The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 08-24 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchard, Valley Bible Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues — Ken Thompson 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Text Amendment CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Use Expansion — Cary Driskell 3. 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 WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 08 -02 -2010 5075 -5108 (Park Refunds) $3,154.50 08 -10 -2010 3249 -3251, 3264, 20727, 20760 -20763 $207,336.91 08 -13 -2010 20764 - 20848; 730100033, 805100010 $1,843,036.37 08 -13 -2010 20849 -20851 $205.00 08 -17 -2010 3266 -3268 $57,425.63 GRAND TOTAL $2,111,158.41 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending August 15, 2010: $254,595.29 c. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Uses — Cary Driskell [public comment] 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2011 Property Tax Levy— Ken Thompson [public comment] Council Agenda 08 -24 -10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Property Tax Confirmation — Ken Thompson [public comment] 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 07 -10 Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) — Christina Janssen [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Sending Items to Planning Commission (Neighborhood Center) — Mike Basinger [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) hiterlocal — Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 10. Transportation Benefit District —Mayor Towey 11. Industrial Pretreatment Interlocal Regarding a Portion of Yardley — Cary Driskell 12. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Projects — Neil Kersten 13. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not he reported or discussed) 14. CenterPlace Leases 15. State Legislative Initiatives 16. Department Reports 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Please note there will be no Council meeting Tuesday. Auzust 31, 2010 Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are e_ n�erally held the 2nd and 4th 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) held the Is' 3rd and sometimes 5 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 08 -24 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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 : Public Hearing - Estimated 2011 revenues and expenses. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal council action has been taken on the 2011 budget. A proposed budget is being reviewed by the City Manager. The City Manager iE expected to present his preliminary budget to the council on September 7. Two additional public hearings are planned to gather input from citizens BACKGROUND: Each year staff prepares estimates of proposed revenues and expenditures for the coming year. State budget law requires we make our projections known and conduct a public hearing to consider input from the public. Special mention is required of the property tax levy. The comparison below reflects the 2010, and estimated 2011 property tax levies. The tax rate is expected to be near $1.54/thousand dollars of assessed value with an assessed value near $7.1 billion. Prop. tax levy 2090 2019 $10,799,500 $10,700,000 These 2011 estimates reflect a decrease in the dollars levied of $99,500 (1%) below 2010. The City's actual 2011 levy may be more or less than shown. Other significant changes in General Fund budgeted revenue estimates include an estimated decrease in sales tax receipts of $400,000. State shared revenue and fines and forfeitures are expected to increase $200,000 each. Total General fund expenditures are expected to be down in 2011 because of reductions in most departments brought about by a 3% reduction in the 2010 operating budget and the removal of funding in the 2011 budget for most vacant positions. OPTIONS: State law requires a hearing on 2011 estimated revenues and expenditures. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is needed at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This information will be incorporated into the 2011 city budget and may be modified prior to budget adoption STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director g I II I e i Rn, li� 1 t Uv 3 IEj C R evenues/Exp. Spokane Valley Public Hearing August 24, 2010 08118/201 City Wide Budget Total is $62 million —Down from 2010 Significant decrease in capital budget Property tax levy down $100,000 Expect numbers to change as we dine -tune Two additional public hearings in Sept. Significant increase in our multi -year projections in ending fund balance in 2014 08/18/2010 2 G 17 -- 1 t REVENUES: T Sales Tax down $400,000 Property Tax down $100,000 State Shared Taxes up $200,000 (liquor ?) Fines & Forfeitures up $200,000 EXPENSES: Records Management down $200,000 City Mgr. Div. down $100,000 Building down $100,000 Development Eng. down $120,000 Centerplace down $100,000 08/18/2010 3 General Fund Changes Most vacant positions were dropped from budget savings ($350,000) - Broadcasting of Council meetings was added new cost $46,000 Set aside for future increases in state retirement system costs new cost $100,000 -: Depts are expecting to save (3 %) in the current years budget ($1,000,000) 08/18/2010 4 City of Spokane Valley Proposed Budget - Draft 2011 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals" Budget Budget 001 - General Fund General Fund Resources: $ 295,392 $ Beginning Balance $ 21,672,870 $ 19,375,000 $ 24,600,000 Property Tax 10,475,751 10,969,500 10,875,000 Sales Tax 16,317,067 16,600,000 16,200,000 Gambling Tax 735,712 425,000 425,000 Franchise Fees /Business Registration 1,054,275 1,100,000 1,111,000 Service Revenues 1,638,876 1,500,000 1,600,000 State Shared Revenues 1,705,156 1,450,000 1,665,625 Fines and Forfeitures 1,841,894 1,600,000 1,800,000 Recreation Program Fees 625,290 650,000 555,500 Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 372,754 561,350 200,000 Transfers 429,300 310,000 55,000 $ 355,268 Total General Fund Resources $ 56,868,944 $ 54,540,850 $ 59,087,125 General Fund Expenditures Legislative Branch $ 295,392 $ 322,120 $ 324,298 Executive and Legislative Support $ 969,576 $ 1,063,842 $ 954,907 Public Safety $ 20,538,206 $ 22,062,268 $ 22,179,879 Deputy City Manager $ 574,654 $ 620,574 $ 624,771 Finance $ 1,016,222 $ 1,023,373 $ 950,261 Human Resources $ 179,971 $ 248,435 $ 240,500 Public Works $ 672,267 $ 893,793 $ 899,830 Community Development Admin $ 355,268 $ 323,205 $ 324,550 Engineering $ 663,210 $ 791,719 $ 672,269 Planning $ 1,026,461 $ 1,124,206 $ 1,068,529 Building $ 1,058,714 $ 1,313,320 $ 1,219,845 Library $ 1,910 $ - $ - Parks & Roc. Admin. & Maint. $ 899,851 $ 987,556 $ 951,829 Recreation $ 181,217 $ 237,846 $ 246,628 Aquatics $ 352,518 $ 422,550 $ 429,250 Senior Center $ 74,902 $ 85,503 $ 89,653 CenterPlace $ 1,135,822 $ 1,192,578 $ 1,098,912 General Government $ 2,265,659 $ 2,664,244 $ 2,599,750 Subtotal Expenditures $ 32,261,819 $ 35,377,132 $ 34,875,661 Add Ending Fund Balance $ 24,462,207 $ 19,163,718 $ 24,211,464 Total General Fund Expenditures $ 56,724,026 $ 54,540,850 $ 59,087,125 08/18/2010 1:32 PM City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals * Budget Budget 101 -Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,617,254 $ 1,777,000 $ 2,155,050 Street Fund Revenues Property Taxes Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Interfund Interest Investment Interest Interfund Transfers Insurance Premiums & Recoveries Utility Tax Miscellaneous Revenue Total Street Fund Revenues Street Fund Expenditures Salaries, Wages, & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Payments Interfund Transfers Capital Outlay Ending Fund Balance Total Street Fund Expenditures Street Fund Estlmated Fund Balance 102 - Arterial Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Arterial Street Fund Revenues Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Transfer from CDBG Fund Total Arterial Street Revenues Arterlal Street Fund Expenditures Capital Outlay Interfund Transfers Total Arterial Street Fund Expenditures Arterial Street Estimated Fund Balance $ 36 $ - $ 2,018,694 $ 1,900,000 1,875,000 69,200 72,200 $ 2,324,994 $ 10,895 $ 10,000 12,000 $ - $ 200,000 $ 3,054,472 $ 2,800,000 3,000,000 $ 122,076 $ 712,050 - $ 5,206,173 $ 5,622,050 4,887,000 $ 345,839 $ 455,868 358,358 $ 45,939 $ 69,200 72,200 $ 2,324,994 $ 3,822,296 3,804,697 $ 9,487,599 $ 947,000 947,000 $ 414,300 $ 77,900 33,300 $ 294,193 $ 762,050 10,604 $ 4,912,864 $ 6,134,314 5,226,159 x $ 1,910,563 x $ 1,264,736 $ 1,815,891 2091 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 360,806 $ 310,704 310,704 - - x $ 50,102 x $ - $ - 08/18/2010 1:32 PIP:1ClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 103 - Trails & Paths Beginning Fund Balance Trails & Paths Revenues Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax - Street Transfer Transfer from Street Fund Investment Interest Total Trails & Paths Revenues Trails & Paths Expenditures IF Transfer for Trails /Paths Cap Prj Capital Outlay Total Trails & Paths Expenditures Trails & Paths Estimated Fund Balance 105 - HotellMotel Beginning Fund Balance Hotel/Motel Revenues HoteVMotel Tax Investment Interest Total Hotel/Motel Revenues Hotel/Motel Expenditures Interfund Transfers Tourism Promotion Total Hotel/Motel Expenditures Hotel/Motel Estimated Fund Balance 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve Beg Fund Balance CenterPlace Operating Reserve Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 32,420 40,000 8,246 8,000 8,000 8,246 8,000 8,000 $ 462,165 400,000 420,000 462,165 400,000 420,000 x $ 222,597 x $ - $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 346,794 $ 347,000 $ 350,000 2,391 3,000 3,000 08/1812010 1:32 PAPACIeWAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx - 8,000 20,000 - 8,000 20,000 X $ 40,666 x $ - $ 28,000 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 258,891 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 423,978 380,000 400,000 $ 1,893 1,000 1,000 $ 425,871 381,000 401,000 $ 462,165 400,000 420,000 462,165 400,000 420,000 x $ 222,597 x $ - $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 346,794 $ 347,000 $ 350,000 2,391 3,000 3,000 08/1812010 1:32 PAPACIeWAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Total CenterPlace Operating Reserve Revenues CenterPlace Operating Reserve Expenditures Reserve for CenterPlace Operations Total CenterPlace Operating Reserve Expenditures CenterPlace Operating Reserve Estimated Fund Balance 2,391 3,000 3,000 X $ 349,185 x $ 350,000 $ 353,000 08/18/2010 11:32 P11PACIeWAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Beg Fund Balance Service Level Stabilization Reserve Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer Total Service Level Stabilization Reserve Revenues Service Level Stabilization Reserve Expenditures Transfers to Gen. Fund Total Service Level Stabilization Reserve Expenditures Service Level Stabilization Reserve Est. Fund Balance 122 - Winter Weather Reserve Beg Fund Balance Winter Weather Reserve Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer Total Winter Weather Reserve Revenues Winter Weather Reserve Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather Total Winter Weather Reserve Expenditures Winter Weather Reserve Estimated Fund Balance 123 -Civic Facilities Replacement Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer Total Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 08/18/2010 1:32 PNFACIeWAgenda Packets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 5,369,979 $ 5,350,000 $ 5,410,000 37,022 50,000 54,000 37,022 50,000 54,000 5,464,000 - - 5,464,000 x $ 5,407,001 x $ 5,400,000 $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 145,037 $ 500,000 5,000 5,000 355,000 500,000 - 355,000 505,000 5,000 $ 505,000 505,000 - - 505,000 x $ 500,037 x $ 505,000 $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 807,983 $ 825,000 $ 1,210,000 3,065 8,000 12,000 397,000 407,000 407,000 400,065 415,000 419,000 08/18/2010 1:32 PNFACIeWAgenda Packets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Civic Facilities Replacement Fund Expenditures Total Civic Facilities Replacement Fund Expenditures Civic Facilities Replacement Estimated Fund Balance 204 - Debt Service Beginning Fund Balance Debt Service Revenues Facilities District Payment Interfund Transfers Total Debt Service Revenues Debt Service Expenditures Debt Service Payments Total Debt Service Expenditures Debt Service Estimated Fund Balance x $ 1,208,048 x $ 1,240,000 $ 1,629,000 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 419,670 440,000 460,000 186,503 290,000 225,000 606,173 650,000 685,000 650,000 685,000 606,077 650,000 685,000 x $ 96 x - $ - 08/18/2010 1:32 PNIPAClerkWgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011_Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 301 - Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance Capital Projects Revenues REET 1 - Taxes investment Interest Total Capital Projects Revenues Capital Projects Expenditures Intergovernmental Services Capital Outlay Interfund Transfers Total Capital Projects Expenditures Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance 302 - Spec Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance Spec Capital Projects Revenues REST 2 - Taxes Investment Interest Total Spec Capital Projects Revenues Spec Capital Projects Expenditures Capital Outlays Interfund Transfers Total Spec Capital Projects Expenditures Spec Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 2,553,389 $ 1,553,000 $ 598,598 544,303 380,000 400,000 15,144 15,000 15,000 559,447 395,000 415,000 1,954,189 1,948,000 1,013,598 1,954,189 1,948,000 1,013,598 x $ 1,158,647 x $ - $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 4,787,253 $ 230,000 $ 606,069 $ 543,919 380,000 400,000 $ 16,886 2,000 15,000 $ 560,805 382,000 415,000 $ 2,908,057 612,000 1,021,069 $ 2,908,057 612,000 1,021,069 x $ 2,440,001 x $ - $ - 08/18/2010 1:32 PW:\CierkWg end aPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 303 - Street Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance Street Capital Projects Revenues Investment Interest Developer Contribution Contributions - Grants Misc. Revenues Interfund Transfer Total Street Capital Projects Revenues Street Capital Projects Expenditures 16th & Bettman Stormwater Drainage 24th Avenue - Sullivan to 22nd Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06 -31 Broadway @ Argonne & Mullan PCC, (PE, RW) Broadway Ave. Rehabilitation Proj # 2 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines- Park Broadway /Sullivan PCC Intersection STEP Projects Contingency Evergreen /Sprague Intersection PCC Indiana /Sullivan Intersection PCC Indiana Ave. Extension - 3600 Misc, Road Paveback Projects Rockwell 11 Misc. Road Projects Other Preservation Projects Park Rd- Pro) 2 , 8th to Appleway Park Road - #2 (PE Only) - Broadway to Indiana Pines (SR27) ITS Imporvement SRTC 06 -26 Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd. to Pines Sullivan ' Euclid PCC PE, ROW Mission -Flora to Barker PE South Greenacres (STEP) Pines /Sprague Intersection PCC Sprague Ave Resurfacing- Evergreen to Sullivan Sprague Resurface - E'green to University Sprague /Conklin Signal Sprague /McDonald PCCP Intersection Sprague /Sullivan PCC Intersection WSDOT Urban Ramp Projects Total Street Capital Projects Expenditures Estimated Fund Balance at yr end 08/18/2010 1:32 PW:IClerkWgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 1018 udget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 73,456 $ $ 45,519 200,000 6,945,548 8,079,000 4,738,160 1,764 - - 3,937,369 2,293,000 2,669,947 10,930,200 10,572,000 7,408,107 13,885 8,461 797 576,000 581,886 271,000 637,149 857 834,000 834,000 39,555 1,230,000 2,877,287 300,000 250,000 700,613 3,262 1,342,000 1,171,200 61,641 1,874,000 200,000 22,243 - 750,000 234,681 - 11,495 298,000 500,000 39,743 123,639 246,000 35000 841 1,843,221 1,581,541 - 450,000 163,000 488,000 120,800 881,570 56,021 1,944 ,000 2,610,278 5,255 659,716 36,220 1,678,000 323,449 10,930,200 10,572,000 7,408,107 x $ 73,456 x $ - $ 08/18/2010 1:32 PW:IClerkWgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 1018 udget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget - Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 304 - Mirabeau Projects Beginning Fund Balance $ 405,370 $ Mirabeau Projects Revenues Donations Proceeds from LT Debt Insurance Recoveries Other Miscellaneous Revenue Investment Interest 2,655 Total Mirabeau Projects Revenues 2,655 Mirabeau Projects Expenditures Capital Outlays - Transfers 363,722 Total Mirabeau Projects Expenditures 363,722 Mirabeau Projects Estimated Fund Balance x $ 44,303 x $ $ 08/18/2014 1:32 PAP:1ClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft 8- 24- 14.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 306 - CDBG Fund Beginning Fund Balance CDBG Fund Revenues Grant Proceeds Miscellaneous Revenue Interfund Transfer Investment Interest Total CDBG Fund Revenues CDBG Fund Expenditures Services & Charges Capital Outlay Total CDBG Fund Expenditures CDBG Fund Estimated Fund Balance 307 - Capital Grants Fund Beginning Fund Balance Capital Grants Fund Revenues Grant Proceeds Misc. Revenue lnterfund Transfer Total Capital Grants Fund Revenues Capital Grants Fund Expenditures 44th Ave Pathway: Woodruff Rd, to Sands Rd. Appleway Blvd - Tschirley Road to Hodges Appleway/SpraguelDlshman ITS 190- Dishman -066 Argonne Road Overlay - Indiana to Montgomery Broadway Avenue Inlay: 1 -90 EB Ramps to Park Rd. Broadway Fancher PCC -067 Broadway - Moore to Flora Contingency Park Road - Project 2: Broadway to Indiana Signal Controller Upgrades (SRTC 06 -22) Sprague Ave ADA SpraguelBowdish PCC Intersection Sullivan Road PCC: Mission to 1 -90 EB Ramps Total Capital Grants Fund Expenditures Capital Grants Fund Estimated Fund Balance 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 300,000 300,000 - 300,000 300,000 - $ x $ - $ 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 50 $ - $ - 1,103,772 1,749,000 43,824 - 648,000 328,490 68,000 11,176 1,432,262 2,465,000 55,000 29,932 5,000 12 9, 736 155,916 - 59,364 634,979 - 319,790 2,465,000 50,000 46,950 - 55,930 - (415) 1,432,182 2,465,000 55,000 x $ 129 x $ - $ - 08/18/2010 1:32 PNP:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24.1MBudget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft B- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 308 - Barker Bridge Fund Beginning Fund Balance Barker Bridge Fund Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfer from Special Capital Proj Fund Developer Contribution Total Barker Bridge Fund Revenues Barker Bridge Fund Expenditures Bridge Reconstruction Total Barker Bridge Fund Expenditures Barker Bridge Fund Estimated f=und Balance 309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance Parks Capital Projects Fund Revenues Parks Grant State Rec & Conservation Grant Rev Misc Revenue Contribution from Spokane County Transfer frm the General Fund Interfund Transfers Investment Interest Total Parks Capital Projects Fund Revenues Parks Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Park Land Acquisition Terrace View Shelter Greenacres Contingency Swimming Pools Various Improvements Greenacres Valley Mission Park Discovery (Universal) Park Total Parks Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Parks Capital Projects Fund Estimated Fund Balance 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 6,631,363 1,470,000 - 239,000 286,370 58,000 6,917,733 1,767,000 6,917,733 1,767,000 6,917,733 1,767,000 x $ - x $ - 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 1,346,036 518,000 1,346,036 790,000 200,000 500,000 800 518,000 100,000 1,617,762 97,000 716 5,000 13,000 $ 2,409,278 $ 820,000 $ 613,000 225,000 80,000 300,000 1,880,000 15,000 706,792 - 5,409 232,857 1,463,504 200,000 2,408,562 820,000 1,880,000 x $ 1,346,752 x S 518,000 $ 79,036 08/18/2010 1:32 PW:ICIer0AgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft B- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Beginning Fund Balance Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Revenues Interfund Transfers Investment Interest Total Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Revenues Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Expenditures 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 5,792,118 $ 5,770,000 4,000,000 39,845 57,000 40,000 $ 39,845 $ 5,827,000 $ 40,000 Transfers to other funds 770,800 Facilities 3,363 - Total Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Expenditures 3,363 - 770,800 Civic Buildings Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance x $ 5,828,600 x $ 5,827,000 $ 3,269,200 402 - Stormwater Beginning Fund Balance Stormwater Fund Revenues Dept Ecology State Grants County Reimbursement Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest Total Stormwater Fund Revenues Stormwater Fund Expenditures Salaries & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Payments Capital Outlays Transfers Ending Balance Total Stormwater Fund Expenditures Stormwater Estimated Fund Balance 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget $ 2,381,156 $ 2,771,015 $ 1,900,000 26,586 1,706,429 1,600,000 1,710,000 14,295 27,000 22,000 1,747,310 1,627,000 1,732,000 277,630 402,590 490,134 22,086 29,980 43,100 747,262 1,498,405 1,403,546 27,676 46,640 51,100 33,773 403,600 25,000 752,807 2,016,800 100,000 - - 1,519,120 1,861,234 4,398,015 3,632,000 x $ 2,267,232 x $ - $ - 08/18/2010 1:32 PI4 ACIeWAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 10113udget hearing 2011_Proposed Budget- Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 501 - ER &R Beginning Fund Balance ER &R Fund Revenues Interfund Transfers from General Fund Investment Interest Total ER &R Fund Revenues ER &R Fund Expenditures Computer replacement lease 5oftware[Hardware replacement Vehicle Replacement All other Depreciation Expense Capital Outlay Total ER &R Fund Expenditures ER &R Estimated Fund Balance 502 - Risk Management Unreserved Fund Balance Risk Management Fund Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer Total Risk Management Fund Revenues Risk Management Fund Expenditures Services & Charges Total Risk Management Fund Expenditures Risk Management Estimated Fund Balance " unaudited 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 900,805 900,000 900,000 5,273 19,000 9,000 $ 5,273 $ 19,000 $ 9,000 919,000 209,000 - 919,000 209,000 x $ 906,078 x $ - $ 700,000 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actuals Budget Budget 16,734 28,000 107 8,000 230,000 250,000 319,000 $ 230,107 $ 258,000 $ 319,000 234,748 286,000 319,000 234,748 286,000 319,000 x $ 12,093 x $ $ - 08118/2010 1:32 PAP:1ClorklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 08- 24- 101Budget hearing 2011 _Proposed Budget -Draft 8- 24- 10.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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: Public Hearing to consider amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.20.060, Allowing the Expansion of Non - Conforming Uses in Certain Circumstances. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040, SVMC 19.20.060 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN On August 10, 2010, City Council voted 6 -1 to move Ordinance to second reading. BACKGROUND: On July 20, 2010, City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission to disapprove the proposed text amendment. At that meeting Council voted to reject the finding of the Planning Commission and instructed staff to modify the proposed amendment and then present the same to Council. On August 10, 2010, Council considered two options to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto property not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. The first option would allow the expansion of a nonconforming use onto adjacent property by administrative approval if certain criteria are met Option 2 would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent property with a Conditional Use Permit. By a 6 -1 vote, Council decided to move Option 1 to a second reading and to hold a public hearing on the proposed change. OPTIONS: Following the public hearing, the second reading of the Proposed Ordinance concerning nonconforming uses will be considered by council for adoption, modification, or other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action required at this time. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Determined. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance (See Council Agenda Item #4) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 08 -24 -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 WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 08 -02 -2010 5075 -5108 (Park Refunds) $3,154.50 08 -10 -2010 3249 -3251, 3264, 20727, 20760 -20763 $207,336.91 08 -13 -2010 20764 - 20848; 730100033, 805100010 $1,843,036.37 08 -13 -2010 20849 -20851 $205.00 08 -17 -2010 3266 -3268 $57,425.63 GRAND TOTAL $2,111,158.41 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION; Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists . I y '� ea� - za�o vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/02/2010 11:18:41AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 5075 8/2/2010 002050 ADDUS HEALTHCARE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5076 8/2/2010 002409 BECKER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND 499.00 Total : 499.00 5077 8/2/2010 002407 BISHOP, JANE REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 60.00 Total : 60.00 5078 8/2/2010 001689 BRADSTREET, JENNIE REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: BROWNS PAR? 52.00 Total : 52.00 5079 8/2/2010 002303 BURGHARD, RENEE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUIND: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5080 812112010 002402 CAHALAN, JODEE REFUND REFUND FEES: GREAT ROOM, SW 210.00 Total : 210.00 5081 81212010 002403 CASTANON, KELLY REFUND- SWIMMING LESSONS CANCELLATI 30.00 REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 60.00 5082 8/2/2010 002375 COMBO, ALICIA REFUND REFUND FEES: DAY CAMP 50.00 Total : 50.00 5083 8/2/2010 002045 CUMMINGS, GARY REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total: 52.00 5084 8/2/2010 002401 CW1CK, LOIS REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: BROWN: 102.00 Total: 102.00 5085 8/2/2010 002400 DELINE, DANIEL REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total: 30.00 5086 8/2/2010 001651 DUKES AUTO CLUB REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MD 257.00 Total: 257.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/02/2010 11:18:41AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5087 8/2/2010 002398 FREDRICK, CAMILLE REFUND REFUND FEES: GREAT ROOM, SMi 360.00 Total: 360.00 5088 8/2/2010 002406 GIAMPIETRI, ANGELA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEl 52.00 Total : 52.00 5089 8/2/2010 002395 HILL, CELESTE REFUND REFUND FEES: LOUNGE W /DANCE 210.00 Total : 210.00 5090 8/212010 001758 JAPANESE - AMERICAN CITIZEN LEAG REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5091 8/2/2010 002399 JYDSTRUP, SARAH MURIEL REFUND CANCELLATION FEES REFUND: BF 45.00 Total : 45.00 5092 8/2/2010 002404 KISAMORE, SHERRY REFUND REFUND R =FEES: EDGECLIFF PAF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5093 8/212010 001739 KLINE, CHRIS REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND. MIRABEAU ME< 52.00 Total: 52.00 5094 8/2/2010 002405 KUNZ, BEVERLY REFUND REFUND FEES: VALLEY MISSION F 52.00 Total : 52.00 5095 8/2/2010 002390 MAGNUS, AMORA REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: BROWNS PARK 52.00 Total: 52.00 5096 8/2/2010 002410 MORALES, LEONA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5097 8/2/2010 001428 NARFE - CHAPTER 32 REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5098 8/2/2010 002393 OLM, LA VERNE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME./ 52.00 Total: 52.00 5099 8/2/2010 002397 RUSAVUK, NADIA REFUND REFUND FEES: GREAT ROOM, SMj 23.50 Total : 23.50 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 0810212010 11.18.41AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 5100 8/2/2010 002396 SCOT, AMY REFUND REFUND FEES: FIRESIDE LOUNGE 200.00 Total : 200.00 5401 8/2/2010 001785 SIMMET, KATHI REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 52,00 Total : 52.00 5102 8/2/2010 002394 SMITH, EVA REFUND SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5103 8/2/2040 002392 SPOKANE CHRISTIAN CHURCH REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5104 8/2/2010 000896 SPOKANE VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS 52.00 Total : 52.00 5105 8/2/2010 002391 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5106 8/2/2010 002412 VALLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 52.00 5107 81=010 002408 WENHING, CLAUDINE REFUND SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5108 8/2/2010 002411 YOUNG, DON REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 34 Vouchers for bank code : pk -ref Bank total : 3,154.50 34 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 3,15450 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/10/2010 2:59:26PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank 401A: Payment 26,752.54 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 3249 8/5/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben34407 3250 8/5/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34409 3251 8/5/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL Ben34411 3264 8/5/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34415 20727 8/5/2010 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben34399 20760 8/5/2010 000120 AWC Ben34397 100.00 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: Payment 1,384.56 Ben34413 20761 8/5/2010 001896 DANIEL H BRUNNER Ben34405 20762 8/5/2010 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben34401 20763 8/5/2010 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben34403 9 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 9 Vouchers in this report Description[Account Amount 401A: Payment 26,752.54 Total : 26,752.54 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 30,121.36 Total : 30,121.36 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payri 3,657.96 Total: 3,657.96 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 1,187.32 Total : 1,187.32 PERS: Payment 43,481.94 Total : 43,481.94 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 93,064.28 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 5,453.32 Total : 98,517.60 HOLTEN, M 07 -03752- PCW13: Payment 100.00 Total : 100.00 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: Payment 1,384.56 Total: 1,384.56 UNION DUES: Payment 2,133.63 Total. 2,133.63 Bank total : 207,336.91 Total vouchers : 207,336.91 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List P age: 08/1312010 1:30:35PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20764 8/13/2010 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC 44705 42547 2010 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA 18,796.54 44706 42547 2010 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA 13,893.52 Total : 32,690.06 20765 8/13/2010 000648 ABADAN 147590 PLANS & SPECS: BROADWAY -MOB 22.63 Total 22.63 20766 8/13/2010 002272 ACS PONIES & PETTING FARM 959 42578 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 300.00 Total : 300.00 20767 8/13/2010 002416 AIRE SERV OF SPOKANE 13498 COMMERCIAL SERVICES: PW 390.80 Total: 390.80 20768 8/13/2010 000197 AIRFACTZ 45499 BACKGROUND CHECKS: HR 80.00 Total : 80.00 20769 8/13/2010 001081 ALSCO LSP0828211 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL 27.21 Total: 27.21 20770 8/13/2010 001715 AMERICAN RED CROSS JULY 2010 BABYSITTERS TRAINING 378.00 Total : 378.00 20771 8113112010 000050 APA - INLAND EMPIRE SECTION 124840 - 100502 APA MEMBERSHIP: M. HARNOIS 210.00 Total : 210.00 20772 8/13/2010 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INVO05210 JANITORIAL SVCS: JULY 2010 PRE 2,165.23 Total : 2,165.23 20773 8/13/2010 001310 ARROW CONCRETE & ASPHALT 76854 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 181.53 76996 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 13.42 Total : 194.95 20774 8/13/2010 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 422369 JULY 2010 COPIER COSTS: LEGAL 48.99 422426 JULY 2010 COPIER COSTS: CD 140.22 Total : 189.21 20775 8/13/2010 001409 BEST LINE 100800282 ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE 22.75 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/1312010 1:30:35PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20775 8/13/2010 001409 001409 BEST LINE (Continued) Total ; 22.75 20776 8/13/2010 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC SPO- 001336 EMERGENCY SET UP: CP 29621 Total. 296.21 20777 8/13/2010 000729 CH2MHILL INC 3758411 42433 PARK RD RECON 0069 ENG SVCS 8,97527 Total: 8,975.27 20778 8/13/2010 002419 CLARKS TIRES & AUTOMOTIVE 14622 OIL CHANGE: 32811D 2003 CHEVY h 22.55 Total : 22.55 20779 8/13/2010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS 4321 -6 SUPPLIES: CP 36.73 Total : 36.73 20780 8/13/2010 001888 COMCAST AUGUST 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET 108.95 Total : 108.95 20781 8/13/2010 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 78809 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 44.57 79237 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 48.70 79399 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 61.90 Total : 155.17 20782 8/13/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 292471 SURVEYING SERVICES 1,358.00 Total : 1,358.00 20783 8/13/2010 001771 DOLLAR RENT A CAR JULY 2010 CAR RENTALS 1,299.93 Total : 1,299.93 20784 8/13/2010 000278 DRISKELL, CARY EXPENSES MILEAGE FOR JUNEIJULY 2010: DF 71.00 Total : 71.00 20785 8/13/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 39871 LEGAL SERVICES 45.00 Total: 45.00 20786 8/13/2010 002308 F1NKE, MELISSA JULY 2010 DANCE LESSONS 74.70 Total : 74.70 20787 8/13/2010 001750 FIRSTTRANSIT, INC 10419972 42586 SUMMER CAMP & KINDERCAMP TF 1,486.50 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 08/13/2010 1:30 :351 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20787 8/1312010 001750 001750 FIRST TRANSIT, INC (Continued) Total: 1,486.50 20788 8/73/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 8000 KITCHEN EQUIPMENT: CENTERPLr 259.62 Total : 259.62 20789 8/73/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34486 LEGAL PUBLICATION 75.20 34487 LEGAL PUBLICATION 94.00 34488 LEGAL PUBLICATION 65.80 34489 LEGAL PUBLICATION 34.00 34531 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 34576 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 34607 LEGAL PUBLICATION 72.00 34609 LEGAL PUBLICATION 27.20 34610 LEGAL PUBLICATION 32.30 34611 LEGAL PUBLICATION 98.60 34612 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.90 Total: 629.00 20790 8/13/2010 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL JUL 101042 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,216.02 Total : 3,21 6.02 20791 8/13/2010 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN EXPENSES JULY 2010 MILEAGE: GRAFOS 26.00 Total : 26.00 20792 8/13/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9307602467 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 58.50 Total: 58.50 20793 8/13/2010 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 204887 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES: CP 320.00 Total : 320.00 20794 8/13/2010 000587 GRIZZLY GLASS CENTERS WO S0004922 WINDSHILED REPAIR: 2006 DODGE 190.23 Total: 190.23 20795 8/13/2010 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1- 160317 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 65.00 1- 164432 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 151.40 Total: 216.40 20796 8/13/2010 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO AUG 2010 AUGUST 2010 LEASE PYMT 2,441.55 Page: 3 vchlist 08/13/2010 1:30:35PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO ## DescriptionlAccount Amount 20796 8/13/2010 001728 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO (Continued) Total : 2,441.55 20797 8/13/2010 000161 IIMC 21848 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES 75.00 8688 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES: BAIN 165.00 Total : 240.00 20798 8/13/2010 000401 INLAND NW CHAPTER OF ]CC AUGUST 2010 ANNUAL BUILDING COURSE:GRIS: 620.00 Total : 620.00 20799 8/13/2010 002323 INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS, INC. 2297 -2 RHINO PANELS: CP 115.71 Total : 115.71 20800 8/13/2010 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 August 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 166.00 August 2010 UTILITIES: PW 67.50 Total : 233.50 20801 8/13/2010 000265 JACKSON, MIKE AUGUST 2010 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE 400.00 Total : 400.00 20802 8/13/2010 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0065515 PROJ ECT #70-09-032: PROFESS 101 1,640.77 Total : 1,640.77 20803 8/13/2010 001439 K&L GATES LOCKHART 2233568 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 225.00 Total : 225.00 20804 8/13/2010 001944 LANCER LTD 0406732 ENVELOPES: CP 652.20 Total: 652.20 20805 8/13/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 7/28/2010 Media MARKETING: CP 3,241.00 CP 7/28/2010P &P MARKETING: CP 1,200.00 Rec Postage 8110 CENTERPLACE POSTAGE FOR AD` 817.00 Total: 5,258.00 20806 8/13/2010 000788 MEDIA JOE, INC. 3196 SERVICE CALLS: CP 407.63 Total: 407.63 20807 811312010 000258 MICROFLEX INC- 00019420 TAXTOOLS SOFTWARE RENTAL J1 343.83 Total : 343.83 Page: 4 vchlist 08113/2010 1 :30 :35PM Voucher List Spokane Valley page: 5 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20808 8/13/2010 004832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS 0711773 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 316.75 Total: 316.75 20809 8/13/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 48418 42616 HP WIIRELESS SYSTEM 5,409.76 Total : 5,409.76 20810 8/13/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 526245733001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: SING 49,20 526372182001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 77.4.1 526372417001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 12.24 526881864001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 50.40 526881972001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 11.70 Total : 200.95 20811 8/13/2010 000058 OMA JULY 2010 PHYSICAL EXAMS: NEW EMPLOYE 130.00 Total : 130.00 20812 8/13/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 1330046762 FLYERS- PROJECT 0088 715.40 Total : 715.40 20813 8/13/2010 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. AUGUST 2010 2009 RETAINAGE RELEASE 52,121.59 Total : 52,121.59 20814 8/43/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 26180 BANNERS FOR OUTSIDE MOVIE 156.53 Total : 156.53 20815 8/13/2010 000322 QWEST JULY 2010 509- 924 -4707 7406 -- TERRACE VIE 109.53 Total: 109.53 20816 8/13/2010 000191 RIVERFRONT PARK, GROUP SALES 9360 42618 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 507,96 Total: 507.96 20817 8/13/2010 000153 ROLLER VALLEY 4611 42560 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 224.00 Total : 224.00 20818 8/1312010 000415 ROSAUERS 639792 PARK PROGRAM SUPPLIES 1.63 640023 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 13.90 Total : 15.53 Page: 5 vchlist 08113/2090 1:30 :35PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20819 8/13/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY EXPENSES JULY MILEAGE: SCHIMMELS 68.00 Total : 68.00 20820 8/13/2010 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 6775 42572 ON CALL ACQUISITION & APPRA[S. 2,994.96 Total : 2,994.96 20821 8/13/2010 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD APR] L 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 250.00 JULY 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 640.00 JUNE 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 125.00 Total : 1,015.00 20822 8/13/2010 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS ORD13731 STREET PATCH MIX 872.25 Total : 872.25 20823 8/13/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE JULY 2010 NIGHTTIME SEAT BELT EMPHASIS 2,443.84 Total : 2,443.84 20824 8/13/2010 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 167757 INDIANA AVE EXT 0112 402.19 167758 IN D [ARIA AVE EXT 0112 402.19 Total: 804.38 20825 8/13/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51500279 JUDY 2010 JAIL HOUSING 35,678.74 51500288 JULY 2010 GEIGER HOUSING INVO 34,315.00 Total: 69,993.74 20826 8/13/2010 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 10 -13 PHOTOS FOR POWERPOINT PRES 21.72 Total : 21.72 20827 8/13/2010 000311 SPRINT 326088106.032 WAPS FOR LAPTOPS 521.40 959698810 -032 SPRINT CELL PHONES 1,007.78 Total: 1,529.18 20828 8/13/2010 001970 STADIUM SPORTS 27781 STAFF SHIRTS: PARKS AND REC 679.48 Total: 679.48 20829 8/13/2010 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 28169 JUNE 2010 MONTHLY MAINT PREC 521.83 28171 ANNUAL MAINT: CP 7,015.92 28220 JULY 2010 MONTHLY MAINT PRECI 521.83 Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 08113/2010 1:30:35PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20829 8/13/2010 001083 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTR (Continued) Total : 8,059.58 20830 8/13/2010 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS 7376537 MONITORING & MAINTENANCE: PS 105.99 Total : 105.99 20831 8/13/2010 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 8015913065 OFFICE SUPPLIES: JUNE 2010 169.80 Total : 169.80 20832 8/13/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC July 2010 42588 TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND GN CON 3,923.49 Total : 3,923.49 20833 8/13/2010 002415 THE FITNESS CENTER, INC REFUND REFUND FOR REMOVAL OF V1TY E 11.92 Total : 11.92 20834 8/13/2010 000335 TIRE -RAMA 8080006325 OIL CHANGE: 06769D 03 CHEVY S- 86.94 8080006597 OIL CHANGE: 355170 2004 F150 28.56 8080006611 OIL CHANGE: 40206D 32.63 Total : 148.13 20835 8/13/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM EXPENSES JULY 2010 MILEAGE: TOWEY 75.50 Total : 75.50 20836 8/13/2010 001464 TW TELECOM 03666166 INTERNET /DATA LILNES /PHIONE L 1,267.73 Total: 1,267.73 20837 8/13/2010 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 21590 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 153.39 Total: 153.39 20838 8/13/2010 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY 602024 42540 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 34.01 Total: 34.01 20839 8/13/2010 002215 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 15298 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 Total : 150.00 20840 8/13/2010 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 0889197583 AIRCRAFT CARD FOR SHERIFF 43.01 6452983532 AIRCRAFT CARDS FOR STREET Nb 215.05 Total : 258.06 20841 8/13/2010 000100 WABO INC_ 21149 CODES: CD 369.85 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 08113/20/0 1 :30 :35PM Spokane Valley Bank code. apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20841 8/13/2010 000100 000100 WABO INC. (Continued) Total: 369.85 20842 8/13/2010 000676 WEST 821068787 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 615.57 Total : 615.57 20843 8/13/2010 000711 WMCA TREASURER July 2010 WMCA FALLACADEMY: BAINBRID( 125.00 Total : . 125.00 20844 8/13/2010 000347 WORLEY, STEVE EXPENSES TRAVELING EXPENSES: STEVE W( 166.23 Total : 166.23 20845 8/13/2010 000152 WSDOT RE- 313- ATB00713076 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT. 12,224.03 RE- 313- ATB00713081 SIGNAL & ILLUMUNATION MAIN 6,049.86 RE- 313- ATBOO713088 INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 358.05 Total: 18,631.94 20846 8/1312010 002177 WYATT, ROXANNE EXPENSES UPS CHARGES: R. WYATT 9.75 Total: 9.75 20847 8/13/2010 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW JULY 2010 JULY 2010 OPERATION AND MAIM 126,513.00 Total: 126,513.00 20848 8/13/2010 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC JULY 2010 DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27 TotaI : 228.27 730100033 7/30/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JULY 2010 JULY 2010 SHERIFF SERVICES 1,266,811.17 Total: 1,266,811.17 805100010 8/5/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JULY 2010 JULY 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SEF 206,782.63 Total : 206,782.63 87 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,843,036.37 87 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,843,036.37 Page: 8 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/13/2010 1:39:19PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 20845 8/14/2010 002418 ROBINSON, MARTY 20860 8/14/2010 002417 STERLING INC 20851 8/14/2010 002420 WHEATLAND BANK VALLEY MALL 3 Vouchers for bank code. apbank 3 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 Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount CRY WOLF REFUND CRY WOLD REFUND 25.00 Total : 26.00 CRY WOLF REFUND CRY WOLF REFUND 16.00 Total : 1 5.00 CRY WOLF REFUND CRY WOLF REFUND 165.00 Total : 165.00 Bank total : 206.00 Total vouchers: 206.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page; 1 08/47/2010 3:58.02PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount 3266 8/20/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben34585 401A: Payment 3267 8/20/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34587 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment Total : 3268 8/20/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL Ben34589 3 Vouchers for hank code: apbank 3 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 Total : 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payr. Total : Bank total : Total vouchers Amount 25,749.94 25,749.94 28,026.34 28,026.34 3,649.35 3,649.35 57,425.63 57,425.63 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 8 -24 -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 August 15, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget /Financial impacts: Gross: $ 225,668.47 Benefits: $ 28,926.82 Total payroll $ 254,595.29 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS 1 : lvm MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, August 10, 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 Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries Church 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. 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 said he wanted to correct a statement he made last week where he stated there were no traffic lights between Argonne and University, but said he should have said there was one traffic signal between Mullan and University, and said he checked with our traffic engineer and that there is also a traffic light at Farr, which would add an insignificant amount to travel time regardless of how the road is constructed. Councilmember Gothmann reported that he attended a Government Affairs meeting in connection with the Association for Washington Business, which is similar to a state Chamber of Commerce, where they discussed supporting Initiative 1053, an initiative to require 2 /3r majority to raise taxes; said he heard discussion from the CEO of Valley Hospital regarding the strike and issues surround that situation; said he visited Liberty Lake's Business Center; said that the Board of County Commissioners had a meeting where they discussed telephone bills and taxes, including the enhanced 911 services. Councilmember Dempsey reported she attended the Clean Air Agency meeting where they discussed the railroad switching yard and pollution problems, said she had a good time as she attended four different National Night Out parties. Councilmember Grafos said he also attended about six National Night Out parties and said they were good events; and he thanked staff and the City Manager for the job on opening the intersection on Sullivan and Sprague, and said he knows the business owners appreciate that intersection opening. City Manager Jackson mentioned that thanks also go to Council and to Public Works. Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he co- sponsored a National Night out in his neighborhood and they had a nice turnout, that yesterday they had a committee meeting with the governance issue with solid waste, and said they are still working on it, that they were interviewing the negative group and now are back with this positive group — of which he is a member, and said they hope to have something more to discuss in a month or two. Councilmember Grassel said she also attended about four National Night out parties, and they were well attended. Councilmember McCaslin said in relation to his position as Senator, that there are millions of dollars going to the homeless issue that the public is likely not aware of,, and he has requested his office to provide copies of that information. MAYOR'S REPORT: reported that he attended the ADA self - evaluation survey meeting in Council Chambers; he met with the Mayor of Liberty Lake, and Central Valley School District Superintendent Smith, attended the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee meeting; attended three National Night Out parties and said he was encouraged by the number of participating neighbors; said he was invited to the Mukogawa Institute at Spokane Falls Community College, 20"' Anniversary, and said that during their twenty years, they graduated 9,000 students, he commended staff and Acme Construction for a job well done at the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan; he met with Eric Sawyer of the Regional Sports Commission about future sports accessibility in Spokane Valley; today met with the City's Finance Committee where they discussed the 2011 budget, and he reminded everyone that the budget is a work in progress up to the final adoption of the budget, which will occur later this year. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire, Spokane Valley said he read in the paper that the council might pick out a manager tonight; and said this would be a good time to discuss the sewers as we pay about 80% of the sewers but don't own them, and citizens could likely see a $100 bill for sewers; and said that he hopes whoever is picked will have an interest in the sewers, and said if we pay for it, we should own it. Ray Ward, 13404 E 9 Avenue said he would like council to consider adopting an ordinance to keep big trucks out of residential areas overnight and on weekends; he said they can't use their patio and backyards because of the diesel truck fumes and pollution, and said the Health Department will be looking into the noise and pollution problem. Aabida Dar, 13413 E 10 Avenue voiced the same concerns as Mr. Ward, said they have been dealing with the horrible diesel smell for the last eight years and she eventually moved her bedroom from one side of the house to the other in order to try to avoid the noise and smell. 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 7/22/2010 20674 —20697,722100041 $233,796.14 7/23/2010 20698 —20716 $173,081.16 7/28/2010 20717 —20726,72 $335,264.13 GRAND TOTAL $742,141.43 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending July 31, 2010: $363,525.74 c. Approval of Special Council Meeting /Retreat Minutes of July 13, 2010 d. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2010 e. Approval of Special Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 f. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Solicitation (Panhandling)— Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to adopt the proposed ordinance amending SVMC 8.25.020, and adding a new section SVMC 8.25.025 regulating solicitation activities as amended Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this issue has been presented to council several times over the years and staff examined the legal and U.S. Constitutional issues surrounding panhandling; he said this ordinance has been re- drafted to include those council suggestions such as refining the definition of "median" and to prohibit pedestrians from entering or being within 100 feet of an intersection to a principal arterial, on or off ramp to Interstate 90, or a state route, and he said the accompanying map shows the clear details of the state routes involved. Mr. Driskell also introduced legal intern Jandon Mitchell and said Mr. Mitchell has put in a tremendous amount of work on this topic as well and was an important part of the team, and Mr. Mitchell mentioned that the complete legislative record is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Driskell said the outcome of the appeal of the Redondo Beach case is still pending and it could be several years before a determination is made, and also stated that he has worked extensively with Chief VanLeuven who stated this will be an effective tool to promote better traffic flow and increase safety. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire, Spokane Valley said he thinks Council is spending too much time on this topic as there are very few peddlers; and Council can use that time for something better. Richard Munson, 12404 E 27 Avenue extended congratulations to the council for this major step to help our city; and commended council for their hard work; and said we should not expect this to get rid of panhandling, but it will be a tool, if not the solution; and said that ChangePoint would be part of that solution as well as they provide education to our citizens; and he urged council to make sure the educational effort is there to provide information on other avenues of help. Ian Robertson, 17116 S Rotchford Drive he thanked Council for making the reason for this ordinance that of safety and traffic flow; and he thanked Council for the previous resolution to support ChangePoint as they help the disadvantaged and the truly needy rather than support the lifestyles of people who make public begging a way of life; and said they have been and will continue to distribute their information cards to those in need. Evie Crossman, 14902 East Valleywgy said she has been a Valley resident for fifty years or so; and comes from a family concerned with helping the disadvantaged, and said she is impressed with what she is hearing tonight, and understands the need for banning panhandling, especially with those who are hostile and aggressive with drivers; she mentioned the ten year plan in place called the "Road Home" which hopes to end homelessness in our area; she said someone previously mentioned there are millions of dollars going into homeless programs, but she said they are still woefully at a loss to have adequate services, and in the Spokane area, there are approximately 15,000 homeless people, which count she said is not based on the one day count but on all organizations combining their information, and said there are fewer than 1,000 beds available, she said she spoke with mayors of other cities and said she would like to think we can take care of the poor in our community without forcing them to go elsewhere. Councilmember Gothmann added that the programs "2163" and "2160" are two bills passed by the legislature which address the homeless situation, and provide dollars for homelessness, with the goal to end homelessness in ten years; he said about 85% of people who panhandle are not homeless, and the general rule is the homeless are not panhandlers; he said he doesn't consider panhandling to be a homelessness problem, and he commended staff for spending hundreds of hours on getting this ordinance, and thanked Councilmember Grassel for her impetus. Mayor Towey also extended congratulations to staff for all the hours worked on this topic, and said he feels the ordinance is enforceable and defendable; and Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW if we are going to solve this problem, both the ordinance and the education are necessary. Councilmember Grassel also thanked staff for their work and for being kept informed of upcoming issues. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion Carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amendment (Spraue/Appleway) — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.140 and 19.110.020 Appendix D. Standing in for Planner Janssen, Planning Manager McCormick explained that there were four components including adding language to give the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes; allowing full service restaurants as a permitted use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, updating the table to allow restricted access to other streets in the Mixed Use Avenue zone, and considering allowing vehicle sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, and said this ordinance addresses all but the vehicle sales, as that will be addressed separately later. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion Carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 04 -10 Code Text Amendment — Mike Connellv City Attorney Connelly explained that this matter was before council a few weeks ago at which time council voted not to accept the Planning Commission findings and Council instructed staff to prepare an ordinance to allow the expansion, giving two options, one of granting the Community Development Director the authority to allow such an expansion if all criteria are met, and the second requiring a conditional use permit, which would necessitate a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner; he also suggested council hold a public hearing at the time of the second reading of this ordinance in order to allow public comment on the draft ordinance with only the one option, which would be determined tonight; and he suggested council move to advance the ordinance as drafted, with the first 45, to a second reading; or to advance the ordinance to a second reading as amended with the second 45 option, which is the Conditional Use Permit option. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Stanley Schultz, 425 S Alpine Drive Liberty Lake: Mr. Schultz explained that he represents Hite Crane; that if council chose the first option, council should keep in mind that there would be no "leapfrogging" from one parcel to the next; said he favors the option which does not require the conditional use permit, and said with his experience, those permits require a minimum of 120 days to get through the process, and said Mr. Hite does not have 120 days; he said the conditional use permit is not necessary and sufficient safeguards can be included to administer this situation administratively; and he reminded council that an administrative decision can be appealed to the hearing examiner. City Clerk Bainbridge said she received a public comment e -mail and with the Mayor's consent, read the following into the record: "August 10, 2010. Honorable Mayor Towey. I am opposed to any action that would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses. The City's nonconforming use provisions allow a business activity, which no longer fits the character of the neighborhood, to continue operation until they close or move. The issue of allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses arose because Hite Crane is attempting to establish an industrial use in a neighborhood that is primarily retail and residential. Hite Crane knew before acquiring the proposed site that it was not adequate in size for a crane operation and their business would be a nonconforming use. Although the replacement of one nonconforming use by another is allowed, Hite Crane knew that expansion of a nonconforming use beyond its current site is not authorized under our city code. Hite Crane's request to change the code was heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to deny the request. The City Council voted to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council is now positioned to change the city code to permit the expansion of nonconforming uses and create a situation where the entire city may suffer for Hite Crane's choices. Not only will Hite Crane be allowed to expand, but so will any other Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW nonconforming use, in particular the businesses that specialize in `adult products' or `adult entertainment'. Currently, wherever these businesses are operating they are nonconforming. While there are many citizens who would have these businesses shut down and not allowed in the city, the Courts have, citing the First Amendment, upheld these businesses' right to operate. Because of their legal right to operate, the City established places, not on our main street, where these businesses could operate. This council is about to give them carte blanche to expand on our main street. The City Council will probably make some lame attempt to mitigate their mistake in allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses by limiting the expansion to certain zones or requiring a conditional use perinit, but neither of these actions can or will stop the expansion of operations offering adult products or adult entrainment. The `adult entertainment' industry has a history of being extremely litigious and willing to make their case in the courts. The impact of the `adult entertainment' establishments on local neighborhoods and business decisions should not be underestimated. As an example, a Porsche dealership wanted to establish in auto - row but chose to go to another site in a different City because of the proximity of an `adult entertainment' establishment to the auto -row site. The City Council should not help Hite Crane by opening the door to the expansion of those businesses we would seek to control. The City Council needs to reject any action that would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses. John G. Carroll, 1207 S. Rotchford Drive, Spokane Valley, WA 99037. 509- 927 - 9735" Gary Hite, owner Hite Crane, formerly of 4323 E Broadway 99212 said he feels continually worked by this program to feel he is pushed out of testimony after being likened to some activities that he doesn't have anything to do with, and has never had anything to do with and doesn't condone, and said he doesn't see where the continued operation of his business has anything to do with the prior written testimony; and to refresh present council's memory, he said he was taken by eminent domain by the City of Spokane and the prior Spokane Valley Council gave the City of Spokane authority over him; he said he has had several people tell him it is questionable if that was even appropriate or legal; and said at this point, he has tried to move and continue his 40 -year business, under extreme duress; he said he bought both parcels of property conditionally upon the acceptance of the other owner at the same time because he needed that space to conduct his business as he was losing his prior space; he said he sincerely thanks the members of this Council who have tried to urge for a more quick move on this so he can continue his existing business, he said he has no plans of opening any kind of a business other than which he has traditionally done, and said he takes offense to that being referred to; and he asked Council to please use prudence in moving this forward so he can continue his business. Mr. Hite said this is a time when there are a lot of vacancies along the valley corridor, and said when he started looking for a new property, he was amazed at the amount of vacant property, and said he was repeatedly told that he would never be allowed to build or put a business on the current vacant property, so he said he bought an existing facility, not necessarily ideal but in his timeframe, this is his total survival. He said if he is not allowed to move within the next month, he will be out of business. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Connelly, if the adult entertainment referred to in the letter from John Carroll, the head of the planning commission, if they own both properties, would it be a nonconforming use, and if they owned both properties before the zone change, would they be able to expand; and Mr. Connelly said the rules would be applied the same. Mr. Grafos said such establishments would still be restricted by being 1,000' from a residential area and all of the administrative conditions of this property with Hite Crane would be no different. Mr. Connelly said the nonconforming right would be the same as Mr. Hite's property and any other business; and the underlying zoning regulations would not apply to a nonconforming use that was allowed to expand, and he explained that what council is doing is acting legislatively, not writing a "Hite- Crane" ordinance or an adult entertainment ordinance, but would be writing a nonconforming use ordinance that would allow any nonconforming use to expand onto property adjacent to the original, if the conditions are met as set forth on page 3 of that ordinance. Mr. Grafos said then we are basically writing a timing ordinance, and said to go out and scare everybody and say we are going to open the whole city up; the same restrictions apply to those business as any other. Councilmember Gothmann said if he were the owner of an adult business now, and this ordinance were adopted, he could purchase the adjacent property and expand into it, and Mr. Connelly said that is correct, Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : 1YW if all the other conditions set forth in new section five were met; and said that any business today could expand onto an adjacent property if they owned it before the nonconforming was created; and if this ordinance passes, any business will be able to expand onto an adjacent property that was not owned at the time the nonconforming was created, if the conditions in this ordinance are met. Councilmember Grassel said she also takes exception with the comments from Mr. Carroll, and feels this is used as a scare - tactic as only addressing the one type of business. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to advance the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060 to a second reading. To clarify, this means the ordinance will be advanced as written with the first 45 option and not the second 45 option to include a conditional use permit. Councilmember Gothmann said this ordinance presents some significant difficulties as it is a general ordinance and not for a specific property; and he distributed copies of "Comp Plan Description 2.5.6 Industrial Designations" and he read the description of "heavy industry" and stressed that "heavy industry" may have "significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas" and "commercial, residential and most recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry." Councilmember Gothmann said that Mr. Hite is moving from an I -2 zone to a corridor mixed use which is designed for business and residences; and he distributed a chart showing the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes for those kinds of businesses, and directed attention to the "crane rental with operator" entry. Councilmember Gothmann said the chart indicates that a business engaged in "asphalt coating and sealing" can be in the I -2 zone; and said at the 17515 Sprague site, we could have an asphalt sealing and coating business, or a driveway paving or sealing, or concrete sawing and drilling firm, or the crane rental with operator; and said these are all I -2 heavy industrial applications; and said when he went to the 17515 E Sprague site, he noticed that Greenacres High School is immediately across the street and said he feels mixing those is not good and not good public policy; he said he noted immediately to the north is a row of single family residences; and we would be allowing heavy industry right next to retail uses; he said if Mr. Hite chooses that, such is his legal right, but said he would not want to encourage more noise, more odor and more aesthetic impacts. Councilmember Gothmann said Mr. Hite indicated he needs this for expansion; but said after speaking to the Fire Chief, the Fire Chief informed Mr. Gothmann there is no fire requirement to expand from his present site; and noted that one of the reasons Mr. Hite chooses Sprague is because Spokane Valley does not require extra heavy trucks to contribute to the deterioration of our roads as does the State, and said the reason Mr. Hite would not want to go on Trent is the State charges such a fee; and Councilmember Gothmann said this particular instance is the "poster child" of why we should not permit it; the expansion is not the right thing for a neighborhood; he said the sex shop scenario is very real, and once this ordinance is passed, such shop could expand its business to the adjacent property by purchasing the property; and said he feels this is the "anti- thesis of good neighborhood design" and by granting additional rights, this would put the city at risk. Councilmember McCaslin said he is not worried about the negativity, as Council can always come back to this issue if a problem arises; but there is a company with 30 people making a living. Councilmember Gothmann countered that "given a choice of kids and the safety of our children, versus the heavy industry, I'll choose the kids" although Councilmember McCaslin refuted that such is not the choice. Councilmember Dempsey said she understands the problems of unintended consequences of actions; that she realizes Mr. Hite has had difficulty, and said she has mixed feelings about this; that she wants to help him; she has been to his place on Broadway; and she will vote for this but will do so reluctantly. Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that he feels this is not totally about Hite Crane; and regarding permits, realizes that Mr. Hite would not be able to afford to go down the state roadway; that we may not have a permit system for that in the city; and said these operators generally do not operate without the correct permits. Vote by Acclamation to advance the ordinance to a second reading: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos, and Dempsey. Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Abstentions: None. Motion Carried. Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:04 p.m. 5. Motion Consideration: Selection of City Manager — Mayor Towey Mayor Towey said he was privileged to see this council work towards a common goal; and he thanked council for doing a lot of work and evaluations in order to come to a decision which was not an easy decision; that this position will have a tremendous impact on our city; and said he feels this council did its homework; that there were excellent candidates; and he thanked all the candidates for applying; and he asked each councilmember to comment and discuss this issue prior to making a motion. Councilmember Gothmann echoed Mayor Towey's comments, and said everybody was on the same page all along, and he felt it was a good process and staff was superb in providing assistance and alternatives. Councilmember Dempsey said she was impressed with staff, in particular Human Resources Manager John Whitehead; and said she was pleasantly surprised this council came together on the initial selection to bringing the finalists down to about ten people; that she felt councilmembers were all looking for the rights things in a city manager and had the best interests of the city at heart. Councilmember Grafos agreed with the last statement, and said council did due diligence, that originally there were about 26 candidates; all very well qualified; and that council worked together for the common good and the welfare of the city and put individual personal feelings aside, and looked to make the best decision for the city. Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that this is a work in progress; that there were some great candidates, and said the council joined in, which was refreshing to see. Councilmember Grassel said she is excited for this new chapter of the city, that it is somewhat of a new beginning and this is a great opportunity; that council worked hard together; and she thanked human resources and legal staff; and said she appreciates all those extra efforts to get all the pertinent information to council. Councilmember McCaslin initially indicated he would abstain and said he would not vote no as under Robert's Rules abstaining is permitted, but it was mentioned that the Council's Governance Manual does not permit abstaining; and he said he felt there was a better candidate. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize Mayor Towey to enter into contract negotiations with Mike Jackson to fill the position of City Manager. Councilmember Gothmann said he was impressed with Mr. Jackson's work with regard to ICMA (International City /County Management Association), and the outstanding reports from Mr. Jackson's references regarding his ability to work with people. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Gene Strunk, 12902 East Broadway: said the election a while back resulted in four people here elected by a ide margin to represent the will of the people, those who pay the taxes in this city; and as these new people came to office, some of the existing people on the council found it necessary, he said in his opinion, to denigrate the new people coming on by saying they were ill- equipped and needed more experience, and the critical word in the Valley Voice, was to "learn how to work with the staff." Mr. Strunk said in his opinion, the public spoke and they wanted changes; these new people came together and removed Mr. Mercier, there was a great deal of turmoil particularly in the little local paper, the Valley Voice, which had apparently some interesting ties to Ms. Wilhite, Mr. Munson, and said in his business opinion, would not be in business if it weren't for the notifications of foreclosures because no one advertises with them, and said therefore, you can take their credibility at face value. He said there has been an ongoing dispute and now it sounds like council has determined they are going to give Mr. Mercier's second -in- command, Mr. Jackson, an opportunity to represent the public, the taxpayers. He said to Mr. Jackson, that when he is elected, to keep this in the back of his mind that it wasn't that long ago, a couple weeks ago, that Ms. Grassel asked one of the city staff about a grant application that had to be voted upon immediately, that night, and when Ms. Grassel asked this individual staff member, who he said Mr. Jackson will oversee, why they were not given prior notice and Nvhy does council have to vote immediately tonight; that individual told Ms. Grassel that it was new to him and that if we want these millions of dollars in grant money, you have to vote on it tonight. Mr. Strunk said that in fact, was a bald - faced lie; that staff individual knew about this four to six weeks prior to bringing that before Ms. Grassel; he said Ms. Grassel was inadvertently condemned again in the Valley Voice. Mr. Strunk said he is getting a little tired of how the people who were defeated and thrown out of office again by the taxpayers, still have influence in this council; and said apparently we cannot give up the past; and he recommended to Mr. Jackson that as taxpayers, there are a lot of things wrong, and more wrong than right with this city Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW staff that has been extolled again and again as to their wonderful virtues; and said the taxpayers are picking up the tab for this. He continued by stating that for example, the planning and building department almost doubled their budget from the prior year and added 1.75 additional employees built into that budget; he said you're going to be in charge of them, and said the only problem with this wonderful plan that Mr. Munson, Ms. Wilhite and a few people sitting here had, is that if you'll look at the production of this one only department, there's nothing going on. He suggested people look outside as there are no new houses going up, yet he said, the budget goes up almost a million dollars for this one department, $700,000, and he said there is no oversight on this. Further he said, in the next six months, the income to this city is going to go in the tank; and said we are in absolutely precarious times as a nation financially, and said the reason these new four individuals were brought to office, is because the public in general recognizes this point that we're in trouble, and they were put here to safeguard the taxpayer's interest; and he said this continual idea that these progressive status views, whether it be a porn shop going up, using this same legal diatribe we heard here tonight, when a man who has 30 grown men with families is just trying to stay in business, and to use these scare tactics, that is the continual modus operandi of these individuals that have held office too long and when they can't win the argument, they try a scare tactic. Mayor Towey reminded Mr. Strunk that the topic is the selection of Mr. Jackson and to please make comments toward that topic. In summary, Mr. Strunk said that Mr. Jackson is nothing more than a reflection of Mr. Mercier, and said in his opinion, council has made a big mistake, and there will be the same problem with staff that brought the new four people to office, and he said the public will not tolerate it in the next round of elections. Mayor Towey said council appreciates comments from citizens, and council encourages citizens to comment. Councilmember Dempsey reminded everyone that Spokane Valley is in better shape than almost every city in the State of Washington; there are no layoffs and the services remain the same with no cuts; that we have had sound fiscal management; that the country is in dire shape, but that is not the fault of the city nor of the staff; she said staffs job is to make the citizens happy, and if that doesn't occur, they don't have a job; therefore, she said staff would not try to act contrary to what citizens want; she said she is offended that the staff and the city have been insulted. Arne Woodward, 2511 S Best Road, Spokane Valley, 99037 said council interviewed 26 applicants no doubt from all over the country; that his biggest concern is that in the interviewing, he hopes we got the candidate who has a passion for Spokane Valley, as he feels it takes a passion to understand who we are, and where we are going; and he said Mr. Jackson at least appears to understand some of the issues the Council has, that he has been more than willing to listen and has been a solid candidate, and if that continues, we will continue to build the city. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire, Spokane Valley said he agrees with the everything the other man said except he feels Mr. Jackson is his own man, and said he does not know if Mr. Jackson will follow Mr. Mercier's agenda; but that Mr. Jackson is a good man. Nancy Holmes, 1411 E. Mission, with Avista said her job at Avista is regional business manager assigned to Spokane Valley; that one of the things she feels Mr. Jackson will have going for him is the staff here at the city; that Avista works on a lot of issues with the city, and said she finds the staff is dedicated, cooperative, and willing to discuss issues; and she congratulated Mr. Jackson and said she feels he will have a solid staff behind him. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said Mr. Strunk brought up the permit center and building pen and our community development groups, he said we haven't carried this through the rest of the month this year, but we doubled our permit revenue in May of 2010 and he said that just didn't happen; there is work being carried on here daily; and he said council has given staff a fairly heavy load with the reconsideration of Sprague Avenue and said he disagrees with Mr. Strunk's statement. Councilmember Dempsey said that Mr. Jackson came in as Deputy City Manager about the same time she came on council; that she knew him initially from good reports from just about everybody; that he worked quietly Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IYW as the Deputy City Manager, and when he stepped into the position as City Manager, he did so calmly and coolly and he was able to work with everyone to alleviate the anxiety and stress, that he is a people - person who can help people reach agreement on many things, and said she feels this selection is the best person of all those excellent, highly qualified applicants. Councilmember Grafos said most of the 26 applicants were very well qualified, and after review of the applications, he concluded the selection should be Mike Jackson, that he understands and has a sense of who we are as a community; he knows we are not other cities and he has demonstrated a willingness to meet, discuss and listen to everyone; that he is customer - service oriented and speaks often of how the city can best serve its citizens, he has a common - sense, nonconfrontational approach to solving complex problems such as his work to conclude the sheriffs contract after years of work, and said he feels Mr. Jackson is just what the city needs to come together as a real community. Mayor Towey said one of his highest priorities in evaluating these qualified applicants, was honesty followed by integrity; and said because we are a contract city, we needed a people - person, someone who works with others and gets along in difficult times; and he thanked Mr. Jackson for stepping up in a difficult time, and he commended Mr. Jackson for an outstanding job during these last seven months, adding that he didn't have a deputy city manager to help him. Councilmember Grassel said she will support and endorse the person chosen by council tonight; and said it came down to who has the most years of experience, and while Mr. Jackson "rose to the cream of the crop" as far as the final contenders, but said having run a city was an important factor. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Dempsey, Gothmann and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Grassel andMcCaslin. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Contract — Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson thanked council for their support, and said he "wouldn't expect anything less than a lot of varied opinions in our city" and that the challenge we face is to embrace all the opinions and pull the community together and respect the diverse viewpoints we have; and said he appreciates, respects, and enjoys the wide diversity we have in Spokane Valley, and will do his very best for this city. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the interlocal law enforcement agreement with Spokane County. City Manager Jackson said after meeting once a month for six months, we have agreement on the Law Enforcement Contract, and he highlighted the changes in this interlocal from the previous agreement; and acknowledged the help of City Attorney Connelly, Police Chief VanLeuven, and Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka for their extensive work on this issue; and said this is scheduled for approval consideration by the County Commissioners at their meeting next week. Mr. Jackson also went over the cost increases including a 4.5% cost of living allowance and health insurance which equates to approximately $684,000; and he mentioned one of the new tools in this agreement is greater communication among all entities involved. Mayor Towey invited public comment and Tony Lazanis asked several questions of how revenues are received and spent and Mr. Koudelka explained that there are laws and rules governing how specific revenue funds are to be spent; that the "seizure" amount is a shared fund, and the fines and forfeitures amount to approximately $1 million in revenues for this city. Arne Woodward, Best Road commended council and the staff in moving forward with the contract, and for the steps taken to have good working relationships. Councilmembers extended their appreciation to staff for their work on this contract. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded, to extend the meeting one hour. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, Gothmann and Dempsey. Opposed: Councilmember McCashn. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Setting Preliminary Budget Hearings — Ken Thompson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to set the 2011 Budget hearings for September 14 and September 28, 2010. Finance Director Thompson explained that the law requires Council to set two budget hearings, and those dates fit nicely into the schedule. Mayor Towey invited public comment; Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : lvm no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Deputy City Attorney Driskell: said he wanted to take this opportunity to mention that this is Mr. Connelly's' last public meeting with the City, that he put in five good hard years, and he wanted to publicly thank him for his legal knowledge, healthy approach on how to represent a city, and for his friendship. Mayor Towey extended his thanks to Mr. Connelly for all his advice and for his five years with the city and said the city benefitted greatly; and he wished Mr. Connelly well in his future endeavors. City Attorney Connelly thanked everyone for their kind remarks, and said he has enjoyed his tenure here, that it was a challenge and a pleasure, and his biggest regret is just as he is getting to know councilmembers, he will be leaving. Gabe Brown, Community Minded Television (CMTV), 25 W Main, Spokane: requested that General Manager Robert Foote come before council in the future to present some ideas and ask some questions, and to go over how to make the most of the money used for this service; and to discuss practical issues on shooting, presentation, and other possibilities. Mr. Jackson said staff will visit with CMTV to schedule a time for council. It was noted that Councihmember McCaslin left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 8. Estimated Revenues and Expenditures — Ken Thompson Via his PowerPoint presentation, Finance Director Thompson gave a preview of the 2011 proposed budget, which is $62 million, which is down from 2010; he said most vacant positions were dropped from the budget resulting in $350,000 savings, and said departments are expecting to save 3% in the current budget, which results in a savings of approximately $1 million. Councilmember Grassel said she would like to see the preservation and maintenance fund for roads and Mr. Jackson said that will come next week as Public Works will be giving a presentation on the street preservation plan and will repeat the projections for capital projects and council can determine what the target might be, and he said not knowing what the future economy will be, it might be too soon to use reserves for capital projects; adding that we are in a solid financial situation now, and council can discuss this and provide staff direction. 9. Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council on Neighborhood Center — Mike Basinger Senior Planner Basinger went through his PowerPoint presentation giving the recap of the July 22, 2010 public meeting on the Neighborhood Center District Zone; and explained the process to address the issues at hand: Issue 41 Nonconforming Uses would be a code text amendment; Issue 42 Setbacks and Parking would be a comp plan change; Issue 43 is the one -way vs. two -way street network, which would be a comp plan amendment; Issue 44 District Zone Map would be a comp plan amendment; Issue 45 Permitted Used would be a code text amendment and /or a comp plan amendment; Issue 46 Architectural Standards would be a code text amendment, and it was mentioned that issue will be addressed in whole after all sections of the Subarea plan have been addressed, and Issue 47 conditional use permits, would be a comp plan amendment. Mr. Basinger said they are seeking council direction, and said staff will bring this back at a later meeting as a motion consideration to send to the Planning Commission; and the comp plan changes will be addressed later. There was no council objection to proceed. There was some discussion about a letter from Mr. Hume stating that there are 36 uses no longer allowed and that council would like further information in that regard. There was also mention of Council's desire to change the language enough to make those uses all conforming through the code text amendment, and there appeared to be council consensus to do so. Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : IVW 10. Advance Agenda Councilmember Dempsey mentioned she will not be at the August 31 meeting. Mayor Towey suggested fonning an ad hoc committee to study what can be done to help the businesses in Sprague; he said the plan to turn Sprague into a two -way won't happen in the near future, and he is concerned about the businesses and suggested this committee to study the situation to determine what can be done now, he suggested the committee be comprised of one member from the Planning Commission, one member from staff, four citizens, and one Councilmember, and to give the committee a mandate to get some suggestions and ideas. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we get citizens who are involved with businesses. The specific area was discussed and Mayor Towey said he did not want to include the entire six -mile corridor, but perhaps focus on University to Argonne. Councilmember Dempsey suggested extending that to the freeway; and Councilmember Grafos said he is not in favor of such committee as if we do that, we should have similar committees to discuss the Industrial Park, or the businesses on Trent, or those east of Sullivan, and Councilmember Grassel agreed. After discussing the pros and cons of such a committee, at least three councilmembers agreed to have this as an upcoming agenda item for further discussion. The upcoming outside agency presentations was mentioned and that we received applications from eighteen agencies, and it was suggested to split the presentations into two meetings, with social service agencies presenting at one meeting, and the economic development agencies presenting at another. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported or discussed: Wheel Sport Helmets, Library Quarterly Report, Fire Department Quarterly Report, Draft Legislative Agenda, Council 2011 Draft Budget Goals, Community Development Monthly Report. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Regular Meeting 8 -10 -2010 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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 of Ordinance Amending Ordinance 07 -015 and Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.20.060 Allowing the Expansion of Non - Conforming Uses in Certain Circumstances. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040, SVMC 19.20.060 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN On August 10, 2010, City Council voted 6 -1 to advance the Ordinance to second reading. BACKGROUND: On July 20, 2010, City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission to disapprove the proposed text amendment. At that meeting Council voted to reject the finding of the Planning Commission and instructed staff to modify the proposed amendment and then present the same to Council. On August 10, 2010, Council considered two options to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto property not under ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. The first option would allow the expansion of a nonconforming use onto adjacent property by administrative approval if certain criteria are met. Option 2 would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent property with a Conditional Use Permit. By a 6 -1 vote, Council decided to move Option 1 to a second reading and to hold a public hearing on the proposed change, which is scheduled for August 24, 2010. OPTIONS: Council may adopt the amendment as proposed in the ordinance, modify the proposal or send it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060, allowing the expansion of non - conforming uses in certain circumstances. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Determined. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance 10- 1 I_ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE 07 -015 AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.20.060 ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF NON - CONFORMING USES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015, on the 25th day of September, 2007, and WHEREAS, the UDC became effective on 28th day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on the 16th day of June, 2010; and WHEREAS, the amendment as is set forth below bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on June 24, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on June 24, 2010; the Planning Commission provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received no objection to the proposed amendment from the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council as is set forth in SVMC 18. 10.050 and RCW 35.63.060; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2010, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, the recommendations by the Planning Commission and the record before the Planning Commission including the minutes of that meeting; and WHEREAS, The changes to the proposed amendment considered by the Planning Commission as is set forth below do not expand any use or potential impact not under consideration by that body and in fact, further limit the potential impact of the original proposal on adjacent properties and the general health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2010 the City Council voted to not adopt the findings of the Planning Commission and requested staff to provide alternative language that would, in specific circumstances allow such an expansion of non - conforming uses, limit the scope of the applicants proposal and be responsive to the concerns raised in the Planning Commission findings; and Ordinance 10- Page 1 of 4 1 I_ WHEREAS, the City Council detennined that such an amendment would be consistent with the comprehensive plan if restricted to the more intensive zones allowing commercial and industrial uses and further limiting such an expansion to only properties with the same zoning classification as the original non- conforming use; and WHEREAS, The amendment as is set forth below is consistent with the Land Use Commercial Goals and Policies Goal LUG -3, as well as the Economic Development Goals set forth in Chapter 7 — Economic Development; and WHEREAS, the provisions set forth below are also consistent with provisions contained within land use codes of jurisdictions located in the greater Spokane region; and WHEREAS, the amendment as is set forth below, is intended to limit such an expansion of a non - conforming use to only those properties immediately adjacent to the original non - conforming parcel, thus limiting any further expansion; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2010, City- Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One SVMC Chapter 19 shall be amended as follows: 19.20.060 Nonconforming uses and structures. A. Applicability. Legal nonconforming uses and structures include: 1. Any use which does not conform with the present regulations of the zoning district in which it is located shall be deemed a nonconforming use if it was in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of these regulations, 2. Any permanent structure in existence and lawfully constructed at the time of any amendment to this code, which by such amendment is placed in a district wherein it is not otherwise permitted and has since been in regular and continuous use; 3. Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use, 4. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to structures or uses deemed nonconforming only pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 21.50 SVMC). B. Continuing Lawful Use of Property. 1. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code, or any amendments hereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall inure to all successive interests in the property. It is specifically provided, however, that any nonconforming use discontinued as a result of foreclosure or judicial proceedings, including probate, shall be permitted to continue for a period not to exceed 24 months. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use shall commence on the actual act or date of discontinuance. 2. A nonconforming use that is abandoned or discontinued shall not be replaced with another nonconforming use. 3. A nonconforming use which has not been abandoned or discontinued may be replaced with the following: a. A conforming use; Ordinance 10- Page 2 of 4 1 I_ b. Another nonconforming use; provided, that the new use is not less conforming than the prior use. This determination will be made by the director based on the NAICS codes; c. The proposed use places no greater demand on transportation and other public facilities than the original use, or d. The proposed use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property. 4. A nonconforming use in the residential zones, R -L R -2, R -3, R -4, ME MF -2 zones, may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any adjacent lot or tract that was under the same ownership as the lot or tract at the time the use on the original lot or tract became nonconforming, if: a. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and b. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property; and c. Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction, and d. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. 5. A non - conforming use in the commercial and industrial zones, MUC, CMU, CC, GO, O, NC, C, RC, I -1, I -2 zones may, be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any lot or tract immediately adjacent and contiguous to the original lot or tract, if. a. The original lot or tract and the "expansion" lot or track are in the same zone classification, and b. The property adiacent to the "expansion" tract or lot is within one of the commercial or industrial zones listed above, and c. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use, and d. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of nei boring property, and e. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adiacent tracts that would not otherwise exist -56. Residential lots made nonconforming relative to lot size, lot depth, setbacks and width shall be deemed in conformance with this code, as long as the use of the lot is allowed in the respective district. 6 Nonconfonning uses that do not provide the required number of off - street parking spaces pursuant to current standards shall not be considered as nonconforming. -78. Any nonconfonning use damaged by fire, flood, neglect or act of nature may be replaced if a. Restoration of the use is initiated within 12 months; and b. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value. S9. Any nonconforming use changed to a confonning use shall not be permitted to convert to a nonconforming use. Section Two All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 and Appendix A (Definitions) not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Three Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrases 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 10- Page 3 of 4 RI F TEITM Section Four 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 2010 ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Ordinance 10- Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : First Reading of Proposed Property Tax Ordinance for 2010 for taxes to be collected in 2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been discussion regarding the anticipated amount of property tax revenue for the 2011 budget. A public hearing will be held on August 24, to review 2011 projected revenues, including the property tax levy. BACKGROUND: State law requires the City to pass an ordinance in order to levy property taxes. The City is limited to a maximum of $1.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value. Staff expects the assessed value of the City of Spokane Valley to be near $7.1 billion. A tax levy as proposed in the 2011 budget would result in a tax rate of $1.54 per $1,000 of assessed value. It should be noted these estimates are based on the County's latest projections of assessed value. A change in the assessed value and /or a change in the amount of our proposed levy will change the tax rate. OPTIONS: This ordinance is required by law. The council could modify the ordinance to levy a rate different than the $1.54. Each one cent of levy rate, generates $70,000 more /less in property tax revenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance ordinance levying the regular property taxes for the year 2011, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This ordinance levies property tax for the City's 2011 budget year. We expect property tax revenues to be $10,700,000 (a decrease of 1%) once growth in assessed value and state assessed properties have been included. Property taxes are expected to make up nearly 30% of General Fund revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Finance & Admin. Services Director, Ken Thompson DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LEVYING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON IN SPOKANE COUNTY FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2011 TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR CITY SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN THE CITY BUDGET. WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City of Spokane Valley to levy regular property taxes upon the taxable property within the corporate limits in order to provide revenue for the 2011 General Fund budget of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to levy $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation deducting therefrom the highest levy collected by a fire district within the Spokane Valley city limits and also deducting the Spokane Valley Library District levy; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.52.020 requires the City Council on or before the 30' day of November to certify budget estimates to the clerk of the Spokane County Board of Commissioners including amounts to be raised by taxing property within the limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to notice, will hold public hearings on August 24, September 14 and September 28, 2010 on the proposed budget estimates for 2011, including revenue sources which will fund the provision of City services, projects and activities. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as Section 1. 2011 Lew Rate. There shall be and is hereby levied and imposed upon real property, personal property and utility property, as defined in RCW Chapter 84.04 and 84.55.005 in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington a regular property tax for the year commencing January 1, 2011 in the total amount of $10,700,000. It is recognized the City of Spokane Valley can levy $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value less the highest fire district levy within the City of Spokane Valley and less the Spokane County Library District levy. The regular property tax levied through this Ordinance is for the purpose of receiving revenue to make payment upon the general indebtedness of the City of Spokane Valley, the general fund obligations and for the payment of services, projects and activities for the City during the 2011 calendar year. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish the levy amount as permitted by law. The City expects the dollar amount of the property tax levy to be $10,700,000 which is $99,500 less than ( -1 %) the 2009 levy which was collected in 2010. Section 2. Notice to Spokane County. Pursuant to RCW 84.52.020, the City Clerk shall certify to the County Legislative Authority a true and correct copy of this Ordinance, as well as the budget estimates adopted by the City Council, in order to provide for and direct the taxes levied herein that shall be collected and paid to the City of Spokane Valley at the time and in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Washington. Ordinance 10- Proposed Property Tax for 2011 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionally of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of 2010. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Proposed Property Tax for 2011 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : First Reading of Proposed ordinance confirming a 1% decrease in property taxes for 2010 which will be collected in 2011. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The 2011 proposed revenues will be presented to the City Council at a public hearing on Aug 24. Staff suggests a 1% decrease ($99,500)) in the property tax levy for the 2011 budget. Public hearings will held August 24, September 14 and September 28 to consider the entire 2011 proposed budget including property tax revenues. BACKGROUND: State budget law requires we make our revenue projections known and conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. At a public hearing to be held on August 24, special mention will be made of property taxes. Two additional public hearings will be held in September. We expect our revenues to be about the same as in 2010. However, a high unemployment rate and a crippled economy make it difficult for citizens to make ends meet. A 1 % reduction in our property tax levy ($99,500) would lighten the load on our citizens. OPTIONS: State law requires an ordinance be passed confirming our desire to decrease the property tax levy. A second option would be for the council to decide not to pass the ordinance and propose a slightly higher levy. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance the ordinance confirming a 1% decrease from the property tax levy, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed ordinance decreases the city property tax levy by $99,500 for 2011 operations. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CONFIRMING THE CITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY AT $10,700,000, A DECREASE OF 1% ($99,500) FROM THE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHICH WAS LEVIED IN 2009 FOR COLLECTION DURING THE 2010 FISCAL YEAR, PURSUANT TO RCW 84.55.120; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City of Spokane Valley to levy regular property taxes upon the taxable property within the City limits in order to provide revenue for the annual Current Expense Budget of the City; and WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 84.55 provides that cities with a population of over 10,000 persons can increase the amount of their regular property taxes annually by the lesser amount of inflation or 1% of the highest lawful levy, plus any additional value resulting from new construction, improvements and state assessed property; and WHEREAS, a decrease in property tax revenue may be authorized by the City through adoption of a separate ordinance, pursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the decrease stated in terms of dollars and percentage. follows: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to confirm a decrease of 1% ($99,500) in the City's property tax levy in 2010 for the 2011 fiscal year. State law authorizes the City to decrease its property taxes from a preceding year but add new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines and any increase in the value of State assessed property. The tax levy is expected to be $10,700,000, which is levied through Ordinance 10- and appropriated in the 2011 City Budget. Section 2 Findin_ A. The City, after public hearings, will adopt a balanced Current Expense Budget that sets forth citizen priorities and promotes the health, welfare and safety of the City. B. The City published notice of this Ordinance through the procedure used to notify the public of regular Council meetings. C. To support the adopted Current Expense Budget of the City and provide for the delivery of services, the making of improvements and the promotion of the health, welfare and safety of the citizens, the City Council, after considering the financial requirements of the City for 2011, finds and determines that an ad valorem property tax levy of $10,700,000 (a decrease of 1% or $99,500) will balance the 2011 budget. Section 3. 1% Decrease. Pursuant to RCW 84.55, the City, by adopting Ordinance 10- will impose a decrease in the regular Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy, which was passed in 2009 and collected in the City 2010 Fiscal Year. Ordinance 10- (Decrease in Property Taxes) Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 4 . City Clerk The City Clerk shall certify a copy of this Ordinance and forward the same to the Board of County Commissioners and the Spokane County Assessor's Office upon its passage. Section 5 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance. Section 6 . Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this day of , 2010. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- (Decrease in Property Taxes) Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading proposed ordinance - Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow Vehicle Sales as a conditional use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail 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 item. At a June 24 2010 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information on this proposed amendment which was presented at a second public hearing held 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 19.110 to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Staff Report 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, ALLOWING VEHICLE SALES AS A CONDITIONAL USE 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 and the 22n day of July, 2010, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed amendment 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 Determination 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 amendment is 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 (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.110.020 Page 1 of 3 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 amendment is consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is 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: 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 i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.110.020 Page 2 of 3 (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. ii) Conditional Uses - U sesi (1) Vehicle sales (2)usedvehiele sales Section Three 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. Section Four: 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 19.110.020 Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION S po ne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ..;oO Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -07 -10 STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 8, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 22, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning code text amendments to the following section of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendment Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) and propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more than once a year by state law. Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review, the City Council heard from a citizen with problems with SARP. The citizen had opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The City Council directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger study of SARP. This item was first studied at a Public Hearing held on June 24, 2010. The Planning Commission held this item for additional information regarding consequences of splitting boat and vehicle sales into separate zoning categories. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 1 of 5 B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4, 2010 Issuance of an Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS): June 4, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: June 18, 2010 First Public Hearing June 24, 2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close June 18, 2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN (SARP) Book L Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book II: Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book III: City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically, the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. This amendment is proposed within the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thinking was that by concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the use of adjacent properties. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 2 of 5 E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. b. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area. The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations, the legal department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new vehicles, then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use permit, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to mitigate any aesthetic impacts. Following the June 24 2010 Public Hearing, at the request of the Planning Commission, staff requested an interpretation from the legal department regarding separating they types of vehicles sold in a specific location or zone; i.e. could boat sales be allowed while still prohibiting passenger vehicle sales. The City Attorney advised that a city may, in its development code, distinguish between types of vehicles, i.e. cars and boats, if there is a reasonable basis for the distinction and subsequent restriction on use. Additionally, the Planning Commission had requested research on the definition of both vehicles and recreational vehicles in surrounding jurisdictions. The results of the research are outlined in the table below: Jurisdiction Vehicle /Motor Vehicle Recreational Vehicle City of Spokane Valley - Uniform No definition A vehicular -type built on a single Development Code (UDC) chassis designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, with our without motor power including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self - propelled motor homes. City of Spokane Vehicles that have their own motive A vehicle which is: 1) built on a power and that are used for the single chassis 2) four hundred square transportation of people or goods on feet or less when measured at the streets. Motor vehicles include: a) largest horizontal projection 3) Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 3 of 5 "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 motorcycles b) passenger vehicles c) designed to be self - propelled or trucks, and d) recreational vehicles permanently towable by a light duty with motive power. truck; and 4) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use. Spokane County An item which is designed to A vehicular type portable structure transport objects, merchandise, other without permanent foundation articles, or persons from one point to primarily designed as temporary another whether the item (vehicle) is living quarters for recreational, operable or inoperable. Does not camping, or travel use, with or include manufactured or mobile without motor power and occupied in homes any one place for a period not exceeding 30 days. This includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers, and self propelled motor homes. Liberty Lake Same as Spokane County Same as Spokane County Cheney No definition No definition Millwood No definition No definition City of Coeur d'Alene, ID No definition Means a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy, with a living area less than two hundred twenty (220) square feet, excluding built in equipment such as wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, bath and toilet rooms. City of Post Falls, ID No definition No definition "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. C. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect, impractical, or omitted. E. The Planning Commission held public hearings on June 24 ", 2010 and July 22 ad 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the conditional use permit requirements. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. Conclusions: The proposed amendment meets the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 5 of 5 ne Department of Community DevelopmentD` _ Lle4 Planning Division City Council 1St Reading August 24th, 2010 CTA -07 -10 Proposed amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Spk Department of Community Development Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. (8) R ill ePrvice re staurants hibited Uses: (1) Used vehicl s ales. rn .• � C.'TYHALL@Sl'�' Department of Community Development 'alle Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. (8) Full Service Restaurants C.ITYHAL L@Sr�-, Department of Community Development rn • Planning Division rr MEMO ft-LIex—I to d Ah" 7P 4bn 9 91h z E M BIL! NL.— F/aM ; !2.h ne Department of Community DevelopmentD`= -sk Planning Division vw Conditional Use Permits SVMC 19.150 19.150.010 A conditional use is subject to specific review during which additional conditional may be imposed to assure compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. ( ez 'T', Department of Community Development Planning Division Questions. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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 Neighborhood Center (NC) District Zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The Council has requested that the Sprague /Appleway Sub -area Plan be revisited zone by zone with property owners involved in the process. On July 20, 2010, staff presented an overview of the Neighborhood Center District Zone to Council. On July 22, 2010, a community meeting was conducted to gather input from affected property and business owners in the Neighborhood Center zoned areas. On August 10, 2010, staff presented to Council a summary of the issues raised during public comment. At the August 10, 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 Neighborhood District 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 allowing service stations and /or convenience stores and ancillary uses such as car wash, laundromat, and lubrication shops, as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Center District zone. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Dept. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: NC Permitted Use Comparison Chart Attachement A: Neighborhood Center Zone Code Use Chart Comparison August 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones NC C CF CMU O MF2 131 132 133 UR 22 Automobile /light truck sales X X X Automobile /taxi rental X X X X X Automobile /truck /RV /motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works X X Boat sales /services X X Car wash X X X X Gas Stations X X X X X X RV sales and service X X Adult Retail Use Establishment X X X Ambulance Service X X X CU X X Antique Stores X X X X Appliance Sales /service X X X Automotive parts, accessories and tires X X X X Building supply /home improvement X X X Cemetery and Crematories X X X Department Store X X X X Equipment Rental Shop(not including industrial oriented equipment) X X X Greenhouse /nursery, garden center, retail X X X Home furnishings X X X X Manufactured Home Sales X X Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply. sales X X Pawnshops X X X X Second Hand Store X X X X Sign Painting Shop X X X X Storage, self- service facility X X X X Upholstery shop X X X X Warehouse scale retail /buying club. X X X X Bars /Taverns X X X X Adult Entertainment X X X Bowling alley X X X X Carnival, circus T T T X X X Casino X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities indoor X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities, outdoor X X RV Campground C X X Attachement A: Neighborhood Center Zone Code Use Chart Comparison August 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones NC C CF CMU 0 MF2 131 132 133 UR 22 Theatre - indoor X X X X X Hospitals X X X X X X X X 077 Carpenter shop X Electrical /electronic /computer component and system manufacturing /assembly X X X "Jewelry, ck, musical instrument assembly, e X X X X Dwelling, Single Family detached X X X X X NC = Neighborhood Center B2 = Community Buisiness B3 = Regional Business CMU = Corridor Mixed Use O = Office B1 = Neighbhorhood Business C = Community Commercial CF = Community Facilities UR22 = Urban Residential 22 MF2 =Multifamily 2 Red text indicates the pre -SARP uses no longer permitted CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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: Spokane Regional Transportation Council Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: See previous materials provided. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The current interlocal agreement was agreed to in 2003. There have been discussions throughout 2009 and 2010 as SRTC and some of its member jurisdictions have sought changes to the agreement. BACKGROUND: The parties have negotiated a new proposed draft SRTC Agreement, which is attached. OPTIONS: Motion to approve; do nothing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve the "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," and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the same. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impact will be determined yearly depending on SRTC annual budget needs, which will then be allocated out pursuant to a formula. STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Interlocal Agreement for Spokane Regional Transportation Council Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 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 of 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 County, City of Spokane, STA and WSDOT are collectively referred to as the "Members." WITNESSETH: 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 iS016�0�1; 1 ; Page 1 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 county and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the RTPO's boundaries, representing a minimum 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 of transportation, transit districts, port districts, and member cities, towns, 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 shall (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. {SO16�0�1; 1 ; Page 2 of 16 NOW, 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 1: NAME /ORGANIZATION 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 -LU 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. {5016�0�1; 1 ; Page 3 of 16 (c) To perform the functions of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as set forth in Ch. 47.80 RCW and Ch. 468 -86 WAC, as currently adopted or as amended. (d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan pursuant to 23 CFR Parts 450 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 WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and /or Federal Transportation legislation. (j) 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. b. 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. (1) 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 iS016�0�1; 1 ; Page 4 of 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 50,001 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 Board; (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. {SO16�0�1; 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 (1) 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 47.80.040 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. (j) 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) 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 special 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 consistent 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 iS016�0�1; 1 ; Page 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 cannot 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 and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. {SO16�0�1; 1 ; Page 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 /or 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 in the budget approval process. Any additional SO1Ci�0�1: 1 ; Page 8 of 16 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 or 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 of 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, iS016�0�1; 1 ; Page 9 of 16 auto liability, employment practices liability, public officials errors and omissions liability, shall not be less than $10,000,000 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 plans, , 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 following 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, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning iS016�0�1; 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, 2003. 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 %) 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 act 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 CFR § 450.310. 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. {SO16�0�1; 1 ; Page 11 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, whether 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. {SO16�0�1; 1 ; Page 12 of 16 Section 22 : RCW CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontinued 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 {SO16�0�1; 1 Page 13 of 16 termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law 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. ATTEST: DANIELA ERICKSON CLERK OF THE BOARD Bv: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board ATTEST: City Clerk S016505L 1 Mark Richard, Chair Bonnie Mager, Vice -Chair Todd Mielke, Commissioner CITY OF SPOKANE By Date: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney 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: CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY By Date: CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON By Date: By Date: {SO16�0�1; 1 ; Page 15 of 16 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON By Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON By Date: {SO16�0�1; 1 } Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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: Transportation Benefit District (TBD) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.73 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at winter retreat January 12, 2008; administrative report January 15, 2008; administrative report February 12, 2008; Council discussion about infrastructure funding options, instruction to staff to proceed with drafting legislation allowing for establishment of a transportation benefit district; April 8, 2008 discussion and update on formation of TBD, discuss draft ordinance; April 15, 2008; administrative update June 10, 2008; July 1, 2008 to update Council on proposed language change to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) regarding use of TBD funds for maintenance of existing City road system;' July 29, 2008 administrative report and update; December 2, 2008; information only February t7, 2010; administrative report April 6, 2010; administrative report regarding potential interlocal agreement for regional TBD on July 6, 2010. During the August 10, 2010 council meeting, Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke presented council with a copy of a draft Interlocal Agreement for Establishment of a Countywide TBD, as well as an August 12, 2010 letter from the County Commissioners to Spokane City Council President Joe Shogan, BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Materials are presented for Council to discuss and consider a future motion, BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF /COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Towey ATTACHMENTS: Previously distributed documents Draft InterlocaI By Todd Mielke u ust 16 _ - - aetete& Februsry2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 36.73 RCW THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made by and among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the Washington State, having offices for the transaction of business at West 1116 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as the "SPOKANE," the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "SPOKANE VALLEY," City of Medical Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 124 S. Lefevre P.O. Box 130, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "MEDICAL LAKE," the City of Cheney, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at General Office, 609 Second, 99004, hereinafter referred to as "CHENEY," the City of Liberty Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, c/o P.O. Box 370, 990I9, hereinafter referred to as "LIBERTY LAKE ", the City of Airway Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 1208 South Lundstrom, c(o P.O. Box 969; 99001, hereinafter referred to as "AIRWAY HEIGHTS," the City of Deer Park, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 316 Crawford Avenue, c!o Box F, 99006, hereinafter referred to as "DEER PARK ", the Town of Milhvood, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 9103 East Fredrick, 99206, hereinafter referred to "MILLWOOD ", the Town of Rockford, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business as 20 West Emma, c/o P.O. Box 49, Rockford, Washington 99030, hereinafter referred to as "ROCKFORD ", the Town of Spangle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at I I5 West Second Street, c% P.O. Box 147, Spangle, Washington 99031, hereinafter referred to as "SPANGLE ", the Town of Fairfield, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 218 East Main Street, do P.O. Box 334, Fairfield, Washington 99012, hereinafter referred to as "FAIRFIELD ", Town of Latah, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 108 E. Market, Latah, Washington 99018, hereinafter referred to as "LATAH ", and the Town of Waverly, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 255 N. Commercial, Waverly, Washington, 99039, hereinafter referred to as "WAVERLY ", jointly hereinafter referred to along as the "PARTIES." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County acknowledge that providing transportation infrastructure is one of the primary functions of local government and that current revenues for maintaining the existing transportation infrastructure are not keeping pace with the costs of such maintenance; and Deleted; Febraary 2 Pagel of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August Ib 20f , 2010 VERSION) WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County further acknowledge the need to construct `projects of regional significance' that impact the transportation system of the entire region and recognize the lack of resources available to fund such projects; and WHEREAS, federal and state funding for local transportation maintenance and construction projects has been declining and becoming less predictable. Local jurisdictions recognize the need to rely more heavily on local funding for local projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, the legislative authority of a county or city (means city or town) may establish a transportation benefit district within #lie county or city area for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within the district that are consistent with any existing state, regional, and local transportation plans and necessitated by ,existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The transportation improvements shall be owned by the county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the transportation improvements are or become a state highway; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, a transportation benefit district may include area within an entire county or area within a jurisdiction, or area within jurisdictions if the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction has agreed to the inclusion of its jurisdiction as provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. Provided, further, under RCW 82.80.140, an interlocal agreement for the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district shall become effective when it is approved by the county and sixty (60) percent of the cities representing seventy-five (75) percent of the population of the cities within the county; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020 and RCW 36.73.065, the PARTIES desire to enter into an interloeal agreement to establish a countywide transportation benefit district as provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and as authorized under chapter 36.73 RCW, the PARTIES do mutually agree as follows: SECTION NO. 1: PURPOSE The PARTIES desire to pursue a joint transportation funding mechanism whereby any revenues collected shall be utilized for (1) the operation, preservation and maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure and (2) the acquisition, construction, improvement of transportation improvements under the control of the PARTIES, and (3) the construction of transportation improvements `of regional significance'. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terns and conditions under which the PARTIES agree to the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district as provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW. The Agreement sets forth, among other matters, how the district shall be governed and administrative functions carried out, how any revenues collected shall be distributed, and the process for determining transportation improvements of regional significance' and prioritizing their funding. SECTION NO. 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. The PARTIES hereby request and agree, consistent with RCW 36.73.050, to the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district to be loiown as the "Spokane Regional Transportation Benefit peleteds xeeruaryz Page 2 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2610 VERSION) _ Districf' (SRTBD) through the adoption of an ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County. The boundaries of SRTBD shall be co- extensive with the boundaries of Spokane County and shall include the area of all incorporated cities and towns within Spokane County as well as all unincorporated area within Spokane County. The PARTIES agree that the governing body of the SRTBD shall be the same as the governing board of the designated federal metropolitan plarming organization (MPO) as provided for by USC Title 23, Section 134 (Governing Board). The Governing Body shall have the same powers as granted to the governing board of a regional transportation benefit district as set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW or otherwise agreed to by the PARTIES. SECTION N0.3: ADMINISTRATION AND DESIGNATION OF FISCAL AGENT For purposes of this Agreement, the MPO shall have the powers of a transportation benefit district as set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW. The PARTIES agree that the fiscal agent of the SRTBD shall be the MPO. As such, the revenues from all taxes, fees, charges, or tolls enacted by the SRTBD or revenues received by the SRTBD shall be received, held and distributed by the MPO as provided in this Agreement or otherwise agreed by the PARTIES. SECTION NO.4: DEFIlVITION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. The PARTIES agree and understand the purpose of the transportation benefit district is (1) to assist in funding the operation, maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infi-astructure and (2) to provide funding for the acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements within the boundaries of the transportation benefit district that are consistent with existing state, regional, and/or local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonable foreseeable congestion levels. The terminology "transportation improvement" is defined in RCW 36.73.015(3) to mean "...a project contained in the transportation plan of the state or a regional transportation planning organization In selecting a transportation improvement, the SRTBD shall consider those factors set forth in RCW 36.73.020 which include "(j) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body". For the purpose of this Agreement, and as a condition of the establishment of the SRTBD, the terminology "transportation improvemenf' shalt include those transportation projects listed as part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and administered by the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Additionally the terminology "transportation improvement' shall include those improvement `of regional significance' addressed in Section No. 5 hereinafter. Transportation improvements acquired, constructed, or improved under this Agreement shall be owned by the County if located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, or by the city or town within which they are located or by the state of Washington in cases were the transportation improvement is on or becomes a part of the state highway system. Deleted: February 2 Page 3 09 (DRAFTED BY TODD WELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) ------------------ SECTION NO. 5 : IMPROVEMENTS `OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE' Transportation improvements of `regional significance are those transportation related investments that benefit two or more jurisdictions within the SRTBD, benefit the economic health of the region, or enhance the state or federal transportation system within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Transportation improvements of `regional significance' may include investments for vehicular traffic, freight mobility, public transportation, rail, or for bicycle- pedestrian accommodations. They may be for either a single transportation mode or multi - modal. PARTIES shall submit requests for a determination as to whether or not a transportation investment is `of regional significance to the SRTBD. The SRTBD Governing Board shall determine whether a transportation investment is of 'regional significance' and prioritize the funding and construction timeline of the investment based upon the available funding. Transportation improvements of `regional significance' shall be listed as part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and administered by the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO), SECTION NO. 6: TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REVENUES The PARTIES agree that the SRTBD Goveming Board may utilize (i) any single or combination of revenues source,s as authorized in chapter 36.73 RCW (ii) any other local government transportation revenue authorized by the state legislature and/or (iii) State and/or Federal grant in aid program to fund the operation, maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure and to provide funding for the acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements to include those of `regional significance' as provided for in this Agreement, A revenues shall_ subject to voter approval _ _ _ - Deleted: ri ogn,�g that �o Deleted: sources are However, the PARTIES further agree that once the transportation benefit district is formed, no individual Deleted or may be implemented by jurisdiction that is party to this interlocal agreement shall impose a mandatoCV impact fee on any construction action offt SRTBD Board. for the purposes of transportation mitigation. Deleted: n SECTION NO. 7: DIM IMUTION OF REVENUES All revenues received by the SRTBD shall be combined and distributed as follows: Seventy percent (70 %) of all revenues shall be used by the PARTIES for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of existing transportation investments within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Additionally, individual PARTIES may utilize their respective share of revenues to fund the acquisition and/or construction and/or improvement of transportation investments within their jurisdictions. The seventy percent (70 distribution shall be based upon a combined population- vehicle miles traveled fonuula (formula). The formula takes each PARTIES proportionate share of population as published in the Office of Financial Management's (OFM) Official April 1' Population Estimate and each PARTIES proportionate share of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on the Federal Functional Classification System as published by the designated MPO's regional travel demand model. Population and vehicle miles travel shall be equally weighted in the revenue distribution calculation. Thirty percent (30 of all revenues shall be utilized to fund fully, or in part, transportation improvements of 'regional significance' as defined and detennined in Section No. 5. SECTION NO. 8: DURATION Deleted February 2 [ Page 4 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 , 2010 'VERSION) The PARTIES agree, as provided for in RCW 82.80.140, that the provisions of this Agreement will become effective when the Agreement is executed by the COUNTY and sixty (60) percent of the cites representing seventy-five (75) percent of the population of the cites within Spokane County. The terminology "city" shall also include town. The population of the cities shall be determined based on the official records of the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Upon the effective date of this AGREEMENT, the COUNTY will by Ordinance, establish the SRTBD consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and chapter 36.73 RCW. The Ordinance establishing the SRTBD shall provide that it shall automatically dissolve when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. As such, this Agreement shall terminate when the SRTBD is automatically dissolved as provided for herein or as provided by law. SECTION NO. 9: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. 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. The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. 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. SECTION NO. 10: CHAP'T'ER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 1 above. B. DURATION See Section No. 8 above. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS See Section Nos. 2 and 3 above. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES oeietea: February 2 Page 5 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16 201 , 2010 VERSION See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED The PARTIES, except the COUNTY shall file this Agreement with their City Clerks. The COUNTY shall place this Agreement on its web site, F. FINANCING. See Section Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above. G. TERMINATION. See Section No. 8 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION. Not applicable or see Section No. 2 above. IN WITNESS W fEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Daniela Erickson, DATED: Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: Bv: Assistant City Attorney MARK RICHARD, Chair BONNIE MAGER, Vice -Chair TODD MIELKE, Commissioner CITY OF SPOKANE: By: Its; (Title) Deleted: Fd-r ,y I Page 6 of 4 (DRATTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 , 2010 'VERSION) ------------------ DATED: Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form only: Acting City Attorney DATED: Attest: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: ]3v: Its: (Title) CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE: By: Its: City Clerk (Title) DATED: CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE: Attest: By: Its: City Clerk (Title) Approved as to form only: Acting City Attorney DATED: Attest: City Clerk CITY OF CHENEY: By: Its: (Title) DATED: CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS: Deleted: Fe- brunry 2 Page 7 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODI) MIELKE, A►i¢ust 16.20106 2010 VERSION] ----------------- Attest: By: Its: City Clerk (Title) DATED: CITY OF DEER PARK; Attest: By: Its; City Clerk (Title) DATED: TOWN OFMILLWOOD: Attest: By: Its: Town Clerk (Title) DATED: TOWN OF ROCKFORD: Attest: By: Its: Town Clerk (Title) DATED: TOWN OF FAIRFIELD Attest: By: Its: Town Clerk (Title) DATED: TOWN OF SPANGLE Attest, By: Its; Town Clerk (Title) Deleted: PebnE�ry 2 Page 8 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD AfIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) ---------------- DATED: Attest: Town Clerk DATED: Attest: Town Clerk TOWN OF LATAH Bv: Its: (Title) TOWN OF WAVERLY B v: Its: (Title) De[ etej:Peb..I y2 Page 9 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) _ - TODD MIEI.KE, 1ST DISTRICT • MARK RICHARD, 2ND DISTRICT • BONNIE A. MAGER, 3RD DISTRICT August 12, 2010 Council President Joe Shogan City of Spokane 808 West Spokane Fails.Boulevard Spokane, - WA 99201 Dear Council President Shogan: We read with interest your comments in this past Tuesday's Spokesman - Review regarding the current status of pursuing a "regional" transportation benefit district. In the article, it claims you stated that "county leaders have balked the idea." Nothing could be further from the truth, and to suggest as such, is to completely ignore the consistent position of the Board of County Commissioners and repeated requests for other jurisdictions to put their positions on the matter on record. The purpose of this letter is to once again reiterate the position the BOCC has held consistently for nearly two years. We know area residents believe maintaining our transportation system is one of the most basic functions of local government. We also strongly believe those same citizens prefer local governments in this area work together to form a single solution, as opposed to each jurisdiction developing its own plan. With that being said, the BOCC supports pursuing the formation of a regional transportation benefit district and working with area residents to identify the appropriate funding sources(s) to address the continued challenge faced by all jurisdictions to address this region's transportation infrastructure in light of reductions in gas tax revenues and reductions in funding from state and federal transportation programs. However, we want to go forward with the support of a majority of the jurisdictions that stand to benefit from such an effort. Prior to scheduling the statutorily required public hearing for formation of such a district, we have consistently asked jurisdictions within Spokane County for responses to two items. First, we have asked that each jurisdiction clearly state a position of support for moving forward either through a signed letter or adopted resolution. Second, we have asked for written responses /input to the "draft" inter -local agreement on this subject that is also required under the law. While these requests Have been made in presentations to city councils, Council of Government meetings, and in individual discussions with local elected officials, we have yet to receive a single written response to either of these requests. 1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0100 (509) 477 -2265 OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Two Letter to Council President Joe Shogan August 12, 2010 Receiving individual observations from individual elected officials is not the same as receiving a formal request from a governmental entity. We would like to once again request, that if the City of Spokane wishes to proceed in forming a regional transportation district that some formal statement of support and response to the draft inter -local agreement be forwarded as soon as possible. It is only through those formal communication channels that public policy issues important to the region can be pursued with confidence that the jurisdictions have the same goats in mind. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to a timely response and continued dialogue on this matter. Sincerely, BOARD OF COU Y COMMISSIONERS Mark Richard, Bonnie Mager, Chair Vice -Chair Cc: Mayor Mary Verner Councilmember Bob Apple Councilmember Steve Corker Councilmember Nancy McLaughlin Councilmember Richard Rush Councilmember Jon Snyder Councilmember Amber Waldref City Administrator Ted Danek Todd Mielke, Commissioner CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 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: Transportation Benefit Districts -- informational update for potential City -only TBD GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.73 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at winter retreat January 12, 2008; administrative report January 15, 2008; administrative report February 12, 2008; Council discussion about infrastructure funding options, instruction to staff to proceed with drafting legislation allowing for establishment of a transportation benefit district; April 8, 2008 discussion and update on formation of TBD, discuss draft ordinance; April 15, 2008; administrative update June 10, 2008; July 1, 2008 to update Council on proposed language change to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) regarding use of TBD funds for maintenance of existing City road system; July 29, 2008 administrativc report and update; December 2, 2008; information only February 17, 2010; administrative report April 6, 2010; administrative report regarding potential interlo cal agreement for regional TBD on July 6, 2010. BACKGROUND: On July 6, 2010, staff presented information to the Council regarding the potential for a regional TBD. The Council has now asked staff to present information on utilizing a City -only TBD option, including what that would entail, and how much potential revenue could be generated. This RCA contains information based upon a review of RCW 36.73, a joint informational memorandum from AWC and WSAC (Washington State Association of Counties), and numerous discussions with Ashley Probart of AWC and Julie Murray of the WSAC. A. Introduction - A TBD is a quasi- municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within a defined district, or area. If the TBD is entirely within one jurisdiction, the legislative body of that jurisdiction comprises the TBD governing board. B. Adoption fnechanisin - The creation of a TBD is done following a public hearing and through adoption of an ordinance which includes the following: a description of the boundary of the district, a statement that it is in the public's interest to form, a description of the improvements to be done by the TBD, and a statement of the proposed taxeslfecs /charges that the TBD will impose to raise revenue for the improvements. Page 1 of 4 C. TIED fAndiLig limits — Subject to voter ap i� oval - There are four funding options available that are subject to voter approval: 1. Imposition of property tax — a 1 -year excess levy or an excess levy for capital purposes; 2. Up to 0.2% sales and use tax which may not exceed a 10 year period without voter reauthorization; 3. Up to $100 annual vehicle fee per vehicle registered in the district. The fee is collected at the time of vehicle tab renewal. If a county creates a TBD to impose up to a $20 fee, it must first attempt to impose a countywide fee to be shared with cities by interlocal agreement. 60% of the cities representing 75% of the incorporated population must approve the interlocal agreement for it to become effective. If such an interlocal agreement cannot be reached, then the county is authorized to create a TBD and impose the fee, but only in the unincorporated portion of the county; and 4. Vehicle tolls on specified roads. Not subject to voter approval - There are two options that are not subject to voter approval, but which are subject to additional conditions. Please note that while a vote is not required, a city may still choose to put it to vote 1. Annual vehicle fee up to $20 per vehicle registered in the district. 2. Transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial buildings. Residential buildings are excluded. In addition, a city must provide a credit for a commercial or industrial transportation impact if the city has already imposed a transportation impact fee. In other words, no double dipping on impact fees. D. Protects that are "quali ing transportation, inapt- oveinents " For a project to qualify for TBD funding, it must meet several criteria. A TBD exists solely for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding "transportation improvements" within the district. The ordinance adopting the TBD must identify the transportation improvements that would be subject to TBD. To be a "qualifying transportation improvement" within the contemplation of RCW 36.73, it must meet the following: 1. The improvement must be located within the boundary of the TBD; 2. The improvement is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels; 3. The improvement is contained in a state, regional or local transportation plan; 4. When selecting the improvement, the TBD governing board must consider the following criteria, to the extent practicable: Page 2 of 4 - reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety; - improved travel time; - improved air quality; - increases in daily and peak period trip capacity; - improved modal connectivity; - improved freight mobility; - cost - effectiveness of the investment; - optimal performance of the system through time; and - other criteria as adopted by the governing body. It is also important to remember that the statutory definition of a "transportation improvement" under RCW 36.73.015(3) is quite broad, and includes state, regional, and local transportation facilities. Examples include, - new or existing highways of statewide significance; - principal arterials of regional significance; - high capacity transportation; - public transportation; - transportation demand management; - other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance as defined or amended into the respective regional or statewide transportation plan); or - may include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs. While TBDs have traditionally (although rarely) been used for street capital projects, recent amendments by the Legislature provided jurisdictions the opportunity to use TBD funds for maintenance of the existing street system. Such use would fall under "other transportation projects and programs", and would have to be provided for in one of the following; the state transportation plan, SRTC's current Metropolitan Transportation Plan, or the City's Comprehensive Plan. All three current documents provide for the importance of maintaining the current road system, and thus meet this requirement. E. Is the forination of a TBD subject to a referendum vote? Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.090, there are a number of actions which are exempt from referendum. It may be that formation of a TBD by the City is expressly statutorily exempt under RCW 35A.11.090, but it is not certain. There are additional means by which a legislative action is determined exempt. Here, the authority to form a TBD is expressly set forth in RCW 36.73.020, and is granted to "the legislative authority of a county or city ". As such, the power to establish or de- establish is reserved exclusively to the city council. If the authority was for "the people of a city ", or "a city ", then it most likely would be subject to referendum. As such, the formation of a TBD is not subject to referendum. Page 3 of 4 IT. Administi -ation of the TBD — I. In the event of proposed major changes to the plan adopted by the TBD Board, the TBD must develop a material change policy to address the delivery of the improvement or the ability to finance the plan. The policy must include a public hearing to solicit comments on how the cost changes should be resolved should anticipated costs exceed its original cost by more than 20 %. 2. A TBD must issue an annual report indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules to the public and to newspapers of record located in the TBD. 3. If the TBD proposes functions or transportation improvements that are outside those specified in the original notice of hearing establishing the TBD, the TBD must go through the notice, public hearing, and ordinance process again. G. Anticipated revenue -om license tab — In an attempt to better understand the potential revenue that could be generated by a TBD utilizing the vehicle license tab fee option, staff contacted the Washington State Department of Licensing and obtained a list of all qualifying vehicles licensed in Spokane County for 2009. The City's Geographic Information System (GIS) staff then isolated those registrations within our City by cross - referencing the county -wide list against our full City -wide address list database. As a result, there are approximately 60,000 registered qualifying vehicles in Spokane Valley, with a reasonable error factor included due to potential data errors within the list. Using this figure, it is then easy to determine how much funds could be generated since every $10 of license tab fee would generate roughly $600,000. $10 fee $600,000 $20 fee $1.2 million $30 fee $1.8 million $40 fee $2.4 million $50 fee $3.0 million $60 fee $3.6 million OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Washington Dept. of Licensing document showing affected vehicles. Page 4 of 4 WA State Licensing: Locait ortation benefit district Fees Page 1 of 2 Local transportation benefit district fees A law passed In 2007 allows city or county governments to create local transportation benefit districts and Impose a local vehicle reglstratlon l=ee to fund local transportation projects. How a transportation benefit district works Once a local transportation Benefit district Is set up, the district's board of directors may vote to charge a local vehicle licensing fee due when a vehicle owner buys new tabs. . • The transportation benefit district board has the authority to Impose a fee of up to $20 per vehicle without voter approval. • , A transportation benefit district may Impose a vehicle renewal fee of up to $100 per vehicle or seek other sources of funding if approved by voters. Vehicles subject to fees • Passenger vehicles • Trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Motorcycles Commercial passenger vehicles and trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Combination trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Tow trucks • House moving doilies • Trucks used exclusively for hauling logs that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Taxicabs For -hire or stage vehicles with 6 seats or less • For -hire or stage vehicles with 7 or more seats that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Private use trailers over 2,000 pounds Motorcycle trailers Travel trailers • Fixed load vehicles that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Mobile homes licensed as vehicles Exempt vehicles All farm vehicles Campers ofd road vehicles • Snowmobiles • Mopeds • Personal use trailers with a. single axle and less than 2,000 pounds scale weight httn /�x�wrhrr3nl ucr� on��/ crahinl�r - Nnn /lnr.Rlfe�e.htmi � /�1 /�llnQ YY f� r7tGLG J�iVGilSlil�: J,VG�ti LL" �'��1V1LtLL1U11 UCi1GiLL CiE�EIJt L dGGJ _ zago G U1 L I commercial trailers Combination trailers Trallers used exclusively for hauling logs Horseless carriage, collector, or restored -plate vehicles • Converter gear « Government vehicles • Private school vehicles • Vehicles properly registered to disabled American veterans Districts and 'Fees No cities or counties are currently charging local transportation benefit district; fees. Eligible vehicles The flTran ortation Benefit District Eli ibflit e o provides useful estimations to help cities and counties Interested In setting up a transportation benefit district. The report Includes: • Information about transportation benefit: district laws, • A list of the types of vehicles subject: to transportation benef=it district: fees. Estimated data showing the number of vehicles eligible for the $20 fee in fiscal year 2008 -- sorted by zip code, city, or county. If you need more information after viewing the report, call us at (360) 902 -3606 or send an email to KMathis dol.wa, ov. http: / /www.dol. ova. gov /veMeleregistratioMooalfcmhtml 3/21/2008 625 OFFICIAL GAZETTE SPOKANE WA AUGUST 18 2010 The Official Gazette USPS 403 -480 0% Advertising Periodical postage paid at Spokane, WA POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Official Gazette Office of die Spokane City Clerk 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. 5th Floor Municipal Bldg. Spokane, WA 99201 -3342 Subscription Rates: Within Spokane County: $4.75 per year Outside Spokane County: $13.75 per year Subscription cheeps made payable to: City Treasurer Address Change: Official Gazette Office of Spokane City Clerk 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. 501 Floor Municipal Bldg. Spokane, WA 99201 -3342 MINUTES OF SPOKANE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, August 5, 2010 A Special Meeting of the Spokane City Council was held on the above date at 3:35 p.m. in the City Council Briefing Center, Lower Level -City Hall, 808 West Spokane f=alls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington. Council President Shogan and Council Members Apple, Corker, Rush, and Waldref were present. Council Members Snyder and McLaughlin were absent. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following: ♦ DSP Study —Andrew Rowies. The meeting was open to the public but was conducted in a workshop format. No public testimony was taken and discussion was limited to appropriate officials and staff. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. MINUTES OF SPOKANE CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 9, 2010 BRIEFING SESSION The Briefing Session of the Spokane City Council held on the above date was called to order at 3:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Lower Level of the Municipal Building, 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington. Council President Shagan and Council Members Apple, Corker, McLaughlin, Rush, Snyder, and Waldref were present. Administrative Services Division Director Dorothy Webster, Assistant City Attorney Mike Piccolo, and City Clerk Terri Pfister were also present. Roll Call Council President Shogan and Council Members Apple, Corker, McLaughlin, Rush, Snyder, and Waldref were present. Advance Agenda Review Council reviewed items on the August 16, 2010, Advance Agenda for any changes and/or additions. Action to Approve August 16, 2010, Advance Agenda Following staff reports and Council inquiry and discussion regarding the August 16, 2010, Advance Agenda items, the City Council took the following action (pursuant to Council Rule 2.1.2): Motion by Council Member Corker, seconded by Council Member Waldref, to approve the Advance Agenda for August 16, 2010; carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION Current Agenda Review Council reviewed items on the August 9, 2010, Current Agenda for any changes and/or additions. Resolution 10 -54 Council Member Apple presented a motion, seconded by Council Member Waldref; to suspend the Council Rules in order to add Resolution 10 -54 to this evening's 6:00 p.m. Legislative Agenda. Resolution 10 -54 requests the Spokane 627 OFFICIAL GAZETTE. SPOKANE, WA AUGUST 18, 2010 LEGISLATIVE SESSION Words of Inspiration There were no Words of Inspiration. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Shogan. Roll Call Council President Shogan and Council Members Apple, Corker, McLaughlin, Rush, and Snyder, and Waldref were present. PROCLAMATIONS September 3, 2010 College Colors Days Council Member Corker read the proclamation. No individuals were present to accept the proclamation. August 21, 2010 Unity in the Community Day Council President Shogan read the proclamation and presented it to Unity in the Community Committee Members Mareesa Henderson, Pat Spanjer, and Jim Mohr. BOARD VACANCIESICOUNCIL APPOINTMENTS There were no Appointments. Board /Commission Vacancies The Mayor's Office is accepting applications for the following volunteer Boards and Commissions: ♦ Human Services Advisory Board Five vacancies, including one youth vacancy. ♦ Historic Landmarks Commission One vacancy for a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser. ♦ Sister Cities Association Board Accepting applications for two adult and one youth vacancy. ♦ Design Review Board One vacancy for a Community Assembly representative. Citizens Advisory Committee to the Urban Forestry Tree Committee One vacancy for the Community Assembly representative. (Please submit letter of interest to Leroy Eadie, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Spokane, 808 W. Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, WA 99201.) ♦ Boiler Advisory and Appeals Board One vacancy. ♦ Chase Youth Commission Two adult positions (one County and one City representative). ♦ Civil Service Commission Two upcoming vacancies. ♦ Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency One vacancy for a representative with meteorology experience. Please submit a letter of interest to Bill Dameworth, Director, SRCAA, 3104 East Augusta Avenue, Spokane, WA 99207 -5384. ♦ Arts Commission Two upcoming vacancies. Positions are open until filled. Citizens with disabilities are encouraged to apply. City applications are available in the Mayor's Office or the City Council Office at 808 W. Spokane Falls Boulevard, 7th Floor, or visit the City's website at www. spokanecity ,org /government/bcc /. County applications are available in the County Commissioner's Office in the County Courthouse, 1116 W. Broadway Avenue or call (509) 477 -2265. There was no City Administration Report. ANNOUNCEMENTS /COMMENTS BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT Injured Police Officers Council President Shogan commented on the officer who was severely injured during a traffic collision at an intersection Saturday morning. He noted the officer left the hospital today. He further noted there have been some really severe accidents with officers over the last five weeks. Five officers have been injured as a result of incidents involving drunken or impaired drivers. Transportation Benefit District (Resolution 10 -54) Council President Shogan announced the City Council will not be pursuing the TBD (transportation benefit district) matter (Resolution 10 -54). He referenced an article in the paper (The Spokesman- Review) this morning about the City Council consideration of a TBD (which includes a quote by former Council Member Al French). He noted it is fair to acknowledge that Al French is no longer on the City Council. 628 OFFICIAL GAZETTE SPOKANE, WA AUGUST 18, 2010 COUNCIL REPORTS Council Members Waldref, Rush, McLaughlin, Apple, Corker, and Snyder, and Council President Shogan reported on various meetings and events attended during the past week and also reported on upcoming meetings and events. LEGISLATIVE AGENDA There were no Emergency Budget Ordinances. There were no Emergency Ordinances. RESOLUTIONS Subsequent to an overview by Teri Stripes, Business & Development Services Department, public testimony and Council inquiry and comment, the following Resolution was adopted upon a Unanimous Roll Call Vote of Council: RES 10 -50 Approving a Multiple- family Housing Property Tax Exemption Agreement with Stejer Development Company, LLC (Spokane) for four new multiple - family residential housing units at 251 East 5 th Avenue. (OPR 10 -611) There were no Final Reading Ordinances. There were no First Reading Ordinances. There were no Special Considerations. There were no Hearings. OPEN FORUM Mr. George McGrath commented on the idea of a transportation benefit district (Resolution 10 -54). He suggested adding a $15 fee for bicycles to use streets. Mr. Bert Overland expressed dissatisfaction with the street repairs performed on Lyons Avenue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the Regular Legislative Session of the Spokane City Council adjourned at 7;01 p.m. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August24, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Industrial pre- treatment interlocal agreement with City of Spokane GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34; 40 CFR §403.8; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA- 002447 -3 (April 1, 2000) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only June 1, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley (COSV) does not itself provide sewer service to its citizenry, and instead receives such services primarily from Spokane County. The City of Spokane also provides sewer service to a small section of Yardley for a small number of industrial users immediately along the border between the two cities. (See Attachment 1, map of City of Spokane treatment area in COSV) If the City does not enter into an interlocal with the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane has advised that they will not be able to accept any sewer effluent from COSV as it would violate the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Spokane County and the City of Spokane recently executed an interlocal agreement between themselves in which they adopted similar industrial pre- treatment sewer standards, and acknowledged mutual rights and obligations. That agreement includes most of COSV, except for the small area in Yardley. Under that interlocal, Spokane County has administrative responsibility to ensure that all industrial users discharging into the sewer system have pre- treated their waste to at least a minimum level before releasing it to the system. The wastewater treatment facility is located in the City of Spokane along the Spokane River near Riverside State Park. One of the requirements of the proposed interlocal agreement is that the City would be required to adopt by reference a pretreatment code. Staff recommends adopting Spokane County's code, which is substantially identical to the City of Spokane's. This would preclude a situation where there are two different standards in our City, however small the difference. Spokane County and the City of Spokane are both in agreement that adoption of Spokane County's standards is appropriate under these circumstances. The Council should also consider whether it wants to provide a limited authorization to the City of Spokane to prosecute any violations of the standards, or whether the City wants to provide that service in- house. Staff recommends that COSY contract with the City of Spokane for these services. There have been no actual cases filed in Court by the City of Spokane because of its success in working with industrial users thus far. We believe the likelihood of having a case in this small area is relatively remote. Additionally, the City of Spokane has the expertise and familiarity in applying these laws. In the event a civil or criminal suit is necessary, the City of Spokane Valley would pay for prosecution costs pursuant to the agreement. If there is a dispute as to the appropriateness of the charges for prosecution, the matter could be referred to arbitration. There is also a likelihood that cases that are filed would go to the Hearing Examiner prior to being referred to Court, which could result in a charge for the Hearing Examiner. For a full case, this could be several thousand dollars per case, although again, historically there have been very few cases filed. Only one is recalled by the City of Spokane attorney office and it was voluntarily dismissed by the discharger before the hearing (2010) after the COS submitted its brief and materials supporting its case on that appeal. The City Council will need to adopt Code provisions adopting a treatment standard (by reference). These are included as an attachment to this RCA as Attachment 2. Additionally, the proposed interlocal agreement is included as Attachment 3. OPTIONS: Consensus on whether to adopt by reference Spokane County or City of Spokane's industrial pre- treatment sewer standards (they are nearly identical), and consensus on whether to authorize the City of Spokane to represent COSV in any enforcement action arising from violation of the pre- treatment standards, or instead to handle such enforcement in- house. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Minimal depending on if there are enforcement actions. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1) Map of City of Spokane sewer treatment area in Spokane Valley 2) Proposed interlocal agreement with City of Spokane 3) Spokane County Industrial Treatment Code — 8.03A 8/13/10 draft Spokane Valley Pretreatment Program Agreement between the Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane 1. RECITALS A. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a local pretreatment regulatory program within the City of Spokane Valley, WA, as required by federal and state law, including but not limited to 40 CFR 403.8 and provisions referenced in 1 C below for areas served by the City of Spokane in the City of Spokane Valley (see 1 B). The program under this Agreement may hereafter be referenced as the "SV Pretreatment Program ". B. For wastewater flows of whatever nature (e.g. sanitary sewage or storm water), direct or indirect, into a public sewer system, the City of Spokane Valley does not provide public sewer utility /wastewater collection service. Such service is provided by Spokane County, except for a small area on the northwest edge of Spokane Valley (Yardley), and a smaller area on the southwest edge of Spokane Valley. Those areas are within the City of Spokane sewer utility service area. The SV Pretreatment Program and this Agreement applies only to the City of Spokane sewer utility service area in Spokane Valley, as now or hereafter configured. For convenience, such areas are also referenced herein as the "Yardley area ". Areas within the Spokane County sewer utility service area are handled by separate arrangement with Spokane County. The specific boundaries of the City of Spokane service area are set forth in Exhibit A, Map of "City of Spokane Wastewater Service Area Within the City of Spokane Valley ". C. Under additional regulatory requirements, generators of biosolids from the POTW are required to comply with 40 CFR, Part 503 — Biosolids Rule, governing the use and disposal of municipal sewage sludge, and relevant State statutes. "POTW" stands for "Publicly Owned Treatment Works" and refers to any publicly owned sewer utility facility or treatment plant. 2. PARTIES: IMPLEMENTATION OF SV PRETREATMENT PROGRAM A. Spokane Valley hereby adopts and /or agrees to adopt or do any actions needed to support the SV Pretreatment Program, and as necessary or convenient for the City of Spokane to perform any functions under this Agreement. Such actions include but are not limited to adoption of applicable provisions of Spokane County's pretreatment ordinance, SCC chapter 8.03A, and all applicable and related regulatory requirements. An exception to the adoption for the Yardley area is that all references to the County Prosecutor's office shall be modified to be the Spokane City Attorney's Office, consistent with section 4 below. SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 2 of 5 B. The City of Spokane agrees to enforce and implement the SV Pretreatment Program. 3. SV PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT EXPENSES A. Except where otherwise specified and to the extent permitted by law, the parties intend that the City of Spokane shall fund any SV Pretreatment Program expenses through permit fees, fines, penalties, and /or other fees or expenses as may be adopted by the City of Spokane. Upon request, the City of Spokane shall provide any reports or information reasonably requested by the City of Spokane Valley with respect to such fees or charges. If it appears there are any unfunded program enforcement costs, the City of Spokane reserves the right to present the same to the City of Spokane Valley and the parties agree to review this issue for a mutually fair resolution. B. Nothing in this Agreement affects any sewer utility operational authority or ratemaking authority of the City of Spokane for its utility operations or customer relationships. The City of Spokane retains full power and authority to operate and manage its sewer utility within its service area in the City of Spokane Valley. 4. COURT ACTIONS A. As needed to enforce the SV Pretreatment Program, the City of Spokane Valley appoints the Spokane City Attorney's office as special deputy for the City of Spokane Valley to sign pleadings on Spokane Valley's behalf to prosecute and enforce any legal or law enforcement actions, including obtaining search warrants or other court action. The parties mutually waive any conflict of interest in connection with these arrangements, PROVIDED, at any time, upon request of either the City Attorney of Spokane or the City Attorney of Spokane Valley, the Spokane City Attorney's office will withdraw from representation of the City of Spokane Valley and the City Attorney of Spokane Valley shall then assume all functions within the scope of the withdrawal regarding the SV Pretreatment Program. Further, to that extent, each party shall be solely and separately responsible for its individual actions. B. The parties agree to execute any further agreements necessary to preserve and protect the attorney client, attorney investigation or work product, and /or confidentiality protections relating to their respective needs and functions under the Agreement, to the extent permitted by the Washington State Public Records Act or other applicable laws. C. The City of Spokane Valley agrees to pay for or provide program enforcement costs, including court, court clerk, jail, hearings examiner, or 2of5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 other civil or criminal law enforcement to support the SV Pretreatment Program. The City of Spokane Valley reserves the right to review and approve any billings from the City of Spokane. In the event of a dispute, Spokane Valley reserves the right to take control and responsibility for a case as provided in 4A for future costs, and the parties agree to submit the question of accrued costs to arbitration under RCW 7.04A. 5. EMERGENCY ACTION: CITY NPDES PERMIT HOLDER A. The City of Spokane may take emergency action whenever it deems necessary to stop or prevent any discharge which presents, or may present, an imminent danger to the health or welfare of humans, which reasonably appears to threaten the environment, or which threatens to cause interference, pass through, or sludge contamination as these terms are understood in the pretreatment program. The City of Spokane may provide notice to an Industrial User or other affected party prior to taking action, but reserves the right to act without notice or opportunity to respond when deemed reasonably necessary by the City of Spokane. The City of Spokane may advise all parties subject to regulation under the Spokane Valley Pretreatment Program that it is a designated agent of the City of Spokane Valley for purposes of enforcement. All records may be subject to inspection at any time by the City of Spokane Valley, upon reasonable arrangements and notice, subject also to the provisions of SCC 8.03A.0701 respecting requests for confidentiality. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the parties understand that the City of Spokane is the holder of a federal wastewater discharge ( NPDES) permit which applies to all wastewater flowing directly or indirectly into the City of Spokane sewer system and treatment plant. The City of Spokane reserves the right to take whatever actions necessary to avoid and /or correct any NPDES permit violations or other adverse federal or state regulatory agency action, and the parties agree to work together in good faith to accomplish this result. 6. ADDITIONAL A. Each party is responsible for its own actions under this Agreement. B. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining terms of this Agreement will be unaffected. C. The parties will review and revise this Agreement to ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act (42 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) and the rules and regulations (see 40 CFR Part 403) issued thereunder, as necessary, but at least every five (5) years on a date to be determined by the parties. 3 of 5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 7. RCW 39.34.030 (3) and (4) ELEMENTS: A. Duration This Agreement expires in five (5) years, but shall be deemed automatically renewed for additional five (5) year terms thereafter, not to exceed a total period of twenty five (25) years. In addition, either party may terminate this Agreement in its sole discretion upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice. Renewal does not affect any right of termination for breach or as otherwise agreed. B. Precise Organization Each party functions under its existing structures. No additional organizational structures are created. C. Purpose The purpose is stated in section 1 A. D. Budget and Financing These are addressed above, principally in sections 3 and 4. E. Termination Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, each party retains control of its property. No joint property or jointly held assets or funds are contemplated. F. Administration Each party administers its own functions under this Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney 4of5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE Authorized Representative By: Print name and Title ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney 5of5 Boundary Lines CITY OF SPOKANE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY -M SPOKANSEECI SLII AREA o aoo aoo 1 60 aoo 3200 4 00 Faat - ^ - ^• E CITY LIM ITS 1.10,000 SPOKANE VALLEY CITY LIM ITS Chapter 8.03A PRETREATMENT* *Editor's note: Bracketed enumerations reference the numbering in the EPA Region 10 Model Ordinance of December 20, 2007 Sections: Chapter 8.03A Pretreatment Article 1 General Provisions 8.03A.0101 Purpose and objectives. [1.11 8.03A.0102 Administration, revision, initiation. [1.21 8.03A.0103 Definitions. r1.31 8.03A.0104 Abbreviations. [1.41 8.03A.0105 Incorporation, headings, interpretation. 8.03A.0106 Legislative history; comments. 8.03A.0107 No special duty created. 8.03A.0108 Computation of time. 8.03A.0109 General severability and savings. Article 2 General Requirements 8.03A.0201 Prohibited discharge standards. [2.11 8.03A.0202 Federal categorical pretreatment standards. [2.21 8.03A.0203 State requirements. [2.31 8.03A.0204 Local limits. [2.41 8.03A.0205 Right of revision. [2.51 8.03A.0206 Special handling agreement. [2.61 8.03A.0207 Dilution. [2.71 8.03A.0208 Pretreatment facilities. [2.81 8.03A.0209 Deadline for compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. [2.91 8.03A.0210 Additional pretreatment. [2.101 8.03A.0211 Accidental spill /slug discharge control plans. [2.111 8.03A.0212 Hauled wastewater. (2.121 8.03A.0213 Causing„ contributing to sewer overflow events. [2.131 Article 3 Wastewater Discharge Permit 8.03A.0300 Permit requirement, individual, eg neral permits. [3.01 8.03A.0301 Permits as to existing sources, existing users. [3.11 8.03A.0302 Permits as to new sources. new users. [3.21 8.03A.0303 Discharge permit -- Extrajurisdictional users. [3.31 8.03A.0304 Discharge permit application contents. [3.41 8.03A.03042 Combined wastestream formula_ fundamentallv different factors modifications. 3.4 art 8.03A.0305 Signatory and certification requirement. [3.51 8.03A.0306 Discharge permit decisions. [3.61 8.03A.0307 Discharge pennit contents. [3.71 8.03A.0308 Permit appeals. 8.03A.0309 Reserved. Page 1 of 69 8.03A.0310 Permit modification. [3.101 8.03A.0311 Permit transfer. [3.111 8.03A.0312 Discharge permit revocation, suspension. [3.121 8.03A.0313 Discharge permit renewal. [3.131 Article 4 Reporting Requirements 8.03A.0401 Baseline monitoring reports. [4.11 8.03A.0402 Compliance report deadlines, initial reports. [4.21 8.03A.0403 Periodic compliance reports. [4.31 8.03A.0404 Compliance schedules to meet applicable pretreatment requirements. [4.41 8.03A.0405 Notification of significant production changes. [4.51 8.03A.0406 Hazardous waste notification. [4.61 8.03A.0407 Notice of potential problems, accidental spills, slug loads. [4.71 8.03A.0408 Non - compliance reporting. [4.8 modified] 8.03A.0409 Notice of changed discharge. [4.91 8.03A.0410 Notice from users without permits. [4.101 8.03A.0411. Record keeping. [4.111 Article 5 Sampling And Analytical Requirements 8.03A.0501 Sampling requirements for users. [5.11 8.03A.0502 Analytical requirements. [5.21 8.03A.0503 County monitoring of user wastewater. [5.31 Article 6 Compliance Monitoring 8.03A.0601 Inspection and sampling. [6.11 8.03A.0602 Monitoring facilities. [6.21 8.03A.0603 Search warrants. [6.31 8.03A.0604 Vandalism, tampering, disturbing equipment or property. [6.41 Article 7 Confidential Information 8.03A.0701 Confidential information. [7.11 Article 8 Publication Of Users In Significant Noncompliance 8.03A.0801 Annual publication of violators. [8.11 Article 9 Administrative Enforcement Remedies 8.03A.0901 Administrative enforcement process. [9.11 8.03A.0902 Other administrative options. [9.21 8.03A.0903 Suspension, termination of service orders. [9.31 8.03A.0904 Administrative appeals. [9.41 Article 10 Judicial Remedies 8.03A.1001 Civil suit. [10.11 8.03A.1002 Injunctive relief. [10.21 8.03A.1003 Criminal prosecution. [10.31 8.03A.1004 Remedies nonexclusive. [10.41 8.03A.1005 Violation of this chapter. [10.51 Article 11 Supplemental Enforcement Measures 8.03A. 1 101 Bond, security for performance. [ 11.11 8.03A.1102 Liability insurance. [11.21 8.03A.1103 Reserved. 8.03A.1104 Public nuisance. [11.41 8.03A.1105 Informant rewards. f 11.51 Page 2 of 69 Article 12 Affirmative Defenses To Discharge Violations 8.03A.1201 Upset. [12.11 8.03A.1202 Prohibited discharge standards affirmative defenses. [12.21 8.03A.1203 Bypass affirmative defenses. [12.31 8.03A.1204 Burden of proof. [ 12.41 Article 13 Reserved Article 14 Fees 8.03A.1401 Pretreatment fees. [14.11 Article 15 Appendices 8.03A.1501 Appendix A to 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 423 - -126 Priority Pollutants. 8.03A.1502 Appendix D TO 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 122 - -NPDES Permit Application Testing Requirements (§ 122.21) ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.03A.0101 Purpose and objectives. [1.1] A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for a local pretreatment regulatory program. The program derives from applicable parts of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (the "Act ", 33 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1251 et seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Chapter I, Subchapter N, Part 403), as well as state law requirements in chapter 90.48 RCW and chapter 173 -216 WAC. (Reference: 40 CFR §403.1(a)) B. The objectives of this chapter are: 1. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW that will interfere with its operation; (Cross reference: "interference ", Spokane County Code 8.03A.0103) 2. To prevent the introduction of Pollutants into the POTW that will pass through the POTW inadequately treated into receiving waters or otherwise be incompatible with such works; (Cross reference: "pass through ", Spokane County Code 8.03A.0103) 3. To ensure that the quality of the POTW sludge, a residual from reclaimed Wastewater, is maintained at a level which allows its use or disposal in compliance with any applicable statutes or regulations; 4. To protect POTW personnel who may be affected by wastewater and sludge in the course of their employment and to protect the general public; 5. To promote reuse and recycling of wastewater and sludge from the POTW; 6. To enable the county to comply with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit conditions, sludge use and disposal requirements, and any other applicable federal or state requirements related to pretreatment; and 7. To provide for cost recovery. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.2 (part)) C. Pollutants regulated under this chapter are associated with non - domestic sources introduced into the POTW, whether through regular sewer service or any other means (e.g. Pipe, truck or rail). The chapter provides for issuance of individual or general discharge permits, and for reporting, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement activities, and establishes administrative review procedures. (Reference: 40 CFR §403.1 (b) (part) and appendices hereto) (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 3 of 69 8.03A.0102 Administration; revision; initiation. [1.2] A. Director. The director of the county division of utilities ( "director ") administers this chapter. The director may delegate functions to other duly authorized individuals. B. Discretion. Exercise of administrative discretion under this chapter is guided by the purpose and objectives, the Act and its implementing pretreatment regulations in 40 CFR, primarily part 403, and chapter 90.48 RCW, chapter 173 -216 WAC, chapter 173 -240, and Spokane County Code 8.03A.0101 and the director's knowledge, training and experience. C. Decisions in writing; revision. Except where expressly noted, all decisions of the director under this chapter shall be in writing. No decision, action or inaction creates any vested or property rights. Decisions may be revoked or modified consistent with the purpose and objectives, change in law, or otherwise as the director deems necessary. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0205) D. Permits, applications may be ordered. Whenever provision is made for a person to apply for a permit, permission, exemption, waiver or other privilege under this chapter, the director may order such application to be made or exercise any authority as provided on the director's own initiative, with or without application, and issue any orders to such person as deemed necessary and consistent with such action. E. No approval by the director under this section or chapter or acceptance by the county of any report, information, analysis, sampling or data shall be considered in any way as an endorsement of the results by the county or in any way releases any person required to submit any report, information, analysis, sampling or monitoring under this chapter from full responsibility for compliance with this chapter or related federal or state requirements. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0103 Definitions. [1.3] The following definitions are used in context of the county's pretreatment program. A. Accidental spill. Any spill which could lead to a slug discharge. B. Act or "the Act. " The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq. C. Applicable pretreatment standard. For a given pollutant, this means the most stringent standard, whether arising from county requirements such as local limits, prohibited discharge standards, categorical standards or other applicable state, local or federal standards. D. Approval authority. The Washington State Department of Ecology through its authorized representative as delegated agency of the EPA. E. Authorized representative, authorized representative of a user. 1. If the user is a corporation: a. The president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice - president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision - making functions for the corporation; or b. The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make management decisions that govern the Page 4 of 69 operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long -term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for individual or general discharge permit requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in writing, in accordance with corporate procedures. The authorization must be in writing by the principal executive officer or contain similar acceptable proof of authority. 2. If the user is a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or proprietor respectively, or other responsible officer or manager with proof of authority from a general partner or proprietor. The other responsible officer or manager must be in a position having responsibility for overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates, such as plant manager or equivalent or one having overall responsibility for the environmental affairs of the user. 3. If the user is a federal, state, or local governmental facility, a director or highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the facility, or their designee provided such authority must be designated in writing by the principal executive officer of the local government, state department secretary, or ranking regional official of a federal agency. 4. The individuals described in paragraphs 1 through 3 above may designate an authorized representative if the authorization is in writing and the designee is someone responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates or who has overall responsibility for environmental matters for the user, and such designation is accepted by the director. 5. The above definitions apply to authorized representatives of persons other than users except as ordered by the director. The director may require additional proof of authority as determined necessary. F. Baseline monitoring report or BMR. A specific informational report which maybe required under sections of this chapter or ordered by the director for particular informational needs. The report may relate to industrial processes, flows, sampling information or other data, and may be used as a reference point against which comparisons may be made to measure data or sampling changes. BMR information requirements arise under discharge permit applications, reporting requirements for categorical users, industrial users subject to equivalent mass limits (baseline production rate information) and other areas. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.6 (c)(5)(ii)(C), 40 CFR 403.12(b)) G. Best management practices or BMPs means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 A and B (or as expressed in 40 CFR §403.5(a)(1) and (b)) or other provisions of the chapter as ordered by the director or required under state or federal regulation. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. BMPs also include alternative means (i.e., management plans) of complying with, or in place of certain established categorical pretreatment standards and effluent limits. They may be used in individual or general discharge permits or any other circumstances. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.3(e)) Page 5 of 69 H. Biochemical oxygen demand or BOD. The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedures for five days at 20 degrees Celsius, usually expressed as a concentration (e.g., mg /1). I. Bypass. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.1203. J. CBOD or carbonaceous BOD. The biological oxygen demand (BOD) from organic compounds and oxidation of inorganic compounds such as ferrous iron and sulfide. K. Categorical industrial user or CIU, also sometimes abbreviated to "Categorical User ". A person designated as an SIU by virtue of being subject to a categorical standard. L. Categorical pretreatment standard or categorical standard. Any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPA in accordance with sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. section 1317) that apply to a specific category of users and that appear in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405 -471. M. County. Spokane County, WA, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, acting by and through its utilities division. N. Chemical oxygen demand or COD. A measure of the oxygen required to oxidize all compounds, both organic and inorganic, in water. O. Color. The optical density at the visual wave length of maximum absorption, relative to distilled water. One hundred percent transmittance is equivalent to zero optical density. P. Combined wastestream formula or CWF. A means of regulating Discharges permitted under 40 CFR §403.6(e) when process effluent is mixed prior to treatment with wastewaters other than those generated by the regulated process. Q. Composite sample. A composite of several wastewater samples collected at the same sample point and taken based on either flow or time. Samplers are subject to approval. Several brands of electric samplers, some with a refrigerated sample collection area, may be used. Approvable composite samplers may either use a flow paced or time paced algorithm. For example, collecting a same size aliquot every one thousand gallons (flow paced), or a variable sized aliquot every hour (time paced). In both cases, they must interface with a device which senses the effluent flow volume to collect a representative sample unless the director has determined that a flow proportionate sample is not required. (Cross reference: this section, Sample /Sampling Limit Definition) R. Control authority. The local government entity recognized by the Washington State Department of Ecology or EPA with responsibility to enforce the pretreatment program applicable to an area with flows received at the POTW. This will be Spokane County unless different arrangements are made. S. Control mechanism. What an SIU must do to comply with a discharge permit and /or the underlying requirements of this chapter. T. Cooling water. See "noncontact cooling water." Page 6 of 69 U. Daily maximum. The arithmetic average of all effluent samples for a Pollutant collected during a calendar day. (Cross reference: this section, sample /sampling limit definition) V. Daily maximum limit (DML). The maximum concentration or loading allowed for a Pollutant during a calendar day or equivalent representative twenty- four -hour period accepted by the director. Such a period is also referenced as the "daily discharge ". Where the DML is expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is the total mass discharged over the course of the day. Where DMLs are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge is the arithmetic average measurement of the pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken in the day. The director has discretion to order sampling over any interval as deemed appropriate; e.g. four -day limit. (Cross reference: this section, sample /sampling limit definition) W. Discharge. See "indirect discharge." X. Discharge permit. A grant of approval by the director to discharge wastewater into the POTW to a person required to hold a discharge permit under this chapter. Discharge permits may be individual discharge permits, which contain individually developed permit requirements, or general discharge permits, which contain the same or similar requirements developed to cover a group or class of industrial users who have been identified as eligible for general permit status. (See 40 CFR §403.8 (f)(2)). The contents of either a general or individual discharge permit are similar, as required herein. Y. Domestic wastewater. Wastewater of a similar volume and /or chemical make -up to that from a residential dwelling unit. Discharges from a residential dwelling unit typically include up to one hundred gallons, two - tenths pounds of BOD, and seventeen - hundredths pounds of TSS, all quantities measured per capita per day. Z. Engineering report. A document, signed by a professional licensed engineer, which thoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173 - 240 -060 or 173 - 240 -130. AA. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acting through its authorized agent. Such official may be the regional water management division director, the regional administrator for Region 10, or other duly authorized official of said agency. AB. Existing source. A categorical industrial user, the construction or operation of whose facility commenced prior to the publication by EPA of proposed categorical pretreatment standards which would be applicable to such source if and when the standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with Section 307 of the Act. AC. Existing user. Any non - categorical significant industrial user not a new user. AD. General permit. See "discharge permit." AE. General prohibitions. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 AF. Grab sample. A sample from a wastestream on a one -time basis without regard to flow in the wastestream and without consideration of time. (Source: 40 CFR §403.7 (b)(2)(iv). Cross reference: this section, Sample /Sampling Limit Definition) Page 7 of 69 AG. Hauled wastewater. Wastewater introduced into the POTW which has been transported by truck, rail, or any other transport, as distinguished from wastewater which has only flowed from the original generating customer directly into the POTW. Hauled wastewater typically includes septic tank waste. AH. Indirect discharge or discharge. The introduction of pollutants into the POTW from any non - domestic source (industrial wastewater) regulated under section 307(b), (c) or (d) of the Act (33 USC §1317). This term is distinguished from "direct discharge" or a direct release of effluent into the natural environment, typically a river or other receiving waters. (Source: 40 CFR §403.3 (0) Al. Individual permit. See "discharge permit." AJ. Industrial user (IU) or user. A source of indirect discharge. (Source: 40 CFR §403.3 0)) AK. Industrial wastewater. Wastewater from a non - domestic source (that is, other than domestic wastewater). Examples are releases identified with industrial or commercial processes. In identifying industrial wastewater, the director may use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (2007 version) published by the US Census Bureau to identify various industrial classifications or other information. AL. Instantaneous limit. The maximum concentration of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of any discrete or composite sample collected independent of the industrial flow rate and the duration of the sampling event. (Note: The director may establish both daily maximum and instantaneous limits for flexibility to measure compliance with either a single grab sample or sample representative of the discharge day.) (Cross reference: this section, sample /sampling limit definition) AM. Interference. A discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, either: 1. Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; or 2. Is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW 's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations include Section 405 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1345) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). This further includes Title II, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901- 6992k. Further included are state regulations contained in any state sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA and sludge regulations in 40 CFR Part 503. Further included are the Clean Air Act (42 USC § §7401 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC § §2601 et seq.), and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (33 USC § §1401 -1445 and 16 USC § §1431- 1445). Further included are any other State or local requirements. (Source: 40 CFR §403.3 (k); Cross reference: WAC 173 -216- 030 (9)) AN. Local Limit. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.0204. AO. Lower explosive limit. The lowest concentration of a gas -in -air mixture at which a gas can ignite. Page 8 of 69 AP. Maximum allowable discharge limit. The maximum concentration or loading of a Pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of any discrete or composited sample collected, independent of the industrial flow rate and the duration of the sampling event. AQ. Medical waste. Isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes. AR. Monthly average. The sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. (Cross reference: this section, sample /sampling limit definition) AS. Monthly average limit, also sometimes referenced as average monthly limit. The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month. (Cross reference: this section, sample /sampling limit definition) AT. National pretreatment standard. (Cross reference: pretreatment standard) AU. New source. 1. Any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed pretreatment standards under section 307(c) of the Act (33 USC §1317) which will be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance with that section, provided that: a. The building, structure, facility or installation is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or b. The building, structure, facility or installation totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or c. The production or wastewater generating processes of the building, structure, facility or installation are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these are substantially independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source should be considered. 2. Construction on a site at which an existing source is located results in a modification rather than a new source if the construction does not create a new building, structure, facility or installation meeting the criteria of paragraphs 1.b. or c. of this definition, but otherwise alters, replaces, or adds to existing process or production equipment. 3. Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph has commenced if the owner or operator has: a. Begun, or caused to begin as part of a continuous onsite construction program: i. Any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities, processes, or equipment; or ii. Significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings, structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement, assembly, or installation of new source facilities, processes or equipment; or Page 9 of 69 b. Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under this paragraph. (Source for the above subpart: 40 CFR §403.3 (m)) 4. "New source" is further defined in WAC 173 - 216 -030 (12) to mean any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge, the construction of which commenced; after proposal of pretreatment standards under section 307(c) of the Act (33 USC §1317) which are applicable to such sources. This definition (4) may be used for simplicity, except in cases where the federal definition in paragraphs (1) -(3) is more stringent. AV. New user. Any non - categorical significant industrial user without an SIU permit issued under a prior pretreatment program or this chapter. AW. Noncontact cooling water. Water used for cooling that does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product, or finished product. Noncontact cooling water may be generated from any use, such as air conditioning, heat exchangers, cooling or refrigeration to which the only pollutant added is heat. (Cross reference: "process wastewater ") AX. Pass through. A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the county's NPDES permit, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation, or which is a violation of a state water quality standard. (Source: 40 CFR §403.3(p)) AY. Permittee. Anyone issued a discharge permit AZ. Person. Any de facto or de jure legal entity, which includes a natural person, partnership, co- partnership, firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust, or their legal representatives, agents, or assigns. This definition includes federal, state, and local governmental agencies or entities. BA. pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, expressed in standard units. BB. Pollutant. Any dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, medical wastes, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discharged equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, agricultural and industrial wastes, and the characteristics of wastewater (i.e. pH, temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD, chemical oxygen demand (COD), toxicity or odor. Pollutant is also used in the generic sense of any wastestream or wastewater quality or component identified under federal state or local regulations or requirements of this chapter as subject to regulation in the county's pretreatment program. Specific pollutants are specified in this chapter or its appendices, by applicable state or federal regulations enforced under this chapter or by order of the director. (Cross reference: "toxic pollutant" this section, and appendices to this chapter 8.03A) BC. POTW See "publicly owned treatment works." BD. POTW treatment plant. That portion of the POTW which is designed to provide treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of wastewater, including municipal sewage and industrial waste. (Source: 40 CFR 403.3(r)) Page 10 of 69 BE. Pretreatment. The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to, or in lieu of, introducing such pollutants into the POTW. This reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes, by process changes, or by other means, except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard. BF. Pretreatment requirements. Any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment imposed on a user, other than a pretreatment standard. BG. Pretreatment standards or standards. Prohibited discharge standards, categorical standards, and local limits. In addition, this definition includes anything encompassed in 40 CFR §403.3(1) and /or WAC 173 - 216 -030 (17). (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 through 8.03A.0204) BH. Process wastestream or process water. This term is not defined in federal or state pretreatment regulations, but is used in a sense understood to mean wastewater from an industrial or other process regulated by the pretreatment program. BI. Prohibited discharge standards or prohibited discharges. Absolute prohibitions against the discharge of certain substances, grouped as "general prohibitions" and "specific prohibitions." (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201) BJ. Publicly owned treatment works or POTW The county's POTW, meaning its treatment works and public sewer lines. Where the context indicates, the federal definition may also apply from 40 CFR §403.3(q): 1. The term "publicly owned treatment works" or "POTW" means a treatment works as defined by section 212 of the [Federal Clean Water] Act, which is owned by a state or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the Act). This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. The term also means the municipality as defined in section 502(4) of the Act, which has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a treatment works. BK. Sample /sampling limit definitions. For purposes of reference, there are several interrelated sample and limit definitions. These are listed throughout this section as: Composite sample Daily maximum Daily maximum limit or DML or "daily discharge" Grab sample Instantaneous limit Monthly average Monthly average limit BL. Septic tank waste. Wastewater from septic tanks or similar holding tanks, vessels, chemical toilets, campers, trailers, and the like. Septic tank waste is typically treated herein as hauled wastewater. BM. Significant industrial user (SIU). 1. An industrial user subject to categorical pretreatment standards, or Page 11 of 69 2. An industrial user that: a. Discharges an average of twenty -five thousand gpd or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary (domestic wastewater), noncontact cooling and boiler blow down wastewater); or b. Contributes a process wastestream which makes up five percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. As used herein "organic capacity" means the capacity of the treatment plant to treat wastewater as opposed to the "hydraulic capacity" or capability to accept and handle fluids; or c. Is designated as such by the director on the basis that it has a reasonable potential to cause an adverse effect on the POTW's operation, adverse impact on the county's ability to comply with its NPDES permit, cause the POTW to violate any pretreatment standard or requirement or because of other regulatory control needs. (Source: 40 CFR §403.3(v)) BN. Slug discharge or slug load. Any discharge at a flow rate or concentration, which could cause a violation of the prohibited discharge standards, categorical standards, state requirements or local limits, or any discharge of a non - routine, episodic nature, including but not limited to an accidental spill or a non - customary batch discharge. BO. Specific prohibitions. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201. BP. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code. A classification pursuant to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the United States Office of Management and Budget. The county uses the North American Industry Classification System if available. BQ. State. The State of Washington through the Department of Ecology or other Washington State jurisdictional regulatory agency. BR. Stormwater. Any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation, including snowmelt. BS. Director. The county director of its division of utilities or his authorized representative. BT. Total suspended solids (TSS) or suspended solids (SS). The total suspended matter that floats on the surface of, or is suspended in, water, wastewater, or other liquid, and that is removable by laboratory filtering. BU. Toxic pollutant. Those pollutants, or combination of pollutants, including disease - causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction), or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring, including those listed as toxic in regulations promulgated by the EPA. (Cross reference: 33 USC §1317 and other references therein) BV. Upset. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.1201. BW. User or industrial user. A source of indirect discharge. For purposes of this chapter, users are county customers releasing industrial wastewater into the POTW. Explanatory Note "User ": 1. Federal pretreatment regulations and federal model ordinance examples identify different classes of users. Significant industrial users (SIUs) are users required to obtain a Page 12 of 69 discharge permit. SIUs may be either categorical industrial users (CIUs) or non - categorical industrial users (NCIUs), depending on whether or not they are subject to federally established categorical pretreatment standards. In general, all CIUs are also SIUs unless exempted. An exempt CIU may also be referenced as a non - significant CIU (NSCIU). Whether or not subject to a discharge permit, NSCIUs have certain reporting requirements. (See 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)) 2. CIUs are also divided into new sources and existing sources, depending on whether they started construction before the EPA began publication of a categorical standard (existing source) or after publication (new source). NCIUs are divided into new users or existing users, depending on whether they started construction before the effective date of this chapter (existing user) or after (new user). 3. The above distinctions result in different regulatory requirements. BX. Wastewater. Anything introduced into the POTW, typically flowing as liquids and water carried wastes. The term may be used interchangeably with "wastestream ", which is typically used to reference a discrete source of wastewater. (Cross reference: "industrial wastewater" and "domestic wastewater ") BY. Wastewater treatment plant, water reclamation plant, or treatment plant. See POTW treatment plant. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0104 Abbreviations. [1.4] The following abbreviations, when used in this chapter, have the designated meanings: TABLE INSET: AKART All known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (Cross reference: RCW 90.48.010, WAC 173 - 200- (2)(c)(ii), and WAC 173 - 216 -110 (1)(a)) ASPP Accidental spill prevention plan BPCT Best practical control technology (33 USC §1311 (b)(1)) BOD Biochemical oxygen demand BMP Best management practice BMR Baseline monitoring report CBOD Carbonaceous oxygen demand CWF Combined wastestream formula CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIU Categorical industrial user COD Chemical oxygen demand DML Daily maximum limit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act Page 13 of 69 FDF Fundamentally different factors gpd gallons per day N Industrial user mg /1 milligrams per liter NAICS North American Industry Classification System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSCIU Non- significant categorical industrial user POTW Publicly owned treatment works RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington SIU Significant industrial user SNC Significant noncompliance TSS Total suspended solids TTO Total toxic organics U.S.C. (USC) United States Code WAC Washington Administrative Code (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0105 Incorporation; headings; interpretation. A. This chapter is enacted to comply with federal and state pretreatment requirements, principally those in 40 CFR Chapter I, subchapter N, part 403 and WAC 173 -216. All federal or state statutes and regulations referenced in this chapter are intended to be incorporated in full by reference where applicable to the county's local pretreatment program, whether or not otherwise expressly stated where referenced. Such incorporation also includes any referenced statutes or regulations referenced internally within the incorporated statutes or regulations, whether or not otherwise specified. B. Headings do not limit or restrict the meaning of a section, but may assist in interpretation. In general, capitalized terms are defined, but the presence or absence of capitalization shall not limit the application of defined terms unless indicated by context. C. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity within this chapter, between this chapter and applicable federal or state laws or regulations, or otherwise, the following rules of interpretation apply, in the order listed: 1. Where local authority is preempted by federal or state law, the preemption applies to the extent required by law. 2. An interpretation extent required. to preserve the county's NPDES permit is applied to the Page 14 of 69 3. Cost or liability to the county shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. 4. Normal rules of statutory interpretation apply, considering Spokane County Code 8.03A.0101. 5. The more stringent rule applicable to regulated customers or other members of the public applies. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0106 Legislative history; comments. A. Adoption of a local pretreatment ordinance approved by state and federal authorities is a requirement for the county to comply with its NPDES permit. The county sanitary sewer code, chapter 8.03 Spokane County Code was originally codified and adopted as such by Resolution No. 96 -0752, passed in 1996. Provisions for the county's wastewater pretreatment program were adopted within the sewer code and subsequent amendments. The county's pretreatment program has now been revised in this Chapter Spokane County Code 8.03A which replaces those portions of chapter 8.03 concerning pretreatment. B. This chapter seeks to accommodate federal, state and local regulatory policies and the practical and operational needs of the POTW, its customers and the public, supporting the law for the common good. Members of the general public, as well as users and state and federal regulatory officials are encouraged and requested to contact the director, Spokane County, utilities division, with any questions or comments for improvement or clarification. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0107 No special duty created. Notwithstanding any other provision, no special duty or liability for the county to any person or class is created by this chapter. Any duty nonetheless deemed created shall be exclusively a duty to the general public as a whole. This provision shall be liberally construed. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0108 Computation of time. Whenever an action is specified to be done within a stated number of days, the date upon which the time begins to run is not counted and the last day is counted. Whenever a time period is specified of five days or less, weekends and holidays are not included. Time periods over five days shall mean calendar days. If the last day by which an action must be accomplished falls on a weekend or holiday, the time is extended to the next day not a weekend or holiday. Holidays means legal holidays as stated in RCW 1.16.050. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0109 General severability and savings. If any provision of this chapter is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. All pending enforcement actions are saved. This chapter does not affect any enforcement rights or violations accruing before its effective date. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 15 of 69 ARTICLE 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 8.03A.0201 Prohibited discharge standards. [2.1] A. General Prohibition. No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass through or interference. This requirement applies to all users of the POTW, whether or not they are subject to categorical pretreatment standards or any other federal, state or local pretreatment standards or requirements. B. Specific Prohibitions. No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW anything listed hereafter. Where two or more items apply, the more stringent governs: 1. Pollutants which either alone or by interaction may create a fire or explosive hazard in the POTW or any part thereof, a public nuisance or hazard to life, or prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance and repair or which are in any way injurious to the operation of the system or operating personnel. This includes wastestreams with a closed -cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR §261.21. 2. Wastewater having a pH less than 5.00 or more than 11.00, or otherwise having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, or personnel. Discharges outside the pH range of 5.00 to 11.00 may be approved by written authorization of the director pursuant to a finding that the system is specifically designed to accommodate a Discharge of that pH. Authorization is revocable at any time in the director's sole discretion. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0204 A) 3. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which will cause obstruction of the flow in the POTW. In general, the cutting up or reducing to smaller pieces of any solid materials as a means to enable their introduction into the POTW is prohibited. In addition, in no case shall solids greater than '/4 inch (0.64 cm) in any dimension be discharged; 4. Pollutants, including oxygen- demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released at a flow rate and /or concentration which, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, will cause interference with the POTW; 5. Wastewater having a temperature which will inhibit biological activity in the treatment plant resulting in interference, but in no case, wastewater which causes the temperature at the point of introduction into the treatment plant to exceed 104 degrees F (40 degrees C) unless the approval authority, upon request of the director, approves alternative temperature limits; 6. Wastewater which causes the temperature at the point of introduction into any sewer or portion of the POTW to exceed 130 degrees F (54 degrees C); 7. Petroleum oil, non - biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin, in amounts that will cause obstruction of the POTW, interference, or pass through; 8. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause risk to worker health and safety, in the director's judgment and /or substances identified as toxic pollutants (see Spokane County Code 8.03A.0104) or any wastewater containing any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants, in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction, to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or be in violation of any applicable statute, rule, regulation or ordinance of any public agency, including the EPA; 9. Trucked or hauled pollutants, wastewater or other materials (hauled wastewater), except at discharge points designated by the director in accordance with Spokane County Code 8.03A.0212; 10. The following are prohibited unless approved by the director under special circumstances, such as lack of direct discharge alternatives due to combined sewer service or Page 16 of 69 need to augment domestic wastewater flows due to septic conditions as required under WAC 173 - 216 -050: a. Noncontact cooling water in volumes deemed significant by the director because of adverse effects of consequences. b. Stormwater, or other direct inflow sources. c. Wastewater significantly affecting POTW hydraulic loading, which does not require treatment or would not be afforded a significant degree of treatment by the POTW. 11. Wastewater which imparts color which cannot be removed by the treatment process, such as dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions, which imparts color to the treatment plant effluent causing violation of the county's NPDES permit. Color (in combination with turbidity) shall not cause the treatment plant effluent to reduce the depth of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity by more the ten percent from the seasonably established norm for aquatic life, as determined by the director. 12. Noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, solids, or other wastewater which, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, are sufficient to create a public nuisance or a hazard to life, or to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance or repair; 13. Wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes except in compliance with applicable state or federal regulations and approved by the director; 14. Stormwater, surface water, ground water, artesian well water, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, condensate, deionized water, noncontact cooling water, and unpolluted wastewater, unless specifically authorized by the director; 15. Sludges, screenings, or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial wastewaters, unless authorized by the director; 16. Medical wastes, except as specifically authorized by the director through a discharge permit issued under article 3; 17. Wastewater causing, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the treatment plant's effluent to fail toxicity tests from applicable regulations; (Cross reference: WAC 173 - 205 -020, 40 C.F.R. § 122.21 (5)) 18. Detergents, surface - active agents, or other substances that might cause excessive foaming or interfere with effective function of the POTW; 19. Fats, oils, and greases or any other materials of animal (including human) or vegetable origin in quantities which could cause obstruction of the POTW or interference with conveyance or treatment or any discharges with total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations greater than one hundred mg /I; (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0204 A) 20. Cinders, sand, spent lime, stone or marble dust, metal, glass, straw, shavings, grass clippings, rags, spent grains, spent hops, waste paper, wood, plastics, gas, tar asphalt residues, residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating oil, mud or glass grinding or polishing wastes; 21. Liquids, solids or gas, which by reason of their nature or quantity may be sufficient, alone or by interaction with other materials, to cause fire or explosion, which might cause obstruction or interference or be injurious in any other way to the POTW, its operations, staff or the environment. At no time shall two successive readings on an explosion hazard meter at the point of discharge into the POTW system, or at any point in the POTW system, exceed five percent or any single reading exceed ten percent of the lower explosive limit based on an explosivity meter reading. 22. Anything which in the opinion of the director may cause harm either to the sewers, sewage treatment process, or equipment, have an adverse effect on the receiving waters or outside environment, or otherwise endanger life, limb or property, or constitute a nuisance, unless allowed under special agreement, except that no special waiver shall be given from categorical pretreatment standards; Page 17 of 69 23. Any dangerous wastes as defined in WAC 173 - 216 -030 or hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Part 261; 24. Persistent pesticides and /or pesticides regulated by FIFRA; 25. Anything else not authorized by the director. The director may specify such substances in a specific user permit, considering the appendices hereto. C. Supplementing A and B above, no industrial user shall violate the provisions of 40 CFR §403.5 (a) and (b) or WAC 173 - 216 -060 or any statute or regulation referenced therein. Such provisions are all fully incorporated herein. D. Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by this section shall not be processed or stored in such a manner that they could be discharged to the POTW. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0202 Federal categorical pretreatment standards. [2.2] The National Categorical Pretreatment Standards, as amended and promulgated by the EPA pursuant to the Act and as found at 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, parts 405 -471, are incorporated by reference herein as a part of this chapter. All users must comply with these standards. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0203 State requirements. [2.3] A. State requirements and limitations on discharges to the POTW shall be met by all users subject to such items whenever they are more stringent than federal or local pretreatment requirements and limitations. Washington State Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, located at Chapter 173 -216 WAC, were developed under authority of the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW. All wastewaters discharged from a commercial or industrial operation as determined by the director into the POTW must satisfy the provisions of Chapter 173 - -216 WAC. B. Any person who constructs, modifies or proposes to construct or modify wastewater treatment facilities must first comply with the regulations for submission of plans and reports for construction of wastewater facilities, Chapter 173 -240 WAC. Until the county is delegated the authority to review and approve such plans and reports under RCW 90.48.110, sources of non - domestic discharges (industrial wastewater) shall request approval for such plans and reports through the department of ecology. To ensure conformance with this requirement, proof of the approval of such plans and reports, and one copy of each approved plan and report shall be provided to the director before commencing any such construction or modification. Said plans and reports must be filed with the director, together with such information as required by the director, signed by an authorized representative and certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B, and include the fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Cross reference: WAC 173 - 216- 050(1)) C. All users shall apply all known, available, and reasonable treatment methods (AKART) to prevent and control wastewater releases into the waters of the state. (Cross reference: WAC 173 - 216- 050(3)) D. Discharge restrictions of Chapter 173 -303 WAC (Dangerous Waste) shall apply to all users. Page 18 of 69 E. All required monitoring data shall be analyzed by a laboratory or person accepted by the director as qualified to perform such services, in the director's sole discretion. The director may require that said lab or person be registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173 -50 WAC. The director may determine this is not required for flow, temperature, settleable solids, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and internal process control parameters. However, if the laboratory analyzing samples for conductivity, pH, and turbidity must otherwise be accredited, it shall be accredited for these parameters as well. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0204 Local limits. [2.4] A. The following limits are established as local limits, expressed as maximum daily (daily maximum) concentrations (daily maximum limits). No user or other person may discharge wastewater into the POTW in excess of the following concentrations: Material Concentration (mg /L) arsenic 0.94 cadmium 0.11 chromium 5.0 copper 1.4 cyanide 0.49 lead 0.32 mercury 0.2 nickel 3.98 silver 0.43 zinc 7.47 fats, oils and grease (see Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 B 19) benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) = a sum of these four constituents' analytical results not to exceed 0.5 mg /L non -polar material (or total petroleum hydrocarbons) = not to exceed 100 mg /L The pH limit set in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 B(2) may also be enforced as a local limit. The above limits apply at any point of introduction into any sewer or portion of the POTW. B. All concentrations for metallic substances are for "total" metal unless indicated otherwise. The director may impose mass limitations in addition to or in place of the concentration -based limitations above. Where a user is subject to a categorical pretreatment standard and a local limit for a given pollutant, the more stringent limit applies as the applicable pretreatment standard. Page 19 of 69 C. Limits may be established for all users, groups, or specific users. They may be designed to ameliorate temporary or permanent discharge characteristics, or to accommodate any new or special temporary or permanent condition of the POTW, its effluent receiving water, or other environmental problem. The director may set limits as instantaneous maximums or for other durations (e.g., daily maximum or monthly average limits) where deemed proper. D. Whenever determined appropriate, the director may develop best management practices (BMPs) for general application, in individual discharge permits or general discharge permits, to implement local limits and the requirements of this article 2 and require documentation of compliance. Failure to follow such requirements is a violation of this chapter. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0205 Right of revision. [2.5] This chapter and any permits or approvals granted pursuant to its authority create no vested or property rights and the county at times reserves the right to revise any provision at any time, with or without showing of cause or need. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0102 C) (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0206 Special handling agreement. [2.6] A. The county reserves the right to enter into specific agreements with customers or users setting out specific terms for discharge into the POTW. All such agreements must be in writing and approved by the director. This function is not subject to delegation by the director. In no case will any categorical pretreatment standard or federal pretreatment requirement be waived. B. A user may request a net /gross adjustment to a categorical standard under the provisions of 40 CFR §403.15 by filing a written application therefore with such information as required by the director. The application must be certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.B and include the fee provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. C. A user may also request a variance from the categorical pretreatment standard from the approval authority under 40 CFR §403.13 by filing a written application therefore with such information as required by the director. The application must be certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B and include the fee provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0207 Dilution. [2.7] No user shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge, as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with an applicable pretreatment standard or requirement unless expressly authorized by the pretreatment standard or requirement. The director may impose mass limitations on users who are using dilution to meet applicable pretreatment standards or requirements or in other cases when the director deems that imposition of mass limitations is appropriate. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0208 Pretreatment facilities. [2.8] A. Users are responsible for all cost and liability to provide wastewater pretreatment to comply with this chapter and shall achieve compliance with all applicable pretreatment Page 20 of 69 standards and requirements contained or referenced in this chapter as specified by the EPA, state, county or director as may be most stringent. Any facilities required to pretreat wastewater to acceptable levels must be provided, operated and well maintained at the user's sole expense and liability. Engineering reports, detailed plans and specifications, and an operations and maintenance manual acceptable to the director showing pretreatment facilities and operating procedures, together with any other information required by the director shall be submitted to the director for review and approval before construction. Review and /or approval of plans, operating procedures or other submittals never relieves the user or submitting party from full compliance. B. Application for plan approvals must be made on forms acceptable to the director, signed in accord with Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B with fees as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0209 Deadline for compliance with applicable pretreatment standards. [2.9] A. Compliance by existing sources covered by categorical pretreatment standards shall be within three years of the date the standard is effective unless a shorter compliance time is specified in the applicable standard, other provision, or director order. The director establishes a final compliance deadline for any existing user not covered by categorical pretreatment standards or any categorical user where state requirements or local limits are more restrictive. B. New sources and new users are required to comply with applicable pretreatment standards within the shortest feasible time, not to exceed ninety days from beginning of discharge. New sources and new users shall install, have in good operating condition, and shall start up all pollution control equipment (including sampling equipment) required to meet applicable pretreatment standards before beginning to discharge. C. Any discharge permit to a CIU shall not contain a compliance date beyond the deadline established in EPA categorical standards. Not by way of limitation, other existing users or CIUs who must comply with more stringent state requirements or local limits shall be provided with a compliance deadline in their permit to insure compliance in the shortest feasible time, in the director's opinion. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0210 Additional pretreatment. [2.10] A. Whenever deemed necessary, the director may require users to restrict their discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater be discharged only into specific sewers, relocate and /or consolidate points of discharge, separate sewage (domestic wastewater) from industrial wastestreams (industrial wastewater), and such other conditions deemed necessary to protect the POTW and determine a user's compliance with this chapter. B. Each user discharging greater than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per day, or lower volumes where determined by the director, shall install and maintain, on its property and at its expense, a suitable storage and flow - control facility to insure equalization of flows over a twenty- four -hour period. The facility shall have a capacity for at least twenty -five percent of the daily discharge volume of the user and shall be equipped with alarms and a rate of discharge controller, subject to director approval and regulation. A wastewater discharge permit may be issue solely for flow equalization. Page 21 of 69 C. Grease, oil and sand interceptors (interception units) shall be provided whenever determined necessary by the director for proper handling of wastewater containing excessive amounts of such substances. Interception units are subject to the control and regulation of the director and must be inspected, cleaned and kept in good repair by the user. D. Users with a potential to discharge flammable substances may be required to install and maintain an approved combustible gas detection meter. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0211 Accidental spill /slug discharge control plans. [2.11] A. The director may require any user to develop and implement an accidental spill prevention plan (ASPP) and /or slug control plan, including any facilities or procedures ordered to support the same, all at the user's expense. Such plans must be submitted for approval within such time limits as ordered by the director, generally not to exceed ninety days. The user must implement the plans as approved by the director. These requirements are cumulative with other requirements and not in the alternative. B. An ASPP and /or slug discharge control plan shall address, at a minimum, the following: 1. Description of discharge practices, including nonroutine batch discharges; 2. Description of stored chemicals; 3. Procedures for immediately notifying the director of an accidental spill or slug discharge which would violate Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 through Spokane County Code 8.03A.204; 4. Procedures to prevent adverse impact from an accidental spill and /or slug discharge. Such procedures include, but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site runoff, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants, including solvents, and /or measures and equipment for emergency response. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.8(f)(2)(vi). See also EPA Region 10 Accidental Spill Prevention and Guidance Manual for POTWs and non - domestic Users) 5. Applications for ASPP and /or slug discharge plan approvals must be filed with the director, upon such forms and with such information as required by the director, signed by an authorized representative and certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B, and include the fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. C. An ASPP or slug discharge control plan may be incorporated into a discharge permit. Updates and renewals must be filed with any request for permit transfer, modification or renewal, change at the user facility, and whenever the user knows or reasonably should know of information affecting the plan or facts upon with the plan was based. In addition, the director evaluates the sufficiency of any ASPP and /or slug discharge control plan or other action to control spills or slug discharges and may order changes or updates as deemed necessary, including analysis or reports by a qualified engineer or other professional certification. If determined to be insufficient, the director may develop such a plan at the user's expense. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0407) (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 22 of 69 8.03A.0212 Hauled wastewater. [2.12] A. Hauled wastewater, including septic tank waste or industrial wastewater, may not be introduced into the POTW except at locations and with such conditions as directed by the director. B. All such wastewater is required to be tested and sampled as ordered by the director, consistent with the purpose and objectives of this chapter and applicable federal, state or local requirements. C. The director may decline to accept any hauled wastewater or may require wastewater haulers or generators as designated by the director to apply for discharge permit coverage. D. Wastewater haulers must provide a tracking form as required and approved by the director for every load. This form shall include, at a minimum, the name and address of the industrial wastewater hauler, discharge permit number, truck identification, names and addresses of sources of waste, and volume and characteristics of waste. The form shall identify the type of industry, known or suspected waste constituents, and whether any wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes. E. Forms under this section must be filed with the director, with such information as required by the director, signed by an authorized representative and certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 A, and include the fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. Failure to submit a report form as required or apply for permit coverage when required is a violation of this chapter. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 B(9)) (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0213 Causing, contributing to sewer overflow events. [2.13] A. No customer or member of the public or other governmental entity may cause or contribute to causing a sewer overflow event, either during wet or dry weather, such that a portion of the county sewer system becomes blocked or impaired with the result that sewage flows out of the sewer system directly into the Spokane River or any place else besides remaining in the county sewer system. Where it appears that someone may be creating this kind of problem, the director may notify such person and require additional monitoring or screening equipment or inspections at such person's expense. Examples of problems are customer created or enhanced blockages from industrial or commercial processes or from nursing homes flushing large diapers, rags or other materials inserted into the system which are too large for the county sewer system to accommodate, which then may become lodged so to block flows. B. Anyone determined to have caused or contributed to an overflow or blockage event is responsible for all damage, loss or liability created thereby, including environmental damage in addition to other applicable penalties. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 3 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT 8.03A.0300 Permit requirement; individual, general permits. [3.0] A. No significant industrial user (SIU) shall discharge wastewater into the POTW without first obtaining a discharge permit from the director. Such permit must be enforceable Page 23 of 69 and contain all the elements as required by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B). Failure to obtain a permit or permit violations are violations of this chapter. All applicable federal, state and local pretreatment requirements and standards apply to permittees, whether or not stated in the permit. B. A discharge permit may be designed for an individual user (individual permit) or an identified class of users (general permit). A general permit is issued where a given class of users: 1. Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations; 2. Involve applicant classes as established by the director discharging the same types of wastes; 3. Require the same effluent limitations; 4. Require the same or similar monitoring; and 5. In the opinion of the director, are more appropriately controlled under a general discharge permit than under individual discharge permits. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.8(f)(2)) (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0301 Permits as to existing sources, existing users. [3.1] Any existing source or existing user SIU not already permitted shall apply for a permit under this chapter. The director may notify such persons of the requirement and allow up to sixty days for existing users and such time as required by federal law for existing sources, but this shall not exceed sixty days unless an applicant demonstrates it is entitled to additional time. This requirement also applies to existing permittees subject to new requirements under this chapter. Regardless of notification or other requirements, in no event shall an SIU subject to categorical standards fail to submit a baseline report within the one hundred eighty day deadline in 40 CFR §403.12(b). Baseline reports must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A and accompanied by a fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0302 Permits as to new sources, new users. [3.2] At least ninety days prior to the anticipated start -up, any new source and any new user determined by the director to be an SIU shall apply for a discharge permit and submit to the director at a minimum, the information in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304 A - -E as well as any applicable engineering reports (reference Spokane County Code 8.03A.0203 B and 8.03A.0208 A). A new source or a new user cannot discharge without first obtaining a discharge permit. New sources and new users must include in their application the method of pretreatment they will use to meet applicable pretreatment standards and requirements as well as estimates of information in paragraphs D and E of Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0303 Discharge permit -- Extrajurisdictional users. [3.3] Any existing user located in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County must comply with this chapter or a similar local pretreatment ordinance or program approved by the EPA and /or the State of Washington, specifically including existing user requirements under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0301 and new source /new user requirements under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0302. Compliance is a condition of continuing discharge into the POTW or the county continuing to accept discharge from any system flowing into the county POTW, and violators shall in addition be subject to all penalties as may lawfully apply hereunder or the jurisdictional local government's approved pretreatment program. Page 24 of 69 (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0304 Discharge permit application contents. [3.4] A. 1. The director approves the permit application form. All users required to obtain a discharge permit must submit to the director, at a minimum, the information stated in this section and any other information requested by the director. Categorical users must further comply with 40 CFR 403.12(b). Applications must include the permit application fee in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. Incomplete or unsigned applications or applications without payment may be returned or conditionally processed. 2. Identifying information: The application must state the name and address of the facility, operator and owners. B. Permits. The applicant must furnish a list of any environmental control discharge permits held by or for the facility. C. Description of Operations: The application must state a brief description of the nature, average rate of production, and the applicable North American Industry Classification System (2007 or latest version) of the operation(s) carried out by such user, including a list of all raw materials and chemicals stored or used at the facility which are or could be accidentally or intentionally discharged into the POTW. The applicant shall further state the number and type of employees, hours of operation, each product produced by type, process(es) and rate of production. The applicant shall state type and amount of raw materials processed (average and maximum per day) and the time and duration of discharges. The application must include a schematic process diagram which indicates points of discharge to the POTW from the regulated or manufacturing processes, site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans and details to show all sewers, sewer connections, inspection manholes, sampling chambers and appurtenances by size and location, floor drains, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation. D. Flow measurement application information: 1. Categorical User: Average information showing the measured average daily and daily maximum flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from each of the following: a. Regulated or manufacturing process streams, and b. Other streams, as necessary, to allow use of the combined wastestream formula. (Cross reference: 40 CFR 403.6(e)) 2. Non - Categorical User: information showing the measured daily average and daily maximum flows, in gpd to the POTW from each of the following: total process flow, wastewater treatment plant flow, total plant flow or individual manufacturing process flow as required by the director. E. Measurement of Pollutants: 1. Categorical User: a. Shall identify the applicable pretreatment standards for each regulated or manufacturing process. b. Shall submit the results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration (or mass, where required by the categorical pretreatment standard or the director) of regulated pollutants, including those encompassed in the standards in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 through Spokane County Code, 8.03A.0204 as appropriate in the discharge from each regulated or manufacturing process. Both the daily maximum and average Page 25 of 69 concentration (or mass, where required) shall be reported. The sample shall be representative of daily operations and conform to the sampling and analytical procedures in Article 5 of this chapter. c. The user shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile data necessary to comply with this paragraph E. d. Where an alternate concentration or mass limit has been calculated in accord with 40 CFR 403.6(e) for a categorical user, this adjusted limit, together with supporting data shall be submitted as part of the application. 2. Non - categorical user: a. The user shall identify the applicable pretreatment standards for its discharge. b. In addition, the user shall submit the results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration in the discharge (or mass, where required by the director) of regulated pollutants encompassed in the standards in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 through Spokane County Code 8.03A.0204 as applicable. Both the daily maximum and average concentration (or mass, where required) shall be reported. The sample shall be representative of daily operations and conform to the sampling and analytical procedures in Article 5 of this chapter. c. The user shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile data necessary to comply with this paragraph E. d. Where the director has developed an alternate concentration or mass limit because of dilution or other reasons, this limit, together with supporting data shall be submitted as part of the application. F. Certification; Qualified professional statement: The application certification required in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. must also include a statement certified by a qualified professional, indicating whether the applicable pretreatment standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation and maintenance (O &M) and /or additional pretreatment is required for the user to meet the applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. G. Compliance Schedule. If additional pretreatment/O &M are required to meet the applicable pretreatment standards, the user must include the shortest schedule by which it will provide such additional pretreatment /O &M remediation, conforming with Spokane County Code 8.03A.0404 but not later than the deadlines in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0209. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.03042 Combined wastestream formula, fundamentally different factors modifications. [3.4 part] A. Where a user's applicable categorical standard is modified because of a removal allowance under 40 CFR §403.7, combined wastestream formula eligibility under 40 CFR §403.6(e) or fundamentally different factors variance under 40 CFR §403.13 at the time of submission of information required under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304 G, the information required under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304 F and G apply to the modified limits. It the submitter's responsibility to identify and disclose the modification conditions stated. B. Where an applicable categorical standard is modified because of a removal allowance under 40 CFR §403.7, combined wastestream formula eligibility under 40 CFR §403.6(e), or fundamentally different factors under 40 CFR §403.13 after submission of information required under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304 F and G, a report containing Page 26 of 69 information pertaining to such modification shall be submitted within sixty days after the new limit is approved, signed as required in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. with a report review fee specified in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. C. The user must obtain director approval for combined wastestream formula or fundamentally different factors variations if not submitted as part of a permit application. This may also be done through permit modification where applicable. However accomplished, the user must make an application therefore on forms supplied or approved by the director, sign the form as provided in SCM 8.03A.0305 B and pay the fee for review specified in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401 to the extent documents needed by the director have not been otherwise submitted and a review fee otherwise paid. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0305 Signatory and certification requirement. [3.5] A. All discharge permit applications and user reports under this chapter must be signed by an authorized representative as defined in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0103. The signatory must further included the following certification: I certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington (or state of execution): 1. That I am authorized to sign this statement on behalf of the person or entity for which it is submitted. 2. That this document and all attachments are reliable and were prepared based upon my personal knowledge or under my direction or supervision, after diligent inquiry in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. 3. Based on my knowledge or inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting inaccurate or false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. (NOTE: Spokane County Code 10.08.085 provides that negligent or careless submission of false or inaccurate statements is a misdemeanor and gross negligence or a knowing or willful submission of false or inaccurate statements is a gross misdemeanor.) B. Anything other than the documents noted in a must be signed by an authorized representative of the person submitting such item, and include a statement that the signatory is authorized to make the submission, has made diligent inquiry to verify any information. The submittal must be made and state that it is made under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of the signing person, together with any proof of authority or authorization to execute and any statements required in this section or ordered by the director. C. The person submitting any item is under a continuous duty and obligation to update in writing, under the same formalities, in a prompt and complete manner, any information provided whenever there is a material change. NOTE: designations of authorized representative must be kept updated at all times. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0306 Discharge permit decisions. [3.6] A. The director evaluates the permit application and determines whether to grant the application within thirty days of receipt of a complete application and full responses to any questions the director may have. The director may extend this time an additional thirty days. Page 27 of 69 After sixty days, if no action has been taken, the application is deemed denied, the sixty first day being the date of issuance for appeal purposes. B. Except where otherwise noted, the director acts by issuing a written decision to the applicant. When a decision is issued, the date of issuance for purposes of appeal by the applicant is three days from mailing, if mailed, the date of electronic delivery, if delivered electronically (e.g. email), or date of personal delivery, whichever first occurs. As to persons other than the applicant, when a decision is issued, the date of issuance is the date of delivery of the decision to persons requesting delivery. C. The director may require any user, as a condition of permit issuance, renewal or otherwise, to pay any outstanding fines, penalties, service charges or other applicable outstanding fees relating to its discharge, enjoyment of municipal utility services or any enforcement order. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0307 Discharge permit contents. [3.7] A. Discharge permits include such conditions determined appropriate by the director to prevent pass through or interference, protect the quality of the water body receiving the treatment plant's effluent, protect worker health and safety, facilitate sludge management and disposal, protect against damage to the POTW or otherwise deemed necessary under the county's pretreatment regulatory program. All discharge permits must further specifically include all the elements as required by 40 CFR §403.8(f)(1)(iii)(B). Not by way of limitation, these include: 1. The issuance date, effective date (if different) and expiration date. The expiration date may not exceed five years from the effective date; 2. Provision for annual inspection and any applicable arrangements therefore. Payment of the annual inspection fee is required as specified in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401; 3. A statement that the discharge Permit is nontransferable except upon written director approval and acceptance by the transferee /owner /operator of all permit (control mechanism) conditions, together with any additional requirements of transfer approval; 4. Effluent limits, including best management practices, based on applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, including any special state requirements; 5. Self monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, submittal of technical reports, compliance schedules, and record - keeping requirements, including an identification of pollutants to be monitored, BMPs, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type, based upon federal, state and local requirements; 6. Requirement for immediate notification to the county whenever self monitoring or other information indicates non - compliance; 7. Requirement to report bypass or upset; 8. Requirement to report immediately to the county all discharges, including slug loadings, that could cause problems to the POTW; 9. Requirements for the SIU reporting noncompliance to repeat sampling and analysis and submit results to the director within thirty days of becoming aware, or from the time the SIU should reasonably have become aware of a violation; 10. A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of pretreatment standards and requirements, and any applicable compliance schedule, which shall not exceed that required by law; Page 28 of 69 11. Requirements to control accidental spill /slug discharge, which may be included in an accidental spill /slug discharge control plan. The director orders such a plan whenever determined necessary as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0211. B. Discharge permits may include: 1. Limits on the average and /or maximum rate of discharge, time of discharge, and /or requirements for flow regulation and equalization; 2. Requirements for the installation of pretreatment technology, pollution control, or construction of appropriate containment devices, designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW; 3. Requirements for the development and implementation of spill control plans or other special conditions including management practices necessary to adequately prevent accidental, unanticipated, or nonroutine discharges; 4. Development and implementation of wastewater minimization plans to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW; 5. The unit charge or schedule of user charges and fees for the management of the wastewater discharged to the POTW, but any charges or fees remain subject to adjustment; 6. Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling facilities and equipment, including flow measurement devices; 7. A statement that compliance with the individual discharge permit or the general discharge permit does not relieve the permittee of responsibility for compliance with all applicable federal and state or local pretreatment Standards, including those which become effective during the term of the individual discharge permit or the general discharge permit; 8. Any special terms; and 9. Other BMPs or conditions as deemed appropriate by the director to assist compliance with this chapter, and applicable federal and state requirements. C. The director may require any user to submit an onsite stormwater management plan or other provisions deemed necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this chapter and include such requirements in the discharge permit. The director may require provisions for handling, monitoring and sampling of stormwater to be included in the plan or permit. The director may require other information, including an analysis, report or certification by an engineer or other qualified professional to support permit or plan requirements, signed as required in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and submitted with a fee required in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. D. An incomplete or inaccurate permit is no defense for noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The county relies upon regulated users and persons to proactively identify and disclose compliance problems and permit inaccuracies or deficiencies, as specialists in those particular industries and occupations they may pursue. Notwithstanding, the director's exercise of discretion and judgment consistent with this chapter shall always be granted full deferential consideration of enforcing agency expertise, in case of dispute with any regulated user or person. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0308 Permit appeals. See Spokane County Code 8.03A.0901. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0309 Reserved. Page 29 of 69 8.03A.0310 Permit modification. [3.10] A. The director may modify a discharge permit with or without a request to do so: 1. To incorporate any new or revised federal, state, or local pretreatment standards or requirements; 2. To address significant alterations or additions to the user's operation, processes, or wastewater volume or character since the time of the discharge Permit issuance in the opinion of the director; 3. Where there is a change in the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge in the opinion of the director; 4. Where there is information indicating that the discharge poses a threat to the POTW, county personnel, any beneficial sludge use, or the receiving waters in the opinion of the director; 5. Because of violation of any terms or conditions of the individual discharge Permit; 6. Because of misrepresentations or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the permit application or in any required reporting; 7. Because of a revision of or a grant of variance from categorical pretreatment standards pursuant to 40 CFR 403.13; 8. To correct typographical or other errors in the individual discharge permit; 9. To reflect a transfer of the facility ownership or operation to a new owner or operator where requested; 10. Upon request for a monitoring waiver; or 11. For any other reason deemed due and sufficient. B. Modification Requests. Permit modification requests must be verified, signed by an authorized representative as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B and include a fee as specified in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. Submitting a permit modification request does not stay the running of the time within which an administrative appeal from a permit decision must be filed with the county hearings examiner. A permit modification is not required if there is no substantial change in a discharge, no increased pollutants or other conditions upon which modifications may be based, all in the opinion of the director. Permit modification requests must address changes in slug control plans. C. Notice. If the director deems the modification significant, notice is issued in like manner as an original permit decision and may be appealed in the same manner as for a permit decision. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0311 Permit transfer. [3.11] A. Upon written approval of the director, discharge permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator. An applicant must give at least thirty days advance notice to the director. Applications must be filed with the director, upon such forms and with such information as required by the director, signed by an authorized representative and certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B, and include the fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. B. Applications must include a written statement by an authorized representative of the transferee, signed under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington or the State or residence of the signatory which: Page 30 of 69 1. States that the transferee applicant has no plans to change the facility's operations and processes; 2. Acknowledges the obligation to apply for a discharge permit modification in writing should any such change be planned prior to implementing such change; 3. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is requested to occur; and 4. Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing discharge permit. 5. Permit modification requests must address changes in slug control plans. C. If there are no changes in the facility, operation or discharge and proper advance notice was given, the director may consider the transferee as an existing user upon satisfaction of the conditions of this section. If a transfer request is not submitted as required, the Permit expires and a new application must be made. The director may impose any temporary conditions on continuing discharge of permit expiring under this provision until a new permit is obtained. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0312 Discharge permit revocation, suspension. [3.12] A. The director may suspend or revoke any discharge permit because of: 1. Failure to notify the director of significant changes to the wastewater in advance. A "significant change" is one which affects compliance with applicable pretreatment standards or requirements. 2. Failure to provide prior written notification to the director of changed conditions; 3. Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application; 4. Late filing or significant or repeated errors or falsifying self- monitoring reports, certification statements or any other disclosures; 5. Tampering with monitoring equipment; 6. Refusing to allow the director timely access to the facility premises and records; 7. Failure to meet discharge /effluent limitations; 8. Failure to pay discharge permit fees or other charges assessed under the authority of this chapter, including fines or penalties; 9. Failure to pay application, sewer or other applicable charges; 10. Failure to meet compliance schedules; 11. Failure to complete a discharge permit application; 12. Failure to apply for a permit transfer or modification where needed; 13. Violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms or conditions of an applicable discharge permit or this chapter; or 14. Any other reason stated in this chapter or otherwise deemed due and sufficient. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0313 Discharge permit renewal. [3.13] A user with an expiring discharge permit desiring to continue to discharge must apply for a renewal, updating all information required in the original application. Applications must be filed with the director, upon such forms and with such information as required by the director, signed by an authorized representative and certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B, and include the fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. The renewal Page 31 of 69 application must be received as required no later than one hundred eighty calendar days prior to the expiration of the user's existing discharge permit. If a renewal is timely submitted in complete form, signed and with appropriate fees, the expiring permit may be deemed to continue until the permit is renewed, a new permit issued, the permit is denied or other action is taken. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 8.03A.0401 Baseline monitoring reports. [4.1] A. 1. Existing Source. Within either one hundred eighty days after the effective date of a categorical pretreatment standard, or the final EPA administrative decision on a category determination under 40 CFR 403.6(a)(4), whichever is later, existing sources shall submit to the director a report as required in this section, also called a baseline monitoring report or BMR. BMRs must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. 2. New Source. No more than ninety days after to commencement of their discharge, new sources, and sources that become CIUs subsequent to the promulgation of an applicable categorical standard, shall submit to the director a report as required in this section. A new source shall additionally report the method of pretreatment it intends to use to meet applicable categorical standards. A new source also shall give estimates of its anticipated flow and quantity of pollutants to be discharged. Reports must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Cross reference: 40 CFR §403.12(b)(1) -(7)) B. Users identified in A. must submit the following information: 1. Identifying Information: the name and address of the facility, operator and owners. 2. Permits: a list of any environmental control discharge permits held by or for the facility. 3. Description of Operations: a brief description of the nature, average rate of production, and the North American Industry Classification of the operation(s) carried out by such user. This must include a schematic process diagram which indicates points of discharge to the POTW from the regulated or manufacturing processes. 4. Flow Measurement Application Information: information showing the measured average daily and daily maximum flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from each of the regulated or manufacturing process streams and other streams, as necessary, to allow use of the combined wastestream formula set out in 40 CFR 403.6(e). (See also definition in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0103) 5. Measurement of Pollutants: a. The categorical pretreatment standards for each regulated or manufacturing process. b. The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration (and /or mass, where required by the categorical pretreatment standard or the director) in the discharge from each regulated or manufacturing process. Instantaneous, daily maximum and long term average concentrations (or mass, where required) shall be reported on forms signed as required under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 A, with a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401 The sample shall be representative of daily operations and conform to the sampling and analytical procedures in Article 5 of this chapter. Page 32 of 69 6. Statement by Qualified Professional: The user must submit a statement reviewed by an authorized representative and certified by a qualified professional signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and with the fee provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. The statement must indicate whether the applicable Pretreatment Standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation and maintenance (O &M) and /or additional pretreatment is required for the user to meet the applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. 7. Compliance Schedule: If additional pretreatment/O &M are required to meet the applicable pretreatment standards, the user must include the shortest schedule by which it will provide such additional pretreatment and /or O &M remediation. The compliance schedule must meet the requirements in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0404. It must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and be submitted with the fee provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0402 Compliance report deadlines, initial reports. [4.2] A. 1. Within the earliest applicable date of ninety days following: the date for final compliance of an existing significant industrial user with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, the date for final compliance in federal categorical standards, or the date for final compliance set in a discharge permit, or 2. In the case of a new source or a new user determined by the director to fit the definition of a significant industrial user, within ninety days following the commencement of discharge; 3. The affected user must submit to the director a report as outlined in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304 D through F inclusive, certified as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 A, with fee paid as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401 if not already paid. B. For users subject to equivalent mass or concentration limits established by the county in accord with 40 CFR 403.6(c), the report in paragraph A. shall contain a reasonable measure of the user's long -term production rate. For all other users subject to categorical pretreatment standards expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit of production (or other measure of operation), this report shall include the user's actual production during the appropriate sampling period, signed as provided in 8.03A.0305.A. with review fee provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0403 Periodic compliance reports. [4.3] A. Any user that is required to have a discharge permit and performs self- monitoring must comply with 40 CFR § 403.12 and submit to the director by June fifteenth and December fifteenth of each year, or more often if ordered by the director, a report on the nature of its effluent (discharge) over the pervious reporting period. The frequency of monitoring is stated in the discharge permit, but no less than two samples per year at least five months apart. B. 1. The report must include a record of the nature and concentration (and mass if specified in the discharge permit) of pollutants listed in the discharge permit and a record of all flow measurements (average and maximum) taken at the designated sampling locations as well as any other information required in this chapter or the permit for the reporting period. Page 33 of 69 Production data must be reported if required by the permit. Both daily maximum (maximum daily) and average concentration (or mass, where required) must be reported. If a user sampled and analyzed more frequently than required using methodologies in 40 CFR Part 136 during the reporting period, those results must also be submitted. 2. In cases where the pretreatment standard requires compliance with a BMP or pollution prevention alternative, the user must submit documentation required by the director or the pretreatment standard necessary to determine the compliance status of the user. C. In cases where the pretreatment standard requires compliance with a BMP or pollution prevention alternative, the user must submit documentation required by director or the pretreatment standard necessary to determine the compliance status of the user. D. Any user subject to equivalent mass or concentration limits established by the director or by unit production limits in an applicable categorical pretreatment standard must report production data as stated in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0402 B. E. If the director calculated limits to factor out dilution flows or non - regulated flows, the user is responsible to provide flows from regulated process flows, dilution flows and non - regulated process flows. F. Flows must be reported on the basis of actual measurement, provided however, that the director may accept reports of average and maximum flows by verifiable techniques if the director determines that actual measurement is not feasible. G. Discharges sampled must be representative of the user's daily operations, and samples must be taken in accord with Article 5. H. The director may require reporting by users that are not required to have a discharge permit if information or data is needed to establish a sewer rate, determine the treat ability of the user's effluent (discharge), or any other factor related to the operations or maintenance of the POTW. I. The director may require self- monitoring by the user, or if requested by the user, may but need not agree to perform compliance monitoring needed to prepare compliance reports required under this section. If the director performs such service, the user must pay all charges as specified by the director as an additional cost of utility service. J. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0404 Compliance schedules to meet applicable pretreatment requirements. [4.4] A. Whenever a compliance schedule is set up under this chapter, it must include increments of progress or milestones with dates for accomplishment of each milestone. The milestones are major events leading to construction and operation of pretreatment required for the user to meet applicable pretreatment standards (e.g. hiring an engineer, completing preliminary plans, final plans, signing contracts, commencing construction, completing construction, by way of examples). Page 34 of 69 B. No milestone time increment in paragraph A. may exceed nine months; C. Not later than fourteen days following each milestone date, the user must submit a progress report to the director specifying whether it has complied with the schedule and if not, when it expects to comply, reasons for delay and steps taken to avoid further delays. Not more than nine months may elapse between milestone reports. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0405 Notification of significant production changes. [4.5] A. Any user operating under a discharge permit incorporating equivalent mass or concentration limits shall notify the director in writing within two business days after the user knows or has a reasonable basis to know that production levels will significantly change in the ensuing calendar month and request approval. A user failing to give such notice and obtain approval in writing is required to comply with existing limits in the permit. A significant production level change is one as has been specified by the director as significant, or in absence of this, a change of twenty percent or greater. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. B. Additionally, the user must submit a permit modification application as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0310, which must include an engineering report detailing the features of the change, including pertinent data and analysis. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0406 Hazardous waste notification. [4.6] A. Any user or user facility discharging more than fifteen kilograms of hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261 (listed or characteristic wastes) in any calendar month or any user or user facility discharging any amount of acutely hazardous waste as specified in 40 CFR 261.30 (d) pr 261.33(e) must give written notice to the director and the EPA Region 10 Office of air, waste, and toxics director, and to the Washington State Department of ecology director of the hazardous waste and toxics reduction program. B. The notification in paragraph A. must include the information specified in 40 CFR § 403.13(p). This does not apply to pollutants already being reported under self- monitoring requirements. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0407 Notice of potential problems, accidental spills, slug loads. [4.7] A. In the case of an accidental spill or slug discharge, the user shall immediately telephone and notify the director of the incident. This notification shall include the location of the discharge, date and time thereof, type of waste, concentration and volume, and corrective actions taken by the user. The user must pay any costs incurred by the county to remediate the spill or discharge, including out of pocket and in -house time and expense costs, fish kills, environmental remediation, other damages to person or property, as well as applicable fines and penalties from any regulatory agency. Service charges or costs incurred by the county shall Page 35 of 69 be added to the service bill to the customer from which the accidental spill or slug discharge originated. This shall not limit any right of recovery of such damages, expenses, fines and penalties against any other responsible party. B. Within five days following an accidental spill or slug discharge, the user shall, unless waived by the director, submit a detailed written report describing the cause(s) of the accidental spill or slug discharge and the measures to be taken by the user to prevent similar future occurrences. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. C. A notice shall be permanently posted on the user's bulletin board or other prominent place advising employees who to call in the event of an accidental spill or slug discharge. Employers shall ensure that all employees who could cause or might be aware of an accidental spill or slug discharge occurring are advised of the emergency notification procedure. (Cross reference: Spokane County Code 8.03A.0211) (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0408 Non - compliance reporting. [4.8 modified] Whenever a user knows or should know of a violation or possible violation of its permit of this chapter, either by sampling or otherwise, the user must notify the director by telephone within twenty four hours, followed up immediately by notice in writing. The user must repeat the sampling within five days after notice above and submit the results to the director within the time required in 8.03A.0307.A.9. (thirty days). The director may waive this last requirement if sampling is scheduled to be performed by the county within the next thirty days. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0409 Notice of changed discharge. [4.9] A. Users must notify the director in writing at least ninety days (preliminary notice), followed by a confirming notice at least thirty days before any substantial change in volume or character of pollutants in their discharge, and any significant manufacturing process changes which could be reasonably expected to result in such a pollutant change. Such notice also includes any change in wastes subject to the hazardous waste notification requirement in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0406. As used herein, a substantial or significant change is a change of twenty percent or more in production levels or levels of any pollutant or other parameter specified by the director. Where advance notice is not possible or has not been given, notice shall be given as required in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0407, but that does not excuse compliance with this Section. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. B. Additionally, the user must submit a permit modification application as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0310, which must include an engineering report detailing the features of the change, including pertinent data and analysis. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 36 of 69 8.03A.0410 Notice from users without permits. [4.10] The director may order users not subject to permits to submit any reports, information or sampling as deemed necessary, or require said users to permit county inspection of any records or inspection and sampling of their premises and facilities at their expense. This is condition of continued utility service, in addition to any other applicable remedies. All submittals under this section must be signed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305.A. and accompanied by a review fee as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0411. Record keeping. [4.11] All users must maintain records of any information relating to any reporting or disclosure requirements under this chapter and the same shall be readily available for inspection by the director in Spokane County upon request. Such records shall further include any monitoring results, whether or not required under this chapter. Sampling records must include the date, exact place, method and time of sampling, name of the person taking the sample, dates analyses were performed, who performed them, analytical techniques or methods used, and the results, including documentation under best management practices. All such records must be maintained for at least three years, unless a longer time is ordered by the director. If any enforcement action or litigation arises in relation to this chapter, the retention period is automatically extended to an additional one year after final disposition by the last court of resort. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 5 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS 8.03A.0501 Sampling requirements for users. [5.1] A. 1. Grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds. For all other pollutants, 24 -hour composite samples must be obtained through flow - proportional composite sampling techniques, unless time - proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the director. The samples must be representative of the discharge and the decision to allow the alternative sampling must be documented in the industrial user file for the facility or facilities. 2. Using protocols (including appropriate preservation) specified in 40 CFR Part 136 and applicable EPA guidance, multiple grab samples collected during a twenty- four -hour period may be composited prior to the analysis as follows: for cyanide, total phenols, and sulfides the samples may be composited in the laboratory or in the field. For volatile organics and oil and grease, the samples may be composited in the laboratory. 3. Composite samples for other parameters unaffected by the compositing procedures as documented in approved EPA methodologies may be authorized by the director, as appropriate. In addition, grab samples may be required to show compliance with instantaneous limits. Samples for oil and grease, temperature, pH, cyanide, total phenols, sulfides, and volatile organic compounds must be obtained using grab collection techniques. B. For sampling required in support of baseline monitoring and ninety -day compliance reports, a minimum of four grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds for facilities or processes for which historical sampling data do not exist. For facilities for which historical sampling data are available, the director may authorize a lower minimum. For the reports required by 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h), the industrial user is required to collect the number of grab samples necessary to assess and Page 37 of 69 assure compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. (Cross reference: ninety -day report, see Spokane County Code 8.03A.0402 and 40 CFR 403.12(b) and (d)) C. Samples shall be taken immediately downstream from pretreatment facilities if such exist, or immediately downstream from the regulated or manufacturing process if no pretreatment facilities exist. The location shall be specified in the discharge permit. For categorical users, when wastewater subject to a categorical pretreatment standard is mixed with other wastewater, the user shall measure the flows and concentrations necessary to allow use of a combined wastestream formula (CWF) in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6(e) to evaluate compliance with applicable categorical standards. For other SIUs, wastewater for which the county has adjusted its local limits to factor out dilution flows, the user shall measure the flows and concentrations necessary to evaluate compliance with the adjusted pretreatment standards. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0502 Analytical requirements. [5.2] A. All pollutant analyses, including sampling techniques, submitted as part of a wastewater discharge permit application, report or other requirement of this chapter must be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 as now or hereafter amended, unless otherwise specified in an applicable categorical pretreatment standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutant in question, or where the EPA determines the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses must be performed in accord with validated analytical methods or any other applicable sampling and analytical methods, which techniques or methods have been approved by the director, state department of ecology, or EPA. The party submitting the data must show proof of approval. B. Samples collected to satisfy reporting requirements must be based upon data obtained through approved sampling and analysis performed during the period covered by the report, and based upon data that is representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0503 County monitoring of user wastewater. [5.3] The county uses the procedures in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0501 and 8.03A.0502 to monitor user wastewater. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 8.03A.0601 Inspection and sampling. [6.1] A. As a condition of continued utility service and requirement of this chapter, the director has a right of entry on any premises to determine whether a user is complying with all requirements of this chapter and any discharge permit or order issued hereunder. All users must fully cooperate to allow the director ready access to all parts of any premises with their ownership or control for the purposes of inspection, sampling, records examination and copying, or other needs the director may require. User must make necessary arrangements on request of the director or other county representatives for prompt access. B. The director may set up or install such devices he may deem necessary to conduct sampling and /or metering of the user's operations at any location needed, or may require the Page 38 of 69 user to install and maintain monitoring equipment as he deems necessary. The user must protect such equipment and promptly report any problems or comply with any other director instructions relating to said equipment. All devices used to measure wastewater flow and quality shall be calibrated on such schedule as ordered by the director to ensure accuracy. Any expenses related to cost or use of equipment and testing or access thereto must be paid by the user within thirty days of billing by the director. C. All costs incurred by the county shall be billed in accord with applicable rates or on a time and materials basis, as ordered by the director and paid by the party billed or otherwise responsible. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0602 Monitoring facilities. [6.2] A. Each user must provide and operate at its own expense and liability a good and sufficient monitoring facility to allow inspections, sampling, and flow measurement of all discharges to the POTW or for other needs identified by the director. The monitoring facility must be located on the user's premises unless otherwise authorized by the director. No facilities may be located in the public right of way without permission of the director and the county's director of public works. All such facilities must further comply with all county right of way obstruction and use permitting requirements and such authorization is subject to revocation at any time. In addition, as a condition of location in the right -of -way, a user must participate in the One -Call underground locator requirements consistent with applicable provisions of chapter 19.122 RCW and must fully indemnify and hold harmless the county from all loss or liability connected with right of way use. A user must move its facilities at its expense and liability whenever requested by the county director of public works and utilities director because of other county needs. B. A user must always maintain adequate space for sampling access. The monitoring facility and any sampling or measuring equipment must be well maintained by the user at all times. All devices used to measure wastewater flows must be properly calibrated to ensure accuracy, with records of such calibration maintained by the user. C. The director may require the user to install additional monitoring facilities and equipment as deemed necessary. In default of user action, the county may proceed to accomplish any requirements and the cost thereof will be billed to the user. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0603 Search warrants. [6.3] If the director has been refused access to a building, structure, or property, or any part thereof, and is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this chapter or any other laws relative to the director's authority, or that there is a need to inspect and /or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program of the county designed to verify compliance with this chapter or any discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety and welfare of the community, the director may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 39 of 69 8.03A.0604 Vandalism, tampering, disturbing equipment or property. [6.4] It is a violation of this chapter for anyone to vandalize, damage, disturb, tamper with, or injure any facility, equipment or property used in connection with fulfilling the requirements of this chapter or any part or appurtenance of the POTW. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 7 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 8.03A.0701 Confidential information. [7.1] Generally, information submitted to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment standards and requirements will be freely available to the public (see 40 CFR §2.302). Users may request confidentiality however in accord with this section. A. When users submit information to the director or provide information to inspectors, users may request that specific information be maintained as confidential. Users must identify the specific information in writing at the time of submittal and describe why it is entitled to confidentiality under 40 CFR § 403.14 as information submitted to a POTW or any other applicable law. (Cross reference: 40 CFR Part 2, including 40 CFR §2.302.) B. Blanket requests for confidentiality will not be honored. Specific information requested to be held confidential shall be separately submitted, which each page prominently marked "Confidentiality requested by [name, address and telephone of requesting party] ". C. The director shall review and approve or deny such requests. When approved, the information shall be separately held in a confidential file by the director. If a public records request is made, the director shall seek to notify the party requesting confidentiality prior to release of the time by which the party must commence legal action to protect confidentiality. If legal action is not immediately commenced by a person seeking to protect confidentiality, the records will be released unless otherwise protected by applicable law. D. Notwithstanding any other provision and under no circumstances is the director obliged to honor any request for confidentiality if doing so would expose the county to any risk of loss or liability for damages for penalties and attorneys' fees under the Washington State Public Records Act or any other applicable laws. It is not the county's function to expose itself to mandatory penalties and attorney's fees under Washington State Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.550. This exposure does not apply to non - governmental persons seeking to protect confidentiality, so it is the affirmative burden of such persons to establish entitlement to confidentiality, not the county's. E. Except as provided, all other information submitted to the director and obtained from the director's oversight shall be available to the public subject to the county records review policy. Federal rules prevent wastewater constituents and characteristics and other effluent data, as defined by 40 CFR 2.302 from being recognized as confidential information. F. Information held as confidential may not be withheld from governmental agencies for uses related to the NPDES program or pretreatment program, or in enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 40 of 69 ARTICLE 8 PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE 8.03A.0801 Annual publication of violators. [8.1] A. Publishing: The director publishes annually a list of the users which, at any time during the previous calendar year, were in significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. The list is published in a newspaper of general circulation in Spokane County. Costs of publication will be billed to the users. B. The term "significant noncompliance" means: 1. Any violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement, including numerical limits, narrative standards, and prohibitions, that the director determines has caused, alone or in combination with other causes, interference or pass through, or otherwise endangered the health of POTW personnel or the general public. 2. Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to the public or to the environment, or has resulted in the director's exercise of emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge. 3. Any violation(s), including of BMPs, which the director determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the local pretreatment program. 4. Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty -six percent or more of all of the measurements taken for the same pollutant parameter taken during a rolling six -month period exceed, by any magnitude, a numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, including instantaneous limits. 5. Technical review criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in which thirty -three percent or more of wastewater measurements taken for each pollutant parameter during a rolling six -month period equal or exceed the product of the numeric pretreatment standard or requirement, (including instantaneous limits, as referenced in Article 2, multiplied by the applicable criteria. Applicable criteria are 1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oils and grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH. [ "14' and "1.2" as used herein mean 140% or 120% respectively of applicable permit limits]. 6. Failure to meet, within ninety days of the scheduled date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a wastewater discharge permit or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance. 7. Failure to provide any required report within thirty calendar days after the due date. This includes initial and periodic monitoring reports, and reports on initial compliance and on meeting compliance schedules. 8. Failure to accurately report noncompliance. C. Applicability: The criteria in subsections one through three above are applicable to all users, whereas the criteria in subsections four through eight are only applicable to SIUs. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 9 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES 8.03A.0901 Administrative enforcement process. [9.1] Not by way of limitation of other enforcement remedies: A. Enforcement Function; Administrative Standards: The director enforces this chapter. The administrative standards for the exercise of administrative authority are stated in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0102.B. Page 41 of 69 B. Notice of Violation: When the director finds a violation or violations of this chapter, he may send a notice of violation to a user identified as responsible by first class mail and certified letter, return receipt requested. The letter describes the violations and appropriate action to correct the same, with a deadline as specified to work out corrective action with the director. If this fails, the director may assess an administrative penalty as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401 which may be appealed as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0904. Alternatively, the matter may be referred to the county prosecutor for further enforcement action. C. Response: Where there is a response to a notice and undertaking to correct a violation, if a respondent thereafter fails to abide by correction arrangements, the failure is considered an invalid response to the notice of violation. D. Remediation: After thirty days, or such other time as specified by the director, the county may proceed to remedy the violation at the user's sole expense and liability. Costs of remediation are billed to the user. After sixty days past due, the matter is referred for legal collection action. All sums billed accrue interest at twelve percent per annum on any unpaid balance. Remediation costs include all County out of pocket costs paid to third parties for labor or materials as well as any staff time or materials contributed by the county and administrative penalties if applicable. The director shall maintain a file documenting these costs and periodically issue billings to a respondent therefore. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director to take any other action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a notice of violation. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0902 Other administrative options. [9.2] Not by way of limitation of other enforcement remedies: A. Consent Order. The director may enter into stipulated consent orders, assurances of compliance, or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any user responsible for noncompliance or as deemed appropriate. Such documents shall include specific action to be taken by the user to correct the problem or noncompliance within a time period specified by the document. Such documents shall have the same force and effect as other administrative orders of this chapter and shall be judicially enforceable. B. Show Cause Order. The director may order a user which has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, a discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, to appear before the director and show cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Notice shall be served on the user specifying the time and place for the meeting, the proposed enforcement action, the reasons for such action, and a request that the user show cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. The notice of the meeting shall be served or delivered personally or by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. Such notice may be served on any authorized representative of the user. A show cause hearing shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. C. Compliance Order. When the director finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, a permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may issue an order to the user responsible for the discharge directing that the user come into compliance within a specified time. Page 42 of 69 Compliance orders also may contain other requirements to address the noncompliance, including additional self- monitoring and management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewer. A compliance order may not extend the deadline for compliance established for a pretreatment standard or requirement, nor does a compliance order relieve the user of liability for any violation, including any continuing violation. Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. D. Cease and Desist Order. When the director finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, a discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or that the user's past violations are likely to recur, the director may issue an order to the user directing it to cease and desist all such violations and directing the user to: 1. Immediately comply with all requirements; and 2. Take such appropriate remedial or preventive action as may be needed to properly address a continuing or threatened violation, including halting operations. Issuance of a cease and desist order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. E. Administrative Fines. 1. When the director finds that a user has violated or continues to violate any provision of this chapter, permit or order issued pursuant to the authority of this chapter, or a pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may assess an administrative fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars, considering the nature of the violation, prior knowledge of fault, and any other pertinent factors. The amount shall be assessed on a per violation, per day basis, with each day of a continuing violation being a new and separate violation. The assessment shall be in writing and include a copy of Section 8.03A.0904 governing appeals therefrom. 2. In the event a charge imposed under this section remains unpaid thirty days after issuance or disposition of any appeal if an appeal is properly perfected, a warning letter shall be issued. If the amount remains unpaid for an additional thirty days the matter will be referred to the county prosecuting attorney for collection through the courts. Exercise of authority under this section is supplemental and in addition to any other remedy the county may exercise. (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0903 Suspension, termination of service orders. [9.3] Not by way of limitation of other enforcement remedies: A. Immediate Suspensions. 1. The director may immediately suspend a user's discharge, including temporarily disconnecting the sewer line to prevent a continued discharge, with or without notice, whenever deemed necessary. Such power includes but is not limited to suspension to stop an actual or threatened discharge creating a risk of imminent or substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons, or which threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW, or which presents an endangerment to the environment or any other significant threat to life, limb or property. If the director does not notify the user prior to suspension, effort should be made promptly to give reasonable notice thereafter by any means reasonably calculated to inform the user of the circumstances. 2. Where users are notified in advance of an order to suspend service, full cooperation is required. Such notice may include an opportunity to respond or present information prior to or after the suspension order takes effect, as the director deems Page 43 of 69 appropriate. Said users shall immediately comply to eliminate contributions and physically disconnect or otherwise secure their facilities as ordered by the director. In the event of a User's failure to immediately comply, the director may take such steps as deemed necessary to accomplish the action, including immediate severance of the sewer connection at the user's expense and liability. 3. The director may require additional testing at the user's expense or other monitoring or conditions, as well as a report or other documentation demonstrating that the source of the problem has been resolved prior to allowing a user to recommence its discharge. B. Termination of Discharge. Termination of utility service, including physical disconnection of any premises served at the user's expense of sewer service furnished by the county may be ordered: 1. For non - payment of charges due and owing; 2. Failure to apply for a discharge permit as required or violation of discharge permit conditions or other requirements of this chapter; 3. Failure to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharge; 4. Failure to report significant changes in operations or wastewater volume, constituents, and characteristics prior to discharge; 5. Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the purpose of inspection, monitoring, or sampling; 6. Violation of the pretreatment standards in Article 2 of this chapter; 7. Failure to comply with any administrative order; or 8. Any other reasonable cause. C User remains fully liable. Users are fully responsible for any loss or liability to the county because of the quality or quantity of a discharge or for any other reason relating to requirements of this chapter and must pay all costs to the county as a condition of continued county utility service. Such costs include out of pocket expenses as well as in house staff time and materials costs, as well as professional services costs either in house or out of pocket. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.0904 Administrative appeals. [9.4] A. Except where the director elects to initiate action to seek immediate judicial relief, any director decision, including permit decisions, assessment of costs, or other administrative decisions may be administratively appealed by an interested party with standing by filing a written appeal in proper form with the county hearings examiner within ten calendar days of the date of determination or in the case of permits, the date of issuance as provided in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0306. Copies of the appeal must also be provided within such time to the county prosecutor's civil division and the director. If the appealing party is not the permittee, a copy of the appeal must also be provided to the permittee in the same time frame. The date of determination is the date reflected therein or, if mailed, three days from the date of mailing, whichever is later. "Filing" requires actual receipt. As a further condition of appeal, the appealing party must tender, pending the outcome of the appeal, the full amount of any costs, billings, charges, penalties or fees assessed and a fee as specified in Spokane County Code 8.03A.1401. B. To be accepted, in proper form, as timely, appeals must show: 1. The appealing party's name, telephone number and business address; 2. Proof of service of the appeal on the county prosecutor's civil division and director; Page 44 of 69 3. A copy of the decision being appealed; 4. A receipt or other proof from the county showing payment of any amounts as required, subject to reimbursement if the payments are involved in the appeal and the appeal is upheld; 5. The basis of the appeal and reasons why it should be granted, together with supporting information as well as the names and contact information of persons with knowledge supporting the appeal; 6. The best way to contact the appealing party, which must include telephone and mail address, and email if available; 7. The appeal must be signed, verified under oath and dated by an authorized representative of the appealing party per Spokane County Code 8.03A.0305 B. C. The hearing examiner may require any party to the appeal to testify under oath and upon personal knowledge and to produce documents or records deemed relevant or necessary. The examiner shall conduct the hearing within thirty days of the appeal being filed and decide the issue within thirty days of the hearing. D. At the hearing, the burden of proof is on the initially appealing party, based upon substantial evidence. The examiner may affirm, reverse or modify a director decision if the examiner determines it violates this chapter or is arbitrary and capricious. The decision of the hearing examiner is final, subject to review by either party under the provisions of RCW 7.16.040, so long as the examiner decision appealing party files and serves upon all necessary parties its petition for granting a writ of review within twenty days of the date of issuance of the examiner's decision. The appealing party is responsible to order the record from the hearings examiner and make payment arrangements. The appeal is limited to the record. The hearing examiner preserves a record of the hearing in such form and manner as the examiner deems proper for at least two years. E. Filing of an appeal does not stay the effectiveness of the director's decision unless agreed by the director, and subject to such additional conditions as the director may require. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 10 JUDICIAL REMEDIES 8.03A.1001 Civil suit. [10.1] A. At any time, the director, upon authorization by the board of county commissioner's, may elect to initiate a civil suit to enforce this chapter and seek civil penalties of up to one thousand dollars per violation per day, as provided in Spokane County Code 01.05.190.C. This director option does not excuse the requirement of exhaustion for regulated persons if the director elects to issue administrative orders appealable under Spokane County Code 8.03A.0904. B. The director may recover all costs and expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred by the county as well environmental remediation deemed necessary. C. In determining the amount of civil liability, the court shall take into account all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of harm caused by the violation, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit gained through the user's Page 45 of 69 violation, corrective actions by the user, the compliance history of the user, and any other factor as justice requires. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1002 Injunctive relief. [10.2] When the director finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, a discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to seek a temporary or permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of a discharge permit requirement, or other requirement imposed by this chapter on activities of the user. The director may also seek such other action as is appropriate for legal and /or equitable relief, including a requirement for the user to conduct environmental remediation under applicable local, state or federal laws. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1003 Criminal prosecution. [10.3] See Spokane County Code 8.03.9160. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1004 Remedies nonexclusive. [10.4] No remedy specified in this chapter shall exclude or limit any other. The director prepares and maintains an enforcement response plan (ERP), which is generally followed for enforcement actions, but is not a legal limitation on the county's rights of remedies. The ERP is subject to change from time to time, as conditions warrant. Copies of the current ERP are available to any person upon request. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1005 Violation of this chapter. [10.5] A violation of this chapter is the failure to take any action required by this chapter or order of the director or taking of any action prohibited by this chapter or the director. Violations include, but are not limited to, items expressly stated to be violations in a given section, failure to obtain permits, give notice, or submit reports as required, failure to properly sign and certify documents submitted as required, and failure to pay required fees. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 11 SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT MEASURES 8.03A.1101 Bond, security for performance. [11.1] The director may require any user, as a condition of permit issuance, renewal or otherwise, who has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, a previous discharge permit, or enforcement order, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or for other cause, to procure a bond, letter of credit, or other good and sufficient security acceptable to the director conditioned upon compliance with this chapter, in a sum not to exceed a value reasonably determined by the director to be necessary to achieve consistent compliance. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1102 Liability insurance. [11.2] The director may require any user, as a condition of permit issuance, renewal or otherwise, who has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, a previous discharge Page 46 of 69 permit, or enforcement order, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or for other cause, to procure good and sufficient liability insurance, with the county as an additional named insured, or other security acceptable to the director, with coverage limits not to exceed a value reasonably determined by the director with the advice of the risk manager sufficient to restore or repair damage to the POTW or other public property caused by its discharge and /or any other damage, loss or liability to which the county may be reasonably exposed because of the users actions or failures to act. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1103 Reserved. 8.03A.1104 Public nuisance. [11.4] Any premises, processes or facilities maintained or operated in violation of any provisions of this chapter, a discharge permit or director order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement are hereby declared a public nuisance, subject to abatement by any lawful means, including summary abatement or other correction or abatement as ordered by the director, including chapter 7.48 RCW or any other remedy in contract or law. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1105 Informant rewards. [11.5] The director may pay up to one thousand dollars reward for information leading to the discovery of noncompliance by a User leading to successful collection of penalties or fines, but not beyond twenty percent of any fines or penalties collected. No one employed or retained by the county to enforce this chapter is eligible for a reward. Applications for payment shall be in writing and demonstrate eligibility for a reward under the requirements of this section. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) ARTICLE 12 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS 8.03A.1201 Upset. [12.1] A. For the purposes of this section, "upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the user. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. B. An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to punitive actions in response to noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards if the requirements of paragraph C., below, are met. C. A user who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: 1. An upset occurred and the user can identify the cause(s) of the upset; 2. The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman -like manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; and 3. The user has submitted the following information to the director within twenty - four hours of becoming aware of the upset. If this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within five days: a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; Page 47 of 69 b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and c. Steps being taken and /or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. D. In any enforcement proceeding, the user seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. E. Users shall have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards unless otherwise required by law. Such opportunity may be conditioned on other requirements such as exhaustion of administrative remedies or other applicable conditions. F. Users shall control production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with categorical pretreatment standards upon reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1202 Prohibited discharge standards affirmative defenses. [12.2] A user shall have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the general prohibitions in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 A or the specific prohibitions in Spokane County Code 8.03A.0201 B(3) through (7) if it can prove that it did not know, or have reason to know in the exercise of reasonable prudence and caution, that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, would cause pass through or interference and that either: A. A local limit exists for each pollutant discharged and the user was in compliance with each limit directly prior to, and during, the pass through or interference; or B. No local limit exists, but the discharge did not change substantially in nature or constituents from the user's prior discharge when the county was regularly in compliance with its NPDES permit, and in the case of interference, the county was in compliance with applicable sludge use or disposal requirements. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1203 Bypass affirmative defenses. [12.3] A. For the purposes of this section, 1. "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of wastewaters from any portion of a user's treatment facility. 2. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. B. A user may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause applicable pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to paragraphs C. and D. of this Page 48 of 69 section although the user must still promptly report the event to the director unless excused by the director, together with any information requested. C. Notice of Bypass: 1. If a user knows, or should know in the exercise of reasonable prudence and caution, in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the director, at least ten days before the date of the bypass, wherever possible. 2. A user shall submit oral notice to the director of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within twenty -four hours from the time the user becomes aware or reasonably should have known of the bypass. The notice must include the information required for the written submission below. A written submission shall also be provided within five days of the time the user becomes aware of the bypass. Unless waived by the director on a case -by -case basis, after oral notice has been received within the time required, the written report must contain: a. A description of the bypass (volume, pollutants, etc.); b. What caused the bypass; c. When, specifically, the bypass started and ended; d. When the bypass is expected to stop (if ongoing); and e. What steps the user has taken or plans to take to reduce, eliminate, and prevent the bypass from reoccurring. D. Bypass -- Further Prohibitions, Approval: 1. Bypass is prohibited, and the director may take an enforcement action against a user for a bypass, unless: a. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; b. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back -up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and The user submitted notices as required under paragraph C. of this section. 2. The director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in paragraph D.1. of this section. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1204 Burden of proof. [12.4] It shall always be the burden of proof, based on substantial evidence, of the party asserting any affirmative defense to establish the same. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 49 of 69 ARTICLE 13 RESERVED ARTICLE 14 FEES 8.03A.1401 Pretreatment fees. [14.1] A. Fees are administrative cost recovery charges. They may be estimates or approximations with a final statement of charges submitted after costs are incurred. All fees are payable at the time of filing any application or request or as directed by the director. Upon approval by the director, fees may be billed and are payable in that case within thirty days of billing. Fees are in addition to any rates for sewer utility service or other expenses or costs not covered by the fees. Fees are subject to change at any time without notice. B. The listing of fees in this section is not by way of limitation, and the county reserves the right to charge any other fees for applicable services or benefits provided to or burdens created by the person identified as responsible for the fee. Where the director determines that additional costs, staff time, or other expenses are incurred in processing any permit or application for permission or approval, plan review or other service which are not reasonably covered by a fee assessed, the director may prepare a supplemental charges billing, to be paid as a condition of further processing an item. In addition, the director may waive or reduce any fee for good cause shown. All fees and charges are non - refundable and non- proratable. C. Schedule of standard fees: 1. Spokane County Code 8.03A.0304.A.1., permit application fee - -five hundred dollars 2. Spokane County Code 8.03A.0307.A.2., annual inspection fee - -two hundred fifty dollars 3. Spokane County Code 8.03A.0313, permit renewal application fee - -two hundred fifty dollars 4. Spokane County Code 8.03A.0904.A., administrative appeal - -two hundred fifty dollars 5. Spokane County Code 8.03A.0801, publication of significant non - compliance notice - -costs as billed 6. Monitoring, inspection, surveillance, sampling fees - -costs as determined and billed by the director 7. Processing fee for NSF checks - -as set by county treasurer 8. Administrative penalty - -five hundred dollars 9. Any other review or approval by the director not otherwise specified above- - hourly basis based on staff time at sixty dollars per hour as billed. D. Upon failure of the user to comply with any requirement of this chapter or order of the director, the user may be billed costs incurred by the county on a time and materials basis. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 50 of 69 ARTICLE 15 APPENDICES 8.03A.1501 Appendix A to 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 423 - -126 Priority Pollutants. TABLE INSET: 001 Acenaphthene 002 Acrolein 003 Acrylonitrile 004 Benzene 005 Benzidine 006 Carbon tetrachloride (tetra - chloromethane) 007 Chlorobenzene 008 1,2,4- trichlorobenzene 009 Hexachlorobenzene 010 1,2- dichloroethane Oil 1, 1, 1 -tri chi oreothane 012 Hexachloroethane 013 1, 1 -dichloroethane 014 1,1,2- trichloroethane 015 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane 016 Chloroethane 018 Bis(2- chloroethyl) ether 019 2- chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed) 020 2- chloronaphthalene 021 2,4,6- trichlorophenol 022 Parachlorometa cresol 023 Chloroform (trichloromethane) 024 2- chlorophenol 025 1,2- dichlorobenzene 026 1,3- dichlorobenzene 027 1,4- dichlorobenzene Page 51 of 69 028 3,3 -di chl orob enzi dine 029 1, 1 -dichloroethylene 030 1,2- trans - dichloroethylene 031 2,4- dichlorophenol 032 1,2- dichloropropane 033 1,2- dichloropropylene (1,3- dichloropropene) 034 2,4- dimethylphenol 035 2,4- dinitrotoluene 036 2,6- dinitrotoluene 037 1,2- diphenylhydrazine 038 Ethylbenzene 039 Fluoranthene 040 4- chlorophenyl phenyl ether 041 4- bromophenyl phenyl ether 042 Bis(2- chloroisopropyl) ether 043 Bis(2- chloroethoxy) methane 044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) 045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane) 046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane) 047 Bromoform (tribromomethane) 048 Dichlorobromomethane 051 Chlorodibromomethane 052 Hexachlorobutadiene 053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene 054 Isophorone 055 Naphthalene 056 Nitrobenzene 057 2- nitrophenol 058 4- nitrophenol 059 2,4- dinitrophenol Page 52 of 69 060 4,6- dinitro -o- cresol 061 N- nitrosodimethylamine 062 N- nitrosodiphenylamine 063 N- nitrosodi -n- propylamin 064 Pentachlorophenol 065 Phenol 066 Bis(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate 067 Butyl benzyl phthalate 068 Di -N -Butyl Phthalate 069 Di -n -octyl phthalate 070 Diethyl Phthalate 071 Dimethyl phthalate 072 1,2- benzanthracene (benzo(a) an- thracene 073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4- benzo - pyrene) 074 3,4- Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b) fluoranthene) 075 11,12- benzofluoranthene (benzo(b) fluoranthene) 076 Chrysene 077 Acenaphthylene 078 Anthracene 079 1,12- benzoperylene (benzo(ghi) perylene) 080 Fluorene 081 Phenanthrene 082 1,2,5,6 - dibenzanthracene (dibenzo(H) anthracene) 083 Indeno ( 1,2,3 -cd) pyrene (2,3 -o-pheynyl ene pyrene) 084 Pyrene 085 Tetrachloroethylene 086 Toluene 087 Trichloroethylene 088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) 089 Aldrin Page 53 of 69 090 Dieldrin 091 Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites) 092 4,4 -DDT 093 4,4 -DDE (p, p -DDX) 094 4,4 -DDD (p, p -TDE) 095 Alpha - endosulfan 096 Beta - endosulfan 097 Endosulfan sulfate 098 Endrin 099 Endrin aldehyde 100 Heptachlor 101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC - hexachlorocyclohexane) 102 Alpha -BHC 103 Beta -BHC 104 Gamma -BHC (lindane) 105 Delta -BHC (PCB - polychlorinated biphenyls) 106 PCB -1242 (Arochlor 1242) 107 PCB -1254 (Arochlor 1254) 108 PCB -1221 (Arochlor 1221) 109 PCB -1232 (Arochlor 1232) 110 PCB -1248 (Arochlor 1248) 111 PCB -1260 (Arochlor 1260) 112 PCB -1016 (Arochlor 1016) 113 Toxaphene 114 Antimony 115 Arsenic 116 Asbestos 117 Beryllium 118 Cadmium 119 Chromium Page 54 of 69 120 Copper 121 Cyanide, Total 122 Lead 123 Mercury 124 Nickel 125 Selenium 126 Silver 127 Thallium 128 Zinc 129 2,3,7,8 - tetrachloro - dibenzo -p- dioxin (TODD) (Res. No. 9- 0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) 8.03A.1502 Appendix D TO 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 122- -NPDES Permit Application Testing Requirements (§ 122.21) TABLE I: TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS BY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY TABLE INSET: Category for Existing Dischargers Industrial category GC /MS Fraction 1 Volatile Acid Base /neutral Pesticide Adhesives and Sealants 2 2 2 Aluminum Forming 2 2 2 Auto and Other Laundries 2 2 2 2 Battery Manufacturing 2 2 Coal Mining 2 2 2 2 Coil Coating 2 2 2 Copper Forming 2 2 2 Electric and Electronic Components 2 2 2 2 Electroplating 2 2 2 Explosives Manufacturing 2 2 Foundries 2 2 2 Gum and Wood Chemicals 2 2 2 2 Page 55 of 69 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 2 2 2 Iron and Steel Manufacturing 2 2 2 Leather Tanning and Finishing 2 2 2 2 Mechanical Products Manufacturing 2 2 2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 2 2 2 2 Ore Mining 2 2 2 2 Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 2 2 2 2 Paint and Ink Formulation 2 2 2 2 Pesticides 2 2 2 2 Petroleum Refining 2 2 2 2 Pharmaceutical Preparations 2 2 2 Photographic Equipment and Supplies 2 2 2 2 Plastic and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing 2 2 2 2 Plastic Processing 2 Porcelain Enameling 2 2 2 Printing and Publishing 2 2 2 2 Pulp and Paper Mills 2 2 2 2 Rubber Processing 2 2 2 Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 2 2 2 Steam Electric Power Plants 2 2 2 Textile Mills 2 2 2 2 Timber Products Processing 2 2 2 2 1 The toxic pollutants in each fraction are listed in Table II. 2 Testing required. Page 56 of 69 TABLE II: ORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN EACH OF FOUR FRACTIONS IN ANALYSIS BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY /MASS SPECTROSCOPY (GS /MS) TABLE INSET: Volatiles IV acrolein 2V acrylonitrile 3V benzene 5V bromoform 6V carbon tetrachloride 7V chlorobenzene 8V chlorodibromomethane 9V chloroethane lOV 2- chloroethylvinyl ether 11 V chloroform 12V dichlorobromomethane 14V 1,1- dichloroethane 15V 1,2- dichloroethane 16V 1,1- dichloroethylene 17V 1,2- dichloropropane 18V 1,3- dichloropropylene 19V ethylbenzene 20V methyl bromide 21V methyl chloride 22V methylene chloride 23V 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane 24V tetrachloroethylene 25V toluene 26V 1,2- trans - dichloroethylene 27V 1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane 28V 1,1,2- trichloroethane 29V trichloroethylene Page 57 of 69 31V vinyl chloride Acid Compounds IA 2- chlorophenol 2A 2,4- dichlorophenol 3A 2,4- dimethylphenol 4A 4,6- dinitro -o- cresol 5A 2,4- dinitrophenol 6A 2- nitrophenol 7A 4- nitrophenol 8A p- chloro -m- cresol 9A pentachlorophenol l0A phenol 11A 2,4,6 - trichlorophenol Base /Neutral 1B acenaphthene 2B acenaphthylene 3B anthracene 4B benzidine 5B benzo(a)anthracene 6B benzo(a)pyrene 7B 3,4- benzofluoranthene 8B benzo(ghi)perylene 9B benzo(k)fluoranthene lOB bis(2- chloroethoxy)methane 11B bis(2- chloroethyl)ether 12B bis(2- chloroisopropyl)ether 13B bis (2- ethylhexyl)phthalate 14B 4- bromophenyl phenyl ether 15B butylbenzyl phthalate 16B 2- chloronaphthalene Page 58 of 69 17B 4- chlorophenyl phenyl ether 18B chrysene 19B dibenzo(a, h)anthracene 20B 1,2- dichlorobenzene 21B 1,3- dichlorobenzene 22B 1,4- dichlorobenzene 23B 3, 3 -di chl orob enzi dine 24B diethyl phthalate 25B dimethyl phthalate 26B di -n -butyl phthalate 27B 2,4- dinitrotoluene 28B 2,6- dinitrotoluene 29B di -n -octyl phthalate 30B 1,2- diphenylhydrazine (as azobenzene) 31B fluroranthene 32B fluorene 33B hexachlorobenzene 34B hexachlorobutadiene 35B hexachlorocyclopentadiene 36B hexachloroethane 37B indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene 38B isophorone 39B napthalene 40B nitrobenzene 41B N- nitrosodimethylamine 42B N- nitrosodi -n- propylamine 43B N- nitrosodiphenylamine 44B phenanthrene 45B pyrene 46B 1,2,4- trichlorobenzene Page 59 of 69 Pesticides 1P aldrin 2P alpha -BHC 3P beta -BHC 4P gamma -BHC 5P delta -BHC 6P chlordane 7P 4,4' -DDT 8P 4,4' -DDE 9P 4,4' -DDD lop dieldrin 11P alpha - endosulfan 12P beta - endosulfan 13P endosulfan sulfate 14P endrin 15P endrin aldehyde 16P heptachlor 17P heptachlor epoxide 18P PCB -1242 19P PCB -1254 20P PCB -1221 21P PCB -1232 22P PCB -1248 23P PCB -1260 24P PCB -1016 25P toxaphene TABLE III: OTHER TOXIC POLLUTANTS (METALS AND CYANIDE) AND TOTAL PHENOLS Antimony, Total Arsenic, Total Beryllium, Total Page 60 of 69 Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Lead, Total Mercury, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Thallium, Total Zinc, Total Cyanide, Total Phenols, Total TABLE IV: CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS REQUIRED TO BE TESTED BY EXISTING DISCHARGERS IF EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT Bromide Chlorine, Total Residual Color Fecal Coliform Fluoride Nitrate - Nitrite Nitrogen, Total Organic Oil and Grease Phosphorus, Total Radioactivity Sulfate Sulfide Page 61 of 69 Sulfite Surfactants Aluminum, Total Barium, Total Boron, Total Cobalt, Total Iron, Total Magnesium, Total Molybdenum, Total Manganese, Total Tin, Total Titanium, Total TABLE V: TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIED BY EXISTING DISCHARGERS IF EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT Toxic Pollutants Asbestos Acetaldehyde Allyl alcohol Allyl chloride Amyl acetate Aniline Benzonitrile Benzyl chloride Butyl acetate Butylamine Captan Carbaryl Hazardous Substances Page 62 of 69 Carbofuran Carbon disulfide Chlorpyrifos Coumaphos Cresol Crotonaldehyde Cyclohexane 2,4 -D (2,4- Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) Diazinon Dicamba Dichlobenil Dichlone 2,2- Dichloropropionic acid Dichlorvos Diethyl amine Dimethyl amine Dintrobenzene Diquat Disulfoton Diuron Epichlorohydrin Ethion Ethylene diamine Ethylene dibromide Formaldehyde Furfural Page 63 of 69 Guthion Isoprene Isopropanolamine Dodecylbenzenesulfonate Kelthane Kepone Marathion Mercaptodimethur Methoxychlor Methyl mercaptan Methyl methacrylate Methyl parathion Mevinphos Mexacarbate Monoethyl amine Monomethyl amine Naled Napthenic acid Nitrotoluene Parathion Phenolsulfanate Phosgene Propargite Propylene oxide Pyrethrins Quinoline Resorcinol Page 64 of 69 Strontium Strychnine Styrene 2,4,5 -T (2,4,5 - Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid) TDE (Tetrachlorodiphenylethane) 2,4,5 -TP [2- (2,4,5 - Trichlorophenoxy) propanoic acid] Trichlorofan Triethanolamine dodecylbenzenesulfonate Triethylamine Trimethylamine Uranium Vanadium Vinyl acetate Xylene Xylenol Zirconium [Note 1: The Environmental Protection Agency has suspended the requirements of § 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) and Table I of Appendix D as they apply to certain industrial categories. The suspensions are as follows: a. At 46 FR 2046, Jan. 8, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice § 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) as it applies to coal mines. b. At 46 FR 22585, Apr. 20, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice § 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) and the corresponding portions of Item V -C of the NPDES application Form 2c as they apply to: 1. Testing and reporting for all four organic fractions in the Greige Mills Subcategory of the Textile Mills industry (Subpart C - -Low water use processing of 40 CFR Part 410), and testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in all other subcategories of this industrial category. 2. Testing and reporting for the volatile, base /neutral and pesticide fractions in the Base and Precious Metals Subcategory of the Ore Mining and Dressing industry (Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 440), and testing and reporting for all four fractions in all other subcategories of this industrial category. 3. Testing and reporting for all four GC /MS fractions in the Porcelain Enameling industry. Page 65 of 69 c. At 46 FR 35090, July 1, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency suspended until further notice § 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) and the corresponding portions of Item V -C of the NPDES application Form 2c as they apply to: 1. Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Tall Oil Rosin Subcategory (Subpart D) and Rosin -Based Derivatives Subcategory (Subpart F) of the Gum and Wood Chemicals industry (40 CFR Part 454), and testing and reporting for the pesticide and base /neutral fractions in all other subcategories of this industrial category. 2. Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Leather Tanning and Finishing, Paint and Ink Formulation, and Photographic Supplies industrial categories. 3. Testing and reporting for the acid, base /neutral and pesticide fractions in the Petroleum Refining industrial category. 4. Testing and reporting for the pesticide fraction in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (Subparts J and U) of the Pulp and Paper industry (40 CFR Part 430); testing and reporting for the base /neutral and pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: Deink (Subpart Q), Dissolving Kraft (Subpart F), and Paperboard from Waste Paper (Subpart E); testing and reporting for the volatile, base /neutral and pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: BCT Bleached Kraft (Subpart H), Semi - Chemical (Subparts B and C), and Nonintegrated -Fine Papers (Subpart R); and testing and reporting for the acid, base /neutral, and pesticide fractions in the following subcategories: Fine Bleached Kraft (Subpart 1), Dissolving Sulfite Pulp (Subpart K), Groundwood -Fine Papers (Subpart O), Market Bleached Kraft (Subpart G), Tissue from Wastepaper (Subpart T), and Nonintegrated- Tissue Papers (Subpart S). 5. Testing and reporting for the base /neutral fraction in the Once - Through Cooling Water, Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Transport Water process wastestreams of the Steam Electric Power Plant industrial category. [This revision continues these suspensions.]* *Editor's note: The words "This revision" refer to the document published at 48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983. For the duration of the suspensions, therefore, Table I effectively reads: TABLE I: TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY TABLE INSET: industry category GC /MS fraction 2 Volatile Acid Neutral Pesticide Adhesives and sealants 1 1 1 Aluminum forming 1 1 1 Page 66 of 69 Auto and other laundries 1 1 1 1 Battery manufacturing 1 1 Coal mining Coil coating 1 1 1 Copper forming 1 1 1 Electric and electronic compounds 1 1 1 1 Electroplating 1 1 1 Explosives manufacturing 1 1 Foundries 1 1 1 Gum and wood (all subparts except D and F) 1 1 Subpart D_tall oil rosin 1 1 1 Subpart F_rosin -based derivatives 1 1 1 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 1 1 1 Iron and steel manufacturing 1 1 1 Leather tanning and finishing 1 1 1 Mechanical products manufacturing 1 1 1 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 1 1 1 1 Ore mining (applies to the base and precious metals /Subpart B) 1 Organic chemicals manufacturing 1 1 1 1 Paint and ink formulation 1 1 1 Pesticides 1 1 1 1 Petroleum refining 1 Pharmaceutical preparations 1 1 1 Photographic equipment and supplies 1 1 1 Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing 1 1 1 1 Plastic processing 1 Porcelain enameling Printing and publishing 1 1 1 1 Pulp and paperboard mills footnote 3 Rubber processing 1 1 1 Page 67 of 69 Soap and detergent manufacturing 1 1 1 Base /neutral Steam electric power plants 1 1 1 2 Textile mills (Subpart C_Greige Mills are exempt from this table) 1 1 1 2 Timber products processing 1 1 1 1 1 Testing required. 2 The pollutants in each fraction are listed in Item V -C. 3 Pulp and Paperboard Mills: TABLE INSET: Subpart 3 GS /MS fractions VOA Acid Base /neutral Pesticides A 2 1 2 1 B 2 1 2 2 C 2 1 2 2 D 2 1 2 2 E 1 1 2 1 F 1 1 2 2 G 1 1 2 2 H 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 2 2 J 1 1 1 2 K 1 1 2 2 L 1 1 2 2 M 1 1 2 2 N 1 1 2 2 O 1 1 2 2 P 1 1 2 2 Q 1 1 2 1 R 2 1 2 2 S 1 1 2 1 Page 68 of 69 T 1 1 2 1 U 1 1 1 2 1 Must test. 2 Do not test unless "reason to believe" it is discharged. 3 Subparts are defined in 40 CFR Part 430. (Res. No. 9 -0804, § 1, 9 -8 -2009) Page 69 of 69 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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: Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Attached are two call for projects from SRTC. The Enhancement Grant is due on September 10th and the CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality) Grant is due September 24 Eligible projects for CMAQ may be capital reduction projects or programs, and planning projects in the Spokane area are estimated to 2014 funding cycle. There is a 13.5% match pedestrian facilities which is 20 %. investments, operating assistance, emission and project development. Funds available for be $3.5 million per year through the FFY 2011 - required for all projects other than bicycle and Transportation Enhancements are transportation - related activities designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation's transportation system. There is no local match requirement for these funds; projects may request 100% Enhancements funding. Additional information is available on SRTC's web site at: www.srtc.org OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS SRTC Call for Project Information SR T Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 • Spokane, N1 A 9920 1-36 13 (509) 343 -6370 FAX: (509) 343 -6400 AIaON10 k_1017115I TO: Jurisdictions and Agencies Eligible to Receive CMAQ Funding FROM: Glenn F. Miles, Transportation Manager DATE: August 18, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 -2012 Call for Projects for Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality Program Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is announcing a Call for Projects for Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality (CMAQ) Program funds. The amount of funds available for projects in the Spokane area is estimated to be $3.5 million /year through the IFFY 2010 -2012 funding cycle. The CMAQ Program funds are available for transportation projects and programs that improve air quality by increasing the efficiency of existing transportation facilities or reducing travel demand. In addition, CMAQ- funded projects and programs must be capable of demonstrating the reduction of either carbon monoxide or particulate matter in the Spokane area. A 13.5% local match is required for all activities other than bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which require a 20% match. Projects selected for funding must achieve certification of rights of way and construction obligation within 18 months from the date it is amended into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). How to Apply The materials attached with this memo describe the eligibility requirements and evaluation criteria to be used in the 2010 -2012 CMAQ Program project selection. Projects are to be submitted to SRTC using the CMAQ Regional Application Form (Attachment A of the Call for Projects). A CMAQ Project Certification Statement, signed by the mayor or commissioner, must be completed for each application (Attachment B). An overview of the evaluation criteria that will be used to score projects is given in Attachment C. If the entity applying for CMAQ funding is not a Certification Acceptance agency, a Certification Acceptance Confirmation Form must be completed by the CA agency that will administer the proposed CMAQ project (Attachment D). Completed applications must be received at SRTC by 4:00 p.m. Friday, September 24, 2010. Applicants are encouraged to file their applications electronically. Electronic copies should be emailed to Mallory Atkinson at matkinson(o�srtc.org If necessary, a hard copy can be sent to 221 W. First Ave., Suite 310, Spokane WA 99201. SRTC will be conducting a workshop to provide information and assistance to project sponsors. The CMAQ workshop is scheduled for 8:00 a.m. Thursday, August 26, 2010. The workshop will be held at SRTC, 221 W. First Ave., Suite 310, Spokane WA 99201. Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality Program FFY 2010 -2012 Call for Projects Project Eligibility • Eligible projects include capital investments, operating assistance (limited to transit services, intermodal facilities, and travel demand management strategies), emission reduction projects or programs, and planning and project development (limited to activities in support of specific CMAQ- eligible projects or programs). For more information on eligibility, refer to federal program guidance: http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment /cmagpgs /cmag08gd.pdf • Projects must be located in or significantly affect the Spokane Urbanized Area with demonstrated improvement to congestion relief and /or air quality. • Projects should be on a federally classified road to receive federal funding (unless it is a bicycle /pedestrian project, transit project, or a CMAQ- eligible project that is not located on a roadway). Project Selection Process Projects will be reviewed by the SRTC staff for completeness and eligibility. Projects will then be scored by SRTC staff using the Regional Project Evaluation Criteria (Attachment C). The Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) will review scores and recommend projects for SRTC Board approval. The SRTC Board will select projects up to the anticipated available funds, maintaining a prioritized list in the event additional funding becomes available, selected project are cancelled, or cost under -runs provide an opportunity to select additional projects. Projects selected by the SRTC Board will be amended into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Project Selection Schedule Regional Call for Projects Released by SRTC Project Selection Workshop at SRTC Applications Due to SRTC Public Review Period (approx.) Technical Scoring of Projects by SRTC Staff TTC Meeting, project recommendations TAC Meeting, project recommendations SRTC Board Approval, projects amended into the TIP Funds Available for Obligation Attachments August 18, 2010 August 26, 2010 September 24, 2010 Sept. 27 — Oct. 25, 2010 Sept. 27 — Oct. 8, 2010 October 20, 2010 October 25, 2010 November 11, 2010 January 2011 Attachment A - CMAQ Regional Application Form Attachment B - CMAQ Project Certification Statement Attachment C - CMAQ Regional Project Evaluation Criteria Attachment D - Certification Acceptance Confirmation Form Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality Program FFY 2010 -2012 2 Call for Projects SR T Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Arennc, Suite 310 • Spokane, W A 99201 -3613 (509) 343 -63 70 FAX: (509) 343 -6400 AID A10w1k _10171151 TO: Public Agencies and Non - Profit Organizations in the Spokane Region FROM: Glenn F. Miles, Transportation Manager DATE: August 18, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 Call for Projects for Transportation Enhancements Program The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) invite your agency to submit projects for FFY 2010 -2012 Transportation Enhancements Program. SRTC has been allotted a target allocation of $2.5 million for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle. Transportation Enhancements (TE) are transportation - related activities designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation's transportation system. The focus of these actions is to improve the transportation experience in and through local communities. The TE program provides for a variety of non - traditional projects, within 12 eligible categories (Attachment A). Each category has specific eligibility requirements (Attachment B), and every project must demonstrate a relationship to the surface transportation system. How to Apply The materials attached to this memo describe the eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria, and application process for the FFY 2010 -2012 Transportation Enhancements Program. Projects are to be submitted to SRTC using the application in Attachment C of the Call for Projects. Evaluation criteria that will be used to score projects are given in Attachment D. Completed applications must be received at SRTC by 4:00 p.m., Friday, September 10, 2010. Applicants are encouraged to file their applications electronically. Electronic applications should be emailed to Mallory Atkinson at matkinson(a)srtc.org If necessary, a hard copy can be sent to 221 West First Avenue, Suite 310, Spokane WA 99201. SRTC will be conducting a workshop to provide information and assistance to project sponsors. The Transportation Enhancements workshop is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Thursday, August 26, 2010. The workshop will be held at SRTC, located at 221 W. First Ave., Suite 310, Spokane WA 99201. Please contact Mallory Atkinson at matkinson(o)srtc.org if you would like to attend. FFY 2010 -2012 Transportation Enhancements Program Call for Projects Project Selection Schedule Regional Call for Projects Released by SRTC Project Selection Workshop at SRTC Applications Due to SRTC Public Review Period (approx.) Technical Scoring of Projects by SRTC Staff TTC Meeting, project recommendations TAC Meeting, project recommendations SRTC Board Approval, projects amended into the TIP Projects Due to WSDOT Funds Available for Obligation Important Information August 18, 2010 August 26, 2010 September 10, 2010 Sept. 13— Oct. 13, 2010 September 13 -14, 2010 September 15, 2010 September 27, 2010 October 14, 2010 November 1, 2010 January 2011 There is no local match requirement for these funds; projects may request 100% Enhancements funding. Projects must be able to proceed within two years of selection notification and sponsors will be required to report quarterly to WSDOT on the status of their project. Attachments Attachment A - Eligible Enhancements Categories Attachment B - Enhancements Guidance and Eligibility Information Attachment C - Enhancements Regional Application Form Attachment D - Enhancements Regional Project Evaluation Criteria FFY 2010 -2012 Transportation Enhancements Program 2 Call for Projects Attachment A ELIGIBLE ENHANCEMENTS CATEGORIES The Surface Transportation Program — Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program was introduced as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Federal six -year transportation funding authorization enacted in 1991. It was continued and expanded upon with the ensuing six -year program (TEA -21), and is now being implemented through the current federal authorization program, SAFETEA -LU. The focus of the TE Program is to provide funding for innovative, community -based projects to enhance the transportation system by improving the transportation experience in and through local communities. Under SAFETEA -LU, 10 percent of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds that come to the State of Washington are set aside for a Statewide Transportation Enhancements Program. The State set - asides are then allocated to Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RPTOs) such as SRTC. The purpose of the transportation enhancement program is to fund projects that allow communities to strengthen the local economy, improve the quality of life, enhance the travel experience for people traveling by all modes, and protect the environment. Projects must relate to surface transportation, and include at least one of the twelve (12) qualifying activities listed below: 1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. 2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities). 5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6. Historic preservation. 7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals). 8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 9. Inventory control and removal of outdoor advertising. 10. Archaeological planning and research. 11. Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle- caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 12. Establishment of transportation museums. TE funds may be used for workforce development, training, and education under 23 U.S.C. 504(e), provided the activity specifically benefits eligible TE activities. FFY 2010 -2012 Transportation Enhancements Program Eligible Enhancements Categories DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of August 19, 2010; 11:00 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 31, 2010, No meeting (confirmed) September 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 30] 1. Outside Agency Presentations: Social Services Agencies - Ken Thompson (60 minutes) 2. Code text amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) — Lori Barlow (25 minutes) 3. Presentation of Preliminary Budget — Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 4. City Manager Contract — Mayor Towey (20 minutes) 5. Ad Hoc Committee, Economic Development — Tom Towey (15 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 155 minutes] September 14, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Fri Sept 3] Proclamation: Tobacco Free Teen Back to School Week 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget — Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. Second Read Ordinance CTA -07 -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: City Manager Contract Approval — Mayor Towey (10 minutes) a. Oath of Office: Police ChiefRick VanLeuven, and City Manager Mike Jackson 6. Outside Agency Presentations: Economic Development — Ken Thompson (30 minutes) 7. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan), City Center— Update to Council — Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 120 minutes] September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 13] 1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)— Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 2. Poe Winter Contract — Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *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. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies — Ken Thompson (25 minutes) 7. Motion Consideration: Poe Winter Contract — Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 8. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd — Lori Barlow (45 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 8/19/2010 2:24:17 PM Page 1 of 3 October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Spokane Transit Authority Presentation — Susan Meyer 3. Business License Amendments — Cary Driskell 4. Public Record Ordinance Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Comp Plan Review /Update — Greg McCormick 6. Legislative Agenda Update — Mayor Towey October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson 3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Ken Thompson 4. Admin Report: Code Text Amendment CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 5. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Sept 27] (5 minutes) (30 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] jdue date Mon Oct 4] (5 minutes) (30 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 75 minutes] (A WC Regional Meeting, Spokane: October 13, 2010, 6 -8 p.m. CenterPlace)) October 19, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Report Back to Council: Community Blvd — Lori Barlow 2. Advance Agenda October 26, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 3. First Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 4. First Reading Business License Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson Advance Agenda Info Only: Department Reports November 2, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. SARP Report to Council — Kathy McClung 2. Broadcasting Options — Mayor Towey 3. Advance Agenda November 9, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Second Reading, Proposed Ordinance, CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 3. Second Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 4. Second Reading Business License Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Advance Agenda November 16, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 November 23, 2010 Thanksgiving Week (tentative, no meeting) [due date Mon, Oct 11] (30 minutes [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 18] (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 60 minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 25] (45 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 70 minutes] jdue date Mon Nov 1] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] [due date Mon, Nov 8] [*estimated meeting: minutes] November 30, 2010, Tentative No Meeting: Council attends NLC in Colorado (Nov 30 -Dec 4) Draft Advance Agenda 8/19/2010 2:24:17 PM Page 2 of 3 December 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Nov 29] December 14, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m [due date Mon, Dec 6] 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 — Ken Thompson (15 min) 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments (Planning Commission, etc.) (15 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] 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 ISSUES /MEETINGS Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) Capital Projects Funding Clean Air Agency Collaborative Planning Concurrency East Gateway Monument Structure 4 Jail Update Milwaukee Right -of -way ■ Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance Parking/Paving Options (Development paving options for driveways, etc.) Planned Action Ordinance Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Sprague Avenue: One -way vs. two -way Street Maintenance Facility Transportation Benefit District Interlocal Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; Transportation Impacts Wastewater Treatment Plant 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 [due date Mon, Dec 20] [due date Mon, Dec 27] (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Draft Advance Agenda 8/19/2010 2:24:17 PM Page 3 of 3 SOM7rne ..;oOValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council Members; Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: August 19, 2010 Re: Leases at CenterPlace Update For the past several months, Parks and Recreation staff have been working with Community Colleges of Spokane (CCS) and the Central Valley School District (CVSD) to develop agreements for leasing space for the upcoming school year at CenterPlace. The leased space will be used to facilitate staff training and public educational programs. As you know, CCS's existing lease has expired and they are very interested in maintaining a presence in the Spokane Valley at CenterPlace. CVSD will be a new client. We are interested in providing space and continuing a working relationship with both entities. Having both organizations utilizing space at CenterPlace for their programs is an important part of the mission and goals at CenterPlace. Both entities are interested in a lease running from August 2010 through June 2011 to begin with. Discussions and negotiations have focused on the rooms needed and the rental rate per square foot. Currently discussions with both CCS and CVSD are focusing within the range of $8 to $9 per square foot. The rental rate initially charged when CenterPlace opened was $16 per square foot. As you are all aware, the economy has had a negative impact on square foot rental rates. Staff havebeen doing research on what rental rents are being charged for like space within the City of Spokane Valley. That information is not yet available. The schools will be leasing space primarily during the day leaving evenings and weekends available for rent by the public. Additionally, CenterPlace will have the ability to rent these spaces to other groups when they are not in use by CCS or CVSD. Central Valley School District is also offering use of school space such as play fields, gyms, etc. as a part of their compensation package. Staff will be bringing the proposed leases to City Council for your consideration and approval within the next several weeks. Our intent is to propose lease terms that are fair and comparable to the private sector. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Thank you. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 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: Fiscal Impact of the 2010 Ballot Initiatives and Referenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Fiscal Impact Statements, provided by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), for Initiatives and Referenda certified to appear on the November 2010 General Election Ballot are attached for review. Also attached is the 2010 Budget - Detail Revenues by Type, highlighting the liquor revenue received by the City of Spokane Valley. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: OFM Fiscal Impact Statements for Initiatives and Referenda; 2010 Budget Detail Revenues by Type. City of Spokane Val Ioy 2010 Budget Detail Revenues by Type GenafalFund Rovonues Beolnn'na Fund Be'anco Property To Property Tax Property Tax - Delhquent Bales Sales Tax Saes Tex - Criminal Jusice Sages Tax • PuK, Safety aGIUN Taxes Punch Hoards & N11 Tabs Amusement Games Card Games Interest on Gemb6rng tax Licenses & Permia Bus'ness Licenses Franchlso Feas State 5hared Revenues Stream: ne MrilgeCon of Sales Tax MV CfWnal Just" - Population Criminal Justice Area #4 Criminal Jusllca Special Programs DUI • C'Was Lt;aor Board Excise Tex Lklm Board Profds Y&R Study Reimbursement Service Revenues BuMing Permits Plumb'ng Permits Gmding Permits Mechanlcal Permits Demol"llon Permits Misc. Permits & Foes PWis Check Fees Plann'ng Fees Fines end Fodeltures Rnas & Forfelts - 7ratflc Other Criminal Non - Traffic Fines Reueallon Program Cheraw AtWity Fees (To use a recreational facility) Program Foos (To participate In a program) Other Vis cetioneous Investment Interest Saes Tex Interest Property Tex Interest Po' ce Precinct Rant Off orPub5c Der- Re- Lkenstag Grant Miscellaneous Revenue & Grant Tr ansfers Transfer from Street Fund - Overhead Transfer from Stormxaler - Facility Transfer from Slormnvaler Transfer from Street Fund - Mernbershtp Repayment from SL Fund Transferfrom Kote4Mptel- Cenierplace 2008 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget 5 13,747,197 $ 12,118,644 5 19,375,000 $ 9,669,437 5 10,600,000 6 10,799,600 166,651 175,000 170,000 9,836,088 10,675,000 10, 669, 600 18,161,028 17,860,000 14,410,000 1,380.72 1 920,000 1,400,000 780 600,000 790,000 118,322,11 W 19,3EA,000 16,600,000 75,516 60,000 70,000 1,138 2,000 2,000 753,494 463,000 343,000 16,054 10,000 846,202 625,000 425,000 81,403 60,000 80,000 925,439 904,650 1,020,000 1,008,842 964,650 1,100,000 197,476 90,000 18,417 11,100 19,000 123.M 101.460 124.000 70,844 60,000 71,000 15,694 35,000 16,000 428,953 400 430.000 598,659 U` zc- Q 696,600 3,3 3,400 1,455,393 1,257,650 1,450,000 1,205,020 1,200,000 722,600 73,174 63,000 35,000 4,617 7,000 5,000 91,281 69,000 92,000 6,145 5,000 6,200 108,531 65,000 100,000 315,376 250,000 250,000 291,205 219,540 290,000 2,094,328 1,688,540 1,500,000 78-3,251 765,730 620,000 988.613 610 ,730 _ 980,000 1,750,024 1,376,460 1,600,000 634,691 449,070 664,000 65,135 63,000 68,000 599,726 412,070 650,000 361,&45 300,000 300,000 68,432 40,441 60,000 - 25,000 67,763 - 51,664 76,100 - 63,119 62,800 149,786 656,249 418,241 661,350 26,000 25,000 25,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 34,300 44,900 30,000 160,000 84,15 90,000 90,000 168,690 174,WD 310,000 Total General Fund Revenue Total General Fund Revenue and Beginning Fund Balance $ 36.725�.892 S 37,172,3 S 35.165, S 50,473,089 S 49,268,955 5 64,640,850 25 Assigned Number: 1053 Filed: 01/04/2010 Sponsors Mr. Tim Eyman Mr. Leo J. Fagan Mr. M.J. Fagan Ms. Dagny Lord Mr. Donald M. Benton Ms. Erma Turner Ms. Janea Holmquist Ms. Keli A, Carender Mr. Michael E. Dunmire Ms. Nancy J. Nelson Public Contact Jnformation: P.O. Box 18250 Spokane, WA 99228 Phone: 425 - 493 -8707 Fax: 425 -493 -1027 j akatak@comeast.net Ballot Title Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1053 concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government. Concise Description: This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two - thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] Ballot Measure Summary This measure would restate the existing statutory requirement that any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises taxes must be approved by a two - thirds vote in both houses of the legislature or approved in a referendum to the people, and it would restate the existing statutory definition of "raises taxes." It would also restate that new or increased fees must be approved by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature. FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1053 Initiative 1053 would have no direct fiscal impact on state and local revenues, costs, expenditures or indebtedness. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The initiative's impact is limited to changes in the state legislative process. FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1082 Industrial insurance premium paid into state Trust Funds is estimated to decrease $1.1 billion — $1.43 billion by calendar year 2014 as employers shift to private insurers. State claim costs correspondingly decrease as claims shift from the state to private insurers. State revenue is estimated to increase $61 million —$75 million over five fiscal years. Costs are estimated to increase up to $202 million for the state and $47.25 million for local governments over five fiscal years. Assuming no legislative action to conform statutes to the initiative, industrial insurance premium paid into state Trust Funds and associated costs may increase. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS • Some estimates are based on the state's fiscal year (FY) of July 1 through June 30. Some estimates are based on a calendar year (CY). • Existing benefits levels to injured employees are maintained. • Private insurers can provide industrial insurance coverage beginning July 1, 2012. • The state will remain insured by the state's industrial insurance program (State Fund). Local governments that are not self - insured will also remain covered by the State Fund. • Self-insured employers remain self - insured. No assumption is made that self - insured employers will seek industrial insurance from private insurers or the State Fund. • Private insurers wil l acquire 383 percent of the industrial insurance market in CY 2013, growing to 53.3 percent in CY 2014. This assumption is based on the average percentage of State Fund premium in other states with competitive State Fund programs using information from the National Council on Compensation Insurance. Growth in private industrial insurance is based on the assumption that large employers and participants in retrospective rating programs, which represent more than half of the State Fund, are more likely to change to private insurers. • Of the industrial insurance market, 6.2 percent will be referred to the assigned risk plan. This assumption is based on the average percentage of market assigned to risk plans in all states that use information from the National Council on Compensation Insurance. STATE AND LOCAL REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Industrial Insurance Premiums The state's Industrial Insurance Trust Funds (state Trust Funds) are self - contained Rinds into which employers pay premiums for no -fault industrial insurance coverage for their employees with the State Fund. The amount of premium deposited into state Trust Funds will decrease as some employers obtain private industrial insurance coverage. However, the amount of premium that will shift to private insurers cannot be precisely estimated because the future competitive market is unknown. Therefore, the fiscal impact statement uses the following range of assumptions for the estimate; • A low range is calculated using State Fund 2010 premium rates. At this rate, premiums paid to private insurers and the assigned risk plan combined is estimated to be $821 million in CY 2013 and $1.1 billion in CY 2014. Therefore, premium paid into state Trust Funds is estimated at $619 million in CY 2013 and $828 million in CY 2014. • A higher range is calculated using State Fund premium at the 2010 actuarially estimated rate, which is increased for wage inflation at 15 percent and medical inflation at 3.5 percent. At this rate, premium paid to private insurers and the assigned risk plan combined is estimated to be $1 billion in CY 2013 and $1.43 billion in CY 2014. Therefore, premium deposited into state Trust Funds is estimated at $805 million in CY 2013 and $1.37 billion in CY 2014. • These estimates assume private insurers will collect sufficient premium to cover future cost of living adjustments to benefit levels. Industrial Insurer License Fees The private insurers who offer industrial insurance must be licensed by the Office of Insurance Commissioner (OIC). Using the following assumptions, OIC estimates state license fees will be less than $11,000 in FY 2013 and $8,250 each fiscal year thereafter, assuming a total of 320 insurers and 500 agents and brokers (producers) ultimately will be licensed to sell industrial insurance in Washington. Total state revenue from fees is estimated at $27,500 over the next five fiscal years. Industrial Insurer• Assessments The OIC must collect an assessment from private insurers sufficient to cover OTC's costs to administer its duties. The OIC estimates state assessments of $3.3 million in FY 2013 $3.6 million in FY 2014 and $3.7 million in FY 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter to cover its costs, Funds must be deposited into a new industrial insurance administrative account. Because assessment increases are assumed to require legislative approval, revenue from assessments is assumed to be $3.3 million each fiscal year for a total of $9.9 million for three fiscal years. Taxes on Insurers Private industrial insurance premiums will be subject to the insurance premium tax. Insurance agent commissions will be subject to the business and occupation (B &O) tax. Both taxes are deposited into the State General Fund and can be used for any governmental put - pose. Using the "Industrial Insurance Premiums" assumptions above and a 7.2 percent commission rate to brokers and agents (from Best's Aggregates & Averages 2007 nationwide average commission rate for industrial insurance), an estimated $51 million to $65 million will be deposited into the State General Fund from taxes on private insurers. The following table shows the range of revenue generated by tax type for each fiscal year: Revenue Ranges by Tax Type Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Insurance Premium $0 $O $8,211,000 — $19,430,000 — $22,440,000 — Tax $10 ,700,000 $24,370,000 $28,600,000 Business and $0 $O $262,000— S327,000— $391,000— Occupation Tax $322,000 $410,000 $498,000 Total Slate General $0 50 $8,473,000 -- $19,757,000 — $22,831,000 — Fund Revenue $11,022,000 $24,780,000 $29,098,000 Approximately 38 cities and towns impose a local B &O tax. Because it is not known where private insurers will locate, the amount of revenue generated from local B &O tax is indeterminate. STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS The amount of state expenditures for claims costs will correspondingly decrease along with premiums paid into the Trust Fund. (See "Industrial Insurance Premiums" section in State and Local Revenue Assumptions above for estimate.) The initiative is assumed to have no impact on local government expenditures. STATE AND LOCAL COST ASSUMPTIONS Industrial Insurance Premiums The initiative requires employers to pay the full cost of the Medical Aid premium. Under current law, the state deducts one -half of Medical Aid premium from state employee pay. This estimate assumes the same for all local governments covered by the State Fund. Assuming the number of full -time equivalent employees in CY 2009 and current 2010 Medical Aid premium rates, the estimated cost to the state is $22 million and the estimated cost to the local govermnents is $10.5 million in CY 2011 and each calendar year thereafter. Over five fiscal years, this estimate totals $99 million in state costs and $47.25 million in local government costs. This estimate assumes employers will continue to collect half of the Supplemental Pension Fund premium from employees. Office of Insurance Commissioner (OIC) Administration The OIC will assume costs for regulation of private insurers who offer industrial insurance, which will include licensing activities, financial examinations and oversight, analysis of rate filings, responding to consumer complaints, rule making, and legal and public affairs. State costs are estimated at $186,200 for FY 2011, $1.9 million for FY 2012, $3.3 million for FY 2013, $3.6 million for FY 2014 and $3.7 million for FY 2015. Total estimated state costs are $12,686,200 over the next five fiscal years. These state costs assume the following: • Private insurers will be subject to the regulatory requirements of Title 48 RCW involving admission, financial, solvency and market analysis oversight. • Private insurers will be subject to the unfair claims practices rules and statutes. • The initiative gives no authority to OIC to approve or deny manual rates adopted by a private rating organization. Variations from the manual rates will require O1C approval. • Private insurers will pay all costs and fees associated with the licensed rating organization selected to prepare rate- making documents. • Employers who purchase industrial insurance coverage from the assigned risk plan will pay all costs associated with that plan. • Consumers who disagree with claims decisions made by private insurers will be able to file complaints with OIC. • The OIC cannot assess private insurers for Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA) expenses. • No resources will be devoted to private industrial insurance fraud prevention, detection or prosecution. • No guaranty fund coverage will exist for insolvent private insurers. No costs are assumed for the state. Losses will be absorbed by employers, injured employees and medical providers. Department of Labor and Industries (L &I) Administration The initiative will generate state costs related to L &I activities that can be estimated as follows: • Costs estimated up to $1.1 million for information technology changes, rule making and actuarial analysis to change the State Fund premium basis to total payroll by January 1, 2011. • Costs estimated up to $16.5 million in FY 2012 for additional information technology changes for fraud detection, policy issuance and accounting systems. • Costs estimated to average $317,000 annually over the next five fiscal years for staff to pursue fraud and employers who are not insured. • Costs estimated at $5.94 million each fiscal year for the Employment Standards Program and Apprenticeship Program that can no longer be funded from the Trust Fund beginning FY 2013. • Because L &I has existing statutory authority to assess fees for the state's occupational safety and health program and the University of Washington's environmental research facility, no change in state revenue or state expenditures is assumed for maintaining the programs at current levels. However, state costs include $412,000 in FY 2013, $398,000 in FY 2014 and $398,000 in FY 2015 for L &I to collect these fees. Total state costs are estimated at $1,208,000 for three fiscal years. Assuming no further legislative action to conform current statutes to the initiative, State Fund premiums and costs (State Fund and L &I) may increase, but the amount is indeterminate for the following reasons: • Current law requires the State Fund to provide coverage to all employers. If the State Fund is unable to deny coverage to certain employers who should be insured by the assigned risk plan, premiums and costs will increase, • Current law requires the State Fund to cover claims of employees whose employers did not obtain industrial insurance through the State Fund, self-insurance or a private industrial insurer. As employers shift to private insurers, this cost may change. • Although employers insured through the State Fund will decrease, additional administrative costs may be necessary for the State Fund to compete with private insurers. • L &I may have costs or savings related to changes in rate development, premium collection practices and policy issuance activities. Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals Administration Employers and employees covered by private industrial insurers have appeal rights to the BIIA, BIIA estimates a 34 percent increase in appeals based on the ratio of appeals to claims for private insurers as compared to the same ratio for the Oregon SAIF state - chartered workers compensation company over a three -year period. Additionally, appeals of private insurers' decisions are assumed to be a state cost because OIC cannot assess private insurers for BIIA expenses. State costs estimated for appeals and case management changes are estimated at $705,000 in FY 2012, $7.7 million in FY 2013, and $10 million in FY 2014 and $10 million in FY 2015. Total state costs are estimated at $28,422,000 for four fiscal years. The Department of Revenue Administration Assuming most agents and brokers (producers) who will be licensed to sell industrial insurance are currently reporting taxpayers, state costs of up to $50,000 are estimated for the Department of Revenue to administer the B &O taxes. Total state costs are estimated at $150,000 over the next five fiscal years. Joint Legislative Task Force The initiative creates a joint legislative task force on private competition for industrial insurance for the purpose of developing proposed legislation to conform current statutes to the provisions of the initiative. The task force expires on December 31, 2012. The Legislature assumes no additional costs for the task force. Assuming that L &I is tasked to provide actuarial, policy and technical assistance to the task force, state costs are estimated at $345,000 for FY 2011, $571,000 for FY 2012 and $289,000 for FY 2013, for a total of $1,205,000. FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1098 Beginning calendar year 2012, the income tax and tax relief are estimated to generate a net increase in state revenue of $11.16 billion over five calendar years to be used exclusively for education and health services. The 20 percent state property tax levy reduction will allow some local property tax districts to levy an increased amount; this revenue impact is expected to be minimal. State implementation costs are estimated at $393 million over five fiscal years; one- time computer programming costs are estimated at $50,000 for the state and each university and local government with employees subject to the income tax. STATE REVENUES State revenues are estimated to increase by $11.16 billion over five calendar years, as described below. State Revenue Increase Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Income Tax $2,213,000,000 $2,937,000,000 $3,025,000,000 $3,116,000,000 $3,209,000,000 Business & Occupation Tax ($250,000,000) ($259,000,000) ($261,000,000) ($271,000,000) ($281,000,000) Credit Property Tax Relief ($383,000,000) ($393,000,000) ($403,000,000) ($414,000,000) ($425,000,000) Total Net Revenue to Trust $1,580,000,000 $2,285,000,000 $2,361,000,000 $2,431,000,000 $2,503,000,000 Fund State Income Tax Assumptions • The tax will be based on the 2012 federal tax year and first imposed January 1, 2012. Therefore, employer withholding of tax and quarterly estimated tax payments begins in 2012. The first tax return will be due April 15, 2013. • Since 2005, the Washington State Department of Revenue has maintained an income tax model to estimate the revenue impacts of proposed legislation. This estimate is based on that model, which was most recently used during the 2010 legislative session to estimate the revenue impacts of Senate Bill 6250. • The model contains data for 2006 income for the 2007 federal tax year from 3,2 million state tax returns. Adjustments are made in the model for the June 2010 Washington State Economic and Revenue ]Forecast for personal income average growth of 3.6 percent, wages and salaries average growth of 3.44 percent and the United States implicit deflator. Adjustments are also made to the model for IHS Global Insight's national forecast for dividends and interest income average growth of 7.8 percent, and proprietors income average growth of 7.4 percent. • It is estimated that the tax will be paid on an estimated 38,400 Washington state tax returns — 12,400 individual tax returns and 26,000 married joint, head of household and widower returns. Growth in the tax is assumed to be 3 percent each year. Compliance with the income tax is assumed at 90 percent for the first tax year. State Property Tax Assumptions • The state property tax levy reduction begins with the 2011 state levy, which is collected in 2012. • The state property tax levy reduction occurs after the levy is calculated each year, and does not affect the base levy amount. • Calendar years 2012 and 2013 state property tax levies are based on the June 2010 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. For calendar years 2014 -2016, the levies are estimated to increase, assuming that property market values and new construction grow at 6 percent per year, and state assessed properties grow at 3 percent per year. State Business and Occupation Tax Credit for Small Business • The increase in the tax credit begins with tax returns filed after January 1, 2012. For annual taxpayers, this includes the 2011 tax return; for quarterly taxpayers, this includes the fourth quarter tax return; and for monthly taxpayers, this includes the December 2011 tax return. • Using Washington State Department of Revenue excise tax return data for fiscal year (FY) 2009, the estimate assumes that the increased tax credit will exempt an estimated additional 118,000 taxpayers from all state business and occupation (B &O) taxes, and an additional 39,000 taxpayers will have a portion of their B &O tax liability reduced. • Growth in the tax credit is assumed to be 3.75 percent each year. • The amount of tax relief from the tax credit to be replaced in the State General Fund is the difference between current tax credit and the increased tax credit in the initiative. LOCAL REVENUES The state Constitution limits the amount of property taxes that may be imposed on an individual parcel of real or personal property without voter approval to 1 percent of its true and fair value. When the 1 percent constitutional limit is exceeded, junior taxing district levies are prorated (reduced) as provided in RCW 84.52.010. The 20 percent reduction in the state property tax levy will create additional property tax capacity and allow some local property tax districts to levy an increased amount. This impact is expected to be minimal because few taxing districts are currently prorating due to the 1 percent constitutional limit. Additionally, this estimate assumes no local revenue impact from the state income tax or increased state B&O tax credit for small business. STATE EXPENDITURES Seventy percent of net revenue received by the Trust Fund must be deposited into the Education Legacy Trust Account to be used exclusively for education purposes described in RCW 83.100.230. Thirty percent of net revenues received by the Trust Fund are to be used exclusively for health services. Before computing or spending net revenue in the Trust Fund, the State Treasurer must certify each year the revenue that would have been deposited into the State General Fund but for the state property tax levy reduction and the increased B &O tax credit for small business. The State Treasurer must then make deposits from the Trust Fund to the State General Fund as necessary to replace this revenue. Using these assumptions, the following are estimates of the additional amounts that are available for state expenditure. Estimates are described using the state's fiscal year (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, is the fiscal year 2012). • The Washington State Department of Revenue will calculate the state propetly tax levy reduction in the normal levy process, which is completed by January 15 of each year. Therefore, it is assumed that the State Treasurer will certify and deposit to the State General. Fund those amounts necessary to replace this revenue on February 1, 2012, and each February 1 thereafter. • Using filed excise tax returns, the Washington State Department of Revenue will calculate every six months the reduced revenue from the increased B &O tax credit for small business. Assuming the Washington State Department of Revenue supplies this information to the State Treasurer on August 15 and March 15 of each year, the State Treasurer will certify and make deposits to the State General Fund to replace this revenue on September 1, 2012, and April 1, 2013, and each September 1 and April 1 thereafter. • The timing of deposits affects available funds, but does not generate new revenue to the State General Fund. • Assuming all deposits into the State General Fund must be completed before net revenues can be spent, the estimate assumes that net spending from the Trust Fund begins in FY 2013. Additional Funds Available for State Expenditure Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ]Education Legacy SO $1,106,000,000 $1,599,500,000 $1,652,700,000 $1,701,700,000 Account $0 $41,000 $260,000 $257,000 $259,000 Net Revenue in $16,723,700 $6,750,700 $5,255,900 $5,251,400 $5,285,900 Trust Fund for 50 $474,000,000 $685,500,000 $708,300,000 $729,300,000 Health Services Total Revenue Available for 50 $1,580,000,000 $2,285,000,000 $2,361,000,000 $2,431,000,000 S endin STATE AND LOCAL COST ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS The Washington State Department of Revenue will incur additional costs to administer the income tax. The largest cost will occnr in FY 2012 from the purchase of computer hardware and off - the -shelf computer software to collect the tax, accept and audit tax returns, and process tax refunds and assessments. Costs also include additional staff, rule- making and policy activities, taxpayer mailings and workshops, supplies and materials. The increased state B &O tax credit for small business will result in cost savings from 41,000 taxpayers no longer being required to file excise tax returns who will be placed on active non - reporting status. The Board of Tax Appeals will have jurisdiction over appeals related to income tax. Using appeal statistics from boards in other states with a state income tax to determine workload and staffing requirements, the board assumes 300 appeals each fiscal year. Costs are for additional staff, information technology upgrades, training, supplies and materials. The following are net costs to the state, excluding costs for payroll system changes: State Net Costs Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Department of Revenue $16,723,700 $6,709,700 $4,995,900 $4,994,400 $5,026,900 Board of Tax Appeals $0 $41,000 $260,000 $257,000 $259,000 Total State Costs $16,723,700 $6,750,700 $5,255,900 $5,251,400 $5,285,900 Based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management's 2009 Personnel Detail Report and information from the Washington State Department of Personnel, University of Washington, Washington State University, Washington State Association of Counties and Association of Washington Cities, costs are estimated up to $50,000 total for computer programming changes to each payroll system for each jurisdiction with employees who are subject to tax. No costs are associated with the Washington State Deparment of Retirement Systems, assuming that the initiative does not require withholding of tax from public employee pensions, FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1100 Fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine spirits bottle cost and markup. Using a range of assumptions, total state revenues decrease an estimated $76 million —$85 million and total local revenues decrease an estimated $180 million —$192 million, both over five fiscal years. One -time net state revenue gain of $27.8 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One -time state costs are estimated at $38.6 million. Ongoing state costs for tax collection are estimated at $426,000. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS • The initiative uses the term "spirits" to describe alcoholic beverages that are distilled instead of fermented. For purposes of the fiscal impact statement, the term "liquor" is used for "spirits" to maintain consistent terminology. Beer and wine are not spirits or liquor. • Estimates are described using the state's fiscal year (FY) of July 1 through June 30. • A new liquor distributor license is available January 1, 2011, and a new liquor retail license is available June 1, 2011; licensees can begin making sales of liquor on these dates. There is no limit on the number of licenses that can be issued. • By June 15, 2011, the state will no longer operate the state liquor distribution center or state liquor stores. • Estimates assume 3,357 licensed liquor retailers, based on the January 2010 State Government Performance Review by the Washington State Auditor (State Auditor review). Estimates assume 177 licensed liquor distributors based on the number of current Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) licensed beer and wine distributors. • Estimates of impacts are measured against the June 2010 LCB revenue forecast (forecast). • Retail liquor liter sales are estimated to grow 5 percent from increased access to liquor. This assumption is based on an academic study and growth experienced in Alberta, Canada, aft=er converting from state liquor stores to private liquor stores. Additional growth in liquor liter sales is estimated using the forecast price elasticity assumption of 0.49 percent. Price elasticity is a method used to calculate the change in consumption of a good when price increases or decreases. For every 1 percent increase /decrease in price, liquor liter sales increase /decrease 0.49 percent. Growth from increased access and price elasticity is in addition to normal 3 percent growth in liquor liter sales assumed in the forecast. STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES Actual fiscal impacts depend on liquor bottle cost in the private market and the markup applied by both private liquor distributors and retailers. Therefore, there is a wide range of potential fiscal impacts. Using the LCB forecast's average bottle price for a liter of liquor (before taxes and markup) and a range of total private distributor /retailer markup (at 25 percent, 39.2 percent and 45 percent), a range of potential state and local revenue impacts is estimated. The range of markup was selected from the following sources: • 25 percent is based on U.S. Internal Revenue Service data (sales revenue minus cost of goods) of retail food, beverage and liquor stores throughout the United States. • 39.2 percent is forecasted state markup beginning July 1, 2011. • 45 percent is the total liquor markup contained in the State Auditor review and is based on information from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. Over five fiscal years, total state revenues are estimated to decrease in the range of $76 million to $85 million, as shown in the table below. Total State Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State Revenue — ($2,633,000) ($20,731,000) ($16,410,000) ($20,350,000) ($24,481,000) ($84,605,000) 25% Marku State Revenue — ($2,23I,000) ($17,264,000) ($15,669,000) {$19,458,000} ($23,427,000) ($78,049,000) 39.2% Markup State Revenue— ($2,067,000) ($15,983,000) ($15,538,000) ($19,274,000) ($23,187,000) ($76,049,000) 45% Marku Under current law, counties and cities receive a share of state liquor board profits and state liquor excise tax collections. Therefore, counties and cities will also experience revenue decreases estimated in the range of $180 million to $192 million over five fiscal years, as shown below. Total Local Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Local Revenue — ($6,319,000) ($41,361,000) ($43,675,000) ($48,118,000) ($52,774,000) ($192,247,000) 25% Markup Local Revenue — $6 183 000 ( ) ($39,041,000) ($41,576,000) ($45,914,000) ($50,458,000) ($183,172,000) 39.2% Markup Local Revenue - ($6,127 000 ) ($38,139,000) ($40,786,000) ($45,084,000) ($49,586,000) ($179,722,000) 45% Markup The range of Total State Revenues and Total Local Revenues is the sum of revenue gains, revenue losses or no revenue impact from the following assumptions. • The initiative sets a $2,000 annua l liquor distributor license fee and a $1,000 annual liquor retailer license fee. The number of licenses is assumed to be constant for each fiscal year. • Liquor distributor licensees are assumed to be subject to the wholesaling business and occupation (B &O) tax. Liquor retailer licensees are assumed be subject to the retailing B &O tax. • Liquor liter taxes and liquor sales taxes are not amended by the initiative. However, a 10 percent tax on the selling price of liquor to restaurant licensees and an additional 1.4 percent tax on the same sales are effectively repealed with the closure of the state's liquor distribution center and state liquor stores. The initiative includes a 10 percent tax on the same sales through licensed liquor distributors and retailers, and is assumed to replace a portion of these taxes. • Except for the loss of sales in state liquor stores, estimates do not assume any change in pricing or volume of sales of beer and wine. • State liquor stores sell Washington State Lottery products to the public. The estimate assumes 25 percent of these sales will be lost and remaining sales will occur in other outlets selling Washington State Lottery products. • Estimates of sales by current restaurant licensees who sell liquor at retail are limited to changes from price elasticity and the loss of the state's 15 percent quantity price discount to these licensees. • Estimates do not assume any change in sales by liquor stores operated on military bases. Such sales are assumed not to be subject to ligrior liter taxes, liquor sales taxes or B &O tax. • Estimates do not assume any change in sales by liquor stores operated by tribes. Such sales are assumed to be subject to liquor liter taxes and liquor sales taxes based on current agreements between tribes and LCB, but are not subject to B &O tax. • No additional change is assumed for tax avoidance /non- compliance by consumers or migration of sales in and out of state by consumers. These items are assumed in the forecast price elasticity assumption. • Revenue from the state markup used to pay for the state liquor distribution center and state liquor store costs are netted to zero. The initiative eliminates both the revenue (markup) and the costs (state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores), which results in no additional revenue to the state. • Total amounts include other decreased distributions from the Liquor Revolving Fund. • Approximately 38 cities and towns impose a local B &O tax. Because it is not known where liquor distributor and liquor retailer licensees will locate, the amount of revenue generated from local B &O tax is indeterminate and not included in the estimate. The sale of the state liquor distribution center is estimated to generate a potential net $27.8 million in revenue. Because sale date cannot be precisely determined, this revenue is stated separately and excluded from the Total State Revenue estimates above. The value of the state liquor distribution center is estimated to be $20.8 million, based on King County Assessor's Office 2010 assessed value of the property. The sale of the equipment in the state liquor distribution center is estimated to be $8 million, based on the Washington State Auditor review, which assumed the sale of $16 million in assets would return about $8 million. Costs to sell the state liquor distribution center are estimated to total $1 million at the time of sale. STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES Total state revenues will be deposited into two state accounts: the State General Fund and the State Opportunity Pathways Account. Below are tables that show the estimated net revenue loss to each account by fiscal year. Revenue to the State Opportunity Pathways Account is not dependent on the total private liquor distributor /retailer markup, and therefore, the estimated revenue loss to this account will not vary. In addition to revenue from liquor board profits and liquor excise taxes, revenue from beer, wine and other business enterprise activities are deposited into the Liquor Revolving Fund. A portion of revenues in the Liquor Revolving Fund in excess of LCB expenses are deposited into the State General Fund according to a statutory formula. The impact to the State General Fund shown in the table below exceeds Total State Revenues because distributions that would otherwise be deposited into the State General Fund are assumed to remain in the Liquor Revolving Fund for LCB expenses. The amount is estimated at $10 million for each fiscal year beginning in FY 2012. State General Fund revenue can be used for any governmental purpose, and therefore, the impact of decreased revenue on state expenditures will be determined by the Legislature. State General Fund Im act Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State General Fined ($2,620,000) ) 030,410,000) 026,089,000) 030,019,000) ($34,140,000) ($123,278,000) —25 %Marko State General Fund (52,218,000) ($26,943,000) ($25,348,000) ($29,127,000) ($33,086,000) (5116,722,000) — 39.2% Marko State General Fund ($2,054,000) ($25,662,000) ($25 ' 217,000) ($28,943,000) ($32,846,000) ($114,722,000) — 45% Markup Washington State Lottery proceeds in excess of expenses are deposited into the State Opportunity Pathways Account to support programs such as State Need Grant, State Work Study awards, Washington Scholars and Washington Award for Vocational Excellence. Funds from the account may also be used to support early learning programs. Over five fiscal years, it is estimated that funds to this account will decrease $1,327,000. State Opportunity Pathways Account Impact Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State Opportunity ($ 13,000 ) ($321,000) ($321,000) ($331,000) ($341,000) ($1,327,000) Pathways Account The initiative requires liquor license revenue to be used only for purposes of the administration and enforcement of liquor licenses and reducing underage or abusive consumption. Therefore, an estimated $3.7 million each fiscal year is assumed to be spent on LCB liquor license administration and enforcement activities. Like the State General Fund, counties and cities receive a share of revenue from the Liquor Revolving Fund. Therefore, in addition to decreased liquor profits and liquor excise taxes, other reduced distributions from the Liquor Revolving Fund affect counties and cities. The amount is estimated at $10 million for each fiscal year beginning in FY 2012, RCW 70.96A.087 requires each county and city to spend 2 percent of its share of state liquor board profits and state liquor excise taxes on alcohol and chemical dependency services, and these expenditures will decrease. The remaining revenue can be used for any allowable local government purpose. Therefore, the impact of decreased revenue on local government expenditures will be determined at the local level. Total Local Impact Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Local Revenue— ($6,319,000) ($41,361,000) ($43 ' 675,000) ($48,118,000) 052,774,000) ($192,247,000) 25% Markup Local Revenue — ($6,183,000) ($39,041,000) ($41,576,000) ($45,914,000) ($50,458,000) ($183,172,000) 39.2% Markup Local Revenue— ($6,127,000) ($38,139,000) ($40,786,000) ($45,084,000) ($49,586,000) ($179,722,000) 45% Marku STATE AND LOCAL COST ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS This fiscal impact statement does not estimate state costs or state savings due to social impacts from approval of the initiative. One -Time Costs Assuming a closure date of June 15, 2011, LCB will incur one -time state costs associated with managing the closure of the state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores. There will be additional one -time costs for issuing new licenses. These state costs are estimated to total $30 million during FYs 2011 and 2012; Unemployment, sick leave and vacation buyout costs for state employees estimated at $11.8 million. • Information technology changes and staff to issue new licenses estimated at $4.7 million. • Staffing costs to coordinate the sale of existing inventory, termination of contract store leases, and to surplus store fixtures estimated at $10.2 million. • Final audits of each state and contract liquor store estimated at $1.9 million. • Project management and additional human resource staff estimated at $1.4 million. The Washington State Department of Revenue will assume administration of the liquor excise tax collection from 3,534 licensed liquor distributors and retailers. Costs include additional staff, information technology changes, rule making and policy activities, taxpayer mailings and workshops, supplies and materials. Total one -time state costs are estimated to total $313,000 during FYs 2011 and 2012. There is $8.32 million in debt service costs for a Certificate of Participation bond for the state liquor distribution center that is scheduled to be paid by December 1, 2013. This one -time state cost is assumed in FY 2012. Ongoing Costs The LCB costs at current levels for the licensing, enforcement and administration for all entities licensed by LCB are assumed to be paid from other revenue sources deposited into the Liquor Revolving Fund. No state costs from increased enforcement activities are assumed in the estimate. State costs associated with the state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores operations are not assumed as savings because the revenue source (state markup) used to pay these costs is eliminated by the initiative. These costs are netted out of the revenue impacts. The Washington State Department of Revenue will have ongoing costs related to liquor excise tax collection duties that are estimated to total $426,000 for FYs 2013 -2105. No costs or savings for tax collection are assumed for local governments. FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1105 Fiscal impact cannot be precisely estimated because the private market will determine spirits bottle cost and markup. Using a range of assumptions, total state revenues decrease an estimated $486 million —$520 million and total local revenues decrease an estimated $205 million —$210 million, both over five fiscal years. One -time net state revenue gain of $27.8 million is estimated from sale of the state liquor distribution center. One -time state costs are estimated at $39.2 million. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS • The initiative uses the term "spirits" to describe alcoholic beverages that are distilled instead of fermented. For purposes of the fiscal impact statement, the term "liquor" is used for "spirits" to maintain consistent terminology. Beer and wine are not spirits or liquor. • Estimates are described using the state's fiscal year (FY) of July 1 through June 30. • A new liquor distributor license is available October 1, 2011, and a new liquor retail license is available November 1, 2011; licensees can begin making sales of liquor on these dates. There is no limit on the number of licenses that can be issued. • By November 15, 2011, the state will no longer operate the state liquor distribution center or state liquor stores. • Estimates assume 3,357 licensed liquor retailers, based on the January 2010 State Government Performance Review by the Washington State Auditor (State Auditor review). Estimates assume 177 licensed liquor distributors based on the number of current Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) licensed beer and wine distributors. • Estimates of impacts are measured against the June 2010 LCB revenue forecast (forecast). • Retail liquor liter sales are estimated to grow 5 percent from increased access to liquor. This assumption is based on an academic study and growth experienced in Alberta, Canada, after converting from state liquor stores to private liquor stores. Additional growth in liquor liter sales is estimated using the forecast price elasticity assumption of 0.49 percent. Price elasticity is a method used to calculate the change in consumption of a good when price increases or decreases. For every 1 percent increase /decrease in price, liquor liter sales increase /decrease 0.49 percent. Growth from increased access and price elasticity is in addition to normal 3 percent growth in liquor liter sales assumed in the forecast. STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES Actual fiscal impacts depend on liquor bottle cost in the private market and the markup applied by both private liquor distributors and retailers. Therefore, there is a wide range of potential fiscal impacts. Using the LCB forecast's average bottle price for a liter of liquor (before taxes and markup) and a range of total private distributor /retailer markup (at 25 percent, 39.2 percent and 45 percent), a range of potential state and local revenue impacts is estimated. The range of markup was selected from the following sources; • 25 percent is based on U.S. Internal Revenue Service data (sales revenue minus cost of goods) of retail food, beverage and liquor stores throughout the United States. • 39.2 percent is forecasted state markup beginning July 1, 2011. • 45 percent is the total liquor markup contained in the State Auditor review and is based on information from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. State Revenue Over five fiscal years, total state revenues are estimated to decrease in the range of $486 million to $520 million. Total State Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State Revenue — (5 ($25,076,000) {5156,695,000} (S164,793,000) 0173,204,000) 0519,7b8,000) 25 % Marko State Revenue — (50) (521,257,000) (5150,120,000) (5157,886,000) ($165,947,000) (5495,210,000) 39.2% Markup State Revenue — (50) ($19,731,000) ($147,640,000) ($155,281,000) ($163,210,000) ($485,862,000) 45% Markup Local Revenue Under current law, counties and cities receive a share of state liquor board profits, state liquor excise tax collections. The initiative eliminates these revenue sources on April 1, 2012, Beginning April 1, 2012, retail sales tax would apply to sales of liquor. Many local governments are authorized to impose a local sales tax. Local sales tax will offset some of the revenue lost to counties and cities from the elimination of LCB profits and state liquor excise tax sharing. Other local governments authorized to impose a local sales tax, such as transit districts and public facilities districts, will gain new revenue. Below is a table that shows the net revenue impact to local governments statewide: Total Local Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Local Revenue — (50) (529,227,000) ($55,095,000) (560,257,000) (565,667,000) ($210,246,000) 25% Marko Local Revenue — (50) ($28,897,000) ($53,989,000) ($59,095,000) (564,446,000) (5206,427,000) 39.2% Marko Local Revenue (50) ($28,765,000) ($53,571,000) ($58,656,000) (S63,985,000) (5204,977,000) 45% Markup Below are tables that show the impacts by revenue source. Because it is not known where liquor distributor and retailer licensees will locate, the amount of revenue generated from local sales tax cannot be determined by local jurisdiction. Local revenues are a statewide estimate based on an assumption of a 2.392 percent statewide average local sales tax rate with county sales tax representing 33 percent of the rate, cities representing 34 percent of the rate and other jurisdictions authorized to impose a sales tax representing 33 percent of the rate. Sales tax revenue is dependent on volume of liquor liter sales. Therefore, the revenue impact to each local jurisdiction will vary depending on the total markup applied by both liquor distributors and retailers. City and County Revenues from Liquor Profits, Liquor Excise Tax and other Revenue Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL City /County 00) (532,646,000) ($70,877,000) (76,826,000) ($83,063,000) ($263,412,000) Revenues Local Retail Sales Tax Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Local Revenue — (50) $3,419,000 $15,782,000 $16 ,569,000 $17,396,000 $53,166,000 25% Marko Local Revenue — (0) $3,749,000 $16,888,000 $17,731,000 18,617,000 $56,985,000 39.2% Marko Local Revenue — (s0) $3,881,000 $17,305,000 $18,170,000 $19,078,000 $58,434,000 45 % Marko Additional State and Local Revenue Assumptions The range of Total State Revenues and Total Local Revenues is the sum of revenue gains, revenue losses or no revenue impact from the following assumptions: • The initiative provides that LCB must set a reasonable annual license fee for liquor distributors and liquor retailers. For purposes of this fiscal impact statement, the fee is assumed to be $4,000 for a liquor distributor license and $2,000 for a liquor retailer license. The number of licenses is assumed to be constant for each fiscal year. • Liquor distributor licensees are assumed to be subject to the wholesaling business and occupation (B &0) tax. Liquor retailer licensees are assumed to be subject to the retailing B &O tax. • Liquor liter taxes and liquor sales taxes are repealed by the initiative on April 1, 2012, It is assumed that liquor retailer licensees will collect and remit liquor liter taxes and liquor sales tax until March 31, 2012. Beginning April 1, 2012, liquor sales will be subject to state and local retail sales tax. • Each liquor distributor licensee must agree to pay, for deposit into the State General Fund, an amount equivalent to 1 percent of the licensee's gross annual liquor sales for a five -year period commencing on the date of the licensee's first sale of liquor. Likewise, each liquor retailer licensee must agree to pay, for deposit into the State General Fund, an amount equivalent to 6 percent of the licensee's gross annual liquor sales for a five -year period commencing on the date of the licensee's first sale of liquor. • Except for the loss of sales in state liquor stores, estimates do not assume any change in pricing or volume of sales of beer and wine. • State liquor stores sell Washington State Lottery products to the public. The estimate assumes 25 percent of these sales will be lost and remaining sales will occur in other outlets selling Washington State Lottery products. • Estimates of sales by current restaurant licensees who sell liquor at retail are limited to changes from price elasticity and the loss of the state's 15 percent quantity price discount to these licensees. • Estimates do not assume any change in sales by liquor stores operated on military bases. Such sales are assumed not to be subject to liquor liter taxes, liquor sales taxes or B &O tax. • Estimates of sales by liquor stores operated by tribes are limited to changes from price elasticity. Such sales are assumed to be subject to liquor liter taxes and liquor sales taxes based on current agreements between tribes and LCB. Sales to non - tribal members are subject to retail sales tax. All sales are not subject to B &O tax. • No additional change is assumed for tax avoidancelnon- compliance by consumers or migration of sales in and out of state by consumers. These items are assumed in the forecast price elasticity assumption. • Revenue from the state markup used to pay for the state liquor distribution center and state liquor store costs are netted to zero. The initiative eliminates both the revenue (markup) and the costs (state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores), which results in no additional revenue to the state. • Totals amount includes other decreased distributions from the Liquor Revolving Fund. Approximately 38 cities and towns impose a local B &O tax. Because it is not known where Iiquor distributor and liquor retailer licensees will locate, the amount of revenue generated from local B &O tax is indeterminate and not included in the estimate. The sale of the state liquor distribution center is estimated to generate a potential net $27.8 million in revenue. Because sale date cannot be precisely determined, this revenue is stated separately and excluded from the Total State Revenue estimates above. The value of the state liquor distribution center is estimated to be $20.8 million, based on King County Assessor's Office 2010 assessed value of the property. The sale of the equipment in the state liquor distribution center is estimated to be $8 million, based on the Washington State Auditor report, which assumed the sale of $16 million in assets would return about $8 million. Costs to sell the state liquor distribution center are estimated to total $1 million at the time of sale. STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES Total state revenues will be deposited into three state accounts: the State General Fund, the State Opportunity Pathways Account and the Performance Audits of Government Account. The revenue gain to the Performance Audits of Government Account is expected to be minimal, and therefore is not included in the estimates. The following tables show the estimated net revenue impact to the State General Fund and the State Opportunity Pathways Account. Revenue to the State Opportunity Pathways Account is not dependent on the total private liquor distributor /retailer markup, and therefore the estimated revenue loss to this account will not vary. In addition to revenue from liquor board profits and liquor excise taxes, revenue from beer, wine and other business enterprise activities are deposited into the Liquor Revolving Fund. A portion of revenues in the Liquor Revolving Fund in excess of LCB expenses are deposited into the State General Fund according to a statutory formula. The impact to the State General Fund shown in the table below exceeds Total State Revenues because distributions that would otherwise be deposited into the State General Fund are assumed to remain in the Liquor Revolving Fund for LCB expenses. The amount is estimated at $7 million for each fiscal year beginning in FY 2012. State General Fund revenue can be used for any governmental purpose, and therefore, the impact of decreased revenue on state expenditures will be determined by the Legislature. State General Fund Im act Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State General Fund -25% ($0) ($31,875,000) ($163,373,000) ($171,462,000) ($179,863,000) ($546,573,000) Ma rlcu State General Fund -39.2% ($0) ($28,056,000) ($156,799,000) ($164,555,000) ($172,606,000) ($522,016,000) Marku State General Fund -45% ($0) ($26,530,000) ($154,319,000) ($161,950,000) ($169,869,000) ($512,668,000) Marku The initiative requires liquor license revenue to be used only for purposes of the administration and enforcement of liquor licenses and reducing underage or abusive consumption. Therefore, an estimated $7.4 million each fiscal year is assumed to be spent on LCB liquor license administration and enforcement activities, Washington State Lottery proceeds in excess of expenses are deposited into the State Opportunity Pathways Account to support programs such as State Need Grant, State Work Study awards, Washington Scholars and Washington Award for Vocational Excellence. Funds from the account may also be used to support early learning programs. Over five fiscal years, it is estimated that funds to this account will decrease $1,194,000. State Opportunity Pathways Account Impact Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL State Opportunity {50} ($201,000) {$321,000} ($331,000) ($341,000) ($1,194,000) Pathways Account Like the State General Fund, counties and cities receive a share of revenue from the Liquor Revolving Fund. Therefore, in addition to decreased liquor profits and liquor excise taxes, other reduced distributions from the Liquor Revolving Fund affect counties and cities. The amount is estimated at $7 million for each fiscal year beginning in FY 2012. RCW 70.96A.087 requires each county and city to spend 2 percent of its share of state liquor board profits and state liquor excise taxes on alcohol and chemical dependency services, and these expenditures will decrease. The remaining revenue from state liquor profits and state liquor excise tax sharing can be used for any allowable local government purpose. Local sales tax must be used as allowed by state law. Therefore, the impact on local government expenditures will be determined at the local level or by state law. Total Local Impact Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Local Revenue — (50) ($29,227,000) ($55,095,000) ($60,257,000) ($65,667,000) ($210,246,000) 25% Markup Local Revenue— ($0) ($28,897,000) } ($53,989,000) 059,095,004) ($64,446,000) ($206,427,000) 39.2% Marku Local Revenue — ($0) ($28,765,000) ($53,571,000) ($58,656,000) ($63,985,000) ($204,977,000) 45% Markup STATE AND LOCAL COST ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS This fiscal impact statement does not estimate state costs or state savings due to social impacts from approval of the initiative. One -Time Costs Assuming a closure date of November 15, 2011, LCB will incur one -time state costs associated with managing the closure of the state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores. There will be additional one -time costs for issuing new licenses and revenue collection activities. These state costs are estimated to total $30.6 million during FYs 2012 and 2013: • UnempIoyment, sick leave and vacation buyout costs are estimated at $11.8 million. • Staff and information technology changes to issue new licenses and collect revenues estimated at $53 million. • Staffing costs to coordinate the sale of existing inventory, termination of contract store leases, and to surplus store fixtures estimated at $10.2 million. • Final audits of each state and contract liquor store estimated at $1.9 million. • Project management and additional human resource staff estimated at $1.4 million. The Washington State Department of Revenue wiI I assume administration of the liquor excise tax collection from 3,534 licensed liquor distributors and retailers through April 1, 2012. Costs include additional staff, information technology changes, rule making and policy activities, taxpayer mailings and workshops, supplies and materials. Total state costs are estimated at $313,000 during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. There is $8.32 mil lion in debt service costs for a Certificate of Participation bond for the state liquor distribution center that is scheduled to be paid by December 1, 2013. This one -time state cost is assumed in FY 2012. Ongoing Costs The LCB costs at current levels for the licensing, enforcement and administration for all entities licensed by LCB are assumed to be paid from other revenue sources deposited into the Liquor Revolving Fund. No state costs from increased enforcement activities are assumed in the estimate. State costs associated with the state liquor distribution center and state liquor stores operations are not assumed as savings because the revenue source (state markup) used to pay these costs is eliminated by the initiative. These costs are netted out of the revenue impacts. The Washington State Department of Revenue will have no additional ongoing costs from the initiative. Local governments will incur costs for local sales tax collection. The Washington State Department of Revenue collects sales tax for local governments, and is allowed to deduct 1 percent of local sales tax collections for this service for deposit in the State General Fund. FISCAL IMPACT FOR INITIATIVE 1107 Over five fiscal years, the initiative reduces State General Fund revenues by an estimated $352 million and state performance audit revenue by an estimated $359,000. Revenue for local jurisdictions authorized to impose a sales tax is reduced by $83 million over five fiscal years. Taxpayer noncompliance and confusion could result in additional state and local government revenue decreases up to $8.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2011. Net state costs to administer the tax revisions are $98,200 over five fiscal years. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS • Estimates are based on information provided by state agencies during the 2010 legislative session for Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6143 (2ESSB 6143) and updated to the June 2010 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. • Estimates are described using the state's fiscal year (FY) 2012 (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012). • Estimates exclude approximately $273,000 in costs already incurred to implement 2ESSB 6143. STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES — ASSUMPTIONS State revenues are estimated to decrease by $352 million over five fiscal years as described below. State revenues deposited in the State General Fund may be used for any government purpose such as education services; social, health and environmental services; and other general government activities. State revenues deposited in the State Performance Audit Account are used by the Washington State Auditor to conduct comprehensive performance audits required under RCW 43.09.470. Local revenue is estimated to decrease by $83 million over five fiscal years for local jurisdictions that are authorized to impose a sales tax. An estimated 373 local jurisdictions, such as counties, cities and transit districts, are authorized to impose a sales tax. Local sales tax revenue must be spent as allowed by state law. State and local revenue estimates are based on the following data sources and assumptions; • The initiative is effective December 2, 2010. • Price elasticity is 0.9 for candy, gum, bottled water and carbonated beverages. • Sales tax on candy — State consumption and sales data of candy and gum are from the National Confectioners Association and the U.S. Department of Commerce. • Sales tax on bottled water — State consumption and sales data are from the 2008 Beverage Digest Fact Book. Fiscal impact ends on June 30, 2013, when the tax is scheduled to expire. • Excise tax on carbonated beverages — State consumption and sales data are from the 2008 Beverage Digest Fact Book and additional information is from industry resources. Fiscal impact ends on June 30, 2013, when the tax is scheduled to expire. • Food processors business and occupation (B &O) tax -- Washington State Department of Revenue excise tax return data. • Local revenues are a statewide estimate based on the assumption of a statewide average local tax rate of 2.392 percent. Total State and Local Revenues Fiscal Year 2011 2112 2113 2114 2015 Total State J ($54,779,000} ($107,825,000) ($109,743,000) ($42,676,000) ($36,943,000) General Fund Total State 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Performnoce Audit ($47,000) ($100,000) ($104,000) ($56,000) ($52,000 Account ($16,083,000 ) ($33,768,000) ($35,355,000) ($3,086,000) $0 Total Local Revenue ($10,662,000} ($23,369,000) ($24,136,000) ($12,887,000) ($11,946,000) Below are total State General Fund and local government revenue impacts by tax type. Revenues are adjusted to reflect the effect of price elasticity on carbonated beverages if the excise tax is eliminated, Carbonated beverage consumption is assumed to increase, resulting in increased estimated state and local government retail sales tax, and state B &O tax collections. General Fund Revenue by Tax Type — STATE Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Sales Tax on Candy ($ 15,191,000 ) ($31,250,000 $31,686,000 $32,114,000 $32,530,000 Sales Tax on Bottled ($16,083,000 ) ($33,768,000) ($35,355,000) ($3,086,000) $0 Water Excise Tax on ($23,064,000 ) ($41,449,000) ($41,200,000) ($3,413,000) $0 Carbonated Bevel es $510,000 $917,000 $912,000 $76,000 $0 Food Processors B &O ($1,932,000) ($4,028,000) ($4,165,000) ($4,284,000) ($4,413,000) Tax ($ 10,662,000) ($23,369,000) ($24,136,000) ($12,887,000) ($11,946,000) Revenue Adjustment - Carbonated Beverage $1,491,000 $2,670,000 $2,663,000 $221,000 $0 Price Elasticity Total State General ($54,779 000 ) ($107,825,000) ($109,743,000) {$42,676,000} ($36,943,000) Fund Revenue Impact Revenue by Tax Type — LOCAL Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Sales Tax on Candy ($5,579,000 ) ($11,476,000 $11,636,000 $11,793,000) $11,946,000 Sales Tax on Bottled ($5,593,000) ($12,810,000) ($13,412,000) ($1,170,000) $0 Water Revenue Adjustment - Carbonated Beverage $510,000 $917,000 $912,000 $76,000 $0 Price Elastici Total Local Revenue ($ 10,662,000) ($23,369,000) ($24,136,000) ($12,887,000) ($11,946,000) Impact Initiatives take effect 30 days after the General Election, which is December 2, 2010. Based on the state's experience with the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, it is noted that many taxpayers assume taxes are repealed when election results are announced. Therefore, approval of the initiative could increase non - compliance with payment of tax, which would result in further decreased revenue to the state and to local governments. One month of state and local government tax receipts, representing taxable activity from November 2, 2010, to December 2, 2010, is estimated to be $83 million and $1.8 million, respectively, assuming a 100 percent non - compliance rate. STATE AND LOCAL COST ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS An estimated 207,700 businesses are affected by the tax revisions. The Washington State Department of Revenue will incur one -time costs during FY 2011 in the amount of $204,600 to notify businesses of the repealed taxes. Thereafter, costs to implement the taxes are netted against costs avoided from repealing the taxes. This results in net savings during FYs 2013 -2015, as shown below in parentheses. Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Department of $204,600 $10,300 ($71,900) ($22,100 ) 022,1 aa} Revenue Because the Washington State Department of Revenue administers and collects local sales tax, no costs or cost savings are assumed for local governments. FISCAL IMPACT FOR REFERENDUM 52 Referendum 52 authorizes the issuance of $505 million in state general obligation bonds to fund capital improvements for energy efficiency in buildings owned by public school districts and public higher education institutions. Twenty - nine -year debt service costs are estimated to total $937 million, for an average annual state cost of $323 million. Other state costs are estimated to be $2.2 million annually through fiscal year 2015. The sales tax on bottled water is estimated to increase State General Fund revenues an annual average of $39.8 million and increase local government revenues an annual average of $14.9 million. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS • Estimates are based on information provided by state agencies during the 2010 legislative session for Engrossed House Bill 2561 (EHB 256 1) and updated to the June 2010 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast. • Removing the expiration of sales tax on bottled water is contingent on approval of the referendum. • Estimates are described using the state's fiscal year of July 1 through June 30. STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS The state will obtain $503.3 million in funds (bond proceeds) over five fiscal years from the issuance of $505 million in state general obligation bonds, as shown below. Bond issuance schedule assumptions are from the Washington State Department of Commerce. Bond Value, Costs and Net Revenue Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bond Value $5,000,000 $70,000,000 $150,000,000 $150,000,000 $130,000,000 Cost of Bond $17038 { , } $238533 { , } $511,142 ( ) ($511,142) {$442,990} Issuance Net Revenue to $17,362,232 $130,615,624 $149,363,819 $144,362,639 $55,000,000 Washington $4,982,962 $69,761,467 $149,488,858 $149,488,858 $129,557,010 Works Account Bond funds will be expended as grants to public school districts and public higher education institutions through a competitive process. The following data are the estimated state grant expenditures and corresponding increased revenue to public school districts and public higher education institutions. The estimated expenditures are not reduced for allowable state agency administrative fees. An estimated 2,049 buildings owned by 295 public school districts and 1,440 buildings owned by 40 public higher education institutions, for a total of 3,489 buildings, may be eligible for grants. Data are from the Washington State Department of General Administration, Higher Education Coordinating Board and Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. At least 5 percent of the total grant amount must be awarded to public school districts with fewer than 1,000 full -time equivalent students. Estimated State Grant Expenditures and Increased Local Revenue Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Expenditures from Washington Works ($17,362,232) ($130,615,624) ($149,363,819) ($144,362,639) ($55,000,000) Account Revenue (Grants) to $17,362,232 $130,615,624 $149,363,819 $144,362,639 $55,000,000 Public Schools and Higher Education Institutions Referendum 52 would remove the June 30, 2013, expiration of the sales tax on bottled water. State revenues are estimated to increase by an annual average of $39,808,600 and local revenues are estimated to increase by an annual average of $14,868,600. Revenue estimates are based on state consumption and sales data contained in the 2008 Beverage Digest Fact Book. Local revenues are a statewide estimate based on an assumption of a 2.392 percent statewide average local sales tax rate. State revenues deposited in the State General Fund can be used for any governmental purpose, including payment of state bond debt service costs. Revenue will increase for local jurisdictions authorized to impose a sales tax (counties, cities, transit, etc.); the local sales tax revenue must be used as allowed by state law. Total state and local government revenue impacts are summarized in the table below. Total State and Local Revenue Im acts Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total State General $33,867,000 $38,609,000 $40,346,000 $42,162,000 $44,059,000 Fund $505,000,000 Average Coupon (I nterest) Rate 4.74% 4.76% 5.30% Total State 6.01% Debt Service $8,586,984 $120,461,348 Performance Audit $55,000 $63,000 $66,000 $69,000 $72,000 Account Total Local $11,680,000 $14,647,000 $15,306,000 $15,995,000 $16,715,000 Revenue STATE AND LOCAL INDEBTNESS ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS Assuming a bond payment term of 25 years for each issuance and the June 2010 Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council Bond Buyer Index, total 29 -year state debt service for the bonds is estimated to be $937,031,878, for an average annual debt service payment of $32,311,444. Data below are supplied by the Office of the State Treasurer. No local government debt is assumed from the referendum. State Indebtedness Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Bond Value $5,000,000 $70,000,000 $150,000,000 $150,000,000 $130,000,000 $505,000,000 Average Coupon (I nterest) Rate 4.74% 4.76% 5.30% 5.68% 6.01% Debt Service $8,586,984 $120,461,348 $272,420,147 $282,697,792 $252,865,607 $937,031,878 STATE AND LOCAL COST ESTIMATE — ASSUMPTIONS The Washington State Department of Commerce, Washington State Department of General Administration and Washington State University Energy Program will incur costs to develop and administer the competitive grant program. Costs include staff salaries and benefits, grant administration, grant workshops, supplies and materials. The Washington State Department of General Administration will incur additional costs to conduct energy saving audits for grant applicants and to manage approved projects. The Washington State Department of Revenue will incur costs to refund sales tax to persons who have purchased bottled water with a prescription or who have no potable water. Total costs are estimated to average $2,195,409 annually. Data below are supplied by state agencies. State Costs Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Dept. of Commerce $779,917 $639,114 $639,114 $639,114 $639,114 Dept. of General $16,222 $2,026,151 $2,026,151 $1,701,403 $1,701,403 Administration WSU Energy $48,421 $17,880 $17,880 $17,880 $17,880 Program Dept. of Revenue $0 $0 0 50 $49,400 Total State Costs $844,560 52,683,145 $2,683,145 $2,358,397 $2 Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Date: August 9, 2010 Re July Finance Activity Report July highlights in Finance included: Financial reports Reports showing a comparison of actual revenues and expenditures at July 31, 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. One local casino manager has asked for an opportunity to address the council regarding a reduction in card table tax. 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. 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. Fine and forfeiture revenues are expected to exceed our budget by $200,000. State shared revenue (mostly liquor tax) is also projected to be $200,000 more than budget. However, several initiative petitions could reduce liquor taxes, which would reduce City revenues in future years. Beginning Fund Balance in the General Fund will be greater than our estimates. The investment report is also attached for your review. Audit of 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 several area governmental audits. The auditor's office will offer suggestions for improving our processes and providing additional checks and balances over City assets. These suggestions are usually routine and will be carefully considered at the end of the audit. We try to avoid audit "findings" which tend to be more serious issues and take considerable time and effort to correct. 2011 Budget This process is about 70% complete. The City Manager will be presenting a proposed budget in early September. Much of the formal paperwork is still ahead of us as several ordinances and resolutions will be needed. Three public hearings have been scheduled to obtain citizen input. 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: Council City Manager 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 July 31, 2010 Adopted Budget July YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 19,375,000 19,358 19,375,000 $ - 100.00 % 10,969,500 60,268 5,778,271 5,191,229 52.68% 16,600,000 1,271,607 7,825,778 8,774,222 47.14% 425,000 83,056 263,972 161,028 62.11% 1,100,000 258,035 547,678 552,322 49.79% 1,450,000 168,626 1,035,718 414,282 71.43% 1,649,786 82,792 895,045 754,741 54.25% 1,594,700 156,431 1,070,774 523,926 67.15% 740,000 54,386 407,799 332,201 55.11% 416,864 16,500 86,462 330,402 20.74 %a 220,000 - - 220,000 0.00% $ 54,540,850 2,151,701 37,286,497 $ 17,254,353 68.36% Adopted Budget July YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 !Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized 322,120 19,358 195,678 126,442 60.75% 1,063,842 70,317 895,491 168,351 84.18% 22,062,268 457,012 10,000,984 12,061,284 45.33% 1,892,382 133,736 875,557 1,016,825 46.27 %a 893,793 55,894 388,414 505,379 43.46% 3,552,450 238,869 1,696,755 1,855,695 47.76% - - 180 (180) 2,926,033 249,932 1,115,091 1,810,942 38.11% 21,827,963 113,303 912,993 20,914,970 4.18% $ 54,540,851 $ 1,338,421 $ 16 081,142 $ 38,459,709 29.48% 5 4 11 1i 18 16 19 20 try 08/10/2010 2:26 PM Other Funds Revenues: Street Fund Trails and Paths HotellMotel Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Debt Service - LTGO 03 Capital Projects Fund Special Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Mirabeau Point Project Community Developmt Block Grnts Capital Grants Fund Barker Bridge Reconstruction Stormwater Mgmt Fund Equip. Rental & 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 Hotel/Motel Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Debt Service LTGO 03 Capital Projects Fund Special Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Community Developmt Block Grnts Capital Grants Fund Barker Bridge Reconstruction Stormwater Mgmt Fund Equip. Rental & Repiacemnt Risk Management Reserves: Centerplace Operating Service Level Stabilization Winter Weather Parks Capital Civic Facilities Capital Total Other Funds Expenditures City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the period ended July 31, 2010 Adopted Budget July YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 7,399,050 $ 430,703 $ 2,481,328 4,917,722 33.54% 8,000 9 36 7,964 0.45% 400,000 40,053 185,013 214,987 46.25% 1,240,000 525 1,530 1,238,470 0,12% 850,000 - 197,511 452,489 30.39% 1,948,000 53,295 264,827 1,683,173 13.59% 612,000 53,525 264,918 347,082 43.29% 10,572,000 61,927 340,616 10,231,384 3.22% - 7 (1311) 131 1,462,164 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 2,465,000 44,810 254,451 2,210,549 10.32% 1,767,000 337,644 571,208 1,195,792 32,33% 4,398,015 30,954 965,367 3,432,648 21.95% 919,000 389 1,451 917,549 0,16% 258,000 7 258,028 (28) 100.01% 7 3 15 2 3 3 3 13 3 7 7 350,000 141 577 349,423 0.16% 6 5,400,000 2,348 9,271 5,390,729 0.17% 6 505,000 217 436 504,564 0.09% 12 820,000 491 1,101 818,899 0.13% 3 5,827,000 2,525 9,972 5,817,028 0.17% 6 45.838.06 $ 11.058.572 $ 5.807.508 $ 40.030.557 14eur in Adopted Budget July YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized $ 7,399,050 462,481 1,462,164 $ 5,936,886 19.76% 17 8,000 - - 8,000 0.00% 3 400,000 28,326 144,932 255,068 36.23% 1 1,240,000 - - 1,240,000 0.00% 15 650,000 - 147,093 502,907 22.63% 2 1,948,000 - 20,876 1,927,124 1.07% 3 612,000 - 20,876 591,124 3.41% 3 10,572,000 140,885 1,062,180 9,509,820 10.05% 3 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 13 2,465,000 35,140 237,625 2,227,375 9.64% 3 1,767,000 344,805 1,041,199 725,801 58.92% 4,398,015 96,051 708,574 3,689,441 16.11% 17 919,000 - - 919,000 0.00% 8 258,000 6,766 299,400 (41,400) 116.05% 14 350,000 - - 350,000 0,00% 9 5,400,000 - - 5,400,000 0.00% 12 505,000 - - 505,000 0.00% 12 820,000 23,178 224,801 595,199 27.41% 3 5,827,000 - 17,866 5,809,134 0,31% 3 $ 45.838.065 $ 1.137.632 5.387.584 40.450,484 97.75% 08/1012010 2:28 PM City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of July 2010 Total LGIP* BB CD 1 BB CD 2 Investments Beginning $ 43,990,695.95 $ 2,035,657.54 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 49,026,353.49 Deposits 1,665,081.36 $ 1,665,081.36 Withdrawls (2,000,000.00) $ (2,000,000.00) Interest 10,209.72 $ 10,209.72 Ending $ 43,665,987.03 $ 2,035,657.54 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 48,701,644.57 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund $ 25,078,426.78 101 Street Fund 2,795,898.31 103 Traits & Paths 20,829.23 105 Hotel /Motel 271,248.27 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 324,625.52 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,404,966.21 122 Winter Weather Reserve 500,435.57 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,209,302.93 301 Capital Projects 1,047,077.14 302 Special Capital Projects 1,577,673.73 304 Mirabeau Point Project 15,158.82 309 Parks Capital Project 1,131,257.20 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 5,813,194.21 402 Stormwater Management 2,600,554.61 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 895,239.64 502 Risk Management 15,756.40 $ 48,701,644.57 *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 $ 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 1,271,607.01 2011 $ 7,825,778.06 Year to date Percentage Change 0.23% - 4.94% -4.68% -2.61% -2,15% -2.31% FOOTNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Most costs are typically late in the year. Debt paid twice each year (June and December.) Capital projects often take a number of years to plan, engineer, acquire right of way and construct. Most properly tax received in May and November. Estimated, pending 09 review. Interest earnings. Beg. Bat. included in budget which understates percent realized for current year For replacement of vehicles & computers. Required operating reserve, no expenditures planned for 2010. Revenue for 2010 events will be moved to 2010. Quarterly Payment to City. Emergency use only. Fund being phased out. Budget adjustment needed In reserve for replacement of buildings. Transfers pending. Budget includes projected fund balances at 12- 31 -10, which understates percent realized. Interest rates are down significantly. Annual dues paid for 2010 in January. Severance pay. 06/1012010 2;26 PM MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: August 16, 2010 RE: Monthly Report July 2010 July 2010: July 2009: CAD incidents: 5,736 CAD incidents: 5,738 Reports taken: 1,613 Traffic stops: 1,746 Traffic reports: 271 Reports taken: 1,465 Traffic stops: 1,788 Traffic reports: 228 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self - initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing July residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, traffic collision hot spots and vehicle prowling hot spots, along with June 2010 and July 2010 stolen vehicle hot spots. Also attached are nine bar graphs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and July 2010: commercial burglary, garage burglary, residential burglary, forgery, malicious mischief, stolen vehicles, theft, vehicle prowling, and property crimes comparisons for 2007 through 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE: Valley Hospital hosted an Inland Northwest Blood Center Community -Wide Drive at the beginning of July. At the conclusion of the blood drive, Chief VanLeuven congratulated Fire Marshall Bill Clifford when Valley Fire was awarded the plaque for winning the Battle of the Badge, a friendly blood drive competition in May, between Spokane Valley Police and Valley Fire. Page 1 Chief VanLeuven attended the Spokane Regional Drug Task Force's 2010 quarterly Policy Board meeting in early July. Chief VanLeuven took Acting City Manager Mike Jackson downtown for a tour of the Property Facility. Chief VanLeuven set up this season's first planning meeting for Valleyfest committee members, law enforcement, and fire officials to begin working out the details for this year's event. Discussions were held on traffic plans, personnel resources, and the Incident Action Plan. The next meeting is scheduled for August 12"' Chief VanLeuven met with Marion Lee, Injury Prevention Specialist from the Spokane Regional Health District, along with SCOPE director Rick Scott, and Karen Wigen from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to discuss helmet issues. Chief VanLeuven attended the Spokane Valley Council /Staff Budget Retreat at CenterPlace in mid -July. Chief VanLeuven met with special agents from the Gambling Commission in mid -July to discuss their new initiative to enhance gambling crimes education and awareness. The FBINAA Annual Conference was held in Boston at the end of July, where Chief VanLeuven attended numerous training sessions. This conference was designed for delegates who are graduates of the FBI National Academy. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of July: • Operation Family I.D. (OFID) at Spokane Valley Fred Meyer; • Fairchild Air Force Base Skyfest; • Latent Print Class; • Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition meeting; • Spokane Safe Kids meeting; • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) meeting; and, • Child Sexual Predator Task Force meeting. Julv 2010 Volunteers Hours Der station: CV S.C.O.P.E ----------- - - - - -- 1081 hrs. Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. ---- - - - - -- 843 hrs. Trentwood S.C.O.P.E. - - - - - -- 376.50 hrs. University S.C.O.P.E. -- - - - - -- 635 hrs. Total SV June 2,935.5 hrs. • S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 167 on -scene hours (including travel time) in July, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents (including a hit and run) and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 94 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total July volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand -by, response and special events is 693; year -to -date total is 4,053 hours. • There was one juvenile runaway in the Spokane Valley for the month of July 2010. • Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in June totaled 22 and in July 18, with 10 and 8 respectively vehicles eventually cited and towed. Eight hulks were processed in June and 12 hulks processed in July. During the month of July, a total of 50 vehicles were processed. Page 2 S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY - DECEMBER 2010 Spokane Count City of Spokane Va11eX 4 of Vol. 4 of Hrs 4 of Disabled Infractions Issued 4 of Warnings Issued 4 of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued 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 2 May 6 136 17 65 0 June 2 179 12 2 0 July 6 194 22 7 0 Total 45 1908 224 418 8 S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT (cont.) 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 9 67 17 9 0 June 7 265 14 3 0 July 6 9 1 2 0 Total 44 621 47 76 0 Page 3 OPERATIONS: Panhandling Update — There were numerous reports taken this month regarding panhandlers in the Spokane Valley. Reports covered a myriad of topics to include traffic hazards, animal abuse, alcohol - related incidents, assaults, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and drug paraphernalia. One panhandler was holding a sign that read, "I could be robbing you but I'm asking for your help." The inference of the language on this sign made numerous people feel threatened, as evidenced by the number of calls made to 9 -1 -1 regarding the male holding the sign. The male suspect was later arrested for disorderly conduct and his sign was placed on property as evidence. Another panhandler /transient was located at a Spokane Valley hotel using a garden hose to bathe; he was arrested for 2nd degree trespassing and booked into jail. Various businesses in that same area have reported panhandlers begging for money in front of their stores, stopping traffic, and yelling at motorists, daring them to run them over. One businessman said he watched a citizen give a bag containing about $50 worth of groceries to a homeless female who was begging near Best Buy recently. After the citizen left, the female threw the bag away in a trash dumpster. A handful of reports include persons exposing themselves, urinating in public, and some chose to use restrooms at local businesses, leaving them filthy and in a few instances, covered in feces. Finally, at the end of July, officers were called to a bread truck in the 7000 block of East Sprague. The body of a deceased male was found inside the abandoned truck; it was apparent the body had been there for at least three days. The property owner told officers that transients have been using the truck to sleep in for several years. He said he had fixed the lock on the rear door of the van many times, however, they kept breaking the lock to gain entry and he finally gave up. It appears the transients /panhandlers are becoming more of a public nuisance. Police often find the individuals drunk, causing arguments and fights in the area. Hangar Burglar Arrested - Acting on a citizen's tip about a suspicious person, Spokane Valley Police arrested a 30- year -old Spokane man for the burglary of a Felts Field hangar and recovered military memorabilia and other property belonging to the tenant. A citizen called Crime Check about 6:30 a.m. Thursday and said a man had removed large duffel bags that had been stashed behind a concrete barrier located along the airfield's east security fencing. Officers arrived and located the male suspect leaving the area with a bag and two swords. The bag contained U.S. Marine clothing and flight items which the suspect claimed belonged to his grandfather. However, he could not give them the name that was stenciled on the military clothing. A friend of the victim contacted officers and told them he believed the items came from a hangar. Officers later found the hangar and learned the tenant is now a pilot for FedEx and was in Memphis, Tennessee. They contacted his wife and returned the stolen property which had been hidden in two separate locations. The male suspect was booked into the Spokane County Jail on felony counts of Second - Degree Burglary and Second - Degree Theft. Operation Archangel Nets 19 Federal Arrests - James A. McDevitt, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, announced the culmination of Operation Archangel, a law enforcement operation targeting area gang members and their associates who are involved in the illegal distribution of controlled substances and related crimes, including firearms violations, occurring in the Spokane regional area. Members of the Spokane Violent Crime Gang Enforcement Team (SVCGET) began arresting suspects early morning in mid -July. The Quad- Cities Drug Task Force, the Tri- Cities Violent Gang Task Force, the South Sound Gang Task Force and the North Idaho Violent Crime Task Force also assisted in this operation. This operation continues to seek several federal fugitives. In addition to the federal charges, 30 individuals were arrested or charged with state crimes. "Archangel is an example of our continuing emphasis on this criminal element," said Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich. "Gang members represent a heightened risk to our communities because of their frequent and indiscriminate use of violence." Spokane Valley Chief Rick VanLeuven echoed that sentiment, saying "Gangs have established a presence in Spokane Valley, and it's critical that we disrupt their business in order to protect our citizens." He added, "It's because of the Spokane Page 4 Violent Crimes Gang Enforcement Team and its regional connections that we are able to identify these criminals and remove them from our streets." The SVCGET is comprised of police officers, detectives, and representatives from the Spokane Police Department, the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, the Washington State Patrol, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Washington State Department of Corrections. This program, administered by the FBI's Safe Streets and Gang Unit, provides a vehicle through which all of the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are able to join together to address the violent crime plaguing our communities. • Fatal Shooting and Knife Assault - A 17- year -old Spokane Valley boy awoke early on a mid -July Sunday to a man assaulting him with a knife. He survived, but afterward found his mother lifeless on the floor of their kitchen. Police responded to the victims' home in the 600 block of North Ella Road after the 17- year -old called 9 -1 -1. The teen told the operator that his stepdad had attempted to cut his throat and had killed his mom. Officers arrived and learned that one of the woman's twin nine -year- old boys had suffered a severe head injury in the attack; he later died at the hospital. A second twin was found at the home, but was uninjured. The Spokane County Sheriff s SWAT Team executed a search warrant at the homicide suspect's Northwoods home about 5 p.m. Sunday and found the body of the suspect on the floor of the garage; he had died from an apparent gunshot wound. Detectives learned that the suspect and female victim had been engaged to be married and had lived together for a period in the Northwoods home, but had recently separated. ALERT Spokane, the new enhanced 9 -1 -1 call -back system, was used during the above - mentioned incident to warn Northwoods residents to remain inside their homes and away from windows. Sheriffs dispatchers praised the system saying it successfully alerted 90 residences out of 100 attempts. • Need Identification of Rape Suspect - On December 10, 2008 and on December 15, 2008, a male suspect entered unlocked apartment residences in the Pines and Mansfield area of Spokane Valley and fondled victims. At 2:30 a.m. on September 27, 2009, a different victim had just left friends with whom she had had a meal and drinks. Walking home in the 400 block of South Pines, she encountered a suspect walking the opposite direction on the opposite side of the street. The suspect crossed the street and confronted the woman. He grabbed her by her hair and threw her to the ground where he attempted to unbutton her pants. Friends on the other end of her cellular phone call heard the suspect's voice and the struggle. When the cell phone rang again, the suspect threatened to kill her and the caller if she answered it. Detectives have recovered evidence from the three scenes that tie the offenses to a single suspect. He is a white male, 28 to 30 years old, who is 5'06" to 5'10" tall and 150 to 170 pounds. He had his dark brown hair styled in a crew cut and had no noticeable speech impediment or accent. 4 � I } A victim who was provided the sketch above was visibly shaken by the close resemblance. Anyone with infonnation regarding the man's identity is encouraged to call Crime Check at 509- 456 -2233. Page 5 2010 JULY CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Jul -10 Jul -09 2010 2009 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 BURGLARY 96 54 528 369 725 753 584 714 744 997 FORGERY 27 32 198 184 297 354 365 334 464 465 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 136 127 703 692 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 1,224 NON - CRIMINAL 84 78 502 551 892 944 839 811 749 916 PROPERTY OTHER 621 79 450 538 933 828 890 982 1,154 1,665 RECOVERED VEHICLES 17 16 242 106 187 319 343 403 333 390 STOLEN VEHICLES 30 27 281 158 298 496 478 711 603 577 THEFT 196 177 1278 1248 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 4 5 7 3 3 5 40 VEHICLE PROWLING 156 63 793 445 920 1069 682 937 958 1,382 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 804 654 4,989 4,297 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 8,178 10,519 ASSAULT 84 93 538 541 927 869 853 846 894 880 DOA /SUICIDE 19 23 124 109 210 269 221 167 159 164 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 98 107 710 673 1226 1063 874 736 762 755 HOMICIDE 1 0 1 1 3 3 1 5 1 5 KIDNAP 0 2 11 13 21 16 23 22 35 24 MENTAL 25 29 175 189 310 360 350 425 425 386 MP 23 10 76 66 115 95 83 88 97 106 PERSONS OTHER 124 154 1025 947 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 1,624 ROBBERY 4 3 34 42 75 71 60 58 56 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 17 8 76 89 159 95 73 83 92 190 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 395 429 2770 2,670 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 4,192 ADULT RAPE 6 3 25 19 35 44 43 29 39 37 CHILD ABUSE 13 9 68 101 159 148 104 78 101 126 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 16 16 110 93 157 86 92 105 88 205 SEX REGISTRATION 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 3 6 4 INDECENT LIBERTIES 1 0 5 6 10 11 18 15 9 21 CHILD MOLESTATION 4 4 24 15 35 66 46 69 67 77 CHILD RAPE 3 4 15 26 35 39 31 62 35 30 RUNAWAY 30 33 259 25811 440 369 295 309 311 437 SEX OTHER 17 29 114 132 211 179 194 203 181 162 STALKING 2 0 6 8 15 21 17 17 27 35 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 11 15 123 106 175 142 152 177 244 341 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 104 113 750 765 1271 1,108 996 1,067 1,108 1,475 DRUG 39 41 342 419 670 838 807 665 891 999 ISU OTHER 01 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL ISU 39 41 341 419 671 838 808 665 891 1,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 271 228 1895 1,824 3,183 3,811 1 3,800 3,345 1 2,4031 2,776 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,613 1,46511 10,745 9,975 17,460 17,4651 16,817 1 16,582 116,3571 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 C lements 7 Ja pey Fruit Hill c c d a W E I 6th 18th MP.Mb.- " & LM�'�I RM z z°tn 1 o t — 1st Q cc e e fs is — 32nd R� m Commercial _ 29th 31st 32nd 1 O �G ° 5th 36 E o m Burglary o 0 1 G JJ ` .` ° n 39 C 1 ` 37th �yndorn point ell ell Belle Terre U U C 2 a m m 1 0 o y Cr e // 41 44 n Ball J � t a - � d m 44th _ In Gle 44th 44th � o, 45t t ° a th Corke Q 6 U Y a U n °� 48th e tret Qe o/b Belle a F\ces v �,ao c LOW rI th' - o Q P° Medium e o��5 ¢�� Cor x° st M m w o High '� F � E o 0 1 5 1 Mile 2010 July Commercial Burglary Hotspots 11 gust2O1O 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 I ■ 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 02007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 2500 KCILI 1500 1000 500 C1] Spokane Valley Property Crimes Comparisons (2010 is through July) 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 i 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC C lements i --, 7 Ja pey Fruit Hill c c d a W E H 4th 6th 3rd 6 ' jk di an O ission r�Tu�uii��:�:7C'JA�IaE� ■ "sue s�7uv�� %wee: z Z5tn 27th b � J` L c 1 h ¢ °` tese 32nd R� Residential — ' 29th 31st 32nd 1 O T 1 c 37th point m m 1 0 `m S— X 42 c m m W r cG 5 of t o a- o �� w ,... c e 5th U (D U is .: >_ 39 m E ell Belle Terre U U ti C // 41 , / �. ee 42nd Ball J 4 Burglary C C 2 a _ 3r �o� H In Gle c 44th Q arie c r 44th = L a hor E 6t 45t `� l to th m � Yo 6th O O a th o 6 Y Vo a U �� 48th e2 roc n Q W e ttet Qe = J o/b Belle a v c LOW aioGS C .", a�a °�� y h A F Rockore ode �_ o neb Slo s A 1 - Medium 7th e e �m F Cor Ext � 1 x° st M m w o High -4-E o 0 1 5 1 Mile 2010 July Residential Burglary Hotspots 11aAgust2010 - Clements I1 r1 I WHIM", .. - lilt ... ■ ■■ mi.c�E �� ' � �� - • , FZITb7E ika:uc�- =11' �• t '�' Granite 71�L - n� � 0 =mm ErEllow Mme• ja • 1 IA �L=11l All _rm y_ w W.2 Oak "_. O g g ir_�3aE! I�1/EE �13R•,332s�tlf _ � =e,, � >�: � •4!�` J nsfi i ��o 4 I e y� yR y 4 w p�� . 1■ illy_ Ie■- Ulm ' ■uau's i1E■ A 1111111 y ■i�lkCit�``�� a �� w ��' �s ys ICE= :• c NONE 'l- ■161■ ■111 ■• 41 �� i1•Ii1�T�:.. , ©� — � 1:: �•' "�CIG�iI� , Yifu�- ft . I:�lu1 L ys ■■ - ■11■k� `i �: = 13i�11�F-all =� ■�'''• amEm'� e.of��ti1,.■ ,� M om j F.il19lME I�r.rall�- Gi711� E i ■ y® r Ih "___ +E 7!llllr_ �'�� - ■1111' .1 1 �� _ -�� = = =� ■ +1 mom MUM MO Amm FIRM I�r..arca�F■ Im °°.: �!s \� szi 51 11111 mom FOR '�ILIl omI:iCS�L :� - `', 11101 ■ ��tY1f�O��Y�. ■ [S1EC'.■�� \`- IA I" � MMEE G7�ll►� ��r 11 ■`�'G�� ' Clll1E�71_ MEMO Stolen Vehicles .__RE im rmr�w•.vr L _ �I � 005 1 - 1 1 . . . . Produced 0 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 a E2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC C lements Jos iaw 7 Ja pey Fruit Hill c d a W ■ x.'87 "�, MA b iii eat % " ±�"'i�n >!1■ ' c�3?ar'�4 Indian ■ LL ;� - , � • R • .. �� 1 FY-7LW - .olr. .uan w v� iia�� @7 ■� 1 -rte'. 1 °�y ' 111 -�� 'l - = r,.■ =� =� w w .� ■6■ ■111■ � 1 ' "� , � ��• ."� � ® \ . i�liiT� —• ' �i 0 El , • •�Qlr,��. Lunds MEN �n. WE I� ��`— �� L��w�LlCllll■li�l rr� � :� 0 Ulm �� •. , 11■R•]:]C!!lJ' •� �.te.'e�w�'��F�� - - •-• - _��11■ ��orra��- "'� .-.�' 1!�• `�� - �� !!!I� i = IF Mm � ":' L{i1171:� 'as,e��>•iwiiti svlu�i' 1 �'�`�1 I�" ■ww�il ��y� I .wwwww[:A1 ww 1!III er Fll. luuu ;u�■ �� ■ ■ ■ 7eLYw11 x'�c! .ems_ ■rslf �.awwllA.4U el ■�'� •IFS �3JwwF /Wl . ' ■F �� ewww ■... `��':u ��' .c�■ ti yinu .us i� ■■ Aters�l e`•urz!! ■� �� e� ■��r.wwww.� ■� . � .' t evlr�■r�t�• I�CI�I'6W � �7�� ■�' `:� �L�� ■!E■`d��l!!111N�Z1 � \�'��.Mf�l �� N Vehicle �i�s —we :r.' e•I�ww ■ ■ cr4CJ. �\ Gv . Prowling OIL �= �. . ,,r. IM INN , r�I�tin I: WIN ■__c�lry� , 247 EA Low - • R „'.7�• LL High 005 1 Miles 01 2010 July Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Map Produced: 11 August 2010 Spokane Valley Vehicle Prowling 180 160 140 120 100 :1 .I 40 20 0 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane ,,; O o;F Valley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT July 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 Hours 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/ http: / /www.ecy.wa.gov /programs /wq /tmdl /spokaneriver /dissolved oxygen /status.html http: / /www.spokanecounty.org/ utilities/ WaterReclamation /content.aspx ?c =2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Solid Waste Liaison Board will be discussing Regional Governance issues over the next several months. STREET MASTER PLAN • 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. STORM WATER • 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 to bid in August. 2. Herald Street, 8 th to 9 1h Ave.: add capture, catchbasins, and expand existing UIC. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster to bid in August. 3. Oberlin Street, South of 11 Avenue: additional stormwater capture and swale. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster to bid in August. 4. 10 Avenue, Little John Ct. to Mariam St: additional stormwater capture, manhole structure. Preparing bid package for Small Works Roster to bid in August. 5. University and 16 ", NE Corner: replace (2) existing UIC's, provide overflow to 16 Ave system. COMPLETED. 6. Union, North of Mission: added capture of stormwater. COMPLETED. 7. 550 S. Sullivan Road: increase intercept of stormwater before existing drywell. Redesign due to fiber optic utility not previously marked — looking at alternatives including working with adjacent vacant lot owner. 8. Woodruff and Holman: Monitoring improvements made with sewer project summer 2009 9. 11 and Herald — improve catchbasins and rehabilitate existing failing UIC. Moved design to this Fall with scheduled construction in 2011. 10. Adams — 12 to 8 th and South of 24 Intersection — replace existing shoulder gravels with new pervious gravel to mitigate continuing erosion issues. COMPLETED 11. 13618 E. 4 th (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. Started design. 12. 7 E. 11011 (near Pierce) — north side of road, replace existing soil with pervious gravel in front of driveway. COMPLETED 13. 8 th just east of Evergreen, south side of road — replace existing soil with pervious gravel near mailboxes. COMPLETED 14. 7413 E. Sharp Avenue (near Park) — replace crushed pipe between catchbasins. 15. 1505 N. University Road (south of Mission) — replace crushed pipe between catchbasin and drywell. 16.32 nd and Bowdish intersection, north leg — mitigate ongoing stormwater ponding. Evaluating various alternatives. • 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. • Pines /Mansfield swales (near Montgomery) — Continued evaluation of the sites indicate that the swale bottoms should be rehabilitated. Considering removing material and replacing with an engineered soil and sod this fall or next spring. • 16 and Shamrock Drainage — Drafted a historical outline of this problem from the Ridgemont Estates No. 3, 2nd and 1s' Additions (County developments) which discharge onto properties and the public streets in the City of Spokane Valley. County Engineer has responded that they will be working on this problem with a local Developer and City Staff. • 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 II 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. Should be extended until end of August or September. • Ecology SW Grant #2 -Received a $50k grant that will need to be expended by June 2011. • Stormwater Decant Facility — to be programmed with 2011 -2017 Stormwater Plan. • Sweeping & Structure Cleaning Study -. Contacted a consultant to possibly assist with this study. Consultant has submitted a proposed scope of work. On hold. 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. • 2010 Stormwater Fee Assessor Rolls Update — Evaluated changes to existing or new commercial properties for 2010 Roll Update. Provided ongoing support. OTHER PROJECTS • Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Community Development is currently proceeding with the development of the Master Plan. • 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 %. • Mission Avenue Improvements— Flora to Barker (PE—$517,600 and RW — $400,000 only) • Broadway /Argonne /Mullan Concrete Intersection (PE only — $276,600) • 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 FMSI B request below for 20% local match. • 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 th 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. • Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project - $3,950,000 (20% of total replacement cost) • Barker Road /BNSF Grade Separation Project - $10,000,000 (20% of total cost) • Ecology SW Grant #3 — The State sent the City a document asking if the City was interested in receiving a $300k grant to be expended by June 2012 to help the City implement NPDES permit requirements. City staff sent back the form showing interest in the grant. • Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) (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. • 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. • 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 July 2010: Spring Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: • AAA performing periodic summer sweeping. • AAA continues with vectoring 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: • The RFP process has been delayed as result of resignation of the Street Superintendent. We will continue with the emergency contract with Poe Asphalt for 2010/2011 and will bring that contract before Council in September. Purchase of a permanent Street Maintenance Facility: • On April 6, 2010, Council recommended that we conduct a property search. We sent out a notice to all realtors in Spokane Valley. We are currently reviewing properties with realtors and will bring that information to Council in the near future. JULY 2010 CAPITAL PROJECTS Road Projects 0003 - Barker Road Bridge Replacement Bridge opened to traffic on June 14; Centennial Trail opened July 1. Final surveying, punch list items and clean -up work is all that remains. 0005 - Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines Met with UPRR and WUTC to discuss channelization and signal /gate revision at UPRR tracks. 0019 - Broadway Ave Road Rehab 0063 - Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD Consultant has prepared initial layout and 30% plans. Staff is reviewing draft operational and pedestrian crossing summaries. Funded by TIB (20% local match). 0069 - Park Rd Recon. #2 Brdwy & Ind. SRTC06 -12 Project funded for PE only. Consultant design approximately 40% complete. Expecting environmental documents and initial drawings by mid - August. Forecasting design work to be complete by end of September 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 Topographical Survey underway. 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 12/31/2010. Preliminary field work and initial drawings complete; updating drawings based on WUTC and BNSF comment. Currently drafting specifications. Sewer Projects 0106 - West Ponderosa (STEP) Phase 1 — Paving complete; punchlist items remain. Phase 2 — Paving complete: punchlist items remain. 0128 - West Farms (STEP) Mainline sewer construction continues east of Evergreen road. Roads are being prepared for paving west of McDonald. 0129 - South Greenacres (STEP) Phase 3 (north of Mission) - Owens Construction awarded project. Construction began on 4/26/10. Mainline construction complete. Side sewer work continues. Roadwork has begun. Phase 4 (south of Mission) — MDM was awarded the project. Construction is scheduled to begin August 18th. 0130 - Corbin (STEP) Murphy Bros. was awarded project. Work began June 21st on Laberry, Bloom, Cane and Dove Circles. Sewer construction continues north of Sprague. 0131 - Cronk (STEP) Knife River awarded project. Mainline complete in Mission, Grady and Hodges Road - subgrade work has begun. Currently placing sewer in Liberty Lake portion of project. Street Preservation Projects 0110 - Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation Work complete. Final Pay Application being processed. 0115 - Sprague Ave Resurfacing - E'grn to S'van 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. Kickoff meeting and field work with consultant on July 21 -22; awaiting draft summary. 0061 - Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements (SRTC 06 -2 Currently negotiating scope /fee 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. Kick -off meeting with consultant and field work July 27 -28. Funded 100% 0135 - Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation We have installed flashing yellow arrows (FYA) at a total of 7 intersections. They are: Broadway/Wal -Mart, Sprague /Costco, Sprague /Flora, 16th /Sullivan, 24th /Sullivan, NB and SB at Broadway /Evergreen, and 16th /Dishman -Mica. 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 Working on final closeout. 0079 - Greenacres 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 submit EECBG. Completed in Summer of 2009. 0140 - Bike & Ped MP Doc Prep Closeout Phase 0039 - Argonne Rd Overlay - Indiana to Montgom. Project Closed. 0054 - 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands Rd Project Started August 9th. 0062 - Appleway /Sprague /Dishman Mica ITS Project administered by WSDOT. Completed in summer 2009. In closeout. 0065 - Sullivan /Sprague PCC Intersection Project started Monday, July 19, 2010, and was substantially completed on Friday August 6, 2010. 0066 - Broadway Rehab Phase 2 Project completed. 0067 — Broadway /Fancher PCC Intersection 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 started August 2nd. 0099 - WSDOT Urban Ramp Project Closeout Phase 0100 - 16th and Bettman Stormwater Complete. 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. S 1 4 woesk--, Va l ey 'OIIIII;W� July -10 # Road Projects Funding Project Manager Proposed Bid Date % Complete Estimated Construction I Completion Total Project Cost PE I CN 0003 Barker Road Bridge Replacement BR Program Knutson 04/18/08 100 99 07/31/10 $ 11,817,000 0005 Pines /Manfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines TIB Knutson 05/23/08 100 95 10/31/10 $ 6,627,000 0019 Broadway Ave Road Rehab Fed Program 0 0 $ 879,195 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD UAP Knutson 08/31/10 30 0 10/31/10 $ 932,850 0069 Park Rd Recon. #2 Brdwy & Ind. SRTC06 -12 STP(U) Knutson 40 0 $ 352,002 0112 Indiana Ave Extension UCP Aldworth 60 0 07/01/11 $ 2,082,000 0113 Indiana /Sullivan PCC Intersection STA Aldworth 10 0 12/31/11 $ 1,252,000 0114 Broadway /Sullivan PCC Intersection STA Aldworth 02/12/10 100 0 12/31/10 $ 788,450 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 60 11/01/10 $ 427,000 0129 South Greenacres (STEP) 001 Arlt 03/03/10 100 30 07/01/11 $ 640,500 0130 Corbin (STEP) 001 Arlt 05/05/10 100 25 06/01/11 $ 705,000 0131 Cronk (STEP) 001 Arlt 04/14/10 100 50 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 Traffic Projects continued 0135 Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation USDOE (d) Kipp 100 99 12/31/10 $ 33,550 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement USDOE (d) Kipp 0 0 12/31/11 $ 65,000 0137 Traffic Signal Coordination USDOE (d) Note 0 0 $ - Parks Projects 0076 Valley Mission Park 301 Kersten 0 0 $ - 0079 Greenacres Park 0 0 $ - 0086 Discovery Playground CTED Worley 05/01/09 100 99 05/12/10 $ - Other Projects 0134 Bike & Ped Master Plan - Facility Imp USDOE (d) Note 0 0 08/31/12 $ - 0138 Pre Award Consultant Costs USDOE (d) 0 0 $ - 0140 Bike & Ped MP Doc Prep WUTC 0 0 $ - Closeout Phase 0039 Argonne Rd Overlay - Indiana to Montgom. Fed Program Arlt 100 100 $ 405,948 0054 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands Rd STP(E) Aldworth 06/11/10 100 100 10/15/10 $ 334,200 0062 Appleway /Sprague /Dishman Mica ITS CMAQ Knutson 09/18/08 100 100 10/30/09 $ 672,000 0065 Sullivan /Sprague PCC Intersection STP(P) Aldworth 05/28/10 100 100 10/31/10 $ 1,229,371 0066 Broadway Rehab Phase 2 STP(U) Aldworth 06/19/09 100 100 02/10/10 $ 627,500 0067 Broadway Francher PCC Intersection STP(U) Aldworth 02/13/09 100 100 12/02/09 $ 759,218 0071 SIGNAL CONTROLLER UPGRADES SRTC 06 -22 CMAQ Knutson 04/29/08 100 100 11/30/09 $ 258,400 0088 Broadway Ave. Moore to Flora TIB Aldworth 06/04/10 90 100 11/14/10 $ 3,027,071 0099 WSDOT Urban Ramp Project Special CIP Fund (302) Worley 100 100 09/30/09 $ 300,000 0100 16th and Bettman Stormwater 402 Arlt 04/01/09 100 100 06/01/10 $ 116,563 0102 Evergreen - Sprague PCC STA Aldworth 04/24/10 100 100 02/09/10 $ 685,000 0103 Pines - Sprague PCC STA Aldworth 03/20/09 100 100 12/07/09 $ 978,000 0104 McDonald - Sprague PCC STA Aldworth 04/24/10 100 100 02/09/10 $ 762,000 0107 Valleyview (STEP) 302 Arlt 04/01/09 100 100 06/01/10 $ 679,923 0108 Rotchford Acres (STEP) 302 Arlt 04/22/09 100 100 10/01/09 $ 388,306 0109 Clement (STEP) 302 Arlt 05/13/09 100 100 11/01/09 $ 565,116 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 24, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.30.110(1) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to adjourn into executive session for approximately minutes to discuss Pending Litigation and that no action is anticipated thereafter. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: