The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 09-28 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, September 28,2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson 2. 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 09-03-2010 20976 $43,311.28 09-10-2010 20984-20986 $3,491.19 09-10-2010 20987-21011; 903100004, 903100020 $446,002.29 09-10-2010 21012-21032 $60,961.78 09-13-2010 3282-3301; 21033 $158,928.60 09-17-2010 21064-21090 $63,848.66 GRAND TOTAL $776,543.80 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending September 15, 2010: $247,885.06 c.Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2010 d. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010 e. Approval of Resolution 10-016, Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development,Phase I NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zones)—Lori Barlow [public comment] 4. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax Levy—Ken Thompson [public comment] Council Agenda 09-28-10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 5. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation—Ken Thompson [public comment] 6. Second Reading Ordinance Pre-Treatment— Cary Driskell [public comment] 7. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Fund Allocation to Outside Agencies—Ken Thompson [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: Poe Winter Contract—Neil Kersten [public comment] 10. Motion Consideration: Interlocal, Pre-Treatment—Cary Driskell [public comment] 11. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment: Spokane River Implementation Advisory Committee -Mayor Towey [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: 12. Subarea Plan(SARP)Zone Comm. Blvd—Lori Barlow 13. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 14. Department Reports 15. Gain Sharing EXECUTIVE SESSION: 16. Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 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) are generally held the 1St 3rd and sometimes 5th 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 09-28-10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 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 - 2011 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Public hearings were held on August 24 and September 14, regarding the 2011 Budget. A preliminary budget was prepared by the City Manager and presented to the City Council on September 7. Tonight's hearing will be the third of three hearings on the 2011 Budget. BACKGROUND: Each year staff prepares estimates of proposed revenues and expenditures for the budget for the coming year. State budget law requires we make our projections known and conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. Special mention is required of the property tax levy. We expect our levy to be $99,500 less than (-1%) the 2010 levy. The tax rate is expected to be near $1.54/thousand dollars of assessed value with an assessed value near $7.1 billion. The City's actual 2011 levy may be more or less than shown. Other significant changes to the 2011 budget include a $100,000 set aside for increases in the City's share of retirement costs, broadcasting of City Council meetings for $46,000 and a $2,000,000 transfer from the Civic Facilities fund to be used for street capital improvements and full width pave back above newly installed county sewer lines. 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, the removal of funding in the 2011 budget for vacant positions and reductions requested by the City Council. OPTIONS: State law requires this hearing on the 2011 Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the final public hearing on the 2011 Budget. 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 Public Hearing Proposed 2011 Budget Spokane Valley Public Hearing September 28 , 2010 City Wide Budget Total is $62 million — Down from 2010 6. Significant decrease in capital budget Property tax levy down $ 100 , 000 New fund for street preservation & match on grants - $500 , 000 • Expect numbers to change as we fine-tune General Fund REVENUES: Sales Tax down $400,000 Property Tax down $100,000 State Shared Taxes up $200,000 (liquor?) Fines & Forfeitures up $200,000 EXPENSES: 6 Records Management down $200, 000 • City Mgr. Div. down $ 100, 000 • Building down $ 100, 000 • Development Eng . down $ 120, 000 • Centerplace down $ 100, 000 General Fund Changes Vacant positions dropped 6. Broadcasting of Council added Retirement costs added Depts will save (3% ) in 2010 ($450 , 000 ) $46 , 000 $ 100 , 000 ($ 1 , 000 , 000) 9/24/2010 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-28- 2010 City Manager Sign-off; Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information LI admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WIVOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 09-03-2010 20976 $43,311.28 09-10-2010 20984-20986 $3,491.19 09-10-2010 20987-21011; 903100004, 903100020 $446,002.29 09-10-2010 21012-21032 $60,961.78 09-13-2010 3282-3301; 21033 $158,928.60 09-17-2010 21064-21090 $63,848.66 GRAND TOTAL $776,543.80 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09103/2010 11:01:11AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 20976 9/3/2010 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben34779 PERS:Payment 42,776.38 Ben34851 PERS III:Payment 534.90 Total: 43,311.28 1 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 43,311.28 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 43,311.28 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim, Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist 09/10/2010 8:52:37AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20984 9/3/2010 001896 DANIEL H BRUNNER Ben34785 HOLTEN, M 07 -03752- PCW13: Payment 100.00 Total : 100.00 20985 9/3/2010 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben34781 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: Payment 1,294.96 Total : 1,294.96 20986 9/3/2010 000699 WA COUNCIL CO /CITY EMPLOYEES Ben34783 UNION DUES: Payment 2,072.31 Ben34853 UNION DUES: Deanna Griffith special rur 23.92 Total : 2,096.23 3 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 3,491.19 3 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 3,491.19 f, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09110/2010 10:47:55AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20987 9/10/2010 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC 44861 42563 2010 AAA VACTORING CONTRACT 7,861.77 44863 42547 2010 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA 17,211.38 Total : 25,073.15 20988 9/10/2010 001081 ALSCO LSPOS47722 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL 27.21 Total : 27.21 20989 9/10/2010 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 429093 AUGUST 2010 COPIER COSTS: LE( 751.81 429103 COPIER COSTS: CD 513,82 Total : 1,265.63 20990 9/10/2010 001565 BERRETH THOMAS PRINTING 26853 Grid Sheets 213.05 Total : 213.05 20991 9/10/2010 001888 COMCAST SEPTEMBER 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET: MAINT FA 108.95 Total : 108.95 20992 9/10/2010 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 870166725008 2010: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,781.38 Total : 2,781.38 20993 9/10/2010 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 516542 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 1,031.56 516738 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 173.24 516850 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 86.56 80050 42526 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 38.03 Total : 1,329.39 20994 9/10/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 293943 SURVEYING SERVICES 2,015.50 294594 42614 0113 [NDIANA/SULLIVAN SURVEY : 12,117.24 295125 SURVEYING SERVICES 2,276.00 Total : 16,408.74 20995 9/10/2010 001771 DOLLAR RENT A CAR AUGUST 2010 CAR RENTALS 1,299.93 Total : 1,299.93 20996 9/10/2010 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC, INC 41336 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00 Total: 40.00 Page: 1 vchlist 9/10/2010 Voucher List Page: 2 0911012010 10;47 :55AM Spokane Valley 002041 J_ SCRIVNER INVESTIGATIONS INC Bank code : apbank 21001 9/10/2010 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20997 9/10/2010 000106 FEDEX 7- 21310415 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 35.31 21002 9110/2010 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS Total : 35.31 20998 9/10/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34716 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25 00 34717 34761 34762 34763 34764 20999 9/10/2010 002043 HDR ENGINEERING, INC 00215157 -H 42424 21000 9/10/2010 002041 J_ SCRIVNER INVESTIGATIONS INC SP -30493 34.85 21001 9/10/2010 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0065840 42624 1,725.16 LEGAL SERVICES 396.94 0065842 42623 21002 9110/2010 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 16532939 42531 21003 9/10/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 18669 59.34 21004 9/10/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 5229419417001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 41.82 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING 20.94 531903347001 62.76 21005 9/10/2010 000881 OXARC SSK5895 SIPPLIES FOR PW 79.35 Total : 2,790.29 SSK6412 SSK7694 21006 9110/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 1330046947 LEGAL PUBLICATION 91.80 LEGAL PUBLICATION 40.80 LEGAL PUBLICATION 90.10 LEGAL PUBLICATION 73.95 LEGAL PUBLICATION 34.85 Total : 356.50 CONTRACT 09 -040 HDR ENGINEEF 1,725.16 Total : 1,725.16 LEGAL SERVICES 396.94 Total : 396.94 TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPC 10,329.07 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 4,717.79 Total : 15, 046.86 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 59.34 Total : 59.34 JUNE 2010: SYSTEM MAINTENANC 5,830.00 Total : 5,830.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 41.82 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING 20.94 Total: 62.76 SUPPLIES FOR PW 785.86 SUPPLIES FOR PW 1,925.08 SIPPLIES FOR PW 79.35 Total : 2,790.29 NAME PLATTE: BECKY MOAT 16.88 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 09/10/2010 10:47:55AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21006 9/1012010 000119 000119 PLESE PRINTING (Continued) Total : 16.88 21007 9/10/2010 001276 RANDALL, DAVID 1397 SW ANALYSIS: DISHMAN MICA ARI 2,160.00 Total : 2,160.00 21008 9/10/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE August 2010 X -52 DUI EMPHASIS GRANT 1,850.14 Total : 1,850.14 21009 9/10/2010 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE 2010 -07 42538 2010 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT #1 10,082.08 2010 -08 42538 2010 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT #1 22,694.02 Total : 32,776.10 21010 9/10/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 209805 ADVERTISING: HR 378.56 Total : 378.56 21011 9/10/2010 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 0238292860 INTERNET /DATA LINES: JANUARY: 272.78 Total : 272.78 903100004 9/3/2010 001865 MORGEN & OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION Pay App #17 42219 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 151,326.36 Total : 151,326.36 903100020 9/3/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER August 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 182,370.88 Total : 182,370.88 27 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 446,002..29 27 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 446,002.29 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List page: 1 09/10/2010 1:09:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21012 9/10/2010 000659 ASCE INLAND EMPIRE Sept 2010 SEMINAR REGISTRATION 150.00 Total: 150.00 21013 9/10/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC S0045827 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 40.80 Total : 40.80 21014 9/10/2010 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE July 2010 TRANSFER STATION: PW 183.26 Total : 183.26 21015 9/10/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 August 2010 UTILITIES. PW 338.03 Total : 338.03 21016 9/10/2010 000278 DRISKELL, GARY Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 28.00 Total : 28.00 21017 9/10/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 40997 LEGAL SERVICES 15.00 Total : 15.00 21018 9/10/2010 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL AUG 10 1042 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,029.01 Total : 3,029.01 21019 9/10/2010 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO AUGUST 2010 UTILITIES:PW 411.13 Total : 411.13 21020 9/10/2010 001635 ISS FACILITYIEVENT SERVICES 23699 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 197.00 Total : 197.00 21021 9/10/2010 002463 KILLINGSWORTH, COLLEEN REFUND REFUND FOR REMOVAL OF CITY E 13.00 Total : 13.00 21022 9/10/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 17584115 FINAL BILL: UTILITIES. PW 36.32 Total : 36.32 21023 9/10/2010 001832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS 0717234 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 127.83 Total: 127.83 21024 9/10/2010 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL SUPPLY INC. 100024641 42593 ON -CALL CONSULTING SERVICES 500.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List page: 2 0911012010 1:09:15PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21024 9/10/2010 001090 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL SUPPLY INC. (Continued) Total • 500.00 21025 9/10/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 530251369001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 12314 530251990001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 8.12 Total : 131.26 21026 9/10/2010 000881 OXARC SSK409 SUPPLIES FOR MAINT FACILITY 1,547.87 SSK5860 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE FA( 434.80 Total : 1,982.67 21027 9/10/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 83.00 Total : 83.00 21028 9/10/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 3600753 CONTRACT MAIN: CENTERPLACE 44,562.40 3751765 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 530.46 3864288 CONTRACT MAINT: DISCOVERY PL 5,445.40 4000311 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI 389.12 Total: 50,927.38 21029 9/10/2010 002110 TARGET MEDIA N.W. PUBLISHING 40292 PRINTING: HOT TOPIC 668.12 Total : 668.12 21030 9/10/2010 002215 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 15787 MAINTENANCE FACILITY - SEPT 150.00 Total: 150.00 21031 9/10/2010 000167 VERA WATER & POWER August 2010 UTILITIES: AUGUST 2010 1,358.69 Total: 1,358.69 21032 9/10/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0051847- 1518 -5 WASTE MGMT: PW AUGUST 2010 591.28 Total: 591.28 21 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 60,961.78 21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 60,961.78 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/13/2010 3:44:32PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Rate Vendor Invoice PO # 3282 9/3/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben34787 3283 9/3/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34789 3285 9/3/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL Ben34791 3298 9/3/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34796 3300 9/3/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben34855 3301 9/3/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34857 29033 9/3/2010 000120 AWC 13en34777 895.63 Total : 96,773.71 Ben34794 Ben34847 7 Vouchers for bank code. apbank 7 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Description /Account Amount 401A: Payment 27,174.36 Total : 27,174.36 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 29,400.90 Total: 29,400.90 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Payn 3,673.00 Total : 3,673.00 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 1,187.32 Total : 1,787.32 401A: Payment 324.86 Total : 324.86 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 394.45 Total : 394.45 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 90,424.76 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 5,453.32 HEALTH PLANS :DEANNA G. SPECIAL 895.63 Total : 96,773.71 Bank total : 158,928.60 Total vouchers : 158,928.60 Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist 09/17/2010 1:41 :29PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21064 9/17/2010 001081 ALSCO August 2010 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 39.52 Total : 39.52 21065 9/17/2010 001126 APA CONFERENCE 2010 2010 APA WASHINGTON CONFERS 800.00 Total : 800.00 21066 9/17/2010 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INVO05291 JANITORIAL SERVICES: AUG 2010 2,165.23 Total : 2,165.23 21067 9/17/2010 001310 ARROW CONCRETE & ASPHALT 79016 WAter coupler and frieght 11.90 Total : 11.90 21068 9/17/2010 000030 AVISTA Sept 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTP 15,370.54 September 2010 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 20,898.18 Total : 36,268.72 21069 9/17/2010 000841 BCI CREATIVE INC 9896 PRINTING: CENTERPLACE 145.19 Total : 145.19 21070 9/17/2010 001409 BEST LINE 100900115 ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE 22.00 Total : 22.00 21071 9/17/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9148843 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY: CP 303.04 9150767 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 283.75 9152667 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE: CP 34.25 S0045599 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY: CP 170.18 80084656 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY: CP 38.39 Total : 829.61 21072 9/17/2010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS 4836 -3 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 29.33 Total : 29.33 21073 9/17/2010 001877 DOBBINS, CHRIS Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 Total : 20.00 21074 9/17/2010 000106 FEDEX 7- 220 -66739 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 35.31 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 09/1712010 1:41:29PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21074 9/17/2010 000106 000106 FEDEX (Continued) Total: 35.31 21075 9/17/2010 000839 GENERAL FIRE EQUIP CO 8057 FIRE SYSTEM SERVICE 103.54 Total : 103.54 21076 9/17/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9339723141 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 37.00 Total : 37.00 21077 9/17/2010 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY August 2010 OUTSIDE AGENCIES GRANT 2010 2,729.16 Total : 2,729.16 21078 9/17/2010 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1- 181629 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 151.40 Total : 151.40 21079 9/17/2010 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 Sept 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 166.00 September 2010 UTILITIES: PW 176.83 Total : 342.83 21080 9/17/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 23728 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 86.68 23771 EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE 157.60 Total : 244.28 21081 9/17/2010 002466 KENWORTH SALES 963959 REPLACE FUEL TANK 2,119.73 964177 BEDLINER PREP AND APPLICATIOI 250.00 Total : 2,369.73 21082 9/17/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 8126/201OP &P ADVERTISING: CENTERPLACE 710.00 CP: 8/26/2010 Media ADVERTISING: CENTERPLACE 2,495.00 Total : 3,205.00 21083 9/17/2010 001860 PLATT 8287362 SUPPLIES: CP 31.79 Total: 31.79 21084 9/17/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 5.00 Total : 5.00 21085 9/17/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110357634 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 1,757.28 110362500 SUPPLIES: CP 88.59 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 09/1712010 1:41:29PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 21085 9/17/2010 000935 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO (Continued) Total : 1,845.87 21086 9/17/2010 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES Sept 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,597.70 Total : 21087 21088 21089 21090 9/17/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 August 2010 9/17/2010 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 9/17/2010 000295 VALLEYFEST 9/17/2010 000676 WEST 27 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 27 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date WATER CHARGES: PW Total : 25413 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total 1309 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT 2 Total 821269073 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION Total Bank total Total vouchers: 1,597.70 114.01 114.01 609.74 609.74 9,479.23 9,479.23 615.57 615.57 63,848.66 63,$48.66 Page: 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 9 -28 -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 September 15, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $ 219,349.43 Benefits: $ 28,535.63 Total payroll $ 247,885.06 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS 1 : • vm MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, August 24, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchard of Valley Bible 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 reported he attended a Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) meeting where they heard a speaker from the Washington Policy Center discuss ways governments can increase efficiencies and reduce expenses, attended a Transportation meeting where a person from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) presented a new program concerning truck performance and the use of technology to determine where bottlenecks occur on interstates; participated in the Council bicycle ride with about fifty other individuals, and said the safety information he received was very helpful; attended the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) city center meeting; attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting at Liberty Lake where that city's State of the City Address was given; and attended the annual celebration at Edgeclift concerning their successful efforts in removing crime out of their neighborhood. Councilmember Dempsey said she attended the SARP city meeting and the Chamber of Commerce Breakfast in liberty Lake, and said she was impressed with the facility and mentioned they want to make people aware of the facility's availability to be rented. Councilmember Grafos said he attended the SARP meeting which was well attended and he mentioned some of the issues discussed at that meeting, such as existing building's nonconforming uses, pre - located streets, and building frontage requirements; said he talked to the sheriff officers concerning graffiti on the railroad trestle on Argonne and said it should be painted over this weekend. Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he attended the regional transportation meeting; the HUB meeting, the grand opening of the Hobby Lobby; and the City Center SARP meeting. Councilmember Grassel reported she attended a meeting with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and WSDOT at Liberty Lake's Water and Sewer District regarding new TMDL (total maximum daily load) being implemented in Washington, and of their efforts to bring all parties together from Washington and Idaho, and the idea of forming an advisory committee. Councilmember McCaslin no report. MAYOR'S REPORT: reported that he also learned a lot about bicycle safety as he participated in the bicycle tour; attended the public meeting of the City Center; attended the Chamber Breakfast, went to CenterPlace for a retired senior volunteer program /ceremony to honor all volunteers, and said he is a member of that group; and that he attended the ribbon cutting at Hobby Lobby. Mayor Towey also announced that Councilmember Dempsey received a certificate of municipal leadership from the Association of Washington Cities for completing more than thirty hours of training in such areas as budgeting, land use planning, personnel, safety and leadership. Mayor Towey also extended congratulations to Parks and Recreation Director Stone and his staff for the article in the National Parks and Recreation magazine about our Discovery Playground. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Valerie Dunn, 11610 East Frederick Ave: expressed concern and asked why regulations would prevent keeping chickens in residential areas, and she asked what could be done to change that; she said regulations allow keeping twenty -five beehives but not chickens. Attorney Driskell said that staff will look at options and report back to Ms. Dunn and to council, and said that in the past, we heard many complaints about chickens running loose in other people's yards. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues — Ken Thompson Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. and invited Finance Director Thompson to the podium. Mr. Thompson explained that the purpose of tonight's public hearing on the 2011 estimated revenues and expenditures, as is required by state statutes, is to allow members of the public an opportunity to comment on what the government is proposing for property and other taxes; he explained that the ordinance to be passed later this year will be to adopt the 2011 budget; that we expect our assessed value to be approximately $7.1 billion but a final number won't be available from the County until late December or early January. Mr. Thompson said projections are difficult this year as we have had strong assessed value increases over the last few years, and said he expects to see some appeals which will continue to lower that assessed value number; he said this assessed value would result in $1.54 tax rate for our residents, but again that number is subject to change. Regarding property taxes, Mr. Thompson said we expect our property tax levy to be down about $100,000 which is a decrease of 1 %. Director Thompson said the overall city budget is an estimated $62 million, which is down considerably from last year; he said in prior years we took the ending balance in each fund and included that in the budget's expenditure total, which was confusing, so we are not including that ending fund balance. He said there is a significant decrease in capital revenues by approximately $5 million, which he said is primarily because there is less state and federal funds to help with such things as streets and parks. He said the property tax levy would be less; and he again cautioned that these numbers could change over time. Mr. Thompson also mentioned there will be two public hearings on the budget during September; and explained that there will be more money shown in the projections for 2014, that there was a concern previously that there could be a deficit in 2014, but the ending fund balance number has come up dramatically because of budget reductions, which he said Mr. Jackson will elaborate on further during his September 7 presentation of the Preliminary Budget. As per his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Thompson explained the drop in revenues and expenses, and said that the eight or nine vacant staff positions were dropped from the budget which resulted in a savings of Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW approximately $350,000, and with an overall savings of approximately $1 million; and we added in $45,000 for council broadcasting, he said what we pay for retirement for our employees will also increase but we are unsure of the exact amount and have added $100,000 to build a fund for that purpose, adding that costs are shared by employee and employer per state law. Mr. Thompson said there are two initiatives dealing with the state liquor laws slated for the November ballot which could roll back some of the revenues we receive from the state if those initiatives are passed. Mr. Thompson mentioned that information available in tonight's council packet and for the public that contains figures from last year's costs, the budget numbers for the current year, and our projections for next year. Mayor Towey invited public comments. Arne Woodward, 2511 S Best Rd, said he is an area real estate broker: said he attended most of the budget retreat and he encouraged council to cut into the budget further or reduce the growth further than the proposed 3 %, he said he realizes budget projections for annual growth are normally 7 %, and this means we are still growing at 4 %; he said his business is down 75 %; and nationally real estate dropped 27% in July; he said his household budget has been cut in half and to see the city still growing at 4% concerns him, he said the City Manager and Finance Director have done a fabulous job but said he feels there is some delayed slowing of income coming, much faster than what 3% will adjust; and said if there is too much money we could always put it back into the roads, but said he feels the budget needs to be cut or the expenses need to be slowed down faster than what is projected; and said we are not anticipating the lack of growth of funds and recommends a bigger cut than the 3 %. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Gothmann said using Mr. Thompson's figures, the general fund income for 2010 was $35.1 million, for 2011 is $34.487 million which is a reduction in income of $678,000; and the expenditures went from $35.7 million to $34.875 million for a reduction of $501,000. He said from 2010 to 2011, the income decreases as well as the expenditures. Councilmember Grassel asked if we are basing the 2011 figures from the 2010 budget, and said there was discussion at the retreat about going back to the 2009 figures as those are more realistic figures. Councilmember Gothmann said the figures he used were 2010 budget and the 2011 proposed budget. Councilmember Grafos said in looking at the 2009 actual budget and expenditures, there is an increase from 2009 to 2010 and now the 2011. Councilmember Grassel expressed her concern with the budget and whether 3% is a strong enough reduction for the coming years, and said she doesn't want to be in a position like the City of Spokane or other cities where they have to make drastic reductions instead of slowing down; she said we could look at everything including the legislative branch and perhaps even freeze all travel expenses so Council would not go to conferences; and said that everything should be on the table and everything and every department should be considered; and said we are focused on too many street capital projects and not enough on preservation and maintenance, which if not addressed, every dollar we spend now could be $8.00 in the future, so she is concerned we are not cutting enough and not directing the money to actual road projects that are needed versus road projects that are wanted. Councilmember Dempsey asked Mr. Jackson if there is enough room in the budget now, that if the "bottom falls out of everything and we see dire things happening," do we have room that we can back off at that point or do we need to act now. Mr. Jackson said what we have presented is first year initial cuts, realizing that it is not good fiscal practice to continue basic operations with our reserves, but said we are anticipating $24 million in reserves against a general fund of $34 million in expenditures, and said we are therefore in a very solid, secure financial position; and said we can look at additional cuts, but said that we have proposed 3% reductions, and reductions in the positions, and as we come back next year and see what the economy does, we can then project into 2012 and decide if further cuts are warranted at that time, he said we want to conserve our ending fund balance and don't want to spend it on basic operations, but considering the current economy, and that those funds were set aside for such economic times, we can use those funds to offset revenues for at least the first year, and that leaving $24 million in reserves is a reasonable amount; he said council can make additional cuts, and that his objective, as he mentioned at the July retreat, is to be as closely aligned Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : MW as possible with council when he submits the budget to council for adoption. Mr. Jackson stressed that the difference between us and other cities is they don't have $24 million in reserves and other cities are already looking at a lack of revenue to fund their operations next year. Councilmember Gothmann said there were two budgets goals, one of which is to maintain a 15% reserve balance at the end of the year 2014; and we just heard from Finance Director Thompson it appears we will exceed that goal significantly; and that we want to maintain our contingency reserves of about $5.4 million; and based on those goals, that is what the administration proposed and it appears we will meet and exceed those goals. Councilmember Grafos said he feels the budget is going in the right direction and he is pleased with the 3% and wished there would be more, and said he would like to see a way to have a target by placing another line item in the general fund for roads and to perhaps pull $1 million from this budget for that purpose and not use the general fund for operating the city but work toward a road preservation fund. Councilmember Grassel agreed and asked Mr. Jackson is instead of relying on the capital budget can we direct monies from the general fund for that purpose; and Mr. Jackson said council can do that, but with this uncertain economy, this is a good time to hold onto our reserves; but if council wants to, could divert perhaps $500,000 to that fund, but he recommend holding onto those reserves. Mr. Jackson mentioned we also have the civic facilities fund which might be a better first choice for capital projects, or to see what grants are available for capital projects; adding that it has been rare that the City has funded 100% of capital projects. Councilmember Grassel asked if what Mr. Grafos was asking was to put a line item in the general fund for road preservation, and not taking anything out of the reserves; and Councilmember Grafos agreed and said it would be a set -side fund. Mr. Jackson said we could do that but we would actually put the money in the capital projects or in the street fund and not in the general fund just because of the way it's coded. There being no further discussion, Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Text Amendment CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Use Expansion — Cary Driskell Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. and invited Attorney Driskell to the podium. Acting City Attorney Driskell explained that the purpose of this hearing is to gather input on a proposal to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.20.060 allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses in certain circumstances, he explained the background of this proposal as noted in his August 24, 2010 Request for Council Action form. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Stan Schultz, Attorney at Law, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake, Wa said he represents Hite Crane. Mr. Schultz asked that his previous comments on this topic be incorporated into these proceedings; he said he and his client are in favor of the proposed amendment as it solves several problems previously discussed; and said he feels it is remarkable for a government to solve a problem in a way that is effective, efficient and provides safeguards; and said this can right some wrongs in the formulation of a new zoning code, and will allow people to continue with their business and in particular, Hite Crane will be able to move to its new facility and keep his thirty employees. Mr. Schultz said there are sufficient safeguards with the Community Development Director administering this ordinance; and said these kinds of permits will be just like short plats, binding site plans, floodplain permits and other permits which are all issued by the administrator, he said if this becomes controversial, the public has the right to appeal those administrator decisions to a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember McCaslin asked Mr. Schultz if he knows of any cities in their comprehensive plan, where they do not have nonconforming uses; and Mr. Schultz said no, and said that comp plan tends to get revised about every twenty years; and as trends become more popular, there are efforts by planners and municipalities to adopt those trends so their land use codes can be more modern, and in the course of doing that, he said you always create situations where there are nonconforning uses; and sometimes where a totally new code is adopted, like this mixed use classification, those can result in 50 -60% nonconformity on the date it is adopted; and the idea is that over time, those nonconforming uses come into confornity at some point. Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm Dick Behm, 9405 E. Sprague Avenue: said he hopes the zoning problems for the Elephant Boys and Mr. Hite can be resolved; and per his distributed letter, explained that he still has concerns about bypassing the conditional use process and said that sometimes hasty decisions have unforeseen consequences, and explained that the Conditional Use Process requires a hearing before the Hearing Examiner and all affected citizens and landowners are notified of this hearing and have the opportunity to testify as to their concerns or support of a proposed change, and the proponent has the opportunity to present their plans. He said that the hearing examiner renders his decision, and it is a very fair process and all concerns are addressed, and said he has been involved in several of those hearings; and said that Mr. Dempsey [the Hearing Examiner] is fair in his decisions and it takes the burden off the community development director, because no matter what her decision, she will be the bad person. In reading from his letter, he said that the expansion of nonconforming use onto adjacent property without applying for a conditional use pen is denying the citizens the right to express their concerns on how such use might affect their property or lifestyle. This decision will affect all nonconforming property in the city. Although in this case it doesn't apply to residential areas, why'? He said there are many nonconforming uses that could be affected, now and in the future. Without going through the Conditional Use Permitting process, anyone could expand onto adjacent property without informing their neighbors or allowing them to object. The same is true of repair shops and other types of businesses in residential or business areas which would be mixed use zoning which allows residential; so expansion of a business next to a residential property in the mixed -use zoning would have a negative effect. Why would the council give a special privilege to commercial areas and not residential areas? Evervone should be treated the same. I don't believe the council has considered all the unintended consequences of allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses in certain circumstances. You may be opening the door to many future problems. That is why the Conditional Use Permitting process is so important; and it takes the burden off Council and staff and lets the Hearing Examiner make the decision, and it could go back to council and from there it could be appealed to court; and said it is a good and reliable process, and gets rid of questions thrown at council about how to proceed. What is the appeal process if the City Community Development Director makes the decision; it is important for the citizens to know and understand; do they then appeal to the Hearing Examiner or appeal back to the City Council; and then he said, we are going in a circle. He said the decision council makes has great consequences and he asked that Council consider it carefully; and said he supports Mr. Hite and the Elephant Boys. Todd Whipple, with Whipple Consulting Engineers, 2528 N Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley said had this been in place previously, the Elephant Boys' situation would not have occurred; and he said he feels this is the perfect example of why this ordinance for nonconforming use on an adjacent property is appropriate and pertinent, especially when you consider properties within the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Project, he said in business sometimes location is everything, but it is very difficult right now in many areas to expand a business, and as a business owner the first thing is not whether the owner can go next door, but they just know they are going to expand; and now the process would be to go to the city and discover you can't expand. He said his client Mr. Douglass owns twenty -four properties within the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan, and is one of the largest owners within the plan, and that they wrote a document against this. He said it was a situation where they knew things would happen and when he talked to council he talked about the need for businesses to have flexibility, and said had this been in place before, Elephant Boys would have moved their boats eleven feet and not been in a situation where they had to appeal a decision by the Community Development Director to Superior Court, and he said that is the appellant process, to get an attorney and go to court. He said his motion in court has been stayed while this process moves forward. Gary Hite, 4323 E. Broadway, Spokane Valley said he was given over by the prior Council to the City of Spokane, and said he is not sure he really is in the valley; to refresh memories, said he was given to the City- of Spokane so they could pursue him for eminent domain to force him to move from his location of forty years; at the hearings for that, he said the legal council was asked if the Valley Council had actually Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW enforced an eminent domain and the answer was no, and said that is the case to -date, he said his new location is not the question of this hearing, but rather the question is the adjacent property that he also purchased at the same time to have enough room to continue to operate his business; and he commended this council for their decision at the last vote to allow him to pursue his business in the new location. Dwight Hume, the applicant, 9101 N Mountain View Lane, Spokane, 99218: he said before council tonight is option 1, which is the administrative decision process rather than the conditional use, but since that issue has arisen, said he wanted to clarify some mistakes in the letter that was given to council earlier tonight. Mr. Hume said the conditional use process is only appealable to court; that it is a very time consuming process and involves the application fee in additional to hiring land use attorneys along with expenses incurred by the city, and said he is sure the application fee is not fully recovered for staff s time; and said it is far better when an administrative decision can be made versus a conditional use pen yet still has the safety valves as it can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, while the conditional use doesn't do that as it goes straight to court; and he said the conditional use pennits he does are nonnally approved as most neighborhoods don't want to spend the money to go to court; and he urged council's approval. He said the administrative criteria is about the same criteria that would be written for the hearing examiner if there were public hearings; and said that reasonable minds can figure that out and make their decision, and send out a notice and if the neighbors don't like it they can ask for a hearing; and that is a lot more fair then going to court. There being no further public comments, Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 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 8/02/2010 5075 — 5108 (Park Refunds) $3,154.50 8/10/2010 3249 —3251, 20760 —2076 $207 336.91 8/13/2010 20764 —20848,7 805100010 $1 843 036.37 8/13/2010 20849 —20851 $205.00 8/17/2010 3266 — 3 1268 $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 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 4. Second Readiniz Probosed Ordinance CTA 04 -10. Nonconforming Uses — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060, allowing the expansion of non- conforming uses in certain circumstances. Attorney Driskell noted that the public hearing was held, and public testimony given. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Gothmann remarked that the method selected wherein the Community Development Director is the administrator, he noted that Director cannot provide mitigation, whereas the conditional use process does allow that; and said this ordinance affects the entire city and all nonconforming uses; and said that 100% of the adult shops are nonconforming uses; he said if a business is nonconforming that means that business has been deemed through the Comprehensive Plan to be incompatible with the Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW business or land next to it; and this use in this case is an industrial use and is adjacent to residences and to a school as well as to other businesses. Councilmember Gothmann said it was pointed out it would be an imposition for citizens to appeal to the Hearing Examiner without a conditional use permit and the question asked of why should we provide that imposition to our citizens; but Councilmember Gothmann said why would we not provide the conditional use permit process to citizens so they can know what's going on, and said that is what open government is about; so that those who would be affected would receive notification for such proposal. Councilmember McCaslin said he is very positive about this and the more "Hites" we can get out here the better off we will be. Councilmember Dempsey said she has mixed feelings on this as part of her wonders what people will say in twenty years; but on the other hand, Mr. Hite needs a place to go and the community needs his services; but the matter of unintended consequences is also at hand, but said she will support this. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayan Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos and Dempsey. Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2011 Property Tax Levy — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance levying the regular property taxes for the year 2011 to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson said this is the first reading of the property tax ordinance for the 2011 budget, and the expected assessed valuation of $7.1 billion should result in a property tax rate of $1.54 per $1,000 of assessed value. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Property Tax Confirmation — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance confirming a 1% decrease from the property tax levy to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained that state stipulates that a separate ordinance must be passed when increasing the property tax levy and that same procedure must be used when decreasing a tax levy. In response to Mayor Towey's question, Mr. Thompson confirmed that this is the first time this city has ever decreased the property tax. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Thompson if this is reversing the property tax increase put in by the prior council last year and stating there was a fiscal emergency at that time and this increase was needed. Mr. Thompson said Mr. Grafos is correct, except this decreases it less than what it was increased. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 07 -10 Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance amending SVMC 19.110 to a second reading. Planner Janssen explained the proposed amendment to the Subarea Plan to allow vehicle sales as a conditional use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone, which sales were previously prohibited. Councilmember McCaslin asked why vehicles sales are not allowed between those "circled" areas as shown on the accompanying PowerPoint. Ms. Janssen explained that at the time the Plan was written, the intent was to focus auto sales in the auto row area and to make that a "destination" for auto sales; but as the economy changed, this was proposed. Mayor Towey invited public comments. Todd Whipple, 2528 N Sullivan said he supports this proposed amendment, and said this mimics a proposal they brought forward earlier which is the privately initiated amendment currently on hold; he said when he started the original process, they focused on mixed -use commercial zone as they tried to solve a specific problem, which was actually addressed by the ordinance previously adopted concerning Mr. Hite's property and adjacent nonconforming uses. Regarding applying this amendment to the entire Sprague /Appleway revitalization Plan, Mr. Whipple said possibly it should, as the intent for this is it is Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm hard to see a building, for example a restaurant, that goes vacant for a year due to economic conditions, that can't be a restaurant again since restaurants were a nonconforming use in that specific zone; and said they had proposed the conditional use process, which was intended to give a nonconforming use which wanted to occupy an existing building, go through the process and make it palatable to the overall community; and said the way the plan is written, the City and the Planning Commission has "kicked the property owners in the head." He said the intent when this came forward was to allow property owners to keep their people in there and get some rent and have flexibility, and said that was the reason why he proposed the conditional use permit. Councilmember Grafos said what Mr. Whipple is saying is that on the vehicle sales, it was a way to make the vehicle sales more palatable to the city by proposing a conditional use permit, but now is saying he doesn't believe it necessary to go through that Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Whipple responded yes and no; said he sees the value in the conditional use process and sees the expediency without it; and whether a conditional use permit is required is a decision for council. Planner Janssen said to clarify through the conditional use permit process, the neighbors are notified of the proposal and the hearing examiner can impose additional conditions to help mitigate any impacts the development might have to neighboring properties; whereas the Community Development Director would review the proposal for adherence to the underlining zoning criteria, but cannot add additional conditions or change any development regulations. Councilmember Gothmann said this came about because one property owner's view of their own business was blocked by another property owner's business; and said we have never heard from the property owner regarding the obstruction; so this boils down to a disagreement between two property owners who are side -by -side; and seems the conditional use permit would be a good way of providing arbitration; and said he has a problem with allowing autos in mixed use zones as that is supposed to be for residential or business but not such things as industrial; which he said leads to the question of would an auto dealer be appropriate in the middle of a residential neighborhood; and said he understands the reasoning behind the original concept of excluding those sales. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 8. Motion Consideration: Sending Items to Planning Commission (Neighborhood Center) — Mike Basinger It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded 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. Senior Planner Basinger explained the background of this issue, as done at the August 10, 2010 council meeting; and said at that August 10 meeting, Council requested more information on uses no longer allowed in the Neighborhood Center Zone, and he referenced his attachment A which summarizes those uses, including the eight uses which became nonconforming with the implementation of the 2007 zoning regulations and added that there are currently only four nonconforming uses in the Neighborhood Center zone. Mr. Basinger said that at the July 22 Community Meeting, Mr. Owsley, a representative for the Pring Corporation, expressed concerns about the HiCo business at the intersection of Mullen and Sprague and the specific concerns to allowing service stations and secondary uses such as a Laundromat, car wash and /or lubrication shop. In light of those concerns, Mr. Basinger said staff was directed to prepare and process a text amendment to the Subarea plan; and said the proposed code amendment would allow service stations and /or convenient stores as permitted uses, and secondary uses such as car washes, laundry mats, and lubrication shops in the Neighborhood Zones. Regarding the other uses not allowed in the Neighborhood Center zone, Mr. Basinger said staff recommends we follow the precedence of mitigating issues for properties and business owners when possible, as is being done for the HiCo Village, and addressing other issues including uses in the Neighborhood Center zones through the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mayor Towev invited public comment. Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm Dick Behin, 9405 E. Sprague Avenue: said he favors this; said he spoke at the referenced public meeting and said the Neighborhood Center from Argonne to Willow is too small and is already built out; and said he would like to see that particular neighborhood center extended to Farr Road to encourage development in that area; and he asked council to consider that proposal. Mr. Basinger said expansion of the neighborhood centers would be handled through the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process; and said that Mr. Behm's specific proposal is a map proposal, and the only time the Comprehensive Plan map can be changed, is through that annual comprehensive amendment process. Councilmember Dempsey asked how such a proposal could be initiated, and City Manager Jackson said council can place this on the agenda for the comp plan review; and Mr. Basinger said that this is already in the docket; that all the issues that have come up during this subarea process in terms of comp plan amendments, have been included in the docket and they will all automatically be addressed. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 9. Motion Consideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal — Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to 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. Acting City Attorney Driskell said the original interlocal was agreed to in 2003, and today's product is the result of considerable negotiations over 2009 and 2010. Mayor Towey invited public comment, no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 10. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) — Mayor Towey_ Mayor Towey said council has been discussing this for some time now, and the question before Council is this does council support a regional TBD, a city -TBD, or neither; and does this Council favor sending a letter to the Board of County Commissioners authorizing them to move forward with the interlocal agreement with the end result of this Council ratifying the agreement and moving forward, and he opened discussion to council for their preferences. Councilmember Gothmann suggested moving forward with the regional district; he said there is a formation of organizations that do a good job of informing the public of what's going on, and that alone, we don't have that resource, but added we would like to make sure we have some control over what fees are assessed, perhaps by asking for support from all organizations by using the 70% rule or other method. Councilmember McCaslin said he feels if we join the regional concept, we lose our identity and authority, and said he wants the independence to make decisions that will benefit the city, and Councilmember Grafos agreed and said we should just do the local TBD, that our staff has been successful in getting funds for these big projects and he feels now is not the time to do this. Councilmember Dempsey said she remembers the citizen revolt against the car tabs several years ago and she fears this is just the beginning; that if we step into this we lose our control and our authority and said she is not sure this is the best step for Spokane Valley. Mayor Towey agreed that we would have control at the local level, but we don't know what the regional proposal or the interlocal looks like as the language is not finalized, and the 70/30 split is still up for discussion, he proposed sending a letter to the Board of County Commissioners encouraging the County to proceed with the interlocal so we know exactly what it is we would be deciding. Councilmember McCaslin said he is opposed to the concept. City Manager Jackson reminded council that tonight we are looking for discussion so that staff can construct a motion for the next council meeting, including sending a letter asking them to proceed with the interlocal for future consideration by our council, but those decisions can be made by council's motion and subsequent vote at an upcoming meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm said the interlocal draft is a revision based on input from those moving toward the regional funding; and said he prefers to be in a position of being on the inside looking out instead of the reverse, said he feels we owe the County a letter and the process has to start with someone, that it will be a long process, and said we need to remember that the question of funding would be put to the voters. The majority of councilmembers favored moving forward with a future motion and letter. 11. Industrial Pretreatment Interlocal Re ag rdin a Portion of Yardley — Cary Driskell Attorney Driskell explained that the City of Spokane Valley does not provide sewer service but rather receives those services from Spokane County; he said Spokane City also provides sewer service to a small section of Yardley for a small number of industrial users; that if we do not enter into an interlocal with the City of Spokane, they advise they will not be able to accept any sewer effluent from us as it would violate the terms of the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit. Further, he explained Spokane County and Spokane City recently executed an interlocal in which they adopted similar industrial pre - treatment sewer standards, that agreement includes most of our city except for that small area in Yardley; and under that interlocal, Spokane County has administrative responsibility for discharging into the sewer system. Mr. Driskell said one of the requirements of the proposed interlocal is that we would be required to adopt a pretreatment code by reference; and he said staff recommends we adopt Spokane County's code, which is identical to Spokane City's, and in this way it would preclude a situation where there are two different standards in our city. Mr. Driskell said Spokane County and Spokane City agree that adoption of Spokane County's standards is appropriate. Councilmember McCaslin asked about section 2A of the proposed agreement where it states: "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" and said he preferred using the County Prosecutor's Office. Mr. Driskell said he could have further discussion with the County Prosecutor's Office, but they didn't seem anxious about taking on these services. Other councilmembers agreed to keep the statement as is. This item will come back before council for approval of an interlocal, as well as an amendment to our City Code, adopting the County's standards by reference . 12. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Projects — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten distributed information he received last week concerning two calls for projects from SRTC; one project for Transportation Enhancement grants due September 10, and the other for CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation /Air Quality) Grants, due September 24. Mr. Kersten said the enhancement projects are funded 100% with no local match required, and explained that these grants are limited in scope and are typically used for transportation - related activities, and can include such things as biking facilities, historical preservation, and corridors, and said we don't have any of those types of projects ready and said doing a detailed cost analysis for engineering, right -of -way and design are all fairly involved and difficult to get accomplished within the next few weeks. For the enhancement projects, he explained that while we are not required to have council approval for these, Mr. Kersten said he wanted to keep Council briefed, he said the CMAQ projects allocate $3.5 million for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle with a local match of 13.5% required for most projects, except 20% match for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and said the competition will be heavy for these funds. The flashing yellow arrows were discussed and Mr. Kersten said we have received some energy grant money; and said that the flashing arrow located at Dishman and 16 has been received very well and staff has received many positive phone calls as the light enables smooth traffic flow. There were no objections from council to proceed. 13. Advance Agend Councilmember Dempsey suggested having a council fleldtrip to visit all sections of the city in order to get a better understanding of some of the problems of the specific areas, and so that all councilmembers could see the problems at the same time. Mayor Towey indicated his support of that idea, and to have a few staff as well to explain some of the issues they are working with. City Manager Jackson said he will Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 : •YW visit with department heads and put together a draft schedule for council's consideration. Deputy Mayor Schimmels mentioned the previous town hall /community meetings which were held when this city first incorporated, and several councilmembers indicated their willingness to consider those meetings as well, to perhaps hold meetings at Mirabeau Park, Mission Park, Edgeclift, and other areas. Councilmember Grassel asked if we have complied with the 60 -day comp plan notification regulations, and City Clerk Bainbridge responded that those notices have been sent to the newspapers and will be sent again periodically in an effort to reach as many citizens as possible. Councilmember Grassel also asked about the idea of having more river access points and of having a whitewater park in the Valley, and said the Convention Visitor's Bureau Board said the river is a "real marketing tool" for this area. Mr. Jackson said he and Parks and Recreation Director Stone will get together to consider those ideas. INFORMATION ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported or discussed: (14) Centerplace Leases; (15) State Legislative Initiatives; (16) Department Reports. 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 4230.110(i)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately fifteen minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:55 p.m. At 9:16 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session. It was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:16. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mavor Council Regular Meeting 8 -24 -2010 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 1 :: MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington September 7, 2010 Attendance: 6:00 p.m. Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Absent: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. At the Mayor's request, City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember Dempsey. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously approved to excuse Councilmember Dempsey from tonight's meeting. 1. Social Service Agencies, Outside Grants — Ken Thompson Mayor Towey explained that each year Spokane Valley has been providing grant assistance to public service agencies and economic development agencies; and tonight we will hear from the fourteen public service agencies who submitted a proposal, and said the economic development agencies are scheduled to present next week. Finance Director Thompson added that if Council decides to fund Community Minded TV, their money would come from a different fund. Representatives from the following agencies gave brief presentations to explain their proposed funding requests: (a) Spokane County Animal Protection Services, aka SCRAPS; requesting $35,000 to purchase rugged vehicle laptops for Animal Protection Vehicles, said they would appreciate any help as any funding would at least get the project started. (b) Big Brothers /Big Sisters; requesting $5,000 to use for mentor background checks and screenings, orientation and training, staff salaries, support services to sustain matching beyond the twelve -month period, said with mentors, the at -risk children are less likely to be involved with unsavory issues. (c) Changepoint; requesting $5,000 for educational advertising expenses such as signs, brochure, posters, billboards, press and media to educate the public that there is a better way to help those in need other than panhandling. Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 1 of 12 Approved by Council: UIFT.-TM (d) Coalition of the Responsible Disabled; requesting $13,472 for staff salary, rent and utilities, phone /intemet, mileage and administrative costs for the CORD program, which is people with disabilities working with and serving people with disabilities. (e) Community Minded Television (CMTV); requesting $50,133; said he understands the funds he is requesting if approved, would come from the PEG (Public, Education and Government) Funds, that the funds would be used to record, edit and broadcast programs; and to purchase office furniture. (f) Eastpoint Church; requesting $1,400 to purchase two laptops to aid in their single - parent computer training, for creating resumes, applying for jobs, checking their child's grades online and communicating with teachers. (g) Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council; requesting $10,000 for advertising, supplies and transportation for their Spokane Valley Youth Leading Change Project. (h) Project Access; requesting $20,000 for pharmaceuticals, durable medical equipment, transportation services, translation services, and operation costs; and mentioned that the need has increased significantly due to the current economy. (i) Spokane Soccer Club; while materials indicate a request for $50,000 funding, their request is actually for $15,000 for scholarships to kids living in the Spokane Valley; and said they hope to benefit approximately 60 children with the funding. 0) Spokane Valley Arts Council; requesting $10,000 which includes insurance, artist showcase, administrative support, website maintenance, brochures, mailing, printing and $1,000 for the bronze sculpture placement. (k) Spokane Valley Heritage Museum; requesting $2,190 for an office computer to support the large searchable database, including a scanner, external hard drive, disk and printer. (1) Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels; requesting $7,500 to assist in their meals to senior citizens of the City of Spokane Valley; and said participants report that the program helps them remain in their own home and improves their overall health. (m) Spokane Valley Partners; requesting $30,000 to provide comprehensive social and emergency services to low income households, seniors in need, and families facing temporary setbacks; and said their Valley food bank is the largest in Spokane County and serves over 1,000 families monthly. (n) Starlight Children's Foundation; requesting $14,500 to support their Foundations Hospital Happenings and Great Escapes Programs in Spokane County; that program provides outings, entertainment, and recreational activities for hospitalized children and their families. In summary, Finance Director Thompson reiterated about the potential PEG funding for Community Minded TV, said the economic development agencies are scheduled to present next week, and a motion for funding allocation is scheduled for the September 28 council meeting. 2. Code Text Amendments: Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zone Districts — Lori Barlow and Greiz McCormick Via her PowerPoint presentation, Planner Barlow explained the history of the proposed text amendment as per previous council direction that staff begin a review of each zone contained in the Subarea plan; she said each zone was overviewed by Council, which was followed by a public meeting for citizens and Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 2 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, property owners within the zoning districts, as a result of the public meeting and citizen input, staff determined which amendments could be addressed through the Planning Commission or which would require a comprehensive plan amendment. Planner Barlow gave a summary of the eight proposed amendments, which include (1) modify maximum setbacks, (2) modify minimum building frontage coverage requirement , (3) allow limited office uses to the two gateway districts, (4) exempt vehicle sales from the maximum front setback and minimum building coverage regulations, (5) increase wall sign area from 15% to 25 %, (6) allow wall signs above the first floor, (7) increase the number of pole signs allowed for dual frontage lots and allow on any street, and (8) clarify regulations applicable to accessory structures; and she mentioned that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal to allow wall signs above the first floor; and she said emphasized that these proposals are for these two districts only, that the comprehensive plan is very specific about the form of the gateway commercial center zoning district and relates the gateway commercial avenue zoning district to that, so that gives a little more flexibility. Planning Manager McCormick added that there is another code amendment batch coming later to the Planning Commission and then to Council, which addresses concerns about existing developments and when those have to be brought into compliance and what triggers that. Councilmember Gothmann said that the reason for this Gateway Commercial Center is because members of Auto Row came to council and said they wanted an area where they could have entertainment, restaurants, etc., and have it a walkable community, and he said you can't have a walkable community with 100' setbacks alongside other establishments with no setback, and said since that time, it has been apparent that they are not now interested in having a Gateway Commercial Center and the most effective way to handle that would be to eliminate the Gateway Commercial Center through the comp plan amendment process; and said in the interim, we are stuck with what Auto Row initially wanted, e.g. a walkable center. After explaining the remaining proposed amendments, Planner Barlow asked for Council's preference in moving forward with a first reading. Councilmember McCaslin asked if these recommendations are public or staff - driven; and City Manager Jackson said they are public driven based on the recently conducted meeting, and Planner Barlow confirmed that these are as a result of the direct meeting process and Mr. Jackson said a transcript of each meeting has been supplied to council. Concerning the 15 versus 25% frontage, Councilmember Gothmann said that in their Central Business District, Light and Heavy Industrial and General Commercial Districts, Spokane City allows 1.5 square foot per one foot of primary building wall or 15% of the primary wall, whichever is greater; and that the County requires wall signs "permitted on each wall of the building provided the wall sign does not exceed 25% of the total area of the wall or a maximum of 250 sq ft, whichever provides the smaller area ;" and he confirmed with Ms. Barlow that 25% would be the only limitation, not a percentage and a limitation of square feet. Councilmember Grafos said he would like all these text amendments moved forward to a first reading; and on the wall signs, he would like to modify that so that they would be allowed on the second floor, and when asked for the rationale for that regulation, Planner Barlow explained that the regulation was put in place as a tool to advance the pedestrian character, which is the concern of members of the Planning Commission; and said if you are in an automobile you might look for signs up higher, but in a pedestrian oriented area, the wall signage would be appropriately lower so as to be easier seen by those walking by. Mayor Towey also voiced his preference to move this forward as a first reading and not to restrict the wall signs to the first floor. Councilmember McCaslin asked about adding specific language to address sign regulations that might be regulated by franchise requirements of auto dealers; and City Attorney Driskell suggested exercising caution in drafting such a concept regarding a contract that others might enter into, and having that drive the city's regulations, and suggested such would require further research. Councilmember Grafos said since Council will be addressing the text amendment, it would easy to allow wall signs on the second floor if that is this Council's desire; and Mayor Towey agreed, stating that the more Council can let businesses run their business without council interference, the better; and having a sign on the first floor is better for foot traffic, but we don't know when or if, that foot traffic will arrive; Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 3 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, and he feels it is best for the City and best for the businesses to let businesses decide where to put their signs. Councilmember McCaslin concurred with allowing signs on floors other than the first floor. Planning Manager McCormick said what has been done in the past, was to bring forward the ordinance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and if there are changes, those can be made prior to the second reading; and Mr. Jackson concurred. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and seconded to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, and Gothmann. Opposed: CouncilmemberMcCaslin. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Presentation of Preliminary Budget — Mike Jackson In delivering the 2011 Proposed, Preliminary Budget, City Manager Jackson brought attention to the two new pages of budget revisions, that page six had a change to the final paragraph concerning employee count, and office assistant one at the bottom of page 77 had an incorrect salary range. Mr. Jackson also brought attention to the Mayor's spreadsheet showing the changes in budget areas over the years. Mr. Jackson said we have been working for quite some time on this budget, including spending an entire day July 13 on just the budget. Mr. Jackson said the good news is that the City is in very sound financial condition; that we can balance our 2011 budget and have healthy ending fund reserves now and through the 2014 forecast, even though at one time there was a negative forecast for the 2014 budget projections; and said staff has found ways to eliminate that negative projection for 2014. Mr. Jackson said there are some future challenges, but we are not facing drastic cuts nor are we looking for ways to balance the 2011 budget. Mr. Jackson said one of the main things that came as a result of the budget retreat, were the fiscal policies, which he said he feels are fairly straight forward, but not to be taken lightly, because if we adhere to these policies, we will ensure a balanced budget far into the future. Mr. Jackson went over the policies' highlights, and he added that we have a pay -as- you -go philosophy; and said we currently only use 1.63% of our allowable debt capacity, which is $526 million by state law; and our current debt is approximately $8.3 million, the majority of which is CenterPlace, funded through the public facilities district. Mr. Jackson said we are almost debt free. Mr. Jackson said the first financial objective is to maintain a general fund ending balance of 15% of revenues through 2014; and we are currently projecting to end 2011 with $24 million, which is about a 70% carryover, which Mr. Jackson said, is outstanding. In 2011, Mr. Jackson said we are proposing to use about $500,000 or 2% of that $24 million carryover to balance our 2011 budget, which is a very conservative use of the citv's reserves. In examining the 2014 forecast, Mr. Jackson said that was originally showing a negative ending balance number, but at the retreat, Council asked that all vacant staff positions be removed from the budget, which by carrying those changes through, results in an approximate $10 million ending fund balance for 2014. Mr. Jackson said if we use some of the reserves through 2014 to help balance the budget, we would end up with about a 30% carryover at the end of 2014, which is about double the 15% objective set. Mr. Jackson said that council also asked that we maintain the existing service level stabilization fund at $5.4 million through 2014, and the plans are not to use any of those reserves. Mr. Jackson said the commitment was to reduce the 2010 general fund expenditures by 3% and staff, including the police chief, is working toward that goal, which will be reviewed at the end of the year. Mr. Jackson said discussion was held to cut future objectives by at least 3 %, and we have currently reduced the 2011 expenditures by 5 %. Mr. Jackson said we will face challenges in funding future capital projects, funding parks projects, and in supporting the street master plan and being able to fund all the preservations to maintain city streets, but those are items we can work on in the future, and he said we are fortunate we can balance our current fund while we continue to look for ways to fund street projects. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that Council had asked that we look at Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 4 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, setting aside some reserves as a street reserve, so staff initiated a $500,000 street reserve fund, and said staff is proposing to fund that through the city's civic facilities fund. Mr. Jackson said he realizes some Councilmembers had hoped to achieve even greater reductions, but he explained that the combined savings with the 2010 expected reductions along with the estimated 2011 reductions total about $2.8 million in savings, which he said he feels is a serious effort to trim spending; and said one of the major ways to achieve that is to remove many of the vacant positions from the budget, adding if the economy picks up in the future resulting in citizens' need for additional services, staff may be back before council to add those positions. Mr. Jackson brought Council's attention to page 67 which shows the street reserves, and said that fund cannot be changed without further council consideration, adding that it is accidentally misnamed on the sheet as "total parks capital projects fund." Mr. Jackson said Council also reduced the property tax for 2011 by about $100,000; and while the amount might not be significant, he said the action to recognize the current hard economic times for our citizens by reducing the property tax is well received. Mr. Jackson said the figure projections through 2014 projects for a flat economy, and if it dips or improves, adjustments can be made accordingly. Councilmember McCaslin asked about the position of city attorney; and Mr. Jackson said that is a position under review, and he is not recommending that position be removed from the budget and said want to examine the workload more closely. Councilmember McCaslin said the budget could be changed by a policy decision, and Mr. Jackson confirmed that the funds could be removed from the budget. Councilmember McCaslin asked then, provided the funds are there, does Mr. Jackson intend to fill that position. Mr. Jackson said prior to his advertising for a City Attorney, he will communicate further with Council. Under the public safety category for next year, City Manager Jackson said even with the $1.3 million increase in those costs, the budget for public safety has only increased about $100,000; which is because we had $1 million contingency in 2010 which we don't expect to spend unless there is a "settle and adjust" and he said some funds were spent on a jail reconciliation, but in 2011 we would expect to spend those reserves to meet the needs of the public safety budget; and said rather than increase the budget and retain those reserves, we intend to spend those to meet the contract obligations. Mr. Jackson noted in the challenges section (page 4) that our grant opportunities are declining substantially; that we typically receive about 80% project funding from outside sources, and in 2011 we are projecting to receive about 51% from outside sources, primarily grants. He explained that as those projects pickup, the city will face a challenge in meeting grant matches as the REET (real estate excise tax) is down considerably; he said REET funds have been used in the past to fund the majority of our match for capital projects. Regarding local street maintenance, Mr. Jackson said we receive funding from the State Motor Fuel Tax and a 6% city phone use, and while they do a good job of supporting the street fund, they don't provide the needed and recommended additional maintenance, and said if we were to adopt the street master plan and fully fund that plan, we would need approximately $4.3 million annually. On page seven of the budget, Mr. Jackson noted that our city continues to have the lowest employee count of any Washington city of 50,000 or more in population; and said the budget figures included a work force comparison chart. Regarding the City Council budget goals, Mr. Jackson encouraged Councilmembers to review those goals and let Mr. Jackson know of any desired changes. Councilmember Grassel said she recalled at the budget retreat that 46 was removed; and he said he felt that item was left in as there was interest expressed by members of the finance committee in looking at ownership of a city hall versus a lease; and he said Council as a whole can edit or remove any goal. Councilmember Grassel said she recalled not so much the idea of purchasing versus renting, but to remove the verbiage concerning the "demonstration project" for city hall. Mr. Jackson said staff can research the past comments, or council can determine now their desire concerning that goal. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he didn't recall removing that goal, as a discussion would be needed since there are two more years on the current building's lease. Councilmember Gothmann suggested broadening the goal to "examine housing requireiments" for staff. Mayor Towey said he doesn't want to strike the entire goal and agreed with the idea of Councilmember Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Approved by Council: 1 :: Gothmann. Councilmember Grassel said the verbiage she referred to strike, was concerning the "living building standard" and said there was no desire on this new council's part to pursue anything with a living building; that there was discussion about renting versus buying or building, but said she thought that was about a LEEDS project the former mayor wanted, and said she doesn't think this council wants to pursue that. Councilmember Grafos said even if council were to pursue a city hall, Council would likely look at some LEEDS standard, even if the building were not completely a "living building" we would want to look at some LEED standards if a new city hall were to be constructed, and he said we would not want to remove that goal. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels the original reason to have the goal was if the federal government were to fund a living standards building, we would not want to turn down funding. Councilmember McCaslin said if Council doesn't want to take it out, does that mean Council wants to pursue this, and Mayor Towey said he feels Council agrees it should be discussed concerning renting, buying, or purchasing. Councilmember McCaslin said he would have no objection to study the possibility, but to ``pursue" is more than studying. Mr. Jackson suggested editing the goal to state "explore a range of options for a city hall" and Council concurred. City Manager Jackson said the other concept brought up by the finance committee after the retreat, was that the city has the capability to balance the general fund on an ongoing basis with reserves; but that is not really sound fiscal practice. Mr. Jackson said that each year we would closely examine the budget and Council would have to decide to what extent we would use the reserves to balance the budget, and to what extent services and expenditures would be reduced, and said this will need to be examined each year as the next year's budget is planned. Councilmember Grassel said she has a problem in stating that our budget is balanced; and then say we are borrowing from our savings to balance the budget; and said that seems to be "double- talk," and she asked why we are taking money from savings that could be going toward street preservations or other important projects that would benefit the citizens; she said that when she ran for office that was a concern of hers and continues to be a concern; she said we could have 70% of the budget as carryover, but that there are so many projects we could be investing that money into, but now we are using $500,000 in 2011, and said as she reviewed some of the departments, from 2009 to 201, some have increased 40 %; she said public works increased 40 %; HR increased 30 %, finance 25 %; the rec division increased 35 %; stormwater 25 %; and she asked the finance committee if they would look at those departments, or any department that has increased more than 5% since 2009, and to take those different departments and give us an answer as to why there is such a huge increase over a two -year time period. Councilmember Grassel said she noticed a lot of those increases were in the services and charges line item, and that she wants a clarification and an explanation as to why so many departments have significantly marked increases in a two -year period; she said we are reducing 3% from 2010, but she seeks clarification. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said there have been budget workshops; and if we were to walk in here and say we have a 12% reduction; he said council had access to those funds and are working our way through that, but said he personally would not support just a "hatchet job" on the budget; and said that staff is working with the direction driven by council, he said we have never found a way to justify to put a "bunch of money" in the street preservation fund just to possibly take it back out. Councilmember Grassel said she feels it is the job of councilmembers to look at these line items in the budget, and she reiterated she wants to know about the increases. Councilmember Gothmann said that the public works department went up because we took over the snow plowing, finance went up because two years ago we received a bad audit, and one of the reasons associated with that was we didn't have enough people to follow the funds; that for parks and recreation, we must examine the money brought in versus what goes out and if you bring in twice as much one would expect that the out -go would be twice as much; and said there are answers to those changes; and Councilmember Grassel said that is her point. Councilmember Grassel said if we tell the public we need to add a car tab fee as we can't come up with funds for preservation, but these departments have increased by 30 %; we need to explain that and said she feels the Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 6 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, public should have the very detailed information to justify that and why we need to borrow from the funding reserves. Councilmember Grafos said the city incorporated in 2004, and then had a huge increase in the economy and all those departments were built up to take care of the business, and now that we are in a "freefall" he said he agrees with Councilmember Grassel that we can't continue to use the reserves to balance the budget; and said the reserves should be used for parks, roads, infrastructure, etc., all for the benefits of the citizens and not to operate the city. Councilmember Grafos said from 2007 to 2010, the inflation rate was 8.2 %, and the wages and benefits in this city in three years from 2007 were $5,341,000; and in 2010 they were $7,032.000 which he said is an increase of almost 28 %; and said that's part of the increase which is due to the number of people we are employing; and said we have a 2.5 COLA coining up and said for a start, he would like to see Council freeze that for the nonunion employees. Councilmember Grassel asked how much that would save. Councilmember Grafos said the finance director likely has that information; and added that we should not continue to use our reserves to operate the city. Councilmember McCaslin asked about the cost of this city doing snowplowing compared with the contracted amount with the County; and Mr. Jackson said mostly the cost is similar but we did have to purchase some equipment, and comparisons would have to be calculated to know if there was a net increase. Councilmember McCaslin said that he was told in November of 2009 that the city had a surplus of $30 million; and he asked for confirmation; and said if that is the case, we will now be at $24 million, meaning we have spent $6 million from reserves to have a balanced budget; that Mr. Jackson keeps saying we are in great financial shape; and said that the information he had prior to running was that in 2014, e would be six or seven million in the hole. Mr. Jackson said we all spent a full day at the retreat and there were several meetings with the Council Finance Committee; and that he has maintained he wants to align this budget with council's expectations; and now as he is delivering the preliminary budget, we are now hearing a lot of new ideas, which of course is Council's prerogative. Mr. Jackson said regarding "tapping into city reserves," that for many years this city has spent very conservatively; that spending has of course increased since incorporation as we are a developing city, that for example, this Council just saw our law enforcement contract increase by $1.3 million; we know that costs increase, but he said the city was setting aside reserves as we knew the economy fluctuates and we were trying to level it out and set funds aside so when the economy dipped, we could continue to provide essential services; he said this city is running very lean; and said we would face running into financial peril if we start to try to finance street capital through the general fund; he said there are 20 separate funds in the City, and if we are talking about such basic changes as to start funding street capital through the general fund, we need to examine that very carefully. Mr. Jackson said the entire premise of our solid financial condition rests on treating those funds separately; the general fund provides for the operations and maintenance of the City of Spokane Valley such as law enforcement, public safety, streets, community development, parks and recreation, finance, city attorney, etc., and if we start to use that money for capital projects, which we have never done, we would be headed off in a whole new direction, and he said there is nothing in the multiple business plans that addresses spending that money that way. Mr. Jackson said if you think we are balancing our general fund by dipping into our savings, that is the intent of those funds and said that is good financial planning; and said that we of course would not spend every dollar the city takes in and as soon as the revenue drops you'd have to cut police officers, street maintenance, and basic services all because that year you can't meet your obligations; and Mr. Jackson said it makes very good sense to set aside some funds so when the economy dips, we can continue to provide those services; and said the city should look at matching current year revenues with current year expenditures. Mr. Jackson said we are making substantial cuts in this budget of about $2.8 million and we are preserving our ending fund balance are not spending it down and further, that we aren't even touching the service level stabilization fund. Mr. Jackson said if this city wishes to move toward a program of funding street capital with general fund dollars, such needs to be examined very carefully; he said you can get by day -to -day without fully implementing that street preservation plan; Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 7 of 12 Approved by Council: 1 :: but said you cannot get by without public safety and police services, and other basic services such as snow plowing. Councilmember McCaslin said he agrees with everything Mr. Jackson said, but in looking at the information produced by Mr. Jackson's department, and he sees the building department increasing, and the planning department increasing, he said he thinks we have a problem. Mr. Jackson replied that those departments are decreasing. Mr. McCaslin said that he is referring to information he had prior to running; and that he is not talking about cutting police. Mr. Jackson said that if we don't maintain a healthy general fund, at some point as we see in cities all around us, when they have to start looking at public safety; he said he feels we have a good solid platform, and would like to keep as much distance and security as possible between ever having to make those kinds of cuts or decisions. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said up to the start of this year, we had $5.7 million in the capital facilities fund; and that is still there and is a big chunk of the difference from the $30 million down to $24 million; that it was just in a different fimd. Councilmember McCaslin said regarding the information supplied by the finance department concerning projected expenditures in the departments, that he will bring that in next meeting and ask for an explanation; because that is the infonmation he got: that in 2014 there would be a deficit of about $6 million; but Mr. Jackson explained that the current forecast shows a $10 million surplus for 2014. Councilmember Gothmann said regarding the information Councilmember McCaslin got while he was running for election concerning community development was correct in that department went up considerably, but the reason for that was that several engineers were transferred from public works into community development. Councilmember Grassel said as a Councilmember who will be voting on this budget, she wants for each department that shows more than a 5% increase since 2009, an explanation of those increases, and said she needs detail, she said she asked these questions before, said she asked them at the budget, and we have talked about a preservation street fund but hasn't heard any suggestions from the finance committee or from the city on how to resolve that issue, and said she is aware that for every dollar we don't spend today we will spend $8.00 tomorrow, and said if we don't address these issues we won't have a reserve by 2014. Councilmember Gothmann said every year this city has been in operation, we have shown a forecasted negative four or five years in the future; he said forecasts were based on pessimistic receipts and optimistic expenditures, and every year we actually end up better than forecasted; he said there are two ways to run a government: one is to spend every cent which leads to layoffs followed by hires, followed by layoffs; or to try to run along even which means during the bad times you take some money from savings, and during the good times you put money in savings; and he said this City has been run using the latter model. Councilmember Grassel said that is her point, that she counts at least twelve departments that have increased by five percent over the last two years; and she asked if that doesn't concern Mr. Gothmann; and said the longer we wait and don't address these issues, the worse it will be; and she said her concern is we have been making some huge increases and she wants to know why. City Manager Jackson said staff can gather that information for Council. Councilmember Grafos said he feels we are heading in the right direction, and said now that we are in an economic downturn, we should preserve as much funds as possible to have funds available in the future, and to look at those departments individually again to see if there are other cuts that can be made. In response to previous council question of the 2009 ending fund balance, Mayor Towey said that information is on page 79. Councilmember Gothmann said when the new councilmembers were running for election, the figures he quoted were about $20 million in carryover, and add to that $5 million in the stabilization fund, and another $5 million in the capital facilities fund, which totals $30 million; which included other funds which have never been accessed. City Manager Jackson said staff will work to provide a spreadsheet of the history of the reserves; and said if council wishes to provide other policies that is up to council discretion; and he clarified that tonight's presentation is for his submission of the preliminary budget for council's review and that council then has the prerogative for edits. Mr. Jackson said regarding the pending legislative initiatives 1100 and 1105 Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 8 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, which would close the state liquor stores, that if that were to occur, the minimum impact to our city would be approximately $600,000 in state shared revenues through liquor board profits; and 1105 would also remove the liquor excise tax which means a total of approximately $1 million in revenue impacts; and he mentioned that AWC (Association of Washington Cities) is examining ways to mitigate that. Councilmember Gothmann said in response to those possibilities, suggested we maintain the direction we are going since we are forecasting a $10 million carryover in 2014; and once we know the outcome of the election, budget changes can be made in December if needed, but said he doesn't want to change that now. Mr. Jackson agreed and said that is one of the advantages of having reserves; and once the outcome of the election is known, we can decide whether to make reductions in 2011 or factor that into the 2012 budget preparation; and said changes are inevitable but to what level do we do what and how do we develop future forecasts and budgets is what needs to be examined; and said as the City Manager, he feels the budget we are delivering has made substantial reductions; that we acknowledge declining revenues and that we cannot spend reserves on an ongoing basis; and again stated that he feels this is an excellent 2011 budget; that it meets his objectives; and said staff is happy to provide any research to explain what caused some of those previously mentioned changes so this council has a history of what has occurred. Regarding the budget calendar, Mr. Jackson said we are ahead of schedule and he brought council's attention to the upcoming public hearings; and said council can consider extending the budget calendar from what is projected at this time, and said the final budget ordinance to adopt the 2011 budget is set for October 12, 2010, and that state law has a deadline of December 27. There were no objections from council to keeping the budget calendar as scheduled. 4. Public Works Enhancement Projects - Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten distributed handouts of project location maps; he said the projects have not changed since his overview a few weeks ago; said these are 100% funded projects, and there is approximately $2.5 million total available, said we have several support letters, and the described projects included the Spokane Valley Millwood Trail Engineering which runs along the old railroad beginning at the Spokane Community College through Millwood, across Pines and connects to the Centennial Trail at both ends, as well as the Valley Mall; he said the project is complicated and staff feels we can only do the engineering and perhaps right -of -way in the short two -year period; and he said another call will likely come out later, and once the engineering and right -of -way are in place, they would rank the project even higher, making it a good chance for funding in the following round of calls; and he confinned that the construction could be in the 100% funding, but that is unknown at this point. Other projects included the Greenacres Trail, and the Myrtle Point Trail, which he said likely won't score as high as the others which go by schools and connect to the Centennial Trail; and said the sidewalk infill project in general around the city. Mr. Kersten said the school districts have a radius where they do not bus kids to the schools, and we would get that infonnation and look at areas where sidewalks could be built to give good access for children walking to school. Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) would be glad to partner with any sidewalk improvement that is on a transit route. City Manager Jackson said he would suggest before we accept these grants, that we develop a schedule for the ongoing trail maintenance as we would need to know the annual cost of trail maintenance prior to trail construction. Mr. Kersten said these applications are due Thursday, and he asked if Council had any objections to any of the projects. There were no objections from Council. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Gothmann, and Grafos. Opposed: CouncilmemberMcCaslin. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Water District Easement - Cary Driskell Acting City Attorney Driskell explained that the city owns some right -of -way in Hollywood Hills in western Spokane Valley adjacent to the Edgecliff Hospital Property, he said the road is too steep to be used as roadway on Center Road, and East Spokane Water District 41 has asked that we grant them an Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 9 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, easement for placement of a water pump facility that would help their water pressure in that area, that almost the entire facility would be located underground in the unused portion of the city's right -of -way; and they would also construct a few outbuildings above ground, he said the Water District could save their ratepayers by not having to buy the land on which to place these buildings; and he brought attention to the proposed easement along with the draft resolution. Council voiced no objections for staff to continue as proposed. 6. City Manager Contract - Mayor Towey Mayor Towey explained that at the August 10 council meeting, council directed him to enter into negotiations with Mr. Jackson for the city manager contract; that they met on numerous occasions and drafted a preliminary contract, he said the contract is a work in progress and that the council has the last say on whether this is a final agreement or more negotiations are needed. Councilmember McCaslin stated that when he voted no previously, he voted no on the word "negotiations" and said he felt the city should have had a job description and salary benefits structured so that would be offered to the new person, whoever it was, and there wouldn't be any negotiations; he said this has nothing to do with Mr. Jackson but rather the system and the procedure; adding that he thought it was pretty well determined prior to all the interviews who was going to be chosen; and said that's why he voted no, and why he'll probably vote no on whatever council comes up with because he doesn't like the system. Councilmember Grassel said she'd like to see further discussion of 41 of the contract and said she feels the same way Councilmember McCaslin just expressed; she said there was a salary discussion prior to the hiring; maybe it wasn't firmed up, but that perhaps council might want to review that section. She also questioned section 6 under the annual vacation, and section 8 concerning the retirement; that in her research, both the 401a plan and the 457 plan are not requirements and said if we were to add all the retirements and the pay, that Mr. Jackson's total package is approaching $200,000, and she said that seems a little high for this economy; adding that she thinks we should consider that the city manager position is new for Mr. Jackson and he doesn't have the years of experience of the former city manager. Mayor Towev asked for her recommendations, and Councilmember Grassel recommended $144,000 as a base salary. Mayor Towey reminded Council that we advertised the position for 10% below or above $144,000, which the proposed figures falls into; Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested leaving the salary as stated, and Councilmember Grassel said the proposal is almost 15 %; and she also voiced concern about the six -month review and the increase associated with that; and she recommended a review perhaps in a year or longer. Councilmember Gothmann said he felt there is a need for a review at the end of six months as it is an excellent mechanism to make sure things are on track regardless of if there is an increase in salary at that time, and that the retirement as stated in the contract is not unusual. Councilmember Grafos said that he would like to see a starting salary of $150,000; that there would be no review and no increase; or a one -year review with increase at council discretion, he said he feels Mr. Jackson is the "top guy in the city" and that is a fair salary. There was further discussion on the evaluation, when it should or should not be done, and what percentage of increase, if any, should be given based on job performance, and brief conversation explaining the term life insurance mentioned in the contract. Other contract sections discussed included the mutually agreed facilitator, whether base salary not be reduced, that there is no term of the agreement, and retroactive pay and the avoidance thereof. There were no further comments. 