chief is the central factor in Section 4 of the contract and is also addressed in Section 14.3. At issue is the element of control afforded to the parties, which is difficult to quantify. In the current contract, the City is afforded virtually no control under the terms of Section 4; instead, the Sheriff can provide "one or more" candidates for police chief from the ranks of Sheriff's deputies, from which the city manager can make a selection. If only one candidate is provided, the City is excluded from the selection process entirely. None of the contracts reviewed provided for the recruitment and hiring of a police chief from outside the Sheriff's Office. Furthermore, Section 4 does not provide any mechanism by which the City can have a police chief replaced in case of unsuitability, nor did any of the contracts that were reviewed. This weakness in the contracts appears to stem from the relatively unequal bargaining power of the parties to the contract; that is, the City has only one source for contracted police services as an alternative to operating a municipal police department. Reassignment of personnel is addressed in only very general terms in Section 7. 7 SECTION 6: REPORTING Section 6 provides that public records relating to the provision of law enforcement services to the City will be provided to the City when requested by the City Manager. No provision is made for City residents to access Sheriff's records relating to City activities at a location within the City. SECTION 7: PERSONNEL "Control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline and all other standards of performance" is exclusively reserved to the Sheriff. The City may confer with the Sheriff regarding assigned personnel but is given no mechanism to deal with personnel problems other than to ask the Sheriff to address them. SECTIONS 10 AND 11: LIABILITY The indemnity, hold harmless, and insurance provisions of Section 10, coupled with the assertion in Section 11 that an independent contractor relationship exists between the parties, appear to adequately shield each party from liability for the acts or policies of the other. The ability of contracting parties to at least partially shield themselves from certain liability risks is probably an advantage to a contracting municipality that is not available to a municipality that is using an exclusively municipal police force. Prime examples of direct liability exposure that can be largely avoided are numerous. External constitutional claims against the City concerning policy and practice liability, including those involving alleged failures in hiring, training, and discipline, are for the most part excluded by the terms of Sections 10 and 11; and, in a practical sense, most employment claims, such as those involving hiring practices, promotions and discipline, are essentially excluded by the previously noted lack of control provided to the City in this contract. SECTION 13.3: APPEARANCE OF VEHICLES AND UNIFORMS Section 13.3 involves the appearance of vehicles and uniforms used by Sheriff's employees who are assigned to the City. The section recognizes the City's interest in having distinct, recognizable markings to identify the vehicles and personnel who are assigned to the City while retaining the Sheriff's markings and uniform style. Washington law reserves a standard uniform for Sheriff's personnel (RCW 36.28.170). However, the standard is not mandatory, and both vehicles and uniform attire can be made distinctive. As a practical matter, depending on the frequency with which Sheriff's vehicles not assigned to the City 8 are in or passing through the City, the close similarity of assigned and nonassigned vehicles and uniforms will increase the perceived police presence in the City. SECTION 14: ENFORCEMENT POLICIES The City will develop enforcement policies and provide them to the Sheriff for implementation. Pursuant to the terms of Sections 10 and 11 (e.g., Section 10.3), in the event of constitutional liability claims based on policy and practice theories, the City could be directly liable for a successful claim stemming from these policies and responsible to indemnify the Sheriff. ITEMS NOT ADDRESSED IN CURRENT CONTRACT The contract is silent about the disposition of forfeited property derived from the activities of Sheriff's personnel assigned to the City. Under Washington law, forfeited property can be retained for use by the forfeiting agency, and the net proceeds that are not required to be remitted to the state can be used to expand and improve drug enforcement activities. Additionally, these proceeds are not to be used to supplant normally budgeted activities (RCW 69.50.505). The contract is also silent about federal law enforcement agencies sharing the proceeds of federal forfeitures with local governments that contributed to the seizure and forfeiture of property. 9 2. POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS This report assesses the administration, internal operations, facilities, and training of the SVPD in relationship to the SCSO and its ability to provide services to the city of Spokane Valley. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT Administration of the SVPD is undertaken by Chief Rick Van Leuven, a previously ranked lieutenant who was the narcotics commander of the SCSO. As chief of police, he works directly under the Spokane County sheriff and is also accountable to him. The chief also communicates with the city manager; they confer on departmental matters, and the chief is deeply involved in issues relating to the city. The chief is the only police manager who is a full-time SVPD employee. However, there is no doubt whom the chief works for and from whom he receives his direction. All other superiors of the SVPD are deputy sheriffs, and only a portion of their salaries are paid by Spokane Valley. All SVPD deputies and superiors wear the uniform of the SCSO; those assigned to Spokane Valley wear an SVPD shoulder patch in addition to the SCSO patch. All are ultimately accountable to the sheriff—a fact that reinforces the status of the SVPD as a substation of the sheriff's office. The officers are also very loyal to the sheriff, recognizing that he is the ultimate authority over the police department. From our discussions it was clear that the department's entire management team recognizes that it is accountable to the sheriff first and the city second. The officers consider themselves to be on assignment to the city for a specified amount of time. While with the city, they are very conscious of their role in the community and their responsibility to the city and its management; however, none of the officers interviewed indicated a willingness to leave the SCSO to become an SVPD officer, and they seem noticeably unconcerned about what happens when their tour of duty is up. This arrangement does not seem to have a negative impact on the operational ability of the department. Across upper management of the SVPD, it is unclear where the city limits of Spokane Valley begin and end relative to assignment. For example, Lt. Steve Jones of the SCSO (a previous applicant for the position of police chief) is not part of the SVPD or of the city of Spokane Valley's contract with the SCSO, yet he contributed half of his workweek in support of the police chief on the ICMA project. Moreover, because of what appear to be insufficient 10 management personnel in the SVPD, he quite regularly fills the role of operations lieutenant when there are staffing issues with supervisors in the Valley. SVPD Chief Rick Van Leuven himself tends to be the on-call supervisor when there are gaps in the schedule. The ICMA team saw little evidence of administrative or operations management capacity in the department, a shortcoming that has a corresponding effect not only on police operations but also on community and likely political relations. Other than having a police chief as the administrative head, the management of both the SCSO and the SVPD is unusual because of how the midmanagement personnel—the SCSO lieutenants—are distributed. In every law enforcement organization, uniform service or radio patrol is always the largest entity; however, of the eleven lieutenant positions listed on the SCSO's organizational chart, only four are assigned to patrol, and of those, two are assigned to the police department (see the organizational chart on page 14). This seems inadequate. Moreover, reviews of staffing indicate that two lieutenants within the SCSO are assigned to Internal Affairs, which appears to be a waste of resources given the total size of the SCSO. A closer examination of the midmanagement oversight within the SVPD reveals an inadequacy at this level of management. The two full-time lieutenants who are assigned to the police department work opposite shifts with different days off. When one is on vacation, it is common practice for the other lieutenant to cover this position. The administrative responsibilities then fall back on the on-duty sergeant who may, under certain circumstances, be the only supervisor on duty. On the day of the ICMA team's visit, this officer, who is highly skilled and motivated, was working overtime because the other regularly assigned sergeant was taking a day off, as guaranteed by contract. In fact, from both verbal testimony and a review of budget documents, it appears that a considerable amount of overtime is being used and charged back to the city of Spokane Valley. The last layer of supervision is the corporal position, which is prevalent in both the SVPD and the SCSO as a whole. However, a corporal has only minimal supervisory powers and can perform as an actual supervisor only if a lieutenant is on duty at the same time. Otherwise, a sergeant must be called in on overtime. The corporal actually functions more as an assistant to the sergeant and is responsible for administrative tasks, which greatly diminishes that officer's productivity as a lead worker. This does not appear to be an effective use of either the position or the personnel. 11 From our observations we conclude that the overall supervision of the police department and its preferred administrative and investigative processes is inadequate and extremely costly for the actual supervision being performed. Within the precinct's normal hours of operation (Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), supervision is minimal while command staff is on call if some action occurs requiring a response which is at overtime for lieutenants and below. This is not an effective or efficient management practice. ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE A review of the SCSO's organizational chart, along with testimony given by those involved, reveals that there are numerous part-time positions taking up 25 or 50 percent of an employee's time, with the specific costs for those positions being charged back to the SVPD. Although the city is charged for 50 percent of part-time employees' salaries, these employees actually spend very little time, if any, in Spokane Valley. Many of these positions are specialized, such as the commander of Investigations Unit, who is assigned to headquarters. In defending this inequity of time spent in the Valley, the SCSO pointed out that 60 percent of all crime and crime-related activities occur in the Valley and that the administrative oversight of the investigative processes needs to be shared equitably with all participants. In many respects, the SVPD and SCSO operate on a shared-services model, although in general terms, the SVPD seems to operate as a unit of the SCSO rather than as a stand- alone agency. This setup makes the lines between the two at best blurry and at worst confusing. For their part, however, the public generally do not understand or have any real knowledge of the relationship between the departments. They are only interested in having the police respond quickly if called. Staffing There are no assistant chiefs or captains assigned to the department. There is one full-time lieutenant who reports directly to the chief and acts as a liaison with the SCSO. The captains work within the department under the 50-50 arrangement The line supervisors do an excellent job managing the shifts and providing steady leadership with limited upper-level supervision. During interviews, the officers did not indicate that they are understaffed, and the lack of higher-level supervisors—specifically, lieutenants on 12 permanent assignment to the department—did not seem to concern them. Highly trained and experienced, the sergeants seem willing and able to make decisions with little concern that they will be second guessed or criticized. The department seems to be solid in its ability to handle the day-to-day calls for service. The patrol division seems to have adequate resources to handle these calls, and the officers respond professionally and give proper attention to the calls they receive. Staffing levels for patrol operations are apparently sufficient to handle other patrol functions as well. However, a review of the workload analysis shows that adjusting man hours to different shifts and zones would undoubtedly enhance the department's ability to maximize its patrol force. The detectives assigned to the SVPD handle property crimes. (Crimes against people are assigned to the sheriff's detectives at the SCSO, who respond when needed. This is where the 50-50 assignment arrangement is used.) The property detectives seem well trained and experienced, and they work well with the patrol officers. However, the detective operations seem to be lacking sufficient personnel to handle a wide range of cases from beginning to end. There are currently six detectives assigned to the SVPD. Two additional detectives, both hired under grants, will be assigned to the sex offender programs. If the city chooses to create its own department, the number of detectives will have to be increased to handle the types of crimes that they had not covered before—for example, murder and sexual battery, which are now handled by the sheriff's office. (It is noteworthy that none of the detectives works weekends unless called out; in fact, the department is closed after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and closed on weekends.) Currently the motor pool is run by one civilian mechanic who works full time for the SCSO and spends about four hours a day at the SVPD facility. The evidence and property operation, which appears to be handled quite proficiently, could easily be turned over to a civilian employee. Schedule The SVPD officers are currently working a twelve-hour shift schedule, which both they and the supervisors like. The department's forty-four patrol officers are divided into four 11- person shifts. The effect of this work schedule on deployment versus workload is identified in the "Data Analysis" section of this report beginning on page 62. 13 INVESTIGATIVE CAPABILITIES Currently, according to an organizational chart provided by the SCSO and dated October 2, 2007, there are six detectives assigned to property and domestic violence investigations (see the organizational chart below). A spokesperson for the sheriff's office indicated that two of the six detectives handle domestic violence investigations in the SVPD, and these detectives are supervised by one full-time sergeant dedicated to the department. According to comments received months after ICMA's onsite visit, one of the six detectives is assigned to misdemeanor domestic violence while a separate SCSO detective not assigned to Spokane Valley handles the Valley's domestic violence cases. The city's budget is also assessed for the use of four drug detectives, three major crime detectives, and three sex crimes detectives. However, these ten positions are not exclusively assigned to Spokane Valley cases but rather are used countywide. Moreover, all ten positions are supervised by three part-time sergeants, whose primary responsibility is also countywide. This is not to say that drug and other crimes do not occur in Spokane Valley; it is only meant to provide an overview of how personnel are assigned. City of Spokane Yalley Police �rganizational Chart Chief Downtown Inspector 5 Capt. Investigations Precinct 2 Lts. .2fi7 Lt. 5 Lt. 5 Lt. Patrol Community p � Ug � Major crimes Resaurce Sex crimes 1 Lt. 1 aeputy Admin. CRPO' 1 5gt. 6 Sgts. 1 5gt. .5 Sgt. .5 Sgt. 5 Sgt. Property/DV Patrol Traffic ISU' Major crimes Sex crimes 1 Sgt. AdminJService 6 Detectiues 6 Cpls. 1 Deteciive 3 Detectives Pro�pertylDV Patrol 4 Detectives Sex crimes Drugs 3 Detectives 1 Deputy 1 Deputy Major crimes �ront desk DV 43 Deputies 5 DeputiEs 2.5 K9s Traffic 1 Deteeti�e .5 Detective 2.5 peputies 4 Deputies JTTF° PCTFS SRDsS Staff assistant 2 Deputies Qrugs 3 Technical 1 Community Resource Police Officer assistants 2 Domestic violence 3 Investigative Support Unit 4 Joint Terrorism Task Force 2 Technical 5 School Resource Deputies assistants 6 Property Crimes Task Force 14 Up until 2008, the Valley had recorded decreases in all crimes, but that changed in 2008 when the number of burglaries increased from 584 to 753, accounting for approximately 200 additional property crimes and 325 additional major crimes over the previous year—from 3,875 in 2007 to 4,195 in 2008. Generally, under most national case-management systems that are based on solvability factors, trends, values of property taken, political considerations, and whether firearms were involved, about 20 percent of all crimes are assigned for follow-up investigation. In 2008, according to a January 19, 2009, report submitted to the city by Chief Van Leuven, the Valley recorded 12,817 total crime incidents, of which 7,513 were property crimes. Applying this national 20 percent rule to the total number of crimes (12,817) reveals that approximately 2,500 crimes would require investigation—or roughly 200 cases per month. These 200 cases, if divided up among nine full- and part-time detectives, would result in a caseload of 20 assigned cases per month per detective. Regarding the case follow-up assignment rates of Spokane Valley, Capt. Jim Goodwin, commander of investigations for SCSO, provided the ICMA team with a report dated January 20, 2009, which he said represented the SCSO's official countywide case assignment report for 2008. This report, which shows assigned cases by unit and disposition, states that Spokane Valley detectives were assigned 1,212 cases for calendar year 2008, which works out to an average caseload of 134 cases per detective per year, or 11 cases per month. However, from an examination of the disposition of those 1,212 cases, it is unknown whether they include arrests and clearances made by patrol, inactive cases, and exceptionally cleared cases, all of which required follow-up work by detectives but little or no true investigative work. Several months after the ICMA draft report was submitted for review, the SCSO indicated that of the total 7,513 property crimes reported in 2008, 1,638 cases were investigated—a number that had not been provided to the ICMA team. Certainly the number 1,638 is larger than the 1,212 that had been originally provided, and would have to be factored into the investigative review. Ironically, when looking at the 7,513 crimes reported, the new number of cases assigned for follow-u�1,638—still factors into a 21 percent assignment rate and this is still in keeping with the national assignment standard. Since the SCSO did not originally provide the ICMA team with a profile of the 1,638 assigned cases, a review of 15 those cases cannot be used to determine their validity or their impact on actual assignment for follow-up investigation. In its rebuttal of the ICMA draft report, the SCSO stated that it had conducted 935 burglary investigations, which would be impossible if only 753 burglaries had been recorded. No major police department in the county that is the size of the SVPD investigates 100 percent of cases recorded. If 935 is the correct number of cases, it indicates that the city experienced a 60 percent increase in burglaries from the previous year (2007), which, according to the report provided to the ICMA team, totaled 584 burglaries. Moreover, applying the 20 percent national assigned rate referred to above, it also means that the city of Spokane Valley experienced more than 4,500 burglaries in 2008. Nevertheless, assuming that the number is correct and that the new number of 1,638 cases is current, the new information does not significantly skew the overall assignment number, which would be 400 additional cases assigned per year, or roughly 33 cases per month divided by the number of detectives—an additional four investigations per month. Such discrepancies raise questions about the report given to us, which served as the basis for ICMA's draft report. The problem is clearly a matter of the correct numbers of crimes reported, assigned, and cleared. Without these numbers, the ICMA team cannot perform a correct analysis; we can work only with the numbers provided to us. The ICMA staff members assigned to this review of the SVPD's investigative operations have more than fifty years of experience and analysis in this area and are certainly willing to revise their analysis if different information is provided. What would happen if Spokane Valley decided to create its own police department and investigate its own crimes? Using 2008 totals, the city would be facing a caseload of 753 burglaries per year, of which 20 percent, or 150 cases, would be assigned for follow-up. This caseload would require three burglary detectives, who would together maintain a caseload of 12 cases per month. Of the remaining recorded property crimes, which include forgery, mischief, stolen vehicles, and theft, many would require no follow-up investigation because they include shoplifting and other misdemeanors. Thus, only about 10 percent of these crimes require follow-up investigations, and these could easily be handled by two full- time detectives who would have to review only 22 cases per month. 16 Domestic violence is a crime that does require follow-up because it can easily lead to more serious crimes, including homicide. In 2008, Spokane Valley recorded over 1,000 incidents of domestic violence, many of which were resolved with arrests made by uniform patrol and with follow-up consisting of review and coordination with the state attorney's office. Since two detectives are currently assigned to follow up domestic violence cases, it seems reasonable to believe that this number would be adequate. However, because of the high potential for these crimes to become violent, the detectives should report these crimes to the major crime supervisor rather than the property crimes supervisor to whom they currently report. As for major crimes (i.e., crimes against persons), such as assaults, robbery, sexual battery, and homicide, these are handled by the sheriff's detectives downtown. The SCSO estimates about 1,000 incidents per year (there were 1,063 in 2008), and the SPVD currently has six part-time detectives—those from the SCSO—to handle them. However, the actual number of cases that are followed up is low because many arrests are made by patrol and a high percentage of incidents are handled through warrants. Therefore, three full-time detectives should be able to handle the existing caseloads, and their supervisor would also be responsible for the two domestic violence detectives. Finally, regarding drug investigations, the Valley currently funds four positions that are involved with countywide investigations as well as with investigations in the city. These investigations are a necessary evil as drug violators often turn to other crimes in order to acquire drugs. This could be an area in which detectives assigned to investigate drug crimes could work with the SCSO in a joint venture, with the city of Spokane Valley paying the salaries of their personnel. In 2008 there were 838 drug crimes recorded, many of which ended in actual arrests (which is how the number of drug crimes is usually derived). Given the number of crimes and the potential danger that they hold, three detectives would be warranted for assignment to drug investigations. The supervisor assigned to major crimes has only five subordinates and thus could be assigned as the supervisor of this function as well. However, because of the potential for misconduct and danger, it would be prudent to have a separate supervisor assigned to this investigative unit if an arrangement with the SCSO cannot be made. Therefore, if the city of Spokane Valley were to start up its own police department separate from the SCSO, the investigative component of the police department would consist of 17 • Three burglary detectives • Two property crime detectives • Two domestic violence detectives • Three major crimes detectives • Three drug investigations detectives The thirteen detectives would be supervised by three sergeants: one for the five property crimes investigators, one for the three major crimes and two domestic violence detectives, and one for the three drug detectives. Again, this third sergeant would be necessary if an arrangement with the SCSO could not be worked out to have a sheriff's supervisor undertake supervision over the three detectives in a joint unit concept. The total current total of sixteen positions would be reduced to two and a half positions, with a concomitant budget reduction. THE PRECINCT The SVPD is at 12710 East Sprague Avenue. Although it is a newly refurbished building—it had previously been a Pep Boys Automotive Store—it is nondescript, set back from the road with little signage, and it is very difficult for those unfamiliar with the area to locate. Upon asking for directions, one is told to look for the White Elephant Sporting Goods Store; the police department is located next to it. Without this landmark, the building could easily be overlooked as there are no prominent, observable signs or markers on the street to indicate its presence. The only signage is a gold reflective metallic tape and the name "Spokane Valley Police Department" over the glass door. This signage is not visible from the street; a citizen has to drive into the parking lot to see it, and depending on the position of the sun, the metallic tape sign cannot be easily read. As it happens, on the property frontage is a raised wall holding an American flag; this could easily support the name of the department in large letters that would be easily visible from the street. The entire building is 21,779 square feet, 2,503 of which are dedicated to the municipal court, which is used for community and SCOPE leadership meetings. But like the name of the police department, signage for the court is located on the front window of the facility and is therefore hard to see. 18 The Exterior The outside of the building is clean and well maintained. Security is definitely a strong point as additional steps have been taken to fortify the facility from a major assault. Concrete ballards have been added to the exterior entranceway to avoid vehicle breach; a raised steel chain grated fence, similar to the type used by stores in an enclosed shopping mall, is lowered when the facility is closed; and the front desk area is reinforced with protective glass, steel plates, and a gun port for use by the front desk officer while assisting the public. It is noteworthy, however, that there is no exterior apparatus or emergency phone or intercom system for the public to use to contact police or sheriff employees after hours or on weekends. Although the sheriff's employees work 24/7, the police facility is closed after 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday and on weekends. One officer who was asked about how citizens can contact the police department during these times responded that they can call 911 on their cell phones. This would be considered unacceptable for a facility that purports to be a fully operational police department. Moreover, it does not fit with the image of a police department that identifies itself with the community it serves. The Interior Although none of the security enhancements is offensive or distracting to the public, the facility does not suggest a welcoming environment, either. Persons seeking to enter the building must go through a metal detector. The front lobby could best be described as austere. There are none of the traditional community photos, photos of command staff, awards, displays of community projects or volunteer programs, or other symbols of community found in police departments throughout the country. Internally, the precinct building has been adequately retrofitted to meet all the needs of a working police department. It has a number of offices staffed by paid employees and volunteers from the SCOPE program, and it more than accommodates the personnel assigned. There is also an evidence and property room, where drug evidence can be kept for a short time. And the facility has a self-contained motor pool, where tire changes and normal preventive maintenance are performed. The building supports several underused or structurally incomplete facilities that were originally intended for holding suspects overnight or for pre-court arrests but are currently used for storage. Detainees in overnight arrest must be transported to Spokane and 19 booked, held, and potentially bailed from the SCSO holding area. Because of the costs of operation, the SCSO decided that all Spokane Valley prisoners are to be processed at the downtown facility. However, the savings that the Valley realizes by not operating a detention center are undercut by the costs in officer time for transportation. Additionally, while the city is not accessed a processing fee for felony prisoners, it does incur a$116.00 processing fee for prisoners who are arrested for city ordinance violations. Ordinance violations are processed multiple times each week, which requires a chargeback to the city and is not reflected in the city budget. The precinct appears to lack ample or suitable space for either waiting areas or interview rooms, where police can talk privately with victims and witnesses, not to mention suspects. Providing access for engaged citizens—citizens as community organizers, those attending to loved ones in a holding center, or victims of or witnesses to a crime—as well as separate, comfortable waiting areas and interview rooms reduces the risks of further victimization by the system and is critically important for a contemporary, full-service police facility. Finally, it was obvious from the various discarded items, such as found bicycles, and from the condition of the property unit, the employee lounge, and the men's locker room that the employees do not treat this as home. Hours of Operation Oddly, the Valley Precinct is open only during traditional business hours. Police personnel may use the precinct after hours; however, during that time citizens have no access to police functions beyond emergency service with SVPD dedicated staff and contact with law enforcement deputies who are out on patrol. As a result, most after-hour business with the SVPD, such as filing reports of crime or complaints against officers, must be conducted at the main office of the SCSO in Spokane. In fact, many aspects of the police operations are conducted through the Spokane office, and retrieving stolen or recovered property or bailing out an arrestee requires a trip to Spokane at any time of day. The problem lies in the fact that while the distance from the Valley Precinct on Sprague Avenue to the SCSO office on Mallon Drive in Spokane is just over fifteen miles, the city of Spokane Valley itself covers more than thirty square miles, so a citizen might have to drive more than a half-hour to get there. Not only is this potentially confusing but it also provides a substandard level of customer service for an agency with the community policing 20 orientation so evident in the Valley. The potential hardship or inconvenience for Valley residents could even have a chilling effect on a citizen's interest in filing a report. Were the Valley Precinct to become a full-service police station, the city would have to consider additional staffing for a full-time police department, including around-the-clock supervision of officers and access for the citizens. COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY A multiagency facility at 1620 North Rebecca Street in Spokane houses the communications and dispatch functions of cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley, as well as of Spokane County and all the other cities within it. It is also the fire dispatch center. That the SCSO and SVPD are joint tenants of the building makes ownership unclear and continues to keep the lines of demarcation between the city of Spokane Valley and the SCSO blurred. Within the operation, however, the physical areas for dispatch and call taking for the SVPD, the SCSO, and the county fire department are distinct. As part of the SCSO, the SVPD shares in the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system and records management system (RMS). SVPD officers use their computers frequently to communicate with each other as well as to access records that contain valuable information and insight while they are responding to calls and providing other police services. The police operation is divided by both department and function. First-call takers take down incoming information and forward it on for dispatch to the CAD personnel. Also housed in the facility is the "crime check" report-taking system for persons who want to file only a short report and case number and do not need a police officer to respond. Given the increased calls for police service over the past year and dwindling resources, this system appears to be highly efficient. The RMS is not as impressive as the 911 system. RMS is controlled by the SVPD, which collects and screens the data and then passes the information on the SCSO. This process entails a delay of about twelve hours, which affects both follow-up and county crime analysis. While this is not a major impediment, it is also not the most efficient application. The in-car computer system that the SCSO and SVPD use is an old system that was purchased many years ago and, by all accounts, is not effective. The officers we rode with reported that it is not an open system and that reports are hard to generate. They noted 21 that the Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) component is operative only in "hot spots" throughout the city. Therefore, being able to send reports from the field and run various records checks depends on being in these locations, and patrol units in the field are often dropped off the network or unable to hook up a connection until a hot spot is recognized. This problem is not only frustrating but also has safety implications. Regarding management systems and, specifically, the in-house computer's analytical capabilities, the recently introduced Prism system software is designed to produce work analysis and crime statistics; however, officers complain that it produces voluminous chunks of data that are not broken down and are not produced in a timely manner: management reports are completed every thirty days. Another management system, the time accounting system (TAS), was developed specifically to give real-time information on the amount of time given to a task performed in a specific jurisdiction. In concept, this appears to be exactly what is needed to account for supervisory time given to the city. A supervisor reported to us that the system is not really being used. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT The SVPD's assigned vehicles, which are all Ford Crown Victorias, are colored and marked differently than the SCSO's vehicles; the sergeants' cars, however, are not marked with SVPD logos. The SVPD vehicles are not taken home but, rather, are parked at the precinct. An inspection of a few of the vehicles revealed the standard condition of non-take-home police vehicles that are randomly assigned and shared: messy interiors, equipment strewn randomly in the trunk, and unpleasant odors. Vehicles that are taken home tend to be better maintained and to remain in service much longer because of better upkeep. Moreover, supervisors reported to us that officers tend to spend up to an hour and a half a day transferring personal and department-issued equipment into patrol units as they prepare to go out on patrol. As for department equipment, SVPD officers are well-equipped. Their uniforms, firearms, computers, and other support equipment are well maintained and in good working order. RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING Training, especially in high-risk situations, cannot be emphasized enough. One plaintiff lawsuit judgment could decimate a city's or county's budget. All training activities are 22 conducted by and through the Training Division, a unit of the SCSO that services both the SCSO and SVPD and also performs applicant processing and recruitment duties. The SVPD provides a portion of the salaries of those training officers working within and for the SVPD. Facilities Currently, training is conducted at multiple locations. Police recruits receive basic training at the Spokane Police Academy, which is operated by the Spokane Police Department. A new training facility has been established in a recently acquired building at the closed University City shopping center, where a converted J.C. Penney's provides thousands of square feet for various types of training. This facility also houses the program manager for the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, who ensures that documentation is processed quickly and that training meets state requirements, thereby adding immeasurably to the effectiveness and professionalism of the county's and the city's respective training programs. The facility is jointly used by the SVPD and SCSO, and is currently operating under a five- year lease. The acting training sergeant indicated that the rent for this facility is being paid 100 percent by the SCSO, as is the salary of the TAC officer who works there and is assigned to the Spokane Police Academy. The only downside to this facility is that it is rented space with no guarantees beyond the terms of the lease. If the mall goes through a renaissance, use of the facility could be eliminated. Plans are under way for another training facility to be developed at the Spokane County Motor Sports Park. This facility will be operated jointly by the SCSO and the SVPD and would replace existing training facilities, including University City Mall and (perhaps) the Spokane Police Academy. It will provide recruit, in-service, regional, and "specialized" training for police departments in the region (including tribal agencies), and will include "mock cities," firearms, and vehicle driving ranges. Recruitment and Hiring Currently, the SCSO is responsible for recruiting and hiring officers. Those who enroll at the Police Academy must be sponsored by a police or sheriff's agency. With a starting salary estimated at $42,000 and reasonable benefits, as well as the current job situation in Spokane County and Washington State, there were seventy-five people seeking positions 23 with the SCSO when the ICMA team conducted its assessment, and another ninety-eight scheduled to sign up for the upcoming hiring examination. Staffing Apart from Cpl. Dave Ellis, the acting training sergeant, three uniformed members (from the SCSO and/or SVPD) and one civilian secretary are assigned to the division. The duties and responsibilities of all training personnel, as well as the selection criteria for the position of training officer, are clearly articulated. Training personnel appear to be well qualified for their duties. The members of the department, both detectives and patrol officers, have an excellent understanding of their responsibilities, and all the officers appear to be well trained. The SVPD has a very active in-service training program (see below); in conjunction with the SCSO, the department offers well-rounded training opportunities for all its officers, and the officers seem anxious to continue their education to improve their performance and enhance promotional opportunities. Only a portion of all in-service and regional training offered by the SCSO and SVPD is actually delivered by members of the Training Division. Rather than relying on unit members who are considered to be "generalists" and who teach virtually all police-related topics, the SCSO and SVPD employ a wide variety of instructors from throughout their agencies. Personnel who deliver in-service training have no minimum educational requirements but are required to attend a"methods of instruction" (or train-the-trainer course) and have expertise in the particular topic area. The SCSO and SVPD provide a pay incentive (higher pay percentage) for personnel who have advanced degrees. There is no tuition assistance or reimbursement available for SVPD personnel. Section 2 of the contract provides that there would be, at a minimum, one year of transition time for the city to form an independent police department should either party give notice of termination of the agreement. If Spokane Valley moves forward with establishing its own police department, it seems likely that the city could draw on some of the current staffing for the new department. The transition would be relatively easy because of the state retirement system and standardized salary structures. The remaining positions could be filled by recruiting other sworn officers from the state or from surrounding jurisdictions, and 24 eventually the city would sponsor its own police recruits. The transition time for the city to begin operating independently would probably be only six months. Programs The SVPD offers recruit (basic) training, in-service training, regional training, field training, monthly leadership training, and training in supervisory management. Recruit (Basic) Training: Police recruits receive basic training at the Spokane Police Academy, which is operated by the Spokane Police Department. The curriculum consists of 720 hours of training, mandated by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (WSCJTC). The entire training program lasts about four and a half months. The faculty is made up of local law enforcement personnel from the SVPD (whose personnel are occasionally called on to provide two-hour training blocks) and the SCSO, but it is "run by the Spokane Police Department." The acting training sergeant indicated that neither the SVPD nor the city of Spokane Valley pays for the instructors. Rather, the WSCJTC pays for local law enforcement instructors to teach recruits in the academy; it also pays for the academy training of all recruits from all departments in the region. Payment is made through the academy. After they complete recruit/basic training at the police academy, probationary deputies are assigned to post-academy training: three- to four-week sessions held at the training center in University City that are designed to familiarize the deputies with the facilities, resources, and personnel at both the SVPD and the SCSO. Deputies are then assigned to one of the two departments. Assignments to the SVPD last a minimum of two years "for continuity purposes." Once a deputy has completed probation, he/she may bid for future assignments. In-Service Training: All commissioned staff of the SVPD are required to attend forty hours of in-service training annually, although Washington State requires only twenty-four hours per year. Corporal Ellis is chiefly responsible for scheduling and administering this training. Typically, four 10-hour training days are scheduled annually for each staff member. Officers alter their shifts as necessary to attend this training on their days off, thereby incurring little to no overtime expenses. The deputies "owe the job" ten hours every three months because of their unique work chart. In other words, every three months they are compensated for ten hours that they have not actually worked. They are then called in for ten-hour training days, with no additional expense. About twenty in-service sessions are scheduled each 25 quarter, with about eighty-five offered per year. This number does not include regional training. The training sergeant plans and develops both in-service and regional training programs. This officer monitors training cycles, maintains and tracks individual personnel training records, and determines which courses need to be offered for recertifications. Corporal Ellis noted that to identify training needs, he solicits and uses feedback from defensive tactics and firearms instructors, field training officers (FTOs) (at monthly FTO meetings), and supervisors. A review of current and past in-service training revealed a wide array of relevant training topics, such as Tactical Warrant Entries for Detectives; Criminal Procedure law Update; Sexual Harassment Training, and Defensive Tactics/Weapon Retention. Corporal Ellis noted that it recently took six months to "fit in a class on evidence procedures" but that more critical topics can be rolled out immediately via training bulletins and roll call instruction. Training bulletins are periodically prepared by the training sergeant once a need has been identified. The command staff (sheriff, undersheriffs, and captains) review and approve the bulletins, which are then immediately forwarded electronically to all personnel (including deputies on patrol via patrol car data terminals and/or e-mail accounts). Legal updates are prepared by an attorney assigned to the prosecutor's office. All training materials and resources are jointly used by the SCSO and SVPD. As one informant noted, "With regard to training, it's one agency." Instructor cadres (such as the Emergency Vehicle Operator Course [EVOC] group) develop the lesson: they determine "what needs to be taught" and send their proposed lesson(s) to the training sergeant for approval. The training sergeant is then responsible for administering the delivery of all lessons. Personnel who perform training for the SCSO and SVPD must meet the same qualifications described above for recruit school instructors. Every Monday morning, the training sergeant is required to attend command staff ineetings at SCSO headquarters to discuss continuing training and identify future training topics and methods. The training function therefore appears to be well integrated into the overall operations of the SVPD. Formal roll calls are held for SVPD patrol officers and deputies at the beginning of each twelve-hour shift (the ICMA team was advised that plans were being made to alter these 26 shifts). These periods typically entail a"free" period of about ten to fifteen minutes, which can be—and occasionally is—used for training purposes. Monthly crime analysis statistics are prepared by the Crime Analysis Division of the SVPD. This unit provides electronic and hard-copy crime information and analysis (e.g., GIS maps of "hot spots") for the Spokane area, including the City of Spokane Valley. This unit also prepares and distributes a daily bulletin, which includes similar information. This bulletin is distributed at roll calls and, like the training bulletins, electronically. Officers maintain e-mail accounts and are required to check them daily. Thus, the training function at the SVPD includes the ability to provide vital training or retraining information to personnel in real time (via electronic messages and the methods described above). Multiple delivery methods appear to be used very effectively. In addition to the training and crime analysis units, there are also specialized units, including • Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force • Spokane Regional Drug Task Force • Spokane Violent Crimes/Gang Enforcement Unit • Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force • Eastern Washington Joint Fugitive Task Force • Property Crimes Task Force • Criminal Intelligence Unit • Spokane Area Joint Task Force on Terrorism. Detectives and investigators from these various special units are considered to be a"shared resource," and they perform their own specialized training. They are also required to attend the forty hours of mandated in-service training required of all commissioned personnel. Training for several of these units is paid for out of drug seizure funds or, in some cases, grant monies. The ICMA team was informed that there are no formal requirements or state certifications required to become an in-service EVOC, firearms, or defensive tactics instructor. However, there is such a requirement for instructors who teach at the Spokane Police Academy. While a departmental mission statement is posted at the in-service training facility, there is no training mission statement specifically for the training unit or facility. 27 Regional Training: The SCSO and SVPD established a regional training program that began in the fall of 2006. This training offers special courses over and above the SVPD's normal in-service course offerings. About 50 percent of the regional training courses (e.g., the drug interdiction course) are federally funded. (Federal grants have been obtained and used in the past for training. The proceeds of these grants have been used by both departments.) About half of the courses are free of charge, and half are offered for a fee. Since its inception in 2006, the program has trained about 2,500 personnel from approximately fifty outside agencies. In 2006, the Regional Training Program offered four courses; in 2007 it offered thirty-eight courses, and in 2008, it offered sixty courses. A review of current and past regional training reveals a wide array of relevant training topics, such as Property and Evidence Room Management, Identity Theft Awareness and Investigations, WMD Tactical Operations, and Muslim Culture for Law Enforcement. In January 2009, Corporal Ellis prepared a study of the economic savings realized by the Regional Training Program. He estimated that approximately $444K was saved during 2008. He further stated that "the cost to the agency is almost nothing. There are no advertising costs." Existing police Web sites and networks of law enforcement training personnel appear to be the primary means of advertising. The Training Division has also worked with the Spokane Convention and Visitors' Bureau for advertising assistance. The new training facility at University City will host regional training classes, which had previously been held on the campus of the community college. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will also use this facility, as will detention services training staff. Firearms and vehicle (EVOC) training is held off site. Field Training Program: A new field training program has recently been developed for the SCSO and SVPD. Described as an "adult based learning method of field training," this program was apparently based, in part, on a similar national program sponsored by the COPS office. Both agencies use the same methods, same forms, and share "the same field training experience." In this program, deputies work with several field training officers (FTOs) during their period of probation and are required to engage in "community projects." Each probationary deputy 28 has a different FTO assigned for each month of probation. Fourteen deputies from the SCSO and SVPD are assigned as FTOs, and they are directly supervised by the training sergeant. The formal period of field training is about three months, although there is no set length or minimum number of hours required. This is apparently because of the large number of lateral hires, who typically require less training than recruits who have never worked before in law enforcement. The training sergeant estimated that about 50 percent of their hires are from other law enforcement agencies. FTOs prepare a daily observation report (DOR) after each tour performed by the probationary deputy. The DORs are forwarded electronically to the training sergeant and are then made available online for all FTOs to access and review. Thus, each FTO, or supervisor, has access to prior reports for each probationary deputy. All FTOs meet each month to address training issues and needs. At the end of the formal field training period, FTOs meet with probationary deputies as a group to discuss common problems. The meeting serves as a question-and-answer session, and probationary deputies are encouraged to ask questions. They are also asked to assess their FTOs via a standardized form. Then, after the formal field training period has ended, monthly checks are made on the probationary deputies until the completion of the probationary period (one year). As part of this process the SVPD allows probationary deputies who have completed their field training period to ride again with an FTO. This practice is encouraged to allow the newly hired deputies to ask questions and discuss their observations and experiences from patrol. Regarding the field training officer (FTO) program, pairing new recruits with certified FTOs provides a sound basis for both training and evaluating the new officers. A component within the FTO evaluation tool focuses on community engagement. The mission statement for the SCSO explicitly speaks to the expectation that employees respect the community, but nothing is said unambiguously about involving the community in crime- and fear- reduction efforts. Monthly Leadership Training: Monthly leadership training, which began in May 2008, is run jointly by the SCSO and Spokane Police Department. Class size averages between twenty and forty personnel. Two 4-hour sessions are held each month. The same lesson is 29 offered at twice each month, with a total of twelve different leadership training classes taught each year. Supervisors are required to attend; deputies are encouraged to "free themselves up" to attend these sessions as well. Basic Management Course for Supervisors: Upon promotion to detective or corporal, officers take a first-level supervisors' course, which the state offers online or via classroom instruction. Personnel promoted to sergeant or lieutenant attend a forty-hour midmanagement training course administered and certified through the WSCJTC. There is also a series of risk management and human resource courses presented in a "Supervisors Series." These courses, which are offered by the county, are held at the Human Resources building in downtown Spokane and are open to managers from all departments (not just law enforcement). Captains and above attend an executive management course (eighty hours), which is also offered through the WSCJTC. ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS There are functions of a police agency that cannot be accessed through the Valley Precinct, and some of them are closely linked to a department's transparency, legitimacy, and ability to establish trust. The Office of Professional Standards (OPS), established by the SCSO in 1996, services both the SCSO and the SVPD (as well as Detention Services) and is located in the main headquarters of the SCSO in Spokane. Its primary purpose is "to establish responsibility for the centralized control of the recording and investigation of complaints against department procedures and personnel." It is a"fact-finding, recording, and organizational feedback unit." However, because OPS is located in SCSO headquarters in Spokane, citizens lack immediate access to OPS investigators and information. OPS is currently staffed by two lieutenants. In describing their work, OPS personnel indicated that about 20 percent of their time is spent responding to freedom of information (FOI) requests. One of the lieutenants currently assigned to OPS periodically serves as a hearing officer in connection with property seizures. OPS also works with the prosecutor's office (and a risk management attorney) on civil actions involving the SCSO. OPS personnel 1 Chapter 26, Policy Manual, 2. The policies and procedures of the SCSD and SVPD are set out in this manual, which is described as being °Lexipol compliant." Lexipol, LLC is a company that promulgates a standard set of policies that a number of police agencies have adopted. 30 indicated that this work primarily entails investigations. OPS personnel have a working relationship with their counterparts (a lieutenant and a sergeant) in the Spokane Police Department. Certain cases (such as a criminal investigation into one of their own personnel) can be referred out to the Spokane Police Department or to another agency as necessary. The OPS office does not officially develop or provide any training. However, individuals assigned to the OPS Unit have delivered stand-alone training lessons in the past. Neither the SCSO nor SVPD are operating under, or have ever been subjected to, any consent decrees. Complaint Procedures According to OPS personnel, most complaints are internally generated, and few are received from the public. However, these personnel had only aggregate numbers and thus were unable to indicate either the percentage of total complaints that were generated by the public, or the number or percentage of complaints that originated within the jurisdiction of the SVPD. They indicated that they could determine this by searching the OPS database, but that this information is not regularly tracked and has never been requested. In situations concerning substantiated complaints, a"case finding notice" is signed by the SVPD chief, but they advised that the SVPD does not regularly maintain numbers on these complaints. The ICMA team was told that the police department does not receive that many complaints from the public, but it is not known whether people even know how to complain or feel safe doing so. It takes courage to question the legitimacy of officers' behavior and the establishment. Relying on the centralized OPS unit in Spokane could discourage a citizen from filing a report or following through. It might be argued that a separation from the Valley Precinct makes it easier to complain about SVPD officers, but there does not appear to be a climate that promotes or willingly accepts such complaints. Nevertheless, OPS personnel indicated that during 2006, seventy complaints were filed, and twenty-three were sustained; during 2007, sixty-one complaints were filed, and twenty-six were sustained; and during 2008, seventy-six public complaints were filed (a large but unknown number of which arose from Detention Services), and twenty-eight of these were "substantiated/sustained." 31 The procedures for receiving and responding to civilian and internally generated complaints are well laid out in department guidelines. Initial complaints are recorded in the case management section of the OPS database, as is the progress of the investigation up to final disposition. The database categorizes complaints such as the following: crime, excessive force, unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure, violation/infraction of department policy/procedure, drug/alcohol abuse, harassment, demeanor, unprofessional conduct, and [improper] use of sick time. A policy and a procedure are also in place for the handling of appeals taken from these disciplinary proceedings (Loudermill hearings). OPS does not use a formal process for detecting civil actions brought against members of the department. Neither the SCSO nor SVPD use a civilian complaint review board. There appears to be no formal civilian involvement in the handling and investigation of complaints against members of the service, even though the SVPD chief regularly participates in citizen advisory and city council meetings. There is also no formal process for conducting periodic citizen satisfaction surveys (although one was apparently administered in the mid-1990s, prior to the SCSO's application for accreditation). And civilian complaints that arise in Spokane Valley are not routinely reported to the city manager, either. Use-of-Force Reports The OPS database is also used to track all "use-of-force" reports. SCSO and SVPD guidelines dictate that such a report must be filed "anytime force is used." Upon further inquiry, OPS personnel indicated that in certain circumstances, "verbal command," in and of itself, could be considered "force," generating completion of a Use of Force report. A detective who is certified as a master instructor in defensive tactics is currently assigned to review all such reports. OPS personnel do not perform or prepare a monthly use-of-force recapitulation, but they do periodically review the database to look for patterns and aberrations. They noted that any red flags concerning use of force would be raised by the reviewer, not the OPS database (i.e., they do not use a proactive information technology program to detect aberrations). There is no standardized form for the use-of-force report. When a situation warrants, a member of the department prepares the report, which is then transmitted as an e-mail communication from a field supervisor to the use-of-force reviewer, the OPS Unit, and the appropriate division commander. It is an entirely paperless system. 32 The two lieutenant investigators assigned to the OPS Unit "catch" cases as they arise. They reported that major or "sensitive" cases (such as a potential conflict of interest) can be referred to other agencies for investigation. If OPS investigators intend to begin a self- initiated investigation, they must first notify the command staff (typically, the division head and sheriff). OPS personnel indicated that the SCSO and SVPD do not use any form of a proactive integrity "early warning system." Nor do they use a separate proactive system to detect and monitor sick leave abuse (previously identified as a problem within Detention Services), although individual investigations have been conducted in the past. There is obviously a system in place to record and track sick time, but the system does not include a function for the raising of "red flags." Not all off-duty employment is tracked by the SCSO and SVPD. Off-duty details and assignments are contracted for, made, and recorded by the department when personnel work in uniform while off duty. Other off-duty work—that is, work that is not department sponsored and not done in uniform—is not tracked or monitored. There is a regulation, however, that prohibits personnel from working off-duty in premises with liquor licenses. Audits and Reviews OPS does not routinely perform any type of audits to ensure the completeness and accuracy of departmental forms and data. This responsibility is assigned to supervisors (sergeants and lieutenants). The SCSO's Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU) performs an annual audit in order to ensure compliance with legal guidelines concerning the maintenance and purging of individual criminal files. Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system audits are periodically performed (i.e., transcripts are reviewed) to ensure that no improper communications are made but they are not primarily designed to ensure that proper disposition are given to calls for service. OPS personnel indicated that supervisors are primarily charged with auditing work performance as necessary. They also reported that they have people policing themselves within the organization. There is always at least one sergeant (or above) assigned to each patrol shift. A new form for the administration of annual performance reviews was 33 developed in January 2009. These are electronic, but hard copies will apparently also be maintained. All personnel are on a January-January evaluation cycle. Patrol supervisors routinely perform "status checks" each shift via the CAD system. The "unit history" of any particular deputy can instantly be obtained via data terminals in the supervisors' patrol cars. In addition to the foregoing, the SCSO/SVPD's Dispatch Center monitors calls for service during each shift (particularly with regard to calls being "held"). OPS personnel identified this as another form of periodic, informal auditing. Neither the SCSO nor the SVPD use a separate form (i.e., one that is used exclusively) to record "Terry" stops. At the present time, upper management is not regularly tracking who is being stopped and where, when, why, and by whom. Deputies and patrol sergeants do not maintain individual memo books. We were advised that there is no regulation dictating that patrol/field arrests be verified or reviewed by a patrol supervisor (sergeant). However, all arrests made by patrol and special units must be verified or reviewed by a supervisor before the case or file is sent to the records management system. One member of the OPS Unit reported that "multiple sets of eyes review all major reports." Additional forms of case or record review occur frequently. For example, the supervisor of the Sex Crimes Unit routinely reviews missing persons' reports, complaints of child abuse, etc. This type of review is typically performed via standard database queries. Narcotics units periodically perform audits of U.S. currency and cash deposits. The SCSO's Investigative Support Unit (ISU) maintains information regarding the use of confidential informants. All "vehicle pursuits" are reviewed by EVOC trainers in an effort to identify training issues and opportunities. Neither the SCSO nor SVPD have video cameras or GPS in their patrol cars. Patrol vehicle accidents are not routinely reported to OPS. Such accidents are recorded Z °Terry stops" refer to the investigative technique whereby police officers are authorized to perform a stop and to question and frisk persons they reasonably suspect of criminal activity; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 34 and tracked only if the operator has been determined to be at fault, in which case OPS personnel will become involved (i.e., will work with the county's risk manager). The OPS Unit prepares a semiannual report that for the past several years has consisted of one page containing summary information regarding aggregate numbers of use of force reports and complaints. These reports contain no further analysis. The OPS Unit does not currently account for or distinguish the relative amount of work they perform that relates specifically to the SVPD. While such information exists in its database, it is not regularly reported in a standardized format. The SVPD uses an electronic bar code scanning system for the safeguarding and transport of all property that comes into the department's possession (including narcotics, firearms, and currency). This system is used to ensure the chain of custody, particularly for evidence, weapons, and contraband. Property is safeguarded at lockers within the Property Room at SVPD headquarters and is transported downtown by the Spokane Police Department. Audits of this process are conducted by the Spokane Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit. The SVPD has a separate policy regarding "firearms that are forfeit to the sheriff's office." A system is in place for the equitable assignment of work to area towing companies for vehicles that come into the lawful possession of the department. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SCOPE There appears to be a long history of citizen engagement with the police in the city of Spokane Valley, Washington. The robust Sheriff Community Oriented Policing Effort (SCOPE) initiative predates the city's incorporation in 2003 and is but one of the examples available within the SVPD that illustrates the trust and cooperation the department enjoys from the community. SCOPE director Rick Scott and other members of the command staff are paid proportionately by Spokane Valley through a contract. The proportions appear to be based on population served rather than time on task. Other personnel, such as the chief and the law enforcement deputies and detectives, are paid entirely by the Valley through the contract. While SCOPE is a countywide program, volunteers abound in the city of Spokane Valley. In fact, the flagship and most successful of the county's eighteen SCOPE stations is Edgecliff, 35 located within the Valley. Edgecliff is both an active SCOPE station booming with volunteers, and a federally designated Weed and Seed site whose residents speak proudly of the changes in their neighborhood over time. The Edgecliff SCOPE station was an exemplar for the county before the city's incorporation, and it continues to be a model station. In addition to galvanizing the neighborhood activists, driving out drugs and drug dealers, and reducing calls for service, the station's volunteers and SCSO employees used Weed and Seed funds to turn a former grade school into a very successful community center. On the day that the ICMA team drove through the neighborhood, young children and adults who were leaving the facility spotted Rick Scott, waved enthusiastically, and called to him by name. Rick is widely known throughout the county but seems especially loved in Edgecliff. SCOPE Stations The four SCOPE stations within the city appear to be well-located and well-known community resources. They provide access to the police, police information, crime prevention information, and community training. One February afternoon saw a fair amount of telephone and foot traffic among citizens reporting suspicious or problem activities or seeking information from station personnel. In many ways, the stations appear to be a community hub providing a wide variety of community services. Staffed officially by volunteers for as many as twelve hours daily, SCOPE stations have designated detectives for the neighborhood. These detectives, who commit part of their workweeks to be in the neighborhood, are routinely present, working on local investigations and reviewing the intake logs prepared by volunteers for additional intelligence or background. There appears to be a comfortable work flow, a reasonable and appropriate division of labor, and a reliance on expertise among the volunteers and sworn personnel. Nowhere in the country has this writer seen the close collaborative work between volunteers and sworn personnel, nor the type of work conducted by volunteers as witnessed in Spokane County. Citizen Volunteers Stopping by the SCOPE stations and visiting with officers and volunteers provided additional evidence of the strong relationships between citizens and officers. The degree to which SCOPE's citizen volunteers are engaged in real work is very impressive. Their work, which 36 enhances officer efforts in the neighborhood, is clearly valued, and both parties engage in real dialogue and participatory problem solving. (Conversations with command-level staff and the SCOPE director suggest that officers are expected to engage in problem-solving activities with community members where appropriate.) Within the SCOPE stations, staff and volunteers alike speak of "our success" or of actions "we" engaged in together. The community's partnership with the sheriff's deputies has produced a palpable sense of pride in—and shared ownership of—what it has accomplished: distressed neighborhoods have been changed into thriving ones with a high sense of cohesion and efficacy. Through Neighborhood Watch, 40,000 households across the county, including 20,000 in the Valley, receive a newsletter delivered to the door. The sophisticated delivery system is managed through an extensive volunteer network that Neighborhood Watch has cultivated and maintained. These volunteers are supported by both the SCOPE director and the Neighborhood Watch director. The most impressive part of the newsletter, which provides useful information and celebrates the volunteers, is its capacity to reach such a vast audience. The structure, management, and activities of the county's full contingent of SCOPE volunteers are the responsibility of two unsworn staff. Both have full-time positions, with half of their salaries paid by the city. Their roles, which are distinct yet inextricably related, are to support, organize, and manage different aspects of the volunteer effort—a function that the ICMA team sees as critically important to the volunteer effort in both the city and the county. Were the city to create a self-sufficient department, it is hard to imagine how these roles could be redesigned into either one position or two part-time positions. In addition to staffing the SCOPE stations throughout the county, SCOPE volunteers have a wide menu of activities from which to choose to participate. And regardless of whether they are from Spokane Valley or the county at large, their primary commitment is to their project or work assignment. Many volunteers are closely linked with traditional police business—for example, horse patrol of Centennial Pathway or Citizen on Patrol in cars in the neighborhood; others engage in flagging, handicap parking patrol, business prowl checks, community resource referrals, search and rescue, pawn detail, and the community emergency response team (CERT). 3 The various activities available to SCOPE volunteers could be considered mission critical to police business. The role of order maintenance makes volunteers a quasi-commissioned force. 37 Critically important to the city and its contract costs is the in-kind contribution of citizen time to city operations. As reported in the July-December 2008 Semi-Annual Report submitted by Chief Van Leuven, SCOPE volunteers in the Valley contributed 25,727 hours, worth an estimated $501,943. In tight fiscal times, this effort not only reduces costs but also accomplishes important police activities that other law enforcement agencies must forgo. In this way, the SCOPE volunteers do more than augment police services; they fill a niche role, helping to maintain order and citizen satisfaction within budgetary constraints. Communication The SCSO Planning, Research and Analysis Unit (located at the sheriff's office in downtown Spokane) prepares reports for the SVPD on a monthly basis or as requested on neighborhood "hot spots" and calls for service. Both these reports, which are disseminated to all staff and volunteers, and the daily bulletin, which is distributed in the roll call room, include information from the CAD system. The CAD system is often underused in police agencies as a source of neighborhood intelligence; however, in many ways it is the best indicator of community concerns. It contains abundant data on and detailed analyses of crimes that have been committed. For example, maps show the location of stolen vehicles; graphs of hot spot areas indicate the types and models of stolen cars; and summary reports rank the preferred models for thieves. The narrative contains similar data for the current and previous two calendar years. It is not clear whether the reports are used by officers and managers as a strategic deployment or an accountability tool, but they are created and available. It is surprising that with the excellence in technology and the pride around data collection, there is no apparent dashboard for operations or administrative functions in either the SCSO or the SVPD. In particular, at the time of the team's visit, the OPS was unable to report on how many and what types of complaints were filed by citizens against Spokane Valley law enforcement officers. There was neither an analysis of the number of complaints broken down by officer nor any thought given to identifying those officers who might present a risk for the department based on their individual histories—for example, number of citizen complaints filed against them, number of motor vehicle accidents in which they have been involved, and amount of sick time taken. As a result, there is no trend analysis to allow for 4 Per the chief's report, this amount is derived with a national formula for calculating volunteer value at $19.51 per hour. 38 early detection of problem behavior and, as needed, timely intervention. The absence of this management tool and the lack of curiosity about, or perhaps understanding of, the relevance of the data is concerning from a managerial perspective. Like OPS, the Planning, Research and Analysis Unit in SCSO headquarters in Spokane, so citizens lack immediate access to crime data and analysis of hot spots as well as to OPS investigators. From a citizen's perspective, it would be good to know about the internal investigations of the police department. How many are there? What kinds of complaints do citizens file against officers? Are they taken seriously by the department? What kind of findings are there after investigations? How does a citizen file a complaint? What if the citizen objects to the finding? Is there an appeal process? There is little to no information about these processes within either the SCSO or the SVPD, nor does there appear to be any avenue for civilian input within the complaint process—no oversight, no panel. Answering the questions posed above before they are asked would improve police-community relations and the legitimacy generally of the SCSO and the SVPD in particular. Similarly, making it simple to file complaint reports and to learn expeditiously about the process would enhance trust in the system. In general, citizens are suspicious of police policing themselves, and efforts should be taken to assuage their natural and common concerns about collusion and secrecy. Notably, the SCOPE director comfortably moves between the SVPD and SCSO and can serve as an intermediary for the crime and analytic information. Citizen engagement can help nullify those perceptions. But citizen engagement also requires access to information. The annual reports—often two pages of dot points that reflect a unit's activities rather than a police department's outcomes measured against policy expectations—show a lack of sophistication. There is little explanation of outcomes that rely on data to illustrate successful policing, community relations, or measures of activity relative to a specific and relevant denominator (i.e., a defined benchmark for purposes of comparison). To assess the SCOPE initiative as a model practice of community policing-citizen engagement, the ICMA team had to review annual reports from the chief, the SCOPE director, the Neighborhood Watch director, and others; 5 Without a point of comparison, data points have little meaning. When citizen complaints go down, it may mean that there is less about which citizens can complain; alternatively, it could mean that there is no trust in the process and that citizens do not see a value in complaining. To best understand the meaning of a data point, there should be a point for comparison. If we see that enforcement activity is up and the number of citizen complaints is decreasing, the number is more informative. 39 however, there is no place on the Spokane Valley website where a citizen or an external observer can secure departmental information. Direct communication with stakeholders on important issues demonstrates a partnership and relationship between work and success. Such communication could be improved by producing and distributing materials to the governing authority, including the community, about the department's mission, work, successes, and future goals. Inability or lack of desire to do so accentuates the SVPD's tangled relationship with and dependence on the SCSO. There are good stories to be told here and a missed opportunity. The SVPD appears to enjoy strong partnerships with various law enforcement entities. It has deputies assigned to task forces headed by federal agencies, and these deputies serve as the department's representatives. The task forces and the SVPD's relationships with them are credited with successes in warrant service, firearms investigations, and the targeting and apprehension of career criminals and drug traffickers in the greater Spokane area. They are a point of pride among SVPD personnel. Training Although the SCSO's training is extolled as the best around, it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which community policing or community engagement is a cornerstone of the training. According to the training officer, the month-long post-academy training offers modules on community engagement, including community meetings and participation by Neighborhood Watch; the list of modules also includes scenario training and sound practice for dealing with the community. However, command-level officers are not the ones who are promoting community policing to the trainees. Rather, the subject is handled by traditional police outsiders, such as staff from community-based organizations who teach about sexual harassment and diversity, including tolerance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GBLT) citizens. While these are likely quality instructors, pairing officers with these outside professionals or having seasoned officer instructors conduct the training and hold specific sessions for problem solving with the community would clearly demonstrate the valuing of community partnerships from an organizational standpoint, and it would send the strongest message to trainees that citizen input is valued and sought. 40 Community-Centric Principles Crucial to any community policing orientation is an awareness and understanding of the community itself. From the ICMA team's observations, the SVPD has a genuine relationship with the community and recognizes that such a relationship is the foundation of effective community policing. Chief Van Leuven appears committed to the principle of community engagement, but he has not developed such an initiative on his own. The department needs to be made more reflective of the community and more accessible to its citizens. Diversity: While the U.S. Census from 2000 reports that Spokane County is over 88 percent Caucasian, there is a bit more diversity in Spokane Valley, which is 82 percent Caucasian. However, there is little racial, ethnic, or gender diversity in the SVPD or the SCSO. Both the city precinct and the sheriff's office have photos on the wall of all deputies organized by rank, and both sets of photos show an overwhelming majority of white men. Closer study reveals a handful of faces of color and about an equal number of women. Questions asked about efforts to recruit for racial, ethnic, or gender diversity were nonchalantly dismissed as the responsibility of a statewide centralized civil service. While it is true that the department is somewhat hamstrung by the civil service, it could still be reaching out to young people about the importance of and rewards associated with law enforcement careers, so that in ten years' time, the population of candidates choosing to take the exam will be far more diverse. With the changing demographics, the growing Native American population in the area, and the potential threat of white extremists in neighboring states, the department would be advised to encourage qualified, capable women and people of color to prepare for and take the civil service exam. Observed Interactions with the Community: Everyone with whom the ICMA team met in the SVPD spoke about relationships and partnerships with the community. One officer spoke of being able to shut down drug houses because of information provided by citizens. As noted previously, one member of the team spent about four hours in the company of a deputy on patrol. It was beneficial to get out of the precinct, see neighborhoods, and learn about crime problems. Without prompting, the officer readily offered examples of the community partnerships that have made a difference in the neighborhoods. Most involved covert and overt drug surveillance activities with the assistance of police-friendly neighbors. 41 The ride-along also offered several opportunities to witness the deputy's engagement with the community—a suspect, a victim, witnesses, other law enforcement personnel, and the general public. The officer spoke with citizens on the street in a polite, open, and friendly manner. His demeanor seemed to express a genuine interest in the citizens and their opinions about their neighborhood. On one occasion, the deputy was called to assist an intoxicated pedestrian. He was quick to ask about the pedestrian's interest in being transported to the detox center. It was clear that the officer knew the pedestrian, his history, and the staff at the detox. His response further demonstrated a competence with the social service structure, insight into alcohol dependence and addiction, and an understanding of the limits of a traditional law enforcement response. The officer was stern but respectful of the pedestrian, and showed an exemplary approach to problem solving. Another interaction was with a woman who was planting tulips in her yard. Recognizing her from a prior conversation, the deputy made polite and friendly conversation, his main goal being to demonstrate his approachability. By making himself accessible to her, he gave her an opportunity to present any problem she might have, while he revealed his willingness for a future encounter. At one point during the ride-along, the deputy monitored a radio call of the SVPD, and because he was near the location of an incident, he offered to provide backup. His car was the first at the scene, and he was able to gather crucial evidence from witnesses, which led to the victim, the suspect, and an eventual arrest. The fact that uninvolved witnesses flagged down the officer to provide information about a crime and the suspect's whereabouts suggests a high degree of trust in the police. Further, watching the deputy coordinate a response with other officers and effectuate the arrest provided information about respect, confidence, and safety. Training and the Community: SCOPE and the larger department offer a number of training opportunities for citizens. The annual crime prevention conference is daylong event that brings together deputies, community members, and SCOPE volunteers. The first annual conference had more than 200 attendees. 42 The "Pharmacy Safety and Security and Rx Patrol," now in its second year, is a two-and-a- half-hour session that targets pharmacists and pharmacy staff. Run by a deputy, this session builds relationships between law enforcement and pharmacy staff while offering useful suggestions for increasing security and enhancing safety. It is skill-based training that provides tips for identifying and tracking losses due to impaired employees, and a refresher on the federal regulations that apply to the handling and prescribing of controlled substances. It also discusses self-evaluation security checklists and options for detection and surveillance systems. This very successful program is open to all law enforcement and all pharmacy employees. THE SVPD AND THE SCSO: LINES OF DEMARCATION Because much of the administrative support of the SVPD comes from the SCSO, the main headquarters of the SCSO in Spokane is a mother ship to the SVPD. It is where much of the business of the SVPD's chief takes place, where SVPD evidence and property are secured, where detainees are held, where internal investigations are conducted, and from which the daily crime report is issued. Officers from the SCSO who are assigned to the city of Spokane Valley are there mostly out of choice. Many were previously assigned to the unincorporated valley and now remain policing the Valley by their own preference out of a deep loyalty to the provision of quality law enforcement services. Their professionalism was evidenced in their response to several radio calls with a uniformed SVPD patrol deputy; moreover, the ICMA team witnessed solid cooperation among the various departments—the city of Spokane, the city of Spokane Valley, and the SCSO. SVPD supervisors were also on scene, interacting with and giving support to the patrol deputy, and providing quality feedback, appropriate inquiry, and guidance with the subsequent report writing. Nevertheless, during interviews with officers and commanders in sheriff's uniforms who are paid in part by the city of Spokane Valley, the ICMA team had to constantly remind the interviewees that the specific topic of the ICMA assessment was Spokane Valley police services. With the exception of Chief Van Leuven and sworn deputies assigned to SVPD, the command staff align themselves with the SCSO, regardless of their assignment. When they use the word we, they typically mean the sheriff's office, not the police department. Even those whose pay is drawn from the Valley's contract tend not to see themselves as a part of the SVPD. In contrast, the patrol deputies assigned to SVPD are very clear about their roles: 43 providing community and emergency services to the citizens of Spokane Valley. Their assignments are less ambiguous than those of the officers from the SCSO: they don't have to split their time between city and county activities, and they enjoy clear geographic responsibility with a high degree of beat integrity. Conversations with personnel other than patrol deputies left the team confused about the relationship between the individual deputy, the sheriff, and the city of Spokane Valley. It was noteworthy that among the command staff, only Chief Van Leuven's business card reads "City of Spokane Valley"; everyone else's card has the insignia and the name of the SCSO, yet these commanders are the ones with whom the team met to discuss major issues relative to the SVPD. Most commanders appear to have jobs that provide support for all aspects of the SCSO, including the SVPD, regardless of multiple roles, assignments, and activities of the very broad agency. For example, the training department, the OPS, and the director of SCOPE see the SVPD, the jail, and policing in the unincorporated parts of the county as all being the responsibility of the SCSO. The current structure of the shared-services model accentuates the police department's dependence on the SCSO and makes it difficult to imagine the SVPD as an independent entity. While the SVPD may not be able to support full-time personnel in each of these administrative functions, it could attain a greater degree of independence, both perceived and real, with an improved structure and design of the shared services. While SVPD is merely a unit of the SCSO in terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the issuer of the paycheck, Spokane Valley accounts for 42 percent of the calls for service in the county and thus about 50 percent of the budget. Thus, if the city of Spokane Valley were to continue to contract for services, could not the SCSO organize staffing to ensure that key support personnel work exclusively for the city? 44 3. DATA ANALYSIS This report focuses on three main areas: workload, deployment, and response times. These three areas are almost exclusively related to patrol operations, which constitute by far the bulk of the sheriff's personnel and financial commitment. All the information presented in this report was developed directly from data recorded in the county dispatch center. The first section of this report, concluding with Table 8, uses the call and activity data for the entire year. For the detailed workload analysis and the response time analysis, we used two 4-week sample periods. The first period was the month of February 2008 (February 1 to February 28), or "winter," and the second period was the month of August 2008 (August 1 to August 28), or °summer." We make no recommendations in this preliminary report; our purpose here is to share information that we have developed from the source data to confirm its accuracy. WORKLOAD ANALYSIS When analyzing the data supplied by the SCSO, we encountered a number of issues and made assumptions and decisions to address them: • A small but significant percentage of calls involving patrol units (4.3 percent) had zero time on scene. • The computer software generates a large number of call codes. This led to 138 different call descriptions, which we reduced to fifteen categories for our tables and nine categories for our figures. • A small proportion of calls (1.3 percent, or approximately 730 for the year) were missing clear times and were thus discounted. Most of these were likely duplicate records or canceled calls. Our study team has often worked with these types of problems when assessing call-for- service data. To identify calls that were canceled en route, we assumed zero time on scene to account for a significant portion of them. Any call with an on-scene time of less than 30 seconds was labeled "zero on scene." We also used the information stored within the dispatch data to distinguish between patrol-initiated and other-initiated calls. Regarding the data we received, in the period from January through December 2008, there were approximately 74,300 calls for service (with accompanying unit information). Of that 45 total, approximately 56,200 included a patrol unit either as the primary responder or as a secondary unit. When focusing on our four-week periods, we analyzed 4,014 (patrol- related) calls in February 2008 and 3,814 calls in August 2008. In addition, when analyzing workloads and response times, we ignored calls with incorrect or missing time data. The inaccuracies also included elapsed times that either were negative or exceeded eight hours. For the entire year, this excluded approximately 850 calls from our analysis. Discussions with the sheriff's office led us to conclude that most of these calls were either duplicate records or canceled calls. In 2008, the sheriff's office reported 154 calls for service per day. As mentioned, about 4.3 percent of these calls show no officer time spent on the call. In the following pages we show two types of data: activity and workload. The activity levels are measured by the average number of calls per day, broken down by the type and origin of the calls and categorized by the nature of the calls (e.g., crime, traffic). Workloads are measured in average work-hours per day. The following tables use fifteen of the seventeen call categories shown in the table below. For the graphs, some of these categories are consolidated to nine distinct categories. Table categories Figure categories Accidents Traffic Traffic enforcement Alarm Investigations Check/investigation Animal calls General noncriminal Miscellaneous Assist other agency Assist other agency Crime—persons Crime Crime—property Directed patrol Directed patrol Disturbance Suspicious incident Suspicious person/vehicle Juvenile Juvenile Out of service—administrative Out of service Out of service—personal Prisoner—a rrest Arrest Prisoner—transport 46 Figure 1. Percentage of Calls per Day by Initiator ❑ Zero on scene 4.3% ❑ Police initiated ❑ Other initiated 36.7% 58.9% Note. Percentages are based on a total of 55,461 calls. Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding. Table 1. Number of Calls per Day by Initiator Initiator Total calls Calls/da Zero on scene 2,411 6.6 Police initiated 32,690 89.3 Other initiated 20,360 55.6 Total 55 461 151.5 Note. Table excludes 731 calls with missing time data. Observations • About 4.3 percent of the calls involved zero on-scene time and are included in these numbers as well as in the next figure and table. Later, we exclude these calls. • The data records include a large number of police-initiated activities: 89 per day, or about 59 percent of all activities. • There were a total of 152 calls per day, or 6.3 per hour. 47 Figure 2. Percentage of Calls per Day by Category � Arrest ❑ Agency assist �% j Do� ❑ Crime ❑ Directed patrol 13.9% � General non-criminal ❑ Investigations ❑ ]uvenile � Suspicious incident _ $o � Traffic 42.0% —2.2% 13.9% 0.6% I 18.7% Note. Percentages exceed 100% because of rounding. Table 2. Number of Calls per Day by Category Category Total calls Calls/day Accidents 1,729 4.7 Alarm 1,606 4.4 Animal calls 104 0.3 Assist other agency 1,088 3.0 Check/investigation 6,099 16.7 Crime—persons 4,298 11.7 Crime—property 3,412 9.3 Directed patrol 3,191 8.7 Disturbance 2,952 8.1 Juvenile 334 0.9 Miscellaneous 1,112 3.0 Prisoner—arrest 542 1.5 Suspicious person/vehicle 7,411 20.2 Traffic enforcement 21,583 59.0 Total 55,461 151.5 48 Observations • Four categories (traffic, suspicious incidents, crimes, and investigations) accounted for 89 percent of activities. • Forty-two percent of calls were traffic related. • Nineteen percent of calls were suspicious incidents (including disturbances). • Fourteen percent of calls involved crimes, and similar percentage involved investigations (including alarm calls). 49 Figure 3. Percentage of Nonzero Calls per Day by Category ❑ Arrest 1.0% ❑ Agency assist � 1.8% ❑ Crime i 13.7% ❑ Directed patrol i � General non-criminal ❑ Investigations ❑ Juvenile � Suspicious incident —5.8% � Traffic 43.0% 2.1% �13.5% \ 0.5% 18.6% Table 3. Number of Nonzero Calls per Day by Category Cate or Total calls Calls/da Accidents 1,650 4.5 Alarm 1,493 4.1 Animal calls 94 0.3 Assist other agency 974 2.7 Check/investigation 5,651 15.4 Crime—persons 4,099 11.2 Crime—property 3,166 8.7 Directed patrol 3,071 8.4 Disturbance 2,769 7.6 Juvenile 279 0.8 Miscellaneous 1,030 2.8 Prisoner—a rrest 511 1.4 Suspicious person/vehicle 7,076 19.3 Traffic enforcement 21,187 57.9 Total 53 050 144.9 Observations • When zero-on-scene time calls are excluded, there are 145 calls per day, or 6.0 per hour. • The top four categories and their percentages remain essentially unchanged. 50 Figure 4. Number of Calls per Day by Initiator and by Months 200 180.3 150 149•9 151.3 146.3 148.7 132.6 �, 124.9 0 L 95.3 98.0 fl- 100 90.5 � 83.7 83.1 co U 50 6.0 6.0 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.1 0 Jan-Feb 2008 Mar-Apr 2008 May-Jun 2008 Jul-Aug 2008 Sep-Oct 2008 Nov-Dec 2008 ❑ Other initiated ❑ Police initiated ❑ Zero on scene Table 4. Number of Calls per Day by Initiator and by Months Initiator 7an-Feb Mar-A r Ma -7un 7ul-Au Se -Oct Nov-Dec Zero on scene 6.0 6.0 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.1 Police initiated 77.8 89.3 83.8 76.3 117.9 90.9 Other initiated 48.9 54.6 60.8 63.2 55.4 50.7 Tota I 13 2.6 149.9 151.3 146.3 180.3 148.7 Observations • The number of calls was largest from September to October. • The number of calls was the smallest from January to February. • The largest months had 36 percent more calls than the smallest. • The primary cause for this large difference was 118 police-initiated activities per day from September to October compared to only 78 from January to February. • In contrast, for these same months, the increase in other-initiated calls was only 6 calls per day. • July to August had the largest number of other-initiated calls. 51 Figure 5. Number of Calls per Day by Category and by Months 200 � Traffic � Suspicious � Juvenile � Investigations 150 � General � Directed patrol � Q Crime � � Arrest L � Agency assist °' 100 � � 50 0 ti ti ti ti ti ti ��p PQ � , J � PJ �, ��,w O �� ,� � � ,�� Q o � � Table 5. Number of Calls per Day by Category and by Months 7an- Mar- May- 7ul- Sep- Nov- Cate or Feb A r 7un Au Oct Dec Accidents 5.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.6 5.1 Alarm 4.1 4.3 4.2 5.3 4.0 4.4 Animal calls 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 Assist other agency 2.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.3 Check/investigation 13.1 15.9 17.6 17.2 19.9 16.2 Crime-persons 10.1 11.8 13.5 13.6 11.7 9.7 Crime-property 7.6 8.9 10.9 10.7 9.7 8.0 Directed patrol 8.9 7.0 6.3 6.7 12.2 11.1 Disturbance 6.4 7.2 9.6 10.6 7.7 6.9 Juvenile 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.7 Miscellaneous 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.7 3.6 Prisoner-arrest 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.4 Suspicious person/vehicle 14.8 18.4 17.5 18.5 26.4 25.8 Traffic enforcement 54.0 63.0 58.8 51.5 74.2 52.3 Total 132.6 149.9 151.3 146.3 180.3 148.7 52 Observations • Traffic-related calls, followed by suspicious incidents, were the most common types of calls throughout the year. • Traffic-related calls (enforcement and accidents) in general averaged between 56 and 79 per day throughout the year. • Suspicious incidents (including disturbances) averaged between 21 and 34 calls per day. • Crime calls averaged between 18 and 24 per day throughout the year, while investigations (including alarm calls) averaged between 17 and 24 calls per day. • These four categories were consistently 86 percent to 90 percent of all calls throughout the year. 53 Figure 6. Average Busy Times by Category and Initiator �o 62 60 55 55 1 50 46 48 4Z 44 N 40 39 39 � 33 � 29 � 30 26 28 28 20 1� 19 15 15 14 10 0 �°� �� a�'�� \� <<�� `�� w� �� a�� ` �P a Q ,�� P- C, C�� w��a � � P �� C � ` � 1 ��y �� O� ❑ Police initiated ❑ Other initiated Table 6. Average Busy Times by Category and Initiator Police initiated Other initiated Minutes/ Minutes/ Category Total calls call Total calls call Accidents 161 44.2 1,476 64.5 Alarm 16 14.4 1,477 21.3 Animal calls 19 22.5 75 30.6 Assist other agency 203 19.1 767 43.7 Check/investigation 2,681 28.3 2,958 38.8 Crime-persons 321 29.7 3,746 55.5 Crime-property 167 57.6 2,963 54.0 Directed patrol 3,063 14.7 6 28.8 Disturbance 78 22.0 2,687 27.9 Juvenile 21 55.0 257 51.5 Miscellaneous 683 26.3 346 41.1 Prisoner-arrest 333 45.8 172 61.9 Suspicious person/vehicle 4,955 15.0 2,120 28.8 Traffic enforcement 19,977 14.0 1,207 26.7 Total 32,678 16.6 20,257 42.0 Note. Figure 6 and Table 6 exclude zero-on-scene calls and calls with missing busy times. 54 Observations • Average time spent on a call ranged from 14 to 65 minutes overall, with significant variation by call type and initiator. • The longest average times spent were 65 minutes on citizen-reported accidents and 62 minutes on other-initiated prisoner arrests. • Police-initiated traffic-related calls (mostly traffic stops) averaged 14 minutes per call, whereas other-initiated traffic calls (excluding accidents) averaged 27 minutes. • Crime calls averaged 39 minutes for police-initiated calls and 55 minutes for other- initiated calls. 55 Figure 7. Number of Responding Units by Initiator and Category 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2. 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 cn 1.5 1.4 }+ 1. � 1. 1 • 1 • 1. 1. � 1. 1 . 0 1.0 1. 1.0 0.5 0.0 a � w � e � e � � � � �°,� yy �� a ,��o �� C �� C` � � �\°� G\° Ca ��. G �P � ,�� Q, C. C �e � yQ � � C G K, �y �J P°' p\ �e 1 �� Police initiated � Other initiated Table 7. Number of Responding Units by Initiator and Category Police initiated Other initiated Cate or Average Total calls Average Total calls Accidents 1.6 161 2.1 1,489 Alarm 2.0 16 2.3 1,477 Animal calls 1.5 19 1.5 75 Assist other agency 1.2 203 1.8 771 Check/investigation 1.2 2,686 1.8 2,965 Crime-persons 1.3 322 2.4 3,777 Crime-property 1.4 168 1.8 2,998 Directed patrol 1.0 3,065 1.0 6 Disturbance 2.2 78 2.3 2,691 Juvenile 1.0 21 1.4 258 Miscellaneous 1.1 683 1.7 347 Prisoner-arrest 2.0 336 2.6 175 Suspicious person/vehicle 1.2 4,955 1.9 2,121 Traffic enforcement 1.2 19,977 1.5 1,210 Total 1.2 32,690 2.0 20,360 56 Figure 8. Number of Units Responding by Category: Other Initiated 2500 2000 �, 1500 � � � 1000 500 0 �t P, \ \ � . Z 't, G CC �� C�� C\ � a ��o ` �a ``�� \a �� a �� P � C. Q �� a J � �c, �� e� '�� y�� , � r e�' o �� J \y �,�� Q`� �� 1� y Q�G�� 1 Offi ce r P y`' ��t� gJ � 2 Officers � 3+ Officers Table 8. Number of Units Responding by Category: Other Initiated Res ondin units Three or Cate or One Two more Accidents 493 539 457 Alarm 200 830 447 Animal calls 50 15 10 Assist other agency 397 206 168 Check/investigation 1,286 1,076 603 Crime—persons 826 1,345 1,606 Crime—property 1,625 759 614 Directed patrol 6 0 0 Disturbance 651 1,038 1,002 Juvenile 181 60 17 Miscellaneous 171 115 61 Prisoner—arrest 21 74 80 Suspicious person/vehicle 965 660 496 Traffic enforcement 846 228 136 Total 7,718 6,945 5,697 57 Observations • The overall mean number of responding units was 1.2 for police-initiated calls and 2.0 for other-initiated calls. • The mean number of responding units was a maximum of 2.6, for other-initiated calls involving arrests. • Checking the bottom of Table 8, one can see that most other-initiated calls involved two or more responding units (62 percent). • In addition, 28 percent of all other-initiated calls involved three or more units. • The largest group of other-initiated calls with three or more responding units involved crimes and person crimes (as opposed to property crimes) in particular. 58 Figure 9. Percentage of Calls and Work-Hours per Day by Category, February 2008 ❑ Arrest ❑ Agency assist ❑ Crime � Directed patrol . General 1.1% 2.3% 1.8% \ o ❑ Investigations � 0 3.3 /o � ,7uvenile 12.5 /o � Suspicious 31.8% � Traffic .5% -28.4% 47.8% 2.7% - 12.1% 2.8% 0 0.3 /0 14.5% 2.1% o � 15.4/0 0.6% 14.2% Call Activity Workload Note. Calculations include only nonzero on-scene calls. Percentages may exceed 100% because of rounding. Table 9. Number of Calls and Work-Hours per Day by Category, February 2008 Cate or Calls/da Work-hours/da Arrest 1.5 2.0 Assist other agency 2.5 2.9 Crime 16.9 24.5 Directed patrol 8.8 2.5 General noncriminal 3.6 1.8 Investigations 16.4 12.2 Juvenile 0.4 0.5 Suspicious incident 20.8 12.5 Traffic 64.8 27.5 Total 135.6 86.3 Observations • In February 2008, total calls were 135.6 per day, or 5.7 per hour. • Total workload was 86.3 work-hours per day. This meant that an average of 3.6 personnel per hour were busy handling calls. • Traffic-related events constituted 48 percent of calls but only 32 percent of workload. • Crimes constituted 13 percent of calls but 28 percent of workload. 59 Figure 10. Percentage of Calls and Work-Hours per day by Category, August 2008 ❑ Arrest ❑ Agency assist ❑ Crime ❑ Directed patrol . General 0.8% 1.7% 1 $��o Z Z��o ❑ Investigations � i ❑ Juvenile 18.0% 24.1% � Suspicious � Traffic 36.4% 34.2% 5.1% 2.0% 18.3% 15.4% 1.7% � 0.5% 0.8% � 1.6% 20.0% 15.4% Call Activity Workload Note. Calculations includes only nonzero on-scene calls. Table 10. Number of Calls and Work-Hours per Day by Category, August 2008 Cate or Calls/da Work-hours/da Arrest 1.0 1.6 Assist other agency 2.4 2.1 Crime 23.0 32.4 Directed patrol 6.5 1.6 General noncriminal 2.5 1.5 Investigations 19.7 14.5 Juvenile 0.6 0.7 Suspicious incident 25.5 17.3 Traffic 46.4 22.7 Total 127.7 94.5 Observations • In August, the total number of calls per day (127.7, or 5.3 per hour) was slightly smaller than in February while the workload (94.5 work-hours per day, or 3.9 personnel per hour) was slightly higher. • Traffic-related events constituted only 36 percent of the total calls and 24 percent of the total workload. • Crimes were 18 percent of total calls and 34 percent of the total workload. 60 A number of nonpatrol calls—approximately 14,400 calls in 2008, or 39 per day—were actually calls that were left unassigned when the SCSO determined that no unit was available to respond. Most of these calls were either traffic related or requests for assistance by other agencies; thus, they were handled by either the highway patrol or the other agencies. Only 17 percent of the calls—approximately 2,500 calls a year, or 7 per day—were of a different type. Clearly, however, they were all other initiated and not high priority. As no unit responded, we can only include counts and cannot compute the related workload. Figure 11. Percentage of Calls by Category in 2008 with Units Unavailable 0.0% ❑ Agency Assist ' ❑ Crime ❑ General ■ Investigations 0 Suspicious 34.0% � Traffic � Other �48.5% 3.7% 8.0% � I 2.6% 3.1% Table 11. Percentage of Calls by Category in 2008 with Units Unavailable Cate or Total calls Calls/da Accidents 547 1.5 Alarm 3 0.0 Animal calls 243 0.7 Assist other agency 7,005 19.1 Check/investigation 1,152 3.1 Crime—persons 117 0.3 Crime—property 336 0.9 Disturbance 250 0.7 ]uvenile 1 0.0 Miscellaneous 130 0.4 Prisoner—arrest 5 0.0 Suspicious person/vehicle 282 0.8 Traffic enforcement 4,370 11.9 Total 14,441 39.5 61 DEPLOYMENT The SCSO operates (primarily) on twelve-hour shifts with staggered starting times. The day shift starts at either 5:30 a.m. or 7 a.m., and the night shift starts at either 5:30 p.m. or 7 p.m. Along with regular patrol officers, we included traffic enforcement units, K9 units, and school resource officers. Within the patrol unit, we included both officers and supervisors— that is, all officers and supervisors from the rank of sergeant and below. The SCSO deployed an average of 8.2 patrol officers during the twenty-four-hour day in February 2008 and 8.6 patrol officers in August 2008. When the additional units are included, it deployed an average of 10.2 and 11.5 officers during the twenty-four-hour day in February and August, respectively. The deployment varied by season and between weekends and weekdays; it varied even more by time of day. Figure 12. Deployed Officers by Day of Week, February 2008 14 12 �------------ 10 L g �- � � U _._ _ p 6 _ --------- 4 =----------------------------------------------------_ �----------------------------------------------------_ 2 =----------------------------------------------------_ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Basic patrol (weekday) Basic patrol (weekend) Total patrol (weekday) Total patrol (weekend) Observations • The average patrol deployment was approximately 8 officers during the week (black line) and 9 officers on weekends (red line). • During the week, deployment reached as high as 9 officers and dropped as low as 7 officers. 62 • On the weekends, deployment ranged between 11 officers and 8 officers. • Highest deployments occur between 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. • Lowest deployments occur between 5:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. • When additional units (e.g., traffic) were added, the average deployment rose by 2.5 officers on weekdays (green line) and 0.8 officers on weekends (blue line). • The additional units affected total deployment mostly between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. Figure 13. Deployment and Workload: Weekdays, February 2008 14 12 ------------_ _------- 10 � 0 8 � , � 0 6 -------------------- � _------------------------ 4 --------------------. .�„` 2 � _/ �� 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Total patrol Basic patrol Total work Other-initiated work Police-initiated work 63 Figure 14. Deployment and Workload: Weekends, February 2008 12 10 �8 �------------------------ � -------------------------- 0 � 6 � ---------------------� ---------------------- � L � 0 .f ... .' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' � 4 °----------- !`e. r ^�-..___...�-- . 2 � �� 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Total patrol Basic patrol Total work Other-initiated work Police-initiated work Observations • During the week, total patrol workload averaged 3.6 personnel per hour (green line). • This was 35 percent of total deployment, which means that patrol officers spent 35 percent of their time on patrol-related activities. • During the week, patrol workload dropped as low as 7 percent of total deployment between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. It was as high as 67 percent of total deployment between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. • On the weekends, total patrol workload averaged 3.7 personnel per hour (green line). • This was 37 percent of total deployment. • On the weekends, the patrol workload dropped as low as 14 percent of total deployment between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. and rose as high as 61 percent of total deployment between midnight and 1 a.m. 64 Figure 15. Deployed Officers by Day of Week, August 2008 20 15 ----------------- ---- � L � � 1 0 0 r 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Basic patrol (weekday) Basic patrol (weekend) Total patrol (weekday) Total patrol (weekend) Observations • The number of officers deployed was slightly higher in August than in February. • On average, 9 officers were deployed during the week in August and 8 officers were deployed on weekends. • Basic deployment varied between 8 and 10 officers during the week and between 7 and 9 officers on weekends. • When additional units (traffic) were added, the deployment rose as in February. • The additional officers were most visible during the day on weekdays. • Total deployment reached a maximum of 18 officers during the week and 10 officers on weekends. The peak number for February was only 13 officers. 65 Figure 16. Deployment and Workload-Weekdays, August 2008 20 15 � 3 s � 10 0 3 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Total patrol Basic patrol Total work Other-initiated work Police-initiated work Figure 17. Deployment and Workload-Weekends, August 2008 10 8 � -_-----------------� � 0 6 �eee_ ------------------------�---- � �------------------- , L .l 0 � 4 2 � � 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour Total patrol Basic patrol Total work Other-initiated work Police-initiated work 66 Observations • During August, workload was slightly higher (by almost 10 percent) than in February. • Patrol deployment was slightly higher in August and much higher during the week in the daytime. • During the week and on the weekends, patrol workload averaged 3.9 personnel per hour (green line). • During the week, this was 31 percent of total deployment, which means that patrol officers spent 31 percent of their time on patrol-related activities. • During the week, patrol workload dropped as low as 10 percent of total deployment between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. and rose as high as 57 percent of total deployment between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. • On the weekend, the average workload (3.9 personnel) was 44 percent of total deployment. • On the weekends, the patrol workload dropped as low as 10 percent of total deployment at between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. and rose as high as 88 percent of total deployment between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. RESPONSE TIMES We analyzed the response times to various types of calls, separating the duration into dispatch and travel times, to determine whether response times varied by call type. We started with 4,014 and 3,814 calls for February 2008 and August 2008, respectively, and limited our analysis to calls that were other initiated with nonzero on-scene times. Some calls had no indication of arrival times, however, so we were forced to exclude them from our analysis. This left 1,340 calls in February 2008 and 1,771 calls in August 2008. To better understand the response time issue, we calculated the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of response time for three variables: dispatch delay, travel time, and total response time. We also conducted an analysis that was based on the priority codes provided within the data. We focused on high-priority calls for the entire year. The response times for these calls are significantly shorter. 67 Figure 18. Average Response Times, by Hour of Day, for February and August 2008 35 30 � r \ r \ * 4 25 � � / \ / / � \ f \ � 20 M � y � \ / *� � � � i r� � � 15 r , \ 10 �-------- 5 Feb 2008 average: 18.6 minutes Aug 2008 average: 19.7 minutes 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour t February 2008 —F - August 2008 Observations • Average response times vary significantly by hour of day. • The overall average is slightly longer in August than in February. • In February, the longest response times were between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., with an average of 27.9 minutes. These longer times were primarily the result of large dispatch delays. • In February, the shortest response times were between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., and between 11 p.m. and midnight, with an average of 12.4 minutes. • In August, the longest response times were between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., with an average of 31.6 minutes and with the same probable cause. • In August, the shortest response times were between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m., with an average of 11.6 minutes. Reading the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) Chart In the CDF chart below, the vertical axis is the probability or percentage of calls. The horizontal axis is time of dispatch delay, travel time, or total response time. For example, approximately 80 percent of August's calls had a dispatch delay of 24 minutes or less. (The 68 80 percent line intersects the curve at the 24-minute mark.) The same percentage of February's calls had a dispatch delay of 19 minutes or less. When comparing different CDF lines, a higher line represents a larger percentage of low values. Figure 19 shows that the dispatch delays are lower for February 2008 than for August 2008. Figure 19. Dispatch Delay Cumulative Distribution Function 100 90 80 70 *, 60 c i 50 a� a 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Minutes February 2008 August 2008 69 Figure 20. Travel Time Cumulative Distribution Function 100 90 80 ----------------------------------- 70 -------------------------------------- *, 60 c i 50 a� a 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Minutes February 2008 August 2008 Figure 21. Response Time Cumulative Distribution Function 100 90 80 70 +� 60 --_ �--------------------------- c � 50 a� a 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 M111uteS February 2008 August 2008 70 Figure 22. Average Response Times, February 2008 50 42.8 40 _________ss___�_____________ss__. ______� � 30 -----. __ s---- 7. ------- � 26.4 � 22.3 �e 23J _ � � 20 19. 19.1 19.4 16.0 6. 17.0 14. 9.8 1. 1. 10 7.7 �--_ 0 � � .� � � tt�� t` a�'�� `� �.`°� ��\ •�a�� a�� P ,�P � �a� c,t� ,�� ,� ti��' �� '�� °� J �� . o �,� �p O�t � ,�� , ❑ Travel time ��5 �� gQ ❑ Dispatch delay C� Figure 23. Average Response Times, August 2008 50 42.7 40 ---��_---___eeee --- ---------� 32.0 32 z 33.6 30 � 25.7 � 23.7 � 21.6 � 20 17.5 17.3 16.3 18.2 17.3 17.1 10.0 11.1 11.1 11.3 10 � �� 0 � � .� � � P�� '�\,� Q t�� a�'�� \ �� a �� \ �� c, ��\� ,�� t �p'� O �t� G � ,��J� .\ G�� ❑ Tra ve I ti m e ��g �� gQ � Dispatch delay C� � 71 Table 12. Average Response Time Components by Category February 2008 August 2008 Category Dis atch Travel Res onse Dis atch Travel Res onse Arrest 19.7 6.7 26.4 32.0 10.6 42.7 Agency assist 7.7 8.2 16.0 10.0 7.5 17.5 Crime 14.2 8.1 22.3 17.3 8.4 25.7 Directed patrol N/A N/A N/A 16.3 0.0 16.3 General 16.9 6.8 23.7 23.7 8.5 32.2 Investigations 9.8 7.2 17.0 11.1 7.2 18.2 Juvenile 27.2 15.6 42.8 21.6 12.0 33.6 Suspicious 10.6 6.3 16.9 11.1 6.2 17.3 Traffic 11.2 7.9 19.1 11.3 5.7 17.1 Total 11.9 7.5 19.4 13.7 7.3 21.0 Table 13. 90th Percentiles for Components by Category Februar 2008 Au ust 2008 Cate or Dis atch Travel Res onse Dis atch Travel Res onse Arrest 60+ 17.5 60+ 60+ 33.1 60+ Agency assist 18.2 19.8 35.9 29.9 16.9 34.5 Crime 50J 16.3 59.5 60+ 17.5 60+ Directed patrol N/A N/A N/A 16.3 0.0 16.3 General �o+ 16.5 �o+ ho+ 18.9 �o+ Investigations 29.9 14.8 40.6 37.1 13.7 46.1 Juvenile 57.9 55.8 �o+ �o+ 27.2 �o+ Suspicious 35.2 11.3 45.7 37.0 11.8 44.3 Traffic 36.5 14.0 50.9 41.2 12.4 51.1 Total 39.7 14.9 51.3 53.3 14.1 60+ Observations • Response times varied significantly by call category. • In February, average response times were as short as 16 to 17 minutes (for agency assists and investigations) and as long as 43 minutes (for juvenile calls). • In August, average response times were as short as 16 to 17 minutes (for four categories) and as long as 43 minutes (for arrests). • Average response times for crimes were 22 minutes in February and 26 minutes in August. • Average response times increased slightly (by 8 percent) from February 2008 to August 2008. It increased for all categories except for juvenile and traffic calls. • In February, average dispatch delays varied between 8 minutes (for agency assists) and 27 minutes (for juvenile calls). 72 • In August, average dispatch delays varied between 10 minutes (for agency assists) and 32 minutes (for arrests). • In February, 90th percentile values for response times were as short as 36 minutes (for agency assists) and as long as over an hour for three categories and nearly an hour for crime calls. • In August, 90th percentile values for response times were as short as 35 minutes (for agency assists) and as long as over an hour for four categories including crime calls. • The overall 90th percentile value for February was nearly an hour and exceeded an hour for August. • Other-initiated directed patrols are quite unusual. This makes their calculations of response time unreliable. High-Priority Calls The dispatch center assigned a priority code from 1 through 5 to each call. Table 14 shows average response times for the entire year separated by priority. A separate category for accidents with injuries is also included. These averages include all nonzero, on-scene, other- initiated calls throughout 2008. Table 14. Average Dispatch, Travel, and Response Times, by Priority Priority Dispatch Travel Response Total calls 1 2.0 3.8 5.7 384 2 4.9 6.6 11.5 9,542 3 16.7 9.9 26.7 9,514 4 28.5 11.7 40.2 500 5 26.1 11.9 38.0 131 All 11.2 8.3 19.5 20,071 Accident with in�uries 2.3 4.9 7.2 385 73 Figure 24. Average Response Times by Hour for High-Priority Calls 16 * 14 � I , ----------------------------e��o��----------- 12 I .---------------------------- r\ ---------- I �-- ---------------------- �� ------- � 10 � , *�! \ �., . � $ � �I �_--=9P�. � / I �'� � � � �I � i j'�._.�' � ' � �=� ��\ 6 � � �� :l �-�, " � �� '.,� i �'�►�\ , i , i �i 4 � , �-1 �� '' � -. -'� � � ��i � 2 �,.--� � 0 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour f Dispatch delay (High Priority) —f - Response time (High Priority) Dispatch delay (Accidents) —�-- Response time (Accidents) Observations • High-priority calls and accidents with injuries had much shorter response times of 5.7 and 7.2 minutes, respectively, compared to the overall yearly average of 19.5 minutes. • Average response times for high-priority calls varied by time of day, from 2.7 minutes between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. to 12.3 minutes between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. • Average response times for personal injury accidents also varied by time of day, from 2.8 minutes between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. to 15.9 minutes between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. • Hourly samples for high-priority calls and accidents were quite small. For example, there were only two accidents with injuries between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. These results should be used cautiously. 74 4. COSTS AND EXPENDITURES Spokane County provides law enforcement services to the city of Spokane Valley through an interlocal agreement. This agreement defines the level of services to be provided as regional, base level, and optional. Regional services are those services required by law or supported by a dedicated revenue source; as such, they are not charged to the city. The cost of base-level and optional services includes the direct salary and benefit cost of personnel providing services to the city, either directly or indirectly; maintenance; and operational costs allocated to the city. COST DISTRIBUTION The Interlocal Agreement is poorly written, difficult to follow, and difficult to interpret as to how costs are allocated to the city. In addition, many of the costs of services to be charged to the city are either not defined or poorly defined. Base-level and optional services charged to the city are defined as follows: Base level and optional services direct and, special pays, if indirect costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, salary, benefits any, for personnel providing services, along with any associated costs for clothing allowance, overtime, supplies, services, telephone, motor pool, lease cars, system services, insurance, equipment and applicable administrative costs. These costs are further described in Attachments "A", "B", and "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. This language seems reasonably clear as it relates to the costs associated with personnel providing services; however, the method for determining some personnel-related costs is based on averages rather than on actual costs. Moreover, the method of determining other costs, including supplies, motor pool, lease cars, system service, insurance, equipment and applicable administrative costs, is not defined. Attachment "A" is a schedule of base-level staffing for the city showing the number of employees by position and the 2003 costs. Attachment "B" is a schedule of contract position costs showing the personnel, supplies, support unit, administration, and county overhead costs for each position. Attachment "C" is the law enforcement support unit (LESU) cost allocation. The agreement defines LESU costs as follows: The annual costs shall be the City's share of the LESU budget based upon the percentage of services provided and the cost allocation developed by LESU as 75 further described in Attachment "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The LESU costs allocated to the city are poorly defined in that the basis for determining the amount is not identified. Thus, the allocation of costs does not always seem logical. For example, Property Room/Records costs are based on the number of commissioned officers in the city as a percentage of total number of commissioned officers in the sheriff's office. However, the Property Room/Records building most likely holds significant amounts of data accumulated prior to the incorporation of the city in 2003. These costs may be more appropriately determined on a space-used basis. The lack of specific definitions for determining how a number of these costs are allocated is problematic because it provides opportunities for disagreement between the city and the county over the understanding and equity of these cost allocations in future years. Personnel The costs of personnel assigned directly to the city of Spokane Valley are determined based on an annual employee distribution. This distribution shows the number of employees in five categories: regional employees, employees supported by revenue, support and administration employees (shared), unincorporated county employees, and city employees This distribution forms the basis for allocating most of the costs for police services to the city. The 2009 employee distribution is shown on the following pages: 76 2008 SHERIFF'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION 303 TOTAL EMPLOYEES Regional Employees Commiss. Non-Comm. # Emp1• Unit Classification 2 Sheriff & Staff 1 Sheriff 1.000 1 Staff Assistant 1.000 7 Civil Division 1 Lieutenant 1.000 4 Deputies 4.000 2 Clerical 2.000 9 Number of Regional Employees Employees Supported by Revenue Commiss. Non-Comm. # Emp1• Unit Classification 1 DEA (2900091) 1 Det/Corp. 1.000 1 Meth Detective 1 Det/Corp. 1.000 1 Marine Deputy 1 Deputy 1.000 1 RDTF (290F192) 1 Clerical 1.000 4 Number of Employees Supported by Revenue Support & Administration Employees (Shared) Commiss. Non-Comm. # Emp1• Unit Classification Support 14 Forensic 1 Manager 1.000 9 Forensic Specialists 9.000 3 Clerical 3.000 1 Digital Forensic Specialist 1.000 20 Radio 5 Supervisors 5.000 15 Operators 15.000 4 Garage 1 Manager 1.000 3 Technicians 3.000 Admin. 3 Senior Admin. 2 Undersheriffs 2.000 1 Information Systems Coord. 1.000 8 Admin. Support 6 Clerical 6.000 1 Grant/Contract Coordinator 1.000 1 Clerical-Grants 1.000 1 Office of Professional Standards 1 Lieutenant 1.000 4 Training 1 Sergeant 1.000 2 Deputies 2.000 1 Clerical 1.000 1 Public Information Officer 1 Sergeant 1.000 1 Crime Analysis 1 Clerical 1.000 5 Clerical Support 5 Clerical 5.000 61 Number of Support/Administration Employees 77 2008 SHERIFF'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION 303 TOTAL EMPLOYEES # Emp1• Unit Classification 74.5 Patrol 1 Captain 1.000 3 Lieutenants 3.000 7 Sergeants 7.000 63.5 Deputies 63.500 1 Deer Park 1 Deputy 1.000 2.5 K-9 Track/K-9 Bomb 2.5 Deputies 2.500 14 Traffic 1 Sergeant 1.000 1 Det/Corp 1.000 10 Deputies 10.000 2 Commercial Vehicle Enforcement 2 Det/Corp 2.000 18 Investigations .50 Captain 0.500 .50 Lieutenant 0.500 Property Crimes 1 Sergeant 1.000 5 Det/Corp 5.000 Property Crimes Task Force 4 Det/Corp 4.000 Sex Crimes .50 Sergeant 0.500 3 Det/Corp 3.000 Major Crimes .50 Sergeant 0.500 3 Det/Corp 3.000 8.5 Drug Investigations .50 Lieutenant 0.500 .50 Sergeant 0.500 5.5 Det/Corp 5.500 2 Deputies 2.000 1 Drug Endangered Children 1 Det/Corp 1.000 1 Gang Enforcement Team 1 Sergeant 1.000 4 School Resource Officers 4 Deputies 4.000 1.733 Community Services .733 Lieutenant 0.733 1 Deputy 1.000 128.233 Number Employees: Unincorporated 142.233 58.000 78 2008 SHERIFF'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION 303 TOTAL EMPLOYEES City of Spokane Valley Employees Commiss. Non-Comm. # Emp1• Unit Classification 3 Administration 1 Inspector/Chief 1.000 1 Sergeant 1.000 1 Staff Assistant 1.000 62.5 Patrol 2 Lieutenants 2.000 6 Sergeants 6.000 6 Det/Corp. 6.000 48.5 Deputies 48.500 7 Traffic 1 Sergeant 1.000 1 Det/Corp. 1.000 5 Deputies 5.000 2.5 K-9 Track/K-9 Bomb 2.5 Deputies 2.500 16 Investigations .50 Captain 0.500 .50 Lieutenant 0.500 Property Crimes 1 Sergeant 1.000 6 Det/Corp. 6.000 Property Crimes Task Force 1 Det/Corp. 1.000 Sex Crimes .50 Sergeant 0.500 3 Det/Corp 3.000 Major Crimes .50 Sergeant 0.500 3 Det/Corp 3.000 7.5 Drug Investigations .50 Lieutenant 0.500 .50 Sergeant 0.500 4.5 Det/Corp. 4.500 2 Deputies 2.000 4 School Resource Officers 4 Deputies 4.000 0.267 Community Services .267 Lieutenant 0.267 102.767 Number Employees: Valley 101.767 1.000 305 TOTAL EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF'S OFFICE 244 59 Commissioned Officers Total 244.000 Spokane Valley Commissioned Officers 101.767 S okane Valle % of Commissioned Officers 41.71% Employee costs allocated to the city include salary and benefits, overtime, holiday pay, extra duty pay, vacation sellback, and Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters (LEOFF) medical for active employees. The allocation of salary and benefits is based on the actual cost to the county for these employees, an amount that was budgeted to be $10,132,100 for 2009. The allocation of holiday pay, extra duty pay, vacation sellback, and LEOFF medical for active employees is based on actual costs incurred by those positions. Prior to 2007, these costs appear to have been based on a calculated average. 79 � 2008 City of Spokane Valley Employees # Emp1• Unit Classification Salarv & Benefits 3.00 Administration / 290SV39 1 Inspector/Chief 144,405 1 Sergeant 111,467 1 Staff Assistant(non-Comm) 63,015 16.00 Investigations / 290SV40 .50 Captain 65,343 .50 Lieutenant 63,606 2 Sergeants 224,267 13 Det/Corp. 1,338,357 62.00 Patrol / 290SV41 2 Lieutenants 256,266 6 Sergeants 681,974 6 Det/Corp. 612,085 48.5 Deputies 4,474,468 7.00 Traffic / 290SV49 1 Sergeant 110,691 1 Det/Corp. 103,191 5 Deputies 461,580 2.50 K-9 Track/K-9 Bomb / 290SV53 2.5 Deputies 255,480 8.00 Drug Investigations / 290SV90 .50 Lieutenant 65,535 .50 Sergeant 56,805 4.5 Det/Corp. 467,563 2 Deputies 192,769 4.00 School Resource Officers / 290SVSR 4 Deputies 383,233 102.50 Total Salary & Benefits in SV Budgets 10,132,100 OT/HP/Vac Sell/Med Supq 290SV39 9,776 290SV40 49,145 290SV41 436,381 290SV49 22,934 290SV53 8,191 290SV90 22,934 290SVSR 13,105 Total "Other Pay" 562,466 Total Salary + Other Pay (In SV Budgets): 10,694,566 0.267 Community Services .267 Lieutenant 33,087 102.767 Number of Employees: Valley 10,727,653 80 Attachment A of the Interlocal Agreement lists the base level of employees dedicated to the city. This base-level staffing totals 101.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs). The 2009 staffing level totals 102.8 FTEs, an increase of 1.3 FTEs. The difference in the 2009 staffing from that in the Interlocal Agreement is accounted for by the addition of one FTE detective/corporal, a part-time FTE lieutenant (community services officer), and a part-time FTE deputy, and a 0.5 decrease in FTE sergeants. These are shown in the table below Interlocal Position 2009 FTEs agreement FTEs Chief of police 1.000 1.000 Deputy chief of police - Assistant chief of police - Inspector - - Major - - Captain 0.500 0.500 Lieutenant 3.267 3.000 Sergeant 10.500 11.000 Detective/Corporal 24.500 23.500 Deputies 62.000 61.500 Staff Assistant 1.000 1.000 Total 102.767 101.500 Of the 2009 staff, only 83 FTEs are located at the city precinct; the rest are part of joint units stationed in different locations. While the city pays the cost of these joint-unit FTEs, it is difficult to know what services the city actually receives. Other Costs The city is charged for the costs for other services provided by the sheriff's office. These are shown in the following table. 81 2009 Annual Costs for Spokane Valley Law Enforcement SV Salaries 10,694,364 X 100% 10,694,364 Forensic Unit 389,095 X 41.71 % 162,292 Radio 1,51 1,520 X 42.090% 636,199 Garage 290,011 X 41.71 % 120,964 Budget/Acctg/Admin Support/PIO 584,298 X 41.71% 243,711 2 Undersheriff 292,430 X 41.71 % 121,973 Training/Polygraph/OPS 485,228 X 41.71% 202,389 Crime Analysis 44,919 X 41.71 % 18,736 Gang Enforcement Sgt. 113,858 X 50% 56,929 Clerical Support 239,878 X 41.71 % 100,053 Scope Lieutenant 124,061 x 26.67% 33,087 Indirect Costs 12,390,695 X 8.09% 1,002,407 M&O 1,998,964 X 41.71 % 833,768 Equipment/Technology 0 X 41.71 % 0 Property Room/Records 1,244,330 X 41.71 % 519,010 Telephone in 290SV39 36,484 X 0% 36,484 Fuel in 290SV41 268,375 X 0% 268,375 Scope Services 162,908 X 26.67% 43,448 Sirt Services 45,673 X 41.71 % 19,050 <Contracts> -64,500 TOTAL 15,048,737 Salary and Benefits: The charges for costs shown in the table for the first eleven items- from SV salaries through SCOPE lieutenant-are for salary and benefits. The SV salaries were determined as discussed above. The amounts charged to the city for other salary- and benefits-related costs for services provided, with the exception of radio, gang enforcement sergeant, and SCOPE lieutenant, are determined based on the number of commissioned officers assigned to the city (101.767) divided by the total number of commissioned officers in the SCSO (244): 41.71 percent in 2009. The amount initially budgeted is reconciled to reflect actual expenditures at the end of each year. While this method provides a relatively 82 simple way of allocating these costs, it may result in the city overpaying because the costs are not based on the actual services provided. If they were charged to the city on the basis of the actual services provided, as is the cost for radio, it would require that an estimated amount be established for budget purposes and reconciled with actual costs on either a periodic basis or annual basis. The amount allocated for radio is based on computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data provided to the ICMA team. If the data are accurate, this amount should reflect the actual cost attributable to the city. No explanation was provided for the 50 percent allocated for the gang enforcement sergeant. However, the percentage allocated in 2008 was based on the ratio of commissioned officers assigned to the city to commissioned officers in the SCSO. The 26.67 percent allocated for the SCOPE lieutenant is based on the ratio of four SCOPE stations in the Valley divided by the fifteen total SCOPE stations operated by the SCSO. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs for the SCSO were determined from Spokane County's OMB A-87 Indirect Cost Plan Fiscal 2006, as shown below. Department 290 Sheriff ($) 1 Building depreciation 2,567 2 Equipment depreciation 74,596 3 337 Insurance (General Fund) 538,326 4 340 Administrative services 98,135 5 340 Labor relations 32,045 6 020 Aud financial services 124,941 7 250 Prosecuting attorney 41,320 8 320 Treasurer 16,119 9 335 Information systems (General Fund) 771,725 10 041 Human resources 123,154 11 050 Civil services 94,490 12 100 Facilities maintenance 329,851 13 260 Purchasing 87,983 14 270 State examiner 29,410 15 289 Campus security 0 16 Steam plant 7,581 Total current allocations 2,372,243 Less: fixed costs (and adjustments) 2,429,091 Carry-forward (56,848) PROPOSED COSTS 2,315,395 83 The total current allocations above are adjusted to exclude costs not applicable to the city. This adjusted amount ($2,170,331) is then divided by the actual salary and benefits costs in the SCSO ($26,822,896) to arrive at the indirect cost rate of 8.09 percent, as shown below. 2006 final 2006 actual 2006 final indirect cost salary & indirect cost Sheriff indirect costs $ benefits $ rate % Indirect costs from OMB A-87 2,372,243 Less PSB building area applicable to Spokane Valley 178,909 Less facilities allocation for sheriff garage 23,004 Total indirect costs allocated 2,170,331 26,822,896 8.09 The indirect cost rate is applied to the total of the salary and benefits costs to arrive at the indirect cost of $1,002,407 ($12,390,695 x 8.09 percent). In addition to the salary and benefits costs and indirect costs, support costs related directly to the SCSO are also allocated to the city. These costs are for maintenance and operation (M&0), equipment/technology, property room and records, telephone and fuel, SCOPE services, and the special incident response team (SIRT). Maintenance and Operation Costs: M&0 costs are the maintenance and operation costs for the sheriff's office, as itemized in the following table. The column labeled "Total M&0" shows the total cost for each line item. The column labeled "Minus Regional" shows the amount of each line item deducted as a regional expense. The column labeled "Minus DT Line Item" shows the amount allocated only to the SCSO. The column labeled "Minus SV Line Item" shows the amount allocated only to the city of Spokane Valley. The column labeled "Adjusted Base" shows the M&0 expenses for each line item for which a portion of the cost is allocated to the city. The costs are totaled at the bottom of each column. 84 2008 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION COSTS / SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Minus Minus DT Minus SV Adjusted CLASS Total M&O Reqional Line Item Line Item Base 3107 Operating Reserve 45,000 45,000 3111 Office Supplies 18,081 2,000 16,081 31 12 Toner 12,400 12,400 3140 Publication 5,425 260 5,165 3150 Clothing 42,550 5,850 36,700 3160 Food 3,300 3,300 3180 Supplies 371,382 110,330 261,052 3181 Ammo 43,370 4,870 38,500 3185 Chaplain Supplies 1,000 1,000 3187 Honor Guard 1,000 1,000 3188 Hostage Negotiators 1,000 1,000 3190 Radio M&O Supplies 26,667 26,667 3198 Tac Equipment 10,500 10,500 3199 Swat Equipment 8,600 8,600 3210 Gas 694,321 12,295 413,651 268,375 0 3551 Attractive Equipment 33,955 7,400 26,555 3552 Insurable Equipment 23,700 2,000 21,700 4115 Banking Services 100 100 4130 Data Proc CAD/RMS 176,762 176,762 4143 Livestock Hauler 15,600 15,600 0 4145 Towing 12,500 500 12,000 4146 Shredaway 3,350 800 2,550 4160 Health,Medical,Hosp 7,000 7,000 4148 Alarm Monitoring 1,200 1,200 4180 Consulting 4,870 4,870 4190 Professional Services 143,383 33,000 110,383 4199 Forensic Anal 3,668 3,668 4210 Telephone 123,634 6,590 64,448 36,484 16,112 4220 Postage 2,750 400 2,350 4350 Discretionary Travel 12,500 12,000 500 4360 Compliance Travel 69,756 3,000 66,756 4410 Advertising 0 0 4510 Bldg. Rent 152,698 13,000 139,698 4520 Equipment Rent 35,445 8,800 26,645 4691 Pension/Insurance 4,000 4,000 0 4720 Util-Electric 300 300 4810 Repair/Maint. 22,300 7,510 14,790 4811 Repair/Maint. Contr. 30,000 18,000 12,000 4910 Investigative Exp. 42,250 20,000 22,250 4920 Dues 3,285 915 2,370 4940 Outside Printing 19,275 1,400 17,875 4970 Laundry 2,000 2,000 4990 Other Fees 1,000 1,000 5212 City of Spokane 47,825 47,825 5999 Unclass Joint Use 22,412 22,412 85 2008 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION COSTS / SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Minus Minus DT Minus SV Adjusted CLASS Total M&O Reqional Line Item Line Item Base 9190 I/F Prof. Services 244,228 244,228 9210 I/F Postage 15,100 7,200 7,900 9380 I/F M&O Supplies 500 300 200 9510 I/F Rental of Space 3,000 3,000 9610 I/F Industrial Ins. 80 80 0 7500 Fleet Lease 515,000 515,000 TOTAL 3,080,022 298,100 478,099 304,859 1,998,964 Once again, as with the salary and benefits costs, the amount allocated to the city is based on the number of commissioned officers assigned to the city divided by the total number of commissioned officers in the SCSO, or 41.71 percent in 2009. As previously stated, this provides a relatively simple method for allocating these costs; however, because the costs are not based on either the actual services provided or the materials and operations used for the benefit of the city, the city may be overpaying for these services. The ICMA team believes that nearly all these costs should be charged to the city according to the actual services provided or materials and operations used. This would require that an amount be estimated for budget purposes and reconciled against actual costs either periodically or annually. Equipment/Technology Costs: Equipment/technology costs are capital-related costs, as shown in the table below. 2008 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION COSTS / SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Minus Minus DT Minus SV Adjusted CLASS Total M&O Reqional Line Item Line Item Base 3550 Attractive Capital 79,520 0 79,520 6410 Office Machinery 0 0 6420 Transportation 65,000 65,000 0 6460 Hardware/Software 384,000 26,100 357,900 6470 Police Equipment 10,000 10,000 0 Total Capital 538,520 101,100 0 0 437,420 The "Adjusted Base" for these expenditures has been allocated according to the number of commissioned officers in the city in previous years. This seems inequitable to us unless the assets purchased become the property of the city. Property Room and Records: Costs for property room and records (PRM) are allocated on the basis of the 2006 Joint Use PRM Report, in which the costs of the property room, 86 records, wash rack, gym equipment, and explosive disposal are apportioned between the city of Spokane and Spokane County. Spokane County subsequently allocates a portion of its costs to the city of Spokane Valley. The cost allocation is again based on the number of commissioned officers, as previously discussed. However, the number of commissioned officers may not be the most appropriate method for allocating these costs. A more appropriate allocation might be made on a space-used basis. Telephone and Fuel: Telephone and fuel costs reflect the actual cost of these services to the city. SCOPE: The 26.67 percent allocated for Spokane County Sheriff Community Oriented Policing Effort (SCOPE) is obtained by dividing the number of SCOPE stations in the Valley (four) by the total number of SCOPE stations operated by the SCSO (fifteen). Special Incidence Response Team: SIRT costs are allocated based on the ratio of commissioned officers assigned to the city to the total number of commissioned officers in the sheriff's office, 41.71 percent. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY The ICMA team was asked to discuss the financial sustainability of the costs for law enforcement services. The city's costs for these services have increased from $11.5 million in 2003 to an estimated $15.0 million for 2009, as shown in the table below. According to these estimated figures, the city's law enforcement costs have increased at an average annual rate of 4.53 percent. Year Expenditures ($) Percentage change (%) 2003 actual 11,537,017 N/A 2004 actual 11,718,934 1.58 2005 actual 12,579,861 7.35 2006 estimated 13,603,131 8.13 2007 estimated 13,906,412 2.23 2008 estimated 14,426,758 3.74 2009 estimated 15,048,737 4.31 Average percentage change over period 4.53 However, any discussion of the sustainability of law enforcement costs must consider how these costs affect the taxpayers and their ability to continue to pay for services. The city's incorporation had financial impacts on the county—primarily, a loss of sales tax revenue to 87 the county's general fund and the shifting of a large share of the SCSO's costs to the city for law enforcement services. As shown on the table below, sales tax revenues declined by $11.0 million—from $29.2 million in 2001 to $18.2 million in 2004, the first full year of the city's existence. Since then, they have increased each year, although they had not yet returned to their preincorporation levels as of 2008. Sheriff revenues increased more than ninefold—from $1.4 million in 2001 to $14.5 million in 2004—and continued to increase each year since then, reaching $17.3 million in 2008. Property tax revenues have increased each year, and other revenues have generally increased each year, with the exception of 2005, when they declined from $54.6 million to $51.8 million. Total revenues have increased each year, from $107.4 million in 2001 to $140.4 million in 2008. Spokane County General Fund Revenues Sheriff Other Total Year Sales Tax Property Tax Revenues Revenues Revenues 2001 29,182,588 29,417,038 1,407,358 47,�06,296 107,�13,280 2002 29,044,200 29,831,046 1,721,925 56,�96,619 117,093,790 2003 22,568,013 30,478,901 7,390,582 52,767,982 113,205,478 2004 18,212, ll 8 32,472,713 13,974,309 54,572,006 119,231,146 2005 19,928,585 33,323,296 14,495,430 51,826,707 119,574,018 2006 21,053,869 34,983,39� 15,898,276 62,212,263 134,147,802 2007 22,625,349 38,766,091 16,707,353 59,958,748 138,057,541 2008 22,394,051 40,772,885 17,292,011 59,919,383 140,378,330 On a percentage basis, sales tax revenues declined 22.30 percent from 2002 to 2003; between 2001 and 2008, they declined at an annual average rate of 3.71 percent. Sheriff revenues increased 329.20 percent from 2002 to 2003 and increased at an average annual rate of 43.10 percent from 2001 to 2008. Also between 2001 and 2008, property tax revenue increased at an average annual rate of 4.77 percent; other revenue increased at an average annual rate of 3.40 percent; and total revenue increased at an average annual rate of 3.90 percent. This is shown in the following tables. 88 General Fund Revenues Other Revenue Total Actual Perceiitage Actual Percentage Year Revenues Change Revenues Change 2001 47,406,296 N/A 107,413,280 N/A 2002 56,496,619 19.18% 117,093,790 9.01% 2003 52,767,982 -6.60% 113,205,478 -3.32% 2004 54,572,006 3.42% 119,231,146 5.32% 2005 51,826,707 -5.03% 119,574,018 0.29% 2006 62,212,263 20.04% 134,147,802 12.19% 2007 59,958,748 -3.62°Io 138,057,541 2.91% 2008 59,919,383 -0.07% 140,378,330 1.68% Average Percentage Change Over Period 3.40% 3.90% Sales Tax Property Tax Sheriff Revenues Actual Percentage Actual Percentage Actual Percentage Year Revenues Change Revenues Change Revenues Change 2001 29.182.588 N/A 29.417.038 N/A 1.407.358 N/A 2002 29,044,200 -0.47°l� 29,831,046 1.41°l�� 1,721,925 22.35% 2003 22.568.013 -22.30% 30.478.901 2.17°l�� 7.390.582 329.20% 2004 18.212.118 -19.30% 32.472.713 6.54%; 13.974.309 89.08�% 2005 19,928,585 9.42% 33,323,296 2.62%; 14,495,430 3.73% 2006 21.053.869 5.65% 34.983.394 4.98°l�� 15.898.276 9.68°Ic 2007 22.625.349 7.46% 38.766.091 10.81 °l�� 16.707.353 5.09°Ic 2008 22,39&.051 -L02�1� 40,772,885 5.18°l� 17,292,011 3.50°lc Average Percentage Change Over Period -3.71% 4.77% 43.10% 89 General fund revenue data are also shown in the following graphs. Spokanc County - Gcncral Fund Rcvcnucs $160 g14o �i�o �ioo � � � �so � ��o $40 $20 go 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year ■ Sales Tax �� Property Tax ■ Sheriff Revenues ■ Other Reve►lues Spokane County - C,eneral Fund Kevenues $160 �iao ,,.. �biZO � :, , .��. v_. �ioo � K ° �so � ��o �40 .; $Zo � 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year �—Sales'1'ax -� °Yroperty Tax fSheriff tOther -> •Tut�il Reveilues Revenues Revenues 90 The revenue data indicate that the county did not experience an overall loss of revenue as a result of the city's incorporation. Its loss of sales tax revenue was more than offset by its increase in sheriff revenues from charges to the city for law enforcement services. Total sales tax and sheriff revenues increased from $30.6 million in 2001 to $39.7 million in 2008, as shown in the table below. This suggests that the county realized a net revenue benefit resulting from the law enforcement revenue received from the city. Sheriff's Percentage Year Sales tax ($) revenues $ Total $ chan e% 2001 29,182,588 1,407,358 30,589,946 2002 29,044,200 1,721,925 30,766,125 0.58 2003 22,568,012 7,390,582 29,958,595 -2.62 2004 18,212,118 13,974,309 32,186,427 7.44 2005 19,928,585 14,495,430 34,424,015 6.95 2006 21,053,869 15,898,276 36,952,145 7.34 2007 22,625,349 16,707,353 39,332,702 6.44 2008 22,394,051 17,292,011 39,686,062 0.90 Average percentage change over period 3.79 Sheriff expenditures, on the other hand, increased from $22.3 million in 2001 to $33.4 million in 2008, an average annual rate of 5.95 percent. Sheriff Actual expenditures Percentage Year � chan e % 2001 22,314,664 N/A 2002 23,073,498 3.40 2003 24,686,742 6.99 2004 25,362,147 2.74 2005 28,126,839 10.90 2006 29,768,547 5.84 2007 30,309,678 1.82 2008 33,446,792 10.35 Average percentage change over period 5.95 Another way of looking at the financial sustainability is to consider the cost of law enforcement services for residents of the city of Spokane Valley compared to that for residents of Spokane County. The city had an estimated 2007 population of 88,280, or 19.57 percent of the county's 2007 estimated population of 451,200 (see the table below). 91 The unincorporated portions of Spokane County had an estimated 2007 population of 126,887, or 28.12 percent of the county's population. Percentage of Area Po ulation total % Airway Heights 5,030 1.11 Cheney 10,210 2.26 Deer Park 3,235 0.72 Fairfield 627 0.14 Lahta 192 0.04 Liberty Lake 6,580 1.46 Medical Lake 4,695 1.04 Millwood 1,665 0.37 Roc kfo rd 5 04 0.11 Spangle 275 0.06 Spokane 202,900 44.97 Spokane Valley 88,280 19.57 Waverly 120 0.03 Unincorporated county 126,887 28.12 County population 451,200 100.00 Source: State of Washington, Office of Financial Management. However, the city paid $13,906,412 for law enforcement to the county, which was 45.88 percent of the sheriff's expenditures of $30,309,678 (see the table below). City residents also paid property taxes to the county, as well as contributing to other county revenues. The 28.12 percent of county residents living in unincorporated county paid no additional costs for law enforcement. City of Spokane Valley Year Sheriff ex enditures $ Share $ Percenta e% 2003 24,686,742 11,537,017 46.73 2004 25,362,147 11,718,934 46.21 2005 28,126,839 12,579,861 44.73 2006 29,768,547 13,603,131 45.70 2007 30,309,678 13,906,412 45.88 2008 33,446,792 14,426,758 43.13 These data suggest that incorporation has increased the costs of law enforcement services for city residents over their previous costs as residents of unincorporated Spokane County. That is not to say, however, that incorporation has not been otherwise beneficial for city residents. 92 It is the opinion of the ICMA team that the city can best achieve sustainable costs for law enforcement services by more carefully defining how it pays for those services and ensuring that they pay only for those costs incurred in providing services to the city. The current cost allocation system relies too heavily on averages and on ratios of the number of commissioned officers in the SVPD and the SCSO, both of which lack any direct relationship to the costs incurred to provide law enforcement services to the city alone. 93 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ICMA Consulting Services offers the following recommendations regarding any future contracts and the appropriate management and operational practices that should be implemented. REVIEW OF CURRENT CONTRACT Should the city choose to continue its contractual relationship with the SCSO, the following recommendations are submitted for any future contracts. 1. Performance benchmarks—for example, minimum response times, minimum numbers of patrol officers per shift, or turnaround time for initial reports to be made available to the public—should be included in the descriptions of the services provided. Such benchmarks could include anything that the parties want agree upon, so long as they can be measured numerically and are legal. Reasonable deviation from the stated benchmarks can be agreed upon and stated as well, as can be the number of deviations allowed before agreed-upon contract sanctions are triggered. 2. Provision should be made for the city manager to be offered and be given the opportunity to select from among at least three candidates for police chief. Exemplary language such as the following may be useful: Upon execution of this agreement the Sheriff shall provide the City Manager with no less than three candidates from which the City Manager may select the city police chief. Upon selection of a Police Chief by the City Manager, said Police Chief shall thereafter serve in that capacity until removed by the City Manager as provided in this agreement. The Sheriff may remove the Police Chief only upon agreement or request of the City Manager or if a disciplinary action for violations of law or Sheriff's Office policies by the Police Chief is sustained. 3. Because the relationship between the city manager and the police chief is central to Section 4 of the contract, that section should address the replacement of the police chief in detail—for example, by adding a provision that allows the City to replace the police chief at least once per contract term, as necessary. Exemplary language such as the following may be useful: No less than [number] times during the term of this contract, the City Managershall have the right to require the removal of the Police Chief from the officers assigned to the City without cause. In the event the City Manager requires such removal, the Sheriff shall remove the Police Chief immediately and the next highest-ranking 94 officer assigned to the City shall be designated as the temporary, acting Police Chief. Within [number] days after the removal of the Police Chief, the Sheriff shall provide the City Manager with three candidates for the position of Police Chief for the City, none of which shall be any officer who has previously been removed from the position of Police Chief at the direction of the City Manager. 4. A provision should be included requiring that city residents be able to access city- related public records at a location within the city limits during business hours. 5. A provision should be included for the sheriff to replace any employee, at the request of the city, if certain factors arise—for example, if a certain number of complaints, sustained violations, or use-of-force incidents relating to an employee is exceeded. 6. A provision should be included that the proceeds of forfeitures arising within the City be dedicated for use within the City. POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS The Precinct 1. To make the precinct building more identifiable from the street, signage for both the SVPD and the municipal court could be combined—perhaps as the Spokane Valley Public Safety Municipal Court Building—and displayed on the elevated walled flag podium in front in large letters that would be easily visible from the street. 2. The lobby should present a more welcoming environment. The precinct could mount community photos, photos of command staff, awards, displays of community projects or volunteer programs, and other symbols of community common in police departments throughout the country. Such items are generally low in cost and would go far toward enhancing the perception of the SCSO's commitment to making this facility truly a part of the Spokane Valley community, 3. As a viable alternative to processing ordinance violations, which entails a$116 chargeback to the city that is not reflected in the city budget, the city could issue a civil citation similar to a traffic summons with a required thumbprint; this could save time and money for both the SCSO and the SVPD. Communications and Technology 1. Both the TAS and the Prism system have major flaws, which could be addressed by a technical consultant, who could review the systems and, through constructive changes, make them more useful and accountable. 95 2. The use of a wireless card system through a mobile phone provider, such as Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T, could eliminate the problem of patrol units in the field being dropped off the network or unable to hook up a connection until a hot spot is recognized. This alternative is more expensive, but adopting this new technology might actually save money through improved workflow and service delivery. Vehicles and Equipment 1. A take-home policy for police vehicles, under which shotguns and rifles are locked in the car trunks during officers' off hours, would minimize the time that is wasted transferring personal belongings and department-issued equipment into police vehicles in preparation for patrol. Having deputies drive to and from work in their police cars would also give the police higher visibility and produce the perception of an enhanced outposting in the neighborhoods in which they reside. 2. While we believe that a take-home policy would be beneficial for the city, our start- up costs assume one vehicle for the police chief, one for each lieutenant, and one for every three officers thereafter. Our projections attempt to reflect the current situation, in which there is no take-home policy. We recognize that should the city choose to adopt a take-home policy in the future, there would be additional operating costs incurred. Recruitment and Training 1. The SVPD should establish specific in-service and executive development training goals and objectives. It should also develop a process for tracking and regularly reporting the relative level of accomplishment of these goals. 2. The SVPD should develop for the Training Division both a specific mission statement and a statement of goals, objectives, and expectations. 3. The SVPD should enhance the current Training Division's annual report (and other periodic reports) to reflect the division's monthly progress toward its stated training goals. The annual report should describe all training needs, challenges, and accomplishments (e.g., topics covered, training hours performed, and total numbers of personnel trained). It should also include a mechanism for formally incorporating feedback from field personnel, FTOs, supervisors, and perhaps the public. 4. FTOs should be required to successfully complete a methods of instruction (train-the- trainer) course. 96 5. The SVPD should create and document a more formalized process for selecting, planning, and developing all in-service training topics and lessons. 6. While specific field training goals can be gleaned from reading the department's current Field Training Guide (i.e., evaluation guidelines such as the Semi-Annual Reports), they should be more specifically stated and monitored. 7. The semiannual training report that is prepared by the training sergeant should be more standardized. Rather than narrative descriptions, this report should include specific data that can be regularly tracked. It is recommended that the SVPD work to identify several key performance indicators for the overall training and applicant investigation function and report these to the SVPD chief on a monthly or quarterly basis. In this way, the department can measure its progress toward stated training goals. 8. In-service training lesson plans should include specific learning goals for each lesson. These should be in the following format: "At the conclusion of this lesson, the deputy will be able to...." 9. All instructional materials used in connection with any in-service lesson (e.g., written materials or PowerPoint presentations) should be serially numbered (1 of 10, 2 of 10, etc.) and referenced in the lesson plan. 10. Members of the Training Division should regularly attend professional development courses for trainers and should be encouraged to pursue advanced degrees. 11. The monthly checks that occur when probationary deputies ride again (after their formal field training period) with FTOs should be described fully in the current Field Training Guide, including stated goals and expectations. 12. The department should identify specific goals for the monthly leadership training that it conducts. Ethics and Professional Standards 1. The OPS staff should be enhanced. Clerical duties restrict staff from performing more proactive functions, such as training, audits, and inspections. As an alternative, the function of responding to FOI requests should be removed from the OPS Unit. 2. Ethics training must be more fully integrated into the in-service training programs of the SCSO and SVPD. OPS personnel should be called upon to assist the Training Division in developing curriculum and providing training. A proactive integrity management/training plan should be developed. 97 3. The annual and semiannual reports that are prepared and submitted by the OPS Unit should be substantially revised to include meaningful data—at a minimum, the type and relative number of use-of-force reports, civilian and internal complaints (and dispositions), department vehicle accidents, firearm discharges, etc., that originate within the SVPD's jurisdiction. Rather than simply presenting aggregate numbers of such things, the reports should also include a breakdown of type, place of occurrence or origin, etc. In addition, they should use a standard template and provide a primary means of establishing baselines and tracking progress toward stated organizational goals. 4. OPS should actively track all department vehicle accidents (not just "officer at fault" incidents), if only for retraining purposes. 5. Line-of-duty injuries, vehicle accidents, and all weapons discharge reports should be electronically tracked and periodically reported. 6. The SVPD should consider a formalized process for periodically performing citizen satisfaction surveys. 7. Integrity control in police organizations should normally be understood as a"critical system." For that reason, the SVPD should consider developing a"redundant" integrity control system to decrease the probability of a system failure. In other words, while a fairly sophisticated integrity control/response system appears to exist, there should be an additional layer of responsibility to serve as a check and balance. The SVPD should develop, follow, and document a program of systematic and random audits and inspections of virtually all police operations (calls for service response and dispositions, sick leave, etc.) It should also consider designating one ranking officer (lieutenant or captain) to plan, conduct, and report such audits and inspections and be chiefly responsible for proactively enforcing professional standards within the SVPD. 8. The SVPD should devise a system for properly recording and analyzing "Terry" stops that are performed by their personnel. 9. Use-of-force reports should be recorded on a standardized official form. The OPS Unit should formalize its process for reviewing these reports, and this process should be periodically cross-checked and audited. 10. CAD system audits should be expanded to include a regular check or audit for proper case or call dispositions. 11. The OPS Unit should develop a formal system for monitoring sick time and electronically detecting and responding to sick leave abuse. 98 12. The SVPD should develop specific job descriptions for each rank including explicit duties and responsibilities. These descriptions could be derived from the "performance matrix" that is currently being developed. 13. The SVPD should review and revise (if necessary) its organizational mission statement and its statement of goals and objectives. Both must be distinct to the SVPD, and the goals and objectives must be "operationalized"—that is, broken down into usable statements that indicate what the department intends to do in terms of organizational performance. 14. Once a clear and concise mission statement is created, the SVPD can develop specific strategic goals that flow directly from the mission. Each year, the department can then develop specific performance targets to measure its ability to meet these goals. Annual reports would describe these specific goals and track the department's relative amount of success in achieving them. Departmental goals and objectives can then be revised as necessary. 15. The department is currently gathering and analyzing a great deal of performance data on an ongoing basis. Senior administrators regularly track data relating to calls for service, crime reports, arrest and summons activity, vehicle accidents, sick time, etc. This information is not currently located in one central database. It is recommended that all such information be combined into a single usable performance measurement system similar to the type described by 0'Connell and Straub in 2007. If all such data are readily accessible from one central database or dashboard, they are more likely to be regularly consulted, retrieved, and used to actively manage the daily operations of the department. Multiple sources and locations of information can hinder the SVPD's ability to engage in proactive management. 16. All members of the department (and perhaps the community) should be consulted to develop a comprehensive set of organizational performance indicators that accurately describe the type and quantity of work being performed within the SVPD. Certain tasks, such as a"resident checks" or traffic duty, are likely performed often enough to appear as a regular (i.e., monthly) performance category that gets reviewed and reported to the city government via a standardized format or template. It is imperative that baseline levels be established for all performance categories. This entails measuring a category over a period of months, calculating percentage `' Paul E. O'Connell and Frank Straub, Performance-Based Management for Police Organizations (Long Grove, III.: Waveland, 2007). 99 increases and decreases, computing year-to-date totals, and averaging monthly totals in order to determine seasonal variation and to obtain overall performance levels for the agency.' Such analysis can also include sector and individual officer performance review. 17. Once the department develops a comprehensive performance management framework, it should ensure that the framework is clearly communicated, understood, and acted upon by all members of the department. 18. The SVPD chief currently has no designated executive officer, which leaves somewhat of a supervisory and leadership void within the department. It is strongly recommended that an executive officer (at the rank of lieutenant of captain) be designated for the SVPD. This individual would perform various administrative tasks related to the efficient operation of the department, such as fiscal oversight, and would relieve the chief of a variety of duties and responsibilities that he is now performing. 19. The SVPD chief's monthly, semiannual, and annual reports should include more content in terms of data reflecting training hours performed, overtime and sick time expended, department vehicle accidents, etc. This information should be presented in a more standardized format and should reflect the department's relative progress toward stated goals. This would provide a more meaningful description of work being performed and would assist in the enforcement of professional standards. 20. Citizen complaints arising within Spokane Valley should be regularly reported to the city manager or to his or her designee. 21. The OPS Unit should develop an integrity and professional standards "early warning system" that would proactively track certain key indicators for all members of the department. Such indicators would include, but not be limited to, use of force, vehicle accidents, and internal and civilian complaints. 22. The SVPD should devise a formalized process for recording and monitoring "outside" employment by its personnel. Community Engagement Should the city of Spokane Valley decide to continue to contract for services, it is recommended that the SVPD become a self-managed team. It can have support from the SCSO, but it needs to retain and use its own data for its own management. Where the ' O'Connell and Straub, Performance-Based Management for Police Organizations. 100 sheriff's office is providing support, there needs to be more clear deliverables for the city and delineation from the sheriff's office. Other recommendations for the SVPD are as follows: 1. Improve management capacity in operations and administration. • There is an absence of supervisory staff on all shifts and in the Valley Precinct. The reliance on Lieutenant Jones and Chief Van Leuven for routine supervision pulls them from serious managerial tasks. Additional operational oversight in the department is warranted. • The lack of sophistication of administrative reports such as the annual report suggests the need for a senior-level administrative person in the chief's office. This could be an unsworn position. There needs to be the ability to gather, analyze, assess, and distribute information of all kinds to the authorizing environment—the mayor and council, the community, and the SVPD staff. The SVPD should consider developing performance goals and indicators on which the chief reports at regular intervals. Assembly of these materials will help with fund raising and enhance transparency with the community. 2. Establish some management separation to enhance internal and external accountability. • Internally, there is confusion about the relationship between the SVPD and the SCSO. The OPS, the Planning, Research and Analysis Unit, the Training Division, and SCOPE are all countywide functions. Command staff work in the SVPD wearing green sheriff uniforms. There is not a clear understanding of the distinct needs of the SVPD relative to reporting, recruiting, and citizen engagement. • Externally, audiences do not distinguish between SCOPE efforts in the city and those in the county. For whom does Rick Scott work? At whose behest are citizens being organized? Do the SCOPE volunteers "belong" to the sheriff, or are they committed to the SVPD and its efforts? What are the SVPD's goals relative to community engagement? Are they the same as SCOPE's or distinct from them? 3. Clarify role and chain of command for the most senior levels of sheriff deputies (apparently not a problem at the patrol level). 4. Develop internal metrics and report on them, and use the data to better understand the department and operations. What systems are in place for accountability to ensure delivery of operational goals? 101 5. Establish a method for regular analysis and reporting of SVPD goals and objectives both internally and externally. 6. Create firewalls and reports with the SCSO so that the SVPD feels and runs as if it were independent entity. 7. Promote gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in recruitment and hiring within the SVPD. 8. Create a managerial dashboard on important human resource issues that are crucial for community trust, legitimacy, and engagement. • Track and analyze individual and department trends through OPS. • Improve access to information on and filing of complaints and commendations. • Develop an educational campaign around customer service. Educate internally and externally. Prepare the department and the external audience for an increase in complaints and commendations before the reporting levels off. This is a typical scenario with public outreach and education on filing complaints. • Report on citizen complaints and commendations internally monthly and externally at least annually. 9. Make some structural and operational changes to the Valley Precinct: improve its visibility, expand its hours of business, and provide information in the lobby and on the Web about the many opportunities to connect with the SVPD—citizen volunteering, filing complaints and commendations, etc. COSTS AND EXPENDITURES 1. The amounts allocated and charged to the city for salary and benefits should be based on the actual direct costs incurred to provide the services wherever possible. 2. The amounts allocate and charged to the city for maintenance and operation costs should be based on the actual direct costs incurred to provide the services wherever possible. 3. Capital expenditures should not be allocated to the city unless the assets purchased become the property of the city. 102 6. IMPLICATIONS FOR A STAND-ALONE AGENCY Should the City choose to operate a municipal police department instead of contracting for police services, a number of considerations must be taken into account. REVIEW OF CURRENT CONTRACT Of high importance is the fact that the City would no longer be largely insulated from liability as it is under the current contract. Acts and omissions by City police officers could result in liability, and a much greater potential for policy- and practice-related liability would exist. Additionally, the City could be exposed to liability claims relating to hiring practices, promotions, discipline, and wage and hour disputes. All municipal police agencies face such potential liability as described above. Accordingly, a wealth of experience exists in the law enforcement community to help a newly created agency deal with such exposure. Organizations such as ICMA and international, state, and local associations of police chiefs can assist by helping a municipality acquire an experienced police chief and making sure that all departmental policies adhere to current best practices. National accreditation can also be achieved. Creation of a police attorney position staffed with police legal advisors who have experience in the state would help the City function more effectively and avoid liability. State legal advisor associations can help find such attorneys. Thus, should the City decide to establish a municipal police department, the review team recommends that it 1. Seek out and hire a very experienced police chief. As a newly created agency with no current employees, the City would have a golden opportunity to search for a chief from a national pool of candidates. 2. Use the resources of organizations such as ICMA and major law enforcement associations to help assemble a pool of candidates for police chief. 3. Empower the police chief to assemble an experienced command staff. 4. Use the resources of organizations such as ICMA and major law enforcement associations to make sure that all departmental policies adhere to current best practices and national standards. 5. Hire police legal advisors with experience in Washington State and use resources such as a state legal advisors association, as necessary, to locate candidates. 6. Seek national law enforcement accreditation for the agency as soon as possible. 103 7. Institute a supervisory and executive development program in order to create a pool of experienced, qualified candidates for future police chiefs and command staff members from within the agency. POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS Training Should the SVPD become an independent agency, the following factors concerning training would bear careful consideration: 1. The SVPD would still need to send their recruits through the SVPD's Academy (which is "run by the state.") Recruit training would likely continue to be paid for by the state. Therefore, no additional costs should be realized in this regard. 2. The SVPD currently pays for in-service training services in so far as they make partial contributions to the salaries of personnel assigned to the SCSO's Training Unit. The bulk of training expenses, however, are currently borne by the SCSO. For example, the current lease for the University City training facility is being paid "100% by the SCSO." If the SVPD were to become an independent agency, it would need to either (1) arrive at a financial arrangement with the SCSO to continue to use its in-service training facilities and personnel, or (2) develop, staff, train, equip and finance an entire in-service training program of their own (which would include EVOC, firearms, post-academy; field training, and executive development programs). The latter would obviously result in considerable additional costs for the SVPD. These are addressed below. 3. It is likely that a uniformed staff of two (one training sergeant and a deputy) would be required to service a newly established training unit exclusively for the SVPD. These individuals would be charged with developing; implementing; delivering and tracking all in-service training delivered to SVPD personnel. The department would need the ability to attract qualified instructors for its in-service programs and would need to identify qualified EVOC and firearms instructors as well. 4. While office space might exist at SVPD headquarters for certain types of classroom instruction, the department would obviously need to develop and maintain a facility for other (i.e., more physical, tactical) in-service training. 5. A distinct field training program would need to be developed and staffed exclusively by SVPD training officers and FTOs. It appears that the SVPD currently has a cadre of FTOs that could serve this function. 104 6. The SVPD would need to secure leadership and basic management training for its supervisors. It would therefore need to continue its relationship with these current programs (as opposed to attempting to establish their own). 7. The SVPD would need to identify, train and support a"grants person" of its own to seek and obtain outside funding for its training programs. Ethics and Professional Standards Assuming that the SVPD were to become an independent agency, the following factors concerning professional standards and integrity management bear careful consideration. The SVPD would need to 1. Identify, train, and support personnel to staff its own OPS. This would necessarily include substantial training and support costs (such as the development and maintenance of an OPS information technology system). Given current SVPD staffing levels, it is estimated that one supervisor, preferably a lieutenant, be appointed. 2. Develop, implement, and enforce its own departmental rules and regulations. It would likely look to Lexipol to provide this service. 3. Identify, train, and support an executive officer, preferably at the rank of lieutenant or above. 4. Develop a capacity to perform periodic audits and inspections (described above). 5. Develop its own performance review process. 6. Develop the capacity to maintain and manage the data systems referred to above (including the tracking of Terry stops, use-of-force reports, and outside employment). Community Engagement As previously noted, the SCOPE initiative predates the incorporation of the city, and the history of the city's volunteers and unsworn staff is inextricably linked to that of the county's efforts. Thus, if the SVPD were to separate from the SCSO, it would have a limited capacity to galvanize volunteers and might have to create a competitive and, most likely, an undermanaged volunteer effort. It is difficult to imagine how the administration, the training, and the supervision could be scaled down without being lost or becoming ineffective. Moreover, the SCOPE program is governed by a board of directors, whose members include volunteers and personnel from the SCSO. Thus, it would appear that volunteer loyalties, economies of scale, and the overall richness of the SCOPE brand would 105 make it impossible for the city to either replicate that effort or separate the SCOPE volunteers from the countywide endeavor. Interestingly, the Valley Mall, which is within city limits, hosts a SCOPE station that is not counted among the city's stations. However, it has been a successful meeting spot for citizens with police matters and a visibility opportunity for the sheriff. Therefore, the SCSO might decide to continue to operate the SCOPE stations within the Valley's city limits in the same manner as it does the mall station. This would be to the detriment of the SVPD's ability to connect with the community or to further disconnect itself from the SCSO. It is worth noting that SCOPE is an independent entity with federal not-for-profit tax status. With its 501c3 status, it has more expansive fund-raising opportunities than the city, its police department, or the sheriff's office. Although it is not clear to what extent that status has been exploited for fund-raising purposes, it is nonetheless strategic and its potential value worth considering. Finally, if the city separates from the SCSO, where does SCOPE go? The SCOPE program provides an excellent lens through which to view the entanglement of city business. The program in range and services is quite large, and only one fourth of it falls within the city of Spokane Valley; however, staff, operations, management, and relationships are so enmeshed that it is difficult if not impossible to imagine the city being able to replicate the program on a smaller scale on its own. Moreover, it will be nearly impossible to extricate volunteers from the main SCOPE project, nor will the city be able to afford two part-time staff to manage a volunteer program. It is conceivable, however, that with permission of the sheriff and the SCOPE board of directors, SCOPE would remain intact, its relationship to the SCSO and its brand would remain unchanged, and the SVPD could contract for its services. COSTS AND EXPENDITURES The projected cost of an independent police department implemented in the city of Spokane Valley will include both start-up costs, or one-time expenditures, and annual operating and capital costs. Expenditures include salaries and benefits, property and equipment, supplies, capital outlays, and other miscellaneous costs. In addition, assuming that it will be more cost-effective for the city to contract with the county for various services, such as the property room and records retention and the garage, these costs are also included in the analysis. All financial projections are in 2009 dollars. 106 Personnel Costs Projected salaries and benefits are based on the 2009 salary and benefit levels paid to SCSO employees. A review of collective bargaining agreements across various Washington cities revealed mixed salary levels; some unions negotiated salaries that are below those currently paid by the SCSO, and others negotiated salary levels exceeding SCSO salaries. Therefore, it is difficult to determine "standard" wage levels for various staff, and 2009 levels are used in the following projections. Average salary and benefits were determined for each rank and then multiplied by the recommended city full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing level. For example, the average salary for all lieutenants in the SCSO was $128,469. This amount, multiplied by our recommendation for three lieutenants in the SVPD, results in a cost of $385,407. Our staffing recommendations of 95.0 FTEs results in a projected salary and benefit cost of $9,226,924. In the past five years, other personnel costs, including overtime, sick pay, holiday pay, and vacation sellback, have been approximately 6.0 percent of total salary and benefits. Six percent of total salary and benefits results in $553,600 of additional personnel costs. Total personnel costs are estimated to be $9,780,524, as shown in the table below. PERSONNEL Year 1 Salary & Salary & Years 2+ Benefits Benefits Salary $ # Emp1• Unit Classification Per Emplovee Total Benefits 5.00 Administration 1 Police Chief Sworn 144,405 144,405 144,405 1 Lieutenant - Administration Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 3 Administrative Support 63,015 189,045 189,045 17.00 Investigations 1 Lieutenant - Investigations Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 3 Sergeants Sworn 112,877 338,630 338,630 13 Detectives Sworn 102,906 1,337,777 1,337,777 65.00 PatroUTraffic 1 Lieutenant - Patrol Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 4 Sergeant Sworn 112,877 451,506 451,506 8 Corporals Sworn 102,906 823,248 823,248 4 K-9 Officer Sworn 93,025 372,099 372,099 40 Patrol Officers Sworn 93,025 3,720,987 3,720,987 8 Traffic Officers Sworn 93,025 744,197 744,197 3.00 Civil Service 3 Mix Mix 94,836 284,509 284,509 1.00 Property Room/Records 1 Property Evidence Technician 63,015 63,015 63,015 4.00 School Resource Officers 4 Patrol Officers Sworn 93,025 372,099 372,099 95.00 Proposed Spokane Valley Employee Budget - Salaries & Benefits 9,226,924 9,226,924 OT/Sick/Holiday/Sellback 553.600 553.600 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 9,780,524 9,780,524 Property and Equipment Property and equipment costs include the initial purchase of uniforms, vests, firearms, radios, and other miscellaneous equipment. This is estimated to be $5,000 per sworn 107 officer, or $460,000 in start-up property and equipment costs. Future costs are included in the "Other" category discussed further on. Other estimated property and equipment costs include telephone, the law enforcement building maintenance contract, and fuel. These costs are estimated on the basis of historical (2005-2008) expenditures as well as the 2009 budget. Total estimated property and equipment costs are shown in the following table. Property/equipment Estimated costs ($) New equipment (uniforms, firearms, vests, radio, other miscellaneous @$5,000/officer) 460,000 Telephone 36,500 Law enforcement building maintenance contract 120,000 Fuel 268,400 Total property/equipment 884,900 Contracts with Spokane County The city currently has several contracts with the county. In addition to the law enforcement contract, the city contracts with the county for communications, property room/records management, and emergency management. The contracts between the city and the county shown below are assumed to exist if the city creates its own police department. The costs are based on estimates provided by the city and historical payments for these services. County contracts Costs ($) Property room/records 523,000 SCOPE 44,100 Garage 121,000 Radio 596,000 Forensics 209,000 Total county contract 1,493,100 Supplies A city police department would need to fund annual supplies each year, including training equipment, dog food, and veterinarian visits for the K-9 unit; computer supplies; and other miscellaneous items. The projected supply costs are shown in the table below. Supplies Costs ($) Training 10,000 K-9 food/health 5,600 108 Miscellaneous/MIS 25,000 Total supplies 40,600 Other Included in the current law enforcement contract with the county are maintenance and operations (M&0) costs, discussed previously on pages 84-86. Our projections are based on historical M&0 costs, subtracting out those costs that were included above such as telephone and supplies. Projected maintenance and operating costs are $833,800 annually. In addition to personnel costs previously discussed, we have included $100,000 for staff recruitment, legal advice, and testing of potential Spokane Valley police employees. Finally, organizing a new police department would require the city to incur risk management costs. From discussions with county staff and insurance experts, we have estimated that insurance will cost $1.44/employee man-hour. Accordingly, 95 employees x 2,177 hours (allowance for overtime included for appropriate staff) x$1.44 results in estimated insurance costs of $297,700. Other Costs ($) Maintenance and operations 833,800 Initial staffing costs/searches 100,000 Insurance 297,700 Total other 1,231,500 Capital Outlay Capital outlay costs include the initial purchase or lease of automobiles from the county. It is assumed the city will need approximately thirty-three automobiles: one for the police chief and each lieutenant, and one for every three officers thereafter. The vehicles are projected to have a five-year useful life; the cost is $25,000 for the initial purchase of each car from the county and $30,000 for a new vehicle. K-9 vehicles are assumed to cost an additional $5,000 to equip. About six cars are projected to be replaced each year at a cost of $182,750, with the initial cost being $845,000. The city will also incur costs for the initial start-up of the K-9 force. The recommended staffing level includes four officers in company with a dog. Each dog is projected to cost $7,000 to purchase and train. Miscellaneous supplies are approximately $5,000 annually. 109 Inevitably the police department will need other capital and maintenance items each year; therefore, we include $50,000 for miscellaneous capital outlay. The projected capital outlay is shown below. Capital outlay Costs ($) Initial auto purchase from county (30 cars x $25,000) 845,000 K-9 dogs/training/supplies 33,000 Annual/auto allocation 182,750 Miscellaneous/hardware/software 50,000 Total capital outlay 1,110,750 Overhead Various entities, ranging from the city council to the finance department, will most likely provide support services, such as policy direction, accounting and reporting, and budgeting. Therefore, we have included 10 percent of the start-up department's budget as an overhead cost. This estimate includes the costs of providing management information services, building maintenance, vehicle and mechanical maintenance, and other support services. The total budget is projected to be $14,358,624 upon start-up. Therefore, overhead costs are estimated to be $1,435,862 initially and approximately $1.3 million annually thereafter. Sustainability of Costs The 2009 law enforcement contract between the City of Spokane Valley and the SCSO is estimated to cost the city $15,538,576. Our estimates indicate that a start-up police department would cost $15,794,486 the first year, which would result in an annual loss of $255,910 in 2009 dollars. Because several of the items are one-time expenditures needed to establish the department, future department costs are estimated to be $14,413,711 in 2009 dollars—a cost savings of $1,124,865. Operating costs in future years will increase by factors unknown at this time, which would also happen if the city continued to contract with the county for law enforcement services. However, the city may wish to construct its own property and records management facility and would incur start-up costs (facility, equipment, supplies, etc.) that would reduce overall savings. Our city police department cost estimates are shown on the following page. 110 Proposed City of Spokane Valley Police Department (2009 Dollars) PERSONNEL Year 1 Years 2+ Salary & Salary & Salary & Benefits Benefits Benefits # Emp1• Unit Classification Per Emplovee Total 5.00 Administration 1 Police Chief Sworn 144,405 144,405 144,405 1 Lieutenant-Administration Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 3 Administrative Support 63,015 189,045 189,045 17.00 Investigations 1 Lieutenant-Investigations Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 3 Sergeants Sworn 112,877 338,630 338,630 13 Detectives Sworn 102,906 1,337,777 1,337,777 65.00 Patrol/Traffic 1 Lieutenant-Patrol Sworn 128,469 128,469 128,469 4 Sergeant Sworn 112,877 451,506 451,506 8 Corporals Sworn 102,906 823,248 823,248 4 K-90fficer Sworn 93,025 372,099 372,099 40 Patrol Officers Sworn 93,025 3,720,987 3,720,987 8TrafficOfficers Sworn 93,025 744,197 744,197 3.00 Civil Service 3 Mix Mix 94,836 284,509 284,509 1.00 Property Room/Records 1 Property Evidence Technician 63,015 63,015 63,015 4.00 School Resource Officers 4 Patrol Officers Sworn 93,025 372,099 372,099 95.00 Proposed Spokane Valley Employee Budget - Salaries & Benefits 9,226,924 9,226,924 OT/Sick/Holiday/Sellback, 553,600 553,600 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 9,780,524 9,780,524 PROPERTY/EQUIPMENT New Equipment (uniforms, firearms, vest, radio, other misc. @$5,000/officer), 460,000 0 Telephone 36,500 36,500 Law Enforcement Bldg Maintenance Contract 120,000 120,000 Fuel 268.400 268.400 TOTAL PROPERTY/EQUIPMENT 884,900 424,900 COUNTY CONTRACTS Property Room/Records 523,000 523,000 SCOPE 44,100 44,100 Garage 121,000 121,000 Radio 596,000 596,000 Forensics 209.000 209.000 TOTAL COUNTY CONTRACT 1,493,100 1,493,100 SUPPLIES Training Supplies 10,000 10,000 K-9 Food/Health/Supplies 5,600 5,600 Miscellaneous supplies/MIS 254Q4 25.000 TOTAL SUPPLIES 40,600 40,600 OTHER Maintenance & Operating Costs 833,800 833,800 Initial Staffing Costs/Searches 100,000 0 Insurance 297.700 297.700 TOTAL OTHER 1,231,500 1,131,500 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 13,430,624 12,870,624 CAPITAL OUTLAY Initial Auto Purchase from County (29 cars x$25,000 & 4 K-9 cars @$30,000), 845,000 0 K-9 Dogs/training/supplies, 33,000 0 Annual Auto Allocation, 0 182,750 Misc./Hardware/Software 50 000 50 000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 928,000 232,750 TOTAL PROJECTED BUDGET (2009 Dollars) $ 14,358,624 $ 13,103,374 PLUS OVERHEAD EXPENDITURES (10 %) � 1.435.862 $ 1.310.337 $ 15,794,486 $ 14,413,711 2009 BUDGETED LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT, $ 15,538,576 $ 15,538,576 PROJECTED SAVINGS/(LOSS) - YEAR 1 $ (255,910) PROJECTED SAVINGS/(LOSS) - FUTURE YEARS $ 1,124,865 � Overtime, Holiday, Sick Pay, etc. is assumed to be 6% of total salaries based on historical averages and industry average. i Firstyear cost. Following years will require maintenance and operations in budget. 3 Assumes the City will need to replace 6 squad cars annually at an average cost of $30,000. q 2009 Contract amount does not include the Emergency Management or Communications Contracts ($93,400 &$255,925 projected in 2009�. Amount provided by the City. 111 7. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/BENCHMARKS In this final section we identify performance metrics that should be routinely used to measure law enforcement's activities in service to Spokane Valley. TRAINING 1. The total number of training hours performed and total number of personnel trained in each particular topic/lesson. ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS The SVPD will be required to develop its own means (i.e., without relying upon any outside agency or personnel) of electronically tracking and recording the following performance indicators. Baseline performance levels and "anomalies" can be detected by establishing annual total and, then periodically reviewing these metrics, including percentage increase/decrease from the previous period: 1. The type and number of use of force reports prepared, personnel and civilians involved, time and place of occurrence and general description of circumstances. 2. The type and number of civilian and internal complaints by category (and dispositions). 3. The type and number of department vehicle accidents, both "at fault" and "no fault" accidents. 4. The type, number, location and nature of all firearm discharges. 5. The results of systematic and random audits and inspections of virtually all police operations (e.g., calls for service response and dispositions, property receipt and safeguarding, etc.). 6. The type, location, and number of Terry stops performed, as well as a description of all individuals involved and a description of all actions taken. 7. The total amount of sick time expended per unit, per shift, etc. 8. The type, nature, and total amount of "outside" employment being performed by its personnel. COMMUNITY RELATIONS As is, the department is not able to report on anything but the most basic of ineasures, which frankly, without some analysis, will not answer performance; rather, they'll count as activities. To secure more valuable data and get closer to understanding performance, both 112 real and perceived, we suggest a regular community survey (door to door or with cell phone penetration to ensure wide representation) that assesses level of fear, trust in the police, responsiveness of the police, and other measures. We would also suggest routine officer surveys, the results of which we would compare with regular analysis of administrative data. Among the questions we would "ask" the administrative data are • What is going on with crime? • What is the filing rate of complaints by the prosecutor? • What is happening with other enforcement activities? That is, are stops resulting in arrests? Warnings? Citations? Field interview cards? • What is the supervisory oversight of those functions? • What is being done with civilian complaints? Are there any audits of victims of house breaks or of citizens who file complaints that would help the department understand their level of satisfaction? DATA ANALYSIS Workload vs. Deployment Ratio of workload (both officer initiated and other initiated) should be monitored on regular basis to ensure that staff are deployed effectively. While there is no "standard" for this ratio, we recommend using the 1/3 approach as a starting point for discussion: on average, approximately one-third of a officer's on duty time should be spent handling calls for service, about one-third handing administrative tasks (e.g., roll call, reports, meals, vehicles), and one-third being available, or "uncommitted time." The percentage of uncommitted time is, in the strictest sense, a policy decision driven by the number of officers working as well as by how efficiently the force handles calls for service. Response Times Analysis The department should routinely conduct exception reports analysis for response times to emergency, high-priority calls. These reports should be prepared at least weekly with the goal being to identify unacceptable response times (both dispatch and travel) and then to analyze what occurred during the incident that caused the delay. Failing to do this on a regular, weekly basis restricts the ability of the department to analyze the details of the event to prevent reoccurrence. 113 Officer-Initiated Activities Officers should be held accountable for initiating activities and not just responding to radio calls. Such activities should go beyond traffic stops to should include both positive citizen contacts (security surveys, etc.) and field interrogations. A significant portion of an officer's duties should be self-initiated activities, and these should be monitored as part of the evaluation process. 114 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information � admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Amendments to the 2009 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law requires a public hearing and an amendment to our budget when we believe we will exceed our appropriations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City budget for 2009 was adopted in October of 2008. BACKGROUND: Amendments to the 2009 budget are needed to allow for costs of street improvements (12 & Blake), debt service accruals for payment on bonds, grants for carryover street projects from 2008, on-going Barker Bridge construction and carryover costs from 2008 for Discovery Park. The first reading of the ordinance is scheduled for November 17. The second reading of the ordinance will be scheduled early December so that needed amendments are captured prior to year end. OPTIONS: Options include amending the budget or not amending the budget. The budget should be amended to comply with Washington State law. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is recommended at this time. This item will return to the agenda on October 27 for a public hearing, then November 17 for a first reading of the ordinance, and December 1 for the second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director City of Spokane Valley Exhibit A Amendments to 2009 Budget October 2009 REVENUE EXPENDITURE Fund INCREASE INCREASE Explanation 101 Street Fund Reimb from utility $ 100,000 12th & Blake st. project $ 100,000 Improvements to 12th & Blake 204 Debt Service Fund Public Facilities District $ 60,000 Debt Service on 2003 Bonds $ 60,000 Accrue Debt Service for late 2009 307 Capital Grants Grant $ 262,000 RE excise tax trans in $ 46,000 Appleway Tshirley to Hodges $ 129,000 2008 carryover Signal controller upgrades SRTC 06-22 $ 48,000 2008 carryover Broadway Moore to Flora $ 75,000 2008 carryover Sprague Ave ADA Improvements $ 56,000 2008 carryover 308 BARKER BRIDGE Federal Grant $ 2,000,000 Replace Bridge $ 2,000,000 Barker Bridge carryover 309 Parks Capital State Grant Disc Prk $ 800,000 RE excise tax & Donations $ 900,000 Construction $ 1,700,000 Discovery Park Construction Total---> $ 4,168,000 $ 4,168,000 :Budgetamend 10-20-09 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information � admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council External Committee Reports GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: City Councilmembers serve on various local and/or regional committees. The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity for the Council representative to confer with the entire Council and shape a corporate position or significant policy questions before the various committees. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmembers ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Oi�ly as of October 14, 2009; 12:00 a.m. Please note this is a worlc in progress; iteins are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Coui7cil Meetings October 27 2009, Formal Meetin� Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 19] L PUBLIC HEARING: Alnend 2009 Budget - Iien Thoinpson (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Pa«oll, Claim Vouchers, Miuutes (5 ininutes) 3. Second Reacling Proposed Ordinance 09-017, Code Ainendinent CTA-01-09 - Karen Iiendall (10 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Residential Lighting — Christina Janssen (10 ininutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 0�-09 — Milce Basinger (l� ininutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Shoreline Master Prograin — Lori Barlo�� (1� minutes) 7. Motion Consideration: Park Maintenance Contract — Milce Stone (� ininutes) 8. Motion Consideration: Aquatics Contract — Milce Stone (� ininutes) 9. Motion Consideration: Pines/Mansfield Project Change Order Approval — Steve Worle�- (10 ininutes) 10. Admin Report: Related Coi�rt Seivices Stud�- — Morgan Koudellca; Anne Pflug, Wa.Dept Cominerce (4� inin) 1 L Adinin Report: Street Standards — John Hohman (30 minutes) 12. Info On1�-: (a) AWC Wellness Prograin; (b) Departinent Reports [*estimated meeting: 160 minutes] November 3, 2009, No Meetin� (election ni�ht) November 10, 2009, No Meeting, Council Attends NLC, San Antonio Nov 10-14 November 17, 2009 Executive Session: 5 p.m. — Labor Ne�otiations November 17, 2009, Formal Meetin� Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 9] Pr�oclamation: Hzrn�er and Homelessness Awa�eness Week L Consent Agenda� Pa�1o11, Claiins, Minutes (� minutes) 2. Second Reacling Proposed Ordinance, Residential Lighting — Cluistina Janssen (10 ininutes) 3. Second Reacluig Proposed Ordinance CTA 0�-09 — Milce Basinger (10 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance to Adopt Street Standards — John Hohman (15 ininutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Court Seivices Alternative Anal�-sis — Morgan Koudellca (30 minutes) 6. Adinin Report: Sprague Apple«°a5- Corridor EA — Steve Worle�T (20 iniuutes) 7 Adinin Report: Fall Batch Code Ainendments (includes ADU & Ord 08-006)- Tati�is Schmidt (20 ininutes) 8. Admin Report: AWC Welliiess Progra�n — Jolui Whitehead (15 minutes) 9. Info On1�-: Departinent Reports [*estimated meeting: 125 minutes] November 24, 2009, No Meetin�, Thanlcsgiving Weelc Draft Ad�Tance Agenda 10/1�/2009 1:07:3� PM Page 1 of 3 December 1, 2009, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 23] Action Items: 1. First Reacling Fall Batch Code Ainendments (includes ADU & Ord 08-006)- Tavis Schmidt (20 inini�tes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance to Amend 2009 Budget — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution: Establish AWC Wellness Progra�n for Einployees — Jolu1 Whitehead (10 ininutes) Non-action Items: 4. Developinent Foruin Report — Kath�- McClung (10 ininutes) 5. Adinin Report: Lodging Tai Recoininendations to Council — Ken Thompson (20 minutes) 6. Council Eztemal Committee Reports — Councilinembers (10 minutes) [�estimated meeting: 80 minutes] December 8, 2009, Formal Meetin� Format, 6:00 n.m. [due date Mon, Nov 30] L Consent Agenda: Pa«oll, Claims, Minutes (5 ininutes) 2. Second Reacling Proposed Ordinance to Amend 2009 Budget — Ken Thoinpson (10 ininutes) 3. Second Reacluig Proposed Ordinance Adopting Street Standards — John Hohinan (1 � ininutes) 4. Second reading: Fall Batch Code Ainendinents (includes ADU & Ord 08-006)- Tavis Schinidt (20 minutes) �. Motion Consideration: Ratif�ication of Collective Bar�aining Agreeinent — John Wluteheacl (15 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Lodging Tai Funds — Ken Thoinpson (l� iniuutes) [�`estimated meeting: 80 minutes] December 15, 2009, Studv Session Format, 6:00 n.m. [due date Mon, Dec 7] Action Items• 1. Ma�°oral Appointinents to Planning Coininission — Ma�-or Munson (1 � ininutes) 2. Appointinents of Councilmembers to Various Coininittees — Ma�-or Munson (20 ininutes) Non-action Items: 3. Council Ei Coininittee Reports — Councilineinbeis (1� minutes) [ `estimated meeting: 50 minutes] December 22, 2009, No Meetin�. Christinas «eek December 29, 2009, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 21 ] L Consent Agenda: Pa�-ro11, Claims, Minutes (� minutes) 2. Info On1�-: Departinent Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] Januarv 5, 2010 Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 28 Action Items: L Council officer elections — Chris Bainbridge (20 ininutes) Non-action Items: 2. Council Ezteinal Coininittee Reports — Councilineinbers (10 minutes) [�estimated meeting: minutes] Winter Retreat (Special Meetin�) — January Saturdav Date To Be Announced CenterPl�ce Conference Room 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Draft Ad�Tance Agenda 10/1�/2009 1:07:3� PM Page 2 of 3 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS ADA Plan Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Anal�-sis (contracts) Area-Wide Rezone Public Notification Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding e�ceptions) Cable Franchise Rene«al Centeiuual Trail (Oct 27) Citv Center Report to Council Cit�- Hall Sales Piirchase Agreeinent Coinp Pl�n Qrtr1�- Update (Jan, April, Jul��, Oct) Concui7 encti- Court Seivices Alteinative Anal�-sis (rescission of Dec 1 2009 tennination) Developinent Agreeinent Ord 09-0 l � ezp 2-26-2010 East Gate��av Monument Stn�cture # Fireai7ns Code Ainendinents — Cai�-� Drislcell (Dec 2009) Franchise Agreeinents (Dec 2009) Impact Fee Request Central Valley School DisUict Leiipol Policies — Police Dept [January 2010] Northeast Housing Soll�tions Cit�- Membership # Ovei��eight/over size vehicle ordina�lce (2009) Parlcs PolicS- SARP Periodic Updates — Scott I�uhta Site Selector Revie��- (March 2010) Stimulus. Phase 2 Strategic Transp. Fuiancial Plan — Dave Mercier Street Standards (and UDC Title 24) Transpoltatlon Beneflt D1St (2009) cr. Estcrblish ord.; (U) setpzrUlie hecrr-if�g; (c) dr°crft r-esol�ition; (d) bcrllot lcrt�gzrcrge Transportation Impacts Use Agreeinent (Cai Drislcell) Water rights Website Contract (Dec 2009) Zonin� Notice Process [# = A�vaiti�lg action b�- others; *= doesn't allo�� for tiine for public or council cominents] Draft Ad�Tance Agenda 10/1�/2009 1:07:3� PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing � Information ❑ Admin. Report❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Participation Plan for the 2009-2010 Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.140; RCW 90.58.130; WAC 173-26-201; WAC 173-26-100; and WAC 365-195-600. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Following incorporation the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as the interim SMP for the City. The County's SMP was adopted in 1975. The SMP must be updated by December 1, 2013 to be consistent with the Department of Ecology (DOE) Shoreline Management Program Guidelines. This will involve a participation process with the public, local and state agencies and affected tribes; an inventory of shoreline conditions, analysis of shoreline conditions; assigning or revising proposed environment designations; development of shoreline goals, policies and regulations for the SMP, and final review and adoption. The City has budgeted $150,000 to complete the process. URS Corporation has been selected from a pool of consultants to assist the city with the update, and a work program has been developed. Staff has prepared a public participation plan that identifies opportunities for public input throughout the 2009-2010 update process in coordination with the work program. The plan was developed to meet the requirements of all governing legislation by providing early and continuous public participation opportunities that include open houses, public meetings, agency review, and committee review of the goals and policies, and continuous access to information via an internet web page. Staff has begun work on the update, but is requesting that the Public Participation Plan for the 2009-2010 Shoreline Master Program Update be adopted by City Council. The draft Public Participation Plan was presented to the Planning Commission at the October 8, 2009 meeting. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the draft Plan to the City Council. Staff requests that the Plan be adopted by Resolution. OPTIONS: Adopt the Plan as recommended by Planning Commission; direct staff to make specific changes to the plan and adopt as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the Public Participation Plan for the SMP update. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow — Associate Planner; Greg McCormick, AICP — Planning Division Manager DRAFT Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program and Development Regulations Update Public Involvement Plan Project Update the Shoreline Master Program and Developinent Remilations consistent with the DOE Guidelines. The update process includes completioi7 of inventory and analysis reports with corresponding maps and illustrations that characterize shoreliile ecological conditions; development of shoreline policies, environment designations, and use regulations; as well as analysis of cumulative impacts and uses, and preparation of a shoreline restoration plan. Applicable Rules and Regulations The following regulations apply to this project: l. WAC 173-26-201 Con�prehensive process to prepare or an�end shoreline master programs 2. WAC 173-26-100 Local process for approving/amending shoreline master programs 3. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans — Ensure public participation 4. RCW 90.58.130 lilvolvement of all persons having an interest, ineans 5. WAC 365-195-600 Public Participatioi7. Public Involvement Plan Overview The public involvement plan is based on the following requirements or points: 1. Create opportunities for early and continuous involveinei7t of all interested parties that include, shoreline property owi7ers, state agencies, Tribes, local residents, neighboring jurisdictions, elected officials, recreational users, conservation groups, etc. 2. I�ZClude opportunities to identify shoreline inanageinent issues of local concern early in the process; 3. Inform the public of the process, opportunities to participate, decisions made, and next steps by utilizing various media methods. The plan includes the use of a Shoreline Advisory Cominittee and the identification of a Technical Advisory Group, community meetings, Planning Commission and Council worlcshops, meetings and briefii7gs, creation of a shoreline page on the City's website, and mailings. The specific eleinents of the plan include: Pcrge 1 Ocrober-1, 2009 �S11IP nncl Develo�ment Regrilatioj�s L�dczte P:rblzc Ii�volvemef�tPlcrj� Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Review Group A Teclulical Review Group (TRG) will consist of representatives from local, regional, state, and tribal agencies. The City is required to seek input, participation and recommendations fron� these groups. Completed phases of the update will be provided to the group for review and comment to share information, encourage cooperation and promote intergovernmental activity associated with the SMP update. A list of TRG members will be developed for distribution of materials. A Shoreline Advisory Coinmittee (SAC) will be established to provide feedbacic and cominunication priinarily during the development of goals, policies and supportii7g development regulations. However, the committee may be used throughout the process. The SAC will consist of property owners, interested neighborhood groups, recreational users, interested individuals and organizations with teclinical expertise. A lin7ited number of government and agency representatives may be involved at this level. The Cominittee will review and discuss the findings and or recommendations associated with the phases listed below. Key points for discussion with committees are: 1. Shoreline inventory, characterization, and analysis a. Present report and request feedback and issue identification 2. Shoreline enviroiullent desi�lation a. li7troduce designations and ratioi7ale — request input 3. Shoreline policy and regulation development a. Ongoing meetings to review the draft policy and regulation language 4. Cumulative impacts analysis and restoration planning a. Present reports and request ii7put Open Houses/Community Meetings This format will be used to educate the public on the Shoreline Master Program and gain input from the public on issues or alternatives. Open Houses will be scheduled at the conclusion of the following taslcs or other significant timeline events. 1 Shoreline inventory, characterization and analysis report 2 Development of the environment designations 3 Draft Shoreline policy and regulations 4 Draft cumulative impacts analysis and restoration plan 5 Final Draft Plan and Development Regulations City of Spokane Valley Web page Staff will create and maii7tain a web page. The web pa�e will be used to issue press releases, SMP updates, and notices for public meeting. Content updates will occur as new infonilation is available. The web page will also be used to distribute ii7formation ai7d provide opportuiuty for public comn7ent. Materials on the site will include fact sheets, Pcrge 2 Ocrober-1, 2009 �S11IP nncl Develo�ment Regrilatioj�s L�dczte P:rblzc Ii�volvemef�tPlcrj� reports, maps, as they become available, meeting notices, agendas, and summaries, and staff contact information. Informational Mailings Mailings will be sent to all the property owners within the shoreline jurisdictional area that describe the SMP update process, introduce the City of Spolcane Valley web page where infonllation can be consistently found regarding shoreline update process, and identify key staff for contact information. Property owi7ers will be encouraged to provide their email addresses for the email distribution list. Additional mailings may be completed for opei7 houses and public hearings to ii7sure opportunity for feed bacic. E-mail Notification and Mailing Lists Staff will maintain an E-mail distribution list and a mailing distribution list for notices of scheduled public meetings. Notice will be provided by mail and/or email. lildividuals and Organizations interested in being on the mailing list will be provided opportunity to add their i7aines to the list at public meetings, on the shoreline website, or by contacting staff directly. Staff will distribute updates, notices for open houses, and notices for Plamling Commission and Council meetings. Press Releases Press Releases will be prepared and published area wide prior to each open house. Planning Commission Updates/Public Hearings Staff will provide montlily updates to the Cominission on process and progress. Study sessions will be scheduled at the conclusion of major taslcs or other significant timeline events. Tasks and iilformation to be reviewed will be the same as the Cominittee worlc prograin. The Cominission will conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the council to accept each coinpleted phase of the SMP update by resolution. Additional Study Sessions/worlcshops will be held prior to public hearings for final review by Commission. The Commission will hold a ininimum of one public hearing and forward its final recommendations and findings to the City Council for further action. Joint Plan Commission and Council Review Meetings Joint work sessions may be held betweei7 the Planning Commission and Council to review preliminary Shoreline Master Program lilformation at the conclusion of major tasks. Joint sessions will be scheduled at the discretion of staff if it is deterinined to be a more efficient means to review inforination. Pcrge 3 Ocrober-1, 2009 �S11IP nncl Develo�ment Regrilatioj�s L�dczte P:rblzc Ii�volvemef�tPlcrj� Council Updates/Public Hearings Staff will provide quarterly updates to council. As major components of the SMP are completed Council will be aslced to accept them individually by resolution (or other mechanism) including the public participation plan, inventory and analysis, environmental desi�lations, goals and policies, and rem�lations. Study sessions will be conducted prior to a request for action on each component. Study Sessions will be conducted prior to any public hearings conducted for final adoption of the plan. Additional Public Meetings Staff may elect to hold additioi7al meetings if it is deterinined t11at more meetings are needed to provide project information and/or provide additional opportuiuties for gathering public comments and public participation. Written comments Written cominents will be coi7sidered throughout the SMP update. During fonnal comment periods, written comments must be received by the end of the public comment period (to be determined). All written comments should be sent to the address below or may be submitted through the Shorelines Master Pro�am Update web page. City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 E Spramie Ave, Suite 106 Spolcane Valley, WA 99206 Fax 509-921-1008 Staff Staff will be available to answer questions and provide inforination regarding the Shorelines Master Program update. The following individuals may be coi7tacted for shoreline update iiiformation: Greg McCormicic, AICP, Planning Manager, Project Lead (509)688-0023 Lori Barlow, Associate Planner, 509-688-0262 Micici Harnois, Associate Planner, 509-688-0048 Pcrge -1 October-1, 2009 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing � information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2010 Sewer Paveback Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2010-2015 Six Year TIP which includes the 2010 STEP paveback program. BACKGROUND: The current draft of the 2010 Budget does not include funds for full-width street paving associated with Spokane County's 2010 Sewer Construction Program. As has been done in previous years City staff has been working with Spokane County staff on estimates for the city's portion of paving the roads in the 2010 sewer project areas. Spokane County's 2010 Septic Tank Elimination Program includes four projects within the City of Spokane Valley: Corbin Project This basin includes the area north of Sprague Avenue and south of the Appleway Ave. between Greenacres Road to the west and Hodges Road to the east. Cronk Project This basin includes the area north of Cataldo Avenue and south of the Mission Ave. between Barker Road to the west and Hodges Road to the east. South Green Acres Project This basin includes the area north of Wellesley Avenue and south of Sanson Ave. between McDonald Road to the west and Barker Road to the east. West Farms Project This basin includes the area north of I-90 Avenue and south of the Spokane River between Flora Road to the west and Barker Road to the east. Paveback costs which determine the city's cost to provide full-width paving and drainage improvements for the four sewer basins are summarized below: City of Spokane Valley Share 2010 Estimated Road Improvement Costs -� -..� � � . - � . . Corbin $778,500 Cronk $132,000 South Green Acres $859,300 West Farms $881,000 Total Est. Cost: $2,651,200 Below are a few comments on the above estimates: 1. A CDBG application will be submitted for the Corbin sewer project for approximately $300,000 in funding for road paveback. 2. The South Green Acres and West Farms sewer basins include several gravel roads. The city pays 100% of the cost to pave existing gravel roads. This adds approximately $300,000 to the paveback cost estimates. 3. The estimates include the cost to meet the proposed City Street Standards (Local Access Streets: 3" Asphalt over 6" Base Rock) 4. These are preliminary estimates. Staff will be reviewing them in more detail with Spokane County to ensure all appropriate credits and savings have been accounted for. OPTIONS: Info only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Currently the Draft 2010 Budget does not include funds for the 2010 STEP paveback. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACH M ENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing � information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2010 CDBG Program — Potential CDBG Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Spokane County has estimated for planning purposes only, that the County will receive $1,550,000 in CDBG funding for the 2010 program year. There are statutory limits on the administration and planning allocation of 20% of new funds or approximately $330,000. Also limited by statute is the human service allocation at 15% of available funds or approximately $247,000. In 2008, Spokane County agreed to amend the CDBG funding policies to establish a 20% set-aside of the County's annual federal appropriation for City of Spokane Valley capital projects. This results in an estimated set-aside for Spokane Valley projects of $310,000. City staff inet to identify city capital projects that would qualify for CDBG funding. The following list of projects is preliminary based on city staff's evaluation of CDBG eligible projects. Street Proiects: Estimated Costs 1. Corbin Sewer Project $778,507 (Full width paving in conjunction with County sewer project) TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $778,507 OPTIONS: Identify other potential projects for consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide staff direction in preparing for the scheduled public hearing on October 27, 2009 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undetermined at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Greg McCormick, Planning Division Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business � new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 09-015, Amending Fee Resolution for 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The current resolution is 08-022 which was passed in December of 2008, and was effective January 1, 2009. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Each year the council passes a resolution to adjust fees so that most city costs can be recovered for services provided to others. Staff also recommends the deletion and addition of fees when conditions warrant the change. At the council meeting on September 15 staff informed the council fee changes had been proposed for events at CenterPlace, event pictures at Mirabeau Springs and security false alarm fees. Changes in park shelter fees, Fire District schedule C fees (missed when 2009 increases were discussed) and the deletion of duplicate wording regarding mechanical and plumbing fees have also been proposed. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed the following proposed fees and recommends our fee resolution be changed for 2010. +CenterPlace event fees +Event pictures at Mirabeau Park +Security false alarm fees +Fire District schedule C, Plans Check fees +Mechanical and Plumbing fees +Shelter reservation fees The proposed fee resolution for 2010 is attached. There may be additional fee changes in early 2010. OPTIONS: Options include: 1.) Proceed with an updated resolution for all new fees and changes; 2) Proceed with some of the fee changes; 3) Do not make any changes RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 09-015. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: An estimated increase in city revenue of $15,000, to cover increased costs, is expected during 2010 STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Fee Resolution 09-015 DR�FT CITI" OF SPOI�.�NE �:�LLEI" SPOIL-�NE COL?NTI', «:-�SHINGTON RESOLIITION NO. 09-015 � RESOLLrTION OF THE CITI' OF SPOIi�NE �'ALLEI�, SPOIL�NE COL?NTI', R=aSHINGTON, a�IENDING RESOLIITION 08-022, AND aPPRO�"ING aN A1�IENDED l��L�STER FEE SCHEDLrLE «ZIERE:�S, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and R'HERE�S, the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically, the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and R'HEREAS, Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Schedule. NO«' THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. T he c hanges needed at t his t ime are i ncorporated i nto t he attached s chedules a nd incluide new fees and changes to existing fees. Secfion 2. Repeal. To the eatent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein, they are repealed. Secfion 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2010. Approved this day of October, 2009. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Richard M. Munson, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 1 of 17 DR�FT l��LaSTER FEE SCHEDL?LE Fee Sc7iedule PaQe No. Schedule �: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building � Schedule C: Fire Code ll Scliedule D: Parks & Recreafion 13 Schedule E: Administrafi�e 16 Scliedule F: Other Fees 16 Schedule G: Police Fees 17 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 2 of 17 DR�FT l��LaSTER FEE SCHEDL?LE Schedule � — Planning ��IENDnIENTS Comprehensive Plan amendment $1,500 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500 �PPE �LS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050 Appeal of Hearing Examiner findings $315 Transcript/record deposit fee on appeals of Hearing $157 Examiner's decisions EN�"IRONniENT �L RE�"IE��" StaYe Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Single dwelling (when required) $100 All other developments $350 Environmental Impact StaYement (EIS) Review, min. $2,200 deposit Addenda of existing EIS Review $350 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit $840 Critical Areas Floodplain Permit $315+ $52 Per lot OTHER PERAIITS Home Occupation Permit & Acc. Dwelling units $84 Conditional Use Permit $840 Temporary Use Permit $157 L�ND i?SE �CTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324 Plus $40.00 per lot Final plat $1,424 Plus $10.00 per lot Time extensions — file review and letter $80 Short Plats Preliminary 2-4 lots $1,224 Final Plat2-4 Lots $924 Preliminary plat 5-9 Lots $1,424 Plus $25 per lot Final Plat 5-9 Lots $1,224 Plus $10 per lot Time extensions — file review and letter $80 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 3 of 17 DR�FT Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682 Short plat $278 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $1,474 Change of Conditions $650 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674 Final binding site plan $92# Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105 Lot line elimination $105 Zero lot line $105 Plus $10 per lot Plat � acafion $1,474 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50 Plus $25 if Public Works review is needed Review of temporary sign $50 SITE PLAN REVIEW $550 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365 OTHER Administrative Exception $315 Variance $1,575 Preapplication Meetings $250 Deducted from land use application fee if application is filed within 1 year of preapplication meeting Administrative InterpretaYions $100 ZONING Zoning map amendments (rezone)* $1,650 Planned resi. development plan $1,575 Plus $26 per lot Planned resi. Development modification $525 Zoning letter $210 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s) is additional. Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 4 of 17 DR�FT Scliedule B - Building Fee P:�vment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Polic� Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. Applicants/permit holders of proj ects eligible for refund must request a refund in writing within 180 calendar days of application submittal or permit issuance. Requests received after 180 calendar days are not eligible for refund. Plan review fees will be refunded at a rate of 100% less $35.00 administrative fee when eligible for refund. Permit tees will be refiinded at the rate of 95% with at least one hour of statf time retained (as designated in this schedule) whichever is greatest when eligible and requested within calendar 180 days of permit issuance. FEES GENER�L: Hourly rate for City Employees $61 Overtime rate for City Employees (1 S times regular rate) $92 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hr. min. Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. (Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment.) Washington StaYe Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC) $4.50/permit WSBCC Surcharge (Multi-Family) $4.50 first dwelling unit + $2.00 each additional unit Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 5 of 17 DR�FT BiTILDING PERnIIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fee schedule. The table below is to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as staYed by the applicant o r the v alue calculated by th e Building O fficial us ing the latest valuation data published in the Bnilding Saf'eh� Jonrnal by the International Code Council, whichever value is greatest. �'aluafions not listed in the Building Safeh Journal: Building T� pe �'aluafion per square foot Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) $ 19 sf Residential garages (masonry) $ 22 sf Misc. residential pole buildings $ 19 sf Residential carports, decks, porches $ 15 sf Building Permit Fee Calculation Table Total �'aluation Building Permit Fe $1 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof Plan Re�ie« Fee Calculafion Table Plans review fee (general) 65% Of bldg permit fee Plans review fee — Group R-3 occupancies (single family less than 40% Of bldg permit fee 7,999 sq. ft.) Plans review fee — Group R-3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq. 65% Of bldg permit fee ft. or greater) Plans review fee — U-1 or U-2 occupancies (sheds, barns, etc.) 25% Of bldg permit fee Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at $35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the "Fee PaymenY' section of this schedule. Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 6 of 17 DR�FT OTHER BiTILDING PERnIITS Over-the-Counter Service $61 (flat fee) Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46 (flat fee) Commercial buildings $131 (flat fee) Garage or accessory building associated with a residence or $21 (flat fee) commercial building Foundation Only 25% of bldg permit fee Swimming Pools, over 5,000 gallons $52 plus plumbing fees Re-roof Permit No plan review fee will be charged unless Based on project valuation plans are submitted for review. Change of Use or Occupancy Classification permit Hourly Towers, Elevated tanks, antennas Hourly GR�DING PERnIIT: Cubic I'ards Grading Permit Fee 100 or less $21 101 to 1,000 $21 far the first 100 Cu. Yd., plus $7.00 for each additional 100 Cu. Yd. 1,001 to 10,000 $88 for the first 1,001 Cu. Yd., plus $6.00 for each additional 1,000 Cu. Yd. 10,001 to 100,000 $154 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 $386 for the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,000 or more $528 for the first 200,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additiona1200,000 Cu. Yd. GR�DING PL�N REFIE��' FEE: Cubic I'ards Plan Checkir►g Fee 50 or less No fee 51to100 $12 101 to 1,000 $21 1,001 to 10,000 $27 10,001 to 100,000 $27 far the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $7 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 $104 far the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $6 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,001 or more $166 Land Clearing only (without earth being moved) $68 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 SF — new paving only) $263 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 7 of 17 DR�FT nIECH�NIC.�L PER�IIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at application as noted in the "Fee PaymenY' section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basid' fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $37 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $8 L?nit fees (in addition to the basic fee) B. 1) Furnaces & suspended heaters - Installation or relocation a. up to and including 100,000 btu $13 b. over 100,000 btu $16 2) Duct work system $11 3) Heat pump & air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $13 b. over 3 to 15 tons $21 c. over 15 to 30 tons $26 d. over 30 to 50 tons $37 e. over 50 tons $63 4) Gas water heater $11 5) Gas piping system $1 Per outlet 6) Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $11 7) Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10 Each 8) Repairs or additions $16 9) Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp —100,000 btu or less $13 b. Over 3 to 15 hp —100,001 to 500,000 btu $21 c. Over 15 —30 hp — 500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26 d. over 30 hp —1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37 e. over 50 hp — over 1, 750,000 btu $63 10) Air Handlers a. Each unit up to 10,000 cfm, including ducts $13 b. Each unit over 10,000 cfm $16 11) Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $11 12) Ventilation and exhaust a. Each fan connected to a single duct $11 b. Each ventilation system $13 c. Each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 8 of 17 DR�FT 13) Incinerators a. Installation or relocation of residential $21 h Installation or relocation of commercial $23 I � �3� � Comment [CBl]: TMs was eliminated as it is � 143) Unlistedappliances tigt�aeigewne�e a. under 400,000 btu $52 b. 400,000 btu or over $105 � 156) Hood a. Type I $52 b. Type II $11 � 16�) L P Storage tank $11 � 17S) Wood or Pellet stove insert $11 I 181) Wood stove system — free standing $26 PLi?�IBING PERnIIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at application as noted in the "Fee PaymenY' section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basid' fee for issuing the permit. A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $37 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $8 IInit fees (in addition to the basic fee) B. 1) For each plumbing fiature on a trap (including garbage disposals, dish washers, $6 back flow device, drainage, hot tubs, built in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc ) I � D«:. ,.� .. ...... ...... .1:.....,...,.1 ,.. ..�,...... � Comment [CB2]: Eliminated; this is listed � 2�) Water heater $6 Each eigewne�e � 34) Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except $16 kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fia-lure traps. � 4�) Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6 Each fixture � 5§) Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6 Each � 6�) Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum $6 Each breakers � 7S) Medical gas $6 Per outlet � 81) Interceptors $6 Each Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 9 of 17 DR�FT RIGHT-OF-«_�I" PERnIIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a s ingle arterial lane is c losed. A mini mum pl an review f ee of $ 61 ( hourly rate f or c ity employees) applies t o a 11 R OW p ermits that require a t raffic pl an. I f a dditional s taff tim e i s required, it w ill b e charged at the hourly rate. Categor�� 1 Non-cut obstruction without clean-up $73 2 Non-cut obstruction with clean-up $110 3 Pavement cut obstruction non-winter $168 4 Pavement cut obstruction, winter $210 5 Approach Permit $52 SIGN PER�IIT: Sign p ermits a re s ubject to a ssessment of p lanning di vision r eview f ees a s found in S chedule A- Development. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in "General" section of Schedule B. Signs mounted on buildings $48 per sign (flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68 per sign (flat fee) Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 10 of 17 DR�FT Schedule C - FIRE CODE FIRE ALARI��I, SPRINIiLER �ND OTHER PROTECTION SI°STEA�IS City processing fee of $37 is added to these Fire District 1 fees. Plans ch eck and review f ees, i nspections, and permit f or i nstallation of separate f ire a larm s ystem or sprinkler system applications, and other fire protection systems. Fire �larm Svstem New installafion 1-4 devices $165 5-100 devices $275 Additional 100 devices $ 55 Each additional panel $ 44 Sprinkler supervision only $ 83 Each additional floor $ 44 Fire Sprinl�ler S�stems 1-9 heads $ 58 10-49 $182 50-100 $303 101-200 $358 201-300 $385 301-400 $413 401-500 $468 500+ $550 + $.36 per head For hydraulically designed systems multiply the above fee by 2 Ne« Suppression S� stems Range hoods, halon, CO2, dry chemical, FM 200, intergen spray booths, etc. Unit 1-5 nozzles $110 Over 5 nozzles $110 +$11 per nozzle Bottle(s) $33 per bottle Fire Pump Installation Plan review & inspection f8e $550 iTnder�round Fire l�Iains— Plan re��ie« and inspect. $165 Standpipes not a part of automafic suppression s� stem Plan review and inspection $165 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 11 of 17 DR�FT Other Protecfion Scstems Fire extinguishing system (other than sprinklers) - $ 55 plus $1.50 per nozzle Standpipe installation Class I and Class II $ 64 Class III $ 77 Tank installation - per tank Flammable and combustible liquids - storage tanks installation $ 70 Hazardous materials — storage tanks installation $ 70 Liquefied petroleum $ 70 Gaseous oxygen systems $ 70 Nitrous systems $ 70 Medical gas systems $ 70 Hazardous material recycling systems $ 70 Vapor recovery system $ 70 Cryogenic $ 70 Removal, abandonment or any combination thereof of flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks $ 105 Emergency or standby commercial power generator install $ 70 PERI�IITS Conditional Use Permit $ 70 Temporary Use Permit $ 70 Tents/canopy Permit $ 70 Event Permit TBD PLANS CHECIi �ND RE�'IER" BI� THE BURE �i? OF FIRE PRE�'ENTION � New commercial plans check and inspection (for projects not mentioned elsewhere) $ 70.0069 L�ND i?SE Subdi� i�ion/PiTD Preliminary $140 Final $ 70 Short Plat Preliminary $140 Final $ 70 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 12 of 17 DR�FT Schedule D— PARIiS & RE CRE aTION �Dn4INISTR�TI�"E FEES Basic fees to be considered «hen apphing rates Administrative Fee $32 Refuse Fee $52 �QiT �TICS Pool admission (age 5 and under) free Pool admission (age older than 5) $1 Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20 Weekend family discount 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30 Swim Team Fee $35 Reservation (less than 50 people) $105 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $25 Reservation (50 —100 people) $131 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $52 Reservation (101 —150 people) $157 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $79 `��llinrr�u�ni 3 horns �LCOHOLIC BE�"ER�GE PERnIIT Alcoholic Beverage Permit Fee $10 CENTERPL�CE Conference Center R"ing Auditorium $79 Per hour Auditorium $475 Per day Auditorium $236 Per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52 Per hour * Auditorium w/PresentaYion System $315 Per day * Auditorium w/PresentaYion System $158 Per half day * Auditorium Deposit $52 Executive Conference Room $52 Per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52 Meeting Room (Day & Evening Use) $42 Per hour Meeting Room $263 Per day Large Meeting Room $75 Per hour $225 Per half day $450 Per 9 hr day Meeting Room $131 Per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52 Portable Sound S�stem $1�0 Per e�ent Plantinum Pacl:aee $�00 Pei� E�ent * Requires rental of presentaYion system on page 14 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 13 of 17 DR�FT Gre:�t Room Kitchen w/Dining Room Rental $105 Per use Kitchen — Commercial Use (2 hour min.) $52 Per hour Kitchen Deposit $52 Multi-Use/Banquet Hall $105 Per hour Multi-Use/Banquet Hall $840 9 hr session Multi-Use/BanquetHall $1,575 All day (6am-lam) Small Dining Area $52 Per hour Deposit $210 Stage $21 Per section per day Stage Removal $150 Table Settings (linens & tableware) $3 Per place setting Senior Center «'ing Lounge with Dance Floor $105 Per hour I Lounge with Dance Floor $840 Per 6 hoursda� Lounge Deposit $210 Meeting Room (Evening Use) $42 Per hour Meeting Room (Evening Use) $131 4 hr session Meeting Room (Weekend Use) $262 Per day Meeting Room (Weekend Use) $131 Per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52 Private Dining Room $52 Per hour Private Dining Room Deposit $52 Wellness Center $105 Per hour �Iiscell:�neous Cleanup fee $52-315 Per event Host/Hostess (after hours) $16 Per hour PresentaYion System (includes projector/podium/ $262 Per day DVD/VCR/sound system/camera system) Room Setup $26 Perhour Satellite Video Conferencing $262 Per hour Sound System $42 Per day Technical Support $42 Per hour Television/VCR $79 Per day Touch Pad Voting System $121 Base staYion per day +$16 Per keypad per day Per hour LCD Projector $25 Per hour� $100 Perday�isg Coffee Service $25 Service Linens only $5 Per TableC�ss Wine glass only rental I $.50per glass Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 14 of 17 DR�FT E�'ENTS — includes Pa�-ilion Event,s include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments and activities involving 200 or more people. The Director of Parks and Recreation will make the final determination. General Fee $157 Non-profit applications $84 Or fiee with sponsorship* SPECI.�L E�'ENTS: Per Spolcane �'alle� l�Iunicipal Code �.1�.010, i.e. Nafional Night Out $� FIELD RENT�L Use Fee $26 First hour plus $15 each additional hour INDOOR iTSE Open gym admission $2 Playground program admission (10 entries) $21 iIIR�BE �i? l�firabeau Springs Small shelter and waterfall $250� Maximum 24 hours Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Event Pictures $150 per hour** �Iirabeau nieado« s Shelter (less than 200 people) $84 Shelter (200 or more people) $157 Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Refundable deposit (200 or more people) $257 PICNIC SHELTERS Picnic Shelter (less than 200 people) $84 for 5 hours39 Picnic Shelter (200 or more people) $157 Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Refundable deposit (200 or more people) $257 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHI" Permit Fee $26 Annual �**for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows onlv RECRE �TION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. �'�LLEI' iIISSION �REN� Rental* $105 Perweekend Refundable deposit $52 *Renter responszble for on-srte preparafion. Rer�tal r•eqi�ires liavilih� insr�rance. Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 15 of 17 DR�FT Schedule E - �D�IINISTR�TI�"E COPI" FEES Copy of audio tapes, video tapes, photos, maps or other At cost records needing reproduction Copy of written records (per S VMC 2.75.070) $0.15 Per page Copy — Large format $3 Yer page Copy of full documents At cost OTHER �D�IINISTR�TI�'E FEES NSF Check $26 Scliedule F - OTHER FEES �Di?LT ENTERT�INnIENT FEES Establislunent Licenses Live Adult Entertainment $1,575 Adult Arcade $1, 575 Other �dult Entertainment Licenses Adult Arcade Device License $157 Manager License $157 Entertainer License $157 Late License Fee — Charged in addition to license fee. Percent of Past Due Calendar Days License Fee 7 — 30 25% 31 — 60 50% 61 and over 75% BLTSINESS REGISTR.�TION FEES Business registration $13 each year Nonprofit registration $ 3 each year SECL?RITI' F�LSE �LARI�-I FEES Repeated malfunctioning security false alarms in a given six-month period. First alarm No charge Second alarm $32 Third alarm $74 Fourth and subsequentalarms $126 STORnI ��:�TER i?TILITI� CH�RGE ON DE�'ELOPED P�RCELS Each single-family unit each year $21 All other properties each $21 Per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface TOR" OPER�TOR �NNLT�L REGISTR�TION FEE $105 � OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26 Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 16 of 17 DR�FT Schedule G: Police Fees A. The rates for the annual alarm svstem registration are: 1. Residential alarm systems: $25.00 per 2. Commercial alarm system: $35.00 per year. If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year, the followin�year's registration fee is reduced to $15.00 per vear for residential and $25.00 per vear for commercial. B. The annual registration fees and the false alarm cost recoverv fees are one-half in the case of an eligible person. An eligible person is one who: 1. has a gross annual income of less than: a. nineteen thousand one hundred dollars, in the case of a one-person household; or b. twenty-one thousand eight hundred fifty dollars, in the case of a household of two or more persons; or 2. is substantiallv disabled, meaning that the person has a phvsical or mental impairment which substantiallv limits one or more maior life activities or functions, such as caring for o neself, performing m anual t asks s uch as walking, s eeing, hearing, s peaking. breathing and learning. C. The fee for filing an appeal regarding a false alarm is twentv-five dollars. D. The service fees for response to a false alarm are: 1. Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident. 2. Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident. Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 17 of 17 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 20, 2009 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation � executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acquisition; Potential Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Land Acquisition, RCW 42.30.110(1)(b); and Potential Litigation , RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to adjourn into executive session for approximately minutes to discuss Land Acquisition and Potential Litigation and that no action is anticipated thereafter. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: