The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 07-27 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, July 27, 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: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: 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 naive 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 07/09/2010 20562- 20594, 630100020, 702100015, $1,826,909.93 07/09/2010 20595 -20608 $76,638.54 07/13/2010 20609 -20631 $28,981.89 07/14/2010 3235 -3237 $60,033.98 07/19/2010 20632 -20673 $222,823.10 GRAND TOTAL $2,215,387.44 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending July 15, 2010: $264,000.80 c. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2010 d. Approval of Study Session Fonnat Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2010 e. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2010 f Approval of Special Meeting Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comcast Franchise — Cary Driskell [public comment] Council Agenda 07 -27 -10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan — Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amendment (Sprague /Appleway) — Christina Janssen [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to Spokane County Housing and Community Development Committee — Mayor Towey [public comment] 6. Motion Consideration: Avista Home Energy Audit Request — Mary May [public comment] 7. Motion Consideration: Subarea Items to Send to Planning Commission — Scott Kuhta [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects — Steve Worley [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) hiterlocal — Mike Connelly [public comment] 10. Motion Consideration: Broadcasting — Mike Jackson [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. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 11. City Manager Selection Process — Mayor Towey 12. Ballot Measure (one -way vs. two -way Sprague) — Mike Jackson /Steve Worley 13. Animal Shelter — Morgan Koudelka 14. Council Budget Goals for 2011— Mayor Towey 15. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 16. Department Reports 17. Updated Transportation Improvement Plan Map 18. Response to Permit Center Comments 19. Response to Public Comments 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"' 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 ls 3r and sometimes 5cn 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 -27 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07 -27 -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: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WIVOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 07/09/2010 20562 - 20594, 630100020, 702100015, $1,826,909.93 07/09/2010 20595 -20608 $76,638.54 07/13/2010 20609 -20631 $28,981.89 07/14/2010 3 23 5 -3 237 $60,033.98 0719/2010 20632 -20673 $222,823.10 GRAND TOTAL $2,215,387.44 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vehlist Voucher List Page: 1 07109/2010 12:29:24PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20562 71912010 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC 44547 42547 2010 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA 14,372.49 44548 42563 2010 AAA VACTORING CONTRACT 26,021.74 Total : 40,394.23 20563 7/9/2010 000450 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY RCB1032110 QUARTERLY MONITORING: CENTE 112.50 Total : 11250 20564 7/9/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9131870 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 273.14 Total : 273.14 20565 7/9/2010 000544 CAT TALES 616156CT 42556 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 257.00 Total : 257.00 20566 7/9/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:056406 SERVICE COMPONENT FEE 32.61 Total : 32.61 20567 7/9/2010 000606 COLUMBIA FIBER 3084 -5 SUPPLIES: CP 155.05 Total : 155.05 20568 7/9/2010 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 77364 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQU[P 107.11 78420 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 170.50 Total : 277.61 20569 7/9/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 291457 SURVEYING SERVICES 1,652.00 Total : 1,652.00 20570 7/9/2010 001603 DEMPSEY, ROSE EXPENSES AWC REIMBURSEMENT: R. DEMPS 363.00 Total : 363.00 20571 7/9/2010 001771 DOLLAR RENT A CAR JUNE 2010 CAR RENTALS 1,299.93 Total : 1,299.93 20572 7/9/2040 002382 DREVES, PATRICK JUNE 2010 TENNIS LESSONS 608.00 Total : 608.00 20573 7/9/2010 001750 FIRST STUDENT, INC 10411050 42586 SUMMER CAMP & KINDERCAMP Tx 542.70 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0710912010 12:29:24PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20573 7/9/2010 001750 001750 FIRST STUDENT, INC (Continued) Total : 542.70 20574 7/9/2010 000839 GENERAL FIRE EQUIP CO 0995859 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE: PR 9.73 Total : 9.73 20575 7/9/2010 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL JUN 10 1042 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,137.99 Total : 3,937.99 20576 7/9/2010 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 57514 EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S 23.91 Total : 23.91 20577 7/9/2090 000275 KERSTEN, NEIL EXPENSES PARKING REIMBURSEMENT 9.50 Total : 9.50 20578 7/9/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 6/22/2010P &P MARKETING: CP 2,093.95 CP 6/29/2010 MEDIA MARKETING: CP 4,748.00 Total : 6,849.95 20579 7/9/2010 000258 MICROFLEX INC. 00019371 TAXTOOLS SOFTWARE RENTAL M 343.83 Total: 343.83 20580 7/9/2010 000662 NAIL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 68405 42532 2090 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 35.71 Total : 35.71 20581 7/9/2010 000243 NORTHWEST SIGN SUPPLY INC. 887683 PAPER:CD 250.83 Total : 250.83 20582 7/9/2010 002243 ORSITCOM 00360264 EITHERNET: JULY 2010 590.00 Total: 590.00 20583 7/9/2010 001860 PLATT 7900971 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 56.48 7901270 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 136.67 7920159 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 12.00 Total : 205.15 20584 7/9/2010 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. JUNE 2010 42551 2010 STREET & STORMWATER MA 262,455.34 Total : 262,455.34 20585 7/9/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 26020 NUDO BOARD S1GNS:CP 194.57 Page: 2 Vchii'ist 310.00 Voucher List Page: 3 07/09/2010 12:29:24PM Spokane Valley 3,429.82 Bank code: apbank 42538 2010 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT #1 11,967.83 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20585 7/9/2010 000019 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. (Continued) Total : 194.57 20586 7/9/2010 002381 RIPPLINGER, NANCY JUNE 2010 LEGO FLL ROBOTIC TRAINING 972 00 20587 20588 20589 20590 20591 20592 20593 20594 7/9/2010 001260 SPOKANE CASH REGISTER INC. Total : 972.00 23100 REPAIR SERVICES: PARKS 108.70 Total : 108.70 RECORDING FEES 310.00 RECORDING FEES 1,483.00 Total : 1,793.00 SLOW DOWN OR PAY UP EMPHAS 3,429.82 Total: 3,429.82 42538 2010 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT #1 11,967.83 Total : 11,967.83 42587 GREENACRES PARK MASTER PLA 385.00 Total : 385.00 AWC REIMBUREMENT: T. TOWEY 363.00 Total : 363.00 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 Total : 150.00 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT. 5,836.11 SIGNAL & ILLUMUNATION MAIN 11,230.31 Total : 17,066.42 JUNE 2010 SHERIFF SERVICES 1,266,811.17 Total: 1,266,811.17 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 203,796.71 Total: 203,796.71 7/9/2010 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 7/9/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 7/9/2010 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE JUNE 2010 MAY 2010 JUNE 2010 2010 -06 7/9/2010 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 444 7/9/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM 7/9/2010 002215 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 7/9/2010 000152 WSDOT 630100020 6/30/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 702100015 7/2/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35 Vouchers for bank code: apbank EXPENSES 14812 RE- 313- ATB00615056 RE- 313- ATB00615061 JUNE 2010 2009 Bank total : 1,826,909.93 Page: 3 vchlist 07/09/2010 2:44:15PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20595 7/9/2010 000197 AIRFACTZ 44681 BACKGROUND CHECKS: HR 240.00 Total : 240.00 20596 7/9/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY July 2010 PETTY CASH: 8209, 8210, 8211 6.50 Total : 6.50 20597 7/9/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 June 2010 UTILITIES: PUBLIC WORKS 131.33 June 30, 2010 METER REPLACEMENTS: PUBLIC 1 1,668.99 Total : 1,800.32 20598 7/9/2010 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 June 2010 UTILITIES: PUBLIC WORKS 723.34 Total : 723.34 20599 7/9/2010 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 74095 MEMBERSHIP REGISTRATION 40.00 Total : 40.00 20600 7/9/2010 002383 HERMAN, HOWARD Refund REFUND OF RECORDING FEES 45.00 Total : 45.00 20601 7/9/2010 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 69763 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 81.18 Total : 81.18 20602 7/9/2010 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO June 2010 UTILITIES:PW 485.04 Total : 485.04 20603 7/9/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO May -June 2010 UTILITIES: PW 18,087.19 Total : 18,087.19 20604 7/9/2010 000058 OMA June 2010 PHYSICAL EXAMS: NEW EMPLOYE 585.00 Total : 585.00 20605 7/9/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 3424748 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: CENTE 44,562.40 3751763 42553 2010 EM ERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 530.46 3864286 CONTRACT MAINT: DISCOVERY PL 5,445.40 3923221 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 149.46 3925222 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI 554.29 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/09/2010 2 :44 :15PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 20605 7/9/2010 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. (Continued) 20606 7/9/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 June 2010 20607 20608 7/9/2010 000167 VERA WATER & POWER June 2010 7/9/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2749847 - 2681 -1 14 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 14 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 PO # Description /Account Amount Total : 51,242.01 WATER CHARGES: PW 370.93 Total : 370,93 UTILITIES: JUNE2010 2,758.24 Total : 2,758.24 WASTE MGMT: MAINT FACILITY 173.79 Total : 173.79 Bank total : 76,638.54 Total vouchers: 76,638.54 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/13/2010 4 :22 :39PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20609 7/13/2010 001085 ACTIVE NETWORK, INC 1000024461 SAFARI MAINTENANCE AND SUPP 3,394.15 Total : 3,394.15 20610 7/13/2010 001081 ALSCO June 2010 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 39.52 Total : 39.52 20611 7/13/2010 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV005110 JANITORIAL SVCS. JUNE 2010 PRE 2,165.23 Total: 2,165.23 20612 7/13/2010 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 35912 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE 252.95 Total: 252.95 20613 7/13/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INT'L, INC. 8023 KITCHEN EQUIPMENT: CENTERPLr 163.05 Total : 163.05 20614 7/13/2010 001674 GENERAL DYNAMICS 927146 STORMWATER REPAIR AND MAIM 279.00 Total : 279.00 20615 7/13/2010 000007 GRAINGER 928332850 42528 SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC WORKS 13.88 Total : 13.88 20616 7/13/2010 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1- 147252 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 151.40 Total : 151.40 20617 7/13/2010 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 July 2010 UTILITIES. PW 151.67 July 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 1,277.53 Total : 1,429.20 20618 7/13/2010 002017 LUCK, ANGELA July 2010 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTS 1,820.00 Total : 1,820.00 20619 7/13/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 7/6/2010 P &P MARKETING: CP 5,910.10 Total : 5,910.10 20620 7/13/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO June 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 4,121.44 Total : 4,121.44 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/13/2010 4:22 :39PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank 20623 7/13/2010 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20621 7/13/2010 000662 NATL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 69209 42532 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 20.60 20624 7/13/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Total : 20.60 20622 7/13/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 1330046608 BUSINESS CARDS 121.95 23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 620.24 742.19 6.83 6.83 119.00 119.00 148.38 148.38 81.98 81.98 1,477.50 1,477.50 156.36 156.36 1,396.02 1,396.02 3,007.75 278.41 3,286.16 1,806.95 1,806.95 28,981.89 28, 981.89 Page: 2 1330046687 SWIMMING LESSON REG FORM _ 7 Total : 20623 7/13/2010 000415 ROSAUERS 640010 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS PROGRAM; Total 20624 7/13/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total 20625 7/13/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC_ 3924956 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S Total: 20626 7/13/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 300469575 SUPPLIES: CP Total: 20627 7/13/2010 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES July 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER - JULY Total 20628 7/13/2010 001970 STADIUM SPORTS 28235 CAMP T-SHIRTS 2010 Total 20629 7/13/2010 001056 TRIPLE PLAY July 2010 42562 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP Total 20630 7/13/2010 000295 VALLEYFEST 1286 LODGING TAX REIMBURSMENT 20 1289 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT 2 Total 20631 7/13/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0051469- 1518 -5 WASTE MG MT: PW JUNE 2010 Total 23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 620.24 742.19 6.83 6.83 119.00 119.00 148.38 148.38 81.98 81.98 1,477.50 1,477.50 156.36 156.36 1,396.02 1,396.02 3,007.75 278.41 3,286.16 1,806.95 1,806.95 28,981.89 28, 981.89 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/14/2010 4:01:54PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher 3235 3236 3237 Date Vendor Invoice 7/20/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben34191 7/20/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34193 7/20/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL Ben34195 3 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 3 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that l am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 401A: Payment 26,721.04 Total: 26,721.04 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 29,646.40 Total: 29,646.40 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payn 3,666.54 Total. 3,666.54 Bank total : 60,033.98 Total vouchers : 60,033.98 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page; 1 07/19/2010 1:16 :41 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20632 7/19/2010 001081 ALSCO LSP0815085 FLOOR MATS:CITY HALL 27.21 LSP0821701 FLOOR MATS:CITY HALL 27.21 Total : 54.42 20633 7/19/2010 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 416577 COPIER COSTS: LEGAL 60.71 416632 COPIER COSTS: CD 181.18 Total: 241.89 20634 7/19/2010 000694 AVISTA UTILITIES 18988 HOME ENERGY AUDITS 175.00 19806 HOME ENERGY AUDITS 175.00 Total : 350.00 20635 7/19/2010 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 1617 42143 BROADWAY AVE #0088 3,055.00 1618 42143 BROADWAY AVE #0088 1,207.00 Total: 4,262.00 20636 7/19/2010 001409 BEST LINE 100700277 ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE 22.00 Total: 22.00 20637 7/19/2010 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 172992 EXT WORK 323.38 173527 TESTED PHONES 323.38 Total: 646.76 20638 7/19/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9133730 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 341.85 S0043681 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 46.86 S0084352 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 23.49 Total : 412.20 20639 7/1912010 000101 CDW -G TBNO410 42605 PRINT HEADS FOR PUBLIC WORK; 139.92 Total : 139.92 20640 7/19/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 231822 42543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CINTRi 4,827.90 Total: 4,827.90 20641 7/19/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:057157 COFFEE SYSTEMS FOR CENTERPI 32.90 Total: 32.90 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List 07/19/2010 1 :16 :41 PM Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 20642 711912010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS PO # Description/Account Amount 3084 -5 SUPPLIES: CP 155.05 20643 7/19/2010 001888 COMCAST Total : 155.05 JULY 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET 708.95 20644 7/19/2010 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET Total : 108.95 870166725006 JUNE 2010: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,531.34 20645 7119/2010 000235 DATA BASE RECORDS DESTRUCTION 57151 Total: 2,531.34 SHREDDING CHARGES 125.76 20646 7/19/2010 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING Total : 125.76 EZ3213 7 ST QTR 2009: MLS CREDIT CARD 368.04 20647 7119)2010 001290 DEPT OF PERSONNEL 60082 Total: 368.04 ARCGIS COURSE: MANZ &ALLEN 1,100.00 20648 7/19/2010 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 2ND QTR 2010 Total : 1,100.00 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RETURN 1,289.29 Total: 1,289.29 20649 7/19/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34307 LEGAL PUBLICATION 136.00 34395 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25,00 34431 LEGAL PUBLICATION 28.80 34432 LEGAL PUBLICATION 60.80 34435 LEGAL PUBLICATION 38.25 34436 LEGAL PUBLICATION 68.00 349,37 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 20650 7/19/2010 000179 GFOA JULY 2010 Total : 381.85 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SC 40.00 20651 7119)2010 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. June 09 Total : 40.00 COPIER COST 2,241.75 20652 7/99/2010 001723 HEDEEN & CADITZ, PLLC 6505 Total : 2,241.75 PROFESSIONAL SVGS 1,072.50 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07119/2010 1:16:4113M Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 20652 7/19/2010 001723 001723 HEDEEN & CADITZ, PLLC (Continued) 20653 7/19/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENTSERVICES 23372 20654 7/19/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 18379 20655 7/19/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 20656 7/19/2010 000029 PITNEY BOWES 20657 7/19/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 20658 7/19/2010 000322 QWEST 20659 7/19/2010 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER 20660 7/19/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 20661 7/19/2010 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST. #1 20662 7/19/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 20663 7/19/2010 000202 SRCAA 523774352001 523774789001 1428301 tit N 10 1330046620 1330046695 JUNE 2010 VLY1005 VLY1006 51500231 51500243 2ND QTR 2010 196365 200134 208 DescriptionlAccount Amount Total : 1,072.50 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 98.50 Total: 98.50 JUNE 2010: SYSTEM MAINTENANC 6,417.50 Total: 6,417.50 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CP 36.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 168.61 Total : 205.20 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 236.00 Total : 236.00 COLORED ENVELOPES 996.80 ENVELOPES 285.69 Total : 1,282.49 509- 924 -4707 74013- Terrace View F 109.74 Total: 109.74 COUNTY SERVICES 46,980.65 COUNTY SERVICES 51,446.73 Total: 98,427.38 JUNE 2010 HOUSING 34,315.00 JUNE 2010: WORK CREW 5,126.53 Total : 39,441.53 2ND QTR 2010: FIRE CODE FEES 12,716.00 Total : 12,716.00 ADVERTISING 507.69 ADVERTISING 2,014.41 Total : 2,522.10 3RD QTR 2010 28,771.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/19/2010 1 :16 :41PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #1 DescriptionlAccount Amount 20663 7/19/2010 000202 000202 SRCAA (Continued) Total : 28,771.00 20664 7/19/2010 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 8015632293 OFFICE SUPPLIES: MAY 2010 1,103.79 Total : 1,103.79 20665 7/19/2010 000081 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2ND QTR RETAILING & OTHER ACTIVITIES: C 665.87 Total : 665.87 20666 7/19/2010 001875 STRATA S100108 -1N 42489 GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT #0 8,183.21 Total : 8,183.21 20667 7/19/2010 000335 TIRE -RAMA 02 CREDIT FOR SNOW TIRE CHANGE -58.70 8080006384 BATTERY: 40204D DODGE CARAVI 90.21 Total : 31.51 20668 7/19/2010 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 0880234530 AIRCRAFT CARD FOR SHERIFF 81.87 6439930849 AIRCRAFT CARDS FOR STREET M 215.05 Total : 296.92 20669 7/19/2010 000100 WABO INC. 21149 CODES: CD 369.85 Total : 369.85 20670 7/19/2010 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE '24873 SULLIVAN COORIDOR POSTCARD 447.34 Total : 447.34 20671 7/19/2010 000676 WEST 820888105 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 615.57 Total : 615.57 20672 7/19/2010 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 0233988290 INTERNET/DATA LINES: JUNE 201 C 248.81 Total : 248.81 20673 7/19/2010 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC June 2009 DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27 Total : 228.27 42 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 222,823.10 42 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 222,823.10 Page: 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07 -27 -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 July 15, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget /Financial impacts: Gross: $ 233,935.74 Benefits: $ 30,065.06 Total payroll $ 264,000.80 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS 1 : lvm MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, June 29, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Absent: Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: Mayor Towey asked for a moment of silence in honor of a Spokane Valley U.S. Marine Corpsman recently killed. Cpl. Joseph Dumow was a West Valley student. After a brief silence, Dr. Dempsey gave the invocation in the absence of Pastor Craig Goodwin of Millwood Community Presbyterian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCashn from tonight's meeting. Acting City Manager Jackson told Council that last week two councilmembers were not excused and that typically during the study session meetings roll is not called. He said Council may want to consider having roll call at every meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Dempsey and McCashn from the June 15, 2010 meeting. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann said he went to thirteen meetings including the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee ( HCDAC) meeting, the DISP graduation, a voluntary program for repeat DUI offenders, HCDAC Grant workshop, two Motorola 9 -1 -1 meetings regarding emergency communications, the Board of Health executive committee meeting, a Chamber of Commerce breakfast, and the MLK Way dedication in Spokane. He also said he took a mobile tour of the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Subarea Plan during the AWC Convention in Vancouver, and a TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) committee meeting in Vancouver. Councilmember Dempsey said she attended the AWC Convention in Vancouver and had the honor of carrying the Spokane Valley flag in the Parade of Flags at the convention. Councilmember Grafos said he attended the annual Homebuilders Show in Liberty Lake and a Mixed Use meeting at City Hall. He said he did not attend the AWC Convention in Vancouver. Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he attended a board meeting with Spokane Transit Authority (STA), two sessions with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regarding their HUB and freight mobility study bringing freight from Canada to Mexico. He attended a Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting, and an SRTC visioning meeting. Councilmember Grassel said she attended the Homebuilders Show in Liberty Lake, a Growth Management Steering Committee meeting and the AWC Conference in Vancouver. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he attended the DUI graduation night at the Valley Precinct, the Bicycle Master Plan meeting in Council Chambers, the MLK Way dedication in Spokane, the AWC Conference in Vancouver, and the SRTC workshop this morning. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Ian Robertson, 1716 S. Rotchford Drive Spoke about the "Change for the Better" campaign in place to help educate the public about panhandling and directing their financial support to agencies offering help. Terry Lynch, Spokane Valley Business Association: had his letter read into the record requesting an increase in the patrol of speeds along one -way Sprague Avenue from University to Thierman. Mike King, 9300 E. Sprague: Requested Council table or postpone the ballot measure of committing Sprague to a one -way couplet concept. Carlos Landa, 12019 E Sprague: Spoke against the ballot measure and said businesses need traffic and need traffic after work to succeed. Gordon Curry 14413 E Trent Spokane about his disappointment in the service he received during his application for a Lot Line Adjustment. Acting City Manager Jackson said staff will look into his concerns and report back to Council and to Mr. Curry. Ray Ward 13404 E 9th Ave — Asked if there is an ordinance or any laws that permit trucks to park in residential areas. Acting City Manager Jackson said that is an infonnational item next week and if it is the desire of Council we can come back after that for a full discussion. 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 05/27/10 20278 —20306 $87,432.76 06/04/10 3162— 3164 $54,407.37 06/08/10 3172 — 3185; 203 14 — 20319 $204,648.83 06/11/10 20320 — 20375; 527100023; 528100137; 604100027 $1,842,674.78 06/11/10 20376 —20416 $87,420.86 06/17/10 20417 — 20446; 611100026; 617100023 $494,540.56 06/17/10 3187 — 3189 $59,242.14 GRAND TOTAL $2,830,36730 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending June 15, 2010: $260,133.98 Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: "'k vm c. Approval of Formal Council Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2010 d. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2010 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Vacating Street (W of 16"' and Kahuna) (STV 01 -10) — Karen Kendall After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to adopt the ordinance. Associate Planner Kendall went through her presentation describing the street vacation with conditions as listed in the ordinance. There were no questions from council. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no public comment, no comments from Council. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2011 — 2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley (2:52:39 audio) After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the resolution title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the resolution adopting the 2011 -2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program as presented. Senior Engineer Worley pointed out the changes made since the last time he presented the TIP to Council as the addition of Park Road: Broadway to Indiana, funded for the design phase only, and the Indiana Avenue Extension Project. He said both were added to the 2011 TIP because completion is not expected until next year. There are also three projects recently approved by the SRTC board for engineering and right -of -way funding that were added and separated into two phases: the PE and right -of -way phase and the construction phase. Councilmember Grassel asked if there is no funding source for street preservation and maintenance and we are looking at funding roads, at what point does that become the priority before doing new construction or coordinated light systems. She also asked if we are able to manipulate the projects and reroute funds for them based on priority. Mr. Worley confirmed these are planned projects for state funds and that prioritizing the projects is a decision Council has. He said they will present the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to Council at a future meeting and that Council can make changes to the Six -Year Plan at any time. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. Councilmember Gothmann said that Councilmember Grassel said we should not have any surprises on public works projects and in the interest of no surprises, he said he wants to address Project 30 — PE for the extension of Appleway. He passed out a memo dated September 6, 2008, issued for cost estimates for Sprague and Appleway, which, he said, includes everything in the future plans that were adopted last year by the previous Council. He directed attention to the front page of the memo, Appleway Extension, which was $24 million. He said he looked carefully through the TIP and that is roughly the same as the TIP lists for both extensions from University to Evergreen and Evergreen to Tshirley. He then directed attention to the third page at the top, where he said Stage Three was rejected by the Council, and the total cost for Stage Three was $6.7 million so, from the first page taping the $4.2 million, then subtracting the $6.7 million that Council rejected, you come up with about $35 million. He said the total project for the City was about $35 million and of that, $24 million was for the extension of Appleway. He said the $24 million for the extension of Appleway represents 69% of the $35 million funding. He said 5% was for existing Appleway changes over the next twenty years, and $8 million for Sprague Avenue changes over the next twenty years that represents 22 %, and includes all eight miles of Sprague. He said last year alone we spent $6 million in funds on Sprague and what this is proposing is that we spend $8 million over the next twenty years. He also said $13 million of the $35 million, or 3.7 %, was for conversion of the one -mile of University to Argonne from one to two -way. He said September 25 — 27 during Valleyfest, Dean Grafos and Senator McCaslin were interviewed by a T.V. reporter and Mr. Gothmann read the following quote stated by Mr. McCaslin in the interview: "They want to spend $42 million for developing Sprague Avenue and they do not have $42 million and the only way they can get $42 million is either through grants or raising taxes to the people in Spokane Valley. We're Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm opposing raising taxes." Councilmember Gothmann said that statement is wrong; it is not $42 million dollars, but $35 million dollars; two - thirds of the expenses are not for developing Sprague, but for the extension of Appleway; and there was no raising of taxes involved. He said this Council knows that street projects are not funded by property or sales taxes, but are funded from real estate excise tax, taxes raised through rents. He further noted that Council cannot "raise taxes to the people in Spokane Valley" because we have no authority, only the legislature has authority, to raise real estate excise taxes. He said the statement was blatantly false. He said in his opinion the purpose of the statement was meant not to inform, but to scare our citizens by using false and misleading information. He noted that Mr. McCaslin and Mr. Grafos were interviewed by the T.V. reporter and Mr. Grafos did not correct this mistake; however, he said Mr. McCaslin was repeating the false and misleading mantra preached by the disincorporation movement that was funded in part by Mr. Grafos. Thus, two of our present Councilmembers are on record as opposed to this. He said Councilmember Grafos on April 10 in a letter to the editor articulated his vision for Spokane Valley. What is not included is "a $42 million dollar unfunded mandate called SARP — or Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan." Mr. Gothmann said this statement is wrong, the amount is $35 million, not $42 million; it is wrong to expect anything on the TIP that is ten years out to be funded. He said if you do not apply for funding for a grant, you obviously will not receive it and you cannot apply funding for a grant that is ten years out, this is a twenty -year plan. He said a mandate is defined as an authoritative command and we have no authoritative command standing over our head right now telling us either adopt or do not adopt Project 30, namely the PE for the Extension of Appleway. He also noted the $35 million dollars is not called "The Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan," the Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan is a complete book and on one page of that book the plan consists of a mini Comp Plan and development regulations. He said future City actions are listed as a part of that plan on one page. He said the $35 million dollars cannot be called SARP any more than his big toe can be called Bill. Bill is more than his big toe just like SARP is more than the street configuration. The bulk of the $35 million dollars, $24 million, is for the extension of Appleway, Project 30 on our TIP. He said he understands if people object to lane changes, the direction and how many lanes there are; he understands if people object to pedestrian pads as were proposed; and if people object to landscaping as proposed. But, he said to object to the extension of Appleway for the next twenty years, which is the bulk of the $35 million dollars, he does not understand. He said Mr. Grafos is not informing, but misleading the citizens. He said multiple times the new Councilmembers have opposed these three projects by opposing the expenditure of future funds. He said by doing this, they are saying they do not want to apply for grants and they do not want our funds to go for this extension. He said the question before the Council tonight is whether the Council wants to include Project 30 - Project Engineering of the Appleway Extension - at $406,000, in the TIP that we're considering tonight, knowing that eventually over the next twenty years we may have to spend $24 million dollars on it. He said he does not want any surprises for Councilmembers and that he supports the TIP. Mayor Towey said he does not know if we can talk about extending Appleway (Project 30) in the future when we do not own the land. He said if we were working on purchasing the land, we could talk about the future of the extension of Appleway and he does not understand both the planning department and this Council continually talking about extending the Appleway couplet in the future when talks to the County and to STA are not happening. He said he cannot imagine and he will not vote and will not consider the extension of Appleway when we do not even have a hint of owning it. Councilmember Gothmann agreed that he does not support this program now, but this is not scheduled for four years, so looking into the future four years from now, his approach is that he favors it as a placeholder in case it happens, but he agrees as far as anything immediate. Mayor Towey asked how often we could add to the Six -Year Plan. Mr. Worley said we could adjust the Six -Year Plan at any time, adding or removing projects. Mayor Towey said if something should happen in the near future or after six years that dictates that we have a glimmer of hope to own this piece of property, we could add Project 30 at that time and he would suggest they do, at that time. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann to amend the original motion to include Project 30 in the TIP. Councilmember Grafos said Mr. Gothmann lost him on all those figures. He said he does not have a problem putting the Appleway Couplet Extension on the TIP because like Mr. Worley Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm said, projects could be added and taken off. He said he cannot speak for what Mr. McCaslin was talking about over at the park, but he said he's confused about the $42 million he was talking about, and he's looking at the memo from the City of Spokane Valley, September 16, 2008, and it has a total funding of $42.1 million as the cost of those projects. Councilmember Gothmann said that came from the Planning Commission, the question is what did Council adopt and Council did not adopt the item on page three at the top; therefore, the amount was $35million. Mr. Grafos said this is a public document and if people are reading it and it came from the Planning Commission, they are probably the figures Mr. McCaslin was using. Councilmember Gothmann said to note the date was 2008. Mr. Grafos said he cannot speak for Mr. McCaslin, but the reason we are talking about this, and he said he is also addressing Mr. Landa's and Mr. King's comments, he is not changing the traffic on Sprague Avenue. He said we are putting that up to a vote of the people, the taxpayers are the people who have to pay for it and he said it is only right that they have a voice in this. He said the reason we are doing this is to finally put this at rest; this has been going on, there are a lot of vacancies and he agrees that is a problem. He said the reason is because there is no consistency and no certainty in what is going to happen in the Spokane Valley. Once and for all, he said, we want to put that to rest. Mayor Towey said this is not the motion before the Council and directed Council back to the motion. Deputy Mayor Schimmels stated as a point of order the motion on the floor needs to be addressed before going further. City Attorney Connelly said the original motion to adopt the TIP includes Project 30; therefore, no amendment is necessary. Without a second, the motion to amend failed. Vote by Acclamation on the motion to adopt the 2011 -2016 TIP: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague /Sullivan Concrete Intersection Project — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the bid award contract for the Sprague /Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Acme Concrete Paving, Inc., for $835, 000. Senior Engineer Worley discussed the bid opening, that we had successful bids and he is requesting approval to move ahead with the award of the contract. He explained that the bids came in lower than the engineer's estimate, allowing them to fund the bigger project. Councilmember Grafos asked if the amount is for the total cost of the project. Mr. Worley said it is for the cost of construction, not the design. He said they do not need all the federal funds they had available to us for this project. Councilmember Grafos said it was $120,000.00 more to keep the Sprague and Sullivan intersection open during construction, but what we save by not keeping it open is $16,000.00. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no public comments, no comments from Council. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Broadway Avenue Reconstruction Project, Moor to Flora — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the bid award contract for the Broadway Reconstruction Project to the lowest responsible bidder, MIM Grand, Inc., in the amount of $1, 298, 320.28. Senior Engineer Worley said they received very good bids and this contract is in coordination with the County sewer project. He said the County has been gracious in working with us in the delaying of their sewer project so as not to interrupt our citizens twice with two separate projects. Mayor Towey invited Council questions; none. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no public comment, no comments from Council. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:28p. m. The meeting reconvened at 7:40 p. m. 6. Motion Consideration: Suspend Broadway Project — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to suspend the Broadway Avenue Safety Project. Senior Engineer Worley explained over the past few years Council has been provided information about the Broadway Safety Project regarding the conversion of Broadway from Pines to Park from four lanes to the proposed three lanes. They have been provided accident data, information from other jurisdictions Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm throughout the country that have done similar projects and their results. He said they have the most recent information from Washington State Dept. of Transportation regarding accident data that shows accidents have gone down from the stretch of Broadway between Pines to Sullivan, though not as much as they would have liked. He explained the timeframe for which they collected this data is a very short period of time and that during this time period we have experienced two record - setting winters which have a tendency to increase the number of accidents. Mayor Towey invited questions from Council; none. Mayor Towey invited public comment: Curt Leitzinger, 10005 E. 14th Ave .: Requested his comments read into the record in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. Catherine Harris, 13908 E. 32nd Ave: Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. She said it is not a cyclist project, it involves a huge number of improvements and reduces traffic collisions. She said the majority of the accidents on this road could have been avoided with a continuous left turn lane. It also improves school safety for pedestrians, students and staff crossings. It accommodates growth, includes ADA curb ramps, minimum clear zones, and promotes pedestrian and bicycle safety. Frank Ping, 116 N. Clinton Rd. Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He asked the Council not to delay, given the size of the grant and the relatively low matching funds the City has to put up. He said this project encompasses several school zones for pedestrians to cross, that the ADA ramps are important; and having the left turn lanes in the middle allow drivers to see what is coming. Christopher Pierce, 404 N. Farr Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said his daughter will go to Ness in the fall and he would like to walk her to school but he will not cross Broadway with a five -year old and a three -year old. Cathy Bonin, 2803 S. Bowdish Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. She said the traffic flows well where the changes were made to the other parts of Broadway; there are bike lanes and sidewalks for pedestrians. She said if there are no bike lanes on the roads, there is not enough room for bikers, drivers of cars get angry because they are stuck behind slow bikes. If the bikes are on the sidewalk, it puts the pedestrians in jeopardy. She said the improvements are safer, family friendly, and parents can teach their children how to bike correctly: with traffic. Brian Bale, 403 N. Farr Rd .: Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said his kids go to Ness and he will not allow his kids to walk to school; there is limited space on the sidewalk for walking and there is not enough room for his stroller. He said it is a safety concern. Erik Muhs, 1404 N. Locust Rd. Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said he is a bicyclist and a commuter in Spokane Valley; he said he has noticed an increase in bike riders with the gas price increase David Scott, 9418 E. Broadway: Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said he has a small child who walks across the street to Ness, he said it is dangerous to cross and you cannot see traffic in the inside lane to see if cars are coming and the street is too narrow for bikes. Chris Wetherell, 7712 E. Utah: Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said he does not think it is selfish to want to improve the safety of the community and that we should not let something like this slip away, especially considering the grant that is available. Marc Mims, 15127 E. 26th Ave Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said the primary goal of the project is to reduce auto collisions, providing a safer center turn lane, ADA improvements and compliance, curb cuts, and removing power poles and mailboxes from the sidewalks. Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : 'VW He said incorporating bike lanes help make pedestrians and biking safer. He said it is cost effective, business friendly, and safer. Rick Dawson, 13307 E. 14th Ave .: Spoke in favor of the motion to suspend the project. He said in the winter traffic in two lanes gets people backed up and will be worse if it goes down to one lane. He said if you take all the traffic in both lanes and funnel them into one lane, it will make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross the street. He said the schools along Broadway all have good crosswalks. He said he is in favor of the ADA improvements, but not the bike lanes or condensing it down to one lane. Mark Harris, 13908 E. 32nd Ave .: Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. He said the current level of service on this section of Broadway is a rating of "E" which is failing. He said this would inhibit any future development along the Broadway corridor. He said this rating would improve to a "C" if they proceed with the project. He said four lanes of traffic is not safe because you cannot see the inside lanes. He said the project provides ADA and better access to businesses and to homeowners on the corridor. Sheila Gates Ping, 116 N Clinton Spoke in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. She said that two -lane traffic with a center turn lane encourages people to drive slower making it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians wanting to cross the street. ADA regulations make a smooth transition for pedestrians and bike lanes allow bicycles not to be in conflict with pedestrians on the sidewalk or with cars in traffic. She said the economic climate right now is bringing low bids from contractors and by not waiting we will be saving even more money for the portion the City has to match. Heleen Dewey, 1101 W. College Ave .: Read a letter from Dr. Joel McCullough of the Spokane Regional Health District in opposition of the motion to suspend the project. Councilmember Dempsey said that her husband is in a wheelchair and cannot travel on Broadway due to its inaccessibility. She said the ramps to driveways are too steep for people using a walker or a wheelchair and she encourages Councilmembers to allow the project to move forward. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he has had enough years here to examine that street and make corrections. He said there are six schools on the stretch from Pines to Park, and another three schools east of Pines that access Broadway from the north and south. He said he thinks the accidents are a result of excessive speed. He said he would like to proceed with the project. Councilmember Gothmann said the primary responsibility of any governmental agency is mentioned in the RCW's as health and safety and this project entails both and the documentation is overwhelming. Councilmember Grafos said he thinks ADA requirements are necessary but the data is incomplete on Broadway. He said he would like to do the ADA improvements now and leave the striping until the spring after seeing the kind of winter we have. He said he does not think we have enough infonnation. Councilmember Grassel said she leans toward Councilmember Grafos' comments. She said she has not seen any problems with traffic flow on Broadway but has experienced road rage incidents on Mission where the road is two -lane traffic with a center turn lane. She said she would like to postpone the project until we can get apples -to- apples comparisons. Mayor Towey said this issue has been studied more than any other issue that has been before them. He said he will encourage Councilmembers to vote no on the suspension of the project due to the safety factor. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Schimmels, Mayor Towey, Councilmembers Dempsey and Gothmann. Abstentions: None. Motion failed. 7. Motion Consideration: Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) — Morgan Koudelka It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to submit the application for the 2010 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said this is the third time this item has been before Council. The amount of funds available is $44,231.00 and there is no match required. He said the funds are to purchase seven rugged Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm notebook computers and ammunition. Councilmember Dempsey asked what a rugged notebook computer is. Mr. Koudelka explained it is a laptop computer designed for heavy impact of cars, jarring and general abuse from being in a car. He said his understanding is that it they are portable and not mounted in the cars. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Carlos Landa, 12019 E. Sprague Ave. He said during Council discussion Councilmember Grafos made specific comments directed at him and he wishes to address those comments. He said the last Council put the issue of the couplet and the one -way streets to bed and they were in a position to start changing Sprague back from University to Argonne soon. He said that to say now that you are trying to "put this to bed," he would submit that we have dug up a body that was already cold and you are trying to revitalize it. He then said Councilmember Gothmann stated that the public pays very little for road projects because most of these are TIB projects funded with federal and state dollars. He said Councilmember Grafos stated that in the instance of the Sullivan corridor only a few thousand dollars was actually City money, so the idea that he is saying the citizens have a right to vote because the citizens are paying for it is an extremely misleading statement. Cathey Bonin, 2803 S. Bowdish: Spoke regarding the lighting at Bowdish Middle School. She said in the winter it gets dark at four or five in afternoon and the lighting along Bowdish is very poor and you cannot see children walking. She asked that we check the lighting to make it safer for kids. Shirley Rademacher, 19303 E. River Rock Lane: Spoke concerning the heavy commercial truck traffic on Barker road. She said she is concerned with the cattle trucks that come from Canada that she said are overweight and illegally taking back - roads. She said that Liberty Lake is also fighting this battle and that trucks belong on interstates and need weighed and inspected. She said Barker Road has bike lanes now and the trucks take up most of the road. She suggested placing signs after Euclid expressing no trucks over 10,000 gross vehicle weight to keep the trucks out of the neighborhoods filled with children. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 8. Cattlemen of Spokane County — Cindy Marshall Cindy Marshall from Otis Orchards discussed her concerns over the Canadian cattle trucks that use Harvard Rd. She said this affects the safety of our communities and has an impact on the infrastructure of the secondary roads the cattle trucks are taking. She said the trucks are bypassing the port of entry by taking Trent, which is legal in Washington. She said she will work on legislation this year to encourage trucks to go through the port of entry. She introduced Corporal Bob Sola of the Spokane County Sherriffs office and Willard Wolf who is a member of the Cattleman's Association. Cpl. Sola said there are no laws in Washington regulating that trucks use the ports of entry, which creates a strenuous obligation for law enforcement and puts a strain on our resources. He said 40 -70 cattle trucks come in through Canada and travel through Spokane Valley per day, depending on the time of year. He said the County is considering restricting Harvard Rd. to a strict truck weight that would move trucks to Sullivan, Barker, and Argonne Roads. Mr. Wolf said the trucks are four -axel trucks and they are illegal in 44 states for interstate travel, but they are legal in Idaho, Washington and Montana. He said they tear up the roads and come with 110,000 pound payload. He said the legal limit in Washington is 105,500 pounds. He said they also pose a health issue because FMD (foot and mouth disease) gets into cattle, swine, sheep, goats, deer, and elk and there are no assurances as to where the cattle from Canada originally came from or what has spread because they have not gone through a port of entry. He said there are other diseases to be concerned with such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and Red Water. He said they want enforcement to put the trucks on the interstates and signage to direct them to use the ports of entry. Acting City Manager Jackson said if Council chooses our City Attorneys can look at the jurisdiction the City has over this item and could come back to Council with a range of options for consideration. Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm Deputy Mayor Schimmels moved, seconded, and it was unanimously agreed to extend the meeting one hour. Councilmember Dempsey asked since they know the time the trucks are coming through, why are they not using the portable scales to weigh them. Cpl. Sola said there are only two officers to enforce the weight limits and one was deployed a couple months ago. If they try to intercept them at the state line on Trent, they have to pull over onto a small shoulder and weighing a cattle truck is not easy to do. He said they put themselves at risk due to the small shoulder and speeding traffic. He said they are inclined not to use the portable scales as much, but rather to do emphasis details. Councilmember Dempsey asked if we could post signs in Idaho for the Washington Port of Entry. Cpl. Sola said they have signs there currently, but they are unenforceable. He said they have gone to the state and the Dept. of Transportation and asked for help. Councilmember Dempsey said we cannot enforce trucks on state highways and Trent and Pines are both highways. Cpl. Sola said it is a regional problem that needs addressing. Councilmember Gothmann suggested they talk to our lobbyist and ask her to check into this, then bring it up for discussion at the first half of the legislative session. He said they could also ask our local representative, Matt Shea, and then go from there. Mayor Towey asked staff to look at the three options mentioned by Mr. Jackson and Councilmember Gothmann and to bring this back to Council at a future meeting. 9. Pavement Requirements — Kathy McClung Community Development Director McClung reported on the issue of a citizen request not to have paving for his business lot. She explained that having pavement requirements protect the aquifer, abide by the regional plan to protect air quality, and are a requirement of the County code that carried forward to the City code. She said to change the code would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment because it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan that pavement is required. Councilmember Dempsey said that to require lots be paved is the responsible thing to do to ensure nothing is going into the aquifer or contaminating the air quality. Councilmember Grassel asked how many acres of land in Spokane Valley is either gravel or unpaved. Ms. McClung said she does not have that information and she is not sure she can get it. She said there are a number of gravel lots and she assumes they occurred prior to the County adopting the regulations. Councilmember Grassel said that according to the Clean Air Act, it looks like gravel surfaces are fine for lots and her concern is there are many unpaved vacant lots and paving is expensive. She said she would like to look into another option because paving could be cost prohibitive and we could end up with several vacant lots with gravel because people could not afford to pave it. Councilmember Dempsey said the value of the health of our citizens and the health of our aquifer is more important. Councilmember Grafos asked if we could encourage businesses by bonding the pavement for a limited number of years for a new business. He said they could require the business to perform a certain percentage of that paving or the landscaping requirements up front, but give time to complete it and still encourage businesses to move into our area. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said the City spends money every year to pave some of our gravel roadways and he asked Mr. Worley how much we paved last year due to pollutants. Mr. Worley said he does not have those specific numbers but whenever the County does a sewer project the City has taken the position that we will replace the gravel roads for air quality purposes. Councilmember Dempsey asked if there is consensus to proceed with a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Towey noted there is not a consensus of Council to move forward. 10. Ballot Measure — Mike Jackson Acting City Manager Jackson said this item is to discuss the potential ballot measure for conversion of one -way to two -way on Sprague Avenue. He said the cost to place a ballot measure on the November ballot would be approximately $10,000.00 - $15,000.00, which will vary depending on the number of items on that particular ballot. He said that to place it on a special ballot with no other ballot measure would cost approximately $100,000.00. The deadline to file a resolution for the November 2nd general election ballot is August 10th and the deadline to file a resolution for the February 8, 2011 election is December 25, 2010. He said this is achievable. He said Public Works is concerned with the figures we have for conversion because the numbers we have are planning level numbers. Currently they are working Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm on looking at the cost to convert from Argonne to University, which is the portion previously identified. To look at the entire couplet, it is difficult to say if we can get accurate estimates. He said the question for Council is to define the scope of the conversion, whether to go from University to Argonne or to include the entire couplet. He said they also should consider if they want to pursue the streetscape (landscaping) improvements and if they want to include a funding measure, such as a bond issue, to fund the actual change and the construction. Mr. Jackson said he recommends that if there is interest to bring this back as a motion consideration from Council, determine whether Council wants to pursue this. If we wait to bring an ordinance forward for consideration, we will have spent money with a bond attorney and used considerable amounts of staff time, and if we look at total conversion of the couplet and include streetscaping we will spend additional money to determine the construction figures. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that while he was initially for this, he thinks this is too much, too soon and that they voted last year whether to do this. He said he would like to see the from the language from the previous minutes and have it brought back to Council as an action item, but that he thinks they need more time. Councilmember Gothmann said he is concerned with street amenities and that the amenities should reflect what the street serves. He said he would like to get all the facts, put it all together, and then approach the problem. Councilmember Dempsey said she is a little distressed because the previous Council put a lot of time and effort trying to come up with something that would satisfy the business community and the commuters and she is afraid this will hurt our community. She asked why we cannot let a decision that was previously made forward. Mayor Towey said he thinks the previous decision was made in conjunction with a City Center and they have not been in negotiations for a City Center for over two years. He said he thinks that as a Council they have to decide whether to accept the previous decision and treat the conversion as a separate issue. Councilmember Dempsey said they voted on the conversion as separate issue. Councilmember Gothmann said he thinks they need to address the zoning around that area. Councilmember Grafos said this is a separate issue from zoning and he wants to put this to rest "once and for all." He said he thinks they should have two options: conversion of the one -way to the two - way from University to Argonne, and the other option to make the entire couplet two -way, from University to the freeway. Councilmember Gothmann asked why they would not to all the way to Evergreen and Mr. Grafos said he is addressing the portions currently one -way. Councilmember Dempsey said this was decided "once and for all" by the last Council and asked if it would be decided "once and for all" again by the next Council. Mr. Grafos replied, "No, it's going to go to the November ballot." Deputy Mayor Schimmels said the only place we would spend any money is from University to Argonne if we do this. He said going to Evergreen is a moot point because we do not own that property. Mayor Towey asked if we are looking at the November ballot due to cost considerations. Mr. Jackson it was part of Council's original discussion and recommendation and said there are several options available, but this is the earliest possible time. Mayor Towey said he agrees with Mr. Schimmels; he would like more information from the minutes of previous Council meetings. Councilmember Gothmann said that when talking about funding a street, 80% comes from the State, only 20% comes from local funds. He said that 20% comes from real estate excise tax that comes from buying and selling property. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said this would be reversing something that has already been paid for, and to change it the City would either pay for it entirely or put out a bond measure. Mr. Connelly said that they can have a ballot measure accompanied by a bond paid by additional property taxes or they can have a ballot measure that is simply an advisory vote, one that is not tied to any money. Mr. Grafos asked if it would be better to put this on the November ballot with a bond issue, not an advisory vote. Mr. Connelly said another option is that we may have existing allocated funds for this project and we would have to ask Mr. Worley all of our funding options. Mr. Worley said when the City incorporated we had a TIB grant of $4.2 million and that the SRTC agreed by Board vote to supplant the TIB funding with federal funding when the City needed. Spokane Valley relinquished the $4.2 million in TIB funding with the assurance that when federal funds became available and the City was ready to move forward, they would take the $4.2 million that to use for the Sprague Appleway corridor provided there is a plan in place to suggest that project is needed. He said that is what the SARP does for us. Mr. Jackson said staff can do research on the previous decision, look at possible funding options and cost estimates, and come back to Council in two Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : 'VW weeks. He said it could be very difficult to meet the August 10th deadline to submit a resolution to the County. He said they could bring this back to continue discussion, which would have minimal cost in addition to the time of City staff. It was the consensus of Council to have staff gather more facts and bring back for further discussion as Mr. Jackson suggested. 11. Advance Agend . No discussion. INFORMATION ONLY: The Greater Spokane, Inc., Report, SCRAPS, Interstate Signage, Response to Public Comments, and Department Reports were for information only and were not reported on or discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss Pending Litigation and that no action is anticipated thereafter and to extend the meeting twenty minutes. Council adjourned into executive session at 10:00 p.m. At approximately 10:09 p.m., Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive session and it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Regular Meeting 6 -29 -2010 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: July 6, 2010 6:00 p.m. Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Absent: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Towey said that tonight presents an occasion to honor a citizen for the work done in realizing savings for numerous citizens, and he read the Proclamation declaring July 6, 2010 as "Richard Behm Recognition Day." Mr. Behm accepted the Proclamation with thanks to Council for the proclamation, and thanks to all others who contributed to this effort, and said that persistence really does pay off. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's meeting. Mayor Towey recognized County Commissioner Todd Mielke in attendance and thanked him for coming. ACTION ITEM: 1. Bid Award: 44 Avenue Pathway Project — Steve Worley It was initially moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the bid award contract for the 44 Avenue Pathway Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Red Diamond Construction, in the amount of $270,49 7.50. However, Deputy Mayor Schimmels then recused himself from this issue due to potential conflict of interest, and the motion was re -done by Councilmember Dempsey and Seconded by Councilmember Gothmann. Public Works Director Kersten said that of the two bids, Red Diamond was about 20% under the engineer's estimate; he explained that this project constructs the pathway along 44 Avenue and includes bike lanes, and is 100% paid from the grant; adding that the goal is to have the project completed prior to the start of the school year. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, and Councilmembers Grassel, Dempsey, Grafos and Gothmann. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 2. Spokane Regional Health District — Dr. Joel MCCullouEh_ Chief Medical Officer Spokane Regional Health District Chief Medical Officer Dr. Joel McCullough introduced himself, thanked council for the opportunity to speak, and acknowledged Councilmembers Dempsey and Gothmann and Commissioner Mielke for their work on the Board. Dr. McCullough explained that he just completed his first year anniversary here and said it has been an interesting year, starting with the issue of Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT H1N1 on his first day, and he said he has been on a roller coaster ride ever since. Dr. McCullough gave a brief history of the Health District and said this District is the only one in Spokane County; that they employ about 250 employees, and their primary mission is to provide a safer and healthier community. He said the perception is that the Health District provides health care to low income families but he said that is only part of what they do; he said they have over thirty different programs that work primarily to prevent illnesses before they begin, which he said is the focus of most programs. He further explained that the Health District is divided into five divisions including (1) Administration and Vital Records; (2) Community and Family Services, which includes the public health nursing program which includes family home visits to infants and pregnant women; (3) Disease Prevention and Response Services which includes a wide variety of activities such as public health clinics on HIV presentation and H1N1 public health preparedness; (4) Environmental Public Health for such issues as their food safety program and food worker permits; and (5) Health Promotion to address such things as tobacco prevention and control, and the Women, Infants & Children Program which serves about 24,000 clients annually and provides food vouchers and education to pregnant women and their infants. Dr. McCullough also mentioned the methadone program where they provide addiction treatment services, as well as the laboratory which includes different water testing, a clinical lab to test for TB and a variety of other conditions, and he said this District has the only regional health lab capable for testing for bio- terrorist agents. Dr. McCullough thanked Council for the invitation to speak tonight and said he looks forward to working within Spokane Valley and all of Spokane County to make a safer, healthier community. 3. Comcast Extension Ordinance - Mike Connell City Attorney Connelly explained that this issue is identical to the extension approved about 60 days ago; and said there was a failure in anticipating the amount of time it takes to move an ordinance through Comcast's signature requirements; and he assured Council this will go through the process and will be signed; he said it is not a substantive but a procedural issue, and he would like to place this on an agenda for a first and second reading to get the documents returned; and again assured Council they will have it back prior to the deadline. There were no objections from Council to put this on a forthcoming agenda. 4. Budget Process Update — Mike Jackson/Ken Thompson City Manager Jackson said that he has placed copies of the 2011 Business Plan and budget worksheets at the dias in preparation for next week's retreat at CenterPlace; he encouraged council to read the descriptions as the focus will be on the line item detail with discussion about some of the budget numbers with the intent to move through the program descriptions and goals and move to the impacts to the three, six, and nine percent reductions; he suggested using the two documents together, emphasized that these are all draft documents and encouraged Council to contact him and /or Ken Thompson should there be any questions prior to the meeting. 5. Transportation Benefit District — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly distributed a handout on the latest legislative changes from AWC (Association of Washington Cities), and addressed the draft interlocal agreement included in the packet, dated February 26, 2010; he said that interlocal has some significant parts which allow the new entity to impose taxes pursuant to law, and he mentioned the four funding options that can be used, of (1) property tax, (2) sales tax, (3) annual vehicle fee up to $100, and (4) toll on specific roads. Mr. Connelly also stated that research was conducted, and if it is determined to split the fees based on vehicle registration, we can move in that direction as we are able to get data on the number of vehicles registered in our city; he said we can impose a fee up to $20.00 on vehicle tabs without going to a public vote; that within the last four or five months, he understands that the City of Spokane has considered the regional interlocal and they intend to move ahead with some kind of impact fee independent of a TBD (Transportation Benefit District). Mr. Connelly asked Council to let staff know if Council wants additional future information concerning a regional approach, or any other option. Commissioner Mielke was invited to speak. Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 2 of S Approved by Council: DRAFT County Commissioner Mielke explained that he was here earlier this spring and discussed the concept of a TBD, and said at that point, they were looking for input regarding the interlocal which was in draft form; he said they hope to partner with other jurisdictions in a regional effort and thinks that gives the benefit of consistency across the region; he said his Board asked if jurisdictions would be in support of that and if so, to move forward to negotiate an interlocal. Commissioner Mielke said that some wanted to see an interlocal prior to committing to move forward. Mr. Mielke discussed the statutes and process for forming a regional TBD, and said they are asking each jurisdiction to let the Board know of their intent to support the regional TBD. Mr. Mielke also mentioned that he received input from all but one or two jurisdictions and every local elected official indicated they wanted to see any amount of a license tab, put to a public vote, even though the requirement is only to put the issue on the ballot if the tab fee would be greater than $20.00; and said only one official wanted to reserve the $20.00 councilmanic option. In speaking to representatives from the business community, Mr. Mielke said they would support a comprehensive approach to address transportation, but didn't want to be "hit from all directions." Discussion followed concerning the percentage of jurisdictions needed to implement such regional TBD; of the possibility that the City of Spokane might move forward individually if the regional approach doesn't progress; of the preference of most jurisdictions to have any revenue source subject to a public vote; that the amount of a vehicle tab would need to be about $45.00 in order to generate the needed revenues(about $45 million) to adequately address transportation needs; that the most important issue facing local government in this area is roads and our transportation system; the difference of impacts on small versus large communities, including different formulas and how they were derived, including whether the numbers in Cheney do or don't consider Eastern Washington University students, whether those vehicles are registered from their area or others; the looming gap in our own City's road preservation budget and of the idea of giving up autonomy by allowing another taxing group authority to solve our problems. Councilmember Grafos said he prefers to postpone any discussion of a TBD until after next week's budget retreat, and said he is not in favor of a regional TBD at this time. Mayor Towey said he doesn't know what a local TBD would look like and he would like to see the information on a regional and a local and compare the two, and said he would be in favor of studying a "snapshot" of a local TBD. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he doesn't like to raise money for a regional effort but feels we are too small of an area not to think regionally. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we need to look at our finances and ask staff to show information regarding the local, but to delay any such discussion until after the budget retreat. City Attorney Connelly said staff can gather information and compare the local with the regional concept, and to bring such information forward after the budget retreat, and all members of council appeared to agree. Councilmember Dempsey said she recognizes there is a responsibility to a larger community as we are not a lone entity, and said she would like to consider all different aspects. City Manager Jackson said that next week's budget retreat will primarily be discussion on the general fund and can touch on needs, but that a presentation is currently set for July 20 for public works to discuss the street preservation program; and he reminded everyone that capital and preservation needs are separate from the general fund; adding that staff will work on the local tab fee issue and bring that back to council for future discussion. 6. The Following were for information only and not reported or discussed: a. Truck Parking, Residential areas, b. CTA 04 -10 Code Text Amendment, Permitting Expansion of nonconforming Uses; c. Committee Vacancy: Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towev Deputy Mayor Schimmels announced he would be absent for the July 20 meeting and would like to have the Street Preservation Presentation topic moved if possible. Councilmember Grassel said she will be Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT absent for the July 27 meeting and would likewise like to have the panhandling issue moved. It was confirmed there will be no meeting August 3 so councilmembers can participate in National Night Out. 8. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey Councilmember Grafos, said as a point of order, he would like to take a minute to address remarks made to him at the last meeting by Mr. Gothmann. "Last week Mr. Gothmann insinuated once again from the dias that my motivation on this council was less than honorable, somehow dishonest, and that I was guided by my own financial interests. Mr. Gothmann, I do not have a problem with your weekly blather and bragging, but out of respect for your position as a council person before your next diatribe, poison e- mail release or sideshow for the cameras or press, you could at the very least disclose the fact that you are a very active and vocal member of the SVBA. Councilmember Dempsey said as a point of order, in our "governance manual, section 7 says `we believe that councilmembers set the tone for civic discussion and should set an example by (a) setting high standards of decorum and civility' and I would request that we do that. Councilmember Grafos, said point of order: "I have a right to speak in response to what Mr. Gothmann said last week, Rose." He continued his statement: "I chose to run for council not to promote the agenda of any special interest group but because I love this valley. I live here, employ people here, have taken financial risks here, worked and prospered and paid taxes here for over 40 years. You also made a big point of my involvement with the disincorporation movement and that I was a major financial donor to that movement. For a man who knows everything in the word you got it wrong again. I would like to give you and the rest of the council a copy of the letter signed by Dorothy Diem, the Treasurer of the Citizens for Disincorporation, stating that I did not contribute money to the Citizens for Disincorporation and further states, and you can verify this fact with the PDC in Olympia. I did however, Bill, walk valley neighborhoods in that effort and I did speak with thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens. Many of the citizens who signed that petition may or may not have voted for disincorporation, but they wanted to exercise their right of petition which is guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States. We do this as Americans when we have an unresponsive government. Bill, you remember that right of petition. You and your fellow councilperson Mrs. Dempsey, made fun of recently on the Sullivan closure. I'm surprised that the man who knows everything didn't know that. After all, you brag about being on the governance committee and having written the governance manual for the city. I must have missed the chapter on self - importance and character assassination." Councilmember Dempsey, said, "again Mr. Mayor, I must protest, with a point of order. I don't consider this type of diatribe conductive to civil conversation." Councilmember Grafos said he is "responding to what Mr. Gothmann said and you said last week. And Mrs. Dempsey, the next time someone on this council attempts to re -visit or discuss an issue passed by yourself and the previous council, and you feel compelled to interrupt, make faces or put them down for questioning the wisdom of some prior council decision, please take a good look around. The previous council that made those decisions is no longer here. That is called an election. Thank you." Mayor Towey said he thinks that Mr. Grafos had a right to respond to Bill's statement at last council. Councilmember Dempsey said there is a difference between responding and being insulting. Councilmember Gothmann asked Mayor Towey for permission to speak, which he gave. Councilmember Gothmann said "I've been very careful to speak to speak the facts. Let's go down the list. I joined the SVBA only when they got involved with the videotaping, and frankly, have not been an active member of the SVBA; if anything, I've been one of the least active. Mr. Grafos indicates he was not a donor to the disincorporation. Forgive me if I misinterpreted, but I read in the paper that Mr. Grafos paid for some signature signers, and that was where that came from. I would suggest that Ms. Dempsey and Mr. Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Gothmann spoke rationale and reasonably relative to Sullivan closure. It is reasonable to ask if someone is personally involved and is personally going around and gathering a petition; that's a reasonable question to ask. If you notice I'm very careful to disclosure any time we have anything that comes close to; I just think that is good ethics; and I think it's poor ethics not to disclose. I have not written the governance manual. The governance manual was written by the first assistant city manager, deputy city manager that we had here Stan McNutt, he wrote the manual. I have been on several committees where they have made minor changes, many of which, or some of which I would have to say I was not in favor of but it's the committee that makes that choice not an individual. I would certainly agree with Ms. Dempsey that there is no reason that we can't have rationale discussions. There's no reason to call anyone names, no reason to say that somebody is blathering; to me that is improper and should not be done. I was taught by my mother to be polite, on the other hand, I'm not afraid to tell the truth; and if you'll notice I'm speaking in a very calm manner, I'm not calling anybody any names, and I just think this is the right way to conduct business. Thank you Mr. Mayor." Deputy Mayor Schimmels said "we have had more personal attacks through the council and against staff in the last six months then we've ever had in the prior seven years. I would highly suggest that we do not mention anyone by name; look at our governance manual, that was put there for a reason; and if we don't like what's happening, get up and walk around or leave the building; but there's two sides of this story from last week and this week, and I don't believe that's part of what we should be doing here in front of the public, ever." Mayor Towey said "he certainly agrees with that; and said if we need to disagree, we need to disagree civilly; there is a line that we cross when we name names and name incidences where it's not substantiated. I think as a Council we need to take a deep breath and consider what we're doing and how we're doing it, and I would strongly agree with Gary on this one." 9. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said that staff will be working through the advance agenda to include items for the remainder of the year; and said there will also be opportunity for council to discuss a legislative agenda with the intent to adopt that about mid - August; and said as part of the annual budget process, Council generally sets goals in August, and said perhaps Council could start to think about goals for discussion to be included in the business plan. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately 20 minutes to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:20 p.m. At 7:40 p.m., City Attorney Connelly announced that the Executive Session will continue for approximately another 20 minutes. Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive session at 8:00 p.m., and it was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, July 13, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember [arrived 6:10 p.m.] Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a Pastor, Mr. Jack Dempsey gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse CouncilmemberMcCaslin from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he met with the City's Lobbyist Ms. Briahna Taylor and discussed the issue of Canadian trucks traveling through our community; mentioned that this legislative session will be addressing significant budget shortfalls and grants awarded but not spent could be in jeopardy; he attended the celebration honoring Dick Behm and his work with FEMA and the floodplain issues, and attended the City's auditor's entrance meeting. Councilmember Dempsey: said she attended everything Mr. Gothmann mentioned, and also attended a short Clean Air meeting. Councilmember Grafos: said he met with the Homebuilders Association and discussed some important issues and he asked Mr. Jackson if he would meet with that group and listen to their comments. Mr. Jackson replied he would be happy to do so. Deputy Mayor Schimmels reported that he also attended the auditor's entrance meeting; attended the Operations Committee meeting with the STA (Spokane Transit Authority), and last Thursday had a SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) board meeting and a committee meeting yesterday; and said he will be leaving town next week. Councilmember Grassel: said she was also invited by the Homebuilders to talk about SARP; and attended the auditor's entrance meeting. Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW MAYOR'S REPORT: reported that the meeting with the lobbyist was very informative; attended the City's state auditor's entrance meeting; said today's budget retreat was very infonnative and everyone went through a lot of material, and said staff did an excellent job in presenting a clear picture of where we are now and some choices that council will make in future. Mayor Towey then read a proclamation proclaiming July as Parks and Recreation Month, which was received by Parks and Recreation Director Mike Stone, who explained that this a national recognition, and he thanked Council for the support and urged all citizens to take advantage of the wonderful city and region in which we live, and to enjoy the many programs and services provided. Mayor Towey recognized the entrance of Councilmember McCaslin to tonight's meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Steve Wilson, 16517 East 24 Lane, 99037: said after listening and discussing what transpired at the meeting last week, he was disappointed, ashamed and embarrassed; said he is not reading from a prepared statement tonight, he told Councilmember Grafos how embarrassing that situation was, and said he heard no apology today; and said that the Boy Scouts come to these meetings and see these kinds of activities that develop here while they focus on kindness, cheerfulness and obedience but they heard nothing like that last week; he apologized to the staff for the minimization of their hard work that seems to take place; and said if Mr. Grafos treats his peers that way, how would he treat a private citizen; said his father was a World War II vet and after reading the comments in the newspaper last week, he said that Mr. Grafos' conduct was unbecoming, and that there was no apology; and said he is not sure the leadership Mr. Grafos is promoting is what he can embrace. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that they are trying not to attack any one personally on the council, said he won't name any names, but Mr. Wilson should have come to the prior week's meeting and the same situation existed with another person involved, so he needs the whole story. Councilmember McCaslin added that elected officials always hear when a citizen thinks you've made a mistake, and we all make mistakes, but it would be nice to hear something nice once in a while, and that he isn't defending what was going on as he wasn't here. Councilmember Dempsey added that she received a very positive e -mail from Fire Commissioner Nesbit who expressed thanks for what Council does. Mark Henderson, Pool Worlds, 831 S Shelly lake Lane, 99037: concerning the SARP project, said he owns property near the Target Store, 13524 E Sprague and is approaching 35 years there; that during this SARP re- zoning, their property split into two different classifications, and they view that as bad for business and the future value of the land, his property has numerous restrictions on use: no bank, or bowling alley, and said there are numerous restrictions on what you can't have compared with prior to SARP and with the County; he said now it's mixed use avenue for part of it then residential boulevard along Second Avenue, and said he can't use that property for any future business use; that he had plans on how to re- configure it but now because of residential boulevard, those plans are useless, said he worked for over 34 years to buy that property and now the value and usefulness of that property have been severely injured, and if he tried to sell the property the new owner's ability would be severely restricted; he said the SARP regulations will drive business out of the corridor and maybe out of Spokane Valley. Marshall Clark, 2320 N Atlantic Street, 99205 explained that he has property in Spokane Valley and owns Clark Pacific Real Estate Company; said when the revitalization plan came about he wrote to the planning staff and the then current council to ask them to consider some of the impacts some of the changes would have on property; his property is at 6630 E Sprague and has Starbucks and Super Supplements on it in that triangle; he said the trunk line that takes the sewer from the valley goes through his property; he accepted that easement and built on that as best he can avoiding that trunk line, said he explained this to staff when passing new regulations and explained that to the former mayor both verbally and in writing, but said no provision was made; he said if it burned down or were destroyed, the area Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : 1YW would have to be built up to the front, but said he couldn't physically do it as would violate the easement; and said he would like to see the ability to build back away from the street and make a code provision to address situations where you can't physically meet the provisions; he said he would like to see Council put the zoning back, or keep the zoning but put back the uses allowed in the B3; said he understands he can't do a bank or a sit -down full service restaurant, and there are a number of uses you used to do but can't do now, said there was a tenant looking in town for ten acres but can't find ten acres of contiguous property; he said a road is planned about every 600 feet and he asked what about if you have a very large parcel; and said again he would like to see pulling back these regulations, and he knows these issues are being worked on. Mayor Towey said he can't go into discussion of the SARP now, that this Council has chosen to step back and take a good look and find the areas that need changing, and he hopes the public will be patient as Council goes through the process, and said he feels once that is done, it will be a lot better. Carlos Landa, 12019 E Sprague, 99206 regarding the couplet between University and Argonne, he said he contacted some of those property owners, and also talked to staff, said he understands those mentioned concerns, and said he's wondering if those people know that they're going to have a one -way street in front of them; he said the comp plan was passed to change it back from University to Argonne; he said permitting and making decisions, getting appraisals in that area are based on the two -way street, the zoning is one issue but the street is the big thing, said he doesn't think any retail will live there and likely the only thing viable in that area is auto row, and as long as the decision hangs overhead, it will be detrimental to the community. Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague Avenue, 99206: said last week Council surprised him by giving him his own day July 6, 2010, that he was caught by surprise and didn't think he thanked everybody who participated, especially Deanna Griffith who shepherded this thing through and followed it through; and he expressed thanks to Kathy McClung and council and others. Councilmember McCaslin thanked Dick for his work. Troy Dilley, 2400 N Wilbur Road, 4150, 99206 he said that the City of Spokane passed an ordinance concerning an ombudsman and asked if we did. Mayor Towey replied that we have not, and City Manager Jackson said that has not been discussed and there has been no event that would prompt a discussion in that regard. 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 06/24/10 20447 -20466 $120,489.45 06/25/10 20467- 20500, 618100030 $468,632.94 06/29/10 20501 -20513 $23,836.68 07/01/10 5061 -5074 (park funds) $1,689.00 07/02/10 20521 -20561 $287,346.43 GRAND TOTAL $901,994.50 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending June 30, 2010: $359,227.40 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Extending Time for Franchise Acceptance — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance granting a second extension of time for acceptance of the cable franchise, to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Driskell reiterated the situation as previously explained about the complexities in getting all required signatures; and that this will extend the acceptance time to August 11; and that Comcast is putting a package together along with the PEG fee materials, and all will come back together, and this extension is the needed formality since a specific timeframe was set in the franchise. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments ere offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Panhandling — CaKy Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance amending solicitation activities to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that this issue has been before Council several times now, with the last time June 15 when a draft ordinance was proposed; and said there will likely be other changes made to what is presented tonight, but that the changes will not be substantive, but just to clarify a more in -depth discussion for the second reading, including a definition of median taken from the WAC (Washington Administrative Code), and language about ride solicitation will be removed as that is covered in the Model Traffic Ordinance which has been previously adopted. He explained that the essential nature of this ordinance would regulate some panhandling, but the core of it would still focus on pedestrians soliciting from vehicle occupants provided no physical contact is made with the road. He further explained that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rendered an opinion regarding an ordinance from Redondo Beach, California which ordinance had some prohibitions on solicitation that went further then what we have proposed, that it went before a three panel court which issued an 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. Mr. Driskell said that the plaintiffs have appealed the decision seeking a review of the three -judge panel and if the ordinance is upheld by the Ninth Circuit, then the only appeal remaining is to the United States Supreme Court. Attorney Driskell said until the final appeal of the Redondo Beach case is decided, it is uncertain whether an ordinance prohibiting in- person solicitation would be held constitutional, and said staff recommends if Council wants to copy what Redondo Beach did, Council might want to wait until the full court decision is made, and said our draft ordinance does not include sidewalks at this point. Discussion ensued and Councilmember Gothmann asked about major and minor arterials and collectors and if a principal arterial includes those classifications; and Mr. Driskell said he would have to research to make sure the definition is the busiest classification that is identified. Councilmember Grassel said she feels this is much better than what we currently have and feels this would give more "teeth" in addressing the situation and said she noticed that many cities in Washington have more restrictive solicitation and to her knowledge none have been sued, and would like to see us move ahead and include specific sidewalks similar to the ordinance of Issaquah, and said that would give the police the authority to tell people that this is not going to be allowed as now we don't have such message; and she said people are tired of panhandlers, adding that she feels we don't have to be so overly cautious at this point. Mayor Towey added that he feels what we have now is low risk and this would be moving up to a medium risk and he asked how long it might take the court to decide, and said the ordinance can always be changed later. Attorney Driskell said the court could take twelve months for a decision, and confirmed our ordinance can be changed at any time. Councilmember Dempsey stated her preference for moving this as a medium level instead of going into more stringent regulations. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to move it ahead but include the sidewalks. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that is an option but there is some risk involved, and if we are sued and it turned out it was a constitutional violation, there would be Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : 1YW damages involved. Further discussion included Spokane City's regulations, mention by Mr. Driskell that Redondo Beach is a case where the city was sued, adding that the City of Phoenix has been sued over similar issues and there are many cities which have been sued where it was contended that violation of First Amendments Rights occurred and that Issaquah and Tacoma have not been sued to date, but it doesn't mean they are not at risk. There was also further suggestions of simply changing the phrase "not sidewalks" or changing all similar phrases to "include sidewalks." Council determined to have staff address these issues and bring the ordinance back for a second reading, at which time amendments could be discussed, and for staff to work on a compromise for a second reading that includes more input, or perhaps even bring forth both renditions (with and without sidewalks). Mayor Towey invited public comment. Mike King, 9300 E Sprague: in addressing principal arterials, or arterials and collectors for purpose of safety, he suggested that would not address such things as lemonade stands and he said he would like to hear comments from the Sheriffs Office at the second reading regarding how to enforce this and suggested having a ticket fee steep enough to deter panhandling. Troy Dilley, 2400 N Wilbur: said he is glad Council is stepping up to address this and asked if adopted, would it be enforced. Mayor Towey said he has confidence in the Sheriff s Office and Police Department that they would uphold the law to the best of their ability. Ian Robertson, 1716 S Rotchford Drive, Spokane Valley expressed his appreciation to Council for working on this, and said that his group's big push is to educate the public to discourage giving and of the effort to publicize about the many organizations that can help; and he said they have several grocery and hardware stores who will be participating in the bar coding public relations campaign. Carlos Landa, 12109 E Sprague said he has concerns that if our legal staff puts in sidewalks, and Council gets into the free speech issue, that the City could get sued; and said if you get sued you will incur damages; and said he feels Council needs to hear that from staff because if Council says it would move forward anyway and risk the possibility of getting sued and of damages, that Council would be acting somewhat reckless. It was agreed when this issue is brought back, that Chief VanLeuven will be available for input. Vote by Acclamation on the motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no further comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 4. Code Text Amendment CTA -03 -10 (Sprague/Appleway) — Christina Janssen Via her PowerPoint presentation, Assistant Planner Janssen went over the proposed code text amendments (CTA 03 -10), which would amend Chapter 19.140 to give the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, to amend Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan to allow full service restaurants as a permitted use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, and to amend Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan to allow restricted access to "other streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Councilmember Dempsey asked about making changes to address the triangle portion of property brought up by Marshall Clark during public comments, and Community Development Director McClung said that unless there is other language in the Code which would address that, she would use the provision of "Community Development Director's authority to grant minor exceptions" for that situation. Councilmember McCaslin asked how that would be gauged Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : 1VW as "minor" or "major" are subjective terms; and Ms. McClung said that while it is a judgment call, she would base her decisions on her years of experience, and if she was not comfortable with the exception as being "minor" then the applicant would have to use another method instead of the administrative decision method, and if she felt such would be in conflict with the comp plan, or would impact neighboring property, that would not be minor. There were no objections to move forward with this item. 5. Mixed Avenue Report Back to Council — Scott Kuhta Standing in for Senior Planner Kuhta, Community Development Director McClung explained that she is here tonight to report to council the comments received as part of the public meeting held on the topic of the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone. Concerning the previous comment about "putting everything back" prior to the SARP zoning, Director McClung said staff could look at adding more uses, but to put everything back would be a comp plan amendment; and concerning the comment about nonconforming uses and replacing buildings if destroyed by fire, she said those comments are similar to those heard about insurance or mortgage costs, and that could be pursued as a code amendment. Councilmember Grassel asked when Council might get a list of what requires what kind of change, and Director McClung said probably after the November 1 deadline for comp plan amendments, as at that point they would have everything staff has been asked to examine; so council could likely start the process in January, and in addressing Councilmember Grafos' question about when text amendments can be made, Director McClung said that code text amendments can be made at any time and said in a few weeks, staff will bring a motion consideration to council to forward issues to the Planning Commission, as they did previously. After Director McClung went through the PowerPoint presentation, the following issues were addressed: Issue #1, Permitted Uses: Director McClung said that boat sales are pending at the Planning Commission level, full service restaurant was already pending so those two issues have been addressed. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to see vehicle sales in the mixed -use area, and Mayor Towey and Deputy Mayor Schimmels agreed, while Councilmember Dempsey disagreed; thus there were at least three councilmembers who would like to see that proposed change. Issue #2: Nonconforming uses: it was agreed to handle this the way it was handled before and wait until the end to look at nonconforming issues for the entire city since it is a citywide regulation. Issue #3: Setbacks and Parking: the suggested change would be a comp plan change so parking would be allowed in front of buildings. Issue #4, Additions, Expansions, Reconstruction: Director McClung said the comments at the public meeting were not specific as to what change should be made, and that this would be a code text amendment. It was decided to change the trigger to 80% instead of 50% concerning reconstruction. City Manager Jackson asked if this applies only to the SARP and Director McClung confirmed it does. Issue #Architectural Standards. Director McClung said the public meeting comments were generic about being too costly, but she said the changes could be done fairly simply, and if council wanted this addressed, it would be a code text amendment. It was determined to put this on the "back burner" for a while and see if it comes up in any of the remaining community meetings. Issue #6 Prelocated Streets: council decided to look at different options, and Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that Attorney Connelly would want to weigh in on this to ensure there would be a firm legal basis for criteria for requiring streets. Issue #7: Signage. Director McClung said that the comments were generic and previously council decided to address signage citywide. Issue #8: One -way vs. two -way. Director McClung said they received comments in support of what is already in the plan, and it was determined to wait to change as this issue is coming back for ballot issue discussion. Community Development Director McClung said another issue that came up tonight is about making provisions for easements, and she assumes that is not addressed in the code, and if not, it should be; and Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 1 : 1VW council concurred that should be added. Director McClung also mentioned she will contact the individual who had the property on two different zones in order to speak to his specific concerns. In response to question, Planning Manager McConnick said the absolute deadline for submitting comp plan changes is November 1, that the code requires a pre - application meeting before they can make that submission, so that would necessitate a pre - application meeting mid - October. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Councilmember McCaslin did not return after the brief recess. 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Check -in — Kathy McClung Community Development Director McClung said she has provided Council with everything they have done so far, that there are projects in process and other issues pending, and asked Council to let staff know if they want to change anything; she said the schedule will be pushed back a little as they found they did not account for the timing it takes to transcribe the taping of the meetings. There were no suggestions or comments from council. 7. Greenacres Neighborhood Park Funding — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that to date, the City has received $500,000 in direct appropriations from the state for the development of Phase 1; and funding for the completion of phase 1 is not currently available; that phase I is estimated to cost $1,580,000; and recently the finance committee discussed several funding options, one of which would be to use the $500,000 state funding, and $200,000 from the civic facilities fund and the remaining balance from the Parks Capital Fund, and he mentioned that amount of money would deplete the parks capital fund. He said under this proposal, we will forgo the park acquisition funding, but said he thinks the Greenacres funding is top priority and the neighborhood is extremely favorable to this project's completion. Council concurred to move this item forward by bringing it back next week for a motion consideration. 8. Advance Agenda There were no suggestions for changes. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported on or discussed: Community Development April/Mlay Report; Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects; Street Superintendent Position; Establishment of Maintenance /Construction Inspector- Mechanic Position; Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement; Smart Routes Call_ for Projects. EXECUTIVE SESSION N/A It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Regular Meeting 7 -13 -2010 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: A MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Meeting City Council Executive Session Tuesday, July 14, 2010 Attendance: Councilmembers: Tom Towey, Mayor Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Dean Grafos, Councilmember Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Staff: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk The meeting was convened in open session with Mayor Towey calling the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately seven and one -half hours to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. City Clerk Bainbridge left the room and closed the door, and the Council began their closed, executive session. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 9:30 a.m., and reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Mayor Towey again called for a recess for lunch at 11:45 a.m., and reconvened the meeting at 12:43 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes: 07 -14 -2010 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Second Reading — Second ordinance extending time for acceptance and return 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; first reading on second ordinance extending time for acceptance and return of franchise July 13, 2010. 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 and return 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) adopt proposed ordinance as drafted. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we adopt the ordinance extending the time to August 11, 2010 for acceptance and return of the cable franchise by Comcast. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy 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 STAIR 9E WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN BY GRANTEE, OF CABLE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE 09 -034, BY GRANTEE, NTEE, 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 and return may be extended by an ordinance passed for that purpose and WHEREAS, the City extended the time period for acceptance and return of the franchise 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_ 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 and return by Grantee of Ordinance 10 -009 an additional 60 days, from June 11, 2010, to August 11, 2010. Section 2. Extendiniz Time For Accebtance and Return of Ordinance 10 -009 Additional 60 Days. The time period for Grantee to accept and return Ordinance 09 -034 is extended 60 additional days from June 11, 2010- 2010. Grantee must accept and return the franchise by August 11, 2010. Failure of Grantee to accept and return 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 I Ordinance Granting Second Extension of Time 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 Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date Published: Effective Date: I Ordinance Granting Second Extension of Time Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance - Commute Trip Reduction Code Amendments - SVMC 10.20 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 10.20; RCW 70.94 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City adopted a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) code in 2003 as required by state law. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act which amended the requirements for local governments in those counties experiencing the greatest automobile - related air pollution and traffic congestion to develop and implement plans to reduce drive alone vehicle trips. The law updates the previously enacted CTR law and requires local jurisdictions that have at least one or more CTR - affected work site to prepare CTR Plans. As an affected jurisdiction, the City of Spokane Valley is required to prepare a draft CTR plan. The City of Spokane Valley Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan is a collection of City- adopted goals and policies, facility and service improvements and marketing strategies about how the City will help make progress toward reducing drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled over the next four years. The plan incorporates elements of the City's comprehensive plan. The CTR Plan focuses on reducing drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) among employees that work for major employers. The City has set a goal of reducing drive alone trips by 10% and VMT by 13% for all major employers by 2011. The draft plan was presented to the City Council in September of 2007 and subsequently reviewed and approved by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Board. The changes reflected in this proposed ordinance would bring the City's Municipal Code into compliance with state law and adopt the City's new CTR Plan. OPTIONS: (1) adopt ordinance as drafted; (2) request that staff make additional changes RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we adopt this ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 10.20, regarding Commute Trip Reduction. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance amending SVMC 10.20. - D RAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10 -* AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PLAN AND AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.20 TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES REQUIRED BY RCW 70.94.527: AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City has the duty and authority to maintain and protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.524 -.551 establishes the requirements that certain counties and cities must comply with to reduce commute trips in an effort to improve transportation system efficiency, conserve energy and improve air guality fe4uee44-po4u4etf; and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley is a jurisdiction required under RCW 70.94.527(1) to adopt and maintain a commute trip reduction ordinance, and a }a+rr designed to reduce commute trips; and WHEREAS, Spokane Vallev previously adopted SVMC 10.20 to comply with state- mandated requirements regarding Commute Trip Reduction -: and WHEREAS. The Washington State legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiencv Act in 2006, requiring local governments in those counties experiencing the greatest automobile- related air pollution and traffic to amend their Commute Trip Reduction plans required under 1991 Commute Trip Reduction law: and WEHREAS. The Citv of Spokane Valley coordinated with Spokane County and other area jurisdictions to develop a new Commute Trip Reduction Plan: and the new Commute Trm Reduction Plan has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has been approved by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Washington Commute Trip Reduction Board; and WHEREAS. The City of Spokane Valley desires to adopt the new Commute Trip Reduction Plan and update SVMC 10.20 to implement the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act of 2006. Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows: Formatted: No underline Section 1 . Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to comply with the Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, requirements of RCW 70.94 regarding reduction of commute trips. 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Section 2. pefinitions.. SVMC 10.20.220 is amended as follows: 11 pt, No underline Formatted: Right Page 1 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 10.20.220 Definitions. "Affected Employee" means a full -time employee who : : '�' °' * begins his or her regular work day at a single worksite covered by the Commute Trip Reduction Plan between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least tie 12 continuous months who is not an independent contractor. Seasonal agricultural employees, including seasonal employees of processors of agricultural products, are excluded from the count of affected employees. "Affected Employer" means an employer that employs ^4p himai ( IQQ) r more full -time employees at a single worksite covered by the Commute Trip Reduction Plan who are scheduled to begin their regular work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least r4 12 continuous months. Construction worksites, when the expected duration of the construction is less than two years, are excluded from this definition. (Also see definition of employer.) Alternative Mode" means any means of commute transportation other than that in which the single- occupant motor vehicle is the dominant mode, including telecommuting and compressed work weeks schedules if they result in reducing commute trips. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman l 11 pt 1 Alternative Work Schedules" mean programs such as compressed work weeks schedules that eliminate work trips for affected employees. "Base Year" means the 12 -month p eriod etr — which commences when a major emplover is determined by the jurisdiction to be participating within the CTR Program. The City or its contractor uses Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman this 12 -month period as the basis upon which it develops Commute Trip Reduction g oal s F�_P4P 1-�' °s 11 pt, Font color: Red J "Base Year Survev" or "Baseline Measurement" means the survey. during the base vear. of emplovees at a major employer worksite to determine the drive -alone rate and vehicle miles traveled per emplovee at the worksite. The jurisdiction uses this measurement to develop commute trip reduction goals for the maior emplover. The baseline measurement must be implemented in a manner that meets the requirements specified by the City "Carpool" means a motor vehicle, including a motorcycle, which is occupied by two (?}to six (45) people of at least 16 years of age traveling together for their commute trip 444-- �resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle commute trip. "Commute Trips" mean trips made from a worker's home to a worksite vAth ° ragul P,° '�°4 4 .,.i t:.,.. t,.. WA * .. ,,,.1 .a „t,...t 4i w e H f!_.nn , .,, . n.nn inclusive) on weekdays. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman f,. +F etoa OH49 :a, a., a:..t , l 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, "CTR" iq the nhhrevintion of Commute. Trin Reduction 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Right Page 2 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 _/ DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold "CTR Program" means an employer's strategies to reduce a€Wsted mployees' SCOL � drive alone commutes and average VMT per employee. " Commute Trip 1 ehicle Miles Traveled Per Employae : means the sum of the individual vehicle Formatted: Font: Not Italic commute trip lengths in miles over a set period divided by the number of full -time employees during that Formatted: Font: Not Italic period. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Italic 90 V ". V+01ixxxxcs..... � Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, "Compressed Work Weep' means an alternative work schedule, in accordance with employer 11 pt, Strikethrough policy, that regularly allows a full -time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two weeks by working longer hours during the remaining days, resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee. This definition is primarily intended to include weekly and bi- weekly arrangements, the most typical being four 10 -hour days or 80 hours in nine days, but may also include other arrangements. "Custom Bits Bitspool" means a commuter bus service arranged specifically to transport employees to work. "Dominant Mode" means the mode of travel used for the greatest distance of a commute trip. ` Drive Alone means a motor vehicle occupied by one employee for commute purposes, including Formatted: Font: Not Italic a motorcycle. Formatted: Font: Not Italic Drive Alone Trips means commute trips made by employees in single occupant Formatted: Font: Not Italic vehicles. ' Formatted: Font: Not Italic " Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) means a person who is designated as Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Tab stops: 0 ", Left + Not at 0.31" responsible for the development, implementation and monitoring of an emplover CTR program. Formatted: Font: Not Italic "Employer" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, Formatted: Font: Not Italic cooperative, joint venture, agency, department, district, or other individual or entity, whether public, Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" non - profit, or private, that employs workers. "Exemption" means a waiver from any or all CTR pProgram requirements granted to an employer Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, by the Citv or its contractor based on unique conditions that apply to the employer or employment site. 11 pt, Not Strikethrough "Flex- Time" is an employer policy that provides work schedules allowing individual employees se flexibility in choosing the start and end time but not the number_ of their working hours to facilitate the use of alternative modes. Formatted: Right Page 3 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold "Full -Time Employee" means a person, other than an independent contractor, whose position is scheduled n a continuous basis for 52 weeks for an average of at least 35 hours per week. "Good Faith Effort" means that an employer has met the minimum requirements identified in RCW 70.94.531 and this F)rd q 44 Fi 44se Chapter ' and is working collaboratively with SpHkaiia�tthe Ci or its contractor —to continue its existing CTR pPProgram or is developing and implementing program modifications likely to result in improvements to its CTR tPProgram over an agreed -upon length of time. "Implementation" means active pursuit by an employer of the CTR goals of RCW 70.94.521 and this Chapter as evidenced by appointment of gran employee Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, transportation coordinator (ETC) distribution of information to employees regarding alternatives to SC)3,1 11 pt, Not Strikethrough drive alone commuting, and commencement of other measures according to its approved CTR program and schedule. `A Ma or Em lover" means a private or public employer, including state agencies, that affiiq!BN�s Formatted: Font: Not Italic employs€i�s 100 or more full -time employees at a single worksite who are scheduled to begin their regular Formatted: Font: Not Italic work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekdays for at least 12 continuous months. reservations, or other locations as designated by the City or its contractor, at which there are one hundred or more affected employees. "Mode" refers to the means of transportation used by employees, such as single- occupant motor vehicle, rideshare vehicle (carpool, vanpool), transit, ferry, bicycle, walking, compressed work schedule and telecommuting. "Notice" means written communication delivered via the United States Postal Service with receipt deemed accepted three days following the day on which the notice was deposited with the Postal Service unless the third day falls on a weekend or legal holiday in which case the notice is deemed accepted the day after the weekend or legal holiday. "Peak Period' means the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. "Peak Period Trip" means any wee commute trip that delivers the employee to begin his or her regular workday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic "Proportion of c io ?g Peeg•p '°' r '"''"' Drive Alone Trips" or " S9- FLDrive Alone Rate" means the Formatted: Font: Not Italic number of commute trips over a set period made by mployees in mss- single occupant vehicles Formatted: Font: Not Italic divided by the number of potential trips taken by mployees working during that period. Formatted: Right Page 4 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold " Ride Matching Service means a system which assists in matching commuters for the purpose of Formatted: Font: Not Italic commuting together. Formatted: Font: Not Italic "Single - Occupant I ehicle (SOT , )" means a motor vehicle occupied by one (}employee for commute purposes, including a motorcycle. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, cn�.. 11 pt, Italic • Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, "Single Work-site" means a building or group of buildings on physically contiguous parcels of land 11 pt, Strikethrough or on parcels separated solely by private or public roadways or rights -of -way occupied by one or more affected employers. " TeleworkinQ ' or "Telecommunng" means the use of telephones, computers, or other similar Formatted: Font: Not Italic technology to permit an employee to work from home, eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work Formatted: Font: Not Italic place closer to home, reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip by at least half. "Transit" means a multiple - occupant vehicle operated on a for -hire, shared -ride basis, including bus, passenger ferry, rail, shared -ride taxi, shuttle bus, or vanpool. 4 4faasit t+ip eson'sasi s'�'ro Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, il i d d. t f0 a,,,.P ...,a 1 - 0 deH4aod 9 4 4 , .,,..,, • 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, "Transportation Management Associatio (T_IL4 means a group of 11 pt, Strikethrough employers or an association representing a group of employers in a defined geographic area. A TMA 449 Formatted: Font: Not Italic may represent employers within the City limits or may have a sphere of influence that extends beyond Ei = Lihjimits to include cities within Spokane County -; and within areas of unincorporated Spokane County. "I anpool" means a vehicle occupied by Tfive to fifteen ( }people traveling together for their commute trip * "°* �resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle trip —A Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough "1 ehicle Miles Traveled (T Per Employee" means the sum of the individual vehicle commute trip lengths in miles made by employees over a set period divided by the number of a£Tae employees during that period. "Weep" means a seven -day calendar period starting on Monday and continuing through Sunday. "Weekday" means any day of the week except Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. Formatted: Right Page 5 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold "Writing "Written or In Writing" means original signed and dated documents. Facsimile or electronic mail (e -mail) transmissions are a temporary notice of action that must be followed by th original signed and dated document via mail or delivery. Section 3 City _CTR Plan, SVMC 10.20.230 is amended as follows: 10.20.230 City CTR Plan. The goals established for the jurisdiction and affected employers in the City Commute Trip Reduction Plan set forth in Attachment "A" are incorporated herein by reference. City staff is directed to make any corrections for typographical errors, include anv graphical materials for information, and complete the Commute Trip Reduction Plan Section 4 Responsible Citv Department SVMC 10.20.240 is repealed. SVMC 10.20.240 is adopted as follows: 10.20.240 CTR Goals. A. Commute Tip Reduction Goals The Ci ' foals for reductions in the proportions of drive -alone commute trips and vehicle miles traveled per employee by affected employers in the City jurisdiction. major employment installations, and other areas designated by the Citv are hereby established by Spokane Vallev GR-'1 =CTR Plan adopted through SVMC 10.20.230 above. These goals establish the desired level of performance for the CTR Program in its entiretv in the Ci The Citv or its contractor will set the individual worksite goals for affected employers based on how the work can contribute to Spokane County overall goal established in the CTR Plan. The goals will appear as a component of the affected employer approved implementation plan set forth in SVMC 10.20.240.13. B. Commute Trip Reduction Goals for Emplovers Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Left, Indent: First line: 0.5 ", Tab stops: 0.31 ", Left Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, No underline Formatted: Left Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold 1. The drive -alone and V"MT goals for affected emplovers in the Citv are hereby Formatted: Indent: First line: 1" established as set forth in the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. 2. If the goals for an affected emplover or newly affected employer are not listed in the Formatted: Indent: First line: 1" CTR Plan, they shall be established by the City or its contractor at a level designed to achieve the City overall goals for the jurisdiction and other areas as designated by the City or its contractor. The City or its Formatted: Right Page 6 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold contractor shall provide written notification of the goals for each affected employer worksite by providing the information when the City or its contractor reviews the employer proposed program and incorporating the goals into the program approval issued by the City or its contractor. Section 6 . Applicability SVMC 10.20.250 is amended as follows: 10.20.250 Applicability. The provisions of this OFdi se- Chapter shall apply to any affected employer at any single worksite within the geographic limits of the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. _Employees will only be counted at their primary area worksite. _It is the responsibility of the employer to notify °p�the City or its contractor -of a change in status as an affected employer. A Notification of Applicability Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" 1. In addition to City of Spokane Eetxat-, '-s- established public notification fors Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" adoption of an ordinance, a notice of availability of a summary of this Chapter, a notice of the requirements and criteria for affected employers to comply with the eChapter i4Hee, and subsequent revisions shall be published at least once in City of Spokane Cam -_ Vallev 's official newspaper within 30 days of the effective date. 2. Affected employers located in • the City are to receive Formatted: Indent : Left: 0 ", First line: 1" written notification that they are subject to this eChapter Fdinanse. Such notice shall be addressed to the company's chief executive officer, senior official, or CTR Program manager or registered agent at the worksite. Such notification shall 44 °t- � provide 90 days pri to F r 4 4W4 C'�rfor the affected emplover to perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by the City or its contractor. 3. Affected employers that, for whatever reason, do not receive notice within 30 days of Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: r passage 8-f the the effective date -and are either notified or identify themselves to Sp8liatie the Citv or its contractor - within 4&990 days of ordinance will be granted an extension to assu+e- 2E2vide up to 459-90 days within which to a vela~ and sobfflif a GTR ~~e�~°-~. perfonn a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by the City or its contractor. 4. Affected Employers that have not been identified or do not identify themselves within) Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" 4$9 90days of the passage ef 4he F&i&Heethe effective date and do not .tAfflit a GTR ....,.,._,...... ithi.. Mn Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by Spokane 11 pt, Strikethrough Valley within 90 days from .' adoption are in violation of this eOrdinance. 5. If an affected emplover has already performed a baseline measurement, or an Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" alternative acceptable to the Citv or its contractor, under previous iterations of this Chapter, the emplover is not required to perform another baseline measurement. - B. Newly Affected Employers Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Right Page 7 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 1. _Employers that meeting the definition of "affected employer" in this Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ",Tab stops: eChapte ia+w -� must identify themselves to °��l- he City or its contractor - within 4-9990 days 0.75 ", Left of either moving into the boundaries outlined in the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230 or growing in employment at a worksite to 100 sae h,,.,.J. e 4 (100 more affected employees. an acted ° p l oy °.. t d aya l aig .,a sii ,,:t a CT- Employers tha4—who do not identify° themselves within 15990 calendar days of b a°°° ~~g ,.. a fl;eet.a a~ flleN °a~ are in violation of this Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman c4Chapter l 11 pt, Not Strikethrough ..I° m il es a- ..., °1 °A .. F °,., t,..,, ° ,,.ti, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough 2. Newly affected employers identified as such shall be given 90 days to perform a Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5 ", No bullets baseline measurement consistent with the measurement reauirements specified by the Citv or its contractor. or numbering Employers who do not perform a baseline measurement within 90 days of receiving written notification that thev are subject to this Chapter are in violation of this Chapter. 3. Not more than 90 days after receiving written notification of the results of the baseline Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25 ", No measurement, the newly affected employer shall develop and submit a CTR Program to the City or its bullets or numbering contractor. The program will be developed in consultation with the Citv Commute Trip Reduction Office staff or its contractor to be consistent with the goals of the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. The Program shall be implemented not more than 90 days after approval by the Citv or its contractor. Emplovers who do not implement an approved CTR Program according to this schedule are in violation of this Chapter and subject to the penalties set forth in SVMC 10.20.300.D. C- _Change in Status as an Affected Employer.- Formatted: Indent: First line: o" Any of the following changes in an employer's status will change the employer's CTR program Formatted: Indent: Left: o ", First line: 0.5" requirements: 1. If an employer initially designated as an affected employer no longer employs Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" 44R4@4100 (109) or more affected employees and expects not to employ ^r° "��'�°�' (1f or more affected employees for the next bvelve-12 (72}months, that employer is no longer an affected employer. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify and provide documentation to Sp aliane the City or its contractor that it is no longer an affected employer. The burden of proof lies with the emplover. 2. If the same employer returns to the level of °• 100 (100) or more affected Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" employees within the same rr12 (� month period, that employer will be considered an affected employer for the entire 12-12 months and will be subj ect to the same program requirements as other affected employers. 3. If the same employer returns to the level of mi 100 (100) or more affected Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1" employees X12 �}o more months after its change in status to an "unaffected" employer, that employer shall be treated as a newly affected employer and will be subject to the same program requirements as other newly affected employers. Formatted: Right Page 8 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Section 7 . Requirements for Employers SVMC 10.20.260 is amended as follows: 10.20.260 Requirements for employers. An affected employer is required to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this wee Chapter to develop and implement a CTR pPProgram that will encourage its employees to reduce VMT per employee and SOV drive alone commute trips. Th ...-,.,1. sh °11 m1hWit ° 618.gR fi H H 4 i ts- , to 4 e rsf�ress rep ort 49 Spal Gil-, a ., L,. e 1 4a „li /STD ,. o r,,,,. , F «,,.,, ,. FF ,.ro,l 4ate 4 C4 , : The CTR (Program must include the mandatory elements as described below. A. Mandatory Program Elements Each emplover's CTR Program shall include the following mandatory elements: 1. Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) The employer shall designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) to administer the CTR Program. The ETC and/or designee name, location, and telephone number must be prominently displaved phvsically or electronically at each affected work The ETC shall oversee all elements of the emplover CTR Program and act as liaison between the employer and the Citv. The obi ective is to have an effective transportation coordinator presence at each worksite; an affected emplover with multiple sites may have one ETC for all sites. The Transportation Coordinator must complete the Basic ETC Training Course offered by the City or its contractor within six months of assuming ' designated Transportation Coordinator status. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 2. Information Distribution 11 pt, Strikethrough Information about alternatives to drive alone commuting as well as a summary of the employer CTR Program shall be provided to employees at least once a year and to new emplovees at the time of hire. The summary of the employer CTR Program shall also be submitted to the City or its contractor with the emyloyer s Program description and regular report. B. Additional Program Elements In addition to the specific program elements described in this section, the Employer CTR Program shall include additional elements as needed to meet CTR goals. Elements may include, but are not limited to, two or more of the following: Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + 1. Provision of preferential parking for high- occupancy vehicles; Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start 2. Reduced parking charges for high - occupancy vehicles; at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + 3. Instituting or increasing parking charges for drive alone commuters; Indent at: 1.25' Formatted: Right Page 9 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 4. Provision of commuter ride matching services to facilitate employee ridesharing for commute trips: 5. Provision of subsidies for rail, transit, or vanpool fares and /or transit passes: 6. Provision of vans or buses for employee ridesharing: 7. Provision of subsidies for carpools, walking, bicycling_, teleworking, or compressed schedules 8. Provision of incentives for employees that do not drive alone to work: 9. Permitting the use of the employer vehicles for carpooling or vanpooling: 10. Permitting flexible work schedules to facilitate emplovees use of transit, carpools, or vanpools; 11. Cooperation with transportation providers to provide additional regular or express service to the worksite: 12. Construction of special loading and unloading facilities for transit, carpool, and vanpool users: 13. Provision of bicycle parking facilities, lockers, changing areas and showers for employees who bicycle or walk to work; 14. Provision of a program of parking incentives such as a rebate for emplovees who do not use the parking facilities; 15. Establishment of a program to permit emplovees to work part-time or full -time at home or at an alternative worksite closer to their homes which reduces commute trips: 16. Establishment of a program of alternative work schedules, such as a compressed work week, which reduces commute trips: 17. Implementation of other measures designed to facilitate the use of high - occupancy vehicles, such as on -site daycare facilities, emergency taxi services, or guaranteed ride home programs: 18. Charging emplovees for parking and /or the elimination of free parking: and 19. Other measures that the employer believes will reduce the number and length of commute trips made to the site. C. CTR Program Report and Description Re emus Affected emplovers shall review their program and submit a vearlv progress report with the Citv or its contractor in accordance with the format provided by the City or its contractor. _The CTRpPProgram dDescription � koutlines the strategies to be undertaken by an employer to' achieve the commute trip reduction goals for oae �� -j4i.--I , the reporting period. Employers are encouraged to consider innovative strategies and combine program elements in a manner that will best suit their location, site characteristics, business type, and employees' commuting needs. Employers are further encouraged to cooperate with each other to implement program elements. have the apti,,., of limiiinE. its CTR . t ..f- c t e d ° .,laye°.. only or m aking :t'� At a minimum, the employer's CTR Program Report and Description must include: 1) a general' description of the employment site location, transportation characteristics, emplovee parking availabilitv, on -site amenities and surrounding services, including unique conditions experienced by the employer or its employees; 2) the number of employees affected by the CTR kPProgram and the total number of employees Page 10 of 21 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Font color: Red Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25', Left Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25', Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25', Left Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Right DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold at the site 3) documentation of compliance with the mandatory CTRjProgram elements (as described in Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, subsection B ofthis Section 6.1): 4) description of anyadditional elements included in the employer CTR 11 pt, Not Strikethrough ,mProgram (as described subsection B of this Section 6.2): a+i,4-5) schedule of implementation, assignment of Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, responsibilities, and commitment to provide appropriate resources; and 6), a statement of organizational 11 pt, Not Strikethrough commitment to provide appropriate resources to the program to meet the employer established goals. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough D. Biennial Measurement of Emplovee Commute Behavior Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough In addition to the baseline measurement, employers shall conduct a Program evaluation as a means of Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, determining worksite progress toward meeting CTR goals. As part of the Program evaluation, the 11 pt, Not Strikethrough employer shall distribute and collect Commute Trip Reduction Program Employee Questionnaires Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, (surveys) at least once every two years and strive to achieve at least a 70 o response rate from employees at 11 pt, Not Strikethrough the worksite. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough �an�ater` ProeFam Elements Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Each .,1.,,• CTR f) raffam shall e h i d e +he fall...,-:.,,..,, .,,1, to-r'.- �1.,.,,:,, # Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough 4 ..,+; r ,,a; .,a ,, . Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold The effii4w, "AA! a tfftfisi�eftft4iefi to the Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline ,.t f4resenkie a t ..h S pH l iaae C4 ,.,,,.1.1 - s it e e „44; , 4 .,le-er v,44 ., 4 lti p l e site. 14 ha"P, ,. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25' Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold Formatted Formatted Formatted 144�rWH�HPF14 lit A! : + +o., :1,f.,1-1 +: 1 +h,.+ R4 4 a Formatted H444iPRWAI e RIAM044S i4; Rn 01 Formatted eH4j4q; ever; ear. r 4aG 1 4 f 4 s .,, er 4, 1 1 :., +: 1 1 +.,,,, h R A Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 4t4 :14 ma tJ.,1, A:.. +1-:h11 +P4 ,A 1 4e t4 8 A R I S 1 4 ...,,:+h ,..,h.1, f.1- +ho .J:.. +1-:h1, +: .,F Formatted A444 1441414q4 4444411 Formatted b +h th ., N as e i fi a nd p .,id h., c1,,.1- n:,.. Formatted Formatted • Formatted: Normal 3. , AHHeol P Formatted ' 111.1,...« .11 .. 1 ,.f ,.1..1 1,«,.,. ,., ,1 f..:Ni Th e GTR Formatted ... er8��rffl'A 144114 r'M 'i AO. O ffiJ3 1,..,..,. 68 ffi 1.,11+:1,,. OSS i +,..,,,.. -a ., ee+:.,,. 94e rnv .- oa,1,. +:,.., ,.,,,.1., n +r ,. + .,1,..,�. -� A We ,. „i „ Formatted: Indent: Left: O.S. Formattd- Right Page 11 of 21 Updated 7/1 20104 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Bold Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, it pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Right Page 12 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 _/ - D RAFT Section 8 . Record Keeping SVMC 10.20.270 is amended as follows: 10.20.270 Record Keeping. Affected employers shall i fl-elade maintain r, F G r ° R°:r:m„m 434 *' °° copy of their approved CTR Program Description and Report, their CTR Program Employee Questionnaire results and all supporting documentation for the descriptions and assertions made in any CTR Report to Spokane Valley for a minimum of 48 months, gig ity of Spokane Valley and the employer shall agree on the record keeping requirements as part of the accepted CTRpPProgram. Section 9 Schedule and Process for CTR Program Description and Report SVMC 10.20.280 has been amended as follows: 10.20.280 Schedule and process for CTR Program description and report. A. Document Review Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" The Citv or its contractor shall provide the emplover with written notification if a CTR Program is Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Tab stops: deemed unacceptable. The notification must give cause for any rejection. If the emplover receives no 0.25 ", Left written notification of extension of the review period of its CTR Program or comment on the CTR Program or annual report within 90 days of submission, the employer program or annual report is deemed accepted. The City or its contractor may extend the review period up to 90 days. The implementation date for the employer CTR Program will be extended an equivalent number of days. B. Schedule Upon review of an employer initial CTR Program, the Citv or its contractor shall establish the - emploveCs regular reporting date. This report will be provided in a form provided by the City or its contractor consistent with 10.20.270. C. Modification of CTR Program Elements Anv affected emplover may submit a request to the Citv or its contractor for modification of CTR requirements. Such request may be granted if one of the following conditions exist:, 1. The emplover can demonstrate it would be unable to comply with the CTR Program elements for reasons beyond the control of the employer or Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5' Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Tab stops: 0.25 ", Left Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Auto Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Auto, Tab stops: 0.25 ", Left Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Auto Formatted: No bullets or numbering, Allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Auto Formatted: Right Page 13 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 2. The emplover can demonstrate that compliance with the Program elements would constitute an undue hardship. The Citv or its contractor may ask the employer to substitute a Program element of similar trip reduction potential rather than grant the employer request. D. Extensions Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" An employer may request additional time to submit a CTR Program Description and Report, or to Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Tab stops: implement or modify a Program. Such requests shall be via written notice at least 30 days before the due 0.25 ", Left date for which the extension is being requested. Extensions not to exceed 90 days shall be considered for reasonable causes. The City or its contractor shall grant or den-, the employer extension request by written notice within 10 working days of its receipt of the extension request. If there is no response issued to the employer, an extension is automatically _granted for 30 days. Extension shall not exempt an emplover from any responsibility in meeting program goals. Extension granted due to delays or difficulties with any program element(s) shall not be cause for discontinuing or failing to implement other Program elements. An employer reporting date shall not be adjusted permanently as a result of these extensions. An emplover s annual reporting date maybe extended at the discretion of the City or its contractor. E. Implementation of Emplover CTR Program Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Unless extensions are granted, the employer shall implement its approved CTR Program, including Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ",Tab stops: approved program modifications, not more than 90 days after receiving written notice from the Citv or its 0.25 ", Left contractor that the Program has been approved or with the expiration of the Program review period without receiving notice from the Citv or its contractor. Section 10 Recognition of Transportation Management Efforts SVMC 10.20.290 is amended as follows: 10.20.290 for their efforts. affected emnlovers who meet or exceed the CTR goals as set forth in SVMC 10.20.240 will receive a commute trip reduction certificate of leadership from the Citv or its Section 11 . Enforcement SVMC 10.20.300 is amended as follows: 10.20.300 Enforcment. For purposes of this section, compliance shall mean: Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25', No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Bold Formatted: Right Page 14 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 _/ - D RAFT —' zff'ully implementing in good faith all mandatory Program elements as well as provisions in aH—the approved CTR Program Description and Report and satisfying the requirements of this Ordinance. 2. Providing a ee�completer- CTR Program Description and Report on the regular reporting date; and 3. Distributing and collecting the CTR Program Emplovee Questionnaire during the scheduled survey time period. B. ftogram Modification Criteria The following criteria for achieving goals for VMT per employee and proportion of 88- -drive alone trips shall be applied in determining requirements for employer CTR p-Program modifications: 1. If an employer meets either or both goals, the employer has satisfied the objectives of the CTR trPlan and will not be required to improve its CTR Program; Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5 ", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5', No bullets or numbering Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25 ", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Bold Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5', No bullets or numbering 2. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5 ", No bullets Ordinance, but has not met or is not likely to meet the applicable drive alone or VMT goal, Spokane or numbering Valley may deem it necessary to make required modifications to its CTR Program while working collaboratively with the employer. . After agreeing on modifications, the emplover shall submit a revised CTR t d- Description to Spokane Vallev for approval within 30 days of reaching agreement. 3. If an emplover fails to make a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this -d L am° O rdinance, and fails to meet the applicable 49OV-drive alone or VMT reduction goal, the Citv or its contractor shall 0 , ,_ J. _ at, 41. ...: . _ . . 44 4 51,,.11 di to o ,.1..., t r o. iso aS J. W4444 4l1 IR fasigk isa t th f aLio i _d ffie fi .tieo direct the emplover to revise its Program to the recommended modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR Program 4-Description and Report, including the requested modifications or equivalent measures, within 30 days of receiving written notice to revise its Program. The City or its contractor shall review the revisions and notify the emplover of acceptance or rejection of the revised Program. If a revised p is not accepted, the Citv or its contractor will send written notice to that effect to the employer within 30 days and, if necessarv, require the employer to attend a conference with p-Program review staff for the purpose of reaching a consensus on the required +i Program. A final decision on the required p- Program will be issued in writing by the City or its contractor within 10 working days of the conference. Page 15 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5 ", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Right DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 55 C. Violations The following constitute violations if the applicable deadlines are not met: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline 1. Failure to 4evelsp °~ Submit m' '""° a Pm ^' °'° ry ' ^ "' ~ ^. self Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", identify as an affected employer: Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" 2. Failure to perform a baseline measurement, including: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" Employers notified or that have identified themselves to °~nt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1.5" City or its contractor within ion 90 days of the n.-44+a+ ° effective date of the enacting ordinance g adopted and that do not ° " 444:* a GT ~ ,:a,:~ 40 days f OH4 t "° . ,..:a,., 4 ° perform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the City or its contractor within 90 days from the notification e€or self - identification: a4LEmployers not identified or self - identified within 440-90 days of the e Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1.5" effective date of the enacting ordinance rditiaffee h aifig ad and that do not 64' +4 e+ ~~ ' ~ I --- w- E a, rperform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the Citv or its contractor within 4-94-90 days from ffective date of the enacting language a : Failure to develop and /or submit on time a complete CTR Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", Program as degaea 44 nCPxr ;En on con y4i .":s P Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" Formatted: Right Page 16 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 -/ b ar ,' 5 3fraftehifi b C. Violations The following constitute violations if the applicable deadlines are not met: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline 1. Failure to 4evelsp °~ Submit m' '""° a Pm ^' °'° ry ' ^ "' ~ ^. self Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", identify as an affected employer: Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" 2. Failure to perform a baseline measurement, including: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" Employers notified or that have identified themselves to °~nt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1.5" City or its contractor within ion 90 days of the n.-44+a+ ° effective date of the enacting ordinance g adopted and that do not ° " 444:* a GT ~ ,:a,:~ 40 days f OH4 t "° . ,..:a,., 4 ° perform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the City or its contractor within 90 days from the notification e€or self - identification: a4LEmployers not identified or self - identified within 440-90 days of the e Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1.5" effective date of the enacting ordinance rditiaffee h aifig ad and that do not 64' +4 e+ ~~ ' ~ I --- w- E a, rperform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the Citv or its contractor within 4-94-90 days from ffective date of the enacting language a : Failure to develop and /or submit on time a complete CTR Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", Program as degaea 44 nCPxr ;En on con y4i .":s P Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" Formatted: Right Page 16 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 -/ DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold -1-4. Failure to implement an approved CTR Program, unless the program elements that are Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", carried out can be shown through quantifiable evidence to meet or exceed VMT and drive alone goals as Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" specified in this Chapter: 5. Submission of false or fraudulent data in response to survey requirements: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" 4_6. Failure to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534 and this Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", ` f:d oan )Chapter or Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" - 5 - 7. Failure to revise an unacceptable CTR Program as defined in RCW 70.94.534(4) and- Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 1 ", this c hapter. Tab stops: 1.25 ", Left + Not at 0.75" D. Penalties Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 0 ", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, Any affected employer violating any provision of this Or Chapter shall be guilty of a civil C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25 ", Don't allow hanging infraction and subject to the imposition of civil penalties. punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline 1. Whenever Tthe Eeffff4 = City or its contractor makes a determination that the affected employer is in violation of this (drdinaiweC *'*The City or its contractor shall issue a written notice and order and send it registered mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executive officer or highest ranking official at the worksite. _The notice and order shall contain: a) The name and address of the affected employer. b) A statement that Spekatie -Get he City or its contractor has found the affected employer to be in violation of this Chapter with a brief and concise description of the conditions found to be in violation. c) A statement of the corrective action required to be taken. If Spekafte Gew+t�the City or its contractor has determined that corrective action is required, the order shall require that all corrective action be completed by a date stated in the notice. d) A statement specifying the amount of any civil penalty assessed on account of the violation; and e) A statement advising that the order shall become final unless, no later than 09)10 working days after the notice and order are served, any person aggrieved by the order requests in writing an appeal before the desrted-City Hearing Examiner as well as the name and mailing address of the person with whom the appeal must be filed. 2. Each day of failure to implement the Program or violating any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation subject to penalties as described in RCW 7.80. The penalty for a first violation shall be $100 per working day. The penalty for subsequent violations will be $250 per working day for each violation. Formatted: Right Page 17 of 21 Updated 7/1 2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 3. Penalties will begin to accrue 15 working days following the official date of notice from a. City or its contractor Jn the event an affected employer appeals the imposition of penalties, the penalties will not accrue during the appeals process. Should the designated Hearing Examiner decide in favor of the appellant all or a portion of the monetary penalties may be dismissed by the a Hearing Examiner. 4. No affected employer with an approved CTR Program which has made a good faith effort may be held liable for failure to reach the applicable 99 drive alone or VMT goal. 5. An affected employer shall not be liable for civil penalties if failure to implement an element of a CTR -Program was the result of an inability to reach agreement with a certified collective bargaining agent under applicable laws where the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in good faith. Unionized employers shall be presumed to act in good faith compliance if they: a) Propose to a recognized union any provision of the employer's CTR Program that is subject to bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and b) Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the mandates of the CTR p Program approved by gpalraoe Getkaky City or its contractor and advise the union that the proposal being made is necessary for compliance with state law (RCW 70.94.531). Section 12 Exemptions and Goal Modifications SVMC 10.20.3 10 is amended as follows: 10.20.310 Exemptions and goal modifications. Worksite Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Not Strikethrough Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5' An affected employer may request Sp a4he City or its contractor to grant an exemption from all CTR r�Program requirements or penalties for a particular worksite. The employer must demonstrate that it would experience undue hardship in complying with the requirements of +ke rdina tiee this Chapter as a result of the characteristics of its business, its work force, or its location(s). An exemption may be granted if and only if the affected employer demonstrates that it faces extraordinary circumstances, such as bankruptcy or a protracted labor strike, and is unable to implement any measures that could reduce the proportion of drive alone trips and VMT per employee. Exemptions may be granted by Spa lo°ae C+Ym TM -the City or its contractor at any time based on written notice of request provided by the affected employer. The notice should clearly explain the conditions for which the affected employer is seeking an exemption from the requirements of the CTR -Program. The City or its contractor shall grant or denv the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. Spe k". Rthe City or its contractor shall review annually all employers receiving exemptions, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 Dt. Not Strikethrouah Specific employees or groups of employees who are required to drive alone to work as a condition of Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5' employment may be exempted from a work CTR Program. Exemptions may also be granted for employees who work variable shifts throughout the year and who do not rotate as a group to identical shifts. Formatted: Right Page 18 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 _ DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold °'� the City or its contractor will use the criteria identified in the CTR T4 >;�;.o,.o Board Administrative Guidelines to assess the validity of employee exemption requests. � ` rl er-mx' om«•'��« flf3j3!i6ftb!& -�BRIS Will 08tb& 6hfffi,-�ad, but these affli4w. A014jR 44 dpjb a-pay-ass *-R- t4he A. flha-, dkrim -:11 .,..t b 1 «•.1„dod :, fl.o eR l e ,,l a li OR S .,f.,.-...,.,.-ti.,., .,f 801" t.-:«S R14 414,4., «1•,..00 „mod r The City or its contractor shall grant or denv the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. S�""=�the City or its contractor shall review annually all employee exemption requests, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. C. Modification of CTR Program Goals Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Bold 1. An affected employer may request that the °«��City or its contractor modify its Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25 ", First line: 0" worksite CTR program goals. Such requests shall be filed in writing at least 60 days prior to the date the worksite is required to submit its program description or annual report. The goal modification request must clearly explain why the worksite is unable to achieve the applicable goal. The worksite must also demonstrate that it has implemented all of the elements contained in its approved CTR program. 1 2. a p 4ra YY he City or its contractor will review and grant or deny requests for goal- Formatted: Numbered + Level: 2 + modifications in accordance with procedures and criteria identified in the CTR °gl— FRf' e Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Board Guidelines. A« .. «. «,.... «.t ",.oast ° ..,,.d:a °+"" '44 the ....c 1,1, 1„ Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 0.75" +Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline 2 An employer may not request a modification of the applicable goals until one year after- Formatted: Numbered + Level: 2 + - the City' or its contractor approval of its initial program description or Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + annual report. Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1 ", Don't allow hanging punctuation, Font Alignment: Baseline «1..,-0.- H do.,,.,.,st.- fl,..t :t.. , -,.d, :to i a 0444 fl ; At fl,o , Rr IE,:to .. .,d:ti.,.,.. ,. +T .,,.t:. -o ,. „to .,.,ti., «� .. ,,:1,..-t•. tl,•,..o f.,.- o .,I•.. : , tl,o Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt, Strikethrough Section 13 . Appeals SVMC 10.20.320 is amended as follows: 10.20.320 Appeals Formattd- Not Highlight Any affected employer may appeal administrative decisions regarding exemptions, modification of Formatted: Not Highlight goals, CTR Program elements, and violations and penalties to the desigiiated Hearing Examiner pursuant to Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, SVMC Chapter 17.90 �kppeals shall be filed within 15 working days of the administrative decision. X911 11 pt appeals shall be filed with the Ory.Clerk ,.f fl,.. D•.... -4 ,.f C G,..,,._,:,.sie rs o f s fle n•... «t ...:fl, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt Formatted: Right Page 19 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold 106, Spaliffoo 922 being a ea I ,. well as too s . e b i4 4 be 4 4 „ 44 A. Criteria on Appeals Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5' The designated Hearing Examiner, upon notification of a timelv appeal by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, will evaluate the appeal to determine if the decision is consistent with the CTR Law and the CTR Guidelines. The designated Hearing Examiner may schedule a meeting between the affected employer and the County. The decision of the designated Hearing Examiner shall be reduced to writing. It shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the affected employer. B. Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners Anv affected emplover may appeal the written decision of the designated Hearing Examiner to the Board of County Commissioners. Appeals shall be filed within 15 working days of the designated Hearing Examiner written decision. All appeals shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider only testimony and written documentation submitted to the designated Hearing Examiner on anv matter appealed to the Board. No additional evidence shall be considered by the Board of Countv Commissioners. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Board of Countv Commissioners will set a date no later than 30 calendar days, at which thev will render their written decision on the appeal. C. Judicial Appeals Any decision of the Board of County Commissioners, as provided for in Section (B) herein, shall be final and conclusive, unless not later than twenty (20) calendar days from the date of the written decision, the affected employer appeals to the Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.32.330. Section 14 . Responsible City department SVMC 10.20.330 is added as follows: 10.20.330 Responsible Citv department The City Manager shall designate the City department responsible for implementing this Chapter, the CTR Plan, and the Citv of Spokane Vallev CTR Program. In the alternative, the City may enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County wherebv Spokane Countv would implement a Citv CTR plan and CTR program. Section 15 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competentjurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality Formatted: Right Page 20 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 _ DRAFT Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 16 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of 1 2010. ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Mayor, Thomas E. Towey Formatted: Right Page 21 of 21 Updated 7/1 5/2010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10-*** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PLAN AND AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.20; TO IMPLEMENT MEASURES REQUIRED BY RCW 70.94.527; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City has the duty and authority to maintain and protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, RCW 70.94.524 -.551 establishes the requirements that certain counties and cities must comply with to reduce commute trips in an effort to improve transportation system efficiency, conserve energy and improve air quality, and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley is a jurisdiction required under RCW 70.94.527(1) to adopt and maintain a commute trip reduction ordinance and a plan designed to reduce commute trips; and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley previously adopted SVMC 10.20 to comply with state - mandated requirements regarding Commute Trip Reduction; and WHEREAS, The Washington State legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act in 2006, requiring local governments in those counties experiencing the greatest automobile- related air pollution and traffic to amend their Commute Trip Reduction plans required under 1991 Commute Trip Reduction law; and WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley coordinated with Spokane County and other area jurisdictions to develop a new Commute Trip Reduction Plan; and WHEREAS, the new Commute Trip Reduction Plan has been found to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and has been approved by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Washington Commute Trip Reduction Board; and WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley desires to adopt the new Commute Trip Reduction Plan and update SVMC 10.20 to implement the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act of 2006. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as Section 1 . Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of RCW 70.94 regarding reduction of commute trips. Section 2 . Definitions. SVMC 10.20.220 is amended as follows: 10.20.220 Definitions. Affected Employee" means a full -time employee who begins his or her regular work day at a single worksite covered by the Commute Trip Reduction Plan between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least 12 continuous months who is not an independent contractor. Seasonal Page 1 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT agricultural employees, including seasonal employees of processors of agricultural products, are excluded from the count of affected employees. "Affected Employer" means an employer that employs 100 or more full-time employees at a single worksite covered by the Commute Trip Reduction Plan who are scheduled to begin their regular work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive) on two or more weekdays for at least 12 continuous months. Construction worksites, when the expected duration of the construction is less than two years, are excluded from this definition. (Also see definition of employer.) "Alternative Mode" means any means of commute transportation other than that in which the single- occupant motor vehicle is the dominant mode, including telecommuting and compressed work weeks schedules if they result in reducing commute trips. "Alternative Work Schedules" mean programs such as compressed work week schedules that eliminate work trips for affected employees. "Base Year" means the 12 -month period which commences when a major employer is determined by the jurisdiction to be participating within the CTR Program. The City or its contractor uses this 12 -month period as the basis upon which it develops Commute Trip Reduction goals. "Base Year Survey" or "Baseline Measurement" means the survey, during the base year, of employees at a major employer worksite to determine the drive -alone rate and vehicle miles traveled per employee at the worksite. The jurisdiction uses this measurement to develop commute trip reduction goals for the major employer. The baseline measurement must be implemented in a manner that meets the requirements specified by the City. "Carpool" means a motor vehicle, including a motorcycle, which is occupied by two to six people of at least 16 years of age traveling together for their commute trip resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle commute trip. "Commute Trips" mean trips made from a worker's home to a worksite (inclusive) on weekdays. "CTR" is the abbreviation of Commute Trip Reduction. "CTR Program" means an employer's strategies to reduce employees' drive alone commutes and average VMT per employee. "Commute Trip Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee" means the sum of the individual vehicle commute trip lengths in miles over a set period divided by the number of full -time employees during that period. "Compressed Work Week" means an alternative work schedule, in accordance with employer policy, that regularly allows a full -time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two weeks by working longer hours during the remaining days, resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee. This definition is primarily intended to include weekly and bi- weekly arrangements, the most typical being four 10 -hour days or 80 hours in nine days, but may also include other arrangements. to work. "Custom BusBuspool" means a commuter bus service arranged specifically to transport employees "Dominant Mode" means the mode of travel used for the greatest distance of a commute trip. Page 2 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT "Drive Alone" means a motor vehicle occupied by one employee for commute purposes, including a motorcycle. "Drive Alone Trips" means commute trips made by employees in single occupant vehicles. "Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC)" means a person who is designated as responsible for the development, implementation and monitoring of an employer's CTR program. "Employer" means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, cooperative, joint venture, agency, department, district, or other individual or entity, whether public, non - profit, or private, that employs workers. "Exemption" means a waiver from any or all CTR Program requirements granted to an employer by the City or its contractor based on unique conditions that apply to the employer or employment site. "Flex- Time" is an employer policy that provides work schedules allowing individual employees flexibility in choosing the start and end time, but not the number of their working hours to facilitate the use of alternative modes. "Full -Time Employee" means a person, other than an independent contractor, whose position is scheduled on a continuous basis for 52 weeks for an average of at least 35 hours per week. "Good Faith Effort" means that an employer has met the minimum requirements identified in RCW 70.94.531 and this Chapter, and is working collaboratively with the City or its contractor to continue its existing CTR Program or is developing and implementing program modifications likely to result in improvements to its CTR Program over an agreed -upon length of time. "Implementation" means active pursuit by an employer of the CTR goals of RCW 70.94.521555 and this Chapter as evidenced by appointment of an employee transportation coordinator (ETC), distribution of infonnation to employees regarding alternatives to drive alone commuting, and commencement of other measures according to its approved CTR program and schedule. "A Major Employer" means a private or public employer, including state agencies, that employs 100 or more full -time employees at a single worksite who are scheduled to begin their regular work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekdays for at least 12 continuous months. "Major Employer Worksite" or "Affected Employer Worksite" or "Worksite" means the physical location occupied by a major employer, as determined by the local jurisdiction. "Major Employment Installation" means a military base or federal reservation, excluding tribal reservations, or other locations as designated by the City or its contractor, at which there are one hundred or more affected employees. "Mode" refers to the means of transportation used by employees, such as single- occupant motor vehicle, rideshare vehicle (carpool, vanpool), transit, ferry, bicycle, walking, compressed work schedule and telecommuting. "Notice" means written communication delivered via the United States Postal Service with receipt deemed accepted three days following the day on which the notice was deposited with the Postal Service Page 3 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT unless the third day falls on a weekend or legal holiday in which case the notice is deemed accepted the day after the weekend or legal holiday. "Peak Period" means the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. "Peak Period Trip" means any commute trip that delivers the employee to begin his or her regular workday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (inclusive), Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. "Proportion of Drive Alone Trips" or "Drive Alone Rate" means the number of commute trips over a set period made by employees in single occupant vehicles divided by the number of potential trips taken by employees working during that period. "Ride Matching Service" means a system which assists in matching commuters for the purpose of commuting together. "Single- Occupant Vehicle (SOP)" means a motor vehicle occupied by one employee for commute purposes, including a motorcycle. "Single Worksite" means a building or group of buildings on physically contiguous parcels of land or on parcels separated solely by private or public roadways or rights -of -way occupied by one or more affected employers. "Teleworking" or "Telecommuting" means the use of telephones, computers, or other similar technology to permit an employee to work from home, eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work place closer to home, reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip by at least half. "Transit" means a multiple- occupant vehicle operated on a for -hire, shared -ride basis, including bus, passenger ferry, rail, shared -ride taxi, shuttle bus, or vanpool. "Transportation Management Association (TAM)" means a group of employers or an association representing a group of employers in a defined geographic area. A TMA may represent employers within the City limits, or may have a sphere of influence that extends beyond City limits to include cities within Spokane County; and within areas of unincorporated Spokane County. " Vanpool" means a vehicle occupied by five to fifteen people traveling together for their commute trip resulting in the reduction of a minimum of one motor vehicle trip "Vehicle Miles Traveled (VW) Per Employee" means the sum of the individual vehicle commute trip lengths in miles made by employees over a set period divided by the number of employees during that period. "Week" means a seven -day calendar period starting on Monday and continuing through Sunday. "Weekday" means any day of the week except Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. "Writing," "Written," or "In Writing" means original signed and dated documents. Facsimile (fax) or electronic mail (e -mail) transmissions are a temporary notice of action that must be followed by the original signed and dated document via mail or delivery. Page 4 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT Section 3 . City CTR Plan SVMC 10.20.230 is amended as follows: 10.20.230 City CTR Plan. The goals established forthe jurisdiction and affected employers in the City's Commute Trip Reduction Plan set forth in Attachment "A" are incorporated herein by reference. City staff is directed to make any corrections for typographical errors, include any graphical materials for information, and complete the Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Section 4 Responsible City Department SVMC 10.20.240 is repealed. Section 5 . CTR Goals SVMC 10.20.240 is adopted as follows: 10.20.240 CTR Goals. A. Commute Tip Reduction Goals The City's goals for reductions in the proportions of drive -alone commute trips and vehicle miles traveled per employee by affected employers in the City's jurisdiction, major employment installations, and other areas designated by the City are hereby established by Spokane Valley's CTR Plan adopted through SVMC 10.20.230 above. These goals establish the desired level of performance for the CTR Program in its entirety in the City. The City or its contractor will set the individual worksite goals for affected employers based on how the worksite can contribute to Spokane County's overall goal established in the CTR Plan. The goals will appear as a component of the affected employer's approved implementation plan set forth in SVMC 10.20.240.13. B. Commute Trip Reduction Goals for Employers 1. The drive -alone and VMT goals for affected employers in the City are hereby established as set forth in the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. 2. If the goals for an affected employer or newly affected employer are not listed in the CTR Plan, they shall be established by the City or its contractor at a level designed to achieve the City's overall goals for the jurisdiction and other areas as designated by the City or its contractor. The City or its contractor shall provide written notification of the goals for each affected employer worksite by providing the information when the City or its contractor reviews the employer's proposed program and incorporating the goals into the program approval issued by the City or its contractor. Section 6 . Applicability SVMC 10.20.250 is amended as follows: 10.20.250 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any affected employer at any single worksite within the geographic limits of the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. Employees will only be counted at their primary area worksite. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify the City or its contractor of a change in status as an affected employer. A. Notification of Applicability Page 5 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT 1. In addition to City of Spokane 'Valley's established public notification for adoption of an ordinance, a notice of availability of a summary of this Chapter, a notice of the requirements and criteria for affected employers to comply with the Chapter, and subsequent revisions shall be published at least once in City of Spokane 'Valley's official newspaper within 30 days of the effective date. . 2. Affected employers located in the City are to receive written notification that they are subject to this Chapter. Such notice shall be addressed to the company's chief executive officer, senior official, or CTR Program manager or registered agent at the worksite. Such notification shall provide 90 days for the affected employer to perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by the City or its contractor. 3. Affected employers that, for whatever reason, do not receive notice within 30 days of the effective date and are either notified or identify themselves to the City or its contractor within 90 days of ordinance will be granted an extension to provide up to 90 days within which to perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by the City or its contractor. 4. Affected Employers that have not been identified or do not identify themselves within 90days of the effective date and do not perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by Spokane Valley within 90 days from the adoption are in violation of this Ordinance. 5. If an affected employer has already performed a baseline measurement, or an alternative acceptable to the City or its contractor, under previous iterations of this Chapter, the employer is not required to perform another baseline measurement. B. Newly Affected Employers 1. Employers meeting the definition of "affected employer" in this Chapter must identify themselves to the City or its contractor within 90 days of either moving into the boundaries outlined in the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230 or growing in employment at a worksite to 100 or more affected employees. Employers who do not identify themselves within 90 calendar days are in violation of this Chapter. 2. Newly affected employers identified as such shall be given 90 days to perform a baseline measurement consistent with the measurement requirements specified by the City or its contractor. Employers who do not perform a baseline measurement within 90 days of receiving written notification that they are subject to this Chapter are in violation of this Chapter. 3. Not more than 90 days after receiving written notification of the results of the baseline measurement, the newly affected employer shall develop and submit a CTR Program to the City or its contractor. The program will be developed in consultation with the City Commute Trip Reduction Office staff or its contractor to be consistent with the goals of the CTR Plan adopted in SVMC 10.20.230. The Program shall be implemented not more than 90 days after approval by the City or its contractor. Employers who do not implement an approved CTR Program according to this schedule are in violation of this Chapter and subject to the penalties set forth in SVMC 10.20.300.1). C: Change in Status as an Affected Employer Any of the following changes in an employer's status will change the employer's CTR program requirements: Page 6 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT 1. If an employer initially designated as an affected employer no longer employs 100 or more affected employees and expects not to employ 100 or more affected employees for the next 12 months, that employer is no longer an affected employer. It is the responsibility of the employer to notify and provide documentation to the City or its contractor that it is no longer an affected employer. The burden of proof lies with the employer. 2. If the same employer returns to the level of 100 or more affected employees within the same 12 month period, that employer will be considered an affected employer for the entire 12 months and will be subject to the same program requirements as other affected employers. 3. If the same employer returns to the level of 100 or more affected employees 12 or more months after its change in status to an ``unaffected" employer, that employer shall be treated as a newly affected employer and will be subject to the same program requirements as other newly affected employers. Section 7 . Requirements for Employers SVMC 10.20.260 is amended as follows: 10.20.260 Requirements for employers. An affected employer is required to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this Chapter, to develop and implement a CTR Program that will encourage its employees to reduce VMT per employee and drive alone commute trips. The CTR Program must include the mandatory elements as described below. A. Mandatory Program Elements Each employer's CTR Program shall include the following mandatory elements: 1. Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) The employer shall designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) to administer the CTR Program. The ETC and /or designee's name, location, and telephone number must be prominently displayed physically or electronically at each affected worksite. The ETC shall oversee all elements of the employer's CTR Program and act as liaison between the employer and the City. The objective is to have an effective transportation coordinator presence at each worksite an affected employer with multiple sites may have one ETC for all sites. The Transportation Coordinator must complete the Basic ETC Training Course offered by the City or its contractor within six months of assuming "designated Transportation Coordinator" status. 2. Information Distribution Information about alternatives to drive alone commuting as well as a summary of the employer's CTR Program shall be provided to employees at least once a year and to new employees at the time of hire. The summary of the employer's CTR Program shall also be submitted to the City or its contractor with the employer's Program description and regular report. B. Additional Program Elements In addition to the specific program elements described in this section, the Employer's CTR Program shall include additional elements as needed to meet CTR goals. Elements may include, but are not limited to, two or more of the following: Page 7 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT 1. Provision of preferential parking for high- occupancy vehicles; 2. Reduced parking charges for high- occupancy vehicles; 3. Instituting or increasing parking charges for drive alone commuters; 4. Provision of commuter ride matching services to facilitate employee ridesharing for commute trips; 5. Provision of subsidies for rail, transit, or vanpool fares and /or transit passes; 6. Provision of vans or buses for employee ridesharing; 7. Provision of subsidies for carpools, walking, bicycling, teleworking, or compressed schedules; 8. Provision of incentives for employees that do not drive alone to work, 9. Permitting the use of the employer's vehicles for carpooling or vanpooling; 10. Permitting flexible work schedules to facilitate employees' use of transit, carpools, or vanpools; 11. Cooperation with transportation providers to provide additional regular or express service to the worksite; 12. Construction of special loading and unloading facilities for transit, carpool, and vanpool users; 13. Provision of bicycle parking facilities, lockers, changing areas and showers for employees who bicycle or walk to work, 14. Provision of a program of parking incentives such as a rebate for employees who do not use the parking facilities; 15. Establishment of a program to permit employees to work part-time or full -time at home or at an alternative worksite closer to their homes which reduces commute trips; 16. Establishment of a program of alternative work schedules, such as a compressed work week, which reduces commute trips; 17. Implementation of other measures designed to facilitate the use of high- occupancy vehicles, such as on -site daycare facilities, emergency taxi services, or guaranteed ride home programs; 18. Charging employees for parking and /or the elimination of free parking; and 19. Other measures that the employer believes will reduce the number and length of commute trips made to the site. CTR Program Report and Description Affected employers shall review their program and submit a yearly progress report with the City or its contractor in accordance with the format provided by the City or its contractor. The CTR Program Description outlines the strategies to be undertaken by an employer to achieve the commute trip reduction goals for the reporting period. Employers are encouraged to consider innovative strategies and combine program elements in a manner that will best suit their location, site characteristics, business type, and employees' commuting needs. Employers are further encouraged to cooperate with each other to implement program elements. At a minimum, the employer's CTR Program Report and Description must include: 1) a general description of the employment site location, transportation characteristics, employee parking availability, on -site amenities and surrounding services, including unique conditions experienced by the employer or its employees; 2) the number of employees affected by the CTR Program and the total number of employees at the site; 3) documentation of compliance with the mandatory CTR Program elements (as described in subsection B of this Section 6.1); 4) description of any additional elements included in the employer's CTR Program (as described subsection B of this Section 6.2); 5) schedule of implementation, assignment of Page 8 of 15 Updated 7/1 ;/2010 DRAFT responsibilities, and commitment to provide appropriate resources; and 6) a statement of organizational commitment to provide appropriate resources to the program to meet the employer's established goals. D. Biennial Measurement of Employee Commute Behavior In addition to the baseline measurement, employers shall conduct a Program evaluation as a means of determining worksite progress toward meeting CTR goals. As part of the Program evaluation, the employer shall distribute and collect Commute Trip Reduction Program Employee Questionnaires (surveys) at least once every two years and strive to achieve at least a 70% response rate from employees at the worksite. Section 8 . Record Keep SVMC 10.20.270 is amended as follows: 10.20.270 Record Keeping. Affected employers shall maintain copy of their approved CTR Program Description and Report, their CTR Program Employee Questionnaire results and all supporting documentation for the descriptions and assertions made in any CTR Report to Spokane Valley for a minimum of 48 months. City of Spokane Valley and the employer shall agree on the record keeping requirements as part of the accepted CTR Program. Section 9 Schedule and Process for CTR Program Description and Report SVMC 10.20.280 has been amended as follows: 10.20.280 Schedule and process for CTR Program description and report. A. Document Review The City or its contractor shall provide the employer with written notification if a CTR Program is deemed unacceptable. The notification must give cause for any rejection. If the employer receives no written notification of extension of the review period of its CTR Program or comment on the CTR Program or annual report within 90 days of submission, the employer's program or annual report is deemed accepted. The City or its contractor may extend the review period up to 90 days. The implementation date for the employer's CTR Program will be extended an equivalent number of days. B. Schedule Upon review of an employer's initial CTR Program, the City or its contractor shall establish the employer's regular reporting date. This report will be provided in a form provided by the Citv or its contractor consistent with 10.20.270. C. Modification of CTR Program Elements Any affected employer may submit a request to the City or its contractor for modification of CTR requirements. Such request may be granted if one of the following conditions exist: 1. The employer can demonstrate it would be unable to comply with the CTR Program elements for reasons beyond the control of the employer; or 2. The employer can demonstrate that compliance with the Program elements would constitute an undue hardship. Page 9 of 15 Updated 7/1 ;/2010 DRAFT The City or its contractor may ask the employer to substitute a Program element of similar trip reduction potential rather than grant the employer's request. D. Extensions An employer may request additional time to submit a CTR Program Description and Report, or to implement or modify a Program. Such requests shall be via written notice at least 30 days before the due date for which the extension is being requested. Extensions not to exceed 90 days shall be considered for reasonable causes. The City or its contractor shall grant or deny the employer's extension request by written notice within 10 working days of its receipt of the extension request. If there is no response issued to the employer, an extension is automatically granted for 30 days. Extension shall not exempt an employer from any responsibility in meeting program goals. Extension granted due to delays or difficulties with any program element(s) shall not be cause for discontinuing or failing to implement other Program elements. An employer's reporting date shall not be adjusted permanently as a result of these extensions. An employer's annual reporting date may be extended at the discretion of the City or its contractor. E. Implementation of Employer's CTR Program Unless extensions are granted, the employer shall implement its approved CTR Program, including approved program modifications, not more than 90 days after receiving written notice from the City or its contractor that the Program has been approved or with the expiration of the Program review period without receiving notice from the City or its contractor. Section 10 Recognition of Transportation Management Efforts SVMC 10.20.290 is amended as follows: 10.20.290 Recognition of Transportation Management Efforts. As public recognition for their efforts, affected employers who meet or exceed the CTR goals as set forth in SVMC 10.20.240 will receive a commute trip reduction certificate of leadership from the City or its contractor. Section 11 . Enforcement SVMC 10.20300 is amended as follows: 10.20.300 Enforcment. A. Compliance For purposes of this section, compliance shall mean_ 1. Fully implementing in good faith all mandatory Program elements as well as provisions in the approved CTR t3,-Program Description and Report and satisfying the requirements of this Ordinance. date; and 2. Providing a complete CTR Program Description and Report on the regular reporting 3. Distributing and collecting the CTR Program Employee Questionnaire during the scheduled survey time period. B. Program Modification Criteria Page 10 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT The following criteria for achieving goals for VMT per employee and proportion of drive alone trips shall be applied in determining requirements for employer CTR Program modifications: 1. If an employer meets either or both goals, the employer has satisfied the objectives of the CTR Plan and will not be required to improve its CTR Program; 2. If an employer makes a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this Ordinance, but has not met or is not likely to meet the applicable drive alone or VMT goal, Spokane Valley may deem it necessary to make required modifications to its CTR Program while working collaboratively with the employer. After agreeing on modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR Program Description to Spokane Valley for approval within 30 days of reaching agreement. 3. If an employer fails to make a good faith effort as defined in RCW 70.94.534(2) and this Ordinance, and fails to meet the applicable drive alone or VMT reduction goal, the City or its contractor shall direct the employer to revise its Program to the recommended modifications, the employer shall submit a revised CTR Program Description and Report, including the requested modifications or equivalent measures, within 30 days of receiving written notice to revise its p.-Program. The City or its contractor shall review the revisions and notify the employer of acceptance or rejection of the revised Program. If a revised Program is not accepted, the City or its contractor will send written notice to that effect to the employer within 30 days and, if necessary, require the employer to attend a conference with Program review staff for the purpose of reaching a consensus on the required Program. A final decision on the required Program will be issued in writing by the City or its contractor within 10 working days of the conference. C. Violations The following constitute violations if the applicable deadlines are not met: 1. Failure to self identify as an affected employer; 2. Failure to perform a baseline measurement, including: a) Employers notified or that have identified themselves to the City or its contractor within 90 days of the effective date of the enacting ordinance adopted and that do not perform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the City or its contractor within 90 days from the notification or self - identification; b) Employers not identified or self - identified within 90 days of the effective date of the enacting ordinance and that do not perform a baseline measurement consistent with the requirements specified by the City or its contractor within 90 days from effective date of the enacting language; 3. Failure to develop and /or submit on time a complete CTR Program; 4. Failure to implement an approved CTR Program, unless the program elements that are carried out can be shown through quantifiable evidence to meet or exceed VMT and drive alone goals as specified in this Chapter, 5. Submission of false or fraudulent data in response to survey requirements, 6. Failure to make a good faith effort, as defined in RCW 70.94.534 and this Chapter; or Page 11 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT this Chapter. 7. Failure to revise an unacceptable CTR Program as defined in RCW 70.94.534(4) and D. Penalties Any affected employer violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of a civil infraction and subject to the imposition of civil penalties. 1. Whenever The City or its contractor makes a determination that the affected employer is in violation of this Chapter, The City or its contractor shall issue a written notice and order and send it registered mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executive officer or highest ranking official at the worksite. The notice and order shall contain: a) The name and address of the affected employer. b) A statement that the City or its contractor has found the affected employer to be in violation of this Chapter with a brief and concise description of the conditions found to be in violation. c) A statement of the corrective action required to be taken. If the City or its contractor has determined that corrective action is required, the order shall require that all corrective action be completed by a date stated in the notice. the violation; and d) A statement specifying the amount of any civil penalty assessed on account of e) A statement advising that the order shall become final unless, no later than 10 working days after the notice and order are served, any person aggrieved by the order requests in writing an appeal before the City Hearing Examiner as well as the name and mailing address of the person with whom the appeal must be filed. 2. Each day of failure to implement the Program or violating any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation subject to penalties as described in RCW 7.80. The penalty for a first violation shall be $100 per working day. The penalty for subsequent violations will be $250 per working day for each violation. 3. Penalties will begin to accrue 15 working days following the official date of notice from the City or its contractor. In the event an affected employer appeals the imposition of penalties, the penalties will not accrue during the appeals process. Should the designated Hearing Examiner decide in favor of the appellant, all or a portion of the monetary penalties may be dismissed by the Hearing Examiner. 4. No affected employer with an approved CTR Program which has made a good faith effort may be held liable for failure to reach the applicable drive alone or VMT goal. 5. An affected employer shall not be liable for civil penalties if failure to implement an element of a CTR Program was the result of an inability to reach agreement with a certified collective bargaining agent under applicable laws where the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in good faith. Unionized employers shall be presumed to act in good faith compliance if they: a) Propose to a recognized union any provision of the employer's CTR Program that is subject to bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and Page 12 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT b) Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the mandates of the CTR Program approved by the City or its contractor and advise the union that the proposal being made is necessary for compliance with state law (RCW 70.94.531). Section 12 Exemptions and Goal Modifications SVMC 10.20.3 10 is amended as follows: 10.20.310 Exemptions and goal modifications. A. Worksite Exemptions An affected employer may request the City or its contractor to grant an exemption from all CTR Program requirements or penalties for a particular worksite. The employer must demonstrate that it would experience undue hardship in complying with the requirements of this Chapter as a result of the characteristics of its business, its workforce, or its location(s). An exemption maybe granted if and only if the affected employer demonstrates that it faces extraordinary circumstances, such as bankruptcy or a protracted labor strike, and is unable to implement any measures that could reduce the proportion of drive alone trips and VMT per employee. Exemptions may be granted by the City or its contractor at any time based on written notice of request provided by the affected employer. The notice should clearly explain the conditions for which the affected employer is seeking an exemption from the requirements of the CTR Program. The City or its contractor shall grant or deny the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. The City or its contractor shall review annually all employers receiving exemptions, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. B. Employee Exemptions Specific employees or groups of employees who are required to drive alone to work as a condition of employment may be exempted from a worksite's CTR Program. Exemptions may also be granted for employees who work variable shifts throughout the year and who do not rotate as a group to identical shifts. The City or its contractor will use the criteria identified in the CTR Board Administrative Guidelines to assess the validity of employee exemption requests. -The City or its contractor shall grant or deny the request within 30 days of receipt of the request. The City or its contractor shall review annually all employee exemption requests, and shall determine whether the exemption will be in effect during the following program year. C. Modification of CTR Program Goals An affected employer may request that the City or its contractor modify its worksite CTR program goals. Such requests shall be filed in writing at least 60 days prior to the date the worksite is required to submit its program description or annual report. The goal modification request must clearly explain why the worksite is unable to achieve the applicable goal. The worksite must also demonstrate that it has implemented all of the elements contained in its approved CTR program. 2. The City or its contractor will review and grant or deny requests for goal modifications in accordance with procedures and criteria identified in the CTR Board Guidelines. 3. An employer may not request a modification of the applicable goals until one year after the City's or its contractor's approval of its initial program description or annual report. Section 13 . Appeals SVMC 10.20.320 is amended as follows: Page 13 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT 10.20.320 Appeals Any affected employer may appeal administrative decisions regarding exemptions, modification of goals, CTR Program elements, and violations and penalties to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to SVMC Chapter 17.90. Appeals shall be filed within 15 working days of the administrative decision. All appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk A. Criteria on Appeals The designated Hearing Examiner, upon notification of a timely appeal by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, will evaluate the appeal to determine if the decision is consistent with the CTR Law and the CTR Guidelines. The designated Hearing Examiner may schedule a meeting between the affected employer and the County. The decision of the designated Hearing Examiner shall be reduced to writing. It shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the affected employer. B. Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners Any affected employer may appeal the written decision of the designated Hearing Examiner to the Board of County Commissioners. Appeals shall be filed within 15 working days of the designated Hearing Examiner's written decision. All appeals shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider only testimony and written documentation submitted to the designated Hearing Examiner on any matter appealed to the Board. No additional evidence shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Board of County Commissioners will set a date no later than 30 calendar days, at which they will render their written decision on the appeal. C. Judicial Appeals Any decision of the Board of County Commissioners, as provided for in Section (B) herein, shall be final and conclusive, unless not later than twenty (20) calendar days from the date of the written decision, the affected employer appeals to the Superior Court pursuant to RCW 3632.330. Section 14 . Responsible City department SVMC 10.20.330 is added as follows: 10.20.330 Responsible City department The City Manager shall designate the City department responsible for implementing this Chapter, the CTR Plan, and the City of Spokane Valley CTR Program. In the alternative, the City may enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County whereby Spokane County would implement a City CTR plan and CTR program. Section 15 . 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. Page 14 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 DRAFT Section 16 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of 2010. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Page 15 of 15 Updated 7/1' ./2010 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27 ", 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: 1S reading proposed ordinance - 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 Report OPTIONS: Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading, with or without amendments, or provide staff further direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance the ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.140 to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 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) TITLE 19, ADDING LANGUAGE THAT GIVES THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS FOR MINOR DESIGN CHANGES TO THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN, ALLOWING FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED USE AVENUE RETAIL ZONE, ALLOWING RESTRICTED ACCESS TO "OTHER STREETS" IN THE MIXED USE AVENUE ZONE; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on the 25 day of September, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015; and WHEREAS, the UDC became effective on the 28th day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan pursuant to Ordinance 09 -021, on the 16 day of June, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan became effective on the 15th day of October, 2009; and WHEREAS, on the 24` day of June, 2010, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing on these proposed amendments set forth below, and approved the same and made specific Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, as set forth in Section One of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Detennination of non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall and at the main branch of the library, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Washington state law, the City notified the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development of the proposed changes on June 10, 2010. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission set forth as follows: 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 Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 1 of 8 (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. 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. 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 Section Two: Chapter 19.140 SVMC shall be amended as follows: 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. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 2 of 8 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 subj ect 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 Applewa - 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). Section Three: The Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, adopted pursuant to SVMC 19.110.020 as appendix D is hereby amended as follows: 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 Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 3 of 8 DRAFT i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as parry 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) Full Sei-� Resta+tfaf4s (2) Used vehicle sales. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 4 of 8 DRAFT Le - -- : Not Permitted U: Upper Floors G: Ground Floor *: Full Service Only Only Restaurants onlv Permitted: These elements are allowed by right unless Required: These are Required elements of otherwise specified in Section 2.2.2. Building Use all new development as indicated. Limited: 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: (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 2.1.3 Mixed Use Spragu Other Ave. Streets Avenue District Zone e 2.2. Site Development Standards Street/ Street Other Sprague Ave. Category Streets 2.2.1.Building d Orientation to require Streets and Public Street Open Spaces d required or not required required required 2.2.2.Building Use require 1) Retail Configuration d a) City Center 5) Street Type Retail a) Core Street N/A b) Neighborhood b) City Street N/A Center Retail c) Neighborhood N/A c) Mixed -Use permitted restricted* Avenue Retail d) Neighborhood N/A d) Corner Store - -- - -- Retail e) Service Street N/A e) Gateway f) Alley N/A Commercial Avenue - -- - -- Retail 2.3.2.Open Space f) Gateway Standards Commercial Center - -- - -- Retail 2) Civic, Quasi- Civic, permitted permitted & Cultural 3) Office permitted permitt ed Light permitted permitted I ndustrial 2.3. Street and Open Space Spragu Other Ave. Streets Standards e 2.3.1.Street Standards 1) Street Provision require require d d 2) Pre - Located require require Street d d 3) Maximum Block 5 acres 5 acres Size 4) Street require require Configuration d d 5) Street Type a) Core Street N/A - -- b) City Street N/A - -- c) Neighborhood N/A permitt Street ed d) Neighborhood N/A permitt Green Street ed e) Service Street N/A - -- f) Alley N/A - -- g) Passage N/A - -- 2.3.2.Open Space Standards Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 5 of 8 DRAFT 5) Lodging permitted permitted (w /common entry) 2A.1.Parking Types require 6) Live -Work permitted permitted 7) Residential - -- permitt a) Multi- Family w/ permitted permitted Common Entr permitt permitt b) Attached ed ed Single - Family w/ - -- permitted Individual Entr ed ed c) Detached Rearwall Increment Single - Family - -- - -- Housing pennitt pennitt 2.2.3.Building Height ed minimum height 1 floor/ 20 ft 1 floor/ 20 ft maximum height 4 floors/ 53 ft 4 floors/ 53 ft 2.2.4.Relation to c) Wrapped - All Single Family Homes permitt required or not required required applicable permitt permitt 2.2.5.Public Frontage ed Improvements e) Underground required or not required not required required ed 2.4.2.Parking 2.2.6.Private Standards Frontage 1) Shopfront permitted permitted 2) Corner Entry permitted permitted 3) Arcade permitted - -- 4) Grand Portico permitted permitted 5) Forecourt permitted permitted 6) Grand Entry permitted permitted 7) Common Lobby limited limited Entr 8) Stoop permitted permitted 9) Porch - -- - -- 10) Front Door - -- - -- 11) Parking permitted permitted Structure Entr see section 233 Parking Spragu Standards e Ave. Streets 2A.1.Parking Types require 1) Surface Parking d d a) Front lot - -- permitt d ed b) Side lot permitt permitt ed ed c) Rear lot permitt pennitt ed ed 2) Parking Rearwall Increment Structure a) Exposed pennitt pennitt ed ed b) Wrapped - permitt pennitt Ground Level ed ed c) Wrapped - All pennitt permitt Levels ed ed d) Partially permitt permitt Submerged Podium ed ed e) Underground permitt permitt Parking ed ed 2.4.2.Parking Standards see section 2.4.2 Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 6 of 8 Standards e Ave. Streets 2.5.2.Height Massing & Composition Top require require d d Base require require d d 2.5.3.Length Massing & Comp osition Streetwall 150ft 80ft Increment Sidewall & N/A N/A Rearwall Increment Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 6 of 8 DRAFT 12) Vehicle Display: Option 1 13) Vehicle Display: Option 2 14) Edge Treatment: ___ permitted Fenced 13) Edge Treatment: ___ permitted Terraced 14) Edge Treatment: permitted Flush permitted 2.2.7.Front Street Setback minimum / 20 ft / 25 ft 10 ft / 20 ft maximum 2.2.8.Side Street Setback minimum / 5ft / 15 ft 10 ft / 20 ft maximum 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimum w/ living 10 ft 10 ft space windows minimum w /out 5 ft 5 ft living space windows 2.2.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum setback 10 ft 10 ft 2.2.11.Alley Setback minimum setback 5 ft 5 ft 2.2.12.Frontage Coverage minimum percentage 60% no min. covered 2.2.13.Build-to- Corner required or not required required required 2.2.14.Maximum Building Length J maximum building 240 ft I 150 ft T length Section Four 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, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 7 of 8 DRAFT Section Five: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of 1 2010. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Mayoral Appointments: Housing and Community Development Committee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: BACKGROUND: Spokane County Community Services, Housing and Community Development has requested Spokane Valley representation on their housing and Community Development advisory Committee. Spokane Valley has three representatives on this committee: hvo members from Council and one Spokane Valley citizen. Spokane Valley citizen Rick Scott's term has expired and he does not seek re- appointment. Staff posted a public service announcement for this committee vacancy in the July 2 and 9 editions of the Valley News Herald, and placed notice of the vacancy on the City's website. The deadline to receive applications was 5:00 p.m. July 15, 2010. Although staff received several inquiries and requests for applications, one application was submitted, OPTIONS: 1. Confirm the Mayor's appointment 2. Choose not to confirm the appointment 3. Take other action deemed appropriate by council. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Kristi Kerkuta to the Spokane Housing and Community Development Committee, for a three -year term beginning immediately. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS Committee Application from Ms. Kerkuta SPOT ry CHRISTINE BARADA COMMUNITY SERVICES, HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR June 22, 2010 REC"EIVED JUN 2 1 1 2010 The Honorable Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave. Ste 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Towey: City of Spokane Valley Rick Scott's term as an appointed member of the Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee has expired. Please reappoint Mr. Scott, or appoint a new member to ensure that the City of Spokane Valley has full participation in the - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Programs. Please send a letter of appointment to the Board of Spokane County Commissioners by July 15, 2010. 1 have also enclosed the application and supplemental forms for a new member to complete and include with your appointment letter if you choose to appoint a new individual. PIease also forward a copy of your appointment letter and application form to our office. Please call the Advisory Committee Secretary, Tami Landsiedel, at 477 -2588 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Christine Barada Director /ti Enclosure 312 WEST 8 AVENUE a SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE: (509) 477 -5722 a FAX: (509) 477 -6827 a RELAY SERVICE OF WASHINGTON: 1- 800 -833 -6384 a VVM,SPOKANECOUNTY.ORG 7/12/2010 12:22 FAX 15099249728 AL 40;00vaky t Application Form for Committees /Boards /Commissions POSITION APPLYING Applicant's name (pleat Applicant's Roe!denc4 street • L ty &j V V V - AppliCant's Mailing Address ( if different from Residence address): Zip Code 1_ Street City Applicant's Email: CL, o X , Home Phone: — Work Phona; ' / V U Cell Phone: Wngth of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: 0? 8- .0 ta 4 r NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate orkjmt boards, Committees and commissions. Gender_ Female ] Male ® U.S. Citizen? Wa, State R voter? E1n+>pLOYME NT H SMR Present or fast em f oyer; Position Held; Address: Phone: CI Previous Eanp) Position Held: Address. Phone: High School; City /State At BACKGROUND: College/University- City /State Address: College/Urdversity: City /State Address: COLDWELL BANKER TOMLINSO Dates of Employment! —C)(, Dates of JUL 1 U %a. 11nfr ne :. 11 001/003 Return Completed form to City Clerk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509 -720 -5102 phone, 509- 688 -0194 fax Diploma: Yes �310 Ej Earned: A Degree Earned: 1 1 1 Q5 C6#1M,vri('e 07/12/2010 12;22 FAX 15099249728 COLDWELL BANKER TOMLINSO COMM(yN]'j'y' RELATED ACTIVII W8, PAST & )PRESEW: (attach additional sheen t IL c YOLiJNTM MERffiJGFS. PAST 8E PRE+ ENT I PA �R PRE5I W MDBER OF THE FOLi'VING PROFESSIONAL, CMC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMB TIM, OR CONIAMSIONS: Committee Name City/State Committee Name City /State Committee Name City /State 1@ 002/003 What do you ifW you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information akeady ffi nidied? WHY o y ou yo ��e t ed to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commissior< for which you are �.l "`5 _// 1�"1 n n A n_ � .. n '1 i 61 / /)A JtgI7 6 &2-1� icou your g � n q£ tereat? Ott t b 'm tefj ou Ca O un t 07/12/2010 12:22 FAX 15099249728 COLDWELL BANKER TONLINSO IA 003/003 SignHture A ID- lb Today's Date CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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 : Motion Consideration: Energy Efficiency Block Grant Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information Item July 20, 2010 BACKGROUND: The 2009 City Council approved several projects under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant ( EECBG) program. One of the projects is a partnership with Avista Utilities for residential and commercial energy audits, whereby the full cost of the audit is supplemented by EECBG dollars to encourage owners to identify potential energy efficiency improvements. The City and County of Spokane have allocated EECBG funds for the same program. Avista serves as the lead in marketing and conducting the overall program. Launched by Avista in the spring of this year, participation has been minimal. Only five Spokane Valley households have participated. To generate more participation, Avista has requested approval to increase the amount of EECBG dollars per audit from $87.50 to $138 so that the cost to the homeowner is $99 rather than $150. Similar requests have been approved by the City and County of Spokane. The City has allocated $88,000 for the Utility Partnering project. EECBG projects must be implemented and completed within 36- months, or by November 2012. Increasing the EECBG fund share of the cost of each audit to $138 will result in a maximum 637 home audits. OPTIONS: Do not increase the EECBG fund amount per home audit. Reallocate entire remaining EECBG funds for the utility partnering /home energy audit program to another project approved under the City's EECBG Strategy (see attached). RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the proposed increase in EECBG funds per home audit. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no impact to the City of Spokane Valley budget. Increasing the EECBG funding amount per audit would result in a lower maximum number of audits. However, the reduced cost to homeowners is hoped to increase the actual number of participants and realize a greater energy savings throughout the residential sector. STAFF CONTACT: Mary E. May, AICP ATTACHMENTS: Spokane Valley EECBG Project Summary Proposed City of Spokane Valley EECBG Projects Project EECBG Funding 1. Utility Partnering Program $88,000 2. Traffic Signal LED Replacements $65,000 3. Traffic Signal Phasing (Flashing Yellow Arrows) $33,550 4. Traffic Signal Coordination $75,000 5. Sprague Avenue ITS $400,000 6. Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan: Document $38,500 7. Bike & Pedestrian MP: Facility Implementation $100,000 8. City Facility Audits and Retrofits $5,350 9. Pre -Award Consultant Services $18,000 TOTAL $823,400 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Motion Consideration: Motion to direct Planning Commission to consider code text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan for specific zoning and development issues in the Mixed Use Avenue Zone District. 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 to gather input from affected property and business owners in the Mixed Use Avenue zoned areas. On July 13, 2010 staff presented to Council a summary of the issues raised during public comment. At the July 13, 2010 meeting, City Council directed staff to prepare a motion directing the Planning Commission to consider changes to Book II: Development Regulations, Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. These changes must be consistent with the policy direction of the Subarea Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Some issues raised during the public review of the Mixed Use Avenue zone are considered Comprehensive Plan policy issues and will be added to the docket for 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Staff provides the following motion with the understanding that, after conducting research, it may be determined that a code change may not be consistent with existing policy and must be addressed during the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to direct the Planning Commission to consider text amendments to Book II: Development Regulations, Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan to address the following issues: 1. Permitted Uses Consider adding some additional uses, including vehicle sales, and single - family homes, as permitted uses in Mixed Use Avenue Retail. 2. Setbacks Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. 3. Additions, Expansion, Reconstruction Consider increasing the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. 4. Prelocated Streets Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5 -acre requirement. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Dept ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Motion Consideration: 2010 Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Info RCA in 7/13/10 Council Packet; Admin Report to council on 7/20/10. 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 Ave This project will would upgrade existing sidewalk facilities from Sprague Ave to 8 th Ave and construct safety improvements at 4 th Avenue to help reduce the number of collisions. It will also reconstruct Bowdish Road from 8 th 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 th Avenue Sidewalk - Calvin Rd to Adams Rd This project fills in a large gap in the sidewalk serving Adams Elementary School. 3. 4 th 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: 1) Approve the list of TIB project applications, 2) Modify the list of TIB project applications, or 3) Provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the list of projects for submitting grant applications in response to TIB's 2010 Call for Projects. 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: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: SRTC Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: See previous materials provided. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The current Interlocal was agreed to in 2003. SRTC presented changes to the Agreement at a previous Council meeting, BACKGROUND: The parties have negotiated a new proposed draft SRTC Agreement. The most recent Interlocal Agreement with changes highlighted is attached. OPTIONS: Motion to approve or disapprove RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other cities and towns within Spokane County, to form the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, define its organization and powers, and its jurisdictional area. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not calculated for this presentation. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connel ATTACHMENTS: Draft Interlocal Agreement Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, SLlite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM THE SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA.. THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into among the County o` Spokane, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, the City of Spokane Valley, a non - charter code city of the State of Washington, the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Washington State Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "WSTC ", the Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," and other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members,' jointly, along with the Cour.ty, City of Spokane, STA and WSDOT are collectively referred to as the "Mernbers.° WITH ESS E T H: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2005, the President of the United States signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Efficiency Act; a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU), which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy "[t]o develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the (SO 165051; 1 ) Page i of 16 global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, in 1962, Federal transportation legislation required the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which in cooperation with the State of Washington, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, Ch. 47.80 RCW authorizes the formation of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) by voluntary association of local governments within a county; provided each RTPO shall have as members the count, and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the RTPO's boundaries, representing a mininIUM of seventy -five percent of the cities' and towns' population; and WHEREAS, each RTPO formed by local governments shall create a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to the RTPO and shall allow representatives of major employers within the region, the department o` transportation, transit districts, port districts, and member cities, towers, and counties within the region to participate in policy making; and WHEREAS, among other duties, each RTPO shall: (i) develop and periodically update a regional transportation plan in cooperation with the State department of transportation, providers of public transportation and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region and shal! (ii) designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of said regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization; and WHEREAS, RCW 47.80,020 provides that the RTPO in an urbanized area shall be the same as the MPO designated for federal transportation planning purposes, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation council (" Council ") to carry out those responsibilities of the MPO as provided for in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. {SG165051, 4 r Page2or16 NO1N, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following terms and conditions, to include the above recitals, which are incorporated herein as a part of this Agreement, it is agreed among the Members: Section 'I: NAMEIORGANIZATION A voluntary association and joint board, comprising representatives of the County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), Spokane Transit Authority (STA), and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the "Council." Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA and Other Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning program in accordance with Section 3, herein. The Council is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of United States Code Titles 23 and 49, and RCW Chapter 47.80. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of a Transportation Management Area (TMA) for the metropolitan area, which includes those functions set forth in the SAFETEA -L.0 legislation of August 10, 2005, and related rules, as amended to implement SAFETEA -LU as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by subsequent Federal Transportation legislation. (b) To perform the functions of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as set forth in Title 23 United States Code and Title 49 United States Code as currently adopted or as amended, and 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 40 CFR Part 613, as currently adopted or as amended. P0165051; I � Pap 3af It (c) To perform the functions of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as set forth in Ch. 47.801 RCW and Ch. 468 -86 WAC, as currently adapted or as amended. (d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan pursuant to 23 CPR Parts 4501 and 500 and 49 CFR Part 613. (e) To engage in regional transportation planning. (f) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the Members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (g) To participate in the development and maintenance of transportation related information necessary to support the functions and responsibilities of the Council. (h) To promote the regional transportation interests, plans and projects to local. state and federal public and private entities. (i) To contract with the WSt7OT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and /or Federal Transportation legislation. To create committees as necessary, to advise the Board on regional transportation related matters. At a minimum this shall include: a. the Transportation Advisory Council (TAC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. In. the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. (k) To comply with the Transportation Planning requirements set forth in the Washington State Growth Management Act, and Ch. 47.80 RCW, consistent with Spokane County County -wide Planning Policies, (l) To perform such other transportation planning and program related functions as the Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council and the members thereof, which are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and related federal and state law. The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants -in -aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and (SO165051; I ) Page 4 or 16 may accept gifts from public or private entities for the purposes authorized in this Agreement. Section 4 : JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: {GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body (the "Board ") of the Council, consisting of twelve voting (12) persons, shall be established by the following thresholds:. (a) Jurisdictions under 50,000 people - One (1) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations between 50,000 and 5,000 people plus one (1 ) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations fewer than 5,000 people. The person selected shall be an elected official from a small town /city; (b) Jurisdictions between 50,0011 to 100,000 people — one (1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; (c) Jurisdictions over 100,001 people— two (2) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; (The population of Spokane County includes the population of its cities and towns); (d) One (1) Board Member of STA, who shall be appointed by the STA Beard; (e) Two (2) State Transportation representatives, one (1) from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, and one (1) from the Washington State Transportation Commission appointed by the Chair of the Commission; (f) One (1) person who represents a major employer, with preference for a provider of private sector transportation services within the region who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board, and (g) One (1) person who is Chair of the Transportation Advisory Council, provided such person resides within the jurisdiction of the MPO. (50165051; 1 ) Page 5 of 16 (h) There shall be four (4) ex officio, non - voting members serving on the Board representing different modes of transportation, which shall include: (1) One (1) person representing STA, who shall be appointed by the STA Board; (2) One (t) person representing Rail; who shall be appointed by the Members ; (3) One (1) person representing Airports; who shall be appointed by the Airport Board; and (4) The Chair of the TTC (i) Pursuant to RCW 47.8J.040 all legislators whose districts are wholly or partly within the designated boundaries of the Council, are considered ex officio (non - voting) members of the Board. 0) All Board appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective jurisdiction, whichever is the lesser time. Alternate Board representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency (or governing body, as appropriate) and whose name has been placed on record with the Council. All alternate Board representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove. (k) The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice -Chair ( "Officers ") by majority vote of the Board. Only representatives who are elected officials may be Officers. To be eligible for the Chair position, the Board Member shall have served on the Board for at least one year. The term for Officers may be up to two (2;1 years in each office. Ex officio members may not serve as Officers. (j) A Board Member who, during a. calendar year, has three (3) unexcused absences from regular Board meetings shall be automatically removed from the Board, without further action. Section 6: MEETINGS The Council shall hold regular monthly Board meetings. The Chair may call a speciat meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consisten_ with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe the place of meetings, the method of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof, the form of the J 40165051; t ) Pagce 6 of 16 agenda, the regular meeting date and such other matters that relate to the conduct of the Council's business. Such rules shall be adopted and may be amended by a seventy -five percent (75 %) positive vote of the Board, or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as required by chapter 42.30 RCW. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Board shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. Voting Board members shall be entitled to one vote. Provided, however, that the following enumerated actions shall take an affirmative vote of a majority of the voting membership of the Board: (a) Appointment or dismissal of the Executive Director, (b) Approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the Members; (c) purchase, sale or disposition of real property; and (d) Addition of new members. Section 7 : STAFF AND SUPPORT The Board shall determine the positions, duties and working conditions of employees as necessary to conduct the work programs of the Council consistent with this Agreement. An Executive Director shall be appointed by and serve solely at the pleasure of the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures to establish the duties and authorizes of the Executive Director. including authority to make financial expenditures on behalf of the Board. The Board shall approve application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in ,Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board so that timely Board approval canna' be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with mutual approval of the Chair and Vice - Chair. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, employees are at -will and shall be hired and discharged by and work under the direction of the Executive Director, The Board may arrange for support services such as requisitioning anc purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. ; SOI 05051; 1 ) Pagt 7 of 16 Pay schedules shall be set by the Board consistent with responsibilities ,performed and the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay schedules for like positions in Member agencies.. Section 8 : WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken by the Council. The Executive Director or designee shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The proposed annual budget shall set forth the methodology for determining the allocation of costs, appropriations and expenditures to each member. The Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the Members by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. Members from jurisdictions identified in Section 5(a) that have not previously been required to contribute funds toward the annual budget and Members who have annual assessments increased by more than fifteen percent (15 %) shall be given written notice one (1) year in advance of a proposed budget assessment. Following a request from a Member to perform services on a specific project, not identified in the work program, the Board may impose a special assessment on the requesting Member. The special assessment shall be: (a) reasonably determined by the Board and (b) reimburse the costs and expenses associated with the specific project. The annual budget and,ror work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Board, provided such amendment does not require additional' budget appropriation in excess of the amounts established in the second paragraph of this Section 8, by the Members. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9 : ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve mutual benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as recommended by the Board and' approved by the Members it) the budget approval process. Any additional (SO165051; I a Page 8 af' i 6 agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the Board. Additional contributions to the Council budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence o° benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member approving the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year that it has approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of the City of Spokane or the public treasury of any other Member as so agreed upon by the Members; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The Executive Director may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Council budget, work plan and approved policies and procedures. and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly to the Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Executive Director or designee, and approved monthly by the Board, Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law„ shall then be certified for payment by the City o` Spokane or as arranged by the Board. Section 10 : REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY The Council may, through gift, devise, purchase, lease or other form of conveyance, acquire, hold, manage, use and dispose of real and personal property necessary for the joint undertaking set forth herein with such property acquisition upon such terms and conditions as agreed by the Board. It is recognized that any public or private entity may appropriate funds and may sell lease, give or otherwise supply real and personal property, personnel and services to the Council or other legal or administrative entity for the purpose of operating the joint or cooperative undertaking. The Council may not acquire or use real property to operate a transportation system. Section 11: INSURANCE The Council shall obtain property and liability insurance for the matters set forth in this Agreement with coverages and limits reasonably determined by the Council, provided, insurance coverage for comprehensive general liability, {SO165051; I ) Page 9 of 16 auto liability, employment practices liability, pubilc officials errors and omissions liability, shall not be less than $10,000,690 in the aggregate. Section 12 : INTER - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive Plans, to which the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as may be assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, in coordination with state and local {Mans, , requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up -to -date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section 13 : AMENDMENTS AND NEW MEMBERS This Agreement may be amended by unanimous consent of the Members' governing bodies, except WSDOT may take action through its Secretary. Upon majority consent of the voting Members, new members may join the Council upon written acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. Section 14 : TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP The Cities, County, STA, WSDOT, WSTC, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the fallowing year. Section 15 , PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference. Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1956, An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning {50165051; 1 } Page 10 of 16 Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District, dated August 31, 1972. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane, Washington, and other municipalities, to form Spokane Regional Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area, dated August 15, 1984. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and Other Cities and Towns within Spokane County, to form a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1993. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County to form a Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated April 28, 2993. Section 16 : EFFECTIVE DATE and Binding Agreement The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by the County and, at least, sixty percent (60°/x) of the cities and towns within the council area that represent seventy- five percent (75 %) of the cities' and towns' population. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members who have executed this Agreement, their successors and assigns. Section 17 : METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the Members is not intended to ac: as a revocation of the MPO or constitute a substantial change in authority or responsibility of the MPO and shall not be interpreted to require the redesignation of the MPO under 23 Ci^R § 450.316. Section 18 : SUCCESSOR iN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. {SU165051; } } Page I] of 16 Section 19: DEFAULT Failure by any Member to perform, observe or comply with the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part contained in this Agreement where that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice from the Council to the defaulting Member shall constitute an "Event of Default." Section 20 , REMEDIES In the event of any Event of Default, the Council may at any time, without waiving or limiting any other right or remedy, pursue any remedy allowed by law including, by way of example and without limitation, specific performance, declaratory judgment and other equitable remedies, and recovery of attorney's fees and other costs for such enforcement action. Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members. The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whethe- directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. The section headings 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. (SO 165051; 1 ) Page 12 of 16 Section 22. RCW CHAPTER. 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES U :'fD See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontin«ed pursuant to RCW 47,80.020. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS The Board shall administer the joint and cooperative undertakings set forth herein. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' websites, as available. F. FINANCING See Section Nos. 8 and 9 above. G. TERMINATION See Section No. 14 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION Any Member terminating its membership in the Council as provided for in Section 14 hereinabove shall forfeit any ownership interest in any personal or real property owned or held by the Council. Personal property acquired by the Council in the performance of this Agreement shall be disposed of by the Council upon (5[1105051; l ) Fags 13 of' 1F termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise required by lave or agreement, cash and cash proceeds from sale of personal property shall be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution made by the Member as set forth in this Agreement. Real property shall be conveyed or disposed of as set forth in this Agreement in the same manner as personal property except where a separate instrument or deed reservation exists with regard to any real property in which instance it shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year of their respective signature. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of , 2010. Mark Richard, Chair ATTEST: DANIELA ERICKSON Bonnie Mager, Vice -Chair CLERK OF THE BOARD By: Daniela Erickson Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE City Clerk By Date: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney {50165051; 1 } Page 14 of 16 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary of Transportation Date: WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By Date: CITY OF AIRWAY HTS., WASHINGTON By Date: SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY By Date: CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON By Date: By Date: CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON By Date: By Date: {50165051; f } Page 15 of 16 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON By Date: By By Date:: Date: (S©16505'.�; 1 ) Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Motion Consideration: Broadcasting Option GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Beginning in January, 2010, Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) paid Community Minded Television (CMTV) for the broadcast of council meetings. At the February 16, 2010 Council meeting, Staff brought three options for broadcasting to Council; 1) Continue with delayed broadcast only, 2) Broadcast meetings live, and 3) Do not broadcast at all. Council requested further information. On April 27, 2010, Staff presented broadcasting options in follow -up to previous request for additional details concerning broadcasting and the PEG (Public, Education, Government) funds associated with the broadcasting. The three options were: 1) Recorded, posted edited produce DVD, and delayed playback (similar to arrangement with SVBA), 2) Real time production and recording /delayed playback, and 3) Live Broadcast with recording and delayed playback. On June 8, 2010, Staff gave additional information on the PEG (Public, Education, Government) channels in our area and brought forth a Motion Consideration to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into and execute a month -to -month agreement with Community Minded Television for the broadcasting of city council meetings. The Motion was carried with a unanimous vote. Staff explained that the arrangement with CMTV could continue on a month -to -month basis for $3,000 per month, regardless of the number of monthly meetings; and at council direction after Council's retreat, other options could be pursued. Staff stated some of the retreat discussion would be how the budget relates to broadcasting, but exhaustive discussion would be at a later time. OPTIONS: 1) Move to continue the month -to -month contract with Community Minded Television, 2) consider other options as presented in the 4/27/2010 staff presentation, attached, or 3) direct Staff otherwise. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to continue the month -to -month agreement with Community Minded Television for the broadcasting of city council meetings. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $3,000 per month. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Broadcast Options Powerpoint presentation, 4/27/2010; Community Minded Television Contract AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Community Minded Television THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a code City of the State of Washington, hereinafter "City" and Community Minded Television, hereinafter "Consultant," jointly referred to as "parties." IN CONSIDERATION of the terms and conditions contained herein the parties agree as follows: I. Work to Be Performed The Consultant will provide all labor, services and material to satisfactorily complete the attached Exhibit A, Scope of Services. A. Administration The City Manager or designee shall administer and be the primary contact for Consultant. Prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall contact the City Manager or designee to review the Scope of Work, schedule and date of completion. Upon notice from the City Manager or designee, Consultant shall commence work, perform the requested tasks in the Scope of Work, stop work and promptly cure any failure in performance under this agreement. B. Representations The City has relied upon the qualifications of the Consultant in entering into this agreement. By execution of this agreement, Consultant represents it possesses the ability, skill and resources necessary to perform the work and is familiar with all current laws, rules and regulations which reasonably relate to the Scope of Work. No substitutions of agreed upon personnel shall be made without the written consent of the City. Consultant shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services and documents resulting therefrom, and City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. Consultant shall correct such deficiencies without additional compensation except to the extent such action is directly attributable to deficiencies in City furnished information. C. Modifications The City may modify this agreement and order changes in the work whenever necessary or advisable. The Consultant will accept modifications when ordered in writing by the City Manager or designee. Compensation for such modifications or changes shall be as mutually agreed between the parties. The Consultant shall make such revisions in the work as are necessary to correct errors or omissions appearing therein when required to do so by the City without additional compensation. 2. Term of Contract This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution and shall remain in effect until July 30, 2010, unless agreed in writing by the Parties to a longer term. Either party may terminate this agreement by ten days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination, the City shall pay the Consultant for all work previously authorized and satisfactorily performed prior to the termination date. 3. Compensation The City agrees to pay the Consultant $3,000 per month as full compensation for everything done under this agreement, and a pro -rata amount for less than full calendar months. 4. Payment The Consultant shall be paid monthly upon presentation of an invoice to the City. Applications for payment shall be sent to the City Clerk at the below stated address. Agreement for Professional Services Page 1 of 6 X10 -0C- 8 The City reserves the right to withhold payment under this agreement which is determined in the reasonable judgment of the City Manager or designee to be noncompliant with the Scope of Work, City Standards, City ordinances and federal or state standards. 5. Notice Notice shall be given in writing as follows: TO THE CITY TO THE CONSULTANT Name: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Name: Community- MindedTelevision Phone Number: (509)921 -1000 Phone Number: 209 -2651 Address: 11707 East Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Address: 25 West Main Avenue, Suite 436 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99201 6. Applicable Laws and Standards The parties, in the performance of this agreement, agree to comply with all applicable Federal, State, local laws, ordinances, and regulations. 7. Relationship of the Parties It is understood, agreed and declared that the Consultant shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the City, that the City is interested in only the results to be achieved, and that the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which the services are performed is solely within the discretion of the Consultant. Any and all employees who provide services to the City under this agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the Consultant. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all its employees under this agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. 8. Ownership of Documents All drawings, plans, specifications, and other related documents prepared by the Consultant under this agreement are and shall be the property of the City, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56 or other applicable public record laws. 9. Records The City or State Auditor or any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine during normal business hours all of the Consultant's records with respect to all matters covered in this contract. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls and record of matters covered by this contract for a period of three years from the date final payment is made hereunder. 10. Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. No Limitation. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non - owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. Agreement for Professional Services Page 2 of 6 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. f / ,J es ' 1 Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Mini ounts of Insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 ea currence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. t a siofla l bility insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self - insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Cancellation of Consultant's insurance shall be governed by either: a. the policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City, or b. the Consultant shall provide at least 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested of a cancellation. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. E. Evidence of Coverage. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this contract, the Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City at the time the Consultant returns the signed contract. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are additional insureds, and will include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested, Agreement for Professional Services Page 3 of 6 complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to the City. The Consultant shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self - insured retentions, and/or self - insurance. 11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the agreement. 12. Waiver No officer, employee, agent or other individual acting on behalf of either party has the power, right or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this agreement. No waiver in one instance shall be held to be waiver of any other subsequent breach ot nonperformance. All remedies afforded in this agreement or by law, shall be taken and construed as cumulative, and in addition to every other remedy provided herein or by law. Failure of either party to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this agreement or to require at any time performance by the other party of any provision hereof shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor shall it affect the validity of this agreement or any part thereof. 13. Assignment and Delegation Neither party shall assign, transfer or delegate any or all of the responsibilities of this agreement or the benefits received hereunder without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 14. Subcontracts Except as otherwise provided herein, the Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this agreement without obtaining prior written approval of the City. 15. Confidentiality Consultant may, from time to time, receive information which is deemed by the City to be confidential. Consultant shall not disclose such information without the express written consent of the City or upon order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. 16. Jurisdiction and Venue This agreement is entered into in Spokane County, Washington. Venue shall be in Spokane County, State of Washington. 17. Cost and Attorney's Fees In the event a lawsuit is brought with respect to this agreement, the prevailing party shall be awarded its costs and attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the Court as reasonable. Unless provided otherwise by statute, Consultant's attorney fees payable by the City shall not exceed the total sum amount paid under this agreement. 18. Entire Agreement This written agreement constitutes the entire and complete agreement between the parties and supercedes any prior oral or written agreements. This agreement may not be changed, modified or altered except in writing signed by the parties hereto. Agreement for Professional Services Page 4 of 6 19. Anti- kickback No officer or employee of the City, having the power or duty to perform an official act or action related to this agreement shall have or acquire any interest in this agreement, or have solicited, accepted or granted a present or future gift, favor, service or other thing of value from any person with an interest in this agreement. 20. Business Registration Prior to commencement of work under this agreement, Consultant shall register with the City as a business. 21. Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this agreement should be held to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this agreement. 22. Exhibits Exhibits attached and incorporated into this agreement are: 1. Scope of services 2. Insurance Certificates IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement this -l� day of „tom ) 2010. Agreement for Professional Services Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES DUTIES: The City of Spokane Valley City Council Meetings Production This production would include a small crew going to Spokane Valley City Council on a weekly basis to record, edit and air their City Council meetings. All post - production, musical score and graphics are included in the price. This price includes all production aspects of creating this product and includes formatting for broadcasts and internet streaming or download. City of Spokane Valley Responsibilities - Spokane Valley will assist CMTV with the audio setups each week. - Spokane Valley will give CMTV any necessary information for the creation of this product including rights to utilize logos and clearance for images utilized in presentations. - Spokane Valley will purchase and maintain two external hard drives to convey data to /from CMTV to Valley offices. CMTV Responsibilities - Coordinating Production and crew - Filming one evening per week in the Council chambers - Picture and Audio edit - Graphics & Compositing - Music Composition /Score - Duplication and Mastering for broadcast, DVD and Internet Deliverables - Each episode to be ready for delivery the following week - 2 DVD Copies for Archive and duplication. Agreement for Professional Services Page 6 of 6 For Community- Minded Enterprises HIP of Spokane County DBA: 25 W Main Ave, Ste 310 Spokane, WA 99201 -5090 509 -444 -3088 3usiness Owners Policy I I Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. I52SBAGG1641 104/16110 104/16/11 11,370.00 - lability Limits BI & PD Per Occurrence Limit BI & PD Aggregate Limit Medical Expense (Per Person) Limit Damage to Rented Premises Limit Hired Auto Limit Non -Owned Auto Limit Products /Comple Limit Personal and Ad Limit Commercial Umbr Limit Stopgap Limit Location 001 Building 001 Primary Location 25 W MAIN STREET STE 310 SPOKANE, WA 99201 Personal Property Amount Deductible 1000 Valuation RC Loss Payee: TOSHIBA AMERICI Loss Payee: US BANK NA Po B( Loss Payee: BANNER BANK Po Additional Coverages Location 001 Building 001 Class Code 65721 Additional Coverages Employee Dishonesty Limit Employee Dishonesty Ded 2,000,000 4,000,000 10,000 300,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 209,000 P.O. Box 3083 edar Rapids, IA 52406 :5308 Portland, OR 97228 lox 1589 Bothel , WA 98041 50,000 100 Council meeting Broadcasting options April 27,2010 Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Option 1— Recorded, Posted edited produce DVD and d • • • Channel Similar arrangement None Mon. 7:30 pm $30,000 / year 14 as SVBA Internet Hosted VOD • Granicus Example Hardware $3,050 After completion of DVD & uploaded to web, Replay anytime Hosting $9,+600 /year Total Cane -time Cost $3,050 Total Re- occurring $45,500 Option 2 —Real time production and recording /delayed pl aftly back Produce final product in real time Hardware required - $35,000 ( 5 year lifespan) Installation casts $5,000 Labor and time to air savings, no post editing, can replay immediately after meeting. ption 2 — Continued Channel 14 Internet Transfer file or DVD gone Hosted VOID * Granicus Installation Contingency Total One -time Cost Hardware $3,050 Available immediately after meeting Available immediately after meeting, replay anytime $5,000 Hardware $5,000 $24,000 / year Hosting * $9,000 /yea r Unlimited storage $7,000 / year $13,050 Total Re- occurring $40,600 Option 3 —Live Broadcast with recording and delayed playback Requires Fiber Head end build to Comcast - $15,000 Same hardware as Option 2 - $35,000 j I Channel Route signal to 14 them Hosted VOID • Granicus Fiber Head end Installation Contingency Total One-time None Hardware $3050 $15,000 Tues. 6prn — 9pm & maybe additional times Available immediately after meeting, replay anytime $5,000 Hardware $5,000 $28,050 Total Re-occurring $24,000 / year Hosting $9,600/year Unlimited storage $7,000/ year $40,600 Overview ■ Re- occurring Re- occurring Re- occurring $45,600 $40,600 $40,600 One -time cost One -time cost One -time cost $3,050 $13.,050 $28.,050 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: City Manager Selection Process GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: This is an opportunity for council to continue discussion concerning the remaining steps to take to complete the City Manager Selection Process. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide further direction to staff BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Towey ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: Potential Ballot Measure (One -Way vs. Two -Way Sprague) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70A, RCW 39.50 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion on this issue at the June 29 council meeting. BACKGROUND: This RCA will cover five areas related to the discussion on a potential ballot measure for the one -way versus two -way conversion of Sprague and Appleway Avenues: 1) Cost estimate to convert Sprague Avenue and Appleway Avenue between Argonne Road and University Road from one -way to two -way 2) Cost to develop an engineering level estimate to convert that portion of Sprague Avenue and Appleway Avenue from one -way to two -way between Thierman Road and Argonne Road 3) Overview of the federal funds available for the Sprague /Appleway corridor 4) What the ballot measure could include 5) Minutes from the previous council meetings in which the discussion was held, and a decision was made, on which portions of the Sprague /Appleway corridor would remain one -way, two -way, or converted from one -way to two -way. 1) COST ESTIMATE — SPRAGUE /APPLEWAY CONVERSION Public Works staff completed a planning level cost estimate to convert the existing one -way streets of Sprague and Appleway Avenues between Argonne Road to University Road, to two way streets. The total estimate is $1.34 million and includes the following issues and assumptions: ➢ All work to be completed between existing curbs; no widening or narrowing of roadway, additional lanes, parking or streetscape improvements as proposed and shown in the approved Sprague & Appleway Subarea Plan ➢ Includes ADA improvements to intersection curb ramps ➢ Includes design and construction inspection /administration work ➢ Traffic modeling to determine intersection level of service (LOS) with the proposed configuration has not been completed. The estimated cost for this effort is approximately $75,000 and would take an estimated 3 months to complete. ➢ Road resurfacing and stormwater system upgrade work not included ➢ Revisions to existing concrete driveway approaches to meet new ADA standards not included Since these roadways are 10+ years old and beginning to deteriorate, it would be prudent to consider resurfacing these roadways prior to making the striping and signal changes. Stormwater upgrades would also be advisable as was done last year on the Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project from University to Evergreen. The estimated cost of doing this resurfacing and stormwater work would be an additional $1.4 million ($2.7 million total for the conversion and resurfacing combined). 