7. Transportation Benefit District (TBD)— Mayor Towey Mayor Towey said that Council directed staff on August 24 to prepare a motion regarding sending a letter of support for a TBD to the County Commissioners; since then more information has arisen, including an additional letter from the County Commissioners, and Mayor Towey said he feels it prudent Council wait until after Friday's Council of Governance Meeting where this topic will be discussed. Mayor Towey said he originally thought that a letter of support from this Council to the County, would be in advance of the interlocal agreement which would be discussed later; but he said according to the new correspondence Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 10 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, from the Commissioners, such is not their intent. Councilmember McCaslin said that Councilmembers all likely received an e -mail from Commissioner Richard noting a difference of opinion between Commissioner Mielke and Richard on voting on the jail situation in April instead of a TBD, and said that the Supreme Court has ruled on over - crowing in jails and prisons but has not ruled on potholes; and said he agrees with Commissioner Richard regarding voting in April, and Councilmember McCaslin said he also prefers to vote on the money needed to expand jails due to the overcrowding, and postpone the TBD; and said any letter to the County Commissioners needs to be constructed carefully. Mayor Towey explained that the new information indicates the County would still like a letter of support, but they are asking us to wait until next fall to place such matter on a ballot; and said if such a measure were to go on a ballot next fall and be approved by the voters, it would still be another six months after that before any revenues were realized; and Mayor Towey said he proposes waiting until after this Friday's meeting before committing to any letter, so that this Council will know exactly what it is the County is asking of this city. There were no objections. 8. Ad Hoc Committee for Economic Development — Mayor Towey Mayor Towey reminded council of his former proposal to form an ad -hoc committee, given specific direction including a time frame, to gather specific data on how to enhance the development of our business community compatible with federal, state, and local limitations, and to come back with a recommendation to Council; and he said the first step is whether to form such a committee. Discussion ensured regarding the pros and cons of forming such a committee, with some Councilmembers favoring the forming of a committee, and others not in favor of forming such committee. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m. In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmember McCashn. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. After further discussion on the merits of forming or not forming the committee with no apparent consensus, Mayor Towey declared the issue dead. 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey There were no comments concerning the advance agenda. 10 Information Only the Graffiti Abatement Program, Legislative Agenda Item, and Park Road Grade Separation Project were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 11. Council Check in — Mayor Towey_ Councilmember Gothmann said the Transportation Improvement Board is expecting an $80 million dollar call for projects instead of $50 million. Councilmember McCaslin said in reference to his comments at a previous meeting concerning the homeless, the State spends $53 million in the bi -annum on the homeless. Councilmember Grassel said she met the new president of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 12. City Manager Comments - Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson brought Council's attention to the "Information Only" item 10c concerning the park road grade separation project; and said the deadline has passed to notify the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board); and he said the City does not have the necessary funds to move forward with the park road grade separation project so we would not pursue the $2 million funding, and said Public Works will be notifying the TIB of that decision. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked about funding for bridging the valley, and Public Works Director Kersten said there are other funding possibilities such as the Freight Mobility, Strategic Investment Board ( FMSIB), and said it appears we will get a couple million for Sullivan, that we re- prioritized a few years ago and made Barker the higher priority and it appears we might get $10 million from FMSIB for that project; and that grants can be submitted later, but at this point, Park doesn't have the funding to move ahead and chances of receiving funding is low; and said he Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Approved by Council: r ;, will be bringing Council a regional list in a few weeks, and he mentioned that Park is not on that regional list but Barker is; so more information will be forthcoming. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10: 44 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Study Session Minutes, September 7, 2010 Page 12 of 12 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 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: Proposed Resolution: Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development — Phase 1 - Funding GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Greenacres Park Development grant proposal to Washington Legislature in 2008 and 2009. Approved grant request in 2008 for development of Greenacres Park. Approved $200,000 for Greenacres Park Development from the Civic Facilities Fund. BACKGROUND: The City has received $500,000 in direct appropriations from the State for this project. These funds ($300,000) are coming from the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (now the Department of Commerce) and the Department of Public Works ($200,000). The total estimated cost of the Greenacres Park Phase 1 construction is $1,577,138. The City Council in May 2010 approved the use of $200,000 from the Civic Facilities Fund to complete the City's local funding match. The total needed from the City to start and complete the construction is $1,088,888. The Department of Public Works needs a Council resolution confirming the City's commitment of $1,088,888 prior to signing the contract for the $200,000 they will be providing. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the resolution authorizing funding for Greenacres Park Development Phase 1. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City commitment for this project will be $1,088,888. $200,000 is from the Civic Facilities Fund and the remaining balance is from Parks Capital Funds. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Authorization Resolution DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10 -016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, COMMITTING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $1,088,888 IN LOCAL FUNDING FOR PHASE I CONSTRUCTION OF GREENACRES PARK CONTINGENT ON AVAILABILITY OF STATE MATCHING FUNDS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington is the owner of certain real property known as Greenacres Park. The park property is currently undeveloped, and the City desires to develop it as a community park; and WHEREAS, the anticipated cost for Phase I of Greenacres Park construction is $1,577,138; and WHEREAS, the City does not have sufficient funds available to pay for the entire cost of such park improvements; and WHEREAS, the State of Washington, Department of Public Works, has funds available for such construction work. A requirement of receiving any funds from the Washington State Department of Public Works is that the local jurisdiction demonstrate it has matching funds committed to the project; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (now the "Department of Commerce ") previously awarded a grant in the amount of $296,250 for design and construction of Greenacres Park; and WHEREAS, in the event the State of Washington were to approve the City's current request for $200,000 in grant funding from the Department of Public Works, the remaining portion of funds needed to ensure full funding of Phase I design and construction would be $200,000; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2010, a consensus of the City of Spokane Valley City Council stated support for this park construction project by committing an additional $200,000 from the City's civic facilities fund, for a total local match of up to $1,088,888; and WHEREAS, this Resolution provides a more formal commitment of the financial commitment of the City to the construction of Phase I of Greenacres Park, as requested by the Washington State Department of Public Works. This commitment by the City to local matching funds is contingent on being awarded the remaining $200,000 by the State of Washington Department of Public Works. In the event the State funds are not available for any reason, the City reserves the right to suspend this commitment of funds. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Commitment of Local Matching Funds for Construction of Phase I of Greenacres Park The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley hereby commits to the expenditure Resolution 10 -016, Greenaeres Neighborhood Park Phase I Page 1 of 2 DRAFT of up to $1,088,888 in City funds for the construction of Phase I of Greenacres Park. This commitment is conditioned on being awarded the remaining $200,000 by the State of Washington Department of Public Works. These funds are in addition to the $296,250 previously granted by Community Trade and Economic Development (now the "Department of Commerce "). In the event the State funds are not available for any reason, the City reserves the right to suspend this commitment of funds. Section 2. Authorization for City Manager to Execute Necessary Documents The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute any and all documents necessary thereto. Section 3. Effective Date This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this day of September, 2010. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 10 -016, Greenaeres Neighborhood Park Phase I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading proposed ordinance — Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Section 2.0.1 (Applicability). Add language that exempts accessory structures from meeting frontage coverage requirements, minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks, but requires the accessory structure to meet architectural standards on existing developed sites. Section 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that include accounting, insurance, legal services, and other uses deemed by the Community Development Director to be complementary to auto sales (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use); modify the maximum front street setback along Sprague Avenue from 30' up to 100' (Table section 2.2.7 Front Street Setback); and eliminate the minimum percentage coverage requirement (Table section 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage). Section 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that include accounting, insurance, legal services, and other uses deemed by the Community Development Director to be complementary to auto sales (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use). Section 2.2.2(f) Gateway Commercial Center Retail (Building Use). Add language that exempts vehicle sales uses from maximum front street setback and lot frontage coverage requirements, and clarify that gas stations are exempt from those same requirements. Section 2.6.1(2)(7) Standards (Signage Regulations). Modify the language to increase the area allowed for Wall Signs from 15% up to 25% of the wall area and clarify that the sign area is allowed per wall. Section 2.6.2(3) Standards (Wall Signs). Delete the language that limits wall sign placement to the area below the 2n floor. Section 2.6.2(6) Standards (Freestanding Signs). Modify the language to allow freestanding signs on sites other than those along Sprague Avenue, and allow dual frontage lots to have a maximum of one free - standing sign per street frontage. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040- Development Regulation Text Amendments PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On September 14, 2010 City Council voted 5 -1 to move the Ordinance to a second reading. BACKGROUND: The Council conducted a study session on September 7, 2010 and discussed the amendments. During the discussion the Council indicated a preference to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the language that limits wall sign location to areas below the 2n floor. On September 14, 2010, Council considered the Planning Commissions' recommendation to approve the proposed amendments and retain the language that limits wall sign placement to the area below the 2n floor. At that meeting Council voted to move the ordinance to a second reading and instructed staff to modify the proposed amendment to eliminate Section 2.6.2(6) Standards that restricts wall sign placement. The attached ordinance has been modified. OPTIONS: Approve the amendments as proposed in the ordinance, modify the proposal, reject the proposed amendments or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve the Ordinance Amending the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan, Book 11 Development Regulations, Sections 2.01, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.2.2(f), 2.6.1(2)(7), 2.6.2(3), and 2.6.2(6), Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zones. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 10- 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 19.110.020 APPENDIX D: SECTIONS 2.0.1, APPLICABILITY; 2.1.5 GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AVENUE DISTRICT ZONE TABLE 2.2. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 2.1.6 GATEWAY COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT ZONE TABLE 2.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 2.2.2.1(E) GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AVENUE RETAIL PERMITTED USES; 2.6.1.(2) SIGN REGULATIONS STANDARDS; 2.6.2 (3) WALL SIGN STANDARDS; AND 2.6.2 (6) FREESTANDING SIGN STANDARDS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Book 1 of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan, 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; and WHEREAS, the amended ordinance as set forth bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment, and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on August 26, 2010, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on August 26, 2010; the Planning Commission provided a recommendation, and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 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 The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book 11— Development Regulations, Page 13 of 123 2.0.1. APPLICABILITY 1) City Center District Zone. These regulations shall apply to: a) New construction. Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 1 of 6 DRAFT b) Additions greater than 20% of the building floor area. c) Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts ") costing more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior regulations shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 2) All Other District Zones. These regulations shall apply to: a) New construction. b) Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts ") costing more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior improvements shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 3) New Construction. New constriction is defined as an entirely new structure or the reconstruction, remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more than 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the existing stricture and land. 4) Existing Buildings and Completed Applications. Nothing contained in this section shall require any change to an existing building or structure for which a building permit has been previously issued or applied for in the Community Development Department, and the application is deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Subarea Plan. 5) Ownership /Tenant Changes. Changes in property ownership or tenants of existing uses shall likewise require no change in any existing building or stricture. 6) Limitations on Required Improvements. Where improvements and additions are made to existing buildings, requirements for renovation or enlargements apply only to net new floor area. Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase non - conformities are not permitted. If regulations to be applied to net new floor area are not specified in this Subarea Plan, then the Community Development Director /Designee shall detenmine which regulations shall apply. Accessory structures proposed on developed sites shall not be required to meet frontage coverage requirements, minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks. Accessory structures shall meet all applicable architectural standards in section 2.5.2 Heis4ht Massing Composition. 7) Non - conforming uses shall be regulated by Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.20.060, with the exception that the lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code may be continued unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 24 consecutive months. 8) Development regulations established in this Plan are specified as either Standards or Guidelines. Standards address those aspects of development that are essential to achieve the goals of the Subarea Plan. They include specifications for site development and building design, such as permitted land uses, building height and setbacks. Conformance with standards is mandatory. Such provisions are indicated by use of the words "shall ", "must ", or "is /is not permitted." Guidelines provide guidance for new development in terns of aesthetics and other considerations such as district character or design details. They're intended to direct building and site design in a way that results in the continuity of the valued character of the City of Spokane Valley. Whereas conformance with the Standards is mandatory, conformance with the Guidelines is recommended. Provisions that fall into this category are Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 2 of 6 DRAFT indicated by the use of words "should," "may" or "are encouraged to." In various cases, the Guidelines provide a choice of treatments that will achieve the desired effect. Section Two The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book II, Section 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue District Zone, page 24 of 123, Table 2.2. Site Development Standards of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section Three The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book II — Section 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center District Zone, page 25 of 123, Table 2.2 Site Development Standards of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto. Section Four The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.2.2.1(e)shall be amended as follows: e) Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) Vehicle Sales and Services, including automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, motor sports vehicles, etc. (Vehicle Sales are exempt from 2.2.7 Front Street Setback Regulations and 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (2) Vehicle repair, body and glass shops. (3) Vehicle parts and accessories. (4) Gas stations. (Gas stations be are exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (5) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants (6) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, 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. ii) Prohibited Uses: (1) Full service restaurants Section Five The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.6.1(2)shall be amended as follows: 2) STANDARDS 1) Sign types shall be permitted according to District Zone, as indicated in the Signage Regulations Chart - Figure 2.6. 2) In the event that a sign falls under more than one sign definition found within this Section, the more restrictive sign regulations shall apply. Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 3 of 6 I Temporary Signs not listed in this section shall be permitted in the Plan Area per the requirements of the SVMC Title 22.110.050. 4) "Prohibited Signs," noted in the SVMC Title 22.110.020 are not permitted, unless expressly indicated for specific sign types and district zones indicated in this section. 5) "Permit Required" noted in the SVMC Title 22.110.030 indicates requirements for sign permits. Unless otherwise noted, a sign permit is required for all types listed in this section. 6) Sign Area Calculation: unless otherwise noted, sign areas for single and multiple -sided signs shall be calculated as described in the SVMC Sign Regulations Section 22.110.100, items 2, 3 and 4. 7) Sign Area Maximum — Building Mounted Signs: (a) The total square footage of building mounted signs permitted in any Subarea Plan zone district shall not exceed 4 25 % of the wall area per wall Tenant spaces shall be calculated individually. Building mounted signs to be calculated include, Wall Signs, Roof Signs, Awning Valance Signs, Above Awning Signs, Above Canopy Signs, Canopy Fascia Signs, Recessed Entry Signs and Window Signs. See Section 2.6.2 for maximum size standards for individual signs. 8) Signs shall not display animation unless otherwise noted, except standard barber poles and time and temperature signs. 9) Animated signs are pennitted as follows: (a) In the Gateway Commercial Center and Gateway Commercial Avenue Zones. (b) Anywhere along Sprague Avenue EXCEPT in City Center District Zone (animated signs are prohibited in the City Center District Zone). 10) Non - animated electronic signs are permitted in all district zones, including scrolling "alpha- numeric" signs, time and temperature signs. 11) Commercial messages which identify, advertise, or attract attention to a business, product, service, or event or activity sold, existing, or offered elsewhere than upon the same property where the sign is displayed are expressly prohibited. 12) All issues not specifically addressed herein shall be addressed pursuant to the SVMC Title 22.110 Sign Regulations. 13) In the event of a conflict between this Section and any other City code, the provisions of this Section shall apply. 14) Monument and freestanding signs shall not obscure any fire fighting appliance, including but not limited to fire hydrants, fire connections, etc. 15) Signs shall not obstruct the clear view triangle or points of ingress /egress. 16) Billboards shall be regulated by Section 22.110.130 SVMC, EXCEPT that relocated billboards are prohibited within the City Center District Zone. Further, in all other zones within the Subarea Plan billboards may be constructed only on Sprague Avenue. Section Six The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.6.2(3) shall be amended as follows: 3) Wall Signs Wall Signs are signs which are located on, and parallel to, a building wall. a) Standards i) Wall Signs shall only be permitted for non - residential uses with a dedicated ground floor entrance. ii) . to ,di - wal ill) No Wall Sign shall exceed 150 square feet in size. Individual businesses are allowed a minimum 32 square foot sign. iv) Only the following types of establishments are permitted to use animated Wall Signs, and only below the second floor level: night clubs, movie theaters, and live performance theaters - capacity of greater than 200 persons. When used, animation shall consist of flashing or chase Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 4 of 6 lights only, light sources shall be of incandescent, neon, or LED type only. Flashing xenon strobe lights and rotating lights shall not be pennitted. V) Wall Signs shall project no more than 15 inches from the fagade of the building. vi) Menu or Menu Case Wall Signs: discrete wall- mounted signs or sign cases containing restaurant menus: (1) Shall be mounted at the ground floor fagade of a restaurant or caf6 with indoor or outdoor seating. (2) Shall be limited to the size of two (2) pages of the menu utilized by the restaurant plus the frame. (3) Shall not protrude more than three (3) inches from the fagade. Lettering shall not exceed one (1) inch in height. (4) Shall not exceed one sign or sign case per fagade. (5) Shall not count towards the total sign area permitted based on the Linear Frontage Ratio. (6) Shall be illuminated by indirect illumination only. vii) Barber poles: (1) Any barber shop shall be entitled to display one (1) barber pole in addition to other permitted signs. (2) Barber poles may be internally illuminated and may be mechanically rotated. (3) Shall not count towards the total sign area permitted based on the Linear Frontage Ratio. Section Seven The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.6.2(6) shall be amended as follows: 6) Freestanding Signs Freestanding Signs are permanently mounted signs not attached to a building, in which signs are constructed on or are affixed to the ground by columns, poles, or similar structural components. a) Standards i) Freestanding Signs shall only be pennitted aleiig for non - residential uses with a dedicated ground floor entrance, within permitted District Zones indicated on the Signage Regulation Chart 2.6. ii) The maximum number of Freestanding Signs per parcel is one (1) per street frontage iii) The maximum height of a Freestanding Sign for permitted District Zones shall be as follows: (1) Mixed Use Avenue: 20 feet. (2) Gateway Commercial Avenue: 30 feet (single business) or 40 feet (multi- business complex). (3) Gateway Commercial Center: 30 feet (single business) or 40 feet (multibusiness complex) or 50 feet (parcels abutting I -90). IV) The maximum area of a Freestanding Sign for pennitted District Zones shall be as follows: (1) Mixed Use Avenue: 100 square feet. (2) Gateway Commercial Avenue: 100 square feet. (3) Gateway Commercial Center: 100 square feet (single business) or 250 square feet (multi- business complex, or parcels abutting I -90). Where three (3) or more businesses agree to share a single sign structure, an additional 20 percent of sign area shall be allowed up to a maximum of 250 square feet. Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 5 of 6 DRAFT v) Sign location: Freestanding Signs with structural supports less than two (2) feet in width, with copy area placed at a height of seven (7) feet or more above grade, may be located at the property line, outside of the clear view triangle (SVMC 22.70). Freestanding signs with structural supports of more than two (2) feet shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from the front property line or border easement. vii) Signs shall be landscaped per SVMC 22.70. viii) A single unornamented pole support design topped by a can sign typical of a commercial strip shall not be used. Section Eight All other provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Nine 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. Section Ten Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of 1 2010 Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10 -, Amending Gateway Zones Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A Book Il, Section 2.1.5 Development Regulations, page 24 of 123 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 'ennitted: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified vi ,united: These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the rom id floor use In On MAN 111IMW4 M NINNU UnoInNNW * : Comnauuty centers, senior centers, teen centers, childcare facilities, and educational *_ Lurutecl to officz uses that are supportive of auto salts and services wluch umclude: accounmig, uucmafee, legal services, and other into Gales support office used os detamwred by the director. 2.2. Site Development Standards Category/ Sprague Apple -ay Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public Open Spaces required required or not required required required required 2.2.2.Building Use required 1) Retail - -- - -- - -- a City Center Retail - -- - -- - -- b Neighborhood Center Retail - -- - -- - -- c Mixed -Lse Avenue Retail - -- - -- - -- d Corner Store Retail - -- - -- - -- e Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail permitted permitted permitted Gateway Commercial Center Retail - -- - -- - -- 2 Civic uasi -Civic &Cultural permitted -* pennitted -* emitted -* 3) Office — i eztricted - ** --mesh idea - ** -- -mesh ieted - 6 +A1 pennitted pennitted pennitted 5) Lodging (w /common entry) - -- - -- - -- 6) Live-Work - -- - -- - -- 7) Residential a) Multi- Family w/ Common Entry - -- - -- - -- b Attached Sin le- Family w/ Individual - -- - -- - -- c Detached Single - Family Housing- -- - -- - -- 2.2.3.Building Height minimum height 1 floorRO ft 1 floor{ 'Oft 1 floor 'Oft nxvmJno m height 3 floors/ 42 ft 3 floors/ 42 ft 3 floors/ 42 ft 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes required or not applicable N/A N/A NJA 2.2.5.Public Frontage Improvements required or not required required required not required 2.2.6.Private Frontage 1) Shopfront permitted permitted permitted 2) Corner Entry permitted pennitted permitted 3) Arcade - -- - -- 4) Grand Portico - -- - -- - -- 5) Forecourt - -- - -- - -- 6) Grand Entry pennitted pennitted pennitted 7) Common Lobby Entry - -- - -- - -- S) Stoop - -- - -- 9) Porch 10) Front Door 11) Parking Structure Entry permitted permitted permitted 12) Vehicle Display: Option 1 permitted permitted - -- 13) Vehicle Display: Option 2 permitted - -- - -- 14) Edge Treatment Fenced - -- Lpemutted pennitted 13) Edge Treatinent Terraced permitted nitted pennitted 14) Edge Treatinent: Flush ennitted nitted pennitted 2.2.7.Front Street Setback minimum / maximum Oft 44-100 ft - 15 ft / no mat 10 ft / no nmas 2.2.6.Side Street Setback minimum / maxtmmn 10 ft / no maY lo ino mas 10 ft / no max 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimum mud living space mmindows loft 10 ft loft minimum Wout living space mmindows 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 2.2.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum setback loft 10 ft loft 2.2.11.Alley Setback minimum setback 5 tt 5ft 5 ft 2.2.12.Fronta a Coverage ndnimum percentage covered 39+4. no min 110111111. 2.2.13.Build -to- Corner required or not required not required notrecuired notre(uired 2.2.14.Maximum Building Length 2.3. Street and Open Space Standards 2.3.1.Street Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 1) Street Provision required required required 2) Pre - Located Street required required required 3) Maximum Block Size 5 ages 5 acres 5 aces 4) Street Configuration required required required 5) Street Type b)Wrapped - Ground Level permitted permitted pennitted a Core Street - -- - -- - -- b) City Street permitted e) Dnderground Parking_ permitted pennitted c) Neighborhood Street 2.4.2.Parking Standards see section 24.2. (1) Neighborhood Green Street e) Service Street --- --- pennitted t) ADep g) Passage - -- - -- - -- 2.3.2.Open Space Standards see section 2.3.3 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.4.1.Parking Types 1) Surface Parking a) Front lot pennitted pennitted b) Side lot pennitted permitted pennitted c) Rear lot permitted pennitted pennitted 2) Parking Structure a) Exposed pennitted pennitted pennitted b)Wrapped - Ground Level permitted permitted pennitted c)Wrapped - AllLevels pennitted permitted permitted d) Partially Submerged Podium permitted permit ed permitted e) Dnderground Parking_ permitted permitted permitted 2.4.2.Parking Standards see section 24.2. 2.5. Architectural Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets T, 2.6. Signage Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.6. Signage Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets Exhibit B Book II, Section 2.1.6 Development Regulations, page 25 of 123 Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan I Permtted 6 Ground Hloor Unly Kequired: 'Iliese are Kequired elements or all new development as indicated. ed: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in * : Conumunity centers, senior centers, teen centers, childcare facilities, mid _._ 2. Building Use educational facilities are not permitted. C These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the * *: Limited to office uses that are supportive of auto sales and services floor use which include: accounting, insurance, legal services, and other auto sales Street /Street Category Sprague Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public Open Spaces - -- - -- - -- required or not required required required —juned 2.2.2.Building Use - -- - -- - -- 1 - -- pennifted pennifted tail - -- - -- - -- Center Retail � nue - - -- - -- Retail - -- - -- - -- rl\ - -- minimum height 1 floor/ 20 ft & Cultural 3) Office restricted - ** restricted - ** restricted - ** 4 Light Industrial - -- - -- - -- 5 Lodging w /common entr • permitted permitted permitted- 6) Live -Work - -- - -- - -- 7) Residential permitted pennifted pennifted a) Multi - Family w/ Common Entry - -- - -- - -- b) Attached Single- Familyw/ Individual Entry - -- - -- - -- c) Detached Single - Family Housing - -- - -- - -- 2.2.3.Building Height - -- minimum height 1 floor/ 20 ft 1 floor/ _ °0 ft 1 floor/ 10 ft maximum height 3 floors/ 4 ft 3 floor./ 42 ft 3 floors42 ft 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes - -- required or not applicable N/A N/A N/A 2.2.5.Publio Frontage Improvements - -- re�udre I or not required reanued reamired notreauned 2) Corner Entry penitted permitted permitted 3) Arcade - -- - -- - -- 4) Grand Portico - -- - -- --- 5) Forecourt - -- - -- - -- 6) Grand Entry permitted pennifted pennifted 'n Common Lobby Entry - -- - -- - -- S) Stoop - -- - -- - -- 9) Porch - -- - -- - -- 10)Front Door - -- - -- - -- 11) Parking Structure Entry peinitted pennifted pennifted 12) Vehicle Display: Option 1 - -- - -- - -- 13) Vehicle Display: Option 2 - -- - -- - -- 14) Edge Treatment: Fenced - -- penitted pennifted 13) Edge Treatment: Terraced pennifted pennifted Pennifted 14) Edge Treatment: Flush nefmifted neimitted nern, 2.3. Street and 2.3.1.Street Standards Sprague Appleway O ther 1) Street Provision required requned — liured 2) Pre - Located Street required required required 3) Maximum Block Size 5 acres 5 acres 5 acres 4) Street Configuration required required required 5) Street Type b) Wrapped - Ground Level pennifted permitted pennifted a Core Street - -- - -- - -- b) Cite Street permitted - -- peinitted c) Neighborhood Street - -- I - -- - -- d) Neighborhood Green Street - -- - -- - -- e) Service Street no innm. - -- permitted f) Alley --- --- --- g) Passage --- --- --- 2.3.2.Open Space Standards see section 2.3.3 O ther 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Appleway Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.4.1.Parking Types 1) Surface Parking Other Streets Oft 'no mar a) Front lot - -- permitted penuitted b) Side lot permitted permitted permitted c) Rear lot pennitW permitted pennifted 2) Parking Structure 5ft a) Exposed pennifted pernifed permitted b) Wrapped - Ground Level pennifted permitted pennifted c) Wrapped -All Levels I petnitted I permitted petnin d) Partially Submerged Podiu permitted permitted permitted e) Underground Parking permitted permitted pennifted 2.4.2.Parking Standards _ e : ectrmi_ 4_ 2.5. Architectural Sprague Standards Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets Oft 'no mar 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimumw'/ living space windows Compositi 10 ft loft Streetwall Increment 5ft 5ft 2.2.10. Rear Yard Setback 2.6. Signage Standards Sprague Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets 10 ft T2.11.Alley Setback minimum / maximum Oft '20 ft Oft /non— Oft 'no mar 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimumw'/ living space windows 10 ft 10 ft loft minimum w / out living space windows 5ft 5ft 5 ft 2.2.10. Rear Yard Setback minimum setback 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft T2.11.Alley Setback minimum setback 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 2.2.12.Fronta a Coverage minimum percentage covered a no min. no innm. Page 45 of 201 •.. U ` TY " A " @SPO Department of Community Development 5 Planning Division . i City Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance September 28th, 2010 File # CTA -06 -10 Text Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan kane "{ "SP�" Department of Community Development [d15 41 ? e Planning Division T ext A mendment Summar Modify the Maximum Setback in the GCA zone from 30' to 100' _ 2. Modify Minimum Building Frontage Coverage Requirement in the GCA zone from 30% to No Gateway minimum Commercial Avenue I Allow limited off ice uses to GCA & GCC zones 4, Exempt vehicle sales from maximum front set back Gateway and minimum building coverage regulations within the Commercial Building Use Section Center Increase Wall sign area from 15% to 25% All SARP �o Delete the language which prohibits wall signs to be zones that placed above the 1 St floor - allow wall or pole signs and 7 . Increase the # of Pole signs allowed for dual accessory frontage lots and allow on any street structures P Clarify regulations applicable to Accessory Structures CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance for 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. Public hearings were held on August 24, September 14 and September 28 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 near $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. This ordinance which levies the City property taxes in 2011, is down 1% from the 2010 levy. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to adopt the ordinance to levy City property taxes in 2011. 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 18% of General Fund revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Finance & Admin. Services Director, Ken Thompson ATTACHMENT: Draft Ordinance 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, held 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 84.20 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 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 pennitted 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 Levying the Regular Property Taxes for 2011 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 3. Severability. 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 September, 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 Levying the Regular Property Taxes for 2011 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business public hearing admin. report X pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Second Reading 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 were presented to the City Council at a public hearing on Aug 24. A 1 % decrease ($99,500)) in the property tax levy for the 2011 budget was proposed. Public hearings were held August 24, September 14 and September 28 to consider the entire 2011 proposed budget including the reduction in property tax. BACKGROUND: State budget law requires we make our revenue projections known and conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. Public hearings were held on August 24, September 14 and September 28. Special mention was made of the reduction in property taxes. 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 adopt the ordinance reducing the 2011 property tax levy by $99,500. 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, Initiative 747 (RCW Chapter 84.55) provided 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 confine 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 and 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 Findings 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 detennines 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 xLxxxx, 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 -, 1% decrease in property tax levy 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 Assessors 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 on September 28, 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 -, 1% decrease in property tax levy Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance: Adoption of SVMC 22.160 - Wastewater pre- treatment standards 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; administrative report August 24, 2010; first reading September 14, 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 section of Yardley. (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 wastewater 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. A proposed interlocal agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane is up for consideration later on tonight's agenda. One of the requirements of the proposed interlocal agreement is that the City would be required to adopt (by reference) a wastewater pretreatment code. The proposed treatment standards are Spokane County's, SCC 8.03A, which are substantially identical to the City of Spokane's, and which are on file with the City Clerk but are not included in the packet due to their size. 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. A copy of the draft proposed interlocal agreement is being presented as a separate item later in the agenda. OPTIONS: Adopt this Ordinance; request staff to make changes to proposed Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve the Ordinance adopting Spokane County Code 8.03A by reference as this City's wastewater pretreatment code. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: It will depend on if there are enforcement actions. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1) Map of City of Spokane sewer treatment area in Spokane Valley 2) Spokane County Code 8.03A (on file with City Clerk) It ' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10-*** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW SECTION OF SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) 22.160, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SPOKANE COUNTY CODE 8.03A - PRETREATMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) does not itself provide sewer service to its citizenry, and instead receives such services primarily from Spokane County except for a small section of Yardley where it receives such services from the City of Spokane; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane is not the primary provider of sewer service to Spokane Valley, and at this time Spokane County does not have its own wastewater treatment facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a separate Wastewater Management agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane interceptor sewer system and wastewater treatment plant accepts flows from Spokane County at this time, including flows collected by Spokane County from Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, as a requirement of providing public sewer service or accepting wastewater flows, the City of Spokane and Spokane County must ensure that a local pretreatment regulatory program, as required by federal and state laws and regulations, including 40 CFR §403.8, is established and enforced in accord with said federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, without such a pretreatment program, the City of Spokane and Spokane County sewer utilities would be obliged to terminate service to the City of Spokane Valley residents and businesses, and would not be able to except wastewater flows originating from Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane and Spokane County have each adopted parallel pretreatment ordinances in coordination with each other, modeled after state and federal pretreatment requirements; and WHEREAS, for convenience and efficiency, and in the interest of uniformity, the City of Spokane Valley seeks to adopt the Spokane County pretreatment standards; and WHEREAS, Spokane County and the City of Spokane do not have the local government police power authority to establish a pretreatment regulatory program inside the city limits of the City of Spokane Valley, that authority resides in the Spokane Valley City Council. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Ordinance 10- Pre - treatment Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to ensure the establishment of wastewater pretreatment standards within Spokane Valley, as required by state and federal law. Section 2. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.160 as follows: 22.160.010 Wastewater Pretreatment Standards. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A.12.140, Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03A, as adopted or amended, is hereby adopted by reference as the wastewater pretreatment standards for the City of Spokane Valley. The city clerk is to maintain a copy of SCC 8.03A. Section 3 Remainder of SVMC Title 22 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC Title 22 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 4 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of , 2010 City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Pre - treatment Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business public hearing information admin. report X pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2011 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Public hearings were held on August 24, September 14 and September 28, regarding the 2011 Budget. A preliminary budget was prepared by the City Manager and presented to the City Council on September 7. BACKGROUND: Each year staff prepares estimates of proposed revenues and expenditures for the budget for the coming year. State budget law requires we conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. These hearings were held in August and September. Special mention is required of the property tax levy. We expect our levy to be $99,500 less than ( -1 %) the 2010 levy. The tax rate is expected to be near $1.54 /thousand dollars of assessed value with an assessed value near $7.1 billion. The City's actual 2011 levy may be more or less than shown. Other significant changes to the 2011 budget include a $100,000 set aside for increases in the City's share of retirement costs, broadcasting of City Council meetings for $46,000 and a $2,000,000 transfer from the Civic Facilities fund to be used for street capital improvements and full width pave back above newly installed county sewer lines. Total City wide 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, the removal of funding in the 2011 budget for vacant positions and reductions requested by the City Council. OPTIONS: State law requires we pass an ordinance adopting the budget RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move to advance the ordinance adopting the 2011 budget, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This information will become the 2011 Budget. 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, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011; APPROPRIATING FUNDS, CREATING A NEW FUND (311): STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011 +; AND ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS. WHEREAS, State law requires the City Manager to prepare a preliminary budget for the City of Spokane Valley at least sixty (60) days before the beginning of the City fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Manager in consultation with the Finance Director and Department Heads has prepared and placed on file with the City Clerk a preliminary budget, together with an estimate of the amount of money necessary to meet the expenses of the City including payment of outstanding obligations; and WHEREAS, notice was posted and published for public hearings held on August 24, September 14 and September 28, 2010. The City Council in the City of Spokane Valley met and received public comment in the City Council Chambers during each public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the filing of the preliminary budget with the City Clerk, notice of the same and three hearings on the budget, the City Council desires to adopt the 2011 budget, including all allowances and an appropriation for each fund so that a balanced budget, where appropriations are limited to the estimated revenues including beginning fund balances, is adopted for the City, and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley property tax levy for 2010 for collection in 2011, will be $10,700,000 which is $99,500 (1.0 %) less than the levy in 2009 for collection in 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adoption of 2011 Budget. The budget for the City of Spokane Valley for the year 2011 is hereby adopted as the balanced budget of the City, with appropriations limited to the total estimated revenues and beginning fund balances of the City. The final budget for 2011 is attached hereto and by this reference is incorporated herein pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075. For summary purposes, the total estimated appropriations for each separate fund plus the aggregate total for all such funds is set forth as follows: FUND ESTIMATED REVENUES & BEG. BALANCE EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (EXP + ENDG BAL GENERAL FUND $61,072,125 $61,072,125 STREET FUND 7,042,050 7,042,050 ARTERIAL STREET FUND -0- -0- TRAILS & PATHS FUND 48,000 48,000 Ordinance 10- Adopting 2011 Budget Page 1 of 3 HOTEL/MOTEL FUND 500,000 500,000 DEBT SERVICE LTGO DEBT SERVICE LTGO 03 685,000 685,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1,013,598 1,013,598 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1 1,021,069 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 8,437,307 8,437,307 MIRABEAU POINT CAPITAL FUND -0- -0- STREET CAPITAL IMPROV. 2011+ 500,000 500,000 CD BLOCK GRANT FUND -0- -0- CAPITAL GRANTS FUND 55,000 55,000 BARKER BRIDGE FEDERAL FUND -0- -0- STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND 3,632,000 3,632,000 PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1,959,036 1,959,036 EQUIPMENT R &R FUND CITY FACILITIES REPLACEMENT 909,000 1,629,000 909,000 1,629,000 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 319,000 319,000 RESERVES: CIVIC FACILITIES 4,040,000 4,040,000 CENTERPLACE 353,000 353,000 SERVICE LEVEL 5,464,000 5,464,000 WINTER WEATHER 505,000 505,000 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $99,184,185 $99,184,185 The total balance of all funds appropriated for the year 2011 is $99,184,185 Section 2. Creating Fund 311 There is hereby created Fund 311, Street Capital Improvements 2011+ which will be used only after the city council has been notified and has formally approved disbursements. Said improvements can only be for city match on capital street projects or on street preservation capital projects,with or without grants from the state or federal government. Ordinance 10- Adopting 2011 Budget Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 3. Transmittal of Budget. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together with a copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and the Association of Washington Cities. Section 4 . Severability 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 constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of October 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- Adopting 2011 Budget Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley PRELIMINARY BUDGET ♦eeee♦e♦e♦e♦e♦e♦♦ ease♦♦ e♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦eeee♦e♦e♦e♦e♦e♦eeeeeeeee.ee♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ® CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ♦ ® City Council Members ♦ o Thomas Towey, Mayor e Position #7 Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor ♦ Position #4 i Brenda Grassel Dean Grafos e Position #1 Position #2 i Rose Dempsey Bob McCaslin i Position #3 Position #5 William Gothmann ♦ Position #6 i Staff ® Mike Jackson, City Manager ♦ Vacant, Deputy City Manager ♦ Ken Thompson, Finance Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ♦ ® Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ This page intentionally left blank ............................. ............................... S pokane jUalley 9,1,2010 City Manager's Budget Message Annual Budget For Fiscal Year 2011 Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: In the midst of economic decline and uncertainty, I know the City Council and our citizens are concerned about the ability of Spokane Valley to balance the 2011 Budget. I am also keenly aware that our citizens seek financial stability and long -term sustainability for our City. The bottom line is the City can balance its budget through 2014 and into the foreseeable future. Achieving this in a down - trending economy requires the judicious use of reserves coupled with reductions in expenditures. The spending plan proposed in this budget provides a solid fiscal foundation for the City with a wide margin of financial safety for the community. On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, the Council devoted an entire day to a budget workshop. The city's draft general fund budget was reviewed line by line and the impacts of proposed reductions were discussed in detail. The staff and Council solidified the basic fiscal policies which will determine the 2011 Budget and guide future spending practices. The fiscal policies are not to be taken lightly; they will ensure that the City can continue to balance the General Fund Budget indefinitely. If the economy does not improve and revenues decline or remain flat, adherence to the fiscal policies will trigger additional budget reductions. Fiscal Policies Financial Management — The City proposes to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with reduced resources 2. Minimize personnel costs /overhead by continuing to contract for many services 3. Continue the 6 -year Business Plan process 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities 5. Minimize City debt with pay as you go philosophy. • The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1.63 % of its allowable debt capacity — which is extremely low debt. Financial Objectives - The City's financial objectives through 2014 are: 1. Maintain a minimum general fund ending balance of 15 % of revenues through 2014 2. Maintain the Service Level Stabilization Fund at the current level of $5.4 million through 2014. Commitment — By committing to these objectives, the City will ensure financial sustainability through 2014 and into the future. The City can achieve this by: 1. Reducing 2010 General Fund Expenditures by 3 %. 2. Cutting future (beginning in 2011) General Fund expenditures by at least 3% Challenges — Beyond the General Fund, the City of Spokane Valley has three primary financial concerns: 1. Funding Street Capital projects 2. Funding the Street Preservation Plan to maintain City streets 3. Funding Parks Capital projects As noted in the Multiyear Financial Forecast included in this budget, the City is relying on ending fund balance /reserves to offset the projected decline in revenues through 2014. During each budget cycle, the City will review the reserve balance and determine if additional budget cuts will be more judicious than subsidizing the general fund through reserves. Budget Highlights The 2011 Budget recognizes the economic realities of our times and the necessity to continue to operate within its financial means. The budget process has been used to reinforce the City's commitment to delivering its core services in a cost effective manner. A summary of key budget highlights for review by the Council and community follows: Budget Reductions: Our 2011 General Fund budget is 5 % less than the February of 2010 multiyear projections for the 2011 General Fund; and about 1.1 % ($385,000) less than the 2010 General Fund budget. The combined savings resulting from curtailed spending in 2010 (estimated at $1 million) and reductions to the 2011 budget (estimated at $1.8 million) total about $2.8 million. Staff Reductions Staffing levels are reduced by 7.5 full -time and 2 temporary unfilled positions. `a Breakdown by Department and position is as follows: a. Finance — Accounting Technician (1) b. Deputy City Manager — Administrative Assistant (1) c. City Manager — Temporary Intern (1) d. Legal — Temporary Intern (1) e. Engineering Technician — (1) Assistant Planner (5) f Building Inspector 11 Construction Inspector (1) g. Public Works Street Fund — Assistant Engineer — Traffic (1) h. Parks and Recreation — Custodian (2) (Positions removed but cost remains due to contracted janitorial services) Street Reserves: A $500,000 transfer from the Civic Facilities Fund to a construction fund for street preservation projects is included in the 2011 budget. This is a reserve fund to initiate savings for street projects and would require council action for future expenditure. Property Tax Reduction: The City of Spokane Valley will reduce its property Tax levy by $100,000 in 2011. This decrease in the City's property tax levy is in recognition that the City understands the difficult financial times faced by our citizens. Decline and Flat Growth Horizon: Revenue projections for the 2011 fiscal year have identified an ongoing decrease in sales tax receipts estimated at a $400,000 decrease from 2010 budgeted. Sales tax is the city's most significant source of revenue. The City's six -year financial forecast shows flat or slow revenue growth beyond 2011; however, those estimates will fluctuate according to changing trends in the economy. There was also a decline in Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) which the City has used to match grant projects in streets and parks. Moderate Growth in Current Operational Expenses: Investing in the essential core services identified by the Council and community creates baseline costs. Similar to the trend in most jurisdictions, costs and demands for service are growing while tax revenues are decreasing. Even with a relatively small city staff, quality service delivery requires ongoing investment in basic capacity to provide efficient operations. Moderate as it may be, operational expenses cannot continue to increase during declining or flat revenue. The City can either subsidize operational expenses with reserves, or husband their reserves and make additional budget reductions. 3 Notable 2011 Budget Items Include: • The creation /construction of Greenacres park at Long and Boone. • The addition of a Maintenance and Construction Inspection position to be shared by the Street and Storm Water Funds (Even though the focus was on reducing the number of positions, this position is considered critical to snow removal and other construction and storm water functions.) • Setting aside $100,000 for future public employee retirement costs in anticipation of increasing state retirement fund charges to public employers. • Continued Shoreline Master Program work as required by state law. Public Safety Costs: In 2011, Police, Court and Jail related services will cost $22,179,879an amount equal to 204% of anticipated property tax collections for the entire year. Council has made a commitment not to reduce public safety service levels and associated costs in 2011. Challenges: Declining Grants and Declining Matching Funds: City staff actively pursues funding commitments from other sources to help pay the cost of needed capital improvements— roads, bridges and parks —that benefit the community. The 2010 capital construction program totaled $27,524,084 with $22,109,142 (80 %) coming from outside sources. The 2011 budget projects a total capital construction budget of $11,937,143 with $6,042,643 (51 %) coming from outside sources. The difference is primarily due to less state and federal money being available for street projects. When the City applies for state and federal grants, the City must provide its share (match) for these projects. In the past, Real Estate Excise Tax was used for most of the City match. However, during the last three years, this tax has declined from $2.2 million to $1 million, leaving a shortage of local match on these projects. Depending on availability of Federal, State and Local grants, the City anticipates a shortfall of matching funds in the $1.5 - $3.0 million range. Local Street Maintenance Combination of Funding: This fund derives its revenues from an allocation of the State Motor Fuel Tax distributed to cities and towns, and a 6% city tax on telephone use, estimated in 2011 at $1,875,000 and $3,000,000 respectively. There is also an anticipated $2,155,000 Beginning Fund Balance that will carry over into 2011. Therefore, the combination of Fuel Tax and Telephone Utility Tax is able to meet the ongoing need for these funds to pay for street maintenance activities like snow plowing, pothole repair, resurfacing eroded lanes, sweeping, weed control, street lighting, traffic signals and a variety of other repairs /improvements. While Fuel Tax and Telephone Utility Tax cover annual street maintenance, they 4 do not provide for implementation of the Street Master Plan and therein lies the challenge. In an attempt to determine how best to keep the surfaces and bases (underground support) of roads in proper condition, a Street Master Plan was prepared that itemizes the positive and negative conditions of our city street system, and identifies the repair needs and costs associated with maintaining our 437 miles of roadway. The report details the need for an additional annual investment of $4.3 million in street preservation work to keep the street system from deteriorating and triggering much more expensive repair work in the future. The Current Fiscal Year in Review The City experienced a significant change in elected leadership with four new council members. With assistance from the local business community, the City began televising Council meetings. Residents and business people continue to provide city officials with their views on the broad range of issues related to economic development and land use regulations. A series of public meetings, Planning Commission meetings and Council actions were set in motion to review the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP). A number of Text Amendments were made and the entire SARP plan was placed on the annual Comprehensive Plan Review docket for further consideration. A new City website was launched with significantly improved features including public access to a searchable electronic database of records such as council agendas and minutes, city contracts and other City documents. A new Citizen Request System was also implemented to track citizen input and provide a tracking number so the public can check on the progress of their request or issue. The City Council welcomes public comments and works to balance the various interests expressed when enacting ordinances intended for the protection and enhancement of the quality of life in Spokane Valley. City representatives embrace continuous public participation, attend to a heavy workload, and take pleasure in achieving results that affect the community in positive ways. A review of the major events and accomplishments of 2010 reveals the following: • Four new City Council members took office in 2010. • Discovery Playground at Mirabeau Point Park was completed. • Council, with local business support, began televising council meetings. • Funds were utilized from the Civic Facilities Fund to pay for full width paving and paving of gravel roads in conjunction with the County sewer projects in Spokane Valley. • Council approved the purchase of a new snowplow and a loader for the snow removal program. Council also requested that staff fully explore the options for a city -owned street and storm water facility. • Construction of a picnic shelter was started in Terrace View Park. • A new Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County was approved. • The Barker Bridge rehabilitation was completed at a cost of $11.6 million. • The Sprague /Sullivan intersection was reconstructed and reopened in only three weeks. 11 • A systematic review of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan was initiated. • Spokane Valley agreed to assist Airway Heights, for a fee, with plan reviews. • Spokane Valley resident Peggy Doering was named Citizen of the Year by Washington Recreation and Park Association. • Several new businesses located in Spokane Valley in 2010. • The 2010 summer Council /Staff Retreat was devoted entirely to the 2011 budget. The Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Balanced Budget Adopted: One of the most important tests of fiscal management is the ability of a municipal enterprise to maintain basic services during an economic downturn. The creation and maintenance of financial reserves since incorporation have served their intended purpose and provided the opportunity for Spokane Valley to sustain critical public services during the turbulent economic conditions of 2010. The 2011 budget reflects a continuation of service delivery capabilities during difficult and uncertain economic times. The 2011 budget is in balance. Expenses have been balanced with known or reasonably predictable revenues. The budget is designed to maintain the healthy, positive fund balance at year end that provides for the city's cash flow needs without costly borrowing. In pursuit of fiscal responsibility, special attention was given to limiting the growth in new programs and financial commitments while City revenue and expenditure patterns further fluctuate with the economy. This approach allows available resources to be put toward sustaining services that are consistent with the City Council's priorities for 2011 and beyond. Since incorporation, this City has taken a conservative approach to adding new staff. Spokane Valley continues to have the lowest employee count of any Washington city with 100,000 or less in population. A 2010 Work Force Comparison chart is included in the budget document. As we approach the new fiscal year, the provision made for additional new employees is minimal at one fulltime equivalent position in the 2011 budget (as noted in the Budget Highlights). By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley is a lean, productive City government. 11 Major Goal Statements for 2011: The 2011 budget reflects the distribution of resources consistent with the Council's core services priorities. The following goals, some of which are continued from 2010, represent broad areas of concentration important to the well being of the community: Council Budget Goals for 2011 1. Continue monitoring wastewater issues including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharge licenses. 2. Re- evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. 3. Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. 4. Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to the Park Street Pool. 5. Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. 6. Explore a range of options for a City hall Future Concepts: The budget process is not static and Council, the citizens, and staff must remain vigilant to watch for economic trends that impact current forecasts. Even as we adopt a 2011 budget, we must keep in mind the future economic opportunities and threats that may impact our multi -year forecast. An example of potential impacts and adaptive future concepts are as follows: • A commitinent by Management to review all vacant positions prior to filling them. (In some cases, positions must be filled quickly due to workload.) • By all indications, the economic recovery of the U.S. and its collective states, counties and cities will be a slow and deliberate process. The City of Spokane Valley's Multi -Year Financial Forecast does not predict measureable growth in property tax or sales tax revenues through 2014. • In order to balance the budget, the Multi -Year Forecast predicts an annual reliance on spending down our "savings" in the form of General Fund Carry Over. As currently rA spending down our "savings" in the form of General Fund Carry Over. As currently depicted, the Carry Over would increase slightly in 2011 and then decrease by about $2.8 million each year through 2014 leaving a balance at that time of $16.1 million. However, ongoing reliance on savings to pay for day to day operations is not sound fiscal policy. It is anticipated that reliance on Carry Over will be reduced in future years which will require the City to more closely balance current year revenues with current year expenses. If future revenues do not increase, this may result in additional reductions to programs and services. • Because they represent about 63% of the General Fund budget, achieving future budget reductions without impacting Law Enforcement and other Public Safety services will be challenging. • The City anticipates $1.67 million in State Shared Revenues for 2011. Two ballot initiatives related to State liquor store sales are proposed in 2010. If passed, these initiatives could significantly reduce State Shared Revenues. If this were to occur, the City would likely make adjustments in the 2012 budget process to compensate for the reduction. Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the City Council and the Staff for a long history of conservative spending and prudent fiscal planning. The City of Spokane Valley is in an enviable position in relation to other Federal, State and local entities. We are not facing 2011 budget shortfalls. Although we must continue to budget and spend wisely, we do not have to make drastic cuts in services to balance our 2011 budget. By saving and conserving the taxpayers' money, and by adopting prudent long -term fiscal policies, the City can balance its budget for many years to come. This is something which is easy to say, but hard to do. Even harder is to reduce property taxes in the face of declining revenues, an unprecedented action for this City. However, the City Council felt this reduction was important to reflect to the citizens' that we are a City that understands and appreciates the difficult economic times we all face together. Finally, I would like to say how rewarding it has been to work with the City Council and the staff in developing the budget — and achieving substantial reductions. The City Council and the Finance Committee has set a path to ensure the long -term financial sustainability of the City. The management staff and employees have worked together to develop Business Plans and 2011 budget recommendations that achieve Council's goal of sustainability. We have shown that even in difficult financial times, we can work together as an organization in the best interest of the citizens. Respectfully, Mike Jackson City Manager 8 S&W �ne y 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.or8 TO: City Manager and Members of Council FROM: Ken Thompson, Finance & Administrative Services Director DATE: July 30, 2010 SUBJECT: About the Budget and the Budget Process The budget includes the financial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds. Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing the budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The budget provides four functions: 1. A Policy Document The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to the actual day -to -day activities of the City staff. 2. An Operational Guide The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of the City Council. 3. A Link with the General Public The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City operations. The budget describes the activities of the City, the reason or cause for those activities, future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry. 4. A Legally Required Financial Planning Tool The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light, preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The budget must be adopted as a balanced budget and must be in place prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The budget is the legal authority to expend public moneys and controls those expenditures by limiting the amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along with available cash carry - forward, to indicate funds available. The budget takes into account unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments. Year 2011 Budget Process The City of Spokane Valley operates on a calendar year basis. It utilizes an incremental budgeting approach that assumes, for most functions of government, that the current year's budget is indicative of the base required for the following year. Any increases are incremental and based on need defined by the organization's budget policies, emerging issues, Council goals, and available resources. The formal budget planning begins in 2010 with discussions between the City Manager and City Council during a retreat. Following the retreat, the City Manager and the Department Directors prepare the preliminary budget based upon the City Council priorities. The City Council reviews the preliminary budget beginning in August. In June, departments prepare requests for new staff, programs, or significant increases to their current year budget that will address emerging issues and other operational needs. In their requests, the departments identify the problem that they are trying to address, the recommended solution, implementation plan, projected cost and expected outcomes. The Finance Department and City Manager conduct an analysis of the departmental base budgets and the revenue outlook for the coming year to determine the availability of funds for any new initiatives. During May and June, the departments also develop their budgets. These budget requests are submitted to the Finance Department by the middle of May. In early July, the City Manager reviews each department's budget requests and develops a preliminary budget recommendation. As mandated by RCW 35A.33.135, the first requirement is that the Finance Director submit estimated revenues and expenditures to the City Council on or before the first Monday in October. The preliminary budget is presented to the City Council in September. Public hearings are held to obtain taxpayers' comments, and revisions as applicable, are made. The Council makes its adjustments to the preliminary budget and adopts by ordinance a final balanced budget no later than December 31. The final operating budget as adopted is published, distributed, and made available to the public during the first three months of the following year. After the budget is adopted, the City enters a budget implementation and monitoring stage. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored by the Finance Department and department directors to ensure that funds are within the approved budget. Finance provides financial updates to the City Council to keep them current with the City's financial condition. Any budget amendments made during the year are adopted by City Council ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within a fund; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be approved by the City Council. When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance adopted by Council after holding one public hearing. f[t, Significant Changes to the 2011 Budget A review of the 2011 preliminary budget reveals the following significant changes: Revenues 1. Sales Tax receipts for 2011 have been estimated at $16.2 Million, a reduction of about $400,000 from 2010 budgeted receipts. Citizens are tightening their financial belts as concerns relating to jobs, retirement plans, and home equity have slowed the economy. 2. A slowing of real estate sales has reduced Real Estate Excise Tax receipts to $1,000,000 /year which are used for capital projects. While not a "significant" change, it is important to note the City of Spokane Valley property tax rate is expected to be near $1.54/$1,000 of assessed value. This is the second lowest rate of all cities in Spokane County. 4. Fines/Forfeitures and state shared revenue have been increased $200,000 each. 5. A small decrease in the property tax levy ($100,000) has been proposed. Expenditures 1. The 2011 budget anticipates the following for winter street maintenance in the street fund: • Operation/Maintenance of 7 plows /trucks • Lease and improve Street /Stonnwater maintenance facility $65,000 • One additional employee (Construction Inspector) shared by the Street and Stonnwater funds. 2. A serious shortage of funds to use as match on federal and state grants for parks and street capital projects may reduce the amount of improvements made in these areas during 2011. A new revenue source would help capture these state and federal dollars for local capital improvements. 3. $100,000 has been set aside for a possible increase in state retirement costs. This set aside will offset future rate increase. 4. The addition of a half -time administrative position in community development will help keep up with administrative duties. 5. Approved but unfilled positions have been deleted from the budget as a cost saving measure. 6. Departments were asked to reduce their 2010 budget by 3% and to propose 3% reductions in projected 2011 expenditures. These approaches are intended to slow growth in expenditures to preserve a more stable financial future. This has resulted in a 2011 budget that is expected to be $400,000 less than the 2010 budget. "i City of Spokane Valley Budget Principles Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction, and for implementing them once they are approved. The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation and administration of the City's budget. This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington statutes governing local government budgeting practices. The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems, formulating solutions and alternatives, and implementing any necessary corrective actions. Interfund charges will be based on recovery of costs associated with providing those services. Budget adjustments requiring City Council approval will occur through the ordinance process at the fund level prior to fiscal year end. The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services plan in a Council /constituent- friendly format. The City will strive to maintain equipment replacement funds in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. New operations in difficult economic times may make it difficult to fund this principle in some years. fV BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING Accounting Accounting records for the City are maintained in accordance with methods prescribed by the State Auditor under the authority of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.09.20, and in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Basis of Presentation - Fund Accounting The accounts of the City of Spokane Valley are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of double -entry accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City's resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on their intended purpose. The following are the fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: Governmental Fund Types Governmental funds are used to account for activities typically associated with state and local government operations. All governmental fund types are accounted for on a spending or "financial flows" measurement focus, which means that typically only current assets and current liabilities are included on related balance sheets. The operating statements of governmental funds measure changes in financial position, rather than net income. They present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: General Fund This fund is the primary fund of the City of Spokane Valley. It accounts for all financial resources except those required or elected to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds These funds account for revenues that are legally restricted or designated to finance particular activities of the City of Spokane Valley. Special Revenue funds include the Street Fund, Arterial Street Fund, Trails & Paths Fund, Hotel /Motel Fund, CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund, Service Level Reserve Fund, Civic Facilities Reserve Fund, and Winter Weather Reserve Fund. Debt Service Funds These funds account for financial resources which are designated for the retirement of debt. Debt Service Funds are comprised of the Debt Service LTGO 03. Capital Project Funds These funds account for financial resources, which are designated for the acquisition or construction of general government capital projects. Capital Project Funds include the Capital Project Fund, Special Capital Projects Fund, Streets Capital Projects Fund, 13 CDBG Fund, Capital Grants Fund, Barker Bridge Federal Grant Fund, and Parks Capital Projects Fund. Proprietary Fund Types Proprietary funds are used to account for activities similar to those found in the private sector where the intent of the governing body is to finance the full cost of providing services, including depreciation, which based on the commercial model uses a flow of economic resources approach. Under this approach, the operating statements for the proprietary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non - current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Their reported fund equity (net total assets) is segregated into contributed capital and retained earnings components. As described below, there are two generic fund types in this category: Enterprise Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to the general public and are supported primarily by user charges. The Stormwater Management Fund is included in this group of funds. Internal Service Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to other departments or funds of the City. The Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund and Risk Management Fund are included in this group of funds. Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. The City of Spokane Valley uses a modified accrual basis of accounting. Modified accrual recognizes revenues when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. The basis of accounting for enterprise and internal service funds is full accrual. The appropriate basis is used throughout the budgeting, accounting, and reporting processes. Full accrual is a method of accounting that matches revenues and expenses with the period to which they relate, rather than focusing on actual cash flows. In this method, for example, an asset is depreciated as it is "used up," and the expense is recognized in periodic increments, rather than assuming the asset holds its value until it is actually disposed of. However, since the focus of budgeting is on the revenues and expenditure accounts, depreciation and amortization are not considered budgetary accounts, and are excluded from the budgeting system. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Annual appropriated budgets are adopted for all funds. These funds are budgeted on the modified cash basis of accounting. The financial statements include budgetary comparisons for those funds. Budgets are adopted at the fund level that constitutes the legal authority for expenditures. Annual appropriations for all funds lapse at the fiscal period end. 14 EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES GENERAL FUND REVENUES Property Tax Revenue Property taxes play an essential role in the finances of the municipal budget. State law limits the City to a $3.60 levy per $1,000 assessed valuation, deducting from there the levy of $1.50 by the Spokane County Fire Districts ##1 and ##8, along with deducting $0.50 for library levies, which leaves the City with the authority to levy $1.60 for its own purposes. The levy amount must be established by ordinance by November 30th prior to the levy year. Local Retail Sales and Use Tax The local retail sales and use tax is comprised of two separate .5% options with the County receiving 15% of each .5 %. After deducting .01% as a County administrative fee, the City's effective rate is .84 %. Local Criminal Justice Sales Tax Local Sales Tax for Criminal Justice funding is to be used solely for criminal justice purposes, such as the City's law enforcement contract. This tax is authorized at 1 /10 of 1% of retail sales transacted in the County. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 10% to the County, with the remainder being distributed by population to the cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. Local Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional .1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This final .1% was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Gambling Tax Revenues Gambling tax revenues must be spent primarily on law enforcement purposes pertaining to gambling. Funds remaining after necessary expenditures for such enforcement purposes may be used for any general government purpose. Gambling taxes are to be paid quarterly to the City, no later than the last day of January, April, July and October. The City imposes a tax on the following forms of gambling at the following rates: Bingo (5% gross, less prizes); Raffles (5% gross, less prizes); Games (2% gross, less prizes); Card playing (10% gross). Leasehold Excise Tax Taxes on property owned by state or local governments and leased to private parties (City's share). Franchise Fees Cable TV is the only franchise fee levied in the City at a rate of 5% of gross revenues. This is a fee levied on private utilities for the right to use city streets, alleys, and other public properties. State - Shared Revenues State - shared revenues are received from liquor sales, and motor vehicle excise taxes. These taxes are collected by the State of Washington and shared with local governments based on I population. State- shared revenues are distributed on either a monthly or quarterly basis, although not all quarterly revenues are distributed in the same month of the quarter. The 2010 population figure used in the 2011 Preliminary Budget is 90,210 as determined by the Office of Financial Management for Washington State. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. Liquor Board Profits and Liquor Excise Tax Cities receive a share of both liquor board profits and liquor excise tax receipts. The profits are distributed on the last day of March, June, September, and December. The excise portion is distributed on the last day of January, April, July, and October. To be eligible to receive these revenues, a city must devote at least two percent of the distribution to support an approved alcoholism or drug addiction program. Initiatives, scheduled to appear on the ballot in November of 2010, may significantly reduce these revenues to the City. Service Revenues Fees are charged for services rendered by the City of Spokane Valley. Most of the fees in the General Fund are construction inspections and permits related to services such as planning, zoning and building. Fines and Forfeitures Fines and penalties are collected as a result of Municipal Court rulings and other miscellaneous rule infractions. All court fines and penalties are shared with the State, with the City, on average, retaining less than 50% of the amount collected. Recreation Program Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for selected recreation programs. These fees offset direct costs related to providing the program. CenterPlace Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for use of CenterPlace. Uses include regional meetings, weddings, receptions and banquets. Rental rooms include classrooms, the great room and dining rooms. Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax, property tax, and fund investments. OTHER FUND REVENUES STREET FUND Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax (gas tax) The City receives gas tax based on population. Gas tax must be spent on streets. The City expects to receive approximately $21 per capita in motor vehicle fuel excise tax (gas tax) in 2011. The gas tax has decreased each year for several years. The higher cost of gasoline has resulted in users cutting back on the amount they buy which ultimately reduces the tax received by the City. 119 Telephone Utili . Tax The City of Spokane Valley levies a 6% telephone utility tax. Companies providing this service pay this tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at $3 million for 2011. TRAILS & PATH FUND A small percentage of the City's gas tax must be set aside for capital expenditures on trails and paths. This money will likely accumulate for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. HOTEL/MOTEL FUND This fund receives all revenue resulting from the Hotel/Motel Tax levied upon charges made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel, trailer camp and other transient accommodations in the City. The tax rate is 2 percent of the selling price or charge made for the lodging. It is collected and administered by the Washington State Department of Revenue. State law requires that these taxes be credited to a special fund with limitations on use, principally to generate tourism /convention activities that bring new visitors to our area, as prescribed by RCW 67.28.310. DEBT SERVICE FUND — LTGO 03 The Public Facilities District will provide funding for the debt service on CenterPlace Bonds. The City's Capital Projects and Special Capital Projects Funds will provide funding for the debt service on street bonds. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one - quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one - quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing public works capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. INTERFUND TRANSFERS Many funds receive their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers may represent payments for service, an operating transfer, or a concentration of revenues for a specific project. The following funds receive transfers from other funds. General Fund is budgeted to receive transfers from the Street Fund and Stormwater Management Fund in the amounts of $25,000 and $15,000, respectively. 17 Trails & Paths Fund is budgeted to receive a transfer from the Street Fund in the amount of $8,000 which represents .42% of gas tax allocated to the City. Street Capital Projects Fund (303) is budgeted to receive transfers from Stormwater Management Fund, Special Capital Projects Fund (3 02) and Capital Projects Fund (301). Debt Service Fund is budgeted to receive transfers from the Real Estate Excise 1 Tax (301) and the Real Estate Excise 2 Tax (302) of $112,500 each. Parks Capital Fund (3 09) will receive a $100,000 transfer from the general fund. Risk Management Fund is budgeted to receive $319,000 from the General Fund for employment security payments and City insurance premiums. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEE: This fee is imposed upon every developed parcel of property within the City and is an annual charge of $21 for each single family unit and $21.00 per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface for all other properties. These charges are uniform for the same class of customers and service facilities. These fees are estimated to be $1,600,000 for 2011. AOUIFER PROTECTION AREA FEES: These are voter approved fees to assist the City in protecting the aquifer. The City expects to receive $500,000 in 2011. 18 2011 BUDGET Major Revenue Assumptions 1. The 2010 population figure used in the 2011 Preliminary Budget is 90,210 as determined by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on per capita basis. 2. The 2011 estimated assessed valuation (AV) is $7.1 billion. The City's actual assessed value will be assigned by the Spokane County Assessor. 3. Property taxes are levied based on assessed value and the City's authorized levy rate. A rate of $1.54 per thousand dollars of assessed value is anticipated. The City expects to collect 95% of taxes levied in 2011 realizing the remaining 5% will be collected in the following years. 4. Franchise fees and business registrations are based on projected receipts in 2010. 5. Liquor excise taxes and liquor profits are based upon City estimates. Initiatives scheduled for the ballot in November of 2010 may reduce these estimates significantly. 6. Fines & Forfeits are based on projected collections in 2010. 7. Building permit and land use fees are estimated by the City of Spokane Valley, based on expected 2010 collections. 8. Real estate excise taxes are based on projected collections by the City in 2010. 9. Gas tax revenues are based on estimates by the City of Spokane Valley. 10. The Stormwater Management fee is based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) rate of $21. 11. Aquifer Protection Fees were estimated by the City at $500,000 for 2011. I 2011 BUDGET Major Expenditure Assumptions 1. Service levels are the same or greater than provided in 2010. 2. Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. 3. Benefit amounts are based on the employee benefits plan. 4. The contract costs for public safety, park maintenance, aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. 5. State required retirement (PERS) costs have been included. Additionally the City has set aside $100,000 to offset future State required increases. W City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Summary Total Resources $ 99,184,185 PAI Anticipated Estimated Beg. Fund Balance Fund Fund Balance Revenues Expenditures 12/3112011 001 General Fund $ 24,600,000 $ 36,472,125 $ 36,975,190 $ 24,096,935 101 Street Fund 2,155,050 4,887,000 5,383,327 1,658,723 103 Trails & Paths Fund 40,000 8,000 20,000 28,000 105 Hotel /Motel Fund 19,000 481,000 500,000 - 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 350,000 3,000 - 353,000 121 Service Level Stabilization Fund 5,410,000 54,000 - 5,464,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 500,000 5,000 505,000 - 123 City Facilities Repair & Replacement 1,210,000 419,000 - 1,629,000 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 - 685,000 685,000 - 301 Capital Projects Fund 598,598 415,000 1,013,598 302 Special Capital Projects 606,069 415,000 1,021,069 303 Street Capital Projects - 8,437,307 8,437,307 307 Capital Grants Fund - 55,000 55,000 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 1,346,036 613,000 1,959,036 - 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 4,000,000 40,000 2,000,000 2,040,000 311 Street Capital Improvement Fund 2011+ - 500,000 500,000 - 402 Stormwater Management 1,900,000 1,732,000 2,325,745 1,306,255 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 900,000 9,000 209,000 700,000 502 Risk Management Fund 319,000 319,000 $ 43,634,753 $ 55,549,432 $ 61,908,273 $ 37,275,912 $ 43,634,753 Total Resources $ 99,184,185 PAI City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Resources by Type General Fund Beginning Balance Property Tax Sales Tax Gambling Tax Franchise Fees /Business Registration State Shared Revenues Service Revenues Fines and Forfeitures Recreation Program Fees Miscellaneous, Investment Int. ,Transfers Total General Fund Other Funds l of Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths Fund i05 Hotel /Motel Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 123 City Facilities Repair & Replacement 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 301 Capital Projects Fund 302 Special Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capitial Projects Fund 307 Capital Grants Fund 309 Parks Capital Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Fund 311 Street Capital Improvement Fund 2011+ 402 Stormwater Management Fund 50l Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund Total Other Funds Total All Funds $ 24,600,000 10,875,000 16,200,000 425,000 1,111,000 1,665,625 1,600,000 1,800,000 555,500 2,240,000 61,072,125 7,042,050 48,000 500,000 353,000 5,464,000 505,000 1,629,000 685,000 1,013,598 1,021,069 8,437,307 55,000 1,959,036 4,040,000 500,000 3,632,000 909,000 319,000 38,112,060 $ 99,184,185 22 City of Spokane Valley 2011 General Fund Resources $ 61,072,125 Property Tax 17.81% Beginning Balance 40.28% Sales Tax 26.53 %� State Shared Revenues 2.73% Service Revenues 2.62% Fines &Forfeitures 2.95% Miscellaneous 7.09% 23 City of Spokane Valley 2011 City Wide Resources $ 99,184,185 Stormwater Management Capital Projects Fund Fund 17.17% 3.66% Debt Service Fund I - Internal Service Funds 0.69% � 1.24% Other Misc. Funds 8.57% Street Fund 7.10% Beginning Balance 24.80% General Fund 36.77% 24 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Detail Revenues by Type General Fund Revenues Beginning Fund Balance Property Tax Property Tax Property Tax - Delinquent Sales Taxes Sales Tax Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Sales Tax - Public Safety Gambling Taxes Punch Boards & Pull Tabs Amusement Games Card Games Interest on Gambling Tax Licenses & Permits Business Licenses Franchise Fees State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue Payment in Lieu of Taxes - DNR Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax MVET Criminal Justice - Population Criminal Justice Area #4 Criminal Justice Special Programs DUI - Cities Liquor Board Excise Tax False Alarm Srvs Liquor Board Profits Work Study Reimbursement Service Revenues Building Permits Plumbing Permits Grading Permits Mechanical Permits Demolition Permits Misc. Permits & Fees Plans Check Fees Service Rev. (Cry Wolf) Planning Fees Fines and Forfeitures Fines & Forfeits - Traffic Other Criminal Non - Traffic Fines Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees (To use a recreational facility) Program Fees (To participate in a program) Other Miscellaneous Investment Interest Sales Tax Interest Property Tax Interest Police Precinct Rent Office of Public Def -Re- Licensing Grant Miscellaneous Revenue & Grant Transfers Transfer from Street Fund - Overhead Transfer full paveback - Civic Facilities Transfer from Civic Facilities - Street Capital Transfer from Stormwater - Overhead Transfer from Street Fund - Membership Repayment from St. Fund Transfer from Hotel /Motel - CenterPlace Total General Fund Revenue 2009 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget $ 21,600,000 $ 19,375,000 $ 24,600,000 $ 10,282,555 $ 10,799,500 $ 10,700,000 193,196 170,000 175,000 10, 475, 751 10, 969, 500 10, 875, 000 14, 337, 595 14, 410, 000 14, 210, 000 1,260,923 1,400,000 1,200,000 724,031 790,000 790,000 16, 322, 549 16, 600, 000 16, 200, 000 92,908 70,000 70,000 9,560 2,000 2,000 624,535 343,000 343,000 8,708 10,000 10,000 735,711 425,000 425,000 86,285 80,000 90,000 967,990 1,020,000 1,021,000 1,054,275 1,100,000 1,111, 000 10,266 - 10,000 3,966 - 3,500 372,374 90,000 372,000 19,449 19,000 19,000 129,618 124,000 130,000 74,061 71,000 74,000 29,311 16,000 29,000 438,277 430,000 410,000 865 - - 611,859 696,600 611,859 6,207 3,400 6,266 1,696,253 1,450,000 1,665,625 819,313 722,800 722,800 33,554 35,000 35,000 1,311 5,000 5,000 80,252 92,000 92,000 5,052 5,200 5,200 117,394 100,000 100,000 274,288 250,000 250,000 - - 100,000 317,480 290,000 290,000 1,648,644 1,500,000 1,600,000 979,779 620,000 820,000 812,851 980,000 980,000 1,792,630 1,600,000 1,800,000 205,022 584,000 205,000 423,936 66,000 350,500 628,958 650,000 555,500 137,935 300,000 100,000 49,117 60,000 50,000 51,564 51,564 50,000 30,855 - - 55,570 149,786 - 325,041 561,350 200,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,500,000 - - 500,000 15,000 15,000 - 34,300 30,000 15,000 355,000 150,000 - 86,963 90,000 516,263 310,000 2,040,000 $ 35,196,074 $ 35,165,850 $ 36,472,125 Total General Fund Revenue and Beginning Fund Balance $ 56,796,074 $ 54,540,850 $ 61,072,125 PR City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Detail Revenues by Type Other Fund Revenues 101 Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Property Taxes Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Utility Tax Insurance Premiums & Recoveries Transfer From Stormwater Fund - Facility Miscellaneous Revenue & Grant 102 Arterial Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest 103 Trails & Paths Fund Beginning Fund Balance Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Transfer from Street Fund 2009 19,000 2011 Actual 2010 Proposed Budget Budget Budget 684,762 400,000 1,617,254 1,777,000 2,155,050 36 - - 2,018,694 1,900,000 1,875,000 10,895 10,000 12,000 3,054,472 2,800,000 3,000,000 54,000 200,000 5,400,000 122,076 712,050 - 6,823,427 7,399,050 7,042,050 360,806 - - 32,420 40,000 8,246 - - - 8,000 8,000 40,666 8,000 48,000 105 Hotel /Motel Fund Beginning Fund Balance Hotel /Motel Tax Investment Interest 120 CenterPlace Operatinq Reserve Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest 122 Winter Weather Reserve Beginning Fund Balance Interfund Transfer Investment Interest 123 City Facilities Repair & Replacement Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 258,891 19,000 19,000 423,978 380,000 480,000 1,893 1,000 1,000 684,762 400,000 500,000 346,794 347,000 350,000 2,391 3,000 3,000 349,185 350,000 353,000 5,369,979 5,350,000 5,410,000 37,022 50,000 54,000 5,407,001 5,400,000 5,464,000 145,037 - 500,000 355,000 500,000 - 5,000 5,000 500,037 505,000 505,000 807,983 825,000 1,210,000 3,065 8,000 12,000 397,000 407,000 407,000 1,208,048 1,240,000 1,629,000 N City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Detail Revenues by Type Other Fund Revenues Other Fund Revenues 204 Debt Service - LTGO 03 Beginning Fund Balance Facilities District Revenue and Special Capital Projects 301 Capital Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance REET 1 - 1st .25 Percent Investment Interest 302 Special Capital Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance REET 2 - 2nd .25 Percent Investment Interest 303 Street Capital Projects Beginning Fund Balance Developer Contributions Grant Proceeds Transfer from Block Grant Transfer from Capital Proj. Fund 301 /REET1 Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Stormwater Management Fund Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Special Capital Proj. 302 /REET2 304 Mirabeau Project Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest 306 CD Block Grant Fund Beginning Fund Balance CDBG Grant Proceeds 307 Capital Grants Fund Beginning Fund Balance Capital Grant Proceeds Transfer from Streets & Paths Transfers from Special Capital Projects Fund Miscellaneous /Private Development 2009 2011 Actual 2010 Proposed Budget Budget Budget 419,670 440,000 460,000 186,503 210,000 225,000 606,173 650,000 685,000 2,553,389 1,553,000 598,598 544,303 380,000 400,000 15,144 15,000 15,000 3,112,836 1,948,000 1,013,598 4,787,253 230,000 606,069 543,919 380,000 400,000 16,886 2,000 15,000 5,348,058 612,000 1,021,069 73,456 - - 45,519 200,000 - 6,947,312 7,779,000 4,738,819 - 300,000 300,000 3,937,369 1,843,000 901,095 - 50,000 - 200,000 100,000 - 1,500,000 - 200,000 897,393 11,003,656 10,572,000 8,437,307 405,370 - - 2,655 408,025 300,000 300,000 50 1,103,772 328,490 1,749,000 68,000 1,432,312 2,465,000 55,000 27 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Detail Revenues by Type Other Fund Revenues 308 Barker Bridae Reconstruction - Fed Grant Private Development Federal Grant Proceeds Transfer from Special Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Beginning Balance Investment Interest State Rec & Conservation Grant Rev Transfer from the General Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Beginning Balance Investment Interest 2009 900,000 2011 Actual 2010 Proposed Budget Budget Budget 28,000 107 - 58,000 8,000 6,631,363 1,470,000 286,370 239,000 6,917,733 1,767,000 1,346,036 518,000 1,346,036 716 5,000 13,000 790,000 200,000 500,000 1,618,562 97,000 100,000 3,755,314 820,000 1,959,036 5,792,118 5,770,000 4,000,000 39,845 57,000 40,000 5,831,963 5,827,000 4,040,000 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ Beginning Balance Transfer from Civic Facility Fund 310 402 Stormwater Management Fund Beginning Fund Balance State Grants Stormwater Management Fee Investment Interest 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest Transfer from General Fund 502 Risk Management Fund Beginning Fund Balance Investment Interest Employment Security Transfers Transfer from General Fund Total Revenue & Beginning Fund Balance All Other Funds Total Revenues 2,381,156 2,771,015 26,586 - 1,706,429 1,600,000 900,805 900,000 5,273 9,000 - 10,000 906,078 919,000 16,734 28,000 107 - - 8,000 246,841 59,071,387 258,000 45,838,065 b6,/96,U/4 b4,b4U,8bU 500,000 500,000 1,900,000 1,710,000 900,000 9,000 909,000 319,000 38,112,060 61,U /2,12b 115,867,461 100,378,915 99,184,185 28 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Expenditures by Department General Fund Council $ 324,298 City Manager 1,020,031 Public Safety 22,179,880 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 559,942 Finance 1,023,765 Human Resources 240,500 Public Works 899,830 Planning & Community Development Admin 324,550 Planning 1,028,258 Building 1,219,845 Development Engineering 672,270 Library - Parks & Recreation Administration & Maintenance 951,829 Recreation 246,628 Aquatics 429,250 Senior Center 89,653 CenterPlace 1,098,911 General Government 4,665,750 Total General Fund 36,975,190 Other Funds 101 Street Fund 5,383,327 103 Trails and Paths Fund 20,000 1o5 Hotel /Motel Fund 500,000 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund - 121 Service Level Stabilization Fund - 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 505,000 123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund - 204 Debt Service - LTGO 03 685,000 301 Capital Projects Fund 1,013,598 302 Special Capital Projects Fund 1,021,069 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 8,437,307 307 Capital Grants Fund 55,000 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 1,959,036 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 2,000,000 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 500,000 402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,325,745 sot Equipment Rental & Replacement 209,000 sot Risk Management Fund 319,000 Total All Funds $ 61,908,273 PQ City of Spokane Valley 2011 General Fund Expenditures $ 36,975,190 Public Safety 59.99% General Gov 12.62' Legislative & Executive 3.64% ration & Administrative 4.93% Vorks o/ W Parks & Recreations Development 7.62% 8.78% City of Spokane Valley 2011 City Wide Expenditures $ 61,908,273 Gen.Gov., Risk Mgmt, Equip 8.39% Capital Projects 25.35% Reserves, Tourism 1.62% Street Fund 8.70% blic Safety 35.83% Operations & Administrative 6.57% Stormwater Management Fund [ 3,76% W Parks & Recreation Development 4.55% 5.24% City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department by Type 32 Wages & Capital Benefits Supplies Services Intergovernmental Interfund Expenditures Total General Fund Legislative Branch $ 143,718 $ 7,000 $ 173,580 $ - $ - $ - $ 324,298 Legislative & Executive 864,496 17,400 138,135 - - - 1,020,031 Public Safety - - - 22,179,880 - - 22,179,880 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 507,410 2,800 49,732 - - - 559,942 Finance 954,415 6,700 62,650 - - - 1,023,765 Human Resources 186,354 1,967 52,179 - - - 240,500 Public Works 712,767 48,988 134,955 - - 3,120 899,830 Planning & Community Development Admin 283,035 4,256 22,259 15,000 - - 324,550 Planning 801,570 10,588 141,100 75,000 - - 1,028,258 Building 1,004,525 40,479 101,441 65,000 8,400 - 1,219,845 Development Engineering 547,690 8,304 71,276 45,000 - - 672,270 Library - - - - - - - Parks & Recreation Parks Administration 202,279 59,100 677,250 10,000 3,200 - 951,829 Recreation 145,365 10,943 82,720 - 7,600 - 246,628 Aquatics - 3,000 426,250 - - - 429,250 Senior Center 74,953 5,100 9,600 - - - 89,653 CenterPlace 367,082 70,952 336,877 - 324,000 - 1,098,911 General Government - 52,000 622,000 2,883,000 1,108,750 - 4,665,750 Total General Fund $ 6,795,659 $ 349,577 $ 3,102,004 $ 25,272,880 $ 1,451,950 $ 3,120 $ 36,975,190 32 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2011 Budget 011 -Council This department accounts for the cost of providing effective elected representation of the citizenry in the governing body. The Council makes policy decisions for the City and is accountable to Spokane Valley citizens by making decisions regarding how resources are allocated, the appropriate levels of service, and establishing goals and policies for the organization. Accomplishments for 2010 • Continue monitoring significant wastewater issues, including governance of wastewater facilities, enhanced citizen awareness of options for the future and pursuit of the most efficient and economical use of allowed wastewater discharges. On August 23rd, a DO TMDL implementation meeting was held with directors from the Washington Department of Ecology, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and EPA Region 10 to providing guidance to stakeholders on the status of the process. Wastewater permits are scheduled to be issued in draft form Summer of 2010 and become final by Spring 2011. Meeting information is available at DOE's website. • Implement records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city -wide implementation in 2010. As of 2010, our Laserfiche Repository now includes documents from every department. There are an estimated 21,412 documents, for a total of 421,071 pages. • Implement and evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by the City Council. Staff conducted 6 public meetings and collected comments regarding zoning and comprehensive plan changes to the Plan. Several code amendments have resulted from the meetings. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. The Shoreline Inventory was completed and reviewed by City Council. Progress on the Shoreline regulations was made in 2010 with adoption scheduled in 2011. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to Park Street Pool • The City did not receive funding in 2010 but this item is included in the Legislative Agenda 2011 • Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City Council approved continuing with the current plan and implemented the following items: • RFP selection process for a long -term contractor will be conducted in early 2011 • Hire one additional full -time Mechanic /Operator • Monitor future years to see if additional full -tome or part -time staff are needed • Purchase the Waste Management Facility or other similar facility for street maintenance operations • Purchase one additional surplus WSDOT truck/plow /sander and one new truck/plow /sander in 2010 • Explore a range of options for a city hall • No progress on this goal but will carry over into 2011 33 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley )ept: 011 Legislative Branch 2011 Budges 011 -Council Goals for 2011 • Continue monitoring wastewater issues including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharges licenses. • Implement and Evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to the Park Street Pool. • Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. • Explore a range of options for a city hall Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Mayor 1.0 1.0 1.0 Council 6.0 6.0 6.0 Total FTEs 7.0 7.0 7.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 126,896 $ 126,978 $ 143,718 Supplies 14,435 19,500 7,000 Services & Charges 154,061 175,642 173,580 Interfund Charges - - - Total Legislative Branch $ 295,392 $ 322,120 $ 324,298 34 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 013 Executive & Legislative Support 2011 Budget 013 - City Manager cont. This department is accountable to the City Council for the operational results of the organization, effective support of elected officials in achieving their goals; fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the City Manager, implementation of City Council policies, and provision of a communication linkage between citizens, the City Council, City departments, and other government agencies. Accomplishments for 2010 • Continue monitoring significant wastewater issues, including governance of wastewater facilities, enhanced citizen awareness of options for the future and pursuit of the most efficient and economical use of allowed wastewater discharges. On August 23rd, a DO TMDL implementation meeting was held with directors from the Washington Department of Ecology, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and EPA Region 10 to providing guidance to stakeholders on the status of the process. Wastewater permits are scheduled to be issued in draft form Summer of 2010 and become final by Spring 2011. Meeting information is available at DOE's website. • Implement records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city -wide implementation in 2010. As of 2010, our Laserfiche Repository now includes documents from every department. There are an estimated 21,412 documents, for a total of 421,071 pages. • Implement and evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by the City Council. Staff conducted 6 public meetings and collected comments regarding zoning and comprehensive plan changes to the Plan. Several code amendments have resulted from the meetings. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for of statewide significance as required by state statute. The Shoreline Inventory was completed and reviewed by City Council. Progress on the Shoreline regulations was made in 2010 with adoption scheduled in 2011. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to Park Street Pool • Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City • The City did not receive funding in 2010 but this item is included in the Legislative Agenda for 2011 Council approved continuing with the current plan and implemented the following items: • RFP selection process for a long -term contractor will be conducted in early 2011 • Hire one additional full -time Mechanic /Operator • Monitor future years to see if additional full -tome or part -time staff are needed • Purchase the Waste Management Facility or other similar facility for street maintenance operations • Purchase one additional surplus WSDOT truck /plow /sander and one new truck /plow /sander in 2010 • Explore a ranae of options for a citv hall • No progress on this goal but will carry over into 2011 IOU =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle Dept: 013 Executive & Legislative Support 2011 Budge 013 - City Manager cont. Goals for 2011 • Continue monitoring wastewater issues including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharges licenses. • Implement and Evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to the Park Road Pool. • Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. • Explore a range of options for a city hall Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Attorney 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Attorney 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant - Legal 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant (CC) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant (CM) 1_0 1_0 0_0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 7.0 Interns 3.0 3.5 2.0 Budget Detail N Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 815,061 $ 922,152 $ 864,496 Supplies 3,907 17,400 17,400 Services & Charges 150,609 124,290 138,135 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Executive & Legislative Support $ 969,577 $ 1,063,842 $ 1,020,031 Cci Fund: 001 General Fund City of Spokane Valley Dept: 016 Public Safety 2011 Budget 016 - Public Safety The Public Safety department budget provides funds for the protection of persons and property in the city. The City contracts with Spokane County for law enforcement, district court, prosecutor services, public defender services, probation services, jail and animal control services. See following page for detail information on each budgeted section. Judicial System - The Spokane County District Court is contracted to provide municipal court services. The contract provides for the services of judge and court commissioner with related support staff. Budgeted amount also includes jury management fees. Budgeted contract amount: $ 1,826,274 Law Enforcement - The Spokane County Sheriff's Office is responsible for maintaining law and order and providing police services to the community under the direction of the Police Chief. The office provides for the preservation of life, protection of property, and reduction of crime. Budgeted contract amount: $ 17,980,558 Jail System - Spokane County provides jail and probation services for persons sentenced by any City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court Judge for violating laws of the city or state. Budgeted contract amount: $ 837,661 Animal Control - Spokane County will provide animal control services to include licensing, care and treatment of lost or stray animals, and response to potentially dangerous animal confrontations. Budgeted contract amount: Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance Budgeted contract amount: Communications Budgeted contract amount: Interfund Transfers Budgeted contract amount: Total $ 311,783 $ 873,000 $ 273,004 $ 77,600 $ 22,179,880 37 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 016 - Public Safety Other: Capital Outlays /Communications 258,515 320,119 2011 Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance 2009 2010 Proposed Animal Control Contract Actual Budget Budget Judicial System: 13,101 District Court Contract 899,817 982,937 819,345 Jury Management Contract - - - Intergovernmental Payments 34,367 - - Public Defender Contract 434,756 468,172 510,476 Prosecutor Contract 479,294 503,152 400,342 Pretrial Services Contract 61,860 69,125 96,111 Subtotal Judicial System 1,910,094 2,023,386 1,826,274 Law Enforcement System: Sheriff Contract 15,732,581 16,261,741 16,797,534 Emergency Management Contract 90,538 101,402 90,233 Wages & Benefits 3,560 - - Operating Supplies 1,496 5,000 2,425 Repair & Maintenance. Supplies 1,954 5,000 2,425 Gas, Oil, & Tires 405 - - SmaII Tools & Minor Equipment - 2,000 970 Electricity /Gas 31,736 32,000 33,213 Water 3,118 2,400 2,491 Sewer 669 800 830 Waste Disposal 3,423 2,800 2,906 Copier Maintenance - 500 519 Law Enf. Bldg Maintenance Contract 15,239 74,200 77,012 Contingency 38,849 1,000,000 970,000 Crywolf Charges & Fees 296 - - ICMA Consultant Srvs 88,820 - - Subtotal Law Enforcement System: 16,012,684 17,487,843 17,980,558 Jail System: Jail Contract 428,145 400,000 437,661 Jail - Geiger Corrections Center 509,490 500,000 400,000 Subtotal Jail System: 937,635 900,000 837,661 Other: Capital Outlays /Communications 258,515 320,119 273,004 Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance 964,841 900,000 873,000 Animal Control Contract 335,537 350,920 311,783 Equip. Purchased w JAG Funds 13,101 Building & Structures 24,005 Building Replacement Costs - 80,000 77,600 IF Transfer:Civic Facil. Replacement 80,000 - - Subtotal Other: 1,675,998 1,651,039 1,535,387 Total Public Safety 20,536,411 22,062,268 22,179,880 38 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Budgeted Contract Expenditures 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 KE District Court Public Prosecutor Pretrial Sheriff Emergency Law Enf. Bldg Jail Contract Animal Contract Defender Contract Services Contract Management Maintenance Control Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane valley Dept: 018 Operations & Administrative Services 2011 Budget 018 - Operations & Administrative Services The Operations & Administrative Services Department is composed of three divisions, the Deputy City Manager Division, the Finance Division, and the Human Resources Division. As of 2007, the Legal Division costs will be included in the Executive and Legislative Support Division. 013 - Deputy City Manager Division The Deputy City Manager (DCM) supervises the Operations & Administrative Services Department, assists the City Manager in organizing and directing the other operations of the City and assumes the duties of the City Manager in his /her absence. Accomplishments for 2010 • Facilitated transition to new Council • Increased communication with citizens • Facilitated a day -long Budget workshop • Negotiated and executed new Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County and Spokane County Sheriff • Drafted comparative analysis of City services • Completed revenue analysis • Negotiated newjail contract • Established and implemented plan for public, educational and governmental broadcasting • Launched new website with expanded information, online customer service features, and improved usability • Drafted comprehensive citywide communications plan • Gained local, regional and national media exposure for Discovery Playground resulting in usage by hundreds of visitors each day EIt Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane valley Dept: 018 Operations & Administrative Services 2011 Budget 013- Deputy City Manager Division cont. Goals for 2011 • Draft and implement a comprehensive Public Information Plan • Provide media training for authorized spokespersons • Explore opportunities for economic development • Involve all departments in implementation of a citywide comprehensive customer service request and communications plan • Help complete contract and purchasing procedures • Propose service contract amendments to ease administration and allow control of costs • Conduct biannual community survey • Develop social media policy and train key staff toward implementation Budget Summary E111 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Deputy City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 Public Information Officer 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 Office Assistant 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant 11 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 7.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 521,980 $ 547,874 $ 507,410 Supplies 2,134 6,000 2,800 Services & Charges 18,041 66,700 49,732 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges 32,500 - - Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 574,655 $ 620,574 $ 559,942 E111 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle )ept: 018 Operations & Administrative Services 2011 Budges 014 - Finance Division The Finance Division provides financial management services for all City departments Programs include accounting and reporting, payroll, accounts payable, purchasing, budgeting and financial planning, treasury, information technology and investments. The division is also responsible for generating and analyzing data related to the City's operations. The department prepares monthly, quarterly, and annual financial reports and budgets to ensure compliance with state laws. AccomDlishments for 2010 • Implemented additional State Auditor suggestions • Considered Washington Cities Insurance Authority suggestions • Improved financial statement process and accuracy • Considered enhanced accounts receivable system to include code enforcement liens attached to parcels Goals for 2011 • Consider 2010 audit recommendations • Improve financial statement process & accuracy • Fine -tune code enforcement liens as a segment of accounts receivable system • Review WA. Cities Ins. Authority suggestions Budget Summary Cy 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Finance & Admin Services Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 Financial Report Specialist 0.0 1.0 0.0 Accounting Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 Accountant /Budget Analyst 3.0 3.0 4.0 Accounting Technician 1.0 3.0 2.0 IT Specialist 2.0 2.0 2.0 GIS /Database Administrator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 9.0 12.0 11.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 758,665 $ 966,473 $ 954,415 Supplies 4,543 11,000 6,700 Services & Charges 48,418 45,900 62,650 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Finance Division $ 811,626 $ 1,023,373 $ 1,023,765 Cy Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle) dept: 018 Operations & Administrative Services 2011 Budges 016 - Human Resources Division Human Resources (HR) is administered through the Deputy City Manager (DCM). The HR operation provides services in compensation, benefits, training and organizational development, staffing, employee relations, and communications. Accomplishments for 2010 • Implemented HR section of City Intranet • Implemented Collective Bargaining Agreement • Developed and implemented Employee Training Guidelines • Planned for and implemented required steps to achieve the AWC WellCity Award • Prepared for the 2010 WCIA Personnel Audit and Implement Required Changes • Assumed additional responsibilities in Risk Management and ADA Coordination Goals for 2011 • Provide support for the City's ADA Self Evaluation and Plan • Evaluate the City's Unemployment and Labor and Industries programs to reduce labor costs • Provide City -Wide safety related training as identified in the Accident Prevention Program • Implement an On -Line Employment Application Process for the City Budget Summary Total Human Resources Division $ 179,963 $ 248,435 $ 240,500 43 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Human Resource Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 Human Resources Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 166,074 $ 180,835 $ 186,354 Supplies 1,229 3,500 1,967 Services & Charges 12,660 64,100 52,179 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Human Resources Division $ 179,963 $ 248,435 $ 240,500 43 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane valley )ept: 032 Public Works 2011 Budgel 032 - Public Works The Public Works Department provides overall planning and oversight of public works projects in the City of Spokane Valley. The department provides engineering plan review, inspection, coordination of major Public Works Capital Improvement Projects, long -range transportation planning and neighborhood traffic management. The Public Works Street Maintenance Section is responsible for maintenance of streets. Accomplishments for 2010 • Designed and constructed funded capital projects. • Developed the 2011 -2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. • Submitted grants for various capital projects • Worked with the County and DOE on final phases of TMDL Goals for 2011 • Implement approved capital projects. • Provide planning for development of update Transportation Improvement Plan. • Prepare and submit grant applications for capital projects. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Public Works Director Administrative Assistant Senior Engineer (CIP) Senior Engineer Assistant Engineer (CIP) Limited Term Construction Inspector- Bridge Maint. /Construction Inspector (ROW) Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician II Total FTEs Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Payments Capital Outlay Interfund Charges Total Public Works 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2_0 2_0 2_0 11.0 11.0 11.0 $ 590,131 $ 696,230 $ 712,767 11,424 50,988 48,988 70,715 143,455 134,955 - 3,120 3,120 $ 672,270 $ 893,793 $ 899,830 44 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle Dept: 058 Community Development - Administrative 2011 Budgel Administrative Division The Administrative Division provides overall management and oversight of the Community Development Department including the permitting operation, long -range planning, development engineering, and code compliance and provides staff support through administration of the department's budget, provides administrative support and department training. Accomplishments for 2010 • Continued to provide department wide training to facilitate teamwork and efficiency. • Provided staff support to the Planning Commission. Goals for 2011 • Prepare and implement customer service training program • Cross train admin staff to cover Planning Commission • Keep department website pages up -to -date • Continue to archive old files Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Community Development Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 3.0 3.0 3.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits 272,123 282,145 283,035 Supplies 3,374 4,100 4,256 Services & Charges 3,236 21,960 22,259 Intergovernmental Payments 26,937 15,000 15,000 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Building Division $ 305,670 $ 323,205 $ 324,550 E 1 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Vallej )ept: 058 Community Development - Dev. Engineering 2011 Budgei Community Development Engineering Division Development Engineering provides the review and inspection for stormwater, access management and other public works improvements in development applications and provide policy recommendations for public works issues. Accomplishments for 2010 • Completed sidewalk priority plan • Cross train within division to increase knowledge base and provide better staff coverage. • Implemented the public education piece of the adoption of new street standards. • Completed Local Access Street Connection map Goals for 2011 • Complete Forker Draw floodplain restudy • Develop revised hydrology for the Glenrose Creek floodplain • Complete review of acquired right -of -way and border easement documents and develop GIS layer to graphically display the acquisitions. Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineer 3.0 1.5 1.5 Assistant Engineer 2.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Technician 2.0 2.5 1.5 Construction Inspector 0.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant 1 3.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 11.0 8.00 7.00 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 503,640 $ 668,219 $ 547,690 Supplies 8,403 8,000 8,304 Services & Charges 66,700 70,500 71,276 Intergovernmental Payments 82,504 45,000 45,000 Capital Outlay 1,966 - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Building Division $ 663,213 $ 791,719 $ 672,270 E Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 058 &059 Community Development - Planning Division 2011 Budget Community Development Planning Division The Planning Division is responsible for providing professional policy guidance on land use issues to the City Council and Planning Commission. Planning staff participate at a regional level on issues such as annexations, growth targets, water quality, etc. It is also responsible for processing land use permits, reviewing environmentally sensitive areas, administering the State Environmental Protection Act and reviewing home occupation licenses. Accomplishments for 2010 • Worked on revisions to the Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan per City Council direction. • Planned Action Ordinance for the City Center - On hold . Waiting for Council direction • Worked with regional staff on Urban Growth Area Boundaries and complete Joint Planning Agreements. • Began the Shoreline Master Program update. • Began the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Completed the annexation process forms for the City of Spokane Valley in Spokane County. • Began the ADA Inventory and Plan. • 2010 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments Goals for 2011 • Complete the Shoreline Master Program update • Complete the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan • Complete 2011 Comprehensive Plan updates - including a review of the intent of the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan • Complete the regional UGA update process in conjunction with Spokane County and other jurisdictions • Complete the ADA Inventory and Plan 47 Fund: 001 General Fund Dept: 058 &059 Community Development - Planning Division Spokane Valley 2011 Budget Community Development Services - Planning Division Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Planner 2.0 2.0 2.0 Planning Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 Associate Planner 2.0 2.0 2.0 Assistant Planner 3.0 3.0 2.5 Planning Technician 1_0 1_0 1_0 Total FTEs 9.0 9.0 8.5 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 763,131 $ 799,406 $ 801,570 Supplies 12,985 10,200 10,588 Services & Charges 200,000 239,600 141,100 Intergovernmental Services 50,344 75,000 75,000 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - - - Total Planning Division $ 1,026,460 $ 1,124,206 $ 1,028,258 48 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 058 Community Development - Building Division 2011 Budget Community Development Building Division The Building Division implements the Washington State Building Code. It is responsible for ensuring that buildings and structures comply with adopted building codes through technical plan review and inspection services. The Permit Center receives applications and coordinates the review and processing of permits. Code compliance staff enforce zoning and building regulations on a complaint- driven basis. ROW inspection program provides inspection services to assure the compliance with the RPCP and the durability and safety of work done in the public ROW. Accomplishments for 2010 • Worked to finalize cross connection control inter -local agreements • Began survey of City sidewalks and facilities for compliance with ADA • Reviewed and implemented the State Building Code • Completed major abatements, brought 262 properties into compliance (half yr) • Reviewed, issued and inspected 2198 (half yr) permits Goals for 2011 • Complete cross - connection inter -local agreement with all water districts serving the City complete survey of City ROW for ADA compliance • Evaluate and adjust permitting processes for maximum efficiency and effectiveness • Complete one abatement not funded in 2010 • Identify and implement regional partnering opportunities with Spokane and Spokane County • Work with local builders and building departments to influence state processes impacting the construction sector Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 Building Inspector II 3.0 4.0 3.0 Code Enforcement Officer BP 2.0 2.0 2.0 Construction Inspector 2.0 1.0 0.0 Senior Permit Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 Permit Specialist 3.0 2.0 2.0 Senior Plans Examiner 1.0 1.0 1.0 Plans Examiner 0.0 0.75 0.75 Maint /Const Inspector (ROW) 2.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant II 0.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 15.0 14.75 12.75 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 952,045 $ 1,100,070 $ 1,004,525 Supplies 24,213 39,000 40,479 Services & Charges 40,172 98,650 101,441 Intergovernmental Payments 42,275 65,000 65,000 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - 4,000 8,400 Total Building Division $ 1,058,705 $ 1,306,720 $ 1,219,845 E,PC Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Vallel Dept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2011 Budgel 076 - Parks & Recreation The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of five divisions, the Administration and Park Maintenance Division, Recreation, Aquatics, Senior Center, and the CenterPlace Division. The overall goal of the department is to provide quality recreation programs and acquisition, renovation, development, operation, and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. 000 - Parks Administration & Maintenance Division The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas of the City. Accomplishments for 2010 • Completed construction of Discovery Playground. • Completed design for Greenacres Park • Implemented new customer reservation software program • Developed maintenance agreement to add Discovery Playground to existing contract • Began working with State Parks on revised Centennial Trail maintenance agreement Goals for 2011 • Complete construction of Greenacres Park • Construct new picnic shelter at Terrace View Park • Renovate turf & irrigation at south Mirabeau Point Park • Begin development of a dog park • Develop and finalize Centennial Trail maintenance agreement Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Parks & Recreation Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 172,408 $ 180,704 $ 202,279 Supplies 7,877 62,000 59,100 Services & Charges 710,771 731,652 677,250 Intergovernmental Services 8,796 10,000 10,000 Capital Outlay - - - Interfund Charges - 3,200 3,200 Total Parks Administration $ 899,852 $ 987,556 $ 951,829 619 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2011 Budgel 301 - Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and services throughout the City and the City's park system. AccomDlishments for 2010 • Continued to provide Recreation Programs for a variety of ages • Developed Recreation Programming interlocal agreement with City of Spokane and Spokane County • Hosted Environmental Special Event "Spring into Action" at Valley Mission Park • Facilitated developed of new Parks & Recreation website e Expanded program marketing . Developed partnerships with surrounding school districts to promote student volunteerism with our Department Goals for 2011 • Expand program marketing to social media sites • Increase partner programs with Liberty Lake, Spokane County and the City of Spokane • Hold a summer theatre camp e Solicit sponsorships for the summer outdoor movies Budget Summary Total Recreation Division $ 181,218 $ 237,846 $ 246,628 611 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits 129,226 $ 132,452 $ 145,365 Supplies 4,177 11,490 10,943 Services & Charges 41,909 86,352 82,720 Interfund Charges 5,906 7,552 7,600 Capital Outlay - - - Total Recreation Division $ 181,218 $ 237,846 $ 246,628 611 - und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle )ept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2011 Budge 302 - Aquatics Division The City of Spokane Valley owns three pools: Park Road Pool, Terrace View Pool, and Valley Mission Pool. Services include open swim, swim lessons, swim team and facility rentals. In addition, the City leases a portion of Valley Mission Park to Splashdown Inc. for a water park. The City currently is contracting with the YMCA for all aquatic activities within the City. The YMCA provides the lifeguards and maintains the pools during the season. Accomplishments for 2010 • Worked with the "Make a Splash" campaign to increase scholarship funding • Developed rental package for swimming pools Goals for 2011 • Continue to seek increased funding for scholarships for open swim and swimming lessons • Maintain full summer swimming program Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Services $ 837 $ 500 $ 3,000 351,681 422,050 426,250 $ 352,518 $ 422,550 $ 429,250 Total Aquatics Division 6 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle )ept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2011 Budge 304 - Senior Center Division The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department assumed operational control of the Valley Senior Center in 2003. Accomplishments for 2010 • Continued to enhance resource and referral information for seniors in the community by hosting a resource fair in March • Expanded the use of the Wellness Center • Continued to be a host agency for WSU Nursing students who offer health screenings Goals for 2011 • Offer resource and referral Fair to provide information to the senior population • Provide training options for front desk volunteers • Offer day bus trips in conjunction with area senior centers • Advertise and offer activities and trips through other senior centers • Continue to work with the Board of Directors regarding their training and educational opportunities Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Eauivalents Senior Center Supervisor Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Capital Outlay Total Senior Center Division 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 $ 65,769 $ 69,903 $ 74,953 2,615 6,600 5,100 6,519 8,300 9,600 - 700 - $ 74,903 $ 85,503 $ 89,653 53 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2011 Budget 305 - CenterPlace Division Construction of Mirabeau Point CenterPlace began in late 2003, and was completed mid -year 2005. The project represents the culmination of eight years of planning and fundraising by Mirabeau Point Inc. and the joint involvement of the City and Spokane County. The approximately 54,000 square foot facility houses the City of Spokane Valley Senior Center, a great room (banquet facility), numerous meeting rooms, multi - purpose rooms, and a high tech lecture hall. The facility combines with Mirabeau Meadows Parks and Mirabeau Springs to form a regional focal point for Northeast Washington and Northern Idaho. Accomplishments for 2010 • Created outside facilities for wedding packages which included a wedding gazebo and courtyard area outside the Great room • Continued to develop relationship with Spokane Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau and local hotels and motels to assist in meeting tourism objectives • Entered into a nonexclusive food services contact with Red Rock catering in order to become full service for our corporate customers Goal for 2011 • Create an updated marketing plan for the next five years. This marketing plan will help create name recognition for CenterPlace and develop more corporate reservations • Develop a list of meeting planners to promote CenterPlace through target marketing • Utilize CenterPlace marketing materials to promote tourism to Spokane Valley Budget Summary 54 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Customer Relations /Facilities Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 Custodian 0.0 2.0 0.0 Maintenance Worker 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total FTEs 5.0 7.0 5.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 323,573 $ 358,575 $ 367,082 Supplies 58,853 90,540 70,952 Services & Charges 394,488 389,463 336,877 Interfund Charges 358,911 354,000 324,000 Total CenterPlace Division $ 1,135,826 $ 1,192,578 $ 1,098,911 54 =und: 001 General Fund Spokane Valle) )ept: 090 General Government 2011 Budge 090 - General Government The General Government Department comprises activities that encompass services to multiple departments. Included in this department are the costs of City Hall and related utilities, management information services, insurance costs, miscellaneous city intergovernmental costs and capital equipment costs that benefit more than one department, and outside agency funding. Outside agencies provide needed public services on behalf of the City. The outside agencies must provide an annual report of how the money was spent. Budqet Summary Facilities 2009 2010 2011 960 5,000 Actual Budget Budget Budqet Detail Computer Software /Hardware Replacement - - - General Citywide Costs 72,884 25,000 65,000 Energy Conservation Improvement Accounting & Audit Services $ 90,135 $ 130,000 $ 95,000 Advertising - 30,000 - Merchant Charges (Bankcard Fees) 24,707 - 25,000 Business Registrations - 5,000 - Copier 25,907 40,000 20,000 Economic Development - Site Selector - 15,000 15,000 Election Costs 26,843 80,000 30,000 Employee Recognition Safety & Bicycle Safety 5,447 10,000 8,000 Equipment Repair & Maintenance 5,000 30,000 Gas, Oil, & Tires 4,000 - General Operating Leases: Computers 26,159 33,000 60,000 IT Support - Network 152,239 100,000 160,000 Miscellaneous 29,442 20,000 15,000 Office and Operating Supplies 20,687 15,000 20,000 Office Supplies - 11,000 - Other Governmental Services 1,520 - 5,000 Postage 18,886 18,000 20,000 Printing and Binding 1,632 7,500 5,000 Registrations 1,135 - 2,000 Small Tools and Minor Equipment - 60,000 - Software Licenses and Maintenance 98,753 44,500 100,000 Telephone /DSL Charges 21,985 45,000 25,000 Vehicle Rental 10,106 10,000 12,000 Taxes & assessments 6,589 - 7,000 Cry Wolf - - 20,000 Web Site Services - 10.000 - lnterfund Interfund Risk Management Payment 230,000 275.000 319,000 Interfund Loan to Street Fund (winter weather reserve) 355,000 - - Interfund Transfer to Street Capital 2011+ - 500,000 Interfund Transfer to full paveback -Fund 303 - - 1,500,000 Interfund Transfer to Parks Capital Fund 123,000 100,000 100,000 Facilities Facility Repairs & Maintenance 960 5,000 5,000 Computer Software /Hardware - 100,000 - Computer Software /Hardware Replacement - - - Office Furniture & Equipment 72,884 25,000 65,000 Energy Conservation Improvement - 111,350 50,000 ADA Inventory - 50,000 - City Hall Leasing Costs: City Hall Rent 451,268 462,000 465.000 Leasehold Improvements - 12,000 - 610 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2011 Budget 090 - General Government Budget Summary - continued Outside Services Alcohol Treatment 21.003 26,000 23,000 City Economic Development 1,625 10,000 3,000 Community Survey - 10,000 - Memberships - SRTC - 34,300 - Records Management 93,624 300,000 100,000 Requests from Outside Agencies- Economic Development 100,580 80,000 114,000 Requests from Outside Agencies - Social Services 42,074 62,500 45,000 Spokane County Air Pollution Authority 115,998 120,000 117,000 Voter Registrations 61,171 60,000 62,000 Contingency & Reserves Reserve for Revenue Adjustments - 192,000 - Estimated Ending Fund Balance * - Transfer - Capital Projects - Broadcasting Council meetings 46.000 PERS Set Aside - 100.000 Contingency - 500.000 377.750 $ 2,231,359 $ 3,228,150 $ 4,665,750 * Estimated ending balance of $18,599,813 was removed from 2010 budget 616, Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 042 2011 Budget 101 -Street Fund The Street Operating Program is established to provide efficient and safe movement of both motorized and non - motorized vehicles, as well as pedestrians within the limits of the City, and coordinate convenient interconnect to the regional transportation syste m. The transportation networks, under this program, are designed, constructed, and maintained to improve the quality of life while providing the efficient movement of commerce. Accomplishments for 2010 • Updated the 2009 Street Master Plan. • Optimized traffic signals on selected corridors . • Applied for grants and work with various schools to install flashing beacons at crosswalks. • Renewed Contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Developed and implemented a Bridge Maintenance program. • Completed LED traffic signal upgrades supported by funds from Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. • Implemented an emergency winter operations program for snow and ice removal. Goals for 2011 • Update the 2010 Street Master Plan. • Optimize traffic signals on selected corridors . • Apply for grants and work with various schools to install flashing beacons at crosswalks. • Renew Contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continue with the development and implementation of a winter operations program. Budget Summary Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Capital Outlay Intergovernmental Payments Interfund Charges and End Fund Bal $ 349,813 $ 455,868 45,939 69,200 2,411,807 2011 203,405 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Engineer - Traffic 1.0 1.0 1.0 Public Works Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maintenance /Construction Inspector 1.0 1.0 1.5 Assistant Engineer - Traffic /Planning 1.0 2.0 1.0 Senior Engineer (Planning /Grants) 0_4 0_0 0_0 Total FTEs 4.4 5.0 4.5 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Capital Outlay Intergovernmental Payments Interfund Charges and End Fund Bal $ 349,813 $ 455,868 45,939 69,200 2,411,807 3,670,792 203,405 762,050 188,479 947,000 1,713,420 1,494,140 $ 4,912,863 $ 7,399,050 $ 433,931 72,200 3,805,792 45,000 947,000 79,404 $ 5,383,327 Total Street Fund Ending fund balance was added to this page. 57 Fund: 103 Trails & Paths Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 103 2011 Budgel 103 - Trails & Paths Fund The Trails & Paths Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of the State - Levied Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax distributed to the City in accordance with State RCW 47.30.050. These revenues originate from .42% of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax attributable to Street Maintenance. These funds are restricted for constructing new trails and paths throughout the City. $20,000 Fund: 105 Hotel /Motel Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 105 2011 Budgel 105 - Hotel /Motel Fund The Hotel /Motel Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of two percent on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourist promotion, acquisition or operation of tourism - related facilities, and marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Tourism Promotion Interfund Transfers Total Hotel /Motel Fund 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget $ 462,165 $ 380,000 $ 500,000 - 20,000 - $ 462,165 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 58 Fund: 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 120 2011 Budget 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund The CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund was established to provide an emergency revenue source for the recently completed facility. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Reserve for CenterPlace Operations $ - 2010 2011 Budget Budget $ 350,000 $ - Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 121 2011 Budget 121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund was established to provide an emergency revenue source to maintain service levels in the event of a downturn in the local economy. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Reserve For Service Level Stabilization $ - 2010 2011 Budget Budget $ 5,400,000 $ - Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 122 2011 Budget 122 - Winter Weather Reserve Fund The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established to provide emergency services during an unusually harsh winter. Loan from General Fund, repaid from Street Fund. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Reserve for Winter Weather 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget $ 505,000 $ 505,000 Fund: 123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 122 2011 Budget 123 - Civic Facility Replacement Fund This fund was created to collect dollars for the eventual replacement of CenterPlace and the Police Precinct Building on E. Sprague. Budget Summary 2009 Actual 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget Budget Detail Reserve for Facility Replacement $ - $ 1,240,000 $ - X Fund: 204 Limited Tax General Obligation - Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 204 2011 Budget 204 - Limited Tax General Obligation - Debt Service Fund The LTGO - Debt Service Fund collects and distributes monies received and paid for long -term debt obligations. Revenue to this fund consists of money received from the Public Facility District and City revenue, which will be used to pay annual debt obligations on outstanding bonds. Budget Summary 11.11 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Debt Service on Mirabeau Bonds $ 419,824 $ 440,000 $ 460,000 Debt Service on Street Bonds 186,253 210,000 225,000 Total Debt Service Fund $ 606,077 $ 650,000 $ 685,000 11.11 Fund: 301/302 Capital Projects & Special Capital Projects Funds Spokane Valley 2011 Budges 301/302 - Capital Projects & Special Capital Projects Funds These funds account for the collection and expenditure of the real estate excise tax levied on all sales of real estate. The tax is levied in two phases of a quarter of a percent each. The first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax (REET 1) must be spent on capital improvements identified in a capital improvements plan. This REET 1 tax is accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund 301. The second quarter percent (REET 2) may only be levied by cities that are planning under the Growth Management Act. These funds must be used for a capital project. The REET 2 tax is accounted for in the Special Capital Projects Fund 302. Revenues accumulated in these funds will be used as matching funds for construction projects and will be transferred to other Capital Project Funds. Budget Summary 301 - Capital Projects Fund 2009 Actual 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget Transfer to Capital Grants Projects (303) $ 1,001,137 $ 1,843,000 $ 901,095 Transfer to Debt Service (204) 101,533 105,000 112,500 Transfer to Parks (309) - - - Transfer to Capital Grants (307) - - - Transfer to Barker Bridge Fund (308) - - - Total Capital Projects Fund 302 - Special Capital Proiects Fund $ 1,102,670 $ 1,948,000 $ 1,013,595 Transfer to Capital Grants Fund (307) $ Transfer to Barker Bridge Fund Transfer to Street Capital Projects (303) Transfer to Debt Service (204) - $ 68,000 $ 11,176 - 239,000 - 985,625 200,000 897,393 114 9Rd 1 ns nnn 119 inn Total Special Capital Projects Fund $ 1,099,889 $ 612,000 $ 1,021,069 1 °und: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valle 2011 Budge 303 -Street Capital Proiects Fund The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance the 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan. Revenues are transfers from the Capital Projects Fund, Special Capital Projects Fund, and the Stormwater Fund. Expenditures are often for matching funds for Transportation Improvement Board and other grants. Budget Summary Budget Detail Road Design & Construction Projects 16th Avenue - Project 2 24th Ave - Sullivan to 22nd Argonne Road - 190 to Trent Broadway Ave Rehabilitation Proj # 2 Broadway @ Argonne & Mullan PCC, (PE, RV Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines- Park Broadway /Sullivan Intersection PCC STEP Projects Evergreen /Sprague Intersection PCC Indiana /Sullivan Intersection PCC Indiana Avenue Extension - 3600' e/o Sullivar Mission -Flora to Barker PE Park Road - #2 - 8th to Appleway Park Road - #2 (PE Only) - Broadway to India Pines (SR27) ITS Improvement SRTC 06 -26 Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd. to Pines Pines /Sprague Intersection PCC Rockwell 11 Sprague Resurface - E'green to Sull. ADA Sprague Resurface - E'green to University Sprague /Conklin Signal Sprague /McDonald PCCP Intersection Sullivan Euclid PCC PE, ROW Misc. Road Projects Sullivan /Sprague PCC WSDOT Urban Ramp Projects Contingency Road Preservation Projects Other Preservation Projects Road Paveback (Septic Elimination) Misc. Road Paveback Projects Total Street Capital Projects Fund 22,243 - - $ 10,930,200 $ 10,572,000 $ 8,437,307 63 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget $ 13,885 $ - $ - $ 8,461 $ - $ - 797 576,000 581,886 637,149 - - - - 271,000 857 834,000 834,000 39,555 1,230,000 - 2,877,287 300,000 1,900,000 700,613 - - 3,262 1,342,000 1,171, 200 61,641 1,874,000 200,000 - - 488,000 39,743 - - 123,639 246,000 35,000 841 - 1,843,221 1,581,541 - 450,000 881,570 - - 234,681 - - 56,021 1,944,000 - 2,610,279 - - 5,255 - - 659,716 - - - - 163,000 11,495 298,000 - 36,220 1,678,000 - 323,449 - - - 250,000 500,000 22,243 - - $ 10,930,200 $ 10,572,000 $ 8,437,307 63 Fund: 304 Mirabeau Point Capital Project Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 304 2011 Budget 304 - Mirabeau Point Capital Project Fund Mirabeau Point is a multi -use regional project located at 2426 Discovery Place which will be operated by the City. The bond sale proceeds were spent in 2003, 2004, and 2005. CenterPlace provides space for a Conference Center Wing, Senior Center Wing and a Great Room Wing. The portion of CenterPlace used for the Conference Center Wing and Great Room Wing is being developed as a "regional facility" as defined in RCW 36.100 and 35.57.020. Budget Summary 2009 2010 2011 Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Transfer to Civic Facility Replacement Fund $ 363,722 $ - $ - Reserve for Replacement - - - Construction in Progress - - - Total Mirabeau Point Project Fund $ 363,722 $ - $ - Fund: 306 CD Block Grant Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 306 2011 Budget 306 - CD Block Grant Fund Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Transfer to Street Capital Projects (303) $ - Transfer to Capital Grant Fund - Total CD Block Grant Fund $ - 2010 2011 Budget Budget $ 300,000 $ - $ 300,000 $ - 64 =und: 307 Capital Grants Fund Spokane Valle) )ept: 307 2011 Budge' 307 - Capital Grants Fund The Capital Grants Fund accounts for capital improvement projects funded partially by grant proceeds from other governmental agencies, such as Transportation Improvement Board, Spokane Transit Authority, Surface Transportation Program, and Community Development Block Grant. Revenues to this fund are from grant proceeds and transfers from other special revenue funds. Budget Summary Budget Detail 44th Ave Pathway: Woodruff Rd. to Sands Rd. Appleway Blvd - Tschirley Road to Hodges Appleway /Sprague /Dishman 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 Ave - Moore to Flora Contingency Signal Controller Upgrades (SRTC 06 -22) Sprague Ave ADA Sprague /Bowdish PCC Intersection Sullivan Road PCC: Mission to 1 -90 EB Ramps Total Capital Grants Fund 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget $ 29,932 $ - $ 5,000 129,736 - - 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 =und: 308 Barker Bridge - Federal Grant Fund Spokane Valle )ept: 308 2011 Budget 308 - Barker Bridae - Federal Grant Fund The Barker Bridge - Federal Grant Fund was created to account for the revenues and expenditures associated with the Barker Road Bridge Replacement Project. This project was funded by BRAC grant proceeds and City match cost approximately $11,600,000 over the course of the several years. Budget Summary Budget Detail Barker Road Bridge Reconstruction 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget $ 6,917,733 $ 1,767,000 $ - C:1 Fund: 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund Spokane Vallei )ept: 309 2011 Budges 309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund The Parks Capital Projects Fund is specifically designated for Parks and Recreation Capital improvements. Budget Summary Budget Detail Park Land Acquisition Terrace View Shelter Greenacres Contingency Swimming Pools Various Improvements Valley Mission Park Discovery (Universal) Park Total Parks Capital Project Fund 2009 Actual 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget $ - $ 225,000 $ - - 80,000 - - 300,000 1,959,036 - 15,000 - 706,792 - - 5,409 - - 232,857 - - 1,463,504 200,000 - 2,408,562 820,000 1,959,036 Fund: 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valle.) )ept: 310 2011 Budge 310 -Civic Facilities Capital Proiects Fund The Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund is an allocated reserve of monies specifically designated for future construction of Civic Facilities. The 2011 costs are for full width paveback above newly installed county sewer lines and street capital projects. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Paveback Fund 303 - Transfer to General Fund - Total Civic Buildings Capital Fund $ 3,363 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget - 1,500,000 - 500,000 $ 5,827,000 $ 2,000,000 Fund: 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ Spokane Valley Dept: 311 2011 Budget 311 -Street Capital Improvement 2011+ This Fund will be used only with specific authorization from City Council. Budget Summary 2009 Actual Budget Detail Street Capital Improvement 2011+ $ 2011 2010 Proposed Budget Budget $ - $ 500,000 Total Street Capital Improvement Fund - - 500,000 67 Fund: 402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 402 2011 Budget 402 - Stormwater Management Fund The Stormwater Management fund accounts for receipt and expenditure of the Stormwater fee. This fee is levied on an annual basis based upon a number of equivalent residential units attached to the parcel. The expenditures are used for stormwater construction and management through both the Street Department and Spokane County. Accomplishments for 2010 • Continue work on the ( NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Permit (completion in 2012). • Continue work on the Department Of Ecology Underground Injection Control Program (completion in 2013). • Determine location and establish cost for a treatment facility for the discharging of vactoring liquids. • Complete stormwater assessment rolls, update the commercial impervious surfaces map. • Develop criteria to assess city -owned Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells for retrofit or abandonment. Goals for 2011 • Comply with all applicable NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit requirements for 2011. • Begin Underground Injection Control (UIC) Assessment and Testing Program (Must be completed by 2013). • Develop multi -year Stormwater CIP and Retrofit Program. • Design and seek property acquisition of a vactor liquid decant facility, possibly start construction. • Provide input to Ecology's Stormwater permit renewal for the City 2012. Budget Summary Total Stormwater Fund $ 1,868,421 $4,398,015 $ 2, 325, 745 68 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Technician II 1.0 1.0 1.0 Assistant Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maintenance /Construction Inspector 1_0 1_0 1_5 Total FTEs 4.0 4.0 4.5 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 291,003 $ 402,590 $ 418,000 Supplies 22,131 29,980 43,100 Services & Charges 747,262 1,498,405 1,341,905 Intergovernmental Services 27,676 46,640 46,640 Capital Outlays 20,355 403,600 361,100 Interfund Transfers & Ending Balance 759,994 2,016,800 115,000 Total Stormwater Fund $ 1,868,421 $4,398,015 $ 2, 325, 745 68 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2011 Budget 501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund The Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund (ER &R) accounts for the cost of maintaining and replacing City vehicles and equipment for all City departments. The ER &R fund is an Internal Service fund. The fund accumulates the resources for vehicle and equipment replacements in the fund. The funds or departments using the vehicle or equipment pay the scheduled replacement fee. Replacement funds are being collected on the telephone system, computer network system, desktop computers, and vehicles. Maintenance and service charges for copiers, telephones, and the internet are also charged to funds through this department. The fund also finances and administers a fleet of pool cars for use by City departments. Goals for 2011 • Combine this fund in the General Fund with funding intact. Budget Summary Budget Detail Computer replacement lease Software /Hardware replacement Vehicle Replacement All other Total ER &R Fund 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget $ - $ 35,000 $ - - 37,000 - - 22,000 - - 825,000 209,000 $ - $ 919,000 $ 209,000 mm Fund: 502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 502 2011 Budget 502 - Risk Management Fund The City of Spokane Valley Risk Management Fund is established to account for insurance costs, claims settlement and administration of a Risk Management Safety Program. This fund also accounts for the funding of unemployment claims through the State of Washington. Budget Summary 2011 2009 2010 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Services & Charges $ 234,748 $ 258,000 $ 319,000 Total Risk Management Fund $ 234,748 $ 258,000 $ 319,000 70 City of Spokane Valley Capital Expenditures for 2011 City of Spokane Valley Capital Expenditures for 2011 001 301 302 310 402 Surface Congestion Spokane Developer Public Greenacres Project General Real Estate Real Estate 309 Civic Stormvwater Transportation Management Transit Private/ Facilities State Department Capital Outlay Description Expenses 2011 Fund Excise Tax 1 Excise Tax 2 Parks Capital Facilities Fund Program CDBG Air Quality Authority contributions TB: UAP TB: UCP District Grant City Funds I Grants 303 Street Capital Fund CIP # Road Design & Construction Proiects 0005 Pines Mansfield 0060 Argonne Road - 190 to Trent 0061 Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project 0069 Park Road - #2 (PE Only) - Broadway to Indiana 0112 Indiana Avenue Extension - 3600' e/o Sullivan 0113 Indiana /Sullivan Intersection PCC 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker (PE & RW) ' ' 0129 South greenacres (STEP) Broadway @ Argonne & Mullen PCC int, (PE /RW) Sullivan Rd /Euclid PCC (PE /RW) z - Misc. Road Preservation Projects Contingency Road Paveback (Septic Tank Elimination Program) STEP Paveback (s) Road Preservation Proiects Other Preservation Projects 303 Street Capital Fund Subtotal 450,000 581,886 1,843,221 834,000 35,000 200,000 1,171,200 488,000 271,000 163,000 500,000 1,900,000 $ 450,000 13,460 568,426 248,835 1,594,386 166,800 667,200 - 4,725 30,275 - 49,468 150,532 - 240,200 931,000 - 66,000 422,000 - 37,000 234,000 22,000 141,000 500,000 1,500,000 100,000 300,000 901,095 897,393 1,500,000 100,000 827,275 300,000 2,162,812 931,000 667,200 150,532 5,000 6,176 43,824 11,176 43,824 460,000 112,500 112,500 100,000 1,359,036 500,000 100,000 112,500 112,500 1,359,036 460,000 500,000 500,000 300,000 500,000 300,000 $ 8,437,307 307 Capital Grants Fund Road Design & Construction Proiects 0054 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands $ 5,000 0088 Broadway Avenue 180 ft E. of Moore to Flora $ 50,000 307 Capital Grants Fund Subtotal $ 55,000 204 Debt Service 309 Parks Capital Projects 0079 Greenacres Park Contingency 309 Parks Capital Projects 311 Street Capital Improvement Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 402 Stormwater 402 Stormwater 402 Stormwater Fund Total Capital Expenditures $ 460,000 $ 225,000 $ 685,000 $ 1,959,036 $ 1,959,036 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 11,936,343 $ 100,000 $ 1,013,595 $ 1,021,069 $ 1,359,036 $ 2,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 827,275 $ 300,000 $ 2,162,812 $ 931,000 $ $ 667,200 $ 194,356 $ 460,000 $ 500,000 71 City of Spokane Valley FTE Count by Year 2011 Budget 72 2010 2011 Budget 2011 Budget Authorized Changesto Proposed Interns Department FTEs FTEs FTEs for 2011 Executive & Legislative Support City Manager 5.0 (1.0) 4.0 - Legal 3.0 3.0 2.0 Operations & Administrative Services: Deputy City Manager 8.0 (1.0) 7.0 1.0 Finance 12.0 (1.0) 11.0 1.0 Human Resources 2.0 2.0 - Public Works 11.0 11.0 Planning & Community Development: Admin 3 3.00 Engineering 8 (1.0) 7.00 Planning 9 (0.5) 8.50 Building 14.75 (2.0) 12.75 Parks & Recreation: Parks Admin 2.0 2.0 Recreation 1.0 1.0 - Senior Center 1.0 1.0 1.0 CenterPlace 7.0 (2.0) 5.0 - Street Fund 5.0 (0.5) 4.5 1.0 Stormwater Fund 4.0 0.5 4.5 2.0 TOTAL 95.75 (8.50) 87.25 8.00 72 2010 Work Force Comparison: 29 Washington Communities with Population of 100,000 or less CITY POPULATION FULL -TIME PART -TIME Kent 88,760 768 29 Bellingham 77,550 763 32 Yakima 85,040 706 15 Renton 86,230 669 16 Redmond 53,680 622 24 Kennewick 68,570 318 7 Olympia 45,500 515 18 Richland 48,580 464 30 Kirkland 49,620 414 40 Auburn 68,270 408 3 Lynnwood 36,160 365 21 Bremerton 36,190 356 21 Federal Way 88,760 310 22 Pasco 56,300 280 10 Marysville 58,040 249 10 Lakewood 58,840 234 9 Shoreline 54,580 128 15 Lon view 36,100 287 11 Puyallup 38,900 285 18 Bothell 33,430 269 11 Walla Walla 31,770 267 11 Edmonds 40,900 205 6 Lacey 40,130 244 7 Mount Vernon 31,020 197 49 Wenatchee 31,120 184 3 Spokane Valley* 90,210 88 19 Sammamish 41,070 74 6 Burien 31,730 49 12 University Place 1 31,550 44 5 AVERAGE 1 337 17 Source: Association of Washington Cities Survey: 2010 Full Time 8/24/2010 73 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2011 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2011 Position Title Grade 2011 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21 -22 8,671.50 - 12,352.28 City Attorney 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Community Development Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Finance Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Public Works Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,023.77 - 9,005.65 Human Resources Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Planning Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Building Official 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Senior Engineer - Capital Projects, Development 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Senior Engineer - Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,689.67 - 7,293.90 Accounting Manager 17 5,689.67 - 7,293.90 City Clerk 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Engineer 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Planner 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Associate Planner 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Assistant Engineer 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 ITSpecialist 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Engineering Technician II 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 GIS /Database Administrator 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Administrative Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Assistant Planner 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Building Inspector II 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Plans Examiner 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Public Information Officer 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Engineering Technician I 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Maintenance /Construction Ins ector 13 -14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 Recreation Coordinator 13 -14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 Customer Relations /Facilities Coordinator 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Building Inspector I 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Planning Technician 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Deputy City Clerk 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Senior Center Specialist 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Human Resources Technician 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Administrative Assistant 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Permit Specialist 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Accounting Technician 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Maintenance Worker 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Office Assistant II 10 -11 2,721.38 - 3,876.55 Custodian 1 10 1 2,721.38 - 3,488.08 Office Assistant I 1 9 -10 1 2,449.55 - 3,488.08 74 City of Spokane Valley Street Fund - Multiyear Financial Forecast 8 -25 -2010 * Buy truck, loader 75 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Beginning Fund Bal $ 1,900,000 $ 2,155,050 $ 1,658,723 $ 1,145,723 $ 657,723 Interest Income $ 18,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 9,000 Utility tax - telephones $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,050,000 $ 3,050,000 Storm Wat. Share facility $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - FEMA Grant $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Grant $ 712,050 Motor fuel tx & misc $ 1,900,000 $ 1,875,000 $ 1,875,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 7,680,050 $ 7,042,050 $ 6,545,723 $ 6,057,723 $ 5,566,723 Expenditures $ 5,225,000 $ 5,383,327 $ 5,400,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 5,400,000 * $ 300,000 $ 2,155,050 $ 1,658,723 $ 1,145,723 $ 657,723 $ 166,723 * Buy truck, loader 75 > Spokane 'Valley COMMUNITY PROFILE AND HISTORY "You cannot look to the future if you do not know the past. " On May 21, 2002, voters within the City approved incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley, which is the second largest city in the County and the seventh largest city in the State, with approximately 88,920 residents. The City incorporated as of March 31, 2003. The assessed valuation of real property within the boundaries of the City for taxation purposes is estimated for 2011 tax collection to be approximately $7.1 Billion. Spokane Valley encompasses approximately 38.2 square miles of land area. It has an extensive retail tax base and is home to several major auto dealerships and the Spokane Valley Mall, which includes over 700,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. There are an estimated 4,000 businesses in Spokane Valley with estimated retail sales of $1.9 billion. The first permanent settler in the Spokane Valley was Antoine Plante, a retired French - Canadian trapper. Mr. Plante built a cabin near the Spokane River in 1849, from which he operated a small Hudson's Bay Company trading post. Other settlers began arriving in this area between 1865 and 1882. "Firsts" to occur in Spokane Valley include the first settler in 1849, first business and ferry in 1850, the first store and bridge in 1862, the first house in 1866, and the first post office in 1867. All of these "firsts" occurred before the arrival in 1873 of James Glover who was considered the "Father of Spokane." In 1883, the Northern Pacific Railroad opened the west up with the transcontinental railroad. The new railroad, coupled with the discovery of silver in north Idaho, created an influx of people to the Spokane Valley area. Within a few years the Spokane area was connected to the rest of the country by five transcontinental railroads. The next major innovation to Spokane Valley was the introduction of irrigation to the area. Within 20 years 30,000 acres of dry land had been converted into fertile farm land. The first irrigation systems were constructed between 1899 and 1905. The Valley population grew from 1,000 residents at the turn of the century to nearly 10,000 by 1922. During this time apple growing became the predominant agricultural crop with nearly 2 million apple trees being planted by 1912. As the population of the Valley increased, small communities with churches, schools, businesses, community clubs, and other organizations thrived. rig Prior to World War II, the federal government made a decision to build an aluminum plant in Spokane Valley along the Spokane River. Additionally, the federal government identified a need for warehouse space and facilities to support coastal activities during the war. In 1942, Spokane Valley was chosen as a site for one of theses Inland Supply Depots. The Naval Storage Yards are now the Valley Industrial Park that has 5,000,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Rapid growth continued in Spokane Valley throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Along with this continued growth came concerns regarding the impact of the development on the Valley environment. Citizens' concerns were related to impacts to lakes in the area as well as the aquifer underlying a majority of the Spokane Valley. No protections were put into place to address these issues; sanitary sewers were not required for new construction. Steady residential and commercial growth continued in the Spokane Valley throughout the 80s and 90s. High tech companies followed Hewlett Packard into the Liberty Lake area. Later, some high tech companies moved into the Industrial Park. The State Board of Health threatened to enact a moratorium on new development in 1983, unless sewering of the Valley began. In response, Spokane County developed a wastewater management plan that put into motion construction of a sewer trunk line and a sanitary sewer system was made available to the citizens of Spokane Valley. MAJOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PARKS IN SPOKANE VALLEY There are public facilities and a number of parks in the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Indians, a minor league baseball team, plays its home games at Avista Stadium, located just inside the city limits on the east side of Havana Street. This stadium is one of the finest facilities in the Northwest League and can seat 7,200 spectators. Situated next door to Avista Stadium is the Spokane County Fair and Exposition Center. The Fairgrounds was expanded in 2003 with the construction of a new covered grandstand that was opened at the 2003 Interstate Fair. Various other shows and events are held throughout the year at the Fairgrounds. Mirabeau Point Park, situated on 54.5 acres of land, located between Pines Road and Evergreen Road interchanges (north of I -90), along the south bank of the Spokane River, is the home of CenterPlace. CenterPlace, a 54,000 square foot facility, was built to accommodate a regional senior center, education and business center, and a cultural and performing arts center. Mirabeau Meadows is a 15 -acre parcel of land providing another area for community activities, such as family get - togethers and games, outdoor music, corporate outings, farmers markets, arts and crafts, and other special events in Mirabeau Point Park. Valleyfest, an annual community event that is sponsored by individuals and businesses in our City, was held in this park in 2004. 77 The City of Spokane Valley operates a number of parks within the City. Below is a summary of these parks: Park Name Park Classification Park Size Balfour Community Park 2.8 acres Brown's Community Park 8.2 acres Castle Community Park 2.7 acres Edgecliff Community Park 4.8 acres Mirabeau Point Park Community /Regional Park 54.5 acres Myrtle Point Natural Area 31.0 acres Park Road Pool Special Use 2.0 acres Sullivan Community Park 10.3 acres Terrace View Community Park 9.1 acres Valley Mission and Valley Mission South & Pool Community Park 27.2 acres Valley Senior Center Special Use 2.0 acres Centennial Trail Trail 7 linear miles THE FUTURE OF SPOKANE VALLEY Spokane Valley: a community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play, and business will flourish and prosper. The potential of Spokane Valley is tremendous, with an adequate tax base and room for expansion of residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Spokane Valley rivals other cities in Eastern Washington in terms of population and significance in the region. The City is committed to planning for the future. It has adopted its first Comprehensive Plan, and its first Parks and Recreation Master Plan. It is in the process of creating a Sprague /Appleway revitalization plan to promote redevelopment of the major east -west corridor. The City is also creating a street master plan. 78 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2011 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2011 Position Title Grade 2011 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21 -22 8,671.50 - 12,352.28 City Attorney 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Community Development Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Finance Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Public Works Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,117.15 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,023.77 - 9,005.65 Human Resources Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Planning Manager 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Building Official 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Senior Engineer - Capital Projects, Development 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,322.20 - 8,104.68 Senior Engineer - Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,689.67 - 7,293.90 Accounting Manager 17 5,689.67 - 7,293.90 City Clerk 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Engineer 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Senior Planner 16 5,120.19 - 6,564.10 Associate Planner 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Assistant Engineer 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 ITSpecialist 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Engineering Technician II 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 GIS /Database Administrator 15 4,608.80 - 5,908.10 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Administrative Analyst 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Assistant Planner 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Building Inspector II 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Plans Examiner 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Public Information Officer 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Engineering Technician I 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,148.18 - 5,317.70 Maintenance /Construction Ins ector 13 -14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 Recreation Coordinator 13 -14 3,733.05 - 5,317.70 Customer Relations /Facilities Coordinator 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Building Inspector I 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Planning Technician 13 3,733.05 - 4,785.73 Deputy City Clerk 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Senior Center Specialist 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Human Resources Technician 12 -13 3,360.98 - 4,785.73 Administrative Assistant 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Permit Specialist 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Accounting Technician 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Maintenance Worker 11 -12 3,023.95 - 4,307.05 Office Assistant II 10 -11 2,721.38 - 3,876.55 Custodian 1 10 1 2,721.38 - 3,488.08 Office Assistant I 1 9 -10 1 2,449.55 - 3,488.08 79 City of Spokane Valley Multiyear Financial forecast - General Fund - Problem Statement #1 9 -14 -10 General Fund Expenditures: 2010 2011 2012 2013 Legislative 2014 322,120 $ 324,298 Estimate $ Estimate $ Estimate Executive & Legislative Estimate 1,063,842 Estimate General Fund Revenues: $ 1,103,266 $ 1,180,494 Public Safety $ 22,062,268 $ 22,179,880 $ 23,067,075 $ Sales Tax $ 16,100,000 $ 16,200,000 $ 16,300,000 $ 16,400,000 $ 16,400,000 Property Tax $ 10,969,500 $ 10,875,000 $ 10,900,000 $ 10,950,000 $ 11,000,000 Gambling Tax $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Franchise Fees /Bus. Reg. $ 1,100,000 $ 1,111,000 $ 1,122,110 $ 1,144,664 $ 1,156,111 State Shared Revenues $ 1,625,000 $ 1,665,625 $ 1,707,266 $ 1,793,697 $ 1,838,539 Service Fees $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Fines & Forfeitures $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Recreation Program Fees $ 550,000 $ 555,500 $ 560,000 $ 565,000 $ 570,650 Interfund Transfers $ 165,000 $ 2,040,000 $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ 55,000 Investment Int. & Misc. $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 180,000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 Carryover from prior yr x $ 24,400,000 $ 24,600,000 $ 20,996,935 $ 19,244,493 $ 16,056,964 Total General Fund $ 58,934,500 $ 61,072,125 $ 55,646,311 $ 54,077,854 $ 50,952,264 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative $ 322,120 $ 324,298 $ 337,270 $ 350,761 $ 364,791 Executive & Legislative $ 1,063,842 $ 1,020,031 $ 1,060,832 $ 1,103,266 $ 1,180,494 Public Safety $ 22,062,268 $ 22,179,880 $ 23,067,075 $ 23,989,758 $ 25,669,041 Deputy City Manager $ 620,574 $ 559,942 $ 582,340 $ 605,633 $ 648,028 Finance $ 1,023,373 $ 1,023,765 $ 1,064,716 $ 1,107,304 $ 1,184,816 Human Resources $ 248,435 $ 240,500 $ 250,120 $ 260,125 $ 278,334 Public Works $ 893,793 $ 899,830 $ 935,823 $ 973,256 $ 1,041,384 Com Dev Admin $ 323,205 $ 324,550 $ 337,532 $ 351,033 $ 375,606 Dev. Engineering $ 791,719 $ 1,028,258 $ 1,069,388 $ 1,112,164 $ 1,190,015 Planning $ 1,124,206 $ 1,219,845 $ 1,268,639 $ 1,319,384 $ 1,411,741 Building $ 1,313,320 $ 672,270 $ 699,161 $ 727,127 $ 778,026 Parks Admin $ 987,556 $ 951,829 $ 989,902 $ 1,029,498 $ 1,101,563 Recreation $ 237,846 $ 246,628 $ 256,493 $ 266,753 $ 285,426 Aquatics $ 422,550 $ 429,250 $ 446,420 $ 464,277 $ 496,776 Senior Center $ 85,503 $ 89,653 $ 93,239 $ 96,969 $ 103,756 CenterPlace $ 1,192,578 $ 1,098,911 $ 1,142,867 $ 1,188,582 $ 1,236,125 Transfer to Capital $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Spending less than budget $ (1,000,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - General Government $ 2,302,150 $ 4,665,750 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,975,000 $ 3,100,000 Total General Fund 34,115,038 37,075,190 $ 36,401,818 $ 38,020,890 $ 40,545,922 Net 24,819,462 23,996,935 19,244,493 16,056,964 10,406,341 Less cash flow reserve (3,000,000) Carryover to next yr 24,819,462 20,996,935 19,244,493 16,056,964 10,406,341 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent old business X new business public hearing information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Requests for Funding - outside agencies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City budgeting practices PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Proposals were requested from outside agencies for 2011 city financial assistance for public services (social services and economic development). Eighteen outside agencies presented proposals for 2011 city funding. Individual councilors have submitted suggested amounts for the 18 agencies to Finance Director Ken Thompson (attached). The attached worksheet showing average by agency and # of votes for each agency is presented only as a guide to help the council allocate the $159,000. The council is free to allocate these funds as the council desires. BACKGROUND: The city has been providing partial funding for public services since incorporation in 2003. The proposed budget for 2011 includes $159,000 for this purpose. Requests for 2011 programs total $310,000. OPTIONS: 1) fund outside agency services at $310,000 and direct staff to find a reduction in the 2011 budget to offset this increase; 2) fund outside agencies at the $159,000 level and determine how the $159,000 should be allocated; 3) some other approach that would balance the budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends council continue funding outside agencies at $159,000 for 2011. The City Council should make a motion to determine how to allocate the $159,000 among the agencies. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This recommendation has been incorporated into the 2011 city budget and will cost the city $159,000 for these public services. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY OUTSIDE AGENCY ALLOCATIONS BY COUNCIL Sept 10 COUNCILOR -------- 1 2 3 AGENCY Arts Council $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 Big Brothers... $ 5,000 Scraps $ 10,000 HUB Sport Center $ 10,000 Col. Resp. Disabled 4 Meals on Wheels $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 6,500 $ 10,000 $ Eastpoint Church Project Access $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ Greater Spok. Subs.Abuse Spokane Soccer Club 5 $ 20,000 6 7 AVG. 6,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ 4,286 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,857 12,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,500 $ 4,643 6,000 $ 5,600 $ 1,000 $ 3,229 $ 4,071 $ 5,000 7 $ 714 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,357 $ $ 1,400 $ 2,143 $ 200 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 18,571 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 500 $ 786 Spokane Valley Part. $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Global Trade Services $ 9,000 $ 1,400 7 $ 20,000 2 $ 10,000 $ 4,500 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 4,071 Starlight Children's Foun. $ 14,500 7 $ 60,000 5 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 19,000 $ 2,143 Greater Spokane Inc $ 49,400 $ 10,000 $ 57,000 $ 50,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 $ 40,914 Changepoint $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,286 Int. Trade Alliance $ 12,500 $ 24,000 $ 20,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 5,000 $ 12,214 Spokane V. Heritage $ 2,200 $ 2,190 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,770 Spokane Valley Cham $ 18,400 $ 10,000 $ 17,500 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 10,000 $ 19,000 $ 16,129 $ 159,000 $ 82,190 $ 159,000 $ 159,000 $ 159,000 $ 160,000 $ 159,000 $ 148,170 1 Exceeds budget 1 2 Under budget 2 # votes Requested 6 $ 10,000 4 $ 9,522 4 $ 35,000 4 $ 14,500 1 $ 13,472 7 $ 7,500 1 $ 1,400 7 $ 20,000 2 $ 10,000 0 $ 15,000 7 $ 30,000 4 $ 18,000 3 $ 14,500 7 $ 60,000 5 $ 5,000 6 $ 25,000 6 $ 2,190 7 $ 19,000 $ 310,084 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: 2010/2011 Winter Street Maintenance Contract GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 6, 2010 Council agreed to proceed with the Snow Operations Plan. On June 16, 2010 Council approved the purchase of a Loader Backhoe and a Snow Plow Truck. BACKGROUND: This contract will cover winter snow operations for this winter. The contract has two phases to accommodate the City's calendar year budget. Phase 1 will be in effect until December 31, 2010 with a not to exceed price of $200,000. Phase 2 will be from January 1, 2011 and remain in effect until May 30, 2011 and shall not exceed $500,000. These costs are based on a moderate snow year. OPTIONS: Approve the motion or give staff further direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the Winter Services Contract to Poe Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $700,000. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funds are available in the current 2010 Street Fund and are budgeted in the 2011 Street Fund STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Contract Agreement AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. Contract No. 10- THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a code City of the State of Washington, hereinafter "City" and Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. hereinafter "Contractor," jointly referred to as "parties." IN CONSIDERATION of the terms and conditions contained herein the parties agree as follows: 1. Work to Be Performed The Contractor shall do all work and furnish all labor, tools, materials, supplies and equipment for winter snow and ice services as outlined in Exhibit 1, "Scope of Services." The parties shall enter into a lease agreement for the City's snow removal and deicing equipment for those times the Contractor's employees are operating the vehicles. Additionally Contractor shall name the City as a primary insured on its insurance policy for the duration of the contract. The CONTRACTOR shall, for the amount set forth in this contract, assume and be responsible for the cost and expense of all work required for completing the work and related activities provided for in the Scope of Services, except those items mentioned therein to be furnished by the City of Spokane Valley. The City Manager, or designee, shall administer and be the primary contact for Contractor. Prior to commencement of work, Contractor shall exercise best efforts to contact the City Manager or designee to review the scope of work, schedule, and time of completion. Upon notice from the City, Contractor shall promptly commence work, complete the same in a timely manner, and cure any failure in perfonnance under this agreement. Unless otherwise directed by the City, all work shall be performed in conformance with the contract, and City, State and Federal standards. Contractor acknowledges review of the contract requirements and accepts the same. Contractor shall exercise best efforts, including the selection of the highest quality materials, so that all work performed shall be in compliance with current related industry standards. 2. Term of Contract Phase 1: Shall be in full force and effect upon execution and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2010. Phase 2: Shall be in full force and effect based on a written notice to proceed from the City from January 1, 2011 and remain in effect until May 30, 2011. The City may terminate this agreement by ten (10) days' written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination, the City shall pay the Contractor for all work previously authorized and satisfactorily perfonned prior to the tennination date. 3. Compensation The City agrees to pay the Contractor for the Cost of the Work plus the Contractor's fee for overhead and profit as defined in Exhibit 2 and by this reference is incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Phase 1 total cost will not exceed $200,000. Phase 2 total cost will not exceed $500,000. 4. Payment The Contractor may elect to be paid in monthly installments, upon presentation of an invoice to the City, or in a lump sum, upon completion of the work. Applications for payment shall be sent to the City Clerk at the below - stated address. Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 1 of 11 The City reserves the right to withhold payment under this agreement which is determined, in the reasonable judgment of the City Manager, to be noncompliant with the Contract Plans, Contract Documents, or City or State standards. Notice Notice shall be given in writing as follows: TO THE CITY: TO THE CONTRACTOR: Name: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Name: Brad Griffith Phone Number: (5 09) 921 -1000 Phone Number: (208) 777 -0498 Address: 11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Address: 2732 N Beck Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Post Falls, ID 83854 6. Applicable Laws and Standards The parties, in the performance of this agreement, agree to comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, and City ordinances and regulations. 7. Relationship of the Parties It is hereby understood, agreed and declared that the Contractor shall be an independent Contractor and not the agent or employee of the City. Any and all employees who provide services to the City under this agreement shall be deemed employees of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. 8. Ownership of Documents All drawings, plans, specifications, and other related documents prepared by the Contractor under this agreement are and shall be the property of the City, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56 or other applicable public record laws. 9. Records The City or State Auditor or any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine during normal business hours all of the Contractor's records with respect to all matters covered in this contract. Such representatives shall be pen to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls and record of matters covered by this contract for a period of three years from the date final payment is made hereunder. 10. Contractor to Be Licensed And Bonded The Contractor shall be duly licensed and bonded by the State of Washington at all times this agreement is in effect. 11. Insurance The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the perfonmance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. No Limitation. Contractor's maintenance of insurance as required by the agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non - owned, rented, borrowed, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) from CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 2 of 11 DRAFT contractual liability coverage and the City shall be named as an additional insured on a primary basis. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products - completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The City shall be named as an insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 O1 and Additional Insured - Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing equivalent coverage. 3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less that $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and a $2,000,000 products - completed operations aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self - insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either parry, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. E. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. 12. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 3 of 11 Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115 then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the agreement. 13. Waiver No officer, employee, agent, or other individual acting on behalf of either party, has the power, right, or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this agreement. No waiver in one instance shall be held to be waiver of any other subsequent breach or nonperformance. All remedies afforded in this agreement or by law, shall be taken and construed as cumulative, and in addition to every other remedy provided herein or by law. Failure of either party to enforce, at any time, any of the provisions of this agreement, or to require, at any time, performance by the other party of any provision hereof, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions, nor shall it affect the validity of this agreement, or any part thereof. 14. Assignment and Delegation Neither party shall assign, transfer, or delegate any or all of the responsibilities of this agreement, or the benefits received hereunder, without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 15. Jurisdiction and Venue This agreement is entered into in Spokane County, Washington. Venue shall be in Spokane County, State of Washington. 16. Arbitration All disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved through arbitration pursuant to State law. Rules for arbitration shall be those prescribed by the American Association of Arbitration. 17. Entire Agreement This written agreement constitutes the entire and complete agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements. This agreement may not be changed, modified, or altered, except in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 18. Anti - kickback No officer or employee of the City, having the power or duty to perform an official act or action related to this agreement, shall have, or acquire, any interest in this agreement, or have solicited, accepted, or granted, a present or future gift, favor, service, or other thing of value from any person with an interest in this agreement. 19. Business Registration Prior to commencement of work, Contractor shall register with the City as a business. 20. Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this agreement should be held to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this agreement. 21. Exhibits Exhibits attached and incorporated into this agreement are: 1. Scope of Services 2. Cost of Work 3. Insurance Certificates Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 4 of 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement this .2010. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk /Deputy City Clerk CONTRACTOR day of Owner Tax I.D. No.: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the Citv Attorney Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 5 of 11 Exhibit 1 SCOPE OF SERVICESWINTER MAINTENANCE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BACKGROUND AND GENERAL The City of Spokane Valley desires winter maintenance services for the established public streets of the City of Spokane Valley on a 24 hour /7 days per week basis. The services will consist of snow removal and deicing application as directed by the City using a combination of City owned equipment, personnel, materials and maintenance facility and Contractor owned equipment, materials and personnel. EQUIPMENT The City will provide the maintenance facility at 11702 East First Avenue, Spokane Valley, and the following equipment: 4- single axle plow /sander trucks. 1- tandem axle plow /sander truck. 2- single axle plow /deicer trucks. The Contractor will provide the following equipment: 2 -road graders with 14' mold boards and wings. All equipment used in winter maintenance operations will be stored and readied for use at the maintenance facility. The Contractor will assist in maintaining City equipment and will fully maintain Contractor equipment to achieve the highest level of operational efficiency. All parts and supplies used for City owned vehicles in winter maintenance operations will be supplied by the City. The City will provide radio or cell phone communication equipment for each vehicle used in the winter maintenance operations and remain inside the vehicle. STAFFING The Contractor will provide trained and skilled driver /operators for each of the pieces of equipment used in the winter maintenance operations. The Contractor will provide 9 driver /operators and 1 Mechanic /Operator as a base level service. All 10 staff will receive all City snow plow and deicing training. An additional 6 operators will be made available in the event of extreme snow conditions. The Contractor will have a Project Manager available by cellular phone 24 hours /7 days per week. The City will provide 3 operators that will be included as truck drivers in the winter maintenance operation. The Contractor will coordinate scheduling and assignment of the City operators with the City's Street Maintenance Superintendent. The Contractor will also include City staff in the Contractor's safety plan. CALL TO BEGIN WORK The Contractor shall have a project manager available 24 hours /7days a week to receive calls to work without exception. The City will pay the contractor a minimum of 2 hours per day for the project manager to be available on a 24/7 basis. A 2 -way radio will be provided by the City. The Contractor's PM will also provide a backup phone. Communication is of the utmost Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 6 of 11 DRAFT importance. No work shall begin prior to receipt of directions from the City and work shall continue until notification from the City to stop work. CALLOUT RESPONSE TIME The Contractor shall have equipment and operators on the job and operating on assigned roadways as soon as possible when notified by the City. When requested by the City with 8 hours of notification, the Contractor will place requested driver /operators on standby pay. The City will pay the contract 2 hours of pay for each drive /operator during a 24 hour period. When the Contractor's staff is on standby pay the contractor shall have the driver /operators on assigned roadways within 2 hours of notification by the City. Equipment shall be stored and in ready state at the City's Maintenance facility at 11702 E. First Ave. The City will pay the Contractor for contractor owned equipment 1 hour of service time for each 24 hour period to have the equipment ready, maintained and operational. PLOWING ROUTES Streets have been selected and listed in priority order for winter maintenance operations. Maps of the streets with their priority indicated will be provided to the Contractor for use by the PM and operators. Strict adherence to the clearing of only the public roadways as assigned is mandatory. No altering of the assigned streets or areas to be cleared or deiced will be made without direction from the City. The following table summarizes the length of streets in each Priority for snow removal Street Priority C/L Miles Lane Miles Priority 1 Major Arterials 29.27 135.64 Priority 2 Minor Arterials 60.98 159.12 Priority 3 Collectors /Hilly Locals 75 155 Priority 4 Valley Floor Locals 272.37 544.74 SNOW REMOVAL MANAGEMENT AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Snow shall not be pushed onto traffic islands, trees, shrubs, handicap ramps or into piles that block intersections. Snow removed from two lane roadways shall be plowed a minimum of 12 feet in width for each lane. All lanes of multi -lane roadways shall be cleared of snow to the curb and all intersections shall be cleared. Snow /ice shall be removed as close as possible to bare pavement but in no case leaving more than ' / 2" of snow or ice on the pavement. The desire of the City is to maintain adequate traction for vehicles that are properly equipped for winter driving conditions. The level of service will be as outlined in the City's adopted Snow Plowing and Deicing Level of Service plan as posted on the City's web site. DEICING ROUTES Deicing Routes have been selected and listed in priority order for winter operations. Maps of the streets with their priority indicated will be provided to the Contractor for use by the PM and Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 7 of 11 operators. Strict adherence to the deicing of only the public roadways as assigned is mandatory. No altering of the assigned streets or areas to be deiced will be made without direction from the City. DEICING MANAGEMENT Granular Material for deicing will be supplied by the City and located at the City maintenance site. Liquid deicing material will be supplied by the City and will be maintained in a holding tank located at 12001 East Empire Avenue, Spokane Valley. Due caution and care in loading deicing chemical will be taken to avoid spills. The City shall be immediately notified of spills or leakage of deicing chemicals. Application rates will be detennined in advance of deicing application and street assignments. Strict adherence to these application rates shall be followed. MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT The Contractor shall prepare, maintain and operate the equipment, including City owned plow /deicing trucks, and the maintenance facility at 11702 East First Avenue, Spokane Valley. The Facility will be used for storage of maintenance equipment and materials and utilize existing buildings for equipment maintenance, parts and supplies storage and operations staging. Contractor will work with the City to keep the equipment and facility secure from theft, vandalism and trespass. All work by the Contractor to prepare, maintain and operate the equipment and maintenance facility will be reimbursed in full. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CITY Communications with the City are essential to the success of winter maintenance. Contractor will notify City immediately upon occurrence of any collisions or damage to public or private property. The Contractor will immediately notify the City of any operational or emergency situations that impact the winter maintenance operations. PUBLIC RELATIONS All public contacts and relations are the responsibility of the City. The Contractor will immediately notify the City of any contacts with the public, law enforcement or elected officials. DAMAGES Contractor agrees to reimburse the City for the replacement of signs, sign posts, guard posts or guard rails, curbs and medians damaged by the Contractor if resulting from the Contractor's negligence as determined by the City's representative. Normal wear and tear of City streets will not be the responsibility of the Contractor. PRESEASON/POST SEASON MEETING Prior to the beginning of winter maintenance operations the Contractor will meet with City staff to review all winter maintenance operations. The Contractor will make their employees available for a "dry run" of all streets and a review of the winter operations including communications. At the completion of winter operations in the Spring of 2011, a meeting will be held with the City and the Contractor to review the past season's operations and discuss any problems or difficulties arising from the past season's contract. Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 8 of 11 DRAFT Exhibit 2 1. Cost of the Work. Cost of the Work means the sum of costs incurred and paid by Contractor in the proper performance of the Work. Costs shall include only the following items: 1.1 Direct Costs 1.1. l Payroll Costs. Charges for Payroll Costs will be limited to actual costs of Contractor's construction personnel stationed in the field. Payroll costs shall include, but not be limited to, salaries and wages plus the cost of fringe benefits, which shall include social security contributions, unemployment, excise, and payroll taxes, workers' compensation, health and retirement benefits. The expenses of performing Work outside of regular working hours, on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holidays, shall be included in the above to the extent authorized by Owner. 1. 1.2 Equipment Costs. Charges for Equipment Costs used by the contract to complete the work in the field. 1.1.3 Material Costs. Charges for Material Costs furnished by the Contractor and incorporated in the Work. The City and Contractor agree that materials listed under Attachment C — Part 4 of Exhibit 2 represent the maximum authorized types of materials and unit rates which will be considered reimbursable under the terms of the this contract unless subsequently changed for reasons approved by the City by a formal change order to the Contract. 1.2 Subcontractor Costs 1.2.1 If required by the City, the Contractor shall obtain competitive bids from subcontractors acceptable to the City and Contractor and shall deliver such bids to the City, who will then determine which bids, if any, will be acceptable. 1.2.2 Material Costs. Charges for Material Costs furnished by the Subcontractor and incorporated in the Work. If required by the City, the Contractor shall obtain competitive bids and shall deliver such bids to the City, who will then determine which bids, if any, will be acceptable. 1.2.3 Payments made by the Contractor to Subcontracts may be based on a lump sum price from the Subcontractor. 2 Overhead and Profit Contractor's fee means a percentage over the direct costs (Items 1.1 and 1.2 above) to account for the contractor's overhead and profit. 2.1 Fee for overhead and Profit for the Project costs is a percentage over the direct cost (Item 1.1 above) that includes the overhead and profit for the contractor over work executed by the contractor. Overhead costs includes, but are not limited to, the cost of the contractor's offices and office personnel, insurance, bonds, and any other overhead and operating expenses not specifically included in the Cost of the Work as defined in Section 1.1 above. Agreement for Services, Poe Asphalt Paving Page 9 of 11 DRAFT 2.2 Fee for overhead and profit for subcontractor's cost is a percentage over the cost charged by the subcontractor to the contractor (Item 1.2 above). The overhead and profit for the operation of the subcontractor is already included in the subcontractor cost charged by the subcontractor to the contractor. 3. Direct Cost Rates. 2011 2010 % Increase Labor Hourly Overtime Hourly Overtime Hourly Overtime Superintendent /Manager $58.60 $72.85 $56.35 $70.05 4% 4% Foreman $43.55 $57.70 $41.85 $55.45 4% 4% Operator $42.55 $56.70 $40.85 $54.45 4% 4% Teamster $42.55 $56.70 $40.85 $54.45 4% 4% Laborer $39.40 $52.40 $37.85 $50.35 4% 4% o� Equipment Costs Costs Increase 38 KW Tractor $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 22 End Dump $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 29 End Dump $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 40 End Dump $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 56 End Dump $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 60 End Dump $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 23 Super $82.50 $80.50 2.5% 24 Super $82.50 $80.50 2.5% 25 Super $82.50 $80.50 2.5% 27 Super $82.50 $80.50 2.5% 28 Super $82.50 $80.50 2.5% 257 Water Truck $46.00 $44.50 3.4% 259 Water Truck $61.50 $60.00 2.5% 205 Tack Truck $46.00 $44.50 3.4% 273 Service Truck $40.00 $39.00 2.6% 230 F250 $16.50 $16.00 3.1% 300 F150 $16.50 $16.00 3.1% 202 F450 $27.50 $26.75 2.8% 208 F450 $27.50 $26.75 2.8% 247 F550 $27.50 $26.75 2.8% 75 Lowbed $38.00 $37.00 2.7% 102 Pup $21.50 $21.00 2.4% 103 Pup $21.50 $21.00 2.4% 187 Pup $21.50 $21.00 2.4% 188 Pup $21.50 $21.00 2.4% Agreement for Services. Poe Asphalt Paving Page 10 of 11 DRAFT 197 Belly Dump Trailer $21.50 $21.00 2.4% 144 Tilt Trailer $27.50 $26.25 4.8% 131 Trailer $16.25 $15.75 3.2% 132 Trailer $16.25 $15.75 3.2% 149 Trailer $16.25 $15.75 3.2% 461 Grade Roller $56.00 $54.50 2.8% 406 DD34 Roller $45.75 $44.25 3.4% 411 Roller $45.75 $44.25 3.4% 418 Roller $67.00 $65.00 3.1% 416 Roller $81.00 $79.00 2.5% 505 Bomag $87.50 $85.00 2.9% 524 Blawknox $180.00 $175.00 2.9% 722 John Deere 210 $51.50 $50.00 3.0% 718 Huber $56.50 $55.00 2.7% 711 Cat 160 $87.50 $85.50 2.3% 828 Broce Broom $56.50 $55.00 2.7% 926 Tack Trailer $16.50 $16.00 3.1% 421 Plate Wacker $5.50 $5.30 3.8% 946 Saw $26.75 $26.25 1.9% Material Costs Costs HMA $59.00 $59.00 0.0% Top Course (5/8) $6.30 $6.30 0.0% Overhead and Profit Fee Costs Costs Direct Costs 22% 22% 0.0% Subcontractors 8% 8% 0.0% Agreement for Services. Poe Asphalt Paving Page 11 of 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 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: Wastewater 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; brief discussion in relation to wastewater code first reading on September 14, 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 section of Yardley. (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 wastewater 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. The City Council will need to adopt Code provisions adopting wastewater treatment standards (by reference). These were considered by the Council earlier on this agenda. OPTIONS: Motion to approve the proposed interlocal agreement; request that staff make changes to proposed interlocal agreement with Spokane; decline to enter interlocal agreement and begin process to handle such enforcement by Spokane Valley staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move that we approve the interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane in relation to wastewater treatment, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same." BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Minimal depending on if there are enforcement actions. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1) Map of City of Spokane sewer treatment area in Spokane Valley 2) Proposed interlocal agreement with City of Spokane 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 1C 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. 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. 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 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 2of5 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 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 2of5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 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. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining terms of this Agreement will be unaffected. B. 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. 7. INDEMNIFICATION A. The City of Spokane Valley shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Spokane and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City of Spokane Valley, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City of Spokane, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City of Spokane Valley shall satisfy the same." B. The City of Spokane shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Spokane Valley and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City of Spokane, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane shall of 5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City of Spokane Valley, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City of Spokane shall satisfy the same." C. If the comparative negligence of the parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. D. Where an officer or employee of a party is acting under the direction and control of the other party, the party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and /or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other party's officer or employee's negligence. E. Each party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. F. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. 8. 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. 4of5 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 5 of 5 EFFECTIVE DATE: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE Authorized Representative By: Print name and Title ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney 5 of 5 m R,�A� CITY OF SPOKANE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY aa�icwEarrwm "00°° -. sroxervevu�svcmuMrz CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x new business ❑ public hearing ❑ infonnation ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to Spokane River TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The following correspondence from David Moore discusses this committee: "Following the Spokane River stakeholder meeting that was held on August 23 at the Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is planning the first advisory committee meeting for key stakeholders sometime in late September. The Spokane River TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee will consist of one member from the stakeholder organizations listed below plus an alternate. Meetings will be open to the public and other organizations. As time allows, non committee members attending will be able to comment or ask questions. You have been identified as a member of this committee from your respective organization. Please let us know the following as soon as possible: 1) Are you interested in serving on the committee or is there someone more appropriate from your organization? If the latter, please forward to that person and copy me on the reply. 2) Would you be available to attend a meeting on September 22 " d from 9 -12? As stated at the August 23r stakeholder meeting, advisory committee meetings will be opportunities to share information, ask questions, and provide input into Ecology's implementation of the Spokane River DO TMDL. This includes Ecology's commitment to developing a trading framework. Once we finish identifying individuals, we will send out a draft agenda for your consideration and input. Thank you for your continued interest and participation in the Spokane River. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Moore Spokane River Water Quality Lead Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program - Eastern Regional Office 4601 North Monroe Street Spokane, WA 99205 -1295 (509) 329 -3514 david.moore&ecv.wa.aov Spokane River TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee member organizations City of Spokane Spokane County City of Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Lake Spokane Association Inland Empire Paper Co. Kaiser Aluminum City of Post Falls Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board City of Coeur d' Alene Avista Utilities Spokane Tribe of Indians Coeur d' Alene Tribe Stevens County Center for Justice / Spokane River Keeper Sierra Club Lands Council Kootenai Environmental Alliance Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Protection Agency OPTIONS: Mayor Towev intends to appoint Brenda Grassel to the Spokane River TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Implementation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Councilmember Grassel to the Spokane River TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS Spokane County Clerk's Minutes, dated February 24, 2005 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Information report discussing the Community Boulevard Zoning District within the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan. 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. The attached report is the last zoning district to be reviewed as part of the comprehensive review process. The community meeting to discuss the Community Boulevard Zoning District is scheduled for September 30, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. in Council Chambers. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This memo is for information only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development Dept. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Non - Conforming Use Analysis Map PowerPoint Presentation This report provides information to assist City Council, the public, and property owners to understand the regulations applicable to the Community Boulevard Zoning District (CB), adopted as part of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). This report identifies and compares the zoning districts and uses allowed prior to the SARP, effective October 2009, and prior to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which became effective October 2007. Non - conforming uses created under the existing zoning classifications are identified and regulations pertaining to those non - conforming uses are discussed. Finally, the report provides an overview of site development, architectural and signage regulations. Overview of the Community Boulevard Zoning District Location and Existing Conditions The Community Boulevard Zoning District is located generally south of Appleway right- of- way(R.O.W.) east of the city Center Zone. A 60' wide strip is located north of the Appleway R.O.W. extending from Mullan to Walnut. East of the City Center Zone the Community Boulevard Zone is located both north and south of the Appleway R.O.W. with limited areas falling outside the zone. In all cases the Community Boulevard Zone located north of Appleway R.O.W. is a 60' wide strip which results in properties being bisected by two zoning districts. Appleway Boulevard runs from I -90 to University Road, where it dead ends and becomes a vacant stretch of undeveloped R.O.W. until it intersects with Sprague Avenue. Currently the Appleway corridor is characterized by a mix of uses including car sales, restaurants, retail, office, multi - family and single family. These areas are characterized as residential and office corridor. The Community Boulevard District is shown in yellow on the Sprague Appleway Zoning Map (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Sprague Appleway Zoning h _ b fi r L -.� L ___ �.. y w,iecvrr t !�d a � vy.,vro •c .� -,:, � Q: ' �■ � ° PI G� �ointrtct Zonen K �o..� � � ,� � �a.o-aada �r=rco<+.. +�., nikl � ��pFk•ri g �I•! u Alk: R! ELTJ F x .i J n i 111 PIZ! 116, xro_ ar k 4 - wn _ >,_ i � x j � � �k ter. • m E nn � w'� _�:` 5 49 fa _ pYg CeMw _ 8a14'M4Y Cunm Brclal Cw to Nolghgg h4 Cw t9re ---I A— M..d Uh Avenue Comm�dy boulc xId Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 2 Planning Division This report provides information to assist City Council, the public, and property owners to understand the regulations applicable to the Community Boulevard Zoning District (CB), adopted as part of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). This report identifies and compares the zoning districts and uses allowed prior to the SARP, effective October 2009, and prior to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which became effective October 2007. Non - conforming uses created under the existing zoning classifications are identified and regulations pertaining to those non - conforming uses are discussed. Finally, the report provides an overview of site development, architectural and signage regulations. Overview of the Community Boulevard Zoning District Location and Existing Conditions The Community Boulevard Zoning District is located generally south of Appleway right- of- way(R.O.W.) east of the city Center Zone. A 60' wide strip is located north of the Appleway R.O.W. extending from Mullan to Walnut. East of the City Center Zone the Community Boulevard Zone is located both north and south of the Appleway R.O.W. with limited areas falling outside the zone. In all cases the Community Boulevard Zone located north of Appleway R.O.W. is a 60' wide strip which results in properties being bisected by two zoning districts. Appleway Boulevard runs from I -90 to University Road, where it dead ends and becomes a vacant stretch of undeveloped R.O.W. until it intersects with Sprague Avenue. Currently the Appleway corridor is characterized by a mix of uses including car sales, restaurants, retail, office, multi - family and single family. These areas are characterized as residential and office corridor. The Community Boulevard District is shown in yellow on the Sprague Appleway Zoning Map (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Sprague Appleway Zoning h _ b fi r L -.� L ___ �.. y w,iecvrr t !�d a � vy.,vro •c .� -,:, � Q: ' �■ � ° PI G� �ointrtct Zonen K �o..� � � ,� � �a.o-aada �r=rco<+.. +�., nikl � ��pFk•ri g �I•! u Alk: R! ELTJ F x .i J n i 111 PIZ! 116, xro_ ar k 4 - wn _ >,_ i � x j � � �k ter. • m E nn � w'� _�:` 5 49 fa _ pYg CeMw _ 8a14'M4Y Cunm Brclal Cw to Nolghgg h4 Cw t9re ---I A— M..d Uh Avenue Comm�dy boulc xId Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 2 Community Boulevard Zoning District Description The Community Boulevard zoning district is designed to create an office and residential corridor that acts as a medium density buffer between the commercial areas of the SARP area and the single family housing located south of Appleway R.O.W.. The Subarea Plan states that Community Boulevard (CB) development should have large, landscaped setbacks with green spaces between the buildings. The CB zone promotes a mix of office buildings designed to be compatible with multi - family residential uses. The CB zone allows corner store retail uses, civic type uses, and lodging. Zoning History Since incorporation in 2003, the Sprague Appleway corridor has been regulated by three separate zoning codes, herein referred to as Interim Zoning, Pre -SARP Zoning, and SARP Zoning. Figure 2 shows the history of zoning for properties within the CB areas. Following is a general discussion of the uses pennitted within the area currently zoned CB under the SARP. SARP Zoninz — Community Boulevard Permitted Uses: General uses allowed in the CB zone include office uses ranging from small scale professional offices up to large scale medical offices, residential uses that include both multifamily and single family, and lodging (hotels and motels). Neighborhood - serving retail and services, featuring smaller scale uses up to 2,500 sf per use, including small grocery stores, phannacies, banks, cafes and food sales are also allowed as corner store retail. However, individual corner store retail uses must be integrated into a larger building (up to 5,000 square feet) that is located on the corner of a block. Convenience uses such as video rental and sales, florists, dry cleaners, laundromats, or business convenience uses such as copy shops, office supply, or photo developing are also allowed as corner store retail. Additionally, the CB zone pen civic uses, including cultural, entertainment and public facilities, library, community and childcare centers, churches, and government offices. Pre -SARP Zoning Prior to the effective date of the SARP, the zoning for the properties in the discussion area were consistent with the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 26, 2006 (see Figure 3: Pre -SARP Zoning Map). The effective date for the City Zoning was October 28, 2007. Zoning districts implemented throughout the discussion area from October 2007 to October 2009 included the following districts: Figure 2: Zoning History SARP Pre -SARP Interim Zoning Zoning Zoning (Existing Zoning) (Nov 2007 - Oct 2009) (2003 -2007) 0 B -1 B -2 Community Boulevard U R -3.5 U R -12 Community Commercial: Small scale retail, service, and office establishments to serve several neighborhoods, Corridor Mixed Use: Retail, office, light manufacturing, and high density residential. Of medium to high -rise office development with limited commercial and retail uses. Multifamily -1: Medium Density residential, up to 12 units per acre. Multifamily -2: High Density residential, 22 units per acre. Community Facilities: Civic, cultural, educational, and institutional uses that address social needs. The Community Facilities zoning district was removed through the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 3 An accompanying amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) was made allowing these uses in all zones. Interim Zoning Upon incorporation in 2003, the City adopted Spokane County's zoning on an interim basis (see Figure 4: Interim Zoning Map). This zoning was effective from 2003 to October 2007. Zoning districts implemented throughout the discussion area include the following: I -2, Light Industrial: Area for processing, fabrication, light assembly, freight handling and similar non - offensive operations. B -1, Neighborhood Business: Small scale retail, services, and office uses serving the immediate neighborhood. B -2, Community Business: Various retail, service, and office uses grouped at one location serving several neighborhoods B -3, Regional Business: Wide range of retail and service activities that serve the county at large and greater areas, UR -3.5: Low Density single fainily residential UR -7: Medium density residential zone that allows single family, duplexes, manufactured home parks and multi - fainily UR -12, Urban Residential: Multi - family dwellings with limited business offices; generally a transition zone. UR -22, Urban Residential: High density residential zone that allows offices; generally used as a transition zone; Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 4 Figure 3: Pre- SARP Zoning Map (2007 — 2009) Parcels R1 R -3 MF -t W_ GO CMU RAC RC = 1 -2 Zoning flap �SARP Boundary R -2 M R4 = MF -2 G MUC RM C 1 -1 CF FrgS-ARp Zone Use Comparison hl order to understand the impact of the three generations of zoning districts, a zoning use table was prepared that identifies and categorizes the uses allowed under the SARP, Pre -SARP, and the Interim Zoning Districts (see Attachment 1, Use Chart Comparison). This table compares the three generations of zoning districts in order to identify consistently allowed uses, additional uses allowed, and uses no longer allowed. As noted, the previous zoning districts ranged from different intensities of commercial and residential uses, as well as office uses and light industrial. Analysis of the previous Interim Zoning districts notes that 72 % of the area was Property Percentage by zoned residential, 27% zoned business /commercial, and 1% zoned light Interim Zone industrial. Many retail uses previously permitted under the Interim and Pre -SARP commercial zoning are still permitted under the CB zone subject to size and location limitations. Three significant differences are noted. First, retail uses are now limited to 2,500 square feet in size and must be integrated within a building located at a corner of a block; second, auto related uses, such as gas stations and vehicle sales (boats, autos, and motorcycles) are no longer permitted. These uses are directed to the Gateway Commercial Avenue and the Gateway Commercial Centers, and third, the prior residential zones did not allow retail uses or lodging. ■ 1 -2 ■ B1 • B2 • B3 • U R3.5 • UR7 • UR12 Figure 5: Interim Zoning in Percentages UR22 Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 5 Figure 4: Interim Zoning Map = Parc ]S ;'�. RR -10 UR -1 ,xsMxr!� UR -7' UR -'2 B -1 = B-3 F2 GA yNh cm Boundary SRR -5 UR .S I ,' UR -7 ,��j, UR -22 j1111, B -2 1 -1 - F3 MZ IOfCI'l1H Zoning ✓'Y 1% 5% 1% The intent is that all retail uses are locally serving - the size limit insures that business's are neighborhood oriented. Retail uses exceeding 2,500 square feet may be allowed subject to a conditional use pen Larger scale retail uses are directed toward the mixed use avenue and gateway commercial zones. A very limited amount of personal services are allowed within a corner store up to 2,500 square feet. Personal services are primarily directed toward neighborhood centers and the city center. Small scale eating establishments, such as cafes, coffee shops, and bakeries are allowed subject to size limits. No drive thru's are allowed Another significant difference between the Community Boulevard zone and Interim B -1, B -2, and B- zones inherited from Spokane County is that residential uses are permitted by the SARP zoning on the ground floor where the B -1, B -2, and B -3 zones only allowed retail or office uses on the ground floor with housing at the second floor and above. Previously the area did contain two parcels(1 %) that were zoned light industrial under the interim county zoning. Light industrial uses are no longer allowed within the CB Zone. Lodging, Residential, Civic, and office uses are allowed within the CB zone. Lodging uses were previously allowed in the Business and Commercial Zones, but not in the residential zones. As a result previously zoned residential properties have gained additional permitted uses. In summary, 72% of the properties previously zoned residential have an increased number of permitted uses, while the remaining 28% of the properties previously zoned commercial have a decreased number of permitted uses. An economic analysis conducted by EcoNorthwest in 2006, and reconfirmed by EcoNorthwest in 2010, reports that the corridor has the capacity for an additional 1.8 million square feet of commercial space over the next 20 years, or 90,000 square feet per year. The demand for new commercial space is estimated at only 21,000 square feet per year, resulting in lower land values due to over- supply. The Sprague Appleway plan recognizes that the supply of land zoned for retail significantly exceeds the anticipated demand over the next 20 years. Therefore, the SARP encourages residential and office uses to integrate into the corridor over time and the regulations permit ground floor residential uses. Non - conforming Uses Existing legal uses that became non - conforming upon adoption of the SARP are now considered legal non- conforming uses. Earlier this year staff conducted a field inventory of land uses located within the SARP area to determine the number of non - conforming uses (see Attachment 2, Non - conforming Use Map). Approximately 13% or twenty -five properties within the CB zone are non - confonning. Of those 25 properties, five are single family and the remaining 20 are businesses. Excluding the single family residential from the non - conforming consideration, results in 9% of the business as legal non - conforning business. Typical non - confonning uses within the CB zone are vehicle sales, contractor's yards, self service storage, and a range of retail uses. Non - conforming use regulations Pursuant to the Subarea Plan, Section 2.0.1(7) legal Non - conforming uses are regulated by Title 19.20.060. Non- conforming uses are allowed to continue indefinitely unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period greater than 24 months. Non - confonning uses in commercial zones are allowed to expand so long as the following criteria are met: 1. The original lot or tract and the "expansion" lot or track are in the same zone classification; and 2. The property adjacent to the "expansion" tract or lot is within one of the commercial or industrial zones listed above; and 3. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and 4. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property, and 5. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 6 The right to continue a non - conforming use runs with the property. Therefore a non - conforming use may be sold or leased and still be allowed to continue. In some cases non - confonning uses that are determined to be similar in ne to the existing or previous non-conforming use, may replace a non-conforming use. The one instance where non-conforming uses would not be allowed to continue is, if the use or structure were destroyed more than 80 %. In that case, rebuilding of the structure or resurrection of the use must meet the current regulations. Split Parcels One of the Goals within the SARP is to give Appleway its own identity and market focus. However, since many parcels spanned from Sprague to Appleway, this resulted in parcels partially within the Community Boulevard District Zone as well as another District Zone. These parcels are regulated as follows: 1. Development that is contiguous with development facing Appleway Blvd. shall be regulated by the CB zone, regardless of how deep the development runs northward. (contiguous is defined as a continuity of physical blocks sharing a single use category) 2. Development extending from Appleway Boulevard R.O.W. to Sprague Ave. R.O.W. shall be regulated by the CB Zone from the southern edge of the development that touches the southern edge of the Sprague Avenue R.O.W. 3. Parcels where physical improvements are split zoned may continue or expand as a conforming use if permitted by the majority zone. Physical improvements shall include buildings and required parking areas serving the existing use. Site Development Standards Site Development standards dictate not only the type of uses allowed within a zoning district, but also building height and setbacks. Since the regulatory part of the subarea plan includes a form based code, it addresses elements that will achieve the desired form. While many of the site development standards are self - explanatory, several introduce concepts specific to form based codes and are new to this community. This includes building orientation, public and private frontage improvements, frontage coverage, maximum building length and minimum and maximum setback limits. Street orientation dictates which regulations apply to new development. Appleway Boulevard has different regulations than "Other" streets, which includes all other streets present in the CB zone. An example of the desired form is shown in Figure 5. Chart 2.2 Site Development standards for the CB zone is attached to this report. Fo USE 3 f ,T DiSPOSMON Figure 6: CB Form, Use and Disposition Building Placement and Setbacks On Appleway Boulevard, the minimum setback is 20 feet and the maximum is 30 feet from the back of sidewalk. Buildings oriented to "Other" streets must be set back between 15 and 25 feet from back of sidewalk. Building Orientation to streets and public open spaces: Orienting buildings to streets and /or public open spaces is a required element of the CB zone. A building may have other entrances, but the front entrance must be the most prominent. Development proposed in areas where Appleway is unimproved could be problematic to develop. Public Frontage Improvements: Public frontage improvements are required on Appleway Boulevard in the CB zone. Public frontage is the area between the curb face and the back of sidewalk line, including the sidewalk and any sidewalk landscape areas as shown in Figure 7 Public Frontage Improvements. Improvements must be coordinated with Private Frontage/Front Street Setback area treatments. In the CB zone, the future right -of -way Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 7 will be widened to approximately 100 feet in locations where the existing right -of -way is narR.O.W.er than 100 feet. Where the existing right -of -way is 100' the future back of sidewalk will correspond approximately to the existing right -of -way. Where the existing right -of- -way will be widened, the future back -of sidewalk will be located along the future right -of -way Private Frontage Improvements: Area between back of sidewalk and primary building facade and building facade up to the top of the 1s or 2nd floor as shown in Figure 8. Figure 7: Public Frontage Improvements Permitted Private Frontage types are specified in the Zoning District Table and include Shop front, Corner Entry, Grand Portico, Forecourt, and Grand Entry for office large buildings, and stoops and porches for residential entries. Private frontage standards regulate a building's primary entrance treatments, encroachments, setback areas, and property edges. Private frontage regulations apply to full length of property frontage, even where there is no building. I I Frontage Coverage_ This is the minimum percentage of the length of the frontage coverage zone that shall be occupied by a primary building facade. The area is defined as the space between the minimum side yard setback lines. The CB zone requires 70% coverage for buildings fronting Appleway Boulevard and Other Streets. Build to Corner: Corner parcels must meet this requirement by placing a building at its street corner. This is required only for all corner properties with Appleway Boulevard frontage in the CB zone. The building must be located within the minimum and maximum setback of both the front street and the side street. Architectural Standards: Figure 8: Private Frontage Improvements The architectural standards within the SARP identify general architectural characteristics that must be present on new construction, and if applicable, renovated buildings. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the human scale of the building is maintained consistently along the corridor. The Architectural Regulations contain both standards and guidelines. Standards are required elements, while the guidelines are optional elements. The chapter deals with building massing and composition, height and length massing, and architectural elements. Building massing and composition deals with the physical presence of the building and identifies the street wall, sidewal, and rear wall of the building. The height massing and composition section address the vertical elements of the building which include base and top elements for both street walls, side walls, and rear walls. Length massing addresses the horizontal appearance of the building and provides examples of how the length of a building may be broken up by using architectural treatments such as pilasters or notches. The architectural elements section addresses certain elements or treatments that must be included in the building design. The vast majority of this section is comprised of guidelines which are optional elements. The district zone regulations chart identifies when a regulation is applied. The chart indicates that buildings in the CB zone are required to meet the height massing and length massing requirements. However, unlike in the other Subarea plan zones, buildings in the CB zone must only provide a top element, and if the building exceeds the street wall increment length, must provide articulation in the building to reduce the appearance of a long building. Building designers may either use the type of elements suggested in the plan, or provide a design that meets the intent of the code which is to maintain human scale of the buildings. Since the most significant architectural requirements discussed in the Plan involve base and top elements, a description is provided. Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 8 14 MCK or SMWAM Base Element: The base element is a substantial horizontal articulation of the street wall applied within the first floor to form a horizontal "base" of the facade. This horizontal articulation defines the pedestrian —scale space of the street and is well integrated into the overall fagade composition. Generally, the base treatment should be between 9" and 6', or the entire 15t floor if it is a multi -story building. Examples of element options include changes of material, color changes, or a belt course to name a few. Top Element: A substantial horizontal articulation of the street wall applied at the top of the uppermost floor of the facade, to result in termination of the fagade that provides an attractive fagade skyline and a completion of the upper fagade composition. In simpler terms, it provides a cap to the top of the wall. Examples of element options include cornices, canopy elements, shaped parapet, or fagade offsets. Architectural Elements aA 5V� �u Figure 9: Massing and Composition The architectural elements address the building fagade and roof. This section is made up predominantly guidelines. A summary of the elements with applicable standards is provided: Facade Building Base: Requires building base element, see discussion above. Wall Cladding: anti graffiti coating is required on ground floor and accessible areas above ground floor. Facade composition: Requires street wall to contain a minimum of 20% glazing, but not more than 80% allowed. Windows: curtain -wall windows and ribbon windows restricted. Main Entrances: Building entrances must be prominent, mixed use buildings must have distinguishable entrances for retail, residential and office. Secondary Entrances: May not be more architecturally prominent than the main entry. Loading and Service Entry Requires service entrances to not be visible from the street, or incorporate attractive and durable materials into structure. Roofs Roof Types: Flat or shallow pitched roofs, and mansard roofs are allowed, but specific guidelines must be met. Roof Materials: Wood shakes shall be fire resistant Roof equipment and screening: Roof mounted equipment must be screened or enclosed; light colored roofs shall be screened to reduce glare. One example of roof screening is a parapet wall. Siznaze Standards: Permanent sign within the CB zone are regulated by section 2.6 of the SARP. The sign types allowed within each zoning district are identified in the Signage Regulations Chart. A review of this chart indicates that wall signs, monument signs, and building identification signs are permitted. The majority of other sign types are allowed for corner stores. Grand Projecting, marquee, roof and freestanding signs are not permitted in the CB zone. The most common signs are wall signs, monument signs, and freestanding signs. Therefore, thi s section of the report will focus on these signs. A definition for each sign type is provided: Wall si signs are located on and parallel to a building wall. Figure 10: Wall Sign Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 9 Freestanding Si n� Freestanding signs are constructed on or affixed to the ground by columns, or poles Monument signs: Monument signs are mounted on the ground and are flush, or have a clearance from the ground of not more than 2 feet, supported by a solid base, one or more uprights, braces, columns, poles, or similar structural components. The table below identifies the regulations for each sign type that pertain to number of signs allowed, maximum area allowed, maximum sign height, and notable conditions. The relevant Figure 11: Freestanding Sign pre -SARP sign regulations were also provided for comparison purposes. The comparison results in the following conclusions: Figure 12: Monument Sign • Wall sign area is reduced from 25% of the wall area to 15% of the total wall area; However a code text amendment is currently being considered to increase the wall area allowed up to 25 %. • Freestanding signs are not permitted in CB zone • One Monument sign per arterial street frontage is allowed per parcel as compared to two per arterial street frontage • Monument sign height limits were reduced from 7' to 4' • Monument sign area is limited to 32 square feet. SARP and Pre -SARP Sign Comparison Chart Sign Type SARP Regulations • Only allowed for non - residential uses with a ground floor entrance • Only allowed to be mounted below the 2nd floor level of a building • Cannot exceed 150 square feet and limited to 15% of the wall area. • Animated wall signs are not allowed. Pre -SARP Regulations • Freestanding signs not permitted in Community- Boulevard Zone. • Cannot exceed 25% of the wall area per building • Each parcel pennitted one sign per arterial street frontage; allows parcels with double frontage to have two freestanding signs • Maximum height is 30' for single business, 40' for multi- business, and 50' for parcels adjacent to 1 -90. • Maximum sign area for single business varied from 100 sq ft to 200 sq. ft, dependent on lot width, and a maximum of 250 sq. ft. for multi - business sites. • Maximum number allowed is 1 per Two signs per arterial street frontage parcel Maximum height limit of 7' • Maximum height of 4' above grade Maximum area allowed is 90 sq. ft. for • Maximum area allowed is '12 sq. ft single business and 150 sq. ft. per multi • Only allowed for non - residential business complex. Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 10 SARP and Pre -SARP Sign Comparison Chart Sign Type SARP Regulations Pre -SARP Regulations uses with a ground floor entrance IM Community Boulevard Zone Review Report Page 11 Sprague and Appleway Condors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16, 2009 Le end: -- : Not Permitted U: Upper Floors Only Q Ground Floor Only Permitted: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in Required: These are Required elements of all new development as Section 2.2.2. Building Use indicated. Limited: These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the ground floor use Book B - 2.1 District Zone Regulations Page 42 of 201 Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 SARP Zone pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Automobile /light truck sales X X X X Automobile /taxi rental X X X X X X Automobile /truck /RV /motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works X X X Boat sales /services X X X Car wash X X X X X Gas Stations X X X X RV sales and service X X X Adult Retail Use Establishment X X X Ambulance Service X X X X CU X X Animal clinic /Veterinary X X X Antique Stores X X X X Apparel /Tailor Shop X X X X X X X Appliance Sales /service X X X Art gallery /studio X X X X X X Automotive parts, accessories and tires X X X X X Bicycle Sales /services X X X X X X X Book /stationary store X X X X X X X Building supply /home improvement X X X Candy and Confectionary X X X X X X X Catalogue and mail order house X X X X Cemetery and Crematories X X X Ceramics Shop X X X X X X Clothes, retail sales X X X X X Communication service /sales X X X X X Computer services X X X X X X X Convenience Store (no gas station) X X X A X X X Department Store X X X X Drug store X X A X X X X X X Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Dry Cleaners X X X X X X X Equipment Rental Shop(not including industrial oriented equipment) X X X Film Developing X X X A X X X Film Camera sales service X X X A X X X Florist shop X X X A X X X X Food sales /specialty butcher shop /meat market /specialty foods X X X X X X Gas Stations X X X X X X Gift Shop X X X A X X X Greenhouse /nursery, garden center, retail X X X X X Grocery Store X X X X X X Hardware Store X X X X X Hobbyshop X X X A X X X Home furnishings X X X X X Landscape materials sales X X Liquor Store X X X A X X Locksmith X X A X X X Lumberyard - retail X X Manufactured Home Sales X X X Outdoor Market T T T T T Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply. sales X X X X X Music Store X X X A X X X Office and computer supplies X X X A X X Pawnshops X X X X Pet Shop X X A X X Print Shop X X X X X X X Radio /TV Sales /Service X X Second Hand Store X X X X Sign Painting Shop X X X X Storage, self- service facility X X X X X Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Storage, general- outdoor X X Upholstery shop X X X X X Warehouse scale retail /buying club. X X r tail X X X X X X X rns X X X X , Drive up, Fast Food X X A X X X Espresso stand X X X X X Micro - Brewery X X X X X Mobile Food Vendors X X X X X Cafe's X X X X Restaurants, full service X X X X X X Adult Entertainment X X X Bowling alley X X X X Casino X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities indoor X X X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities, outdoor X X X Racecourse X Cu RV Campground C X X Theatre - indoor X X X X X Bank /savings loan, other financial institutions X X X X X X X X • Church, etc X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Colleges /Universities X X X X X X X X X X Community facilities X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Community hall, club, lodge or rec facility X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Government Offices I X I I I X X X X X X Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Hospitals X X X X X X X X X X Museum X X X X X X X Park and ride facilities X X X X X X X X X X X X Public Park X X X X X X X X X X X X Post Office X X X X X X X X X X X X X Public Pay Parking X X X X Public Utility Distribution facility X X X X X X X X X X X X X Schools X X X X X X X X X X X X X Transit Center X X X X X X X X Assembly — light X X X Auto Wrecking /Impound Yard X Battery Rebuilding Manufacturing X Bottling Plant X Brewery X Carpenter shop X X X Commercial Laundry X Commercial Composting storage /processing X Contractor's Yard X X Distribution Center or freight forwarding X Electrical /electronic /computer component and system manufacturing /assembly X X X X X X Equipment sales, repair and mainenance (industrial equipment ) X X X X X Fabric and Textil, Feed and Ceral, etc. Mills X Food Processing X Incinerator X Jewelry, clock, musical instrument assembly, sales /service X X A X X X X Laboratories medical and diagnostic X X X X Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Machine Shop, small X X Manufacturing, Processing X Plastic Injection Molding, thermoplastic X X X Pre - fabrication construction /sales X Recycle Collection Center X X X Sandblasting /Cutting X X Solid Waste hauler /transfer site X X Transportation Services and sales including equipment storage X Wholesaling X X X Bed N Breakfast X X X X X Hotel /motel X X X X X X Assisted Living Facility X X X X X X X Community Residential Facility X X X X X X X X Convalescent home, nursing home X X X X X X X Day care; adult X X A X A X X X X X X Day care child X X A X A X X X X X X X X X X Dwelling, congregate X X X X X X X X X X Dwelling, Single Family attached X X X X X X X X Dwelling, Single Family detached X X X X X X X X X X X X X Dwelling, Multifamily X X X X X X X X X X X X Family Home Adult X X X X X Family Home, child X X X X X X X X Manufactured Home Park X X X X Barber /beauty shop X X X X X X X Exercise facility /gym /athletic club X X A X X X X Funeral Home X X X X Community Boulevard Zone Code Use Chart Comparison September 28, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zones CB C CF CMU 0 MF -1 MF2 1 -2 131 B2 63 UR 3.5 UR 7 UR 12 UR 22 Kennel, indoor kennel, doggie day care facility X X X X Laundromat X X X X A A X X X Massage Therapy X X X X X Photographic Studio X X X A X X X Vet clinic X X X X X X X Medical /Dental clinics /office X X X X I I X X X X I X X Office, business, professional X X X X I A A X I X X X I X CB = Community Boulevard B2 = Community Buisiness B3 = Regional Business CMU = Corridor Mixed Use 0 = Office MF1= Multifamily /Med den! Medium Density Res. B1 = Neighbhorhood Business C = Community Commercial CF = Community Facilities UR22 = Urban Residential 22 MF2 = Multifamily High Density >ity UR3.5 =Low Density Single Family UR12= Urban REsidential 12 Footnotes 1 Commercial uses are limited to corner store and less than 2500 sq. ft in size z Not allowed on Appleway Blvd. nmmunity Boulevard Ze 1Y, .txl al i YII wy —,- t rlseri PArdr AAw -eIJ v'.sl r. T n ;' fY'• - cao 61 1,. c � i 1 o —r r r 11 I JMR �x ' w FFnm �n � M�ra�� IYw Ln�ti Ft ,pa ^d F 1f_kl• 4 'fir CAP C�N�iF i3�wrlanl nl..rail Cint�F^e N,:.iWb�reK Citdr.'b 111A F .e rarYC<rm.xsl.rl.+ ®ivlb d+a *St nwa arr.r,r + FSau+l�+?Pro IF 4m -- r I rj . � ' I °— "rar na�F*in I 7-1 — I A � 'su•�,lyllule � �.prlra'lalsl Fu+l:. Alkl F A*- 41.. c, xlb: i Al, Alkl t , l w Ht ,I ti raenR c +. INS _ ' +rfon Ikxr,n MINP .. Irr•p e. hYto II rJlwn � �rrr 41..r n+ La LIA4u1 11 L q L ai , G R f. dEn LI r5 +j rr 9E � 7F. 51Y• d� a u rill RII nll } Lih 3MSrfmA'C.Z.rJ Community Boulevard Permitted Uses "Local- serving retail" stores up to 2,500 sq. ft. and integrated into a larger building on the corner Small grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, cafes, food sales, Residential convenience Stores Video rental and sales, florists, dry cleaners, laundromats, Business Convenience Stores Copy shops, office supply , photo developing, etc. Offices Multi - family residential and single family attached Single family detached (allowed on other streets only) Lodging - Hotels and /or motels Civic, Quasi -Civic Live Work 4w r � L J m cn r .-. �E O O N N E M 'L � O O }' N 4w r � L J allm r,- 0 Z m O O 'E N O N a--+ u O L Q o Ln O I i ry > O � Z allm r,- 0 Z . w .� L N N M. � U Ln Zoning Comparison Pre -Sarp Zoning 2007 -2009 Zoning Comparison Interim Zoning 2003 -2007 Zone Use Comparison - conclusions Properties previously zoned Commercial/ Business No longer permitted Auto sales /Services Retail (stand alone retail over 2,500 sq. ft.) Personal Services Properties previously zoned Residential Now Permitted Office Uses Corner Store Retail Lodging (hotels /Motels) Entertainment Light Industrial Permitted Residential (Multifamily and single - family) Property Percentage by Interim Zone 1% 72% 27% Industrial Business /Comm ercial Residential Non - Conforming Uses Non - conforming Use Survey ❑ Conforming ❑ Nonconforming III ■I 1® Site Development Standards Wider setbacks Wider sidewalks Height (20'min - 42' max) Other streets 12' - 42' Building Orientation Streets &open space Public and Private Frontage Frontage Coverage 70% Appleway and other streets Maximum Building Length Community Boulevard Form Appleway and Other streets 80 ) 0 'J g, U nc 0 Ab U KZ Architectural Standards grcnitecturai stanciro; r�. S ign Standards -Wall Signs SARP Regulations -Wall signs cannot exceed 15% of wall area -Must be mounted below 2nd floor - Currently Under Review by Council Pre -SARP Regulations Wall signs cannot exceed 25% of wall area Sign Standards - Freestanding SARP Regulations • Freestanding signs are not permitted Pre -SARP Regulations • One per parcel • Height: 30 ft • Copy area: 100 ft2 Sign Standards - Monument SARP Regulations • One per parcel • Height: 4 ft • Copy area: 32 ft Pre -SARP Regulations • Two per parcel • Height: 7 ft • Copy area: g0 ft2 Questions? Lori Barlow, AICP 720 -5335 lbarlow@spokanevalley.org : ■I� 1 1111111 11• � ■' 1 II 1 -■ 1 1111.■ 1 11 11 - -••' El 1 • 1 rll air . IN II ■ 1 11 1 t 11 1 11 11■ 1 ■1 1 11 ■ _ ■11 ■11111 111 ,„ Iril l NIIII ■NI ME 1:11�1�w1iiNllllli::::1 i■1■Illlill■INI1 11:= „;;'� ";' �' psi ll ■i■ul�� i wll ■� =' ■ -I ■11! ! I ■ ■ ■e �, ■■ ■ 1 11111111 � ■ a 1. 1■ ■ '■■■ . . ■��1 '� �■ ■1 1■ N N _ 111 1 1 � _ � 1 i 11 _ ■ � ■: � _ l .��.1... I I ■- — _� ` � 1 11� 71;y�llii � ■ _711■, �� II■111..�1 . �IIIIII iN■ e. i -�r`� — Ii � �. ■Wir I . i — �1� �� :� . 1 ....., .: �. X111 � ■Ile.� � y,. � � 1� � ■�• I!� � � °� ■ ■`� � *'.��.. ■ r..ali ■�� ■ •�� ■ ■ s' aw ■r ,5 � � ��lliji = °�� ■ ■ � `r � � �■ ��MI�� ,� "o*�II�.'llt�lll�� *p � w�C:I�IA� 1 1 ■Ila... � �1 � �� Z� n �eee■ ■� ■ ■� �� I�■ N'Ile � I� ��,� 1 ��e� N e■ ■■ ■ ■ ■�k �i - ■� +� � �F � �..� _.I� �.�� -� � ■ ��A _ =.a.�_� — �• - = �4�ri� '� _� ■ -� X111. � • -,; �,� -,� _ ,,.�, � i Wig wi - ,� ii.i•ili��T �� .��- �*- ■.- ■ ■ 1 ��±.� r 1 - � � I . e■r .r ■,■' I [s ',' ' 1 � '� � III �■ =� ■� ' � �I N ■i ■ u ■rz e■� I I ��' �� EiiiYit'ii", % a � :iilii ' �E y YiYYYY 1 �* / e!� �ASiY �� eY i �- r G ■■ " III �. ■_ %r / /// �■F � 111 11 ■1�� '�' ,,. �1 "_w#1.. �IIIIi ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ! .� -_-YY ■ ■■ �„ � 1 �IIIIIe. ■■ � =� �� . � ■■' a ■ ■■ �I� Ili ■e�iNe ■_/�� II mm I ■ 11"� ■ IIIl1 �� , ' _ ' �' s 11 1 moi■■rt■N ■■■!!■ 111 !!! �;: : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 — ■ ■e■ Il�ii i ■1 ■■ ■ - • ■,a ■ — � � ■ ! ■, � ;�i�iNll ■ ■IIIIIIIIIIll�1 ■ ■ ■ ■IN�� ■� !IN � �' .,- r�,il■ _� ■' 111■ i ■ , I `��.�ea i �� - ��"� i;i! ■� .e■ !111111 ■IN��1■ �IIIN �!�! ■ ■�■ ■.�� - rriii dill ■ -�� ■��'� a ■ it ii i ■ IIII Ire: "' i �■ III - 11111 IAm■■■■!■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ Ike■ .. .. A ■ �� st11N11; ■■111■■ ■■ ■■■■ ■ ■� ■ 1 ' �� 1 1 .. 1 11 N1 I'I ■ �`— F �I ��I� II ■1■1i�1111 N ��111. �■ ■ ■ ■N ��NIII yip■ I . 11 ■ N —.,� Itii,� ■;� =�� IIIIIIIAIII 11 1lIIf N1 iir . ■� ■ ■� +�� ap IINII�1 11 ■� ■1■■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■'� 11■ �■ II 1 ■ ■ II ■ _,-,1 s :.■ ■1=1111!_11 11!!! NL 1 ■111 ■ III immommimmm DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of September 23, 2010; 9:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 27] 1. Comp Plan Review /Update; SARP & Comp Plan Options — Kathy McClung (30 minutes) 2. Collaborative Plan — Susan Winchell (30 minutes) 3. Public Record Ordinance Amendments — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4. Semi - Trucks Parking — Rick VanLeuven (20 minutes) 5. Panhandling Update — Rick VanLeuven (15 minutes) 6. Legislative Agenda Update — Mayor Towey (15 minutes) 7 Wastewater Update — Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 8. CenterPlace Leases — Mike Stone (10 minutes) 9. Senior Center Ping Pong Update — Mike Stone (15 minutes) 10. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 170 minutes] October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Mon Oct 4] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG — Scott Kuhta (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson (30 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: CDBG Projects — Scott Kuhta (15 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Lease Agreement with Community Colleges of Spokane — Mike Stone (10 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Lease Agreement with Central Valley School District — Mike Stone (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Code Text Amendment CTA 08 -10 (Mixed Use) — Micki Harnois (20 minutes) 8. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 100 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. Law Enforcement Police Forensics — Rick VanLeuven /Carrie Johnson 3. Easement Request 4. Business Registration Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 6. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Oct 11] (30 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 85 minutes] October 26, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 18] 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois (15 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: minutes] November 2, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 25] 1. Spokane Transit Authority Presentation — Susan Meyer (30 minutes) 2. Broadcasting Options — Mayor Towey (20 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 9/24/2010 8:14:43 AM Page 1 of 3 3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Ken Thompson 4. 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. First Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 6. First Reading Business Registration Amendments — Cary Driskell 7. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson 8. 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) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] jdue date Mon Nov 1] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [estimated meeting: 90 minutes] [due date Mon, Nov 8] [ *estimated meeting: minutes] November 30, 2010, Tentative No Meeting: Council attends NLC in Colorado (Nov 30 -Dec 4) December 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 29] 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Department Reports (normally for the Nov 23 meeting) December 14, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m [due date Mon, Dec 6] 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Business Registration Amendments — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 — Ken Thompson (15 min) 6. 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. 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Info Only: Department Reports January 4, 2011, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 20] (5 minutes) [due date Mon, Dec 27] Draft Advance Agenda 9/24/2010 8:14:43 AM Page 2 of 3 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 Concurrency East Gateway Monument Structure # Jail Update Liquor Initiatives Milwaukee Right -of -way Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance Parking/Paving Options (Development paving options for driveways, etc.) Reimbursement Assessment Amendment Signage (I -90) Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Special Events Permit Training Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environmental 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; (e) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts Wastewater Treatment Plant WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education # = Awaiting action by others * = doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 9/24/2010 8:14:43 AM Page 3 of 3 Spokane , ,; 0 oo*VaIIey PERMIT CENTER Community Development Monthly Report August 2010 _Revenue Permits Permit revenue for August was $75,344. The revenue for the year is even with last year at this time. Permit Revenue $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 im Jan a 0 IN IN Feb Mar Apr May June J 2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for August is $8,725. This is behind last year; however the drastic increase in May of last year is due to the receipt of payment from a street vacation, which has caused an unfair balance in the comparison to last year's numbers. Land Use Revenue $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 - - $5,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 02010 Revenue 02009 Revenue Page 1 of 8 Spokane , ,; 0 oo* Va11ey OF s iii Community Development Monthly Report August 2010 e �1inancia�'.�IanaementPermitlnl` tum fPermitsls ued� August 2010 Residential New Structures Separate Dwelling Units Demolition Permits Dwelling Units Demolished Single Family Residence 8 Duplex 1 Triplex 4 -Plex Apartments July 2010 Commercial New Buildings Tenant Improvements Additions 4 11 ' Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 8 The valuation' for August was $3,900,174 Spokane Community Development Salle Monthly Report August 2010 Permit.�ctiyitl! Certificate of Occupancy Six Certificates' of Occupancy were issued in August. Including, Hobby Lobby, Auto Zone, Precision Machine and two large storage buildings. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 328 permits in August. Major permits included Aqua Elite, Twiggs and a grading permit for Evergreen Towing. Construction Permits Issued 350 ■ irr1'P i r� 200 150 100 50 0 ■ 2010 Permits 1 158 1 200 1 259 1 256 1 241 1 284 1 263 1 328 ■ 2009 Permits 159 192 221 250 260 302 305 275 1 255 1 331 1 200 1 243 Land Use Applications In August staff issued. Commercial Pre - application Meetings During the month of August Community Development staff held 5 commercial pre - application meetings which included, one change of use, one new office and one short plat. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner did not have any land use hearings in August Business Licenses Staff approved 115 business licenses in August. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 16 home occupation permits in August. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 8 adult entertainment licenses for August. Express Permits Staff processed 5 Express Permits in August. Page 3 of 8 Spokane Community Development ��alle Monthly Report August 2010 CustomerSewice The Permit Center staff assisted 442 customers at the counter and handled 328 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during August. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 3 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un- platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. ��2sl�ectlO�f Right of Way The Right -of -Way inspector performed 704 inspections in August. Right -of -Way Inspections 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 • • • • 4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec e O 2010 221 491 773 852 1007 941 957 704 0 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174 Building Plans Examiners reviewed plans in the last month, 3 of which were for Airway Heights. There were 185 commercial inspections and 522 residential inspections in the same time frame. IOU Building 600 A Inspections 500 A Performed 400 300 /-VV - 100 0 - H r - - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X2010 Residential 393 387 397 557 498 522 531 403 0 0 0 0 02010 Commercial 229 187 274 180 163 185 201 312 0 0 0 0 L1 2009 Residential 221 237 304 257 302 628 649 582 580 584 459 438 —40-2009 Commercial 220 188 199 181 143 189 222 219 202 322 166 253 Page 4 of 8 Spokane ,,; 0 oo*Va11ey Development Engineering Community Development Monthly Report August 2010 During the month of August the Development Engineering Inspector performed 40 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 40 35 30 25 20 10r I 1 G rid 1 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec —2010 ■ 2009 UPDATES Planning Commission In August, the Planning Commission held two regular meetings on August 12 and 26 On August 12 the Commission held a study session on proposed code text amendments under file CTA- 06 -10. Amendments contained in CTA -06 -10 are code amendments that have resulted from the zone by zone review of the Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan. CTA -06 -10 included amendments to the Gateway Avenue and Gateway Center Commercial zoning districts. A public hearing on the amendments proposed under CTA -06 -10 was conducted by the Planning Commission at their August 26 regular meeting. 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments /Updates Staff sent notice to City Council and department heads on September 2, requesting possible updates for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Staff is developing a docket for the 2011 amendment cycle and would like to incorporate relevant changes to ensure the Comprehensive Plan is current. A presentation to the Council regarding SARP as it relates to the Com Plan update is scheduled for October 5 th 2010. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) The SCEO met on August 18, 2010. Items on the agenda for discussion included a briefing by Karl Otterstrom of STA on STA's Comprehensive Planning efforts, an update from Brett Sheckler (consultant) on the Collaborative Planning process and an update from Doug Smith (PTAC) chair on the UGA update process. Page 5 of 8 Spokane . .; 0 oOValley Shoreline Master Program Community Development Monthly Report August 2010 Staff revised the Shoreline Inventory Report to include Centennial Property's analysis and prepared a presentation to City Council. Subarea Plan Revisited Staff continued with the SARP review program, preparing Code Text Amendments, conducting a community meeting on City Center zoning, and reporting back to Council on the Neighborhood Center zone. Derartment yYfde Energy Grant Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project continued with 4 home energy audits. See the paragraph below for updates on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Washington State Energy Strategy Update Process The Washington State Energy Strategy update process continued this month with weekly webinars. The Building Official continues to participate in the conservation sector process and has been working with Commerce staff to improve access to the work group meetings. Participation in this process will be on -going through December 2010. ADA Study A public meeting was held August 3 to take input on the scope and content of the self evaluation form. The public and interested parties also commented on various access issues they have experienced. Staff is continuing to review the department surveys. Sidewalk inventories are on hold for the construction season. Bike /Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) On August 18, City Council members, staff, and around 50 bicycle enthusiasts toured the City of Spokane Valley on their bicycles. The event started at City Hall with a safety presentation to ensure everyone on the tour understood the cycling laws. After the presentation, cyclists hit the streets in small groups led by experienced riders. Four groups took the long route, and one group, including Mayor Towey and Council Member Gothmann took the short route with Eileen Hyatt, a retired school teacher who is on the board of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington and is a certified bike safety trainer. Training Two planning staff attended a motivation seminar. Wellhead Protection Staff attended a Wellhead Protection meeting in August. Page 6 of 8 Spokane , ,; 0 oo*Va11ey Regional Partnering Community Development Monthly Report August 2010 The Regional Partnering Group met with respective staff to review the master application. Staff identified some procedural barriers that may not be resolvable. Building Officials will seek direction from Directors and Commissioners to determine what priority this project has. In the meantime, the building official group is working on identifying and prioritizing new partnering opportunities. Code Cam !fie Citizen Action Requests Page 7 of 8 Code Compliance officers received 64 Citizen Action Requests in August. 000* Spokane Community Development j V T�1�� Monthly Report y August 2010 These are the customer action requests by type of violation, 7 of which were no violation but still must be nvestigated 100% - 80% i 60% 40% 9 � 20% 0 0 /o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Clear View Triangle 2 0 7 5 1 5 2 11 ■Complaint - No Violation 3 2 3 9 2 6 5 7 ■Environmental 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ®Junk Auto 10 19 14 7 9 9 10 6 M Property 16 19 20 13 15 12 15 27 11 Signs 15 31 5 5 31 0 0 0 ■Solid Waste 16 26 26 12 12 11 12 13 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST w DATE IM INTEREST September 9 Planning Commission — Study Session Code Amendments — Subarea Plan FS 23 ' Planning Commission — Public Hearing Subarea Plan Code Amendments September 23 City Council Tour September 29 Bike / Pedestrian Public Meeting September 30 Community Boulevard Community Meeting November 1 I Deadline for submitt al of comprehensive plan amendments. November 11 GIS Demonstration Page 8 of 8 al of comprehensive plan amendments. November 11 GIS Demonstration Page 8 of 8 one Nlft� ,; o OV alley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 906 ♦Spokane YaEley WA 94206 509.921.1000 + Fax: 509.921.1008 4 cityhall @spokaneva[ley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Date: September 20, 2010 Re August Finance Activity Report August highlights in Finance included: Financial reports Reports showing a comparison of actual revenues and expenditures at August 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. Investment earnings are Iikely 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 is close to wrapping up the review of our 2009 financial records. They will be in and out of our office for 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. There will be no "findings" for our year ended 12- 31 -09. 2011 Budget This process is about 90% complete. We have one remaining public hearing on 9 -28 -10 to gather public input. An ordinance to start the budget adoption process will have its first reading on 9 -28 -10 as well. Outside agency funding Nineteen agencies requested funding from the city for programs in 2011. The City Council will allocate the $159,000 at the September 28, Council meeting. Lodging tax rag nts Applications (b) for tourism promotion grants have been received. The lodging tax advisory committee will receive the applications by early October and will make a recommendation to the City Council in November. 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 Genera[ Fund Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended August 31, 2010 Adopted Budget August YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 19,375,000 25,296 24,626,549 $ (5,251,549) 127,10% 10,969,500 58,772 5,837,043 5,132,457 53,21% 16,600,000 1,442,680 9,268,458 7,331,542 55.83% 425,000 87,708 351,680 73,320 82.75% 1,100,000 166,508 714,186 385,814 64.93% 1,450,000 5,610 1,041,328 408,672 71.82% 1,649,786 92,462 987,506 662,280 59.86% 1,594,700 167,820 1,238,594 356,106 77.67% 740,000 50,442 459,200 280,800 62.05% 416,864 10,420 96,882 319,982 23.24% 220,000 74,300 74,300 145,700 33.77% $ 54,540,850 2,456,721 44,695,726 $ 9,845,124 81.95 ° /a Adopted Budget August YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized 322,120 25,296 221,305 100,815 68.70% 1,063,842 65,610 962,035 101,807 90.43% 22,062,268 2,377,986 13,646,063 8,416,205 61.85 % 1,892,382 126,480 1,002,867 889,515 52.99% 893,793 51,485 441,609 452,184 49.41% 3,552,450 234,897 1,948,077 1,604,373 54.84% - - 180 (180) 2,926,033 308,204 1,427,555 1,498,478 48.79% 21,827,963 79,211 1,025,777 20,802,186 4.70% $ 54,540,851 $ 3,289,469 $ 20,675,469 $ 33,865,382 37.91% 5 4 21 11 18 19 20 17 09123/2010 8:19 AM City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the period ended August 31, 2010 Other Funds Revenues: Street Fund Trails and Paths Hotel/Motel Fund Civic Facilities Replacement Debt Service - LTGO 03 Capital Projects Fund Special Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Mirabeau Point Project Community Developmt Block 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: Adopted Budget August YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 7,399,050 $ 418,627 $ 2,899,955 4,499,095 8,000 4 40 7,960 400,000 47,452 232,464 167,536 1,240,000 252 1,782 1,238,218 650,000 - 197,511 452,489 1,948,000 44,659 309,486 1,638,514 612,000 40,724 305,642 306,358 10,572,000 3,796 344,411 10,227,589 - 3 (128) 128 300,000 - - 300,000 2,465,000 2,211 256,662 2,208,338 1,767,000 7,365 578,573 1,188,427 4,398,015 16,231 981,598 3,416,417 919,000 187 1,638 917,362 258,000 3 258,031 (31) 39.19% 7 0.50% 3 58.12% 0.14% 15 30.39% 2 15.89% 3 49.94% 3 3.26% 3 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 & Replacemnt Risk Management Reserves: Centerplace Operating Service level Stabilization Winter Weather Parks Capital Civic Facilities Capital Total Other Funds Expenditures: 0.00% 13 10.41% 3 32.74% 22.32% 7 0.18% 7 100.01% 350,000 68 645 349,355 0.18% 6 5,400,000 1,128 10,399 5,389,601 0.19% 6 505,000 104 540 504,460 0.11% i2 820,000 236 1,337 818,663 0.16% 3 5,827,000 1,213 11,184 5,815,816 0.19% 6 $_ 45.838.065 S 584.262 1140 Adopted Budget August YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized $ 7,399,050 298,550 1,726,812 $ 5,672,238 23.34% 17 8,000 - - 8,000 0.00% 3 400,000 72,707 217,639 182,361 54.41% 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 10,572,000 927,294 1,989,473 8,582,527 18.82% 3 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 13 2,465,000 25,521 263,145 2,201,855 10.68% 3 1,767,000 4,327 1,045,525 721,475 59.17% 4,398,015 210,108 919,442 3,478,573 20.91% 17 919,000 - - 919,000 0.00% 8 258,000 - 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 - 224,801 595,199 27.41% 3 5,827,000 - 17,866 5,809,134 0.31% 3 545.836.065 1.538.507. 6.892.948 S 38.945.117 09/23/2010 8:19 AM City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of August 2010 Total LGIP* BB CD 1 BB CD 2 Investments Beginning $ 43,665,987.03 $ 2,035,657.54 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 48,701,644.57 Deposits 1,666,029.24 $ 1,666,029.24 Withdrawls (3,300,000.00) $ (3,300,000.00) Interest 9,818.84 $ 9,818.84 Ending $ 42,041,835.11 $ 2,035,657.54 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 47,077,492.65 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund $ 23,233,651.76 101 Street Fund 2,960,736.34 103 Traits & Paths 20,833.58 105 Hotel /Motel 318,699.92 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 324,693.24 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,406,093.75 122 Winter Weather Reserve 500,539.97 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,209,555.20 301 Capital Projects 1,051,340.76 302 Special Capital Projects 1,578,002.85 304 Mirabeau Point Project 15,161.98 309 Parks Capital Project 1,131,493.19 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 5,814,406.91 402 Stormwater Management 2,601,097.11 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 895,426.40 502 Risk Management 15,759.69 $ 47,077,492.65 *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 1,442,679.59 2011 $ 9,268,457.65 Year to date Percentage Change 0.23% -4.94% -4.68% -2.61% -2.15% -2.31% -2.50% FOOTNOTES 1 Most costs are typically late in the year. 2 Debt paid twice each year (June and December.) 3 Capital projects often take a number of years to plan, engineer, acquire right of way and construct. 4 Most property tax received in May and November. 5 Base on finalized 2009 annual report. 6 Interest earnings. 7 Beg. Bal, included in budget which understates percent realized for current year 8 For replacement of vehicles & computers. 9 Required operating reserve, no expenditures planned for 2010. 10 Revenue for 2010 events will be moved to 2010. 11 Quarterly Payment to City. 12 Emergency use only. 13 Fund being phased out. 14 Budget adjustment needed 15 In reserve for replacement of buildings. 16 Transfers pending. 17 Budget includes projected fund balances at 12- 31 -10, which understates percent realized. 18 Interest rates are down significantly. 19 Annual dues paid for 2010 in January. 20 Severance pay. 21 Shows revenue earned, some is not collected. 09/23/2010 8:19 AM MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: September 20, 2010 RE: Monthly Report August 2010 August 2010: August 2009: CAD incidents: 4,806 CAD incidents: 5,449 Reports taken: 1,724 Reports taken: 1,579 Traffic stops: 896 Traffic stops: 1,547 Traffic reports: 222 Traffic reports: 246 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self - initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing August residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, traffic collision hot spots and vehicle prowling hot spots, along with July 2010 and August 2010 stolen vehicle hot spots. Also attached are nine bar graphs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and August 2010: commercial burglary, garage burglary, residential burglary, forgery, malicious mischief, stolen vehicles, theft, vehicle prowling, and property crimes comparisons for 2007 through 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE: The month of August began with National Night Out, involving a number of events throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Chief VanLeuven attended a neighborhood watch picnic where he talked about crime prevention strategies. The following evening was the official National Night Out and Chief VanLeuven attended a number of get - togethers at various residences throughout Spokane Valley. Detectives and patrol officers also visited various outings in our local neighborhoods. Chief VanLeuven attended the 2010 Annual Senior Volunteer Recognition Luncheon at CenterPlace. There are numerous seniors in Spokane County who gladly donate their time in a myriad of areas, many of which go unnoticed. This was a wonderful venue to extend recognition and a thank you for all the hours donated by a wonderful group of people. In preparation for school resuming, the Salvation Army hosted a Back -To- School Shopping Event which was held at Target for numerous children needing new school clothes, shoes, and backpacks. Target donated the gift cards and volunteers from the Sheriff's Office, Spokane Valley Police, and Valley Fire paired up with a child to enjoy a little shopping spree to get ready for the upcoming Page 1 school year. Chief VanLeuven and Shaylynn found a lot of cool clothes and enjoyed shopping together at Target. Deputy Rosenthal also found a pretty dress for his student. Chief VanLeuven attended the Annual Edgecliff Walk for Success in late August, celebrating the accomplishments this neighborhood has made in recent years. A brief parade was made through the neighborhood followed by fun times in the park with food and activities. Page 2 Chief VanLeuven attended the Kick -Off Meeting for the Threat and Risk Assessment and Strategic Plan in late August. This was a community -wide and Homeland Security Region 9 project, for the purpose of working on objectives to the Threat and Risk Assessment and Strategic Plan for not only Spokane, but for the region. A Spokane County Drug Court Graduation was held in Judge Harold Clarke's courtroom in late August, which Chief VanLeuven attended. Chief VanLeuven ended the month with a week of on -call, running from August 30 through September 6th Lt. Lyons attended the Valley Cruz car show at the end of August. He was contacted by numerous citizens who wanted to tell us that they supported the police department and were appreciative of our efforts. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of August: • National Night Out; • S.C.O.P.E. Edgecliff Movie Nights in the Park 8/5/2010 and 8/12/2010, • Spokane Valley Kiwanis Foundation- Donation of Radar Reader Board, • Valleyfest Organizational Meetings; • Edgecliff Walk For Success; • All S.C.O.P.E. Volunteer Picnic at Mirabeau Meadows; • Retired Senior Volunteer Program Luncheon at Center Place; • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training; • Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition meeting; • Spokane Safe Kids meeting; • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) meeting; and, • Child Sexual Predator Task Force meeting. S.C.O.P.E. had 47 new volunteers join the organization in August. August 2010 Volunteers Hours per station: CV S.C.O.P.E ----------- - - - - -- 1,081.0 hrs. Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. ---- - - - - -- 843.0 hrs. Trentwood S.C.O.P.E. - - - - - -- 376.5 hrs. University S.C.O.P.E. -- - - - - -- 63 5. 0 hrs. Total SV June 2,935.5 hrs. Page 3 • S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 133 on -scene hours (including travel time) in August, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents (including a hit and run) and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 62 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total August volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand -by, response and special events is 583; year -to -date total is 4,481 hours. • There were nine juvenile runaways in the Spokane Valley for the month of August 2010; all have returned home. • Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in July totaled 18 and in August 24, with 8 and 10 respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Twelve hulks were processed in July and 16 hulks processed in August. During the month of August, a total of 80 vehicles were processed. S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY - DECEMBER 2010 City of Spokane Valley 4 of Vol. 4 of Hrs 4 of Disabled Infractions Issued 4 of Warnings Issued 4 of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 9 360 63 93 2 February 8 342 39 122 2 March 8 411 36 82 2 April 6 286 35 47 2 May 6 136 17 65 0 June 2 179 12 2 0 July 6 194 22 7 0 August 6 95 12 5 0 Total 51 2003 236 423 8 Page 4 S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT (cont.) Spokane Coun 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 August 6 12 1 8 0 Total 50 633 48 84 0 OPERATIONS: • Panhandling Update — Prior to the panhandling ordinance going into effect 8/25/10, we were still experiencing transient/panhandler incidents involving thefts, burglaries, and trespassing. One transient stole a can of beer from a gas station /convenience store and was located by law enforcement at an STA bench, waiting for the bus; he was arrested for 3 rd degree theft. Another transient was found inside Boston's Restaurant at the Valley Mall, after smashing out a double pane glass window and going inside. The suspect actually called 9 -1 -1 in an effort to bring police to the business, stating he would rather go to jail than deal with this anymore, adding "I'm tired of the drama on the street." He was booked into the Spokane County Jail on 2nd degree burglary. With the new ordinance going into effect on 8/25/10, reports of criminal acts have decreased; however, the panhandlers have found that the ordinance does not extend to some areas, such as the exit of the parking lot at Wa1Mart. Reports of arguments taking place there amongst panhandlers as well as inebriated individuals hanging out in the parking lot have been received. A two -week educational period was given to the panhandlers, with individuals being given a handout explaining the new ordinance and a warning that their name is being recorded as having been warned. For the most part, previously congested intersections that once had panhandlers on just about every corner are now vacant, and it appears that most have heeded the warning extended to them. • Transient Arrested at Arby's - Police arrested a 38- year -old transient shortly after 2 a.m. in mid - August after a janitor found him inside the Arby's Restaurant at 10407 E. Sprague. The janitor told Officer Lamont Peterson that he entered the business and found the door to the men's bathroom locked. When he heard a male voice inside, he left the building and locked the exterior doors behind him. Officers responding to the burglary found the suspect standing Page 5 outside. He told them that he had used the bathroom Tuesday night and found the business closed when he came out. He put on an Arby's coat and hat so he wouldn't look suspicious to anyone outside and then cooked himself some cheese sandwiches in the microwave. After being discovered by the janitor, he decided to leave through a side door and was detained by police outside. A search of his clothing revealed a small baggie of methamphetamine. Peterson drove the suspect to the Spokane County Jail and booked him on felony counts of Second - Degree Burglary and Possession of Controlled Substance. • Indecent Exposure and Disorderly Conduct Lead to Arrest - A 43- year -old Trentwood man was arrested on a Saturday after he walked from Plantes Ferry Park to McDonald and Rich while swearing at adults and children, pounding on passing vehicles and mooning at least one motorist. The mooned motorist happened to be an off -duty Benton County deputy sheriff. The male suspect was booked by Officer Beau Vucinich for Indecent Exposure and Disorderly Conduct. Officers were called to the park about 7:45 p.m. Saturday after people visiting the park and participating in nearby soccer games encountered the suspect who was swearing at them and spitting on and hitting cars. As officers drove to the scene, additional reports came into 911 that indicated the suspect was walking eastbound. The off -duty deputy encountered the suspect in the roadway with his pants around his ankles and kept him in sight until Officer Tyler Smith arrived and detained him in handcuffs. The officers reported that the suspect was profane and vulgar to the Corrections staff when booked into the Spokane County Jail. Indecent Exposure and Disorderly Conduct are misdemeanors. Officer Vucinich indicated that alcohol may have played a role in the incident. • Officer - Involved Shooting - Spokane Valley Police were involved in a shooting in late August in the area of Rees and 4th Ave, at The Plant Fan Earlier in the day, a request was made for increased patrol presence in that area and was passed on to graveyard patrol. An SVPD Officer checked out on this prowl check call and parked his patrol car in the empty parking lot of the Plant Farm. The Plant Farm business owner, Wayne S. Creach, who lives next door to the business, approached the officer in the parking lot. A confrontation occurred between Mr. Creach and the officer, at which time the officer fired his duty weapon, fatally striking Mr. Creach. Detectives located a handgun on the ground near Mr. Creach's body. Critical Incident Protocol was invoked due to the SVPD Officer involved, and detectives from the Spokane Police Department are conducting the investigation. • Graffiti — Reports have been received from various local citizens of the Spokane Valley, stating that they are victims of graffiti, and request guidance on how to handle the situation. The first step is to take photographs of the graffiti, call Crime Check at 456 -2233 to make a report, and then make arrangements to paint over the graffiti as soon as possible. The longer the graffiti is able to be displayed, the more likely additional tagging will be done to add to what is already there. By eliminating the graffiti as soon as possible, the likelihood of more graffiti appearing is diminished. Page 6 2010 AUGUST CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Aug -10 Aug -09 2010 2009 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 BURGLARY 106 79 634 448 725 753 584 714 744 997 FORGERY 41 25 239 209 297 354 365 334 464 465 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 146 157 849 849 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 1,224 NON - CRIMINAL 79 65 581 616 892 944 839 811 749 916 PROPERTY OTHER 73 79 523 617 933 828 890 982 1,154 1,665 RECOVERED VEHICLES 28 15 270 121 187 319 343 403 333 390 STOLEN VEHICLES 55 30 336 188 298 496 478 711 603 577 THEFT 224 211 1502 1459 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 0 1 4 5 7 3 3 5 40 VEHICLE PROWLING 155 75 948 520 920 1069 682 937 958 1,382 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 907 736 5,896 5,033 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 8,178 10,519 ASSAULT 78 94 616 635 927 869 853 846 894 880 DOA /SUICIDE 10 22 134 131 210 269 221 167 159 164 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 116 97 826 770 1226 1063 874 736 762 755 HOMICIDE 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 5 1 5 KIDNAP 2 1 13 14 21 16 23 22 35 24 MENTAL 31 30 206 219 310 360 350 425 425 386 MP 15 15 91 81 115 95 83 88 97 106 PERSONS OTHER 137 145 1162 1092 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 1,624 ROBBERY 5 5 39 47 75 71 60 58 56 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 16 15 92 104 159 95 73 83 92 190 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 410 425 3180 3,095 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 4,192 ADULT RAPE 3 5 28 24 35 44 43 29 39 37 CHILD ABUSE 11 15 79 116 159 148 104 78 101 126 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 21 17 131 110 1 157 86 92 105 88 205 SEX REGISTRATION 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 3 6 4 INDECENT LIBERTIES 1 2 6 8 10 ill 18 15 9 21 CHILD MOLESTATION 5 3 29 18 35 66 46 69 67 77 CHILD RAPE 3 3 18 29 35 39 31 62 35 30 RUNAWAY 56 50 315 308 440 369 295 309 311 437 SEX OTHER 26 19 140 151 211 179 194 203 181 162 STALKING 2 1 8 9 15 21 17 17 27 35 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 201 16 143 122 175 142 152 177 244 341 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 148 131 898 896 1271 1,108 996 1,067 1,108 1,475 DRUG 37 41 379 460 670 838 807 665 891 999 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL ISU 37 41 378 460 671 838 808 665 891 1,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 1 2221 246 2117 2,070 3,183 3,811 1 3,800 3,345 2,403 2,776 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVE4 1,7241 1,57911 12, 691 11,554 17,460 17,4651 16,817 16,582 16,357 19,962 E o 0 2 A ugust Tr Co lli s i o n H otspots 9 September 20;0 , liGJ ■II� ��• Iili.C�_ • FZITlM_ lksaac. �� • I _ O C �` t it oT =+:•�� • • • ILI •n■r.�■ An. WA POO WA ,• 70 p sfield %�4 �. Qr� _ra e' p ` _�li ■Y�� " 111 . w -qp •.�:& p i�G'^r!c p �e■- 3Y. �.� y % �R .:1` _ _ !Ij71'': .. �., ,.... ■L �v ��' ®A� ►'sue on �: X11 ■_ 0s��■�.� _ �:� ■. �Ir■1rill ■I�III. ;� .�,. n:� nli ; �'• Eo� \� � ■rte© — I� !� bpi p ig ■�c o ■1�� O „ ,.w o A : p ��i �a �� grounds "icy _ ' ��a 111 ■h��k = ' �w� �4/--� � °' �e� I:�w� �® ■ ° ■1�'0� °"�t�.f•� • _ _ -• III mlff o :II elf ®mo ■a,■ __ ■ ■..r c � - ieisuee ■� ®��_"" °��r � ?��Ib� ©�� 1�1 Iliee� — o. ■may ■ ■� p .. . ■■rr.! '�.>� ti_�,v . Y� •• �r•' ll7T�••lllf.}i .fa— __��.1 ■■ ■ ■��7 '�'93� ■�� ___� _ �:� IuRiF�� c,, ,. - — ��►i � 1/ i'. ■■ w•� ■r:�u■■ �w3w■ ;� �� ■ wrfiilu ■ •� , ..� �i11� . � I ulrrr��■ � ■r ■- � F '�.. �icir�-� r� ° °,: ■�'�,.- w■ `C� i■ �R�� 1■uyla� � �. \�aL'�■szill511ll�Ld■_�ILN!■� O 1 � OEM �■■_�""" 1�1 INN ■ L�l•L� ��w I� � E]■!11 /'� - J ��L� ■■ir•.! ®�� ,111 ♦ p 1111 �� l � � _ F �� _ _ _ - • Syr -,"' T7.4_� ■�� i �� "r -' :��, _- � 1- �� . :,• Jam, lm E o 0 2 A ugust Tr Co lli s i o n H otspots 9 September 20;0 Spokane Valley Commercial Burglary 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 l ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ILl I[�C7� ■ — � , Josi � P _ Granit _ Ell �..;'.i*lilllf�M .�M. • c;J [itiAAllllllilimll" _= _ P o p 1 14 0 11 ��w`' a. asfrixa� !LAi1i'' -� �1 = =W aim ■ ■�� +�..1■ illy 1 �— 1� ■� ;.ter .IIj7'.. NAM IN M EMO L11L1 , IK.41 `] ^��■ g■a�■ g ■ a � _ F7 _ \, � ■� �� 1 e 71 ��■� — �� o ��. ,..,.. :. - Dill ■ ■kql�� ® Il��l d ! �, •-;�. ®° r SPIN EM ME ■111 ® i — — !I►�alGr� ■ ® ua■ . ' .� __rac ME NOW- IN :� _ wll_ ■ ©_ Fll. � ■!�L7 ■ ■�F1S11�1. •Faa E! ■ ■��hYUll- _!! S3J__FJ_w . �7__IIA•AU . ■F . Ike � k . ./I �`• uawenu _�_��i ` %IIICF�rYJ . • �� '� E! � ■! �■■[SlIF� �• �� ■■ & ■!Gi!! ■F �t:■ ■■3C ___Iwi � 7i .Ffill. ■ ■ilSi ■ � �i1�� • t+a .....0 C191fr;.�•r�i• ., I/ I�r..ar-ca�F�■ � .: .�i @Ilt'�1\ IJi ■��' °- �� ■ L ■ ■.!'� ■� ° �11�7LQ��IL 1_ ■■sw � I a_ �I,11� M IR - - - ' . !��u — �� `,'. r r�i��, ■ �1 f ■ - � � *tea\ 1 �'- �YSil l��il�� `'��1��1yy`�, i -- acr�u; ` ��r7a►��++y�r 11 11 ■`�'G�� '. ME Commercial MOM m e MM! M Burglaries = �.::},� O_ � �� `�1u1�� +��3,�n�.�■F x',31; ��:��: .gal ° WIN • • ■ :, : F . Medium F� • � • 1'''l.l1!!. 1�� m■r�wr.vr _ • E 1 005 1Mile 2010 August Commercial Burglary Hotspots ,Mapte Produced: Spokane Valley Forgery 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Garage Burglary 35 30 25 20 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 15 02010 10 5 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Malicious Mischief 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 - F 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC U2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 IN Spokane Valley Property Crimes Comparisons (2010 is through August) Burglary Burglary Mischief Commercial Residential Forgery Malicious Stolen Vehicle Theft Vehicle Prowling Spokane Valley Residential Burglary 70 m 50 40 30 20 10 2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Cl, �mentsj 41 L•IEWCJGI_ wiGJ g • � lili■IC�_ � Ne ve _ MEE -0, L IAp l% i l 91ne MEMO ��jfl a�iuu„�s:� r ■_r,.■_■■ fir' 1 � kl ��fil 10 sfield III: fl' ftm x1 w � �•�' fl' ■ Rio •�11 .'� IN "21ALM 960 .. Moll P ®,�'—�MI1��1�� ® ■i�ru�a�r® bl MENEM ■h�w■ •�ucr%� �i■i� ■, unu _ fly�� .�` �0�_ _ Y�■��1 s - ' E!i- �b! • .`11 ■19■M_`P 3W !i!! f•7 rr � ■ �r - " `� I �Y fi �_■` ��1[ �f[�7� ■11•� 41 ffil. __ nufiF�_�fil . 1 MM �� 1a■ ■■■�/■ihYUll-■Z��"�LC1_i`I� A�'�I ' 4�I �iu,w■nu ` /IIICFr�} ~�}y�y� '��` I/ "� A0/ �� ■IRRGil11 ■■ ■� � :� 7i ■lfillll.� 61. ■ �qq`` � ■LIST ` ■ �I� . '�i g�� ,�i[Ilt'1\ IJi w■ ■' "� IM FL FL iL�i 11W��!'�:��N \_ �QI 7IR9RL3lI�L�V`�� ; ■ ■ ■ . i yv 'y-i �15__� �� .. '� Ilk' •�i e• E . �e ��. - , ., ail /w E'+- - -��1■ w ��>t■ •• ./RED, ■ ■ ci4Lfi1�1 1 �i r rfil f c ;, •• �111_■t �� "` 7� 7EL91�1` �+ 1- '� ,'fil MEN ` NO ._ - - - -�- Burglaries orlowl- =Z aw KM F- u Low �� i • ., fl Medium High [II�C�IIIr.`I[ E 1 005 1Mile 2010 August Residential Burglary Hotspots 9Mapteoduced: E o o.e iMile 2010 July & August Stolen Vehicle Hotspots 9September2010 ' FZITlM_ iL'IE �' iksaar- li?'g _ S '�' F C V LeSle ON ., 'i ■IR lA p�wll � _r■ _ � �. ■�.� � LM �" _ tiI� ■��IIE. !�L! . ilA�`j �,— , O '!!I ■� Fa.�i l�. ��t�7�' ° - e � ion �O °.��I ■ ■�� ° �� '' � ��o �� I� IIIIrML �• . UA 1 g �� •� ■ii iimi '■ 1 � ® t �1• � �� IB ' 'MIMI ■ ■ ■�� 11 ON OEM MI. 0-0 NEWMMME 015 � �� ® 0 ' IISiSUO�- �t— Il! ■l!�1�f.•�]�� — J � !1!:1!11 ■IIIIS ®lf�l17■�� I �� ^ • • �� • © _ � ■■ _ !� A _itl ■ ©_ Fl•. ... ^., 1MAR . , �� 0 - - �ROL3l11� �E1S110. s>L� _�! S3JF1ll_IAII - -. ^.. . _ , :. PEW ."'.."''' r.-�1 w ■�A�� ■.'ll:� ■�IAR��:111 ,�F..�. A lllW..l. �� ■ .1.,s1. PRO . I ra ■!-�F �..iCi!'7�\ IJi .. ° ^^ i■ �� i!!.!!a • L!!.!'�!- I �'.1 eu I \t7 � J � _ _r.�C�al1�� ° ,. �__— lr� Lv7— !91111 ■S�v �I� L .. -� ® )M �( ., • -y . IN Stolen __331_ . ._��IN \= '■■■■L i ■, d .— �� Vehicles mi WIN • • Wk Low E o o.e iMile 2010 July & August Stolen Vehicle Hotspots 9September2010 Spokane Valley Stolen Vehicles on 70 M 50 40 30 20 10 0 ■ 2007 ■ 2008 2009 02010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Theft 250 200 150 100 50 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV F W DEC U2007 ■ 2008 2009 ❑ 2010 1l'I - Clements f wiGJ .Ili Y' JosialL ��.' •. • • Ieli�4 -4 iL'IE • FZiTb7! _ lek'SJ.Ci - 71�La1' ay By ISM - -, � ® ■ ■�fl3 + a. • ®■ra■ [I!bAiYYllllll■•"' �� LLQ 1110 11 Z, Im c � ir_ 1� ~ CC 1e CC 4 WN mdona � ' Y i/ ``'��._ ®fl`�L��' - 1 E�L•GIIY a � `I •rte ■6■ ■I��ir 1 � ia�." , "�„ �� ► ,1■I%" a a ■■ ■III ■ ■�III� b ?1��M = In Alki ILU ME= �Su � • - - -- � - -'-.w• — bWl� ��■ �'"'W" "s � �:.� - � IflrC- �er3Cf�,' �7� -•Q' il111-•�© /A EQa��II■ , :L��e�I• ��IJI! ■ ■ ■■ - ■ :C p ®r W�Amm Wriv _ WU F.7 ■1911!! lY ,r - ■ - M— EQU■11— .• aw! !au■!llr�i - �. , 11�l.ei i �u ;J■��■i+e�� `�a�1 �I. Il l MOOM �1-� �� A i ©� j �� ii i� i"" r� ,�Nalluau 5--1 ws!i■!ill..w�■ �� s i7 �uawen9 .��■� ��a""i�i . li � `iIC Q y w[�irF�r,� - � bl�'C .i -[� lilsi■ .. � , � �^ t+.• �., sr..019 v.: rGww.wwa e � � ;�.,...._._• r u ..ml■ !loll - � �tr�- 1� YY 1•.. - , ■nfr �u�,ea,.ei, -- -�— !' Kra RE MEMO .�12 ■ ■ �eell��.. • � .• �` ��f�� a �� ` ■`Y�lll�l.!�71 ■111!!! - Vehicle • Pro wling M .11LSi•1•.7i� � . ■llcaw l !! . � ��' MUM Low ' ( M ■ K' ;c Hig m�s��.vrI WEI ' Spokane Valley Vehicle Prowling 180 160 140 120 100 ;o .I 40 20 0 2007 ■ 2008 2009 02010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC S06I ane Walley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT August 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/ httD:// www. ecv. wa. aov /Droarams /wa /tmdl /SDokaneriver /dissolved oxvaen /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 Entered into two contracts with JUB Engineers; Street pavement ratings /evaluations and TIP traffic counts /accident data collection and evaluation. The pavement conditions on one half of the city's arterials and one third of the residential streets have been evaluated using an automated truck - mounted laser technology. Results are being compiled and evaluated. This data will be submitted to WSDOT in accordance with RCW 46.68.113 by September 17. CAPITAL PROJECTS (See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet) STORM WATER • SW Improvement Projects — 2010 Small Works Contract #1 4 projects were combined under one and bid in August under the Small Works Roster. Three bids were received. The apparent low bid is Sackett Contracting & Excavation, Inc. The following projects are slated to be constructed this fall: 1. Robinhood Street, 1300 — 1400 Block: add capture, catchbasins, and expand UIC for under - designed area. 2. Herald Street, 8 th to 9 1h Ave.: add capture, catchbasins, and expand existing UIC. 3. Oberlin Street, South of 11 Avenue: additional stormwater capture and swale. 4. 10 Avenue, Little John Ct. to Mariam St: additional stormwater capture, manhole structure. • SW Maintenance Projects — Maintenance Contract (Poe) Stormwater Utility small improvement and maintenance projects that are assigned under the City's Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract include the following: 2010 SW Maintenance Projects - COMPLETED 1. University and 16 , NE Corner: replace (2) existing UIC's, provide overflow to 16 Ave system. COMPLETED 2. Union, North of Mission: added capture of stormwater. COMPLETED. 3. Adams — 12 to 8 th and South of 24 Intersection — replace existing shoulder gravels with new pervious gravel to mitigate continuing erosion issues. COMPLETED 4. 5700 E. 8 new intercept and swale, rehabilitate existing drywell. COMPLETED 5. 7 E. 11011 (near Pierce) — north side of road, replace existing soil with pervious gravel in front of driveway. COMPLETED 6. 8 th just east of Evergreen, south side of road — replace existing soil with pervious gravel near mailboxes. COMPLETED 7. Yardley Area Drywell Rim Grouting: Repair Rims. COMPLETED. 8. 2316 N. Girrard: replace existing failing pipe sump with catchbasin and single depth drywell. COMPLETED 9. 43r Hollow and Forest Meadows: repair of crushed culvert pipe. COMPLETED 2010 Maintenance Projects — IN PROGRESS 1. 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. 2. Woodruff and Holman: Monitoring improvements made with sewer project summer 2009. 3. 11 and Herald — improve catchbasins and rehabilitate existing failing UIC. Scheduled for design this Fall and construction in 2011. 4. 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. Under design. 5. 7413 E. Sharp Avenue (near Park) — replace crushed pipe between catchbasins. Designed, awaiting construction quotes. 6. 1505 N. University Road (south of Mission) — replace crushed pipe between catchbasin and drywell. Designed, awaiting construction quotes. 7. 5621 E. 15 Ave (near Stanley) — replace crushed pipe between inlet and drywell, add structure to eliminate blockage point. Designed, awaiting construction quotes. 8. 32n 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) — Considering removing material and replacing with an engineered soil and sod in 2011. Directed landscaping contractor to reduce irrigation and provide deep soil aeration of swale bottoms to see if infiltration improves. • 16 th 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. As of the end of August, staff has recorded, evaluated and ranked 98 problem locations. 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. Recent grant amendment allows purchase of sampling equipment and replacement manhole lids. New completion date set for the end of 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 Program Review and Development — Stormwater staff worked with the Sweeping Contractor over the summer to develop spring, summer, and fall sweeping routes. A draft arterial route map has been developed and is based on field inspection, traffic counts, business zoning, and bike routes. A draft fall sweeping response map has been developed to communicate where and when certain areas of town are to be swept. Fall sweeping is weather dependent - when tree leaf and needle drop occurs and is mostly complete, with no recent precipitation, and before hard winter freezes keep the sweeping equipment from working properly. • 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. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Assessment — Started reviewing compliance requirements for the City's 7,000 drywells (UICs) and performing required assessments by February 2013. Compiling data to help in assessment /evaluation using GIS Mapping. Plan to complete assessment criteria ranking and draft map showing initial draft assessment by the end of September. • 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. Work on these projects will begin this fall. 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 met with the FMSIB project selection committee member to discuss details and answer questions for the two projects listed below. Preliminary recommendations from the selection committee included funding for both projects. The FMSIB Board meets September 17 to make their final selection. • Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project - $3,950,000 (20% of total replacement cost) — Preliminary recommended funding = $2,000,000 • Barker Road /BNSF Grade Separation Project - $10,000,000 (20% of total cost) — Preliminary recommended funding = $10,000,000 • Ecology SW Capacity Grant #3 (Non- Competitive /No Match) 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. The State is now preparing an agreement for this funding. Ecology 2011 Facility Grant (Competitive) City staff prepared a grant application for the State's first stormwater facility grant. A project was proposed that would eliminate direct runoff discharges from one or both of the Sullivan Road bridge(s) to the Spokane River. The State will reimburse up to 75% of project eligible costs. Local funding for the proposed project would come from Stormwater Utility funds. The State received over 100 applications from across the State for the $23M allowed by the legislature, and is currently reviewing the projects. The draft funding offer list should be available by November. • Ecology FY 2012 Water Quality Grants (Competitive) Ecology put a call for projects in August for this Grant and Loan program with applications due by early November. Ecology has scheduled a workshop in Spokane for September and staff will review and identify projects (if any) that meet eligibility criteria at that time. • Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) (state) Staff submitted six applications to TIB with council approval; three Urban Arterial Program applications and three Sidewalk Program applications. TIB should have a decision on funded projects by late November. • 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 were due July 22, 2010, and are being reviewed by the committee. • Federal TIGER II /Community Challenge Grant Staff worked 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. The grant was submitted on August 24. • Transportation Enhancement SRTC has a call out for projects to be funded through the transportation enhancement program. Staff submitted applications for two trail projects, a trailhead, and a sidewalk infill project on September 10. • Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) SRTC has a call out for projects to be funded through the federal CMAQ program. Staff is considering several applications, which will likely include traffic signal improvements, installation of fiberoptic cable to signals, traffic signal controller upgrades, the extension of Mansfield from Pines to Mirabeau, and a study of a possible freeway overpass at University Road. Applications are due September 24th. STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works /Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for August 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 ROW. • 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 a 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. Val le August -10 # Road Projects Funding Project Manager Proposed Bid Date EO mplete Estimated Construction Completion Total Project Cost 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 400,000 0 0 $ 879,195 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD UAP Knutson 08/31/10 30 0 10/31/10 $ 932,850 0065 Sullivan /Sprague PCC Intersection STP(P) Aldworth 05/28/10 100 98 10/31/10 $ 1,229,371 0069 Park Rd Recon. #2 Brdwy & Ind. SRTC06 -12 STP(U) Knutson 50 0 $ 352,002 0088 Broadway Ave. Moore to Flora TIB Aldworth 06/04/10 100 35 11/14/10 $ 3,027,071 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 98 12/31/10 $ 788,450 0139 Park Road RR Crossing Safety Improvement WUTC Knutson 08/20/10 100 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 70 11/01/10 $ 427,000 0129 South Greenacres (STEP) 001 Arlt 03/03/10 100 40 07/01/11 $ 640,500 0130 Corbin (STEP) 001 Arlt 05/05/10 100 40 06/01/11 $ 705,000 0131 Cronk (STEP) 001 Arlt 04/14/10 100 60 11/01/10 $ 315,000 Street Preservation Projects 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 10 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 10 0 $ 400,000 # Road Projects Funding Project Manager Proposed Bid Date % Complete Estimated Construction Completion Total Project Cost PE I CN 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 $ - Bike & Ped Master Plan - Facility Imp Parks Projects Note 0 0 08/31/12 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 0054 44th Ave Pathway - Woodruff Rd to Sands Rd STP(E) Aldworth 06/11/10 100 80 10/15/10 $ 405,480 0134 Bike & Ped Master Plan - Facility Imp USDOE (d) Note 0 0 08/31/12 $ - 0138 Pre Award Consultant Costs USDOE (d) N/A N/A $ - 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 0062 Appleway /Sprague /Dishman Mica ITS CMAQ Knutson 09/18/08 100 100 10/30/09 $ 672,000 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 0099 WSDOT Urban Ramp Project 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 0110 Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation ARRA(i) Arlt 04/17/09 100 100 06/01/10 $ 2,838,000 0127 2009 ADA Improvements CDBG Aldworth 04/07/10 100 100 06/30/10 $ 110,713 The News Tribune - Pension gainsharing still haunts state lawmakers (print) Page 1 of 1 � t3ack to Regular Stery Page Pension gainsharing still haunts state lawmakers EDITORIALS THE NEWS TRIBUNE Last updaled: September 16th, 20141222 AM (PDT) Washington's ill -fated attempt to share market gains with some public employee pension plan members is back to bite the state budget again. If a King County judge's ruling stands, the state could be forced to restore gainsharing, putting a further burden on an already underfunded retirement system, Budget writers are struggling to find the money just to pay down a $6 billion unfunded liability in two of the state's oldest pensions. The restoration of gainsharing could add 51,6 billion to the tab over the long term, Lawmakers have no one but themselves — and their predecessors -- to blame. They ones envisioned gainsharing as a no -cost way to share extraordinary returns with state workers, but failed to appreciate how much the pension system relfes on using those gains to hold taxpayers harmless during the down years. Gainsharing passed in 1998, back when the market was flying high and no one could conceive of returns falling below the 8 percent needed to keep the pension system stable. But then the dot -cam bust hit, with 9111 shortly following. Suddenly, the state budget was on the hook for covering tosses that otherwise would have been absorbed by surpluses from prior years. To make mailers worse, legislators had compounded their miscalculation by making gainsharing a permanent part of the receiving member's base pension benefit, rather than a one -time bonus. By 2007, the slate actuary was projecting the perk would cost $6.7 billion over 25 years. The Legislature canceled gainsharing that year — but not without potentially getting the state in deeper. In an ill - advised attempt to make amends, lawmakers replaced gainsharing with lesser benefits such as earlier retirement Public employee unions were undeterred in their opposition. They sued, and last week King County Superior Court Judge Richard Eadfe upheld their complaint, Eadie ruled that the state could not unilaterally abandon gainsharing — unless it provided a comparable replacement. The upshot is that lawmakers might have been better off not making any attempt to assuage stale workers. Unions argue that their members are not only entitled to the restoration of gainsharing, but also to keep the Legislature's peace offerings. Gainsharing alone Is a $150 million hit to the 2011 -13 budget, which is already facing a $3 billion shortfall, The hole gets $100 million deeper if the replacement benefits remain on the books. At a time when many states are rolling back pension benefits that have grown unsustainable, Washington could be headed the other wa y, State services will pay the price for lawmakers promising more than the pension system could deliver. r Terms of Service I Privacy Polley I About Our Ads I Contact U I About Us I Site Map I RSS 4950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253 - 597.8742 ® Copyright 2010 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company A&I I . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 28, 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: