The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 07-13 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchard, Valley Bible Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamation: Parks and Recreation Month PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 06/24/2010 20447 -20466 $120,489.45 06/25/2010 20467- 20500; 618100030 $468,632.94 06/29/2010 20501 -20513 $23,836.68 07/01/2010 5061 -5074 (park refunds) $1,689.00 07/02/2010 20521 -20561 $287,346.43 GRAND TOTAL $901,994.50 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending June 30, 2010: $359,227.40 NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Extending Time for Franchise Acceptance — Cary Driskell [public comment] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Panhandling — Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. Council Agenda 07 -13 -10 Regular Meeting Pagel of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 4. Code Text Amendment CTA 03 -10 (Sprague /Appleway) — Christina Janssen 5. Mixed Avenue Report Back to Council — Scott Kuhta 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Check -in — Kathy McClung 7. Greenacres Neighborhood Park Funding — Mike Stone 8. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 9. Community Development April /May Report 10. Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects — Steve Worley 11. Street Superintendent Position — John Whitehead 12. Establishment of Maintenance /Construction Inspector- Mechanic Position — John Whitehead 13. Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement 14. Smart Routes Call for Projects — Steve Worley EXECUTIVE SESSION n/a ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4 1 " Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1 St , 3—" and sometimes 5 th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 07 -13 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07 -13 -2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ ofd business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 06/24/2010 20447 -20466 $120,489.45 06/25/2010 20467- 20500; 618100030 $468,632.94 06/29/2010 20501 -20513 $23,836.68 07/01/2010 5061 -5074 (park refunds) $1,689.00 07/0212010 20521 -20561 $287,346.43 GRAND TOTAL 901,994.50 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List page: 1 06124/2010 1 :31 :22PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20447 6/24/2010 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY IVC1008399 LOCK/KEY SERVICES: CENTERPLA 87.08 Total : 87.08 20448 6/24/2010 000030 AVISTA 410069444 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 21,113.43 June 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 8,153.89 Total : 29,267.32 20449 6/24/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 0618 JUNE 2010: 0618 450.00 0620 JUNE 2010: 0620 419.00 0638 JUNE 2010: 0638 553.00 4375 J U N E 2010: 4375 240.00 4458 J U N E 2010: 4458 489.54 4474 JUNE 2010:4474 468.72 4720 JUNE 2010:4720 1,561.90 6527 JUNE 2010: 6527 4,655.31 8861 JUNE 2010:8861 1,112.60 Total : 9,950.07 20450 6/24/2010 001795 BRIDAL FESTIVAL 2010 BRIDAL BOOTH REGISTRATION 895.00 Total : 895.00 20451 6/24/2010 000101 CDW -G SXC0608 42597 19" LCD MONITORS 1,262.06 Total : 1,262.06 20452 6/24/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY June 2010 PETTY CASH: 8202, 8203 11.87 June 2010 PETTY CASH: 7873, 7874 11.00 JUNE 2010 PETTY CASH: 7875,8201 1.50 Total : 24.37 20453 6/24/2010 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 73161 1ST QTR 2010 GRANT REIMBURSE 15,000.00 Total : 15, 000.00 20454 6/24/2010 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 74095 MEMBERSHIP REGISTRATION 40.00 Total : 40.00 20455 6/24/2010 002332 KNUDSON, RYAN REFUND REFUND OF PERMIT FEES 84.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0612412010 1:31:22PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 20455 6/24/2010 002332 002332 KNUDSON, RYAN (Continued) 100.00 20456 6/24/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO May 2010 Total : 20457 6/24/2010 002333 MOUNTAIN MOVERS CONSTRUCTION REFUND 37,300.83 20458 6/24/2010 001832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS 0703698 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 20459 6/24/2010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC JULY 2010 526.11 20460 6/24/2010 000554 OHIO NATIONAL LIFE June 2010 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 20461 6/24/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 3889349 42553 STAFF SHIRTS: 2010 PARKS FROG 174.90 Total: 3904627 42553 4,195.00 Total: 4,195.00 3904628 42553 WFOA 2010 ANNUAL CON FERENCI 425.00 Total: 3904650 42553 20462 6/24/2010 002285 SKINFILL, LINDSEY Expenses 20463 6/24/2010 001970 STADIUM SPORTS 27705 27830 20464 6/24/2010 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE July 2010 42546 20465 6/24/2010 000255 WFOA 2010267 2010268 20466 6/24/2010 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW May 2010 Description/Account Amount Total : 84.00 UTILITIES: PARKS 2,579.17 Total : 2,579.17 REFUND OF FEES 100.00 Total : 100.00 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 71.80 Total : 71.80 CITY HALL RENT 37,300.83 Total : 37,300.83 TERM LIFE INSURANCE PMT IN FU 857.50 Total : 857.50 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 127.18 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 84.79 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL 5 526.11 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 526.11 Total : 1,264.19 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 54.95 Total : 54.95 CAMP T- SHIRTS: 2010 PARKS PRO 716.21 STAFF SHIRTS: 2010 PARKS FROG 174.90 Total: 891.11 2010 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA 4,195.00 Total: 4,195.00 WFOA 2010 ANNUAL CON FERENCI 300.00 WFOA 2010 ANNUAL CON FERENCI 425.00 Total: 725.00 MAY 2010 OPERATION AND MAINTI 15,840.00 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06124/2010 1:31:221 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 20466 6/24/2010 000487 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW (Continued) 20 Vouchers for bank code. apbank 20 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim_ Finance Director Date Description /Account Amount Total : 15,840.00 Bank total : 120,489.45 Total vouchers: 120,489.45 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/2512010 10:58:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO ## Description/Account Amount 20467 6/25/2010 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION REFUND CRYWOLF 5.00 Total: 5.00 20468 6/25/2010 000271 BAINBRIDGE, CHRISTINE EXPENSES TRAVEL EXPENSES: C. BAINBRIDG 11.56 Total : 11.56 20469 6/25/2010 001409 BEST LINE 100610285 ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE 22.75 Total : 22.75 20470 6/25/2010 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total: 135.00 20471 6/25/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9126186 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 200.88 9128091 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 482.00 S0042514 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 14.91 S0042547 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 97.70 S0082290 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 206.67 Total: 1,002.16 20472 6/25/2010 000904 BRANCH, CAROLBELLE CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total: 135.00 20473 6/25/2010 001888 COMCAST JUNE 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET: MAINT FA 64.90 MAY 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET: MAINT FA 64.90 Total: 129.80 20474 6/25/2010 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 870166725005 MAY 2010: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,372.17 Total : 2,372,17 20475 6/25/2010 001603 DEMPSEY, ROSE CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 20476 6/2512010 001846 ECOPLAN- DESIGN 214 42177 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SEF 7,897.12 Total : 7,897.12 20477 6/25/2010 001990 GARCO CONSTRUCTION REFUND REFUND COST OF SWALE DEPOSI 3,500.00 Page: 1 vchlist 06/2512010 10:58 :01AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Sank code : apbank 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA CELL ALLOWANCE Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20477 6/25/2010 001990 001990 GARCO CONSTRUCTION (Continued) Total : 3,500.00 20478 6/25/2010 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 20479 6/25/2010 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN CELL ALLOWANCE 20480 6/25/2010 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA CELL ALLOWANCE 20481 6/25/2010 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 57483 20482 6/25/2010 000265 JACKSON, MIKE CELL ALLOWANCE Total : 535.00 TRAVEL: R. KEEGAN JULY 2010 20483 6/25/2010 002366 KEEGAN, RIKKI EXPENSES 20484 6/25/2010 000275 KERSTEN, NEIL CELL ALLOWANCE 20485 6/25/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1224170828 521621764001 521639232001 521691021001 521691225001 522791019001 20486 6/25/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 130046324 20487 6/25/2010 000322 QWEST JUNE 2010 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S HR 54.35 Total : 54.35 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE 400.00 Total : 535.00 TRAVEL: R. KEEGAN 79.00 Total : 79.00 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADM1N 40.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 72.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 98.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 77.69 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 9.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL 95.89 Total : 394.91 TITLE PLATE: D. POWELL 17.25 Total : 17.25 JUNE PHONE SERVICE 316.96 Total : 316.96 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/2512010 10:58:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20488 6/25/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 20489 6125112010 001174 SPACESAVER NW 11853 LABELS: CD 662.91 Total : 662.91 20490 6/25/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 40100304 STORMWATER PUMPS 213.02 51500214 MAY 2010: WORK CREW ABATEME 452.97 Total : 665.99 20491 6/25/2010 000311 SPRINT 326088106 -031 WAPS FOR LAPTOPS 439.89 959698810 -031 SPRINT CELL PHONES 981.34 Total: 1,421.23 20492 6/25/2010 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 27998 MAY 2010 MONTHLY MAINT PRECII 521.83 Total: 521.83 20493 6/25/2010 001875 STRATA S100063 -IN 42489 GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT #0 7,1055.77 Total: . 7,105.77 20494 6/25/2010 001060 TIMEMARK, INC. 112295 CLAMPS: PW 68.48 Total : 68.48 20495 6/25/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM CELL ALLOWANCE 2ND QUARTER CELL ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total: 135.00 20496 6/25/2010 001464 TW TELECOM 03619792 INTERNETIDATA LILNES/PH10NE L 1,267.60 Total: 1,267.60 20497 6/25/2010 002215 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 12577 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 13365 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 13793 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 14279 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 Total: 600.00 20498 6/25/2010 001618 VIKING CONSTRUCTION REFUND REFUND COST OF SWALE DEPOSI 1,500,00 Total: 1,500.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/25/2010 10:58:01APA Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20499 6/25/2010 001949 WILSON, SAYDEE EXPENSES GFOA TRANINING: WILSON 10700 20500 6/25/2010 000766 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW Total : MAY 2010 MGMT FEES /OPERATING EXPENSE Total: 618100030 6/18/2010 001865 MORGEN & OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION Pay App #15 35 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 35 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim, Finance Director Date 42219 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Total: Bank total : Total vouchers: 107.00 9,544.00 9,544.00 427,615.10 427,615.10 468,632.94 468,632.94 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List page: 1 06129/2010 5:05:14PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20501 6/29/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 JUNE 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 646.26 Total : 646.26 20502 6/29/2010 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 JUNE 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 588.40 Total: 688.40 20503 6/29/2010 001053 HARVEST HOUSE August 2010 42595 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 180.00 Total: ,.1180.00 20504 6/29/2010 001635 ISS FACILITYIEVENT SERVICES 23211 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 216.70 Total : 216.70 20505 6/29/2010 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT JUNE 2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP 108.31 Total: 108 »31 20506 6/29/2010 001130 MPLC 503655550 LICENSE FOR MOTION PICTURE 499.00 Total : 499.00 20507 6/29/2010 001832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS 0703698 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 115,:93 Total : _'1 � 5.93 20508 6/29/2010 002331 P.EA.C.H. August 2010 42606 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 100.00' Total: 1.00.00 20509 6/29/2010 000291 PROJECT ACCESS, INC. 104 LODGING TAX GRANT 20,000.00 Total : 20;000.00 20510 6/29/2010 000415 ROSAUERS 639868 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 110.22 Total : 11.0 22 20511 6/29/2010 001260 SPOKANE CASH REGISTER INC. 23099 CARD CLEANERS 5:98 Total: -1 5.98 20512 6/29/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 JUNE 2010 WATER CHARGES: PARKS 247.15 Total : ..247.15 20513 6/29/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2749845 - 2681 -5 WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE 733.46 Page: 1 vck ist Voucher List Page: 2 06/2912010 5:05:14PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20513 6/29/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE (Continued) 13 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 13 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim- 2749846-2681-3 WASTE MGMT PRECINCT: JUNE 2C Total : Bank total : Total vouchers: 285.27 1,018.73 23,836.68 23,836.68 Page: 2 ( Zy-�6 e- c;Zt Cj ) Vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0710112010 12:42:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: Pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 5061 6/30/2010 002377 ADAMS, FAWN REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND— MIRASEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5062 6/30/2010 002374 BRADY, RHIANNA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND— MIRABEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5063 6/30/2010 002372 CHOVGAN, LILY REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND' GREAT ROOM 165.00 Total : 165.00 5064 6/30/2010 002375 COMBO, ALICIA REFUND PROGRAM REFUND -- SUMMER DA1 100.00 Total: 100.00 5065 6/30/2010 002373 DIONNE, DARLENE REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT— LOUNGE W /DP 252.00 Total: 252.00 5066 6/30/2010 002368 EGGERS, JESSICA REFUND AQUATICS REFUND- CANCELLAT[ 90.00 Total : 90.00 5067 6/30/2010 002376 MCTEER, ELIZABETH REFUND SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 135.00 Total: 135.00 5068 6/30/2010 002371 NAGRA, MIKE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND— GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5069 6/30/2010 002369 ROSAIA, BILL REFUND AQUATICS REFUND^- CANCELLATI( 30.00 Total: 30.00 5070 6/30/2010 002380 SERVPRO REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND— ROOM 111 52.00 Total: 52.00 5071 6/30/2010 002378 SHUVARIKOV, ANDREY REFUND REFUND FEES— GREAT ROOM, DIP 89.00 Total: 89.00 5072 6/30/2010 002370 SOC OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND— MIRABEAU ME 52.00 Total : 52.00 5073 6/30/2010 002379 ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH REFUND REFUIND FEES- LOUNGE WI DAN( 200.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0710112010 12:42:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 5073 6/30/2010 002379 002379 ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH (Continued) 5074 6/30/2010 002367 VANESSA BEHAND CRISIS NURSERY REFUND 14 Vouchers for bank code : pk -ref 14 Vouchers in this report PO # Description /Account Total : CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT I Total Bank total Total vouchers: Amount 200.00 210.00 210.00 1,689.00 1,689.00 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/02/2010 2:01:53PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20521 7/2/2010 000648 ABADAN 144291 PLANS & SPECS: SPRAGUE & SULI 1,880.09 Total : 1,880.09 20522 7/2/2010 002270 ARGUS PACIFIC, INC 0022767 42569 ARGUS PACIFIC SAFETY PLAN UPI 2,077.50 Total : 2,077.50 20523 7/2/2010 000030 AVISTA JUNE 2010 BARKER IRRIGATION: JOB 2952641 481.00 Total : 481.00 20524 7/2/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9129982 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C 398.47 S0082473 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 52.82 Total : 451.29 20525 7/2/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 231750 42543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CINTFL 7,530.31 Total : 7,530.31 20526 7/2/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY JUNE 2010 PETTY CASH: 8204, 8205, 8506, 82( 40.55 Total : 40.55 20527 7/2/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST JUNE 2010 ADVERTISING: CP 210.73 JUNE 2010 ADVERTISING: SENIOR CENTER 37.25 Total : 247.98 20528 7/2/2010 002296 ELECTRONIC COMMERCE LINK 8645 LICENSE, MA1NT. & HOSTING E -GC 7,440.00 Total : 7,440.00 20529 7/2/2010 000106 FEDEX 7.121 -31840 SHIPPING CHARGES: PW 40.36 Total : 40.36 20530 7/2/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 8001 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 569.26 Total : 569,26 20531 7/2/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34232 LEGAL PUBLICATION 131.20 34265 LEGAL PUBLICATION 102.40 34308 LEGAL PUBLICATION 65.60 34310 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 34311 LEGAL PUBLICATION 63.75 Page: 1 vchlist 07/02/2010 2:01:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20531 7/2/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 34353 LEGAL PUBLICATION 32.00 34355 LEGAL PUBLICATION 37.40 34356 LEGAL PUBLICATION 55.25 Total : 512.60 20532 7/212010 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM EXPENSES REIMBUREMENT: AWC CONF: GOT 206.32 Total : 206.32 20533 7/2/2010 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT AWC: GRAFOS 26.00 Total : 26.00 20534 7/2/2010 000007 GRAINGER 861093094 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 95.45 Total: 95.45 20535 7/2/2010 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA EXPENSES AWX REIMBURSEMENT: GRASSEL 363,00 Total: 363.00 20536 7/2/2010 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 204555 2010 MAP: ADVERTISING 350.00 Total: 350.00 20537 7/2/2010 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 57493 EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S HR 69.57 57495 EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S 54.35 Total: 123.92 20538 7/2/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 23251 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 7,136.00 23270 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 98.50 Total: 7,234.50 20539 7/2/2010 002287 LIBERTY LAKE COMMUNITY THEATRE JUNE 2010 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 300.00 Total : 300.00 20540 702010 000053 MODERN OFFICE EQUIPMENT 97054 PRINTER MAINT 366.86 Total : 366.86 20541 7/2/2010 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC, 80333 STAMP: CD 94.57 Total: 94.57 Page: 2 vcbUst Voucher List Page: 3 07/02/2010 2:01:53PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20542 7/2/2040 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC_ 521639625001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 118.28 Total : 118.28 20543 7/2/2040 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER MAY 2010 STATE REMITTANCE 80,205.64 Total : 80,205.64 20544 7/2/2040 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 237757 ANNUAL INSPECTION: PRECINCT 297.84 Total : 297.84 20545 71212010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 25900 PARKS & REC POLO SHIRTS 505.98 25955 NUDO BOARD SIGNS: CP 75.00 Total: 580.98 20546 7/2/2010 000322 QWEST JUNE 2010 JUNE PHONE SERVICE: CP 41.68 Total: 41.68 20547 7/2/2010 001317 RICOH AMERICAS CORP 506207868 42575 COPIER FOR CENTERPLACE 9,976.71 Total : 9,976.71 20548 7/2/2010 000415 ROSAUERS 669654 SUMMPER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9.85 Total : 9.85 0 20549 7/2/2010 002381 RPPLINGER, NANCY JUNE 2010 VIDEO GAME PROGRAMMING 1,196.00 Total : 1,196.00 20550 7/2/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110323169 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES - CP 40.85 300469571 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES. CP 739.02 300469573 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES - CP 29.87 Total : 809.74 20551 7/2/2010 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 6635 42230 REAL ESTATE SERVICES C1P 0088 1,89620 Total: 1,896.20 20552 7/2/2010 002285 SKINFILL, LINDSEY EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT FOR WELLNES, 12,48 Total: 12.48 20553 7/2/2010 000733 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTEGRATION 800078546 42596 SYMANTEC GHOST SUITE RENEW, 630.46 Total : 630.46 Page: 3 vchllst 07102/2010 2:01:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20554 7/2/2010 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY MAY 2010 CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND 1,065.77 Total : 1,06517 20555 7/2/2010 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT JUNE 2010 FILING FEES: LEGAL 230.00 JUNE 2010 FILING FEES: LEGAL 230.00 JUNE 2010 FILING FEES: LEGAL 230,00 Total : 690.00 20556 7/2/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JUNE 2010 SPOKANE CO GEIGER SETTLE & A 127,520.00 Total : 127,520.00 20557 7/2/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 194234 ADVERTISING 415.69 Total : 415.69 20558 7/2/2010 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 431 42587 GREENACRES PARK MASTER PLA 22,792.55 Total : 22,792.55 20559 7/2/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM EXPENSES JUNE 2010 MILEAGE: TOWEY 19.00 Total : 19.00 20560 7/2/2010 002185 URS CORPORATION 4342427 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:SHORE 8,400.00 Total : 8,400.00 20561 7/2/2010 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW JULY 2010 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP E[ 236.00 Total: 236.00 41 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 287,346.43 41 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 287,346.43 Page: 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07 -13 -10 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending June 30, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $ 238,004.27 Benefits: $ 121,223.13 Total payroll $ 359,227.40 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed ordinance extending time for acceptance of franchise by Comcast. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 09 -034; 10 -009. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comcast franchise December 1, 2009; discussion regarding PEG fees February 16, 2010; discussion on PEG fees March 9, 2010; discussion on broadcasting options April 27, 2010; administrative report May 4, 2010; adoption of Ordinance 10 -009 on May 11, 2010 extending time for acceptance of franchise. BACKGROUND: The Council adopted Ordinance 09 -034, which approved the franchise between Spokane Valley and Comcast so that Comcast may place and maintain its cable facilities in the City's right -of -way so it can operate its' business. One of the requirements of the franchise is for Comcast to return the signed franchise within 60 days of it being in effect. It was in effect February 10, 2010, so it would have to have been returned by April 11, 2010. The City adopted Ordinance 10 -009 on May 11, 2010 to extend the time for acceptance by Comcast, from April 11, 2010 to June 11, 2010. Comcast recently advised the City on June 10, 2010, that it would be unable to meet that deadline as well due to timing issues within their corporation, and requested a second extension of 45 days. Staff has no objection to one additional extension, and is proposing a 60 day extension from June 11 to August 11, 2010. OPTIONS: (1) request additional changes (2) consensus to put on agenda for first reading. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance the Ordinance granting a second extension of time for Acceptance of Cable Franchise, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Mike Connelly, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance extending time for Comcast to return signed franchise DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- * * * AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR ACCEPTANCE OF CABLE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE 09 -034, BY GRANTEE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley passed Ordinance 09 -034 on December 1, 2009 granting Comcast of Pennsylvania/Washington/West Virginia, LP a non - exclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate certain facilities within the public right -of -way and public properties within the City of Spokane Valley, Washington; and WHEREAS, Section 43 of Ordinance 09 -034 states that not later than 60 days after passage and publication of the Ordinance, Grantee must accept the franchise by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof, and WHEREAS, the City published Ordinance 09 -034 on February 5, 2010, and the effective date was February 10, 2010, beginning the 60 day acceptance period; and WHEREAS, due to communication from the City of Spokane Valley regarding Public, Education and Government (PEG) fees under Section 13.8 of the franchise, Comcast was unclear as to whether the City intended to receive the PEG fees. As such, Comcast did not return the fully executed franchise within 60 days as set forth in Section 43; and WHEREAS, Section 43 of Ordinance 09 -034 provides that the time period for acceptance may be extended by an ordinance passed for that purpose WHEREAS, the City extended the time period for acceptance for 60 additional days from April 11, 2010 to June 11, 2010 through passage of Ordinance 10 -009; and WHEREAS, Comcast has informed the City that it needs additional time for obtaining the necessary signatures from its corporate office in Pennsylvania, up to 60 additional days from June 11, 2010; and. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to extend the time period for acceptance by Grantee of Ordinance 10 -009 an additional 60 days, from June 11, 2010, to August 11, 2010. Section 2. Extending Time For Acceptance of Ordinance 10 -009 Additional 60 Days The time period for Grantee to accept Ordinance 09 -034 is extended 60 additional days from June 11, 2010, 2010. Grantee must accept the franchise by August 11, 2010. Failure of Grantee to accept this franchise within said period will result in the consequences set forth in Ordinance 09 -034, Section 43. Section 3 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or Draft Ordinance 10 - * * *; 2 " Comcast Extension Page 1 of 2 DRAFT unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of 2010. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Draft Ordinance 10 - * * *; 2 " Comcast Extension Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Panhandling GOVERNING LEGISLATION: US Constitution, First Amendment; Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 5; SVMC 8.25. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary Panhandling Committee; Administrative Report July 14, 2009; Administrative Report August 11, 2009; Administrative Report February 23, 2010; Administrative Report June 15, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested that staff continue looking at potential options for changes to the City Code regarding reasonable restrictions on panhandling. The last report given to City Council regarding this matter was June 15, 2010. This report included language for a potential panhandling ordinance. The City Council asked staff to revise the proposed panhandling ordinance to include: 1) a definition of "median "; 2) panhandling restrictions on state routes; and 3) other appropriate changes by the staff. These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance attached herein. The proposed ordinance prohibits pedestrians from soliciting from occupants of vehicles while making physical contact with a principal arterial, state route, or on -ramp or off -ramp to an interstate highway. It would permit pedestrians to solicit from vehicle occupants if they never make physical contact with the roadway. On June 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a three -judge panel opinion upholding as constitutional under the federal Constitution a city ordinance making it unlawful "for any person to stand on a street or highway and solicit, or attempt to solicit, employment, business, or contributions from an occupant of any motor vehicle." Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach _ F.3d _, 2 (2010). The definition of "street or highway" included "roadways, parkways, medians, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, and public ways." Id. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision, seeking an en banc review of the three -judge panel opinion. If the ordinance is upheld in an en banc opinion by the Ninth Circuit, then the only appeal remaining is to the United States Supreme Court. Until the final appeal of the Redondo Beach case is decided, it is uncertain whether an ordinance prohibiting in- person solicitation directed toward occupants of vehicles, while the solicitor is on the sidewalk, would be held constitutional. Until this issue is decided with certainty by the courts, staff recommends a narrower prohibition on solicitation, as provided in the City's proposed ordinance. If the Redondo Beach decision is upheld, then the City could consider broader solicitation restrictions, prohibiting panhandling not just from streets, but also from sidewalks. Page 1 of 2 OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Advance the ordinance amending solicitation activities to a second reading BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed change to SVMC 8.25, adding a new section 2. RCA for memo on panhandling options 6 -10 -10 (with attachments) Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10-*** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) 8.25.020 AND ADOPTING NEW SECTION SVMC 8.25.025 REGULATING SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS WHICH POSE TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY RISKS. WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted WAC 308- 330 -415 into its municipal code, incorporating by reference RCW 46.61.255(4), which prohibits any person from "stand[ing] in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting employment or business from the occupant of any vehicle "; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted SVMC 8.25.030.C, which prohibits a person from " [i]ntentionally obstruct[ing] vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority"; and WHEREAS, the City has a fundamental interest in traffic flow and safety; and WHEREAS, pedestrian presence on principal arterials, state routes, and freeway on and off snips pose significant traffic flow and safety concerns; and WHEREAS, there are evident dangers of physical injury and traffic disruption when individuals stand in busy streets trying to engage drivers; and WHEREAS, motor vehicle drivers approached by pedestrians may become distracted, may stop suddenly, or may linger at traffic control devices thereby posing a significant risk of physical injury to themselves, other motorists, and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, solicitation of persons operating motor vehicles may result in car /pedestrian collisions, as well as vehicle collisions caused when vehicles behind the one being solicited move forward without realizing the solicited driver has not moved; and WHEREAS, the act of making in- person demands directed at occupants of vehicles that require an immediate response poses traffic flow and safety risks; and WHEREAS, the distraction of motorists occasioned by solicitation not only threatens to impede the orderly flow of traffic, but also raises serious concerns of traffic and public safety; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to promote the City's interest in traffic flow and safety by implementing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations on solicitations in public places that are applicable to all people within the City. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate certain solicitation activities in public places within the City. Section 2. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.25.020. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 8.25.020 is amended as follows: Ordinance, 10 Panhandling Page 1 of') 8.25.020 Aggressive begging (panhandling). A. Any person who engages in aggressive begging in any public place in the City as those terms are defined by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. B. As used in this section: 1. "Aggressive begging" means to beg with intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods. 2. "Begging" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, bodily gestures, signs or other means. 3. "Intimidate" means to coerce or frighten into submission or obedience. 4. "Public place," fef ptifpeses ef this seetieff,-rneans any road, alley, lane, parking area, sidewalk or any place, private or otherwise, adopted to and fitted for vehicular or pedestrian travel that is in common use by the public with the consent, expressed or implied, of the owner or owners; and any public playground, school grounds, recreation grounds, parks, parkways, park drives, park paths and rights -of -way open to the use of the public. Section 3. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.25.025 as follows: 8.25.025 Solicitation creating traffic safety risks. A. The pup2ose of this section is to promote the City's fiindainental interest in public peace, health, and safety, by re ug latin4 acts of solicitation that occur at locations and under circumstances specified herein which pose enhanced risks to vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety. B. As used in this section: 1. "Median" means the portion of a divided street or road, separating the traveled ways for traffic in opposite directions. 2. "Pedestrian" means any erson who is afoot or who is using a wheelchair, a power wheelchair, or a means of conveyance propelled by human power, including a bicycle. 3. "Principal arterial" means roadways identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan providing for regional mobility, as indicated by the arterial /road map. It includes medians connected thereto, but not sidewalks, including curbs, connected thereto. 4. "Solicit" means and requires both of the following a. When a pedestrian: i. Either orally or in writing, asks for employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose; ii. Either orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods, services, or _publications, iii. Distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications, or iv. Solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey. b. Conduct whereby a pedestrian makes physical contact with a principal arterial, state route, or on -ramp or off -ramp to an interstate highway. 5. "State route" includes medians connected thereto, but not sidewalks, including curbs, connected thereto. C. No pedestrian shall stand on a principal arterial, state route, or on -ramp or off -ramp to an interstate hi.hway, and solicit from the occupants of any vehicle. D. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. E. The following are not violations under this section: 1. Activity authorized pursuant to Chapter 5.15 Special Events or Chapter 6.05 Park Regulations. 2. A person summoning aid or requesting assistance in an emergency situation. 3. A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties. Ordinance, 10 Panhandling Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 4 Remainder of SVMC 8.20 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 8.20 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 5 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this dad- of 1 2010 ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance, 10 Panhandling Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report - Panhandling GOVERNING LEGISLATION: US Constitution, First Amendment; Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 5; SVMC 8.25. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary Panhandling Committee; Administrative report July 14, 2009; Administrative report August 11, 2009; Administrative Report February 23, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested that staff continue looking at potential options for changes to the City Code regarding reasonable restrictions on panhandling. Courts are regularly asked to review the constitutionality of similar code provisions from communities around the country. As such, what communities can legally enforce changes over time. The following discussion analyzes various approaches the City Council may choose to adopt. The starting point of this discussion is that our state and federal courts have concluded that panhandling is speech and expression that is constitutionally protected. 1. A number of cities have adopted provisions that prohibit panhandling from people that are referred to as a "captive audience ". Examples of this would be panhandling from people who are standing in line at a theatre, or filling their gas tank, or putting groceries in their car. The rationale for such regulations is that the person being solicited is not free to simply leave as they are doing something that requires they be at that place. The City Council for Spokane Valley was considering such an ordinance in the summer of 2009 when a case was decided by the 9 Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that specifically ruled that "captive audience" regulations were unconstitutional. The proposed ordinance primarily focused on the captive audience concept, with its stated basis being that citizens should not be subject to unwanted solicitation for funds if their free will to leave was being overcome. The Center for Justice reviewed the proposed ordinance, and opined that it would not likely withstand a constitutional challenge if one was raised. As such, staff recommended that the proposed ordinance be dropped, and that pursuit of the educational program being recommended by a citizen group (along with several Council members) be pursued before anything else was attempted. Staff continues to believe that any attempt to adopt a "captive audience" -based prohibition would likely be thrown out as unconstitutional. The City of Spokane adopted similar provisions prior to the summer of 2009, but are apparently not currently actively enforcing them in light of the new case law. Staff believes adopting similar provisions would be at high risk of being held unconstitutional if challenged in court. 2. The City previously adopted prohibitions on intentional pedestrian interference with vehicular traffic (SVMC 8.25.030), and aggressive begging (SVMC 8.25.020), both of which Page 1 of 6 are misdemeanors if violated. There are valid, widely recognized public safety reasons for these provisions, including precluding pedestrians from interfering with the flow of traffic. If the validity of these provisions were to be challenged, staff believes they would likely be upheld. In discussions with City of Spokane staff, they report that they actively enforce the restrictions on interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 3. The cities of Issaquah and Tacoma on Washington's west side have adopted ordinances that are similar, and which prohibit solicitation in certain places within those cities. Copies of code provisions from both cities are included herein as attachments for your review. Staff has spoken several times each with their legal counsel. Tacoma — the primary limitation on panhandling is section 8.1313.030, Prohibited conduct. It specifies as follows: It is unlawful for any person, while occupying any public property adjacent to any public roadway in the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or intended to attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle stopped or traveling on the roadway, unless said vehicle is legally parked. An offense occurs when the solicitation is made, whether or not an actual employment relationship is created, a transaction is completed, or an exchange of money, goods, or services takes place. The definition of "solicit" is found at 8.13B.020E, which states as follows: "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit" means any conduct or act whereby a person: 1. either orally or in writing, asks for an immediate ride, employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose; 2. either orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods, services, or publications; 3. distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or 4. solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey. COSV staff are concerned that Tacoma's provisions are not constitutional. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "[t]he degree of protection afforded . . . depends in substantial part upon the forum in which the activity is pursued." ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 796 F.2d 1260, 1264 (9 Cir. 1986). "[S]idewalks, streets, and parks have been recognized as traditional public fora." Id. "The government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations provided the restrictions `are content - neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.' [citations omitted.]" Id. at 1265. If the regulation is content - based, then there must be a compelling government interest, and the regulation must be the least restrictive means available to further that compelling government interest. Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009) In applying the legal test to Tacoma's provision, if it only applies to panhandling, then it is based on what is being communicated. Thus, the regulation is content based, not content neutral, requiring the strict scrutiny test. The compelling government interest is to promote greater traffic safety. Tacoma's panhandling restrictions are likely not the least restrictive means. It is arguable that enforcing prohibitions on interfering with Page 2 of 6 vehicular traffic would be less restrictive in that it would not require limiting individuals' freedom of speech or expression, and yet would still take care of the traffic safety issues. Even if Tacoma's code were to be found content - neutral, it would still have to pass the intermediate scrutiny test. "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009), citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Under the intermediate scrutiny standard, there is a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, but it is arguably not narrowly tailored because it apparently includes all forms of speech. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). In applying this test, courts generally find an ordinance is not narrowly tailored when its speech prohibition reaches instances of speech that pose practically no threat to traffic safety. Examples of this would be when an ordinance "would reach an individual standing well away from the flow of traffic and who merely holds up a sign inviting the occupants of vehicles to drive to a private location to confer," Comite De Jornaleros De Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F.Supp.2d 952, 965 (2006), or an ordinance that would prohibit "children [from] selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of their home, [or] Girl Scouts [from] selling cookies on the sidewalk outside of their school." Id. at 966, FN 8. There are good arguments as to why this does not leave open ample alternative channels for communication, since it includes all streets, but that will not be discussed further at this time since the other portion of the test was not met. Based on this analysis, staff believes that Tacoma's provisions are not narrowly tailored, and do not believe they would hold up if challenged. Issaquah — The approach under Issaquah is primarily to identify specific intersections where solicitation, including panhandling, is prohibited. The definition of "solicitation" from Issaquah's Code is listed, along with the prohibitions. "Solicitation" for the purposes of this chapter is any means of asking, begging, requesting, or pleading made in person, orally or in a written or printed manner, directed to another person, requesting an immediate donation of money, contribution, alms, financial aid, charity, gifts of items or service of value, or the purchase of an item or service for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation. A. It shall be unlawful to solicit at the following places: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the following intersections and identified in Exhibit A, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and incorporated by reference: a. SR 900 and: i. NW Sammamish Road; ii. 12th Avenue NW; Page 3 of 6 iii. NW Gilman Boulevard; iv. NW Mall Street; v. NW Maple Street; vi. NW Newport Way; b. E. Lake Sammamish Parkway SE and: i. SE Issaquah Fall City Road; ii. SE 64th Place; iii. 229th Avenue SE; c. NW Gilman Boulevard and: i. Front Street North; ii. 1 st Avenue NW; d. Rainier Boulevard North and: i. NW Juniper Street; ii. NW Holly Street; B. It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, or offer for immediate sale, goods, services or publications, or to distribute items without remuneration, to a person in a vehicle, at the following: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the street intersections set forth in subsection (A)(2) of this section. In using the same legal analysis set forth above regarding Tacoma's code, the definition of "solicitation" is narrowly drafted to essentially be restricted to panhandling type activities. The regulations contained in subsections A and B, together do not appear to be content - based, as they cover all types of transactions — those that are intended to be a donation (A), and those for value (B). As such, it would likely be found to be content - neutral, rather than content - based. Under a content - neutral analysis, it would still have to pass the intermediate scrutiny test. "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009), citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). In applying this test, the regulations appear to be content - neutral, and leave open ample alternative channels. However, it does not appear to be narrowly tailored. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). Issaquah's regulation would preclude a person standing 25 feet back from the edge of the roadway, on private property, from holding a sign requesting to come get your car washed. It would apparently preclude erecting or carrying any business sign advertising goods for sale within 300 feet of the designated intersections. If this were not enforced against businesses, and only against individuals near the right -of -way, then the City could face a challenge not only that it is facially invalid, but that it is also unconstitutional as applied in specific circumstances. It is important to note that neither Tacoma's nor Issaquah's provisions has been challenged in court as to whether they are legal under the state or federal constitutions. As such, and for the reasons stated above, we believe if Spokane Valley were to adopt similar Page 4 of 6 panhandling restrictions, there would be at least medium -to -high level of risk that they would not survive a legal challenge. 4. Several Council members have inquired whether the City could implement a permit requirement in order to panhandle. Staff believes such a requirement would not withstand legal challenge. Both the 9 1h Circuit and US Supreme Court have used strong language in condemning permit requirements on individuals seeking to exercise free speech in a traditional public forum like rights -of -way. "A permitting requirement is a prior restraint on speech and therefore bears a heavy presumption against constitutionality." Berger V. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1037 (9 Cir. 2009). The US Supreme Court stated "[i]t is offensive —not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society —that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 165- 66 (2002). "Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor's office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition." Id. at 166. Given these statements by our highest courts, staff recommends not pursuing permitting requirements for panhandling due to their high risk. 5. Staff recently spoke with the City of Liberty Lake to inquire what they do regarding panhandling. We were informed they don't enforce any specific laws, and instead asserted that their citizens simply don't give to panhandlers. This seems to indicate that an educational program aimed at teaching people not to give to panhandlers may be effective. Additionally, staff believes an educational program aimed at more effective ways to target their donations to organizations has the lowest risk to the City. 6. Staff has drafted a proposed legislative change to City Code for the Council to consider, attached to this RCA as Attachment 3. Considering the legal requirements outlined in this memorandum, we consider this proposal to be moderate risk. In summary, it would prohibit soliciting, which is defined as the request and the conduct of physically contacting the vehicle, from the roadway of on ramps /off ramps of interstate highways and from principal arterials as defined in City Code. A map of what is considered a principal arterial is provided as Attachment 4. This would only preclude solicitation as defined from on the roadway, but not from any sidewalks, which directly addresses the compelling governmental interest of increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. It would also still allow all forms of signage, including commercial, because it would require contact with a vehicle or passenger to constitute a violation. The full legal analysis is as follows: "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009) quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Because the ordinance applies to all types of transactions, it appears content neutral. And since the proposed ordinance still leaves most of the City's roadways available for solicitation speech, it would likely leave ample alternatives for communication. Further, there is no question that the City has a significant governmental interest in traffic safety. Page 5 of 6 However, it is difficult to state with certainty whether the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). The proposed ordinances aim to narrowly serve the City's traffic safety interest in two ways. First, a violation requires not only a "solicitation" component, but also a "physical contact" component. This more narrowly prohibits the kind of conduct that actually poses traffic safety and flow risks (e.g., physical pedestrian contact with traffic), while permitting a person to exercise his or her free speech when almost no traffic safety concern is triggered (e.g., holding a sign requesting money, but not making physical contact with traffic). "A ban on the actual hand -to -hand exchange of money, for example, is not content -based speech regulation." Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d at 1051, citing International Society for Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 US 672, 705 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Second, for a violation to occur, a person must stand on a principal arterial or on an interstate highway on -ramp or off -ramp. This more narrowly serves traffic safety concerns because it still permits activity that fails to trigger traffic safety concerns: for example, a person standing safely on a sidewalk and holding a sign. Simply put, there is not a general ban on soliciting drivers —only on standing in busy roadways to do it while making physical contact with traffic. Although this ordinance seems to be narrowly tailored to address traffic safety interests, we do not know how a court would rule on it. As such, staff views this option as having a medium risk level. The risks to the City associated with adopting codes that are later found unconstitutional should be considered as part of this analysis. All of the codes contemplated by most cities list a violation as being a misdemeanor, subject to up to 90 days in jail and /or up to $1,000 fine. If somebody is arrested and jailed, they could file suit for damages and attorney fees, which can be substantial. Sample cases show that damages can be around $50,000 or more, plus attorney fees that can be in excess of $100,000. The Council may want to weigh the potential for litigation when making its policy choices. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Tacoma panhandling provisions 2. City of Issaquah panhandling provisions 3. Proposed change to SVMC 8.25, adding a new section Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report - Panhandling GOVERNING LEGISLATION: US Constitution, First Amendment; Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 5; SVMC 8.25. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary Panhandling Committee; Administrative report July 14, 2009; Administrative report August 11, 2009; Administrative Report February 23, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested that staff continue looking at potential options for changes to the City Code regarding reasonable restrictions on panhandling. Courts are regularly asked to review the constitutionality of similar code provisions from communities around the country. As such, what communities can legally enforce changes over time. The following discussion analyzes various approaches the City Council may choose to adopt. The starting point of this discussion is that our state and federal courts have concluded that panhandling is speech and expression that is constitutionally protected. 1. A number of cities have adopted provisions that prohibit panhandling from people that are referred to as a "captive audience." Examples of this would be panhandling from people who are standing in line at a theatre, or filling their gas tank, or putting groceries in their car. The rationale for such regulations is that the person being solicited is not free to simply leave as they are doing something that requires they be at that place. The City Council for Spokane Valley was considering such an ordinance in the summer of 2009 when a case was decided by the 9 Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that specifically ruled that "captive audience" regulations were unconstitutional. The proposed ordinance primarily focused on the captive audience concept, with its stated basis being that citizens should not be subject to unwanted solicitation for funds if their free will to leave was being overcome. The Center for Justice reviewed the proposed ordinance, and opined that it would not likely withstand a constitutional challenge if one were raised. As such, staff recommended that the proposed ordinance be dropped, and that pursuit of the educational program being recommended by a citizen group (along with several Council members) be pursued before anything else was attempted. Staff continues to believe that any attempt to adopt a "captive audience" -based prohibition would likely be thrown out as unconstitutional. The City of Spokane adopted similar provisions prior to the summer of 2009, but are apparently not currently actively enforcing them in light of the new case law. Staff believes adopting similar provisions would be at high risk of being held unconstitutional if challenged in court. Page 1 of 6 2. The City previously adopted prohibitions on intentional pedestrian interference with vehicular traffic (SVMC 8.25.030), and aggressive begging (SVMC 8.25.020), both of which are misdemeanors if violated. There are valid, widely recognized public safety reasons for these provisions, including precluding pedestrians from interfering with the flow of traffic. If the validity of these provisions were to be challenged, staff believes they would likely be upheld. In discussions with City of Spokane staff, they report that they actively enforce the restrictions on interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 3. The cities of Issaquah and Tacoma on Washington's west side have adopted ordinances that are similar, and which prohibit solicitation in certain places within those cities. Copies of code provisions from both cities are included herein as attachments for your review. Staff has spoken several times each with their legal counsel. Tacoma — the primary limitation on panhandling is section 8.1313.030, Prohibited conduct. It specifies as follows: It is unlawful for any person, while occupying any public property adjacent to any public roadway in the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or intended to attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle stopped or traveling on the roadway, unless said vehicle is legally parked. An offense occurs when the solicitation is made, whether or not an actual employment relationship is created, a transaction is completed, or an exchange of money, goods, or services takes place. The definition of "solicit" is found at 8.13B.020E, which states as follows: "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit" means any conduct or act whereby a person: 1. either orally or in writing, asks for an immediate ride, employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose; 2. either orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods, services, or publications; 3. distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or 4. solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey. COSV staff are concerned that Tacoma's provisions are not constitutional. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "[t]he degree of protection afforded . . . depends in substantial part upon the forum in which the activity is pursued." ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 796 F.2d 1260, 1264 (9 Cir. 1986). "[S]idewalks, streets, and parks have been recognized as traditional public fora." Id. "The government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations provided the restrictions `are content - neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.' [citations omitted.]" Id. at 1265. If the regulation is content - based, then there must be a compelling government interest, and the regulation must be the least restrictive means available to further that compelling government interest. Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009) In applying the legal test to Tacoma's provision, if it only applies to panhandling, then it is based on what is being communicated. Thus, the regulation is content based, not content neutral, requiring the strict scrutiny test. The compelling government interest is to promote greater traffic safety. Tacoma's panhandling restrictions are likely not the least restrictive means. It is arguable that enforcing prohibitions on interfering with Page 2 of 6 vehicular traffic would be less restrictive in that it would not require limiting individuals' freedom of speech or expression, and yet would still take care of the traffic safety issues. Even if Tacoma's code were to be found content - neutral, it would still have to pass the intermediate scrutiny test. "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009), citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Under the intermediate scrutiny standard, there is a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, but it is arguably not narrowly tailored because it apparently includes all forms of speech. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). In applying this test, courts generally find an ordinance is not narrowly tailored when its speech prohibition reaches instances of speech that pose practically no threat to traffic safety. Examples of this would be when an ordinance "would reach an individual standing well away from the flow of traffic and who merely holds up a sign inviting the occupants of vehicles to drive to a private location to confer," Comite De Jornaleros De Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F.Supp.2d 952, 965 (2006), or an ordinance that would prohibit "children [from] selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of their home, [or] Girl Scouts [from] selling cookies on the sidewalk outside of their school." Id. at 966, FN 8. There are good arguments as to why this does not leave open ample alternative channels for communication, since it includes all streets, but that will not be discussed further at this time since the other portion of the test was not met. Based on this analysis, staff believes that Tacoma's provisions are not narrowly tailored, and do not believe they would hold up if challenged. Issaquah — The approach under Issaquah is primarily to identify specific intersections where solicitation, including panhandling, is prohibited. The definition of "solicitation" from Issaquah's Code is listed, along with the prohibitions. "Solicitation" for the purposes of this chapter is any means of asking, begging, requesting, or pleading made in person, orally or in a written or printed manner, directed to another person, requesting an immediate donation of money, contribution, alms, financial aid, charity, gifts of items or service of value, or the purchase of an item or service for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation. A. It shall be unlawful to solicit at the following places: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the following intersections and identified in Exhibit A, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and incorporated by reference: a. SR 900 and: i. NW Sammamish Road; ii. 12th Avenue NW; iii. NW Gilman Boulevard; iv. NW Mall Street; Page 3 of 6 v. NW Maple Street; vi. NW Newport Way; b. E. Lake Sammamish Parkway SE and: i. SE Issaquah Fall City Road; ii. SE 64th Place; iii. 229th Avenue SE; c. NW Gilman Boulevard and: i. Front Street North; ii. 1 st Avenue NW; d. Rainier Boulevard North and: i. NW Juniper Street; ii. NW Holly Street; B. It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, or offer for immediate sale, goods, services or publications, or to distribute items without remuneration, to a person in a vehicle, at the following: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the street intersections set forth in subsection (A)(2) of this section. In using the same legal analysis set forth above regarding Tacoma's code, the definition of "solicitation" is narrowly drafted to essentially be restricted to panhandling type activities. The regulations contained in subsections A and B, together do not appear to be content - based, as they cover all types of transactions — those that are intended to be a donation (A), and those for value (B). As such, it would likely be found to be content - neutral, rather than content - based. Under a content - neutral analysis, it would still have to pass the intermediate scrutiny test. "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009), citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). In applying this test, the regulations appear to be content - neutral, and leave open ample alternative channels. However, it does not appear to be narrowly tailored. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). Issaquah's regulation would preclude a person standing 25 feet back from the edge of the roadway, on private property, from holding a sign requesting to come get your car washed. It would apparently preclude erecting or carrying any business sign advertising goods for sale within 300 feet of the designated intersections. If this were not enforced against businesses, and only against individuals near the right -of -way, then the City could face a challenge not only that it is facially invalid, but that it is also unconstitutional as applied in specific circumstances. It is important to note that neither Tacoma's nor Issaquah's provisions has been challenged in court as to whether they are legal under the state or federal constitutions. As such, and for the reasons stated above, we believe if Spokane Valley were to adopt similar panhandling restrictions, there would be at least medium -to -high level of risk that they would not survive a legal challenge. Page 4 of 6 4. Several Council members have inquired whether the City could implement a permit requirement in order to panhandle. Staff believes such a requirement would not withstand legal challenge. Both the 9 Circuit and US Supreme Court have used strong language in condemning permit requirements on individuals seeking to exercise free speech in a traditional public forum like rights -of -way. "A permitting requirement is a prior restraint on speech and therefore bears a heavy presumption against constitutionality." Berger v. Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1037 (9 Cir. 2009). The US Supreme Court stated "[i]t is offensive —not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society —that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 165- 66 (2002). "Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor's office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition." Id. at 166. Given these statements by our highest courts, staff recommends not pursuing permitting requirements for panhandling due to their high risk. 5. Staff recently spoke with the City of Liberty Lake to inquire what they do regarding panhandling. We were informed they don't enforce any specific laws, and instead asserted that their citizens simply don't give to panhandlers. This seems to indicate that an educational program aimed at teaching people not to give to panhandlers may be effective. Additionally, staff believes an educational program aimed at more effective ways to target their donations to organizations has the lowest risk to the City. 6. Staff has drafted a proposed legislative change to City Code for the Council to consider, attached to this RCA as Attachment 3. Considering the legal requirements outlined in this memorandum, we consider this proposal to be moderate risk. In summary, it would prohibit soliciting, which is defined as the request and the conduct of physically contacting the vehicle, from the roadway of on ramps /off ramps of interstate highways and from principal arterials as defined in City Code. A map of what is considered a principal arterial is provided as Attachment 4. This would only preclude solicitation as defined from on the roadway, but not from any sidewalks, which directly addresses the compelling governmental interest of increasing traffic and pedestrian safety. It would also still allow all forms of signage, including commercial, because it would require contact with a vehicle or passenger to constitute a violation. The full legal analysis is as follows: "To pass constitutional muster, a time, place, or manner restriction must meet three criteria: (1) it must be content - neutral; (2) it must be `narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'; and (3) it must `leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. "' Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9 Cir. 2009) quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Because the ordinance applies to all types of transactions, it appears content neutral. And since the proposed ordinance still leaves most of the City's roadways available for solicitation speech, it would likely leave ample alternatives for communication. Further, there is no question that the City has a significant governmental interest in traffic safety. However, it is difficult to state with certainty whether the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In order to be narrowly tailored, a restriction on speech may not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989). The proposed Page 5 of 6 ordinances aim to narrowly serve the City's traffic safety interest in two ways. First, a violation requires not only a "solicitation" component, but also a "physical contact" component. This more narrowly prohibits the kind of conduct that actually poses traffic safety and flow risks (e.g., physical pedestrian contact with traffic), while permitting a person to exercise his or her free speech when almost no traffic safety concern is triggered (e.g., holding a sign requesting money, but not making physical contact with traffic). "A ban on the actual hand -to -hand exchange of money, for example, is not content -based speech regulation." Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d at 1051, citing International Society for Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 US 672, 705 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Second, for a violation to occur, a person must stand on a principal arterial or on an interstate highway on -ramp or off -ramp. This more narrowly serves traffic safety concerns because it still permits activity that fails to trigger traffic safety concerns: for example, a person standing safely on a sidewalk and holding a sign. Simply put, there is not a general ban on soliciting drivers —only on standing in busy roadways to do it while making physical contact with traffic. Although this ordinance seems to be narrowly tailored to address traffic safety interests, we do not know how a court would rule on it. As such, staff views this option as having a medium risk level. The risks to the City associated with adopting codes that are later found unconstitutional should be considered as part of this analysis. All of the codes contemplated by most cities list a violation as being a misdemeanor, subject to up to 90 days in jail and /or up to $1,000 fine. If somebody is arrested and jailed, they could file suit for damages and attorney fees, which can be substantial. Sample cases show that damages can be around $50,000 or more, plus attorney fees that can be in excess of $100,000. The Council may want to weigh the potential for litigation when making its policy choices. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Tacoma panhandling provisions 2. City of Issaquah panhandling provisions 3. Proposed change to SVMC 8.25, adding a new section Page 6 of 6 Issaquah Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2008) Chapter 9.45 REGULATION OF SOLICITATION Sections: 9.45.010 Purpose. 9.45.020 Definitions. 9.45.030 Coercive solicitation — Prohibited. 9.45.040 Time of solicitation. 9.45.050 Place of solicitation. 9.45.060 Penalties. 9.45.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate and punish acts of coercive and aggressive begging, and acts of begging that occur at locations or under circumstances specified herein which create an enhanced sense of fear or intimidation in the person being solicited, or pose risk to traffic and public safety. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). 9.45.020 Definitions. A. "Coercive" means to do the following with intent: 1. To approach, speak or gesture to a person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person to believe that the person is being threatened with a commission of a criminal act upon the person, another person or property in the person's possession. 2. To approach within 1 foot of a person for the purpose of making a solicitation without obtaining said person's initial consent. 3. To persist in a solicitation after the person solicited has given a negative response. 4. To block the passage of a person, pedestrian traffic, a vehicle or vehicular traffic while making a solicitation. 5. To engage in conduct that would reasonably be construed as intended to compel or force a person being solicited to accede to demands. 6. To make any false or misleading representation in the course of making a solicitation. B. "Solicitation" for the purposes of this chapter is any means of asking, begging, requesting, or pleading made in person, orally or in a written or printed manner, directed to another person, requesting an immediate donation of money, contribution, alms, financial aid, charity, gifts of items or service of value, or the purchase of an item or service for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). 9.45.030 Coercive solicitation — Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for a person to make coercive solicitation. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). Issaquah Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2008) Page 1 of 2 9.45.040 Time of solicitation. It shall be unlawful to make solicitation to pedestrians on public property after sunset or before sunrise. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). 9.45.050 Place of solicitation. A. It shall be unlawful to solicit at the following places: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the following intersections and identified in Exhibit A, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and incorporated by reference: a. SR 900 and: i. NW Sammamish Road; ii. 12th Avenue NW; iii. NW Gilman Boulevard; iv. NW Mall Street; v. NW Maple Street; vi. NW Newport Way; b. E. Lake Sammamish Parkway SE and: i. SE Issaquah Fall City Road; ii. SE 64th Place; iii. 229th Avenue SE; c. NW Gilman Boulevard and: i. Front Street North; ii. 1 st Avenue NW; d. Rainier Boulevard North and: i. NW Juniper Street; ii. NW Holly Street; B. It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, or offer for immediate sale, goods, services or publications, or to distribute items without remuneration, to a person in a vehicle, at the following: 1. On -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate highway; 2. Within 300 feet of the street intersections set forth in subsection (A)(2) of this section. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). 9.45.060 Penalties. Violation of any section of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and /or imprisonment for up to 90 days. (Ord. 2513 § 1, 2008). Issaquah Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2008) Page 2 of 2 Tacoma Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2007) CHAPTER 8.13B SOLICITATIONS TO OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS PROHIBITED 8.1313.010 Purpose. 8.1313.020 Definitions. 8.1313.030 Prohibited conduct. 8.1313.040 Evidence. 8.1313.050 Penalty. 8.1313.010 Purpose. 8.13B.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect citizens from the fear and intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation and to provide for vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety. (Ord. 27600 § 5, Exhibit C; passed Apr. 3, 2007) 8.13B.020 Definitions. In this chapter: A. "Goods" means real property, as well as tangible and intangible personal property. B. "Public property" means: 1. any property open or devoted to public use or owned by the City; and 2. any area dedicated to the public use for sidewalk, street, highway, or other transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, any curb, median, parkway, shoulder, sidewalk, alley, drive, or public right -of -way. C. "Roadway" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.500, as currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future. D. "Services" means any work done for the benefit of another person. E. "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit" means any conduct or act whereby a person: 1. either orally or in writing, asks for an immediate ride, employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose; 2. either orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods, services, or publications; 3. distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or 4. solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey. F. "Vehicle" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.670, as currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future. (Ord. 27600 § 5, Exhibit C; passed Apr. 3, 2007) 8.13B.030 Prohibited conduct. A. It is unlawful for any person, while occupying any public property adjacent to any public roadway in the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or intended to attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle stopped or traveling on the roadway, unless said vehicle is legally parked. An offense occurs when the solicitation is made, whether or not an actual employment relationship is created, a transaction is completed, or an exchange of money, goods, Tacoma Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2007) Page 1 of 2 or services takes place. PROVIDED, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit activity authorized pursuant to Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 11. 15, Special Events Permitting Code. B. It is a defense to prosecution under Section 8.1313.030 that the person was: 1. summoning aid or requesting assistance in an emergency situation; or 2. a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties. (Ord. 27600 § 5, Exhibit C; passed Apr. 3, 2007) 8.13B.040 Evidence. Evidence to support a conviction for a violation of this chapter may include, but is not limited to, testimony of witnesses, videotape evidence of the violation, and other admissible evidence. (Ord. 27600 § 5, Exhibit C; passed Apr. 3, 2007) 8.13B.050 Penalty. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a person is subject to a penalty of $1,000, incarceration for up to 90 days, or both a fine and a penalty. (Ord. 27600 § 5, Exhibit C; passed Apr. 3, 2007) Tacoma Municipal Code Provisions (Adopted in 2007) Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Code Text Amendments (CTA 03 -10): proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) -add language which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted uses in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170 -210 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28 2007. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. Following the adoption of these codes, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted. Earlier this year, the City Council requested that staff initiate a code amendment for the above referenced items. The Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation on an amendment to SARP Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) which would have allowed vehicle sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. The Planning Commission requested additional information on this proposed amendment, which will be studied further at a public hearing on July 22n 2010. ANALYSIS: See attached Staff Repot OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first reading of the ordinance or provide staff direction regarding modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading of ordinance BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: SVMC Chapter 19.140, SARP Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use), SARP Table 2.2.2, Staff Report `Srikalt Department of Community Development Planning Division City Council Administrative Report July 13 th, 2010 CTA -03 -10 Text Amendments to the SVMC &the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Spoke Department of Community Development Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. rohibited Uses: (1) Full service restaurants (2) Used vehicle sales. Department of Community Development Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. ii) Prohibited Uses: (1) Full service restaurants (2) Used vehicle sales. "TYHAtt«5PQ'A'4" Department of Community Development Planning Division Legend: -- . Not Permitted U: Upper Floors Only G: Ground Floor Only 'ermitted: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in Section 2.2.2. Building Use Required: These are Required elements of all new development as indicated. .imited: These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the ground floor use A): For Anchor Stores: (At): larger than 25,000 sq. ft., 1 floor / 20 ft. is permitted, (A2): larger than 50,000 sq. ft., regulation does not apply, (A3): larger than 50,000 sq. ft., parking type is permitted .1.3 Mixed Use Avenue District Zone Development 2.2. Site Street / Street Category Sprague Ave. Other Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public pen Spaces required equired or not required required required .2.2.Building Use required Retail 5 acres 5 acres a) City Center Retail - -- - -- b) Neighborhood Center Retail - -- - -- c) Mixed -Use Avenue Retail permitted - -- d) Corner Store Retail - -- - -- e) Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail - -- - -- I) Gateway Commercial Center Retail - -- - -- Civic, Quasi- Civic, & Cultural permitted pemutted Office permitted permitted ) Light Industrial permitted permitted Lodging (w /common entry) permitted permitted Live -Work permitted permitted Residential a) Multi- Family w/ Common Entry pemutted permitted b) Attached Single - Family w/ Individual Entry - -- perrmtted 2.3. Street and Open Space Standards 2.3.1.Street Standards Sprague Ave. Other Streets Street Provision required required Pre - Located Street required required Maximum Block Size 5 acres 5 acres Street Configuration required required Street Type a) Core Street N/A - -- b) City Street N/A - -- c) Neighborhood Street N/A permitted d) Neighborhood Green Street N/A permitted e) Service Street N/A - -- I) Alley N/A - -- g) Passage N/A - -- 3.2.Open Space Standards see section 2.3.3 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Ave. Other Streets r Types r.) Surface Parking } Department of Community Development , lvaI Planning Division Legend: - -- : Not Permitted U: Upper Floors Only G: Ground Floor Only *Full Service Restaurants only. are Required elements of all new development as indicated. These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in Section 2.2.2. Building Use These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the ground floor use For Anchor Stores: (Al): larger than 25,000 sq. ft., 1 floor / 20 ft. is permitted, (A2): larger than 50,000 sq. ft., regulation does not apply, (A3): larger than 50,000 sq. ft., parking type is permitted .1.3 Mixed Use Avenue District Zone Development 2.2. Site Street / Street Category Sprague Ave. Other Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public pen Spaces required equired or not required required required .2.2.Building Use required Retail 5 acres 5 acres a) City Center Retail - -_ required b) Neighborhood Center Retail - -- - -- c) Mixed -Use Avenue Retail permitted Restricted* d) Corner Store Retail - -- - -- e) Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail - -- - -- I) Gateway Commercial Center Retail - -- - -- Civic, Quasi- Civic, & Cultural permitted permitted Office permitted permtted ) Light Industrial permitted permitted Lodging (w /common entry) permitted permitted Live -Work permitted permitted Residential a) Multi- Family w/ Common Entry permitted permitted b) Attached Single - Family w/ Individual Entry - -- permitted 2.3. Street and Open Space Standards 2.3.1.Street Standards Sprague Ave. Other Streets Street Provision required required Pre - Located Street required required Maximum Block Size 5 acres 5 acres Street Configuration required required Street Type a) Core Street N/A - -- b) City Street N/A - -- c) Neighborhood Street N/A permitted d) Neighborhood Green Street N/A permitted e) Service Street N/A - -- I) Alley N/A g) Passage N/A 2. 3.2.Open Space Standards see section 2.3.3 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Ave. Other Streets E , .4.1.Parking Types r) Surface Parking Spok a�n�: Department of Community Development .axle ,...... Planning Division Chapter 19.140 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS Sections: 19.140.010 Purpose. 19.140.020 Approval criteria. 19.140.030 Process. 19.140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances: A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot. B. Under the following conditions: 1. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise be reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. G. Lot width under the following circumstances: 1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent; provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. H. Up to one -half of a private tower's "impact area" off of the applicant's property. I. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided, that: 1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre - January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre - January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right -of -way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right -of -way by the City, county, state or federal agency. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007). K. The Communitv Develooment Director may aaarove administrative exceptions for minor desian chanaes to the Soraaue and Aaalewav Corridors Subarea Plan. "TYHA "«5PQ'A'4" Department of Community Development Planning Division Questions? CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spok ane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 1l ey PLANNING COMMISSION ►�[L 1 CTA -03 -10 STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 17, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION June 24, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Zoning code text amendments to the following sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1) Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) Add language which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan; 2) Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use; 3) Table 2.2.2 Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) and propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more than once a year by state law. Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review, the City Council heard from two citizens with problems with SARP. The first was a citizen who opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The second citizen wished to open a small cafe /coffee shop but was advised that coffee shops are only penmitted in the Mixed Use Center with direct access to Sprague Avenue. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -03 -10 Page 1 of 5 The City Council directed staff to bring these two issues be sent to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger study of SARP. Additionally, the Community Development Director asked the council to consider an amendment that would give discretion to the Director to approve minor deviations to the design and architectural standards that would allow approval of a project, but not jeopardize the intent of SARP. The council agreed to add this item to the other two issues for proposed code amendments. B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4, 2010 Issuance of an Determination of Non - Significance (DNS): June 4, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: June 18, 2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Detennination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close June 18, 2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN (SARP) Book I: Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book II: Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book III: City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically, the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. Two of the code amendments are proposed within the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -03 -10 Page 2 of 5 The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thinking was that by concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the use of adjacent properties. Full Service Restaurants were limited to the City Center and Neighborhood Centers so that the City Center could get a jump start. The Mixed Use Avenue Zone permits drive -in and drive -up restaurants and espresso stands with direct access to Sprague Avenue and Full Service Restaurants are prohibited. E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. b. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area. The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations, the legal department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new vehicles, then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use permit, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to mitigate any aesthetic impacts. Restaurants were excluded from the Mixed Use Avenue to give the City Center the opportunity to develop a city center core before considering them for other districts. Since that time, the economy has changed and the City Council has discontinued the focus on the City Center. Therefore, the exclusion of restaurants from other zoning districts is not a high priority. The third amendment for the director discretion is to cover situations where a project is proposed and a minor adjustment is not contemplated in the scope of the SARP. This provision will be used sparingly where the proposal meets the intent of the SARP but can't satisfy the rigid application of the regulations. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment, Staff Response: The amendments bear substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, allow Full Service Restaurants more options for access, and gives greater flexibility to Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -03 -10 Page 3 of 5 new businesses locating in the Sprague and Appleway corridor through the use of Administrative Exceptions. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan are consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 03 -10. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. C. Chapter 1930.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect, impractical, or omitted. E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 24 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19: 1. Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) Add language with gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 2. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the conditional use pen requirements and allow Full Service Restaurants as a pennitted use 3. Table 2.2.2 — Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -03 -10 Page 4 of 5 Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -03 -10 Page 5 of 5 Chapter 19.140 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS Section 19.140.010 Purpose. 19.140.020 Approval criteria. 19.140.030 Process. 19.140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances: A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot. B. Under the following conditions: 1. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise be reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. G. Lot width under the following circumstances: 1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent; provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. H. Up to one -half of a private tower's "impact area" off of the applicant's property. I. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided, that: 1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre- January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre- January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right -of -way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right -of -way by the City, county, state or federal agency. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007). K. The Community Development Director may approve administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 19.140.020 Approval criteria. Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the director if it is shown that: A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the vicinity in which it is proposed; B. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity by protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other resources; C. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies; D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4 2007). 19.140.030 Process. An administrative exception is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070 (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007). Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16, 2009 Book II — 2.2 Site Development Regulations Page 50 of 201 (1) May be free - standing building or incorporated into mixed -use building. (2) Minimum interior height for ground level retail of all types is 14 ft. from floor to ceiling for new buildings. (3) Drive - through business are permitted subject to the following criteria: (a) Drive - through facilities are permitted on sites adjacent to a principal arterial street. Access and stacking lanes serving drive - through businesses shall not be located between a building and any adjacent street, public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. (See SVMC 22.50.030 for stacking and queuing lane requirements. (b) Stacking lanes shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and pedestrian areas by landscaping and /or architectural element, or any combination therein. c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. (8) Full Service Restaurants ii) Prohibited Uses: (1) F4111 sel:viee- restatir-ants (2) Used vehicle sales. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Report back to Council — Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) District Zone GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The Council has requested that the Sprague /Appleway Sub -area Plan be revisited zone by zone with property owners involved in the process. On June 15, 2010, staff presented an overview of the Mixed Use Avenue District zone to Council. On June 24, 2010, a community meeting was conducted at 8am in Council Chambers togather public input on the MUA zone regulations. OPTIONS: The Council should consider the comments received as a result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following options: 1. Identify which issues and specific language to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; 2. Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 3. Take No Action 4. Direct staff otherwise RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This memo is for information only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project will use existing staff, however this is a significant project which will likely require other projects be placed on hold. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Report and PowerPoint Presentation Written Public Comments June 24, 2010 Meeting Sign -in Sheet and Meeting Transcript ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notices sent to ALL property owners and Business operators • Email notice to over 80o recipients Notice Published in Newspaper Attended by ~34persons Meeting Format c Presentation Question and Answer • Purpose Provide Information to public �- Receive comments �I Issue #1 Permitted Uses A pplica b le Regulatio Permitted uses include MUA Retail, Lodging, Light Industrial, and Civic /Institutional Main Concern i�,O, Property owners concerned that restricting certain types of retail reduces value of property Should allow market forces to SARP based on findings that land supply for retail exceeds demand Clustering similar and complementary uses creates an environment supportive of those business' Limiting the location where certain uses are permitted makes property more likely to develop since the number of properties available is reduced. Process to consider change: CTA or CPA dictate land use Issue #2 Nonconforming Uses f Permitted Uses in MUA zone Main Concerns: Restrictions on retail uses created a number of existing uses nonconforming Increased costs for insurance and mortgages Particular concern about single- family homes The only way to make uses conforming is to permit the use in the zone Code change to address impacts on single - family homes. Process to consider change: CTA Issue #3 Setbacks and Parking ----------- -.- ------- I OM11. iL O --- ------ Min /Max setbacks required in MUA zone No parking between building and sidewalk Main Concerns: Retailers do not like parking on side /rear Side /rear parking is key component of SARP. Integral to making corridor pedestrian oriented Process to consider change: Comp Plan Change Issue #4 Additions, Expansions, Reconstruction ih'O' Applicability section - threshold to comply with new regulations Main Concerns Meeting new development standards for improvements to existing buildings Cost of meeting new regulations. Question of applicability - at what point do major improvements require conformance with new regulations? Process to consider change: CTA Issue # 5 Architectural Standards Architectural Regulations Main Concerns Meeting new architectural standards too costly Standards are do not provide flexibility f The new standards may add cost to development, but they respond to the community's desire to improve the look of the corridor. Standards are very general and provide great degree of design flexibility Process to consider change: CTA Issue # 6 Prelocated Streets SARP requires new streets for development >5 acres Main Concerns Cost of building new streets. New streets located where there are existing buildings. Fully connected street network creating smaller blocks is key to revitalization strategy. CD Direct may approve alternate street locations Process to consider change: CTA Issue # 7 Signage MUA Sign Regulations Main Concerns General concerns expressed about sign regulations Sign regulations being reviewed during Gateway ih,O, PC to consider changes to sign code, specifically placing wall signs below 2 floor. Process to consider change: CTA Commercial zone Issue # 8 One -Way vs. Two -Way Future Street Network Main Concerns Concerns about impacts to business resulting from changing Sprague to one - way. Council is considering a ballot measure to resolve issue. ,. Process to consider change: Comp Plan Change • Options: Consider the comments received and direct staff on how to proceed. Options: Select issues to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; Select all issues, except those that require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, i.e. a portion Of *4. Take No Action Other — Direct Staff otherwise r Mixed Use Avenue Zoning District Zoning District Summary of Issues and Concerns City Council has directed the Community Development Department to conduct a thorough review of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) regulations with community input through a series of public meetings. This report provides Council a summary of public comments received during the Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) District Zone review process and highlights specific concerns of business and property owners. Comments received will inform Council of possible changes that could be made to make the SARP regulations more acceptable to business and property owners. Background A community meeting was conducted at 8am on Thursday, June 24, 2010. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property and business owners located within the Mixed Use Avenue district zones as identified on the Spokane County Assessor's Office property records and current business registration information. Additionally, notice was distributed to approximately 800 email addresses, published in the newspaper and posted on the City website. The meeting was attended primarily by business and property owners with 34 people signing the meeting sign -in sheet (attached). At the meeting, staff presented an overview of the Mixed Use Avenue regulations, followed by questions from the audience. Comments were recorded on a flip chart and the meeting was recorded. A transcript of the recording is attached for Council's review. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the public to further their understanding of the regulations and to receive comments regarding issues and concerns for Council's consideration. Amendment Process As Council is aware, it is possible to change the SARP regulations through a text amendment process as long as the changes are consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the Subarea Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Text amendments are first considered by the Planning Commission who conducts a public hearing on the proposal. The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to Council to either approve or disapprove the proposal. If the desired amendment is not consistent with Subarea Plan then a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required to address the change. The Comprehensive Plan can be amended one time per year with applications due at the end of November. Mixed Use Avenue Report to Council Page 2 July 13, 2010 Meeting Summary Following staff's overview of the MUA zone, the audience asked questions related to the MUA zone. In general, not many concerns were raised during the meeting. The issues that were raised were similar to the concerns voiced at the Gateway Commercial zones meetings, including nonconforming uses, parking lot locations and building design. Questions and comments were recorded on a flip chart, summarized as follows: 1. Insurance and financing a concern with nonconforming uses. 2. Rules take away flexibility due to design criteria. 3. Concerns about split zoning. 4. How are single- family houses treated? Should we make them conforming? S. One -way streets impacts businesses. 6. Direction flexibility for particular situations helps. 7. Concerns about development /design standards. Following is a list of issues and concerns that surfaced during the MUA community meeting and in comment letters received by the Department which are attached for Council's review. Issues and Concerns Permitted Uses - The MUA zone limits some retail uses, such as personal services, entertainment, banks and full service restaurants. Property owners and property brokers would like more retail uses added back as permitted uses, especially uses that command higher rents, such as banks and restaurants. Staff Response: The City has a surplus of commercially zoned land. The SARP's centers and segments zoning system clusters different retail types to create a physical environment that supports the permitted uses. The mix of uses along the corridor are designed to increase property values by limiting the areas where some retail uses are permitted, rather than allowing the whole range of commercial uses along the entire 12 miles (counting both frontages) of corridor. The Plan framework is founded on updated market fundamentals. The Plan specifically supports properties "that have managed to remain valuable, most of which are located on large sites at prominent crossroad locations" and to "re- position disinvested corridor properties" along Sprague and Appleway. The disinvested properties are largely found, though not exclusively, in the Mixed Use Avenue zoned "segments ". The corridor revitalization strategy is to transition the miles of "anything goes retail" to a pattern of clusters of mutually supportive types of retail in centers and segments with differentiated market focus. Retail is to be limited between the crossroad - located centers to retail types that thrive on visibility and that make less sense in pedestrian- oriented districts. The economic analysis conducted as part of the planning process revealed that, with the exception of properties located at primary crossroads, the potential value for residential property has caught up with their potential for retail. Process Required: Either Code Text Amendment or Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mixed Use Avenue Review Report Page 3 June 15, 2010 Some uses may be added to the list of permitted uses. However, allowing all retail uses as permitted is not consistent with the intent and revitalization strategy of the Subarea Plan. 2. Nonconforming Uses - The concern is that the MUA zone created a number of nonconforming use situations, which may affect insurance and mortgages. Staff Response: This concern is often raised when discussing nonconforming uses. Staff has contacted random insurance agents and mortgage brokers and, while every situation is unique, the response is that nonconforming uses do not necessarily cause insurance or mortgage rates to increase. However, concerns about the impacts of nonconformity persist. The only way to make uses conforming is to permit the use in the zone. Process Required: See No. 1 Setbacks and Parking - Concern was raised about the SARP regulations requiring buildings to be constructed closer to the street with parking only permitted on the side and rear of the building. The concern is that retailers do not like this requirement, they like parking to be in front of the building, especially national retailers. One commenter at the public meeting stated that people do not like buildings constructed close to the street, pointing to the Walgreens at Liberty Lake as an example. Staff Response: The requirement to locate parking lots to the side and rear of buildings is a key component of the desired MUA form. It is also integral to redeveloping the corridor into a pedestrian friendly and attractive environment where residential and non- residential uses can be compatible. The MUA zone requires a 20 -25' setback from the back of sidewalk for buildings oriented to Sprague. Process required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4. Additions, Expansions, Reconstruction C50% rule) -Concern about complying with SARP regulations for additions, expansions, reconstruction. Staff Response: This is a question of applicability: should major improvements to existing buildings be required to comply with the SARP regulations? The SARP requires regulatory conformance for all new construction and exterior improvements costing more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. New construction is defined as an entirely new structure or the reconstruction, remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more than 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the existing structure or land. Process Required: Code Text Amendment S. Architectural Standards - Concern that architectural standards are too costly. Staff Response: The SARP does not contain onerous architectural standards. Rather, it includes very are minimal specific standards for new development. The basic components include a building base, which can be met by simply changing the color of the siding, and a Mixed Use Avenue Review Report Page 4 June 15, 2010 top cap. Long, blank walls must be broken up with an architectural element. These standards respond to the community's desire to improve the aesthetics of Sprague Avenue. Process Required: Code Text Amendment 6. Prelocated Streets - Remove the requirement to construct new streets. StattResponse. The SARP requires new streets to be constructed in all district zones if the development is larger than 5 acres or if the City's Development Engineer determines that a new street must be constructed due to the impacts of the development on the existing street and traffic circulation. Concern was expressed over the cost of constructing new streets and the location of the prelocated streets, in particular where the new streets appear to be located where buildings exist. A Prelocated Street Map shows the general, preferred location of new streets. The specific location would be determined during the development process. The Community Development Director may approve an alternative location if the proposal meets the goal of connectivity. The creation of smaller blocks and establishing a connected street network are key components in the corridor redevelopment strategy. A complete street network will enhance all modes of transportation, including cars, bikes and pedestrians. The City recently adopted a Street Master Plan that establishes future street networks. That Plan defers to the SARP for preferred future street locations in the corridor. Process Required: Code Text Amendment 7. Signage - Signage regulations are detrimental and should be reversed. Staff Response - There were no specific signage suggestions articulated during the MUA review process. The Planning Commission will consider a change to sign regulations during their review of the Gateway Commercial District code text changes, specifically the requirement for placing wall signs below the second floor of buildings. Process Required: Code Text Amendment 8. One -way vs. Two Way - Concern about the impacts of one -way roads on businesses. StattResponse The SARP clearly establishes the intended future street network. Any changes to the future design of Sprague and Appleway must be considered during annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mixed Use Avenue Review Report Page 5 June 15, 2010 Council Options Council should consider the comments received as a result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following actions: 1. Identify issues and general language to forward to the Planning Commission for Code Amendments. 2. Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 3. Take no action. 4. Other direction. Mixed Use Avenue Review Report Page 6 June 15, 2010 a. A Subarea Plan Review Sign In Sheet Date C12 1 v -� 112 C , i r✓ 37 - 7 tit�C - (;fr aao r S�� atiG . C- &vf •GmN S �" crry ormoo^%ra� VoKane s 4000 Su ba r ea w. Si Date 6 -r,2 - / o NAME P6EAsa Pi ADDRESS Business NamclPro a Owner E -MAIL Need follow-up? 1S -1}�LT �1@Il2o rr� G Ste.' il63 '."f"'. l� '�lxu.� , v [ t.oP�sn. 1vYa g a �Ih�74�JSr �5'' a��1 .�w ,sua�' Ca y+a - Gor-• 1F Y��S L �ttror LaM 73Ja S. TS.gro� Cf al o ra A&. 7,vm 6 -f=Jo. eau Y E l i W31 jYD rr �� I Vl<L/C'1waGelf _ — C/*AR57 m i" 13 r° ?a 7 s �u - zt rte - �S� � n +,..� Nb -s - 1� ,�,� te r' +� _ s� __,,,,,��.� sa e .vc i� .✓. .e% s7-��a S l rj �- x .� _..ma I 1/(� �@ Aes/ W rGj'1CC,�1 w VFW¢ 3%— �"o'i [ �( S ovfvwa"< 1�aongvsft n b Zt�� oar �2 E //707 - S $�3oz` o � II7 v� G k E k l - v R_10 RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2010 SOCane SPOKANE VAI �. Valley COMMUNITY N 4� Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning District The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District. If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509 -720 -5334 or email d rig iffith(c�r�,snokanevalley,org Name; Mailing Address; Email address; ,� L ,� �s ��c, ra" Phone number: Q 'z_ I have the following comments about how to improve the Plan; I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me; el - (? U6 t-�—f� p^ /� -?A-,Z, t t C i� -e pro- r(- ( AJ e, V Q ' � �_ u�'L ✓' Vti f -ti C� U � � PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th, Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Spraguc Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206, R -11 Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning DiRE cir ol�a�e - JUN 2 4 2010 SP ALL COMMUN E The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District. If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509720 -5334 or email dp-riffith(7a,snokanevallev, o rp-. r Name: III '1,'� �°' S'r0 J I tw W r , 5 ?G 1 5d -L Mailing Address: s 7 L Email address; Phone number; so - tl, 9 ,2 7 !) I have the following comments about how to improve the Plan; I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me: /t PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th. Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. RECEIVED R -1Z Comm( Ong IS'f fid 4 cury PdKANe v LLE ER RfME T O COMMUNITY DAELOPMENT y The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed — Use Zoning District. If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509 - 7205334 or email d , areith omookanevallev.om. Name; w� `� sije6 f ' Mailing Address; !17 Email address: Phone number: � „ 6?2 ,S l I have the following comments about how to improve the Plan: f } e �, I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me: PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th. Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. RECEIVED . .. JUN 2 4 2010 R -13 CITYOR gPOKANE V Uh1V A. ..: coy i�E �FAT�g�� ... MUNITY 4 ✓aNT V alley Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning District The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District, If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509- 720 -5334 or email doyiffith@spokaiievallgy.org Name: V,,A,7-1A ` F 0C Mailing Address: 12 g05 F STS Q� U F- AX� y � � v L_LL 1 C 1�j)/, Email address V :�-) O l rL LA o Phone number; C I have the following comments about holy to in ✓ iprove the Plan: AA uh I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me: PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th. Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. R -14 SpoiKane Ie Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning District The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District, If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509- 720 -5334 or email dgriffith@spokanevallpy.org. Name: d� )'1 11� �� '0 )v Mailing Address: 2 � Email address: Phone number: I-� q /r � I have the following comments about how to improve the Plan: _ Fro rZ =� 1 4 1 7-lil I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me: PLEASE PROVE YOUR COMMENTS ID BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th, Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206, RECEIVED JUN 2 9 '2010 5POKANL VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF rnfV;iviUN1TY DE-VLLOPMEN1 R -15 $z. ane ,� - O o mftuer aomMjN ENT Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning District The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements Cot' the Mixed Use Zoning District. If you cannot Mtend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments belo or contact Scott K ltllta, Sr. Planner at 509 - 720.5331 or email dt�riffitll <c- -ane� - cy o� Name: Mailitlg Ad�Css: I T � c, 41/n e} �3 r L! Email address: Pllon0 number: Cl,2 v -- / 0 5 U [ have the following comments about ]low to improve the Pinn: I st have questions, and would like a staff person to coutoot me: irJ u J 11 - r} U -t - t'�y PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th. Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. (' �K `� RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2010 1/ �I Best BUIldICt Supply Inc COMY YAE ELO MENT KA P.O. Box 1402A Spckarle WA 99214 VOIGe 549 - 9241250 Fax 509- 922 -5420. June 30. 2010 To Spokane Valley City C0111161 Regarding: Sa1p Plan I attended the gre eting for mixed use zoning dist l'iet. I would like to compliment on flow well. the meeting went. There was not a lot of bickering and pointing fingers as has been the case, in bast meetings. My name is Rick McCartney part owner of Valley Best-Way Building Supply located at 118 s Union, If I ani correct I can assume my property is compliant in this new zoning regulation, l see light iuclustriai \vas put back into the prix. My pre sarp zoning ,vas I' light industrial. My concern is and Iris always been what's next in regards to down zoning. When all this started three years ago what I got out of the meetings was our citizens wanted the city to learn to walk before running. We freed to remember our city is still iii, its infancy stage. We have plenty of time to grow and become a better city. All along you were told this was a very aggressive plan but still you tried to rail this sari) plan down our throats. As Yrou can see by the election of council nrenrbers the citizens also thought this to be true. The people of Spokane Valley are not of the same nruxi set of people from say San Jose California. We are proud of what we have. Sure we would like some areas cleaned up but that conies with time. My want and desire is to get rid of the sarp plan and concentrate on the Sprague ave corridor to try and dress it up. We have spent entirely too much money on this very aggressive plan. It's tine to Cut our losses and glove on. My grope is.for the council to move, on this quickly and decisively. Mahe n statement to your citizens that you are in charge and will not let outside forces influence your decisions. Thai* you Rick McCartney Valley Best -Way Building Supply 118 S Union Land Use Panning Sexvices 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509 -435 -31018 (V) 509 -467 -0229 (F) 6 -29 -10 Kathy McClung, Director Community Development Department E. 14707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99246 Ref: Mixed Use Avenue designation SARP Sprague and Progress Dear Kathy: I represent the owners of the attached property bounded by Spragu( 1't Avenue; and Progress to and including Liberty Tire, (see aftache+ is. a third generation family ownership-that has managed their propei tenants .for more than 60 years at this site. In that time they have seo zoning change for the better, except when SARP was adopted and 1 owners wish to express'their objections to this MUA zone and SARA the following reasons: 1) A pre - located street is required NIS along their east bound eliminate Liberty Tire. Any off -set to avoid this destruction encroach( leased property to the United States Post Office. In other words, the for anew road. 2) The]mprovements on site are non - conforming to the level standards of the W.A. What would the incremental` loss or damage building do to the rest of the site if it has to then comply to these dev standards while the remainder of the.improvements on site continue non - conforming development rights? 3) The development of any of the site to the SARP MUA stars unlikely for the following reasons: a) None of the allowed SARP uses generate sufficient rent to cost of development; b) Retailers have other options city wide outside the SARP to Avenue to map). This V and i their iposed. The plan for y that will upon Is no room pment gone lopment to enjoy irds is very ff -set the 3cate for less; c) There is neither the purchasing power nor the population in this region to generate the rents heeded to pay for these types of improvementsand nothing has been discussed bythe proponents to disprove this fact. This is not Seattle, Bellevue, Lacey or Portland where this population density and purchasing power exist to support the kind of rents that can pay for these extraordinary improvements. Page 2 d) No matter what the land use need is, there are too many options to locate outside the SARP district and.achieve -the intended. purpose ih the market place and avoid the high cost of new - urbanism, Based upon the above facts, the owners of the above described property urge the Planning Commission and Council to: 1) Eliminate, the. pre- located st.rpet; 2) Provide broader for the .owners of these proper(ies defer compl with the development. stand ards,ih order to, rp6in competitive in. the market.piace. � 3). Reinstate banks and full service restaurarits:as permitted uses in the WA. I i R es ully Submitted, Wight _ Hume, or, SE "r LLC, Hultman Famiiy LLC Attached: Map of subject property D J HUME Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LAME Spokane, WA 99218 509- 435 -3108 (V) 509 -46'7 -0229 (E) 6 -29 -10 Kathy McClung, Director Community Development Department E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: Mixed Use Avenue designation SARP Dear Kathy:: I represent Harlan Douglass who owns 11 separate parcels and businesses within the MUA zone of the SARP plan. I could address each of these separately but at some risk, I will try and summarize our concerns as several issues repeat themselves on other parcels. 1) The MUA zone eliminates 26 uses formerly allowed by Community Commercial. Comment: This reduction of uses significantly affects the range of possible tenants for my buildings and increases the probability of vacancy and blight during such interim vacancy. Compounding this matter is the reduced revenues collected by the City from retail sales and business taxes etc. Recommendation: Restore uses formerly allowed by the Community Commercial zone and perhaps require outdoor display uses to have a Conditional use Permit or some other performance standard to mitigate that impact. 2) The MUA zone cause several current tenants to become legal non- conforming uses. Comment: Non - Conforming uses are difficult to hold on to because they have extraordinary expenses for insurance for replacement and /or relocation expense. These tenants have other options to move to yet another building space and avoid such expenses. Moreover, their non - conformity can affect their financial package in terms of higher cost loans as most lenders will of take the risk of lending to a non - conforming use. Recommendation: The inclusion of the 26 uses formerly provided by the previous zone would eliminate non - conformity and ensure tenant occupancy and use long term. 3) The performance standards imposed by the MUA zone for redevelopment in excess of 50% assessed value, is impractical and tends to discourage any significant renewal or improvements. Comment: The 50% rule is too onerous given the expense and impacts to the site's use, This piecemeal approach creates pockets of new development standards which can then become site obstructions to the other development standards along Sprague Avenue. Recommendation: Instead of individual site improvements, hold public meetings on Sprague Avenue design standards that emphasize perimeter street- scaping and parking that can be installed as a capital improvement program where segments of frontage get improved uniformly each construction season. Once a significant segment of Sprague is completed from say, Pines to Evergreen, then activate the mixed use development standards with use incentives to make it cost - effective to do. 4) Pre - designated Streets should not be required but strictly at the discretion of the land owner. Comment: The use of this standard is also impractical because if assumes that it is needed for the success of the zone. Recommendation: The language requiring streets of this nature needs to be changed to optional and at the discretion of the developer. Thank you for this opportunity to address our concerns about SARP. We hope that the staff, Planning Commission and Council will take heed to the above comments. Respectfully submitted Dwight J Hume, for Harlan Douglass S #61&ne ,,; o O Valley RECEDED JUN 2 9 2010 S VALL C0M P ITY EL FP ENT Comment Sheet for Mixed -Use Zoning District The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use zoning District, If you cannot attend the community meeting on June 24 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kulita, Sr. Planner at 509 -720 -5334 or email detiffitliftokanevalley.org Name: Mac Whiteford Mailing Address: Kiemle & Hagood Company, 601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, WA 99201 Email address macw @khco.com ]Phone number: 509.765.7562 1 have the following comments about how to improve the plan: The City should foster the development of retail property by expanding, not restricting, the allowed commercial uses in the Mixed -Use Avenue zone. Allowed retail uses should more closely follow those approved uses in the Community Commercial zone, In addition, building design and lot use criteria (le. parking behind the building) should be left to the market, though design features meant to visually break up a large wall are appropriate, I still have questions, and would like a staff person to contact me: N /A PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS BY June 30th to be included in the report to the city council on July 6th. Drop this by City Hall or mail to 11707 E Sprague Avenue, #106; Spokane Valley, WA 99206, KEMLE 6z HAGOOD C O M June 23, 2010 Kathy McClung, Director Community Development Department City of Spokane Valley E. 11707 Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RECE JUN 2 9 2010 SPOKAN VALLE11, COMMUNITY 0 VELOPME(4T RE; SARP MIXED -USE AVENUE DESIGNATION AT SPRAGUE & PROGRESS Dear Kathy: �' _Is I am an Associate Broker with Kiemle & Hagood Company. l have been an active commercial Realtor in Spokane for over 32 years, beginning In 1977 with Alvin J. Wolff, Inc. Since 1979 1 have worked almost exclusively In retail real estate, both in sales and leasing. Some of the successful Valley transactions In which I have been directly Involved are the Marle Callender's restaurant on Argonne and 1 -90; the Target and Safeway properties at Sprague and Evergreen; the Staples and Sports Authority stores at the Spokane Valley Mall; the Starbucks stores at Pines and Sprague and at Sprague and Thierman; and the Chuck E. Cheese property at Sprague and Progress. Subject Property Currently I represent SET, LLC and The Hultman Family, LLC (SET /Hultman), owners of the approximately 2 acre property located on the southeast corner of Sprague and Progress In the marketing for sale of that property. This property, as well as additional property from Sprague south to First Avenue and from Progress east to and including the Kentucky Fried Chicken store (approximately 5 acres) Is currently zoned Mixed -Use Avenue (MUA) in the Sprague and Appleway Corrldor Subarea Plan (SARP). The only part of this 5 acres not owned by SET /Hultman 1s the Kentucky Fried Chicken and a single residential lot on First Avenue. All of this property, prior to SARP, was zoned Community Commercial (prior to the Incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley it was zoned County B -3, Regional Business). Chuck E. Cheese and Inland NW Bank: In 2006/2007 1 became aware of the planned SARP and the change in zoning which was under consideration by the City, while I was working to sell the property on the northwest corner of Sprague and Progress, across the intersection from the subject SET /Hultman property. Prior to the rezone, It was clear that If the SARP MUA zoning became a reality before we closed our sale of the property, the present Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank would be prohibited uses - not allowed. As it turned out, these properties were developed prior to enactment of the SARP MUA rezoning. The City of Spokane Valley has benefited from this outcome, increasing its tax base and tax revenue, which otherwise would have been lost to the City If these projects had been prohibited. The development of Chuck E. Cheese and the Inland NW Bank are prime examples of market Professional Real Estate Services Washington Mutual Financial Center a 601 Wes[ Main Avenue, Suite 400 a Spokane, Washington 99201 -0674 ■ (549) 838 -6541 Fax (509) 458.4014 }i -18 forces at work, Planners clearly do not understand retail market forces, at least as they affect retail development. Retail development Is negatively Impacted by programs like the SARP. The SARP plan, with its unrealistic and restrictive development standards, short circuits market forces and lessens the chances that other retail users will locate in the SARP area of the City, due primarily to the higher expense Involved with the new SARP development requirements. The result is that the City, and the public, both lose. The City loses, or will lose, tax base and tax revenues and the public has fewer places to do business and fewer retail choices. New MUA Development Standards Just allowing the currently prohibited uses of Mixed -Use Avenue (full- service restaurants and banks, for example) will not really fix the problem. The new unrealistic and expensive development requirements within the MUA will Increase the cost of the development through locally unproven building designs, less efficient use of a the site and the requirement for some owners to construct unneeded side streets. The dollar cost and extended approval time Inherent in these new built -in development requirements Will drive businesses seeking a Valley location to ' choose an area which does not have these requirements, Liberty Lake for example, resulting In significant development cost savings for the developer. MUA Approved Uses Sprague Avenue Is a retail street. The approved uses under MUA, namely new office, lodging, medium box retail sale and service and large scale housing (stacked units and townhomes) are unrealistic uses for the subject property. Banks and full service restaurants are prohibited in the MUA zone. The prohibition of banks and full- service restaurants In the MUA zone is a huge loss to my owners, as their property is on a fully signalized corner - Progress Road. The new Inland NW Bank is on the opposite corner of this Intersection, and Ironically the bank and Chuck B. Cheese are today non - conforming uses, as Is OZ Fitness, due to the MUA zone standards. For most of the MUA approved uses the economics will not support a new retail development, which we believe will be how my owners' property will be used by a buyer. Mixed -Use Avenue is really a down zone from the earlier Community Commercial zone, or even the current SARP Neighborhood Center zone. Because of a loss of approved uses, and the required new development standards in the MUA zone, the result will be a loss in property value to the property owner. This loss of value will mean a loss of tax revenue for the City, as affected property owners will demand a reassessment of their property by taxing authorities, which will mean Iower tax revenues to the City, West vs. Bast We have heard in previous meetings comparisons of the City of Spokane Valley to communities on the west side of our state. Nearly all of the examples 1 have heard are comparing apples to oranges. The demographics of a given area are a huge factor In the decision by a retailer to develop a new store In a town, or not. Bellevue and Seattle, for example, have enviable demographics (high population density and high disposable Income levels). Development there is expensive, and retail rents are high, but there always seems to be a retailer opening a new store - mainly because of the great demographics. Spokane Valley, on the other hand, does not enjoy high population density, or high disposable income levels. This Is not bad, but It does not foster the steady development of new retail stores. In addition, the west side economy is much deeper and resilient than that of Spokane Valley. What this means is that because of the depth of the Bellevue and Seattle market (people and disposable income levels) the tenants there pay higher rents, thus the developments there can support some additional development expense and extended approval times, The K MMLE & Washington Mutual Financial Center a 601 West Main Avenue, Suite 400 a Spokane, Washington 99201-0674 HAGOOD (509) 838 -6541 a Fax (509) 458 -4014 COMPANY CA-IS Spokane Valley market, on the other hand, will not support a comparable amount of extra development expense or lost time for approvals brought on by the new required development standards of the Mixed -Use Avenue zone. The rents paid In Spokane Valley for new retail developments are roughly 50% to 60% of the rents paid In Seattle and Bellevue. In short, by adding the expensive development requirements of the MUA, Spokane Valley will, I believe, greatly reduce new retail development in the SARP area. Southeast Sprague and Progress PropertlC Regarding the property on the southeast corner of Sprague and Progress (see attached map), My owners' property has been down zoned. In my opinion, the value of their property has been reduced by the City's implementation of the Mixed -Use Avenue zone, with its use restrictions and expensive new development standards. Why was their property re -zoned at all when the natural boundary for a zone change Is logically west of Progress Road, not east? Instead the present MUA zoning creates an Island of Mixed -Use Avenue zoning on the southeast corner of Sprague and Progress, while the rest of the block east to Sullivan and south to First Avenue, is zoned Neighborhood Center. The property on the northeast corner of Sprague and Progress, across Sprague from the subject property, was not down zoned to Mixed -Ilse Avenue [Ike this. It is also zoned Neighborhood Center. The zoning of my owners' property should be changed to Neighborhood Center, the same zoning as the properties to the east of the subject, along the south side of Sprague Avenue. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, KIEMLE & HAGOOD COMPANY �� William M. ( "Mac ") t eford Associate Broker Attached: Aerial Map of Sprague and Progress Uses and Zoning. MW:Im ENCLOSURE(S) !: \9H \Wh1teford, Mac \Sprague & Progress \KM001ung 062310.doc ..-uiuiruu�rsyu. ngtlU��AIv�JfillR�ft7} f@ fj�fL�] �dA+ e@ If# f�IRaaw6 ,gulieOmS��{1�RR4B974067A HAG 14 C 0 M ;A)IM V A N'V G ' 7PY �V �j�tr�� Y -.ti; l4 rs; �✓ '+�^F„g' e.ea �{E Y.m��M tir`rc'y i T r 1, .� AS, Mf n a' -.:. From Stan To: Deanna Griffith Subject: Oppose New Zoning Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:21:33 AM After listening to this concept for over a year now it seems to me that most of the arguments have been made many times over buy yet again we are asked to express our concerns and opinions, so here is part of my list. (1) The people have already spoken with regards to the new zoning laws, a new city council was elected based on their opposition to the changed zoning. (2) Many of us that own property that has been down zoned to mix use are not please with the fact that we are having our property rights, which usually equates to monitary value, taken from us and given to other property owners in order to bolster their property values. (3) Some of the down zoned properties simply could not be rebuilt under the new zoning laws and trying to insure existing properties to be rebuilt at a much greater expense will be a costly and difficult, if not impossible, task. (4) The re- zoning was presented to the people of the valley as a one of three part effort to change the core of the valley. The City Center and the Sprague - Appleway Couplet, representing the other two efforts, have gone nowhere and look like the will remain in limbo for a very long time. This leaves the new zoning the only effort that will be in effect and seems to be of little positive effect without the chance of the other parts happening soon. We need to go back to the old zoning and institute small changes that are needed and re- evaluate the zoning changes when the other parts of the project are more than just a distant dream. Property owner Stan MacDonald 12018 E. First. June 24 transcript Comments from the June 24 Mixed Use Avenue Community Meeting: Director McClung welcomed the attendees (there was a head count of 38) and introduced staff. Senior Planner Kuhta gave a presentation giving the background, intent and design of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. This is the discussion that came after the presentation: Dwight Hume, Scott would could you clarify what market value means to you guys for non- conforming use? 80% damage of market value. Is that just assessed value as shown on the assessor's records. Scott: We would use the assessed value on the Assessor's records. Grant Person: Your objective seems to be to put the vehicles behind so that you don't have vehicles on the street. Is that correct? Scott: Repeated the question and stated that is the objective of the plan, in the Mixed Use areas there is an allowance to have side parking, side street parking or side building parking between the back of sidewalk and the building. This plan gets away from covering it with parking. Mike Young: I'm from Spokane Recycling and we own a small community buy -back center for non -ferias metal and aluminum cans on 1st and Union and it's our only location here in the Valley. I was wondering under what category would that, would that be non - conforming? Scott: yes, essentially that is a non - conforming use in this Mixed Use area. Mike: I wanted to know what category, you would put that under? Scott: it would be at least a light industrial use if most of your containment is inside, if it is outside it is more of a heavy industrial use. Mike: Most of it in inside, we do have some machinery outside but it is under an awning, and aluminum can densifier. Scott: it sounds to be more like a light industrial, maybe a heavy industrial we would be happy to talk specifically about your situation if you wanted to set up an appointment it sounds like at least a light industrial use. Tom Smith: I would like to get a separate appointment would you explain to the audience how you get a separate appointment? Scott: We have cards you can fill out, put your name address, address of your business, so we can look at it before -hand and a phone number and we will call you back within the week to make an appointment to have you come in and chat with us. Grant Person: A couple of observations, Scott, there is going to be difficulty getting insurance as well as financing on these non - conforming issues. Another observation would be that, although there is an attempt to create versatility, there is an enormous amount of design requirements that are being dictated by your rules that take away a lot of flexibility. I can appreciate the fact that this is what we would like to see down the street, when you set those types of requirements and policies up it takes away a lot of freedom and flexibility to deal with various uses that come along. Scott: the first point is that there is a concern about non - conforming uses and insurance and financing. Kathy do you want to speak to that? Then the next point is that these rules appear to Page 1 of 7 June 24 transcript take away flexibility on how on how sites are developed, which there is a more of a predictable form that this is looking for. That is true. Grant: You are forcing specific design criteria. Scott: repeated the statement. Yes, there are specific design criteria but there is great flexibility, if you look at it within the code, it is not requiring brick buildings it is not requiring certain things but there are some elements of buildings that definitely it is dictating. Frank Larson: I own the land there on 1st and Union and the way it is now you have half in one kind of zoning, and the other half is residential zoning. Now the parcels next to me got the same problem I got, except they can't get there without a road. And you are not gonna allow any roads in one acre. So I would like to see mine in all one zone - industrial. Scott: Thank you, he is referring to some of the properties along Appleway are in the residential boulevard zone and it split zones property and we will be addressing that issue when we talk about the residential boulevard zone. That is an issue we will be talking about through the process. Sir, if you want to come in and talk specifically about how these regulations effect your property, fill out a card, and I talked to you on the phone I believe, and we can have you come in and talk more individually. Kathy: One of the reasons we are asking you to speak into the mike is because we are providing verbatim minutes to the council and if you don't speak into the microphone we don't pick you up very well. Dwight Hume: with me today is the owners of property bounded by Progress on the south side of Sprague down to First, then over to and including Liberty Tire, and that is a variety of land use, but under single ownership. It includes detached single family homes and strip center, and a tire store, post office. I now see your use matrix includes post office. We prepared some letters to leave with you today that address this particular property, and I won't go into all those particular details, but I had a question. I didn't hear what you were going to do with detached single family in Mixed Use. Is there something forth coming that is going to acknowledge them and allow them? Scott: That is an issue that we are obviously concerned about when we did the non - conforming uses. The way other jurisdictions handle it is, it is when development happens and you see a lot of single family homes in our industrial areas so the way other juri sdictions handle it is you make those uses, you can't do new single family but you can make those existing ones conforming. That is something we can look at doing. Through these initial amendments. Dwight: The problem otherwise that I see here and maybe this is relevant to your considerations in this instance we have some fairly old typical early housing to the Valley and they are rentals. But those more than commercial buildings are probable suspect to fire and complete damage and if that happened you can't replace it because it exceeds 80 %. Then if that happens you have a pocket or hole in the middle of everything that you really can't bring into your MUA standards. Because the rest of the block is still houses that sort of thing. You lose it. Scott: That is a good point and we talked briefly with Council about that when we made the presentation last week, about that very issue. We also said that if something happened there was a concern from one of our Councilmembers `what would happen if a single family house burned down right now, in these zone, what could we do for them ?' We do have the ability to do text amendments . we do have the ability to do an emergency text amendment get it through the Page 2 of 7 June 24 transcript process if it is something that needed to be as soon as possible. My guess is this will be something that will be brought through the process to make a change over the next couple of months. Dwight: Address too, the pre- designated streets as you talked about that earlier. You just cookie cuttered them in, every so many feet, with the idea that you will fit them in where they will best fit. Or if five acres of contiguous ownership there the need for mitigation of traffic, but what if there isn't any room, within the site to accommodate it due to other improvements? Can you look at traffic mitigation and say we don't need it? Scott: it just really depends on the site specific issue and the type of development. We could speculate a lot about situations, but until we know how things are going to be develop and we work through that process it is difficult, but we know there is a clause in the code that says if there is another alternative to that can be proposed by the developer to the director that can meet those connectivity aspirations then we can work on that. There is some flexibility to provide an alternative connectivity. Jerry Shadduck: I have two concerns, we own two properties just north of Sprague on Bowdish if you look at the map on page 5 it shows you that they designated as parcels, and all the area around them are b -3 which is the mixed use. Am I right on that? B -3 is Mixed Use. Scott: That is a previous zoning map. (Scott is showing him the correct map) Jerry: I guess I have one other concern, there was a picture of the property with fence, that is non - conforming, is that an issue we have to worry about? Scott: I didn't go out and measure it, if it is five feet it is fine. It appeared to be pretty close to that fence. Jerry: Actually it is 2 -3 inches off the end of the house gutter line. Scott: I don't know specifically I did not go out and measure that. It appeared to be pretty close. Jerry: It is, it is less than 2 feet from the house. Scott: the house, but your property line could be beyond that fence. Jerry: I believe our property line is actually is right at the eve of the house. Kathy: Yes it is, and I will talk to you later about your situation. You don't need to worry. Mike King: Scott, what and when do you need to address a non - conforming uses? What do you do with property that has a non - conforming use and when do you have to address it? Scott: You don't have to do anything to address a non - conforming use. If that is what the question is. Non - conforming uses can continue forever. Unless the regulations changed at some point down the road. There is nothing in this code that would require you to do anything to change that non - conforming use. We talked about the expansion rules, you can expand non- conforming uses, you can expand it onto adjacent property if it is under the same ownership, there are allowances to continue with non - conforming uses. Dwight Hume: What about non - conforming site standards? Not meeting the setbacks? Scott: the question is non - conforming site standards. If your expansion meets that 50% threshold — so if you want to a big major expansion on your property and it exceeds 50% of the Page 3 of 7 June 24 transcript value of the appraised or assessed value of the building and the land. If you have a big addition or big remodel where it exceeds 50% of the value of the building and the land either assessed or appraised, you can pick which one you want to use, then you have to start conforming with the code. I can tell you we would be very, we would work with whatever that scenario to try to get to the regulations as they are written. The concern is that if you have a building that is set way back and you want to put a big addition on it, how do you get to that new set back? That is the question and we would have to work with the scenario, whatever the development is to try to get to, as close to the regulations as we can. I can tell you we have looked at development scenarios since this has been adopted. It is new and we are working really hard to try to work with the property owners to accomplish what they would like to accomplish. This is not, these are the rules, this is the way it has to be, you can't do it if it doesn't meet this. We are trying to work as best we can. There is a lot of scenarios that we can't even speculate will even come across our desk until we see them. But that is an example of something that can be tweaked in this code right now. If there is a concern about that and how this code treats existing development we can look at that. The Council wants to hear about it. Dwight: can we clarify one last point on that? If you have multiple buildings on site, you were just talking about one building, and you have the assessed value of each building, do you take just that one building into play or do you the value of the entire site? Scott: The question is if you have multiple buildings on the site and you have one building you want to redo, what comes into play. Dwight: 50% value of all the site, or 50% value of the building you are playing with? Scott: I think we would probably look at it, because if it is on one piece of property, you can't separate the property underneath it we would look at the whole thing. Mac Whiteford: I gotta a map here I would like to display, Scott: we can't display it Mac: My name is Mac Whiteford I am an associate broker with Kimle and Haygood Company. I have been an active commercial realtor in Spokane for over 32 years. I began in 1977 with Alvin J. Wolfe out in the Valley. And since 1979 I have worked almost exclusively in retail real estate, both in sales and leasing. Some of the successful Valley transactions in which I have been directly involved are the Marie Callendar's Restaurant on Argonne and I -90, the Target and Safeway properties at Sprague and Evergreen, the Staples and Sports Authority stores at the Spokane Valley Mall, and the Starbucks stores at Pines and Sprague and at Sprague and Thierman, and the Chuck E. Cheese property at Sprague and Progress. I represent the owners of the southeast corner of Sprague and Progress, they own property in addition to that, down to and including the Liberty Tire Store Center and south to 1 st Ave. All of that property except for one residential lot. That property that they own is now Mixed Use Ave. I would like to address a couple of things that I heard in Scott's presentation. The first of those being Costco being a medium box user in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Costco is a regional retailer. I know of no Costco store under 100,000 square feet. Also mentioned was 37 and Grand, the Starbucks store there, which I was directly involved in, that building is a very expensive building. Made that way in order to accommodate the drive through, which Starbucks required however the rents that that store and that project involve supported the expensive design and that support was due to the higher density and the disposable income in that are on the South Hill. In 2006 and 2007 I Page 4 of 7 June 24 transcript became aware of the plan SARP and the change in zoning which was under consideration by the City at that time. While I was working to sell the property on the northwest corner of Sprague and Progress. Across the intersection from the subject property on the Southeast corner of Sprague and Progress. Today the northwest corner is occupied by Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank and is zoned Mixed Use Avenue. That means it is non - conforming. Prior to the rezone it was clear that if the Mixed Use Ave. zoning became a reality before we closed our sale of the present Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank would be prohibited uses. Not allowed. As it turned out these properties, the property was sold and the property was developed prior to the enactment of the SARP Mixed Use Ave. zoning. The City of Spokane Valley has benefited from this outcome by increasing its tax base and resulting revenue which otherwise would have been lost to the City of the projects had been prohibited. If you are familiar with Chuck E. Cheese and Inland Northwest Bank it is a prime example of market forces at work. Planners clearly do not understand market forces, at least as they affect retail development. Retail development is negatively impacted by programs like SARP. The SARP plan with its unrealistic and restrictive development standards i.e.: parl6ng in the rear of the building which retailers hate for the most part, short circuits market forces and lessens the chances that other retailers will locate in the SARP area of the City. Due primarily to the higher expense involved in the new SARP development requirements. The result is the City and the public both loose. The City looses or will lose tax base and tax revenues and the public has fewer places to do business and fewer retail choices. Sprague Avenue is a retail street. Retail properties typically carry higher land values than those uses allowed under Mixed Use Avenue. The approved uses under Mixed Use Avenue namely the ones that they list, not on the expanded list, but in the first part of the rules, it lists new office, lodging, medium box retail sales and service, and Costco is mentioned, and large scale housing, stacked units and townhomes. These are unrealistic uses for the subject property at least the property I represent. Banks and full service restaurants are prohibited in the Mixed Use Ave zone currently. That prohibition of banks and full service restaurants in that zone is a huge loss to my owners as their property is on a fully signalized corner, Progress Road. The new Inland Northwest Bank is on the opposite corner of this intersection and ironically the bank and Chuck E. Cheese are today non- conforming dues due to the new MUA zone standards. Regarding the property on the southeast corner of the intersection, my owner's property has been down zoned in my opinion. The value of their property has been reduced by the implementation of the Mixed Use Ave zone. with its use restrictions and expensive new development standards. Why was their property rezoned at all, when the natural boundary for a zone change is logically west of Progress Rd. not east. Instead the present Mixed Use Ave. zoning creates a small island of Mixed Use Ave zoning on the southeast of Sprague and Progress while the rest of the block, east of Sullivan and south to 1 st Ave is zoned Neighborhood Center. The property on the northeast corner of Sprague and Progress across from the subject property was not down zoned to Mixed Use Ave like this. It remains Neighborhood Center. The zoning on my owners property should be returned to Neighborhood Center the same zoning as the properties east of the subject along the south side of Sprague Ave. Thank you. (I believe this is Theron Lamb) Early in your presentation you quoted a study that basically said that the commercial property was a 14% vacancy, and that basically that was too much commercial land available and that was sort of the justification for the downsizing almost. In the chart you handed out it had a lot of residential uses added on. As you mentioned earlier most zoning was B -3. Now in the SARP zoning you have all these residential, assisted living, Page 5 of 7 June 24 transcript daycares, etc. and like apartment like complexes. Is there any reason to believe that the market for residential real estate is not going to have the same problems as commercial real estate? I don't know if I worded that very well, but you mentioned that the commercial real estate market is struggling and is there any reason to believe that the residential market is not struggling as well is my question. Scott: One example I can think of, and we have pointed this out in a couple of meetings, is that there is more demand it appears there is more demand for residential in certain areas. There are new apartments going in on the south side of Appleway. At the time those were put in you could put retail development there, on the south side of Appleway, those are now apartments. There is a retirement home going in at Farr and Appleway. The market is interesting in how it works. No, we don't know how everything is going to play out, with the market but that is an example of where retail wasn't working, residential is working. The point of the study that we did everyone is competing for limited retail dollars. We also did another study that we did not mention that we examined retail demand and how much, what we call leakage, is there? There is not much leakage at all, if you look across the sector of retail development, or retail types of sales. The point here is that we have pretty much everything we have for retail here, and it maybe moves from one point to another. Maybe there are some spots that are very attractive for certain uses, but in total if you look at the whole area everyone is competing for the same retail dollars. That is why the plan is trying to more residential use allowed in the this Mixed Use segment. Dick Behm: My name is Richard Behm. I own Behm Center at 9405 E Sprague. We are 4 generations same ownership. We have survived Highway 10, and the building of the freeway, and the widening of Sprague Ave. into 7 lanes where they condemned our property, and now the one way, which is the most severe thing we've had. There is 4 generations of ownership on our property. We are one of the few, the Hollenbacks, Prings, Falcos, and Behms are all generation ownerships. 3, 4 and 5 generation ownerships. We have survived a long time. I have had a light industrial plant, it has been non - conforming for the last 30 years. Under the new regulations it becomes conforming and Jennie's Restaurant becomes non - conforming. As I understand it, the key thing here is that it is legal non - conforming use. I asked Frank Tombari from Banner Bank to come today and he couldn't, but talking to the bank a legal non - conforming use has no effect on mortgages, Scott Pearson is here from Northwest Insurance Brokers the same thing effects insurance. If it is a legal non - conforming use, then it won't affect your insurance. Individual situations might be a little different, but my point is what affects all of us in the Dishman area of Sprague is the one -way street. That has decreased our volume of business 30 -40% depending on what kind of business you are in. The restaurant business immediately lost30 -40% after the formation of the one -way street and it has never come back. Other businesses are not that affected, if they are a destination type business. Fortunately we are on the one block the whole length of Sprague Ave. where you can actually go around a 300 x 600 foot block between Willow and Locust, which is very fortunate for us. I have no problems with these plans as long as there is ability to adjust for individual situations. The Community Development Director has to have that authority to be able to adjust to the particular things that come up. I think that you should emphasize the fact that it is a legal non - conforming use and can be replaced. That eliminates a lot of the objections. Thank you. Kathi Shirley: I understand what the plan is attempting to do. You are trying to make a city center, make Sprague Ave a little bit nicer. The problem is you are putting undue burden on Page 6 of 7 June 24 transcript property owners to meet the development standards and there is no money. You are not going to help us. So if we want to do an addition we are going to pay for it. I don't know if that is fair. I would also like to point out that the development standards that you are using aren't really popular with people. If you look at the corner of Liberty Lake Road and the off ramp for the freeway, I think it is Appleway actually. The Walgreens they put out there, everyone hates that Walgreens because it meets those conforming standards that you have. Everybody in Liberty Lake says `oh it is a big brick wall' because it is sitting close to the road, the parking is on the side and in the rear just like you are saying. So that is what you look at. And yes, you get some windows and a little awning here and there. But it is still not a pretty view. I don't think people are going to like what you are doing here. You really need to take this back and say to the City, to the community again and ask so you really want it to look like this, because that is not a pretty view. If you are starting a new town or like some of the towns in CA that have successfully done these kinds of things, yea it's ok, because everybody is used to it. We've all got businesses here with signage and access issues. Why should we pay for this, the City's Plan? Kathy: thanking you all for participating this morning. We all know you gave up some time this morning and make sure if you want a follow -up meeting, you give us the information so we can contact you. We will report the results of this particular meeting in July, July 13. Other business as it is related to the Sprague Appleway Plan is we are taking our first few code amendments to the Planning Commission starting tonight. This will be an ongoing process probably lasting all summer or well over the next year. If you are interested read our website or read the newspaper or contact us and we will give you as much information as we can. Additional comments will be taken until July 30, and the comment sheets are on the table outside. Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 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 Check In for SARP- Revisited GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: City Staff have been working on the SARP plan zone by zone per the council's request. Attached is the progress made so far on the SARP revisited and related projects. This is an opportunity for council to suggest any changes for the future council and community meetings. The only amendment staff has made to the schedule is that we hadn't factored in the time to type verbatim minutes after the community meeting to get to the council for the feedback reports. This has caused us to delay by a week the reports to the council. OPTIONS: This is an informal discussion for changes to the city's approach to revisit the Sprague Appleway Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS SARP Revisited progress report Progress Report Sprague Appleivay- Sub -area Plan (Plan) Revisited JuIv 6, 2010 1. Provided city council background information about the economic study completed prior to work on the Plan May 4th 2. Provided city council information about how the nonconforming provisions are applied. May 11 3. Presented the Gateway Commercial and Gateway Avenue zoning requirements to city council May 18 a. Conducted public meeting on Gateway Commercial and Gateway Avenue Zones May 20 b. Feedback to City Council on comments received on Gateway Commercial and Gateway Avenue zones June 8th c. Prepared a motion for city council consideration for the June 15 meeting. d. Amendments scheduled for SEPA review in July and Planning Commission August 12 4. Started a code amendment to review vehicle sales and restaurants in the Mixed Use Avenue zone; and proposed flexibility for minor design issues under the director's discretion. a. Issued the SEPA notice June 4 2010. b. Planning Commission June 24 The Planning Commission moved forward two of the three amendments and will review the third with more information on July 22nd. c. Two amendments scheduled for City Council on July 13 5. Notices mailed June 2nd for Mixed Use Center public meeting June 24st. a. Mixed Use Staff Report and presentation given to Council on June 15th. b. Conducted public meeting June 24 c. Scheduled for council discussion July 13 6. Notice mailed June 30 for Neighborhood Center public meeting July 22 a. Neighborhood Center staff report scheduled for council July 20 b. Public Meeting scheduled for July 22n Other related projects: 1. Received an independent code amendment request to permit vehicle sales (boats) in the Mixed Use Avenue Zone. Even though this application is duplicative of the work we are already doing in #4 above, the applicant wishes to proceed. It is scheduled for the July 22nd planning commission meeting. 2. June 8 Pre - application meeting for Mrs. Shadduck's cafe at 16 N Bowdish. 3. A project for a coffee drive -thru has been submitted for a site plan and building permit approval at 212 N Sullivan. 4. A project for a pool and spa sales business has been submitted for a site plan and building permit approval at 9321 E Sprague. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Greenacres Neighborhood Park Funding GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Staff has worked with the Greenacres neighborhood to complete a master plan for Greenacres Neighborhood Park. A state Recreation and Conservation matching grant was obtained in 2007 for the purchase of the 8.3 acres that currently make up the park. To date, the City has received $500,000 in direct appropriations from the state legislature for the development of Phase 1 back in 2008 and 2009. Funding for the completion of Phase 1 is not currently available. There is a concern that the state funding may be in jeopardy if the City is unable to show substantial progress towards the completion of Phase 1 of this project. Currently the bidding climate has been very favorable and therefore the sooner this project could be bid would of benefit to the City. Moving forward with the design and construction of Phase 1 of the Greenacres Neighborhood Park sooner rather than later makes good sense given our challenges. Phase 1 is estimated to cost $1,580,000. Recently the Finance Committee discussed several potential funding options that would allow the City to move forward now with the design and construction of Phase 1 of this park. The option that received positive feedback would be to utilize the $500,000 state funding, $200,000 from the Civic Facilities Fund and the remaining balance from the Parks Capital Fund balance. This would allow the City to move forward with Greenacres Neighborhood Park and also construct a much needed picnic shelter at Terrace View Park that is currently funded in the 2010 capital budget. Terrace View is the only neighborhood park in the City without a picnic shelter. The Parks Capital Fund would still have a positive fund balance after completing both these projects. OPTIONS: 1) advance to July 20 for consideration or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to bring back funding motion on July 20, 2010 agenda for City Council consideration. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: These two projects would utilize $200,000 from the Civic Facilities fund and the remainder from the Parks Capital Fund. The 2010 Parks Capital budget included the following projects: Park Land Acquisition - $200,000; Terrace View Shelter - $80,000; Greenacres Park - $300,000; and Completion of Discovery Playground - $200,000. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Funding Proposal City of Spokane Valley Parks Capital Project Fund 06/24/2010 Balance in fund at 12 -31 -09 State Grant $ 1,300,000 $ 500,000 Use Parkland Acq. Dollars from 2010 budget (included in $1.3 milln) Use Civic Facilities $ $ 200,000 Expenditures in 2010 through 6 -24 -10 Discovery $ 183,408 Est amount for Disc park yet to pay $ 75,000 $ (258,408) Greenacres Phase I Phase I contingency Terrace View Shelter Estimated bal. at 12 -31 -11 End of Phase I Phase 11 #309 $ 1,364,000 $ 216,000 $ (1,580,000) :1 111 $ 81,592 ----------------------------------------------------- ??? $ 900,000 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 7,2010; 1:20 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of Acting City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Wed July 14, 2010: Special Meeting: 7 a.m., CenterPlace, Executive Conference Room, Executive session: Per RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) to evaluate qualifications of applicants for public employment July 20, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 12] ACTION ITEM: 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Panhandling - Driskell (15 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan - Driskell (15 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Greenacres Neighborhood Park Funding - Mike Stone (10 minutes) NON - ACTION ITEMS: 4. Bike Helmets - Marion Lee - Spokane County Health Dept (confirmed) (15 minutes) 5. Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects - Steve Worley (20 minutes) 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: Neighborhood Ctrs - Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 7. CTA -04 -10 Code Text Amendment, Exp. of Nonconforining Uses onto Adj . Properties- S Kuhta (20 min) 8. Street Superintendent Position - John Whitehead (10 minutes) 9. Establishment of Maintenance /Construction Inspector - Mechanic Position - John Whitehead (10 minutes) 10. Legislative Agenda - Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 11. Admin Report: Law Enforcement Interlocal Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 12. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 13. Info Only: (a) Dept Reports; (b) response to Permit Ctr Comments [ *estimated meeting: 190 minutes] July 27, 2010, Formal Meeting Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 191 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comcast Franchise - Driskell (20 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan - Driskell (15 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code text Amndmnt (Sprague /Appleway)- C.Janssen (15 min) 5. Proposed Resolution Amending Street Superintendent Position - Whitehead (10 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Creating Maint. /Construction Inspector - Mechanic Position - J. Whitehead (10 min) 7. Motion Consideration: SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Interlocal - M.Connelly (10 min) 8. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects - Steve Worley (10 minutes) 9. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appt to SC Housing & Community Dev. Committee - Mayor Towey (5 min) 10. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Interlocal - Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 11. Admin Report: Ballot Measure (one vs. two -way Sprague) - Mike Jackson /Steve Worley (20 minutes) 12. Admin Report: Animal Shelter - Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 13. Admin Report: 2011 Council Budget Goals - Mayor Towey (20 minutes) 14. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 15. Info Only: (a) Department Reports; (b) Legislative Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 175 minutes] August 3, 2010, (CONFIRMED) No Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (National Night Out) August 10, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Mon, Aug 2]] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Read Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amdmnt (Sprague /Appleway)- C.Janssen (15 mins) 3. Motion Consideration: Setting Prelim. Budget Hearings 9 -14 & 9 -28 - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Transportation Benefit District - Mike Connelly (15 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Estimates of 2010 & 2011 Revenue/Expenditures - Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council re Public Mtg - S. Kuhta - (45 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2010 3:01:09 PM Page 1 of 4 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 100 minutes] August 17, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 9] Action Item• 1. Motion to Consider Adopting 2011 Legislative Agenda - Mike Jackson (20 minutes) Non - Action Items: 2. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: City Center - Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 3. 2011 Budget - Property Tax Levies - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 4. Admin Report: CTA -05 -10 Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) - C. Janssen (10 minutes) 5. Street Preservation Program - Steve Worley (30 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 105 minutes] August 24, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 16] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues - Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance adopting 2011 Property Tax Levy- Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance property tax confinnation - Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 4. First Read Proposed Ordinance CTA -05 -10 Code Text Amdmt (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone)- C.Janssen (15 min) 5. Admin Report: Outside Agency Presentations - Ken Thompson (60 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 115 minutes] August 31, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Preliminary Budget September 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Code text amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow 2. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Aug 23] [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Aug 30] (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 14, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Fri Sept 3] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax Levy - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 4. Second Read Ordinance CTA -05 -10 Code Text Amdmnt (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) - C. Janssen (15 minutes) 5. First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies - Ken Thompson (25 minutes) 7. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan) - Update to Council - Mike Basinger (30 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 110 minutes] September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 13] 1. Community Development Block Grant - Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 20] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 4. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd - Lori Barlow (45 minutes) 5. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 85 minutes] October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Sept 27] (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2010 3:01:09 PM Page 2 of 4 October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson 3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Mike Jackson 4. Advance Agenda October 19, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. SARP Report to Council — Kathy McClung 2. Advance Agenda October 26, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Mike Jackson 3. Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Reports November 2, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda November 9, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Advance Agenda November 16, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 min. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 November 23, 2010 Thanksgiving Week (tentative, no meeting) jdue date Mon Oct 4] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 40 minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 11] (45 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 18] (15 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 25] (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] jdue date Mon Nov 1] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Nov 8] [ *estimated meeting: minutes] November 30, 2010, Tentative No Meeting: Council attends NLC in Colorado (Nov 30 -Dec 4) December 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda December 14, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments (Planning Commission, etc.) December 21, 2010, Christmas Week (tentative, no meeting) December 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. January 4, 2011, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 29] [due date Mon, Dec 6] — Ken Thompson (15 min) (15 minutes) [due date Mon, Dec 20] [due date Mon, Dec 27] Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2010 3:01:09 PM Page 3 of 4 OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES /MEETINGS Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) Broadcasting Business Registration Ordinance Amendments Capital Projects Funding Cattlemen Clean Air Agency Code Amendments (Kathy McClung) Concurrencv Contract Ordinance Amendment East Gateway Monument Structure # Industrial Pre - treatment Interlocal w /City of Spokane Jail Update Milwaukee Right -of -way ■ Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance Paving Options Planned Action Ordinance Public Records Policy (Ordinance) Amendments Shoreline Master Program "Inventory & Charac.Rpt" Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Sprague Avenue: One -way vs. two -way Street Maintenance Facility Transportation Benefit District Interlocal Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education 0 — request for Council's early consideration # = Awaiting action by others * = doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2010 3:01:09 PM Page 4 of 4 Spokane , ,; 0 oo*VaIIey PERMIT CENTER Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 _Revenue Permits Permit revenue for the first five months of this year is holding at approx. 14% ahead of last year. Permit Revenue $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 a 0 a "I Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue is behind last year, however the drastic increase in May of last year is due to the receipt of payment from a street vacation, which caused a peak in last year's numbers. Land Use Revenue $80,000 $70,000 $60 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20 $10,000 $0 Page 1 of 10 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 02010 Revenue 02009 Revenue so ,; 'Val"tim Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 The valuation' for April was 6,608, 664 and May was 32, 549, 883 afg 0 t ygnnitlnl` t' In n-M is Is ued� April 2010 Residential New Structures Separate Dwelling Units Demolition Permits Dwelling Units Demolished Single Family Residence 12 12 Duplex 1 2 Triplex 4 -Plex Apartments April 2010 Commercial New Buildings Tenant Improvements Additions 17 6 1 Ell ' Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 10 Spokane , ,; 0 oo* Va11ey Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 May 2010 Residential New Structures Separate Dwelling Units Demolition Permits Dwelling Units Demolished Single Family Residence 8 Duplex Triplex 4 -Plex Apartments 16 May 2010 Commercial New Buildings Tenant Improvements Additions ye"nit.�ctivit� Certificate of Occupancy Certificates of Occupancy issued in the last two months were Home is Where the Heart is, Hampton Inn, WSDOT pre -wash pad, Spokane Valley SDA Church, Valence Communication —PH 2, Penske Trucking, Mission Meadow Community Cntr, Riverview Corp Suite 3140, Suite 1250, .suite 1900, Suite 1750, Sessions Boarding Home, WSECU, Rite -Aid and 1 -90 Mini Storage. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 497 permits in April and May, including a new AutoZone. This is ahead of this time last year Construction Permits Issued 350 ( _ A 300 r a I'm II 250 200 150 100 50 0 ■ 2010 Permits 1 158 1200 1 259 1 256 1 241 1 284 ■ 2009 Permits 1 159 1 192 1 221 1 250 1 260 1 302 1 305 1 275 1 255 1 331 1 200 1 243 Page 3 of 10 S 00 Community Development pQka ��lle Monthly Report April and May 2010 Land Use Applications In April and May there were 6 Boundary Line Adjustments, 2 Final Short Subdivisions, 1 Final Subdivision, 2 Preliminary Short Subdivisions, 7 Temporary Sign Permits, 1 Temporary Use Permit and 1 Street Vacation. Commercial Pre - application Meetings During the month of April and May, Community Development staff held 15 commercial pre - application meetings, and 5 pre - application meetings for subdivisions. Projects include 2 office buildings, 2 commercial buildings for car repair, car sales, espresso stand and several storage buildings. Hearing Examiner In April the Hearing Examiner had two hearings a subdivision and rezone and an appeal of a code violation by Farm Fresh Fruit. In May there was one hearing, a conditional use permit for a wireless communication support structure (cell tower). Business Licenses Staff Approved 279 business licenses in April and May. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 4 home occupation permits in April and 16 in May. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 19 adult entertainment licenses for April and May. Express Permits Staff processed 7 Express Permits in April and May. Ckstoi1Zer S'E'zyke The Permit Center staff assisted 541 customers at the counter and handled 546 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during April and 454 walk -ins and 389 phone calls in May. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 5 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un- platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. In April the Permit Center front counter was reconfigured to Make counter access form comfortable for patrons. Page 4 of 10 S 00 Community Development pQka �Valle Monthly Report April and May 2010 Inst�ect ns Right of Way The Right -of -Way inspector performed 852 inspections in April and 1007 in May. Right -of -Way Inspections 1200 1000 800 . 600 -� o 400 11 • 0 <- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju • Aug Se Oct N O 2010 221 491 773 852 1007 • • • 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174 • 0 0 <- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju July Aug Se Oct N O 2010 221 491 773 852 1007 • 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174 -.a- _Emi Building Plans Examiners reviewed 124 plans in the last two months. There were 343 commercial inspections and 1055 residential inspections in the same time frame. Commercial is steady to last year and residential is up. Page 5 of 10 Spo kane ,,; Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 700 Building Inspections Performed - 600 Development Engineering During the months of April and May the Development Engineering Inspector performed 52 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 - - -- 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 ■ 2009 500 400 300 200 100 0 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X2010 Commercial 393 387 397 557 498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ©2010 Residential 229 187 274 180 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 2009 Commercial 221 237 304 257 302 628 649 582 580 584 59 438 X2009 Residential 220 188 199 181 143 189 222 219 202 322 ) �25 Page 6 of 10 Spokane , ,; 0 oo*Va11ey UPDATES Planning Commission Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 The Planning Commission met once in April and once in May. The Commission reviewed and recommended the Shoreline Master Program Draft Inventory, two sets of code amendments and a street vacation. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) On March 17, the SCEO met to discuss the ongoing 10 year Urban Growth Area Review effort. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments /Updates The 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments have been distributed to those who have books requiring an update. Shoreline Master Program Work continued on the SMP update. . Staff also attended the Spokane River Forum Conference. Sprague Appleway Plan Revisited - Economic Study presentation was May 4 th and Non - conforming presentation was made to Council on May 11 Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Centers presentation was May 18 to Council and the public meeting was May 20th. Energy Grant Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project began with a soft - launch of home energy audits. Full advertisement and official kickoff is scheduled for the week of April 12 Field surveys to identify existing conditions, opportunities and constraints have been completed for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Washington State Energy Strategy Update Process In May the WA St Department of Commerce began it's update process for the Washington State Energy Strategy. The Building Official is participating via webinars in the conservation sector process. Participation in this process will be on -going through December 2010. ADA Study April - Community Development has returned its survey and the data tracking tool has been completed. May - The data entry process has been started and information will continue to be entered over the next several months. An information only report on the ADA Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan was provided to Council at the regular council meeting on May 25. Bike /Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) On March 30, as part of a larger report on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), staff provided an update on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) to City Council. Staff has completed an inventory of existing bike facilities throughout the City and identified opportunities for new facilities. In addition, staff inventoried sidewalks on all the major corridors throughout the City. Staff has compiled the inventory work into a GIS database for further analysis. Staff is continuing to develop a BPMP participant database. Page 7 of 10 S 00 Community Development pQka ��lle Monthly Report April and May 2010 In the months of April and May, staff identified partnerships for regional collaboration, organized a Bicycle and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group (BPTAG), and circulated a flyer throughout the community notifying interested parties of a public workshop scheduled for June 16. Training April -Kathy McClung attended the APA National Planning Conference where the focus was on the changing demographics in the country within the next 20 years. Bill Schultz attended training on increasing productivity with positive stress management Deanna attended two Parliamentary law conventions which were held in conjunction with one another. May Jenna Davis attended a customer service one -day training conference Various building department staff attended several half -day training sessions covering the following topics: 2009 International Residential Code provisions for braced wall line construction in residential structures; cross connection control provisions of the International Plumbing Code; ATC 20 training (disaster response); residential air leakage testing for the implementation of the 2009 Washington State energy Code. Wellhead Protection Scott and Mary Kate attended a wellhead protection committee meeting, a regional committee that recently became active after an extended time off. The focus of the group is to collaboratively develop regulations that will protect drinking water. Regional Partnering The Building Official and the building officials of Spokane and Spokane County are meeting regularly to identify partnering opportunities and develop a program to implement partnering measures as they are identified. In May the group brought together all of the region's building officials (nine jurisdictions) to develop a regional information sheet on the 2009 Washington State Energy Code. The building officials have nearly completed a regional building permit application for use in Spokane, Spokane County and Spokane Valley which they anticipate finalizing in June. Their next project will be to review the major jurisdictions' administrative provisions and to develop recommendations for amending local ordinances to create consistency, where possible, in the administrative practices of building divisions in Spokane, Spokane County and Spokane Valley. Page 8 of 10 so Walley Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 Code Cam `fie Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 121 Citizen Action Requests in the last two months. 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category 100% -.. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% - - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I Clear View Triangle 2 0 7 5 1 • Complaint - No Violation 3 2 3 9 2 • Environmental 0 0 1 0 0 Junk Auto 10 19 14 7 9 ■ Property 16 19 20 13 15 ■ Signs 15 31 5 5 31 ■ Solid Waste 16 26 26 12 12 Code Violation Totals 120 100 80 ` 60 40 i I 20 - 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010t62 97 76 51 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20091 33 1 36 1 97 1 94 11111 50 1 89 1 98 1 51 1 61 1 22 1 98 Page 9 of 10 S pa]ane Walley Community Development Monthly Report April and May 2010 UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST DAT INTEREST June 15 Mixed Use Avenue presentation — Council meeting June 24 Mixed Use Avenue Community Meeting June 24 Planning Commission Regular Meeting — Cta- 03 -10m CTA -04 -10 July 6, F_FE`MA maps become effective July 13 July 20 Council retreat, Council check -in on Subarea plan review, CTA- 03 -10, Mixed Use Avenue report back Neighborhood Centers presentation to Council, CTA -04 -10 July 22 Neighborhood Centers Community meeting, Planning Commission regular meeting CTA- 05 -10, CTA -07 -10 (boat sales in a mixed use zone) Page 10 of 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Information —2010 TIB Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: On May 26, 2010 the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) issued a 2010 Call for Projects for allocation of Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) funding. The anticipated funding levels are: UAP- $4.3 M for the Northeast Region; SP - $209,000 for the East Region. Project applications are due Tuesday, August 31s, 2010. Staff has been evaluating the TIP grant criteria and working to identify projects that will have the highest potential to receive funding. We have reviewed the adopted 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP, the Pavement Management Program, recent results from a structural analysis of several city arterials, and several other elements of the city's transportation network. Based on this review, staff has come up with the following preliminary list of projects for submitting to TIB for the 2010 Call for Projects. UAP Projects: Bowdish Road Improvements — Sprague Ave to 16 11 " Ave This project will would upgrade existing sidewalk facilities from Sprague Ave to 8 1h Ave and construct safety improvements at 4 1h Avenue to help reduce the number of collisions. It will also reconstruct Bowdish Road from 8 1h to 16 to a 2 -lane section with sidewalks, bike lanes, curbs /gutters and upgraded stormwater facilities as needed. This project will provide needed safety improvements for the many students that use Bowdish Road to access Opportunity Elementary School and Bowdish Middle School. 2. Mission Avenue Improvements - Flora Rd to Barker Rd This project will reconstruct the roadway to a 3 -lane section with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities to accommodate the increased traffic from the new Indiana Ave Extension project and the rapid development in the North Greenacres and Liberty Lake neighborhoods. This request to TIB would be for construction funding only since design and right -of -way funding has already been acquired for this project through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. 3. Park Road Improvements - Broadway Ave to Indiana Ave This project would reconstruct the roadway to a 3 -lane section with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities. This request to TIB would be for right -of -way and construction funding only since funding for the design phase has already been received through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. SP Projects: 1. 24 Avenue Sidewalk - Adams Rd to Sullivan Rd This project fills in several gaps in the sidewalks that serve Sunrise Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood. 2. 8 11 " Avenue Sidewalk - Calvin Rd to Adams Rd : This project fills in a large gap in the sidewalk serving Adams Elementary School. 3. 4 1 - h Avenue Sidewalk - University Rd to Pierce Rd This project fills in a large gap in the sidewalk connecting several large apartment complexes to the Valley Transit Center and commercial district at Sprague and University. OPTIONS: Info Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info Only BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The city's match on TIB funded projects is typically 20% of the total project cost. The federal grant funds previously received for both the Mission Ave Improvement Project and the Park Road Improvement Project counts towards the 20% TIB match. As the proposed TIB applications are developed, staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient city funds to provide the needed match for the proposed TIB projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, AIA — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary Scoring Sheet CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY TIP APPLICATION SCORING MATRIX EVALUATION UAP Criteria Max. Pnts O N N ii CD O 6 E .N � m O � 5 2 m a Y 0 O 6 O T m 4 O r � a � O 0 T a Q y m a N M N L O N 6I N (n N Safety (45 max) Correctable Accident History 25 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 15 Correctable Safety Hazards 20 5 10 10 5 10 5 10 15 Provides Access Management 5 Add non - traversible median >50% of project length -3 Add c -curb at intersections or <50% project length - 1 Reduce Access points - 2 Eliminate Existing At -grade Crossing 2 Sub -Total 10 15 20 10 15 10 15 30 Mobility (20 max) Capacity Improvements 10 Intersection Control 2 3 3 5 5 2 3 3 Increased Capacity 2 41 31 51 5 31 31 4 Truck Route 3 T3 through T1, 1 to 3 1 1 1 1 1 Traffic Signal Interconnection 1 Connect 3 or more signals - 1 Network Development 5 Extends Improvements - 3 3 3 3 Completes Gap - 5 5 5 New network connection - 0 to 5 5 5 Peak Hour Busses, 1 pt per 2 busses, 0 to 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 Access Improvements 6 Improves access to CBD or Acitvity center, 0 to 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 Improves circulation within CBD or Activity Center, 0 to 2 Improves access to Freight Facility, 0 to 3 3 Sub -Total 10 18 18 17 18 10 16 16 Pavement Condition (15 max) Visual Inspection of Existing Pavement - 0 to 15 15 Pavement Ratings less than 70 5 5 5 7 5 New Route - 10 10 10 Rehabilitation Projects - 7 Sidewalk Condition, 0 to 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 Sub -Total 5 12 10 12 10 7/7/2010 Spokane Valley TIP 4:10 PM CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY TIP APPLICATION SCORING MATRIX EVALUATION UAP Criteria Max. Pnts O N N ii CD O 6 E .N � m O � 5 2 m a Y O 0 6 O T m 4 O r � a � O 0 T a Q y m a N M N L O N 6I N (n U Sustainability (15 max) Adopted GH Gas Policy 3 Modal Measures 15 Completes Gap in HOV system. 3 Adds HOV Lane, 2 Adds Queue Jump or Transit Only Lane, 1 Improves non - motorized access to Park & Ride or Transit Center, 1 1 Completes Gap in Bicycle Route, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Construct 10 -ft seperated path or (2) 5 -ft striped lanes. 2 2 2 21 21 2 2 2 2 Install more than one bike parking facility, 2 2 Sidewalk wider than TIB min. ( >5 -ft?), 0 to 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planter Strip (3 -ft Min.), 3 1 Energy 9 Replace or Install LED lights, 0 to 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Replace or Install LED traffic signals, 0 to 2 1 1 2 1 1 Install Solar panels or on -site power generation, 1 Emerging Technologies, 0 to 3 Environmental 7 Eliminate SW through LID Practices, 100% of Impervious Surfaces, 3 Eliminate SW through LID Practices, 25 to 75% of Impervious Surfaces, 0 to 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Native Vegetation Undisturbed or Native Plantings, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hardscaping or climate appropriate plantings, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Emerging Technologies, 0 to 3 Recycling Measures 9 On -Site Reuse of Pavement, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 On -Site Reuse of Subsurface material, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 On -site Reuse of other Materials, 0 to 3 Use of recycled pavement (Imported), 2 Use of recycled sub - surface materials (Imported), 1 Use of recycled organic materials (Imported), 1 Use of other recycled products, 0 to 2 Sub -Total 15 15 15 15 14 15 15 14 Local Support (5 max) Local Match, 1 pt per 5% over min 4 1 Previously Completed Work 3 Environmental Permits Approved - 1 1 Design Complete - 1 1 1 Right-of-Way Acquisition Complete - 1 Sub -Total 0 01 31 0 0 0 0 0 Total Estimated Score 40 58 66 57 59 45 58 70 'Note: Based upon previous funding Cutoff scores, projects need an estimated score above 60 pts to be competitive for funding. 7/7/2010 Spokane Valley TIP 4:10 PM j ►le 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0239 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0295 ♦ hr@spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: July 7, 2010 To: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager From: John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Re: Public Works Superintendent Recruitment The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the recruitment of the Public Works Superintendent. Background On April 30, 2010, the employee performing the duties of the Public Works Superintendent resigned from employment with the City. The Human Resources Office, in cooperation with the Public Works Department published a recruitment bulletin on April 27, 2010, and began recruitment. This recruitment has yielded 67 candidates. Some of these candidates possess street maintenance experience; however none have had experience supervising employees charged with snow removal. Whereas this is a critical duty of this position, our recruitment has not allowed the City to fill this position with a qualified candidate. In looking at solutions to this recruitment problem, in mid May the City supplemented our efforts with recruiting through professional organizations that offer paid recruitment postings. To date a candidate possessing the necessary skills /experience has not been found. In considering if a possible reason for these recruitment difficulties may be in the compensation of the position, I conducted an analysis of the pay of this position compared to other organizations. The primary duties of this position are: Manages and monitors a variety of municipal infrastructure maintenance contracts with private service providers, Spokane County and Washington Department of Transportation, and other service providers. Responds to complaints regarding municipal infrastructure. Monitors the Street Fund expenditures to ensure compliance with approved annual budgets. 2 Coordinates maintenance of the city's infrastructure and utilities with other public and private service providers such as various water, sewer, power, and transportation districts or agencies. Manages the City's snow removal program which includes supervising staff and contractors required to maintain road conditions impacted by winter weather. Monitors the performance of the contract for snow removal /deicing activities and makes recommendations as to the modification of current and future winter road maintenance contracts. Plans, schedules and implements construction, maintenance, and operation and construction activities designed to provide quality street, drainage and other infrastructure service for the city; oversees maintenance work to determine acceptability and conformance to standards. Determines needs for materials, equipment and contract services. Oversees the development of plans and specifications, cost estimates, coordinates required advertising for bids, reviews bids and makes necessary recommendations based on lowest and best bids, competency of vendors and consultants, and the selection criteria. Trains, supervises and disciplines employees performing the duties of maintenance, construction and repair of the municipal infrastructure of the City. Responsible for maintaining the infrastructure of the City's streets. This includes approximately 425 miles of road, the storm water system composed of 6,000 drywells, 930 swales, 1,930 curb inlets, 4 pump stations, 85 signals and 14,000 street signs. Supervises the control and use of, and assumes responsibility for all materials, supplies and equipment used in the maintenance, construction and repair of City streets, storm drainage systems and other department facilities. Advises Supervisor, Attorney, Engineer and other city officials in matters relating to department activities; provides information to various civic, school and public groups and individuals regarding street, traffic and drainage problems and services. Analyzes annual operating costs and makes recommendations for department budget. Helps analyze and project the needs of the city for equipment, bridges, roads, sidewalk and materials for completion of the same. Provides operations guidance for construction of bridges, buildings, sidewalks, drainpipe installations, culvert installation and road construction. Provides recommendations regarding equipment purchases and requisitions all supplies and materials needed for effective department operations. 3 May be required to be on -call and /or called back to work with or without notice to respond to the street maintenance needs of the City. The current monthly compensation of the Public Works Superintendent is Grade 16, $4,995 to $6,404. The compensation information collected from other organizations with similar positions is as follows: Jurisdiction Beginning Salar Top Salary Midpoint Spokane $4,764 $6,518 $5,641 Spokane County $5,055 $6,821 $5,938 Yakima $6,219 $7,559 $6,889 Kennewick $5,896 $8,711 $7,304 Pasco $7,506* $7,506* $7,506* Richland $4,744 $7,116 $5,930 Walla Walla $4,586 $5,579 $5,083 Avg. of above $5,210 $7,115 $6,130 Spokane Valley $4,995 $6,404 $5,700 *This position is paid at a flat rate (this rate is not included in the averages of the beginning or midpoint salary rates) The City's compensation matrix is also attached showing the City's compensation grades and the current placement of this position. In comparison to other positions within the City: Classification Grade Monthly Wage Assistant Engineer 15 $4,496 - $5,764 Senior Plans Examiner 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Public Works Superintendent 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Engineer 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Senior Engineer (Traffic, Grants) 17 $5,550 - $7,116 Senior Engineer (Cap Projects, Dev) 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2010 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2010 Position Title Grade 2010 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21 or 22 $8,460 - $12,052 City Attorney 21 $8,460 - $10,846 Community Development Director 21 $8,460 - $10,846 Finance Director 21 $8,460 - $10,846 Public Works Director 21 $8,460 - $10,846 Parks and Recreation Director 19 $6,852 - $8,786 Human Resources Manager 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Planning Manager 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Building Official 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Senior Engineer - Capital Projects, Develo ment 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Deputy City Attorney 18 $6,168 - $7,907 Senior Engineer - Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 $5,551 - $7,116 Accounting Manager 17 $5,551 - $7,116 City Clerk 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Engineer 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Senior Plans Examiner 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Public Works Superintendent 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Senior Planner 16 $4,995 - $6,404 Associate Planner 15 $4,496 - $5,764 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 $4,496 - $5,764 Database Administrator 15 $4,496 - $5,764 Assistant Engineer 15 $4,496 - $5,764 ITSpecialist 15 $4,496 - $5,764 Engineering Technician II 15 $4,496 - $5,764 Human Resource Analyst 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Administrative Analyst 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Assistant Planner 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Building Inspector II 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Plans Examiner 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Public Information Officer 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Engineering Technician I 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Senior Permit Specialist 14 $4,047 - $5,188 Maintenance /Construction Inspector 13 or 14 $3,642 - $5,188 Recreation Coordinator 13 or 14 $3,642 - $5,188 Customer Relations /Facilities Coordinator 13 $3,642 - $4,669 Code Enforcement Officer 13 $3,642 - $4,669 Buildinq Inspector I 13 $3,642 - $4,669 Planning Technician 13 $3,642 - $4,669 Deputy City Clerk 12 or13 $3,279 - $4,668 Senior Center Specialist 12 or13 $3,279 - $4,668 Human Resources Technician 12 or13 $3,279 - $4,668 Administrative Assistant 11 or 12 $2,950 - $4,202 Permit Specialist 11 or 12 $2,950 - $4,202 Accounting Technician 11 or 12 $2,950 - $4,202 Maintenance Worker 11 or 12 $2,950 - $4,202 Office Assistant II 10 or 11 $2,655 - $3,782 Custodian 1 10 $2,655 - $3,403 Office Assistant 1 1 9 or 10 $2,390 - $3,403 I j ►le 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0239 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0295 ♦ hr@spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: July 7, 2010 To: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager From: John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Re: Maintenance /Construction Inspector - Mechanic Position Establishment The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the establishment of a Maintenance /Construction Inspector - Mechanic classification. This review is being done consistent with SVMC 2.50 and Administrative Policy & Procedure No. 200.245. Summary of Intended Duties The Maintenance /Construction Inspector - Mechanic would be a member of the Public Works Department reporting to the Public Works Director and would be assigned the following primary duties: Performs preventative maintenance and repair at journey - level, to a wide variety of highway maintenance equipment. Inspects, diagnoses, and repairs all vehicle systems such as electrical systems, brake systems, steering and suspension systems, transmissions, differential, hydraulic systems, cooling systems, air conditioning / heating systems, etc. Performs preventative maintenance to include regularly scheduled maintenance on equipment as needed. Completes seasonal mounting, design, modifications, repairs and metal fabrication to sander snowplows, deicer systems, snow blowers, and other specialized seasonal equipment. Operates equipment of various sizes and weights in the loading, hauling and unloading of various equipment, gravel and sand and those in the maintenance of streets designed for sanding, de -icing and snow plowing. Inspect all phases of public and private maintenance, construction and improvement work in City rights -of -way or on private property, monitors contractor personnel to assure that the appropriate construction is completed in compliance with the plans, 2 standards, specifications, special requirements, codes and regulations; issues correction notices or approvals as required. Job Analysis The proposed Maintenance /Construction Inspector - Mechanic position has duties associated with three distinct occupations: the maintenance of heavy equipment, the operation of heavy equipment; as well as the inspection of street and stormwater systems maintenance and repair provided by contractors. The City anticipates the majority of duties assigned to this position, if established, would be inspection related. Inspection work is typically assigned to positions in other jurisdictions that also supervise street maintenance personnel. This accounts for a portion of the higher pay for positions in those organizations. The inspection duties are provided to Spokane Valley by the Maintenance /Construction Inspector employees of the City. The table below reflects the three types of duties that may be assigned to this position and the monthly compensation midpoint with other organizations and the local area: Jurisdiction Mechanic Operator Ins ector /S vs Spokane $3,982 $3,832 $5,201* Spokane County $3,225 $3,615 $4,932 Yakima $4,439 $3,847 $5,947 Pasco $4,381 $4,169 $5,719** Kennewick $4,182 $4,182 $5,862 Richland $4,314 $4,197 $5,932 Walla Walla $3,635 $3,534 $5,181 State of Washington $4,123 $4,021 $4,129 Avg. of above $4,035 $3,924 $5,362 Occupational Avg. (Spokane MSA $3,543 $3,961 $4,609 Maintenance /Construction Inspector (Spokane Valley) $4,415 $4,415 $4,415 * This position is also an Engineer ** This position is paid at a flat rate The City's compensation matrix is also attached showing the City's compensation grades for placement of this position. In comparison to other positions within the City: Classification Grade Monthly Wage Building Inspector 13 $3,642 - $4,669 Maintenance /Construction Inspector 13 -14 $3,642 - $5,188 Engineering Tech II 15 $4,496 - $5,764 3 Currently the City obtains maintenance of the City's snow removal vehicles through a contract with Poe Asphalt. The hourly rate billed to the City for mechanic /operator services through this contract is $40.85/hr. From October of 2009 through April of 2010, the City required 752.25 hours of these services. If this position were to be established, there would no longer be the need for these services to be provided by contract. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.28; RCW 39.34 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This is Council's first touch on the new Agreement. BACKGROUND: City of Spokane Valley staff, Spokane County staff, and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office have completed the negotiations on the Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley. The Interlocal Agreement is attached for review. The Interlocal Law Enforcement Agreement will be presented to Council for review, input and formal motion consideration on future dates. The proposed timeframe is to complete council review and approval by late July or early August. OPTIONS: Contract for Council review RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson /Mike Connelly /Morgan Koudelka ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley; Exhibits 1 and 2. There is an Exhibit 3 which includes the Spokane County Wide Cost Allocation Plan and the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plan. These are voluminous and therefore not printed out. Exhibit 3 is available on disk in the clerk's office. DISCUSSIONS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter refelTed to as the "COUNTY," the Spokane County Sheriff, a separate. elected official of Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as the "SHERIFF" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the 'Parties" and individually referred to as "Panty ". TAW 4128 The COUNTY, SHERIFF and the CITY agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS 1.1 Under RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, acting on behalf of Spokane County, has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business.TA'4 /28 1.2 Under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), public agencies may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform. TAW 4128 1.3 Under chapter 36.28 RCW, the Spokane County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Conservator of the Peace of Spokane County, TA'd 4128 1.4 The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office to provide law enforcement services. TA'd 4128 1.5 The direct and indirect costs for law enfo rcement services will be set forth in the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation plan (T -FLAP) wl.iic;h is attached lrefeto ash' }t iibit 3 and by this reference incorporated irc re;lr. SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS TAW 4128 2.1 Agreement: "Agreement" means this Inte ocal Agreement among Sheriff, City and County regarding law enforcement services. 2.2 City: "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley. C04py Page 1 of 19 2.3 County: "COUNTY" means Spokane County. 2.4 Services: "Services" means those services identified in Exhibit 1. 2.5 Sheriff: "SHERIFF" means the duly elected sheriff of Spokane County possessing those general duties set forth in chapter 36.28 RCW. 2.6 Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of such Services. SECTION NO. 3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which SHERIFF will provide Services to the CITY. The services will be consistent with the City's council/manager form of management. RCW 35.A13 TAW 4128 SECTION NO. 4: DURAT El 4.1 Initial term and '%i b initial 12.01 A.M. or r ,,P 2010, and run tliroi this Agrcernetr rtomatically renew f. process outlined laetein is involved. TIO � liis Agreement shall coinnience as of dnight, December 31, 2013. Thereafter, year time frames, rn1less the termination 4.2 Process for Termination. This Agreemcn -1 may be terminated by any Marty by providing written notice on or after June 30, 2012 to all other Parties. COUNTY :shall cougull with the SHERIFF prior to providing written notice of ten under this subsoction. Sl - 1F-RTFF shall co cult with COUNTY priar to providing written notice of termination under this subsection. This termination will be effective eighte en 11iontils alrte= written not is provided as long as such written notice is provide( prior to 1V1iclnig: t" Decembcr 31, 2013. The same time intervals for terniinations sliall apply to future terms the termitation process is not involved dur°iiig the initial contract period, 4.3 Implementation of Termination. When notice of termination is, and CITY agree to jointly prepare a Transition Plan. 4.3.1 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan shall identify and address, among other items (i) personnel issues; (ii) workload; and (iii) on going case assignments. If the SHERIFF and CITY cannot mutually Page 2 of 19 No agree to the terms of the Transition Plan, either Party can request arbitration as provided in Section No. 18, The SHERIFF and CITY shall equally share the cost of said arbitration.. TA'd 4/28 4.3.2 Implementation of Transition Plan. Parties agree to use all best efforts to create and effectuate a inutual implementation of the Transition Plan. TA'd 4/28 4.4 Termination of the Agreement - Vehicles and Equipment. At the termination of this Agreement, CITY shall have the option to purchase, subject to agreement of SHERIFF and COUNTY, COUNTY owned vehicles and /or equipment used to provide Services. TA'd 4/28 4.5 Waiver of Statutory Terms. 'To the extent that it is applicable to law enforcenient services, the Parties licreby waive thc statutory termination rights of 1 . RCW 39,34, 180( and elect instead to follow these; contractual termination procedures gas the sole method of terminating this Agrcctaae.nt, the terms of which air detailed in this sub3cetion. 4.6 Termination of the Agreement and Settle and Adjust. Th6 Pffi Pa -ties recognize that Cost f6r S er vices under the Agreement is calculat utili�ifig LI:CAP. Tile f EP is istseci urn actual costs fi °o.z two years prier to the cti� contract year. As such, in the event this Agreement is t,, minated as provided for in Stab- section 4.2 hercinabove, the A will be subject to a settle; and adjust for the last two years of the term of the Agreement based upon the Cost Allocation Model for the two subsequent years allcr termination. In the event of terminatioii, the Parties shall follow the IrroCcss set forth ill Section No. 6 to deternaine the adjust and settle for each- of (lie last tNvo years of the Agrec ment its - %vel l as the process to object to the filial adjustinctit determined for each of the last INVO yc;ar•s to melt €de disptIte tesolutiota as set forth in Subsection 6.6 set fortlt hereinafter. SI:CTIOI® NO, 5: SERVJCES 5.1 Services Provided and Service. I.,evels. The Sheriff shall provide those Services set forth in Exhibit L(Cominissioned Officer Worksheet) attached hereto and by this rererenee incorporated iaerein. The CI'T'Y naay unilaterally, on ail annual basis, aditist the service level FTE's set foilli in Category One of Exhibit I . Writteta 11('111ce of such in aciiustment to Category Oiie shall be provided by the CITY to (lie COUNTY and SHElUFF no rater than November 30` with tlae adJusittnents to be effective on January I s oftlie followitzg year. lftlac COUNTY fails to provide the third quarterly report or changes to the LFCAP allocation as set forth in Section 5.2 below, said notice is required to occur 30 days after this infoniiation is provided, My other adjtisttrients in Category " One services taaay occur by mu tual agreement as Set f orth in Section 6.5. Page 3 of 19 The CITY and SHERIFF, by inutual agreement may also adjust t. FTE's set B orth in Ctaiegory'1'wo of Exhibit 1. Such agreement sl than November 30 of the preceding contract year. (level of service 1 be executed. tro later ter Any adjustnrerxts in services under this section shall only be opq tiv a'fler rcicvaslat � notice and trnpacrt bargair7ing negotiations for reductions in for f j -'� �� Mist e;d with the relevant Collective Bargaining Units but intro event shall th�'tlela in i lilt) let1leatatierit exceed 60 days. t � Notwithstanding the alcove, the SHERIFFS ability to fulfill hi �/ to ry•(sbhgdiion to provide law enforcement. services to the COUNTY and the tialt not i)Qa_iif-rrltod: -. � 5.2 Periodic Reporting Requirements. �f`he SHE F 1�1' iO , V c� the '�T p g � ; quarterly repoils, within 30 days from the end of each quart6r•,�t identify statistics 11s.e � to calculate the CITY "S cost in thQ L FCAP referenced in Soetion No. 6 below, '[hose statistics which are only available to CCOIJFNTY on aat1�tKatmai basis s hall be provided arlrmally within ail days of the end of each calendar year. Hc)�vevcr, record t anel property roon statistic #s shall be provided within 15 days after• they are provided by the City of Spokane. 'I'lresv reports will allow the CITY to monitor service consumption and cost accrual throughout the year. , {' The COUNTY will further provide to the CITY, prior to the begiming of the fourth quarter of each year preceding their effective date, any changes ill the ;allocation of law enforcement services set forth in the itdopteca rf1 CAP which is incorporated her i ° - rN it l SECTION NO. 6: COST OF SERVICES 6.1 Basis. Cost for services shall be based upon the Law Enforcement Cost.Allor on � Plan (LFCAP) as paeviotasly identified and incorporated hcrc rr 6.2 Methodology. Costs ;Fear Service i will be calculated uti 1j ang - Tic , Cost Calculation } � Model (CCM) a s shown in Exhibit 2 which is attached heret n 111corporated herein by t reference. F 6.3 COWCAP in([ LECAP. Once the COWCAP and LECAP si rt -izc(, no changes will be ni{adc to any departimmt cost or allocation basis until`tl +efollowing year other than N as indicated in the III -YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT FT13 ADJUSTMENTS defined ill scab - section 6.7. Each year, departments within the Sheriffs Office will be reviewed to deturMine if the costs are being appropriately allocated. Each allocation basis will bo reviewed to det(miline if it is the best basis for allocating the costs. Any changes in allocating department costs or changes in allocattion basis will be provided to Page 4 of 19 C the CITY with explanations for any deviation froaii (lie initial ply 4ater tliaii the erica of�� th,, third quarter. Both the COWCAP and t he LEC will be pre pared i n accordance t with ONJ Circular A -87. Ho tlig, LECAP refercn - - -rei n shall not cont �,!j ' -_ - ..� ] 1 COUNTY costs as set fo rth in Colum Four of Exhibit 1. a &I farther the COW shall d A not contain COrI�!?�lf y costs for treasurer• tax co lic c.tioirs% �� -� Thy, COWCAP and the LECAP will be completed by S pteriibe ° t # r' determining (lie actual costs for the prior year. For example, l c actual cast for the calendar year 2009 would be completed by September 30, 2 10. 6.4 CCM. Costs for Services shall be calculated irtilizing the LECAP. The LECAP will b � based. on acnial costs. It will he used to estimate Inter'lo�cal agreement costs for a a,gr'eenient year LAvo years subsequent to the year of the LECAP. The model based on the LECAP costs fr•oni two years erica � 9fniaate costs for the l current ; agreemcnt year. The Pet Commissioned Officer the dollar amount €err Other Allocations for the contract year will be multiplied by (1) any cost of living o� wage changes) granted commissioned deputics under any collective bargaining agreermn for the calendar year irmnediately rollowing the LECAP year; and by (2) a 1.25% multiplier for the calendar year ininiediate;ly following the LE year; and by (3) any cost of living or tvage cliange.(s) granted commissioned d dcpaties trader any collective bargaining agreement for the calendar year two years subsequent t the LECAP year; and by (4) ra 1.25% imiltiplier° for the calendar year two yeas subsequent to the LEti AP year. After generating the Per Commissioned Officer rate for the int::rlo . F'��_ rnent year usil the Coirrniissioned Officer Worksheet (Exhibit 1), the nuinbs f "rate= tie and Two officers will be updated to reflect. crrr year staffing level; ` i. total contract costs [lien swill [ }e arttonl,aticalty calculated. This model can also be edl for any MD -YEAR FULL - TI vM EQUIVALENT (FTE) ADYUS`l "1VIIENT:S. Thl o, CCM .shall be provided by th COLT TY to the CITY by September 30 for fire following year. 6.5 Metro- Active Salary Adjustments. Should .any applicable bargaining agreement not lie .settled in time, to inctude any salary tadjustarrr nts granted conimis:sioned deputies Lander any collective bargaining agreement in the contract calculation model for it given year, and that colleetive bargaining agrcenient is settled during that year, and the settlement contai ns retroacti� salary adjustment, the COUNT TY will Lill the CITY for the hill Minoru., of the CITY'S portion of the retroactive payment. '1`lae CITY wiji be responsible for paying the COUNTY within thirty clays of the bilfiarg date. Additionally, the COUNTY will recalculate the estimated interlocal agreement aniount employing the cost of living or wage increase(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement and adjust the Tern airing monthly payments. { v rage 5 of 19 Mp '{' 'v� +T nt f �I�1ti '1�event the Parties 6.6 Mid -Year Full Time l.,ciur . �alerrt (� C)1�d�ustiare a negotiate a change in full time positions, wid- year, such atige, for purposes of calculating costs tinder the LECAP, car, occur only c1t1 z tiering; ally intclIocal agreorilo t year and in aaiy event rio later than August 30th of + Lich year. Additionally, t he COUNTY will reco ttlate the estimated ir l!1e1lQgI t a - cemcait amount �talci_.�(I,jtps the r monthly y �aynien Any reduction: would become operative only �itter the relevant notice and ini �ac�t bargaining g obligations for reductions in force are satisfied yy�� 1� g. g g +�1 With the effected Collective Bargaining unit but in no event shall the delay ill implementation exceed 60 days. " 6.7 Settle and Adjust. The LECAP will be used to settle anti , �tfs� flip c- �til��tcted �Zi�ic for the year for which it is calculated. After co the KyO Calculation Model For current agreement year, any overage or underage from t and adjust will be app: to the total amonrit, This c nil rterl l gore drill follow t Wlling procedure. The COUNTY shall orcrvide the CITY with its final aadjtas[rrfelat/ 1xt. ��rifirig iio` - la eTitlian' � September _301h of any calendar year. The adjustment will �lud'e a copy of the fitlj A t LECAP. 'Be CITY will have thirty (0) calendar clays f° its receipt of (lie written adjustment to provide the COUNTY with any wrtten obj ons to the amounts set forth therein. The COUNTY agrees to consider all written objections received from the CITY and reply to the CITY no hater than fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the CITY'S objections. In the event that. the Parties cannot imitually resolve any written objections(s) submitted by the CITY within an additional fifteen (15) calendar day tinge li•aine, or such other time frame aas the Parties may mutually agree, to, the objections sliaatl be resolved , pursuant to the Dispute -Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 18. � 6.8 Capital Purchases. Capital. items deemed necessary for l`or a11 � c�irrt rsSiomcd' a IP 1� �� 't excluding vehicles, with a cost b teaIer than the Coaant.y cal�rta :tli c �- s,` old (currently $2,000) and. less than $10,000, as well as capital items w tI f"" cast equal to or greater than $50,000, will be 1'±Iled to tile; CITY at the time of purchase contingent upon prior CITY authorization. The CITY will be billedl according to the CITY's current usage percentage of the items. Tlie COTJNTY will ball the Cfl'Y for this cost at tile, tune of the purchase wid pay.mcnt will bo due within 30 days of the billing dame. After the LECAP is f completcd for the year of the purc:liase(s ), the COUNTY will give the City of �_S cane i Valley credit for (lie full alnowit: paid in that year. .Al l capital items purchased will become the property of C U 6itft14tel'WLtha - halve been purchased vitli grant Bands by e ithe r the CITY or ti COUNTY or otliei funding sonrces, sand capital items that are not utilized in oviding law enforcernent service to the CITY, WilI not be charged to the. CITY. A Lrcapital items that are utilized in providing law enforcement service to the CITY and Kat were not purchased with other funding sources will be incorporated as fixed assets in the County-wide Cost Allocation Page 6 of 19 Plan COCA') and reimbursed through depreciation. The C Ct`AV - -i -s a-cost �vitliirr thc:�u � �'� LECAP, "�, � 1 6.9 Billing Procedna•e. The COUNTY will bill the CITY for one -tw" ini t l COUNTY'S calculated contract amount as determined in contract c eI culation model during the first week of the month. Regular monthly payments by the C 1'�� will be due by the en of the month in which they are billed. 6.10 Penalty. At the sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty rnay�e as � e on a _lat . 1a malt ortlre nronthl c�lccalatcd contact �mourlt owed b the�`l ='fan anaoarartt e ual . I d to Id75t interest earnings had the payment been timely paid a17:r `t iii the Spokane County veasove,r's Investment Pool. _ Any resolution. of a dis rUted amount throe h usC of the a/bhrati�q � es �r red i'i V ' � l� g 1 t Section No.1 S shall include at the request of tiny P €arty illation of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount. SECTION NO. 7: MUNICIPAL POLICE AUTHORITY The CITY shall retain all powers p olice and b virtue of this A , aien r oait?r t� 1 Y _ - municipal police authority on the SHERIFF. �! - ' � '� � SECTION NO. 8; OFFICER ASSIGNMENT, RETE1rTWON DISCIPLINE AND HIRING. The COTINTY is acting hereunder as an independent contractor as to: _ 8.1 Hiring, The SJITERIFF shall hire, assign, rcga —aia €l rj�litt X11 ` era? �loyceslde �utie.;s according to the. collective bar ai ' agVecarrent, civil service 1 l g g�� .g? �. males, ,and state and federal laws. �� 8.2 Standartls of performance Governed by the 1SHERIFF. Control of personnel � standarcl,s of per•iormance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall b P by the SI[EFUFF Provided however that only iivalilicd trained pen;oinie 8.3 1 meeting all of the regLrirern.ents of applicable state laws be � utilized in the performance of Services. Assignment of Deputies. SHEIJFIa shall rise, when er possible, deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY. In thosc instances m there arc an insufzrcient number of deputies w110 volunteer fbr duly withiei CITY, then S1-1[ shall determine who shall be assigned fbr dirty. SHERIFF and CITY will w .11C. together to encourage deputy retention to provide continuity of service. Ala Ln Page 7 of 19 A� 8.4 Patrol Districts. CIT'Y'S Police Chief will establish patr�� within th ' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY in order to assure accurtate c • Ilcction of data relate to criminal traffic activity. The patrol districts Neill coinc4-ictive within CITY limits as closely as possible without comprintising efficient use of patrol deputies. A petrol district: is a geographical arty of a size and configuration designed to mijiimize 4 t times to citizen's calls .tar services. Response is typically measured froin the tirne a call is received to the titn.e the unit arrives on the scene. 8.5) Dedicated Patrol Units. Sheriff- recognizes that it is ptcrV11(fil forn -pol1c� service's dedicated to CITY. in so doing, (lie law enforcement serv'�?cs shall be dedicated to CrrY and shall nor bo used elsewhere within Spokane COI; Y: _ Provided lho`vever, in the event of an erne%ency or a call by a deputy for assis«Ence, mutual aid may be rendered. SECTION NO. 9: CITY POLICE CHIEF AND PRECINCT COMMANDER SELECTION, REMOVAL AND DUTIES, AS WELL AS CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITIES THERETO, 9.1 Selection of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. When, for any reason, there occurs a vacancy in the position of Police Chief or Precinct Commander, the SHERIFF shall designate three or more SHERIFF Deputies of the rank of Lieutenant or higher, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, as candidates for each of the positions of CITY Police Chief or Precinct Commander. The positions of Police Chief or Precinct Commander shall be appointed from said lists of qualified candidates by the City Manager. TA'd 4/28 9.2 Removal of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. 9.2 (a) Removal by SHERIFF. The SHERIFF may remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after consultation with the CITY MANAGER. TA'd 4/28 9.2(b) Removal By City Manager. The SHERIFF shall remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after the written request and consultation of the CITY MANAGER. TA'd 4/28 9.2(e) Reduction of Precinct Commander's Rank Due to Economic Conditions. A reduction in Sheriffs Office Civil Set-vice Rank due to economic necessity shall not be the sole basis for the removal of the appointed Precinct Commander by either the City Manager or the SHERIFF. TA'd 4/28 9.3 Duties of Police Chief. The Police Chief shall report to CITY Manager or his/her designee and to the existing command structure within SHERIFF's OFFICE. TA'd 4/28 Page 8 of 19 �it If The duties of the Police Chief shall include: 9.3.1 Working with the CITY Manager or his/her designee to establish goals, , objectives and performance measures for CITY police services which reflect specific needs within CITY; TA'd 4/28 9.3.2 Coordinating police activities within CITY, including hours of operation and CITY specific protocols and procedures, attending meetings and providing reports as requested by the City Manager and such other duties common to a City Police Chief including enforcement of CITY codes and ordinances; TA'd 4/28 9.3.3 Reviewing the performance of deputies assigned to CITY. Reporting to CITY Manager or his/her designee and SHERIFF any serious recommendations for performance improvement; TA'd 4/28 9.3.4 Identify duties of deputies assigned to CITY as specific needs arise or as requested by CITY Manager or his/her designee within the context of established policies and procedures. Reporting to SHERIFF any changes in duty of CITY assigned deputies;TA'd 4/28 9.3.5 Overseeing im plementation within CITY of S. 1 all 1 �7-r Bess anc procedures. Maintainin a copy of SHERIFF' pro �i�i 5e5� on file at C Hall lu l g lr� pro { for CITY'S reference. SHT'RIFF small be notified - of any public disclosure requests to view or obtain a copy of the poll iei0eand procedures can file, 9.3.6 Notifying CITY Manager or his/her designee of any change in SHERIFF procedures or policies, or resource as permitted by this agreement; TA'd 4/28 9.3.7 Identifying areas of supplemental training for deputies assigned to CITY. Making recommendations to SHERIFF for supplemental training. Making recommendations to the CITY Manager or his/her designee for training not provided by SHERIFF; TA'd 4/28 9.3.8 Providing supervision and direction to the Precinct Commander, Lieutenants and Sergeants assigned to CITY as well as other assigned personnel, and acting as liaison with SHERIFF Command Staff; TA'd 4/28 9.3.9 Maintaining communication between CITY Manager and SHERIFF command structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to CITY and that change in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. In the event a CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs 7_ Page 9 of 19 EJ Lvry from the SHERIFF'S, CITY Manager or his/her designee, SHERIFF and COUNTY shall meet and mutually determine which policy will prevail; and TA' 4/28 9.3.10 Notifying the CITY Manager or his /her designee of any significant criminal occurrence or civil emergency within CITY or Region that would impact the public safety or operations of the CITY. TA'd 4128 9.4. Duties of the Precinct Commander. The Precinct Commander shall act as Chief in his/her absence and under the Chief as the CITY Police Department's primary administrative assistant,TA'd 4/28 9.5 Duties of City Manager. City Manager or his /her designee shall have the responsibility of providing general direction and supervision to the assigned Police Chief relative to the furnishing of law enforcement services to CITY as set forth in chapter 35A.13 RCW and the terms of this Agreement. T 'A4/28 9.6 Quarterly Meetings - Sheriff and City Manager .ter �S1 ;t f" r l the City ` Manager sl�ril meet on a quarterly basis to er�srrr� rr corr1r11unication and t seek" oinL consideration of all natters of concer•ii're ardrng the law on force1tlerzt contract, Esther party may invite representatives' n their respective organizations to attend. It is intended tiia[ the parties in then x ketings review the Interlocal Agreement an diiscuss matters of mutual int --sst; monitor cost trends, -,vork jointly on potential cost savings, revenue sources and ether budgetary matters that inay impact ;service: levels; seek long - term sustainabili! of contract terms; consider c hanges in Labor contracts, allocation of resources or otire:r• potential cost changes and change; to the cost allocation plan that may impact either party. The elates or M1 these rneetiuQs will be determined ley .mutual agreement but should coiric.ide with a the budget +cycles of each (arty. ° 9.� Quarterly r ��eetirr — Financial Re �resentatives. Re �r�1�tivcd�Car�tlre °Cl J`Y g I , alld the. r C"01. NT Y shall .niect. c uar to discuss otenti �'eost`��rarlg and char es tee tl? cost allocation flan, the COWCAI Tltoj6 or the CCM., SECTION NO. 10: OBSERVATION OF LABOR NFLOTIATIONS The CITY may participate with other cities that contract with the COUNTY for law enforcement services to select no more than two (2) representatives from the contracting cities to observe labor negotiations between the COUNTY, SHERIFF and the Collective Bargaining units representing the employees of the SHERIFF, provided that such observers adhere to rules established by the COUNTY, SHERIFF and the bargaining units for the negotiations. TAW 4/28 Page 10 of 19 SECTION NO. 11: PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING 11.1 Ownership of Property and Equipment. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in association with either SHERIFF or CITY meeting their responsibilities under the terns of this Agreement, shall remain with the original owner at all times to include termination, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed upon in writing by the Parties to this Agreement. TA'd 4128 11.2 Stationery, Notices and Forms. CITY shall supply at its own cost and expense any special supplies, logos or patches, stationery, notices, forms where .s h -must be issued in the name of CITY. TA'd 4128 }; 11.3 Additional 'Technology. C rY desires to ina rrtairr a loo Ce swee•'ilrf is t a I Ile ' \ S 0 and equipped with the latest teclrtiology, SHERIFF re� W provide pol,ica o service, personnel providing services under this .agreq t A who are trained �rnrl equipped with such technology as is customarily pr d to deputies providing law entorcenrrent services in the unincorporated and of Spokane Courrrty. Any technology not currently in use or not customarily provided to patrol deputies, may be requested b CIT or SHERIFF. Parties agree to meet and confer over the need for the acgUisitiorr, trainin& or use of new technology with the final dccision regarding the acqui ition and use of new technology resting solely Nvirh [lie S14ERII+ f :so long as the CITY arid COUNTY have the necessary financial resources to acquire such toclvlology and train deputies in its use. Such costs shall be incorporated into the LECAP. 11.4 Training. CITY has indicated that it may desire to have the deputies providing Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of any written request(s) by the CITY for deputies providing Services under the terms of this Agreement to attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF may also require staff assigned to provide Services to the CITY under the terms of this Agreement to participate in necessary state and federal training and conferences that focus on the prevention of crime and the protection of the CITY citizens. The costs of any additional or supplemental training requested by the CITY under this section and approved by the SHERIFF, or determined necessary by the SHERIFF shall be born solely by the CITY. TA'd 4128 11.5 Police Department Building, Maintenance, and Janitorial. The CITY will provide offices, to include sufficient parking, for the CITY Police Department located at 12710 E. Sprague Avenue, City of Spokane Valley, 99216 or at such Wage 11 of 13 other location mutually agreed to between the CITY and SHERIFF. CITY shall provide all operation , maintenance and janitorial services for said offrces.TA'd 4128 SECTION NO. 12: COMMUNITY IDENTITY 12.1 Patrol Vehicles. Patrol vehicles that are a.ssigied to CITY may identif ication and other logo of CITY at CITY'S sole expense. vehicles will indicate that they are SHIJ~1UFF vehicles. SIIEI detennine the form of identification jointly. 12.2 Uniform. SHERIFF maintains a uniform directed by state law. It is a uniform that carries a great deal of pride. CITY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the uniform of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office; however, SHERIFF agrees that assigned personnel may wear additional identification in the nature of a pin, patch, uniform items, or other like identification indicating affiliation with CITY. The nature and design of any additional identification will be determined jointly by SHERIFF and CITY and provided to SHERIFF by CITY at CITY'S sole expense.TA'd 4128 SECTION NO. 13: RECORDS All records prepared, owned, used or retained by the COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deerned COUNTY property and shall be made available to the CITY upon request by the City Manager subject to the records retention schedule set forth by the Washington State Secretary of State, the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The parties agree to cooperate in complying with the provisions of Chapter 42.56 RC. W/ TA'd 4, SECTION NO. 14: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANC.V-VEVE- l- OSSIB!I! 5L 1` A delay or interruption in or ",�ilure of performance of all or anal l Agreement ' ff f resulting li•oni Uncontrollable Circumstances Shall be c9ecrned rlOt a defirult under this Agreement. A delay or interwptioxr in or failure of performance of alf any part of this Agreerrrer resultinp from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in accordarIce with the terns ofthis Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of tli - N) Q I I Page 12 of 19 �..� �tl� � render legally itrapossibl'e the performance by the SHJ - of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not it dcfauIt under this Agreement. SECTION NO. 15: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES For the purpose of this, section, the terininology COUNTY p al.l also include SHERIFF. The PAT -MFS intend that an inde:13e tdent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The COUNTY shall be alt independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY, that the CITY is interested ortly in the results to be achieved a td - iliac the right to control the particular man ter, method and ttteans in which the Services are performed is solely within the discretion of the SHH,RIFF. Any and all employees who provide Services to the CITY under this . Agreement shill be deemed enlployces solely of the SHERIFF. The SHERIFF shall be solely responsible, for the conduct and actions of all employees unt %er this Agreement and any liability that inlay alta ch thereto. Likewise, ito agent, employee, servant or representative of the CITY shall lie deemed to be art employee agent, servatrt or representative of the SIITRIFF or COUNTY for any putposr, } SECTION NO. 16: LIABILITY;- � For the put�posc of this Section, the terminology "COL TT�?'�� S llli also ineira.cle the �� "PROSECUTMG ATTORNEY." { (a) The COUNTY shall inde unify and hold harmless the CITY .ail °it 0rffim -S, agents, t and employees, front any acid all claims, a ctions, shits, liability, l � costs, exlaetlses, acid daniages of any natLire, whatsoever, by aiv reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the COUNTY, its officers. agents and employees, relating to or {arising out of performing Set pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, actiort, lass, or damages is brought against the CITY, the. COUNTY shall defend the saine at its sole cost and expense, and if fitaal jt1dgt11er1t in said ,slit be rendered against the CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the CITY and [lie C OUNTY and their respective officers, agents, ,:and employees, the COUNT 'shall the Sallie. " (b) The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the CO LINT JUL artd Is "6ffcers, agents and employees, front any and all claims, actions, ,wits, liability, lo. i c bsts, expensets, arttl,��p damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of car arising out of any negligent act of otiaission of the CITY, its oftiicers, agents and employe3; s, relating to or arising out of performing ServieeS pr,trsuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss:, or damages is brought against the COUNTY, (lie CITY .stroll defend flit: same at its sole: cost and cxps nse and if final jud€ inctit in said suit be rendered against f.heR COUNTY, and its officers, agents:, and employees, or Jointly against the COUNTY .and the CI'T'Y attd their respective officers, agents, and c iiiPloyces, the CITY shall sal ii L , - - � , , i �:'- .; Page 13 of 19 i ' e (c) !rf the comparative negligence of the Parties and trip officers r111d er7rployees is aL cause of such clania,ge or Injury, the liability, loss, ' co., or expense shall be shared�'�,� between the Parties in proportion to thei relative dept of negligence and the right 0A inden - uiity shat l apply to such proportion. ' (d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the di 'ction land controls ? � - of the ntller• Party, the Party directing, and controlling the officer , or ilrp oyee in they , activity rrticl /car cr1rtiiSS1011 giving rise to liability small accept a�[ ' i��[bilit.y for the other Party's officer or Err plo ice's negligence. - t' Party (e) Each s 1 survive { c� �i atr n of lr duty to rndenurrfy shall the terrarrrr��st 1 r o � iy Agreement. _ (f} The foregoing indenurity is specifically intende o constitu aNVe o� each Party's inrvr7unity under Washington's Industrial lnsrrrance Ac chapter 51 RCW, �� 4 respecting the other par only �. � 1 g 1 ys acrd only to the extent nccc,sary t provide the indemnified A\ res Party with a fall and complete indenlnity of claims made by tll `indenmitor's cin1floyees. , The PARTIES a luiowledge that !Ilese provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by theta. () 'I COUN'T'Y and the CITY agree to either self insure insurance covering the tliutters contained In this Agreement with cc $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate lirr7:is irlcl Ir and auto. y X �r Li . 1.11 1111 ices n "diages of Ilot less tha g professional liability SECTION NO. 17: INITIATIVES AND LOCAL BUDGET DEDUCTIONS The PARTIES recognize that revenue - reducing initiative(s) passe by��lye voters o Washington and /or' local revenue reductions (i.e. Toss of sales tax /or Eocal ,govern- juent? mandates play substantially reduce local operating revenue for the � T COUNTY or both parties. The PARTI> S .ag -e that it is necessary to have flexibia'[y to reduce; the contracted amount(s) in this Agrcernc it iii response to budget constnaints from the passage of State -wide revenue - reducing initintive.(s) and/or local revenue roductions rind /or local governiizent mandates. Tf such an event occurs, the PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a r usually agrceable resolution in a tirrrely fashion. SECTION NO. 18: DISPUTE RESOLUTION TA'd 4/28 Any dispute regarding the interpretation of,failure to perform, or the costs for services assessed under the terms of this agreement between the SHERIFF, COUNTY or CITY which cannot be resolved between the respective parties shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the COUNTY CEO and the City Manager if it is a monetary dispute. If it 1 Page 14 of 19 I I ' I II is a non - monetary dispute, it shall be reduced to writing and considered by the SHERIFF and City Manager, If the COUNTY CEO or SHERIFF respectively and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The COUNTY or SHERIFF respectively and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the respective parties. SECTION NO. 19: ASSIGNMENT TA'r14128 No Party may assign in whole or pant its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other Parties.Nothing in this section shall prohibit the COUNTY or SHERIFF from contracting with third parties for services provided for in this agreement. SECTION NO. 20: NOTICES TA'd 4/28 All notices called for or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and must be served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return- receipt requested, sent to the Parties at their respective addresses herein above given. Notices sent by certified mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United ,States mail, postage prepaid. SECTION NO. 21: VENUE STIPULATION TA'd 4/28 This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each Party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 22: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS TA'4/28 The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION No. 23: DISCLAIMER TA'5 14 Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under law. Page 15 of 19 SECTION NO. 24: HE' ADINGS TA'd 4128 The section and subsection headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport: to, and shall not be deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. SECTION NO. 25: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN TA'd 4/28 This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Parties have read and understand the whole of the above Agreement and now state that no representations, promises or agreements not expressed in this Agreement have been made to induce either to execute the same. SECTION NO. 26: COUNTERPARTS TA'd 4/28 This Agreement may be executed in any number of multiple signed originals, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. SECTION NO. 27: AGREEMENT TO BE FILED TA'd 4128 The COUNTY shall file this Agreement with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 28: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT TA Id 4128 Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case any Party fails to perform the obligations on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by the terms of this Agreement, the other respective Party may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay. SECTION NO. 29: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES TA'd 4128 A. Purpose See Section No. 3 above. B. Agreement to be Filed. See Section No. 27 above. C. Duration. See Section No. 4 above. D. Termination See SectionNo. 4 above. Page 16 of 19 E. Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. F, Responsibilities of the Parties. See applicable Sections within Agreement. G. Property pon Termination. See Section Nos. 4.4 and 11 above. ,SECTION NO. 30: SEVERABILITY TA'd 4128 The PARTIES agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, tern or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO.31 THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. TAW 4/28 This Agreement is intended for the benefit of the COUNTY. CITY and SHERIFF and not for the benefit of any third parties. SECTION NO. 32. SURVIVAL Without being exclusive, Section 16, 20, and 21 of this Agreement shall survive any termination, expiration or determination of invalidity of this Agreement in whole or in part. Any other Sections of this Agreement which, by their sense and context, are intended to survive shall also survive, SECTION NO.33. MEDIA RELEASES TA'd 4/28 Media releases concerning law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement will be prepared by the SHERIFF'S Public Information Officer. Any such release of information to the media that is deemed to be sensitive or likely to cause concern or alarm shall be provided to the City Manager before its release, The CITY shall not issue any media releases regarding law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement without prior approval of the SHERIFF unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Page 17 of 19 f� ,V . of �a SECTION NO. 34: MODIFICATION "phis Agreement may only be modified in writing by the mutt PARTIES. (This space intentionaft left blank.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE BOARD DANIELA ERICKSON DATED: DATED: x k N BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON MARK RICHARD, Chair BONNIE MA.GER, Vice -Chair TODD MIELKE, Commissioner SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF: OZZIE KNEZOVICH CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: Page 18 of 19 MIKE JACKSON, Interim City Manager Attest: KEN THOMPSON City Finance Director Approved as to form only: MIKE CONNELLY City Attorney 17( Page 19 of 19 EXHIBIT 1 � 1 Sheriffs Office - 2010 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 236.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 217.67 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those shot are County responsibifity. City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Comm Officer Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs 2 PIO _ Sergeant 1 Training /OPS Lieutenant 2 Sergeant Deputies ! 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy AEA DetectivelCom Detecbve/Corp Deputies 0.75 Sex Off_ Res. Verif. Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off. Res. Verif. SA03 Detective /Corp 1.00 WA Meth Grant Detective/Corp Child Sex Pred Grant �1A 10.33 Category 9 ahared Services Dedicated FTEs Investigative/ Note: "Unincorporated" here includes small cities. Community Services/K-9 Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Admin Captain 1 Chiefllnspector _ 1 1 Sergeant t 1 Lieutenant 0-25 0 .75 Sex Crimes 1 Patrol Sergeant __ 1 Captain — ' _- S 9 Lieutenant 2 2 _ _ _ 4 Sergeant 6 13 Detective/Corp. A. 6 _ 8 10 Deputies 52 44 s 103 TrafficlCVEO 1.09 Sergeant Sergeant - 1 Detectives 1 Detective/Corp. ? 1 Deputies 25 3 Deputies 5 12 Property Crimes Detective/Corp Sergeant - Deputies 1 Detective/Corp. Total Investigative 37.92 9 Community Services Intellclligence Led Policing _ Deputy 2 Domestic Violence Deputies 1.75 Deteavetcorp. — K - 9 1 Deputy 1 5 1 SRO 45.67 - Deputies L 3 1 6 Total Dedicated FTEs 83.25 80.75 5 3 172 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 80.25 76.75 5 2 164 City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Comm Officer Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs 2 PIO _ Sergeant 1 Training /OPS Lieutenant 2 Sergeant Deputies ! 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy AEA DetectivelCom Detecbve/Corp Deputies 0.75 Sex Off_ Res. Verif. Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off. Res. Verif. SA03 Detective /Corp 1.00 WA Meth Grant Detective/Corp Child Sex Pred Grant �1A 10.33 jYJ Zategory 2 ahared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes _ Captain 1 Lieutenant 1 Sergeant 1 Detectives S Sex Crimes Sergeant __ 1 Detectives S 9 Property Crimes TF _ Sergeant 1 Detectives _ 4 Deputies 8 ISUICIUIDECIJTTFIMeth %IDTF % Lieutenant _• 1.09 Sergeant 1.40 Detectives 6.43 Deputies 25 Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp 2 ,00_ Deputies 1.00 Total Investigative 37.92 Intellclligence Led Policing _ Deputies MarinclSearch Rescue Deputies 1.75 K - 9 Deputies 5 Total Investigative /Support Sery 45.67 City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Comm Officer Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs 2 PIO _ Sergeant 1 Training /OPS Lieutenant 2 Sergeant Deputies ! 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy AEA DetectivelCom Detecbve/Corp Deputies 0.75 Sex Off_ Res. Verif. Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off. Res. Verif. SA03 Detective /Corp 1.00 WA Meth Grant Detective/Corp Child Sex Pred Grant �1A 10.33 Exhibit l Services r The COUNTY will provide law enforcement services com i t ie following: Category ] — Dedicated FTE's • Valley Police Administration • Patrol ® Traffic Investigation ® Property Crimes ® Community Services • Domestic Violence Unit • School Resource Officer Category 2 — Shared Services Investigative /Community Services/K -9 • Major Crimes • Sex Crimes • Property Crimes Task Force • Investigative Support Unit • Criminal Intelligence Unit ® Drug Endangered Children Detective • Joint Terrorism Task Force _ f Meth Detective • Drug Task Force • Gang Enforcement • Intelligence LED Policing • Marine /Search and Rescue • K -9 Category 3 -- Allocated with Administrative Costs • Administration - Undershcriff and Staff • Public Information Officer • Office of Professional Standards and Training Category 4 -- County Responsibility or Other Cost Recovery Method • Civil Process • Marine Patrol Grant • DEA Grant • Drug Task Force Grant • Sex Offender Registration • Sex Offender Residency Verification Grant • WA Meth Grant • Child Sex Predator Grant • Sheriff Law Enforcement Services Allocated by Various Basis • SCOPE /SIRT • Radio Dispatch • Helicopter • Forensics • Crime Check • Records Management • Property Room • Explosive Disposal • Communications Law Enforcement Services included in the Per Commissioned Officer Rate • LEIS • Crime Analysis Unit • Garage • Firing Range • Fleet • SWAT/Hostage Negotiation • Extra Duty Employment CO • Reservist and Explorer Units • Countywide Indi-rect Costs — OMB A -87 • Annual Changes in Accrued Leave EXHIBIT 2 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2008 Actuals Surnrnary - Budget Other Allocations Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood Spangle Rockford Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Latah Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFS Unincorporated County Total County Responsibility /Other Cost Recovery Total Costs Net of Revenues Commissioned Officer Rate Type of Allocation: A -$7 ! Other Actual Allocations Total 3.25% 1.250% BUDG 3.25% 1.250% BUDGET Other Charge 2009 2009 200 2010 2010 2010 Allocations for 2008 COLA MULTIPLIER CON }1CT COLA MULTIPLIER CONTRACT 1,562,405 1,562,405 50,778 20,165 1,. 3,348 53,084 21,080 1,707,512 2,189,664 2,189,664 71,164 28,260 2,289,088 74,395 29,544 2,393,027 112,040 112,040 3,641 1,446 117,127 3,807 1,512 122,446 60,011 60,011 1,950 775 62,736 2,039 810 65,585 4,036 4,036 131 52 4,219 137 54 4,410 10,615 10,615 345 137 11,097 361 143 11,601 68,715 68,715 2,233 887 71,835 2,335 927 75,097 7,543 7,543 245 97 7,885 256 102 8,243 73,889 73,889 2,401 954 77,244 2,510 997 80,751 43,760 43,760 1,422 565 45,747 1,487 590 47,824 2,280 2,280 74 29 2,383 77 31 2,491 1,648 1,648 54 21 1,723 56 22 1,801 15,213 15,213 494 196 15,903 517 205 16,625 3,073 3,073 100 40 3,213 104 41 3,358 3,231,984 3,231,984 105,039 41,713 3,378,736 109,809 43,607 3,532,152 7,386,876 7,386,876 240,073 95,337 7,722,286 250,974 99,666 8,072,926 41,541,344 41,541,344 1,350,094 536,143 43,427,581 1,411,396 560,487 45,399,464 48,928,220 48,928,220 1,590,167 631,480 51,149,867 1,662,371 660,153 53,472,391 125,295 4,072 1,617 130,984 4,257 1,691 136,932 City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 2008 Actuals to 2010 w Multplrs Spokane County Sheriff's Off lee Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model & e V ,. _ s T ype of Allocation• Allocation of Commissioned Officers Between Unincorporated and Small Cities Based on 200B Actuals A - 87 % of Regular Population Total Officers Unincorp. Unincorporated - District 8 s ti;'e:1 86,9% 5.22 5.22 Millwood t,E�65 13.1% 0.78 Total District 8 12,731 ' 1 6. Unincorporated - District 10 Unincorporated - District 11 Total Unincorporated -Dist 10 & 11 Spangle Rockford Fairfield Latah Waverly Total Districts 10 and 11 Unincorporated - Districts 8,10,11 Unincorporated - other than Dist. 8,10,11 Total Unincorporated without small cities Population numbers used x,739 1 a,824 25,5 - -^ 93.8% 11.25 275 I 1.0% 0.12 499 1.8% 0.22 603 2.2% 0.27 194 0.7% 0.09 27 0.5% 0.06 27,261 100.0 %1 12.00 1 2008 statistics 11.25 1bAt 62.25 78.72 i� City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Small Cities I� 1 City 2010 CCM 06 -30-10 2010 Comm Officer Summary Spokane County Sheriffs Office T c of Allocation: Law Enforcement COSt Allocation Model A_B7 Commissioned Officer Summa Based on 2008 Actuals Commissioned Officers Dedicated to Local Jurisdictlons 5 olcane Valle Over Park Millwood San le Roldord Airway Hof hts Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Labhh Waverly Chenov Fairchild AFB Unlncorporate d Counly Total Costs CommLsioned Offlcer Rate Total FTE Dedicated FTFs exdudinq SROs 7635 2.00 0.78 0.12 0.22 0.27 5.00 0.09 0 -06 78.72 164.00 School Resource Officers 4.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 Total Dedicated FTEs 80.75 3.00 0.78 4.12 022 - 0.27 I 5.00 0.09 0.06 81.72 17290 0.09 4 734.80 1 0.87 44 344. 20 0.08 - 4 072.95 _`+,00 '101 823.65 12 0.04 240.12 Statlsf c: Avg RMS & Cases 4 9.41 2 515349.51 i 203 103 96 D.44 i 0.75_i_ 38132-96 1 0.42 I 4 6,70 2.377.429.38 101.989 1 Total Invostgafive Dollars - 5 192 445.87 6 37.92 K -9 Sta6sNc:K-9 2570.00 26.00 31.00 - 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.04 - 2CD 1.00 1139.00 3,78200 Total K-9 Dollars 465 248.79 4 706.80 5 511.95 - 181-03 724.12 36206 905.15 181.03 362.06 181.03 206193.92 684 657.95 136,932 5.00 I Intellelli ence Led Pollcin Dedicated FTEs oxcluding SROs 76.75 2.00 0.78 0.12 0-22 0.27 &CC 0.09 0.06 78.72 164.00 Total Community FTEs 176 226.36 4 1,801.75 277.95 504.35 - 609.47 - 11 1 196.08 128 36 - - 180 744.78 376 561.87 136,932 2.75 I Total Inve5 aolvefK- 91Communi Services Costs 3156 824.66 112 398.46 45,547.44 5 45 029.80 724.12 5 044.74 905.15 113A90.22 2436,29 1.35030 36206 181.43 2, 764,449.80 217.67 Statislics for Avp RMS &, Cases and K -9 from 2006 Acuals Estimated Medical Lake I� 1 City 2010 CCM 06 -30-10 2010 Comm Officer Summary Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Commissioned Officer Rate and Ahocatfon Based on 2008 Actuals 2010 Allocation of Commissloned Officer Charge `U Type of Allacalion: A•67 i � 0 City 2010 CC 06 -30-10 2010 Commissioned Offccar Alloc Dedicated Investigelive Schaal SRO Total Dedlcetod Commissioned Community Sery Resource SRO Contract Net SRO Commissioned Officers Officer Charge K -9 Charge Officers Charge Revenue Charge Officer Charge Spokane Spokane Valley 76.75 10,509,499 3,156,825 4.00 547,728 67,056 460,670 14,146,995 Deer Park 2.00 273,663 112,398 1.00 136,932 16,784 120,168 506,429 M #hvaad 0,78 107,450 45,547 - 152,997 Spangle 0.12 18,578 5,013 - - 21,569 Rockford 0.22 30,078 45,030 75,707 Airway Heights - - 724 724 Fairfield 0.27 36,346 5,045 4 1, 391 Liberty Lake - - 905 905 Medical Lake 5.00 684,656 113,490 798,148 Latah 0,09 11,694 2,436 14,130 Waverly 0.06 7,655 1,350 9,005 Cheney - - 362 362 Fairchild AFB - 181 - - 181 Unincorporated County 78.72 10,778,982 2,784,450 3.00 410,795 50,292 360,503 13,903,874 Total All Jurisdictions 164.00 22,458,781 8,253,757 8,00 1,095,453 134,4t2 981,341 28, 671,,878 Commissioned Officer Rate Total Commissioned Officers Serving Local Jurisdictions 217.87 2008 Actuals for Commissioned Officer Rate with Multipliers 136,932 City 2010 CC 06 -30-10 2010 Commissioned Offccar Alloc Y r� City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 2008 Settle and Adjust Spokane County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2008 Actuals Actual Settle and Commissioned Total Adjust Officer Other Charge PAID 2010 Charge Allocations for 2008 2008 ,CONTRACT 1,562,405 15,207,683 - - 582,681 203,154 24,149 83,944 69,377 45,505 74,717 43,925 15,340 9,947 15,545 3,238 F7 Spokane - 1,562,405 Spokane Valley 13,018,019 2,189,664 Deer Park 470,641 112,040 Millwood 143,142 60,011 Spangle 20,113 4,036 10,615 Rockford 73,329 Airway Heights 663 68,715 Fairfield 37,962 7,543 Liberty Lake 828 73,889 Medical Lake 166 43,760 Latah 13,060 2,280 Waverly 8,299 1,648 Cheney 331 166 15,213 3,073 Fairchild AFB 1 r� City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 2008 Settle and Adjust Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2008 Actuals Summary - Charges to Clients Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood Spangle Rockford Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Latah Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFB I r rf f Type of Allocation: A -87 Commissioned Total Officer Other Contract Budget Charge Allocations for 2010 - 1,707,512 1,707,512 14,146,995 2,393,027 16,540,021 506,429 122,446 628,875 152,997 65,585 218,583 21,589 4,410 25,999 75,107 11,601 86,708 724 75,097 75,821 41,391 8,243 49,634 905 80,751 81,656 798,148 47,824 845,972 14,130 2,491 16,621 9,005 1,801 10,807 362 16,625 16,988 181 3,358 3,539 2008 Settle & Adjust Total Monthly Carry Forward Contract Budget Billing 2010 Including Carry Forward 2010 - 1,707,512 - 16,540,021 1,378,335 - 628,875 - 218,583 - 25,999 - 86,708 - 75,821 - 49,634 - 81,656 - 845,972 - 16,621 - 10,807 - 16,988 - 3,539 City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Total Budgetfor 2010 ShorifFs Office - 2010 Commissioned Officer Worl=hoet Total Commissioned FTE: % 236.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer 217.67 Fxcludcs those allocated along with admini i t ` e costs and those that are County responsibility. s Category 2 g mr~, l Shared Services J 1 Investigative! Dedicated FTcs Community ServicesfK -9 Major Crimes Note. 'Unincorporated" hero includes small cities. Captain 1 Lieutenant Unincorp Valley Modica] Lk Deer Park Total Admnn 5 Sex Crimes _ Chief /Inspector 1 Detectives 1 Sergeant I Sergeant 1 Lieutenant I 0.25E 0.75 ~ 1 Patron Lieutenant 01 Captain 1.00 Detectives 6.83 Lieutenant 22 5 Gang Enforcement 4 Sergeant 7 { _., 3 ; Detective /Corp 13 Detcctive/Corp. f 6 j 10 Deputies -- – .qq ` 5 1 2 i 103 Traffic/CVEO Deputies 7 Sergeant Deputies 1 Detective /Corp. t _ 3 Deputies _ '. ?..,1 _ _ 12 Property Crimes Sergeant Detective /Corp. Community Services Deputy 2 Domestic Violence Detectivelcorp_ Deputy 1 1 SRO Deputies F 4 i 1 8 Total Dedicated FTEs 83.25 80.75 5 3 172 Dedi=ted FTEs excluding SROs 8025 76.75 5 2 164 Category 2 Shared Services J 1 Investigative! Community ServicesfK -9 Major Crimes Deputies Captain 1 Lieutenant 1 Sergeant 1 Detectives 5 Sex Crimes _ Sergeant 1 Detectives 't . .5.84 s Property Crimes TF i 1 Sergeant I 1 Detectives 4 Deputies 3 ISU /CIUIDECIJTTF /Meth %IDTF % Lieutenant 01 Sergeant 1.00 Detectives 6.83 Deputies 22 5 Gang Enforcement Sergeant ; 1.00 Detective /Corp 2.00 Deputies 1.00 Total Invesu ja4ive 37.92 inielleiligence Led Policing Deputies �� — 1 Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 7 K -9 Deputies I 5 Total InvestigativelSupport Sery 45.67 Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs I_ 2 PIO Sorgoant 1 TrnininglOPS Lieutenant 2 Sergeant 1 Deputies I 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility/ Other Cost Recovery Mettnod Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy 1 1 0.25 DEA Defectivo/Corp J 1 DTF DetoctiveJCorp 1. 50 Deputies 0.75 Sox Off. Res. Vcrif. DetecbvelCorp 0.10 Sex Off. Res. Verif SAW DetcctivelCorp I 1.00 WA Meth Grant _ Detective /Corp 0.67 Child Sex Pred Grant Deputy i 1 Adrnin Sheriff 1 10.33 City 2010 CCM 06 -30 -10 Comm Officer Worksheet CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Information: Smart Routes Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: On June 4, 2010, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) announced a Call for Projects for the Smart Routes program. The Smart Routes program promotes regionally significant non - motorized construction and planning projects that affect walking, bicycling and access to transit. Project Applications are due Friday, July 22n 2010. An initial list of projects was developed in 2008 through a multi- agency effort with the Cities of Spokane Valley, Spokane, Airway Heights, and Liberty Lake and Spokane County and SRTC in anticipation of future federal funding. The program has broad support within the community with numerous businesses, civic groups, bicycle groups and public agencies and officials supporting the program. Federal funding is anticipated to become available for the Spokane region in the next federal transportation act to fund the proposed projects. The program would fund up to 100% of eligible project costs. The City would not have to provide any matching funds for these projects if fully funded. Since the Call for Projects was announced, staff has been evaluating projects previously identified for the Smart Routes program, reviewing the adopted 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP, and preliminary feedback from the recent Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Workshop to identify projects to include in the Smart Routes Plan. Based upon this review, staff has come up with the following list of projects for submission to SRTC for the 2010 Smart Routes Call for Projects. Spokane Valley /Millwood Trail A multi -use shared pathway along the old Great Northern Railway ROW and Spokane County sewer between Fancher Road and Mirabeau Parkway. The project proposes an urban trail that connects Spokane Community College, Millwood, numerous schools and parks, to the Indiana Avenue Park and Ride lot and connecting bike /pedestrian corridors including the Centennial Trail. This would be a joint project with the City of Millwood. Spokane County is discussing turning the right -of -way over to Spokane Valley and Millwood. 2. North Greenacres Trail A multi -use shared pathway along old Great Northern Railway ROW beginning just east of Sullivan Road and ending at Barker Road. This proposed trail provides connections to the Centennial Trail, the Spokane Valley Mall, the future Greenacres Park, and Central Valley School District's future elementary School at Mission Ave and Long Rd. A future connection to Liberty Lake east of Barker Rd could be constructed as well. The ROW is currently used by Spokane County for a sanitary sewer, but they have recently discussed turning this ROW over to Spokane Valley. 3. University Road Pedestrian Bridge A study to determine the feasibility and suitable locations for a bicycle /pedestrian overpass over Interstate -90 in the vicinity of University Road. The proposed project would provide a safe access route for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling from the south valley to the Centennial Trail and other destination north of 1 -90. The Argonne Road, Pines /SR -27 and Sullivan Road corridors are heavily travelled and are not safe for bicyclists. The proposed bridge would provide a safe route to access destinations north of 1 -90. 4. Dishman -Mica Road Shared Use Pathway - Appleway Ave to South City Limits A 10 -ft wide multi -use pathway along west side of Dishman Mica Road. The pathway would provide a safe travel route for existing pedestrian and bike users along the west side of Dishman -Mica Road, and would provide connections to SR -27, the Ponderosa Neighborhood, and the Dishman Hills Recreation Area. 5. Centennial Trail Bicycle /Pedestrian Connectivity Study A planning study to determine suitable routes for connecting the north -south arterials of McDonald Rd, Evergreen Rd, Sullivan Rd, the proposed Spokane Valley /Millwood Trail, and the North Greenacres Trail to the Centennial Trail. Currently, it is very difficult for bicyclists on the south side of 1 -90 to connect to the Centennial Trail and destinations north of 1 -90. The proposed study will identify feasible routes and recommend projects to safely connect non - vehicle traffic to desired destinations. 6. Sidewalk Infill Program Inventory, design and construct missing sidewalk segments throughout Spokane Valley. The proposed project would connect neighborhoods with services, parks, activity centers, schools, and businesses. 7. Ben Burr /Carnahan /South Hill Bike /Ped Connector Study A joint study with Spokane County and the City of Spokane to identify possible bike /ped routes for connecting the existing Ben Burr trail on the South Hill through the City of Spokane to the west side of Spokane Valley. The trail projects listed above have been previously listed in the bicycle /pedestrian map of the comprehensive plan as possible future trail routes. If council members have any questions or comments regarding this proposed list of projects, feel free to contact us. OPTIONS: Info Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info Only BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If the Smart Routes Program is selected for funding as part of the next federal Six Year Transportation Bill, a local match will likely not be required for these projects. As other grant opportunities become available to fund these projects, staff will work with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient city funds to provide the local match if required. STAFF CONTACT: Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Excerpts from SmartRoutes Case Statement, June 30, 2008 (a complete copy can be obtained from the Clerk's Office). SmartRoutes Case Statement 201 O Active Transportation Campaign Spokane, Washington SmartRoutes S P O K A N E PREPARED BY: al Alta Planning + Design 1638 NE Davis Street Portland, OR 97232 PREPARED FORT SR Spokane Regional nd Transportation Council J�+aatpane `r.'gr�iarn�7m+u�horlafmn Gn June 30, 2008 Acknowledgements The bicyclists and pedestrians of Spokane County wish to thank all who have worked and will continue to work on the SmartRoutes Initiative to make active transportation easier and safer in the Spokane Region. Their vision to plan cooperatively for the future and their dedication to making these plans a reality will increase the quality of life, enhance the economic strength of the region, and create a healthier population. We specifically want to thank Commissioner Todd Mielke, Honorary Chair of the SmartRoutes Steering Committee, for his leadership and commitment to establishing an active transportation network before it is too late for our community. We want to thank Lunell Haught, Chair of the SmartRoutes Steering Committee and Chair of the Inland Northwest Trails Coalition, for creating the right path once again to increase access to better walking and bicycling throughout our area. The ink was barely dry on the Regional Trails Plan, the culmination of four years of work by the INTC, when she initiated SmartRoutes as another giant step in our region's movement toward active transportation as commonplace. This effort could not have been accomplished so well without the unending enthusiasm, thoughtfulness, and guidance of Spokane City Councilman Richard Rush who bike commutes almost every day and was instrumental in the City Council's intent to hire a Bicycle/ Pedestrian Coordinator to pursue and leverage the SmartRoutes opportunities. SmartRoutes would not be possible without the broad direction and support of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. We want to thank Glenn Miles, Transportation Director, for his wisdom and guidance, this document would not have been possible without him. Thanks are not enough for the hours of coordination and leadership Eve Nelson, Senior Transportation Planner, Spokane Regional Transportation Council, put into this project. Her commitment to actualizing an effective non - motorized system that benefits the largest number of people in our community is unyielding. This document is clearer and more interesting because of the care Sylvia Ferrin put into the graphics. Thanks are also extended to Jeff Selle, Manager of Government Affairs, for his guidance in this effort. Our gratitude is extended to the Spokane Regional Health District for their unique collaboration with regional transportation agencies to advocate for health and well -being as an essential part of transportation decisions. In particular, this effort would not have been possible without the considerable time, energy, and dedication of Cindy Green, Program Manager, who fully recognizes the intrinsic connection between active transportation options and a healthy community. Bicyclists deeply appreciate Dr. Bob Lutz, Chair of the Spokane Bicycle Advisory Board, for his leadership and tenacity in advocating for the development of the Spokane Master Bicycle Plan, incorporation of lane striping into street renovation projects, funding, and personnel. The resounding success of the 2008 Bike To Work Week is the responsibility of its Chair, Barb Chamberlain, and her committee that created outstanding visibility and numerous media coverage for the largest BTW event in Spokane's history. We deeply appreciate the advocacy of Ross Kelley, former Spokane County Planner and Spokane City Parks and Recreation Board Member; Dr. Kerry Brooks, Washington State University; Mike Peterson, Executive Director, The Lands Council; Dr. Dan Schaffer, Chair, Fish Lake Trail Action Group; Erin Vincent, Public Policy Coordinator, Greater Spokane Incorporated; and Paul Kropp, Secretary, Neighborhood Alliance in sharing the SmartRoutes vision with the business community, elected officials, realtors, home builders, and non - traditional bike and pedestrian audiences. Many thanks are extended to Loren Dudley, long -time bike advocate in our region for his insights, broad knowledge, and personal expertise he brings passionately to making our community more livable. And lastly, we want to thank Alta Planning + Design for their skill and abilities to apply science to the dreams of our community and to express them so well in this document. SmartRoutes 2010 Spokane Committee Members Steering Committee Commissioner Todd Mielke, Honorary Chairperson; Spokane County Lunell Haught, Chairperson; Chair, Inland Northwest Trails Coalition Richard Rush, Spokane City Council Richard Kuhling, Attorney, Paine Hamblen Paul Kropp, Secretary, Neighborhood Alliance Board Dr. Bob Lutz, Chair, Spokane Bicycle Advisory Board Barb Chamberlain, Chair, Bike to Work Campaign Erin Vincent, Public Policy Coordinator, Greater Spokane Incorporated Dr. Dan Schaffer, Chair, Fish Lake Trail Action Group Jon Rascoff, Chair, Friends of the Centennial Trail Mike Peterson, Executive Director, The Lands Council Technical Committee Develop selection criteria and ranl< projects Kerry Brooks, Chairperson, Inland Northwest Trails Coalition Ross Kelley, City of Spokane Parks Board Loren Dudley, Friends of the Centennial Trail Paul Kropp, Neighborhood Alliance Spokane Regional Active Transportation Technical Committee Develop and submit projects Albert Tripp, Airway Heights Doug Smith, Liberty Lake Melissa Eadie, City of Spokane Elisa Rodriguez, Cheney Barry Greene, Spokane County Inga Note, City of Spokane Valley Katherine Miller, City of Spokane Ken Pelton, City of Spokane Mike Basinger, City of Spokane Valley Ron Edgar, Clean Air agency Ron Kusler, Commute Trip Reduction Ryan Stewart, Spokane Transit Authority Rebecca Smith, Washington State Department of Transportation Staci Lehman, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Steve Davenport, Spokane County Contents ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................ ..............................1 TransportationSystem Needs .................................................................. ..............................2 Need for Transportation Alternatives ........................................................................... ..............................2 Opportunities to Strengthen Transit Use through Integration ........................................ ............................... 2 TransportationEquity .......... .................................................................................... ..............................2 A ctive Transportation Track Record & Assets ........................................... ..............................3 Planning and Implementing Capabilities ..................................................................... ..............................3 Current bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode shares ................................................... ..............................3 Past Accomplishments & Data Collection ................................................................... ............................... 3 Non - Motorized Master Plans ...................................................................................... ..............................4 Rights -of -Way for Non- motorized Transportation Systems ........................................... ............................... 4 Active Transportation Plan ...................................................................... ..............................5 Plans to Develop Active Transportation Systems & Programs ........................................ ............................... Potential to Create Interconnected Active Transportation Systems ................................. ............................... 7 FundingOpportunities ............................................................................................... ..............................7 Plan Benefits ........................................................................................... ..............................7 ModeShift ............................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Public Health /Environmental Benefits ......................................................................... ............................... 7 EconornicBenefits /Equity .......................................................................................... ............................... 8 LifestyleChanges ..................................................................................................... ............................... 9 Appendix A— Letters of Support Appendix B —Map of Improvements Appendix C— Spokane SmartRoutes Project List Appendix D— Spokane SmartRoutes Program List Appendix E— Demand Model Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement Executive Summary Contact: Eve Nelson, Spokane Regional Transportation Council (enelson @SRTC.ORG) f illi ° 30, ?trig; Home to nearly 325,000 residents, the Spokane, Washington metropolitan area includes the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, the urban area of Spokane County, Airway Heights, and Liberty Lake. In the past decades, the region has steadily grown by attracting a high -end workforce that specializes in technology, health services, and education. With its vibrant downtown, popular Riverfront Park, historic neighborhoods, and five colleges, the Spokane area attracts those interested in the active lifestyle afforded by the County's rivers, lakes, and mountains, helping to give the region its motto "Near Nature Near Perfect." As with elsewhere, however, the prevalence of personal automobile use has created persistent congestion, and bicycling and walking are not common or comfortable ways to get to home, work, shopping, and school. As a result, the Spokane region has lower rates of pedestrian and bicycle travel than the national average, a fact highlighted by Spokane's voluntary inclusion as the control group for the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) study funded by the 2005 federal transportation authorization bill. As part of its continued effort to connect the community with non - motorized infrastructure, local political and business leaders, community activists, and walking and bicycling advocates formed the SmartRoutes 2010 Spokane Initiative. By leveraging the region's successful active transportation efforts the SmartRoutes Initiative identified 18 construction, 12 planning, and 13 education projects that will nearly triple bicycling and walking trips, address escalating transportation problems, and improve residents' health. With a dynamic and aware population, strong political leadership, and community commitment, Spokane is poised for a significant return on investment in active transportation projects and programs. Through full implementation of the SmartRoutes Active Transportation Projects the region anticipates tripling active transportation trips and saving approximately 91 million vehicle miles peryear — equivalent to nine days of vehicle traffic - by Adding 15.2 miles of infill sidewalk to connect neighborhoods to transit, employment centers, shopping destinations, schools, and entertainment Installing new bicycle /pedestrian bridges to increase mobility and safety Extending and connecting non - motorized facilities in under - served communities Implementing SmartTrips, a proven marketing campaign that increases active transportation use by 10 -13% Completing crucial gaps and removing hazardous crossings along the paved Centennial Trail, the spine of the bicycle commuting network Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 1 Spokane's Centennial Trail Transportation System Needs Need for Transportation Alternatives Spokane's surface transportation system has not kept pace with the growth the area has experienced in the past several decades. Over- reliance on automobiles as the primary means of transportation has created congestion on many of the arterials and collectors, and in response, vehicle lanes have been maximized within the existing rights -of -way. Multi -lane corridors with high vehicle speeds and volumes, coupled with frequent driveway accesses, are a major barrier to walking and bicycling. These factors have combined to increase the average commute time for Spokane residents, resulting in decreased air quality, increased fuel consumption, and a requirement by the jurisdictions to spend more funds maintaining and improving the system. "I knew we needed better options when I rode my bike from my house to downtown: it was confusing and there was often no separation from cars traveling at high speeds." — Todd Mielke, Spokane County I Commissioner Opportunities to Strengthen Transit Use through Integration The Spokane region's greatest opportunity to decrease vehicle miles traveled is through the transit system. As such, a main component of SmartRoutes is sidewalk infill projects in the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Cheney, and Airway Heights targeted at maximizing accessibility to transit stops from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Spokane's current transit system will be greatly enhanced in the near future if a proposed streetcar route is implemented in the core urban area. The streetcar system will connect downtown, the medical community to the south, and the universities, arena, and government buildings to the north. The fully integrated system will provide for increased opportunities for users to walk or bicycle to the perimeter of the downtown and then use transit to access the primary retail, commercial, institutional, educational, and civic opportunities inside the core. Transportation Equity Spokane's transportation system, with its historic focus on accommodating single- occupancy vehicles for mobility, has disadvantaged a large percentage of the area's population that does not or cannot operate a motor vehicle including low- income residents and children. Many of SmartRoutes' projects and programs will directly enhance the active transportation opportunities for these residents. Low- INCOME RESIDENTS Operating a vehicle consumes a considerable portion of a low- income family's monthly income, but for many workers having a vehicle is imperative to safely and efficiently commute in a city where infrastructure for bicycling and walking is poor. For residents living at this income level it is often a decision between purchasing gas or another necessities such as food, rent, clothing, health care, or utilities. The State of Washington estimates that 410 of persons leaving welfare were not working due to inability to arrange for transportation.' Only 75% of the individuals living at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level in Spokane County in 2000 regularly used a personal vehicle for transportation. They were much more likely to use transit (11%), walk (10%), or ride a bike (4%). A key SmartRoutes project to address this inequity is the creation of the Ben Burr Trail along an abandoned rail line. This trail will connect to the Centennial Trail to the west and parks and recreation to the east and will directly access the East Central neighborhood, an area which contains a high concentration of households in poverty. The neighborhood is currently isolated from the core location of jobs in the CBD by Interstate 90, freeway I Special Needs Transportation Study —Final Report to the 2001 WA State Leg, the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation and the Developmental Disabilities Council 2 Spokane Regional Health Survey 2001, Spokane Regional Health District 2 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign interchanges, interstate rail lines, and congested, high -speed feeder streets, which combine to create a significant barrier to safe walking and bicycling. CHILDREN Spokane -area children, because they cannot drive a personal automobile, rely on their parents to transport them to schools, parks, and friends' homes, which contributes to congestion on surface streets and denies children needed physical activity and independence. Several of the proposed facility improvements and programs are targeted specifically at increasing walking and bicycling opportunities for school -aged children. Active Transportation Track Record & Assets Planning and Implementing Capabilities To capitalize on the robust opportunities to significantly improve the region's non - motorized transportation system, a SmartRoutes Steering Committee was created and supported by a Technical Committee and an Active Transportation Technical Committee. Elected officials, representatives from the area jurisdictions, and interested stakeholders have worked diligently to identify projects and programs, ensure equitable distribution of improvements, estimate impacts and costs, create an inclusive public process, and determine project priorities. The SmartRoutes Steering Committee is supported in large part by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization that provides for the safe and efficient movement of people for the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and small cities and towns, in order to assure cohesive connectivity. The SRTC has the authority and capacity to coordinate the efforts of the various jurisdictions to ensure implementation of the proposed SmartRoutes improvements, and it enjoys a high degree of cooperation from the cities, County, and State. The SRTC also maintains a close relationship with the Spokane Regional Health District, which is interested in seeing more residents walk and bicycle as part of a healthy lifestyle. With 61 of the County's residents being overweight or obese and therefore at higher risk for stroke, heart disease, and diabetes, the Health District would like more non - motorized transportation and recreation opportunities for people. This partnership between a regional transportation agency and a public health department is outside the norm, and it typifies the progressive thinking of the community of Spokane. Current bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode shares The lower participation rates for pedestrians and particularly bicycles detailed in the NTPP study point to an opportunity to obtain a significant shift from vehicle use to non - motorized modes. Share of total person trips by mode Vehicle Rideshare Walk Bike Transit Spokane 85.0% 2.0% 8.5% 0.8% 4.1% NTPP Average 82.0% 2.1% 10.7% 1.4% 4.1% Source: NTPP Evaluation Study (February 23, 2007) Past Accomplishments & Data Collection Spokane already enjoys a significant bicycle/ pedestrian resource: the 37 -mile paved Centennial Trail along the Spokane River forms a critical east -west connection through the heart of the downtown. With 1.75 million walkers, bicyclists, runners, and rollerbladers annually the Centennial Trail is the pride of the community and a valuable non - motorized asset. With the proposed crossing improvements and extension to the facility, some of which are already funded, and the additional connections provided to it by other proposed pathways, the Centennial Trail will gain even greater importance in providing healthy recreation and transportation options. The region has a very successful Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program that includes trip 3 Friends of the Centennial Trail Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 3 reduction education, encouragement programs, and a biennial evaluation. The program focuses on educating major employers and working in small groups and one -on -one to assist commuters on overcoming barriers to reducing their commuting impacts, with a special emphasis on non - motorized transportation through the Travel Green sub- program. In 2007, the CTR program saved approximately 4 million vehicle miles traveled, with Spokane achieving a greater than average shift away from drive -alone trips when compared to the other jurisdictions in the program.' "1 recently contacted the Bike Buddy network for information on the safest and best routes to travel from work to home. Thanks in part to that information, our office racked up over 160 miles biked during Spokane's Bike to Work Week!" — Spokane Bike Buddy program participant r 1 Road 1 class. The Spokane Bicycle Club assists with bicycle maintenance and raises money for this enormously successful program that is likely responsible for Spokane having a higher than average percentage of children who ride their bicycle to school (8% versus the NTPP average of 6 %). Non - Motorized Master Plans In recent years the Spokane region has aggressively pursued the development of non - motorized transportation plans. The research and public involvement required of these plans provide the basis for the proposed improvements described within this document, thereby ensuring that the projects will meet the needs of the citizens. The plans focus on increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, intersection safety, integration with transit, and improvements to existing facilties, and include: • Spokane County Regional Trails Plan • Spokane Regional Bike Plan • City of Spokane Bike Master Plan (anticipated adoption in December 2008) • Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan (anticipated adoption in December 2008) To implement these plans, SRTC employs a Transportation Planner who addresses bicycle and pedestrian planning and the City of Spokane recently authorized hiring a complementary position. Rights -of -Way for Non - motorized Transportation Systems Since 1992, more than 10,000 primary and secondary students in the Spokane area have learned bicycling basics through their physical education classes. A Transportation Enhancement grant (2004 -06) enabled the program to expand and educate 4th — 12th grade Spokane Public Schools PE teachers in the League of American Bicyclists 4 Washington State Department of Transportation Spokane is rich with opportunities to convert abandoned or under- utilized rights -of -way (ROWs) to enhance the existing non - motorized transportation system. The following projects have been identified within this document as being a priority for development: • The Ben Burr Trail will utilize an abandoned rail line, including a rail bridge over the Spokane River, to connect the Centennial Trail, local universities, and the CBD with underserved neighborhoods to the southeast 4 Spokane Smart Routes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign The Centennial Trail next to the Spokane River. • • of downtown Spokane. The trail will replace a dangerous and convoluted route that currently requires navigating an interstate underpass, active rail line, and major arterials. The East Central Neighborhood has committed $117,000 towards project implementation. While much of the existing Fish Lake Trail has been improved, a critical 7 -mile section in the middle of this abandoned rail line is missing; when completed, it will provide a crucial paved bicycle /pedestrian route from the City of Spokane to the southwest. The Post Street Bridge connects the CBD with institutional, civic, and commercial uses on the north side of the Spokane River. The bridge will be closed to vehicles in the future and will provide an excellent pedestrian and bicycle facility across the city's namesake waterway, as well as connecting to 4,000 residents in the proposed Kendall Yards development. The City of Spokane Valley lacks non - motorized facilities that connect residences with employment centers both within the city and in adjacent Spokane. A combination of abandoned rail line and Spokane County sewer ROW, which will be known as the Millwood Trail, stretches for five miles through Spokane Valley and provides an excellent opportunity for a paved, separated facility. Active Transportation Plan Plans to Develop Active Transportation Systems & Programs Eighteen construction projects and twelve planning projects (see Appendix C) are currently proposed to implement a highly connected active transportation system within the Spokane metro area. The projects have been reviewed and ranked by the Spokane SmartRoutes team members and provide improvements that will positively impact every community within the region: • A large -scale enhancement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban core area, including a new network of bicycle lanes and signage, a new bicycle /pedestrian bridge connecting the University District to the CBD, and a bicycle /pedestrian skyway linking a university campus with new student housing. • The Millwood Trail, a five -mile separated pathway on abandoned railroad ROW and Spokane County sewer ROW to connect the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley. • Replacement of 15.2 miles of missing sidewalk segments throughout the region to improve access to schools, parks, commercial districts, and transit facilities. Spokane Transit has a comprehensive inventory of sidewalks within the transit service area. The Millwood Trail will connect the City of Spokane Valley with the core urban area of the City of Spokane as well as provide access from neighborhoods to schools and local employers (detailed map in Appendix B). Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 5 Fells Field Airport a! w' SouthRiverway nn iTrail Cente 'a • • Liberty v ° Spokane River EM ite o TO LIBERTY LAKE ,€� • ° `� • Euclid Dalton o Mirabeau • Millwood - TO CITY OF o . Utah. School SPOKANE ° ` CITY OF MILLWOOD �i \a. ^ Fairview Trent L E mentary Grace v, Mirabea ' t .° Park m Orcard West Valley a h 'b : utter �� Center Senior High F ^ 3 > m v Centennial Community Trail Head o• Elementary St. Paschal' s Mont omer' Center School 3• = Trent - o - ansfield Mip Knox wOpdTrail _ ° Shannon . F Indiana • ° _. Nora e � � ° _ CITY OF POKANE VALLE Valley Mission :Vera w Park Mission 0 0.4 0.8 LEGEND I 0 -- Employment 'o C w Sinto o �' i LL Sharp MILLWOOD TRAIL Sent chools Miles i Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 5 E . o' E movement in and through downtown Spokane (detailed map in Appendix B). • Dedicated bicycle /pedestrian connections while classes, events, guided rides and walks, North River and newsletters will help residents try walking, ° m a. College g bicycling, and transit. o YMCA Funding for two full -time bicycle /pedestrian = ° ' i =' ��G onzaga University The construction and planning projects will be for all the jurisdictions and assist the SRTC augmented by thirteen education, promotion, regional bicycle /pedestrian coordinator. These —� two positions will administer the programs TO RIVERSIDE STATE PARK identified in this proposal; their shared status in infrastructure is utilized by a confident and will give them unique insight into regional � SpOI(8rle River Ide coordinate efforts among the jurisdictions. residents with an intensive three -month Riverfront Park campaign to increase walking, bicycling, and District's current Bicycle Safety Education to transit use while decreasing drive -alone trips by reach every elementary school in the region, an anticipated seven percent. Every household with a goal of educating every sixth -grade Convti Center enon �t Olive University outreach and a customized information packet, evaluation will be performed to determine / \ if the number of children riding bicycles to District v I I / S F r ont okane Falls Riverpark °1 Square Main TO HIGH BRIDGE PAR ,. -' ° o om o x m Riverside Sprague Davenport Hotel t° _ C 1st LJ ® .. 1st ° w' Transit Intermodal - °' Railroad Plaza Center v Pacific o Pacific s Short o a 2nd TO FISH LAKE TRAIL 3rd ® Lewis Ft Clark High Schoo Discovery School TO BEN BURR TRAILAND 4th UNDERHILL PARK 5th e Bishop o x w m 6th m TO SOU HEASTv _ 6th Cowley Park " Q m BOUL ARD ,n 3t Q9 Hartson 0 0.1 0.2 7th I i I � - Pioneer � _ F DOWNTOWN SPOKANE Miles Lincoln Improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will facilitate non - motorized movement in and through downtown Spokane (detailed map in Appendix B). • Dedicated bicycle /pedestrian connections while classes, events, guided rides and walks, between downtown and close- inneighborhoods and newsletters will help residents try walking, that are currently isolated because of high bicycling, and transit. volume/high speed surface streets. Funding for two full -time bicycle /pedestrian coordinators who will serve as shared resources The construction and planning projects will be for all the jurisdictions and assist the SRTC augmented by thirteen education, promotion, regional bicycle /pedestrian coordinator. These and enforcement programs enhancements (see two positions will administer the programs Appendix D) to help ensure that money invested identified in this proposal; their shared status in infrastructure is utilized by a confident and will give them unique insight into regional informed community. Programs include: trends and needs, and will allow them to • A SmartTrips program to reach 150,000 coordinate efforts among the jurisdictions. residents with an intensive three -month Expansion of the Spokane Public School campaign to increase walking, bicycling, and District's current Bicycle Safety Education to transit use while decreasing drive -alone trips by reach every elementary school in the region, an anticipated seven percent. Every household with a goal of educating every sixth -grade in the target area will receive personalized child, every year. In addition, a detailed outreach and a customized information packet, evaluation will be performed to determine if the number of children riding bicycles to 6 Spokane Smart Routes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign school is increasing as a result of the program. • A series of trainings held by national experts in bicycle and pedestrian issues, both for the general public and for professionals (planners, engineers, and elected officials). The community workshops will focus on creating a shared vision of active communities; tools to create great communities for walking and biking; and Safe Routes to School. Potential to Create Interconnected Active Transportation Systems Spokane is fortunate in that the "spine" of the non - motorized system is already in place: the Centennial Trail provides excellent access east- to-west and runs through the core of the urban area. Many of the proposed improvements focus on providing connections to the Centennial Trail from all points or in fixing deficient intersections or sections of the Centennial Trail. The result will be several new multi -use paved pathways, reaching in many directions, that will connect with an improved Centennial Trail and thus providing an excellent separated bicycle /pedestrian experience. This system of separated facilities will be integrated into an enhanced network of sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The infill of critical missing sidewalks, particularly those linking to transit facilities, will be coupled with the development of a bicycle lanes and "bicycle boulevards" to enhance residential neighborhood access and movement around the downtown surface street system. On a larger scale, the proposed improvements will allow the more complete development of a regional and interstate trails system. The Centennial Trail currently runs east from Spokane to the border of Idaho. The Fish Lake Trail will enable cyclists to travel south to Oregon. Together, these trails will effectively create a bikeway connection from western Idaho to the Pacific Ocean. Funding Opportunities The federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) program has been used consistently by Spokane to develop non - motorized improvements. Over the last five years approximately $2.6 million in TE funds have been used for non- motorized improvements such as separated paths in the Little Spokane River Trails area, bike lanes, and sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, as well as bicycle user education for schoolchildren. The Centennial Trail and the Fish Lake Trail have been recipients of various grants, particularly the state Nonhighway and Off -Road Vehicle Activity (NOVA) and federal National Recreational Trails Program (NRTP) grants, which combine for approximately $5 million annually in the state. Separated bicycle /pedestrian facilities that provide a recreational experience will continue to be competitive applicants for these grant funds. The community has shown its willingness to support cost- effective transportation improvements with a recent bond measure to provide permanent funding for transit operations passing with 66% of the voters' in support. There also exists in Washington the capability for communities to create transportation local improvement districts (LIDs). Liberty Lake, an unincorporated portion of the Spokane metro area, successfully utilized a transportation LID to assess property owners to fund trail improvements within the district, and this precedent indicates that LIDs may be a promising future funding option. An example of the partnership that exists between the transportation and health interests in the community is the Spokane Regional Health District's (SRHD) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. This grant provides the SRHD with $150,000 to assist with the development of healthy transportation alternatives, as well as a separate $250,000 grant used in part to help fund the City of Spokane Bike Master Plan. SRHD plans to continue securing funds for active transportation initiatives. Spokane Smart Routes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 7 Plan Benefits Mode Shift The proposed infrastructure projects and program enhancements will have a significant positive impact on the ability of Spokane residents to walk or ride their bicycle for work, errands, and school. Professional analysis of the proposal and comparison to previous case studies indicate that bicycle commuting will nearly triple from 0.60 % to 1.67 %, and non -work destination bicycling will increase by the same factor from 1.34% to 3.73 %. This will be coupled with an increase in the miles traveled per bicycle trip to result in an annual net savings of over 18 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Appendix E). Although the percentage gains are slightly less, pedestrian use is forecast to obtain even greater reductions in VMT. A more - developed sidewalk network and better connections to pathways will increase commute walking from 2.80% to 7.70 and double non -work destination walking from 12.90% to 25.80 %. A slight increase in the miles walked per trip is forecast to save nearly 28 million VMT annually (Appendix E). Immediate benefits will be accrued through program implementation and are not dependent upon infrastructure improvements. Based upon the success of previous implementations, the SmartTrips program is conservatively estimated to reduce drive -alone VMTs by 7% annually for the target population, for a total savings of almost 45 million VMT per year (Appendix E). The proposed project, planning, and program enhancements will save Spokane more than 91 million VMT per year. Public Health /Environmental Benefits A multitude of studies have linked increased physical activity from walking and bicycling to decreased health risks associated with, among other issues, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, osteoporosis, and risk of stroke. The greatest public health gains will be through the inducement of currently sedentary individuals to walk and bicycle instead of drive. A conservative estimate is that an additional 60,000 residents per year will become active because of the improved non - motorized system, which will result in a savings of approximately $1.7 million in health care costs (Appendix E). Improved facilities will also eliminate dangerous interactions between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians, especially where high - traffic roadways intersect with popular walking and bicycling routes such as the Centennial Trail. Providing grade- separated intersections has been proven to reduce the likelihood of injury or death from collisions between motorized and non - motorized users. Spokane's estimated additional annual emission savings will be: PM10 = -1.7 million tons NOX = -45.4 million tons ROGs = -6.6 million tons CO2 = - 58,000 tons The considerable reduction in VMT will concurrently reduce vehicle emissions. Spokane's basin topography is susceptible to air quality inversions, as the region was listed as a carbon monoxide and PM -10 non - attainment area until 2005. While currently in compliance and committed to continual improvement, additional reductions in tailpipe emissions will enhance the area's ability to maintain clean air standards. Economic Benefits /Equity Those with lower household incomes spend a disproportionate amount of money on purchasing, maintaining, and operating a motor vehicle. With limited safe and efficient non - motorized opportunities in Spokane, however, many low - income residents are putin a situation where driving is the most rational choice. Improving bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure, particularly for low - income neighborhoods, will decrease the amount of household income residents must dedicate to personal vehicles. 8 Spokane Smart Routes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign The personal income savings of walking or bicycling in place of driving will, of course, accrue to all people who make such choices. Based upon the number of reduced VMT it is estimated that Spokane -area residents will save $46 million annually in reduced fuel vehicle expenses. This is significant because most money spent on motor vehicles leaves the community to purchase fuel, auto parts, and new vehicles, whereas other types of personal spending tend to remain within the region and be used for local goods and services.' Lifestyle Changes Creating the physical and civic environment where it is possible, and desirable, to walk and bicycle to school, work, the store, and to visit friends and family is commonly recognized as a key ingredient of a livable community. Decreased air and noise pollution and increased personal health, mobility, and property values are the proven results of a transportation system that includes more opportunities for non- motorized users. Spokane has many assets that draw and retain people to the region, and having active, healthy lifestyle opportunities will continue to ensure that the area grows in a positive direction. 5 Portland's Green Dividend, CEOs for Cities, 2007 Spokane Smart Routes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign 9 Append 61�- Spokane SmartRoutes Project List Spokane SmartRoutes Project List Note: All projects are identified in accepted jurisdiction plans. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix C — 1 Draft Construction Descriptions Projected Cost in Projects 2011($) Establishes a network of bicycle lanes and signage in the Spokane Central Business Downtown Spokane Bicycle District that connects to the University District 1 Network with Pedestrian via a new bike /pedestrian bridge. Also creates 14,000,000 Improvements a connection across Hamilton Street from the Gonzaga Campus to student housing. Network also provides many opportunities to access transit. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities (class 1 separated path and bike lanes) connecting the Centennial Trail east of Spokane Central Business core with lower south 2 Ben Burr Trail connection to hill homes, Liberty and Underhill Parks. These 2,750,000 the Centennial Trail facilities provide the only means of connection under the interstate, railroad line, and major arterials. All bridges currently in existence. Route follows abandoned rail line. Connects to the Iron Bridge near Gonza a University. Constructs an underpass to connect the Centennial Trail through Mission Park to Centennial Trail: Mission Upriver Drive avoiding a dangerous 3 Street Underpass intersection at Mission Avenue and Upriver 1,100,000 Drive and avoiding a railroad crossing. Creates safety in one of city's most injury -prone intersections. A variety of treatments to achieve a clear and 4 Kendall Yards to Boone & simple alignment of the Centennial Trail 400,000 Summit between the intersection of Boone and Summit and the proposed Kendall Yards development. Class I separated path, pave and construct the 7 -mile section from the current paved trail in Spokane County north to the City of Spokane. `g Fish Lake Trail Trail will connect into Centennial Trail. 2,000,000 Construct as much of the remaining sections as possible. Links one of fastest growing housing areas to city. New pats are showing connections to the trail. Inventory and replace missing sidewalk City of Spokane Sidewalk segments in the City of Spokane. Connects 6 Infill Program neighborhoods with services. Completes 3,000,000 incremental progress over past decade toward this goal Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix C — 1 Appendix C — 2 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Draft Construction Descriptions Projected Cost in Projects Class 1 separated path connecting Moran Trail from Ben Burr to Moran Prairie Elementary School with a neighborhood 7 Prairie Elementary School via Ben Burr Trail, eliminating 2 school buses 250,000 and including a crosswalk in front of the school. Five miles of separated path over old BNSF railroad right -of -way and Spokane County 8 Urban Trail: Millwood to sewer between Fancher Road to Evergreen 4,870,000 Spokane Valley Road. Provides route though much of City of Spokane Valley connecting 2 elementary schools, middle school, and high school. Mixture of Class IV, shared -use lanes and infill 37th Avenue Project from missing sidewalks connecting neighborhoods to 9 Grand to Regal on the South elementary, middle school, and retail. 37 is 1,000,000 Hill key bike ped connection across Spokane's south hill. Project completes bike /ped projects along 37 "'. Pedestrian and bike improvements to refurbish 10 Post Street Bridge existing vehicular bridge slated to become a 2,000,000 non - motorized bridge. Develop bicycle boulevards to aide in bike 1 1 Bicycle Boulevards in City of transit and traffic calming throughout 1,000,000 Spokane neighborhoods connecting people, businesses, arks, and schools. New sidewalk at Cheney Research and 12 Cheney Bicycle and Sidewalk Industrial Park and sidewalk and bicycle lane 256,000 Improvements improvements on highly used Cheney Spangle Road. Class 1 separated path in the Gleneden area in North Spokane. Path connects critical links to 13 Gleneden trail paving North Spokane Aquatic Park, Midway 1,400,000 project Elementary and Pine River Park. Puts final links in a complex project to connect fast growing nei hborhood with services. City of Airway Heights Infill existing sidewalk vacancies in the most 14 Sidewalk Infill Program urban parts of Airway Heights to provide safe 528,000 mobilit to services. 15 Little Spokane Trail Completion of 5 -mile loop, soft trail project in 555,000 Completion the Little Spokane Area. Mission Avenue 1/2 mile separated path from Liberty Lake to Valley Way: Sprague Avenue separated path from Liberty Lake to Valley 16 Liberty Lake Trails Way: Lakeside separated path from Valley Way 710,000 south one mile: Indiana separated path Hodges to Harvard Road. Completes separated path network connecting housing, services, recreation Appendix C — 2 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Project Planning Projects Descriptions JkL Projected Cost in � Rank 2011 Identify potential location of a separated path Centennial Trail Connection: from Spokane Falls Community College to the Boone Avenue & Summit Centennial Trail system at Boone Avenue and 95,000 Avenue to Spokane Falls Summit Avenue. Three options proposed in Community College Centennial Trail Gap Plan, narrow to final o Lion and produce full plans. Develop potential location for a trail link from Trail Link from Little Spokane the Little Spokane River Trail system to 2 Wandermere retail area. Will connect fast Trail System to Wandermere 294,000 growing residential area to retail and provide Retail safe active transportation away off state hi hwa 395. 3 Connection to Fairchild Air Project provides a bike route through the Airway 500 Force Base to Airway Heights Heights community to FAFB entrance. Five Mile Prairie Connection Develop a Five Mile Prairie Loop Trail to Cedar Road and further connecting to Cedar Road and providing 4 development of Five Mile connections to Holmberg Conservation Area, 250,000 Non - Motorized System Sky Prairie park, Austin Ravine Conservation Area, and the Little Spokane River Natural Area. Airway Heights Project provides a system of paths throughout 5 Comprehensive City Wide the City to interconnect and provide usable 5000 System Plan non - motorized links. Potential park & ride adjacent to the Non - Motorized Connections North /South Corridor with a trailhead. N/S 6 to Farwell Park and Ride corridor will have separated bike and 5000 pedestrian trail, on -off connection and link to transit Glenrose Prairie link to the Potential connection from the Glenrose Prairie 7 Centennial Trail on the South Hill to the Centennial Trail. 250,000 Establish link and identify ROW. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix C — 3 Project Planning Projects Descriptions Projected Cost in Rank Separated path over old BNSF Railroad right - 8 North Greenacres Trail of -way and Spokane County sewer between 210,000 Sullivan Road to Liberty Lake. Airway Heights Connection Project provides a bike path along Craig & 902 9 to Medical Lake that will connect to Medical Lakes existing non- 7000 motorized system. 10 Airway Heights Connection Project locates a connection to Centennial Trail 2500 to the Centennial Trail that is north of city limits. Pedestrian Crossings across 1 1 HWY 2 in Airway Heights at Overhead or below grade pedestrian bridges 168,000 Russell, king and Ziegler avoiding Highway 2. Streets University Road Pedestrian Pedestrian bridge over 1 -90 including bicycle 12 Bridge in the Spokane Valley facilities from Millwood /Spokane Valley Trail to 480,000 Valley Mission Park. Total Planning Estimate 1,767,000 Sub -Total Construction Estimate 1 38,974,000 Total Planning and Construction 40,741,000 Appendix C — 4 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Append " M �A Spokane SmartRoutes Program List Spokane SmartRoutes Program List Subject Personal Travel Additional Information As a complement to infrastructure improvements, Spokane proposes an Planning /Individualized ambitious plan to reach 150,000 residents with proven individualized Marketing marketing techniques. Based on the successful Portland SmartTrips model, this program will launch an intensive three -month campaign to increase walking, bicycling, and transit use while decreasing drive -alone trips by an anticipated seven percent. Tools include personalized outreach to every resident, home delivery of customized information packets; classes, events, and guided rides and walks; small business outreach; newsletters, flyers, and other communications; and rigorous evaluation to determine modeshift. This high - profile program is friendly, encouraging, and effective, and participants in similar programs report their enthusiastic support and gratitude at the close of the program. Cost is between $20 - $50 per household in the target area, and the program will be administered by the p roposed Pedestrian/Bicycle Planners see below). Pedestrian /Bicycle Planners While the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) currently funds a regional bicycle /pedestrian coordinator, the individual jurisdictions in the Spokane region do not have on -staff bicycle and pedestrian coordinators. The SmartRoutes 2010 effort will fund two full -time bicycle /pedestrian planners who serve as shared resources for jurisdictions around the region. These planners will assist with long -range planning; facilities design; code and development review; funding and grant applications; project management; interagency coordination; training and education; and programs (education, enforcement, encouragement, promotion, Safe Routes to School). These two positions will work closely with the regional bicycle /pedestrian coordinator, and will be responsible for administering the Spokane SmartRoutes 2010 effort, as well as coordinating the SmartTrips program. Their shared status will give them unique insight into regional trends and needs, and will allow them to coordinate between jurisdictions and SRTC. Spokane Schools Bicycle Over the past 8 years Spokane Public Schools fitness and health program Program has provided bicycle safety education curriculum to 4th -6th grade students. Bikes, helmets and maintenance are funded by grants and volunteers. Last year, the program reached 2025 elementary school students and 4320 secondary school students. The SmartRoutes effort proposes to expand the successful Spokane Schools Bicycle Program by reaching every sixth -grade student in the Spokane Public Schools district. In addition, a detailed evaluation will be performed to determine if the number of children riding bicycles to school is increasing as a result of the program. This effort will not only increase safety for Spokane students, but it will also augment the work currently being performed under the Safe Routes to School program. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix D — 1 Subject Technical /professional Additional Information At the outset of the SmartRoutes 2010 effort, a series of trainings held by training national experts in bicycle and pedestrian issues will be held, both for the general public and for professionals (planners, engineers, elected officials). The community workshops will focus on setting goals, developing tools to create great communities for walking and biking, Safe Routes to School, and active living by design. Potential national trainers include Mark Fenton, Dan Burden, Michael Ronkin, Barbara McCann, and Mia Birk. Training for active professionals (planners and engineers) and planning students will cover bicycle and pedestrian planning principles; the history of multimodal planning; estimating demand, facility types, and user profiles; standards and guidelines, liability, Complete Streets policies; and Safe Routes to School programs. Professional courses will be taught by experts who have experience in planning and engineering for public agencies. Bike Maps The SRTC produces a bike map for the region, although it is currently out of print. The SmartRoutes effort will allow for updating and reprinting of the regional bike map, as well as expanding it to include regional trails connections and recreational opportunities. In addition, SmartRoutes staff will develop a robust distribution strategy and work regularly to distribute and promote the map. Bike to Campus Programs SmartRoutes staff will work with Spokane region universities and colleges to develop a bicycle promotion program; staff will also support the implementation of these programs and provide materials and trainings. Each institution will develop a tailored plan based on an overall "menu" that includes the following: providing resources (maps, bike shop resources); developing a loaner bike fleet; providing attended bike parking and /or bike lockers; teaching repair workshops or classes; fun rides; racing team support and training; on- campus bike shop; campus bicycling resource website; free or at -cost lights and locks; legal training; and bike buddies. Depending on the institution, policy changes that support Transportation Demand Management may also be included such as increased parking costs and /or decreased parking spaces. Wayfinding signage Kiosks and signs showing area bikeways. First priority is signing the regional trail network, then the next priority is signage at transit stops, bike p arking locations, shopping hubs, and on common bikeways. Drivers Education Training Work with Washington DMV and drivers' education providers in the region to increase training about bicycle and pedestrian laws and safety principles. Walk /Bike Spokane website Develop a website with walking bicycling information (such as www.walkbikespokane.org This website will inform the public about the progress of the SmartRoutes effort. It will also provide "one -stop shopping" for residents looking for walking and bicycling information such as maps, legal and safety information, events, groups, local resources, and program staff. The website may also contain interactive content such as map order forms, bike parking request forms, surveys, searchable maps, and route p lanning assistance. Appendix D — 2 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Subject Evaluation program Additional Information SmartRoutes will develop an annual program to track progress on key bicycle and pedestrian benchmarks. Goals will be set and baseline data collected. Annual user counts and surveys (automated and manual) will be performed at key locations, based on the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. In addition, attitudinal information will be gathered on a regular basis (possibly via the community scan performed by the Health Dept). An annual report template will be created, and a summary report will be published annually and presented to SRTC and local j urisdictions. Install bike racks and lockers SmartRoutes will provide a subsidized bike rack installation program available to local private and public property owners. Bike parking needs will be identified through an initial web survey of residents as well as interviews with local jurisdiction staff. A list of key initial needs will be developed, and racks provided to property owners at 40% of cost; installation will be provided. An online bike parking request form will also be produced so community members can request bike racks. Bike Week / Month / Season Spokane already hosts a popular and thorough Bike to Work Month program, run by the Spokane Bicycle Advisory board and supported by many businesses, organizations, and governmental agencies; this effort will continue under the SmartRoutes program. Earn a Bike The SmartRoutes effort will assist Pedals2People in developing a program that allows kids and adults from low- income families to "earn" a bike through learning to repair and maintain a bicycle. Participants are required to complete a given number of service hours and complete a bike safety and legal course. Total Program Estimate: 9,259,000 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix D — 3 Demand Model Introduction A variety of demand models are often used to quantify usage of existing bicycle facilities and to estimate the potential usage of new facilities. The purpose of these models is to provide an overview of the demand and benefits for bicycling and walking in Spokane County, particularly as they relate to the proposed SmartRoutes Active Transportation projects and programs. As with all models, the results will vary based on a number of assumptions and available data. The models used for this study incorporated information from existing publications as well as data from the U.S. Census. All data assumptions and sources are noted. Bicycle Demand & Benefits The Spokane County bicycle demand model consists of several variables including commuting patterns of working adults, and predicted travel behaviors of school children. For modeling purposes, and to be consistent with the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) study funded by the 2005 federal transportation authorization bill, the study area included all residents within Spokane County. The information was ultimately aggregated to estimate the total existing demand for bicycle facilities in the County's study area for the predicted build -out year of 2011. Most data was from the NTPP study, the 2000 U.S. Census, or as provided by the resources available to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) or Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD). Other studies provided calculations for economic benefits to the community and are so noted. Table 1 summarizes the combined bicycle commuter, destination, and school trips for the study area and estimates that 18,288,997 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be saved if the SmartRoutes projects and programs are implemented in 2011. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix E — 1 Destination m Table 1 - Spokane Bicycle Demand 1.34% n Item Variable Figure Calculation Note 4.08 Commuter p Baseline destination V\IT per day saved by bike 19,201 a Current bike commute mode share 0.60% 5,011,453 1 b # of employed adults for County 216,016 (ii -cc) 2 c Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling 4.81 t 3 d Baseline commute ti AIT per day saved bybike 6,234 (a*b *c) 5.43 e Baseline commute y MT per year saved by bike 1,627,132 (d "261) 4 f Future bike commute mode share 1.67% (v *261) X g Difference between current and future (factor) 2.78 (f /a) h # of employed adults for County 216,016 6 i Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling (build -out) 6.41 7 j Projected commute VAIT per day saved by bike 23,124 (f*g*i) k Projected commute 'VMT per year saved by bike 6,035,329 (j *261) 8 1 Difference in commute V MT per year saved by bike 4,408,197 (k -e) Destination m Current bike mode share (for destination) 1.34% n # of adults for County (2011 estimate) 351,203 (y *z *aa) o Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling (2006 -07) 4.08 p Baseline destination V\IT per day saved by bike 19,201 (m *n *o) q Baseline destination ti NIT per year saved by bike 5,011,453 (p *261) r Future bike destination mode share 3.73% (ii -cc) s Difference between current and future (factor) 2.78 (s /m) t # of adults for County 351,203 u Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling (build -out) 5.43 v Projected destination VAIT per day saved by bike 71,132 (x *t *u) W Projected destination ti AIT per year saved by bike 18,565,531 (v *261) X Difference in destination VMT per year saved by bike 13,554,078 (w -9) School -aged Children y Current school trip bike mode share z # of school -aged children in County (ages 5 -14) as Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling bb Baseline school trip VMT per day saved by bike cc Baseline school trip VMT per year saved by bike dd Future school trip bike mode share ee Difference between current and future (factor) ff # of school -aged children in County (ages 5 -14) gg Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling (build -out) hh Projected school trip VMT per day saved by bike ii Projected school trip VMT per year saved by bike jj Difference in school trip V NIT per year saved by bike kk Difference in V1lT per year saved by bike 8.00% 30,252 2.00 4,840 (y *z *aa) 871,258 (bb-180) 10.0W 1.25 (dd /y) 30,252 2.20 6,655 (dd *ff *gg) 1,197,979 (1,1,*180) 326,722 (ii -cc) 18,288,997 (1 +- +ll) 9 10 11 L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Appendix E — 2 Spol<ane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Notes: 1. NTPP: % of all workers who commute (Table 4.2), 2006 -07. 2. SRTC: 45.7% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 3. NTPP: Total daily miles per bicycle commuter (Table 4.4),2006-07. 4. 261= commuter days per year. 5. Model projection at full build -out. 6. SRTC: 45.7% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 7. NTPP: average daily miles per bike commuter (Table 4.4), 2006 -07. 8. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. 9. NTPP: % of all adults who ride to non -work destinations (Table 4.2),2006-07. 10. SRTC: 74.3% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 11. NTPP: Total daily miles per bicycle commuter (Table 4.4), 2006 -07. 12. Daily rate X 261 destination days per year 13. Model projection at full build -out. 14. SRTC: 45.7% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 15. NTPP: average daily miles per bike commuter (Table 4.4),2006-07. 16. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. 17. NTPP: % of school -aged children who ride to school (Table B.21), 2006 -07. 18. SRTC: 6.4% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census) 19. 2000 U.S. Census (RT) 20. 180 = average school days per year 21. Model projection at full build -out. 22. SRTC: 6.4% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census) 23. Estimate based on improved facilities (RT) 24. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix E - 3 Pedestrian Demand & Benefits The Spokane County pedestrian demand model consists of several variables including commuting patterns of working adults, and predicted travel behaviors of school children. For modeling purposes, and to be consistent with the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) study funded by the 2005 federal transportation authorization bill, the study area included all residents within Spokane County. The information was ultimately aggregated to estimate the total existing demand for pedestrian facilities in the County's study area for the predicted build -out year of 2011. Most data was from the NTPP study, the 2000 U.S. Census, or as provided by the resources available to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) or Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD). Other studies provided calculations for economic benefits to the community and are so noted. Table 2 summarizes the combined pedestrian commuter, destination, and school trips for the study area and estimates that 27,942,003 (VMT) will be saved if the SmartRoutes projects and programs are implemented in 2011. Appendix E — 4 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign M Table 2 - Spokane Pedestrian Demand 12.90% n Item Variable Figure Calculation Note 1.27 Commuter p Baseline destination VMT per day saved by walking 57,538 a Current walk commute mode share 2.80% 15,017,310 1 b # of employed adults for County 216,016 (bb *180) 2 c Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking 1.38 t 3 d Baseline commute V\IT per day saved by walking 8,347 (a *b *c) 1.48 e Baseline commute Vi1 -IT per year saved by walking 2,178,530 (d *261) 4 f Future pedestrian commute mode share 7.70% (v *261) 5 g Difference between current and future (factor) 2.75 (f/a) Difference in school trip V NIT per year saved by walking h # of employed adults for County 216,016 Difference in Vi1IT per year saved by walking 6 i Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking (build -out) 1.61 7 j Projected commute VAIT per day saved by walking 26,780 (f *g *i) k Projected commute VMT per year saved by walking 6,989,450 (j *261) 8 1 Difference in commute V1VIT per year saved by walking 4,810,920 (k -e) M Current pedestrian mode share (for destination) 12.90% n # of adults for County (2011 estimate) 351,203 o Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking (2006 -07) 1.27 p Baseline destination VMT per day saved by walking 57,538 (m *n *o) q Baseline destination VMT per year saved by walking 15,017,310 (p *261) r Future pedestrian destination mode share 25.80% (bb *180) s Difference between current and future (factor) 2.00 (s /m) t # of adults for County 351,203 (dd /y) U Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking (build -out) 1.48 v Projected destination VMT per day saved by walking 134,103 (r *t*u) w Projected destination VMT per year saved by walking 35,000,975 (v *261) X Difference in destination VMT per year saved by walking 19,983,665 (w -c)) 9 10 11 1'_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix E — 5 School -aged Children y Current school trip walk mode share 17.00 % z # of school -aged children in County (ages 5 -14) (2011 estimate) 30,252 as Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking 1.00 bb Baseline school trip VMT per day saved by walking 5,143 (y *z *aa) cc Baseline school trip VMT per year saved by walking 925,711 (bb *180) dd Future school trip walk mode share (model projection) 34.00% ee Difference between current and future (factor) 2.00 (dd /y) ff # of school -aged children in County (ages 5 -14) (2011 estimate) 30,252 gg Estimated reduction in auto use due to walking (build -out) 2.20 hh Projected school trip VMT per day saved by walking 22,628 (dd*ff*gg) ii Projected school trip VMT per year saved by walking 4,073,129 (hh *180) jj Difference in school trip V NIT per year saved by walking 3,147,418 (ii -cc) kk Difference in Vi1IT per year saved by walking 27,942,003 (1 +x +jj 9 10 11 1'_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix E — 5 Notes: 1. NTPP: % of all workers who commute (Table 4.10), 2006 -07. 2. SRTC: 45.7% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 3. NTPP: Total daily miles per pedestrian commuter (Table 4.11), 2006 -07. 4. 261= commuter days per year. 5. Model projection at full build -out. 6. SRTC: 45.7% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 7. NTPP: average daily miles per pedestrian commuter (Table 4.11), 2006 -07. 8. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. 9. NTPP: % of all adults who walk to non -work destinations (Table 4.10) 10. SRTC: 74.3% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census). 11. NTPP: Total daily miles per pedestrian (Table 4.11) 12. Daily rate X 261 destination days per year 13. Model projection at full build -out. 14. SRTC: 74.3% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census) 15. NTPP: average daily miles per destination pedestrian (Table 4.11), 2006 -07. 16. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. 17. NTPP: % of school -aged children who walk to school (Table B.21) 18. SRTC: 6.4% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census) 19. 2000 U.S. Census (RT) 20. 180 = average school days per year 21. Model projection at full build -out. 22. SRTC: 6.4% of total 2011 population (same % as 2000 Census) 23. Estimate based on improved facilities (RT) 24. Additional savings will be achieved through SmartTrips program. Appendix E - 6 Spol<ane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign SmartTrips Benefits The benefits of the SmartTrips program warrants specific calculations as they are accrued independently of the other projects and programs because they have a discrete target audience and because their effectiveness has been specifically calculated. Most reviews of SmartTrips programs indicate a 8% 12% decrease in drive -alone trips; because of unknown variables relating to Spokane the program's effectiveness for the case study is conservatively estimated at 7 0 0. Table 3 summarizes the impacts of the program on the target population and estimates that 44,813,885 VMT will be saved if the SmartTrips program is implemented in 2011. Because this program is not dependent upon facility improvements the benefits of it will accrue immediately upon implementation; specific VMT reductions, therefore, have been calculated for the 2000 US Census population estimates. (Table 3 - Spokane SmartTrips Benefits Item Variable Figure Calculation Note a # of adults for County 310,439 1 b Share of total person trips made by drive -alone vehicle 85.0% 2 c Total daily mileage per person by drive -alone vehicle 25.9 3 d Total VMT per day 6,834,315 (a *b *c) e Targeted population 150,000 f Targeted adult population 111,418 (e *0.743) 4 g Current daily VMT for targeted population 2,452,867 (b *c *f) h Reduction % of drive -alone trips 7.0% 5 i Saved daily VMT from program 171,701 (g *h) j Saved amoral Vi\fT from program (fully implemented) 44,813,885 (i *261) 6 Notes: 1. 2000 U.S. Census. 2. NTPP: per adult resident (Table E.3), 2006 -07. 3. NTPP: per adult resident (Table EA), 2006 -07. 4. 2000 U.S. Census: 74.3% of total population (same % as 2000 Census). 5. Based results for other programs and calibrated for Spokane. 6. 261 commute days with school day overlap. Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign Appendix E — 7 Air Quality Benefits The reduction of VMT alone is not a specific benefit: it is the effect of reduced VMT that creates benefits for the community. Less VMT means less tailpipe emissions and improved air quality for humans and for the environment, particularly for carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and emissions that, when exposed to sunlight, create photochemical smog. With a combined total VMT reduction of 91,044,885 the Spokane SmartRoutes projects and programs will accrue the following additional air quality benefits. it ante 4 - Air Quanty i5enetits Variable Figure Calculation Note Reduced P1\I10 emissions (tons /year) 1,675,226 VMT *0.0184 1 Reduced NOX emissions (tons /year) 45,413,189 VAIT *0.4988 2 Reduced ROG emissions (tons /year) 6,609,859 VMT *0.0726 3 Reduced CO2 emissions tons /rear 58,269 See note 4 Notes: 1. Particulate matter (10 micrometers or less). 2. Mono- nitrogen oxides (combusion by- product /smog precursor). 3. Reactive organic gases (unburnt hydrocarbons /smog precursor). 4. ((15 MPG average * 19.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon) *(VMT per year saved)) /2000 lbs per ton; lbs of CO2 per gallon provided by EPA. Economic Benefits According to a review of available studies performed in the Transportation Research Board's Cooperative Highway Research Program "Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Final Report" (August 2005), each additional person in a community that goes from zero to one day of physical exertion reduces their health care costs by $27.99. The number of annual active transportation system users who would otherwise not have partaken of exercise without the SmartRoutes projects and programs is calculated by determining the new non- commute bicyclists and pedestrians (commuters are removed from the calculations because it is assumed that there is 100% cross -over between bicycle or pedestrian commuters and non - commuters). With an estimated new -user population of 59,447, the community will achieve an annual health care savings of $1,663,916, not accounting for inflation. Cost savings also accrue to individuals when they opt to walk or ride a bicycle instead of driving a vehicle. Using the 2008 U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) personal vehicle mileage reimbursement rate of $0.505 per mile it is estimated that Spokane area residents will save a collective $45,977,667 annually. This number is conservative as it assumes a per gallon gasoline price that is lower than current and future expected prices. Appendix E — 8 Spokane SmartRoutes Case Statement 1 2010 Active Transportation Campaign