2) COST ESTIMATE FOR CONVERTING SPRAGUE /APPLEWAY - THIERMAN ROAD TO ARGONNE ROAD The estimated cost to develop a planning -level engineering cost estimate for the conversion of Sprague Avenue and Appleway Avenue from one -way to two -way between Thierman Road and Argonne Road is $150,000. This cost includes the following: ➢ The hiring of a traffic engineering consultant (no staff available for this effort) ➢ Work with SRTC and the new version of the regional traffic demand model to develop future traffic volumes for Sprague /Appleway conversions ➢ Coordinate with, and get approval from, WSDOT for any changes proposed at, and west of Thierman Road ➢ Synchro or VISSIM traffic modeling of all intersection's level of service (LOS) in this segment to ensure acceptable operations ➢ Developing planning -level engineering cost estimate 3) FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABILITY At the June 29 council meeting, staff briefly mentioned the availability of $4.2 million in federal funding for the Sprague /Appleway corridor. Additional clarification on the availability and use of these funds is provided below. ➢ $4.2M originally for the extension of Appleway Avenue east of University was approved by the SRTC Board in March, 2006. ➢ It may be possible to use these funds for other projects in the corridor provided: • A plan exists showing how all improvements within the Sprague /Appleway corridor fit together in the operation of the overall transportation network (currently the SARP provides this) • The federal environmental process (NEPA) on the extension of Appleway Ave is complete. This would include the development and approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) • FHWA approves of the project using these funds • SRTC Board approves the project using these funds • The project is included in the Regional MTP and TIP ➢ Federal funds currently are not available ➢ Without a new federal six -year Transportation Bill, it is unknown at this time how much federal funding will come to the Spokane Region and when. 4) BALLOT MEASURE - Following the June 29th City council meeting, staff suspended work on a draft ballot measure. However the work provided by bond counsel is provided as an example of a ballot measure. The actual language of a ballot measure would be determined by city council and formally adopted by ordinance. Attached is a copy of a sample ordinance which would authorize the issuance of bonds and approve the ballot language as well as other documents necessary to complete the bond offering. 5) PREVIOUS COUNCIL MINUTES — The City Clerk has researched past minutes and has provided the attached for council review. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Steve Worley ATTACHMENTS: Example Ballot Measure; Excerpts from Council Minutes; Exhibits of two - way conversion SAMPLE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, providing for a form of the ballot proposition and specifying certain other details concerning submission to the qualified electors of the city at a special election to be held therein on , for the issuance of its unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $ , or so much thereof as may be issued under the laws governing the indebtedness of cities, for the purpose of providing funds to construct improvements necessary to redirect traffic on portions of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue. ADOPTED: 1 2010 Prepared by: K &L GATES LLP SPOKANE, WASHINGTON SAMPLE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, providing for a form of the ballot proposition and specifying certain other details concerning submission to the qualified electors of the city at a special election to be held therein on for the issuance of its general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $ , or so much thereof as may be issued under the laws governing the indebtedness of cities, for the purpose of providing funds to construct improvements necessary to redirect traffic on portions of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City "), consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, Subarea Plan and the Growth Management Act, proposes to undertake the traffic redirection of a portion of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue through repaving, signalization, striping, curbing and signage installations and related improvements (the "Improvements "); and WHEREAS, in order to provide all or a part of the funds to enable the City to undertake the construction and equipping of the Improvements, it is deemed necessary and advisable that the City issue and sell its unlimited tax general obligation bonds to provide funds for such purposes in the principal amount of not to exceed $ (the "Bonds "); and WHEREAS, the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington provide that the question of whether or not such Bonds may be issued and sold for such purposes shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City for their ratification or rejection; SAMPLE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ORDAINS, as follows: Section 1. Findings This City Council (the "Council ") hereby finds and declares that the best interest of the residents and property owners of the City require the City to carry out the plans hereinafter provided at the time or times and in the order deemed most necessary and advisable by the Council. Section 2. Capital Improvements The City shall undertake the traffic redirection of a portion of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue, more specifically described as follows: All located on right of way presently owned by the City, through repaving, signalization, striping, curbing and signage installations and related improvements (the "Improvements "). The cost of all necessary architectural, engineering and other consulting services, inspection and testing, administrative and relocation expenses, site acquisition, on and off -site utilities, related improvements and other costs incurred in connection with the foregoing improvements shall be deemed a part of the costs of such Improvements. Such Improvements shall be complete with all necessary furniture, equipment and appurtenances. If available funds are sufficient from the proceeds of Bonds authorized for the above purposes, and state or local circumstances require, the City shall use such funds to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds, as the Council may determine. The City shall determine the application of available moneys so as to accomplish, as -2- SAMPLE nearly as may be, all of the Improvements. The City shall determine the exact extent and specifications for construction of structures or other improvements. If the Council shall determine that it has become impractical to accomplish any portion of the Improvements by reason of state or local circumstances, including changed conditions, incompatible development, or costs substantially in excess of those estimated, the City shall not be required to accomplish such portions of the Improvements and may apply the Bond proceeds or any portion thereof, to payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds, as the Council may determine. In the event that the proceeds of sale of the Bonds, plus any other moneys of the City legally available, are insufficient to accomplish all of the Improvements, the City shall use the available funds for paying the cost of those portions of the Improvements for which the Bonds were approved deemed by the Council most necessary and in the best interest of the City. Section 3 . Authorization of Bonds For the purpose of providing all or a part of the funds necessary to pay the cost of the Improvements described in Section 2 hereof and /or to reimburse the City for such costs to the extent that City funds have been used for such purpose, together with incidental costs and costs related to the sale and issuance of the Bonds, the City shall issue and sell its unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed $ . The balance of the cost of the Improvements shall be paid out of any money which the City now has or may later have on hand which are legally available for such purposes. None of said Bond proceeds shall be used for the replacement of equipment or for any other than a capital purpose relating to the Improvements. Such Bonds shall be issued in an SAMPLE amount not exceeding the amount approved by the qualified electors of the City as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington or exceeding the amount permitted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. Section 4 . Details of Bonds The Bonds provided for in Section 3 hereof shall be sold in such amounts and at such time or times as deemed necessary and advisable by this Council and as permitted by law, shall bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by law at the time the Bonds are sold, and shall mature in such amounts and at such times within a maximum term of not to exceed years from date of issue, but may mature at an earlier date or dates, as authorized by this Council and as provided by law. Said Bonds shall be general obligations of the City and, unless paid from other sources, both principal thereof and interest thereon shall be payable out of annual tax levies to be made upon all the taxable property within the City without limitation as to rate or amount and in excess of any constitutional or statutory tax limitations. The exact date, form, terms and maturities of said Bonds shall be as hereafter fixed by ordinance of the Council. After voter approval of the bond proposition and in anticipation of the issuance of such bonds, the City may issue short term obligations as authorized and provided by chapter 39.50 RCW. The proceeds of such bonds may be used to redeem and retire short term obligations or to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made for such Improvements. Section 5 . Bond Election It is hereby found and declared that the best interests of the City requires the submission to the qualified electors of the City of the proposition of whether the City shall issue the Bonds at a special election to be held on . The Spokane N SAMPLE County Auditor as ex officio supervisor of elections in Spokane County, Washington is hereby requested to call and conduct said special election to be held within the City on said date and to submit to the qualified electors of the City the proposition set forth below. The Clerk of the City is hereby authorized and directed to certify said proposition to said official in the following form PROPOSITION NO. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON APPLEWAY BOULEVARD /SPRAGUE AVENUE REDIRECTION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS - $ The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley approved a proposition for bonds. This proposition authorizes the City to construct improvements necessary to redirect traffic flow on a portion of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue on City right of way, more specifically described as , to issue $ of general obligation bonds maturing within a maximum term of years and to levy excess property taxes annually to repay such bonds, all as provided in Ordinance No. . Should this proposition be: APPROVED ? ❑ REJECTED ? ❑ The City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver a certified copy of this ordinance to the Spokane County Auditor. Section 6 . Severability In the event that any provision of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other provision of this ordinance or the Bonds, but they shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid provision had not been contained herein; provided, however, that any provision which shall for any reason be -5- SAMPLE held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted by law. Section 7 . Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law. APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof held the day of , 2010, after first reading of the Ordinance on , 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I on SAMPLE CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City "), and keeper of the records of the City Council (the "Council "), DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 1. That the attached Ordinance is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. of the City of Spokane Valley (herein called the "Ordinance "), duly approved at a regular meeting of the Council held on the day of , 2010. 2. That said meeting was duly convened and held in all respects in accordance with law, and to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of such meeting was given; that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting and a legally sufficient number of members of the Council voted in the proper manner for the passage of said Ordinance; that all other requirements and proceedings incident to the proper passage of said Ordinance have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed; and that I am authorized to execute this certificate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 20 City Clerk SAMPLE OFFICIAL BALLOT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON , 20 INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote in favor of the following proposition, place a cross (X) in the square opposite the word "APPROVED "; to vote against the following proposition, place a cross (X) in the square opposite the word "REJECTED." PROPOSITION NO. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON APPLEWAY BOULEVARD /SPRAGUE AVENUE REDIRECTION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS - $ The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley approved a proposition for bonds. This proposition authorizes the City to construct improvements necessary to redirect traffic flow on a portion of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue on City right of way, more specifically described as , to issue $ of general obligation bonds maturing within a maximum term of ten years and to levy excess property taxes annually to repay such bonds, all as provided in Ordinance No. . Should this proposition be: APPROVED? F1 REJECTED ? F1 SAMPLE OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR WHEREAS, the undersigned as the duly elected, qualified and acting Spokane County Auditor, has jurisdiction of and is required by law to conduct all special elections for cities within the County; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, lies entirely within the boundaries of the County; and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City by Ordinance adopted Ordinance No. a certified copy of which has been delivered to the undersigned, has found that the best interests of the City require the holding of a special election on ; and WHEREAS, said City by said Ordinance has authorized and directed the undersigned to assume jurisdiction of and conduct said special election within Spokane County; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby authorized and ordered as follows: The undersigned hereby assumes jurisdiction within Spokane County of the above - mentioned special election of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, authorized and ordered by Ordinance of its City Council adopted , 20, and will conduct said special election to be held on DATED at Spokane, Washington, this day of Spokane County Auditor Spokane County, Washington SAMPLE NOTICE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON , 20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on , 20, a special election will be held in the above -named city for the submission to the qualified electors of said city of the following proposition: PROPOSITION NO. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON APPLEWAY BOULEVARD /SPRAGUE AVENUE REDIRECTION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS - $ The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley approved a proposition for bonds. This proposition authorizes the City to construct improvements necessary to redirect traffic flow on a portion of Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue on City right of way, more specifically described as to issue $ of general obligation bonds maturing within a maximum term of ten years and to levy excess property taxes annually to repay such bonds, all as provided in Ordinance No. . Should this proposition be: APPROVED? F7 REJECTED ? F7 This election shall be conducted by mail -in ballot, with ballots mailed to the qualified electors of the City. Ballots will be mailed out to qualified electors on or about and must be post marked on or before to be counted. Spokane County Auditor Spokane County, Washington SP -2041 vl Exhibit: Argonne to Locust I %illU _ S - z O O I J C7 � Q I SPRAGUE ° - _ -- a _ -- Install new loops, new conduit and J bc—, rewire and configure Orte new sgnal pole. Remove one intersectl'on. New striping to incude signal pole. New loops, new atop bars, crosswalks, hatfic conduit and J -0oxes, a and P m confiuralntersects- Ne Aa a... New islands. Retrofit g p g fo irtdude top bars, aosswalha, markers truncate a nd d ee.lnstall bullnose - P tra %IC arrc �s. Newislands. Retrollt L markers antl delineators. N truncated domes. Install bullnose _ markers and delineffiors. . ,a I II ' APPLEWAY - -- - - - -- �\ 1 _ ________ _ �#7 ? P n ote Cut new ` - - -- yy.. One new signalp - - --- -- - - - - �p/ c loo s ime PCCP panels, new •- conduit and J- boxes, rewire and wi t configure rota —b'on. New striping \ fo include stop bars, crosswalks, traffic arrows. New island. Retrofit truncated domes. Install Wild— O markers and delineators. 2 SPRAGUE /APPLEWAY J Z Argarcna to Locust CY Exhibit: Balfour to University C) c APPLEWAY ---------------- 0 ------- --.— -------------- 0 ------------------- I ---------------------------- -- ---- — -------------- JIM. MEW ----------- 0 ---------------------- - ------- ---- -------------- -------------- g _ -° ------------------------ Ex lsen Island SPRAGUE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Two new sqnal R-ave pol Rve agnai jrO N- ?�ara, New trpag tb-,d,stop bar, araaaa aa,a'—, R&bftb,—W dbra'a deWreat— APPLEWAY ---------------- 0 ------- --.— -------------- 0 ------------------- I ---------------------------- -- ---- — -------------- JIM. Exhibit: Farr to Dartmouth •� A _rt � I� o � ro � f __ ------ o "o °e o o ® ® o ® m o Two g Ip I .move _ two sg Ipol V ca b i net. a mew loops Ir " I'l l r and J bo, d figure ',tors b N tnp' g to 4cl�de stop b walks, half, ' —s. N w,sbros. Retrofit f —fed domes Install bullrcose inarke, and del'—tors. �. Mims Two new signal poles. Remove o nve on s. New cabinet t. NewJ ce new conduit and New loops, es, dboses, rewire and configure intersection. NewsMpfng tofndude - slop bars, crosswalks, traffic arro ws. Newislands. Retrofit truncated domes. Install bullnose lookers and delmeaters. arrwt;ucr�frrucv ✓Hr 1 Farr to Dartmouthth 1 N ' =150' rz i Jr%s 7 o V iiiiiii � . Q F �R - F.^ VPY 74q LLJ _ t Remove fwo signal poles, remove cabinet and rundations. Retrofit huncated domes. (Does rcot;,duda improvements to DartnouthJ i Jr%s 7 Council meetings concerning the discussion of one-wa /two -wa option for Sprague Avenue: 1.2003,10 -07 Right -of -way and Cross Circulation between Appleway and Sprague 2. 2003, 11 -18 Right of way and Cross Circulation between Appleway and Sprague Discussion 3. 2004,01-15 Community Workshop: Three Land Scenarios 4. 2004, 09 -21 Question and Council discussion (paraphrased) 5. 2005, 11 -15 Pail of Council deliberation on Transportation Chapter of the Draft Comp Plan 6. 2005, 12 -13 Motion Consideration: Sprague Appleway Traffic Plow Corridor Configuration from University road to I- 90 (motion failed) 7. 2006, 03 -21 Motion Consideration: Authorizing City Manager to Negotiate Agreement for the Sprague Corridor, Sub- area Plan with ECDNorthwest, Freedman, Tung & Bottomley to assist in preparing a subarea plan. 8. 2006, 09 -14 Joint Meeting, Council and Planning Commission re SARP, Question and Answer Session with staff and Consultants 9. 2007, 03 -01 Special Joint Workshop Meeting with Council and Planning Commission, with Michael Freedman and others in attendance. Meting dedicated to discussing corridor revitalization framework. 10. 2007, 05 -29 Special Meeting: Sprague- Applcway Revitalization Plan 11. 2007,08-14 Special Meeting: Special meeting dedicated to SARP: City Center Retail Principles 12.2007, 10 -02 Special Meeting with Spokane County Library District Board. Presentation by Michael Freedman on Development of City Center and Library Site Plan Option 13.2008, 01 -12 Special Meeting; Council Retreat: Discussion of 2008 Council Budget Goals 14. 2008, 02 -19 Special Meeting: Council and Planning Commission, with Mr. Freedman presentation P:IC1erklCouncil meetings concerning the two- way.docx 15.2008, 06 -14 Discussion: City Center Initiative 16. 2008, 07 -22 Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Discussion /Deliberation 17.2008.08 -19 Public Hearing: Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Book III 18. 2008, 09 -09 Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Future Corridors Discussion 19.2008, 09 -23 Deliberation: Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan, Book II Development Regulations (with attached September 16, 2008 Cost Estimates for Sprague and Appleway) 2.0.2008, 10 -28 Deliberation: Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Book 11I, City Actions (Goal: Make decision concerning the one - way /hvo -way issue) 21.2009,01-06 Continued discussion of SARP and Mixed Use Avenue District zone; and other zones 22. 2009, 03 -03 Continued discussion of SARP 23. 2009, 05 -19 Addressing remaining concerns or comments of SARP 24. 2009,05-26 Discussion and comments on the First Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -012 Adopting Subarea Plan Book I and 11 25.2009, 06 -16 Discussion on Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -012 Adopting Subarea Plan 26.2009,10 -06 SARP/Road Project Funding Update P:1C1erklCouncil meetings concerning the two- way.docx know what staff feels Barker will be like in the future as he is uncomfortable with the designation for the urban property and would like a broader viewpoint when this comes on the next agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilweruber Flanigan to place this item on the next council ineeting agenda for formal consideration. Vote by Acclantation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: Notre. Abstentious: Norte. Motion carried It was the consensus of Council to bring these items forth on the October 28 council agenda as individual ordinances with opportunity for public comment but not to conduct a public hearing. 3. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Discussion. Community Development Director Marina Sukup, in her PowerPoint presentation, gave a brief overview of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and in her presentation, included the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the adopted Countywide Planning Policies, and an overview of relevant elements of the Interim flan. 4. Right -of -way and Cross Circulation between Appleway and Sprague. Public Works Director Neil Kersten explained that reasonable street connections are approximately 600 feet in distance, that some of the connections between Appleway and Sprague are between 1500 to 1800 feet in distance, and that there is no real existing right-of-way and the City would have to acquire right -of- way. Director Kcrsten also discussed a ring -road concept, which is a rather smooth road to easily enable getting around a facility without using city streets. Director Kersten noted staff has not talked to any property owners to gain opinions about where they would like certain cross connections, or how to fund such a project; that lie spoke with TIB and was told for them to consider participation, the streets would have to become arterials; Director Kersten said that he will work with WSDOT and TIB on these issues. Director Kersten added that other options include use of local funds, or LID projects where the local property owners participate in the project. Other items to consider which were briefly discussed, included the size of signs, foot traffic problems, distance between traffic signals, keeping the one way or changing back to two -way, and all the financial implications of each aspect. Director Kersten said that the TIB has approved phase two funding and is waiting for our decision on the couplet; that staff can examine the one - way versus the two -way option, examine cross - connections to get an estimate of costs, get estimates on signage, and start to analyze the project in terms of the comp plan. Discussion ensued regarding securing an economic impact statement, the various variables connected with such a statement, and that perhaps the economic departments at the universities could be of assistance. This item will be brought back to the next study session for further discussion including cost, funding options, property owners' interest, signs, foot traffic, access, and the economic impact study. Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8,00 p.m. 5. Proposed Resolution for Participation in Commission on Regional Wastewater Treatment Issues. Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell stated that members of the respective legislative governing bodies met over the past few months to determine the extent the various jurisdictions will be able, and are required to work together on regional wastewater treatment issues, and that although Spokane County adopted a similar resolution, that Council may approve a inember to the cornnittee by motion rather than by resolution. It was moved by Mayor DeVlemiug and seconded by Councilineinber Manson to appoint Councihnember Denenny as representative on the Governance Connnittee, After discussion concerning the goals of the committee, it was determined that cacti councilmeinber will consider items such as ownership and rate determination, and bring those ideas back for fitrther discussion at the next study session. Vote by 4cclaniaflon: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: Noire. Abstentions: Norge. Motion carried Study Session Minutes 10 -07 -03 Page 3 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 10 -14 -03 7. Right -of -Way and Cross Circulation between Appleway and Sprague Discussion._ Public Works Director Kersten discussed his November 18 memo to council. Discussion ensued regarding the accompanying roads report, and the large range of cost (3.5 to 6 million) to purchase the right -of -way on Appleway to west of Dishman -Mica. Director Kersten said preliminary estimates are needed from comparable projects, and on what an in -depth evaluation of converting back to two -way would cost. Other issues brought up from Mr. Kersten's PowerPoint presentation included the impact of additional lanes on traffic circulation (either one -way, two -way or a combination); impact on existing businesses; potential for development with current land use regulatory provisions; and how far to extend the couplet cast. Other considerations included 190 construction which would distort traffic patterns during the next three years; and new cast/west streets which might shift traffic away from Sprague; also that there appears to be more vacant undeveloped land west of University Road than east; that key intersections will need to be identified to establish where to focus efforts; who should perform an analysis, and if we should (or could) piggyback on other plaruwig studies. City Manager Mercier suggested that an economic analysis will only provide a slice of the data to use in making the overall decision to provide better traffic along corridors and generate economic development; and that rather than find the outcome of a study, Mr. Mercier prefers to define the criteria of the study first. Mayor DeVleming added that we also need to know what the community wants and what it will cost. Councilmcrnber Flanigan said that he feels some of these issues will be decided upon as we go through the GMA process, but before we decide to switch one way or not, we need to know traffic patterns projected for the neat 20 years. Councilmember Munson stated he feels Council and the Planning Commission should have another joint meeting to come rip with positive ideas and build questions to ensure the right questions are asked in order to develop the kind of plan which will carry the cornrnunity through the next 20 years; and that perhaps re- examine the time frame within which to accomplish these goals. Mr. Mercier recommended moving forward with a joint Council /Planning Commission session to sort through questions, and to provide concentrated effort on trying to define criteria we think would be valid for the basis of an economic analysis study. Mayor DeVlenring added that a timeline needs to be addressed as this process affects people's ability to sign leases and make other plans related to their locations. Councilmember Taylor stated lie feels conducting an economic analysis will not contribute significantly to this debate and that it will only postpone the decision to go forward; that he is opposed to further delays; likes the idea of a joint session with the Planning Commission, but feels we are no closer than we were before because we want some kind of study to show that the plan can go forward. Councilmember Taylor stated lie feels Council should make that decision. Council Meeting; 11 -18 -2003 Approved by Council; 11--25 -2003 NOTES SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL AND SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2004 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmenibers Staff Planning Commissioners Michael DeVleming, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Bill Gothniann, Chair Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr Ian Robertson, Vice -Chair Dick Denemry, Councilmember Marina Sukup, Comm. Dev, Dir. Fred BeauIac Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Mgr. Bob Blum Rich Munson, Councilmember Scott Kulita, Long Range Planner John Carroll Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director David Crosby Steve Taylor, Councilmember Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Mgr. Gail Kogle Torn Scholtens, Building Official Steve Worley, Senior Engineering for C1P Don Ramsey, Traffic Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Report on November 6, 2003 Council /Commission Meeting Deputy City Manager Regor gave a recap of the Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting of November 6, 2003, including the team exercise of identifying the top three strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and that the purpose of conducting such an analysis is that it provides a framework for community discussion and sets the stage for fixture work on the City's overall community vision. An additional theme mentioned during the Jan 15 meeting is to maintain safe communities. Draft Vision Statement Ms. Regor then focused attention on the approach to draft a vision statement. Suggestions for drafting such a statement included tying the vision statement in with the past, to draft in a group of less than 15, to be sure to seek public comment after corning up with a draft, and to form several groups then have the groups get together to compare notes. It was determined that anyone interested in being part of a sub - committee, should let Ms. Regor know of their interests; and that the sub - committees could also present suggestions on how best to deal with community involvement and a timeframe. Three Land Scenarios Community Development Director Sukup then went over leer PowerPoint presentation which addressed couplet issues; the three land use scenarios (modify existing conditions, centers & corridors, and city center emphasis); different views on one -way couplets (traffic engineer's view and planner's view); and options to consider to make the couplet functional. Meeting participants were divided into the following three groups: Table 1— Marina Sukup Table 2 — Scott Kuhta Table 3 — Greg McCormick Fred Beaulac Mike DeVlerning Bill Gothmami Ian Robertson Dave Crosby Dave Mercier John G. Carroll Gail Kogle Gary Schimmels Rich Munson Bob Blum Dick Denenny Diana Wilhite Steve Taylor Mike Flanigan The three separate groups discussed among themselves the various scenarios and which they preferred, and drafted or identified criteria which could be used in choosing the preferred scenario, some of which included; Page 1 of 2 l -/6 -;2 d7) % Table 1— Marina Sukut Need multiple centers w /specific focus Mixed use on north; industrial on south Maybe limited HDR — like assisted living Criteria: Couplet as access for industrial uses Direction of traffic flow not relevant Look at 2 -way from Argonne /Mullah East Land uses — centers & corridors with urban activity centers — modified scenario 3 Would look at possibility of gateways to 190 into community Appleway one -way east or two -way high speed on Appleway Convert the one way between University and Appleway to two way and keep one way after that Table 2 — Scott Kuhta Generally do not exclude or ignore key corridors — Pines, Sullivan, Trent, Evergreen Sub- centers already in existence Criteria: Traffic impacts Environmental impacts Economic possibilities Public Investment — what would it take or what would be required Design ascetics Safety issues -fire response tunes, traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, police Table 3 — Greg McCormick A city center probably of interest to entire group Public uses should be considered Mixed use between major nodes — intersections of Sprague & major arterials Mixed use surrounding with smaller more compact city center Make appropriate provisions for auto dealerships Criteria: Mixed -use zoning needed (versus single zone) Consider multiple centers by type Provide for employment opportunities Links to regional transit system Landscape, street- scape, ascetics Not all uses need to be pedestrian friendly Need high density residential. Group members then openly discussed their responses and voted for scenarios and criteria. Results of the voting will be a separate document. WRAP UP Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned it appears scenario 1 — the City Center with mixed use received the most votes. Ms. Regor also mentioned that the notes from this meeting will be transcribed and results will be returned to Council and Planning Commission members. It was also noted that follow -up from this meeting will be included on the February 3 agenda, at which time staff can discuss how best to get the public involved in the process, and will give timeline options and discuss future long range planning. The meeting ended at 5:00 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 are as those are the places where there is new net retail. To restore property values and vitality to corridors, land use and development and the design of the thoroughfare must be significantly restricted to reflect investor preferences and to respond to the real pattern of demand in the locality. To optimize the corridor's land values again and make it a highly visible and successful piece of the City, they suggest the following strategies: 1. significantly reduce the amt of land intended for commercial development along the corridor. 2. go with the marketplace: provide retail concentrations at major crossroads (in amounts that do not overwhelm market demand) in compact, walkable, lifestyle town center configurations. 3. corridor restructuring must be planned in relation to the envisioned pattern of retail in the City and in the region and the comprehensive plan is a major opportunity to plan the healthy co- existence of a pattern of commercial centers. 4. look for opportunities to redevelop grayfield malls no longer advantageously developed; promote the development of a town center at the U -City mall. Geographically, U -City is at the center, is at a crossroads and is ready to go. 5. modify land use and development policies to focus high quality residential, workplace and lodging investment like a mixed use grand boulevard, which will lend to a very successful retail work place, and have residential domination. As part of the comp plan, focus on land use decisions that consider transforming the most damaged segments away from retail, and redevelop them into housing, offices and residences which would all support a town center itself What form should the residential segments take? Single family homes, or zoned for higher densities like ruulti family, townhouses? Longer setbacks, larger masses; bigger planting strips; or multi- family that looks similar to large homes to fit in well with neighborhood, that all works well. We also need to figure out how to do that with the corridor, and to do that plus meet market demands for homes without the need for having large mansions. As resources allow, focus capital improvements on setting the stage for residential development in targeted segments where it is damaged, and use capital improvements to create green leafy developments to create what is desired in that area. 6. neighborhood serving retail and services should be planned in limited clusters at strategic locations (facing the corridors). 7. promote continued success of the specialist segments of auto sales and services; and cluster such specialized uses whenever possible. He recommends we bolster the area for the auto sales and build on the best of what's already there. 8. focus street innprovernent resources to reconfigure each segment to create environments that are supportive of the enhanced market focus of the desired forms of investment; that is; each segment's development types must be paired with the appropriate form of street design. We need to focus improvements on the gateway to create, identify and make highly visible the city's comrnitment to revitalization, we want to send a positive message and not a negative message. The hardest thing to do and most necessary is to re- envision the corridor as a series of segments with their own market areas of focus and different right-of-way treatments.. Design must match the needs of development for the area next door. Question and Council discussion (naranhrased): Councilruember Taylor: How do you sell this as a City center if it takes seven to ten minutes to get there from the nearest highway exit? Michael Freedman, the mall is made up entirely of national retailers which creates a certain kind of environment. The opportunity we have is to pick a local crossroads where land is available and which is geographically central to the town itself, and to create a different kind of place, not to compete with the mall but more of an anti -mall conglomeration with shared parking, walking orientated, cafes, town green, new town hall, a kind of place where the community gathers and where people go to lunch. We have to keep in mind that the life -style retail is the now the hottest thing; major investors want to be inside urban environments; lie looked at single family housing in this area and stated we should keep in mind that the Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 3 of 6 Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04 baby boomers are now moving out in greater numbers and want to live by cafes, bookstores, art galleries, and theatres. Terry Moore: you only need a small amount of multi - family residences; other areas generally show a 601144 split, and with that split we will only need less than five percent of the multifamily market into this type of unit. Michael Freedman: says in connection with transportation issues, it is essential to work with a good economic study and a good economist, so the community is not dreaming of an investment it can't get. He feels the land use pattern must be developed within realistic frameworks, but that there are limits; configuration of a roadway should be set to follow, serve and instigate what the market could deliver; we don't want people to cross five lanes of traffic, it would be better to have office or housing on one side so those people can be customers of the downtown uses on the other side. Tits Fueston: integrating transit depends on what people want; with greater densities we don't want a lot of Connecting roads and so transit doesn't Imake a lot of Sense, but with multi- family, transit does make sense. Michael Freedman: In response to Councilmember Denenny's question about not having overhead wires; this should be a prioritization issue; that up to a certain point it is not worth doing undergrounding because it's not just wires making the condition; and with the first five to ten million, you can get more for the buck to develop in ways to hide most wires; and later have it more of a priority to do undergrounding. Now undergrounding would be very expensive, usually newly incorporated cities should probably not do undergrounding because it would blow the whole pot. Additionally, suicide lanes are very dangerous and you don't get much from them. He found he could put in a narrow landscape rnediunn down the middle of the street, and steal 16' from the middle to get eight foot parking on both sides, and add parallel parking curbside. The dealership communities tell lure there is a segment of their customer base that buys cars on impulse so curbside parking would be advantageous.. Dave Mercier: where are the next most likely nodes along the corridor that could benefit from a similar approach? Michael Freedinari: said there are several options: if you divide the area into three- thirds, one seems to be a pretty strongly established commercial development in old - fashioned traditional forms in boxes, parking lots and big signs like up from Sullivan to the mall, and in the area of Sullivan to Pines. That is an area that can be improved because it is not flattering to business. The City can invest to improve signage, street improvements, or even have a business improvement district. On the other side are the auto sales and services. He suggests we try to find a way that the community can partner with them to make sure this is marketed as a growing and continued strong regional center to come buy a car. Terry Moore: said they have a legal requirement to get a plan done and a process is going that is part of the coinp plan, to make a decision of where do you want to start and where you want things to go; and it is not clear that the first investment should be the middle; that maybe working at the two ends to make sure auto and retail ends are right would be a better start, or maybe start with the gateway improvement to show this is the start of something big. Depuot Mayor Wilhite: asked about one way or two -way. Michael Freedman: said that the street design should serve the development; this site is a site already in ownership and has visibility on both sides; and the most important place to be is where someone does not have to go across traffic on the way home. Turning into two -way would be problematic, and the evening commuters would have to turn across traffic to get in. Thia Fuesion. having the couplet one or two ways is not the major issue as either way works. Part of the basic question is we need to decide what is the fiunetion; we inherited that structure with the intention of having it as a primary coinmute through this valley. The couplet one way or two or not is not the central question: we need to decide on land use and let the infrastructure support it. Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 4 of 6 Date Approved by Council: 09 -28.04 Mr. Worley also mentioned that there was discussion of the connection of Mission to Indiana Avenue west of Flora Road; and that there is a road right -of -way which has been negotiated with the owners of that property; a sewer line was previously put in with the property owners in inind so there is already a road right-of-way designated for that, although the road won't be built until the developer decides to develop that property. Mr. Worley added that there is also an abandoned railroad right -of -way adjacent to the Boone railroad right -of -way; all of the railroad riglrt- of-way west of Barker Road is incorporated into the railroad right-of-way; but east of Barker Road the railroad right -of -way is a separate parcel owned by Spokane County; and the Boone Road right -of -way is public right -of -way; so there is some discrepancy in terms of who owns what; and that the pedestrian bicycle plan that is being proposed, also looked at using that old railroad right -of -way as that path to get people in the Greenacres area to Flora and then onward north. Councilmember DeVleming asked for council consensus on making a stronger push with the County to get the right -of -way agreement for extending Appleway; and he brought up the continuing issue of Sprague and the portion that is one -way west of University, that some members of the community felt that issue remains undecided; and through public comments, lie has heard a clear statement needs to be made of what Council's intensions are concerning whether to reverse Sprague back to a two -way; that several businesses wait for Council decision before ordering signs, and other business - related activities dealing with the issue; and asked if Council feels more information is needed, or if a letter should be sent to the Valley Chamber advising them of council decision. Deputy Mayor Munson said it was agreed at last summer's retreat, that we would do an overlay study of Sprague and Appleway west of University to determine how best to move forward with re- development; and that overlay study might make the direction a moot issue as it would provide a plan that would most effectively use the corridor; and until the study is completed based on the necessary inventory, there is inadequate information at this point to make a recommendation. Councilmember Flanigan voiced his concern over how much time should lapse before a recommendation is made on that section; followed by Councilmember Taylor's comments that he would be amenable to scheduling discussion within the next few weeks. Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that the valley corridor update is scheduled for the December 13 council agenda, and that presentation of information should be of assistance to council in their decision - making process. Councilmember Taylor added that when the alternatives were presented last year, two alternatives were chosen as possibilities, and at that time, he feels the decision was made not to change Sprague west of University, back; and that the matter at debate now is whether to take the area on Sprague east of University and leave that as a two -way as Appleway is extended cast. Deputy Mayor Munson said he felt the plan was to make the roads fit the comprehensive plan, and not make the comprehensive plan fit the roads; which would be the affect if such decision were made now; that Council agreed to work a re- development area for auto row, and to hire a consultant next year to tell us the best way to do that. It was also suggested if possible, to move the study up to have it done sooner than currently scheduled. It was determined this will be discussed further at the December 13 council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation It ii as lnoved by Mayor Wilhite, seconded and unanhnously agreed upon to adjorrfn into Executive Session for approxinnately thirty ininutes regarding pending litigation; and that afteruvards zTon reconvening the meeting, a decision may be inade. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:41 p.m. Deputy Mayor Munson returned to the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and announced that the Executive Session would be extended for approximately 15 minutes. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session and reconvened the open meeting at 9:20 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that lie received on Thursday last week, a Motion from the City of Liberty Lake to remand to the Boundary Review Board, the denial of their previous petition for annexation of that 644 acres laying between the two cities. He explained that Council options are to Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 6. Motion Consideration: Sprague Appleway Traffic Flow Corridor Configuration from University Road to I90 - Neil Kersten/Steve Worley Engineer Worley stated that Council previously asked that this item be brought forward in anticipation of the previous agenda presentation, and that staff is available to help with Council's deliberation on the issue. Council /staff discussion included traffic counts underway, changing direction on Sprague between University and Dishman and any resulting impact on the corridor project; that staff has heard comments from the community suggesting staff evaluate alternatives in terms of Sprague Avenue, but that staff has not received any direction to do anything different from what is currently in place on Sprague; and projected peak -hour traffic numbers on various parts of the couplet. It u ironed by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Cou ncilinember Denenn); to change the direction of Sprague betimenn the north and south streets of l nh and Dishman Mien, to a lwo -wc4y street. That motion generated much discussion including the technical information concerning traffic patterns; auto row and the need for further information from them; the desire to have the study results before making any recommendations; funding needed if the direction were changed back to two -way; and if there is a need or community desire to address this issue now. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Philip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill: said lie represents Spokane Valley Business Association, that they have trouble with the traffic modeling and feels that information is necessary before any decision can be made; that lie recommends having the Comprehensive Plan finalized prior to making such decision; and lie recommends the motion be withdrawn and Council take no action now. Howard Herman, 117 N McDonald said that there is a public safety issue regarding Fire Station #1 and if the Fire Station receives a call to go north, cast or south they must first go west taking away precious response time. Tony Lazanis, E Empire said it was a mistake to begin with making Sprague a two -way; and that Council needs to make a decision of what is best for the people who use it and for businesses who use it; and suggests having the road two ways from Argonne to University. Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague said he owns a business in that area; and is a Board member of the Spokane Valley Business Association; that not everyone is in agreement, but suggests waiting another six months as it won't make any difference as they have waited for three years; that he wants to see what the study suggests; and recommends killing the motion and finishing the Comprehensive Plan. Ray Percy, 2020 N Eli stated he is not really affected by the road except when he wants to shop; and suggests Council throw out the motion and wait until the study is completed; and not to waste money but to leave the road as it is at least for now. Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 "' : recommends voting against the motion; said during his campaigning most comments lie received were concerning finishing the couplet, and that lie perhaps only received one comment to reverse the road. Deputy Mayor Munson stated his preference to withdraw the motion, but the seconder denied the withdraw request. Vote: by Acclamation: In Fai Deputy Mayor Munson. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, and Counncilmennbers Schimmels, Taylor, Detnennny, Flanigan and DeVlenrinng. Abstentions: Noire. Motion failed Council Meeting: 12 -13 -2005 Approved by Council: 1 -10 -2006 on the criteria as shown in the March 21, 2006 Request for Council Action, the panel decided to recommend ECONorthwest, which includes the local planning firm of Studio Cascade. After hearing from Glatting Jackson, a transportation and urban design firm from Florida, Mr. Kuhta reported that the panel felt that type of expertise was needed for this project in order to link urbatr design planning and transportation. Mr. Kuhta said that staff seeks authorization tonight from Council to begin those negotiations with the Freedman Tung Group and to include Glatting Jackson on that team; adding that ECONorth has no objection in substituting Glatting Jackson into the mix. Regarding the proposal bid, staff plans to negotiate the scope in an attempt to lower it to a comfortable level and to also get the best value from this project, as this project will be the development catalyst for the next 20 years. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned the March 21, 2006 letter received from Glatting Jackson. Council /staff discussion ensued including that ECONorthwest would be the controlling consultant with input from Gattling, the budgeted amount of $250,000 versus the proposal amounts; narrowing the scope to the original discussion rather than the broad project and /or phasing the project versus considering the whole corridor project; the upcoming discussion with Glatting and the need to address their objectivity regarding a one or two -way couplet; that a budget is a guideline and can be revised; and to integrate land use, transportation, and economics into this project to make it something the community can be proud of. Mr. Kulita clarified that ECONorthwest is agreeable to have Glatting Jackson do the transportation portion rather than the consultant they would have brought on board; and that the meeting Monday will include a re- scoping to determine Glatting Jackson's piece in this project. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylw and seconded to authorize the Department of Community Development to negotiate a contract with ECONorthwest, Freedman, Tung and Bottondey team to assist the City in preparing a subarea plan for the SpraguelAppleivay Corridor. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation. In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: Noire. Abstentions: Noire. Motion carried. 5. Presentation_ and Commentary:_ Update Sign Code Compliance — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup gave her PowerPoint presentation covering the history of the sign regulations ordinance, the ad hoc Sign Committee, the brochure distribution last August, and the compliance efforts, and stated that she anticipates it will take approximately five or six months to get through all the principal arterials in town; that the objective is to be consistent and fair in gaining compliance from community members. Council/staff discussion ensued, including reiterating that Council welcomes public input, that previous public rnectings were not well attended by members of the community; the difference between a sign and a decoration; regulating structures and not content; that the legal department is researching the issue of flags; exempt signs; garage sale signs; and real estate signs; and that the ordinance can be amended to further clarify any gray areas. Mayor Wilhitc invited public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: K Haase, 11003 E Sprague expressed concern about not being allowed to put up a sign on private property; lie stated he needs his reader boards to state his daily specials; that reader boards are economical, and people need them to advertise their business; that he objects to needing a permit to put up a sign on his own building or to put tip seasonal barriers; the law is unclear on what is a permanent sign and what is not; lie wondered who would be the judge if a sign is seasonal; and questioned giving a citation to someone for putting up an Irish flag, Kep Paulson, E 1220 Sprague said that many business owners have contacted him and are angry, that it appears we are still working on the sign ordinance so it should be rescinded until finalized; and that getting permits for the signagc is a lot of taxation. Council Meeting: 03 -21 -06 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -11 -06 closer to University frankly, than if you went through one of the interchanges farther east. From that direction you have perfect interchange access, there is nothing on the Freeway that says, City of Spokane Valley next 6 exits, this way to Spokane Valley, you have a right to this kind of signage and we suggest that we work very hard with the State to get this signage changed. The off ramp at Sprague Ave should say Downtown Spokane Valley exit, It is a bit more difficult coming from the east, you can take Sullivan or Pines, which would make Pines a better City Center site but it is not as viable and University is a pretty good site and it can be signed so that it works. • Commissioner Carroll: Where will the North/South Freeway terminate? It will terminate closer to Freya, will that add or detract from your recommendation? Freedman: I don't know enough about it and I would like to have the traffic consultant Glatting/Jackson get back to you with an answer for that at a later time. Councilmember DeVleming: Clearly the recommended site is a good one, what are some of its downsides? Freedman: Well, it does not have a University labeled interchange, as Sullivan and Pines do, it does not have quite enough north -south traffic, it has a confusing one- way /two- way traffic configuration, gas station on the corner, couplet is too far apart, University Road redirection is too confusing, market visibility is split, the grocery store is a good add, would recommend redesign of University to link better to the U -City site, would be good for everyone, designed the street so that the grocery store traffic would feed out right to the main street across the street, never get a grocery store to share a parking lot. • Commissioner Beaulac: What happens to the businesses on the north side of Sprague as the City Center develops? Freedman: Typically it would develop around and expand the City Center and the thought is it would expand there first. Eventually you could encounter so much growth around the city that you would need to redesign the sub -area plan. Councilmember Munson: The suggestion is that people will want to live and walk to work, at this time the City Center does not have an industry that would reasonably support that. Is there a place in the plan that would support that? Freedman: The suggestion would be that any place in the City Center that allows for housing you would allow for lodging or offices in order to allow for more uses to be incorporated into the upper levels of the Center. For example, female travelers will stay farther away from an airport, closer to the population in order to feel safer and not have to drive in order to fulfill the needs they have in their travels. City Center hotels are perfect examples of this type of development. Councilmember Schimmels: In relation to the housing issue, what is the general mix preferred, rentals or owners? Freedman: Both works, but ownership housing is preferred. Attached family housing is a good example, and there are many forms that attached single family housing can take on and still look like a single home, where you enter your own home from a street entrance and not from a joint entrance like an apartment. It is easier for developers to do rentals on top of retail, and wait to see if townhouses are selling before wanting to add it to their development, It is normal for developers to have to draw up special agreements with people to make sure that they understand it is not normal housing because there are different noises than in a residential neighborhood, street noise, smells, service trucks; will need to write special codes to cover the housing and mandate that the edifice of the building be flattering to the image of the City. • Councilmember Gothmann: You show on the plan a civic building, let's say that it is a City Hall and a library together, what would you do if you needed to expand those? Freedman: Currently the diagram shows the civic building to be 6SK sq ft. Currently City Hall is using 30K sq Council /Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes 09 -14 -06 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 10 -10 -06 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL AND SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CENTERPLACE GREAT ROOM March 1, 2007 5:00 p.m. Attendance; Cou ncilmembers Staff Planning Commissioners Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Gail Kogle, Chair Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr Fred Beaulac Rich Munson, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Marcia Sands Dick Denenny, Councilmerber Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner Jolm Carroll Mike DeVleming, Councilnember Mike Basinger, Associate Planner Ian Robertson Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Micki Harnois, Associate Planner David Crosby Bill Gothmann, Councilmember CaroIbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Bob Blum Tavis Schmidt, Planning Technician Marina Sukup, Community Dev Director Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Ken Thompson, Finance Director Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Others in attendance; Troy Russ, Michael Freedman, Bill Grimes Mayor Wilhite opened the meeting at approximately 5:14 p.m., welcomed everyone, and turned the meeting over to Michael Freedman, who also welcomed everyone to the meeting, and then went through his PowerPoint presentation of the "Corridor Revitalization Framework." Michael Freedman began by explaining that the objective of tonight's study session is to present recommendations to retrofit the SpraguefAppleway Corridor for success; to report on the input and feedback received at the Community Workshops; to discuss and clarify these recommendations; and to receive informal direction from City Council to either move forward with the implementation of these recommendations in a subarea plan; or move forward with the implementation of a modified set of plan contents; or to bring back further information and modifications in subsequent study sessions). Mr. Freedman explained that "corridor" means all new development defined by the single - family transition line, and it includes the land across the street. He said that the corridor has been caught in a change which resulted in a tremendous amount of clustered retail development; that customers left the corridor and moved to other freeway interchanges and major crossroad areas; and that such exodus was no one's fault. He said existing conditions drained a huge amount from the corridor and that the corridor suffers from disinvestment. The question Ire said, is how to bring it back and make it viable. He explained that one way to determine what the community would aspire to have, is through a community survey. He said the survey demonstrated overwhelming community consensus on the importance of a city center; respondents understand there is a lack of designated fields; and community members had several comments regarding Appleway's extension. As a result of several community workshops, he said they determined what were or are the barriers from the various aspects of the community; and what are those entities' or Individual's desirable changes, Including comment of what they do not want. Joint Meeting Council & Planning Conunission 03 -01 -07 Page] of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 He said they learned that potential developers of the corridor said it needs an identity, that we need a city center, and we also need affordable housing. Mr. Freedman then went over the listed opportunities such as underground parking; slowing the traffic flow; having a city design center, and the opportunity to create a city center with identity that will draw developers. He also mentioned what property owners' concerns are including barriers such as failure to extend Appleway; whether to keep the couplet the way it is or change it; and what they want in a city center such as getting rid of all vacant buildings. Mr. freedman said that regarding the state of the corridor, most workshop participants confirmed that the corridor needs revitalization, but a minority disagreed and said business is coming back and there is no need to make any change. He said that major community aspirations included beatification (the corridor is ugly and a detriment); economic revitalization; maintained mobility; enhanced access; and authentic and identify the corridor. Mr. Freedman went over the highlights of key community meetings and workshops and explained what works or doesn't work today, and said that two -way traffic provides better visibility and access and is generally better for business; and that one -way traffic accommodates through traffic. He continued by explaining that the one -way traffic transition is confusing, the turn around time is not good; business access and visibility is not good; and there are not enough north -south cross streets. Concerning fixture circulation results, Mr. Freedman said that in the workshop with fourteen tables of community members, only one table wanted to see one -way traffic; that thirteen wanted primarily two - way on both Sprague and Appleway; and of those, seven wanted two way oil the whole area, while six wanted some combination. He said they came up with a series of recommendations based on those workshops; that workshop participants envision Sprague with bike lanes, wider sidewalks and planter strips, more pedestrian friendly and to have more and safer crosswalks. Troy Russ then explained some of the existing conditions. By using select link analysis, Mr. Russ said they determined where people are coming from who are on the corridor; and that the goal is to make sure people can get through the entire corridor as fast as possible; that I -90 is a regional main street and Sprague is our main street. He also explained that of the 1,945 getting off onto Appleway during peak hours, only 80 are going completely through the corridor and getting out, and that is a very small percentage. Moving west bound, he said that of those 27,600 passing through, only 110 are actually corning to the end of Sprague; so therefore it is not the through street many think it is, but it is more of a "main" street. He said that morning rush hour on Sprague west bound at Mullan has about 553 vehicles; and Appleway during evening peak is about 1750; and that the level of service between Evergreen and McDonald is a "C" (on a grading scale of A -F); but some intersections are "D" which some cities consider acceptable. Mr. Russ fintlrer explained that the corridor circulation options to serve the land use vision of a city ccntcr include: no change; extend Appleway one -way or the whole corridor into a one- way couplet; or not complete the one -way couplet but convert Sprague to two -way and Appleway to two - way even when extended and at the two way street switch it to one way — so half two ways and half one way; or complete the conversion of the entire area from I -90 all the way down. He said that their conclusion is that the best transportation strategy is a one way couplet or two way and not a hybrid, and that their study showed that the difference in travel time was significant when a hybrid was involved. He added that this study is not today's traffic but is fixture traffic, about 20 years out. There was some discussion on Spokane Regional Transportation Commission's traffic model and the changes made over time; and it was mentioned that Mr. Russ's figures are the figures from the highest traffic model. Recommendations, stated Mr. Russ, are in the long run, building a two -way system is worth the additional 60 seconds delay; it will strengthen businesses along the entire corridor; eliminate uncertainty over the ultimate configuration of auto row. He then explained the five stages to implement the recommendations, and concluded that the two -way conversion done in phases means that (1) two -way Sprague to Argonne- Mullan can be done now; (2) two -way Sprague to 1 -90 and two -way Appleway to Thierman can be done now; and the (3) roundabout at I -90 won't be needed until after 2021. Joint Meeting Council & Planning Conunission 03 -01 -07 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 Councilnember Gothmamr brought up the survey done quite some time ago, wherein it was shown that 65% preferred the one -way. Mr. Gothmann said to change that perception there should be significant reasons for us to go against that; that it could be justified by direct access from both Appleway and Sprague, but he asked if putting the roundabout up front would that be more efficient. Mr. Russ said that the roundabout won't be needed until about 2030 and that perhaps Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) could be engaged to assist. Mr. Freeman added that surveys tend to be interpreted differently; when he came here he heard that 65% preferred the one -way; but answers can change based on how the questions were posed; and in the workshops, there was overwhelming response to two -way at this point, which tells him that at some point some large percentage of the community says things have changed since that older survey was done; that lie is not clear about what the survey said about any strong preference one way or the other; and it is highly unlikely that that large percentage would actually favor the one -way. Mr. Russ said that when this survey was conducted, there was no conversation about having a town center or city center, so lots of things have changed and the assumption going into this is different now. Discussion ensued regarding traffic issues, including mention that Pines has the worst intersection; brief discussion of one -way versus two ways; what to do first to get the most "bang for the buck'; timing issues; changing the number of lanes; the use of the corridor for through traffic; inultl -modal transportation which includes automobiles, bikes (bike lanes), pedestrians, light rail or other rapid transit; the desire to have an appealing city center; and the mention by Mr. Freedman that the businesses and city center would be better served by two -way streets. Mr. Freedman added that so far he has not heard anyone way they don't want this; and that they are hearing a level of comfort sufficient to suit than they are on the right path. Mayor Wilhite asked if there is a consens its to continue i th this; card several Councilmembers Prodded in agreement, and Deputy .Mayor Taylor voiced his agreement. Cowrcihnember DeHeming, however, stated that he feels this is a step backu , arils, brut he realizes lie is only one councilmember. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that it appears it is six to one in favor of continuing. Mayor Wilhite said we tivill therefore procee. She thanked Mr. Freedman and Mr. Russ for the presentation, and called for a recess at 6:51 p.m. She resumed the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Freeman continued the presentation by moving to land use development within the circulation of the corridor. He gave an overview of previous meetings where the city center core was discussed, including all that the core might entail such as mixed used buildings to include shop fronts, clear glass, a civic building; and housing facing the road. He then moved to the question of where to start to in order to allow growth to the area; and he discussed new development on Maui Street, the possible location at U -city; retail possibilities, and shorter walking distances. He explained the concept of using both sides of University in order to get equal entitlements and to have the core area not look too long, but have it so it invites walking; and that lie reconunends no on- surface parking. Things to consider, he explained, would include which types of colors and materials to use; streetseapes; improved infrastructure; building to the front; parking in the rear; and the concept of what the outside city center would be comprised of as opposed to the core; and lie said to keep in mind zoning by use and density; and to prohibit anything in the City Center that would not promote the center; and to also focus oil not having the area too congested. He mentioned the need to have good lighting and turn lanes, outdoor seating, and street parking off to the side of the road. He explained the concept of "neighborhood center retail: and defined "neighborhood centers" (community commercial) as serving retail and services featuring contiguous small scale shop fronts. He continued through the remainder of the slide presentation. Further discussionlcomnrents ensued and included how to pay for everything, business offices along the corridor, some on Appleway but most on Sprague; keeping and marketing auto row with other uses such Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 as restaurants; underground parking in the city core and whether the private sector would support that or the City would provide it; more green space; future light rail; and a "gateway" to the city. Mr. Freedman asked if is enough consensus to allow marketing of an auto row, but to keep in mind that the "gateway" entrance to the City would be different from the actual physical entrance of auto row. Councilmember Denenny said tonight's meeting gave him much to digest as Mr, Freedman consolidated all the information he's heard over the last several months; and that all along he agrees with the way Mr. Freedman has set up the city center. Regarding auto row, Councilmember Denenny said we are already seeing development in communities where they are drawing dealers away and if we do not react appropriately, we are likely going to lose that tax revenue. Councilmember Munson responded that he'd like to move forward but would like more detailed information about the cross streets at noithfsouth; and Deputy Mayor Taylor stated that he would agree with those comments, but if we move to a two -way system on the couplet, that would negate the need for mandatory through cross streets; that if you're sticking with one ways on the couplet, you have to have more tun streets; in this case you can just put in the additional blocks, and you'll still going have the two -way traffic on Sprague. Mr. Freedman asked if there is a enough level of comfort with the key ideas in terms of the land use development patterns they are recommending, to implement them in a series of detailed standards and guidelines in the sub -area plan, with a list of every one with the traffic patterns as well as bring it back in its usual form for the public hearing process through the Planning Commission. Mayor Wilhite asked for consensus, and Deputy Mayor Taylor responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Munson responded that there is still one sticking point, which is do we hire a consultant to look at the best way to buy the land or not buy the land; and would that delay the overall plan. Mr. Freedman responded that that will not change the plan; that we have to determine the desired outcome, because if we don't know what we want, we might as well forget it. He stated that the sub -area plan's main job is to entitle the property, but it doesn't tell where to entitle the property, or on which side of the street to build the city center. The plan makes its own provision, lie explained, so the sub -area plan allows you to get the plan incrementally or all at once; as long as you know you want it, the kind and place, you're ready to act; he recommended talking with property owners and ultimately pursue the property. Councilmember Munson said to Mayor Wilhite that lie feels we should move forward; and Mayor Wilhite and Deputy Mayor Taylor vocally concurred. Mayor Wilhite said that we like this concept absolutely. Mr. Freedman said he will work with the core team to draft a plan with all these parts for a hearing, and bring it back in roughly a couple of months. Mayor Wilhite agreed. Mayor Wilhite and council thanked Mr. Freedman and his assistants, and thanked everyone for attending. The meeting attended at approximately 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Diana Wilhite, Mayor Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 Engineer Worley then brought Council attention to Mr. Worley's May 25, 2007 Informational Meino as an aid to explain some of the transportation issues to consider in conjunction with this project. After going over his memorandum, further discussion was held concerning conversion of the existing one -way couplet between Argonne Road/Dishman -Mica Road and University Road to two, two -way streets; the extension of Appleway Avenue from University Road to beyond Sullivan as a two -lane, two -way residential boulevard; reducing Sprague Avenue from seven lanes to five lanes east of University Road and the timing of each aspect. Mr. Worley said that the request on the MTP is the entire corridor; and construction can be done in phases. Mr. Worley also mentioned that if Council desires to change the proposal as noted in the memorandum, staff would need that decision by June 15 to give SRTC time to do an air quality analysis on the proposal and have the results ready to be included in that Board's packets by July 2. The regional traffic model was also discussed, and Mr. Worley said that the transportation modeling for the Plan was based on the "interim" regional traffic model completed in Iate 2005. The issue of intersections and capacity was also discussed, as well as projected growth, bike lanes, sidewalks; speed limits to gain the highest number of traffic passing through and/or slowing traffic through the City Center; rapid transit or light rail potential; acquiring additional right -of -way on Appleway; whether there has been ample public input or if there is need for further public input, and if further public hearings should be scheduled, and if so, when those should take place. The idea of further presentations to Council was also brought up, and it was suggested that Council should have a list of the pros and cons of keeping the road as is, or reversing back to two -ways. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that if further public hearings will be field, he suggests educating the public prior to such hearings, to unveil the Plan and go out to the community to explain what it means; then schedule any public hearing. The motion made at the Council's previous meeting concerning the Spokane Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan, was discussed and there was some disagreement on what exactly that motion was. Staff will research that and have the answer by the next Council meeting. Mr. Worley recommended that Gladding Jackson perform another analysis, and as soon as we get the regional model, to give them the results, then they can go through and re- evaluate and comparc that to what we are recommending now; but that no scope has been developed for that work yet, but such could be done between now and time the model is received. Council concurred and said they want to know costs. Mayor Wilhite rcconrmend moving forward with the three bulleted items in the proposal for the MTP and the TIB while we wait to see how long it takes for SRTC to come up with the new model, and to have staff report back as to what progress has been made. 2. Executive Session: Pending Litigation — Land Acquisition It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session for forty minutes regarding pending litigation and land acquisition, and that there mcry be a decision made regarding land acquisition ul)on return to regular open session. Mayor Wilhite announced that Council will take a five- minute break prior to convening the Executive Session; and Council left open session at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session at 8:39 p.m. It was moi by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and zmanimously agreed to authorize the City Manager or designee to continue negotiations and make an offer to purchase for parkpurposes, property located at 17721 East Boone, Spokane Valley, as is set forth in the attached offer dated May 29, 2407,• subject to the approi of final documents by the City Council. Special Council Study Session Meeting May 29, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Approved by City Council: 06 -26 -07 DR.4FT also explained that whole foods and "green grocers" are very popular in city centers; and he mentioned the importance of having a vibrant grocery store where we are planning our center. Mr. Gibbs explained that the average American family carns about $42,000 per year per household; and that they like to save on shopping and most consider Penney's to be a moderately luxury store. He showed that the largest retailers in the Country are (in order of large to small): Wal -mart; Home Depot; Krogers; Target, Sears, Costco, Albertson's, and Permey's, Mr, Gibbs showed examples of cities which have built the town center with the right fi-amework of having walkable town centers, and added that hotels love to be in town centers, and rental housing above retail works well. He advised that we demand high standards, develop a plan, stick to it and resist compromises; and said that fiu resources for new urbanism include the "Congress for the New Urbanism," and the "Harvard School of Architecture." He also mentioned that a library can definitely be an anchor and can generate as much retail as a department store; and said to create a lifestyle center we need retail, housing, office and civic. During discussion, Councilmember Munson asked how do we attract enough retailers, and Mr. Gibbs said that he couldn't state how for certain, but that we have good retail here already, and that he feels we will be able to attract a lot to this new format, as this format doesn't exist in this region except downtown Spokane; and he feels it is highly likely we will attract restaurants and retailers who aren't here, or who are here and would like to open a duplicate store. Councilmember DeVleming asked Mr, Gibbs to explain where we are "over" or "tinder" in some retail categories; and Mr, Gibbs said that he did a very general study and can't say specifically, but that we seem to have more retail than most cities our size; but that we also have a large trade area of 80 to 100 miles; that we likely don't need a detailed market study, but could work with a private study group and have their brokers present possible tenants; as there are likely retailers out there we don't know about; that he knows of developers all over the country who would be interested in coming here; that many developers are ready to go, and once we have our planning finalized, he feels we will have a large number of interested people locally and nationally. In response to Councilmernbcr Gothmann's question of which works better, one -way or two -way streets, Mr. Gibbs said as a rule, two -way is better as it provides more people opportunity to go past a storefi and doesn't confuse or frustrate the shopper if they miss a turn for a store, having one -way could mean going around the block again — which in most cases the shopper will just go home. He stated there is no definitive answer, but the majority of the time, two -way is better, Councilmember Schimmels asked about the time frame from start to finish, and Mr. Gibbs said that it is possible to have an engineer plan and have a building built in twenty-four months; but that the threshold is acquiring the property and hazing it zoned properly, and having site plan approval from the City could add another two years to that timcframe; but some buildings can be built as quickly as nine months. Mayor Wilhite thanked Mr. Gibbs for his presentation, and thanked everyone for attending, and explained that council will take a short break then move to an Executive Session. It rtras rrroved by Deputy Taylor; seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for about thirty minutes to discuss a personnel matter; and that no decision u411 be made aftevit Council adjourned at 5:05 p.m. for a break, and then to convene their Executive session at approximately 5.30 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of executive session at 5 :50 p,m. It rt =as their moved by Cot ncihnernrber Gothrrrann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.rn, ATTEST: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Coturcil Study Session 4 pin meeting 08 -14 -07 Page 3 of 3 Approved by City Council: 08 -28 -2007 those needed 400 spaces; and with tuck -under town homes, lie said, there would be nothing on Appleway or Sprague that has a parking lot in front. Mr. Freedman then showed examples of other cities which have added a main street experience to a town green experience. He also explained that the goal is to have the area sufficiently self- enclosed so that the developer doesn't have to feel that the imagery of the corridor is particularly visible when you are actually inside the area, and the area would include mix uses with houses, office and lodging and housing on top, and a green on bottom. Regarding traffic control, Mr. Freedman said he feels it very important to have two, one -way streets, more narrow, to cut through the green to feel like a town green, controlled with stop signs which are safer than signal lights as people tend to rush through a Iight as it is about to change; but can't do so with a stop sign. Mr. Freedman also mentioned that in the earlier meeting today, there was discussion about the possibility of having the library have a front porch, and /or pull the library back some so that the library would not only feel as if it were behind some green on Appleway, but there would be an extension of the green or some plaza space in front of the building where they could program some library activities. Additionally, Mr. Freedman said it is still not determined if we can rely on two -way traffic; and that the highest priority for capital improvements for the city center, is to take the short segment from University to Dishman- Mica, and to change that to a two -way segment; and that he feels that we would still need the protected angle parking out front on the Sprague frontage to make that retailing successful; and in so doing, the city center in this site would further re -affirm the importance of this being a two -way segment. Discussion topics included parking for Iibrary patrons which would accommodate the safety of children, seniors and those with handicaps, including comment from Mr. Wirt that staff would park in the shared parking areas; the approximately quarter -mile walking distance from the buildings to shared parking areas; that there will be four cars per 1,00 for retail, and 400 separate spaces for the public buildings. Mr. Freedman said although they are on a "fast- track," there is time to do a new site plan if Council and Library Board Members prefer to see more than the 74 parking spaces close up to the building. Deputy Mayor Taylor and Councilmember DeVleming said they like this layout; but Councilmember DeVleming asked about the creation of covered walkways; and Mr. Freedman said covered sidewalks is possible in some areas, that it would cost more, but another consideration is arcaded retail, and explained that an arcadc is where the building is built over the sidewalk and you walk under; arcaded retail makes the retail a little less visible; and in his business of making city centers, there was thought that outdoor centers would not be more successful then indoor shopping malls in areas with cold weather; but a developer proved that to be wrong with his city center in Easton Ohio, which became a model, and we know that the urban format outdoor ones are more successful than shopping malls, even in areas with cold weather. Mr. Freedman also stressed that Councilmernbers and Library Board members are the best ones to make that judgment call, and if they feel covered walkways would make this more successful and be worth adding, Mr. Freedman said lie awaits that direction, although he personally does not feel those are needed. Regarding parking, Councilmernber Schimmels asked if the street in front of the library would be widened and put in diagonal parking, giving about three times the parking, to which Mr. Freedman responded that would be possible, but it would pull the library further away from the retail; but that is an option to change all the parking to angled; but it would also make the space to cross wider. In response to a question about trips generated by the library, Mr. Wirt said he recalls that in 2006, there were approximately 280,000 people who walked in the doors, give or take 10,000 or so; but that he could not estimate how many daily trips there are for the library. Library Board Member Mary Lloyd said that when she looks at Appleway Boulevard, she sees some sight issues that she also experiences at the Valley Mall; and that she can't see left to turn left; that she wants sufficient parking and she feels that 74 is not ample parking taking into account the daily trips and that they have already outgrown the library they currently occupy. Mr. Freedman explaincd that there are 200 separate spaces for the library; and that 74 of them are in one area, another 20 or so in another section, and the other 100+ in another section. Ms. Lloyd said she has concern in getting in and out of the Minutes Special Meeting Council/Library 10 -02 -07 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07 Goal #3: Formulate a sip: -year strategic financial plan by July 2008 drat forecasts expected revenues and expenses; incorporates the cost elements of departmental business plans; identifies fiscal constrains; and proposes formulas for Council consideration that institute sustainable budget- balancing approaches and itemizes necessary set-vice redactions or revenue increases or combinations thereof. There were no suggested changes for this goal and Finance Director Thompson said we need to begin to take action on this and lie will address this issue later today. Goal #4 : Initiate Implementation of the sub -area plan for the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. Community Development Director McClung said that the next steps are public meetings for February, including the Consultant's presentation of Book 3 for February 19, which will be to Council and the Planning Commission. Ms. McClung stated that a SEPA Determination has been issued on the City Center portion of the plan, and we should have estimates on infrastructure cost soon, Public Works Director Kersten said that lie and Gladding Jackson are working on those estimates, and should have some numbers within the next few weeks, but lie estimates the cost in the twelve to fourteen million dollar range, and said that costs will cover streets, underground water and power, sewer, and landscaping down that part of the Center; and that the City Center street by itself is about $3 million; lie added that the numbers will include frontages but not the actual upgrade of the whole streets or new interchanges. Mr. Kersten also stated that the library is obligated to build their half of the street, and that there are some minor streets which could be built by a developer. City Attorney Connelly remarked that the condition of purchase and sale is the road extending south to the library which has to be built, and there is no indication as to who or how that will be accomplished; that they have had contacts from at least one developer concerning the city, and are finally getting down to costs, and said lie anticipates the next nionth or two will be productive. Mr. Kersten stated that we don't have to use all $12 million to satisfy the library; and Mr. Connelly responded that we can start with the idea that the developer will build the streets. The issue of turning Sprague and Appleway back to two -ways was broached, and Mr. Kersten said that Glatting Jackson is working on that and should have some figures in the next few weeks and will consolidate that into another report. Mr. Kersten also mentioned we will have a list of all potential projects that it will take to have the City Center Project; and said some developers are interested who want to look at the project in the next few weeks, after which time Mr. Kersten said lie should know if those developers are genuinely interested. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that any developers meeting with Mr. Munson should include Mr. Denemiy as well, and lie (Mr. Connelly) sent Council a memo on what they can and cannot do regarding developer contact. There were no suggested changes for this goal. Goal S : Adopt area -wide rezoning proposals consistent with the comprehensive plan that reflect appropriate adjustments in zoning designations. Deputy City Manager Jackson stated that the just initiated quarterly updates for Council are in keeping with Council requests for opportunity for input into fixture Comp Plan changes. Ms. McClung explained that they are putting together a schedule for the next "batch" of comp plan change requests, which are from eleven individual property owners. In response to Mayor Munson's question about Council protocol on how to address conip plan changes, it was mentioned that Mr. McCormick will be giving Council a report on this at the next council meeting, and will subsequently give quarterly updates. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that this is in response to his and other Councilmembers' previous comments concerning giving input into the comp plan changes process; and Council Concurred that they do not need written documentation prior to discussion of these quarterly updates. There were no suggested changes for this goal. [See further discussion below for this goal.] Goal 6 .• Petform an analysis of a land owner initiated request for rnnrexation. Community Development Director McClung explained that this is the end of a process which begins with reaching consensus with the County regarding where the annexation boundaries are going to be; she said that a meeting is scheduled for February 6 as a "kick -off' meeting with us, Spokane County and others, and she said that the meeting notice explained that the Washington State Community and Economic Council Retreat Minutes: 01 -12 -2008 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 01 -22 -08 Mr, Russ said there isn't a single mode of attack and that the automobile and more pavement doesn't mean more efficiency. He explained that the object is to move people not cars, to try to improve the quality of the trip and maybe get people to live closer to where they work. He said that cities generally manage the problem by having more connection streets which gives more citizens more choices; and that having three two -lane streets carry traffic more efficiently then one six -lane highway as we lose efficiency when we, go larger than three lanes; that two two -lanes carry more than a four -lane; that speed also matters, and going faster than 30 -35 lends to result in more room between cars thereby allowing less cars on the roadway; and that higher speeds are also not compatible with pedestrians and bikes. In their analysis, he explained that they found that only a very small percentage (4 %) of all trips on the Sprague/Appleway Corridor are from people passing through (end to end on the corridor); and that all the rest of the travelers are local. Mr. Russ said that if trips are 96% local, that changes the land use concept perspective; that we want lower travel speeds , open access to properties and good connectivity. Mr. Russ in explaining trip purpose, said that 70% of all trips occur within three miles of an individual's home; that when we create a city center, transportation challenges must be addressed; that there will be a need to create a roadway that would enable a mixed use city center to strengthen businesses along the corridor and eliminate the confusion of the one way and create a safe environment for all modes of travel; that the purpose of the street is not just automobiles but pedestrians as well, He explained that the options before us are (1) keep what we have, (2) extend the one -way couplet from University east; (3) create the hybrid of a two -way system from Dishivan Mica east then two -way all the way east but one way west to 1 -90; and (4) do it all as a two -way street. Mr. Russ said that the options have been evaluated and they recommend the two -way system, even though the one -way is the fastest, but speed he explained, is not the utmost concern. Mr. Russ reminded everyone that this plan is taking into account the projected traffic volumes for the year 2030. [Mayor Munson arrived at 6:45 p.m,] Mr. Russ said that the rationale for their street configuration is as mentioned: it strengthens businesses along the corridor, eliminates conflicts and confusion, keeps the desirable level of service, and establishes a clean gateway to the City. To implement this plan, Mr. Russ explained that there are several stages. He explained that Stage One is $6 million to establish the transportation framework and enable the City Center which includes converting Sprague to two -way between Argonne and University and reducing Sprague from seven to five lanes between Argonne and University; and converting Appleway to a two -way street from Dishman -Mica to University; Stage Two is $14.3 million, and to strengthen the City Center and extend the network, they recommend extending Appleway from University to Evergreen, and convert Sprague to two -ways between University and Evergreen; State Three is $6.6 million to give the City Center an address and invest in auto row by converting Sprague to two -way between Argonne and I -90, and converting Appleway to two -ways from Thierman to Dislrmaii -Mica; Stage Four is $12.9 million to extend the network and continue to invest in Sprague by having Appleway as a three -lane street to Sullivan, and reducing Sprague from seven to five lanes between Evergreen and Sullivan; and that Stage Five is not included in this plan, to extend the network and continue to invest in Sprague; all for a grand project total of approximately $37 million, with approximately $19 million of that used for Appleway and its extension. At the conclusion of Mr. Russ' presentation, Mr. Kuhta mentioned that the entire subarea plan JOirlt Cornrcil,/Planniug Commission Meeting 02 -19 -08 Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08 Page 2 of 4 is up for review and will be the subject of an upcoming public hearing set for March 13, and that he encourages Council and Commissioners to contact staff with questions. Mayor Munson opened the floor for questions and discussion. Discussion included levels of service at various intersections; the one -way versus hvo -way options; where publichnass transit fits in; and of a perceived concern of downgrading sonic property from commercial to residential and the mention that there are over 1,000 individual pieces of property in question; and Commission Chair Robertson mentioned lie wants to ensure no property would be downgraded, Mayor Munson opened the floor for public Comments. 8. City Center Initiative — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that the added series of documents are good for fixture reading; and some of the funding sources mentioned in the handout, such as sales tax, won't be very significant for a city center. Attorney Connelly added that there are several separate incremental financial methods, such as a tax increment financing area (TIF) using regular property taxes generated by private new development, use of sales tax, or going through other legislative procedures such as Transportation Benefit District (TBD), or Local improvement District (LID). Mr. Thompson further explained that we would likely place this issue before the citizens to ask for some kind of funding; that the cost of a City Center including going back to two -way on Spraguc /Appleway, would be approximately $30 million; a parking structure is estimated at $10 million; that we are looking for some portion that would attract a developer and make people want to come to town; that $13 million would be in internal streets such as landscaping and open space such as a plaza. If such proposal would be placed on the ballot, Mr. Thompson explained, we could be asking for about 20¢ per $1,000 assessed value to handle the debt services, which would amount to an annual average increase of $40.00 per homeowner. Mr. Thompson reminded everyone that there are other city needs competing for that same property tax dollar, such as street maintenance, capital projects, parks projects, and a City Hall; and added that the County needs approximately seven to eleven week's notice to place an issue on a ballot. Discussion included the idea of waiting another year; concentrating on what funding we need for City Hall, which Mr. Kersten estimated to be $18 million; attracting a developer to develop the City Center; and having something in place prior to attracting a developer. Council concurred with Deputy Mayor Denenny's suggestion of concentrating on city hall, then go to the voters. Attorney Connelly added that negotiations are on -going for the purchase and sale, and he encouraged Council to look at all financing options, and mentioned that there might be some federal tax credits available which could be used to allure developers; but that most tax increment financing takes money from the city general funds from other years. The idea of grants was mentioned, and Mr. Mercier said our lobbyist did a five -year review of capital budget allocations made and only one city hall project received funding; adding that we are also examining the idea of leasing to own. Concerning a tramline, W. Mercier said the plan is to acquire the site and pay for it this year, and continue with city hall planning, then license staff to pursue a call for interest to firms willing to consider a construct lease -to -own proposition. The group stopped for lunch at 12:25 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 1 :15 p.m. 9. Law Enforcement Services — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier brought attention to the supplemental materials in the packet, and distributed a new sheet entitled: "LaNv Enforcement" Assessment of Issues and Items of Interest May 19, 2008." Mr. Mercier explained that as we do for all the County services we contract for, we asked for alternative analysis; and said that there was a wide range of conversation at the last January retreat concerning a performance analysis; and to examine options and look at data on how to approach that, we rely on the services of an external agent, and added that everything we've done with law since the beginning, has had political undertones; and that he would like to de- politify this issue; that ICMA (International City /County Management Association) has a consulting group which specializes in this particular type of review, which they have conducted with other cities; that the ICMA Public Safety Services team is led by Leonard Matarese, Director of Public Safety Services, ICMA Consulting Services, who visited us last April and met with the Sheriffs Office, our police Chief hick VanLeuven, dispatch, and Mr. Mercier to assess what information is available. Mr. Mercier said that he composed a list of issues an the handout, and asked that team to include the scope of services with these critical indicators; that this list was shared with Chief VatiLeuven to make sure the most critical indicates were included in the study. Mr. Mercier further explained that they composed a team of highly credentialed individuals to look at our situation; that the price tag for their participation is $1 10,000 for their basic consultant services, plus about $16,000 for non- overhead expenses, which is primarily travel; and he further explained that this group tried to set the ceiling of cost to equate to the cost of having one police officer on force for one year. The Scope of Retreat Minutes 6 -14 -08 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: 07 -08 -08 9. Draft Project List for TIB Grant Applications -- Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that this is our annual draft project list for the TIB Grant applications; and explained the projects oil the list, which include Indiana Avenue Extension, 3600 feet east of Sullivan to Flora; Mansfield Extension Houk to Mirabeau; Flora Road Improvements Sprague to Mission; and Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation and safety project, Evergreen to Sullivan. Mr. Worley said that this preliminary list of projects is being presented for Council comments or questions and to see if Council would like to move forward with these projects; adding that the applications are due August 29. It was agreed that this issue will come back to Council August 12 for approval of the final list. Mayor Munson called for a short recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 pan. 10. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta/Lori Barlow Prior to Mr. Kuhta's presentation, Mayor Munson reminded Council that tonight's agenda item is not an opportunity for deliberation, as that will occur after the public hearing, but is an opportunity for Council to ask questions. Mr. Kuhta explained that although the PowerPoint is not included in the packets, this is not new information and most comes directly from the Plan. Mr. Kuhta explained that the Planning Commission had no recommended changes to Book 1, which is why that was not included in the notebook; but that the entire Plan will ultimately be re- formatted into one document, and he extended thanks to Community Development Administrative Assistant Deanna Griffith for her diligence hi that regard. Mr. Kuhta explained that there is one proposed change to book 3, which is the street network phasing schedule. Mr. Kuhta brought Council's attention to the strike -out recommended changes in Book 2, which are the development regulations; he said that most changes are related to the city center regulations, and said that the Planning Commission spent a lot of tune on the applicability 20% rule in Section 2.0.1(a)(i), and said that originally it was 10 %, staff suggested 15 %, and the Planning Conunission recommended 20% based on public testimony that the 15% was too tight. Mayor Munson asked if the Chamber received the new plan, and Mr. Kuhta responded that yes, and that he met with them as well. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that the maps and photos are easier to view in the large Plan than in the notebook, as they were difficult to format; and said that information on how the district zone boundaries were created would be a good topic for Mr. Freedman at tomorrow's meeting, as well as how the building use chapter is organized. In response to the Mayor's question about not allowing used car sales, Mr. Kuhta said there are plenty of areas in the City where used cars sales can be regulated, and that topic can be further discussed after the public hearing. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that page 9A, 2. 1.1 City Center District zone regulations, shows the proposed changes in yellow. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that Council and staff will need to further address Book II concerning the street network rnap, and will need to have an entire discussion on signs to include plastic panels, electronic reader boards, etc, Mr. Kuhta said that in Book III, the Planting Commission is still recommending the two -way system, and there was a lot of generated discussion on phasing with auto row. Mayor Munson said that when Council gets into the deliberation of this Plan, that perhaps they should deal with the "hot button issues" first to ensure a logical flow of issues; and that Council will look to Mr. Kuhta to help organize the meeting. 11. Delegation of Authority — Police Emphasis Grants — Chief VanLeuven Mr. Mercier mentioned the prior study session presentation about the "Drive Nailed get Hammered" police emphasis grant and of the short turn - around tune; and in that regard, Council asked that we come back and describe other types of traffic safety related grants that could also come in with a very short turn around time, and thus this is a proposal to delegate authority to the City Manager or designee to sign future Memorandums of Understanding in order to facilitate meeting grant deadlines. Chief VanLeuven mentioned the current traffic grants include "X -52 DUI and Speeding Traffic Safety Emphasis; "State Route 27 "; and the "Nighttime seat belt enforcement." Chief VanLeuven said there are simply reimbursements of overtime funds to pay for these grants, and that it is critical to timely submit the paperwork to the Traffic Safety Commission. There was Council consent to place this on the August 12 consent agenda. Council Regular Meeting: 07 -22 -08 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Mayor Munson said there remains approximately thirty minutes before the scheduled 7:00 p.m. hearing; and mentioned that lie attended several meetings over the last month with the Association of Washington Cities, and he heard reports of many distressed cities throughout the state; and said Spokane Valley has always had a balanced budget, that we spend money wisely and plan ahead, and he thanked staff for developing workable budgets and for forward budget planning. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Munson reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and opened the ublic hearitig for Book III of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. Mayor Munson asked speakers to please speak slowly, and said that questions will not be answered tonight, but Council may ask for clarification if necessary; and that the public's questions will be answered as Council deliberates on this Plan; and said that everyone has the opportunity to provide written comments, and that a cut -off for submitting comments may be determined later tonight. 7 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Sprautte/Appleway Revitalization Plan Boole III— Scott Kuhta Mr. Kuhta said that tonight's focus is Book III: City Actions, which include the street center, street network and streetscape improvements; per Mr. Kuhta's August 19, 2008 Memorandum, he briefly explained about the City center section 3.1, and the list of strategies used to attract developers; that the City actions include recommendations on street network improvements, which includes the one- way /two- way issue, and desired transportation system; lie said there were intensive interactive workshops in 2006 on circulation and street design to gather ideas on the kinds of streets desired to match the city center concept; and concerning that workshop, Mr. Kuhta said that out of fourteen tables of individuals with a total of approximately 100 individuals, only one table wanted one -way; while the remainder wanted the two ways on both Sprague and Appleway. Mr. Kuhta explained about the recommendations to complete the two -way conversion of Appleway and Sprague and said that will help enable the city centcr and strengthen businesses along the Corridor as it establishes a clear gateway to the city, and that it would also eliminate confusion related to a one -way system, all while maintaining the desirable level of service, and that this is the concept for twenty years hence. Mr. Kuhta then briefly explained the various stages needed to accomplish this Plan. Mr. Kuhta said in response to Mayor Munson's question about finding, that we have to have a plan before we determine how to pay for this; and said that regarding the figures from Spokane Regional Transportation Commission, it is important to get the capacity figures at the intersections correct to ensure congestion is addressed, Mayor Munson invited public comment, emphasized that no decisions have been made on this plan, and reminded everyone that Council will continue to accept written comments. 1. Bill Berry, 16010 E Sprague said that the last time he spoke lie stated that he owns three commercial properties in what will be the new zoning and the new street situation; that in concentrating on the property at 16010 E Sprague, he said his three properties will end up in four different zones with this particular property having two zones; that currently is it community commercial which allows the business and improvements for additions to the current operation in the buildings, but under the proposal it would be the new lesser zoning, which will put the current structure in nonconformance; lie said on this property, there is a pre - located street shown going through the rear half of this property; the property is 565 feet deep, the road is proposed about the middle of that which is at the end of the current existing structures; he said he can't get answer from the Planning Department or from the City on two things: when or where will the prelocated street be placed; and he said dozens of other properties are facing similar pre - located street issues; as a hypothetical case, he said if lie were to bring in an acceptable permitted plan to build a house, a four -plex, a business office or whatever is allowed; and he spent the money and even put in the street that is shown as a pre - located street; how would he access whatever he would build; he said if he puts the street in there and Appleway is not done, even if this is some fifteen to twenty years out; will that property be held in abeyance and nothing done with it? Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -19 -08 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: 08 -26 -08 9. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization (SARP) — Scott Kuhta Senior Planner Kuhta informed Council we are continuing with Book 1, page 3 of 21 of the Planning Commission recommended draft. He reminded Council there were no changes to the Intent section. 1.4 Future Corridors: Mr, Kuhta said the primary focus of this section is to transform the corridor from a commercial strip to patterns of sections and segments. He explained the different market focus discussed in this section is the reason for differences in the types of retail going into commercial use and the different land use categories that translate into zoning. He said the City Center core is the most urban part, whereas City Center neighborhood areas are less intense in development. Councilmember Dempsey asked what the boundary for Auto Row is. Mr. Kuhta explained the boundary is from I -90 to Dishman Mica mainly between the Appleway right-of-way and the northern edge of Sprague. Councilmember Wilhite said the book indicates the boundary is the railroad overpass. Mr. Kuhta said they will clarify the language to say Dishman- Mica/Argonne. Councilmember Wilhite asked if on page 14 of 21 (actually page 9 of 21) they will leave the language regarding on- street parking and two way traffic along Sprague Avenue under the "Gateway Commercial Avenue" section. Mr. Kuhta said that will need to be decided by Council. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to delay the decision on two -way traffic until they discuss Boob 111. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that It will be important to monitor and update whatever plan they adopt as conditions change and that they establish criteria to measure the success of the document. Councilmember Wilhite said she is concerned with the word "limited" in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the Gateway Commercial Avenue section regarding signage. She said some auto dealers have requirements by the manufacturer for signage that may not coincide with what we allow in the code. She said we need to have flexibility in our sign code so businesses can meet their requirements and still do business in our community. Councilmember Gothmarur would like to take the word "limited" out and change "two -way" to "street ". There was consensus of Council to make those hvo changes. Mr. Kulita suggested the change read: "In this district, Sprague Avenue will provide on- street parking and easy access to all dealers and other businesses in the district. There was cousensus of Council to modify the language as Mr. Kirlrta suggested. Councilmember Dempsey said with regard to the City Center Core on page 5 of 21, she is concerned with °`continuous" in referring to ground level shops, cafes, and small restaurants because she doesn't think it fits the concept of Spokane Valley. She said she thinks a tight, enclosed City Center is counterproductive. Deputy Mayor Denenny said the intent is to make the core extremely walkable, with open public spaces and common spaces. Mr. Kuhta said the vision for Appleway is primarily residential and office boulevard with buildings that are smaller in scale. Dempsey asked if there will be a lot of pavement cuts for driveways or if property owners will access properties from the back side. Mr. Kuhta said it will be addressed in Book II, but the intent is to have access from side and rear access streets and limited access to Appleway. Councilmember Wilhite said she thinks it would be more conducive to have commercial or retail businesses on the north side of Appleway, which is the south side of Sprague, rather than residential because the back of those properties will be facing commercial properties. She also said that one of the things citizens like is there is not a lot of traffic coming out onto Appleway and there are not a lot of pavement cuts so traffic moves quickly. Her recollection was if they allow for residential properties we would not do many curb cuts on the south side of Appleway and she said she has concerns with the front doors of properties facing north and with how to blend residential uses in to the commercial uses. Mr. Kuhta said they address that in the plan with development standards and architectural guidelines and by creating a better pedestrian environment so you can transition from an office or retail to residential in one block. He directed Council to the example of page 13 of 21 showing how compatible uses co- exist. He also said he doesn't think we will see a lot of residential development between Sprague and Appleway in the near fiiturc because of Council Regular Meeting: 09 -09 -08 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 through Friday, 8:00 a,m. to 5:00 p.m. City Hall schedule. Deputy Mayor Denenny invited public comment, none were offered, Vote by Acclamation: In Favor Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions :. Norte. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deputy Mayor Denenny invited general public comment; no comments were offered. ADAUNISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Fee Resolution Discussion — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that there will be some proposed changes to the current fee resolution, a copy of which is included in council's packet; and that some changes will be changes to existing fees, some will include new fees; said that the organization of the fee resolution will be changed to make finding certain fees easier; and that a cost of living increase will be reflected on all fees; and said that most fees have not changed since 2003. There was brief mention of the need to recover direct costs, justifying a cost of living increase on fees, and of Council's desire to remain competitive and in line with other jurisdictions, such as Spokane City and Spokane County. 6. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Overview — Greg McCormick Planning Manager McCormick said we are preparing for the 2009 CDBG process; that the County will receive an estimated $1.5 million which will result in a 20% set aside for our City's capital projects; and mentioned the preliminary list of projects including full width paving with the Clement Sewer Project; various street projects to include ADA improvements; and a self- assessment study of ADA compliance.. Mr. McCormick added that although we have a set aside amount, we are still required to hold a public hearing and such is scheduled for October 14, 2008. As mentioned earlier, the County Committee will review these projects, and will review the City's projects as the set aside funds does not change that procedure; and also that the Committee has no authority to recommend allocations or approve the projects. DELIBERATION: 7. Sprague/Appleway u Revitalization Plan, Book H: Development Regulations — Scott Kuhta Prior to deliberation, Council decided to hold future deliberations much like those held for comp plan and UDC deliberations, by setting up the tables on the floor rather than sitting at the dais, thereby giving more room to spread out the documents to tackle this Plan in more of a workshop style. Senior Planner Kuuluta brought attention to the map which shows the entire proposed corridor, and mentioned there are extra copies on the counter for the public. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned the enclosed September 16, 2008 memorandum regarding cost estimates for Sprague and Appleway, and said this shows how that $42 million breaks down through the four stages, with the Stage 1 two -way conversion interscction enhancement total of approximately $5.3 million; Stage 2 extension of Appleway from University to Evergreen reducing Sprague from seven to five lanes at approximately $16.3 million; Stage 3 two -way conversion with curbs, sidewalks and landscaping at approximately $6.7 million; and Stage 4 the completion of the system by extending Appleway from Evergreen to Tschirley and converting Sprague frorn seven to five lanes between Sullivan and Evergreen, at approximately $13.5 million. Mr. Kuhta said that Stage 2 in terms of engineering and design, is what was proposed next when the County was working on that area. There was brief discussion of the Memorandum; mention that there are items specific to the City Center such as changes to sidewalks for pedestrians crossing Sprague and Appleway; and that $3.4 million of all the road enhancements include wider sidewalks, separated walking paths, street trees, landscaping, street lights, and general street scaping. Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned the Planning Commission Minority Report to reverse the streets in stage 3 and 4, and having nothing to do with Thierman to Argonne until Appleway is extended all the way to Sullivan. Mr. Kuhta then brought Council's attention Council Regular Meeting: 09 -23 -08 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08 S 11707 E Sprague Ave Sulte 106 # Spokane Vatley WA 99206 509.921.1000 i Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhaltospokanevatley.org. Memorandum To: City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager, Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Prom: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner CC: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Cost Estimates for Sprague and Appleway The total projected cost to convert Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard into a two -way system between 1 -90 and Sullivan Road, as recommended In Book III of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, Is about $42 million. The following table breaks this all - Inclusive estimate Into major categories. Two -way Appleway t_ane V Sidewalks, curbs - Total – Conver Extension Narrowin tandsc� qpl%L straetace e Sp rague $ 1.5 mil .... $500K $9. million' $11.4 million Appleway_ $1.4 milli $24 million - - - - _ .9 million $303 million T otal $2.9 m ill io n $24 million $50OK $14 millio $42.1 million Includes $600i< for City Center curb enhancements. _. _ —. The tables attached to this memo provide a detailed breakdown of the cost estimates per the recommended implementation stages as presented by Troy Buss of Glalting Jackson at the February ig, 2006, Joint City Councll/Planning Commission study session. A graphic depiction is presented for each stage, followed by a table showing projected costs. Please direct questions to either Scott Kuhla (688.0049) or Steve Worley (688. 0191). Si - AGE 'I 'I VVt) -WAY CONVERSION OF SPRA GUE; AND APPI.I WAY - DISHMAN- MICA/ARGONNE TO UNIVERSITY 1 � ! t E I R R t � --- 1 � I t I i 1 1 I I I STAGE 1 TWO-WAY INTERSECTION CONVERSION ENHANCCMENT Spraguo $611,400 X600,000 Apploway $653,687 0 Total $1,265,087 $600,000 "Includes multiuse path along the Appleway CURBS, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING AND MULTI - PATH' $1,757,016 $1,688,568 $3,445,584 TOTAL $2,968,416 $2,342,255 $5,310.671 STAGE 2; EXTEND APPLEWAY FROM UNIVERSITY TO EVERGREEN -- REDUCE SPRAGUE FROM 7 TO 6 LANES I 1 i E l I 1 EXTEND LANE NARROWING CURBS SIDEWALKS, STAGE 2 APP AND RCSTRIPING AND LANDSCAPING TOTAL Sprague 0 $369,360 $34217,708 '$3,587,068 Applvway $12,155,937' 0 $633,600 $12,789.637 Total $12,155,937 $369,360 $3,851,308 $16,376,605 ' Includes mulls -use path along Appleway STAGE 3: TWO -WAY CONVERSION OF AUTO ROW f f I � I .,,� ► �, f --1• . . STAGE 3 TWO -WAY CONVERSION CURBS, SIDEWALKS AND TOTAL LANDSCAPING Sprague 5858,1374 $2,512,032 $3,370,9D6 Aliploway $760,247 $2,60D,795 $3,361,042 Total $1,619,121 $5,112,827 $01,731,948 "Does not Include proposed 1 - 90 Ramp Extension. STAGE 4: COMPLETE THE SYSTEM — EXTEND APPLEWAY FROM EVERGREEN TO TSCHIRLEY, CONVERT SPRAGUE FROM 7 TO 6 LANE$ BETWEEN SULLIVAN AND EVERGREEN MUM NOW I I f 1 I I I f •�-• 1 �— I �— f f I I , �► I� 1 I k% I lA f I I f ► � f I STAGE h EXTENT) APPLEWAY' LANE NARROWING AND RESTRIPING CURB'S, SIDEWALKS A ND LANDSCAP TOTAL Sprague 0 $184,320 $1,699,204 $1,883,524 Appleway $11,651,471' 0 0 $11,651,471 T 3184,320 '$1,699,204 '$13,534,995 'Appleway Is extended to Tshlrley and Includes MUM -USa Fiam rianumg commission xecommenaea - S prague /Appleway District Zones Ma 1 7 1 � J ,�, _ I J _ i w! I r - 7 I ,_• 1 ' r � _ _ e � - -- ' , -^ _ III _` � t � ' _ _ '- 1 — W 1 I r J I I I.j ijs City of Spokane Valley - Official Zoning Ma j I v - , — - � ®��. __�I,.er�+1e _ �j iiiiiiiilE�� `��•� -' �?L- -1 .�_.� compared with Spokane County and the City of Spokane, and will also flag which fees have changed over the last five years; and will bring that information at the next iteration of this resolution. Regarding the cost of living increase, Deputy Mayor DenenYny said he would be willing to look at that increase on those items which have not changed over the last few years; Mayor Munson stated his preference to cover costs if fees are not meeting costs, but was not in favor of raising all fees. Mr. Thompson brought council attention to his PowerPoint where it shows the average fee increases in other cities, and that our departments which provide the services, in the last three years, our costs in those departments has increased 16% per year; so an overall 10% increase would still be prudent. Councilmember Taylor also stated his preference not to have a cost of living fee increase as these costs are examined annually; that each fee should be tested on its own merits; and as we move into a recession, he said now is not the time to have a general fee increase; and stated regarding the pre - application meeting fee, as the meeting is set to help streamline the process and ward off potential problems, that lie feels the mandatory meeting should not be accompanied by a fee. The Fire Code fees were also mentioned and Mr. Thompson explained that these figures, which represent a 10% increase to cover costs, are supplied by the Fire District; that the fees go to the fire district and the City receives a $35.00 fee each time a fee is charged as we handle the fee for the fire district. Councilmember Gothmatxn mentioned something to keep in mind is that rather than raise fees substantially in fixture years to catch up on rising costs, it might be better to initiate a small fee increase now instead of a more substantial fee later. 6. Universal Playground Site Recommendation —Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone went through his PowerPoint presentation, lie explained the purpose of a Universal Playground, explained about the stakeholder meetings, and as per the information on the October 28, 2008 Request for Council Action form, went over the pros and cons of the site options including site criteria; explained that the site options are: (1) located at the most southern end of Mirabeau site just south of the existing CenterPlace parking lot; (2) site of the original MasterPlan Location; and (3) on the north end of the site at Mirabeau. Meadows Park, adjacent to the restrooms, near the stage and parking area. Mr. Stone also said a survey needs to be initiated prior to winter, and the data needs to be available in order to complete the design and construction over the winter in order to stay on schedule and have the park constructed by fall. Based on feedback received, the design team determined that option 2 was not sufficient for the new Playground as it is narrow, has insufficient parking, areas of extreme grades, and is adjacent to a busy road; hence option two was removed as a potential site; and the final group consensus was to bring a recommendation of option 1 as the preferred site as it is adjacent to adequate parking, has a size which allows for expansion, can be done in phases, the location will complete and enhance the CcntcrPlacc landscaping, will be visible to attract users, and more observable for security, and will help market CenterPlace. After brief discussion, there was Council consensus to proceed with Option 1: the south side location. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m. DELIBERATION 7. Spra xg c/Applcway Revitalization Plan Book III, City Actions — Scott Kulnta Community Development Director McClung stated that she appreciates Council's discussions on ways to enhance Plan deliberation as staff has also pondered this issue; and that every session staff would like to begin with a brief written summary of what was accomplished and discussed during the previous deliberations; and said that she will take notes during the meetings so council can readily see the issues agreed upon, as well as those issues which need fiuther information or clarification. Ms. McClung said last time, Council discussed nonconforming issues; and at the next meeting where the Plan is discussed, staff will bring examples of applying nonconformance to specific properties as well as examples of what other cities do with nonconforming issues. Ms. McClung continued by explaining that tonight's goal is to make a decision concerning the one - way /two -way issue, and if such decision can be reached tonight, this Council Regular Meeting: 10 -28 -08 Page 9 of I I Approved by Council: 11 -18 -08 will give staff a tremendous advantage as they work to adjust the plan in accordance with whatever decision is made. Senior Planner Kulita went through a brief PowerPoint which reviewed the overall transportation policies in the comprehensive plan as he explained that the Subarea Plan must be consistent with the comprehensive plan; then he moved to the council approved Subarea Plan intent statements on transportation; he also mentioned the one revitalization strategy relative to the transportation issues, which is to "implement phased transportation, design street scape improvements to enhance (nobility and access for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and in keeping with city and regional growth, while simultaneously supporting the land use and development pattern necessary to the upgrading of properties as envisioned by the Subarea Plan." Mr. Kuhta went over the four alternatives for transportation along the corridor, projecting out to the year 2030, all as seen in the transportation analysis report prepared by Gladding Jackson, and added that the growth numbers do not take into consideration any increased percentage in ridership, adding further that the number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States dropped four billion miles in August of this year compared to August of last year; and that the options are: (1) the no- build, (2) fill, one -way couplet extension, (3) the hybrid where the road transitions from one -way to two -way at Dishman -Mica (or thereabouts); and (4) a full two -way cross street, which is the recommended system. Mr. Kulita further explained that the heaviest part of the commute would be from Thierman to Mullan, and he discussed the various levels of service based on the different options; and said that the hybrid option is one -way to Dishman -Mica, and somewhere along there, will be a transition to two -way, with the Thierman to Mullan remaining one -way. Mayor Munson said that the numbers discussed in locating city center, aren't the same as the numbers displayed tonight; and in looking at traffic flow on Appleway, we were figuring 1500 cars, which equates more toward the Appleway that precedes the City Center; and lie asked for clarification on the numbers. Public Works Director Kersten said that the numbers are trips that enter on the west side and move all the way through; in looking at the far side there are only twenty trips, so the 1940 trips that enter at 1 -90, only twenty of them go all the way through the system; but there are many more than twenty at the other site, so it does not account for all the other trips, and most trips don't go clear across the corridor but rather come up University, go down Sprague, head tip Pines, so they are intermittent trips that catch the system, and this does not display the amount of traffic on the sheets at one time, but is the amount of time that moves all the way through the system. Councilmember Wilhite said in relation to which option to choose, that she spoke with several auto row new car dealers, and Jeremko is both on the corner of Thiernian and Sprague and the owner indicated he has access from two areas and therefore has no objection to remaining one -way; that the owner of the Honda Dealership has no preference; but the one most landlocked is the Hyundai Dealer, and that his top choice would be one-way/two-way, but lie sees some advantages when the area is signified as an auto - row gateway, and if we were to come with a plan to help bring some attention to that area, lie thought it would be a benefit for him and lie would not strenuously object if the area remained one -way. Mr. Kulita concurred that was the same testimony given during the Planning Commission public hearings, and that the Hyundai owner said that one -way or two -way doesn't matter as it is a destination; and said he felt the plan was visionary, and if you like Sprague the way it is then don't do anything. Mr. Kulita stressed that of the total $42 million cost, $24 million is the Appleway Extension. There was also brief discussion concerning costs, including the possibility of acquiring state funds through grants. Mr. Worley also explained that concerning the lane changes, sidewalks and greenspace, the two -way option or the hybrid option include the narrowing of Sprague Avenue; so instead of the current seven lanes, the curb would be brought in towards the center to create five lanes; and the area between the existing curb and the new curb would be that Iandscape area estimated in the plan in terms of streetscape; and said that sidewalks will be larger; that the current sidewalks on Sprague are sub - standard, so any improvements would at least bring those sidewalks up to standard, which is a six -foot wide sidewalk; and said while there are bike lanes planned for Appleway, there are none for Sprague as we ran out of room in trying to keep the sidewalks Council Regular Meeting: I0 -28 -08 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -18 -08 and landscape on that section. Mr. Kuhta mentioned the plan is for east/west bike lanes oil both sides of Appleway; and sidewalk width is dependent upon which zone in which is rests. Mr. 'Worley also brought up about the corridor level of service, and if it included the intersection level of service; and that there are two ways of determining level of service: one is the intersection and how well it operates and how much delay there is in any direction at that intersection; and the corridor is from one end to the other, which includes the delay at every intersection. Mr. Worley added that concerning the idea that there is one -way all the way to Mullan, that the hybrid system on Sprague between Argonne and Mullan is a two -way street; and provides an opportunity for people coming south on Argonne to turn left onto Sprague and not have to go all the way to Appleway and then cross back over. Mayor Munson suggested, since we have no indication we will get access to Appleway, that issue should be addressed later; and he suggested moving forward with changing Sprague between Argonne and Sullivan to two -ways, but not do so until development starts at City Center; and keep the lanes at four ways because of the delay of getting Appleway completed, to have two lanes in cacti direction; so to work oil the section between Argonne and University and change that to two -ways, and have it in the plan so when development begins, the change can be made, and to keep Appleway in that same section four lanes total, with two lanes in each direction. Concerning specifically what is development at City Center, Mayor Munson said perhaps building city hall would be a start, but that would be something to be determined. Councilmember Taylor said that we will Finish this process with the zoning, and once it is enacted and development occurs within the particular zones, in terms of timing any change, it is a matter of as soon as the plan is adopted, we would be ready to move in that direction once the funding occurs. Deputy Mayor Denenny asked if we don't change those and people come in for development, how that would affect applications, and how would businesses decide egress and access. Mr. Kuhta said if you do the development prior to turning the roads, you would have to take into account where the fixture curbs would be and we would need to work with the businesses on the road design, curbs and sidewalks; and if the direction doesn't match, it would be troubling. Couticilmember Gothmann suggested that the hybrid model be the one to adopt as the twenty year plan for the City; and the number of lanes can be discussed later. There was Council consensus, with no Couneilmembers dissenting, to adopt Alternative Plan B — the Hybrid Model, and only address the two -way on the current couplet between Argonne and University. 1LN)FORMATION ONLY: The Spokane Valley Fire Department Quarterly Report and Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Couneffinenlber Wilhite, seconded and unanimously agreed to enter into Executive Session for an estimated thirty ininutes to discuss land acquisition, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:02 p.m. At 9:30 p.m. Community Development Director McClung announced that the Executive Session would be extended for an additional tell minutes. At 9:39 p.m., Mayor Munson declared Council out of Executive Session. It was then moved by Councilinember Wilhite, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Richard Munson, Mayor Council Regular Meeting: 10 -28 -08 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -18 -08 Mr. Kuhta said he would show some pictures tonight of the auto rosy area for further discussion, and said that staff has a definition for light industrial for council consideration. Mr. Kuhta said on the mixed used avenue districts, there were questions about outdoor storage and items for sale, and that will be discussed tonight as well. Concerning amusement parks, Mr. Kuhta said staff recommends defining that as outdoor recreation use, and recommends requiring a conditional use permit for that. Mr. Kuhta said this would not include parks, but there would be a list of what it would include, such as a water park, or more commercial type uses and not public park uses. Council concurred to make this a conditional use Mn Kuhta displayed pictures of the gateway commercial area, including diagrams which show the intended form of the district zone, such as in this zone, buildings can be set back as far as thirty feet, or be up to the lot; that there is a requirement for a minimum of 40% of the property to be covered by buildings within the setback; and Mr. Kulita said discussion for a fixture meeting would be if we want to propose a new cross section for Sprague and Appleway; and lie mentioned the previous decision on the one- way/two-section; and said he would be proposing a new cross section which would narrow the streets and allow on- street parking. Regarding meeting the minimum frontage requirement of 40 %, Mr. Kuhta explained that the owner could either do a boundary line adjustment or a binding site plan where they create a lot, or if there is a lot of land and the owner doesn't want to build a lot of buildings at once, staff would work with any property owner to have a phasing plan if needed; and he said that we can keep the 40% or it can be changed if Council feels that is too restrictive. Mr. Kulita said this was brought up due to a letter from Taylor Engineering on behalf ofAutoNation, recommending 25 %. This prompted discussion on what that percentage should be, with Councilmember Gothmann mentioning that the number should be beMccn 25 and 40, and lie suggested 30% as a compromise. Deputy Mayor Denemiy said there is substantially more than that on the Appleway property now; and Councilmember Taylor said their issue is they want to use the double frontage situation which is a unique situation, and he questioned if we want the Plan to address this unique situation or handle this through a boundary lot adjustment or other manner; and he said lie would like the percentage based on more than a mid- point. Councilmember Gothmatui said he feels 30% allows flexibility; which he said is the issue. Councilmember Wilhite asked if it could be written that if there are two major arterials on your land, it would be 40% and it could be split 20120; as if there were no major arterials on the side, it would be back to the 40 %. Mr. Kuhta said there is presently no minimum frontage coverage for any street except Sprague; and he would not recommend requiring a frontage coverage on those other streets at this point; but maintaining flexibility is inportant; and he said that the original recommendation was to create a two -way Sprague, and with that, we would get the traffic right off the freeway onto Sprague; so this was the gateway to the commercial area; and the idea was that people would want most of their business to front on Sprague because traffic could go either way on or off the freeway and onto Sprague, so requiring all the frontage oil Sprague isn't as important if there is the one -way. Councilmember Gothniann further suggested having the 40 %, and said that could either be obtained by 40% of Sprague, or add into that the percentage one would have on Appleway; so if there was 20% on Appleway, they would only need 20% on Sprague; and Mr. Kuhta said that would be difficult to administer and he would prefer to establish a minimum frontage requirement; and if Council wants, can establish such on the other streets as well. After further discussion on Taylor Engineer's letter, and how it might affect the desired overall look; likely resulting in many of the buildings remaining as they are, oriented north/south without much exposure to the street; there was some consensus with Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Dencnny, and Councilinembers Dempsey and Gothniann agreeing to the 30 %. Mr. Kuhta moved to the handout concerning the outside storage and display, and explained what is and is not allowed, with the front page showing what is allowed in our current code in the community commercial zone, corridor mixed use zone, and the regional commercial zone; lie explained that these regulations discuss what can be displayed for sale outside the building; and he explained that there is no provision currently in the community commercial zone for any permanent type of outdoor storage other Study Session Meeting Minutes: 1 -06 -2009 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 01 -27 -09 1. Sprague - Appleway Revitalization Plan -- Scott Kuhta Senior Planner Kulita explained that the hope is to finish tonight and then prepare for the April final public hearing. Mayor Munson added that there will be an opportunity after these discussions for staff to compile the findings with changes to the original draft; them publish that to give citizens the opportunity to review the plan and comment at the April public hearing. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that lie has more information on the street network system, and said lie would like to get council's ideas on the public hearing format; and said that the decision was made to put a place holder on any proposed changes to the street network and the strcetscape until some time after the Plan is completed, and said staff can work with the business and property owners in that area. Mr. Kulita explained that there are three proposed changes to the street network that will be part of the public hearing draft: Stage #1 stays the same: to convert Sprague and Appleway from Argonne/Mullan and University to two -way; and said he was reminded by Mr. Worley of the transportation analysis done last year to accommodate traffic over the next twenty years; that the Consultants came up with some conceptual intersection designs, and Mr. Kuhta showed the conceptual designs depicting the DislinianfMica and Appleway showing how Appleway would intersect with Dishman/Mica and Mullan Roads, and said there is room in the crass - section within the right -of -way to keep two lanes going cast - bound on Appleway; so even though there is sufficient capacity to do a three -lane section, we could do a four -lane section: two lanes eastbound, one west -bound with a center turn lane; and he said this would include the bike lanes; that we don't know exactly how much right -of -way will be needed and won't know that until we have the specific design. Mr. Kulita also showed the conceptual intersection design at Appleway and University; where there would be two Ianes coming in east - bound; there would be a right -hand tun and a left-hand turn onto University; with one lane going through; and he explained that section would be where Appleway does not exist today; and said there would be one lane in each direction for the travel lanes, then once you hit the intersections, the turn lanes would be there; and said this is all part of Stage 2 where we are extending Appleway from University to Evergreen as a three -lane section; and reduce the lanes on Sprague from seven to five lanes. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that the reason for the section of three -lanes is to accommodate the need for extra right of way along Appleway, and that in the next twenty years, the existing system and number of lanes will have ample capacity to handle the traffic; and said if we receive any federal fiinding for the extension of Appleway, staff believes ewe would need this as part of the plan to get development on those properties, and to do that, we would need to show reduction on the lanes in Sprague, as we won't get more funds for increased capacity where there is sufficient capacity. Reducing Sprague from seven to five lanes, Mr. Kuhta explained, accomplishes the goal of getting the traffic moved sufficiently while having wider sidewalks giving safer areas and easier pedestrian crossing while still allowing traffic to flow. Mayor Munson said that Mr. Kuhta mentioned last week, that the concept of transportation in this Plan is the concept of a place holder, until we know when the development will take place; and said that these drawings are conceptual ideas of what it could be; and Mr. Kuhta said that these are part of Book 3 City actions and are the actions that we intend to take as resources bccoine available; this is not dependent upon development, but if we get funds from grants or federal government or other sources, then we will implement these transportation improvements to help stimulate development and to assist with the revitalization of the corridor. Mr. Kuhta said that stage 3 extends this network east of Evergreen three lanes on Appleway and five lanes on Sprague; and that these are the three stages to include in the Plan for the public hearing; and said lie would like to include the intersection drawings in the white notebook, which represent the hybrid option Council has decided to put in the draft plan. Council concurired Mayor Munson asked councilmembers if they have comments on any of the Books. Councilmember Gotliniann said therc have been some citizens concerned about the one year dark rule; that is if a building is dark for one year; and the question arose, what happens if a building had a unique use; and he asked if that would that seriously disadvantage someone, like warehouses or restaurants. In Cotntcil Meeting .Alinutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 3 of 8 Appror by Council.• 03 -24 -09 6. Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan — Scott Kuhta Mayor Munson said that each councilmember is committed to do what is right, and for him doing what is right is the most difficult as it would be easy to go along with the most vocal components in the community; he said it is difficult to determine if those vocal people represent the majority of the community; that some of the people who have voiced their opinion in support of the plan represent a large number of businesses, and about 27 to 30 people have voiced their dissent; and that he strives to look at comments objectively without allowing rhetoric disbursed over time to influence his decision. Councilmember Gothmann said the easiest thing is to nothing; and he acknowledged that many people have had good ideas and he appreciates their help on this project. Councilmember Taylor added that we have a situation of a dying corridor with a lot of dis- investment, which will continue if Council doesn't try to provide a framework for that area to grow again and thrive; and said he feels it is Council's paramount duty to see to the revitalization of the business corridor, and lie thanked staff and the public for putting so much time and effort into this plan. As well, Councilmember Wilhite acknowledged the tremendous amount of work and the numerous revisions, and said she appreciates citizens who came to talk about their concerns and how Council's decisions impact their; that Council needs to know these things and said it is good to have that dialogue with the community. Senior Planner Kulnta explained that this Plan is a result of over three year's work, the final public hearing was held April 28 and final written testimony was received until 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 1; and tonight's purpose is to address any remaining or unresolved issues. After Council and staff discussion, and Council deliberation on such issues as signage standards, the one - way /two -way issues and relative public comments, corporate businesses including those in AutoRow, and businesses conforming to standards, and after breaking briefly from 7:20 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Council made the following determinations:. 1. Reference letter from Sean Lumsden about expanding the gateway commercial area, there was Council consensus (five in favor, two opposed) to grant the change to incorporate the gray area. 2. Allow Cottage Restaurant area to be commercial; and increase the dark blue area for an additional four blocks: Thierman to Coleman, south side of Appleway. 3. Staff will some back with suggestions for a different term for the "residential boulevard" designation as that term is misleading. 4. Increase the non- conforming period from one year to two. 5. Keep the 100% build -out, realizing Council can make changes later if needed. 6. By council Consensus (six in favor, one opposed) to remove the Lark Property from the Plan. 7. Winter Snow Removal -- Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that the County will not be assisting is un preparing an RFP (request for proposal) and therefore, we have selected HDR Engineering, Inc. from our Consultant Roster. Mr. Kersten said staff has the draft Letter of Interest (LOI) and HDR wants to review that prior to staff advetlising that later in May. Mr. Kersten also reported that the time required for this selection process will not allow for a long -term contractor for this winter, but this process could provide winter services for 2010/2011. As an option, Mr. Kersten explained, there is a possibility we could obtain surplus equipment from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and said staff and WSDOT are exploring that possibility; other equipment would also be needed, and Mr. Kersten said it is possible such could be rented. Mr. Kersten said other research included discussions with Waste Management regarding a site across from City Hall which has a three -bay maintenance building, fueling facility and small office which could be operational by this winter with minor upgrades. For manpower, Mr. Kersten said based on oui current contract with Poe, there is a possibility to bring on that crew and operate next winter, and Poe has indicated their interest in such a possibility. Mr. Mercier added that it is difficult to calculate the Council Meeting Minutes: 05 -19 -09 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09 the City's inception that this PIan is really Council's follow- through on what the community told Council they wanted; and that this is a major milestone for Spokane Valley; and said this permits a tremendous opportunity to put in a unique city /town center of which none exist throughout this entire region, and which will make us a standout community, and will let us achieve our own identity and accomplish some of the basic goals since the City's inception. Councilmember Taylor said the passage will result in an outstanding legacy for the entire community. In response to Mayor Munson's question about Mr. Grafo's request, Mr. Connelly said Mr. Grafos is requesting that the map be altered, and that would be a pant of ordinance 09 -013, and when that ordinance is considered, Council can direct staff to amend or modify that ordinance; and he said the zoning map would also have to be adjusted for the second reading. Councilmember Gothmann explained that when the City was incorporated, many citizens asked Council to do something about Sprague Avenue as vacancies were skyrocketing and values were plummeting; and council listened, then acted. In response to those citizens, he explained that Council engaged EcoNorthwest and they found that although we had 40 % of the commercial space, we had 60% of the vacancies. IN addition, we knew that some Sprague intersections were near failure and we had to address that problem, thus revitalization is essential to the City. In response, through 76 different meetings involving hundreds of citizens, the Sprague Appleway revitalization Plan was developed. Councilmember Gothmann said that some people said Council did not listen, but Councilmember Gothmann suggested the facts be examined: (1) Grafos, Inc had problems with both rezoning and designated streets provisions; Council removed the far eastern property from the Plan; (2) Lark Properties had problems with rezoning; and their property was removed from the Plan; (3) Walt's Mailing Service was concerned about rezoning the rear of their property which they use, and Council passed a provision permitting existing Appleway uses to continue; (4) Ruby Motors wanted to be included in the Auto Zone, and at Councilmember Dempsey's suggestion, Council moved the eastern border to Appleway; (6) Big Boys Auto Dealers were concerned about rezoning and all along those blocks, and at Councilmember Wilhite's suggestion, the plan would permit commercial along the four western blocks on the south side of Appleway; (7) Auto Row wanted land rezoned to accommodate a future recreation park and Council enlarged the Gateway Commercial area to accommodate this; (8) in response to public testimony, Council changed the plan to accommodate both businesses and commuters by making Sprague and Appleway one -way west of Argonne, and two -way east of Argonne; (9) Council permitted additional light industrial uses in both mixed use and gateway commercial zones; (10) the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce expressed reservations about the one -year non - conforming grandfather provision; and Council changed it to two years; (I t) Mr. Pring expressed concern about restricting retail elsewhere in City Center to core streets; and Council agrecd this can be changed if it becomes a problem; and (12) in response to public testimony, Council changed the minimum frontage requirements, the outside display and storage requirements, increased the acreage trigger for new streets, and prohibited billboards from the City center. Councilmember Gotlnnann said this is a plan that exchanges one set of zoning requirements for another, we are not putting in new zoning requirements as zoning requirements already exist; and that is designed to increase values and revitalize Sprague; and in developing the Plan, Council has listened and has responded to the hundreds of people in over 70 meetings who have provided suggestions and input to Council, and he said Council is grateful for such input. Deputy Mayor Denenny re- emphasized the number of documents he has gone through; the reviewing of materials, drafts, listening to comments, looking at the plan and drafts, talking to staff, reading e- mails, and spending time to get educated about the plan; he heard some public comment that many Courncilmembers are doing this for egos; but lie said he has seen no egos on this Council; and at the end of his term at the end of this year, he said he will carry many fond memories about the hard work of this Council, and said there is and has been no ego other then the desire to have an improved community which will be the envy of others around us, and something which will enhance the economy so his children and grandchildren can continue to have jobs and stay in this beautiful community; and he said he Council Regular Meeting; 05 -26 -2009 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09 First Amendment to the Motion It was inoved by Councilineniber Wilhite and seconded to inake the technical changes as outlined by ATr. Connelly our the sheet receiver. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council voted unaniniously by acclatation to amend cis noted. Second Amendment to the Motion It ivas proved by Councilneinbeir Wilhite and seconded to exclude froin the subarea plan, the property owned by M•. Grafos, also the property next to Mr. Grafos, the inusie school There was brief discussion on the issue of what would or would not be nonconforming, with mention from Mr. Kuhta that if kept under the Plan, the Grafos property would not be permitted so it would be a legal nonconforming use, and the music school would be a conforming use; and if excluded from the Plan the Grafos property would be a conforming use. Mayor Munson invited public comment no comments were offered. Councilmember Taylor said lie feels they should be kept in the Plan as it sets a bad precedence to take particular properties out of the Plan, thereby making it appear if someone doesn't like a particular use, even though they would be nonconforming and grandfathered in, they could be removed from the Plan because they asked. Other councili stated they felt it world not impact the overall plan to have the properties removed, with Mayor Munson adding that there is no access from the Fred Meyer property onto these two properties which makes fixture development difficult. Vote by Acclaination: In favor: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mcryor Denernry, and Coiuncilinernbers Schinunels, Gothinann, Dempsey, acid Wilhite. Opposer/.• Councilineinber Taylor. Abstentions: drone. Motion to aniend passed. Third Amendment to the Motion It was inoved by Deputy Mayor Denenrry and seconded to inipleinent the Plait October 1, 2009, which Deputy Mayor Denenny stated, would allow staff time to begin the implementation process properly, Mayor Munson invited public connment. Dr. Phillip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill said lie feels the sooner the better, and compared waiting here to a lag tune involved when the County was addressing billboards, which lag time seemed to allow a proliferation of billboards in the interim. After brief council discussion on the motion, and attention to a specific date rather than sixty or ninety days, Council voted unanimously by acclamation to amend cis noted. Editorial Changes Noted: Councilmember Gotli mann said lie was surprised to see that Book III was included, and Mr. Connelly said it contained some development regulations and part of Book III was referenced in Book II, and said it made sense to adopt as a cohesive unit. Councilmember Gothmamr mentioned that Appendix A to Book III, "Starting Point" page 1 of 5, and other areas where the text references "figures" that the figures and/or diagrams are missing. Mr. Kuhta said the figures, graphs and diagrams were in the original draft which was created with a program we don't have, and staff had to take the text out, convert it to Word, and then will use the figures in the original, so they will all be rc- inserted. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the last sentence on page 2 of 5 appears that something got dropped, and there are a few missing words in paragraph seven of the Iast page. Mr. Kuhta said lie will do some cutting and pasting to make sure the original text is represented as Council intends. Mr. Kuhta also summarized what is included in Book III, such as the intended city actions and what the city intends to do to help implement this Plan as funding becomes available; mention of fixture street networks, and one or two -way issues, fixture street cross - sections, how they look and fixnction; and said that these can change as conditions change and we will get a better idea when we start to improve the streets; adding that the only segment Council included in the fixture to change to a two -way system is between Dishnian Mica and University Road; and just to change the direction of travel, which includes signalization and stripping, is approximately $1.2 million; and said the frill street with new sidewalks increases to a total of about $5.3 million, and a lot of that is around the City center, but we will consider the cost when we get there. Council Meeting Miniutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 3. Motion Consideration: Spokane County Traffic Interlocal —Neil Kersten It was moved by Coin ieffinember Wilhite and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Spokane County Ti-affic Interlocal Agreement. Public Works Director Kersten said that the current Interlocal expires October 15, 2009; that this contract is for signs, signals and shipping, and ]re mentioned that the County crews do a great job; that their crew and our crew work well together; there have been no problems, and staff recommends council approve this contract, -which is a year -to -year contract with option to cancel, and he said the costs are for 2009 as the 2010 costs have not been calculated yet. Mayor Munson asked about the automatic renewal process and Mr. Kersten said it is as it has been in past years. There was some council/staff discussion concerning the priority for having an alternative plan, and while there was no disagreement on having an alternative plan, there was no council consensus to have such as a top priority. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. ©pposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 4. Residential Lighting — Greg McCormick Planning Manager McCormick stated that the lighting standards were included in the batch amendments in 2008; that it was removed from the batch and sent back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, which was held September 24; that at the conclusion of that hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the changes as noted in the attached material. Mr. McCormick went over the proposed changes which were to add a new section concerning design standards to apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones, and that all new development would be required to provide Iighting within parking lots, along pedestrian walk -ways and accessible routes of travel; that lighting fixtures would be limited to not greater than 24 feet in height for parking lots and not more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways; that all lighting would be shielded from producing off-site glare, either through exterior shields or optical design inside the fixtures, and would not emit light above 90 °; and that street lighting installed by the City of Spokane Valley or other public utilitics would be exempt from the regulations. Mr. McCormick said staff would also recommend modifying the last regulation to address investor owned utilities as being exempt as well. Discussion ensued regarding private streets which are not under the City's jurisdiction; that these new regulations would not be retroactive but only apply to new development moving for -yard from the effective date of any change; and that blinding lights are addressed in the nuisance code. Councilmembers said they -would like to see further research on residential light issues or on someone putting lights in their backyard, and how to address existing residential lighting problems; and Mr. McCormick said lie would have that information at the ordinance's first reading. 5. Continuity of Operations Plan Addendum — Mike Jackson Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that a few weeks ago Council adopted the Pandemic Response Plan, and pointed out that the plan did not include Council; and he said this is the addendum to that plan and if Council concurs, we can add this to the previously approved plan. Council concurred. 6. SARP/Road Project Funding Update — Neil Kersten/ Scott Kuhta Senior Planner Kuhta went over the material in his September 30 Memorandum to Council, and explained that the total $35.4 million is the total projected high level for all improvements and includes the two -way conversion. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that this information will be up on our website after tonight. Councilrnember Wilhite suggested including information indicating how far the Appleway Extension travels; and Mr. Kuhta indicated that it is included in the stages, and he will include that in the summary chart as well. Mr. Kersten added that these are estimated costs and have not yet been engineered. Mr. Kuhta also reminded everyone that these figures do not include anything for City Hall, and that anything associated with a City Hall would go to some kind of a bond vote if and when we get to that point. Mayor Munson said council would like periodic updates on these costs as more information becomes available. Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -06 -09 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -27 -09 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: _July 27, 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: Animal Shelter GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has contracted with Spokane County for animal control services since the City's inception. The current facility will require some costly upgrades in the next five years. Rather than spend money on a less than ideal facility, the County prefers to look at constructing a new facility that will fully meet the needs of the current users plus allow the City of Spokane to utilize these services as well. The City Manager asked that the Senior Administrative Analyst participate with the County and other jurisdictions to help determine the feasibility of constructing a new animal shelter. OPTIONS: Update only. Feedback welcome. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Operational impact is unknown. Capital impact would not affect the City budget if a ballot measure passes. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: White Paper PowerPoint S06I ,,;000IFVaIIey, Regional Anoirnal Control Facility July 27, 2010 Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst h' Ix11 Background Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) currently provides animal protection services for six jurisdictions, including Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane's current provider, Spokanimal, will discontinue providing services to Spokane. Spokane intends to utilize SCRAPS. The current facility cannot accommodate the City of Spokane. Officials from multiple jurisdictions toured the current facility on .June 1 1 and agreed to have staffs work together on a cost analysis. The resultant Finance Committee has met twice with another meeting scheduled for August 16. Facility Needs 6 acres including a dog park 42,000 square feet for facility with 22% for office /administrative function. Centrally located and visible, proximity to I- 90 preferred On a bus route Parking available Option 1 - Expand Current Facility Cost $7 -8 million for expansion $3 -5 million for upgrades to insulation, sewage /drainage system, and mechanical /electrical system (Required with or without expansion in next five years) Challenges Connection to sewer and extension of new water /fire line would require boring underneath train tracks Stopped trains often block access to shelter No public transit for customers and volunteers Road department will begin charging $50,000 rent for use of land. Site smaller than ideal size Expanded facility would be elongated and inefficient Option 2 - Purchase an Existing Structure Cost Unknown Challenges Building must go through extensive retrofitting Demolition of concrete floors to run new plumbing Waterproof interior walls Enhance mechanical systems Areas for animal exercise Proper zoning Option 3 - Purchase Land and build New Structure Cost $15 million including land acquisition, design, and construction. Challenges Acquiring alternative funding Preferred option #1 is a voter approved six -year property tax levy requiring 50% approval Preferred option #2 is avoter- approved 20 -year bond measure that requires 60% approval (greater financing cost) Criminal ,Justice Sales tax at .1 Operational savings used to fund capital Timeline Report to jurisdictions at end of summer, 2010 Anticipated ballot measure in fall of 2011 If ballot measure passes, facility complete in late 2013. Impact to Existing Interlocal Agreement An approved bond or levy measure would commit the City to a long -term agreement with the County. City costs would continue to be determined according to usage. SCRAPS anticipates economies of scale savings and lower utility costs. The total budget calculation, however, is still in progress. Next steps for SCRAPS Finance Committee Provide examples of existing buildings available for purchase that would meet the parameters of this project. Add revenues to the cost projections to determine the full costs, both operating and capital, of continuing with or without City of Spokane. Determine if any existing funds are available for capital improvements. Look at other business models for operating a regional facility. Spokane Regional Animal Control Proposal " White Paper" February 19, 2010 Q uestion: "Should the Spokane Region ask voters for funding to construct a new animal control facility to house a regional animal control program ?" Background: Washington State law requires jurisdictions to provide for the protection of its citizens from dangerous animals. Many jurisdictions have provided animal control beyond that minimum level for the purposes of public health, public safety, and animal welfare. Animal control in the Spokane Region is currently a segregated system involving the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS), Spokanimal Care, and the Spokane Humane Society. Some jurisdictions in the region, namely the City of Spokane, have historically contracted for animal control services with Spokanimal Care. SCRAPS currently provides animal control services to the unincorporated areas of Spokane County and by contract to the cities of Spokane Valley, Cheney, Liberty Lake, Millwood, and Fairchild Air Force Base. Other jurisdictions have either no animal control, or rely on their law enforcement agencies to step in when needed. This practice has been regarded as less cost effective in that it utilizes higher -cost, highly trained law enforcement officials and takes them away from other public safety purposes. Two years ago, Spokanimal Care notified local jurisdictions that it was changing its primary focus to become a no -kill, animal shelter and no longer wished to perform animal control functions. The Spokane Humane Society is strictly an adoption facility and does not perform animal control activities. Spokanimal Care has continued to provide animal control services during an interim period with an expectation that progress towards a long -term solution amongst jurisdictions is forthcoming. 4 Without a resolution, the City of Spokane, being the largest local jurisdiction, could ultimately be without an animal control program or a facility to house such a program. A regional solution is essential. When individual jurisdictions discontinue animal control options, those remaining (namely SCRAPS) will realize the burden of the entire community. People will expect SCRAPS to perform these functions, regardless of whether the people live within incorporated areas. SCRAPS will become the drop -off point for all stray animals in the region. Ultimately, SCRAPS would be placed in an unsustainable financial predicament. Therefore, an ongoing animal control program should have the participation of all jurisdictions. The Challenge: There have been ongoing discussions between jurisdictions about combining efforts into one animal control organization. Identified benefits include eliminating duplication of programs, reduced administrative overhead, consistency in local ordinances pertaining to animal control, consistency in how animal control activities would be administered, potential consistency in animal licensing, and more convenience to pet owners either looking for lost pets or wishing to adopt. A unified system could also increase the coordination and cooperation between animal welfare organizations within the region as the focus of each organization becomes better defined. Most jurisdictions have been agreeable to having SCRAPS perform regional animal control services by contract. The details of the "operational" agreements have generally been identified and agreed upon. The remaining obstacle to a regional animal control program is the physical structure needed to house the program. The Existing Structure /Site: The existing SCRAPS structure, located at 2521 N. Flora Road, was constructed in 1975. A much needed night time animal drop off, lobby, crematorium additions, and other minor facility upgrades have occurred since that date with the most recent occurring in 2001. The existing parcel size at 1.8 acres, its land - locked and isolated location and the existing elongated, rectangular building running parallel to the frontage road, presents many constraints to utilizing the existing site for a "regional facility ". The existing site is bounded by the railroad tracks on the north, Flora Road on the east, and the County's gravel pit on the west. Therefore, any addition to the facility would need to be made at the southern end of the structure thereby further elongating the structure and its internal circulation To address health concerns, the facility requires significant use of water for washing kennel areas, bathing animals, and washing of laundry. The use of water requires adequate drainage capacity as well as the use of building materials that will not deteriorate with the daily washing and cleaning of both interior and exterior kennels using water. The facility currently is not connected to the sewer system. Connection to the sewer system would require a lift station and the installation of piping underneath rail lines. Additionally, the closest sewer connection is approximately 1000 feet away. These elements will increase the cost and complexity of such a hook up. The operational efficiency of the building is what could be expected for a structure of this age. Insulation and mechanical systems have not been upgraded and therefore building operational efficiencies have not been experienced. The need for upgrades and renovations to both interior and exterior kennel walls, kennel sewage /drainage system, and mechanical /electrical systems are anticipated within the next five years at an approximate cost of $3 -5 million [See Attachments]. To accommodate the needs of a regional animal control program that would include the City of Spokane, the facility would need to more than double in size because of the increase in quantity of animals. This new addition, as well as significant upgrades to the existing facility and site, would be required to accommodate the additional animals, as well as the equipment, vehicles, and staff to maintain the animals and larger facility. This expansion would also require the extension of a new water /fire line and connection to the sanitary sewer system. The connection of both water and sewer will require permits for the tunneling under the existing railroad right -of -way. The SCRAPS facility is located on property owned by the Spokane County Road Department. While SCRAPS has not paid rent to the County Road Department in the past, a recent review has 2 determined that the County Road Fund must legally charge rent for the use of property. Otherwise the Road Fund would be unlawfully benefitting another fund. Therefore, the SCRAPS program will need to begin paying rent starting in 2011. Ramifications of adding on to the Exist Site: Should the City of Spokane join a Regional Animal Control Program, and assuming a new facility is not pursued, a substantial addition to the existing facility would be necessary. The site and building addition would be on south end of the current building, further elongating the structure. The cost of the addition has been estimated to be approximately $7 -8 million. However, connection costs to the water and sewer should be anticipated sooner and would be assessed proportionately. Some concerns have been raised about investing this much money into a structure (more than half the cost of a new facility) because of its operational inefficiency. Any new animal enclosures and kennels may end up at opposite ends of an elongated building and not allow for an efficient movement of people or animals through the facility. Other existing factors, including the small confined site, the site's isolated location, the age and condition of the existing building's systems and surfaces limit the expansion options at this site. In addition to the dollar amount of the addition and the water and sewer connection, the overall facility would still be in need of mechanical system upgrades and enhanced weatherization within just a few years. Those costs would be split among partner jurisdictions on a proportionate share and could potentially come from the general funds of each jurisdiction. Purchasiniz an Existing Structure Elsewh Policy makers should anticipate public inquiries into why a Regional Animal Control Program would not look first at purchasing an existing, vacant building considering the current state of the economy, and the apparent surplus of commercial buildings on the market. The most significant challenge would be the inclusion of necessary plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems infrastructure within the building, especially when considering the costs of retrofitting an existing building. Additional challenges include available site for grass /fenced -in areas for dog exercise and play areas and assure that the vacant building under consideration is properly zoned for an animal control type of use. Some jurisdictions within Spokane County limit, via zoning ordinances, where this type of facility can be located. Animal control facilities require extensive plumbing and mechanical systems. Plumbing to provide water for bathing animals, cleaning kennel areas and a kennel sewage drainage system are necessary. Mechanical systems must provide the proper air changes and air filtration to limit air borne diseases. The facilities also require numerous floor drains to accommodate the increased use of water. Finally, the interior areas of the building must utilize materials that will not mold or deteriorate due to daily interior water washing. Typical commercial buildings that are available have not been equipped with these specific building systems and amenities. Retrofitting, including the demolition of concrete floors to run new plumbing, and the changing or addition of materials used on interior walls to make them waterproof would most likely be an expensive existing building retrofit and therefore cost - prohibitive. The Advantaue of a New Facilitv to Ex isting SCRAPS Partners: Any capital improvements required to continue SCRAPS operations are a shared commitment on a proportionate share to all existing contract partner jurisdictions. The costs would come in the form of an assessment and jurisdictions would typically expect to pay those from their General Funds. If the Region does not pursue a new facility, two scenarios could emerge. Scenario #1 is that the City of Spokane pursues its own program. Scenario #2 would be for the City of Spokane to join the Regional program and pay only for an addition needed to accommodate the proportionate increase in operations at the facility (same as referenced above in "Ramifications of Adding On to the Existing Facility "). Scenario #1— City of Spokane pursues its own program: Under this scenario, the facility could continue its current operations. It would operate without the benefit of upgraded mechanical systems and other building structural efficiencies that could otherwise lower operational costs during the next 3 -5 years. Partner jurisdictions should anticipate an increase in operational costs during this same time period to cover rent now payable to the County Road Fund. In 3 -5 years, partner jurisdictions should anticipate an upgrade /remodel of the facility to replace the degrading building surfaces and aging mechanical systems. Connection to the water and sanitary sewer system may need to be considered at that time [See Attachments]. Scenario #2 —City of Spokane joins Regional Program at existing facility: The majority of items under this scenario would be identical to Scenario # 1. However, connection costs to the water and sanitary sewer should be anticipated sooner and would be assessed proportionately. The cost of the addition to accommodate the City of Spokane would be approximately $7 -8 million. Some concerns have been raised about investing this much money into a structure (more than half the cost of a new facility) that because of its configuration, may by operationally inefficient. Animal enclosures may end up at opposite ends of an elongated building and not allow for an efficient movement of people or animals through the facility. In addition to the dollar amount of the addition, the overall facility would still be in need of mechanical, electrical system and building surfaces upgrades and enhanced weatherization within just a few years. For current contract partner jurisdictions, it appears that additional capital costs are a matter of "when" rather than "if." The difference between remodeling the current facility and constructing a new one comes down to a few basic considerations: 1) Will future capital needs for this program come from an assessment to the General Fund of partner jurisdictions, or will it come from a voter - approved levy from citizens throughout the Region ?; 2) Do partner jurisdictions want to lower operational overhead through system upgrades more cost - effectively achieved in a new structure than the existing structure ?; and 11 3) Can the facility design of a new facility further control or enhance the program operational efficiencies over the existing facility? Potential Pronosal: The proposal is essentially this — "Should the citizens of the Spokane Region vote to construct a new Regional Animal Control Facility at an estimated cost of $14 million (not including the cost of property) [See Attachments]? It is presumed that this proposal would be presented to the Council of Governments, as well as to City Council members and Mayors from throughout the region. Ideally, a consensus could be reached as to whether local governments in this region wish to pursue this matter, and which option is preferable. Prior to deciding to place an item before voters, elected officials may want to measure public opinion about regional animal control and specifically, raising money for a regional animal control facility. There are organizations within the community that occasionally contract for polling to measure public opinion on a variety of issues. One of those organizations has agreed to sponsor a public opinion poll on this issue. Listed below are two options for consideration. The financial calculations assume a cost of $15 million and interest rates available as of 9/10/2009. Option #l: Regional Animal Control Facility paid for by a 6 -year levy. RCW 84.55.050 authorizes a voter approved 6 -year levy. Passage requires 50 percent + 1. The ballot proposal can be placed before the electorate only at the Primary or General Election. The levy rate necessary to raise $15 million would be approximately 7 cents per $1000 ($14 per year for a $200,000 home) for a six year time frame. Proceeds from the levy can be used for capital and M &O. There are supplanting limitations with regard to the use of the proceeds for M &O. t Option #2: Regional Animal Control Facility paid for by a 20 -year bond. RCW 84.52.056 authorizes a voter approved bond issue. Passage requires a 60 percent margin AND the total number of votes cast on the ballot proposition must constitute not less than 40 percent of the votes cast in the preceding General Election. The ballot proposition could be placed before the electorate at either a Special or General election or May election date. The levy rate necessary to raise $15 million payable over a 20 year time frame would be approximately 3 cents per $1000 ($6 per year for a $200,000 home). Proceeds from the bond can be used for capital costs only. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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 Goals for 2011 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: An opportunity for City Council to establish their goals for the 2011 Budget. City Council discussed the following 2010 Budget goals at the February Winter Retreat: • Continue monitoring wastewater issues including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharge licenses. • Implement records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city -wide implementation in 2010. • Revisit and Evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. of r»rkland adja eRt fn Oho R -Arles RpAd Rnnl • Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. Pursue state funding, Gf. -A ddgelm. G.R. StFat i G)R PR�eGt that GGRStF61GtS a G ha -An r�r� i- I -Ar. ru�pp 'iith "1 niipg hi1i1diHg" c4AnPIAri-Ic 'Ql..riGT ^P9T 7CCf1ZCTL7T'QS OPTIONS: Council can add to, delete, and /or modify the list of goals in order to establish the Council Goals for the 2011 Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Towey, Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 22, 2010; 10:00 a.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 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 Reading Proposed Ordinance, Panhandling — Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 3. Second Read Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amdmnt (Sprague /Appleway)— C.Janssen (15 mins) 1. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Re CTA 04 -10 — Mike Connelly (15 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Setting Prelim. Budget Hearings 9 -14 & 9 -28 — Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Interlocal — Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Estimates of 2010 & 2011 Revenue /Expenditures — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council re Public Mtg — S. Kuhta — (45 minutes) 9. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 10. Info Only: Wheel -Sport Helmets [estimated meeting: 130 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. Admin Report: City Transportation Benefit District — Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 7. 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 confirmation — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 4. First Read Proposed Ordinance CTA -05 -10 Code Text Amdint (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. Presentation of Preliminary Budget — Mike Jackson Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Aug 23] [estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Aug 30] (25 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) ['estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 8/17/2010 10:53:31 AM Page 1 of 3 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 Read Ordinance CTA -05 -10 Code Text Amdmnt (vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) — C. Janssen (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Accepting Shoreline Inventory Report — Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies — Ken Thompson (25 minutes) 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan) — Update to Council — Mike Basinger (30 minutes) [estimated meeting: 105 minutes] September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 13] 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)— Greg McConnick (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. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax Levy — Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation — Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 5. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd — Lori Barlow (45 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 90 minutes] October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Legislative Agenda Update — Mayor Towey October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 D.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 (A WC Regional Meeting, Spokane: October 13, 2010) 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 D.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 [due date Mon, Sept 27] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 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] Draft Advance Agenda 8117/2010 10:53:31 AM Page 2 of 3 November 16, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 8] 1. Advance Agenda 2. Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 [*estimated meeting: minutes] November 23, 2010 Thanksgiving Week (tentative, no meeting) 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. OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUESPN/ 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) Collaborative Planning Concurrency Contract Ordinance Amendment East Gateway Monument Structure 4 Industrial Pre - treatment Interlocal w /City of Spokane Jail Update Maint/Construction Inspector Mechanic Position Milwaukee Right -of -way ■ Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance Paving Options Planned Action Ordinance Public Records Policy (Ordinance) Amendments Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Sprague Avenue: One -way vs. two -way Street Maintenance Facility Street Superintendent Position Transportation Benefit District Interlocal [EETINGS: [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] Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education ■ = request for Council's early consideration 4 = Awaiting action by others * = doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 8/17/2010 10:53:31 AM Page 3 of 3 Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Date: July 16, 2010 Re June Finance Activity Report June highlights in Finance included: Financial reports Reports showing a comparison of actual revenues and expenditures at June 30, 2010, to the 2010 Budget, are attached. Gambling tax receipts are expected to have a large uncollectible portion, as casinos struggle to make ends meet. Investment earnings are likely to be less than projected in our 2010 budget as interest rates are down dramatically from prior years. Sales tax receipts are down 2% from 2009 collections which is the smallest decrease in a year and a half. Since we estimate our revenues conservatively (we always exceed our revenue estimates) and our expenditures are usually less than our estimates, moderate changes in revenues and expenditures have very little affect on our operations. This approach provides a smooth, "steady as you go" financial foundation for our operations. Beginning Fund Balance in the General Fund will be greater than our estimates. The investment report is also attached for your review. As mentioned previously, the Risk Management Fund Budget will need to be amended during the year as the cost of our insurance was greater ($35,000) than the amount budgeted. Other amendments may include the cost of broadcasting council meetings and the city's share of the collaborative planning grant. Both programs were approved at recent council meetings. Staff preparing 2009 financial records The State Auditor's Office has started the review of our 2009 financial records. They will be in and out of our office for several months as they work on area governmental audits. Other tasks +A small property tax reduction is being proposed in the 2011 budget. +The 2011 budget is being prepared for the City Manager's presentation to the Council. +Possible amendments to the 2010 budget are being reviewed for a formal amendment. General Fund Revenues: Begining Fund Balance Property Tax Sales Tax Gambling Tax Franchise Fees /Business Licenses State Shared Revenues Planning & Building Fees Fines and Forfeitures Recreation & Centerplace Fees Investment Interest Operating Transfers Total General Fund Revenues: General Fund Expenditures: Legislative Branch Executive & Legislative Support Public Safety Operations & Administrative Svcs Public Works Planning & Community Dev. Library Services Parks & Recreation General Government Total General Fund Expenditures: City of Spokane Valley General Fund Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended June 30, 2010 Adopted Budget June YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 19,375,000 20,818 19,375,000 $ - 100.00% 10,969,500 755,489 5,718,003 5,251,497 52.13% 16,600,000 1,252,377 6,554,171 10,045,829 39.48% 425,000 - 180,916 244,084 42.57% 1,100,000 7,009 289,643 810,357 26.33% 1,450,000 319,587 867,092 582,908 59.80% 1,649,786 107,071 801,054 848,732 48.56% 1,594,700 159,242 914,343 680,357 57.34% 740,000 61,740 353,413 386,587 47.76% 416,864 12,982 69,962 346,902 16.78% 220,000 - - 220,000 0.00% $ 54,540,859 2,675,497 35,123,597 $ 19,417,253 64.40% Adopted Budget June YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized 322,120 20,818 176,320 145,800 5414% 1,063,842 67,584 825,174 238,668 77.57% 22,062,268 1,589,869 9,543,972 92,518,296 4126% 1,892,382 125,899 741,872 1,150,510 39.20% 893,793 53,833 332,519 561,274 37.20% 3,552,450 234,691 1,457,886 2,094,564 41.04% - - 180 (180) 2,926,033 197,011 865,159 2,060,874 29.57% 21,627,963 105,307 799,669 21,028,274 3.66% $ 54,540,651 $ 2,395,011 $ 14,742,772 $ 39,798,079 27.03% 5 4 19 11 M 17 07/1612010 10:55AM City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the period ended June 30, 2010 Other Funds Revenues; Street Fund Trails and Paths Hotel /Motel Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Debt Service - LTGO 03 Capital Projects Fund Special Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Mirabeau Point Project Community Developmt Block Gmts Capital Grants Fund Barker Bridge Reconstruction Stormwater Mgmt Fund Equip. Rental 8 Replacement Risk Management Reserves: Centerplace Operating Service Level Stabilization Winter Weather Parks Capital Civic Buildings Total Other Funds Revenues: Other Funds Expenditures: Street Fund Trails and Paths HoteiiMotel Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Debt Service LTGO 03 Capital Projects Fund Special Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Mirabeau Point Project Community Developmt Block Gmts Capital Grants Fund Barker Bridge Reconstruction Stormwater Mgmt Fund Equip. Rental & Replacemnt Risk Management Reserves: Centerplace Operating Service Level Stabilization Winter Weather Parks Capital Civic Facilities Capital Total Other Funds Expenditures: Adopted Budget ,tune YTD Unrealized Percent 0.00% 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 7,399,050 $ 413,791 $ 2,050,625 5,348,425 27.71% 7 8,000 5 27 7,973 0.34% 3 400,000 34,738 144,959 255,041 36.24% 1,240,000 283 1,004 1,238,996 0.08% 15 650,000 41,751 197,511 452,489 30.39% 2 1,948,000 55,275 211,532 1,736,468 10.86% 3 612,000 54,965 211,393 400,607 34.54% 3 10,572,000 18,743 278,689 10,293,311 2.64% 3 - 4 (138) 138 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 13 2,465,000 113,363 209,641 2,255,359 8.50% 3 1,767,000 37,394 233,564 1,533,436 13.22% 4,398,015 170,660 934,413 3,463,602 21.25% 7 919,000 210 1,062 917,938 0.12% 7 258,000 4 258,021 (21) 100.01% 350,000 76 436 349,564 0.12% 6 5,400,000 1,266 6,923 5,393,077 0.13% 6 505,000 117 218 504,782 0.04% 12 820,000 265 609 819,391 0.07% 3 5,827,000 1,362 7,446 5,619,554 0.13% 6 S 944.271 $ 4.747.937 $ 45.838.065 Adopted Budget ,tune YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized $ 7,399,050 106,741 899,683 $ 6,399,367 13.51% 17 8,000 - - 8,000 0.00% 3 400,000 - 116,607 283,394 29.15% 1 1,240,000 - - 1,240,000 0.00% 15 650,000 - 147,093 502,907 22.63% 2 1,948,000 20,876 20,876 1,927,124 1.07% 3 612,000 20,876 20,876 591,124 3.41% 3 10,572,000 352,195 921,294 9,650,706 8.71% 3 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 13 2,465,000 20,907 202,485 2,262,515 8,21% 3 1,767,000 450,179 696,393 1,070,607 39.41% 4,398,015 157,146 612,524 3,785,491 13.93% 17 919,000 - - 919,000 0.00% 8 258,000 - 292,633 (34,633) 113.42% 14 350,000 - 5,400,000 - 505,000 - 820,000 77,625 5,827,000 - $ 45.836 $ 1.206.544 - 350,000 0.00% - 5,400,000 0.00% - 505,000 0.00% 201,623 618,377 24.59% 17,866 5,809,134 0.31% 9 12 12 3 3 9.27% 07/16/2010 10:55 AM City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of June 2070 Total LGIP* BB CD 1 BB CD 2 ** Investments Beginning $ 46,708,144.31 $ 2,035,657.54 $ - $ 48,743,801.85 Deposits 1,771,058.87 - 3,000,000.00 $ 4,771,058.87 Withdrawls (4,500,000.00) - - $ (4,500,000.00) Interest 11,492.77 - - $ 11,492.77 Ending $ 43,990,695.95 $ 2,035,657.54 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 49,026,353.49 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund $ 25,621,479.03 101 Street Fund 2,626,537.66 102 Arterial Street - 103 Trails & Paths 20,820.18 105 Hotel /Motel 231,195.08 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 324,484.50 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,402,618.31 122 Winter Weather Reserve 500,21818 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,208,777.61 301 Capital Projects 1,046,622.29 302 Special Capital. Projects 1,576,988.39 304 Mirabeau Point Project 15,152.24 309 Parks Capital Project 1,130,765.79 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 5,810,668.98 402 Stormwater Management 2,599,424.94 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 894,850.75 502 Risk Management 15,749.56 $ 49,026,353.49 *Local Government Investment Pool "Opened on June 28 City of Spokane Valley Sales Tax Receipts Month by Month Comparison Month Received February March April May June July August September October November December January 2009 $ 1,690,170.61 1, 245, 885.86 1,210,210.64 1,297, 589.85 1, 254, 330.03 1,312,964.99 1,494,486.56 1,381,203.54 1,393,353.36 1,417,465.22 1,314,434.56 2010 1,221,873.05 2011 $ 16,233,968.27 2010 $ 1,693,974.29 1,097,126.08 1,160, 934.77 1,349,758.63 1,252,377.28 $ 6,554,171.05 Year to date Percentage Change 0.23% -4.94% -4.68% -2.61% -2.15% FOOTNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Most costs are typically late in the year. Debt paid twice each year (June and December.) Capital projects often tape a number of years to plan, engineer, acquire right of way and construct. Most property tax received in May and November. Estimated, pending 09 review. Interest earnings. Beg. Bal. included which understates percent realized. For replacement of vehicles & computers. Required operating reserve, no expenditures planned for 2010. Revenue for 2011 events will be moved to 2011 Quarterly Payment to City. Emergency use only. Fund being phased out. Budget adjustment needed In reserve for replacement of buildings. Transfers pending. Includes projected balances at 12- 31 -10, which understates percent realized. 07/16/2010 10MAM ,,;oOValley Operations & Administrative Services 2010-2 nd Quarter Report Administrative • In coordination with Finance, completed DRAFT 2011 Business Plan and Budget worksheets with 3, 6, & 9% reductions and impact summaries for the Budget retreat with Council set for July 13, 2010. • Completed Law Enforcement Contract negotiations with Spokane County. • Ongoing progress Settle and Adjust meetings with Spokane County for Police Services. • Working on Cable Franchise Agreement Human Resources Recruiting /Employment Recruitment Applicants Interviews Recreation Assistant — Summer Positions 139 38 Storm Water Interns 51 6 Public Information Intern 8 2 Public Works Maintenance Superintendent 67 Traffic Intern 12 5 Finance Intern 20 4 *TOTAL: 297 55 * Numbers do not reflect duplicate applications Recruiting/Employment, continued Position Status Recreation Assistant - Summer Positions Filled 17 Storm Water Interns Filled 2 Public Information Intern Filled 1 Traffic Intern Filled 1 Finance Interns Filled 2 Public Works Maintenance Superintendent Reviewing Applications Special Projects: Preparation for WCIA Personnel Audit, on -line application development, and personnel policy updates. 2 Public Information Key Reporting Areas Media relations 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 +1st Qtr --W-2nd Qtr f 3 rd Qtr 4th Qtr *227 Total Media Stories does not include additional 97 police activity stories (does not include ads, nor all television /radiofiveb) Other Citizen contacts: 46 Website Updates: 41 (Does not include PIO- initiated, and regularly scheduled updates) Areas of Significant focus: • Discovery Playground • Barker Bridge • Sullivan Corridor • New Website Web Site Web Site Summary Apr May Jun Year to Date Quarter 2010 Unique User Sessions 45,455 49,066 52,412 146,933 Top Five Pages Viewed Employment 4,674 4,681 4,862 14,217 Parks & Rec 1,009 1,439 2,403 4,851 Spokane Valley 1,300 1,489 1,511 4,300 Police 1,083 954 1,031 3,086 Mir. Point Park 530 999 1,413 2,942 Media Media Earned Total Media blot Topic Contacts Releases & Media Stories ComrT7unity Traffic Stories Enewsletter Alerts 3 Web Site Summary Apr May Jun Year to Date Quarter 2010 Ops/Ad min P & R I PW Total Top Five "Referrer" Web Sites 454 66 29 17 Spokane County — employment 535 487 553 1,575 Spokanevalley.org 204 266 186 656 Municipal Research (MRSC) 213 209 222 644 County Ideas 154 161 161 476 City of Spokane Valley 97 120 98 315 Central Reception Business Registration • 501 New registrations • 1142 Annual renewals (Due annually in December) Call Vnlnm. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 CI] Council H R Legal Misc Ops/Ad min P & R I PW Total ■ April 454 66 29 17 230 65 35 109 1005 ■ May 424 58 34 19 203 71 34 108 951 ■June 341 51 18 12 221 68 46 154 911 Visitor Volume Citizen Action Requests TOTALS I. 84 78 7 1 M'ssc 6 Ci 6 Weeds 1 2 l Stormwater 2 2 8 Traffic - various 5 1 6 Signs 32 W30 6 M Jurie New Signs S 3 M May S M April Signals 8 8 10 Sight obstruction 2 4 Trash 2 4 3 Potholes S S 1 Dead Animals 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 RECRE ATION SECOND QUARTER REPORT 2010 The Grand Opening of the new Discovery Playground was held May 13, 2010, and we were pleased with the large attendance. Staff had prepared and sent out over 200 invitations by mail, plus hundreds of email invitations, and worked closely with the PIO office for media releases. We were very fortunate to have a week of good weather at that time to complete items, and for the public to really enjoy the playground immediately. Discovery Playground has kept us busy with various items, including: Continued discussions and monitoring of landscaping and punch list items. Designing and implementing signage. Addressing the issues and damage to elements that have occurred from overuse and misuse by the public. + Coordinating with Recreation summer staff to monitor the public's usage. Hired a Park Ambassador for the summer months to monitor all the parks and their usage. This position has proven to be very beneficial for us, as we strive to continue to educate the public regarding park rules and regulations, and to provide good customer service with reservations and park maintenance. We are moving forward with the Greenacres Park Master Plan process. Recent developments include: • The first community meeting was held April 7, to discuss a conceptual plan. Surveys were distributed to the community for their input on the vision, goals, and design of the park. .The second community meeting was held May 12, as an Open House. The community had a chance to vote for their most desired elements. . Presented an Administrative Report to Council June 1, along with Landscape Architect Mike Terrell and the Phase I and complete Master Plan.. • Submitted an application for state funding through the Recreation and Conservation Office for the Phase I development of Greenacres Park. • Renewed the Radio Control Car Club of Spokane lease at Sullivan Park. • Began discussions with Washington State Parks regarding the Centennial Trail agreement. • Mother Nature provided significant challenges to our ability to properly maintain our parks and facilities. The cold temperatures and massive amounts of rain put us behind in the areas of mowing, spraying, and general grounds maintenance. • Considerable time was spent working with staff and developing the 2011 Parks and Capital budgets. ADMINISTRATI ©N AND PARKS: CENTERPLACE: • Peggy Doering was recognized with a Citation of Merit Award for Outstanding Citizen for her volunteer efforts and coordination of Valleyfest for over 20 years by the Washington Recreation and Parks Association. Staff had submitted her nomination. The Mayor and City Council also recognized Peggy by giving her a key to the City at a council meeting in May. • CenterPlace received the Inland Business Catalyst Gold Award for the 2010 Best Event Facility. This award was based on a write -in business survey held in the May -June issue of Catalyst magazine. A certificate was presented to CenterPlace and award winners will be listed in the July issue. • Staff coordinated with Spokane Community Colleges (SCC) to move their furniture out of the building once their lease ended. CenterPlace maintenance will repaint and prepare those rooms for carpet cleaning and future rentals. Staff is coordinating with SCC to prepare a new limited lease and to schedule classes in rooms that are not going to be leased. • CenterPlace 2010 revenues remained steady with 2009 revenues, and expenditures have decreased by approximately 6 %. Due to the economy, weddings have decreased by 36 events; however, we have replaced weddings with business events, resulting in a steady revenue. The decrease in expenses can be attributed to fewer weddings in 2010, which cuts down on host wages and janitorial costs. 53 19 178 r r V 53J 3 -- rCommunity[ cent E1 FUndraiser ■ Graduation Ceremony FA Meeting 3 Dante Private Party Seminar Wedding/Reception • CenterPlace staff took 171 CenterPlace reservations this quarter; there are 657 reservations booked for 2010 at this time. 2 RECREATION AND AQUATICS: Our 2nd Annual Spring into Action Event was held April 10, at Valley Mission Park. It was a great success with over 75 people in attendance, which is up from last year's attendance. Mayor Tom Towey and Deputy Mayor Gary Schimmels were on hand to help with the tree planting ceremony. This event is a celebration of environmental awareness with a variety of activities for the kids, and local area services providers set up information booths. • We have had 32 people participating in the jointly offered Dance Classes with Liberty Lake Parks and Recreation. Interviewed, hired and trained 15 Summer Recreation Program Staff. • Started a joint Dodgeball League with Spokane County, Spokane Valley, and City of Spokane at Riverfront park. Currently, there are six teams in the league. • CenterPlace and Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation hosted the WRPA Skillbuilder Workshop at CenterPlace on June 12 for Day Camp Counselors from around the region (Pullman, Cheney, Yakima, Liberty Lake, Spokane, Spokane Valley, Ephrata etc.) Park Road, Terrace View, and Valley Mission Pools opened June 19. • There have been 5,992 pool swim visitors since the pools opened. We've had 213 people register for swim lessons, and 103 people have registered for swim team, bringing in a total of $16,916.40 in revenue from June 19 -June 30. • Summer Day Camp, Tennis Camp, Summer Meal Program and FREE Summer Parks Programs started June 21. The KinderCamp program started June 28. Since June 21, 260 people have participated in a Recreation Camp or Park Program. SENIOR CENTER: • Orchard Crest Retirement Community hosted a Volunteer Appreciation Luncheon for 80 volunteers. • There were 130 in attendance for the Mother's Day Style Show and Luncheon, which included models from the Discovery Shop. • WWII veterans have started meeting monthly. • Billiards continues to have the most attendance, with 527 for the month of April alone. Bingo has the second highest attendance. • The annual Plant Sale was held in May. Plants that did not sell were donated to the community gardens in the area for the food banks. • The Honorary Father's Day Celebration and "silly style show" had 55 people who brunched and watched the show. Meals on Wheels' new "Silver Cafe' catering provided the food. • A Medicare presentation was held, which helped seniors with their annual options and to change plans and update information. • The reception desk continues to be a great source of information for seniors, answering phone calls and questions regarding legal issues, housing options, transportation, health plans, and IEL Community College classes. • The Senior Center continues to receive new members, approximately 96 for the second quarter of 2010. Several people who are walking the trail, visiting Mirabeau Park, or riding bikes stop by to ask about the facility and the Senior Center, They are always impressed once they come inside the building. MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: July 12, 2010 RE: Monthly Report June 2010 June 2010: June 2009: CAD incidents: 4,888 CAD incidents: 5,238 Reports taken: 1,512 Reports taken: 1,428 Traffic stops: 1,456 Traffic stops: 1,666 Traffic reports: 246 Traffic reports: 239 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self - initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing June residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, traffic collision hot spots and vehicle prowling hot spots, along with May 2010 and June 2010 stolen vehicle hot spots. Also attached are nine bar graphs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and June 2010: commercial burglary, garage burglary, residential burglary, forgery, malicious mischief, stolen vehicles, theft, vehicle prowling, and property crimes comparisons for 2007 through 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE: 11 Page I The Annual Special Olympics Torch Run was held at the beginning of June. The run began at the Idaho state line where the torch was passed to Washington law enforcement and city government. Among those representing Spokane Valley were Mayor Towey and Spokane Valley Police Property Crimes Sgt. John Nowels. The run went from Wednesday morning through Saturday, when it ended Lt. Lyons attended the Annual Capabilities Assessment in mid -June at the Spokane Fire Training Center. The meeting was to assess Spokane's capabilities and will be used locally, regionally, and statewide. Beginning in September, it will be utilized by the contractor awarded the Threat & Risk Assessment and Strategic Plan for Region 9. Chief VanLeuven attended the Local State Homeland Security Committee meeting in early June. Discussion was held on projects for fiscal year 2010. Chief VanLeuven traveled to Fredericksburg, Virginia in late June to attend the two -week Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (LEEDS), presented by the Leadership Development Institute of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Attendees are provided with instruction and facilitation in the areas of leadership, strategic planning, legal issues, labor relations, media relations, social issues, and police programs. Participants have the opportunity to exchange plans, problems, and solutions with their peers; to develop new thoughts and ideas; and to share successes of their own communities. Chief VanLeuven was on -call from 6/28 through 7/4/10. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of June: * Broadway Elementary School Bicycle Safety training; * AARP Money Smart Presentation at CenterPlace; * Crime Free Multi - housing Class; * Latent Print Retrieval Class for Volunteers; * Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition meeting; * Spokane Safe Kids meeting; and, * Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) meeting. June 2010 Volunteers Hours per station: CV S.C.O.P.E ----------- - - - - -- 688 hrs. Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. ---- - - - - -- 795 hrs. Trentwood S.C.O.P.E. - - - - - -- 309 hrs. University S.C.O.P.E. -- - - - - -- 474 hrs. Total SV June 2,266 hrs. S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 119 on -scene hours (including travel time) in June, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents (including a hit and run) and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 38 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total June volunteer hours contributed by Page 2 SIRT, including training, stand -by, response and special events is 596; year -to -date total is 3,360 hours. • There were eight juvenile runaways in the Spokane Valley for the month of May 2010. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in May totaled 26 and in June 22, with 9 and 10 respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Twenty -four hullos were processed in May and 8 hulks processed in June. During the month of June, a total of 161 vehicles were processed. S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY - DECEMBER 2010 City of Spokane Valley 4 of Vol. 4 of Hrs 4 of Disabled Infractions Issued 4 of Warnings Issued 4 of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 9 360 63 93 2 February 8 342 39 122 2 March 8 411 36 82 2 April 6 286 35 47 May 6 136 17 65 0 June 2 179 12 2 0 Total 39 1714 202 411 8 Spokane Count 4 of Vol. 4 of Hrs 4 of Disabled Infractions Issued 4 of Warnings Issued 4 of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 6 47 1 23 0 February 5 78.5 0 15 0 March 4 47 2 5 0 April 7 107.5 12 19 0 May June Total 9 7 38 67 265 612 17 14 46 9 3 74 0 0 0 P&'e OPERATIONS: • Panhandling Update — Officers responded to Broadway and Sullivan for a panhandler causing a traffic problem. The male was apparently standing in the center median on Broadway, east of Sullivan. The center median is small and it appeared unsafe for the male to be standing there with traffic going by east and west. The male panhandler was contacted and agreed to move to the sidewalk side of the road. He was warned that if the light was green, he needed to allow traffic to move and not to impede the flow of traffic by accepting money from cars stopping for him. Deputies also responded to an incident involving a group of transients at I -90 and Sullivan Road where three males were hitting each other with sticks. Deputy Hirzel recognized one male suspect from previous contacts and asked why he was hitting and kicking the other male on the ground. The suspect responded that the victim had hit his girlfriend and he was only defending her. Both males were taken into custody and booked into the Spokane County Jail for fourth degree assault. One male suspect was also booked for obstructing a public officer. The responding officer noted that he has dealt with both suspects on prior occasions, one of which involved a knife /stabbing incident. Both suspects were also transient and during this incident were highly intoxicated. • Fatal Helicopter Crashes Near Felts Field- Spokane Valley Police implemented UC (Unified Command) Investigative Protocol with FAA to investigate the late afternoon crash of a helicopter in the 3700 block of North Center Road, just east of the Felts Field airport. Witnesses reported the aircraft appeared to have suffered a mechanical problem before it crashed and scattered debris across the backyards of several residences. The Robinson R -22 two -seat helicopter was owned by Inland Helicopter and company representatives were at the scene. The helicopter's pilot was a finale student on a solo flight and crashed as he was approaching Felts Field to land. Debris from the crash was spread over an area of several blocks, and although investigators believe they had located most of it, they cautioned nearby residents to report found wreckage to Crime Check rather than handling it. • Tempers Flare after Hair Set Afire - A 17- year -old East Valley High School student was arrested in mid -June after he set the hair of a female student afire while the two were seated in class. Deputy Ken Dodge was called to the school by a school staff member who was holding the suspect in the office area. Deputy Dodge learned from the 16- year -old victim that the suspect was seated behind her in math class when she noticed a "weird smell," which she quickly realized was her hair burning. The suspect patted her head with his hand, apparently to extinguish the fire. A student witness reported that the suspect was holding a red cigarette lighter minutes before the fire. Another student witness reported actually seeing the suspect hold the lighter up to the victim's head and igniting her hair into flames that were several inches high. No medical treatment was required. The suspect was booked into Spokane County Juvenile Detention center on a felony count of Second - Degree Assault. • Burglars Strike McVay Brothers - Someone broke into the McVay Brothers office on East Montgomery over a weekend and stole several pieces of office equipment, a company employee reported. Deputy Jerad Kiehn reported that the suspect used a rock to smash the Page 4 glass from a four -foot square window to gain entry to the business. The thief then stole a 37- inch television, a Direct TV receiver box and a computer monitor. • Valley Burglar Nabbed - A 19- year -old burglar was arrested after an officer leaving the Spokane Valley Precinct noticed him prowling around the back of the business across the street. Jeff Welton, promoted to detective /corporal the previous day, was about to pull out of the parking lot when he saw the 19- year -old and another man ride their bicycles behind the business. The second man rode away seconds later, but the 19- year -old did not reappear for several minutes. Noting he had a backpack with him, Cpl. Welton pulled across the street to speak with the teen and ultimately asked for and was granted permission to search the backpack. Inside, he found several debit cards, an ATM card and an expired driver's license, all in a female's name. He called the female who said the items had been stored inside a garage in the Spokane Valley. Cpl. Welton detained the suspect and drove to the garage where the victim determined that someone had ransacked her belongings and stole jewelry, a debit card and ID. Someone had also moved the woman's Harley Davidson motorcycle outside and then hid it from view with a sheet of plywood. Cpl. Welton determined the suspect was the one who had burgled the garage and moved the motorcycle outside. The suspect had given the sack of jewelry to his mother, telling her not to worry about where it came from; she drove to the scene and returned the bag of jewelry. Cpl. Welton drove the 19- year -old suspect to the Spokane County Jail and booked him on felony counts of Second - Degree Burglary, Attempted Theft of a Motor Vehicle and Second - Degree Theft (three counts.) • Valley Teens Arrested For Burglary - A pair of Central Valley High School students was arrested for Residential Burglary Saturday night after a Spokane Valley Police officer caught them leaving the scene of their crime. Officer Philip Pfeifer received word of a residential burglary alarm about 10:45 p.m. and drove to the home located on South Windsor. As he approached the home, he heard the vinyl fence rattling in the back yard. Officer Pfeifer made his way back and found a 16 and 15- year -old boy walking away from the home. He searched the 15- year -old and found two gold rings in his pocket and a stun gun in his backpack. The officer searched the 16- year -old and found two gold rings in his pocket and a folding knife in a second pocket. Interviews with the suspects revealed that they had been hanging out at the high school and ended walking up to the home on Windsor where a female student acquaintance lived. They entered the back gate and entered the home where they found the jewelry box and split the four rings between themselves. Hearing the alarm beeping, the two attempted to leave the residence, but could not get the gate open again, forcing them to climb the fence. Officer Pfeifer had the female resident come to the scene and she identified the rings as belonging to her. She called her daughter and learned that she knew the 16- year -old suspect and had told him the family would be away over the weekend. Officer Pfeifer booked both teens into the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center on felony counts of Residential Burglary. • Arrests Made In Valley Stabbing - Two Spokane Valley residents were injured with non- life threatening assault wounds, and the suspects who injured theirs are in custody thanks to a sheriffs office School Resource Deputy. A 21- year -old male suspect went to a home in the 4700 block of North Progress Road about 4 p.m. and started a fight with a 20- year -old finale. Page 5 During the fight, the male suspect stabbed the victim with a large knife in the upper left shoulder. He also summoned a male friend to the scene for back -up, who struck a 17- year -old female in the throat with the handle of a hammer. The two suspects fled in separate vehicles, but were spotted on Upriver Drive by SRD Ron Nye. The deputy stopped both cars and held the occupants at gunpoint until backup deputies arrived. Following interviews with all parties, the first male suspect was arrested for First - Degree Assault and his friend for Second - Degree Assault. Both suspects were booked into the Spokane County Jail on their felony charges. (During summer months when school is out of session, sheriffs school resource deputies fill a variety of roles. Some augment patrol while others perform Centennial Trail bicycle patrols and still others work in the sheriffs marine patrol. During the school year, Ron Nye is assigned as the resource deputy for the Freeman/Liberty School District.) • Burglars Target Child Centers — Employees of the North Mullan Kindercare Center and the Early Learning Center on East Ninth reported that someone broke into their centers over the weekend and made off with laptop computers. The burglary at the KinderCare on North Mullan occurred sometime between 6:30 p.m. Friday and 5 a.m. Monday. An employee said a single $1,100 Dell laptop computer was stolen after the suspect made entry through an unsecured window. At the Early Learning Center on East Ninth, the suspect entered the #500 building of the facility and stole an HP Compaq laptop and two Dell laptops. An employee valued the computers at $1,500 each, and said the suspect also took three docking stations worth $300 apiece. • Carwash Employee Robbed at Knifepoint - A Spokane Valley carwash employee was robbed while making a bank deposit at night, and officers are hopeful a witness can provide information that furthers their investigation. Officers were called to the US Bank branch at 9208 E. Sprague about 8:45 p.m. The 19- year -old employee told them he was depositing a pair of bags containing the business receipts when he was confronted by the suspect. He described the man as white and about 5'08" tall with a slender build. The suspect had sunken cheeks and shoulder length brown hair. He wore a hooded sweatshirt with horizontal stripes and dark pants. The victim said the robber held a knife in his hand that had a four -to -six inch blade. The suspect raised the knife to the victim's throat and demanded the cash. The victim said he dropped the money bags on the ground, raised his hands in the air and backed away. The suspect grabbed one of the bags and ran from the lot to the southeast. The victim business is Mr. Car Wash and officers contacted the manager to discuss their money deposit procedures. • Thank You from a Spokane Valley Citizen — "Hello, I wrote an email back on May 18th concerning our stolen jeep and the safety of this area. I'm very happy to say, our jeep was found and returned unharmed for the most part. Unfortunately the thief s weren't caught though. Since then our jeep has been broke into again and approx. 8 -12 other cars here in the apartments. Well to the point now. Last night my family was awaken by the sound of a police helicopter in the air (spotlighting our whole neighbor) and on the ground, multiple units. What an awesome display it was. I also believe the suspect was apprehended. Funny but I think I would sleep well with that chopper hovering over my apartment every night. Over all I am writing this letter to say "Well Done and Thank You." (For a further good laugh, we overheard the suspect tell the policeman, "I was only trying to get out of the rain." The Page 6 policeman said back to him, "Yeah I haven't heard that before.") -- Keep Up The Good Work & Thank You. For Your Information: The Washington State Patrol Identification and Criminal History Section is getting a new grip on crime, by accepting palm print submissions into the State Automated Fingerprint Identification System, also known as AFIS, in addition to traditional fingerprints. The Section recently began accepting palm prints using Spokane County as a pilot site. Spokane County began transmitting palm prints to the Section in February. Just recently, a crime suspect was identified by using palm prints: A 19 -year old woman was arrested in Spokane for a traffic offense. Corrections officers also took her palm prints and transmitted them with the booking information to the State AFIS. AFIS quickly linked her to a 2008 burglary in Tacoma. "Thirty percent of the prints recovered at crime scenes are from the palms, not the fingertips," according to State Patrol Chief John R. Batiste. "Having the ability to compare palm prints will solve more crimes, hold more criminals accountable and improve public safety." Fingerprint matching is a two -step process. Fingerprints are electronically transmitted to the state patrol's AFIS database when someone is fingerprinted after being arrested. The type of electronic scanner now used makes it easy to record palm prints along with those from the fingers. The other half of the equation comes from suspect prints, recovered by investigators at crime scenes. Suspect prints are compared with the known database to find the identity of a criminal. In this case, the unknown print was recovered first, at a crime scene, and held in the state patrol's unsolved latent data base. The person's identity did not become known until she was subsequently booked in Spokane. "This is the first of what we expect to be many cased solved by expanding our fingerprint technology to include palm prints," said Jim Anderson, director of the patrol's Criminal Records Division. Since the pilot project was successful in Spokane, Anderson states the Section is working to expand the acceptance of palms prints state -wide. Safety Reminder Thieves are making the most of recreationists who park their vehicles at city and county parks, trailheads and boat launches and then leave valuables visible inside the car or truck. Property crimes investigators report that the annual summertime crush of vehicle prowling incidents has begun and that losses are mounting. Thieves know that boaters, hikers and walkers /runners don't want to carry wallets, purses, cameras, GPS units, I -pods, I -pads and other things while they are out enjoying the day. They consider parking lots target -rich environments for stealing items easy to pawn. The best way to defeat a vehicle prowler? Keep your valuables out of sight, preferably placed in your trunk before you arrive at the county park, Centennial Trail or boat launch parking lot. Criminals frequently sit nearby and watch for would -be victims who stuff their valuables beneath a seat as they lock up their vehicle, and it takes mere seconds to break a window to gain entry. Another safety tip is to place your vehicle registration somewhere in the car where it would be available if needed, but not easy to find by a thief. A suspect who sees you start a day of fishing, hiking or soccer can reasonably assume that he has time to get your home address from the registration and pilfer your residence before you return. Thieves typically break into vehicles where they see something to steal, rather than breaking into them to look for something to steal. Taking a minute to conceal your valuables may mean the difference between being a happy camper or an unhappy crime victim. Page 7 2010 JUN CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Jun -10 Jun -09 2010 2009 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 BURGLARY 60 58 432 315 725 753 584 714 744 997 FORGERY 33 18 171 152 297 354 365 334 464 465 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 106 118 567 565 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 1,224 NON - CRIMINAL 69 61 418 473 892 944 839 811 749 916 PROPERTY OTHER 58 76 388 459 933 828 890 982 1,154 1,665 RECOVERED VEHICLES 19 15 225 90 187 319 343 403 333 390 STOLEN VEHICLES 36 27 251 131 298 496 478 711 603 577 THEFT 200 194 1082 1071 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 2,256 2,853 UIOBC 0 0 2 2 4 4 8 11 8 10 VEHICLE OTHER 0 1 1 3 1 5 7 3 3 5 40 VEHICLE PROWLING 114 57 637 382 920 1069 682 937 958 1,382 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 695 625 4,185 3,643 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 8,178 10,519 ASSAULT 82 75 454 448 927 869 853 846 894 880 DOA /SUICIDE 22 14 105 86 210 269 221 167 159 164 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 105 94 612 566 1226 1063 874 736 762 755 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 5 1 5 KIDNAP 3 3 11 11 21 16 23 22 35 24 MENTAL 18 33 150 160 310 360 350 425 425 386 MP 7 11 53 56 115 95 83 88 97 106 PERSONS OTHER 155 155 901 793 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 1,624 ROBBERY 4 12 30 39 75 71 60 58 56 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 10 6 59 81 159 95 73 83 921 190 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 406 403 2375 2,241 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 4,192 ADULT RAPE 4 1 19 16 35 44 43 29 39 37 CHILD ABUSE 11 16 55 92 159 148 104 78 101 126 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 22 21 94 77 157 86 92 105 88 205 SEX REGISTRATION 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 4 INDECENT LIBERTIES 2 1 4 6 10 11 18 15 9 21 CHILD MOLESTATION 2 2 20 11 35 66 46 69 67 77 CHILD RAPE 1 3 12 22 1 35 391 31 62 35 30 RUNAWAY 47 36 229 225 440 369 295 309 311 437 SEX OTHER 20 19 97 103 211 179 194 203 181 162 STALKING 1 0 4 8 15 21 17 17 27 35 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 15 15 112 91 175 142 152 177 244 341 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 125 114 646 652 1271 1,108 996 1,067 1,108 1,475 DRUG 40 47 302 378 670 838 807 665 891 999 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL ISU 40 47 302 378 671 838 808 665 891 1,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 246 239 1624 1,596 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 2,403 2,776 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1 1,512 1,42811 9,1321 8,510 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,582 16,357 19,962 Spokane Valley Commercial Burglary 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 132010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC u � 7 an dal y r 9 i zsp-- .. 1 C Sanson � O .�`a N - ° ra 1 Vo .o P y o 6 th off K w 2 = " �e 0 Belle a Ftre t � ej r- Qe� Pods Granit� _ G'i 3 e .L R oCk � est 0 �•, �e� o 7th � �� Extr ry.� _ { M m F ' „_� -- 0 0.5 1Mile 2010 June Commercial Burglary Hotspots I i I Y a m a S E g o Y m °� 8 Well,,. le > m m ° Ilesle w ° He an Fruit i� °' is �. c h er Hill >� @ 0 T ant °' o ° a ' r s i an '= Itot 3 .. o E °¢ w Lacross p Je _° �_ Indust ial m m o _ If j ;,�,. ;e Kiern Pak In us rial Mision c E � S"-' r 4th E 8 E m 6 �r n 5 21st Jet r — r Z 25th 27th ° L � U � 31st 32nd 1 O J 2 1 o do 37th point N C N o m E Te ommercia ll Burglary Ir 2 IJ 0 0 Low Medium High Map Produced: 12 July 2010 42h o f0 o w f=. h G/e 44th rn 44th 04 43 d m `m .° r a ° = " hor Z' a 45th th m Cork � 48th o LL N .o P y o 6 th off K w 2 = " �e 0 Belle a Ftre Tol ej r- Qe� Pods io a G'i 3 e .L R oCk � est 0 �•, N pe de � nebrsi + G A -A 4iO° o 7th � �� Extr ry.� _ { M m F ' „_� -- 0 0.5 1Mile 2010 June Commercial Burglary Hotspots I i I ommercia ll Burglary Ir 2 IJ 0 0 Low Medium High Map Produced: 12 July 2010 Spokane Valley Forgery 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 C ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 112010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Garage Burglary 25 20 15 10 5 0 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 W 2009 ■ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 W 2009 ■ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Malicious Mischief 200 180 160 140 120 100 :E .11 40 20 C JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 2010 2500 KCILI 1500 1000 500 C1] Spokane Valley Property Crimes Comparisons (2010 is through June) Burglary Burglary Mischief Commercial Residential Forgery Malicious Stolen Vehicle Theft Vehicle Prowling Spokane Valley Residential Burglary • 1 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 7 n Ae Mission ` E Shar °' Fruit Hill c c m 8 E m S 4th gene cite 0 5 21st Jet r — r Z 25th 27th o L � U � 31st 32nd 1 O J 1 1 ° do 37th ?pint S P� 0 0.5 1 Mile 1 � 1 6 nd rr 44th 44th 04 J = L hor 2 , Z' °ay y 45th a 4V4th c w 6t .o `P y o 6th m o E � o� � 48th � off ejret o/b Belle a F \re y oces U S N C 5 O N N c F ROCkcrest oodet �% p � °6 C oy _ "' Mohay. m w o Ext ry { 2010 June Residential Burglary Hotspots 'esidentia urglary O 2-3 Low = Medium High Map Produced: 12 July 2010 Irwllll� LLtz �� [Ifuu- ! —o YF � .!ate Cf y 1 • - •• IiriPILL3JC1 IF's'.rC• i�� _ F • �� wlC ■YRv M11 11M ■7.71l;1� i= S.'mg��i= 111 ■101■uu 1111 ■■1� ��YTK� � '�� ■ . 9-9 i tea sfield 1 '1 °��' 0 JE: � � � { i ti � � �� _ � ■��IIE�� •A . il� I .. rr 1 '!!1 ■: J S F � `��7�' � ri g i. ■/ �6.. C ..� ® ■ii =•■��'�•I��i E L MEMO �C4J i ,... ,�� ® � \_ 7ISI�T� — h1� �/ + ■� ■1111dE�� '��I�ri�M +1 ~��@• I� 1 — ■ All i ■i ��'�� ■��1 NI 'itJ ■� 1 MIN ... - rl 1♦Il 6 � � C3 ME �� ,: "- r ©o ®� ��" -aa� Y/ s� r � � � � Y / �ra�i ��L�I�,�I��Yr:■LY Y/© �♦ `I�- .. li d ^■ ��r�� r;:w L it LW MIM M IN, min ■!r- li �ll 01. au � no M 1 ..�I:a�w�euuw•- 1ww ■■w ml _ �I Ikl►a ��+ � .�' I X,l� -weir ■ Favill _ 2 I�.�� ,OR 1. ,� NOUN _ �_ ..► ,� y!■ -1' i 1, �9'�� 1 d/ ■!!! ti I �_!!—�w�_ �® r �� O r t� `� ` Tc'la�s owlweralll�� rr_�] ■w ��' .1!ilL:9R' , eFUIlw■ � �` �ir�axa —� '�_� �,, p � � u�uwlw�i� �lsus! ' , � i��l , I �/ YI 111 '■�r +� a>'�YI St Gfc�w�■L rl I 1 Vehicles !■t�!— ' � . �� -lam r ''``�`• w■� �© _ • .� • .�F '� w�� i L�S . Low .c 1 - Spokane Valley Stolen Vehicles 70 50 40 30 20 10 0 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Theft 250 - 200 - 150 �- 100 50 C JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN � M M JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC E2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 7 n Ae Mission ` E Shar °' 4th c m 3rd 8 E m cite 0 U 5 21st Jet r — r Z 25th 27th o L � U � 31st 32nd 1 O J � 1 � do 37th ?pint 7th ❑ ��d Q' �. S r P� 0 0.5 1 Mile 1 � 1 Te 6 nd 44th m o E 44th �4 w 6t � �� 48th LL N r � m 43 d CO ° ° = L hor Z' °oy 45th t .o `P y o 6th � off � LL 2 G 44th — Or Uo i o ejret Q e� o/b Belle a F \ce U c g e k F Roocrest oodet s2% O p nebrsl + A o� v Co Ext ry.� = Mohay. m w o '� , F 2010 June Vehicle Prowling Hotspots 'ehicle 'rowling L' 2 C) 3-4 Low Map Produced: 12 July 2010 Spokane Valley Vehicle Prowling 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 Spokane .. Valley PUBLIC WORDS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT June 2010 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION • Street Maintenance — 2010 Signal, Sign & Striping County Interlocal • Street Sweeping — AAA sweeping • Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair contract —Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. • Vactoring Contract —AAA Sweeping • Engineering Services Support — Agreements with private engineering firms • Street Maintenance (Pines & Trent) — WSDOT Interlocal • Solid Waste - Regional Solid Waste Interlocal • Winter operations — Snow Removal — Poe Asphalt • Landscaping Contract — Spokane ProCare • Emergency After Nours Call -out — Senske • Litter and Weed Control — Spokane County Geiger Work Crew WASTEWATER • Status of the process can be monitored at: http : / /www.spokaneriver.net/ htto: f/ www. ecv. wa. aov/ r)rocirams /wa /tmdl /sr)okaneriver /dissolved oxvaen /status.html http:// www, spokanecountV. oral utilitiesANaterReclamation /content.aspx ?c =2224 and http: f /www.spokarieriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Solid Waste Liaison Board will be discussing Regional Governance issues over the next several months. STREET MASTER PLAN o Received all updated traffic counts and accident data from JUB. Need to evaluate for future projects and present to council with an update on pavement management. STORMWATER a SW Improvement Projects 1. Robinhood Street, 1300 — 1400 Block: add capture, catchbasins, and expand UIC for under - designed area. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster. 2. Herald Street, 811 to 9 1h Ave.: add capture, catchbasins, and expand existing UIC. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster. 3. Oberlin Street, South of 11 Avenue: additional stormwater capture and swale. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster. 4. 10 Avenue, Little John Ct. to Mariam St: additional stormwater capture, manhole structure. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster. Updated May 18, 2010 5. University and 16 NE Corner: replace (2) existing UIC's, provide overflow to 16 Ave system. Construction scheduled for July 13 -14. 6. Union, North of Mission: added capture of stormwater. Scheduled for July 8. 7, 550 S. Sullivan Road: increase intercept of stormwater before existing drywell. Redesign due to fiber optic utility not previously marked 8. Woodruff and Holman: Lower existing grades and piping. Monitoring improvements made with sewer pro�ect summer 2009 — additional improvements. On Hold. 9. 5700 E. 8 h : new intercept and swale with drywell. Scheduled for Construction May. COMPLETED 10. 11 and Herald — improve catchbasins and rehabilitate existing failing UIC. Scheduled for design this summer with construction Fall 2010. 11. Adams — 12 to 8 and South of 24 Intersection — replace existing shoulder gravels with new pervious gravel to mitigate continuing erosion issues. 12. 13618 E. 4 (west of Evergreen) -- replace existing pipe sump with deep catch basin and a Drywell, replace existing soil with pervious gravel from mailboxes to new pavement and new catch basin. 13 7 E 11011 (near Pierce) — north side of road, replace existing soil with pervious gravel in front of driveway. 14. 8 just east of Evergreen, south side of road — replace existing soil with pervious gravel near mailboxes. • 2010 County Sewer Projects — Continued work with County Sewer Projects for 2010 — suggested stormwater funded improvements in the West Farms, Corbin, and South Green Acres areas. Developed design and details to improve existing problems and complaints in those areas. Providing occasional field inspections and response. • PineslMansfield fire station Swale - On -hold through springlsummer 2010 to see if this resolves itself with continued root growth. + 16 and Shamrock Drainage — Drafted a historical outline of this problem from the Ridgemont Estates No. 3, 2 and 1 Additions (County developments) which discharge onto properties and the public streets in the City of Spokane Valley. Letter sent to County Engineer, awaiting response. County Engineer has responded that they will be working on this problem with a local Developer and City Staff. * Upper Valleyview Drainage — Met internally (Fall 2009) to discuss the runoff from private roads/subdivisions in the county flowing onto city streets in the Valleyview Neighborhood. • SW Evaluation Form — Developed a form to help evaluate stormwater problems and give a relative basis for priority ranking. Continued evaluation of historic and new stormwater problems and ranking them to further develop a stormwater improvement program. Adding to a new map showing location and ranking of stormwater problems that have been evaluated and status. • Phase II Implementation Project (DOE Grant G0600363) This Ecology funded grant includes various tasks to help the City implement requirements under the Department of Ecology's Phase ll Municipal Stormwater Permit. Staff worked on Public Education and Outreach Tasks including development of brochures, content for web page(s), and procedures for the Illicit Discharge, Detection, and Elimination. City staff has proposed to Ecology staff to amend grant to expend remaining budget on equipment. • Ecology SW Grant #2 - Received a $50k grant that will need to be expended by June 2011. • Ecology SW Grant #3 - Received word that the State is committed to giving the City another $300k grant to be expended by June 2012 to help the City implement NPDES permit requirements. • Stormwater Decant Facility -- to be programmed with 2011 -2017 Stormwater Plan. updated May 18, 2010 A Sweeping & Structure Cleaning Study -, Contacted a consultant to possibly assist with this study. Consultant has submitted a proposed scope of work. On hold. C Air Quality Report for 2009 -2010 -, Provided report to local Spokane Clean Air for amount of winter sanding, deicing materials used and total sweeping completed this year through June 2010. O SW Permit Compliance Tracking — Compiled a list of Ecology Stormwater Permit compliance deadlines to be tracked on a monthly basis by spreadsheet, Developing filing method for tracking records relating to the Ecology Stormwater Permit that will also utilize Laserfiche electronic filing method. 6 2010 Stormwater Fee Assessor Rolls Update — Evaluated changes to existing or new commercial properties for 2010 Roll Update. Provided ongoing support. OTHER PROJECTS 0 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Community Development is currently proceeding with the development of the Master Plan. O Street Maintenance Storage Facility Part of long -range stormwater plan currently under development. GRANT APPLICATIONS FHWA Surface Transportation Program (Urban) (STP(U)) SRTC Board approved in May funding for the three projects listed below. Authorization to obligate funds and begin work on these projects is anticipated by the end of July this year. City match on these projects is 13.5 %. o Mission Avenue Improvements Flora to Barker (PE — $517,600 and RW — $400,000 only) o Broadway /ArgonnelMulIan Concrete Intersection (PE only -- $276,600) o Sullivan /Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE only — $175,200) FHWA Bridge Program Staff prepared and submitted an application for the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project. Total replacement cost - $19,743,334. City match is 20 %. We should Know by November if this project was successful in getting funded, See FMSIB request below for 20% local match. G Safe Routes to School (federal) Staff prepared and submitted a bike /pedestrian grant application for the construction of a sidewalk on 1) Wellesley Avenue from Sullivan Road to 150 feet east of Isenhart Road and 2) Adams Road from Wellesley Avenue to Trent Avenue (SR 290). Total Grant Request - $628,000. City funding - $4,000 in- kind match, ® Washington 2010 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant (state) Staff prepared and submitted a pedestrian /bicycle safety grant application for the construction of sidewalks on the west side of Sullivan Road from 4 "' Avenue to 16`" Avenue. Total Grant Request - $842,000. City funding - $0. ® Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) (state) Staff prepared and submitted applications for the two projects listed below. a Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project - $3,950,000 (20% of total replacement cost) o Barker Road /BNSF Grade Separation Project - $10,000,000 (20 % of total cost) updated May 18, 2010 Transportation Improvement Board (TIE) (state) TIP has issued a call for projects for their Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Sidewalk Program (SP) The UAP focuses on projects that improve safety by reducing collision potential. Staff is currently reviewing the draft TIP to identify projects that would best meet the grant criteria for these two programs. Applications are due at the end of August. O SmartRoutes Call for Projects 2010 SRTC has a call out for regionally significant non - motorized construction and planning projects affecting walking, bicycling and access to transit. Applications are due July 22, 2010. O Federal TIGER II/Community Challenge Grant Staff is working with the City of Spokane and Spokane County on a joint application for planning studies to develop various non - motorized trails and pathways throughout the region with connections to the Centennial Trail. STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works /Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for June 2010: Spring Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: * RPI has been cracksealing on Sprague, Sullivan and Wellesley, Poe Asphalt maintaining gravel roads. e AAA sweeping has begun the annual spring sweeping program. . AAA has also begun the vactoring underground stormwater structure cleaning program. Geiger crews are providing litter pickup services and grass and weed cutting in City RW. City of Spokane Valley personnel are preparing asphalt maintenance activities for the construction season of 2010. Emergency Winter Snow Operations: • Terminated for spring season Updated May 18, 2010 CAPITAL PROJECTS Road Projects 0003 - Barker Road Bridge Replacement Bridge opened to traffic on June 14; sidewalk on northbound side closed until bridge rail is fully installed. Centennial Trail set to open July 1. Contractor is stripping forms under bridge deck on north span, and installing railing on top of barrier an the northbound side. Final striping to occur in early July. Approximately 90% of the work bridge has been removed. 0005 - Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines Released retainage bond for Inland Asphalt; working on update to drawing for UPRR work to move the gates and signals. 0063 - Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD Consultant has prepared initial draft layout. Design work to restart in July as a result of motion in June 30, 2010 Council meeting. Funded by TIB (20% local match). 0069 - Park Rd Recon. Broadway to Indiana Project funded for PE only, Consultant design approximately 25% complete. Forecasting design work to be complete by end of July 2010. 0112 - Indiana Ave Extension Working on final design. Scheduled to be bid fall 2010 and pave in spring 2011. 0113 - Indiana /Sullivan PCC Intersection Project Design will resume in Fall of 2010. STA has approved project delay until 2011. 0114 - Broadway/Sullivan PCC Intersection Paving completed on May 24th. Signal pole replacement on SW corner and plastic pavement marking work remain. 0127 - 2009 ADA Improvements Project was substantially completed on June 30th. Road Projects 0139 - Park Road RR Crossing Safety Improvement WUTC approved project on March 25, 2010. Funding agreement executed April 23, 2010. Funding expires 1213112010. Completed preliminary fieldwork and initial drawings; submitted to WUTC for review and comment. Currently drafting specifications. Sewer Projects 0106 -West Pondersoa (STEP) Phase 1 — Paving complete; punchlist items remain. Phase 2 — Paving complete: punchlist items remain. 0128 -West Farms (STEP) Construction continues on all roads from Evergreen west. Paving scheduled for Wellesley, Silas, McDonald and Mayhew south of Wellesley on Monday, July 12th. 0129 -South Greenacres (STEP) Phase 3 (north of Mission) -Owens Construction awarded project. Construction began on 4126114. Mainline construction continues on Riverway. Indiana and Montgomery roadwork has begun. Phase 4 (south of Mission) — MDM was awarded the project. Pre -con is scheduled July 14th. 0130 -Corbin (STEP) Murphy Bros. was awarded project. Work began June 21 st on Laberry, Bloom, Cane and Dove Circles. 0131 - Cronk (STEP) Knife River awarded project. Mainline complete in Mission, Grady and Hodges Road - subgrade work has begun. Currenly placing sewer in Liberty Lake portion of project. Street Preservation Projects 0110 - Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation Work complete. Final Pay Application being prepared. 0115 - Sprague Ave Resurfacing - Evergreen to Sullivan Awaiting Funding. Traffic Projects 0060 -Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06 -3 Project will upgrade signal poles and mast arms at Knox by removing signal displays on center islands and improve curb radii on all quadrants. Possible right turn lane to be constructed northbound Argonne at Montgomery. Received partially- executed agreement from IDKS Associates for design services; routing through City channels for signatures. Expecting to start design work in mid -July. Funded by CMAQ (13.5% local match) 0061 - Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements (SRTC 06 -2 Currently negotiating scopelfee with Transpo Group. Project will install conduit and communications cable between Sprague Ave and Trent Ave, install a traffic camera at the Sprague /Pines intersection and connect all the devices to the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center. PE work to start in 3Q or 4Q 2010. Funded by CMAQ (13.5% local match). 0133 - Sprague Ave ITS Project will install fiber optic cable along Sprague from University to Sullivan then north on Sullivan to tie in with the existing network. Conduit and other equipment to be installed as needed to complete the run. Project includes crossing Pines. Some funds will be used to develop an ITS Master Plan for guidance on location and implementation of future ITS projects. Selected Transpo Group as the most qualified consultant for this project. 0135 - Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation We have installed flashing yellow arrows (FYA) at a total of 6 instersections so far. They are: Broadway/Walmart, Sprague /Costco, Sprague /Flora, 16th /Sullivan, 24th / Sul[ivan, and NB and SB at Broadway /Evergreen. The final planned FYA will be installed for SB movement at 16th /Dishman -Mica intersection once a structural analyze has been done on the pole. A Total of 7 intersections will be retro- fitted with FYA. 0136 - Traffic Signal LED Replacement This project will complete the installation of LEDs in the City's signals. Plan to purchase and install LEDs later in 2010. 0137 - Traffic Signal Coordination Project to prepare evening and weekend coordination plans for select arterial corridors. Planned for late 2010 to early 2011. Parks Projects 0076 -Valley Mission Park 0086 - Discovery Playground Grand opening was Thursday, May 13. Working on punchlist items and final closeout, Other Projects 0134 - Bike & Ped Master Plan - Facility Imp On hold until Bicycle Master Plan is completed. 0138 - Pre Award Consultant Costs Contract was for services to help submitt EEC BG. Completed in Summer of 2009. Closeout Phase 0039 - Argonne Rd Overlay - Indiana to Montgomery Project Closed 0064 - 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands Rd Project Scheduled to Start August 9th. 0062 - Appleway /Sprague /Dishman Mica ITS Project administered by WSDOT. Completed in summer 2009. In closeout. 0065 - Sullivan /Sprague PCC Intersection Project will start Monday, ,July 19, 2010. 0066 - Broadway Rehab Phase 2 Project completed 0071 -SIGNAL CONTROLLER UPGRADES SRTC 06-22 Spokane County installed /configured controllers purchased under State contract. Project complete; in closeout. 0088 - Broadway Ave. Moore to Flora Project is scheduled to start August 2nd. 0099 - WSDOT Urban Ramp Project 0100 -16th and Bettman Stormwater Complete Closeout Phase 0102 - Evergreen - Sprague PCC In final closeout phase. 0103 - Pines -Sprague PCC In final closeout phase. 0104 - McDonald - Sprague PCC In final closeout phase. 0107 - Valleyview (STEP) Complete 0108 - Rotchford Acres (STEP) Complete 0109 - Clement (STEP) Complete 0^4t� SO!Gie ,; June-10 # Road Projects Funding Project I Manager Proposed I Bid Date % Complete I I Estimated Construction Completion Total Project Cost PE I CN 0003 Barker Road Bridge Replacement BR Progran Knutson 04/18/08 100 97 07/31/10 $ 11,817,000 0005 Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines TIB Knutson 05/23/08 100 95 10/31/10 $ 6,627,000 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD UAP Knutson 08/31/10 20 0 10/31/10 $ 932,850 0069 Park Rd Recon.- Brdwy to Indiana STP(U) Knutson 25 0 $ 352,002 0112 Indiana Ave Extension UCP Aldworth 50 0 07/01/11 $ 2,082,000 0113 Indiana /Sullivan PCC Intersection STA Aldworth 5 0 12/31/11 $ 1,252,000 0114 Broadway /Sullivan PCC Intersection STA Aldworth 02/12/10 100 0 12/31/10 $ 1,231,000 0127 2009 ADA Improvements CDBG Aldworth 04/07/10 95 0 $ 110,713 0139 Park Road RR Crossing Safety Improvement WUTC Knutson 35 0 12/31/10 $ 44,000 Sewer Projects 0106 West Pondersoa (STEP) 302 Arlt 05/06/09 100 99 06/01/10 $ 1,215,335 0128 West Farms (STEP) 001 Arlt 02/17/10 100 40 11/01/10 $ 427,000 0129 South Greenacres (STEP) 001 Arlt 03/03/10 100 15 07/01/11 $ 640,500 0130 Corbin (STEP) 001 Arlt 05/05/10 100 5 06/01/11 $ 705,000 0131 Cronk (STEP) 001 Arlt 04/14/10 100 25 11/01/10 $ 315,000 Street Preservation Projects 0110 Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation ARRA(i) Arlt 04/17/09 100 99 06/01/10 $ 2,838,000 0115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing - E'grn to S'van 102 Arlt 95 0 $ 95,000 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06 -3 CMAQ Knutson 0 0 $ 1,290,636 0061 Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements (SRTC 06 -2 CMAQ Knutson 0 0 $ 2,083,121 0133 Sprague Ave ITS USDOE (d) Knutson 0 0 $ 400,000 0135 Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation USDOE (d) Kipp 100 90 12/31/10 $ 33,550 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement 0137 Traffic Signal Coordination 0 Parks Projects 0076 Valley Mission Park 0086 Discovery Playground Other Projects 0134 Bike & Ped Master Plan - Facility Imp 0138 Pre Award Consultant Costs Closeout Phase 0039 Argonne Rd Overlay - Indiana to Montgom. 0054 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands Rd 0062 Appleway /Sprague /Dishman Mica ITS 0065 Sullivan /Sprague PCC Intersection 0066 Broadway Rehab Phase 2 0071 SIGNAL CONTROLLER UPGRADES SRTC 06 -22 0088 Broadway Ave. Moore to Flora 0099 WSDOT Urban Ramp Project 0100 16th and Bettman Stormwater 0102 Evergreen - Sprague PCC 0103 Pines - Sprague PCC 0104 McDonald - Sprague PCC 0107 VaIleyview (STEP) 0108 Rotchford Acres (STEP) 0109 Clement (STEP) USDOE (d) Kipp 0 0 12/31/11 $ 65,000 USDOE (d) Note 0 0 $ - 301 0 0 $ - CTED Worley 05/01/09 100 99 05/12/10 $ - USDOE (d) Note 0 0 08/31/12 $ - USDOE (d) 0 0 $ - Fed Progra Arlt 100 100 $ 405,948 STP(E) Aldworth 06/11/10 100 100 10/15/10 $ 334,200 CMAQ Knutson 09/18/08 100 100 10/30/09 $ 672,000 STP(P) Aldworth 05/28/10 100 100 10/31/10 $ 1,229,371 STP(U) Aldworth 06/19/09 100 100 02/10/10 $ 627,500 CMAQ Knutson 04/29/08 100 100 11/30/09 $ 258,400 TIB Aldworth 06/04/10 90 100 11/14/10 $ 3,027,071 Special Cap Worley 100 100 09/30/09 $ 300,000 402 Arlt 04/01/09 100 100 06/01/10 $ 116,563 STA Aldworth 04/24/10 100 100 02/09/10 $ 685,000 STA Aldworth 03/20/09 100 100 12/07/09 $ 978,000 STA Aldworth 04/24/10 100 100 02/09/10 $ 762,000 302 Arlt 04/01/09 100 100 06/01/10 $ 679,923 302 Arlt 04/22/09 100 100 10/01/09 $ 388,306 302 Arlt 05/13/09 100 100 11/01/09 $ 565,116 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 27, 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: 2011 -2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six -year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2010 -2015 Six Year TIP last year on June 16, 2009, Resolution #09 -009; Presentation of Draft 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP at Council's May 4, 2010 Study Session; Public Hearing on draft 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP on May 25, 2010; Adoption of 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP on June 29, 2010, Resolution #10 -013. BACKGROUND: The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and after public hearing adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation before July 1s' of each year. A Public Hearing was held to accept public comment on the Draft 2011 — 2016 Six Year TIP on May 25, 2010. No comments were received. The draft 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP included a map but updates to the map were delayed pending comments from Council members and the public. The final 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP was adopted on June 29, 2010. The attached map reflects all projects contained in the adopted 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP. This map is being provided as a reference tool to the adopted Six Year TIP and will accompany the TIP whenever published or posted. OPTIONS: Informational only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Informational only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Steve Worley, Senior Engineer — Capital Projects ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2011 - 2016 Six Year TIP Map City of Spokane Valley 2011 -2016 Six Year TIP Barker Road BNSF Grade Separallon SO—VEYCBd ,der — lon FCC Urdvoudllto Ee 3Ud to 81h poka�e Valle July 6, 2010 Legend Project Year 2011 - 2014 2012 -2015 2013 -2016 Note: Pavement Management Program Projects, Citywide Sidewalk Infill Program and STEP Paveback Projects not shown on this map SI 27 to 300 It ead of Houk Rd OWN r• WINION WE .._ Kim WIN Urdvoudllto Ee 3Ud to 81h poka�e Valle July 6, 2010 Legend Project Year 2011 - 2014 2012 -2015 2013 -2016 Note: Pavement Management Program Projects, Citywide Sidewalk Infill Program and STEP Paveback Projects not shown on this map CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 20, 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 memo regarding follow up Gordon Curry permit process complaint. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N /A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: Gordon Curry reported at the June 29 council meeting that he had a difficult time with a boundary line adjustment he submitted. The following is a summary of his comments along with a response. 1. He had to come to the permit center three times before his application was accepted. The staff would not accept his partial application "to hold" until he had everything Mr. Curry's application was not accepted until it was complete. Staff correctly did not accept it because it was missing signatures from the impacted property owners. The City does not accept incomplete applications for several reasons. 1) Until the application is complete, it doesn't have a home and is prone to becoming lost. In 2009, the permit center had over 5400 walk in customers. As much as we would like to accommodate people by holding their papers, it would be a filing and tracking nightmare. 2) Some people perceive that once the city "takes it," it is complete. Once it is complete, we have a legal responsibility to process it. Follow up- We will explain the reasons that incomplete applications cannot be accepted on the permit application handouts. 2. The person he first met at the counter was rude and told him to "get out." This allegation is still being investigated. Mike Jackson and I met with Mr. Curry who was accompanied by a Mr. Bill Miller to clarify his issues. Originally, Mr. Curry also had one of the property owners with him at the counter. Several people witnessed the encounter, most of whom have been interviewed. Once I have all the information, a report will be prepared for Mike Jackson, Interim City Manager and any appropri ate action will be taken. Follow up- The interviews will be concluded and a report will be prepared for the city manager. 3. One staff person was going to look something up for him and didn't have time. It was given to another person to handle and she didn't call him. Mr. Curry had an issue with a setback for an outbuilding within the lot line adjustment area. The planner he first talked to was assigned to the counter and couldn't work on it until the next day. The second planner needed to talk to the director for direction. She did this and got back to him when he came into the counter the next day. This all occurred within 2 days. Follow up- Staff have been reminded that our policy is to return phone calls within 24 hours. When staff cannot get to a promised task, the citizen shall be called and notified of when it is estimated to be complete. 4. Staff people at the counter were eating and drinking coffee. Eating at the front counter is inappropriate and all staff have been notified that it will not be permitted. Follow up- Staff have been notified that eating is not permitted at the front counter. 5. He had to write several different checks. In our meeting with Mr. Curry, he said he would provide me with the infonnation about where he wrote the checks. Once I receive it, I will follow up on the issue. Follow up- Once information is submitted by Mr. Curry, we will look into any way that we can consolidate checks. 6. He had to write a check to the utility company and they said they were going to send it to the city. I am still investigating this. The county provides a sewer availability letter and likely has a charge for that information, however, they do not send the money to the City. Follow up- Still under investigation. 7. The city required that the taxes be paid before the boundary line adjustment could be recorded. This is not a city requirement, but a county requirement that is required before they will record the document. City staff do not like being in the position to tell citizens this requirement, but we do it because we do not want it to be a surprise to them when they get to the county. In this case, we ended up holding some of the documents until the taxes are paid in October. At that time, the city will record the final documents. This solution does not work for everybody but worked for the property owners in this case. Follow up- Staff will again approach the county assessor to see if there is some flexibility for clients such as Mr. Curry. We will also offer the solution earlier in the process to see if applicants want to take that option. 8. The city sent his survey information to an outside surveyor (not in the Valley) for review and it took 7 days. Because the city does not have surveyors on staff, the survey information and legal descriptions are sent for outside review. The City uses David Evans & Associates as their survey contractor which is located in Spokane. The City cannot discriminate in selection of contractors and consultants based on location. However, it has been some time since this contract has been reviewed by staff so we will look at it and see if it is an appropriate time to open bids again for this service. Follow up- Review existing contract to see if appropriate to open it up again When meeting with Mr. Curry, he also raised a question about the requirement for paving a driveway. He mentioned that he was aware of a property owner who is interested in building a house but the paving requirement will make the cost prohibitive. Paving driveways is a requirement that was adopted with other changes in 2007. In a discussion with city council recently regarding paving in general, staff agreed to look at what other cities require and see what other options are available and provide that information to the city council. Follow up- The staff will be looking at different pavement options and presenting the information to the council in the future. Although, my report on this particular incident is not complete, it should be noted that Mr. Curry had a straightforward boundary line adjustment with a short personal deadline. Mr. Curry diligently followed the process through the end and was able to meet his deadline with assistance from staff. The staff have reduced the review time for boundary line adjustments by several weeks due to some internal changes. That is not to say that we can't improve. Customer service is a priority within the department. Within the last month, we have formalized some customer service standards which is only one step in our on -going efforts to improve the experience with the department. The Community Development Director has issued these to all permit staff. These will clarify the expectations for staff and hopefully make the service more consistent. We have also located some customer service training that eleven staff will attend this month. I will be working with Human Resources Manager John Whitehead to search for other ways to improve service both within the department and city wide. From an organization standpoint, staff has identified that supervisory help is needed when alternative staff is in training at the permit counter. This will be addressed. OPTIONS: N /A. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 20, 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 memo regarding follow up on Evergreen Towing business. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N /A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: Daniel Robbins, owner of Evergreen State Towing provided citizen comment at the June 8 council meeting regarding his proposed business location and requested that the paving requirement be waived. In early July, the Community Development Director was contacted by Dave Black, owner of Empire Industrial Park at 11915 E Empire Ave. He is interested in having Evergreen Towing as a tenant. The property is zoned Mixed Use which does not currently permit towing companies. However, I met with the owners and determined that the former use of the property was a non- conforming use and was able to permit it as a replacement of a non - conforming use. The property had been used as a drywall contractor and is partially paved. The owners agreed to pave the portions that are not paved. The owners met with staff from development engineering and proposed an alternate material for paving the storage area. The staff agreed to work with the owners and test this material as a "pilot." The owner contacted me and let me know he was happy with the results and will move forward with the project. OPTIONS N /A. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS None