Loading...
2011, 10-25 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, October 25,2011 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Steve Williams,New Life Assembly of God Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) 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 Amended Budget—Mark Calhoun 2.PUBLIC HEARING and Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)—Scott Kuhta 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 VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 10-05-2011 3699-3702; 3712; 24059-24063 $235,513.48 10-10-2011 24064-24098; 93110037; 1005110006 $2,033,735.55 10-10-2011 24099 $1,513.45 10-14-2011 24100-24139 $130,495.30 10-18-2011 24140-24192 $313,441.14 10-18-2011 24193-24198 $750.00 GRAND TOTAL $2,715,448.92 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending October 15,2011: $241,734.39 c. Approval of Minutes of October 4,2011 Study Session Format Council Meeting Council Agenda 10-25-2011 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-014 Amending Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan by Adopting a Bike and Pedestrian Element -Mike Basinger [public comment] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-015,2012 Levying Property Tax-Mark Calhoun [public comment] 6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-016,2012 Confirming Property Tax—Mark Calhoun [public comment] 7.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-017 Adopting 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun [public comment] 8.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-018 Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power—Cary Driskell [public comment] 9. Proposed Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012—Mark Calhoun [public comment] 10.Motion Consideration: Draft Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson [public comment] 11.Motion Consideration: Letter for SRTC Emergency Funds—Mike Jackson [public comment] 12.Motion Consideration: Letter Authorizing Extension of Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement— Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 13. Lodging Tax Funding—Mark Calhoun 14.Manufactured Homes Zoning—Kelly Konkright 15. Comprehensive Plan Discussion—John Hohman 16. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY(will not be discussed or reported): 17. Department Reports 18. Railroad Memorandum 19. Stormwater Update 20.Urban Growth Area Update 21. Thorpe Road 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 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 10-25-2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business © public hearing ❑ information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on the Proposed 2011 Budget Amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget State law requires the Council to approve an ordinance but that this action be preceded by a public hearing. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2011 Budget when it was adopted on October 12, 2010, and an Administrative Report was presented to the Council on October 18, 2011. BACKGROUND: The City's 2011 Budget development process began in the early summer of 2010 and this budget was ultimately adopted via Ordinance #10-022 on October 12, 2010 (12 months ago). At the time the budget was prepared it was done so with the best information we had available at the time but at this point we have the benefit of hindsight. The proposed 2011 Budget amendment reflects those changes that have occurred through the normal course of operations and affects a number of funds. Revenues are amended upward a total of $2,812,681 across 7 funds and expenditures are amended upward $2,901,929 across 9 funds. Revenue Expenditure Fund Fund Increase Increase No. Name (Decrease) (Decrease) 001 General Fund 355,000 730,681 101 Street O&M 698,000 1,443,300 102 Arterial Street 0 _ 58,019 302 Special Capital Projects 0 _ 180,000 307 Capital Grants 150,000 _ 150,129 308 Barker Bridge 150,000 _ 150,000 309 Parks Capital Projects 0 _ (220,000) 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 584,681 _ (500,000) 402 Stormwater 375,000 _ 909,800 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 0 2,812,681 2,901,929 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In the case of increases in appropriations, there are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: Fund level line-item detail of revenues and expenditures. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing and Motion Consideration: 2012 Community Development Block Grant Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Study session on potential project list conducted on October 18, 2011. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium. Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides about $1.5 million in CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County. In 2008, Spokane County agreed to amend the CDBG funding policies to establish a 20% set- aside of the County's annual federal appropriation for City of Spokane Valley infrastructure projects. Due to uncertainty in how much the next Federal CDBG allotment will be, the County anticipates that Spokane Valley's 2012 share will be between $225,000 and $310,000 for eligible, high-priority infrastructure projects. Although Spokane Valley has a guaranteed set aside, the City must still participate in the same application process as all other agencies requesting CDBG funding. Applications are due in November. City staff met to identify infrastructure projects that would qualify for CDBG funding and discussed the potential projects with City Council at the October 18, 2011 study session. The following projects have been identified by City staff based an evaluation of CDBG eligible projects. Council should consider ranking the projects in terms of importance. Proposed CDBG Projects: Estimated Costs 1. Sprague Avenue Resurfacing $430,000 (EB lanes, Havana to Fancher) 2. ADA Sidewalk Improvements TBD At the October 18, 2011 study session, Council questioned where the proposed Sprague Avenue project ranked relative to other City streets in terms of pavement condition. One-half of the proposed project area is scheduled for resurfacing in 2012, while the other half of the project is scheduled to be resurfaced in 2014. OPTIONS: Identify other potential projects for consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: 1. Conduct Public Hearing. 2. Move to direct staff to proceed with applications for selected projects with Sprague Avenue resurfacing as the highest priority. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undermined due to uncertainty in the amount of federal funding distributed to Spokane County. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business LI public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers; VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 10-05-2011 3699-3702; 3712; 24059-24063 $235,513.48 10-10-2011 24064-24098; 93110037; 1005I 10006 $2,033,735.55 10-10-2011 24099 $1,513.45 10-14-2011 24100-24139 $130,495.30 10-18-2011 24140-24192 $313,441.14 10-18-2011 24193-24198 $750.00 GRAND TOTAL $2,715,448.92 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist 10/05/2011 9:55:50AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 3699 10/5/2011 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben40360 3700 10/5/2011 000682 EFTPS 3701 3702 10/5/2011 000145 10/5/2011 000162 Ben40362 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PLC Ben40364 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC P1 Ben40366 3712 10/5/2011 000682 EFTPS 24058 10/5/2011 000120 AWC 24059 10/5/2011 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 24060 10/5/2011 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION 24061 10/5/2011 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES 24062 10/5/2011 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES 24063 10/5/2011 002574 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK 11 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 11 Vouchers in this report Ben40383 Ben40350 Ben40381 Ben40352 Ben40354 Ben40348 Ben40358 Ben40358 303.231.14. 001.231.11. 001.231.18. 001.231.14. 001.231.11. 001.231.16. 001.231.16. 001.231.15. 001.231.50. 001.231.17. 001.231.21. 001.231.20. 401A:Payment 20,635.38 Total: 20,635.38 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 27,323.96 Total: 27,323.96 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payn 5,124.53 Total: 5,124.53 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,026.67 Total: 1,026.67 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 996.58 Total: 996.58 HEALTH PLANS:Payment 98,122.40 HEALTH PLANS(COUNCIL): Payment 5,933.78 Total: 104,056.18 PERS:Payment 51,902.74 Total: 51,902.74 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: Payment 1,476.14 Total: 1,476.14 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:Payment 19,876.04 Total: 19,876.04 UNION DUES:Payment 2,228.21 Total: 2,228.21 BERG20110-02-03952-4:Payment 867.05 Total: 867.05 Bank total: 235,513.48 Total vouchers: 235,513.48 Page: 1 vchlist 10/1012011 8:42:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 24064 24065 24066 24067 24068 24069 24070 24071 24072 24073 24074 apbank Date Vendor 10/10/2011 000197 AIRFACTZ 10/10/2011 001081 ALSCO 10/10/2011 000135 APA 10/10/2011 000050 APA-INLAND EMPIRE SECTION 10/10/2011 000506 ASCE 10/10/2011 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 10/10/2011 001117 10/10/2011 000796 BASINGER, MICHAEL BUDINGER&ASSOC INC 10/10/2011 000322 CENTURYLINK 10/10/2011 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 10/10/2011 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Invoice 56788 LSPO1027781 LSPO1034753 101794-1187 202975-1187 OCTOBER 2011 1041577631 510901 511021 EXPENSES M11062-4 M11158-1 M11269-1 SEPTMEBER 2011 OCTOBER 2011 75152515 Fund/Dept 001.018.016 001.058.057 001.058.057 001.058.056 001.058.056 001.058.056 001.058.050 001.013.015 001.058.050 001.058.056 303.303.112 303.303.113 101.042.153 001.076.000 303.303.112 001.090.000 Description/Account BACKGROUND CHECKS: HR FLOOR MATS: BUILDING FLOOR MATS:BUILDING Total : Total : 2012 APA MEMBERSHIP:L. BARLOI 2012 APA MEMBERSHIP Total : CENSUS WORKSHOP: D.NEYMAN Total : ASCE MEMBERSHIP DUES:JOHN I. Total : COPIER COSTS:LEGAL COPIER COSTS:CD MILEAGE:M. BASINGER Total : Total : GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT#0 0113 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATI MAT.TESTING SVCS BROADWAY S. Total : SEPTEMBER 2011:PHONE SERVIC Total : INDIANA EXT PROJECT 0112 LEASE CONTRACT Total : Amount 40.00 40.00 33.22 33.22 66.44 370.00 450.00 820,00 30.00 30.00 235.00 235.00 268.94 469.73 738.67 154.85 154.85 779.69 8,231.40 1,092.05 10,103.14 151.99 151.99 12,825.10 12,825.10 1,087.47 Page: 1 vchlist 10/10/2011 8:42:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher 24074 24075 24076 24077 24078 24079 24080 24081 24082 24083 24084 24085 Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 10/10/2011 002604 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC (Continued) 10/10/2011 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 10/10/2011 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 10/10/2011 001557 EWU 10/10/2011 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 10/10/2011 000007 GRAINGER 3rd QTR 48435 100611 36931 36932 36933 9647432849 10/10/2011 001112 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 02154373 10/10/2011 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 10/10/2011 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 10/10/2011 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 10/10/2011 002789 NETWRIX CORPORATION 10/10/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 600308969/9329/8852 0071794 20472 10364 579102674001 579944716001 579947917001 579947918001 Total : 001.076.301 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : 303.303.060 ARGONNE CORRIDOR SIGNAL&D Total : 402.402.000 ADVANCED PROJECT MANAGEMEI Total : 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 502.502.000 VEHICLE SUPPLES:SAFETY&EME Total : Total : 101.042.000 10500 GAL STORAGE TANK 001.090.000 LEASE PYMT Total : Total : 101.042.000 TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPD, Total : 001.090.000 RAPIDSSL Total : 001.090.000 PASSWORD EXPIRATION SOFTWA Total : 001.090.000 SUPPLIES: BING 001.013.015 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.013.015 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.013.015 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 1,087.47 2,278.95 2,278.95 3,419.61 3,419.61 1,695.00 1,695.00 90.95 91.80 61.20 243.95 500.25 500.25 30,367.04 30,367.04 2,955.19 2,955.19 6,729.41 6,729.41 125.01 125.01 494.06 494.06 46.69 25.92 18.46 66.02 Page: 2 vchlist 10/10/2011 8:42:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 24085 10/10/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 24086 10/10/2011 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 24087 10/10/2011 002844 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC 24088 10/10/2011 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 24089 10/10/2011 000601 RERC 24090 10/10/2011 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 24091 10/10/2011 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 24092 10/10/2011 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC 24093 10/10/2011 000335 TIRE-RAMA (Continued) 579947919001 579968205001 580683447001 AUGUST 2011 1108313 Pay App#2 RENEWAL AUGUST 2011 283445 9 8080012893 8080013034 8080013069 8080013105 8080013117 24094 10/10/2011 002875 TRAFFICORP 3128 24095 10/10/2011 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 1013863804 001.013.015 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.018.016 SUPPLIES: HR 001.018.016 SUPPLIES: HR 001.016.000 STATE REMITTANCE Total : Total : 001.058.056 LOCATOR TICKET MGMT SYSTEM Total : 303.303.063 BROADWAY AVE SAFETY/RESURFI Total : 001.058.056 SPRING/FALL 2012 SUBSCRIPTION Total : 001.016.000 CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND Total : 001.058.056 ADVERTISMENT:ACCT#42365 Total : 303.303.112 TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND CN CON' Total : 001.058.057 40211D: BATTERY&WIPERS 001.058.057 32809D: OIL CHANGE&THERMOS' 001.058.057 40208D: OIL CHANGE 001.058.057 32809D:TUNE UP 001.058.057 06769D: OIL CHANGE 101.042.000 TRAFFIC CONTROL:SULLIVAN BRI Total : Total : 001.090.000 IPAD&ZOOM PAD SERVICES: IT Amount 5.09 110.79 5.34 184.93 58,557.42 58,557.42 79.20 79.20 403,465.29 403,465.29 75.00 75.00 792.80 792.80 632.66 632.66 314.83 314.83 150.85 591.45 48.75 519.36 264.27 1,574.68 567.50 567.50 86.02 Page: 3 vchlist 10110/2011 8:42:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 24095 10/10/2011 000087 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 24096 10/10/2011 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 24097 10/10/2011 000100 WABO INC. 24098 10/10/2011 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC. 930110037 9/30/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 1005110006 10/5/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 37 Vouchers for bank code: apbank (Continued) 25754463 23446 23496 70940 9290200241 SEPTEMBER 2011 001.090.000 STAFFING SVCS: IT Total: Total : 001.058.057 BUSSINESS MEETING: MARY KATE 001.058.057 BUSSINESS MEETING: DOUG POW Total : 101.042.000 WIRELESS TELEPHONE/INTERENT Total : 001.016.000 LAW ENFORCEMENT 001.016.000 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : Total Bank total : 37 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 86.02 744.00 744.00 60.00 60.00 120.00 84.95 84.95 1,282,372.81 1,282,372.81 209,022.33 209,022.33 2,033,735.55 2,033,735.55 Page: 4 vchlist 10/10/2011 9:35:01AM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 24099 10/10/2011 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY I Vouchers for bank code: apbank I 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 said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date OCTOBER 2011 101.042.000 PERMIT: MAG STORAGE 1,513,45 Total : 1,513.45 Bank total : 1,513.45 Total vouchers: 1,513.45 Page: 1 vchlist 1011412011 2:41:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 24100 24101 24102 24103 24104 24105 apbank Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 10/14/2011 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY 10/14/2011 001081 ALSCO 10/14/2011 000212 ANS OF WASHINGTON, INC 10/14/2011 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 10/14/2011 002326 BATTERIES PLUS 10/14/2011 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 24106 10/14/2011 002846 CHANGEPOINT 1 SPOKANE 24107 10/14/2011 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 24108 10/14/20111 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 24109 10/14/2011 002876 ERICKSON,STAN RCB1063291 September 2011 98411 INV006578 216422 9260559 9264526 9266536 9268503 S0017870 S0018829 S0018879 50018953 August 2011 September 2011 August 2011 Expenses 001.076.305 QUARTERLY MONITORING:CENTE Total 001.016.000 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 001.018.013 NOTARY STAMP AND FEE FOR NMI Total 001.016.000 JANITORIAL SVCS:SEPT 2011 Total : 001.016.000 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.305 LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND Total : SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI SUPPLY AT CI Total : 001.090.000 OUTSIDE AGENCY GRANT REIMBU Total : 101.042.000 TRANSFER STATION:PW 001.076.305 PETTY CASH:8955,56,57-PARKS Total : 001.076.305 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Total : 112.50 112.50 61.17 61.17 53.78 53.78 2,165.23 2,165.23 75.00 75.00 234.54 142.23 154.52 143.23 136.97 27.18 27.18 166.80 1,032.65 2,500,00 2,500.00 78.40 78.40 44.63 44.63 59.68 59.68 Page: 1 vchlist 10/14/2011 2:41:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: Voucher 24110 24111 24112 24113 24114 24115 24116 24117 24118 24119 24120 24121 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 10/14/2011 002308 FINKE,MELISSA October2011 10/14/2011 002877 FISCHER,WALLY Expenses 10/14/2011 002196 HOLTEN, MELISSA Expenses 10/14/2011 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Sept 2011 10/14/2011 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Sept 2011 10/14/2011 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 94202 10/14/2011 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 September 2011 September 2011 10/14/2011 001635 !SS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 10/14/2011 001002 M&L SUPPLY CO., INC. 10/14/2011 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 10/14/2011 000058 OMA 10/14/2011 001860 PLATT 108951 S100058591.001 Sept 2011 A500163 Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.076.301 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 001.076.301 EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Total : 001.018.014 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : Total : 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : 101.042.000 UTILITIES:SEPTEMBER 2011 PW Total : Amount 001.076.300 UTILITIES: PARKS 101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW 001.076.305 EVENT SERVICES FOR SEPTEMBE Total : Total : 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.302 UTILITIES: PARKS Total : 001.018.016 PHYSICAL EXAMS: NEW EMPLOYE Total : 0348142 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 0353916 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 0370038 001.076.305 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 767.75 767.75 37.50 37.50 53.54 53.54 64.14 64.14 62.05 62.05 161.22 161.22 2,209.39 106.67 2,316.06 239.16 239.16 17.32 17.32 4,058.65 4,058.65 195.00 195.00 99.54 7.22 69.29 Page: 2 vchlist 10114/2011 2:41:55PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 24121 10/14/2011 001860 001860 PLATT (Continued) Total : 176.05 24122 10/14/2011 000291 PROJECT ACCESS, INC. 107-04 001.090.000 4TH QTR 2011: OUTSIDE AGENCY( 5,000.00 Total : 5,000.00 24123 10/14/2011 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 28280 001.076.305 POLOS: CENTERPLACE EMBROIDE 109.13 Total : 109.13 24124 10/14/2011 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS 21818 001.076.305 NAME TAG WITH MAGNET 45.65 Total : 45.65 24125 10/14/2011 000415 ROSAUERS 11-125329 001.076.305 CANDY FOR CENTERPLACE 23.98 Total : 23.98 24126 10/14/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 4111974 001.076.300 CONTRACT MAINT:SEPT 2011 48,215.08 4434243 001.016.000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE:SEPT: 545.57 Total : 48,760.65 24127 10/14/2011 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110565006 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 1,323.54 Total : 1,323.54 24128 10/14/2011 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES OCT 2011 001.076.302 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,644.04 Total : 1,644.04 24129 10/14/2011 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Sept 2011 001.076.302 WATER CHARGES: PARKS 370.77 Total : 370.77 24130 10/14/2011 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST 58-8201 309.309.079 INSPECTION FOR GREENACRES P. 82.50 Total : 82.50 24131 10/14/2011 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 281425 001.076.305 FALL ACTIVITIES GUIDE 399.00 Total : 399.00 24132 10/14/2011 000202 SRCAA 781 001.090.000 4TH QTR 2011 28,735.25 Total : 28,735.25 24133 10/14/2011 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MK 640 309.309.079 GREENACRES PARK PHASE I DESI 747.75 667 309.309.079 GREENACRES PARK PHASE I DESI 8,120.35 Page: 3 vchlist 10/1412011 2:41:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: Voucher 24133 24134 24135 24136 24137 24138 24139 apbank Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 10/14/2011 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,MIC (Continued) 670 681 10/14/2011 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 10/14/2011 000295 VALLEYFEST 10/14/2011 000295 VALLEYFEST 10/14/2011 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 10/14/2011 001409 WORLD CLASS COMMUNICATIONS 10/14/2011 000129 WRPA 40 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 24699 1415 Sept 2011 1274867-2681-4 1274868-2681-2 1274869-2681-0 1274870-2681-8 110901512 11-620 309.309.079 309.309.144 001.076.305 GREENACRES PARK PHASE I DESI TERRACE VIEW SHELTER ARCHITI Total : SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE Total : 105.105.000 LODGING TAX 2011 REIMBURSEM); Total : 001.076.305 FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENT VALL Total : 001.076.305 001.016.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.076.305 ANSWERING SERVICE: CP WASTE MGMT:CENTERPLACE WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT WASTE MGMT: PW OLD MAINT FAC WASTE MGMT: PW NEW MAINT FA Total : Total : 001.076.000 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS: R Total : Bank total : 40 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : Amount 6,533.35 366.25 15,767.70 154.10 154.10 10,370.41 10,370.41 1,515.00 1,515.00 739.25 285.27 173.79 173.79 1,372.10 22.00 22.00 468.00 468.00 130,495.30 130,495.30 Page: 4 vchlist 10/18/2011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 24140 24141 24142 24143 24144 24145 24146 24147 24148 24149 24150 24151 apbank Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 10/14/2011 000170 1ST LINE 1ST AID INC 10/14/2011 000921 ATO Z RENTALS 10/14/2011 000394 AM LANDSHAPER INC 12286 001.032.000 FIRST AID/CPR TRAINING 69650-1 101.042.000 EQUIPMENT RENTAL: PW Pay App 2 Pay App1 10/14/2011 000694 AVISTA UTILITIES 30416 10/14/2011 001565 BERRETH THOMAS PRINTING 27775 10/14/2011 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 84419 10/14/2011 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC 111083-3 10/14/2011 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN EXPENSES 10/14/2011 002562 CD'A METALS SC0911 10/14/2011 002837 CENTRAL PRE-MIX CONCRETE CO 13-1621858 13-1624379 10/14/2011 000322 CENTURYLINK 10/14/2011 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN OCTOBER 2011 606678761 606679722 309.309.144 309.309.144 001.090.000 001.032.000 101.042.000 402.402.000 001.013.015 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.076.302 495.00 Total : 495.00 117.15 Total : 117.15 8,375.85 57,780.60 66,156.45 2,057.00 Total : 2,057.00 239.14 Total : 239.14 62.40 Total : 62.40 100.00 Total : 100.00 32.86 Total : 32.86 5.78 Total : 5.78 1,271.80 3.26 Total : 1,275.06 235.39 Total : 235.39 83.13 83.13 CIP 0144 TERRACE VIEW PARK SH CIP 0144 TERRACE VIEW PARK SH Total : HOME ENERGY AUDITS GRID SHEETS SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES SIEVE ANALYSIS MILEAGE SERVICE CHARGE SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW OCTOBER 2011: PHONE SERVICE 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW Page: 1 vchlist 10/18/2011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: Voucher 24151 24152 24153 24154 24155 24156 24157 24158 24159 24160 24161 24162 apbank Date Vendor 10/14/2011 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN 10/14/2011 002419 CLARKS TIRES&AUTOMOTIVE 10/14/2011 001888 COMCAST 10/14/2011 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 10/14/2011 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 10/14/2011 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 10/14/2011 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 10/14/2011 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 10/14/2011 001926 FARR,SARAH 10/14/2011 001232 FASTENAL CO PURCHASING 10/14/2011 002507 FASTENERS, INC 10/14/2011 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC Invoice (Continued) 606680701 606681667 Fund/Dept Description/Account 21723 SEPTEMBER 2011 27330545 90614 RE-313-ATB10913056 RE-313-ATB10913060 RE-313-ATB10913065 EXPENSES 0648887 EXPENSES 1DLEW77739 S3152526.001 36936 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 001.076.000 32811D:OIL CHANGE&COOLANT I Total : Total: 001.090.000 HIGH SPEED INTERNET:STREET 14 Total : 001.058.057 SEPTEMBER 2011: FLEET FUEL BIL Total : 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL&ILLUMINATION MAIN INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS Total : 001.013.015 MILEAGE 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 001.018.014 MILEAGE&REFRESHMENTS Total : 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : Total : Total : Amount 100.83 81.50 348.59 101.64 101.64 108.95 108.95 2,900.26 2900.26 35.86 35.86 4,707.44 9,076.96 2,098.36 15,882.76 125.66 125.66 1,344.15 1,344.15 48.45 48.45 2.08 2.08 476.31 476.31 65.10 Page: 2 vchlist 10/18/2011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 24162 10/14/2011 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 36960 001.013.000 LEGAL PUBLICATION 139.50 36971 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 66.30 Total : 270.90 24163 10/14/2011 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL Sep 11 1042 001.011.000 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,019.71 Total : 3,019.71 24164 10/14/2011 000007 GRAINGER 9647772780 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 462.84 Total : 462.84 24165 10/14/2011 002568 GRANICUS INC 29488 001.090.000 BROADCASTING SERVICES 695.68 Total : 695.68 24166 10/14/2011 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. SEPTEMBER 2011 001.058.057 COPIER COST 1,892.30 Total : 1,892.30 24167 10/14/2011 002043 HDR ENGINEERING, INC 00328138-H 101,042.000 SPRAGUE-APPLEWAY COUPLET E 2,050.65 Total : 2,050.65 24168 10/14/2011 001723 HEDEEN&CADITZ, PLLC 6891 001.013.015 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SEVICE 1,815.00 Total : 1,815.00 24169 10/14/2011 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC October 2011 001.011.000 2011 WINTER MEETING 60.00 Total : 60.00 24170 10/14/2011 001181 KOUDELKA,CARRIE EXPENSES 001.013.000 MILEAGE&MEAL REIMBURSEMEN 202.89 Total : 202.89 24171 10/14/2011 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS 439 001.013.015 PROF SVCS: HOLLYWOOD EROTIC 262.50 499 001.013.015 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVIC 1,031.50 511 001.013.015 SPOKANE VALLEY/MONTGOMERY 2,126.50 Total : 3,420.50 24172 10/14/2011 000662 NATL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 74179 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 47.83 74209 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 831.56 74210 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 104.35 Page: 3 vchlist 10/1812011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 24172 10/14/2011 000662 000662 NAIL BARRICADE&SIGN CO (Continued) Total : 983.74 24173 10/14/2011 002709 NORTHWEST HOSE&FITTINGS 370788-003 101.042.000 SUPPLIES 73.25 Total : 73.25 24174 10/14/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1395191762 001.018.014 SUPPLIES: LODGING TAX 5.15 1395191764 001.018.014 SUPPLIES: LODGING TAX 24.95 1395251654 001.018.014 SUPPLIES: LODGING TAX -5.15 579146929001 001.076.000 SUPPLIES:CP 61.88 579997015001 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 52.93 580294289001 001.032.000 SUPPLIES: PW 15.98 580426087001 001.076.305 SUPPLIES:CP 37.67 580940753001 001.076.000 SUPPLIES:CP 127.43 580940812001 00t076.305 SUPPLIES:CP 89.23 581085541001 502.502.000 SUPPLIES: FLEET 75.55 Total: 485.62 24175 10/14/2011 000881 OXARC SSQ8313 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 304.91 SSQ8757 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 56.49 Total : 361.40 24176 10/14/2011 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 28265 101.042.000 CITY LOGO MAGNETS 42.94 Total: 42.94 24177 10/14/2011 002467 QWICK KURB, INC. 103322 101.042.000 SUPPLIES 22,459.10 Total : 22459.10 24178 10/14/2011 000064 SCHIMMELS,GARY EXPENSES 001.011.000 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 173.06 EXPENSES 001.011.000 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 128.76 Total : 301.82 24179 10/14/2011 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-614281 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 9.15 5-614294 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW '17.59 5-614382 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 117.68 Total : 144.42 24180 10/14/2011 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD SEPTEMBER 2011 101.042.000 2011 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 1,290.00 Page: vchlist 10/18/2011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 24180 24181 24182 10/14/2011 000779 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD 10/14/2011 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS C056574 (Continued) 10/14/2011 002679 SPOKANE CO OFFICE OF FINANCIAL 934400653 24183 10/14/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 24184 24185 51500851 51500855 10/14/2011 002835 SPOKANE COURIER SERVICES LLC 1932 10/14/2011 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 159212 160945 162911 163333 164154 24186 10/14/2011 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST.#1 3rd QTR 2011 24187 10/14/2011 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS, INC 210576 24188 10/14/2011 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080012993 8080013009 8080013082 24189 10/14/2011 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRIZES L.L.0 9302011 24190 10/14/2011 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY 605877 605965 101.042.000 001.016.000 001.016.000 001.016.000 001.090.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 001.058.059 101.042.000 402.402.000 402.402.000 101.042.000 001.090.000 101.042.000 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : SCSO IMPAIRED DRIVING EMPHAS Total : SEPTEMBER 2011 HOUSING INVOIl 2009 SETTLE&ADJUST HOUSING Total : BROADCASTING Total : SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW Total : 3RD QTR 2011: FIRE CODE FEES Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 402010: SWAY BAR LINKS 40201D: OIL CHANGE&NEW TIRE: 40206D:OIL CHANGE Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS S Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Amount 1,290.00 49,78 49.78 5,114.58 5,114.58 85,612.00 76,733.00 162,345:00 52.50 52$0 18027 171.51 136.42 66.21 336.15 890.56 9,678.00 9,678.00 148.08 148.08 179.67 631.91 33.86 845.44 1,440.00 1,440.00 18.44 59.05 Page: 5 vchlist 1011812011 9:11:43AM Voucher List Page: 6 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 24190 10/14/2011 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY (Continued) 606054 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 3.14 Total : 80.63 24191 10/14/2011 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 25797607 001.090.000 STAFFING SVCS: IT 558.00 Total : 558.00 24192 10/14/2011 002651 WOODARD,ARNE EXPENSES 001.011.000 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 54.87 Total : 54.87 53 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 313,441.14 53 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 313,441.14 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 said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 6 vch list 10/18/2011 10:13:15AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 24193 24194 24195 24196 24197 24198 apbank Date Vendor invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 10/18/2011 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT&COATINGS 10/18/2011 002881 GLADDEN, KAREN AND TOM 10/18/2011 002880 PETSMART 10/18/2011 002879 POST OFFICE 10/18/2011 002619 WASHINGTON FISH&WILDLIFE 10/18/2011 002878 ZABORAC, SHANE 6 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 6 Vouchers in this report CRYWOLF:101370211 CRYWOLF: 1175 CRYWOLF:764287 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V 3E Total : 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V 4( Total : 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUNDED: PERMIT#1 Total : CRYWOLF:3551394450 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND CRYWOLF: 157315897 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V 3, Total: 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V26: Total : 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V39 Total : Bank total : 165.00 165.00 25.00 25.00 130.00 130.00 35.00 35.00 330.00 330.00 65.00 65.00 750.00 Total vouchers: 750.00 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 10-25-2011 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending October 15, 2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget/Financial impacts: Gross: $ 208,624.35 Benefits: $ 33,110.04 Total payroll $ 241,734.39 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington October 4,2011 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,City Attorney Bill Gothmann,Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Dean Grafos,Councilmember John Hohman Community Dev. Director Brenda Grassel,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard,Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Absent: Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Chuck Hafner,Councilmember MaryKate McGee,Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. At the request of Mayor Towey, City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All councilmembers were present except Councilmember Hafner. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Hafner from tonight's meeting. 1. Review of Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson/Briahna Taylor Lobbyist Briahna Taylor of Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, explained that the purpose of tonight's agenda item is to begin conversation and discussion on revising the Spokane Valley 2012 Legislative Agenda. Ms. Taylor went over the "Legislative Agenda Discussion" items including the process to amend the legislative agenda,what to expect in the 2012 legislative agenda process,discussion on legislative agenda items, and discussion on issues to add to the legislative agenda. She explained that the goal would be to finalize any changes sometime this month. Ms. Taylor said that the state will have $1.4 billion less in expected revenues so cuts will need to be made accordingly, and that the Governor will call a special session and distribute a "roadmap" for generating revenue and/or making additional cuts. There are revenue proposals to fund human services and education and Ms. Taylor said those issues are still being discussed and could come forward in the future; and future discussions would include a tax increase to fund additional bonds for construction projects, which would generate additional jobs, and to clarify, Ms. Taylor said these construction projects include actual brick and mortal projects, sewer projects, renovating schools to make them more efficient,and other construction projects which will generate jobs; and said that will be and is the focus for this budget. Ms.Taylor said transportation revenue proposals are being discussed concerning revenue options and said the possible revenue proposals could go forward on a ballot, all of which will be decided during the special session starting late November; she said the predominant conversations and focus in Olympia will be revenue and budget cuts, adding that it is all very unclear what will happen. Ms. Taylor recommended removing items from the Council's legislative agenda that have been accomplished, such as the food bank sprinkler system and the passage of the port of entry legislation; and said we don't want to forget these successes even though the items are being removed; and she Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT recommended updating the agenda so items can be added. Ms. Taylor asked for council discussion for any additional items they may want to include and no suggestions were forthcoming. Regarding the law enforcement district legislation, Ms. Taylor explained that the City of Burien was working to pursue forming a law enforcement district; that the idea started out as a "conversation starter" but the City of Burien ultimately decided not to pursue that legislation at this time. Ms. Taylor explained that this is a controversial issue with a tax element, and it would be difficult for this city to take the lead without the assistance of other jurisdictions; or we could leave it on with the expectation of not taking the lead,but if it comes up later, we would be supportive; or take the option of removing it with the understanding it could be added later, and she asked for Council's opinion. It was determined that this item will be removed from the legislative agenda. Mr. Jackson said the plan is to bring a revised legislative agenda to the October 18 meeting, and discuss the agenda further with the idea of having a subsequent council meeting to consider approval of the revised agenda. Regarding SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) reform, Ms. Taylor explained that she and City Planner Mike Basinger participated in a workshop on what proposals might look like to streamline the SEPA process; that during that workshop, the work group broke into smaller groups and discussed specific issues in more detail; she said she is optimistic about the conversations and said we continue to participate. Several councilmembers noted their preference in keeping this item on the agenda. Concerning the issue of communications interoperability, she said that last year's transportation budget had an appropriation of$40 million to the Washington State Patrol to begin state-wide interoperability; that there is more to be done but the $40 million will get the programs started; that there are two options for this legislative agenda item, one would be to leave it on and amend the language to recognize the appropriation secured last year and indicate ongoing support; or remove it since funding has been appropriated. Ms. Taylor said there are two issues for this topic, one state-wide and one on the local level; and said for the local level, we have raised the revenue and we are interoperable; but additional funding is needed at the state level to make the entire state interoperable and that is what this legislative item addresses; and she explained that this is funded through the transportation budget on a state level. City Manager Jackson asked Ms. Taylor if she might know why this issue isn't included on AWC's (Association of Washington Cities) agenda or what their preference is regarding support; and perhaps if AWC doesn't support this,council should follow suit.Ms. Taylor said this is on AWC's agenda but is not a top priority. Mr. Jackson said staff will contact AWC to determine how they prioritized this item and of their stance on this topic. Ms. Taylor reminded everyone that by the State appropriating$40 million in the last transportation budget, the state has made a decision to support this item. Andy Hale of the Fire Department said that function of state interoperability is very important in order to have all the first- responders speak with each other and other state agencies. Mayor Towey said he feels gathering more information from AWC would be beneficial. Regarding adding items to the legislative agenda, Ms. Taylor explained the idea behind recouping costs for enforcing code compliance; she said the city could pursue legislation making it easier for the City to recover code enforcement costs by pursuing a lien authority that is not subject to the homestead right or by other means. City Attorney Driskell added that when we get a judgment from court,we still try to get the property owner to clean up and if they don't, we get authority from the court to go in and clean it up; but since the city incurred a cost,we get the court to rule those costs into the final judgment;we file that with the Spokane County Auditor's office but that lien generally waits until they transfer the property; and the goal is to have these types of liens be re-classified as a materialmens and mechanics lien, which has a specific process with a short timeline where jurisdictions can have courts enforce that lien through this additional process, and he said this will help us clean up these properties that are such a blight on the community. Attorney Driskell talked about the properties we put judgment liens on in the past and estimated there were in excess of fifty properties, but not all of them would be properties we actually cleaned up; and said there were probably only about five to seven properties where we imposed this full judgment but that is partly because there is less certainty in getting compensated for the cleanup. City Manager Jackson said we hesitate to clean up a property at a $5,000 cost as that's essentially lost money Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT to the city, but it could come back when and if the property transfers; and said if the court passes judgment and the property owner does not clean up the property, that responsibility rests with the city; therefore, we feel the owner should reimburse the city for that effort, otherwise, they get their property cleaned up for free. Mr. Driskell stressed that this would be used in cases where we actually go onto the property and clean it up pursuant to a court order. Mr. Jackson said we hesitate to spend the money, but at this point, we have spent an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in property cleanup. Mr. Driskell said as property has transferred, we actually were reimbursed for three or four cleanups. Councilmember Gothmann asked if council wants this included on the legislative agenda and said he feels it would be reasonable to pursue this issue. Mayor Towey and other councilmembers agreed, and Ms. Taylor confirmed that this will be included in the revised agenda to come before council October 18`t'. Streamlined sales tax mitigation payments was discussed next and Ms. Taylor brought council attention to the report from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, and she discussed the old rule and new rule, as Washington decided to participate in the nation-wide procedure in determining which jurisdictions receive the local sales tax; that the old source was if someone ordered something, the sales tax went to the jurisdiction where the item was purchased; and under the new source,the sales tax goes to where the item is delivered; she explained the state implemented mitigation payments under the new system since several jurisdictions would end up on the losing side of the revenues; so the state determined it would make mitigation payments, and Spokane Valley was one of those cities receiving mitigation payments. According to the "Summary of Mitigation Payments" included by Ms. Taylor, she explained that Spokane Valley ranks #8, so we are one of the highest jurisdictions, and that we receive about $585,000 annually as a result of the agreement reached in 2008 when the state switched to this new type of sales tax source. She explained that this is one of the funds the state is looking at to reduce their $4.1 billion budget; and she said several other jurisdictions on the list are working on a letter to send to the Governor's explaining that the only reason they agreed to this change, was because they would continue to receive these mitigation payments; and that they would oppose any cuts to take away this funding. Ms. Taylor said a number of these jurisdictions reached out to her to ask if Spokane Valley would be agreeable in signing that letter as well. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question about whether the mitigation payments would cease, Mr. Jackson said he is not aware of any sunset clause in that regard; and jurisdictions expected this to be on-going; and he said these funds are budgeted, and it would have a huge financial impact on our city if the payments were to cease, and he encouraged council to sign a letter,and said that a letter can be brought back for council's review and eventual signature.Ms. Taylor said that this streamlined sales tax revenue is one pot of money the city receives from the state, and that there are other pots of money where the city receives state revenues including liquor profits and liquor taxes; and said at the last legislation session all those revenues were cut 3.4%; and she recommended adding an item to the legislative agenda that expresses the City's desire to protect the state shared revenues the city receives; one of which includes the streamlined sales tax mitigation; and she suggested including all those funds, such as the liquor profits, liquor taxes, and others. Mayor Towey agreed, and Mr. Jackson said the total state shared revenues budgeted for 2011, adding that we typically budget low and receive more, was $1.7 million, which is a significant amount of money. There were no objections to participating in the letter and adding this as a legislative agenda item. Mr. Jackson said staff will research what state shared revenues the city does not receive,and come back with that information. Discussed next was the Association of Washington Cities preliminary top priorities, and Ms. Taylor indicated that Spokane Valley's legislative agenda includes supporting the Association of Washington Cities' legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of the City of Spokane Valley. Ms. Taylor said AWC is currently discussing their fmal legislative agenda,but they have identified their top priorities as noted in the handout; and said AWC will be grouping these priorities into different subject areas.As an example, Ms. Taylor explained that the top priority of "tax increment financing/local revitalization financing"would be moved into a larger priority of supporting economic development tools,with various tools listed;and said they are still working on the priorities. Regarding Capital projects Ms. Taylor said if they will be funded, it would be linked to a revenue proposal to general construction projects; and Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT regarding the land acquisition project we currently have on our agenda to acquire park land adjacent to Park Road Pool,that since the state is looking at projects that will generate jobs, land acquisition doesn't fit; and she recommended keeping it on the agenda,but not to expect any funding at this time since it does not meet the state's criteria. Several councilmembers voiced their preference in keeping the agenda item on for future consideration. Mayor Towey said in speaking with several legislators, it appears the tourism funds were cut in Washington while Oregon and Canada's tourism funding was increased; and he asked Ms. Taylor about pursuing that. Ms. Taylor said she did not have any specific information, but could research the issue, adding that if the funding has already been cut, the likelihood of the legislators increasing funding for this without a revenue package, especially while they are making additional cuts elsewhere, is unlikely; and said she feels it would not be worthwhile to ask for programs to be re-funded as cuts are being made elsewhere. Mayor Towey and several other councilmembers said they would appreciate more information on this issue. Councilmember Grassel added that by not funding this one department,jobs will be at risk, and said she thought that tourism was the fourth largest "employer" for the state. Ms. Taylor asked if Council had anything else to add or any research requests. Mr. Jackson asked and council confirmed,to keep the Park Road Pool item on the agenda. 2. Shoreline Matters—Cary Driskell,Ken Harper City Attorney Driskell said that council had asked to have an outside attorney with expertise on shoreline issues,come discuss the issues and intricacies of that legislation,and Mr. Driskell introduced Ken Harper, Attorney with Menke, Jackson, Beyer, Ehlis and Harper in Yakima. Mr. Driskell said that Mr. Harper represents the City in several litigation matters and has extensive background in advising and defending local jurisdictions on shoreline issues. Mr. Driskell also mentioned that the open house scheduled for November will be postponed as a result of internal discussion with the Community Development Department and their desire to wait until council has more opportunity to review and discuss these issues; to get the draft goals and policies before the Planning Commission, and then talk with council about scheduling preferences. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question about where we are in the process currently, Mr. Driskell said this has not yet been before the Planning Commission; and Mr. Jackson added that we were going to have a joint session with the Planning Commission but that was also postponed until council is prepared to move forward. Attorney Harper gave a little background on himself and said that three points he wanted to make in reference to his background are that council has a sense of how he looks at issues, to talk about how Spokane Valley got where it is in this process, and then about where Spokane Valley is in the process. After giving his background on his land use work, he said he sees these matters as a pragmatist, and not an idealist or policymaker; that when he is looking at shorelines permitting or planning, his main consideration is to find the main channel and to avoid exposing his clients to unintended risk; that his job is to provide frank and candid legal analysis of the pros and cons so his clients don't find themselves in expensive legal disputes. Mr. Harper said that shoreline planning is a controversial topic, and in order to have effective communication about the process,he gave a brief history of what has occurred over the last ten to fifteen years concerning the SMA (Shoreline Management Act), which act, he explained is about forty years old. He spoke of controversy over changing guidelines as a result of a series of Growth Management Hearings and Pollution Control Board cases;and that settlement agreements were signed off by various groups; and of the Department of Ecology adopting a series of guidelines for shoreline management; and said he wanted to just touch on a few points of the SMA, and mentioned the state statutes as well as WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 173.26, which he said was a result of buy-in by a wide spectrum of stakeholders, among others. Mr. Harper explained some of the aspects of the guidelines, which serve to clarify the statutes, and said the litmus test is "no net loss for shoreline ecological function." Further, he stated that GMA (Growth Management Act) speaks in terms of protecting critical areas, but that there is a lot of litigation over the definition of "protect." He said stakeholder groups wanted to have a clearer standard for SMA purposes other than "protection of critical areas" as stated in the GMA context, so they came up with the "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions" and said much of what is left after that is up to local discretion. He said how the baseline Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT matters for lakes or rivers will vary, but the "no net loss" is the common touchstone. Mr. Harper said as per the guidelines, the first principle of implementing a SMA update is to do the inventory and characterization. Regarding including the gravel pits,Mr. Harper said the SMA applies to surface waters of greater than twenty acres. Mr. Harper said we are now in the process of understanding what this inventory means and of the cumulative effect of the goals and policies; and said it will be very important for Spokane Valley to maintain public input opportunities for those goals and policies; that once the inventory is complete, the next step is to define how to implement that key standard of"no net loss of functions" keeping in mind property rights; and again mentioned that the best way to form meaningful guidelines and policies is via the public outreach process to include meaningful stakeholder groups and to accept meaningful comments; and added he realizes the input is underway, and eventually the output of all this will be regulations that will have to be proposed to the Department of Ecology for approval. In response to Councilmember Grassel's question about which guidelines are flexible and which are mandated, Mr. Harper said mandated is no net loss; but they establish preference for certain activities which are stated in the state statutes and expanded in the guidelines; and said once council gets input from the stakeholders, council will be more able and ready to make decisions;that the policies are designed to achieve the no net loss; and regarding specific terminology,he said the word"guarantee" is an effort but"ensure"would be equally valid, and the point is not so much if the word ensure or guarantee is a right or wrong term, but how those phrases are implemented. Mayor Towey called for a brief recess at 7:57 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:10 p.m. 3. Sullivan Bridge Tiger Grant Application-Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that we have an opportunity to apply for some grant money for the Sullivan Bridge through the Federal Discretionary TIGER grant program; that this is a two-step process and as of yesterday, staff submitted the necessary pre-application in anticipation that we may want to move ahead; he said we do not know if we passed the pre-application process, or even when we might find out if we passed the process;but if we do pass,the final application is due October 31,which he said is a very short timeline. Mr. Worley said if council desires staff to move forward,we would need to hire a consultant to help prepare for the final application;he said there is approximately$527 million available nationwide after a previous allocation of$2.1 billion nationwide; and said the minimum project award for urban governments is $10 million with a minimum 20% non-federal match. Mr. Worley said that staff previously identified CH2M Hill as the design consultant for the new bridge, and that they agreed to assist us in moving forward with the final grant application if that is the direction council desires; and he brought Council's attention to funding scenarios on the reverse of the Request for Council Action form; and said staff would coordinate with the Finance Department to identify funds to provide the needed match. Finance Director Calhoun added that there is some funding in one of the street arterial funds which could be used to pay for this if we decided to move forward. Mr. Worley asked if council would like to consider stating a consensus on whether to pursue this grant opportunity. Discussion included concern about the timeline, especially in that prospective projects must be ready to obligate construction funds by June 30, 2013; and Mr. Worley said they interviewed three consultants and asked them about getting the environmental and design process by June 2013 in order to obligate construction funds, and he said they all agreed the timeline could be met; and said if we move forward, everyone will work to get through the environmental process quickly to meet the deadline; and that if we don't get the grant,we would be out $40,000; and without the grant,we would have to find the money to replace the $10 million. Mr.Worley said that WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation) does not consider economic impacts as emergencies; that WSDOT is planning three projects to submit under this program, there are fifteen projects from the State of Washington to apply for these funds with only $500 million; and said we do not know how we compare until we get through the pre-application Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT process. Weighing the cost of the consultant with the possible loss of$10 million; there was Council consensus for staff to move forward. 4. Proposed Municipal Code Amendments—John Hohman Community Development Director Hohman brought council's attention to the September 28, 2011 interoffice memorandum from Planning Manager Kuhta,which lists current amendments and dates for the Planning Commission's consideration, as well as proposed amendments that staff would like to bring forward; and explained that items 1, 2, and 3 are already on the Planning Commission or Council agenda for review or public hearing; while items 4 through 8 are proposed future amendments; and Mr. Hohman briefly described those eight items. Director Hohman said he wants to focus on number 4 "Building Code Chapter 24.40, and on number 5 Boundary Line Adjustments; he said#4 is a general cleanup of Chapter 24.40 which deals with building permits, and said they want to provide flexibility for staff and the development community to have our codes as workable as possible, and that some amendments in that chapter will help provide that flexibility to applicants. Regarding #5, Mr. Hohman said currently requiring a survey for every boundary line adjustment adds cost and delay, and staff is working on providing some flexibility and changing the language in certain circumstances, from "shall" to "may." Mr. Hohman said item 6, Code Compliance amendments will come to council October 18 as part of a broader report on code enforcement activities, #7 will provide some protections to drinking water wells, #8 includes several batch amendments to correct errors in the code and correct items that have changed, making sure references are appropriate, and an additional #9 will include examining the temporary use permits, especially concerning seasonal sales in commercial areas; and he explained that there are some fruit and vegetable retailers that are tied into a six month period,and that it doesn't make sense to hold to a six-month period but could move to a seven or eight-month period to allow more flexibility. Mr. Hohman added that the desire is also to clean up some language which refers to out-dated building codes. Building Official McGee went over some of the actual proposed language changes, noting other changes are consolidating administrative provisions under one section, or cleanup of citations; and she explained that the three yellow highlighted areas of the Chapter 24.40 which she distributed, are the significant language changes; and she discussed some of the proposed changes such as the time limit of applications and permits, and that if an application is submitted during one state building code cycle, the applicant would have the benefit of a full code cycle after that,or six years, and once the project is started, it would be good for two years; adding that most places only permit 180 days with discretionary extensions. Director Hohman noted that staff is working to permit a development by phases instead of by an entire project. Building Official McGee also noted the section on page 3 of 8,#4: "design professional require," and said the idea is to provide some guidance so everyone knows what they can do without using a design professional. Mr. Hohman said concerning title 24 specific to building permits, that that is not land use regulations so staff can come directly back to council and move it through the normal process;but that the other amendments will go before the Planning Commission, then on to Council. It was determined staff will bring this issue back for an administrative report prior to moving on for a first reading of an ordinance. At approximately 8:55 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting forty-five minutes. 5. Lodging Tax Funding Award Process—Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun explained the process and timeline for the 2012 lodging tax funding allocations. 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey City Manager Jackson mentioned the added items to the October 18 agenda, and noted that Interim Deputy City Manager Crum will be back October 12 and shortly thereafter will report on the railroad quiet zone issue. Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7. Spokane Valley Proposition 1,Ballot Language This was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 8. Council Check-in Councilmember Grassel said she is not clear on the process for the Shoreline Master Plan and feels they are at a standstill; she said it is difficult to go through the paperwork and completely understand all the impacts of those goals and policies and therefore, she proposed to retain a specialist in shoreline masterplans who has dealt with municipalities and the Department of Ecology; adding that she is not comfortable in the wording on some of the goals and policies. Councilmember Woodard agreed council needs someone who can advise on our city's unique situation; and Councilmember Grafos agreed and asked staff to bring forward some names of experts who could advise council in the process. Councilmember Gothmann agreed since the issue is now in the hands of the Planning Commission,that it would be premature to try to outguess what the Planning Commission would do; and Mayor Towey agreed and asked at what point in the process do we solicit that expertise. City Manager Jackson said staff will discuss how best to approach this or have some outside counsel advise Council; and he mentioned putting together a statement of qualifications of what criteria council seeks. Councilmember Grassel suggested perhaps Council and the Planning Commission meet jointly to go through the working draft line by line to make sure the wording is correct so everyone knows what is mandatory and what is suggestive. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Mr.Jackson had no comments. 10. Executive Session: Pending/Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending or potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:14 p.m. At 9:54 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session. It was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes October 4,2011 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Review Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading, Proposed Ordinance 11-014: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On October 11, 2011, Council deliberated on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) and advanced Ordinance 11-014 to a second reading. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley applied for a competitive grant from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) program and was awarded funds to develop the BPMP. The BPMP is proposed to be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. If the BPMP is adopted, it is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The BPMP includes background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains city-wide bike and pedestrian facility improvements, potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter can guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it can detail priorities and standards for development. On August 30, 2011, staff provided a detailed overview of the BPMP and an opportunity for open discussion on any changes Council would like to see. Staff and Council worked through the program identifying specific changes. Council directed staff to work through the remainder of the document based on the established guidance and to bring back the document in strike through format for further consideration. On September 20, 2011, Council worked through the requested strike through document identifying further changes to bring back for first ordinance reading. On October 11, 2011, Council deliberated on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) and advanced Ordinance 11-014 to a second reading. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed BPMP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 17, 2011. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) an Environmental Checklist was required for the BPMP. Under SEPA, the BPMP is considered a "non-project action" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the bike and pedestrian facilities. 1of2 Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the BPMP. A Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued for the BPMP on June 17, 2011 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. OPTIONS: Adopt ordinance 11-014 or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 11-014 amending the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP). STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance 11-014 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, WHICH AMENDS ORDINANCE 06-010 ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BY ADOPTING A BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Land Use plans as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley (Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows the initial adoption of a subarea plan to be considered outside of the annual amendment process (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, the Bike and Pedestrian Element and supporting appendices will be listed as Chapter 11 and will amend the Comprehensive Plan through the subarea plan process identified in RCW 36.70A.130; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the City conducted an environmental review pursuant to RCW 43.21C to determine the potential environmental impacts from the amendment; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) on June 17, 2011 for the amendment, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald on June 17, 2011, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on June 24, 2011 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ("the Commission") conducted a briefing on June 23, 2011, to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2011, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on July 7, 2011; and Ordinance 11-014 BPMP Subarea Plan Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on July 7, 2011 to consider the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made an unanimous recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, City staff provided presentations and obtained feedback from the Council on July 19,August 30, and September 20, 2011; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2011, Council held a first reading of this Ordinance for this proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, Council held a second reading of this Ordinance, at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending approval of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan, adopted through Ordinance No. 06-010, by adding the Bike and Pedestrian Element. Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the Commission's findings, specifically finding that: 1. Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 17, 2011 with a description of the proposal. 2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, an environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists, and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. A determination of Non-significance (DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on June 17, 2011. 4. The DNS was published in the City's official newspaper on June 17, 2011 consistent with SVMC Title 21. 5. The Commission conducted a public hearing on July 7, 2011, to consider the proposed amendment. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the amendment. 6. The planning goals of the GMA were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA. 7. The goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140 H relating to Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones. 9. This amendment will protect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance 11-014 BPMP Subarea Plan Page 2 of 3 Section 3. Subarea Plan (Bike and Pedestrian Master Program). The subarea plan subject to this Ordinance is described in Attachment"A." Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan as adopted through Ordinance No. 06-010, is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment "A" (Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Element and supporting appendices 1, 2, and 3). Section 5. Copies on File-Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the Community Development Department. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. 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 8. 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 October, 2011. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 11-014 BPMP Subarea Plan Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 11- BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT 11.0 Introduction 11.0.1 Why Plan for Bicycling and Walking? Bicycling in urban areas has grown dramatically in the last decade due to factors such as healthier lifestyles, rising fuel costs and a desire to lessen impacts on the environment. By creating safe places to ride, the development of new facility types such as bike lanes, bicycle friendly routes, and shared use paths have enabled more people to use bike transportation. In addition, as the importance of a healthy lifestyle has grown, the desire to incorporate exercise through walking has also grown. As a basic form of mobility, virtually all trips—regardless of mode—start and end with walking. The City of Spokane Valley has the essential elements to create a great place to bike and walk. Most streets connect, congestion is minimal, the terrain is flat, and weather is suitable many months of the year. For these reasons, biking and walking is a great way to get around the City. Where there are close links between home and destinations (such as school, work, and shops) walking and cycling can be the preferred and efficient way to move from place to place. Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. They help promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide `eyes-on-the-street' security, and support local retail activity. By comparison, streets and places where people are not present often feel uncomfortable and barren. Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are places where people can come and feel comfortable. 11.0.2 Overview As an element of the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, this chapter is organized to present background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains city-wide bike and pedestrian facility improvements, potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. 11.0.3 Vision Statements To increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Spokane Valley. To identify and prioritize facility recommendations based on thorough data collection and analysis, community visioning, regional collaboration, engineering assessment and preliminary cost estimates. 11.0.4 Process Several steps were involved in creating the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. a. Data Collection A comprehensive field inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities was conducted, identifying constraints and opportunities for improvements. The City coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions as well as bike, pedestrian and health advocates, property owners and other stakeholders. This step incorporated a thorough review of the existing adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, including a review of the bike facility map, goals and Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 – Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 1 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan policies related to bike and walking activity, as well as a review of recently approved similar plans in the region. Accident data and funding sources for potential future projects were also gathered. A sidewalk inventory completed by students at Washington State University (WSU)was added to the City's GIS system. b. Public Outreach This Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) was created over a year and a half period with participation from a diverse group of citizens, residents and interested parties. A contact database was created to ensure interested parties were notified throughout the development of the plan. Over 900 contacts were included within five months of initiation. The first in a series of BPMP workshops was held on June 16, 2010. A diverse group voiced opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking in the City. Through an interactive exercise, the participants identified destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for bike and pedestrian facilities. An on-line survey was made available through the City's web page. Over 350 responses were received from the online survey, indicating a significant level of interest. The short, non-statistical survey gathered additional insight into the biking and walking experience in Spokane Valley and into desired routes and destinations. c. Connectivity Assessment and Route Recommendations From the gathered data, a preliminary connection assessment and potential route recommendations were developed. Details of existing rights-of-way, pavement width, driveway approaches and traffic counts were gathered. d. Continued Public Outreach A second community workshop was held on September 19, 2010 to present preliminary bike and pedestrian routes and connections based on the information gathered at the first workshop and through the on-line survey. The Spokane Regional Health District presented information on health impacts associated with alternative modes of transportation. By prioritizing potential projects, participants helped create a vision of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network. The workshops were publicized online, at schools, bike shops and community facilities throughout the City. In addition, staff prepared newsletters and maintained a BPMP page on the City of Spokane Valley website. Quarterly updates were presented to the City Council as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) status reports. e. Safety Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements A portion of money from the City's EECBG funded an engineering consultant to review the proposed routes for safety, cost and prioritizations. This engineering assessment provides technical guidance to help ensure that proposed bike and pedestrian facilities, such as bike lanes on arterials or shared use paths in neighborhoods, are safe, functional, and appropriate for the set route. f. Plan Refinement, Review and Adoption Desired routes were refined based on technical input from the consultant. Classifications for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and industry standards. Comprehensive Plan text, maps and exhibits were prepared. Priorities and preliminary implementation schedules were included. Additional workshops were held to gather input on the draft BPMP document. Finally, the BPMP was presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. 11.0.5 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 2 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Developing the BPMP resulted in partnerships and collaboration between the City, adjoining jurisdictions and many other interested agencies and individuals. Representatives from many of these groups served on the Bike and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group (BPTAG). The BPTAG met several times to review and make recommendations on potential routes, facilities and implementation strategies. 11.0.6 Partnerships Preparation of the BPMP has involved a wide range of people and agencies. Partnerships and collaboration contributes to the quality and integrity of the program. Maintaining these partnerships will contribute toward successful implementation and realization of shared goals. a. Spokane Regional Health District The Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) serves as the area's public health leader and partner in protecting and improving the health of the community. The Health District's Physical Activity program works with community coalitions, elected officials, citizen groups and other organizations to encourage policies that make it easier for people to be physically active. An analysis of existing social, economic and health statistics of the residents of the City of Spokane Valley was prepared by the SRHD epidemiologist. The role of SRHD was to bring awareness of the positive health impact bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can have on a community. b. School Districts and Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School is a national program aimed at enabling community leaders, schools and parents across the country to improve safety and encourage more children to be active by safely walking and bicycling to school. In the process, work associated with Safe Routes to School contributes to reducing traffic congestion, improving physical health, and making communities more livable overall. The SRHD along with the City, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Central Valley School District, East Valley School District, and West Valley School District worked diligently through the 2010/2011 school year to prepare walking audits of all elementary and middle schools. Walking audits are detailed surveys of streets and sidewalks within a one-mile radius surrounding a school using the Safe Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students (site: WSDOT and WTSC 2010). Results of the audits are used to prepare preferred walking routes for students and to identify and prioritize street and sidewalk safety projects. Continued coordinated efforts between school districts, SRHD and the City will aid in the successful implementation of safe routes for pedestrians of all ages. c. Spokane Transit Authority The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is a regional public transportation agency providing a variety of transportation options, including bus service to the City of Spokane Valley. The transit system effectively expands the area that pedestrians are able to access for daily services and activities. STA's database of pedestrian paths throughout its service area was used as base data for the City's sidewalk inventory, gap analysis and recommended pedestrian network. The data identified barriers to people using the sidewalk network to access the bus system. d. Bicycle Alliance of Washington The Bicycle Alliance of Washington is a non-profit organization advocating for bicyclists and bike-friendly communities throughout Washington. The Alliance works toward increasing the percentage of all types of bicycle riders and increasing funding available for inclusive, non-motorized transportation facilities. The Alliance works closely with Safe Routes to School programs and serves as a clearinghouse for bicycle education and advocacy. e. Washington State University Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 3 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan In 2007, Washington State University Interdisciplinary Design Institute (WSU) created a pedestrian model by mapping pedestrian networks throughout Spokane Transit Authority's service area, identifying barriers such as the absence of sidewalks and curb ramps, and non-ADA compliant variations in the surface condition, height, width, and slope of pedestrian facilities. The data has been used to identify existing routes and to determine sidewalk infill priorities. By partnering with the City, data developed through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program will be used to update the WSU pedestrian network model. In turn, the model will be useful in prioritizing pedestrian improvements in an effort to increase safety throughout the City. f. Spokane Regional Transportation Council The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is the local metropolitan planning organization encouraging coordination and collaboration between planning and transportation departments throughout the region. SRTC maintains the Transportation Improvement Program, a three-year list of state and federally-funded transportation projects, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in Spokane County, a document addressing transportation needs for the next 20 years. SRTC recognizes that walking and bicycling are simple and efficient modes of travel that can increase public transit ridership. Coordination between the City and SRTC will create opportunities to implement effective non-motorized projects and programs. 11.1 Planning Context The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expands on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. Also referred to as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, this element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. 11.1.1 GMA The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provide for the inclusion of non-motorized transportation elements in comprehensive plans. Bike and pedestrian planning is sometimes included in the land use, transportation or recreation elements. Using a separate element to address opportunities and constraints specific to these non-motorized forms of transportation allows the City of Spokane Valley to focus on improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. 11.1.2 County-Wide Planning Policies County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) provide a policy framework for the County and its respective cities. Specifically items 10 and 16 under Policy Topic 5—Transportation, state: 10. Each jurisdiction should coordinate its housing and transportation strategies to support existing, or develop new, public multimodal transportation systems. 16. Each jurisdiction shall address energy consumption/conservation by: a. Designing transportation improvements for alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; b. Locating and adopting design standards for new development to support pedestrian or non-motorized travel; c. Providing regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy; and d. Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. As described in Section 11.0.6 above, the SRTC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Spokane region. SRTC maintains the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), a 20-year strategy to meet the transportation needs of the region. MTP goals related to non-motorized transportation include: Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 4 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Establishing a bicycle and pedestrian program that will increase the mode-share of people walking and bicycling as a means of transportation over the next 20 years; • Eliminating barriers that discourage or prohibit pedestrian or bicycle access; • Identifying the needs and gaps in the regional bicycle and pedestrian system; and • Encouraging connections between residential areas and adjacent land uses to enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway users. The MTP facilitated the creation of three complementary products: the Spokane Regional Bike Plan (adopted in 2008); the Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan (adopted in 2009) and the SmartRoutes program. All of these were collaborative efforts with SRTC, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Active Transportation Technical Committee (including representatives from the City of Spokane Valley and other cities and towns) and a citizen-based steering committee. Each of these documents encourages jurisdictions to tailor the regional plans to their own needs and to use them for guidance to develop appropriate bicycle and pedestrian protects that traverse jurisdictional lines. 11.2 Existing Setting 11.2.1 Comprehensive Plan The City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies to guide development within the City. All elements within the Comprehensive Plan must be internally consistent. Goals found within other elements encourage the development and implementation of a bike and pedestrian system within the City. The following are from the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment and the Parks and Recreation elements: Land Use - Goal LUG-7 Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and integrated parking. Transportation -Goal TG-9 Enhance community livability and transportation by encouraging a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. Natural Environment- Goal NEG-20 Support regional efforts to improve air quali Parks and Recreation -Goal PRG-4 Based upon budgetary resources, promote, develop, operate and maintain a comprehensive trail/bicycle system within Spokane Valley that provides non-motorized travel (walking, bicycling, skating, and horseback riding)to meet city residents recreation, fitness and commuting needs. 11.2.2 Current Activity a. Collision Dat. The Washington State Department of Transportation maintains records of pedestrian and bicycle collision data. Between 2003 (incorporation) and 2010, there were six fatalities and 295 serious or disabling injuries in Spokane Valley associated with pedestrian and bicycle collisions. On average, there are 41 pedestrian and bicycle collisions per year. The majority of the collisions occurred on major arterials including Argonne, Pines and Sullivan Roads. It is estimated that many bicycle and pedestrian collisions have happened but have not been reported. b. Citizen Input Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 5of18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan To ensure the bike and pedestrian system reflects the community's desires, an extensive outreach component was built into the process. As described in the previous section, this process included workshops and an on-line survey. The results showed that a majority of respondents walk or bicycle for exercise/health, enjoyment, or to commute to work/school. When asked what prevents a person from biking or walking, an overwhelming 70% of the respondents said it was due to the lack of facilities. The results showed the community's desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32nd Ave/Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/Mullan corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a bicycle friendly ro' 6. Sullivan Road Many mentioned the need for more north/south connectio,7s to the Centennial Trail. The preferred facilities were bike lanes and shared use paths. The graphs below illustrate the respondent's views. '11, o you bike or walk? Note: Resp, 'ents were asked to check all that apply . % 58% 55% 35% 9% 3% 4% �r err- ay oo\ e` �� �t r°a o�� °aao eta° 5or ��a� �� & Fc, o° Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 6 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan What prevents you from biking or walking? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 70% 57% 43% 28% 1 26% 26% 1 I I 6% 14% 13% 17% f �`e5 v�°q �a\\\ a�oe a,`oc ,\ot `��, ot� rec a \o- \ems er era o a r� O e� a e e� a•� \5� p e� to , \�a `o O av o �\' • Q � :b i `aJ CT i1P Where would kle to be able to bicyle or walk? Note: ResI. es sere tallied from qualitative data 23% /0 21% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2°0 °0 2'. --r 1% 1% d G \, ,§; `� a� a Ge eG ��Oa� aay �eQ..k co e -.1 e ,t, Eceta J \eA -"k' a � \p o 4a/ G ei o e e Ge od 5r Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 7 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Which roadways are difficult for bicyclists or pedestrians? Note: Responses were tallied from qualitative data 24% 17% 16% 10% 5% 6% /0 3% 3% ° 3% 3% 3% l� � � 0 '1% 1% 1`/y7 �a� ,,- ��t „„ ,,a) at\ ,c, ez t`k¢� a� ��, 0 N �„.. 5�� a,A PQQ,e Pao,° Oa �o� O`Qaa �ac�ac‘�� std; F° Q Q` �Qsa� �t J�,€, a\_ O`yr Q tl What bicycle an ,edestrian facilities do you prefer? Note: Responk is were asked to check all that apply N 62% 51% 36% 7- Dike Lanes Shared Use Paths Signed, Shared Bicycle Boulevard Roadways Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 8 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Which of the following programs would you like to see implemented? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 87% 66% Hi 47% 46% 36% 1 L 17 ,i, �aa at `, ,et �i. 0 e, �ot� o �� ��` \5 • \-�o a %iii c. Health Data As part of t !e initia community workshops, the SRHD prepared information correlating active lifestyles, including bicycle and pedestrian commutes, to improved health. Sedentary lifestyles can contribute to obesity. Obesity can be defined as a person with a body mass index of 30 or greater. Obesity can contribute to illnesses including heart disease and strokes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes and some forms of cancer. Lack of physical activity increases health risks, resulting in increased costs for medical care, worker compensation and lost productivity. Obesity and lack of activity contribute to hronic diseases including cancer, heart and respiratory disease. The top five causes of death in Spokane Valley are shown below: Literature reviews have shown that urban design and land use policies creating opportunities for physical activity within communities have been effective and are considered best practices for increasing a community's health and reducing obesity. More than half of Spokane County's carbon monoxide emissions are from vehicle sources. Reducing vehicle trips by accommodating and encouraging active transportation can positively impacts health by improving air quality. SRHD also considers socio-economic factors as they relate to health. A link exists between education, poverty, and mobility choices. In Spokane Valley, between 2004 and 2008, 37.4 percent of the population had less than a high school diploma or GED. The amount of education a person achieves influences their ability to earn a certain standard of living. Between 2004 and 2008, 43.9 percent of the City's population was at or below the 200 percent federal poverty level. That is more than twice the national average. A substantial percentage of the population either cannot afford automobile transportation, or affording it is a financial hardship. For these people, in addition to the young in age and the Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 9 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan older population, getting around by other alternatives such as walking, bicycling or transit is a necessity. 11.2.3 Existing Bicycle System Though developed as a compilation of rural townships over time, the City of Spokane Valley has a strong grid pattern of streets. The placement of principal and minor arterials, collectors and local access streets overlaid on the relatively flat topography provides an excellent base for non- motorized transportation. a. Types of Bicycle Users There are many types of bicyclists with varying skills and levels of comfort in terms of riding in traffic. While bicyclists can be loosely categorized as experienced adult, casual adult and child cyclists, there are many levels of cycling competency and just as many opinions as to what makes an ideal bike route. Some experienced cyclists ride on busy arterial streets regardless of bicycle facilities. Some cyclists will ride on busy roads only if bike lanes are provided. Some will use the lanes only if parallel residential roads are unavailable. b. Existing Bicycle Facilities A combination of striped bike lanes, posted bicycle friendly routes and separated bike facilities are found throughout the City. In addition, other streets act as informal routes, favored by bicycle commuters as safe and convenient alternatives to bike ways with heavy automobile traffic. The following different types of bicycle facilities, as defined by the American Association of State and Highway Trans o Cation Officials (AASHTO) are found throughout Spokane Valley: i. Shared Use Path: Facilities on separated right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Minimum width is six feet; optimal width is ten feet. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non- motorized users. • The Centennial Trail is an example of a shared use path in the City. With connections through adjacent jurisdictions, it is an important regional recreational and commuting facility. Other shared use paths exist along the south side of Appleway Avenue from Sprague Avenue to the eastern City boundary and on Sullivan Road, from Centennial Trail to just south of Trent Road. ii. Bike Lanes: A portion of a roadway designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. The required width of a bike lane on a given street varies based on several factors, such as existence of a gutter and curb. Parking and traffic volume must be considered as well. AASHTO and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) guidelines recommend that for a street without gutter or curb, the minimum width of the bike lane should be four feet. If the street includes curb and gutter, the minimum width should be five feet. In situations where parking is permitted without any striping or stalls, AASHTO guidelines recommend an 11-foot bike lane width. Bicycle lanes improve conditions for cyclists of all abilities within a given corridor and encourage increased bicycle use by providing a greater degree of comfort and perceived safety for less skilled cyclists. • Striped bicycle lanes are located along several arterials, including 32nd Avenue, portions of Broadway, Evergreen Road, Mission Road, Sprague Avenue and 16th Avenue. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and Indiana Avenue from Mirabeau to Evergreen Road are also improved with bike lanes. iii. Signed Shared Roadway: Signed lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Minimum width is 14 feet. Signed shared roadways indicate to cyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes compared to alternate routes. Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 10 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • In the City of Spokane Valley, signed shared roadways exist on 4th Avenue from University to Conklin, and on Trent from Flora to the eastern city boundary. iv. Shared Roadway: Lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. No signing is involved. • All public streets in the City of Spokane Valley can be defined as shared roadways. Existing bike facilities in the City of Spokane Valley are shown in Map 11.1. Other bicycle facilities found throughout the City include bicycle parking facilities at some commercial, public and office facilities and bicycle racks on transit vehicles. c. System Deficiencies Barriers surrounding both recreation and commuting bicycle activity throughout the City include crossing Interstate 90, railroad tracks, and the Spokane River. Currently, principal arterials cross these barriers. However, the limited space for bike facilities on these arterials plus the traffic volume hinders the safety and comfort for many riders. This impacts those trying to access commercial and employment centers in the north part of the City as well as those trying to access the Centennial Trail. Other factors impacting bicycle activity include impaired sight distances, limited street connectivity, cyclist and motorist behaviors, lack of way-finding signs, and maintenance issues. 11.2.4 Existing Pedestrian System a. Types of Pedestrians For trips of a certain length, walking is a simple affordable way to get around. Spokane Valley, with relatively flat terrain and a predominately grid street pattern, has great opportunities for pedestrians of all kinds. People choose to walk for many reasons including recreation and necessity. Pedestrians include adults, children, seniors, people without cars and people with disabilities. Those with higher levels of transportation choice, i.e. those specifically able to afford cars and of driving age, make use of autos for most trips. This situation is not so much a reflection of popular transportation preferences but of the many auto-dominated land use and transportation decisions that created present day Spokane Valley. Citizens, including those driving cars as well as seniors, youth and people with disabilities, need safety, connectivity and accessibility. b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk inventories were performed by City staff as part of the analyses conducted for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program and the American with Disabilities Act transition plan. Also, in association with the Safe Routes to School program, volunteers from all elementary and middle schools in the City conducted walking audits to determine potential routes to their schools and to identify missing sidewalk segments, potential pedestrian conflicts and existing safe haven areas for students. The existing pedestrian system in Spokane Valley includes sidewalks, shared use paths, wide shoulders on rural roads and residential streets. Generally, sidewalks exist on most of the existing arterials and range in width from three to six feet. In addition, most streets surrounding elementary, middle and high school facilities are improved with sidewalks. Several shared-use paths, intended for all types of non-motorized transportation, are located throughout the City (see section on existing bicycle facilities above). Map 11.3 shows locations of existing sidewalk facilities. Other infrastructure associated with pedestrian activity includes curb ramps, intersection markings, cross walks with and without associated signals, benches and shelters for transit facilities, and street trees. c. System Deficiencies: Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 11 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan For the most part, sidewalks on arterials are constructed adjacent to the curb and lanes where cars are traveling in excess of 30 and 40 miles per hour, impacting pedestrian comfort and safety. In addition, while current development standards require separated sidewalks, there are portions where sidewalks were not built with initial street construction. Other factors making walking difficult include crosswalk issues on high-volume streets, obstructions such as power poles and utility boxes in the sidewalk, outdated or non-existent curb ramps, poor lighting, limited facilities at transit stops, and maintenance issues. 11.3 Goals and Policies Spokane Valley is intended to become a bicycle and pedestrian friendly City, where bicycling and walking are encouraged and promoted as safe and convenient forms of transportation and recreation. Goals help guide actions towards fulfilling this vision. Policies are more specific statements relating to implementing measures that will achieve the goals. As with many cities, Spokane Valley has limited funds with which to pursue its bike and pedestrian goals. Focused and prioritized resources will aid the City in having a positive impact on non- motorized transportation infrastructure. The City will strive to make strategic investments of the limited resources available and where possible, leverage resources in cooperation with other governmental and private agencies. The following goals and policies are consistent with the goals and policies of other chapters of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, with the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act. Network and Facilities Goal & Policies Goal BP-1 Provide a comprehensive bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. Policies BP-1.1 Encourage bike lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks throughout the City where applicable and appropriate. -1.2 Encourage bicycle parking facilities at commercial and public facilities as well as at places of employment. BP-1.3 Work with Spokane Transit Authority to develop safe, comfortable and secure pedestrian amenities and bicycle parking facilities at transit stops as well as bike racks on transit vehicles. BP-1.4 Encourage sidewalks, bicycle facilities and shared use paths as part of development where applicable. BP-1.5 Encourage landscaping, bollards and other treatments with new streets, parking lots and other pedestrian activity zones to create an effective safety and visual buffer between the sidewalk and the street. BP-1.6 Coordinate on regional non-motorized efforts in partnership with adjoining jurisdictions and with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. BP-1.7 Pursue joint funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway and pedestrian network. BP-1.8 Strive to maintain access for pedestrians, bicycles and emergency response vehicles when a street closure or a vacation request is processed. Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 12 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan BP-1.9 Encourage the use of technological advances to provide a safe, user friendly bicycle and pedestrian network. BP-1.10 When considering alternative modes of transportation, priority should be placed on providing sidewalks for children particularly in areas near parks and schools. Safety and Accessibility Goal and Policies Goal BP-2 Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian injuries through development of safe and accessible routes for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Policies BP-2.1 Encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities to meet nationally recognized design standards for safety and accessibility, such as AASHTO. BP-2.2 Encourage bicycle routes and shared use paths to be properly signed and marked to address personal safety. BP-2.3 Encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major arterials, railroads, I- 90 and the Spokane River through use of innovative treatments where appropriate. BP-2.4 Encourage the enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle safety rules on City streets and bikeways. Promotion and Education Goal and Policie Goal BP-3 Implement comprehensive education and encouragement programs targeted at all populations in the City. Policies BP-3.1 Continue coordinating with existing agencies and programs, including the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to Schools program, the Police Department, SCOPE, the Commute Trip Reduction program and other entities concerned with bicycle and pedestrian safety, to create education programs focused on safe bicycle riding, walking and motorist activity. BP-3.2 Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks, programs and facilities. Implementation, Funding and Maintenance Goal and Policies Goal BP- 4 Seek funding from all available sources to implement and maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as ongoing education and enforcement. Policies BP-4.1 Maintain a prioritized and phased implementation plan that takes into consideration the scope, cost and benefits of a facility, and available funding opportunities. BP-4.2 Where feasible, include facilities as described in this Bike and Pedestrian Element as part of the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). BP-4.3 Review and monitor opportunities for multi-modal grant funding as they become available. Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 13 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan BP-4.4 City should strive to maintain quality street surfaces that provide a safe environment for vehicles and cyclists. BP-4.5 Ensure internal coordination between departments prior to developing street projects that include bike and/or pedestrian facilities. 11.4 Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 11.4.1 Engineering Improvements a. Overall Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The City of Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program is based on field data, citizen input and engineering analysis of constraints and opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that this is a master program, not a detailed feasibility analysis. As such, exact routing and designations could be modified during the course of more detailed studies of specific projects. The recommended bikeway network is shown in Map 11.2 and recommended pedestrian network is shown in Map 11.4. Map 11.5 shows the recommended travel ways for the schools that participated in the safe routes to school exercise. b. Possible Engineering Solutions The specific types of bike and pedestrian treatments that are applied to roads vary depending on the existing right-of-way, traffic counts, traffic speeds, roadway cross sections, number of approaches or driveways on the street and topography. A brief description of bicycle treatments is provided below. More specific design guidelines including the complete toolbox and typical cross section layouts are found in Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines. i. Bicycle Friendly Routes— Bicycle friendly routes are roadways with low speeds and low volumes. The treatments recommended for bicycle routes should strive to improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes. Bicycle route treatments are ideal on two-lane roadways where traffic volume is less than 3,000 vehicles per day (although less than 1,500 vehicles per day is preferred) and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. See Appendix 2 for specific bicycle friendly route treatments and cross sections. ii. Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway (typically on the right side of the roadway) to be used by bicyclists only. A bike lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. A bicycle lane should be considered on roadways with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 vehicles per day or posted speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. Appendix 2 includes a variety of bicycle lane treatments from a standard bike lane to buffered bike lanes and climbing lanes. The appendix also includes cross sections showing how bike lanes could be applied to existing City roadways. iii. Cycle Tracks - A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk, and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bike lane. The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments (curbs, planter strips, on-street parking, pavement markings, or other options). In addition, the cycle track should be clearly defined from sidewalks (grade separated, pavement markings, or an alternate clear indication) to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. A cycle track requires a wider cross section than a typical bike lane, but should be considered on roadways where bicyclists may not feel comfortable biking directly adjacent to vehicle traffic. Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 14 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan iv. Shared Use Paths — Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway and are intended for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, runners and other non-motorized users. Shared use paths supplement bike lanes, bicycle friendly routes and sidewalks and connect to these other facilities at ends of the path as well as midway, depending on the length and location. The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized when designing a shared use path. Generally, if there are more than eight crossings per mile, an on-street facility should be considered instead. v. Bicycle Intersection Treatments - Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection (typically a signalized intersection). Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes, traffic and bicycle speeds, type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning, visibility, surrounding land use, and other factors) a range of treatments may be applicable. Appendix 2 provides specific intersection treatment guidelines and criteria. vi. Mid-Block Crossing Treatments - Mid-block crossings can be dangerous for bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location. The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail intersects a roadway at mid-block. In these situations, mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety. vii. Wayfinding - Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclists while en route to communicate directions, distance and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination. Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs supplemented at times with pavement markings. Wayfinding can be beneficial to all types of bicycle facilities. viii. Prioritization Criteria—Bicycle Network The overall bicycle and pedestrian networks will be implemented over time. The criteria contained in Appendix 1 has been used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. ix. Prioritization Criteria—Pedestrian Network The criteria contained in Appendix 1 was used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement pedestrian facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. x. Network Improvements Facility improvements, summarized in Appendix 1, are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. 11.4.2 Ancillary Facilities Ancillary facilities add to the safety and comfort of using walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Ancillary facilities can include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, transit features and bicycle and pedestrian maps. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights. The following methods address ancillary features: a. Pedestrian Features: Encourage that pedestrian crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Work with developers and utilities to remove existing hazards such as light Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 15 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan poles and utility boxes from the sidewalk. Where appropriate, constrain roadway width with bulb-outs and tighter right turns at intersections to slow vehicles as they approach areas with high pedestrian volumes. Provide sidewalks or pedestrian paths between neighborhoods and commercial or public destinations where appropriate. Encourage clearly identified safe walking paths between public sidewalks and commercial buildings. b. Bicycle Parking: Continue to require bicycle racks for new development. Consider developing standards for the size of bicycle parking spaces, clearance, aisles, signs, anchoring, non-interference with pedestrian circulation, and weather protection. c. Shower and Locker Facilities: Continue to coordinate with Spokane County Commute Trip Reduction program to encourage shower and locker facilities as tenant benefits and to encourage employers to consider partnering with nearby gym facilities for use of existing shower facilities. d. Transit Features: Continue as an active partner with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Spokane Transit Authority to encourage the accommodation of bike lockers and bikes on transit vehicles. 11.4.3 Education and Encouragement Unfortunately, too many bicyclists in the United States lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Many people are afraid of bicycling on streets. Bicycle education programs are designed to increase bicycle safety by improving the ability to ride with traffic as well as improve motorist awareness. The difficulties faced in helping people develop this skill and knowledge stems from the wide range of age groups that require this training and the necessity to tailor the programs to each group. Bicycle education programs should be directed at children bicyclists, adult bicyclists and motorists. The following methods address education and encouragement: a. Child Education and Encouragement: In conjunction with the Health District, school districts and other interested organizations, encourage development of bicycle education programs for several age groups or use existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Programs could be incorporated into existing summer parks programming and existing school programming. Programs could include bicycle helmet safety information, maintenance and repair, safe riding habits and bicycle rides. More specifically, students in grades K-3 could be taught basic pedestrian skills, stranger danger, crossing residential streets, using pedestrian push buttons and taking a school bus. Older students in Grades 4 to 5 could learn bike safety and handling skills, including bike operation on streets with supervised bike rides on neighborhood streets. Later, in Grades 7-9, students could learn basic mobility skills of how to get around town including using transit for utilitarian and recreational trips (e.g., how to read a bus schedule, execute a transfer, take rapid transit), and more on safe bicycling practices. In tenth grade, many students take driver's education. The driver's education curriculum could include focused instruction on how motorists should interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, how to predict their movements, pass safely and learn when different modes have the right-of-way. b. Adult Education and Encouragement: Continue to partner with the Health District, Police Department, SCOPE and other interested organizations to develop adult pedestrian and bicycle program(s) which could include a public awareness campaign focused on responsible road behavior. The campaign could be directed to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike and make use of public service space from newspapers, television, radio, bus advertising, posters and flyers included in utility bills. In addition, promote community events such as Bike to Work Week, charity bike rides, costume rides, bike fairs and bicycle rodeos. Include bicycle safety checks and Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 16 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan safety information. Incorporate "share the road" signs where appropriate on City streets and include "sharing the road" or other safety campaign information on the City's webpage. 11.4.4 Enforcement While laws that address bicyclists' behavior and safety are in place, they are sometimes not fully enforced. Effective enforcement leads to a safer environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. The following methods address enforcement of this Bike and Pedestrian Master Program: a. Law Enforcement: Work with the Spokane Valley Police Department to develop a policy to include the City's intent to enforce existing laws affecting pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist responsibilities, including parking in bike lanes but especially those relating to drunken driving, careless driving, speeding and failing to yield. b. School Crossings: Continue assisting school districts to develop their Safe Routes to School programs to ensure safe crossing activity at school sites. Engage SCOPE as an additional presence where needed. c. Facility Upkeep: Continue existing program of regular maintenance of street and sidewalk facilities. Ensure that asphalt pavement overlays are flush with the concrete gutter and that utility covers are flush with the pavement. 11.4.5 Implementation and Funding X. Various portions of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Program can be implemented with existing procedures (such as paint applied when a road is resurfaced, continuing existing requirements and coordination with other agencies). Other portions will require further study, possible neighborhood input and detailed engineering design. Table 11.4.1 summarizes potential steps involved with implementation: Table 11.4.1 BPMP Implementation Summary Program or Possible Implementation Step(s) Lead Department Improvement Further studies to determine exact facility Community Development; Public Works improvements to be implemented Neighborhood input Community Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements Engineering design work Public Works Funding source identification Community Development; Public Works Environmental review Community Development; Public Works Application of requirements with development Community Development; Project Developers Ancillary Facilities Coordination with other agencies Community Development Education and Program research and development Community Development; Parks Department Encouragement Programs Coordination with other agencies in developing Community Development programs Enforcement Programs — Funding Source identification Community Development; Public Works Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 17 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan As referenced in Table 11.4.1, funding would be required to implement many portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Detailed descriptions of funding sources, including match requirements and application timing, are contained in Appendix 3. Review of several funding programs reveals that while each grant announcement details specific criteria for funding, certain common threads are present. When applying for funding consider the following criteria: a. Partnership Funding is limited. Therefore, grant sources encourage and support cooperative regional projects and planning efforts that integrate housing, transportation, environmental impact and economic development. Projects that pull together public and private entities and multiple stakeholders are favored. b. Risk Reduction Crash data quantifies dangerous stretches of pedestrian and bicycle commute routes. Increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists encourages the larger community to consider these alternative modes of transportation. Projects designed to address a clear and demonstrated safety hazard are therefore encouraged. c. Location Bike and pedestrian facilities that link residential areas with schools, recreation facilities, and shopping areas result in a large benefit to a community. Encouraging alternative transportation to daily activities reduces car commutes and pollution. Well located projects also consider and provide for multi-generational users. d. Broad Project Scope Developing and encouraging use of an overall bike and pedestrian system is an on-going process. Implementing a successful bike and pedestrian master program includes identification of facility improvements, provisions for education, encouragement and enforcement, and program follow-up that provides for evaluation and adjustments over time. 11.4.6 Monitoring and Modifications Monitoring the effectiveness of the overall BPMP can be accomplished as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan review and update. Modifications to the Bicycle Map, the Pedestrian Map, the project implementation tables and other programs described in this Chapter can be accomplished as needed to achieve established goals. The City's web page can be updated with notices of projects that are in the planning, design, build or maintenance phase. Education and enforcement activities can be highlighted on the web page. Adopted XX-XX-XX Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 18 of 18 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 1: Prioritization Criteria and Network Improvements Introduction This appendix identifies the prioritization criteria used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle and pedestrian projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Facility improvements are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. Exact timing of improvements may vary depending on factors such as funding and coordination with other private and public development projects. Prioritization Criteria— Bicycle Network Bicycle Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Mobility and Access(Total of 20 Points) Estimated volume of existing or potential Projects that serve the most number of 0-5 bicycle users people should receive priority. Projects that provide a continuous Completes a missing segment of a bicycle path 0-5 bicycle network are desirable. Provides access to major destinations Getting people where they want to go is 0-5 (shopping,schools,transit,trails,etc.) important. Connects existing routes/eliminates gaps Projects that provide a continuous and/or barriers(i.e. 1-90,the Spokane River, 0—5 Bicycle network are desirable. railroad) Safety(Total of 20 Points) Projects that reduce or eliminate an Corrects or improves specific issue areas 0-10 existing hazard should have priority. Routes with higher vehicular traffic have Improves routes with higher vehicular traffic greater potential safety conflicts that 0-5 should be reduced. Provides an alternative route to a higher volume Routes with lower vehicular volumes 0-5 and/or higher speed facility and speeds have less safety conflicts. Ability to Implement(Total of 10 Points) Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 be funded implementation. Projects further along in the design and Route has design and environmental reviews review phase can be implemented 0-5 initiated sooner. Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Network Improvements — Bicycle City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Pry East—West Routes 1 Valleyway Avenue Flora Road Park Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatments at 6 Route locations. 2 Alki Avenue Barker Road Flora Road Bicycle Friendly Route 3 12th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatments at 3 Route locations. 4 13th Avenue University Road Woodruff Road Bicycle Friendly Route 5 24th/25th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatment at 1 _ Route location 6a Sprague Avenue University Road Pines Rd- Bicycle lanes a,b,c"indicates portions of connected route. 6b Sprague Avenue Pines Rd Evergreen Rd 6c Sprague Avenue Evergreen Rd Sullivan Rd 7 Mission Avenue Pines Road Sullivan Road Bicycle lanes 8 Mission Avenue Flora Road East City Limits Bicycle lanes Design funded 9 North Greenacres Centennial Trail East City Limits Shared Use Path Design partially funded Enhanced Path _ _ _ _ _ _ crossing treatments at 1 location. Mirabeau Adjacent to railroad line Enhanced 10 1 Millwood Path Fancher Road I Parkway Shared Use Path crossing treatments at 3 locations Design funded Sprague Enhanced crossing treatment at 3 11 Appleway Path University Road Avenue/ Shared Use Path locations Tschirley Road 12 Sprague Ave Sullivan Rd Sprague/Corbin Bicycle lanes Already designed North—South Routes 13 Progress Road 24th Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 14 Blake Road Highway 27 Valleyway Bicycle Friendly Avenue Route 15a Pierce Road 32nd Avenue 4th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 15b 4th Avenue Pierce Road Skipworth Road Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of Route connected route. 15c Skipworth Road 4th Avenue Appleway Path Bicycle Friendly Route 16 Long Road Appleway Montgomery Bicycle Friendly Avenue Avenue Route 17a Marguerite Road Mission Avenue Harrington Bicycle Friendly Avenue Route 17b Hutchinson Road Harrington Riverside Bicycle Friendly Avenue Avenue Route "a,b,c,d"indicates portions of 17c Harrington Avenue Marguerite Hutchinson Bicycle Friendly connected route. Road Road Route 17d Riverside Avenue Hutchinson Argonne Road Bicycle Friendly Road Route 18a University Road Sprague Ave Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes a,b,c"indicates portions of connected route. 18b University Rd 16th Ave Sprague Ave Bicycle lanes _ 18c University Rd 32nd Ave 16th Ave Bicycle lanes Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements 19a Park Road Sprague Broadway Ave Bicycle lanes a,b,c"indicates portions of Avenue connected route. 19b Park Rd Broadway Ave Indiana Ave Bicycle lanes 19c Park Rd Indiana Ave Rutter Ave Bicycle lanes 20 Evergreen Road 16th Avenue 32nd Avenue Bicycle lanes 21 Flora Road Mission Avenue Appleway Path Bicycle lanes 22 Pines Road 16th Ave 24th Ave Bicycle lanes MEI •ng Term Projec East—West Routes 23a Indiana Avenue East City Limits Arc Street Bicycle Friendly Route 23b Tschirley Street Indiana Avenue Baldwin Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of Avenue Route connected route. 23c Baldwin Avenue Arc Street Flora Road Bicycle Friendly Route 24a 4th Avenue Park Road Carnahan Road Bicycle Friendly Route 24b Carnahan Road 4th Avenue 6th Avenue Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of Route connected route. 24c 6th Avenue Carnahan Road West City Bicycle Friendly Limits Route 25 16th Avenue Sullivan Road Rotchford Drive Bicycle Friendly Route 26 Boone Avenue University Road Pines Road Bicycle Friendly Route 27a 3`d Avenue Flora Road Tschirley Road Bicycle Friendly Route "a,b,c"indicates portions of 27b 4th Avenue Tschirley Road Barker Road Bicycle Friendly connected route. _ _ Route 28 37th/38th Avenue Bowdish Road Pines Road Bicycle Friendly _ _ Route 29 Mission Avenue Fancher Road Vista Road Bicycle Friendly Route 30 Liberty Avenue Vista Road Park Road Bicycle Friendly Route 31 Railroad Avenue Stanley Road Fancher Road Bicycle Friendly Route 32a Knox Avenue Vista Road Sargent Road Bicycle Friendly Route 32b Sargent Road Knox Avenue Montgomery Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of Avenue Route connected route. 32c Montgomery Avenue Sargent Road Argonne Road Bicycle Friendly Route 33 4th Avenue Dishman Mica University Road Bicycle Friendly Road Route 34 Sprague Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits Bicycle lane 35a Wellesley Avenue West City Evergreen Bicycle lane "a,b,c"indicates portions of Limits Road connected route. 35b Wellesley Avenue Progress Road Flora Road Bicycle lane 36 8th Avenue West City Park Road Bicycle lane Limits 37 3`d Avenue Wm t City Fancher Road Bicycle lane One-way westbound 38 Broadway Avenue Fancher Road West City Bicycle lane Limits 39 Montgomery Avenue Argonne Road Woodruff Road Bicycle lanes Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements 40 Broadway Avenue Sullivan Road Moore Road Bicycle lanes 41 I Montgomery Avenue University Road Wilber Road _ I Bicycle lanes 42 Mission Avenue Marguerite Willow Road Bicycle lanes Road 43 Broadway Avenue Flora Road East City Limits Bicycle lanes 44 Euclid Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits Bicycle lanes Eve 45 32nd Avenue Highway 27 Road reen Bicycle lanes 46 Mansfield Avenue Pines Road Houk Road _ I Bicycle lanes 47 Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road Desmet Bicycle lanes Avenue 48 Trent Path Park Road East City Limits Shared Use Path Along south side of roadway on Railroad ROW,requires 2 bridges 49 32nd Avenue Rd hman-Mica Glenn Road Bicycle lanes 50 Mansfield Ave Houk Rd Mansfield Ave Bicycle lanes terminus 51 I Sprague Path Appleway West City Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Avenue _ Limits North—South Routes 52 Rotchford 16th Avenue 4th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Drive Route 53 Park Road Liberty Avenue Rutter Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 54 Vista Road Mission Avenue Liberty Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route Conklin Sprague Bicycle Friendly 55 Road Broadway Avenue Avenue Route 56 Roadlin Sprague Avenue 4th Avenue Bicycle Lane 57 Locust Road Valleyway Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 58a Farr Road Broadway Avenue 8th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 58b 8th Avenue Farr Road Woodruff Road Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of Route connected route. 58c Woodruff 8th Avenue 16th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Road _ Route Stanley Broadway Bicycle Friendly 59 Road Railroad Avenue Avenue Route University University Bicycle Friendly 60a Road Mission Avenue Pedestrian- Road Bicycle Bridge University University Pedestrian- Montgomery Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"indicates portions of 60b Road Bicycle Bridge Avenue Route connected route. 60c University Montgomery Avenue Trent Avenue Bicycle Lane Road Mirabeau Mamer Parkway Bicycle Friendly 61 Road-Nora Mission Avenue Pedestrian- Route Avenue Bicycle Bridge 1 62 Thierman 8th Avenue Appleway Bicycle Friendly Street Avenue Route 63 Park Road 8th Avenue 1-South City I Bicycle Friendly Limits Route Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements 64 Flora Road I Appleway Path 3rd Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 65 Riverway Montgomery Avenue Eden Road Bicycle Friendly Avenue Route 66 _ Roadher Rutter Avenue 3`d Avenue Bicycle lane 67 Pines Rd 32"d Ave 40th Ave Bicycle Friendly Route 68 Conklin Rd — 4th Ave Sprague Ave Bicycle lane Carnahan 69 6th Avenue 14th Avenue Bicycle lane Possible climbing lane only Road _ 70 Bowdish Dishman Mica Road Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes Road 71 Barker Road 8th Avenue Boone Avenue Bicycle lanes 72 Barker Road Spokane River Trent Avenue Bicycle lanes 73 McDonald 16th Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes 74 Flora Road Wellesley Avenue Euclid Avenue Bicycle lanes 75 Evergreen Trent Avenue North City Bicycle lanes Road Limits Evergreen Mansfield 76 Road Indiana Avenue Avenue Bicycle lanes Extension 77 Pines Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue Bicycle lanes Requires WSDOT approval 78 Dishman Path Appleway Avenue South City Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Mica Path Limits 79 Sullivan Path Centennial Trail Wellesley Shared Use Path Avenue 80 1 Flora Path Mission Avenue l Centennial Trail Shared Use Path Along west side of roadway 81 Long Road Crossing over 1-90 Pedestrian-bicycle Bridge bridge —Mirabeau Pedestrian-bicycle 82 Parkway Crossing over 1-90 bridge _ Bridge _ 83 University Crossing over 1-90 Pedestrian-bicycle Road Bridge bridge Trent Path Pedestrian bicycle 84 Bridge at Crossing over railroad and Millwood Trail Millwood bridge Trent Path 85 Bridge at Crossing over Spokane River and Pedestrian bicycle Spokane Centennial Trail bridge River Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Prioritization Criteria— Pedestrian Network Pedestrian Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Project Setting(Total of 20 Points) Projects that enable direct access to transit Located within 1/4-mile of a transit route increase the availability and use of alternative 0-5 modes of transportation. Connects residential neighborhoods to activity centers Getting people where they want to go is 0-5 important. Completes a missing segment of a pedestrian path Projects that provide a continuous pedestrian 0-5 network are desirable. Estimated volume of existing or potential pedestrian traffic Projects that will serve a higher pedestrian 0-5 population are advantageous. Safety(Total of 15 Points) Part of an identified"Safe Route to School" Improving safety for children is top priority. 0-5 Projects that reduce or eliminate an existing Eliminates or improves an existing barrier hazard and/or that provide a shorter path of 0-5 travel should have priority. Since many destinations are most easily accessed by arterials, increasing pedestrian Increases safety on a classified road safety on these direct paths is important. In 0-5 addition,many pedestrian/vehicle collision incidents occur on these routes where vehicle speed and volume are highest. Ability to Implement(Total of 15 Points) Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to be funded Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 implementation. Route has design and environmental reviews initiated Projects further along in the design and review 0-5 phase can be implemented sooner. Projects that demonstrate collaboration and Project involves multiple sponsors cooperation with multiple interest groups build 0-5 community and entitlement. Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Network Improvements — Pedestrian City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East—West Routes 1 Wellesley McDonald Evergreen Both sides 2 Wellesley Sullivan Isenhart North side South side sidewalk exists 3 Buckeye Park Vista One or both sides Schools in area 4 Montgomery +/-Dartmouth Carlisle Both sides 5 Montgomery East of Carlisle Pines Crosses railroad 6 Indiana Pines +/-McDonald Both sides 7 Indiana Mirabeau +/-Adams North side South side sidewalk exists 8 Broadway Havana 1 Fancher North side South side sidewalk exists 9 Broadway Fancher Heacock South Side North side sidewalk exists 10 Broadway +/-Moore Conklin South Side North side sidewalk exists 11 Broadway +/-Conklin Flora North side South side sidewalk exists 12 Broadway Flora Long Both sides 13 16`hAve Sullivan Rotchford North side South side sidewalk exists 14 24th Ave Adams Sullivan North side Complete existing gaps;school Design and construction funded East of Evergreen,sidewalk 15 32"d Ave SR-27 Best already exists on north side of street 16 44th Ave City limit Woodruff 17 44th Ave Bowdish Sands North side Complete gaps in sidewalk on north side of street North—South Routes 18 Fancher +1-Cataldo Boone Gap in front of school 19 Farr Appleway 8th Ave Both sides Funded for design and construction to 4th Ave a,b,c"indicates portions of 20a Bowdish 8th Ave 16th Ave Both sides connected route.To provide safe access to middle school 20b Bowdish 16th Ave 24th Ave 21 Perrine Main Sprague One or both sides To connect to library 22 Adams 4th Ave 24th Ave Gaps on one or both sides;3 schools on segment 23 Evergreen 16th Ave 32nd Ave Both sides With road construction 24 Sullivan 4`h Ave 16th Ave West side East side sidewalk exists 25 Conklin Broadway Sprague Both sides 26 Long Mission Boone Future school and new park site MEW INN= mi.Long Term P East—West Routes Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements 27 Trent McDonald Barker One or both sides Could be replaced by Shared Use Path(see Bicycle network) 28 Mission Fancher Vista Both sides 29 Mission Willow Pierce Both sides Connects to Valley Mission Park 30 Mission Bowdish +/-Union Both sides Connects Valley Mission Park to commercial area on Pines 31 Wellesley Sunnyvale City Boundary North side South side sidewalk exists 32 12th Ave Bowdish Union Both sides 33 24`h Ave University Wilbur Both sides Two schools 34 24th Ave Union F Pines — South side School Nice residential through street; 35 24th Ave Pines 1 Evergreen One side would need treatment to solve difficult crossing at SR-27 North–South Routes Access to park area and school, 36a Park Sprague Ave Broadway Ave One or both sides Broadway to Indiana is funded for design. 36b Park Broadway Ave Indiana Ave Both sides 37 Park Sharp Dalton Both sides Access to schools;need safe railroad crossing 38 Vista Dalton 1-90 Both sides School;railroad crossing 39 Vista Mission Broadway Both sides 40 Farr Broadway Sprague One or both sides Connects school 41 Bowdish 24th Ave Dishman-Mica Both sides Portions included as short-term project 42 Evergreen Forker Trent Both sides Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines Introduction This appendix is intended to be used as a resource to determine appropriate treatments for bicycle facilities in the City of Spokane Valley. It is organized in two sections: 1. Toolbox. The toolbox describes treatment options and criteria to determine whether the treatment is best suited for a particular facility. 2. Cross Sections. The second section illustrates several existing cross sections of roadways in the City recommended as bicycle facilities, and shows how those cross sections could be adjusted to accommodate different bicycle facilities. Toolbox The toolbox provides design guidelines and criteria for seven general types of bicycle treatments: • Bicycle Friendly Routes (Table 1) • Bicycle Lanes (Table 2) • Cycle Tracks (Table 3) • Bicycle Intersection Treatments (Table 4) • Mid-Block Crossing Treatments (Table 5) • Wayfinding (Table 6) • Shared Use Bicycle Paths (Table 7) These treatments are not exclusive of one another, and are generally used in combination. For example, a bicycle friendly route or bicycle lane could also include wayfinding and intersection treatments. Resources: The following resources are referenced in the toolbox developed for the City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Master Program (BPMP): • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Website: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ • Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Prepared by Alta Planning and Design, IBPI, and Portland State University. July 2009. • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bicycle Guide, 1999 (a draft 2010 update is currently under review and waiting adoption) • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006 • Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Manual. May 2010. • Safety Effects of Marked vs Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncrontrolled Locations. November 2000. Zegeer, Charles, et al. Unless otherwise noted, photos used in this toolbox were provided by a contracted engineering consultant. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 1: Bicycle Friendly Routes Bicycle Friendly Routes Descriptions: Roadways with low speed and low volume that have been optimized for cycling.The treatments recommended for bicycle friendly routes improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes,while discouraging through movements by vehicles. Criteria: Streets with traffic volumes less than 3,000 per day,although less than 1,500 is preferred Streets where the posted traffic speed is 25 mph or less • Two lane roadways(centerline is optional) Typical Applications a. Shared Lane Markings(or"Sharrows") Shared lane markings are used to indicate that a facility is intended for sh, .,icycle vehicle use.The markings raise awareness to motor vehicle drivers of the presence of bicyclists on a facility d n d indicate proper location for bicyclists in the lane (for example, placing sharrows with adequate space for bicyclist to avoid being doored by.L. -street parking). Pr- 5 • acv Estimated Cost Range:$100 to$250 per marking depending on materials b. Traffic Calming Traffic calming techniques are used to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.Techniques may include: traffic islands (pictured on the left and right respectively),curb extensions,lower speed limit and painted or patterned pavement V. l ..r, V S � Estimated Cost Range:$2,000 to$15,000 plus landscaping for traffic islands Fundamentals of Bicycle Friendly Route Planning and Design. Published by IBPI,Alta Planning and Design,and Portland State University.July 2009. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Friendly Routes c. Traffic Reduction/Diverters Traffic reduction is used to maintain or reduce motor vehicle volumes on designated bicycle friendly routes.Applications may include restricted vehicle movements at intersections by means of diverters, barriers,or signed/marked restrictions. (Also see diverters in the intersection treatments table). :. :•ili . ' 1—er '1 e r hinomam Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20 0000(de ds on desi. 00, als) d. Prioritized Bicycle Movement Prioritizing bicycle movement can be accomplished by stopping motor vehicles at intersections on a designated bicycle friendly route. viii._ i% -.3 Source: Fundamentals of Bicycle Friendly Route Planning and Design,page 22. Estimated Cost Range:$200 to$1,500 per intersection(depending whether an engineering study is required) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 2: Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lanes Description: Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway to be used by bicyclists only.A Bicycle lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. Criteria: Streets where traffic volumes are more than 3,000 per day • Streets where the posted traffic speed is 25 mph or greater Streets with truck traffic Typical Applications—Bicycle Lane T' a. Standard Bicycle Lane Recommended bicycle lane width is between four feet and six feet.2 A stall,' 'ane is placed to the right of vehicular traffic in the same direction. From left to right,the pictures below show a bicycle offset he curb,a bicycle lane adjacent to on- street parking,and a bicycle lane adjacent to the curb. . 1 Oh`t -.v�rrr -. r Ell 11 Estimated Cost Range:4,000+ _ , mile 2 National Association of City Transportation Officials.http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/ Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes b. Climbing Lane Climbing lanes can be used on bicycle facilities with uphill grades.The climbing lane provides separation between bicyclists and vehicles for uphill roadway sections that are otherwise designated as shared roadways.On uphill sections in particular,the speed differential between bicyclists and motor vehicles increases,which increases the safety risk.There are no standard criteria for when to install a bicycle climbing lane.Some cities recommend climbing lanes on bicycle facilities with grades as low as 1.5%depending on the roadway characteristics and potential conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists,while others might not install a climbing lane unless a facility exceeds a 5%grade.The characteristics of the facility should be considered along with vehicle speeds,volumes, and bicycle volumes. By providing an uphill bicycle lane,separation is maintained between the two modes and safety is improved. In the downhill direction a bicyclist can likely travel at the speed of traffic,so a shared lane is adequate for the downhill bicyclist. In the picture below the right lane is traveling uphill with a bicycle climbing lane,any -ne is traveling downhill with a shared bicycle/vehicle lane. Jf • i 0 Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6.000 per mile(the cost iay increase if existing pavement marking removal is required) c. Buffered Bicycle Lai.e A buffered bicycle lane provides additional separation between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane(or in some cases between the bicycle lane and on-street parking). Depending on the existing lane widths,creating a buffered bicycle lane either reduces the width of a vehicle travel lane or removes a vehicle travel lane.A buffered zone between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane is recommended w" `^speeds are above 35 mph. Another alts _is to N,_ ;e the buffered zone between the bicycle lane and on-street parking,which is better suited for locations with high ,g turnover rates. „pp • Li ifID‘l t Estimated Cost Range: $5,000 to$10,000 per mile Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes d. Left Side Lane Left side bicycle lanes can be used on one-way streets or on median divided two way streets.This treatment can be considered if there are heavy transit activities,deliveries,or parking turnover on the right side of the street. ' 44 Oil - .--II; 'I t Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(same as a typical bicyci. .ne) e. Paved Shoulder This treatment is typically used in rural areas on roadways with higher speeds.On roadways with over 2,000 ADT and speeds that exceed 35 mph the paved shoulder should be between four and six feet from the face of guardrail. If the roadway speed exceeds 50 mph or there is a high percentage of heavy vehicles,the paved shoulder should be 8 feet wide.As long as the paved shoulder meets the width requirements based on roadway speed,the shoulder may be signed as a bicycle facility. U` Estimated Cost Range:Varies depending on the existing roadway conditions. Typical Applications—Bicycle Lanes at Intersections f. RigF Turn Restrictions or Warnings To impro the safety of bicyclists using bicycle lanes, right turns across the bicycle lane by vehicles could either be restricted or warning sig.7s used to raise awareness of the bicycle lane and potential conflict with bicyclists. '"=:l 6 NO ygk .. TURN A s) ON RED 'a : EXCEPT BICYCLES YIELD TO kr1—''A; rte, Estimated Cost Range:$75 to$200 per sign(plus installation) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes g. Transitioning a Through Bicycle Lane Transitioning a through bicycle lane to the left side of a vehicle right turn lane prior to an intersection reduces the potential for right hook collisions by correctly positioning both the bicyclist and vehicle at the intersection.A"Begin right turn lane,yield to bicycle"sign should be placed at the beginning of the transition zone. One option to increase visibility of the transition zone is to use colored pavement marking through the transition area(shown in image on right). Note—this treatment is NOT recommended for intersections with double right turn vehicle lanes. • 1 � - 1 a F. 011;01111.111.111.1-1-011111041111. ■ • 111 Ade �1 r - Source of image on right: NACTO website(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/)Estimated Cost Range:$500 to$4,000 per intersection approach(depending whether green pavement markings are chosen) h. Combined Bicycle Lane/Turn Lane With a combined bicycle lane/turn lane,the bicycle lane drops prior to the intersection and the right most lane becomes a shared right turn vehicle lane and through bicycle lane. • +� • ,� a • • Source: NACTO(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/combined-bike-laneturn-lane/) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes i. Colored Bicycle Lane Having a colored bicycle lane as it approaches an intersection draws attention to the correct and expected location of bicyclists.The treatment is ideal for intersections with high bicycle and vehicle volumes,or at locations where the position of the bicycle lane changed from the previous block.The FHWA has issued an Interim Approval)for the use of green coloring in bicycle lanes. Citing multiple experiments that demonstrated positive operational effects for both bicycle riders and other road users,with no notable negative effects,this approval allows states to apply for approval to use coloring in bicycle lanes and bicycle lane extensions,and States may request approval for all jurisdictions in that State.This Interim Approval does not make the use of green colored pavement mandatory.3 R z. Alef t Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot pending on materiai wending on wear maintenance costs could include reapplying color every 2 to 10 years. 3 Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bicycle Lanes(IA-14). Federal Highway Administration website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim approval/ia14/index.htm.Accessed May 9,2011. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 3: Cycle Tracks Cycle Tracks Description: A cycle track is an exclusive bicycle facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk,and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bicycle lane.The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments(curbs,planter strips,on-street parking, pavement markings,or other options). In addition the cycle track should be clearly defined from the sidewalk(grade separated,pavement markings,or an alternate clear indication)to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. Criteria: While the US does not have established standards that define what conditions warrant a cycle track, international documents do provide some guidance. However, in most cases,the criteria are more qualitative than quantitative and each facility should be evaluated independently based on roadway and user characteristics. For one-way cycle tracks • Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds(factors that would make on-street biking feel uncomfortable). International documents suggest a cycle track may be appropriate where traffic speeds are 40 mph or greater4 and total two-way traffic volumes are 9,000 vehicles per day or greater.5 • Streets with few driveways(there is no specific number;engineering judgment should be used for each facility in question) • Streets where intersection conflicts can be effectively managed(since cycle tracks are often on the right side of on-street parking,visibility of cyclists approaching intersections can be compromised,parking set backs and other mitigation measures need to be considered at intersections and driveways) For two-way cycle tracks(in addition to the criteria listed above) • Streets with destinations mostly on one side • Streets with less driveways or intersection conflicts on one side • On one-way streets to reduce the out of direction travel for bicyclists • On streets where there is not enough room for a one-way cycle track on each side of the roadway Typical Applications—One Way Cycle Track 4 Cycling Design Guide. Nottinghamshire County Council. October 2006.Accessed via: http://nacto.orq/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/Nottinghamshire-Cycling-Design-Guide-2006.pdf. May 9,2011 5 Sustrans Cycling Guidelines and Practical Details.Accessed via:http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sustrans-Cycling- Guidelines-and-Practical-Details.pdf. May 9,2011. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks a. Cross Section and Pavement Markings A one-way cycle track should be 5 to.7 feet wide with a minimum 3 foot buffer.The buffer can be a variety of treatments including planters, raised curb,on-street parking,pavement markings,bollards,landscaping,or other treatments.Cycle tracks can be at either roadway level or sidewalk level;however,roadway level is typically preferred to help prevent bicycle and pedestrian conflicts. bicycle markings should be placed in the cycle track(at the beginning of each block and at periodic intervals if necessary)indicating the facility is intended for bicycle use(and not motor vehicle or pedestrian use). y , i .._ i . . - '!'r . .--. 1,111% i Ili' r.,. .1 ___.. ... .._..___ _ .� t } ...............,.. ..‘. ..k_ . - .. . vs .... ti Source: NACTO • I Estimated Cost Range:$100,000 to 1,000.000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks b. Driveway and Side Street Treatments Vehicles turning into driveways or side streets across cycle tracks presents a unique challenge because drivers may not anticipate a bicyclist approaching since the cycle track is separated from the vehicle lanes.The following treatments can be used to improve the safety of a bicyclist through driveway on a cycle track: • Installing pavement markings through the driveway to draw attention to entering motorists.Yield signs and pavement markings can also be applied. • Restrict parking for 30 feet on each side of the driveway to improve visibility. • Ensure a sight triangle of 20 feet from a minor street to the cycle track,and 10 feet from a driveway to the cycle track. The picture below shows a recommended clear zone and sight triangle for a cycle trace at a driveway. From a driveway there should be a horizontal clear zone of 10 feet from the driveway,and for a minor street there r be a horizontal clear zone of 20 feet from the minor street. In addition,if on-street parking is allowed along the cycle track, if u be prohibited within 30 feet of the driveway or minor street. AI driveways an6 minor!Me 'bons �RIMG C•I•.yi&Id Imes.d•VIId Iu$ar.n yiJact(j algnage EhpulO Ile usetl to CSC�rdy For mow..&Muss allempbnp 10 c,fts the Ih model area an6 make it dear cycle lracl morn dre s' ar+kgY at dnvenray Ihal the rycle[race hu prioMy nypr To ' slreel arld sWewalk{�enish�s andMr Weer erdprlkl nM ewg 1ra+ec fealums snoub accamrrx+date a sgh[mangle wre d Hurd,R10.13 a120 rrr,to i�i1•t,'le.lraek from rinor 91,ee1 n Rrs 1te croasrgs,and tCt.Iasi nvm dnrerray oosUng 10.40`, � 1'mnflgure6 as a raped ey[y VBOk.the orpysrg :''' t should le rouse.n awhch Ina Warm&an6 type track nrlp rlen43 Iher elevaleln Ihrouph the vospnp Sharp m• i \ii,. r'1 ,lines on edher side from road to adexaat Ienl serve .s n+heed hump for motor vrhi*s . I e e _ '-- k+v1w,.nine 1t !Ic c(=- lie CflW v�ch ehputs w 4YniranM W cnxndek[ed Ef a[nrna¢I Orarp Hine c1W track pro .q angles to,&Satz haver speca Pr#TM In It1e c,osunq shpuld oe grplrllee r d ayg ged r.rwr v.telsec,ons to enptrorc vsari1lq.Tne ctesuaS no-oarhmg uea ya 3b feel hom•. see of the cossvy Source: NATCO(showing a two-way cycle track at a driveway) Also see picture in the two-way cycle track section Estimated Cost Range:See section a (cost of driveway treatments included in overall length of a cycle track) c. Intersection Treatments At intersections.cycle tracks present a unique challenge since the bicyclist may be less visible to drivers due to the cycle track being slightly separated from the roadway. Similar treatments used at driveways can also be applied to intersections such as restricting parking to improve visibility,and warning signs for drivers. In addition the following treatments may be applied to improve the safety of the cycle track for bicyclists: • Cycle track signal phase • Prohibit right turns • Install warning signs for right turning motorists to yield to bicyclists. • Option to bring bicyclists into a wide outside traffic lane just prior to intersection to improve visibility. • Clearly indicate to turning vehicles the intended path,so drivers do not mistakenly enter the cycle track. 171 Example right turn warning sign for vehicles(also see image in section g) Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of intersection treatments included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks d. Two Stage Left Turns For cyclists who need to turn left at an intersection,a two stage left turn should be provided.Since the cycle track is to the right of the vehicle lanes,a bicyclist wanting to turn left at an intersection needs a way to safety cross the traffic lanes.A two stage left turn bicycle box allows a cycle track user to do exactly that. Using the green phase the bicyclist proceeds through the intersection with the flow of vehicles,but then pulls into a left turn bicycle box at the far end of the intersection.The bicyclist then waits in the box until the perpendicular direction of traffic receives a green indication,and then proceeds with traffic. AP (:4 r r 1 1 ` Y • ;. e " CSI, lit s ■ Source: NACTO 1.:1 ilir _ M.:::.'if .''''..- -.- - J 'IL AI Pictures -way cycle tracks 'h two-stage le rn boxes. Estimated Cos, 'qe:See section a(cost of two stage left turns included in overall length of a cycle track) Typical Applications •vo Way Cycle Track Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks e. Cross Section A two way cycle track should be a minimum of 10 to 12 feet wide with a dashed yellow line to indicate proper direction. V hicre& Streetcar Traffic --►" Planters 4 Cycle Track 10. 4.6 r �II 3 — ■ 5idev+- ,u Planter Parking Vehicle& Sidewalk cycle (Optional) Sired Car Trai5c Estimated Cost Range:$150,000 to$1,500,000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). f. Driveway and Side Street Treatments In addition to the driveway treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks,a two-way cycle track needs to provide warning indications to motor vehicle drivers(both entering and exiting)to expect bicyclists in the contra flow direction.Yield signs,and markings through the driveways should be used to alert drivers. Prohibiting left turns into driveways across two-way cycle tracks should also be considered. The image below shows a proposed treatment fog ov cycle track across a driveway. In this image it is assumed that the left turn into the driveway is prohibited. If the left turn rr i . into the driveway is allowed,a sign to warn drivers of the two-way cycle track traffic could be considered. Whether the vehic, bicycle has the right of way is dependent on city or state policies.Typically at driveways, motor vehicle drivers are required to stop d yield to bicyclists(and pedestrians). Streetcar J e1►icIe Traffic Raised Driveway 20'Adrance Placement b'ellit Traffic Streetcar►►r Where Space:!!loci s EFAI 111111•11111111111111111r Bicnde Markings/ 1 Inuv be Placed here D►it�eivtai. (Pb\ Through Longer - Driveways wt! -I Modified Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks g. Intersection Treatments In addition to intersection treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks, intersections with two-way cycle tracks present unique challenges due to the contra flow bicycle lane.Treatment options include: • Prohibit right turns on red for right turning vehicles from the side street across the cycle track. • Install bicycle signals with a leading bicycle and pedestrian phase so bicyclists enter the intersection before vehicles to improve visibility. • Install yield signs for right turning drivers on the main street(with the cycle track) • Install candle sticks or safe hits at the cycle track entrance to discourage vehicles from turning into the cycle track area. The image below shows a proposed intersection for a two-way cycle track. IN I NO SCALE Fes\ I an' A Option to Plus'r r'arr Ie'Stick Second Northbound 20' % '-Le fi Turn Bike Box Right Turn Yield Sign 1 O al ne(ec•r/Nersectrans cm Maxtarm t* • Typical Y Street 1lIIi ! iIIIIi 4- 00 - p 0 ,r.. "i I I Noma rrr 's - h1 I _ B' I 1 " t 1 OINNIS Ij p } I 'WM 1 11i c. i ir� i z 0 Active Static Signals 12" Signs Signs 111111119r 12" ry II J 140 1 I2 S" al SIGNAL itill j BIKE R3-[+fill� RIII-I' 0 0 0 0 still LED Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 14 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 4: Bicycle Intersection Treatments Bicycle Intersection Treatments Description: Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection. Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes,traffic and bicycle speeds,type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning,visibility, surrounding land use,and other factors)a range of treatments may be applicable. Criteria: • Locations where a bicycle facility crosses a roadway that may cause bicyclists to feel unsafe without intersection improvements. • Level of treatment depends on cross street traffic volumes,cross section,anr'traffic speeds. Typical Applications a. Bicycle Boxes Bicycle boxes provide a designated area at the intersection for bicyclists to .ahead hides during a red traffic signal phase. This improves the visibility of bicyclists and helps prevent right-hook r cts. Ideal for in, =ctions with high right turning vehicle conflicts,or high bicycle volumes to reduce bicycle signal delay an' as.At intersection where the bicycle box extends across all lanes in the travel direction, left turning bicyclists can positior ,elves ideally during the red signal phase.This treatment also improves driver compliance at crosswalks,so high pedestrian .y(with high bicycle volumes)is another typical application. • 7-=.--.LI , • dil Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000(not including annual maintenance). Markings may need to be replaced every 1 to 10 years depending on wear patterns. Replacement costs would be$5,000 to$6,000(same as initial installation). b. Colored/Marked Bicycle Lane through the Intersection Bicycle lanes marked through intersections help guide bicyclists along the intended travel path and alert drivers to the presence of a bicycle lane(and bicyclists).Applications may include areas where vehicles may encroach on the bicycle lane such as ramp style exits,across signalized intersections that are wide or complex,across driveways,and stop or yield controlled approaches. .i • Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments c. Bicycle Signals Bicycle signals may be used for the following purposes: • To reduce conflict at intersections where a bicycle movement conflicts with a major vehicle movement • To improve safety at intersections near schools or parks To make it legal for bicycles to enter an intersection during an all-pedestrian phase• • To employ an advance green phase at intersections for bicyclists that reduce conflict and delay • To allow bicyclists to cross an intersection diagonally at unique locations _ diti AO xviiF 0 BIKE ..,_,__ ._ ..... „--m-- SIGNAL' 01.0 VW- �' BIKE ' 1 U u: : i - Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$50,000 per inters d. Two Stage Left Turn Queue Boxes In addition to using this treatment along cycle track facilities,the two stage left turn queue box may be appropriate along facilities with bicycle lanes.A two stage left turn queue box may be used at intersections with high volumes of left turning bicyclists, especially along multi-lane facilities with high traffic speeds and volumes.This treatment can also be used to assist bicyclists across streetcar or rail tracks. • Iltr Source: NACTO Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000 Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11– Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments e. Traffic Reduction/Diverters(also in the Bicycle Friendly Route section) Diverters are often used at intersections along bicycle friendly routes to reduce vehicle volumes on a roadway.The diverters allow bicycle through movements but prohibit vehicle through movements. SCE . , ONLY .. _ '} EE:EN 9kPCLES — [0 '''. -0. Z ' � a _" (sign stating"DO NOT ENTER,except bicycles) Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 17 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 5: Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Description: Mid-block crossings can be dangerous to bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location.The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail junctions with a roadway mid- block. In these situations, mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety of a bicyclist. Criteria: Depending on the characteristics of the facility being crossed,different treatments may apply. Criteria to consider includes:vehicle speed,width of the roadway,vehicle volumes,sight distance,and typical driver compliance in the region. Typical Applications a. Bicycle Crossing Markings Bicycle crossing markings can be similar to pedestrian style crossings. However cle crossing typically has two parallel sets of markings,one for each direction of bicycle travel to help reduce head on bic ts. Pedestrians can also use the bicycle crossing area. The picture below shows bicycle/pedestrian crossing markings at a signalizaa intersec • • • Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$3,000(agpending on width of crossing). Maintenance is not included in the cost. b. Median Refuge Island A median refuge island allows a bicyclist to cross a street in two phases,while waiting in a comfortable space.The treatment is ideal for multilane facilities with two-way traffic where waiting for an acceptable gap in traffic for a single phase crossing would cause undue delay.The desired width for median is 10 feet,although 6 feet is the absolute minimum,and a median should be a minimum of 30 feet long. _ • N�^f Estimated Cost Range:$15,000 to$30,000 per 100 feet Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments c. Rapid Flashing Beacon A rapid flashing beacon is used in conjunction with a marked crossing. It is typically activated using a push button and indicates that vehicles need to stop and yield to bicyclists or pedestrians using the designated crossing.A flashing beacon is typically placed on a post on the side of the roadway, but can also be installed over a lane.These examples show pedestrian crossings, however,the warning sign can be modified to show a bicycle,or both a bicycle and pedestrian. Based on the NCHRP Report 562 and the studies by Charles Zeeger(see resources listed on the last page)the following criteria applies to installing flashing beacons at unsignalized crossing locations: • When ADT is less than 9,000—activated flashing beacons are recommended if vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph,or if the facility is 4 lanes with speeds of 35 mph. • When ADT is between 9,000 to 12,000—activated flashing beacons are re' fended for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 35 mph. • When ADT is greater than 12,000—activated flashing beacons are re .:nded for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 30 mph. The pictures below show a few different types of rapid flashing beacon dis .The the left use school signs,but could be used for a non-school locations with a pedestrian or bicycle warning sign ins,ead of the 11 crossing sign. 4r1 mom- lus K - 1 t . I - ., - ,',.r - - -- Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$20,000 per crossing(includes two to three rapid flashing beacon signs,depending whether there is a median) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11- Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments d. Off-Set Intersections At some locations, bicycle friendly routes may continue at an offset across a busy street.One treatment option to safely connect the offset bicycle friendly route is shown below. In this treatment,a two way cycle track is incorporated on one side of the roadway.The cycle track guides bicyclists to cross at a particular location,which may include activated beacons or a signal depending on the roadway characteristics. Below are two different types of offset intersection crossings.The top image uses a path to the side of the main roadway and the picture on the bottom shows an intersection with center bicycle lanes connecting the off-set intersections. HERE FOR Bike Push Bolton Beacons 1 1111111 Flasg .s� Push 4sf7 1111111111111111 Sutton U = Acri at€tt _ Flashing \ beacons 4.1 H FOR 4K y 1 ICI I 1 • Estimated Cost Range:Varies based on right of way impact$1,000 and up depending on chosen treatment Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 6: Wayfinding Wayfinding Description: Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclists to communicate directions,distance,and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination.Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs, however, pavement markings can supplement the signs.Wayfinding could be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. Criteria: Wayfinding can be used to help bicyclists(and vehicle drivers)identify which facilities are designated as bicycle facilities.The wayfinding may convey several factors including: • Which roadways are designated as bicycle facilities • Directions to key areas or connections • Expected travel time by bicycle to key areas or connections In particular,wayfinding is beneficial at junctions and intersections with other` cilities. Typical Applications a. Standard signs to indicate bicycle facilities Part 9 of the MUTCD(2009 Edition)includes"Traffic Control for Bicycle Facillities". In this section there are several standard wayfinding signs that can be used along bicycle facilities.Some signs simply indicate the presence of a bicycle facility,while other signs provide additional information such as destinations and distances.The pictures below show a sampling of signs from the MUTCD and their respective sign numbers. p c 3 CC40 : BIKE LANE Kingston • BIK ROUTE , R3-17 D1-3c DI 1.1 ( Ps C(15) 1 T 3 O Downtown BEGIN END 011-1c M1-8 M4-14 M4-6 M6-3 Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding b. Signs with destinations and expected travel times Below are two examples of wayfinding signs unique to different cities.The sign on the left indicates direction,distance,and expected travel time by bicycle.The sign on the right indicates direction and distance. �4� �f • • fr74.7., . 11. ,'?MT TAB•R ':ti' .• Estimated Cost Range:$30 to$75 per sign(plus installation) c. Pavement markings Pavement markings can be used to supplement s is an example of a pavement marking used to indicate the direction of the continued bicycle facility. • 16 Sharrows and bicycle lane symbols can also be considered wayfinding treatments in the sense that they help identify a facility as a bicycle facility. _ C5C2t. AP Estimated Cost Range:$50 to$250 per marking depending on size and material(plus installation) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding d. Maps Portable maps indicating bicycle and pedestrian around the City could be provided to assist bicyclists and pedestrians in wayfinding. Maps could be provided at public facilities such as City Hall and libraries as well as bicycle shops or other interested vendors. In addition,the maps could be available electronically through the City's website. Estimated Cost Range:$0 to$5 for a paper map(in some cities a private vendor sponsors the map which could make it free or low cost to the City of Spokane Valley). e. Mobile Applications As technology continues to advance, private industries will likely develop apps that can be used on mobile devices to assist bicyclists navigating around the City of Spokane Valley. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 7: Shared Use Bicycle Paths Shared Use Bicycle Paths Description: Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway,and are intended to be used by pedestrians,bicyclists, runners,and other non-motorized users.A shared use path can supplement a thorough system of on street facilities in a city,and connect to the on-street system at end points of the trail as well as midpoints depending on the length and location. Criteria: The following characteristics can be used when considering which facilities could serve as appropriate shared use path: • A shared use path can be provided when on-street facilities are not an option and when separate right of way is available (such as a former railroad line). • The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized. Accordir z Idaho Department of Transportation,if there are more than 8 crossings per mile,an on-street facility should sidered instead. • Where crossings cannot be avoided,special design treatments shr used to treat potential conflicts. Typical Applications a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Shared Use Path The following design criteria should be considered: • Minimum paved width of a shared use path is 10 feet,although 12 to 14 feet(or more)is preferred especially if the use is expected to be moderate to heavy(AASHTO). • Two feet of additional clearance should be provided on either side of the path. • An 8 foot path may be appropriate under dome circumstances(bicycle and pedestrian use is expected to be consistently low,the alignment allows for safe and d:passing opportunities,and maintenance vehicles are not expected to drive on the path which would could subject ti ant edges to damage). • Markings to separate bicyclists from pede ana n a shared use path are not necessary, but a centerline marking to separate two-way traffic is appropriate on p vays with heavy peak or seasonal volumes. • The surface should be asphalt to accommod, all types of non-motorized users. Below are pictures of a two-way shared use path.On the It ,the path runs along an active railroad line on the left and an industrial facility on the right,both separated by a fence. In the photo cn the right the path runs along a neighborhood (left side)and a freeway and light rail line(right side). 4, Estimated Cost Range:$250,000 to$500,000 per mile(includes asphalt surface,signing,striping,wayfinding,drainage,and limited crossings,does not include design costs). Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Shared Use Bicycle Paths b. Crossings on Shared Use Paths At locations where the shared use path crosses other roadways or driveways,appropriate indications and warnings should be provided for both the path user and roadway user to prevent conflict.The design team should consider the characteristics of the path and roadway at the crossing and determine whether the path user or the roadway user should have the right of way. In the picture below, path users are required to stop at the roadway crossing. Kan r ..a : . fI l _'S _ Y _{sioP � • - #11:7 Y •� A - • r Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cross Sections The following tables illustrate how to convert roadways with specific paved widths into bicycle friendly route and different types of bicycle lanes. Each cross section identifies which facilities within the City of Spokane Valley meet the cross section requirements and are recommended as bicycle facilities in the Master Plan (see map 11.5). Table 8: Cross Sections— Bicycle Friendly Route Bicycle Friendly Route Cross Sections 18 to 24 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • 12`r ,sections) • ' e,s Rd(sections) 'Ave ..t !.. A .▪ .Ave, `ions) Pierce Ave. ctions) 18'-24' I Long Rd(Cep ennial Trail to Appleway) Marguerite Rd(sections) • Railroad Ave(Mission Ave to Stanley Rd) q (� n • Stanley Rd(Railroad Ave to Broadway Ave) 40/ • Boone Ave(University Rd to Pines Rd) . Flora Rd(Maxwell Ave to 400 ft north of Sprague Ave) Alki Ave(currently less than 18 feet in parts,widening) Design: • No center line markings Sharrow markings Depending on the characteristics of the particular roadway,parking could be allowed if traffic volumes are low and there is ample visibility around parked vehicles. Otherwise on-street parking should be prohibited on the paved roadway. • Some roadways may have a gravel shoulder where parking could be permitted. -d RoaI Ith Roa•ways: • 12th Ave(sections) ,n:IUlo Valleyway Ave v • Adams Rd ir i . Orr e Progress Rd(sections) ■ , fd • Mission Ave(Francher Rd to Vista Rd) 8'-28' 1._ 8�1 ▪ Vista Rd(1-90 to Bridgeport Ave) • Locust Rd(Mission Ave to Valleyway Ave) • Farr Rd(Valleyway Ave to Sprague Ave) • Woodruff Rd(8th Ave to 16th Ave) c University Rd(Mission Ave to 1-90) • 38th Ave(37th Ave to Pines Rd) • Mamer Rd(Mission Ave to 1-90) 1 16th Ave(Sullivan Rd to Rotchford Dr) • Rotchford Dr(16`h Ave to 4th Ave) • Conklin Rd(Broadway Ave to Sprague Ave) • Flora Rd(Mission Ave to Maxwell Ave,400 ft north of Sprague Ave to 3rd Ave) • 6th Ave,4th Ave(west of Park Ave) Design: • Center line marking optional • Sharrow pavement markings • Option to designate on-street parking on one side of the roadway. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Friendly Route Cross Sections 36 to 46 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • Pierce Ave(sections) • 24th Ave(sections) e �R Ill • Blake Rd(sections) • Park Rd(north of Rutter Ave and south of 8th Ave) 1— 8' 20'-30' i 8' • Farr Rd(Sprage Ave to 8th) • University Rd(railroad tracks to Montgomery Dr) • 37`h Ave(Bowdish Rd to 38th Ave) • Conklin Rd(Sprague Ave to 4`h Ave) I C ° i • Pines P outh of 32nd) Design: • ,ite n marking optional(depends on roadway On-Street On-Street .,naractt 's) Parking Parking • Sharrow pa nent markings • Parking coula ne allowed on both sides of the roadway. Table 9: Cross Sections— Bicycle Lanes (No On-Street Parking) Bicycle Lane C, "sections (No On-Street Parking) 30 to 40 feet Paved Roadway Width N Original cross section:2 lanes (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes:2 lanes Roadways: • Bowdish Rd (sections) 5' 6' 10'-14 1p'-14' I I • Evergreen Rd(sections) • Flora Rd(sections) � ) • Barker Rd(sections) Wellesley Ave(sections) a • Mission Ave (sections) Broadway Ave(sections) • 32nd Ave(sections) • 44th Ave • McDonald Rd(sections) 30'40' • 3rd Ave(Francher Rd to west City Limits) • Montgomery Ave(University Rd to Jackson Ave) • 8th Ave(west of Park Rd)currently less than 30 feet,widening necessary • Carnahan Rd(consider climbing lane only) Design: • 5 to 6 foot bicycle lanes • For roadways less than 30 feet,widening will be necessary. • Depending on the characteristics of each roadway, a centerline stripe may not be necessary in some cases. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 42 to 55 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:4 lanes(or 3 lanes with TWLTL) (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: t if • University Rd(sections) • McDonald Rd(sections) • Fancher Rd (sections) 5=6' 10.5'-14' 1 1V-15' I 10.5'-14' 1 5'-6' • Mission Ave (sections) • Broadway Ave(sections) • Montgomery Ave(Argonne Rd to Woodruff Rd) 4 • Pines Rd(16`hto 32nd Ave) i 1 I MI t • Park Rd(sections) • Montgomery Ave(Jackson Ave to Bowdish Rd) Evergreen Rd(sections) `r Barker Rd(sections) • Mission Ave (sections) —42'-55' I • 32nd Ave(sections) • McDonald Rd(sections) •-sign: Convert a 4 lane cross section to 3 lanes including a center two-way left turn lane • Vehicle lanes range from 10.5'to 14' • Bicycle lanes range from 5'to 6' 48 to 54 feet Paved Roadway Width •riginal cross section:4 lanes (One-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes Roadways:•i approximately 4 feet wide,6 feet recommended) Aporox.13'-15' _ Approx.13'-15' _ Appro.(' 13'-'5' 3' 6' I +resign: ® • Bicycle lane with 3 foot buffer ' • No on-street parking MIN 6 4 Note: In areas where the cross section is 54 feet,4 vehicle 6 1 6 travel lanes could be maintained at an 11 foot width while I ; including the buffered bicycle lane as shown. I ■ 39,-45' i 43'- Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 54 to 60 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes with TVVLTL ''* JIIIMIk. n, 1 Roadways: r • Euclid Ave(Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 5'-6 3-1 - 14 14' I 12'-14' ,3', 5'-6' Design: ' IS A buffer zone next to the bicycle lane would make �4 ' l the bi' -.le lane more comfortable to riders. „1.1, A ..: ...: 54'-60' 1 68 to 80 feet Paved Roadway Width original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 5 lanes with TWLTL Thadways: It = '+ Faucher Rd ( ) C � University Rd(Spragusectionse to 4") I 6'-7'1 11'-13' 1 11'-13' 1 12'-14' 1 11'-13' 1. 6-7'.I • ndiana Ave (Sullivan Rd to Desmet) cto li I I I jn: I , 1,, � I .1. This option narrows existing lanes to maintain the 1t existing cross section while adding bicycle lanes. • '-8O' Sections for Sprague Sprague-92 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from University Rd to 340'east of Houk Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: 7 lanes with TWLTL i 5; "'-ii A tn = = I 6' 11' 11' 11' Ia. 1' w row 1 1 I - I - T ii .1 1 to I F IN t MI 1 — I. 1 - 1 1 1 I I I I I at wi wi 92' Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-86 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 300'east of Houk Rd to about 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: see options#1 and#2 below. Note that with option#1 the bicycle lane narrows to 4.5 feet at intersections and mid-block locations where left turns are allowed.Due to the narrow bicycle lanes,a maximum of one mid-block left turn median opening is recommended between signalized intersections. Option#1 -7 lanes with raised median(mid-block) I 11' 11' 11' 11 l= 11' 1 6' 1 1 OMNI I W ,_ I FAM �. Raised N. I i _� I i_ I Median - � i� - I I- � 1 ---- I ---- I --- I o Option#1 -7 lanes with left turn lane(at signalized in, actions and mid-block where left turns are allowed): t M M n ' m i 4.5'....................11' 11' , 11` 11" 11' I 11 11' 1.4.5I i 1011 rm." rAIE ra t cf W a I me I I I I 86' Note:a maximum one mid-block left turn median opening is recommended between signalized intersections. Option#2-Reducing to 5 lanes with buffered bicycle lanes m =.., it 6' 1 4' I 1_3' I 13 I 14' I 13' I 13' 14'I V nii, I m,,,, III Irak I IMIiraall iL•—ii 1 m...• ot 1-- 86' —I Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-71 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd to Appleway Ave Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: 5 lanes with median or left turn lane 14Z 1121 n t.4 6' 11.5 11' 14' I 11'. I 1t5 54(1-1 I I I I caT ' INV MN I I I IA, I 11 71' Sprague-66 Foot One-Way Cross Section: Sprague east of University Road(westbound only Original cross section: 5 lanes Cross section with bicycle lanes: Option#1 -5 lanes with buffered bicycle lane ® it 11' 11.5' 11.5' 11.5' 11,5' 3'; 6' III 1- r � 66' iv Option#2-4 lanes with buffered bicycle lane 14' _ 14' 14' I 14' 14 I 6 I I a ;_)„,„ 66' Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 31 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 10: Cross Sections— Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking 48 to 56 feet Paved Roadway Width (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Original cross section: 1 lane each direction with a center gl TWLTL and on-street parking on one side i Cross section with bicycle lanes: 1 lane each direction with on-street parking(both sides) 8' I 6' i 10'-14' 1 10'-14' I 6' I 8' I Roadways: • Mission " 'e(Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd) ii OO I f *1 Design: ini 1 �` _ 'vcle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street 1� 4, A ' arkiny vs bicyclist to maneuver around open car doors whi, paining in the bicycle lane. If the roadwa, is widened to 62 feet,a 12 foot center On-Street I-20'-28' On-Sh+est TWLTL could be maintained with a 10 foot lane in Parking 48'-56' Parking G each direction. 60 to 70 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: varies (Two-Way Traffic with Parking') Cross section with bicycle lanes: varies 44 v ANEW Roadways: eilli . If on-street parking is desired on roadways in the 8' . 6' 10.5-14' , 11'-14' 1 10.5'-14' 6' ; future,these cross sections could be applied to accommodate both on-street parking and bicycle IWI i° facilities. JDesign: 6 foot adjacent bicycle lanes acent to 8 feet wide on-street Y 1 parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car o.r sneer '42' doors while remai in the biccle lane P8"h nq �� ' �' Ad 2 to 3 foot buffer zone ning between y on-stre.et parking and the bicycle lane could be considered in areas with high parking turnover rates to help prevent dooring 70 to 84 feet Paved Roadway Width accidents(when people open car doors into a bicycle lane causing the bicyclist to crash either by hitting the (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) open car door or swerving abruptly). if 7,:_:, m .. 1 • For the 84 foot cross section,a five lane cross section would also fit(four 11 foot lanes,and a center 12 foot 8' 6' , 10.5-13' , 10 5-15 10.5-13' , 10.5-13' , 6' I 8' TWLTL). El y ii iisi Pi in" r , 1 ! „ g 1 a _,_ 8 us 1 we I 1 On-Sheet 42•-58' On-Shea! Parking 70'-84. Parking. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 32 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11: Cross Section—Shared Use Paths Shared Use Path Cross Sections Original cross section: varies Shared Use Path Cross section with bicycle lanes: Roadway cross section likely remains the same with the addition of adway a shared use path. ler grade -� � 4 Roadways: - " • Millwood Path 2' 10'-14' 2• •nt Path(Railroad ROW) Shared Use Path • ague Path Roadway Varies Varies .ppleway Path North Greenacres Path -,ishman Mica Path • ,s Rd, (Pinecroft Wy to Trent Ave) • S, n Rd, north of the River • Flora Rd. north of Mission Ave Design: • see toolbox section for design recommendations. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 33 of 33 Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 3: Funding Source Ideas Public Sector Funding Sources FEDERAL: Federal transportation policy is to increase non-motorized transportation to at least 15 percent of all trips and to simultaneously reduce the number of non-motorized users killed or injured in traffic crashes by at least 10 percent. This policy, which was adopted in 1994 as part of the National Bicycling and Walking Study, remains a high priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Improving conditions and safety for bicycling and walking embodies the spirit and intent of Federal surface transportation law and policy to create an integrated, intermodal transportation system which provides travelers with a real choice of transportation modes. State and local agencies are challenged to work together cooperatively with transportation providers, user groups, and the public to develop plans, programs, and projects which reflect this vision. At the Federal level, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and other agencies, to implement the bicycle and pedestrian provisions of Federal surface transportation law. Federal surface transportation law provides tremendous flexibility to States and MPOs to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements from a wide variety of programs. Virtually all the major transportation funding programs can be used for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects. When considering ways to improve conditions for bicycling and walking, States and MPOs are specifically encouraged to include bicycle and pedestrian improvements as an incidental part of larger projects, as described above, and to review and use the most appropriate funding source for a particular project. Many bicycle and pedestrian projects are more suitable for funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ) Improvement Program, Surface Transportation Program, or other federal programs. There is a wide range of other federal funds that can be used for bicycling and walking facilities. The most common include: • Funds through federal land agencies such as the National Forest Service, National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management. These funds are primarily for trails on federal lands. • Community Development Block Grants through HUD —the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funds for community-based projects. Examples of the types of projects they fund are: o Commercial district streetscape improvements o Sidewalk improvements o Safe routes to school o Neighborhood-based bicycling and walking facilities that improve local transportation options or help revitalize neighborhoods • Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks. The RTP funds are distributed to the States by legislative formula: half of the funds are distributed equally among all States, and half are distributed in proportion to the estimated amount of non-highway recreational fuel use in each State. See the Funding Levels by State. The distribution model is based on a report for FHWA by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in July 1999 (Fuel Used for Off-Road Recreation: A Reassessment of the Fuel Use Model). • Transportation Enhancements (TE) investments benefit communities through rehabilitation of historic facilities related to transportation, renovated streetscapes, rail-trails and other transportation trails, transportation museums, and scenic and historic highway program visitor Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan centers. This website is a resource to States providing official legislation and guidance documents. The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC) also has a website which includes an introduction to TE, how to find out about the TE program in each State, see project examples, access a database of TE projects, see how States use TE funds, and order TE related documents. The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse has prepared a useful Technical Brief: Financing and Funding for Trails that cites over thirty federal and national funding sources that could be used to help fund bicycling and walking facilities and/or programs, especially trails. STATE: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)—Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants Program Purpose The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants were established to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. These safety focused projects may also support increased mobility and encourage more people to bicycle and walk. Eligible Applicants Only agencies that have been contacted with an invitation to apply for funding are eligible apply. Projects submitted by agencies who have not been contacted will not be considered. Invitations to submit applications will be sent to public agencies where WSDOT has identified known pedestrian and bicycle risk locations. Please see the invitational methodology to learn more on how the process took place. Examples of Eligible Projects Engineering improvements — based on recent state and national research, arterial streets in urban areas with higher speeds and volumes are the locations with the most collisions and risk. The research also indicates that several treatments may effectively reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions at these locations. Projects may include items such as: • Intersection improvements such as: curb extensions, lighting, raised median, crosswalk enhancements, signs, signals and mid-block crossing treatments; • Completing bicycle lanes and sidewalks; • Constructing bicycle and pedestrian paths; • Providing safe routes to transit; • Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements for at risk groups (children, elderly and people with disabilities). Education efforts — inform the public about projects and how they improves safety, educate the public about biking and walking safety in general, and include the broad range of transportation choices and events and activities that promote walking and biking safely. Projects may include items such as: • Implementation of educational curricula. • Distribution of educational materials. • Walk or bike promotional programs. • Pedestrian sting operations. Other WSDOT Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities WSDOT works closely with local, county and regional organizations to balance transportation needs with community values and environmental goals. There are several state and federal funding sources that may be available to support these efforts: Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program: Acquisition and development of local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife habitat. • Small City Sidewalk Program: Improve safety, provide access, and address system continuity and connectivity. The program is on an annual cycle. • Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Program: Develop and manage recreation opportunities for those who use off-road vehicles and facilities for those who pursue non-motorized trail activities. • Traffic Safety Grants: Reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes. • Transportation Enhancement Grants: Strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the intermodal transportation system. • National Recreational Trails Program: Rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backcountry experience. • Intersection and Corridor Safety Program: Eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents by identifying and correcting hazardous locations, sections and/or elements that constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. • Washington Scenic Byways Program: WSDOT provides federal funding to projects on highways designated as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, or as State scenic byways. • Public Lands Highways Program: Improve access to and within federal lands "served by the public lands highway." • Surface Transportation Program - Regional Funds: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city and inter-city bus terminals and facilities. • Trip Reduction Performance Program: Get people out of their cars and onto buses, trains, vanpools, and other commute options. • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funds to projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions in four air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas in the state. State of Washington—Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) TIB Funding Programs for Urban Customers - Urban Sidewalk Program TIB typically issues a Call for Projects each summer with applications due at the end of August. The Sidewalk Program was established by the Legislature to provide funding for pedestrian projects. The program is available to both small city and urban agencies. Urban and small city projects compete separately. To be eligible for the program: • The intent of the project must be transportation and not recreation. • The project must be on a federally classified route (principal, minor, or collector). Projects improve pedestrian safety, access, connectivity, and address system continuity. Completed projects must be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Projects are usually large in scale with multiple funding sources ranging from local contribution to private developer fees. These projects are selected annually on a competitive basis. Each program has distinct characteristics for the best suited project. Qualification and criteria are different within each program. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Once selected, TIB staff provides grant oversight, participates in Value Engineering (VE) studies, and acts as facilitators to bring projects to completion. WAC 479-12-421 identifies projects that are eligible for sidewalk program funding Minimum project requirements for each subprogram are as follows: 1. Urban sidewalk program project eligibility: a. Must be on or related to a functionally classified route; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. 2. Small city sidewalk program project eligibility: a. The project must be located on or related to a street within the TIB designated arterial system; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. For both of the subprograms, TIB does not participate in the cost for right of way acquisitions. For the urban sidewalk program, TIB does not provide funding increases. WAC 479-12-431 stipulates the award criteria used for the sidewalk program The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating sidewalk program grant applications for both urban and small city sidewalk projects: 1. Safety improvement- projects that address hazard mitigation and accident reduction. 2. Pedestrian access - projects that improve or provide access to facilities including: a. Schools; b. Public buildings; c. Central business districts; d. Medical facilities; e. Activity centers; f. High density housing (including senior housing); g. Transit facilities; h. Completes or extends existing sidewalks. 3. Local support-addresses local needs and is supported by the local community. WAC 479-12-121 identifies projects that are eligible for urban arterial program funding Eligible projects are improvements located on a route with an urban federal functional classification. Any urban street that is not functionally classified at the time of award must obtain functional classification prior to approval to expend board funds. For the urban arterial program, sidewalks are required on both sides of the roadway unless a sidewalk deviation is granted by the executive director or board through WAC 479-12-500. WAC 479-12-131 stipulates the award criteria for the urban arterial program The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating urban arterial program grant applications: 1. Safety improvements -addresses accident reduction, eliminates roadway hazards, and corrects roadway deficiencies. 2. Mobility improvements - improves level of service, improves access to generators, and connects urban street networks. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 3. Pavement condition - replaces or rehabilitates street surfaces and structural deficiencies. 4. Mode accessibility - provides additional high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus volume, or non- motorized facilities. 5. Local support-demonstrates initiative to achieve full funding and project completion. Safe Routes to School Mini-grants About Safe Routes to School Mini-grants The goal of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs is to enable and encourage children to safely walk and bicycle to school. SRTS programs are implemented nationwide by parents, schools, community leaders, and local, state, and tribal governments. The aim of the mini-grants is to use student creativity and leadership skills to increase safe walking and bicycling to school. Successful applications will include one or a combination of the following: student-led activities, concern for the environment, and/or promotion of physical activity. Activities funded by the mini- grants must be part of a new or existing Safe Routes to School program. Applicant Eligibility Eligible applicants include: • Faculty, staff, or parent volunteers at elementary or middle schools; • Adult-supervised elementary or middle school groups or clubs; • Adult-supervised high school groups/clubs that wish to partner with a nearby elementary or middle school; • Local governments; • Tribal governments; and/or • Community-based or private non-profit organizations engaged in improving safety for and increasing the number of children who safely walk or ride a bicycle to school. Eligible Activities The schools at which mini-grant activities will occur must be elementary or middle schools. Also, these schools must be either starting new SRTS program activities or events, or currently conducting SRTS activities and want to expand them. The National Center is providing mini-grants for creative ideas that are youth-focused and that may explore related issues such as: How do students encourage their peers and the adults in their lives to walk and bicycle safely to school? How do students and others make the connection between safe routes to school and environmental or physical activity issues? Examples of eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following: • Students encouraging peers/parents to find opportunities to walk or bicycle, starting with the trip to school. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with helping the environment. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with better health. • Students developing messages for parents/other drivers to drive safely, especially in school zones and neighborhoods. From carbon calculators to social marketing campaigns, from audits of school environments to communicating with local politicians and/or government officials, submit a proposal for a project that can make a difference at your school or community. Activities funded by the mini-grants must have the potential to have long-term impacts. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Although it is not required, applicants may want to collect student travel data as part of their application in order to have more information about current rates of walking and bicycling to school. This information may help applicants decide on appropriate activities. For more information about data collection, and for student travel tally forms, please see www.saferoutesinfo.orq/data. Selection Criteria All applications that meet the eligibility requirements above will be reviewed by a committee that will aim to make awards to: • A broad geographic distribution of recipients; • Applicants representing a variety of program types; • Applicants who provide a clear description of how funding will be used to begin new programs or advance current projects or programs with activities that fit with eligibility requirements outlined above; and • Projects or programs that align with SRTS goals of encouraging more children to walk and bicycle to school safely. Funding Restrictions Mini-grant funds may not be used for staff salaries, fundraising, food or refreshments, or cash prizes. The mini-grant funds are Federal funds, and there are Federal restrictions on how the funds are spent. If you have questions about funding eligibility for specific activities, please email info @saferoutesinfo.orq. Reporting Requirements Mini-grant recipients will be required to submit an informal written report on activities midway through the implementation period. Recipients will also be required to submit a formal report at the end of the implementation period (June/July 2010) that provides information about the project. The formal report will include the following: • Budget report of actual expenditures • Description of the project's activities, challenges, successes, and participation rates • At least three digital pictures that show one or more activities of the funded project Mini-grant recipients may be required to complete a brief questionnaire after the grant period. Private Sector funding Sources Local There are many examples of local communities creating revenue streams to improve conditions for bicycling and walking. Three common approaches include: special bond issues, dedications of a portion of local sales taxes or a voter-approved sales tax increase, and use of the annual capital improvement budgets of Public Works and/or Parks agencies. Some examples follow: • The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bernalillo County, have a 5 percent set-aside of street bond funds which go to trails and bikeways. For the City, this has amounted to approximately $1.2 million every two years. City voters last year passed a 1/4 cent gross receipts tax for transportation which includes approximately $1 million per year for the next ten years for trail development. Many on-street facilities are developed as a part of other road projects. • Pinellas County, Florida built much of the Pinellas Trail system with a portion of a one cent sales tax increase voted for by county residents. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Seattle, Washington approved a nine year levy (property tax) in the fall of 2006 that provides five million dollars a year for pedestrian and bicycle projects. • Denver, Colorado invested $5 million in its emerging trail network with a bond issue, which also funded the city's bike planner for a number of years. • Eagle County, Colorado (which includes Vail) voters passed a transportation tax that earmarks 10 percent for trails, about$300,000 a year. • In Colorado Springs, Colorado, 20 percent of the new open space sales tax is designated for trail acquisition and development; about$5-6 million per year. Local Organizations Shared-use trails have spawned a widespread movement of local non-profit organizations. Many of them have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan and construct trails. Land Trusts The environmental land trust movement has mushroomed in the past twenty years. Many of these organizations have raised funds to purchase land where trails are built, especially Rails-to-Trails. Businesses There is increasing corporate and business involvement in trail and conservation projects. Employers recognize that creating places to bike and walk is one way to build community and attract a quality work force. Bicycling and outdoor recreation businesses often support local projects and programs. • In Evansville, Indiana, a boardwalk is being built with corporate donations from Indiana Power and Light Co. and the Wal-Mart Foundation. • In Arizona, trail directional and interpretive signs are being provided by the Salt River Project a local utility. Other corporate sponsors of the Arizona Trail are the Hughes Missile Systems, BHP Cooper, and Pace American, Inc. • Recreational Equipment, Inc. has long been a financial supporter of local trail and conservation projects. • The Kodak Company now supports the American Greenways Awards program of The Conservation Fund, which was started in partnership with the DuPont Company. This annual awards program provides grants of up to $2500 to local greenway projects for any activities related to greenway advocacy, planning, design or development. For further details and tips for accessing the corporate and business community contact the Trails and Greenways Clearinghouse at the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy: 1-877-GRNWAYS (476-9297). Community Fundraising & Partnering Community fundraising and creative partnerships are plentiful. A common approach is to find creative ways to break a large project into small pieces that can be "purchased" by the public. Some examples: • In Ashtabula, Ohio the local trail organization raised one-third of the money they needed to buy the land for the trail, by forming a "300 Club." Three hundred acres were needed for the trail and they set a goal of finding 300 folks who would finance one acre each. The land price was $400 an acre and they found just over 100 people to buy an honorary acre, raising over $40,000. • In Jackson County, Oregon they had a "Yard Sale."The Bear Creek Greenway Foundation sold symbolic "yards" of the trail and placed donor's names on permanent markers that are located at each trailhead. At $40 a yard, they raised enough in private cash donations to help match their $690,000 Transportation Enhancements program award for the 18-mile Bear Creek Trail linking Medford, Talent, Phoenix and Ashland. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Selling bricks for local sidewalk projects, especially those in historic areas or on downtown Main Streets, is increasingly common. Donor names are engraved in each brick, and a tremendous amount of publicity and community support is purchased along with basic construction materials. Portland, Oregon's downtown Pioneer Square is a good example of such a project. • In Colorado Springs, the Rock Island Rail-Trail is being partly funded by the Rustic Hills Improvement Association, a group of local home-owners living adjacent to the trail. Also, ten miles of the trail were cleared of railroad ties by a local boy scout troop. • A pivotal 40-acre section of the Ice Age Trail between the cities of Madison and Verona, Wisconsin, was acquired with the help of the Madison Area Youth Soccer Association. The soccer association agreed to a fifty year lease of 30 acres of the parcel for a soccer complex, providing a substantial part of the $600,000 acquisition price. Foundations A wide range of foundations have provided funding for bicycling and walking. A few national and large regional foundations have supported the national organizations involved in pedestrian and bicycle policy advocacy. However it is usually regional and local foundations that get involved in funding particular bicycle, pedestrian or trail projects. These same foundations may also fund statewide and local advocacy efforts as well. The best way to find such foundations is through the research and information services provided by the national Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org). They maintain a huge store of information including the guidelines and application procedures for most foundations, and their past funding records. Grant Writing Tips The following are some helpful tips for successful grant writing (e.g., for government grants and private foundations): 1. Read the directions and applications thoroughly. 2. Find out what projects were previously funded. 3. Obtain a copy of a successful application. 4. Find out who reviews the applications and talk to him or her; it may be an individual or a larger group. 5. Always include a picture and graphic that quickly conveys what is being asked for in the proposal. 6. Identify key words and concepts in the grant application and then use them in your narrative. 7. Convey a sense of urgency—for example, if funding is not obtained, something of value such as a rail corridor that will be lost. 8. Provide a timeline—demonstrate that the project is ready to go once funding is secured. 9. Focus on a tangible product — e.g., construct something, purchase some property, etc.; minimize the amount that goes for overhead and design. 10. Demonstrate that you are leveraging funds and that this is not the only funding source; no one wants to be a sole source of funds for a project or program. 11. Demonstrate community support through letters from neighborhood associations, advocacy groups, and local businesses. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 8 Appendix 3: Funding Sources City of Spokane ■11 �!!, x11111®�. 0111r11111I_.`11. 11111Wrifin. ■■��, rr .-- ia2a-■� Da\ton Town of Millwood ■ ■ •:1 Vale SemonCente - �� Greeuac s 111• . Boone v 1 O . .rirM IMITEMPIM NJ I'm amEICEll■ s 111111 •�J • , 19. m , Nki � _ urmE - Balfour e ® Opp l rtunity Township®1'1-M C � _ E Pim Park HIM Map 11.1 Existing Bike Facilities Legend Existing Facilities - Existing Bike Lane - Existing Shared Use Path m CentennialTrail Trailheads Schools Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX4 Map Location tra 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I i i I i i I Notice: The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department City of Spokane I Clements L ( ✓oseph Mandalay el Frederick SRd v Fairview " •Yn Buckeye limner hardAve IlIMIL li Park_�ppppIpp■■ i qm • 01.26 .��' II����''!!jj^^�� own-of'Millwood � s LI I p F ®.. Mirabeau '~ C7 Park " ' •� ��.��� � ■� c,},. t-tom'..o•� .r,a� _ dla a ' r�i • • � rills it ALL Pa P of ad` 11::121 ©.. an 2. erre Cork Be cru Map 11.2 Recommended Bikeway Network Legend Bicycle System Existing Bike Lane Existing Shared Use Path Proposed Bike Friendly Route Proposed Bike Lane ••••• Proposed Shared Use Path Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge OPotential Crossing Treatments Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools w+«+++Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks sWater Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX I • Map Location n d 6 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I i i I i i I Notice: The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department V nsepS Mandalay Sanson elle City of Spokane Upriver Garland 01.111 andIre IMO La ross / Indu.inal A 1,00.01.1. IIIIONMENE 110llEMIL'• I.wn61lw.1r1 Orchard A Frederick 0. Sri ...., . • re !r e'er Fame,/ e -c Mirabeau Marlene I Park Mod 4eck.o 3 - /an:tta1-1 �3 Dalton Sulliva Park Shernl rl— Valley,Mission •� — ora Fr 1 1 er Valley Se'nioriCenter_i �1 Boone —L6 catalae e t r . r - vau portunify Township Oust HaRi 97 lull) Mani =IN= -•3r0 ,µ ar 6iM1 111F ee -RI • I - = II 3■ Cm_▪Balfour u=1 Park EN �- 6th A ]M1 yME EEdgecliff li uM1 Park Z 2th R _ 4th e� I I ,1]ih II LT 4iM1 15th O` 313 Vaile • IL 11th 7th "I 6th filth F le let re 12 r ID f.ih1 Vikettola A Aler :atm 240 r 32nd - 3- 44th /ew Sondra � I 41 44th g 1 NW Mar liMligalari dolman 40th t a rJr •eu Be Pd st Map 11.3 Existing Sidewalk Network Legend Sidewalk Inventory Sidewalks • Curb Ramps Textured Curb Ramps Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX 40 ...- ley. Map Location N � l U'lfl] 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I I I i I I I I Notice: The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the city of Spokane Valley,community Development Department uen e5 �� o d°. � F Map 11.4 Recommended Pedestrian Network illW (� o .to. P Ma wabasM1 a LL ri ate' Sa°e°° •. ���!!! I: �r ��. I ' wn� a\e 3o se.,._s _ q vane City of Spokane as- air � Legend Pedestrian Network ' MALI ■ r Ii 1 _ € to . Orchard Ave i �� PEENN .• _ N " '_ ,� % i ■w■1■Iw H d Park . ■■�■qqpp. IN .� !�7[aFi �� weaenea S Dkane River ® - P ��r�� 0g ilk ■�PI ■' IIIIH �° NN_i .�Datton HYrN■ : ■�■■wli ■■■■■■■. wH • Dalton Sidewalks _ ��-_ Town-of Millwood ,,... � •,�. � _ Proposed Sidewalks p .Nm - o�■ � �.. H'� ..�.-• , . �. __ Mirabeau Existing hared Use Path 8 ■■■■.Proposed Shared Use Path PedBike Bridge oN ■ ®o/r` °-•.~ '` Park Na _ ,. v °m. .. Era" '�� � ��' xar:c Kalb � 1_. .w Centennial Trail Trailheads ® Schools ° '"` maw .IR53 til 1111 anne Sul a r O. � rem , 4171 ' ■ .. - Valley Minsio_n - a a _ ' ' '. f Park �- 3'53 � m . co 2 bN ICIER II � I I ELM 1' - t- VaBey Senior Center [•�® ..Ed .,. slam �". seen, c9' IF N , I.. • IS1 HE M Man i Railroad an m .. ° "� s i, ��^sT�■. Park Roa I \Yool'1 ' � 1�. > Other Municipalities _ ��•;• IIA�In'1i����HJ _ �g®� � �® - City of Spokane Valley RIES 1 ---_ IEEE _ 1 � k1f Parks Water Bodies Map Location � �� ,....1 Balfour � IH: Opportunity PP tY Township P ' �Mr CIS =1� � 1® . .• � Park ��H .1 r.....--..r..--- ._+w.•.. ma I = 7 .■� v Pi land [fl �. :I.IFi�E E l_ 1111 iii „,rmr te• �k■■ ® •'� y O,. r lath ■� N�' t®N� o Sheller r' a� m h Lake 7th 1H N� s■ H2 II M� 5' 6th lN EdgecHff .. Nil � m Bh —� iir :E. IM M��� Nki � ��}1 •e 2�' '� jNfih�7 Park H' HIM �31M CNJ m II p� irl 6th �� r oI iQ%.�'J it ,� MEM �F Terrace `/ 11 View m ■II Park . ■■ M �S ^.��n Y .' o ,n 1't�S1 ID a 'IsH�� ®iNII - l9iF1r.N � s =MNN1 iwo a e 2 Pool M. ° , o APO °° ° ,,tern le 21st _. Imo � Jennie 25th NN . . H _ ° °w! , `� Whir/ �,_ E tga o 32nd ,• r� 1 9th 1 ,t I e ®=6 -, S .- , Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX r. Yark i, -• 29th 1 tat 32. ∎NNN CaistlelAW ° V Park � ,, * i . Pill ''A : Ls,i oh U � 44th ®1V 1 `° 43rd eN 01 w m c 42nd 44th 'j 43rd �■ d ,�° '5',,c, h L _ a ` � Ball w ��£I„ it 0 1 2 Miles I I I I mo ■ n Mane 4® .2 Holman - 1', 5 e et •• stn Beta % 46th mess '''r h - - vv rod v ,4�e 'e0essa 23,223 a� Qo• 0 Mop nrohaA I 81 tlow Chapman f map is compi from various Notice: The information shown on this led sources is abou subject to accuracy constant revision.The makes no claims or guarantees y or currency of p and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its'contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product or thecity of Spokane Valley,Community Development Pepzrhnenc _ CAMe p 7� ? 'ed F: �•r .. - p k rl hard U ° 0 0 Regal Elementary Spokane d81 0•10 �I Spokane d81 P° arm■■■■■a • Frederic Ppokane River mer Oseph Mandalay Pasadena Park Elementary West Valley 4363 Trentwaad PTemen East Valley 4361 East Valley Senior East 1 Skyview Valley i Elementary MitlEle MIEN 11111 Oaf rz i - 1 MS IIMEIZINO Ettl6:1L71■I IMIIIMINIMMIN 4t IIU ortiand E Dorm, Orchard Center Elementary Wes✓alley":,_ Tow _of Millwood 6Eckey o 03' Fre enc r Trent Elementary GG=ac Trent Elementary Fast Valley 4361 Skyview Elementary East Valley 4361 Baptist Temple Christian kSpoka annp� um - V/ley High '111�IAf I i@- �__ Ennan LI Y i :V a Breadway Elementary Cenral✓alley d356J �fi li i ine Barg Wgh North Pines� School and Learning Mitltll� — „11,N, Sheridan Elemen Spokane.1 wasninron State Unive city Coop .al Bv ■ 1 iiiis E 1: Ce�hal Valley MIEIIIMPIIIIMPIPP71.I' Kintergarten cent catalE v4m GreenacrecElementary OM 2_ t was • Lincoln heights Semen �Spokone d81 2]m • Chase MitlEle Adams Elementary Spokane d81 rid c■i 7■11 Moran Pminie Spnknn ■ m■■_! PPOrtunity L'_ ■La 9th ■• • Elementary 4 row:1 m 11 �n,e ■■■roc �I � .;9University =t4Ill=I Elementary�� ■ ==E� ...d S NPi Ele -mry L+ xlt Valley Christian-C0000i✓aliey 56 G1=1' m__ • dley who ,�17SEL_ i �iA� To- Ponderosa Elemen a kddko y h C EC=CC]=o! 2101 32nd men Lay Central✓alley 4356 44■11 44■11 esse ratChester Elementary Central Valley 4356 Map 11.5 Safe Routes to Schools Legend Pedestrian Network III Hospital Police Station Library Transit Location •/ Safe Haven School Identified Walking Route Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools H*+++++ Railroad 1 Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX 40 0 0.5 Map Location 6 is 2 Miles I I l l I l l I I Notice: The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about She accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To cam accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of Ordinance No. 11-015 - levying 2012 regular property taxes and authorizing Spokane County to collect the tax on behalf of Spokane Valley. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Through the 2012 Budget development process there have been discussions regarding the 2012 property tax levy including a public hearing held on August 23rd where estimates of the City's 2012 revenues were discussed and an administrative report specifically addressing the 2012 property tax levy was presented. BACKGROUND: • State law requires the City to pass an ordinance in order to levy property taxes. • Based upon previous discussions with the City Council the 2012 levy will not reflect the 1% increase authorized by Initiative #747. • The levy will however include property taxes on new construction. • With the passage of this ordinance, the City will collect approximately $10,808,945.55 in 2012 which is computed as follows: 2011 Actual Levy 10,732,862.64 + % Increase 0.00 2012 Levy after increase 10,732,862.64 + Estimated new construction 76,082.91 Total estimated 2012 Levy 10,808,945.55 • The levy is based upon a preliminary estimate of assessed property values provided to the City by the Spokane County Assessor of$7,108,291,375. • Total property tax revenue of$10,808,945.55 on preliminary assessed values of$7,108,945.55 will produce a levy of approximately $1.5206 per$1,000 of assessed value in 2012. • It should be noted that these estimates are based upon the Assessor's latest preliminary projections of assessed value (as of 9/15/2011). A change in the assessed value and/or a change in the amount of our proposed levy will change the levy rate per $1,000. OPTIONS: Passage of this ordinance is required by law in order to levy 2012 property taxes. The Council could modify the ordinance to levy a greater or lesser property tax (but not greater than a 1% increase over the 2011 levy, plus new construction). RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 11-015 levying regular property taxes for 2012. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This ordinance levies property taxes for the City's 2012 Budget where we anticipate property tax revenues to be approximately $10,808,900 or 31.0% of total General Fund recurring revenues of$34,908,800. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 11-015 Levying 2012 Regular Property Taxes DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-015 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, 2012 TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR CITY SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN THE CITY BUDGET, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. 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 2012 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 30th 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 23, September 27, and October 11, 2011 on the proposed budget estimates for 2012 including revenue sources which will fund the provision of City services,projects and activities. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. 2012 Levy. 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 an ad valorem regular property tax for the year commencing January 1, 2012 in the total amount of $10,732,862.64. This amount is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred,and refunds made. The regular ad valorem 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 2012 calendar year. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the levy amount as permitted by law. The City expects the dollar amount of the property tax levy to be $10,732,862.64 which represents a $0 or 0% change from the 2010 levy which was collected in 2011. This levy is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of state assessed property,any annexations that have occurred,and refunds made. 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 Ordinance 11-015 Levying the Regular Property Taxes for 2012 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT 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. 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 October,2011. Mayor,Thomas E.Towey ATTEST: City Clerk,Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 11-015 Levying the Regular Property Taxes for 2012 Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Property Tax Levy October 11 , 2011 October 25 , 2011 Ordinance No . 11 -015 Setting 2012 Property Tax Levy State law requires the City to adopt an ordinance in order to levy property taxes. Initiative #747 authorizes the City to increase the levy by the lesser of the Implicit Price Deflator — 2.755% or 1 .0% Based upon direction from the Council the proposed 2012 levy will not reflect the 1 % increase authorized by Initiative #747. The levy will however include property taxes on new construction. 10/20/2011 2 Ordinance No . 11 -015 Setting 2012 Property Tax Levy 2012 Levy Computation: Begin with the 2011 actual levy Add new construction Total estimated 2012 levy $10,732,863 + 76,083 $10,808,946 Based upon a tax levy of $10,808,946 on assessed values of $7, 108,291 ,375, the 2012 levy rate would be $1 .5206 per $1 ,000. These figures are based upon updated information we received from the Spokane County Assessor's Office on September 15th, and differ from those presented on August 23rd. 10/20/2011 3 Ordinance No . 11 -015 Setting 2012 Property Tax Levy Change in 2012 Property Tax Revenue: 2011 Actual levy +% increase 2012 Levy after increase 10,736,863 + New construction 17,137 Total 2012 levy $10,750,000 $10,808,946 8/2 $10,732,863 • $10,732,863 0 0 10,732,863 76,083 Change in 2012 Property Tax Levy: ■ Preliminary assessed value $7,084,009,988 $7,108,291 ,375 10/20/2011 10/11/2011 Levy rate per $1 ,000 $1 .5175 $1 .5206 4 Ordinance No . 11 -015 Setting 2012 Property Tax Levy The Spokane County Assessor's Office will continue to update figures throughout the fall . Consequently, both the levy amount and rate per $1 ,000 will continue to be a moving target because: Assessed value figures have not been finalized. New construction figures have not been finalized. Regardless, the City of Spokane Valley levy will not increase other than through additional property taxes resulting from new construction. 10/20/2011 5 Ordinance No . 11 -016 Confirming 2012 Property Tax Levy State law requires the City to approve an initial ordinance levying 2012 property taxes and a second ordinance confirming the intent to take: A specific percentage increase or decrease, plus Property taxes on new construction Ordinance #11 -016 satisfies the requirement for the second confirming ordinance. We're aware that although the cost of delivering City services continues to increase, residents and businesses continue to be faced with a high unemployment rate and weak economy. Consequently, the City is proposing a 2012 property tax levy with a 0% change beyond the 2011 levy of $10,732,863, plus property taxes on new construction. 10/20/2011 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X_ new business 111 public hearing 111 information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of Ordinance No. 11-016 confirming the 2012 property tax levy with no percentage increase but adding new construction, improvements and assessment of State owned property. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Through the 2012 Budget development process there have been discussions regarding the 2012 property tax levy including a public hearing held on August 23rd where estimates of the City's 2012 revenues were discussed and an administrative report specifically addressing the 2012 property tax levy was presented. BACKGROUND: • State law requires the City to approve an initial ordinance levying 2012 property taxes and a second ordinance confirming the intent to take a specific percentage increase or decrease plus the addition of new construction, improvements and assessment of State owned property. • Although we are cognizant of the ever increasing cost of delivering City services we also realize a continuing high unemployment rate and weak economy make it difficult for City residents to make ends meet. Consequently, the City is proposing a 2012 property tax levy that does not include the 1% increase authorized through the passage of Initiative #747 by the voters of Washington State on November 6, 2001. OPTIONS: Passage of this ordinance is required by law in order to levy 2012 property taxes. The Council could modify the ordinance to levy a greater or lesser property tax (but not greater than a 1% increase over the 2011 levy, plus new construction). RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance 11-016 confirming the 2012 property tax levy. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This ordinance confirms the 2012 property tax levy for the City's 2012 Budget where we anticipate property tax revenues to be approximately $10,808,900 or 31.0% of total General Fund recurring revenues of$34,908,800. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 11-016 confirming the 2012 Property Tax Levy. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CONFIRMING THE CITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY AT $10,732,862.64, REPRESENTING NO CHANGE FROM THE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHICH WAS LEVIED IN 2010 FOR COLLECTION DURING THE 2011 FISCAL YEAR, PURSUANT TO RCW 84.55.120,PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,AN EFFECTIVE DATE,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. 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,the City's actual levy from the previous year was$10,732,862.64;and WHEREAS, Initiative 747 (RCW Chapter 84.55) provides that cities with a population of over 10,000 persons can increase the amount of their regular property taxes annually by the lesser amount of inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator or 1% of the highest lawful levy, plus any additional value resulting from new construction,improvements and state assessed property; and WHEREAS, an increase or decrease in property tax revenue may be authorized by the City through adoption of a separate ordinance, pursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the increase or decrease stated in terms of dollars and percentage. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to confirm a $0, 0% change in the City's ad valorem property tax levy in 2011 for the 2012 fiscal year. State law authorizes the City to increase or decrease its property taxes from a preceding year but add new construction,improvements and State assessed property. The tax levy is expected to be $10,732,862.64, exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, which is levied through Ordinance 11- 015 and 11-016 and appropriated in the 2012 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 2012, finds and determines that an ad valorem property tax levy of $10,732,962.64(representing a$0 and 0%change)will balance the 2012 budget. Ordinance 11-016 Confirm 0%change in 2012 property tax levy Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 3. Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy Unchanged. Pursuant to RCW 84.55, the City,by adopting Ordinance 11-016 will impose a$0 or 0%change in the regular ad valorem property tax levy,which will be collected in the City's 2012 Fiscal Year. Section 4. City Clerk. The City Clerk shall certify a copy of this Ordinance and forward the same to the Board of County Commissioners and the Spokane County Assessor's Office upon its passage. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5)days after publication of this ordinance or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the Spokane Valley City Council this day of October,2011. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 11-016 Confirm 0%change in 2012 property tax levy Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 11-017 Adopting the 2012 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: To date the Council has heard presentations on the 2012 Budget on six previous occasions including three public hearings. Thus far no formal Council action has been taken. BACKGROUND: This marks the seventh occasion where the Council has discussed the 2012 Budget including three public hearings to gather input from citizens. The eighth and final presentation will occur on November 15 when the Council is scheduled to adopt the budget with the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 11-017. • June 14 Council Budget Retreat • August 9 Admin report: Estimated 2012 revenues and expenditures • August 23 Public hearing #1 on 2012 revenues and expenditures • September 6 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2012 Budget • September 27 Public hearing #2 on 2012 Budget • October 11 Public hearing #3 on 2012 Budget • October 25 First reading of Ordinance No. 11-017 adopting the 2012 Budget • November 15 Second reading of Ordinance No. 11-017 adopting the 2012 Budget 2012 Budget Highlights Include: • Total appropriations for all City Funds of $57.0 million including $11.3 million in capital expenditures. • Budgets will be adopted across 21 separate Funds. • Budget will include a new Aquifer Protection Area Fund. • Full-time equivalent (FTE) count will remain unchanged at 87.25 employees. • 2012 operating expenditure increases have been held at or below 1% over 2011. • Street Fund budget includes: o $500,000 for street preservation, plus o $100,000 to be set aside for future replacement of snow plows • A General Fund budget with total appropriations of$35,196,500 including o $34,660,900 in recurring expenditures, and o $535,600 in nonrecurring expenditures • General Fund estimated revenues of$34,908,800 including: o $16,200,000 in sales taxes (identical to the 2011 Budget) o $10,808,900 in property taxes (which include property taxes on new construction but DOES NOT include the 1% increase authorized by Initiative #747). P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-111Item 7 RCA Ordinance 11-017 budget.docx The City's 2012 Budget is adopted at a fund level as follows: Estimated Estimate d Beginning Ending Fund Fund Fund Total Fund No. Title Bal�yik Revenues .mmilaimihsiu Appropriations Balance 001 General 26,633,061 34,908,800 61,541,861 35,196,500 26,345,361 101 Street O&M 1,834,574 4,902,800 6,737,374 5,431,263 1,306,111 103 Paths&Trails 36,186 8,000 44,186 0 44,186 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 253,356 430,700 684,056 430,700 253,356 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 353,231 700 353,931 0 353,931 121 Service Level Stabilization 5,477,795 10,000 5,487,795 0 5,487,795 122 Winter Weather Reserve 506,168 700 506,868 0 506,868 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 2,027,259 399,000 2,426,259 0 2,426,259 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 0 617,623 617,623 617,623 0 301 Capital Projects 194,277 475,400 669,677 456,279 213,398 302 Special Capital Projects 1,547,015 477,000 2,024,015 1,540,710 483,305 303 'Street Capital Projects 73,456 9,655,804 9,729,260 9,566,804 162,456 304 Mirabeau Projects 44,302 0 44,302 0 44,302 309 Parks Capital Projects 123,329 100,000 223,329 170,000 53,329 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 2,939,745 6,000 2,945,745 0 2,945,745 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 1,084,681 2,200 1,086,881 1,086,881 0 402 Stormwater Management 1,236,400 1,908,667 3,145,067 2,153,441 991,626 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 502,500 1,002,500 0 1,002,500 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement 706,379 100,000 806,379 0 806,379 502 'Risk Management 20,420 319,000 339,420 319,000 20,420 Total of all Funds 45,591,634 54,824,894 100,416,528 56,969,201 43,447,327 OPTIONS: State law requires the City to adopt a budget prior to December 31. Council may adopt the budget as presented or alter it as they collectively deem necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 11-017 adopting the 2012 Budget to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Adoption of Ordinance No. 11-017 concludes the 2012 Budget development process and establishes the final budget including estimated revenues and appropriations. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: o Ordinance No. 11-017 o 11-year history of CPI o 2010 to 2011 CPI Comparison o Power Point presentation o 2012 Proposed Budget P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-111Item 7 RCA Ordinance 11-017 budget.docx DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012; APPROPRIATING FUNDS, CREATING A NEW FUND (403): AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA; ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. 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, 2012 and ending December 31,2012; 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 23, September 27 and October 11, 2011. The City Council 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 2012 budget, including all allowances and an appropriation for each fund is adopted for the City,and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley property tax levy for 2011 for collection in 2012, will be $10,732,863, which represents a 0% increase in the 2012 levy. This levy is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of State assessed property,any annexations that have occurred,and refunds made. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adoption of 2012 Budget. The budget for the City of Spokane Valley for the year 2012 is adopted at the fund level. The final budget for 2012 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: Item 7 ordinance 11-017 adopting 2012 budget Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Fund Total Fund No. i Title Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance 001 General 26,633,061 34,908,800 61,541,861 35,196,500 26,345,361 101 Street O&M 1,834,574 4,902,800 6,737,374 5,431,263 1,306,111 103 Paths&Trails 36,186 8,000 44,186 0 44,186 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 253,356 430,700 684,056 430,700 253,356 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 353,231 700 353,931 0 353,931 121 Service Level Stabilization 5,477,795 10,000 5,487,795 0 5,487,795 122 Winter Weather Reserve 506,168 700 506,868 0 506,868 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 2,027,259 399,000 2,426,259 0 2,426,259 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 0 617,623 617,623 617,623 0 301 Capital Projects 194,277 475,400 669,677 456,279 213,398 302 !Special Capital Projects 1,547,015 477,000 2,024,015 1,540,710 483,305 303 Street Capital Projects 73,456 9,655,804 9,729,260 I 9,566,804 162,456 304 Mirabeau Projects 44,302 0 44,302 0 44,302 309 Parks Capital Projects 123,329 100,000 223,329 170,000 53,329 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 2,939,745 6,000 2,945,745 0 2,945,745 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 1,084,681 2,200 1,086,881 1,086,881 0 402 Stormwater Management 1,236,400 1,908,667 3,145,067 2,153,441 991,626 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 502,500 1,002,500 _0 1,002,500 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement 706,379 100,000 806,379 0 806,379 502 Risk Management 20,420 319,000 339,420 319,000 20,420 Total of all Funds 45,591,634 54,824,894 100,416,528 56,969,201 43,447,327 The total balance of all funds appropriated for 2012 is$56,969,201. Section 2. Creating Fund 403. There is hereby created Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund which will be used solely for projects or other activities that specifically protect the aquifer as defined in RCW 36.36.040. 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 15th day of November 2011. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Item 7 ordinance 11-017 adopting 2012 budget Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Item 7 ordinance 11-017 adopting 2012 budget Page 3 of 3 P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 10-25-11\CPI history History of CPI as Published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 10/19/2011 and Social Security COLAs for the years 2001 through 2011 July tad urV U S City Average Year J CPI U W I CPI W__? 5ociai Security CPI increase• 2012 n/a n/a For calendar year 2012 3.6 2011 3.6 4.1 For calendar year 2011 0.0 2010 1.2 1.6 For calendar year 2010 0.0 2009 -2.1 -2.7 For calendar year 2009 5.8 2008 5.6 6.2 For calendar year 2008 2.3 2007 2.4 2.3 For calendar year 2007 3.3 2006 4.1 4.3 For calendar year 2006 4.1 2005 3.2 3.3 For calendar year 2005 2.7 2004 3.0 3.0 For calendar year 2004 2.1 2003 2.1 2.0 For calendar year 2003 1.4 2002 1.5 1.3 For calendar year 2002 2.6 2001 2.7 2.6 For calendar year 2001 3.5 average 2.4818 2.5455 average 2.6167 Aecore��ng to the Bureau of Labor_ Statistics, � , CPI-U =All Urban Consumers The CPI-U measures consumer inflation for all U.S. residents of urban areas,which accounts for about 87%of the U.S. population. CPI-W= Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers The CPI-W measures consumer price inflation for a subset of the CPI-U population: residents of ubran areas who live in households that: receive more than half of their income from clerical or wage occupations,and have one earner employed for at least 37 weeks during the previous 12 months. The CPI-W covers about 32 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-U is the most commonly used index because it has the broadest population coverage. However, the CPI-W is used sometimes to make cost-of-living adjustments for labor contracts. II CPI comp P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 10-25-11\CPI history CPI as Published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 10/19/2011 Comparing Change from 2010 to 2011 US City Alerage ... - 4 y' I 'Pi u, ' - , w January 2010 to January 2011 1.6 1.8 February 2010 to February 2011 2.1 2.3 March 2010 to March 2011 2.7 3.0 April 2010 to April 2011 3.2 3.6 May 2010 to May 2011 3.6 4.1 June 2010 to June 2011 3.6 4.1 July 2010 to July 2011 3.6 4.1 August 2010 to August 2011 3.8 4.3 September 2010 to September 2011 3.9 4.4 2011 CPI 2012 City of Spokane Valley -N. E= , • w• mil Ili +NA +.. - I. .• s .... ...o.,, 7,...,4: -, -..... 4. A *r- . J12.44.` = ii: ,F= L Illiq'i 4 r.:,..- ._, ..,ii- . .,,,,.., . _ .... .. _ _ . .... : . ,..,__. . 4 1 • PROPOSED BUDGET AS OF OCTOBER 25,2011 MIKE JACKSON-CITY MANAGER MARK CALHOUN- FINANCE DIRECTOR �00000000000000000000000� > > > > 4 > id City of Spokane Valley, Washington > > k > > Annual Budget > P > > > ■ > > IIrr > > 'lip For the Fiscal Year > > I > ,111 > IK� > Ili'. >> l!''' January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 > illi > > > > > fl > VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Table of Contents City of Spokane Valley Spokane County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 Council members City Manager's Budget Message 1 About the 2012 Budget and Budget Development Process 9 Budget Summary 19 Revenues by Type 34 Expenditures by Department 41 Capital Projects & Special Capital Projects Funds 76 Capital Expenditures for 2012 86 FTE Count by Year 87 Work Force Comparison 88 Appendix A, Employee Position Classification 89 Glossary of Budget Terms 90 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• •• - rile • •• • • • • • • •City Council Members i • • • • • • • • • • •• This page intentional)• l ba • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Sjokiin TY e .000 valley City Manager's Budget Message Annual Budget For Fiscal Year 2012 Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: I am pleased to present the attached 2012 proposed budget for the City of Spokane Valley. In a continuing trend of local and national economic challenge, the City of Spokane Valley has benefitted from a history of prudent financial decisions. Careful budgeting and restrained spending has left us almost unique among cities in providing a proposed balanced budget with neither service reductions nor tax increases. City Council has been heavily involved in the direction leading to this proposed budget by adopting strong, fiscally conservative policies and by working with staff throughout the process to ensure that both policy makers and administrative staff were in concert. Especially important to this process was a budget workshop on June 14, 2011. The draft budget worksheets were reviewed line by line and the impacts of proposed reductions were discussed in detail. The staff and Council solidified the basic fiscal policies (some carried over from 2011 and some new) which will determine the 2012 Budget and guide future spending practices. The Fiscal Policies adopted by the City Council are an extremely important element in this long range budget view. These policies appropriately dictate that if the economic situation deteriorates even more than anticipated, additional future reductions may be triggered. Such reductions were made in adopting the 2011 budget, and are not being restored. The current budget forecasts give us hope that future reductions or service cuts will not be necessary. That noted, elected officials and the staff remain committed to ensuring that service levels are commensurate with the revenue sources currently in place and to making adjustments if necessary to keep the City's finances healthy. The City also has reserves which may be needed in future years. With few exceptions for non- recurring expenses, we have not tapped into those reserves to balance our general fund. 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. 1 1 0/1 8/1 1 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 a 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 1.52% of its total allowable debt capacity, and more importantly, only 7.61% of non-voted bond capacity. This is extremely low debt. Financial Objectives -The City's financial objectives through 2015 are: 1. Maintain a minimum general fund ending balance of 15% of revenues through 2015 2. Maintain the Service Level Stabilization Fund at the current level of $5.4 million through 2014 3. On an ongoing basis, transfer to the Street Capital Fund, 40% of the ending fund balance which exceeds $26 million. This will be done in the first quarter of each year following reconciliation of the previous year's books. This preserves the City's $26 million ending fund balance while also funding a portion of street capital projects from the General Fund. 4. Hold 2012 property taxes at essentially the same amount as the 2011 levy with no proposed increase in the levy other than for new construction. We anticipate this will result in a $10,808,900 levy in 2012. Commitment — By committing to these objectives, the City will ensure financial sustainability through 2015 and into the future. The City can achieve this by: 1. Capping 2012 recurring expenses to a maximum 1% increase over 2011. (Notably, 2012 expenditures have been reduced below 2011 levels). Challenges — Beyond the General Fund, the City of Spokane Valley has three primary financial concerns: 1. Funding the Street Preservation Plan to maintain City streets 2. Funding Street Capital projects 3. Funding Parks Capital projects 2 1 0/1 8/1 1 The new budget format for 2012 divides expenses into recurring and non-recurring categories. This was done to delineate the recurring or "ongoing" expenses of the City and to clearly show that current year recurring expenses are matched to current year revenues. Any/all use of the ending fund balance is specifically documented. Also, in deviation from the past, the 2012 proposed budget does not appropriate the ending fund balance in the general fund. This provides an added margin of security and will require formal council action to spend funds from the ending fund balance. Accompanied with this,we have proposed a 1% general fund contingency. Budget Highlights The 2012 Budget recognizes the economic realities of our times and the necessity to continue to operate within our 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 the community follows: Budget Reductions: Our 2012 General Fund budget recurring expenditures have decreased from 2011 by $164,186. This deserves recognition. We are essentially maintaining the same service levels - including no reduction in law enforcement - during a period of about 3.6 % inflation in June and July, while at the same time, we are funding important additions to our services such as the new 8 acre Greenacres City Park and televised council meetings. Staffing Levels: Staffing levels were reduced by 9.5 full-time and 2 temporary unfilled positions in 2011. For 2012 we remain at this same reduced level, operating a city of 90,1101 residents with a staff of 87.25 employees. Even taking into consideration that we contract for police services, and are served by Fire Districts and a Library District, we are operating substantially below the normal employee count for a major city. Cost of Living Adjustments: Union represented employees and employees who are not represented by the union- Local 270-V AFSME -will receive a 2.5% Cost of Living Adjustment in 2012. This amount was agreed to by the City in the 2010 — 2012 contract with union employees. The City has historically provided identical wage and benefit terms to non-represented employees; however, in 2011 non-represented employees did not receive an increase. The 2.5% matches the inflation trend over the past 20 years and was considered to be a prudent and reliable method of calculating cost of living increases and was preferred over a "floating" rate that would be determined each year. This methodology may change in future years. Street Capital Improvement Fund: Established in 2011, the current budgeted amount in this fund is $1,086,881. 1 Washington State Department of Financial Management,April 1,2011. 3 1 0/1 8/1 1 No Increase in Property Tax Levy: The City of Spokane Valley will hold its property tax levy equal with 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. 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. Other Notable 2012 Budget Items Include: • The opening of Greenacres Park at Long and Boone in the spring of 2012 (paid for through direct appropriations of State funds and City capital funds). The 2012 budget reflects an increase of $100,000 to maintain this facility on an annual basis • Initiated by private citizens in 2010, the 2012 budget includes the first full year of televised City Council meetings with City equipment and contracted production costs of $46,000. The equipment was purchased through Comcast Public, Educational and Government funding. Public Safety Costs: In 2012, the Police, Court and Jail related services proposed budget is $22 million—an amount equal to 204% of anticipated property tax collections ($10,808,900) for the entire year. Council has made a commitment not to reduce public safety service levels and associated costs in 2012. 4 1 0/1 8/1 1 Progress on 2011 Budget Goals Include: • Continued Shoreline Master Program work as required by state law • Passage of HB 1922 requiring cattle trucks to go through the Washington Port of Entry • Support for Spokane Valley Partners in their successful bid for $100,000 from the Washington Legislature for a new sprinkler system in their facility • After reevaluation, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was removed from the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Monitoring of the wastewater goal will be complete by the end of this year if Spokane County is issued their Wastewater permit • The multi-year winter roads maintenance plan has been implemented which included the purchase of equipment and a maintenance facility • A range of options was discussed for a city hall at or near CenterPlace Challenges: 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 2011 capital construction program totaled $11,525,343 with $5,538,819 (48%) coming from outside sources. The 2012 budget projects a total capital construction budget of$11,263,685 with $7,755,118 (65%) coming from outside sources. 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 five years, this tax has declined from $2.5 million to $1 million, leaving a potential shortage of local match depending on availability of Federal, State and Local grants. 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 usage, estimated in 2012 at$1,897,800 and $3,000,000 respectively. There is also an anticipated $2,004,874 Beginning Fund Balance that will carry over into 2012. 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 do not provide for implementation of the Street Master Plan and therein lies the challenge. 5 1 0/1 8/1 1 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 purchased camera and broadcasting equipment and began televising Council meetings live via the Internet in 2011. The new system also stores council meetings on the City website for use by the citizens or staff. 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) and ultimately, the SARP was removed from the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, City codes such as signage, landscaping and others were reviewed to help support the development and retention of local business. The City also began exploring a more active role in the economic development of our City. 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 events and accomplishments of 2011 also reveals the following: • 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. 2011 marked the last major construction year of the Septic Tank Replacement Program in Spokane Valley. • Council approved the purchase of a street and strormwater maintenance facility to house City operations. • Construction of a picnic shelter was completed in Terrace View Park. • Spokane Valley agreed to assist Airway Heights on an ongoing basis with plan reviews. • Several new businesses located in Spokane Valley in 2011. 6 1 0/1 8/1 1 The Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 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 2011. The 2012 budget reflects a continuation of service delivery capabilities during difficult and uncertain economic times. The 2012 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 2012 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 50,000 or more in population. A 2011 Work Force Comparison chart is included in the budget document. By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley is a lean, productive City government. Major Goal Statements for 2012: The 2012 budget reflects the distribution of resources consistent with the Council's core services priorities. The following goals, some of which are continued from 2011, represent broad areas of concentration important to the well being of the community: • 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. • Pursue the topic of Solid Waste, to include identifying the issues and obtaining alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and the consequences of each alternative. • Review and evaluate development regulations and compare with surrounding cities. • 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—to be identified. • Create an economic development plan including options for a new city hall. 7 1 0/1 8/1 1 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 2012 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 commitment 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 does not predict measureable growth in property tax or sales tax revenues through 2015 and we are budgeting with that in mind. • Because it represents about 63% of the General Fund budget, achieving future budget reductions without impacting Law Enforcement and other Public Safety services will be challenging. 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 2012 budget shortfalls. Although we must continue to budget and spend wisely, we do not have to make drastic cuts in services to balance our 2012 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 forgo property tax increases in the face of declining revenues. 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, achieving substantial reductions and exceeding expectations for budget reductions in 2012. The City Council and the Finance Committee have 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 2012 budget recommendations that achieve Council's goal of sustainability. We continue to demonstrate in difficult financial times that we can work together as an organization in the best interest of the citizens. Respectfully, Mike Jackson City Manager 8 1 0/1 8/1 1 S pokane 410000 \TaIle 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Mark Calhoun,Finance Director SUBJECT: About the 2012 Budget and Budget Development 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 serves four functions: 1. It is 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. It is 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. It is 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. It is 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. 9 10/18/11 2012 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Historically the City has utilized a budgeting approach that assumed for most functions of government that the current year's budget was indicative of the base required for the following year. However, with the downturn in the economy and resultant reduction in revenues (most notably the decline in sales taxes), both the 2011 and 2012 Budget development processes were amended to consciously review service levels in each department and determine the appropriate level of funding that meets Council goals relative to available resources. The 2012 Budget development process began at the February 8, 2011 Council Retreat where among other topics, Council and Staff discussed the budget in general terms. In early April 2011 the Finance Department notified City Departments that their 2012 revenue and expenditure estimates were due by May 6. Through the balance of May and early June, the Finance Department then worked to prepare budget worksheets that were communicated to the City Council at a Budget Retreat held on June 14, 2011. Following the retreat,the Finance Department continued work on the budget including refinements of revenue and expenditure estimates and through July and early August the Finance Department and City Manager reviewed updated budget projections. By the time the 2012 Budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 15, 2011,the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: June 14 Council Budget Retreat August 9 Administrative Report: Estimated 2012 revenues and expenditures August 23 Public hearing on 2012 revenues September 6 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2012 Budget September 27 Public hearing#1 on 2012 Budget October 11 Public hearing#2 on 2012 Budget October 25 First reading of proposed ordinance adopting the 2012 Budget November 15 Second reading of proposed ordinance adopting the 2012 Budget Once adopted,the final operating budget 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 the City Council with monthly reports 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. 10 10/18/11 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. • Short term debt shall not exceed 10% of revenues. No long term debt will be incurred without identification of a revenue source to repay the debt. Long term debt will be incurred for capital purposes only. • 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. • The City will pursue an ending general fund balance at a level of no less than 15%of revenue. 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 fmancing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other 11 1 0/1 8/1 1 financing uses) in net current assets. There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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, 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: 1. 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. 2. 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 for all governmental funds. 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 where revenues and expenses are recognized in the period incurred rather than when cash is either received or disbursed. The appropriate basis is used throughout the budgeting, accounting,and reporting processes. 12 10/18/11 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 revenue and expense 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. EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund • Property Tax 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 for a total of 1.0%. The Washington State Department of Revenue disburses 15% of the City sales tax to Spokane County, and 85%to the City. • 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% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and cities within the County. • Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional .1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This .1%was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Of the total amount collected,the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. • Gambling Tax 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). 13 10/18/11 • 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 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 2011 population figure used in the 2012 Preliminary Budget is 90,110 as reported by the Office of Financial Management for Washington State on April 1,2011. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. • Liquor Board Profits and Liquor Excise Tax Since cities are responsible for the policing of liquor establishments located within their limits, but are precluded from taxing them because of the State liquor monopoly, State law provides that a share of the State-collected profits and taxes be returned to cities to help defray policing costs. Liquor Board profits consist of the difference between revenue generated by the Washington State Liquor Control Board and the board's expenditures, specific revenues collected for a dedicated purpose, and administrative fees attributable to specific licensees that serve hard alcohol. Revenues are generated from sales at State liquor stores, taxes collected on wine and beer manufacture and distribution, licensee fees, alcohol related permit fees, penalties, and forfeitures. Liquor profits are divided among the State, counties and cities. Cities get a 40% share, with additional amount distributed to border area cities. These funds are distributed on the last days of March,June, September and December. • Cities also receive 28% of the liquor excise tax receipts. These funds are distributed on the last days of January,April,July and October. • 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. 14 10/18/11 • Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax money held by the State of Washington prior to their distribution of the taxes to the City as well as on City initiated investments. Street Fund • Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax(gas tax) The State of Washington collects a $.3750 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump and remits $.0296 of the tax back to cities based on population. In 2012 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the per capita distribution back to cities will be $21.15 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 90,110 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1, 2011)we anticipate the City will collect $1,905,800 in 2012. With the exception of.42% of the collections which must go towards paths and trails activities, all motor vehicle fuel taxes are credited to the Street Fund. • Telephone Utility Tax The City of Spokane Valley levied a 6% telephone utility tax via Ordinance #08-014 with collections beginning in 2009. Companies providing this service pay the tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at$3 million for 2011. Paths& Trails Fund Cities are required to spend .42% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts on paths and trails. Because the amount collected in any given year is relatively small it is typical to accumulate State distributions for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. Hotel/Motel Tax Fund The City imposes a 2% tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5 percent state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism-related facilities. Debt Service Fund—LTGO 03: The City issued$9,430,000 in limited tax general obligation bonds(LTGO)in 2003. Of this total: • $7,000,000 of the proceeds were used to finance the construction of CenterPlace at Mirabeau Point. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. • $2,430,000 of the proceeds were used to finance Road and Street Improvements near CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax. 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. 15 10/18/11 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. Stormwater Management Fund: A stormwater fee is imposed upon every developed parcel within the City that is an annual charge of$21 for each single family unit and $21 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 generate $1,750,000 in 2012. Aquifer Protection Area Fund: These are voter approved fees to assist the City in protecting the aquifer. The City expects to receive $500,000 in 2012. INTERFUND TRANSFERS Many funds receive a portion of their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers typically represent payments for service or a concentration of revenues for a specific project or purpose. The following funds receive transfers from other funds. Out: 001 I 101 I 105 I 301 I 402 Total In 001 0 39,600 30,000 0 0 15,000 84,600 123 397,000 0 0 0 0 0 397,000 204 0 0 0 92,652 92,651 0 185,303 In: 303 89,000 0 0 363,627 1,448,059 0 1,900,686 309 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 _ 100,000 311 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 501 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 _ 502 319,000 0 0 0 0 0 319,000 3,086,589 Total in Total Out 905,000 139,600 30,000 456,279 1,540,710 15,000' ' 3,086,589 Total out 1 0 #001 General Fund is budgeted to transfer out$905,000: • $397,000 to the #123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund for future renovations or the future replacement of CenterPlace and the police precinct building. • $89,000 towards#303 Street Capital Projects Fund. • $100,000 towards#309 Park Capital Projects Fund. • $319,000 towards the #502 Risk Management Fund for the 2012 property and liability insurance premium. #101 Street Fund is budgeted to transfer out$139,600: • $39,600 to the #001 General Fund to cover administrative costs. • $100,000 to the #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund for the future replacement of snow plows. 16 10/18/11 #105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund is budgeted to transfer out $30,000 to the #001 General Fund for the purpose of financing advertising at CenterPlace. #301 Capital Projects Fund is budget to transfer out$456,279: • $92,652 to the #204 Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 LTGO bonds. • $363,627 towards grant matches in the#303 Street Capital Projects Fund. #302 Special Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out$1,540,710: • $92,651 to the #204 Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 LTGO bonds. • $1,448,059 towards grant matches in the #303 Street Capital Projects Fund. #402 Stormwater Fund is budgeted to transfer out $15,000 to the #001 General Fund to cover administrative costs. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2012 BUDGET Budget Summary for All Funds • The 2012 budget presumes service levels that are consistent with those provided in 2011 with neither significant enhancements nor reductions in any area of operations. • Total appropriations for all City Funds of$57.0 million including$11.3 million in capital expenditures. • Budgets will be adopted across 21 separate funds. • The budget will include a new Aquifer Protection Area Fund. • The full-time equivalent(FTE)employee count will remain unchanged from 2011 at 87.25 employees. • 2012 operating expenditures have been held at or below 1%over 2011. • Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. • Employee benefit amounts are based on employee benefit plans. • Contract costs for public safety,park maintenance,aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. • State required retirements costs(PERS)are included in the budget and additionally the City has set aside $50,000 to offset future State required increases. • The Street Fund budget includes an additional$500,000 for street preservation plus an additional $100,000 to be set aside for future replacements of snow plows. 2012 General Fund Revenues • Total recurring 2012 revenues are estimated at$34,908,800 as compared to $34,827,125 in 2011. • The two largest sources of revenue continue to be Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 77%of 2012 General Fund revenues. • Sales Tax is estimated at$16.2 million which is identical to 2011. • The Property Tax levy will not include the 1%increase authorized by the voters in November 2001 through their approval of Initiative #747 and the subsequent action by the State Legislature in November 2007. o The 2012 levy is estimated at$10,808,900. o The levy assumes we start with the 2011 levy of$10,732,863 and add taxes related to new construction of$76,083. o Based upon a tax levy of$10,808,900 on assessed values of$7,108,291,375 (the most recent figure provided by the Spokane County Assessor's Office)the 2012 levy rate would be $1.5206 per$1,000 of assessed value. • Franchise fees and business registrations are primarily based on projected receipts in 2011. 17 10/18/11 • Liquor excise taxes and Liquor Board profits are based upon per capita distribution figures reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Initiative #1183 that will come before the voters of Washington State on November 8,2011 seeks to privatize the distribution and sale of liquor in Washington. It is believed the initiative will have no impact on liquor excise taxes and based upon a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Washington Office of Financial Management it appears 2012 Liquor Board profits will not be impacted either. • Fines and forfeitures are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historical collections. • Building permit and land use fees are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historic collections. 2012 General Fund Expenditures • The total recurring 2012 expenditure budget is$34,660,900 as compared to $34,825,086 in 2011. This reflects a decrease of$164,186. If expenditures had increased by 1%they would have grown by $348,251 and this coupled with the actual decrease of$164,186 means the budget is$512,437 less than our goal of no more than a 1%increase. • The 2012 budget presumes service levels that are consistent with those provided in 2011 with neither significant enhancements nor reductions in any area of operations. • 2012 Nonrecurring expenditures are $189,000 as compared to $2.8 million in 2011. o Included in 2012 are: • A$346,600 Contingency/Emergency appropriation that is approximately equal to 1%of recurring expenditures. This money would only be expended with prior approval of the Council. • An $89,000 transfer to Fund#303—Street Capital Projects Fund. • A$100,000 transfer to Fund#309—Parks Capital Projects Fund. o Included in 2011 were: • $1.5 million in transfers for the full paveback program. • $1.084 million in transfers for street preservation. • $146,000 for building permit software. Other Funds • Motor vehicle fuel tax(MVFT)revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the City is estimated to be $1,905,800 according to per capita estimates provided by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Of this amount, $1,897,800 will be credited to the Street O&M Fund and.42%or$8,000 to the Paths and Trails Fund. • Telephone taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated at$3,000,000. • Real estate excise tax(REET)revenue is computed by the City and is primarily used to match grant funded street projects as well as pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2003 general obligation bonds. In 2012 we estimate these revenues to be $950,000. • Hotel/Motel tax revenues are computed by the City and are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism. In 2012 we estimate these revenues to be $430,000. • The Stomwater Management Fee is based on an equivalent residential unit(ERU)that is equal to 3,160 square feet of impervious surface that is billed at a rate of$21 per single family residence and$21 per ERU for commercial properties(an ERU for a commercial property is computed as total square feet of impervious surface divided by 3,160). 18 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2012 Budget Summary Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Total Fund Fund Number and Title Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance 001 General Fund $ 26,633,061 $ 34,908,800 $ 61,541,861 $ 35,196,500 $ 26,345,361 101 Street Fund 1,834,574 4,902,800 6,737,374 5,431,263 1,306,111 103 Paths&Trails Fund 36,186 8,000 44,186 - 44,186 105 Hotel/Motel Fund 253,356 430,700 684,056 430,700 253,356 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 353,231 700 353,931 - 353,931 121 Service Level Stabilization Fund 5,477,795 10,000 5,487,795 - 5,487,795 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 506,168 700 506,868 - 506,868 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 2,027,259 399,000 2,426,259 - 2,426,259 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 - 617,623 617,623 617,623 - 301 Capital Projects Fund 194,277 475,400 669,677 456,279 213,398 302 Special Capital Projects 1,547,015 477,000 2,024,015 1,540,710 483,305 303 Street Capital Projects 73,456 9,655,804 9,729,260 9,566,804 162,456 304 Mirabeau Projects Fund 44,302 - 44,302 - 44,302 307 Capital Grants Fund - - - - - 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 123,329 100,000 223,329 170,000 53,329 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 2,939,745 6,000 2,945,745 - 2,945,745 311 Street Capital Improvement Fund 2011+ 1,084,681 2,200 1,086,881 1,086,881 - 402 Stormwater Management 1,236,400 1,908,667 3,145,067 2,153,441 991,626 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 502,500 1,002,500 - 1,002,500 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund 706,379 100,000 806,379 - 806,379 502 Risk Management Fund 20,420 319,000 339,420 319,000 20,420 Total of all Funds $ 45,591,634 $ 54,824,894 $ 100,416,528 $ 56,969,201 $ 43,447,327 19 1 0/1 8/1 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 10,741,306 10,875,000 0 10,875,000 10,808,900 Sales Tax 16,055,143 16,200,000 0 16,200,000 16,200,000 Gambling Tax 665,276 425,000 175,000 600,000 640,000 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,266,776 1,111,000 150,000 1,261,000 1,266,000 Service Revenues 1,472,098 1,600,000 0 1,600,000 1,300,000 State Shared Revenues 2,042,834 1,665,625 30,000 1,695,625 1,834,300 Fines and Forfeitures 1,828,410 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 1,900,000 Recreation Program Fees 630,945 555,500 0 555,500 570,000 Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 255,006 200,000 0 200,000 305,000 Transfer-in -#101 (street admin) 34,300 25,000 0 25,000 39,600 Transfer-in -#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 39,675 0 0 0 30,000 Transfer-in -#402(storm admin) 13,386 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 Total Recurring Revenues 35,045,155 34,472,125 355,000 34,827,125 34,908,800 Expenditures Legislative Branch 316,543 324,298 0 324,298 386,249 Executive and Legislative Support 1,266,411 1,055,906 0 1,055,906 1,066,465 Public Safety 21,071,640 22,179,880 0 22,179,880 22,000,000 Deputy City Manager 444,784 559,940 0 559,940 658,884 Finance 952,004 1,014,342 0 1,014,342 1,047,107 Human Resources 194,442 236,646 0 236,646 230,231 Public Works 703,956 892,617 0 892,617 901,519 Community Development-Administration 311,601 321,049 0 321,049 323,743 Community Development-Engineering 601,469 669,570 0 669,570 680,796 Community Development-Planning 863,685 1,023,373 0 1,023,373 994,245 Community Development-Building 1,169,936 1,215,303 0 1,215,303 1,260,454 Library 1,012 0 0 0 0 Parks&Rec-Admin. &Maint. 897,258 948,970 0 948,970 1,059,828 Parks&Rec-Recreation 188,623 246,628 0 246,628 229,811 Parks&Rec-Aquatics 420,734 429,250 0 429,250 442,250 Parks&Rec-Senior Center 73,543 89,653 0 89,653 92,961 Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 1,099,702 1,098,911 0 1,098,911 1,126,357 General Government 1,214,659 2,199,750 0 2,199,750 1,841,000 Transfers out-#502 (insurance premium) 318,000 319,000 0 319,000 319,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 32,110,002 34,825,086 0 34,825,086 34,660,900 Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 2,935,153 (352,961) 355,000 2,039 247,900 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfer-in-#310 ($1.5mm to#303 for full paveback&.5mm to#311 for street capital) 929,048 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 Expenditures Contingency/Emergency(1%of recur exp) 0 0 0 0 346,600 Transfers out-#303 (full paveback) 929,048 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 89,000 Transfers out-#309 (park grant match) 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 Transfers out-#311 (street capital improvement) 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 Transfers out-#311 (40%>$26mm=$584,681) 0 0 584,681 584,681 0 Building permit software purchase 0 0 146,000 146,000 0 Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,029,048 2,100,000 730,681 2,830,681 535,600 Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (100,000) (100,000) (730,681) (830,681) (535,600) EXCESS(DEFICIT)OF TOTAL REVENUES OVER(UNDER)TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,835,153 (452,961) (375,681) (828,642) (287,700) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 24,626,550 27,461,703 27,461,703 26,633,061 ENDING FUND BALANCE 27,461,703 27,008,742 26,633,061 26,345,361 20 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,928,003 1,875,000 0 1,875,000 1,897,800 Investment Interest 6,538 12,000 0 12,000 5,000 Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 14,024 0 0 0 0 Utility Tax 2,986,138 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 15,034 0 0 0 0 Total Recurring Revenues 4,949,737 4,887,000 0 4,887,000 4,902,800 Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 319,070 433,931 0 433,931 522,142 Supplies 65,712 72,200 0 72,200 72,200 Services&Charges 2,550,065 3,357,296 0 3,357,296 3,310,321 Intergovernmental Payments 739,172 947,000 0 947,000 847,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#001 0 25,000 0 25,000 39,600 Interfund Transfers-out-#103(MVFT) 0 8,300 0 8,300 0 Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 0 0 0 0 100,000 Interfund Transfers 73,975 44,600 0 44,600 0 Streets Misc. projects 130,206 0 0 0 0 Total Recurring Expenditures 3,878,201 4,888,327 0 4,888,327 4,891,263 Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 1,071,536 (1,327) 0 (1,327) 11,537 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 129,194 0 531,800 531,800 0 Interfund Transfers in-#401 0 0 159,800 159,800 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 6,400 6,400 0 Grants 129,194 0 698,000 698,000 0 Expenditures Bridge/Street Maintenance 0 450,000 0 450,000 0 Street Preservation 0 0 0 0 500,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#402(shop facility) 0 0 375,000 375,000 0 Grant financed capital 0 0 868,300 868,300 0 Capital Outlay 35,092 45,000 0 45,000 40,000 Snow Plow purchase(budgeted in 2010 delivered in 2011) 0 200,000 200,000 0 Total Recurring Expenditures 35,092 495,000 1,443,300 1,938,300 540,000 Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 94,102 (495,000) (745,300) (1,240,300) (540,000) EXCESS(DEFICIT)OF TOTAL REVENUES OVER(UNDER)TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,165,638 (496,327) (745,300) (1,241,627) (528,463) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 1,910,563 3,076,201 3,076,201 1,834,574 ENDING FUND BALANCE 3,076,201 2,579,874 1,834,574 1,306,111 21 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #102-Arterial Street Fund Revenues Motor VehicleFuel(Gas)Tax 0 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-in 7,917 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 7,917 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Interfund Transfers 0 0 58,019 58,019 0 Total expenditures 0 0 58,019 58,019 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,917 0 (58,019) 0 Beginning fund balance 50,102 58,019 58,019 0 Ending fund balance 58,019 58,019 0 0 #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 0 0 0 0 8,000 Interfund Transfer-in#101 (MVFT) 8,132 8,000 0 8,000 0 Investment Interest 78 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 8,210 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 Expenditures IF Transfer for Trails/Paths Cap Prj 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 690 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 0 20,000 0 20,000 0 Total expenditures 690 20,000 0 20,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,520 (12,000) (12,000) 8,000 Beginning fund balance 40,666 48,186 48,186 36,186 Ending fund balance 48,186 36,186 36,186 44,186 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 448,545 480,000 0 480,000 430,000 Investment Interest 1,017 1,000 0 1,000 700 Subtotal revenues 449,562 481,000 0 481,000 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 37,500 0 0 0 30,000 Tourism Promotion 362,302 500,000 0 500,000 400,700 Subtotal expenditures 399,802 500,000 0 500,000 430,700 Revenues over(under)expenditures 49,760 (19,000) (19,000) 0 Beginning fund balance 222,596 272,356 272,356 253,356 Ending fund balance 272,356 253,356 253,356 253,356 22 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,047 3,000 0 3,000 700 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 1,047 3,000 0 3,000 700 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,047 3,000 3,000 700 Beginning fund balance 349,184 350,231 350,231 353,231 Ending fund balance 350,231 353,231 353,231 353,931 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 16,794 54,000 0 54,000 10,000 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 16,794 54,000 0 54,000 10,000 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 16,794 54,000 54,000 10,000 Beginning fund balance 5,407,001 5,423,795 5,423,795 5,477,795 Ending fund balance 5,423,795 5,477,795 5,477,795 5,487,795 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,131 5,000 0 5,000 700 Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal revenues 1,131 5,000 0 5,000 700 Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,131 5,000 5,000 700 Beginning fund balance 500,037 501,168 501,168 506,168 Ending fund balance 501,168 506,168 506,168 506,868 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 3,211 12,000 0 12,000 2,000 Interfund Transfer-#001 397,000 407,000 0 407,000 397,000 Total revenues 400,211 419,000 0 419,000 399,000 Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 400,211 419,000 419,000 399,000 Beginning fund balance 1,208,048 1,608,259 1,608,259 2,027,259 Ending fund balance 1,608,259 2,027,259 2,027,259 2,426,259 23 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 421,520 460,000 0 460,000 432,320 Interfund Transfer-in-#301 91,978 110,000 0 110,000 92,652 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 91,979 115,000 0 115,000 92,651 Total revenues 605,477 685,000 0 685,000 617,623 Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 421,522 460,000 0 460,000 432,320 Debt Service Payments-Roads 184,051 225,000 0 225,000 185,303 Total expenditures 605,573 685,000 0 685,000 617,623 Revenues over(under)expenditures (96) 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 96 (0) (0) (0) Ending fund balance (0) (0) (0) (0) 24 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 487,110 400,000 0 400,000 475,000 Investment Interest 3,661 15,000 0 15,000 400 Interfund Transfer-in-#303 135,000 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 625,771 415,000 0 415,000 475,400 Expenditures Intergovernmental Services 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-out-#204 0 112,500 0 112,500 92,652 Interfund Transfer-out-#303 0 901,098 0 901,098 363,627 Interfund Transfers 991,543 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 991,543 1,013,598 0 1,013,598 456,279 Revenues over(under)expenditures (365,772) (598,598) (598,598) 19,121 Beginning fund balance 1,158,647 792,875 792,875 194,277 Ending fund balance 792,875 194,277 194,277 213,398 #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 475,194 400,000 0 400,000 475,000 Investment Interest 4,584 15,000 0 15,000 2,000 Interfund Transfer-in 7,841 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 487,619 415,000 0 415,000 477,000 Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#101 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-out-#204 0 112,500 0 112,500 92,651 Interfund Transfer-out-#303 0 897,393 0 897,393 1,448,059 Interfund Transfer-out-#307 0 11,176 30,000 41,176 0 Interfund Transfer-out-#308 0 0 150,000 150,000 0 Interfund Transfers 594,536 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 594,536 1,021,069 180,000 1,201,069 1,540,710 Revenues over(under)expenditures (106,917) (606,069) (786,069) (1,063,710) Beginning fund balance 2,440,001 2,333,084 2,333,084 1,547,015 Ending fund balance 2,333,084 1,727,015 1,547,015 483,305 25 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 2,264,783 5,038,819 0 5,038,819 7,755,118 Developer Contribution 70,860 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 1,350 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-in-#001 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 89,000 Interfund Transfer-in-#301 0 901,095 0 901,095 363,627 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 0 897,393 0 897,393 1,448,059 Interfund Transfer-in-#401 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 Interfund Transfer-in 1,317,918 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 3,654,911 8,437,307 0 8,437,307 9,655,804 Expenditures 005 Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 110,178 450,000 0 450,000 463,312 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 22,587 581,886 0 581,886 802,792 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvement SRTC 06-26 3,721 1,843,221 0 1,843,221 1,766,201 063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines-Park 74,127 834,000 0 834,000 0 065 Sprague/Sullivan PCC Intersection 957,843 0 0 0 0 066 Broadway Ave. Rehabilitation Proj#2 949 0 0 0 0 069 Park Road-#2(PE Only)-Broadway to Indiana 87,146 0 0 0 0 100 16th&Bettman Stormwater Drainage 0 0 0 0 0 102 Sprague/Evergreen PCCP Intersection 104 0 0 0 0 103 Sprague/Pines PCCP Intersection 7,182 0 0 0 0 104 Sprague/McDonald PCCP Intersection 1,312 0 0 0 0 110 Sprague Resurface-E'green to University 55,313 0 0 0 0 112 Indiana Ave. Extension-3600 189,479 200,000 0 200,000 0 113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC 54,060 1,171,200 0 1,171,200 0 114 Broadway/Sullivan PCC Intersection 723,739 0 0 0 0 115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 2,946 0 0 0 1,582,000 127 2009 ADA Improvements 96,449 0 0 0 0 139 Park Rd RR Crosing Safety Improvements 8,938 0 0 0 0 STEP Projects(106,107,109,128,129,130,131) 1,213,840 0 0 0 0 WSDOT Urban Ramp Projects 45,000 0 0 0 0 Contingency 0 500,000 0 500,000 1,500,000 Misc. Road Projects 0 1,935,000 0 1,935,000 0 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 0 488,000 0 488,000 300,000 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 0 163,000 0 163,000 26,289 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0 271,000 0 271,000 138,150 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0 0 0 0 447,000 146 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 0 0 0 0 278,520 148 Greenacres Trail-Design 0 0 0 0 60,000 149 In-House Design-Sidewalk Infill 0 0 0 0 398,250 154 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 0 0 0 0 182,290 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 0 0 0 0 600,000 Mansfield Ave. Connection 0 0 0 0 738,000 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 0 0 0 0 284,000 Total expenditures 3,654,911 8,437,307 0 8,437,307 9,566,804 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 89,000 Beginning fund balance 73,456 73,456 73,456 73,456 Ending fund balance 73,456 73,456 73,456 162,456 26 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #304-MIRABEAU PROJECTS FUND Revenues Other Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 44,302 44,302 44,302 44,302 Ending fund balance 44,302 44,302 44,302 44,302 #307-CAPITAL GRANTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 1,685,541 0 120,000 120,000 0 Miscellaneous 1,000 55,000 0 55,000 0 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 0 0 30,000 30,000 0 Interfund Transfer-in 311,226 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 1,997,767 55,000 150,000 205,000 0 Expenditures 019 Broadway Ave. Rehab-Bates to Sullivan 4,986 0 0 0 0 039 Argonne Road Overlay-Indiana to Montgomery 2,931 0 0 0 0 054 44th Ave Pathway:Woodruff Rd.to Sands Rd. 360,234 5,000 0 5,000 0 062 Appleway/Sprague/Dishman ITS l90-Dishman-0i 2,880 50,000 0 50,000 0 088 Broadway-Moore to Flora 1,626,735 0 150,000 150,000 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 129 129 0 Total expenditures 1,997,767 55,000 150,129 205,129 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 (129) 0 Beginning fund balance 129 129 129 0 Ending fund balance 129 129 0 0 27 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #308-BARKER BRIDGE FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 494,897 0 0 0 0 Developer Contribution 83,676 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 669,779 0 150,000 150,000 0 Total revenues 1,248,352 0 150,000 150,000 0 Expenditures Bridge Reconstruction 1,248,352 0 150,000 150,000 0 Total expenditures 1,248,352 0 150,000 150,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 Interfund Transfer-in-#001 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 Interfund Transfers 209,031 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 2,612 13,000 0 13,000 0 Total revenues 211,643 613,000 0 613,000 100,000 Expenditures Terrace View Park Shelter 23,489 80,000 0 80,000 0 Terrace View Park Play Equipment 0 0 0 0 120,000 Contingency 0 320,000 (220,000) 100,000 50,000 Greenacres Park 55,106 1,559,036 0 1,559,036 0 Valley Mission Park 39,132 0 0 0 0 Discovery(Universal)Park 191,305 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 309,031 1,959,036 (220,000) 1,739,036 170,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures (97,388) (1,346,036) (1,126,036) (70,000) Beginning fund balance 1,346,752 1,249,365 1,249,365 123,329 Ending fund balance 1,249,365 (96,671) 123,329 53,329 28 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 18,060 40,000 0 40,000 6,000 Total revenues 18,060 40,000 0 40,000 6,000 Expenditures Interfund Transfers 929,048 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfers-out-#001 0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 Facilities 17,866 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 946,914 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures (928,855) (1,960,000) (1,960,000) 6,000 Beginning fund balance 5,828,600 4,899,745 4,899,745 2,939,745 Ending fund balance 4,899,745 2,939,745 2,939,745 2,945,745 #311 -STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Interfund Transfers-in-#001 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 Interfund Transfers in-#001 (40%>$26mm=$584,681) 0 584,681 584,681 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 2,200 Total revenues 0 500,000 584,681 1,084,681 2,200 Expenditures Facilities 0 500,000 (500,000) 0 1,086,881 Total expenditures 0 500,000 (500,000) 0 1,086,881 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 1,084,681 (1,084,681) Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 1,084,681 Ending fund balance 0 0 1,084,681 0 29 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,742,244 1,710,000 0 1,710,000 1,750,000 Investment Interest 7,360 0 0 0 5,000 Miscellaneous 6,324 22,000 0 22,000 0 Total Recurring Revenues 1,755,928 1,732,000 0 1,732,000 1,755,000 Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 337,055 418,000 0 418,000 438,614 Supplies 12,287 43,100 0 43,100 32,540 Services&Charges 885,283 1,221,905 0 1,221,905 1,244,287 Intergovernmental Payments 22,135 46,640 0 46,640 23,000 Depreciation 50,582 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfers-out-#001 0 0 0 0 15,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 1,307,343 1,729,645 0 1,729,645 1,753,441 Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 448,586 2,355 0 2,355 1,559 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 19,754 0 0 0 153,667 Interfund Transfers-in-#101 (shop facility) 0 0 375,000 375,000 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 19,754 0 375,000 375,000 153,667 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-out 90,170 100,000 0 100,000 0 Contracted maintenance 0 120,000 0 120,000 0 Div. 055 NPDES-Phase II program dev. 21,670 0 0 0 0 Capital-various projects 334,887 300,000 0 300,000 400,000 Shop Facility 0 0 750,000 750,000 0 Interfund Transfers out-#101 0 0 159,800 159,800 0 Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 446,727 520,000 909,800 1,429,800 400,000 Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (426,973) (520,000) (534,800) (1,054,800) (246,333) EXCESS(DEFICIT)OF TOTAL REVENUES OVER(UNDER)TOTAL EXPENDITURES 21,612 (517,645) (534,800) (1,052,445) (244,774) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2,267,232 2,288,845 2,288,845 1,236,400 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,288,845 1,771,200 1,236,400 991,626 30 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 0 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 2,500 Total revenues 0 0 500,000 500,000 502,500 Expenditures Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 500,000 502,500 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 500,000 Ending fund balance 0 0 500,000 1,002,500 31 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund Transfer-in-#001 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-in-#101 (plow replace.) 0 0 0 0 100,000 Investment Interest 301 9,000 0 9,000 0 Total revenues 301 9,000 0 9,000 100,000 Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 0 209,000 0 209,000 0 Total expenditures 0 209,000 0 209,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 301 (200,000) (200,000) 100,000 Beginning fund balance 906,078 906,379 906,379 706,379 Ending fund balance 906,379 706,379 706,379 806,379 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 50 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer-#001 318,000 319,000 0 319,000 319,000 Total revenues 318,050 319,000 0 319,000 319,000 Expenditures Services&Charges 309,724 319,000 0 319,000 319,000 Total expenditures 309,724 319,000 0 319,000 319,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 8,326 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 12,094 20,420 20,420 20,420 Ending fund balance 20,420 20,420 20,420 20,420 32 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/17/2011 2012 Budget 2011 2012 2010 As As Proposed Actuals Adopted Amendment Amended Budget Total of Revenues for all Funds 52,881,639 55,549,432 2,812,681 58,362,113 54,824,894 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 49,865,255 61,277,068 2,901,929 64,178,997 56,969,201 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 11,525,343 1,544,429 13,069,772 11,263,685 33 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Revenues by Type General Fund Property Tax 10,808,900 Sales Tax 16,200,000 Gambling Tax 640,000 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,266,000 State Shared Revenues 1,834,300 Service Revenues 1,300,000 Fines and Forfeitures 1,900,000 Recreation Program Fees 570,000 Miscellaneous, Investment Int. ,Transfers 389,600 Total General Fund 34,908,800 Other Funds 101 Street Fund 4,902,800 103 Paths & Trails Fund 8,000 105 Hotel/Motel Fund 430,700 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 700 121 Service Level Reserve Fund 10,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 700 123 City Facilities Repair& Replacement 399,000 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 617,623 301 Capital Projects Fund 475,400 302 Special Capital Projects Fund 477,000 303 Street Capitial Projects Fund 9,655,804 304 Mirabeau Point Project Fund - 306 CDBG Fund Revenues - 307 Capital Grants Fund - 308 Barker Bridge - Federal Grant Fund - 309 Parks Capital Fund 100,000 310 Civic Facilities Capital Fund 6,000 311 Street Capital Improvement Fund 2011+ 2,200 402 Stormwater Management Fund 1,908,667 403 Aquifer Protection Area 502,500 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 100,000 502 Risk Management Fund 319,000 Total Other Funds 19,916,094 Total All Funds $ 54,824,894 34 10/18/11 Sales Tax 46% City of Spokane Valley 2012 General Fund Revenues $34,908,800 State Shared Revenues 5% Service Revenues 4% Fines& Forfeitures 5% Miscellaneous l 8% Property Tax 30% Debt Service LTGO 03 2% 35 10/18/11 Other Misc. Funds 2% Street Fund 9% City of Spokane Valley 2012 City Wide Revenues $ 54,824,894 Debt Service Fund 1%I Capital Projects Fund 20% General Fund 64% Stormwater Management Fund 3% Internal Service Funds 1% 36 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Detail Revenues by Type 2012 2010 2011 Proposed General Fund Revenues Actual Budget Budget Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - Property Tax Property Tax $ 10,555,192 $ 10,700,000 $ 10,658,900 Property Tax-Delinquent 186,114 175,000 150,000 10,741,306 10,875,000 10,808,900 Sales Taxes Sales Tax 14,097,300 14,210,000 14,210,000 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,241,917 1,200,000 1,200,000 Sales Tax-Public Safety 715,926 790,000 790,000 16,055,143 16,200,000 16,200,000 Gambling Taxes Amusement Games 10,888 2,000 10,000 Card Games 563,477 518,000 550,000 Interest on Gambling Tax 19,133 10,000 10,000 Punch Boards&Pull Tabs 71,778 70,000 70,000 665,276 600,000 640,000 Licenses&Permits Business Licenses 89,477 90,000 90,000 Franchise Fees 1,177,299 1,171,000 1,176,000 1,266,776 1,261,000 1,266,000 State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue 61,713 10,000 10,000 Criminal Justice Area#4 131,088 130,000 130,000 Criminal Justice Special Programs 75,804 74,000 76,600 DUI-Cities 16,503 29,000 17,000 False Alarm Srvs - - - Liquor Board Excise Tax 443,362 410,000 451,400 Liquor Board Profits 715,439 641,859 557,800 MVET Criminal Justice-Population 20,043 19,000 22,500 Payment in Lieu of Taxes-DNR 3,805 3,500 3,500 Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax 569,899 372,000 560,000 Work Study Reimbursement 5,179 6,266 5,500 2,042,835 1,695,625 1,834,300 Service Revenues Airway Heights Bldg.Plan Rev. 21,489 - - Building Permits 738,696 722,800 722,800 Code Enforcement 17,034 - - Cry Wolf Fees 001.000.000.342.28.02 154,643 100,000 145,000 Demolition Permits 3,204 5,200 5,200 Grading Permits 1,221 5,000 5,000 Mechanical Permits 83,475 92,000 92,000 Misc.Permits&Fees 5,891 100,000 5,000 Planning Fees 313,019 290,000 290,000 Plans Check Fees - 250,000 - Plumbing Permits 47,039 35,000 35,000 Right of Way Permits 86,387 - - 1,472,098 1,600,000 1,300,000 Fines and Forfeitures Fines&Forfeits-Traffic 851,996 820,000 900,000 Other Criminal-Non Traffic Fines 976,414 980,000 1,000,000 1,828,410 1,800,000 1,900,000 Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees(To use a recreational facility) 264,701 205,000 200,000 Program Fees(To participate in a program) 366,244 350,500 370,000 630,945 555,500 570,000 Miscellaneous Investment Interest 130,195 100,000 145,000 Sales Tax Interest 20,147 50,000 50,000 Property Tax Interest - - - Police Precinct Rent 53,708 50,000 55,000 Office of Public Def-Re-Licensing Grant - - - Miscellaneous Revenue&Grants 50,955 - 55,000 255,006 200,000 305,000 Transfers Transfer-in-#101(street admin) 34,300 25,000 39,600 Transfer-in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 39,675 - 30,000 Transfer-in-#310(full paveback) 929,048 2,000,000 - Transfer-in-#402(storm admin) 13,386 15,000 15,000 1,016,409 2,040,000 84,600 Total General Fund Revenue $ 35,974,204 $ 36,827,125 $ 34,908,800 Total General Fund Revenue and Beginning Fund Balance $ 35,974,204 $ 36,827,125 $ 34,908,800 37 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Detail Revenues by Type 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Other Fund Revenues Actuals Budget Budget 101 Street Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - FEMA-18025-DR-WA Grant Funds 436 - - Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 14,024 - - Investment Interest 6,538 12,000 5,000 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,928,004 1,875,000 1,897,800 Other Miscellaneous Revenues&Grants 138,221 - - Street Maintenance&Repair Charges 5,571 - - Utilities tax 2,986,138 3,000,000 3,000,000 5,078,932 4,887,000 4,902,800 102 Arterial Street Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Transfer from: Capital Grants Fund 7,917 - - 7,917 - - 103 Paths&Trails Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Interfund Transfer-in-#101 (MVFT) - 8,000 - Investment Interest 78 - - Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 8,132 - 8,000 8,210 8,000 8,000 105 Hotel/Motel Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Hotel/Motel Tax 448,545 480,000 430,000 Investment Interest 1,017 1,000 700 449,562 481,000 430,700 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 1,047 3,000 700 1,047 3,000 700 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 16,795 54,000 10,000 16,795 54,000 10,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Interfund Transfer - - - Investment Interest 1,131 5,000 700 1,131 5,000 700 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 3,211 12,000 2,000 Interfund Transfer#001 397,000 407,000 397,000 400,211 419,000 399,000 38 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Detail Revenues by Type 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Other Fund Revenues Actuals Budget Budget Other Fund Revenues 204 Debt Service-LTGO 03 Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Facilities District Revenue 421,520 460,000 432,320 Interfund Transfer-in-#301 91,978 110,000 92,652 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 91,978 115,000 92,651 605,477 685,000 617,623 301 Capital Projects Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 3,661 15,000 400 REET 1 - 1st.25 Percent 487,110 400,000 475,000 Transfer from: Street Capital Projects 135,000 - - 625,771 415,000 475,400 302 Special Capital Projects Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 4,584 15,000 2,000 REET 2-2nd .25 Percent 475,194 400,000 475,000 Transfer from: Street Capital Projects 7,841 - - 487,619 415,000 477,000 303 Street Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Developer Contributions 70,860 - - Grant Proceeds 2,266,605 4,738,819 7,755,118 Interfund Transfer-in-#001 929,048 1,500,000 89,000 Interfund Transfer-in-#301 63,837 901,098 363,627 Interfund Transfer-in-#302 275,929 897,390 1,448,059 Interfund Transfer-in-#401 48,630 100,000 - Transfer from Block Grant - 300,000 - Transfer from General Fund - - - 3,654,911 8,437,307 9,655,804 307 Capital Grants Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Capital Grant Proceeds 1,686,541 120,000 - Interfund Transfer-in-#302 - 30,000 - Miscellaneous/Private Development - 55,000 - Transfer from Capital Project(301) 56,918 - - Transfer from Stormwater 28,154 - - Transfers from Special Capital Projects Fund 226,154 - - 1,997,767 205,000 - 39 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Detail Revenues by Type 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Other Fund Revenues Actuals Budget Budget 308 Barker Bridge Reconstruction-Fed Grant Coordination Revenue 83,676 - - Federal Grant Proceeds 494,897 - - Interfund Transfer-in-#302 - 150,000 - Transfer from Capital Project(301) 669,779 - - 1,248,352 150,000 - 309 Parks Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 2,612 13,000 - State Rec&Conservation Grant Rev - 500,000 - Transfer from Cap. Proj. (301) 109,031 - - Transfer from the General Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 211,643 613,000 100,000 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 18,060 40,000 6,000 18,060 40,000 6,000 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest - - 2,200 Interfund Transfers-in-#001 (40%>$26mm=$584,6 - 584,681 - Interfund Transfers-in-#001 - 500,000 - - 1,084,681 2,200 402 Stormwater Management Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Grant Proceeds 19,754 - 153,667 Interfund Transfers-in-#101 (shop facility) - 375,000 - Investment Interest 7,360 22,000 5,000 Miscellaneous 6,324 - - Stormwater Management Fee 1,742,244 1,710,000 1,750,000 1,775,682 2,107,000 1,908,667 403 Aquifer Protection Area Investment Interest - - 2,500 Spokane County - 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 502,500 501 Equipment Rental &Replacement Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Investment Interest 301 9,000 - Interfund Transfer-in-#101 (plow replace) - - 100,000 301 9,000 100,000 502 Risk Management Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - - - Employment Security Transfers - - - Interfund Transfer-#001 318,000 319,000 319,000 Investment Interest 50 - - 318,050 319,000 319,000 Total all other Funds Revenue 16,907,437 20,836,988 19,916,094 General Fund Revenues 35,974,204 36,827,125 34,908,800 Total Revenues 52,881,639 57,664,113 54,824,894 40 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Expenditures by Department General Fund Council $ 386,249 City Manager 1,066,465 Public Safety 22,000,000 Operations &Administrative Deputy City Manager 658,884 Finance 1,047,107 Human Resources 230,231 Public Works 901,519 Planning & Community Development Admin 323,743 Planning 994,245 Building 1,260,454 Development Engineering 680,796 Library - Parks & Recreation Administration & Maintenance 1,059,828 Recreation 229,811 Aquatics 442,250 Senior Center 92,960 CenterPlace 1,126,357 General Government 2,695,600 Total General Fund 35,196,500 Other Funds 101 Street Fund 5,431,263 103 Paths & Trails Fund - 105 Hotel/Motel Fund 430,700 204 Debt Service - LTGO 03 617,623 301 Capital Projects Fund 456,279 302 Special Capital Projects Fund 1,540,710 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 9,566,804 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 170,000 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 1,086,881 402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,153,441 403 Aquifer Protection Area - 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement - 502 Risk Management Fund 319,000 Total All Funds $ 56,969,201 41 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 General Fund Expenditures $ 35,196,500 Public Safety 63% • General Government 8% Parks& Recreations 8% Planning&Community Development 9% Legislative& Executive 4% Operation&Administrative 5% Public Works 3% 42 10/18/11 Gen.Gov., Risk Mgmt, Equip 5% Capital Projects 24% -\ Reserves,Tourism 1% City of Spokane Valley 2012 City Wide Expenditures $ 56,969,201 Stormwater Management Fund 4% Street Fund' 9% Parks& Recreation 5% Planning&Community Development 6% Public Safety 39% Operations&Administrative 7% 43 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department by Type Wages& Capital Benefits Supplies Services Intergovernmental Interfund Expenditures Total General Fund Legislative Branch $ 174,867 $ 6,250 $ 205,132 $ - $ $ - $ 386,249 Legislative&Executive 906,951 7,720 151,794 - - 1,066,465 Public Safety - - 21,920,000 80,000 - 22,000,000 Operations&Administrative Deputy City Manager 600,149 2,850 55,885 - - 658,884 Finance 1,011,932 3,500 31,675 - - 1,047,107 Human Resources 189,459 1,847 38,925 - - 230,231 Public Works 754,769 36,000 103,750 - 7,000 901,519 Planning&Community Development Admin 292,643 4,100 12,000 15,000 - 323,743 Planning 822,895 10,250 86,100 75,000 - 994,245 Building 1,066,404 35,300 85,350 65,000 8,400 - 1,260,454 Development Engineering 578,346 7,800 49,650 45,000 - 680,796 Library - - - - - Parks&Recreation Parks Administration 202,978 61,600 781,050 11,000 3,200 - 1,059,828 Recreation 149,911 9,250 64,650 - 6,000 - 229,811 Aquatics - 3,000 439,250 - - 442,250 Senior Center 77,320 5,240 10,400 - - 92,960 CenterPlace 381,403 78,876 342,078 - 324,000 - 1,126,357 General Government - 33,500 564,000 1,022,500 1,075,600 - 2,695,600 Total General Fund $ 7,210,028 $ 307,083 $ 3,021,689 $ 23,153,500 $ 1,497,200 $ 7,000 $ 35,196,500 44 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2012 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 2011 • 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. This goal will be complete if Spokane County is issued their Wastewater permit by the end of the year. • Reevaluate regulations specified in the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by the City Council. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was removed from the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. Shoreline Master Program,Shoreline Inventory and the Goals and Policies have been drafted and processed through the public hearing process. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to Road Street Pool No state funds were available for this project;however, HB1922 was passed requiring certain vehicles to stop at a port of entry upon entering the state and Spokane Valley Partners received$100,000 in capital funds to improve its facility. • 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 winter plan has been implemented. Equipment and maintenance facility have been purchased. We will continue to monitor and make recommended changes. • Explore a range of options for a City Hall Discussed option of constructing a city hall at or near CenterPlace. 45 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2012 Budget 011 -Council Goals for 2012 • 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. •Solid Waste to include identifying the issue and research alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and examining the consequences of each alternative. • Review and Evaluate development regulations and compare with surrounding cities. • 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-to be identified • Create an Economic Development Plan including options for a city hall. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 $ 138,277 $ 143,718 $ 174,867 Supplies 7,308 7,000 6,250 Services&Charges 170,958 173,580 205,132 Total Legislative Branch $ 316,543 $ 324,298 $ 386,249 46 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 013 Executive&Legislative Support 2012 Budget 013-City Manager 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 2011 •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 licenses. This goal will be complete if Spokane County is issued their Wastewater permit by the end of the year. • Reevaluate regulations specified in the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by the City Council. Advised the Council and staff on re-evaluating the regulations specified in the Sprague/ Appleway Revitalization Plan,including the means to legally repeal the entire subarea plan. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was removed from the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. •Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory protection for waters of statewide significance as required by state statute. Advised the Council and staff on identifying appropriate regulatory framework for regulations under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act,including scope of permissible City discretion. Shoreline Master Program,Shoreline Inventory and the Goals and Policies have been drafted and processed through the public hearing process. •Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to Park Road Pool No state funds were available for this project;however, HB1922 was passed requiring certain vehicles to stop at a port of entry upon entering the state and Spokane Valley Partners received$100,000 in capital funds to improve its facility. •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 winter plan has been implemented. Equipment and maintenance facility have been purchased. We will continue to monitor and make recommended changes. • Explore a range of options for a City Hall Discussed option of constructing a city hall at or near CenterPlace. 47 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 013 Executive&Legislative Support 2012 Budget 013-City Manager Goals for 2012 •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. •Solid Waste to include identifying the issue and research alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and examining the consequences of each alternative. • Review and Evaluate development regulations and compare with surrounding cities. •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-to be identified •Create an Economic Development Plan including options for a city hall. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 8.0 Interns 3.5 2.0 3.0 Budget Detail(*) Salaries,Wages,&Benefits $ 1,126,988 $ 900,371 $ 906,951 Supplies 4,350 17,400 7,720 Services&Charges 135,072 138,135 151,794 Total Executive&Legislative Support $ 1,266,411 $ 1,055,906 $ 1,066,465 48 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund City of Spokane Valley Dept: 016 Public Safety 2012 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: $ 2,212,698 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: $ 16,730,138 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: $ 1,333,131 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: $ 315,516 Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance Budgeted contract amount: $ 1,057,363 Communications Budgeted contract amount: $ 271,154 Interfund Transfers -Transfer to Fund #123 to cover future building improvements or the eventual replacement of the precinct building $ 80,000 Total $ 22,000,000 49 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget 016 - Public Safety 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Judicial System: District Court Contract 814,284 819,345 1,071,588 Jury Management Contract - - - Intergovernmental Payments 30,855 - - Public Defender Contract 485,456 510,476 582,643 Prosecutor Contract 396,151 400,342 430,074 Pretrial Services Contract 83,137 96,111 128,393 Prosecutor-Funded by JAG Grant 12,403 - - Subtotal Judicial System 1,822,285 1,826,274 2,212,698 Law Enforcement System: Sheriff Contract 16,296,352 16,797,534 16,422,754 Emergency Management Contract 81,116 90,233 84,970 Wages&Benefits 2,618 - 4,887 Operating Supplies 1,696 2,425 2,449 Repair&Maintenance.Supplies 1,713 2,425 2,449 Gas,Oil,&Tires 945 - - Small Tools&Minor Equipment 493 970 980 Electricity/Gas 23,866 33,213 33,545 Water 2,080 2,491 2,516 Sewer 754 830 839 Waste Disposal 3,423 2,906 2,935 Copier Maintenance - 519 - Law Enf. Bldg Maintenance Contract 52,730 77,012 73,419 Contingency - 970,000 53,395 Crywolf Charges&Fees 36,616 - 45,000 Sterling Bank Fees 4,316 - - Crywolf Refunds 1,360 - - Subtotal Law Enforcement System: 16,510,081 17,980,558 16,730,138 Jail System: Jail Contract 492,620 437,661 1,333,131 Jail-Geiger Corrections Center 127,520 - - Work Release(Geiger) 471,530 400,000 - Subtotal Jail System: 1,091,670 837,661 1,333,131 Other: Capital Outlays/Communications 243,670 273,004 271,154 Fines&Forfeitures State Remittance 974,099 873,000 1,057,363 Animal Control Contract 314,255 311,783 315,516 Non-Capital Equipment for JAG Grant 1,707 - - Non-Capital Equip for ARRA JAG Grant 1,946 - - Travel/Mileage 212 - - Building Replacement Costs 80,000 77,600 80,000 Nighttime Seatbelt Patrol Overtime 3,196 - - Hwy 27 Traffic Safety Overtime 4,799 - - X-52 DUI Overtime 7,891 - - Traffic Safety Emergency 5,565 - - Child Car Seat Overtime 3,587 - - Slow Down or Pay Up 6,677 - - Subtotal Other: 1,647,604 1,535,387 1,724,033 Total Public Safety 21,071,640 22,179,880 22,000,000 50 10/18/11 18,000,000 - 16,000,000 - 14,000,000 - 12,000,000 - 10,000,000 - 8,000,000 - 6,000,000 - 4,000,000 - 2,000,000 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budgeted Contract Expenditures 1,071,588 7 582,643 430,074 16,422,754 84,970 73,419 1,333,131 315,516 District Court Public Defender Prosecutor Sheriff Contract Emergency Law Enf. Bldg Jail Contract Animal Control Contract Contract Contract Management Maintenance Contract Contract Contract 51 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations &Administrative Services 2012 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 2011 • Draft and implement a Strategic Communications Plan • Drafted - begin plan in 2012 • Provide media training for authorized spokespersons • Carryover to 2012 Goals • Explore opportunities for economic development •See Legislative and Executive/Legislative accomplishments • Involved all departments in implementation of a citywide comprehensive customer satisfaction program • Customer service request system completed • Communications Plan will be fully implemented upon approval • Help complete contract and purchasing procedures • A draft has been completed and is under review. • Propose service contract amendments to ease administration and allow control of costs • Accomplished. District court and precinct maintenance contracts to be revised to simplify administration and provide equitable cost distribution • Conduct biannual community survey • Survey completed. Results were available in early October. 52 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations &Administrative Services 2012 Budget 013- Deputy City Manager Division cont. Goals for 2012 • Provide media training for authorized spokespersons. • Involve all departments in updating and implementing Strategic Communications Plan. • Implement an interactive relationship with prosecution services allowing for comprehensive case management. • Add low cost alternatives to incarceration as options to meet the criminal justice goals of the City. • Begin planning ten year anniversary celebration for the year of 2013 toward promoting city identity for economic development, tourism, and to build community. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 0.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant II 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 6.0 7.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 415,269 $ 507,410 $ 600,149 Supplies 1,846 2,800 2,850 Services & Charges 27,669 49,730 55,885 Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 444,784 $ 559,940 $ 658,884 53 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations &Administrative Services 2012 Budget 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. Accomplishments for 2011 • Implemented State Auditor recommendations. • Improved financial statement process and accuracy • Worked with the Community Development Department to search for and ultimately select the Paladin SmartGov permit tracking software. Began the conversion to the new software in late summer. • Replaced 63 personal computers that reached the end of their life cycle. • Upgraded SQL servers and domain controllers to 2008. • Rolled out WiFi at City buildings. • Began broadcasting and web streaming of City Council meetings. Goals for 2012 • Consider 2010 audit recommendations • Work towards continued improvement and accuracy in the financial statement preparation process. • Complete the installation of the Paladin SmartGov permit tracking software and work with the Community Development Department to monitor actual results against City expectations. • Work with the City Manager and Community Development to move the Permit Center into the main City Hall building and relocate Finance to another location in the building. Assist in negotiations for a revised building lease that is a consequence of the departmental relocations. • Evaluate existing City purchasing system and consider implementing a revision to procurement including the use of purchase requisitions and purchase orders. • Develop a system to audit sales tax receipts and ensure that sales taxes collected by businesses located in Spokane Valley are actually credited to the City as opposed to other municipalities. • Replace 30 personal computers that will reach the end of their life cycle. • Replace 3 servers that will reach the end of their life cycle. • Roll out Microsoft Office 2010. 54 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations &Administrative Services 2012 Budget 014- Finance Division cont. 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Finance &Admin Services Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 Accounting Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 Accountant/Budget Analyst 4.0 4.0 4.0 Accounting Technician 2.0 2.0 2.0 IT Specialist 3.0 2.0 2.0 GIS/Database Administrator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 12.0 11.0 11.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 0.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 840,309 $ 944,992 $ 1,011,932 Supplies 4,228 6,700 3,500 Services &Charges 107,467 62,650 31,675 Total Finance Division $ 952,004 $ 1,014,342 $ 1,047,107 55 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operations &Administrative Services 2012 Budget 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 2011 • Created, tested and implemented the City's On-line Employment Application System • Met the AWC requirements to achieve the WellCity Award • Conducted and/or assisted in recruitment and selection to fill executive vacancies • Researched, reviewed and implemented a new employee performance management system •Assisted in the support of the implementation of on-line employee services Goals for 2012 • Explore AWC Retro Program for possible reductions in workman's compensation rates • Negotiate on behalf of the City to reach a successor labor contract agreement for 2013 • Review and revise City Website to increase service and functionality • Provide employee training in the areas of harrassment prevention and safe-driving. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 $ 177,182 $ 182,500 $ 189,459 Supplies 1,052 1,967 1,847 Services & Charges 16,208 52,179 38,925 Total Human Resources Division $ 194,442 $ 236,646 $ 230,231 56 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 032 Public Works 2012 Budget 032-Public Works The Public Works Department oversees the City's transportation system,which includes construction and maintenance of streets and stormwater systems,operations and maintenance of traffic signs and signals and transportation planning. Accomplishments for 2011 • Designed and constructed funded capital projects. • Developed the 2012-2017 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. • Submitted grants for various capital projects Goals for 2012 • Implement approved capital projects. • Provide planning for development of update Transportation Improvement Plan. • Prepare and submit grant applications for capital projects. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Public Works Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 Senior Engineer(CIP) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Engineer 2.0 2.0 2.0 Assistant Engineer(CIP) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Limited Term Construction Inspector-Bridge 0.0 1.0 1.0 Maint./Construction Inspector(ROW) 1.0 0.0 0.0 Engineering Technician I 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Technician II 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total FTEs 11.0 11.0 11.0 Budget Detail Salaries,Wages, & Benefits $ 610,394 $705,554 $ 754,769 Supplies 13,733 52,108 36,000 Services&Charges 73,483 134,955 103,750 Capital Outlay 6,346 - 7,000 Total Public Works $ 703,956 $ 892,617 $ 901,519 57 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 050 Community Development-Administrative 2012 Budget 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 2011 • Continued to provide department wide training to facilitate customer service, teamwork and efficiency • Provided staff support to the Planning Commission. • Provided training to support staff to cover the Planning Commission. • Co-filed Planning and Development Engineering files • Received Certified Floodplain Manager status • Began implementation of the roadmap for enhanced permitting Goals for 2012 • Implement customer service improvements for the department • Assist with new permitting software transition • Improve department website pages. • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan including consolidation of Permit Center into City Hall. • Implement a document control system for documents and forms Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 I 1.0 0.5 1.0 Total FTEs 3.0 2.5 3.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 278,014 $ 279,534 $ 292,643 Supplies 2,510 4,256 4,100 Services &Charges 3,711 22,259 12,000 Intergovernmental Payments 27,366 15,000 15,000 Total Building Division $ 311,601 $ 321,049 $ 323,743 58 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 056 Community Development- Planning Division 2012 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 2011 • Completed the Shoreline Master Program Inventory and Goals and Policies. • Completed the Bike and Pedestrian Plan. •Worked on revisions to the Sprague/Appleway Subarea Plan as directed by Council. •Through the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, eliminated the Sprague Appleway Plan and processed the St John Vianney Comprehensive Map change request. • Continued to work with the region on UGA update process with hopeful adoption by end of 2011. • Began initial work on Economic Development Program. • Completed code amendments for chicken keeping and adult retail uses • Provided training to the Planning Commission on Roberts Rules of Order, permit processing. •Assisted with the ADA Inventory and Plan. • Implementation of the Permit Tracking Software. • Staff attended customer service training and other in-house training to make processes consistent. • Obtained a$125,000 grant to assist with the development of the Shoreline Master Program. • Started parking inventory for multi-tenant buildings in commercial corridors to facilitate tenant improvements. Goals for 2012 • Complete the Shoreline Master Program • Continue to work on Economic Development issues for the City • Complete the 2012 Comprehensive Plan update with a focus on the economic development information. • Continue to work on customer service and improvements to the permit process, including consolidation of the Permit Center into City Hall. • Complete parking inventory project. • 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments 59 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 056 Community Development- Planning Division 2012 Budget Community Development Services - Planning Division Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 2.5 2.5 Planning Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 9.0 8.5 8.5 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 720,832 $ 796,685 $ 822,895 Supplies 6,764 10,588 10,250 Services &Charges 81,415 141,100 86,100 Intergovernmental Services 54,675 75,000 75,000 Total Planning Division $ 863,685 $ 1,023,373 $ 994,245 60 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 055 Community Development-Dev. Engineering 2012 Budget Community Development Enqineerinq 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 2011 • Completed Hydrology Study for the Forker Draw Floodplain Study • Completed the Sprague/Appleway Business Directional Sign Update • Updated Floodplain and Grading permit Application Forms • Obtained National Floodplain Management Certification • Initiated and Completed the Hanson Industrial Development Agreement •Assisted with the Bike and Pedestrian Plan •Assisted with the ADA Inventory and Plan Goals for 2012 • Update Standard Plans of Street Standards • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan including consolidation of Permit Center into City Hall. • Complete Mapping for the Forker Draw floodplain restudy. • Update Development Engineering's Webpage. Budqet Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineer 1.5 1.5 1.5 Assistant Engineer 1.0 0.0 0.0 Engineering Technician 2.5 1.5 1.5 Construction Inspector 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 6.00 6.00 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 485,976 $ 544,990 $ 578,346 Supplies 8,095 8,304 7,800 Services&Charges 40,919 71,276 49,650 Intergovernmental Payments 66,479 45,000 45,000 Total Building Division $ 601,470 $ 669,570 $ 680,796 61 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 057 Community Development-Building Division 2012 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 2011 • Evaluated Express permitting process resulting in a slightly expanded program and updated information forms. • Completed final legal steps on one abatement. Abatement action pending • Partnered with Spokane County on procurement process for new permit tracking/workflow system. System design and implementation anticipated to be complete by December 2011 • Partnered and coordinated with local builders, Spokane and Spokane County on the implementation of the 2009 Washington State Energy Code. • Completed, compiled and evaluated responses to ADA survey. Continuing work on report and transition plan. Expect to complete project by end of the year. • Participated in and completed initial work on City web-site update. Continuing work on fact checking Community Development website pages. • Finalized long-term interlocal agreement to provide building plan review service to Airway Heights. Goals for 2012 • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan including consolidation of Permit Center into City Hall. • Complete code compliance procedure manual update with legal office. • Monitor and prepare updates for the ADA transition plan. • Maintain partnering efforts with Spokane and Spokane County. • Develop web-access for permit system with IT staff. 62 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 058 Community Development-Building Division 2012 Budget Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 Building Inspector II 4.0 3.0 3.0 Code Enforcement Officer BP 2.0 2.0 2.0 Construction Inspector 1.0 0.0 0.0 Senior Permit Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 Permit Specialist 2.0 2.0 2.0 Senior Plans Examiner 1.0 1.0 1.0 Plans Examiner 0.75 0.75 0.75 Maint/Const Inspector(ROW) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 14.75 12.75 12.75 Budget Detail Salaries,Wages, & Benefits $ 968,755 $ 999,983 $ 1,066,404 Supplies 26,107 40,479 35,300 Services&Charges 76,417 101,441 85,350 Intergovernmental Payments 47,890 65,000 65,000 Division 140 Bike&Ped MP-EECBG 50,766 - - Interfund Charges - 8,400 8,400 Total Building Division $ 1,169,935 $ 1,215,303 $ 1,260,454 63 10/18/11 Fund: 0 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 07 Parks & Recreation 2012 Budget 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 2011 • Completed construction of Greenacres Park. • Constructed new picnic shelter at Terrace View Park. • Renovated turf& irrigation at south end of Mirabeau Point Park campus. • Intend to finalize Centennial Trail maintenance agreement. • Continued discussions on development of dog park. Goals for 2012 • Replace play equipment at Terrace View Park. • Bring new Greenacres Park online. • Begin development of a dog park. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 $ 192,316 $ 199,420 $ 202,978 Supplies 46,621 59,100 61,600 Services & Charges 647,942 677,250 781,050 Intergovernmental Services 10,379 10,000 11,000 Interfund Charges - 3,200 3,200 Total Parks Administration $ 897,258 $ 948,970 $ 1,059,828 64 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks & Recreation 2012 Budget 301 - Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and service throughout the City and The City's Park system. Accomplishments for 2011 • Continued to provide Recreation Programs for a variety of ages. • Offered an Outdoor Summer Dodge Ball League with Spokane County and the City of Spokane. • Hosted Environmental Special Event&Tree Planting Event"Discovery Spring" at Discovery Playground. • Continued to partner with the City of Liberty Lake to jointly offer and advertise Recreation Programs. • Started to offer very successful "Mommy and Me" music program for preschool aged children and their parents. • In partnership with the Valley YMCA, hosted a Zumbathon event bringing over 300 people into CenterPlace. Goals for 2012 • Continue to partner and jointly offer programs with Liberty Lake, Spokane County and the City of Spokane • Create wellness and health service provider partnerships within the Community. • Solicit sponsorships for the summer outdoor movies Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 130,323 $ 145,365 $ 149,911 Supplies 4,051 10,943 9,250 Services &Charges 47,595 82,720 64,650 Interfund Charges 6,654 7,600 6,000 Capital Outlay - - - Total Parks Administration $ 188,623 $ 246,628 $ 229,811 65 10/18/11 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks& Recreation 2012 Budget 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 2011 • Worked with the "Make a Splash" campaign and Spokane Valley Partners to increase scholarship funding. • A rental package for swimming pools was developed. Goals for 2012 • Maintain full summer swimming program. Budqet Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies $ 945 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Services&Charges 419,789 426,250 439,250 Intergovernmental Services - - - $ 420,734 $ 429,250 $ 442,250 Total Aquatics Division 66 1 0/1 8/1 1 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2012 Budget 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 2011 • Researched and organized information to complete a notebook at the Reeception Desk for Volunteers with numerous agencies and contact information that seniors request. Along with the notebook,on hand is The Senior Directory Resource Guide to Spokane and the Inland Northwest. • Hosted 3rd Annual Resource Fair/Senior Empowerment Exposition. There were 39 vendors and approximately 250 attendees. • New for 2011: Hospice Bereavement Group, Chair Massage, Mandela Art, SHIBA with Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington assisting people with the best Medicare choice for their individual needs. • Continued to work with the Board of Directors regarding their training and educational opportunities. • provided training for front desk volunteers. • Advertised and offered activities and trips through other senior centers. Goals for 2012 • Assist the Board of Directors to be in compliance with the Washington State Department of Revenue regarding their non-profit status. • Continue to utilize the Wellness Center and offer more services. • Continue to work with the Retirement Communities to involve their residents in activities. • Continue outreach and involvement with the Washington State Association of Senior Centers. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Senior Center Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 1.0 1.0 1.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries,Wages, & Benefits $ 69,848 $ 74,953 $ 77,320 Supplies 958 5,100 5,240 Services&Charges 2,737 8,900 10,400 Capital Outlay - 700 - Total Senior Center Division $ 73,543 $ 89,653 $ 92,960 67 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2012 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 2011 • Developed a list of meeting planners to promote CenterPlace through target marketing. • Utilized CenterPlace marketing materials to promote tourism to Spokane Valley. • Enclosed patio area with a fence to add value to the great room rental. Encouraged diversity in our facility rentals by evaluating our forms and brochures for • language barriers. Goal for 2012 • 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. • Implement changes to our forms and brochures that would decrease language barriers and encourage diversity. • Continue to work with other agencies to promote tourism to Spokane Valley. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Personnel- FTE Equivalents Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 0.0 1.0 1.0 Custodian 2.0 0.0 0.0 Maintenance Worker 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total FTEs 7.0 5.0 5.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, &Benefits $ 343,598 $ 370,955 $ 381,403 Supplies 70,411 70,952 78,876 Services&Charges 351,360 336,877 342,078 Interfund Charges 334,332 354,000 324,000 Total CenterPlace Division $ 1,099,701 $ 1,132,784 $ 1,126,357 68 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2012 Budget 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. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail General Citywide Costs Accounting&Audit Services $ 67,061 $ 95,000 $ 90,000 Advertising 212 - - Merchant Charges(Bankcard Fees) 18,273 25,000 25,000 Copier 18,502 20,000 20,000 Economic Development-Site Selector 9,973 15,000 15,000 Election Costs - 30,000 80,000 Employee Recognition Safety&Bicycle Safety 2,192 8,000 10,000 EECBG Utilities Partnering Program 1,542 - - Equipment Repair&Maintenance 33,241 30,000 35,000 Gas,Oil,&Tires 553 - - General Operating Leases:Computers 29,847 60,000 45,000 IT Support-Network 78,521 160,000 100,000 Miscellaneous 1,154 15,000 15,000 Non Capital Comp.soft/hardware 21,082 - 30,000 Office and Operating Supplies 13,827 20,000 20,000 Office Supplies 2,077 - - Other Governmental Services - 25,000 - Postage 2,611 20,000 5,000 Printing and Binding 2,142 5,000 5,000 Non Capital Office Furniture&Equip. 749 Registrations 1,784 2,000 2,000 Small Tools&Minor Equipment 1,224 - 1,500 Software Licenses and Maintenance 11,812 100,000 55,000 Telephone/DSL Charges 29,022 25,000 30,000 Vehicle Rental 6,613 12,000 7,000 Taxes&assessments 4,923 7,000 7,000 Web Site Services 3,000 - - Interfund If Risk Mng. Insurance premium 502 318,000 319,000 319,000 Interfund Loan to Street Fund(winter weather reserve) - - - Interfund Transfer to Capital Projects 100,000 - - Interfund Transfer to Street Capital 2011+ - 500,000 - Interfund Transfer to full paveback-Fund 303 929,048 1,500,000 89,500 Interfund Transfer to Parks Capital Fund - 100,000 100,000 Facilities Facility Repairs&Maintenance 1,375 5,000 30,000 Computer Software/Hardware 6,898 - - Computer Software/Hardware Replacement - - - Office Furniture&Equipment - 65,000 35,000 Energy Conservation Improvement - 50,000 - ADA Inventory - - - City Hall Leasing Costs: City Hall Rent 452,602 465,000 480,000 Leasehold Improvements - - - 69 10/18/11 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2012 Budget 090-General Government Budget Summary-continued Outside Services Alcohol Treatment 23,176 23,000 25,000 City Economic Development - 3,000 75,000 Community Survey 92 - - Professional Services-Project Access 20,000 - - Memberships-SRTC 34,300 - - Records Management 27,474 100,000 70,000 Requests from Outside Agencies-Economic Development 60,000 114,000 105,000 Requests from Outside Agencies-Social Services 53,985 45,000 60,000 Spokane County Air Pollution Authority 115,084 117,000 117,000 Voter Registrations 57,736 62,000 62,000 Contingency&Reserves Contingency/Emergency(1%of recurring expenditures) - - 346,600 Broadcasting Council meetings - 46,000 - PERS/L&I Set Aside - 100,000 50,000 Contingency - 330,750 134,000 $ 2,561,707 $ 4,618,750 $ 2,695,600 * Estimated ending balance of$18,599,813 was removed from 2010 budget 70 1 0/1 8/11 Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 042 2012 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 system. Maintenace work includes snow and ice control, street pavement repairs, traffic signals and signs, landscaping and vegetation control and many other street maintenance and repair activities. Accomplishments for 2011 • Updated the 2011 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. • Purchased street maintenance shop and facility. • Completed LED traffic signal upgrades supported by funds from Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. Goals for 2012 • 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 2012 2010 2011 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 1.5 1.5 Assistant Engineer-Traffic/Planning 2.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Engineer(Planning/Grants) 0_0 0_0 0_0 Total FTEs 5.0 4.5 4.5 Interns 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries, Wages, & Benefits $ 326,561 $ 433,931 $ 522,142 Supplies 65,712 72,200 72,200 Services &Charges 2,679,369 3,807,296 3,910,321 Capital Outlay 35,092 45,000 40,000 Intergovernmental Payments 732,584 947,000 847,000 Interfund Charges and End Fund Bal 73,975 77,900 39,600 Total Street Fund $ 3,913,293 $ 5,383,327 $ 5,431,263 71 10/18/11 Fund: 103 Trails & Paths Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 103 2012 Budget 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. $0 Fund: 105 Hotel/Motel Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 105 2012 Budget 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Tourism Promotion $ 362,302 $ 500,000 $ 400,700 Interfund Transfers -#001 37,500 - 30,000 Total Hotel/Motel Fund $ 399,802 $ 500,000 $ 430,700 72 10/18/11 Fund: 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 120 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Reserve for CenterPlace Operations $ - $ - $ - Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 121 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Reserve For Service Level Stabilization 73 10/18/11 Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 122 2012 Budget 122 - Winter Weather Reserve Fund The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established to provide emergency services during an unusually harsh winter. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Reserve for Winter Weather $ - $ 505,000 $ - Fund: 123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 122 2012 Budget 123 - Civic Facility Replacement Fund This fund was created to set aside money for the eventual replacement of CenterPlace and the Police Precinct Building on East Sprague. Source of funds is an annual transfer from the General Fund. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Reserve for Facility Replacement 74 10/18/11 Fund:204 Limited Tax General Obligation - Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 204 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Debt Service on Mirabeau Bonds $ 421,987 $ 460,000 $ 432,320 Debt Service on Street Bonds 183,586 225,000 185,303 Total Debt Service Fund $ 605,573 $ 685,000 $ 617,623 75 10/18/11 Fund: 301/302 Capital Projects & Special Capital Projects Funds Spokane Valley 2012 Budget 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget 301 - Capital Proiects Fund Intergovernmental Services $ 899,565 $ 901,098 $ 363,627 Interfund Transfer-out - #204 91,978 112,500 92,652 Interfund Transfer-out - #303 - - - Interfund Transfers - - - Total Capital Projects Fund $ 991,543 $ 1,013,598 $ 456,279 302 - Special Capital Proiects Fund Interfund Transfer-out - #204 $ - $ 112,500 $ 92,651 Interfund Transfer-out - #303 - 897,393 1,448,059 Interfund Transfer-out - #307 - 41,176 - Interfund Transfer-out - #308 - 150,000 - Interfund Transfers 594,536 - - Total Special Capital Projects Fund $ 594,536 $ 1,201,069 $ 1,540,710 76 10/18/11 Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2012 Budget 303-Street Capital Projects 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Road Design&Construction Projects 24th Ave-Sullivan to 22nd - - 278,520 Argonne Road-190 to Trent 22,587 581,886 802,792 Broadway @ Argonne&Mullen PCC, (PE, RW) - 271,000 138,150 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines-Park 74,127 834,000 - Broadway Ave. Rehabilitation proj#2 949 - - Broadway/Sullivan PCC Intersection 723,739 - - Greenacres Trail-Design - - 60,000 In-House Design-Sidewalk Infill - - 398,250 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC 54,061 1,171,200 - Indiana Avenue Extension-3600'e/o Sullivan 189,479 200,000 - Mansfield Ave. Connection - 488,000 738,000 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker(PE&RW) - - 300,000 Park Road-#2(PE Only)-Broadway to Indiana 87,146 35,000 - Pines(SR27)ITS Improvement SRTC 06-26 3,721 1,843,221 1,766,201 Pines/Mansfield 110,178 450,000 463,312 2009 ADA Improvements 96,449 - - Sprague Resurface-E'green to Sull.ADA 2,946 - 1,582,000 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility - - 182,290 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail - - 447,000 Sullivan Euclid PCC PE, ROW - 163,000 26,289 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement - - 600,000 STEP Projects 1,213,837 1,900,000 - Misc. Road Projects-Safety 72,849 - - Sullivan/Sprague PCC 957,843 - - University Rd/l-90 Overpass Study - - 284,000 WSDOT Urban Ramp Projects 45,000 - - Contingency - 500,000 1,500,000 Total Street Capital Projects Fund $ 3,654,911 $ 8,437,307 $ 9,566,804 77 10/18/11 Fund: 304 Mirabeau Point Capital Project Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 304 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Transfer to Civic Facility Replacement Fund $ - $ - $ - Reserve for Replacement - - - Construction in Progress - - - Total Mirabeau Point Project Fund - $ - $ - Fund: 306 CD Block Grant Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 306 2012 Budget 306 -CD Block Grant Fund Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Transfer to Street Capital Projects (303) $ - $ - $ - Transfer to Capital Grant Fund - - - Total CD Block Grant Fund 78 10/18/11 Fund: 307 Capital Grants Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 307 2012 Budget 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail 44th Ave Pathway: Woodruff Rd. to Sands Rd. $ 360,234 $ 5,000 $ - Broadway Ave. Rehab- Bates to Slvn 4,986 - - Appleway/Sprague/Dishman ITS 190-Dishman-066 2,880 50,000 - Argonne Road Overlay- Indiana to Montgomery 2,931 - - Broadway Ave- Moore to Flora 1,626,735 150,000 - Miscellaneous - 129 - Total Capital Grants Fund $ 1,997,766 $ 205,129 $ - Fund: 308 Barker Bridge - Federal Grant Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 308 2012 Budget 308 - Barker Bridge - 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Barker Road Bridge Reconstruction $ 1,248,352 $ 150,000 $ - 79 10/18/11 Fund: 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 309 2012 Budget 309-Parks Capital Projects Fund The Parks Capital Projects Fund is specifically designated for Parks and Recreation Capital improvements. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Contingency $ 55,106 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 Greenacres Park - 1,559,036 - Terrace View Park Shelter - $ 80,000 $ - Terrace View Park Play Equipment 23,489 - 120,000 Valley Mission Park - - - Discovery(Universal) Park 39,133 -191,305 - - Total Parks Capital Project Fund 309,032 1,739,036 170,000 Fund: 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 310 2012 Budget 310-Civic Facilities Capital Projects 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Transfer to General Fund 946,914 2,000,000 - Total Civic Buildings Capital Fund $ 946,914 $ 2,000,000 $ - 80 10/18/11 Fund: 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ Spokane Valley Dept: 311 2012 Budget 311 -Street Capital Improvement 2011+ This fund was created during the 2011 Budget development process for the purpose of setting money aside for yet to be determined street capital improvement projects. In the 2011 Budget the City Council made the decision to make an initial transfer of$500,000 from the General Fund to this Fund#311. In addition, the Council made the decision to transfer from the General Fund an additional amount equal to 40%of the General Fund's audited fund balance at December 31, 2010. The 2010 ending fund balance was $27,461,703 which resulted in an additional 2011 transfer of$584,681 (computed as ($27,461,703-$26,000,000)x 40%). In the 2012 Budget the City is appropriating all money estimated to be available for street related capital improvement projects. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Street Capital Improvement 2011+ $ - $ - $ 1,086,881 Total Street Capital Improvement Fund - - 1,086,881 81 10/18/11 Fund:402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 402 2012 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 stormwater funds are used for stormwater management, maintenance and construction of the City's stormwater system. Accomplishments for 2011 • Designed/Constructed stormwater improvements at over 20 locations throughout the City •Completed/implemented major tasks associated with the State mandated Phase II Stormwater Permit. •Completed initial assessment work on State mandated Underground Injection Control Program (due 2013). •Aquired maintenance property for future decant facility. •Completed stormwater assessment rolls, updated the commercial impervious surfaces map. • Bid contracts for Landscaping,and Structure Cleaning Services. •Secured grant dollars to support sweeping and structure cleaning operations. Goals for 2012 • Further refine structure inspection program and cleaning(vactoring)intervals •Complete Underground Injection Control(UIC)Assessment/Testing(due early 2013) • Begin designing projects and/or securing property for Stormwater Capital Improvements •Continue work on receiving permits for,and design,a vactor liquid decant facility. • Begin work to eliminate stormwater discharges to surface waters of the state from city streets. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 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 1.5 1.5 Total FTEs 4.0 4.5 4.5 Interns 2.0 2.0 1.0 Budget Detail Salaries,Wages, &Benefits $ 344,654 $ 418,000 $ 438,614 Supplies 26,358 43,100 32,540 Services&Charges 885,284 1,341,905 1,242,720 Intergovernmental Services 50,289 146,640 23,000 Capital Outlays 275,120 300,000 400,000 Interfund Transfers/Unassigned Ending FB 62,016 - 16,567 Total Stormwater Fund $ 1,643,721 $ 2,249,645 $ 2,153,441 82 10/18/11 Fund:403 Aquifer Protection Area Spokane Valley Dept: 403 2012 Budget 403-Aquifer Protection Area The Aquifer Protection Area Fund was created in 2011 to account for aquifer protection area fees collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City. Historically, Spokane County has collected the fee from local residents and expended the proceeds on projects in Spokane Valley. By mutual agreement, beginning in 2011 all monies collected by the County are now remitted to the City for use in City directed projects that will protect the aquifer. We estimate the fees will generate annual revenue of approximately$500,000. Neither the 2011 or 2012 City Budgets have appropriated any of the annual revenues or fund balance for projects. When appropriate projects are identified in 2012,the budget will be amended to accommodate the expected expenditures. Budget Summary 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Facilities $ - $ - $ - Total Aquifer Protection Area 83 10/18/11 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Computer replacement lease - Software/Hardware replacement - - - Vehicle Replacement - - All other - 209,000 - Total ER&R Fund $ - $ 209,000 $ - 84 10/18/11 Fund: 502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 502 2012 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 2012 2010 2011 Proposed Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Interfund Transfer-#001 $ 309,724 $ 319,000 $ 319,000 Total Risk Management Fund $ 309,724 $ 319,000 $ 319,000 85 10/18/11 Department Capital Outlay Description City of Spokane Valley Capital Expenditures for 2012 FTA through 301 302 Surface Congestion Spokane Various 2012 Real Estate Real Estate Transportation Management Transit WA Dept.of Grant Propsed Budget Excise Tax 1 Excise Tax 2 Program Air Quality Authority TIB:SP BR Ecology EECBG Sources City Funds 303 Street Capital Fund CIP# Road Design&Construction Projects 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan $ 278,520 0060 Argonne Road-190 to Trent 802,792 0142 Broadway @ Argonne&Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 138,150 0148 Greenacres Trail-Design 60,000 0149 In-House Design-Sidewalk Infill 398,250 Mansfield Ave.Connection 738,000 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker(PE&RW) 300,000 0061 Pines(SR27)ITS Improvements 1,766,201 0005 Pines Mansfield 463,312 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility 182,290 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 447,000 0115 Sprague Ave.Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 1,582,000 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 600,000 0141 Sullivan Rd/Euclid PCC(PE/RW) 26,289 University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study 284,000 Contingency 1 1,500,000 303 Street Capital Fund Subtotal Grants 46,540 18,650 238,437 144,600 79,050 100,000 39,090 463,312 36,458 188,000 120,000 3,549 34,000 60,000 240,000 119,500 260,910 447,000 1,394,000 22,740 756,252 316,200 638,000 1,527,764 250,000 145,832 133,920 480,000 60,000 3,000 1,200,000 $ 9,566,804 363,627 1,448,059 309 Parks Capital Projects Terrace View Park Play Equipment $ 120,000 Contingency 1 50,000 309 Parks Capital Projects $ 170,000 402 Stormwater Fund 2 0150 Sullivan Rd.Bridge Drain Retrofit $ 204,889 402 Stormwater Fund $ 204,889 Total Capital Expenditures 2,244,150 3,488,216 145,832 133,920 480,000 - 63,000 1,200,000 204,889 204,889 $ 9,941,693 $ 363,627 $ 1,448,059 $ 2,244,150 $ 3,488,216 $ 145,832 $ 133,920 $ 480,000 $ 204,889 $ 63,000 $ 1,200,000 1 Contingency amount is to cover unforseen overruns,costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2011 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources identified. 2 Amounts not assigned to a city fund or a grant source will be paid by fund project is listed under. 86 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley FTE Count by Year 2012 Budget 2010 2011 Budget 2011 Budget 2012 Authorized Changes to Authorized Interns Proposed Interns Department FTEs FTEs FTEs for 2011 FTEs for 2012 Executive & Legislative Support City Manager 5.0 5.0 (1.0) 5.0 Legal 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Operations &Administrative Services: Deputy City Manager 8.0 (2.0) 6.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 Finance 12.0 (1.0) 11.0 1.0 11.0 Human Resources 2.0 2.0 2.0 Public Works 11.0 11.0 11.0 Planning &Community Development: Admin 3 3.00 3.00 Engineering 8 (2.0) 6.00 6.00 Planning 9 (0.5) 8.50 8.50 Building 14.75 (2.0) 12.75 12.75 Parks & Recreation: Parks Admin 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recreation 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Center 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 CenterPlace 7.0 (2.0) 5.0 5.0 Street Fund 5.0 (0.5) 4.5 1.0 4.5 1.0 Stormwater Fund 4.0 0.5 4.5 2.0 4.5 1.0 TOTAL 95.75 (9.50) 86.25 7.00 87.25* 7.00 ** *No change in staffing level from 2011. Actual Authorized position count in 2011 was 87.25 **The intern count is not reported as a full-time equivalent employee (2,080 hours) but instead simply represents the number of individuals working in a given deaprtment. 87 10/18/11 2011 Work Force Comparison: The 29 Washington Communities with a Population of 100,000 or Less CITY POPULATION FULL-TIME PART-TIME Bellingham 81 ,070 748 30 Yakima 91 ,630 690 18 Renton 92,590 647 19 Redmond 55,150 594 25 Olympia * 46,780 No Response No Response Richland 49,090 466 30 Kirkland 49,020 436 28 Auburn 70,705 408 4 Bremerton 38,790 332 21 Lynnwood 35,860 329 13 Kennewick 74,665 327 7 Federal Way 89,370 289 17 Longview 36,730 286 9 Bothell 33,720 281 14 Pasco 61 ,000 277 8 Puyallup 37,240 275 20 Lacey 42,830 247 3 Walla Walla 31 ,670 241 15 Marysville 60,660 238 10 Lakewood 58,190 235 9 Issaquah 30,690 228 24 Edmonds 39,800 207 6 Mount Vernon 31 ,940 184 22 Wenatchee 32,090 177 5 Shoreline 53,200 127 15 Spokane Valley* 90,110 87 5 Sammamish 46,940 66 4 Burien 47,660 64 12 University Place 31 ,170 45 7 AVERAGE 305 16 Source: Association of Washington Cities Survey: 2011 Full Time 8/31/2011 * Not Calculated in Average 88 10/18/11 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE 2012 Salary Schedule Effective 1/1/2012 Position Title Grade 2012 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 8,888.29 - 12,661.08 City Attorney 21 8,671.50 - 11,395.08 Community Development Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,395.08 Finance Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,395.08 Public Works Director 21 8,671.50 - 11,395.08 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,199.37 - 9,230.79 Human Resources Manager 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Planning Manager 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Building Official 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Senior Engineer-Capital Projects, Development 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,480.26 - 8,307.29 Senior Engineer-Traffic, CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,831.91 - 7,476.25 Accounting Manager 17 5,831.91 - 7,476.25 City Clerk 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Engineer 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Senior Planner 16 5,248.20 - 6,728.20 Associate Planner 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 CenterPlace Coordinator 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Assistant Engineer 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 IT Specialist 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Engineering Technician II 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 GIS/Database Administrator 15 4,724.02 - 6,055.80 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Administrative Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Assistant Planner 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Building Inspector II 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Plans Examiner 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Public Information Officer 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Engineering Technician I 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,251.88 - 5,450.64 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,450.64 Recreation Coordinator 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,450.64 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 Code Enforcement Officer 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 Building Inspector I 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 Planning Technician 13 3,826.38 - 4,905.37 Deputy City Clerk 12-13 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Senior Center Specialist 12-13 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Human Resources Technician 12-13 3,445.00 - 4,905.37 Administrative Assistant 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Permit Specialist 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Accounting Technician 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,414.73 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,789.41 - 3,973.46 Custodian 10 2,789.41 - 3,575.28 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,510.78 - 3,575.28 *The pay grades for positions not represented by the Union are 2.5%lower than reflected above as they were not increased by the 2.5%COLA on January 1,2011 89 10/18/11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Glossary of Budget Terms Accrual Basis — A basis of accounting Capital Improvement — Expenditures in which revenues and expenditures are related to acquisition, expansion or recorded at the time they occur as rehabilitation of an element of the opposed to when cash is actually government's physical plant; sometimes received or spent. referred to as infrastructure. Appropriation — A legal authorization Capital Outlay— Fixed assets that have granted by the City Council to make general value of $5,000 or more and expenditures and to incur obligations for have a useful economic lifetime of more a specific purpose. than one year. Assessed Valuation — The valuation set Capital Project — Major construction, upon real estate and certain personal acquisition, or renovation activities property by the County Assessor as a which add value to government's basis for levying property taxes. physical assets or significantly increase their useful life, also called capital Authorized Positions — Employee improvements. positions, which are authorized in the adopted budget, to be filled during the Capital Projects Fund—A fund created year. to account for all resources and expenditures used for the acquisition of Bond — A long-term promise to repay a fixed assets except those financed by specified amount (the face amount of the enterprise funds. bond) on a particular date (the maturity date). The most common types of bonds Contingency — A budgetary reserve set are general obligation revenue bonds. aside for emergencies or unforeseen Bonds are primarily used to finance expenditures not otherwise budgeted. capital projects. Contractual Services — Services Budget—A plan of financial activity for rendered to a government by private a specified period of time (fiscal year or firms, individuals, or other governmental biennium) indicating all planned agencies. revenues and expenses for the budget period. Debt Service — Payment of interest and principal on borrowed money according Budget Message — The opening section to a predetermined payment schedule. of the budget that provides the City Council and the public with a general Department — The basic unit of service summary of the most important aspects responsibility, encompassing a broad of the budget, changes from the current mandate of related service and previous years, and the views and responsibilities. recommendations of the Mayor. 90 10/18/11 Division — Can be a subunit of a that define accepted accounting department which encompasses a principles. substantial portion of the duties assigned to a department (e.g. Building Division GASB — The Governmental Accounting in the Planning and Community Standards Board, established in 1985, is Development Department). the current standard-setting board for governmental GAAP. Encumbrance — The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase an item General Fund—The principal operating or service. To encumber funds means to fund of the City used for general set aside or commit funds for a specified governmental operations. Taxes and future expenditure. fees that generally have no restriction on their use support it. Expense — Charges incurred (whether paid immediately or unpaid) for General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds — operations, maintenance, interest or This type of bond is backed by the full other charges. faith, credit and taxing power of the government issuing it. Face Value — The amount of principal that must be paid at maturity for a bond Indirect Cost—A cost necessary for the issue. functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be identified Fiscal Year — A twelve-month period with a specific product, function or designated as the operating year for activity. accounting and budgeting purposes in an organization. Infrastructure — The physical assets of a government (e.g. streets, water, sewer, Full-time Equivalent Position (FTE) — public buildings, and parks). A full-time or part-time position converted to the decimal equivalent of a Interfund Transfers — The movement full-time position based on 2,080 hours of monies between funds of the same per year. For example, a part-time governmental entity. person working 20 hours per week would be equivalent of 0.5 of a full-time Levy — To impose taxes for the support position. of the governmental activities. Fund—A fiscal entity with revenues and Long-term Debt— Debt with a maturity expenses that are segregated for the of more than one year after the date of purpose of carrying out a specific issuance. purpose or activity. Mission Statement—A broad statement GAAP — Generally Accepted of the intended accomplishment or basic Accounting Principles. Uniform purpose of a program. minimum standards for financial accounting and recording, encompassing Modified Accrual Accounting — A the conventions, rules, and procedures basis of accounting in which 91 10/18/11 expenditures are accrued but revenues Revenue — Sources of income financing are accounted for when they become the operations of government. measurable and available. Since this type of accounting basis is a Taxes—Compulsory charges levied by a conservative financial approach, it is government for the purpose of financing recommended as the standard for most services performed for the common governmental funds. benefit. This term does not include specific charges made against particular Operating Budget — The portion of the persons or property for current or budget that pertains to daily operations permanent benefits such as special that provide basic governmental assessments. Neither does the term services. include charges for services rendered only to those who pay, for example, Ordinance — A formal legislative sewer service charges. enactment by the City Council. If it is not in conflict with any higher form of Unreserved Fund Balance — The law, such as a statute or constitutional portion of a fund's balance that is not provision, it has the full force and effect restricted for a specific purpose and is of law within the boundaries of the available for general appropriation. municipality to which it applies. User Charges — The payment of a fee Program — The smallest organization for direct receipt of a public service by that delivers a specific set of services. A the party who benefits from the service. program may be an entire department; or if a department encompasses Vision Statement — A short statement significantly diverse responsibilities or that conveys the big picture of the large work forces, a single department organization. It is general in scope, not may be divided into two or more restricting. It answers the question programs. "Why?" Reserve — An account used to either set aside budgeted revenues that are not required for expenditure in the current budget year or to earmark revenues for a specific future purpose. Resolution — A special or temporary order of a legislative body—an order of a legislative body requiring less legal formality than an ordinance or statute. Resources — Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers, and beginning balances. 92 10/18/11 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Budget Adoption First Reading of Ordinance #11 -017 October 25 , 2011 2012 Budget Summary All Funds Total appropriations for all City Funds of $57.0 million including $11 .3 million in capital expenditures. Budgets will be adopted across 21 separate funds. Budget will include a new Aquifer Protection Area Fund. FTE count will remain unchanged at 87.25 employees. 2012 operating expenditure increases have been held at or below 1 % over 2011 . Street Fund budget includes an additional $500,000 for street preservation, plus an additional $100,000 to be set aside for future replacements of snow plows. 10/20/2011 2 General Fund EXPENDITURES: 2012 Appropriations of $35, 196,500, including: $34,660,900 in recurring expenditures. $ 535,600 in nonrecurring expenditures: An $89,000 interfund transfer for Street Capital Proj. A $100,000 interfund transfer for Park Capital Proj. A $346,600 contingency/emergency appropriation that represents 1 % of recurring expenditures. General Fund REVENUES: Total recurring 2012 revenues of $34,908,800 2 largest sources are Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 77% of 2012 General Fund revenues. Sales Tax is estimated at $16.2 million — identical to 2011 . A Property Tax levy estimated at $10,808,900 which: Includes property taxes assessed on new construction. But does not take advantage of the 1 % increase in the 2011 levy that is authorized by Initiative #747. 10/20/2011 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislations executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance 11-018 BPA Electrical Transmission Facilities Renewal Franchise— First Reading. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Spokane County and the Bonneville Power Administration formed a franchise agreement on January 9, 1959 to "construct, operate and maintain one or more electric power transmission circuits with appurtenant fixture across, over and upon the right of way of the county road or roads." This agreement was for a period of 50 years expiring on January 9, 2009. The City inherited this franchise upon incorporation. Because the franchise is expired, the City needs to sign a new franchise agreement. Staff has been in negotiations with BPA to renew the franchise agreement. The new agreement is a franchise to: Install, locate, construct, maintain, repair, reconstruct, upgrade, operate, use, patrol, and, if necessary, remove electrical transmission facilities along with lines of poles or structures and appurtenances thereto, supporting conductors of one or more electric circuits of any voltage and any communication lines or equipment and appurtenances thereto ("Transmission System"), in, on, under, upon, over, along, across or through the roads, highways, streets, alleys, bridges, rights-of-way. This franchise agreement is different from franchises with private utilities because it is a franchise with the federal government. Typically in franchises with private utilities, the City requires insurance to limit the City's liability if damages are caused from the franchise. Local jurisdictions are precluded by federal law from requiring such provisions from the federal government in franchise agreements. The City will need to publish a copy of the franchise in the newspaper prior to adoption at BPA's cost. Staff recommends approval of the proposed franchise. OPTIONS: Council can approve the franchise, or request changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we advance Ordinance 11-018 authorizing execution of an electrical transmission franchise with BPA, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell — City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed franchise w/ BPA. 2. Expired franchise 3. Map showing general location of BPA facilities. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 11-018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FOR A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES UPON, OVER, UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS, AND THROUGH CERTAIN CITY ROADS AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, OR PARTS THEREOF. WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the United States Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, has applied for a nonexclusive franchise, for a term of 25 years, to install, locate, construct, maintain, repair, reconstruct, upgrade, operate, use, patrol, and, if necessary, remove electrical transmission facilities consisting of lines of poles or structures and appurtenances thereto, supporting conductors of one or more electric circuits of any voltage and any communication lines or equipment and appurtenances thereto,in, on,under,upon,over,along, across and through the City roads, highways, streets, alleys, and bridges described in said application by reference to the sections, townships, and ranges in which said roads, highways, streets, alleys, and bridges are physically located within the City of Spokane Valley, State of Washington, including any additional areas annexed by the City of Spokane Valley during the time this franchise is valid, and except the areas covered by those easements acquired by Grantee prior to City of Spokane Valley ownership;and WHEREAS, RCW 80.32.010 authorizes cities to "grant authority for the construction, maintenance and operation of transmission lines for transmitting electric power, together with poles, wires and other appurtenances, upon, over, along and across any such public street or road, . . . and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which the transmission line and its appurtenances, shall be constructed, maintained and operated upon, over, along and across the road or street, and the grade or elevation at which the same shall be constructed,maintained and operated;"and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes code cities to grant franchises for use of public rights- of-way; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to grant a franchise to the United States of America, acting by and through the U.S. Department of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley hereby grants to the United States of America, acting by and through the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration ("Grantee"), subject to all provisions, conditions, covenants and requirements of this agreement, the right, privilege and nonexclusive franchise ("Franchise"), to install, locate, construct, maintain, repair, reconstruct, upgrade, operate, use, patrol, and, if necessary, remove electrical transmission facilities along with lines of poles or structures and appurtenances thereto, supporting conductors of one or more electric circuits of any voltage and any communication lines or equipment and appurtenances thereto ("Transmission System"), in, on, under, upon, over, along, across or through the roads, highways, streets, alleys, bridges, rights-of-way, which lie within those legal subdivisions within the City of Spokane Valley ("City"), Washington, including any additional areas annexed by the City Ordinance 11-018,Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power Page 1 of 5 DRAFT during the time this franchise is valid, and except the areas covered by those easements acquired by Grantee prior to City ownership. Section 2. Costs. All costs of construction, repair, alteration, relocation or removal of any part of the Transmission System shall be paid by the Grantee. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this Franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this Franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this Franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Franchise or under City Code. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Franchise or under City Code. Section 3. Franchise not Exclusive. This Franchise shall not be deemed to be an exclusive Franchise. It shall in no manner prohibit City from granting other Franchises of a like and compatible nature or Franchises for public or private utilities under, along, across, over, and upon any of the City roads, rights-of-way, or other property subject to this Franchise and shall in no way restrict, prevent, or prohibit City from constructing, altering, maintaining, or using any of said roads or rights-of-way, drainage structures or facilities, irrigation structures or facilities, or any other City property or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them with full power to make all necessary construction, alterations, changes,relocations,repairs,or maintenance,which the City may deem necessary. Section 4. Map and Specifications to be Provided to the City. Prior to commencement of any new construction of any portion of the Transmission System, Grantee shall provide the City its plans and specifications to do such work. "New construction" means any new line of transmission line towers and conductors within Grantee's existing right-of-way or in new right-of-way. It would not include maintaining Grantee's existing lines or replacing(rebuild) of Grantee's conductors or poles in exactly the same locations, or the addition of a communication line to Grantee's existing towers and right of way, as required for the operation and maintenance of Grantee's facilities. Plans and specifications submitted to the City shall show the position, depth, or height, and location of all lines and facilities sought to be constructed, laid, installed or erected at that time, and shall show their relative position to existing City roads, rights-of-way, or other City property, upon plans drawn to scale indicating exact distance hereinafter collectively referred to as the "map of definite location." The Transmission System shall be constructed in exact conformity with said map of definite location, except in instances in which Grantee determines that a deviation may be necessary,and after approval by the City. Section 5. Construction Standards. All work shall be done in accordance with current standards and codes,in a thorough, professional and workmanlike manner with minimum interference to public use of the City rights-of-way. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors,assigns or agencies. Section 6. All City Road Rights Reserved. City expressly reserves any and all rights which it now has or may hereafter acquire with respect to City roads,rights-of-ways, or other City property, and this Franchise shall not be construed to in any way limit or restrict any authority, power, rights, or privileges which City now has or may hereafter acquire to control and regulate the use of City roads, rights-of-way,and other City property covered by this Franchise. Section 7. City May Change and Improve Roads without Liability. If City shall at any time improve or change any City road or right-of-way subject to this Franchise by grading, regrading, surfacing, or paving the same, or by changing, altering, repairing, or relocating the grade thereof or by construction of drainage facilities, Grantee shall, upon written notice from the City, at Grantee's sole expense, with all reasonable speed, change the location or readjust the elevation of its Transmission System and other facilities so that the same shall not interfere with such City work and so such lines and Ordinance 11-018,Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power Page 2 of 5 DRAFT facilities shall conform to such new grades as may be established. City shall in no respect be held liable for any damages, costs, or expenses to Grantee that may occur by reason of any of the City's improvements, changes, or work above enumerated, except insofar as such damages, costs, or expenses shall be caused by negligence of the City's employees or agents. Section 8. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 9. Vacation of City Roads—Alternative Route. If at any time City shall vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this Franchise, City shall grant an alternate route with the consultation of Grantee or reserve an easement for the benefit of Grantee, and by giving 60 days written notice to Grantee,terminate this Franchise with reference to such City road,right-of-way,or other City property so vacated. Section 10. Federal Tort Claims Act/Insurance. Grantee is an agency of the Federal government and is subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 62 Stat. 982,as amended,as may hereinafter be amended or superseded, and other applicable law. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Grantee agrees to be responsible for any loss or damage arising out of Grantee's activities under this Franchise. Contracting personnel are hired under federal contracting guidelines and are required to carry insurance. Section 11. Revocation for Non-Compliance. In the event that Grantee substantially violates or fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this Franchise, Grantee shall forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this Franchise shall be revocable by the City at its discretion,provided,however, the City shall provide Grantee with written notice of its intention to revoke the Franchise, specifying the nature of such violation, failure, or neglect, and shall give Grantee a reasonable timeframe negotiated between the parties,not less than 90 days in which to cure such violation,failure,or neglect. Section 12. Grantee's Address. The address of Grantee is: Bonneville Power Administration 905 N.E. 11th Ave. P.O.Box 3621,Mail Stop TERS-3 Portland,OR 97208-3621 Any notification required to be given to Grantee may be given to the address above stated, provided that Grantee may from time to time notify City in writing of change of address to which notifications are to be sent. Section 13. Term. This nonexclusive Franchise agreement shall expire 25 years from the effective date. Section 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law,following passage by the City Council. Ordinance 11-018,Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power Page 3 of 5 DRAFT Adopted this day of ,2011 City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Office of the City Attorney Effective Date: Ordinance 11-018,Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Accepted by BPA Margareth H.Wolcott,Realty Officer The Grantee,BPA for itself,and for its successors and assigns,does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing Franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of ,2011. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2011. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 11-018,Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power Page 5 of 5 T k 71'7.'1\1 . '' ` '' i+ Cqgittgat.fir, 7.4-41-03-1-4428 • BEFORE THE HONORABLE BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF $2010NE, COUNTY, WASHDIGTON phi. 59000 • In the Matter of the Application of ) ) UIiITED STATES OF AMERICA } F R A N C H I S E for a franchise to construct, operate ) and maintain one or more electric power ) transmission circuits across, over and ) upon certain county roads or portions ) thereof in 41P0.41111 County, ) ) Washington. ) ) The application of the United States of America, Department of the Interior, acting through the Bonneville Power Administrator, and its assigns, for a franchise to construct, operate and maintain one or more electric power transmission circuits with appurtenant fixtures across, over and upon the right of way of the county- road or roads hereinafter described, having come regularly on for hearing on the °t11 day of jitigcOrttt , 19 ,before the Board of County Commissioners of VoRalle County, Lashington, under the provisions of Section 6450-38 Remington/a Revised Statutes of Washington, and it appearing to the Board of County Commissioners that public notice of said hearing was duly given as required by law, and that it is for the public interest to grant the franchise applied for, it is ORDERED, that a franchise be and the same hereby is granted to the United States of America and its assigns (hereinafter referred to as "the holder"), for a period of fifty years from the date of the entry of this order, to construct, operate and maintain one or more electric power transmission circuits, together with the necessary towers, poles and other fixtures appurtenant thereto, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter enumerated, across, over, and upon the right of way of the following described county road or roads or portions I The centerline of the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission line crosses tracts; VT-102A - The centerline of Mission Avenue at BPA survey station 54+09.0 along the east tine of the Si a'Y3 of Section 14, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106191. VT-104A - The centerline of Broadway Street at BFA survey station 62+93 along the south line of the Si i 2"; of Section 14, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-106A - The centerline of Springfield Avenue at JPA survey station 66+20 near the east line of the WE SES of Section 14, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-112A - The centerline of Valley Way at EPA survey station 76+17 along the south line of the NE'r,SLk of Section 14, Township 25 North, Range 44 cast, :1.Sf., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-120A - The centerline of Sprague Avenue (former Primary State Highway No. 2) at EPA survey station 89+28.8 along the line common to Sections 14 and 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-123A - The centerline of proposed Second Avenue at EPA survey station 98+55 near the east line of the NE Wk of Section 23, Township 23 North, mange 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-125B - The centerline of Fourth Avenue at EPA survey station 102+75 along the south line of the NiWE1 of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.N., as shown on drawing, serial number 106192. VT-127A - The centerline of Eighth Avenue at EPA survey station 116+02 along the Cast-blast quarter section line of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106193. VT-130A - The centerline of Twelfth Avenue at EPA survey station 129+40 near the east line of the E1/2SEk of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106193. VT-1325 - The centerline of Sixteenth Avenue at EPA survey station 142+69 along the line common to Sections 23 and 26, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106193. VT-134A - The centerline of Twenty-Fourth Avenue at EPA survey station 18 436 along the East-West quarter section line of Section 26, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.H., as shown on drawing, serial number 106194. VT-138A - The centerline of Thirty-Second Avenue at EPA survey station 195+87 along the line common to Sections 26 and 35, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, N.M., as shown on drawing, serial number 106194. LA I. All construction, operation and maintenance of and repairs to said electric power transmission circuits and fixtures appurtenant thereto shall be performed in accordance with applicable state laws, and the specifications, rules and regulations of the latest edition of and supplements to the National Electrical Safety Code, promulgated by the United States Bureau of Standards. Said electric power transmission circuits shall at all times be constructed, operated and maintained so as not to interfere unduly with the use of said county road or roads or endanger the safety of the traveling public thereon. II. All costs of construction, repair, alteration, relocation or removal of said electric power transmission circuits and appurtenant fixtures shall be paid by the United States of America. III. Whenever, by reason of the construction, repair, improvement, altera- tion or relocation of said county road or roads, or any portion thereof it shall become necessary, in the opinion of the Hoard of County Commis- sioners, to remove or relocate any part or all of said electric power transmission circuits and appurtenant fixtures from said county road or roads, the holder agrees to remove or relocate said electric power transmission circuits and appurtenant fixtures immediately, and at its own expense within the limits of appropriations available therefor, to the place or places on said county road or roads designated by the Board of County Commissioners. IV. In the event that all or any part of said county road or roads shall become a primary state higmway, and thereafter, by reason of the construc- tion, repair, improvement, alteration or relocation of all or any portion of said primary state highway as determined by the Director of Highways of the State of Washington, it shall become necessary, in the opinion of said Director of Highways, to remove or relocate any or all of said electric power transmission circuits and appurtenant fixtures from said highway, the holder agrees to remove or relocate said electric power transmission circuits and appurtenant fixtures immediately, and at its own expense within the limits of appropriations available therefor, to - 2 -- the place or places on said state highway designated by said Director of highways, pursuant to Title 41, Chapter IX, Volume 7A, Remington's Revised Statutes of Washington. V. The work of constricting, removing and relocating all or any part of said electric power transmission circuits and fixtures appurtenant thereto shall, be performed by the holder in compliance with paragraph I, and without unnecessary interference with traffic upon or along said county road or roads. none of such work shall be undertaken or carried on without ten days' written notice having been first given to said Board of County Commissioners. P1. Any and all damage or injury done or caused to be done to said county road or roads, or to any portion thereof, in the construction, operation or maintenance of said electric power transmission circuits shall be immediately repaired and reconstructed by the holder within the limits of appropriations available therefor and ender the supervision and to the satisfaction of said Board of County Commissioners. Except where in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners an emergency exists, notice in writing of such repairs or reconstruction required of the holier hereunder shall be given to the holder. Upon the failure and neglect or refusal of the holder to do and perform irrrnediate]y after receipt of such notice any repairs or reconstruction of said county road or roads herein required of the holder, or in an emergency without prior notice, the Board of County Commissioners may undertake and perform such repairs or reconstruction and the reasonable cost thereof including a reasonable sum for overhead will be paid by the holder within the limits of appropriations available therefor upon presentation of properly executed vouchers therefor; provided, however, that tf-e County shall submit an estimate of the cost of such repairs or reconstruction to the Bonneville Power Administrator, and shall obtain said Administrator's approval of the cost thereof before making any such repairs or reconstruction; except that if in an emergency, the existence of which shall be determined by the County, it becomes necessary for the County to make such repairs or reconstruction without giving such notice and obtaining the approval of the cost thereof by said Administrator, the United States shall not be required to make any payrent therefor unless the sum expended, or any a3 - v lesser reasonable wart, shall be approved by said Administrator, Whenever the Board of County Commissioners shall perform or cause to be performed any of the work contemplat in this paragraph the wages of every laborer and mechanic employed in the performance of said work shall be computed on a basic day rate of eight hours per day and work in excess of eight hours per day shall be permitted only upon the condition that every such laborer and mechanic shall be compensated for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of nay. For each violation of the requirements of this provision, a penalty of five dollars (Z.00) shall, be imposed upon the county for each laborer or mechanic for every calendar day in which such employees shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours upon said work without receiving compensation computed in accordance with this provision and all penalties thus imposed shall be withheld for the use and benefit of the holder; provided, further, that no person undergoing or serving a sentence of imprisonment at hard labor shall be required or permitted to perform any of such work. VII. This franchise is granted pursuant to the provisions of section 645O-38, Remington's Revised Statutes of Washington. ❑III. The holder shall, within twenty days from receipt of a copy of this order, file with the Board of County Corcmissioners at SpoInne Washington, its written acceptance of the terms and conditions of this franchise. Dater at Spna , Washington, this 9gk day of JaAuary , I9$9 . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Is/U. c. Allen Approved as to form: iataartg. Radalf {gtc. n- Belle-p _ , Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for giymr County, -Washington (spa.) (CO C ! SIODERS) (COURT sn 7- '9P07.03 E O Y ) ASI GTF}N )_ _ 4 _ .�N' d andiana Ave Oab A. slon Ave �®� Liberty I . '��_'- ° A Lake ®Broadway Ave �I - ._ - B oad vay Ave ®® i �I ® P44�e y to mmmr ji " ®®' She/tey rrAtoliA cax` ■ L'•A plewayBlvd ® ��� ii �v�+ter b ighth Ave yr 00•x 1 ted,A•r� ® Saltes a NI ®4'i Map 6.1 Utilities Legend City of Spokane Valley Boundary Urban Growth Area IlkWater Bodies Utilities AT&T Optic • Avista Sub Station • Avista Future Sub Station ♦ BPA Sub Station • NWP Meter Station ♦ IP&L Sub Station ♦ Sub Station A Cell Towers — — -Avista Future —Avista 115 KV —Avista 210 KV —BPA 115KV —BPA 230KV —BPA 500 KV —Vera 115K —CDALine -Pacific Gas Line Yellowstone Terminal Avista Gas Yellowstone PGT Gas Line Effective Date:5/10/2006 Ordinance No.:06-010 jam. 0 0.5 Map Location 2 Miles Notice:The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no dainty or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accumcy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City or Spokane Valley,community Development Department CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: IN Check all that apply: ❑ consent El old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 11-008 amending the Master Fee Schedule for 2012. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Master Fee Schedule setting 2011 fees was established via Resolution #10-019 and was adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On September 20, 2011, the Council considered an Admin Report on the proposed resolution establishing 2012 fees. No formal Council action has been taken to date. BACKGROUND: Part of the annual operating budget development process involves City Departments reviewing the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place and determining whether changes in the fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. Recommended changes include: • Language (but not fee amount) changes initiated by the Community Development Department. • One fee change initiated by the Parks and Recreation Department at CenterPlace. • Language and fee amount changes initiated by the Spokane Valley Fire Department. Based upon Councilmember questions and comments at the September 20, 2011 meeting, City staff have prepared fee comparisons with the City of Spokane and Spokane County for a variety of fee types and these are attached for Council review. OPTIONS: 1) Proceed with the updated fee resolution change as presented this evening; 2) Proceed with portions of the updated fee resolution presented this evening; 3) Do not make any changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 11-008 amending the Master Fee Schedule for 2012. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed changes are not expected to have a significant impact on 2012 revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • An 18-page "Red / Blue lined copy" of the 2012 master fee schedule established by Resolution No. 11-008. This allows Council Members to see the original language and fees as well as the proposed changes. \ISV-FS2\Userslrncalhoun&Fee ResolutionlResolution for 2012 Fees12011 10 25 informalion1201 1 10 25 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx • A 17-page "clean copy" of the 2012 master fee schedule established by Resolution No. 11- 008. This version incorporates all proposed changes in a format free of mark-ups that resulted from editing as you see in the previous version. • A four-page memo prepared by the Community Development Department that provides comparative information related to fees and turnaround times. • A two-page memo prepared by the Parks and Recreation Department that provides comparative information related to fees. • A one-page memo from the Spokane Valley Fire Department that provides a rationale for the proposed fee increase as well as comparative information related to fees. 115V-F521Userslmcalhoun\Fee ResolutionlResolution for 2012 Fees12011 10 25 information12011 10 25 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. . Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1, 2012. Approved this 25th day of October, 2011. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 1 of 18 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 10 Schedule D:Parks and Recreation 12 Schedule E: Administrative 15 Schedule F: Other Fees 15 Schedule G: Police Fees 16 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 2 of 18 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A — Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision- Code Compliance Notice and Order 500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) $100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Review, minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit $315.00 + $52.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+ $40.00 per lot Final Plat $1,424.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+ $25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,224.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 3 of 18 DRAFT Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00. Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00 +$10.00 per lot Plat Vacation $1,474.00 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00 +$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 SINGLE FAly146314Bl3Pl NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50 SITE PLAN REVIEW -PER DIVISION REVIEW $275 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception $315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 Pre:application Meetings $250.00 Fee will be I=)&:ducted from land use p (ication, building permit or commercial permit application fee { v.hen application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting ZONING Zoning map amendments(rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00+$26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s) is additional Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 4 of 18 DRAFT Schedule B —Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy nPlci,' 'review fen aye-ne4- x€nble once an), p[an review wort; ha b"".. "t r'c.,, Ie— -fc■s-are-Henn- refundable once work authorized bthy e p:rrri-t hes••l egun: .. ' • - . .• . .-;js--444le- . .. • . . . - . - •. T , t ealexdar days of application submittal or permit issuance. Requests received alter 180 calendar days are not eligible-fei refuneh Refunr`Is authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. Building plan review fees will be refirrrcl l`wh st is received in writing. A $35.0A etrlmi- ietrative fee will be retained. If the paid building p]en rC"`°"' `e "`.ee 4_ $35.00, the amount for refund will be calculated at the--mte : • • , '., r lii�rded-�vfren n eligible request is roved in writing WithHr-fSii ny�-el' permit iSStianeer, An amount equal to the hourly rate for one hetrr of 5taf ime•--as-designated in this schedule will be r +fined. If the built'.: . • - - ' - • • • . • le4ie#14+4-51er€1=4inle;4lie building permit fee will not be refunded. If the pa-idng-pettee exceeds the amount for one hour of staff time, the refund will be calculated at the ante of 95% of the building per it_ &pa+dru-aueepd-auce with Schedule B of the Muter Fee Sohe:tile; PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees a e non-refundable Once aUN Ilan •view work has been started. ▪ Paid plan review fees will be refunded wheium eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum,a $35.00 administrative fee will be retained, • If the paid plan review fee is less than $35,00, no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $35.00, the amount for refund will be calculated at the rate of 100%of the paid plan review fee minus $35.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit Ices will be refs clecl when an eligible request is received in.writing. • As a minimum,a $35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • lithe paid permit fee is less than j35.00, no refund is authorized. • Iftlle_paid permit fee is more than$35.00,the refund will be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus_$35.00. Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 5 of 18 DRAFT For an}mplication taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid will be made. No portion of the paid fees will be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees(1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted hi response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC) $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge (Multi-Family) $4.50 1st dwelling unit+ $2.00 each additional unit BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below are to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees 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 value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages (masonry) $22.00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports, decks, porches $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00 + $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000 + $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00 + $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000+ $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$500,000,00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 6 of 18 DRAFT $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00+ $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00 + $3.15 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation % of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee (general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies(sheds, barns,et.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at$35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the"Fee Payment"section of this schedule. Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 7 of 18 DRAFT OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25% of building permit fee Swimming Pools, over 5,000 gallons $52.00 + plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers, elevated tanks, antennas Hourly GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards (cu yd)or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd+ $6.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd+ $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit(greater than 5,000 sq. ft.—new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 8 of 18 DRAFT MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1.Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a. up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b. over 100,000 btu $16.00 2. Duct work system $11.00 3. Heat pump and air conditioner a. O to 3 tons $13.00 b. over 3 tons to 15 tons $21.00 c. over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d. over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00. e. over 50 tons $63.00 4. Gas water heater $11.00 5. Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6. Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $11.00 7. Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10.00 each 8. Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp- 100,000 btu or less $13.00 b. over 3 to 15 hp- 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c. over 15 30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d. over 30 ph- 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e. over 50 hp-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9. Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfm,including ducts $13.00 b. each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10. Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $11.00 11.,Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b. each ventilation system $13.00 c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12.Incinerators a. residential installation or relocation $21.00 b. commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13. Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $52.00 b. 400,000 btu or over $105.00 14. Hood a. Type I $52.00 b. Type II $11.00 15. LP Storage Tank $11.00 16. Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17. Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 9 of 18 DRAFT PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B.UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, water closets,lavatories, sinks, drains, etc.) 2. Water Heater $6.00 each 3.Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5. Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6. Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7. Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8.Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of $61.00 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it will be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1. Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2. Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3. Pavement cut obstruction, non-winter $168.00 4. Pavement cut obstruction, winter $210.00 5. Approach Permit $52.00 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B "General"section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign (flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign(flat fee) Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 10 of 18 DRAFT Schedule C — Fire Code FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee added to these Fire District I fees $37.00 Plans check and review fees, inspections and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications, and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System New Installation Control Panel with tin to I to-4 devices $165,001118.00 Control Panel with 5 to 100 devices $ 93.13.00 E ,clditia J g piui f_Additionci 100 devices $55:063.00 Pert additional panel $4417005D,00 Sprinkler sun on Per additional floor $837E1050.00 Each additional- or' rinkler Supervision System $40095.00 Fire Alarm—Modifications to Existing System p0 5 New Devices(no battcrq calculations) $411.0n 1 to 5 New Devices(with battery calculations) $80_Q Additional 6 to 20 New Devices $40.00 20+New Devices Refer to New Installation Control Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $1 88.00 � ., lu x 1i 'pap el RepIic.emcalt_(no device revisions) 595.00 Fire Sprinkler Systems—New or Existing 1 to 9 heads $ 0066.00 10-to 49 Heads $142-40207.00 50-to 100 Hettds $303,003415.00 101-to 200 Heads $341 .00408.00 201-to 3001 leads $30439.00 301-to 400 Heads $44-341047 .00 401-to 500_ ads $468-4534.00 Over S00 ant e $550,00627.00+$.3-6±11 per head For hydraulically designed systems, multiply the above fee by 2 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 11 of 18 DRAFT Non-Suppression Systems-New In I,3tinns P% -Class 1 hoods, Clean Ageigheri, spray boothsG0 , Wei or Qitlry chemical, CO2, 1- 4-?00, int-e-Fgen-spfay-beeths, etc. Unit 1 5 nozzia •Panel &Balllo with up to 5 Nozzles $110.00i25.00 Over S iie lesPaiiel &Bottle with 6 ou riche N zles $-I-1-0:00125.00+$B4013.00.per nozzle Additional Bottle(s) $33.00-38,0Oper-L R1-e yon-Suuresslan Systems-Modificalinns to Existing System _lass ! hoods, Clean.Agent. Spray Booth0Vet or Du Chemical, CO2. etc. 1 to 3 i3ew gzzies the new Bottle) 540.00 I to 3 new Nozzles (with new Bottle) $80.00 } Fire Pump Installation: Plan review and inspection fee $550.00627.00 Underground Fire Mains: Plan review and inspection fee $165,00188.00 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system: Plan review and inspection $165.00188,00 • Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 12 of 18 DRAFT Other Protection Systems • - • • • • .t - t ter Hula Standpipa-Instal-lntien-Class I and II.Standpipe(part of a Sprinkler System) $6470-073.00 S4i lion-Class III StandRi.i (part of a iinlcler System) $77•..0088.00 Storage Tank Ilt.,tallation: E€lammable &Ceombustible liquids $-?0•00 80.4Qiper tank Liquefied petroleum $7-070080,00 per tank Cryogenic $80•00 per tank Iyi. ]gas,yslemn.(c3aseous Oxygen.Nitrous, etc.)(Not part of a Building Permit) Gascoi w 0.00 Nitfatis vsterns �A _ .. $70.00 Hazardous material recycling systems $ 080,00 Vapor recovery system $1604080.00 Stor ge Tank Installation (Hazardous Ma:erials not mentioned elsewhere) $80,0Q.per tank Storage Tank Removal or Abandonment(Flammable &Con1I m ible Liquids) $105.00 per tank Cryogenic moo Storage tank removal, abandonment or !my nni n : - : . - . - , • g105:00 Emergency or S •tandby Coommercial Ppower enerator Iinstallation $70.00K0 PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit $70.008100 Temporary Use Permit $7-0080.00 Tents/Canopy Permit $70,0080,00 Event Permit To Be Determined PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE 1.1141,1RAILLOILFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU New Commercial plans check and inspection (for projects not mentioned elsewhere) $7070080.00 LAND USE Subdivision/PUD/Binding Site Plan Preliminary $110.00160.00 Final $ 080,00 Short Plat Preliminary $�0160.00 Final $70.0080.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 13 of 18 DRAFT Schedule D — Parks and Recreation ADNIINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount— 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30.00 Swim Team Fee $35.00 Reservation(less than 50 people) $105,00 per hour** Food fee (less than 50 people, if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour** Food fee (50-100 people, if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee (101-150 people, if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room(day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Patio Event Package $300,00500.0Q per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event ***Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 14 of 18 DRAFT Great Room Kitchen with dining room rental $105.00 per use Kitchen Commercial use(2 hour minimum) $52.00 per hour Kitchen deposit 452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105.00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Deposit $210.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings(linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe &Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Lounge deposit $210.00 Meeting room(evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room(evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room(weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour Miscellaneous Cleanup fee $52 to $315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System *** $262.00 per day (includes projector,podium, DVDNCR sound system, camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262.00 per hour Sound System $42.00 per day Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 15 of 18 DRAFT EVENTS—includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments, and activities involving 200 or more people. The Parks and Recreation Director will make the final determination. General Fee $157.00 Non-profit applications $84.00 or free with sponsorship SPECIAL EVENTS: (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) National Night Out $5.00 FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 151 hour+ $15.00 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission $2.00 Playground program admission(10 entries) $21.00 MIRABEAU SPRINGS Small shelter and waterfall $250.00 maximum 2 hours Refundable deposit(Iess than 200 people) $52.00 Event Pictures (for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows) $150.00 per hour MIRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY MISSION Shelter (less than 200 people) $84.00 Shelter(200 or more people) $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 PICNIC SHELTERS Less than 200 people $50.00 200 or more people $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental(Renter responsible for on-site preparation. Requires liability insurance) $105.00 per weekend Refundable deposit $52.00 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY—Permit fee $26.00 annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 16 of 18 DRAFT Schedule E — Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes,DVD, CD's,etc. At Cost Copy of written documents in excess of 6 pages $.15 per page Copy large format documents (24"x 36" or greater) $3.00 per page Hourly rate to transfer scanned records to electronic disc $19.00 per hour A deposit of 10% may be required on public record requests NSF Check return fee $26.00 Schedule F— Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee: (charged in addition to the business registration fee) (SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50% of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License, Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee: (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25%of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50% of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75% of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License: Adult Entertainment License denial,suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21,00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 17 of 18 DRAFT Schedule G — Police Fees Alarm system registration Residential alarm systems $25.00 annual Commercial alarm systems $35.00 annual [If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year, the following year's registration fee will be reduced to $15.00 per year for residential,and $25.00 per year for commercial.] Discounted alarm registration fees The annual registration fees and false alarm cost recovery fees are reduced by 50% for eligible citizens. To qualify for the fee reduction, an eligible person a. has a gross annual income of less than $19,100 for a one-person household or b. has a gross annual income of less than$21,850 for households of two or more persons or c. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks such as walking, seeing,hearing, speaking, breathing and learning. Appeal regarding a false alarm $25.00 Service fees for response to a false alarm: Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 18 of 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1,2012. Approved this 25`b day of October, 2011. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 1 of 17 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 10 Schedule D: Parks and Recreation 12 Schedule E: Administrative 15 Schedule F: Other Fees 15 Schedule G: Police Fees 16 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 2 of 17 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A — Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision- Code Compliance Notice and Order 500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) $100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) Review, minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit $315.00+$52.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+ $40.00 per Iot Final Plat $1,424.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+ $25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,224.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 3 of 17 Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00. Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00+$10.00 per lot Plat Vacation $1,474.00 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00+$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PER DIVISION REVIEW $275 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception $315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 Pre-application Meetings $250.00 Fee will be deducted from land use application, building permit or commercial permit application fee when application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting ZONING Zoning map amendments (rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00+$26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s) is additional Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 4 of 17 Schedule B — Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy Refunds authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. • Paid plan review fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum, a $35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid plan review fee is less than $35.00, no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $35.00, the amount for refund will be calculated at the rate of 100%of the paid plan review fee minus $35.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum, a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid permit fee is less than$35.00, no refund is authorized. • If the paid permit fee is more than $35.00, the refund will be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus $35.00. For any application taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid will be made. No portion of the paid fees will be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees (1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 5 of 17 Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC) $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge(Multi-Family) $4.50 1st dwelling unit+ $2.00 each additional unit BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below are to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees 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 value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages (masonry) $22,00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports, decks, porches $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to$25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00 + $14.00 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000 + $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$50,000.00 $50,001.00 to$100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00 + $7.00 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000+ $5.60 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$500,000.00 $500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00+ $4.75 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00+ $3.15 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation % of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee(general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies (single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies (sheds, barns, et.) 25% Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 6 of 17 Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at$35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the"Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 7 of 17 OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Pennit Single Family Residence $46.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25% of building permit fee Swimming Pools, over 5,000 gallons $52.00 + plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers,elevated tanks, antennas Hourly GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards (cu yd) or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd + $6.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd + $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 sq. ft. -new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 8 of 17 MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a. up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b. over 100,000 btu $16.00 2, Duct work system $11.00 3. Heat pump and air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $13.00 b. over 3 tons to 15 tons $21.00 c. over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d. over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00. e. over 50 tons $63.00 4. Gas water heater $11.00 5. Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6. Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $11.00 7.Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10.00 each 8. Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp- 100,000 btu or less $13.00 b. over 3 to 15 hp- 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c. over 15 -30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d. over 30 ph- 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e. over 50 hp-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9. Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfn, including ducts $13.00 b. each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10. Evaporative Coolers(other than portable) $11.00 11.Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b. each ventilation system $13.00 c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12. Incinerators a. residential installation or relocation $21.00 b. commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13. Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $52.00 b. 400,000 btu or over $105.00 14. Hood a. Type I $52.00 b. Type II $11.00 15. LP Storage Tank $11.00 16. Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17. Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 9 of 17 PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1.Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc.) 2. Water Heater $6.00 each 3. Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5. Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6. Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7. Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8. Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of$61.00 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it will be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1.Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2.Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3. Pavement cut obstruction,non-winter $168.00 4. Pavement cut obstruction,winter $210.00 5. Approach Permit $52.00 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B "General" section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign(flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign(flat fee) Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 10 of 17 Schedule C — Fire Code FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee added to these Fire District I fees $37.00 Plans check and review fees, inspections and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications, and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System -New Installation Control Panel with up to 4 devices $188.00 Control Panel with 5 to 100 devices $313.00 Per additional groupings of 100 devices $63.00 Per additional panel $50.00 Per additional floor $50.00 Sprinkler Supervision System $95.00 Fire AIarm—Modifications to Existing System 1 to 5 New Devices (no battery calculations) $40.00 1 to 5 New Devices (with battery calculations) $80.00 Additional 6 to 20 New Devices $40.00 20+New Devices Refer to New Installation Control Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $188.00 Sprinkler Supervision Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $95.00 Fire Sprinkler Systems—New or Existing 1 to 9 heads $66.00 10to 49 Heads $207.00 50to 100 Heads $345.00 101to 200 Heads $408.00 201to 300 Heads $439.00 301to 400 Heads $471.00 401to 500 Heads $534.00 Over 500 $627.00+$.41 per head For hydraulically designed systems, multiply the above fee by 2 Non-Suppression Systems—New Installations Class 1 hoods, Clean Agent, spray booths,Wet or Dry chemical, CO2, , , etc. Panel &Bottle with up to 5 Nozzles $125.00 Panel&Bottle with 6 or more Nozzles $125.00+$13.00 per nozzle Additional Bottle(s) $38.00 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 11 of 17 Non-Suppression Systems—Modifications to Existing System Class 1 hoods, Clean Agent, Spray Booths, Wet or Dry Chemical, CO2, etc. 1 to 3 new Nozzles(no new Bottle) $40.00 1 to 3 new Nozzles(with new Bottle) $80.00 Fire Pump Installation: Plan review and inspection fee $627.00 Underground Fire Mains: Plan review and inspection fee $188.00 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system: Plan review and inspection $188.00 Other Protection Systems Class 1 and Il Standpipe(part of a Sprinkler System) $73.00 Class 11I Standpipe(part of a Sprinkler System) $88.00 Storage Tank Installation: Flammable&Combustible liquids $80.00per tank Liquefied petroleum $80.00 per tank Cryogenic $80.00 per tank Medical gas systems(Gaseous Oxygen,Nitrous, etc.)(Not part of a Building Permit) $80.00 Hazardous material recycling systems $80.00 Vapor recovery system $80.00 Storage Tank Installation (Hazardous Materials not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 per tank Storage Tank Removal or Abandonment(Flammable &Combustible Liquids) $105.00 per tank Emergency or Standby Commercial Power Generator Installation $80.00 PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit $80.00 Temporary Use Permit $80.00 Tents/Canopy Permit $80.00 Event Permit To Be Determined PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU New Commercial plans check and inspection (not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 LAND USE SubdivisionlPUD/Binding Site Plan Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Short Plat Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 12 of 17 Schedule D - Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass(25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount- 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30.00 Swim Team Fee $35.00 Reservation (less than 50 people) $105.00 per hour** Food fee(less than 50 people, if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour" Food fee(50-100 people, if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee(101-150 people, if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room(day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Patio Event Package $500.00 per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event ***Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 13 of 17 Great Room Kitchen with dining room rental $105.00 per use Kitchen Commercial use(2 hour minimum) $52.00 per hour Kitchen deposit 452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105.00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Deposit $210.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings(linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe &Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Lounge deposit $210.00 Meeting room (evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room (evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room (weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour Miscellaneous Cleanup fee $52 to$315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System *** $262.00 per day (includes projector, podium,DVD/VCR sound system, camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262.00 per hour Sound System $42.00 per day Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 14 of 17 EVENTS--includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments, and activities involving 200 or more people. The Parks and Recreation Director will make the final determination. General Fee $157.00 Non-profit applications $84.00 or free with sponsorship SPECIAL EVENTS: (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) National Night Out $5.00 FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 151 hour+ $15.00 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission $2.00 Playground program admission (10 entries) $21.00 MIRABEAU SPRINGS Small shelter and waterfall $250.00 maximum 2 hours Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Event Pictures (for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows) $150.00 per hour MIRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY MISSION Shelter(less than 200 people) $84.00 Shelter(200 or more people) $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 PICNIC SHELTERS Less than 200 people $50.00 200 or more people $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental(Renter responsible for on-site preparation. Requires liability insurance) $105.00 per weekend Refundable deposit $52.00 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY—Permit fee $26.00 annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 15 of 17 Schedule E — Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes,DVD,CD's, etc. At Cost Copy of written documents in excess of 6 pages $.15 per page Copy large format documents(24"x 36"or greater) $3.00 per page Hourly rate to transfer scanned records to electronic disc $19.00 per hour A deposit of 10% maybe required on public record requests NSF Check return fee $26.00 Schedule F — Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee: (charged in addition to the business registration fee)(SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50% of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License, Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee: (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25% of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50% of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75% of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License: Adult Entertainment License denial, suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 16 of 17 Schedule G — Police Fees Alarm system registration Residential alarm systems $25.00 annual Commercial alarm systems $35.00 annual [If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year, the following year's registration fee will be reduced to $15.00 per year for residential, and $25.00 per year for commercial.] Discounted alarm registration fees The annual registration fees and false alarm cost recovery fees are reduced by 50% for eligible citizens. To qualify for the fee reduction, an eligible person a. has a gross annual income of less than $19,100 for a one-person household or b. has a gross annual income of less than $21,850 for households of two or more persons or c. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks such as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing and learning. Appeal regarding a false alarm $25.00 Service fees for response to a false alarm: Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident Resolution 11-0008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 17 of 17 Sc'r'ol�ane From the Community Development Department Val leY Interoffice Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager, Mayor/City Councilmembers From: John Holunan, PE, CFM Community Development Director CC: Mark Calhoun,Finance Date: October 11,2011 Re: Planning fee comparison Please find attached a sheet which compares several common planning division fees charged by the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane and Spokane County. ❑ The City of Spokane Valley fees shown in the fee schedule comparison include the review fees for both the Planning Division and the Development Engineering Division. ❑ Fees for platting processes, zoning changes (rezone), Comprehensive Plan amendments, Conditional Use and Temporary Use permits, FIoodplain permits, Shoreline permits, Street Vacations, are difficult to compare due to the fact Spokane County and the City of Spokane have fees and charges for other departments involved in the process. ❑ Per lot fees charged for platting vary between the other jurisdictions ❑ City of Spokane Valley credits pre-application meeting fees to the cost of the application if applied for within one year of the pre-app meeting, other jurisdiction notes a credit is allowed for this fee,which is approximately twice as much as Spokane Valley. ❑ Spokane County Engineers charge an hourly rate for review in addition to the base permit fee. The Spokane County Engineers review fee ranges from $40 to $60 per hour. ❑ The examples demonstrate the fees charged by the City of Spokane Valley are considerably lower when compared to Spokane County and City of Spokane fees. ❑ The fees charged by the City of Spokane have not been raised since 2008, but it is our understanding they are considering a fee increase. Sample Schedule B Building Plan Review and Permit Fees* Fee Type Spokane Spokane County Spokane Valley Residential (does not include plumbing or mechanical) Processing fee:$25 Processing fee: $128 New-2000 sf living space (does not include garage) Plan review: $472 Plan review:$83 Plan review:$626 Permit: $1,482 Permit: $864** Permit: $1,565 Total:$1,979 Total:$1,075 Total:$2,191 Addition-600 sf living space Processing fee: $25 Processing fee:$221 Plan review:$25 Plan review: Plan review:$288 Permit: $699 Permit: $460 Permit: $721 Total:$749 Total:$681 Total:$1,009 Wood framed garage-600 sf Processing fee:$25 Processing fee:$179 Plan review: $25 Plan review: Plan review: $84 Permit: $359 Permit: $230 Permit: $209 Total:$409 Total:$409 Total:$293 Commercial (does not include plumbing or mechanical) Small storage building w/office Processing fee:$25 Processing fee:$498 Construction type:VB Plan review:$765 Plan review:$2,003** Plan review:$708 Occupancy Classifications: 51: 2000 sf Permit: $1,177 Permit: $1,756** Permit:$1,089 B: 375 sf Total:$1,967 Total:$4,257 Total:$1,797 Large storage building w/office Processing fee:$25 Processing fee: $498 Construction type:VB Plan review: $11,357 Plan review:$12,216 Plan review: $9,688 Occupancy Classifications: 51: 100,000 sf Permit: $17,473 Permit: $18,369 Permit: $14,904 B: 1,500 sf Total:$28,855 Total:$31,083 Total:$24,592 Office building Processing fee: $25 Processing fee:$498 Construction type:VB Plan review:$3,403 Plan review: $1,213** Plan review:$3,826 Occupancy Classifications: B: 10,000 sf Permit: $5,236 Permit: $2,500 Permit: $5,886 Total:$8,664 Total:$4,211 Total:$9,712 Site Grading(450 cu) Processing fee:$25 Processing fee: $498 Plan review: $25 Plan review: Plan review: $21 Permit: $76 Permit:$74 Permit: $47 Total:$126 Total:$572 Total:$68 * These fees are for the purpose of comparison only. Fees included are only the building plan review and building permit fee from Schedule B based on the project description. The total does not include trade permits, planning, development engineering, or fire department fees. The total generally does not represent total permit costs for the described project. ** Minimum fee Plan Review Turnaround Times* As of September 2011 Review type Spokane Spokane County Spokane Valley Residential Not tracked Average is 11 calendar days to issuance (new only)** **certain applications are same day 5 working days** (inspector review) ** frequently issued within 2-3 working days 3 working days** ** frequently issued within 3 working days Commercial Not tracked New/Additions:Average is 57 calendar days to issuance Remodels/Tls:Average is 27 calendar days to issuance 15 working days 10 working days *Plan review time is the time to first comments if corrections are required. Plans that do not require additional information or correction could be issued within the designated time frame. These time frames are work load sensitive and can fluctuate throughout the year. Development Review & Permits Fees Comparison PLAT ADMINISTRATION Spokane Valley Spokane County City of Spokane 1 Short Plat(Assume 4 lots)(1) $2,079.00-$2,329.00 $6,153 $7,125 Short Plat(Assume 9 lots)(1) $2,894.00-$3,144.00 $6,453 $7,725 Long Plat(Assume 20 lots)(1) $4,679.00-$4,929.00 $10,252 $9,815 Binding Site Plan(Assume 4 lots)(1) $2,529.00-$2,779.00 $6,649 $8,280 Change of Conditions for Short Plats $278 $2,838 80%of plat fee Change of Conditions for Long Plats $682 $2,838 80%of plat fee Change of Conditions for Binding Site Plans $650 $4,205 80%of plat fee $89 minimum+$83/hr+legal publication fees+$300 SEPA review and comment $350 engineering review $250 Extension of Time $80 $670 $500.00 1 yr/$4,190 for 5 yr (1)City of Spokane Valley Pre-application fee deducted from land zone application fee if application is filed within 1 year of preapplication meeting,there is no mention from Spokane County and Spokane City of applying the pre-app fee to the application. ZONE ADMINISTRATION Spokane Valley Spokane County City of Spokane Zone Reclassification(1)(2) $1,650 $10,988 $4,590 Comprehensive Plan Amendment(3) $1,500 $9,205 $5,000 Variance $1,575 $5,405 $4,590 Conditional Use $840 $4,600 $4,590 Temporary Use $157 $1,220 $675 Home Occupation $84 $306 $650 Accessory Dwelling Unit $84 $306 $650 (1)Spokane County Zone reclassification also has an increment fee of$2/acre rural and$50/acre urban (2)City of Spokane has a 110.00 per acre charge for rezone (3)Cityof Spokane charges$1,075 per 10 acre increment for Comp Plan amendments Commercial Building Permit Review Spokane Valley Spokane County City of Spokane Pre-Application Meeting $250 $517 $750 New Single Family Review $100 N/A N/A Site Plan Review $550 $693 +$87.46 per hour $285 Other Permit Fees Spokane Valley Spokane County City of Spokane Approach Permit $52 $125 $30 Comm./$20 Residential Shorelines Permit $840 $3,968 $4,575 Floodplain Permit(Known Elevation) $315+$52/lot $140 $1,200 Floodplain Permit with Site Visit $315 +$52/lot $235 N/A Floodplain Permit with SEPA N/A N/A $1,335 $2,142.76+actual engineering Vacation/Limited Access $1,365 costs $650 Sjökane Parks and Recreation Department Valley 2426 N. Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216 _ 509.688.0300 ! Fax: 509.688.0188 ' parksandrec @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council Members; Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: October 18, 2011 Re: Park & Recreation Fee Comparison Attached to this memo is a comparison of park & recreation fees from the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. CenterPlace, with the majority of our fees, is unique to both the City and County and therefore there are really not any comparisons. The fee comparison focuses on park reservations, aquatic fees and field rentals. The attachment has tried to group similar fees between the three agencies. The bottom line for the City of Spokane Valley is that our fees are extremely competitive and in a majority of cases less than both the City of Spokane and Spokane County. If you have questions or need additional information, please let me know. Thank you. 1 City of Spokane Valley Parks a ad Recreation Clly of Spakene Parks and Recreaein l Spoke ne County Parks and lecreatlan Picnic Shelter Fees Picnic Shelter Fees.max 4hrs per reservation) Shelter Rates Browns/Edgecllff/Sullivan Parks $50: less than 50 people Liberty Lake $50 For 5 hours $100: 51-100 people $65 for week days Mlrabeau Meadows/Valley Mission $150: 101.-200 people $100 for weekends $84 for 5 hours $200: 201-300 people $50 deposit Mlrabeau Springs Additional Shelter Fees $250 Alcohol Security$250 $250 for 2 hours $25: Special Event application,groups over 50 $150 for one hour Event Photos $25: Fee for unusual structures(dunk tank,etc) Valley Mission Horse Arena $50: Charge if your event is catered $105 for the weekend Wedding at Picnic Shelters $52 refundable damage deposit for all of the above $50 starting at additional fee for park picnic shelters Event Fees for groups over 200 people or with high risk activities Large Groups or Special Events Camp Caro Rates _ $157 $50 non-refundable application fee if over 200 people $200 for a family function with a$200 deposit $84 for non-profit $25 fee per 100 people at the event $150 for an adult non-profit group with a$150 deposit $52 refundable damage deposit for under 200 people $25 fee for unusual structures $75 for a youth non-profit group with at$75 deposit $257 refundable damage deposit for over 200 people $50 fee for a catered event $250 depotst for 201 or more people $50 deposit for 200 or less people Weddings In Parks $250 Finch Arboretum $300 for floating stage $175 for Canada Island $175 for the Forestry Shelter $175 for Northbank Shelter $350 for Looff Carrousel $200 for Coeur d'Alene Park $300 for Manito Park _ Bonfield User Fees Merkel Sports Field User Fees $26 first Hour Grass Fields $15 each additional hour $30 for Adults per hour $52 refundable damage deposit $20 for Youth per hour Turf Fields $65 for adults with lights $55 for adults without lights $55 for youth with lights $45 for youth without lights Softball/Baseball Fields $26.25 Adults per game with lights $18.75 Adult per game without lights $22.50 Youth per game with lights $15 youth per game without lights Franklin ParkSoftball/Baseball Field Fees Adult Softball$22 per game with lights Adult Softball$18.50 per game without lights Youth Softball$18.50 per game with lights Youth Softball$11 per game without lights Aquatics User Fees Aquatics User fees Aquatics User Fees Open Swim Open Swim Open Swim Children 5 and under FREE 0-3yrs.FREE 2 yrs and under FREE $1 per open swim $2 Daily Admission Youth 4-17yrs. 3-5yrs.$2 $4 Daily Admission Adult 18-64yrs. 6 and older$4 Season Passes Season Passes Season Passes $20 for a 25 swim pass $49.95 Youth 4-17yrs.Season Pass $40 Discounted Punch Pass $99.95 Adult Season Pass $189.95 Family Season Pass $30 Swim Lessons $48 Swim LeSsons $35 Swim Lessons $35 Swim Team $75 Swim Team $65 Swim Team Fire Department Fees 2012 The fees for plan reviews from the Spokane Valley Fire Department will be increasing for the Calendar year 2012.The Basic fee will be raised from $70 to$80.The remainder of all fees will increase the same percentage (just under 14%), The fees are set by the Board of Fire Commissioners and only reflect the cost of the actual time our Fire Protection Engineer spends reviewing plans for permits issued by the City of Spokane Valley. The inter local agreement signed between the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane Valley Department section five states: "The CITY shall pay the DISTRICT the costs for Services provided under this Agreement as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference." These fees have not increased since 2009. If there is a need to update these fees every year by a smaller percent increase, I'm sure that language could be worked out. How do our fees for plan review services compare to other local jurisdictions? The City of Spokane Fire Department bases their fees on the valuation of the work being done. Spokane County has a flat fee regardless of the size of the review. Your Fire Department has chosen to adopt a method that evaluates each device or system for the basis of our fees. This method seemed to actually reflect the cost of performing the service. Recent example: a 25 fire sprinkler head addition to an existing system submitted at the end of September 2011 with a project valuation of$5200 would cost: City of Spokane: $503.25 Spokane County: $406.99 Spokane Valley Fire Department: $244.00 and that includes our proposed increase for 2012. These fees also include the site inspections of the permitted work. Thank You, Kevin Miller Fire Marshal DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS,Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1,2012. Approved this 25th day of October,2011. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 1 of 16 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 10 Schedule D: Parks and Recreation 12 Schedule E: Administrative 15 Schedule F: Other Fees 15 Schedule G: Police Fees 16 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 2 of 16 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A— Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision-Code Compliance Notice and Order 500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) $100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)Review,minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit $315.00+$52.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+$40.00 per lot Final Plat $1,424.00+$10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+$25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,224.00+$10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 3 of 16 DRAFT Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00. Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00+$10.00 per lot Plat Vacation $1,474.00 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00+$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50 SITE PLAN REVIEW -PER DIVISION REVIEW $275 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception $315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 Pre-application Meetings $250.00 Fee will be deducted from land use application, building permit or commercial permit application fee when application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting ZONING Zoning map amendments(rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00+$26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s),cost of other action(s)is additional Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 4 of 16 DRAFT Schedule B — Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy. Refunds authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. • Paid plan review fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum,a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid plan review fee is less than $35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $35.00,the amount for refund will be calculated at the rate of 100%of the paid plan review fee minus $35.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum,a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid permit fee is less than $35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid permit fee is more than $35.00,the refund will be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus $35.00. For any application taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid will be made. No portion of the paid fees will be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees(1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC) $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge (Multi-Family) $4.50 1st dwelling unit+$2.00 each additional unit Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 5 of 16 DRAFT BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below are to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees 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 value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings(wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages(masonry) $22.00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports,decks,porches $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00+ $14.00 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000+ $10.10 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00+ $7.00 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000+ $5.60 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00+ $4.75 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00+ $3.15 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation %of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee (general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies(sheds,barns,et.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at$35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the"Fee Payment"section of this schedule. Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 6 of 16 DRAFT OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25%of building permit fee Swimming Pools,over 5,000 gallons $52.00+ plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers,elevated tanks,antennas Hourly GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards(cu yd)or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd+ $6.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd+ $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit(greater than 5,000 sq. ft.—new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 7 of 16 DRAFT MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES(in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a.up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b. over 100,000 btu $16.00 2. Duct work system $11.00 3.Heat pump and air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $13.00 b.over 3 tons to 15 tons $21.00 c. over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d. over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00. e. over 50 tons $63.00 4. Gas water heater $11.00 5. Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6. Gas log,fireplace,and gas insert installation $11.00 7.Appliance vents installation;relocation;replacement $10.00 each 8.Boilers,compressors,and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp- 100,000 btu or less $13.00 b. over 3 to 15 hp- 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c. over 15-30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d. over 30 ph- 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e. over 50 hp-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9.Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfm,including ducts $13.00 b. each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10. Evaporative Coolers(other than portable) $11.00 11. Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b. each ventilation system $13.00 c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12. Incinerators a.residential installation or relocation $21.00 b. commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13.Unlisted appliances a.under 400,000 btu $52.00 b.400,000 btu or over $105.00 14.Hood a.Type I $52.00 b.Type II $11.00 15. LP Storage Tank $11.00 16.Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17.Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 8 of 16 DRAFT PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1.Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2.Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, water closets,lavatories, sinks,drains,etc.) 2.Water Heater $6.00 each 3. Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent,except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping,drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5.Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6.Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7.Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8. Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of $61.00 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it will be charged at the hourly rate. Cate2ory 1.Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2.Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3. Pavement cut obstruction,non-winter $168.00 4. Pavement cut obstruction,winter $210.00 5.Approach Permit $52.00 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B "General" section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign(flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign(flat fee) Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 9 of 16 DRAFT Schedule C — Fire Code FIRE ALARM,SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee added to these Fire District I fees $37.00 Plans check and review fees, inspections and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications,and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System -New Installation Control Panel with up to 4 devices $188.00 Control Panel with 5 to 100 devices $313.00 Per additional groupings of 100 devices $63.00 Per additional panel $50.00 Per additional floor $50.00 Sprinkler Supervision System $95.00 Fire Alarm—Modifications to Existing System 1 to 5 New Devices(no battery calculations) $40.00 1 to 5 New Devices(with battery calculations) $80.00 Additional 6 to 20 New Devices $40.00 20+New Devices Refer to New Installation Control Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $188.00 Sprinkler Supervision Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $95.00 Fire Sprinkler Systems—New or Existing 1 to 9 heads $66.00 10to 49 Heads $207.00 50to 100 Heads $345.00 101to 200 Heads $408.00 201to 300 Heads $439.00 301to 400 Heads $471.00 401to 500 Heads $534.00 Over 500 $627.00+$.41 per head For hydraulically designed systems,multiply the above fee by 2 Non-Suppression Systems—New Installations Class 1 hoods,Clean Agent, spray booths,Wet or Dry chemical,CO2, ,,etc. Panel&Bottle with up to 5 Nozzles $125.00 Panel&Bottle with 6 or more Nozzles $125.00+$13.00 per nozzle Additional Bottle(s) $38.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 10 of 16 DRAFT Non-Suppression Systems—Modifications to Existing System Class I hoods,Clean Agent, Spray Booths,Wet or Dry Chemical,CO2,etc. 1 to 3 new Nozzles(no new Bottle) $40.00 1 to 3 new Nozzles(with new Bottle) $80.00 Fire Pump Installation: Plan review and inspection fee $627.00 Underground Fire Mains: Plan review and inspection fee $188.00 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system: Plan review and inspection $188.00 Other Protection Systems Class I and II Standpipe (part of a Sprinkler System) $73.00 Class III Standpipe (part of a Sprinkler System) $88.00 Storage Tank Installation: Flammable &Combustible liquids $80.00per tank Liquefied petroleum $80.00 per tank Cryogenic $80.00 per tank Medical gas systems(Gaseous Oxygen,Nitrous,etc.)(Not part of a Building Permit) $80.00 Hazardous material recycling systems $80.00 Vapor recovery system $80.00 Storage Tank Installation(Hazardous Materials not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 per tank Storage Tank Removal or Abandonment(Flammable &Combustible Liquids) $105.00 per tank Emergency or Standby Commercial Power Generator Installation $80.00 PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit $80.00 Temporary Use Permit $80.00 Tents/Canopy Permit $80.00 Event Permit To Be Determined PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU New Commercial plans check and inspection(not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 LAND USE Subdivision/PUD/Binding Site Plan Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Short Plat Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 11 of 16 DRAFT Schedule D - Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass(25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount- 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30.00 Swim Team Fee $35.00 Reservation(less than 50 people) $105.00 per hour** Food fee (less than 50 people,if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour** Food fee (50-100 people,if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee (101-150 people,if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room(day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Patio Event Package $500.00 per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event 'K'K'K Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 12 of 16 DRAFT Great Room Kitchen with dining room rental $105.00 per use Kitchen Commercial use (2 hour minimum) $52.00 per hour Kitchen deposit 452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105.00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Deposit $210.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings(linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe &Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Lounge deposit $210.00 Meeting room(evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room(evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room(weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour Miscellaneous Cleanup fee $52 to $315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System *** $262.00 per day (includes projector,podium,DVD/VCR sound system,camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262.00 per hour Sound System $42.00 per day Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 13 of 16 DRAFT EVENTS—includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments, and activities involving 200 or more people. The Parks and Recreation Director will make the final determination. General Fee $157.00 Non-profit applications $84.00 or free with sponsorship SPECIAL EVENTS: (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) National Night Out $5.00 FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 1st hour+ $15.00 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission $2.00 Playground program admission(10 entries) $21.00 MIRABEAU SPRINGS Small shelter and waterfall $250.00 maximum 2 hours Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Event Pictures(for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows) $150.00 per hour MIRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY MISSION Shelter(less than 200 people) $84.00 Shelter(200 or more people) $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 PICNIC SHELTERS Less than 200 people $50.00 200 or more people $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental(Renter responsible for on-site preparation. Requires liability insurance) $105.00 per weekend Refundable deposit $52.00 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY—Permit fee $26.00 annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 14 of 16 DRAFT Schedule E — Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes,DVD,CD's,etc. At Cost Copy of written documents in excess of 6 pages $.15 per page Copy large format documents(24"x 36"or greater) $3.00 per page Hourly rate to transfer scanned records to electronic disc $19.00 per hour A deposit of 10%may be required on public record requests NSF Check return fee $26.00 Schedule F — Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee: (charged in addition to the business registration fee)(SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50% of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License,Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee: (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25% of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50% of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75%of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License: Adult Entertainment License denial,suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Schedule G — Police Fees Alarm system registration Residential alarm systems $25.00 annual Commercial alarm systems $35.00 annual If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year,the following year's registration fee will be reduced to $15.00 per year for residential,and$25.00 per year for commercial.] Discounted alarm registration fees The annual registration fees and false alarm cost recovery fees are reduced by 50% for eligible citizens. To qualify for the fee reduction,an eligible person a.has a gross annual income of less than $19,100 for a one-person household or b.has a gross annual income of less than$21,850 for households of two or more persons or c. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks such as walking, seeing,hearing, speaking,breathing and learning. Appeal regarding a false alarm $25.00 Service fees for response to a false alarm: Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident Resolution 11-008 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: 2011 - 2013 DRAFT Amended Legislative Agenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has discussed the proposed revised agenda at the October 4th and October 18th council meetings. BACKGROUND: The Legislative session in Olympia will convene on January 9, 2012. In the past, the City Council has considered various legislative items to promote with the Legislature. OPTIONS: 1. Discuss the amended 2011 - 2013 Legislative Agenda. 2. Revise the proposed amended agenda. 3. Give the matter further thought. 4. Approve the Agenda. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the proposed revised 2011 - 2013 Legislative Agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft 2011 - 2013 Amended Legislative Agenda DRAFT FOR OCTOBER 25, 2011 COUNCIL MEETING Spokane Valley 2011-13 Legislative Agenda The following is the City of Spokane Valley's 2011-2013 legislative agenda, adopted by Council at their October 26, 2010 Council meeting, amended by Council Consensus at their November 16, 2010 meeting, the December 28,2010 meeting;and at the Council's October 25,2011 meeting: Principle Items of Interest: Budget Request: 1. Seek Funding to Acquire Park Land Adjacent to Park Road Pool and Centennial Middle School. The City of Spokane Valley has a population of 89,440 people, but only 172 acres of public parks— drastically below the 6.25-10.5 acres/1,000 population(559-938 acres) specified in the City Parks Master Plan. In the past, Spokane Valley has successfully partnered with the State Legislature to acquire and develop Greenacres Park, adjacent to Central Valley School District's future elementary school. A similar opportunity presents itself with Park Road Pool. The City requests $300,000 in funding to acquire land adjacent to Park Road Pool for a park near Centennial Middle School. Policy Requests: 1. Protect the state shared revenues the City receives. The City of Spokane Valley encourages the state to preserve local state-shared revenues. During the 2011 Legislative Session, these funds were cut 3.4%. Moving forward, the City requests that the funds remain intact. These funds include the Liquor Excise Tax Account, Liquor Revolving Account, Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation, Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance Account, and City-County Assistance Account. 2. Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs. The City of Spokane Valley seeks legislation to provide cities with additional tools to recoup costs for enforcing code compliance when a court order is issued and a city performs the abatement itself or through a contractor. This is anticipated to include enacting lien authority similar to a tax lien,including the authority to execute such a lien in the following year. 3. State Environmental Policy Act–Amend Certain Requirements Imposed by State Law. The City supports amending SEPA requirements to make the process less duplicative. SEPA thresholds to consider: (1)Convert some discretionary SEPA exemptions to categorically exempt; (2) Raise the level of SEPA exemptions across the board; (3) Make most actions within UGAs categorically exempt with discretion given to cities; (4) Eliminate excessive costs associated with providing notice for every Determination of Non-significance and Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance application. 4. Support the Association of Washington Cities'legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of the City of Spokane Valley. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Letter for Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Emergency Funds GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: On October 17, 2011, the SRTC Board presented a letter requesting an emergency one-time allocation for additional funds from all jurisdictions which provide annual financial contributions. The jurisdictions which contribute are: Spokane Transit, Spokane County, City of Spokane, WSDOT and the City of Spokane Valley. The requested amount from these jurisdictions is for a 15% increase in Calendar Year (CY) local contributions. The City of Spokane Valley's CY 2011 local contribution was $19,300. A 15% increase of this amount for the City would be $2,895. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve payment for the emergency one- time additional 15% increase of$2,895 to SRTC. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Spending an amount more than anticipated will require no additional appropriations. The City has money within the 2011 budget. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: 1) SRTC Letter Requesting Increase in CY Contributions 2) Interlocal Agreement, adopted September 7, 2010 SR Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W.First Avenue,Suite310,Spalcane,WA 99201-3613 (509)343-6370 FAM-(509)343-6400 October 17,2011 • The Honorable Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Mayor Towey: On October 13, 2011, the SRTC Board unanimously passed a motion to request a 15%.increase in Calendar Year (CY) local contributions from our financially participating agencies. While the Board recognizes the difficult financial climate faced by our member agencies, this emergency request for additional funds has been made necessary by a number of unanticipated expenses that have occurred throughout the past year. For the City of Spokane Valley, your CY 2011 local contribution was $19,300. A 15% Increase for this amount would be $2,895, With this letter, I am requesting that the City of Spokane Valley consider an additional$2;895 in local contributions for CY 2011, We appreciate your consideration on this matter. Because of the time sensitive nature of this issue, the SRTC Board also requested that you provide a response back to me as soon as possible, and no later than the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on November 10,2011. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at(509) 343-6382 or by email at kwallaeejsrtc.org if you have any questions about this request. Sincerely, Kevin Wallace Executive Director c: The Honorable Gary Schimmels Jul 1 4 zoro Snre ' Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM THE SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA, THIS AGREEMENT, Is made and entered into among the County of Spokane, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, the City of Spokane Valley, a non-charter code city of the State of Washington, the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Washington State Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "WSTC", the Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," and other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members," jointly, along with the County, City of Spokane, STA and WSDOT are • collectively referred to as the "Members.° WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2005, the President of the United States signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Efficiency Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy "ft]o develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the {50165051;I j page I of 16 abib-Ite3 global economy and will:move people and goods in an energy:efficient manner;." and WHEREAS, in 196Z Federal transportation . legislation required the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); which In cooperation with the State of Washington, shall develop transportation plans and programs for Urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, Ch, 47.80 RCW authorizes the formation Of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) by voluntary association of local governments within a county; provided each RTPO shall have:as members the county and at least sixty percent of the Cities and towns within the RTPO's boundaries, representing a minimum of seventy-five percent of the cities' and towns' population; and WHEREAS, each RTPO formed by local governments shall create a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to the RTPO and shall allow representatives of major employers within the region, the. department of transportation, transit districts, port districts; and member cities, towns, and counties within the region to participate in policy making; and WHEREAS, among other• duties, each RTPO shall: (i) develop and periodically update a regional transportation plan in cooperation with the State department of transportation, providers of public transportation and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region and shall (II) designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of said regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the. organization; and WHEREAS, RCW 47.80,020 provides that the RTPO in an urbanized area shall be the same as the MPO designated for federal transportation planning purposes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation council ("Council") to carry out those responsibilities of the MPO as provided for in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. {S0165051;[} Page2of16 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following terms:and conditions, to Include the above recitals, which are incorporated herein as .a part of this Agreernent, it Is agreed among the-Members; Section 1: NAME/ORGANIZATION A voluntary apsocfation and joint board, comprising representatives of the County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), Spokane Transit Authority (STA), and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the "Council." Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, Cities and Towns, INSDOT, WSTC, STA and Other- Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning program in accordance with Section 3, herein. The Council is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, Cities and Towns; WSDOT, WSTC, STA or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of United States Code Titles 23 and 49, and ROW Chapter 47.80. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of a Transportation Management Area (TMA) for the metropolitan area, which includes those functions set forth in the SAFETEA-LU legislation of August 10, 2005, and related rules, as amended to implement SAFETEA-LU as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by subsequent Federal Transportation legislation, (b) To perform the functions of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as set forth in Title 23 United States Code and.Title 49 United States Code as currently adopted or as amended, and 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 40 CFR Part 613, as currently adopted or as amended. (S0165051;1 } Page3 of 16 • (c) To perform the functions of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as *set forth in Ch. 47,80 RCW and Ch. 488-8$ WAG, as currently adopted or as amended. (d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation. Plan pursuant to 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR Part.613. (e) To engage in regional transportation planning. (f) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider those. projects Which have been approved by the governing bodies of the Members and which are incorporated •within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (g) To participate in the development and maintenance of transportation related information necessary to support the functions and responsibilities of the Council. (h) To promote the regional transportation interests, plans and projects to local, state and federal public and private entities. (I) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. (j) To create committees as necessary, to advise the Board on regional transportation related matters. At a minimum this shall include: a. the Transportation Advisory Council (TAC) Whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. b. the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. (k) To comply with the Transportation Planning requirements set forth In the Washington State Growth Management Act, and Ch. 47.80 RCW, consistent with Spokane County County-wide Planning Policies. (I) To perform such other transportation planning and program related functions as the Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council and the members thereof, which are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and related federal and state law. The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and {S0165051;1) Page 4 or 16 may accept gfts from public or private entities for the purposes authorized in this,Agreement. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate and which meet the criteria.of State andfor Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body (the "Board") of the Coun.cii1 consisting of twelve voting (12) persons, shall be established by the following thresholds: (a) Jurisdictions under 50;000 people - One (1) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations between 50,000 and 5,000 people plus one (1) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations fewer than 5,000 people. The person selected shall be an elected official from a small townlcity; (b) Jurisdictions between 50,001 to 100,000 people — one (1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; (c) Jurisdictions over 100,001 people_ two (2) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; (The population of Spokane County includes the population of its cities and towns); (d) One (1) Board Member of STA, who shall be appointed by the STA Board; (e) Two (2) State Transportation representatives, one (1) from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, and one (1) from the Washington State Transportation Commission appointed by the Chair of the Commission; (f) One (1) person who represents a major employer, with preference for a provider-of private sector transportation services within the region who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board; and (g) One (1) person who is Chair of the Transportation Advisory Council, provided such person resides within the jurisdiction of the MPO. {S0165051;!} Page 5 of 16 .1 (h) There shall be four (4) ex officio, non-voting members serving on the Board representing different modes of transportation, which shall:include: (1) One (1) person representing STA, Who shall be appointed by the STA Board; (2) One (1) person representing Rail; who shall be appointed by the Members ; (3) One (1) person representing Airports; who shall be appointed by the Airport Board; and (4) The Chair of the TTC (I) Pursuant to RCII/ 47.80.040 all legislators whose districts are wholly or partly within the designated boundaries of the Council, are considered ex officio (non-voting) members.of the Board. (j) All Board appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective Jurisdiction, whichever is the lesser time. Alternate Board representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency (or governing body, as appropriate) and whose name has been placed on record with the Council. All alternate Board representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove, (k) The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair ("Officers") by majority vote of the Board. Only representatives who are elected officials may be Officers. To be eligible for the Chair position, the Board Member shall have served on the Board for at least one year. The term for Officers may be up to two (2) years in each office. Ex officio members may not serve as Officers. (i) A Board Member who, during a calendar year, has three (3) unexcused absences from regular Board meetings shall be automatically removed from the Board, without further action. Section 6: MEETINGS The Council shall hold regular monthly Board meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with, this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe the place of meetings, the method of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof, the form of the {50165Q51;1) Page 6 or 16 • agenda, the regular meeting date and Such other matters 'that: relate to. the conduct of the Council's business, Such rules shall be adopted and may be -amended by a seventy-five percent (75%) positive vote. of the Board, or by amendment to-this Agreement as provided herein. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as required by chapter 42.30 R.CVU. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Board shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. Voting Board members shall be entitled to one vote: Provided, however, that the following enumerated actions shall take an affirmative vote of a majority of the voting membership of the Board: (a) Appointment or dismissal of the Executive Director; (b) Approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the Members; (c) Purchase,.sale or disposition of real property; and (d) Addition of new members. Section 7: STAFF AND SUPPORT The Board shall determine the positions; duties and working conditions of employees, as necessary to conduct the work programs Of the Council consistent with this Agreement, An Executive Director shall be appointed by and serve solely at the pleasure of the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures to establish the duties and authorizes of the Executive Director, including authority to make financial expenditures on behalf of the Board: The Board shall approve application(S) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board so that timely Board approval cannot be obtained; the grant application may still be submitted with mutual approval of the Chair and Vice-Chair. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, employees are at-will and shall be hired and discharged by and work under the direction of the Executive Director. The Board may arrange for support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. {S0165051;t) Page 7 of 16 Pay schedules shall be set by the Board. consistent with responsibilities performed and the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay schedules for like positions in Member agencies, Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual. work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken by the Council. The Executive Director or designee shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The proposed annual budget shall set forth the methodology for determining the allocation of costs, appropriations and expenditures to each member. The Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget,to the Members by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. Members from jurisdictions Identified in Section 5(a) that have not previously been required to contribute funds toward the annual budget and Members who have annual assessments increased by more than fifteen percent (15%) shall be given written notice one (1) year in advance of a proposed budget assessment. Following a request from a Member to perform services on a specific project, not identified in the work program, the Board may impose a special assessment on the requesting Member. The special assessment shall be: (a) reasonably determined by the Board and (b) reimburse the costs and expenses associated with the specific project. The annual budget and/or work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Board, provided such amendment does not require additional budget appropriation in excess of the amounts established in the second paragraph of this Section 8, by the Members. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve mutual benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as recommended by the Board and approved by the Members in the budget approval process. Any additional {50165051.;f } Page 8 of 16 • • agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the Board. Additional contributions to the Council budget may be -Made to 'accomplish projects and programs deemed to be o f particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member approving the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget: year that it has approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of the City of Spokane or the public treasury of any other Member as so agreed upon by the Members, and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit. and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The Executive Director may make expenditures in accordance With the approved Council budget, work plan and approved, policies and procedures, and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly"to the Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Executive Director or designee, and approved monthly by the Board. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City of Spokane or as arranged by the Board. Section 10: REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY The Council may, through gift, devise, purchase, lease or other form of conveyance, acquire, hold, manage, use and dispose of real and personal property necessary for the joint undertaking set forth herein with such property acquisition upon such terms and conditions as agreed by the Board, It is recognized that any public or private entity may appropriate funds and may sell, lease, give or otherwise supply real and personal property, personnel and services to the Council or other legal or administrative entity for the purpose of operating the joint or cooperative undertaking. The Council may not acquire or use real property to operate a transportation system. Section 11: INSURANCE The Council shall obtain property and liability insurance for the 'matters set forth in this Agreement with covera9es and limits reasonably determined by the Council, provided, insurance coverage for comprehensive general liability, {S0165051;I} Page of 16 auto liability, employment practices liability, public officials errors and omissions liability, shall not be less than $10,000,000 in the aggregate. Section 12: INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, .including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive. Plans, to which the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as may be assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, in -coordination with state and local plans, , requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up-to-date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section 13: AMENDMENTS AND NEW MEMBERS This Agreement may be amended by unanimous consent of the Members` governing bodies, except WSDOT may take action through its Secretary. Upon majority consent of the voting Members, new members may join the Council upon written acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. Section 14: TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP The Cities, County, STA, WSDOT, WSTC, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year. Section 15: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning (50165051;1 ) Page 10 of 16 • Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District, dated August 31, 1972, An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane, Washington, and other municipalities, to form Spokane Regional Council, Define Its Organization and Pow__ers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area, dated August 15, 1984. An lnteriocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and Other Cities and Towns Within Spokane County, to form a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1093. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation; Spokane Transit Authority, and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County to form a Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated April 28, 2003. Section 16: EFFECTIVE DATE and Binding Agreement The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by the County and, at least, sixty percent (60%) of the cities and towns within the council area that represent seventy- five percent(75%) of the cities' and towns' population. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members who have executed this Agreement, their successors and assigns. Section 17: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the Members is not intended to act as a revocation of the MPO or constitute a substantial change in authority or responsibility of the MPO and shall not be interpreted to require the redesignation of the MPO under 23 CFR § 450.310, Section 18: SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. (S0165051;1 } Page I 1 of 16 Section 19: 'DEFAULT Failure by any Merriber to perform, observe or' -comply" with the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part contained in: this Agreement where that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days-atter written notice from the Council to the defaulting Member shall constitute an"Event of Default." ,Section 20: REMEDIES In the event of any Event of Default, the Council may at any time, without. waiving or limiting any other right or remedy, pursue any remedy allowed by law including, by way of example and without limitation, specific performance, declaratory judgment and other equitable remedies, and recovery of attorney's fees and other costs for such enforcement action. Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement. contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members, The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. In the event any portion of this`:Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain In full force and effect. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws.of Washington State, Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts Of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference; In no way do they purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. ISOl65O51;1.} Page 12 of 16 Section 22: RCW CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES • A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontinued pursuant to RCW 47.80.020. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS The Board shall administer the joint and cooperative undertakings set forth herein. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' websites, as available. F. FINANCING See Section Nos. 8 and 9 above. G, TERMINATION See Section No. 14 above, H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION Any Member terminating its membership in the Council as provided for in Section 14 hereinabove shall forfeit any ownership interest in any personal or real property owned or held by the Council. Personal property acquired by the Council in the performance of this Agreement shall be disposed of by the Council upon {S0165051;1} Page 13 o416 termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise'required by law or agreement, cash and cash proceeds from sale of personal property shaft be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution made by the Member as set forth In this Agreement. Real property shall be conveyed or disposed of as set forth in this Agreement In the same manner as personal property except where a separate instrument or deed reservation exists with regard to any real property in which Instance it shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year of their respective signature. ADOPTED o cow/it oners tne Board of of Spokane County, pair eO `� °'� II f Washington this day of .ha � , i tU Y `x, 2010, f coin' Mark R chant, Chair ATTEST; DANIELA ERICKSON Bonnie Mager,Vice-Chair LER OF THE BOARD B API 7Vite-Ae-'° Daniela Erickson Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board ATTEST' CITY OF SPOKANE N-2- 74 4-1-/ /°.evi-ty Cie - t i n g By ' Date: 12- 2010 • Approved as to form: /.-- Zd_si Assistant City A'orney (SOI654SI;I } Page!4 of 16 • III WASHINGTON STATE SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OA ��cf-eSecretary of Tr a ort ioq By Date: elZ3//U Date: � 110 I p WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION rita,m►1. . ., By Date: /6 Date; CITY OF AIRWAY HTS., CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON QWCPutai Date: c -2-/ " / Date: g-14 - 10 CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON By By Date: , rl (r CJ a Date; -- E o • C) CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON By By Date: , i t- 2 6 1 D Date: ` P,61,o (50165051;1 ) Page 15 of 16 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON WASHINGTO > � � s Wat,: ,/ //2237/0 0 By /0/, z/ 10 ATTEST: QC v Q1 � r� roo-rv, CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON .15-y-21VH-t-P—L-Lh‘e- (Of° By Date: �gf/e Date: 'T-1 a-1> CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 1.441 Date: Date: 140 / {50165051;1 } Page 16 of 16 CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, CITY OF MILLW OOD, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON By By Date: , Date: CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date:: (50165051;1 ) Page f 6 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration — Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement — Three year extension. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: October 18, 2011 discussion regarding the proposed extension. BACKGROUND: The City executed an interlocal agreement (Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System) with all other municipal jurisdictions in Spokane County, as well as Spokane County, in 2003 to participate in the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System (System). Our agreement expires on December 1, 2011, when Spokane will pay off the outstanding bonds on the Waste to Energy Plant and other System improvements. Most of the other surrounding jurisdictions (except Liberty Lake) have similar interlocal agreements for participation in the System that expire in 2014. It is anticipated that Spokane and Spokane County will enter into an agreement for the operation of the Waste to Energy facility until November 16, 2014, which is also the date identified on the attached three year extension as the new expiration date. Between now and November, 2014, staff from the various jurisdictions will work together on analyzing long-term options for solid waste disposal. Spokane County approved the extension at its meeting on October 18, 2011. The City of Spokane has it scheduled for final approval on Monday, October 24, 2011. OPTIONS: Do nothing and the agreement will expire; authorize staff to execute the proposed amendment to the solid waste interlocal to extend it until November 16, 2014. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we authorize staff to execute the proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, thereby extending the agreement until November 16, 2014. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed amendment to Section 9 of the interlocal (mark up copy); 2. Proposed amendment to Section 9 of the interlocal (clean copy); 3. Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System executed in 2003. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Spokane CARY P.DRISKELL—CITY ATTORNEY Valley11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org Mayor Mary Verner Board of County Commissioners City of Spokane 1116 West Broadway 808 West Spokane Falls, Blvd. Spokane,WA 99260 Spokane,WA 99201 Re: Proposed extension of 2003 interlocal agreement for solid waste Dear Board of County Commissioners and Mayor Verner: The City of Spokane Valley requests that the City of Spokane and Spokane County execute this letter extension whereby the Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") between the parties is modified pursuant to Section 8 (Amendments) as follows: Section 9—DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall run until 11:59 p.m on November 16, 2014, unless a different date is agreed upon in writing by the Parties.be for an initial term of 8 years or for such longer term as any Bonds or Additional Bonds remain Outstanding. The remainder of the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this amendment. This amendment shall become effective on the date of the last signatory hereto. DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Title: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Terri Pfister, City Clerk Howard F. Delaney, City Attorney City of Spokane City of Spokane Dated: SPOKANE COUNTY ATTEST: Al French, Chair Daniela Erickson, Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: Mark Richard, Commissioner James P. Emacio Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated: SPOKANE VALLEY Approved as to form: Mike Jackson, City Manager ATTEST: Office of the City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Spokane CARY P.DRISKELL—CITY ATTORNEY Valley11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org Mayor Mary Verner Board of County Commissioners City of Spokane 1116 West Broadway 808 West Spokane Falls, Blvd. Spokane,WA 99260 Spokane,WA 99201 Re: Proposed extension of 2003 interlocal agreement for solid waste Dear Board of County Commissioners and Mayor Verner: The City of Spokane Valley requests that the City of Spokane and Spokane County execute this letter extension whereby the Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") between the parties is modified pursuant to Section 8 (Amendments) as follows: Section 9—DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall run until 11:59 p.m on November 16, 2014, unless a different date is agreed upon in writing by the Parties. The remainder of the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this amendment. This amendment shall become effective on the date of the last signatory hereto. DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Title: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Terri Pfister, City Clerk Howard F. Delaney, City Attorney City of Spokane City of Spokane Dated: SPOKANE COUNTY ATTEST: Al French, Chair Daniela Erickson, Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: Mark Richard, Commissioner James P. Emacio Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated: SPOKANE VALLEY Approved as to form: Mike Jackson, City Manager ATTEST: Office of the City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Return: Spokane City Clerk's Office 511 Floor,808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 9920:1. rgb 03 05 06 430pm File no.CPI2.Q3.5I2 File no3' �� 6 $ 'File no. CO3-038 Approved 5-27-2003 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT(CH. 39.34 RCW)BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE, SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY RE: SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Spokane, a first class charter city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "City"), and the County of Spokane, a class A county duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "County"), have specific powers and statutory duties relating to planning and controlling the management, handling and disposal of solid waste ("solid waste management") within the City and unincorporated area of the County (the "region"), respectively, including the development of a Solid Waste Management Plan under RCW 70.95; WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, WA, (hereinafter "Signatory Regional City"), a non charter optional code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the constitution and laws of the State of Washington, likewise has specific municipal statutory powers and duties relative to solid waste management within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the County duly adopted a Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the region ("Plan")on July 21, 1998, including revisions in • - ) Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 2 Spokane County Resolution No. 98-0602; and WHEREAS, the City and County initiated the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project in 1984 in order to develop a necessary solid waste management system and plan, including appropriate waste reduction and recycling provisions and litter control provisions; and WHEREAS, after years of planning and the completion of an adequate environmental impact statement and vendor selection process, and after due consideration of the environmental, social, technical, economic and other relevant factors, including public and governmental comment, and observation of applicable federal, state, and local procedures, the City and County established a cooperative project for the management, handling and disposal of solid waste generated within the City and the unincorporated areas of the County by execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by a joint .Resolution adopted on November 3, 1987, as superseded by an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement adopted by the City and County on October 10, 1988, as superseded by Amended and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Spokane and Spokane County, WA on April 10, 1989 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the County, by the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement has agreed to exercise its police and contract powers, and designate the System as the site for disposal of solid waste collected within the unincorporated area of the County by its Flow Control Ordinance, subject to the exceptions set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Signatory Regional City now desires, in consideration for the City handling the disposal of Solid Waste at the System, to agree to exercise its police powers to designate the System as the sole site for disposal of Solid Waste under its control; NOW THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED: Section 1: DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise: A. Annual Budget shall mean the System budget for a Fiscal Year,as adopted or amended by the City in accordance with Section 8.12 of the Bond Ordinance. B. Bond Ordinance means Ordinance C-29285, adopted January 9, 1989 by the City of Spokane City Council. • Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 3 C. City shall mean the City of Spokane, Washington, a first class charter city of the State of Washington. D. County shall mean Spokane County, Washington, a class A county of the State of Washington. • E. ague lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement shall mean the above referenced County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County for the ownership, financing and management of the system and any amendments thereof. F. Disposal Site means a site or sites approved by the Board of County Commissioners for Spokane County or the Board's Authorized Designee, where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposition of Solid Waste occurs. This includes, but is not limited to, transfer stations (included as part of the disposal system of the County), sanitary landfills, incinerators, composting plants, and the location of a .Facility for the recovery of energy resources from Solid Waste or the conversion of the energy from such wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof. G. Facility shall mean the mass bum resource recovery steam and electric generating facility constructed pursuant to the Construction Contract; such facility is the"Facility" as such term is defined in the Construction Contract. H. Hazardous Waste shall mean waste which, by reason of its composition or characteristics is a toxic substance or hazardous waste as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC 6901 et esq., together with its implementing regulations, or in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TOSCA), 15 USC 2601 et seq., together with its implementing regulations, or the definitions as promulgated by the State of Washington as Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste, all as may be now or hereafter amended from time to time. Recyclable Materials shall mean those materials, other than Recovered • Materials which are separated from Solid Waste, either by the generator at the source of such Solid Waste or mechanically by the System at any lawfully authorized transfer station, recycling facility, or other permitted location, as the case may be, and which are capable of being returned to the economic mainstream by the System. Recyclable Materials may include,but shall not be limited to, bottles, aluminum cans, newspapers, cardboard, paper materials,or other specific commercially marketable items,where and only where such materials have been specifically sorted Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 4 by the generator prior to collection and are collected apart from the common municipal solid waste stream for commercial manufacture or recycling. • J. Regional Cities shall mean all incorporated cities and towns in Spokane County, including Signatory Regional City, except the City of.Spokane, which have entered into, or hereafter enter into a Regional City Interlocal Agreement. K. Scale System means the scales, scale house, computer hardware and software and associated equipment necessary to operate an automated ticketing system. L. Si iatory Regional City means the City of Spokane Valley, WA. M. Solid Waste includes garbage and refuse and shall mean all putrecible and non-putrecible wastes, whether in solid or in liquid form except liquid- carried industrial wastes and sewage. "Solid Waste" includes garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances,manure, digested sludge, and vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid materials. Solid Waste does not include Recyclable Materials or Hazardous Waste.In addition, all materials deposited in cans or containers for collection,(other than Recyclable materials or Hazardous Waste), shall be deemed Solid Waste. N. System shall mean the existing Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System comprised of all property, real or personal, tangible, or intangible that is now owned or hereafter acquired by the City which is used or useful by the City (i) in connection with the collection and disposal of Solid Waste generated within the City's boundaries and (ii) in connection with the disposal of Solid Waste generated and collected elsewhere and delivered to the System for disposal. As of the date hereof, the System includes, without limitation, the City's Northside Landfill, the City's refuse collection system, and all facilities and equipment appurtenant thereto, whether real or personal, and vehicles necessary and incident thereto. O. Tipping Fee means the amount charged per ton of Solid Waste for disposal by the System. All other capitalized terms used herein, which are not defined, shall have the meanings given to them in the Bond Ordinance. Otherwise they shall have the same • Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 5 meaning as used in other documents referenced in this agreement unless another specific document is referenced. Section 2: PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the participation of Signatory Regional City in the System as one of the Regional Cities. Section 3: SOLID WASTE DIRECTED TO SYSTEM. A. Signatory Regional City hereby covenants, agrees and contracts to exercise its police and contractual powers and authority as may now or hereafter be recognized in contract or at law to direct the deposit of Solid Waste generated within its geographical boundaries to the System. 13. The following are specifically exempted from the provisions of subsection A: I). Wrecking automobiles and parts thereof including storage and handling facilities, minor reclamation of scrap metal, glass, discarded clothing, paper, and their associated facilities which leads to resale or reuse of said material where no charge is made for collection or disposal to the originator. 2). Depositing soil, rock, tree stmps, gravel, broken concrete, broken asphalt, and similar inert wastes onto the surface of the ground whereby such depositing is to be temporary in nature, graded, and otherwise worked to fill an existing depression or low area of ground. 3). Depositing agricultural Solid Waste onto or under the surface of the ground when said waste is being utilized primarily for fertilized or a soil conditioner, or is being deposited on ground owned or leased by the person responsible for the production of said waste as long as depositing such waste does not create a nuisance. 4). Depositing sewage and/or sludge onto or under the surface of the ground at a Disposal Site that has otherwise been issued a Permit by a local, state or federal agency to be operated, maintained or managed for that purpose. 5). Depositing Hazardous Wastes or Dangerous Wastes onto or under the surface of the ground at a Disposal Site that has otherwise been • • • • • • Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste.System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 6 issued a Permit by a local, state or federal agency consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to be operated, maintained, or managed for this purpose. 6). Establishment and operation of a Woodwaste Landfill site; "Woodwaste Landfill" being defined in the Spokane County Flow Control Ordinance, No. 85-0395, section 2 Ti, adopted May 14, 1 985. C. The Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will address disposal of all types of waste. The City and County will include Signatory Regional City in planning for and opportunities for proper disposal of exempt waste. Section 4: ADMINISTRATION. A. Precise organization of entity, The entity defined above as the System has already been created. Signatory Regional City joins this System by this agreement. The City will manage the System pursuant to the terms and conditions of the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. B. The City will provide Signatory Regional City with a copy of the Annual Budget for the System. C. Although the City is the administrator of the System, a Policy Liaison Board has been established by the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. The Liaison Board already consists of two delegates from the City of Spokane, two from the County and one from the Regional Cities. With respect to Signatory Regional City however, it the intent of the parties that this Signatory Regional City (Spokane Valley) be entitled to its own separate voting seat on the Liaison Board, to be created as an additional sixth seat. Each party stipulates to and/or agrees -lo seek amendment of any other applicable interlocal agreements as may be necessary to accomplish this intention. D. .Holding, disposing real, personal aropert.y Any real or personal property needed for System operations may be acquired, held and disposed of by the City, as administrator under this agreement. The City administers all special finds for System operations. • Section 5: TIPPING FEES. • Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid 'Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 7 A. The Tipping Fees charged for disposal of Solid Waste at the System shall be that established by the City. Tipping Fees shall be uniform for the same class of service, except that Tipping Fees at the System's transfer stations and the Facility may differ to reflect the costs of transporting Solid Waste from the transfer stations to the Facility. The City has included and shall continue to include in the Tipping Fee a "landfill closure component" which will be allocated between the City, the County, and the Regional Cities as provided herein and in the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. B. If the Signatory Regional City is determined to have liability under Initiative 97 (RCW. 70.1050) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in connection with any landfill, the System shall allocate to Signatory Regional City a portion of the revenues from the landfill closure component of, the System's Tipping Fees. Such allocation of revenues shall be in the same proportion that Signatory Regional City's Solid Waste generated and delivered to the System bears to the total non-City [from sources other than the City of Spokane] Solid Waste generated from all other areas of Spokane County and delivered to the System each year. The portion of such non-City Solid Waste delivered to the System by the Signatory Regional City shall be determined by the population of the Signatory Regional City compared to the total non-City population [people living outside the City of Spokane in all other areas of Spokane County] or by such other mechanism as may be mutually agreed upon by the City, the County and the Signatory Regional City. C. The landfill closure component of the Tipping Fee will be increased or decreased periodically as deemed necessary by the City to generate the amount of funds required by the County or Regional Cities for landfill closure purposes within the limitations set forth in the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. D. Allocation of the revenues from the landfill closure component of the Tipping Fee will be made monthly to reflect the actual proportions based upon weight of Solid Waste delivered or caused to be delivered to the System each year by the City, County, and Regional Cities. The determination of the total weight of Solid Waste delivered or caused to be delivered to the•system by the • Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 8 City, the County, and Regional Cities, shall be made through the use of Scale Systems or, at any Disposal Site where Scale Systems are not available, by converting volumes of Solid Waste to tons of Solid Waste at the agreed upon ranges of 3 1/3 cubic yards of compacted Solid Waste to one ton of Solid Waste and 6 2/3 cubic yards of non-compacted Solid Waste to one ton of Solid Waste. The determination of whether any particular Solid Waste delivered to a disposal site by any person is from the City or from other areas of the County shall be determined by the City through such methods or systems as the City and the County shall agree and deem appropriate. E. Revenue allocated to Signatory Regional City if any shall be remitted quarterly. Allocable revenues, including interest earnings thereon, may be used for the following purposes: 1). To pay landfill closure costs. 2). To fund a reserve for future landfill costs. 3). To pay other collection costs. 4). Any other landfill purpose. Section 6: UTILITY TAX. If the City, County or Signatory Regional City should impose a utility tax on the disposal of Solid Waste at the System, the proceeds of that utility tax on disposal of Solid Waste generated within the County, either from incorporated or unincorporated areas, shall be shared, after the deduction of all appropriate and reasonable administrative costs, between the City, the County and the Regional Cities proportionately based upon the tons of Solid Waste delivered to the System from the City, the Regional Cities, and the tons of Solid Waste delivered to the System from other sources. The allocation of the tax will be pursuant to the method specified in Section 5B of this Agreement. Section 7: UPDATE OF TITE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Pursuant to R.CW 70.95.080, Signatory Regional City hereby authorizes the County, acting independently or through its agents"or consultants, to prepare a plan for - Signatory Regional City solid waste management as a part of the revisions to the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update in 1989 and every five(5) years thereafter, including preparation of a Local Hazardous Waste Plan, a Recycling Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 9 Plan and any environmental documents required therefore. The County will provide drafts of the update and notify Signatory Regional City of meetings regarding the update. The Plan and any updates will be submitted to Signatory Regional City for their approval. Section 8: AMENDMENT. Amendment of this Agreement may be made only by written agreement of the parties. Section 9: DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall be for an initial term of 8 years or for such longer term as any Bonds or Additional Bonds remain Outstanding. B This Agreement can be terminated early only by written agreement of the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the Signatory Regional City. Upon termination of the Agreement, the City shall own the System and all of its assets. [cross reference, County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, Sec. 5.2 e]. Section 10: HEADINGS. The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. in no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they apply. Section 11: ADDITIONAL. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. The parties have read and understand all of this Agreement, and now state that no representation, promise, or agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made to induce the parties to execute the same. Failure to enforce any term or condition in any one instance-shall not be deemed waiver in other instance. 'Phis Agreement shall not be construed to favor any party. Section 12: FILING OF THE AGREEMENT. The City of Spokane and Signatory Regional City shall file this Agreement with the respective City Clerks and the City shall file this Agreement with the Spokane County Auditor and Secretary of State. . Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 10 Section 13: SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not, in any way, be affected or impaired thereby. Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall become effective immediately after it is duly adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners, and the Councils of the Cities of Spokane and the Signatory Regional City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each of the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officials. pA DATED this / / J day of L422-- , 2003. CITY OF SPOKANE By: ,,/, / 74 70w7/r /Ay; a lfMich City Administrator ATTEST: SPQk • ,/ ice _ i�,�, Terri Pfister r : 'tw City Clerk ':;`"�;r 1 >� Approved as to Form: . Robert Beau dr Assistant City Attorney Spokane Valley Agreerneut to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page J1 ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this 045H1.day of •'. . . , 2003. �.� ..■,� A, '0 ••.'. ‘44. It 411 ,/ . , .4,34E 66;.. 1, It ‘/....1 litir: . . . .. A./. ° • ; ;:S ,:•.., V 0• Joh• oskellcyi Chace , •j • i ATTEST: +, e,, VICKI'lvi.DALTOt \‘` '4.cow:-- % t'''p D.W rris. `. CLL. . *17 THE BOA• 1""`-'-w •I (CC(L. BY: .t/.4 1. / , - Daniela Erickson,Deputy M.Kate We-slin. Commissioner ATTEST: APPROVED: / i D iela Erickson erne Boxer erh of:the Boa Cl ref Executive 0 m .r Approved as to Form: 4P •••11Pr-01----- J C401F.macio ivil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 12 DATED this_ day of , 2003. City of Spokane Valley, WA Signatory Regional City By. Ade. , City N onager Attest: JI r City Clerk Approved as to form: .111111116. • Attorn} . I II 1111 II II I 48g940682 08!0612003 00642F OFFICE OF CITY CtERK AGR S30.E0 Spokane Co, WA " I Return: Spokane City Clerk's Office 51h Floor, 808 W.Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 99201 rgb 03 05 06 430pm File no.CPR 03-512 File no. 3 0666 File no. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (CH. 39.34 RCW)BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE, SPOKANE COUNTY AND TIDE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY RE: SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Spokane, a first class charter city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "City"), and the County of Spokane, a class A county duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "County"), have specific powers and statutory duties relating to planning and controlling the management, handling and disposal of solid waste ("solid waste management") within the City and unincorporated area of the County (the "region"), respectively, including the development of a Solid Waste Management Plan under RCW 70.95; WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, WA, (hereinafter "Signatory Regional City"), a non charter optional code city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the constitution and laws of the State of Washington, likewise has specific municipal statutory powers and duties relative to solid waste management within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the County duly adopted a Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the region("Plan")on July 21, 1998, including revisions in • 1 • I . • . 4940682 0810612003 o051 42P OrFICE OF CIIY CLEk;( ACk $30.04 Spotane Co, EA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 2 Spokane County Resolution No. 98-0602; and WHEREAS, the City and County initiated the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project in 1984 in order to develop a necessary solid waste management system and plan, including appropriate waste reduction and recycling provisions and litter control provisions; and WHEREAS, after years of planning and the completion of an adequate environmental impact statement and vendor selection process, and after clue consideration of the environmental, social, technical, economic and other relevant factors, including public and governmental comment, and observation of applicable federal, state, and local procedures, the City and County established a cooperative project for the management, handling and disposal of solid waste generated within the City and the unincorporated areas of the County by execution of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by a joint Resolution adopted on November 3, 1987, as superseded by an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement adopted by the City and County on October 10, 1988, as superseded by Amended and Restated interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Spokane and Spokane County, WA on April 10, 1989 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the County, by the County linterlocal Cooperation Agreement has agreed to exercise its police and contract powers, and designate the System as the site for disposal of solid waste collected within the unincorporated area of the County by its Flow Control Ordinance,subject to the exceptions set forth therein; and *WHEREAS, Signatory Regional City now desires, in consideration for the City handling the disposal of Solid Waste at the System, to agree to exercise its police powers to designate the System as the sole site for disposal of Solid Waste under its control; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: • Section 1: DEFWITIONS. As used in this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise: A. Annual Budget shall mean the System budget for a Fiscal Year, as adopted or amended by the City in accordance with Section 8.12 of the Bond Ordinance. 13. Bond Ordinance means Ordinance C-29285, adopted January 9, 1989 by the City of Spokane City Council. 4940682 111 IIII II 1111 III II Pam 3 of 12 08106)2003 O5:421) 0FYICE OF CITY CLERK AGR 130.00 Spokane Co, FA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 3 C. City shall mean the City of Spokane, Washington, a first class charter city of the State of Washington. D. Coup shall mean Spokane County, Washington, a class A.county of the State of Washington. E. County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement shall mean the above referenced County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County for the ownership, financing and management of the system and any amendments thereof. F. Disposal Site means a site or sites approved by the Board of County Commissioners for Spokane County or the Board's Authorized Designee, where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposition of Solid Waste occurs. This includes, but is not limited to, transfer stations (included as part of the disposal system of the County), sanitary landfills, incinerators, composting plants, and the location of a Facility for the recovery of energy resources from Solid Waste or the conversion of the energy from such wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof. G. Facility shall mean the mass burn resource recovery steam and electric generating facility constructed pursuant to the Construction Contract; such facility is the"Facility" as such term is defined in the Construction Contract. H. Hazardous Waste shall mean waste which, by reason of its composition or characteristics is a toxic substance or hazardous waste as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC 6901 et esq., together with its implementing regulations, or in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TOSCA), 15 USC 2601 et seq., together with its implementing regulations, or the definitions as promulgated by the State of Washington as Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste, all as may be now or hereafter amended from time to time. T. Recyclable Materials shall mean those materials,other than Recovered Materials which are separated from Solid Waste, either by the generator at the source of such Solid Waste or mechanically by the System at any lawfully authorized transfer station,recycling facility, or other permitted location, as the case may be, and which are capable of being returned to the economic mainstream by the System.Recyclable Materials may include, but shall not be limited to,bottles, aluminum cans, newspapers, cardboard, paper materials,or other specific commercially marketable items, where and only where such materials have been specifically sorted ' 49406 litil 48�0612003 �82 45.42P OFFICE OF CM CLERK AGR $10.00 Spokane Co, lR Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 4 by the generator prior to collection and are collected apart from the common municipal solid waste stream for commercial manufacture or recycling. J. Regional Cities shall mean all incorporated cities and towns in Spokane County, including Signatory Regional City, except the City of Spokane, which have entered into, or hereafter enter into a Regional City Interlocal Agreement. K. Scale S. sv tem means the scales, scale house, computer hardware and software and associated equipment necessary to operate an automated ticketing system. L. Signatory Regional City means the City of Spokane Valley, WA. M. Solid Waste includes garbage and refuse and shall mean all putrecible and non-putrecible wastes, whether in solid or in liquid form except liquid- carried industrial wastes and sewage. "Solid Waste" includes garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes,swill,demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof; discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, digested sludge, and vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid materials, Solid Waste does not include Recyclable Materials or Hazardous Waste, In addition, all materials deposited in cans or containers for collection, (other than Recyclable materials or Hazardous Waste),shall be deemed Solid Waste. N. System shall mean the existing Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System comprised of all property, real or personal, tangible, or intangible that is now owned or hereafter acquired by the City which is used or useful by the City (i) in connection with the collection and disposal of Solid Waste generated within the City's boundaries and (ii) in connection with the disposal of. Solid Waste generated and collected elsewhere and delivered to the System for disposal. As of the date hereof, the System includes, without limitation, the City's Northside Landfill, the City's refuse collection system, and all facilities and equipment appurtenant thereto, whether real or personal, and vehicles necessary and incident thereto. O. Ti m ing lice means the amount charged per ton of Solid Waste for disposal by the System. All other capitalized terms used herein, which are not defined, shall have the meanings given to them in the Bond Ordinance. Otherwise they shall have the same 4940682 Page: 5 11 08 06 2003 005 42P OFFICE OF CITY CLEF( ACR 830.00 Spatane Co, FA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 5 meaning as used in other documents referenced in this agreement unless another specific document is referenced. Section 2: PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the participation of Signatory Regional City in the System as one of the Regional Cities. Section 3: SOLID WASTE DIRECTED TO SYSTEM. A. Signatory Regional City hereby covenants, agrees and contracts to exercise its police and contractual powers and authority as may now or hereafter be recognized in contract or at law to direct the deposit of Solid Waste generated within its geographical boundaries to the System. B. The following are specifically exempted from the provisions of subsection A: 1). Wrecking automobiles and parts thereof including storage and handling facilities, minor reclamation of scrap metal, glass, discarded clothing, paper, and their associated facilities which leads to resale or reuse of said material where no charge is made for collection or disposal to the originator. 2). Depositing soil, rock, tree stumps, gravel,broken concrete, broken asphalt, and similar inert wastes onto the surface of the ground whereby such depositing is to be temporary in nature, graded, and otherwise worked to fill an existing depression or low area of ground. 3). Depositing agricultural Solid Waste onto or under the surface of the ground when said waste is being utilized primarily for fertilized or a soil conditioner, or is being deposited on ground owned or leased by the person responsible for the production of said-waste as long as depositing such waste does not create a nuisance. 4). Depositing sewage and/or sludge onto or under the surface of the ground at a Disposal Site that has otherwise been issued a Permit by a local, state or federal agency to be operated, maintained or managed for that purpose. 5). Depositing Hazardous Wastes or Dangerous Wastes onto or under the surface of the ground at a Disposal Site that has otherwise been 4 IUI I 0806 2003 of 12 t6,42 OFFICE OF CITY CLERK ACR $30.00 Spe ane Co, KA l' Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 6 issued a Permit by a local, state or federal agency consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to be operated, maintained, or managed for this purpose. 6). Establishment and operation of a Woodwaste Landfill site; "Woodwaste Landfill" being defined in the Spokane County Flow Control Ordinance, No. 85-0395, section 2 II, adopted May 14, 1985. C. The Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will address disposal of all types of waste. The City and County will include Signatory Regional City in planning for and opportunities for proper disposal of exempt waste. Section 4: ADMINISTRATION. A. Precise organization of entity. The entity defined above as the System has already been created. Signatory Regional City joins this System by this agreement. The City will manage the System pursuant to the terms and conditions of the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. B. The City will provide Signatory Regional City with a copy of the Annual Budget for the System. C. Although the City is the administrator of. the System, a Policy Liaison Board has been established by the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. The Liaison Board already consists of two delegates from the City of Spokane, two from the County and one from the Regional Cities. With respect to Signatory Regional City however, it the intent of the parties that this Signatory Regional City (Spokane Valley) be entitled to its own separate voting seat on the Liaison Board, to be created as an additional sixth seat. Each party stipulates to and/or agrees -to seek amendment of any other applicable interlocal agreements as may be necessary to accomplish this intention. D. Holdin dis)osin real ersonal roved Any real or personal property needed for System operations may be acquired, held and disposed of by the City, as administrator under this agreement. The City administers all special funds for System operations. Section 5: TIPPING FEES. ' 4940682 46�Q6t2O43 006 42P OFFICE OF CITY CLERK AGR 130.00 Sponne Co, WA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 7 A. The Tipping Fees charged for disposal of Solid Waste at the System shall be that established by the City. Tipping Fees shall be uniform for the same class of service, except that Tipping Fees at the System's transfer stations and the Facility may differ to reflect the costs of transporting Solid Waste from the transfer stations to the Facility. The City has included and shall continue to include in the Tipping Fee a "landfill closure component" which will be allocated between the City, the County, and the Regional Cities as provided herein and in the County lnterlocal Cooperation Agreement. B. if the Signatory Regional City is determined to have liability under Initiative 97 (RCW. 70.105D) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in connection with any landfill, the System shall allocate to Signatory Regional City a portion of the revenues from the landfill closure component of the System's Tipping Fees. Such allocation of revenues shall be in the same proportion that Signatory 'Regional City's Solid Waste generated and delivered to the System bears to the total non-City[from sources other than the City of Spokane) Solid Waste generated from all other areas of Spokane County and delivered to the System each year. The portion of such non-City Solid Waste delivered to the System by the Signatory Regional City shall be determined by the population of the Signatory Regional City compared to the total non-City population [people living outside the City of Spokane in all other areas of Spokane County] or by such other mechanism as may be mutually agreed upon by the City, the County and the Signatory Regional City. C. The landfill closure component of the Tipping Fee will be increased or decreased periodically as deemed necessary by the City to generate the amount of funds required by the County or Regional Cities for landfill closure purposes within the limitations set forth in the County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. D. Allocation of the revenues from the landfill closure component of the Tipping Fee will be made monthly to reflect. the actual proportions based upon weight of Solid Waste delivered or caused to be delivered to the System each year by the City, County, and Regional Cities. The determination of the total weight of Solid Waste delivered or caused to be delivered to the system by the 4940682 Page: 8 1111111fil 08i0612003 005 42P OFFICE OF CITY UK( ACA 530,00 Spokane Co, Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 8 City, the County, and Regional Cities, shall be made through the use of Scale Systems or, at any Disposal Site where Scale Systems • are not available, by converting volumes of Solid Waste to tons of Solid Waste at the agreed upon ranges of 3 1/3 cubic yards of compacted Solid Waste to one ton of Solid Waste and 6 2/3 cubic yards of non-compacted Solid Waste to one ton of Solid Waste, The determination of whether any particular Solid Waste delivered to a disposal site by any person is from the City or from other areas of the County shall be determined by the City through such methods or systems as the City and the County shall agree and deem appropriate. E. Revenue allocated to Signatory Regional City if any shall be remitted quarterly. Allocable revenues, including interest earnings thereon, may be used for the following purposes: 1). To pay landfill closure costs. 2). To fund a reserve for future landfill costs. 3). To pay other collection costs. 4). Any other landfill purpose. Section 6: UTILITY TAX. If the City, County or Signatory Regional City should impose a utility tax on the disposal of Solid Waste at the System, the proceeds of that utility tax on disposal of Solid Waste generated within the County, either from incorporated or unincorporated areas, shall be shared, after the deduction of all appropriate and reasonable administrative costs, between the City, the County and the Regional Cities proportionately based upon the tons of Solid Waste delivered to the System from the City, the Regional Cities, and the tons of Solid Waste delivered to the System from other sources. The allocation of the tax will be pursuant to the method specified in Section 58 of this Agreement. Section 7: UPDATE OF THE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Pursuant to RCW 70.95.080, Signatory Regional City hereby authorizes the County, acting independently or through its agents or consultants, to prepare a plan for Signatory Regional City solid waste management as a part of the revisions to the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update in 1989 and every five(5) years thereafter, including preparation of a Local Hazardous Waste Plan, a Recycling . 11111 4940682• Page: 9 of 12 0810612003 05:42P OFFICE OF CITY CLEW AGE 530,00 Spokane Co, 1`A Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 9 • Plan and any environmental documents required therefore. The County will provide drafts of the update and notify Signatory Regional City of meetings regarding the update. The Plan and any updates will be submitted to Signatory Regional City for their approval. Section 8: AMENDMENT. A.niendnient of this Agreement may be made only by written agreement of the parties. Section 9: DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall be for an initial term of 8 years or for such longer term as any Bonds or Additional Bonds remain Outstanding. B This Agreement can be terminated early only by written agreement of the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the Signatory Regional City. Upon termination of the Agreement, the City shall own the System and all of its assets. [cross reference, County interlocal Cooperation Agreement, Sec. 5.2 e], Section 10: HEADINGS. The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they apply. Section 11: ADDITIONAL. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. The parties have read and understand all of this Agreement, and now state that no representation, promise, or agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made to induce the parties to execute the same. Failure to enforce any term or condition in any one instance-shall not be deemed waiver in other instance. This Agreement shall not be construed to favor any party. Section 12: FILING OF THE AGREEMENT. The City of Spokane and Signatory Regional City shall file this Agreement with the respective City Clerks and the City shall file this Agreement with the Spokane County • Auditor and Secretary of State. I . ' ` I • 48g9406$2• 08106120030 o(6 2P OFFICE OF CITY CLERK AOR $30.00 Spokane Co, FA Spokane Valley Agreement to loin Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 10 Section 13: SEVERABILITY. Ilil In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not, in any way, be affected or impaired thereby. Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE. I This Agreement shall become effective immediately after it is duly adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners, and the Councils of the Cities of Spokane and the Signatory Regional City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each of the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officials. Lt- DATED this 19— day of .r-4/1—(' ,2003. CITY OF SPOKANE � I, By: 7 /.arcs.' ,Ai . Jo 'r'owers).rayor ir �c I, ,c /City Administrator ATTEST: 1 •F SP0 1 X:',„.,e LII id°s a t� Terri Pfister .:T' 1=11111111111 SIM City Clerk =1:11ylli, mi Approved as to Form: 0., .ic----57 II.I .i obert Beau .' - /- Assistant City Attorney II 111111 II 1 111 $940682 CBj05f2OO 142k OFFICE OF CITY G1FHK AG$ S30,O0 Spo-kane Go, RA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste.System as ki cgional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 11 ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of _ ,2003. sk, 8 1 i --- .71 1 Jo] oskefle Ch441-+ i NAM ATTEST:: �w, Ga} � { . 1 ICKY M.DALTON ``�*��....k , , D. '�a�-is, �. , ", OP THE BOARD , Lei,„ . : .4( Eta A Daniela Erickson,Deputy M. Kate.Iv c aslin, Commissioner ATTEST: A.P '.l.C}VED: • �icla Brickso eine Boxer lerk of th• Bard Chief Executive Officer Appro ;d as to Form: 14112 41111111111111.11 ames F macio ivil Deputy Prosecuting Afl:oniey • • -�. 1111 490682 1113 IIII OB9O6r 20 5i42P OFF1Gf OF CITY Ol#B'( hOR x30,00 Spokane Co, VA Spokane Valley Agreement to Join Regional Solid Waste System as Regional City, pledging all solid waste to System Page 12 DATED this 3 d day of ,2003. City of Spokane Valley, WA Signatory Regional City By:(Z7T /022.e_LN City Manager Attest: y c.City Clerk Approved as to form: firidow 'qr Attorl II CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Hotel / Motel (Lodging) Tax Grants for Tourism Promotion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last formally addressed this topic on December 14, 2010 when they finalized awards of 2011 hotel/motel tax funds. No action has been taken on the distribution of 2012 hotel/motel tax receipts thus far this year. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council who receives a nonbinding recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council and the Committee membership must include: • At least two representatives of businesses that are required to collect the tax, • At least two people who are involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax, and • One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the Committee The Advisory Committee makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. On October 13, 2011, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met to consider application materials and presentations from applicants for a portion of the City's 2% hotel/motel tax receipts in 2012 which are estimated to be $430,000 in 2012. Presentations were made by the HUB, Spokane Regional Sports Commission, Valleyfest and Spokane Valley Heritage Museum. Following the presentations and Advisory Committee discussion, the following awards were recommended to be advanced to the City Council for consideration: HUB 42,600 Sports Commmission 185,000 Museum 3,900 231,500 Additionally, the Advisory Committee voted in favor of a second round of funding requests to culminate in mid-January 2012 applicant presentations and Committee award recommendations. OPTIONS: The recommendations of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee are advisory in nature and nonbinding to the Council. The City Council may accept the recommendations in whole or in part. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-1111tem 13 RCA Admin Rprt on LTAC mtg.docx RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time. This topic will come back before the City Council on November 15, 2011, when a motion consideration will be requested. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2012 Proposed Budget includes an appropriation of $430,000 of hotel/motel tax monies from Fund #105 including $30,000 for CenterPlace advertising and $400,700 for distribution to applicants. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of October 13, 2011, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-1111tem 13 RCA Admin Rprt on LTAC mtg.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting held October 13, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. In attendance were Jeff Fiman, Peggy Doering, Doug Kelley, Lee Cameron, Brenda Grassel, Sarah Farr, Mark Calhoun, Phil Champlin (HUB), Eric Sawyer (Spokane Regional Sports Commission), Denise Paulings (Unlimited Marketing for Valleyfest), Jayne Singleton and Herman Meier (Spokane Valley Heritage Museum), Keith Backsen (Spokane Regional CVB). Mark Calhoun opened the meeting with introductions and an overview of the agenda and explained that the meeting was open to the public. He provided a brief description related to the financial information included in the Committee packet, and discussed the estimated lodging tax proceeds available for 2012. He noted that 2012 lodging tax receipts were estimated to be approximately $430,000 and that $30,000 had been budgeted to go towards CenterPlace advertising. He also noted that the estimated fund balance of the Hotel/Motel Tax at the end of 2011 would likely be approximately $220,000. The Committee then discussed whether CenterPlace should receive money without having to follow the application process. It was noted that in 2010 the Committee agreed that CenterPlace should follow the same process as the other applicants and that consequently they did not apply for 2011 money. The Committee went on to discuss their intentions of recommending the allocation of some funds now, holding back some of the money, and meeting again in a second round later in the year to distribute remaining funds. They also discussed spending down a portion of the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund reserves below the 2011 yearend estimate of$220,000. This is partially in response to the State of Washington eliminating all tourism funding from its fiscal year 2012 Budget that began July 1, 2011. Applicant Presentations: • 9:00 HUB - Phil Champlin • 9:30 Spokane Regional Sports Commission - Eric Sawyer • 10:00 Valleyfest - Peggy Doering and Denise Paulings • 10:55 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum - Jayne Singleton and Herman Meier • One applicant — SpoCon, who was scheduled to make a 9:30 presentation, did not show. Following the applicant presentations the Committee discussed the merits of providing funding to the organizations. It was agreed that SpoCon would receive nothing as they were not there to make a presentation and consequently were unable to clarify whether they were in fact a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity. Each committee member then expressed their rationale for making specific allocation recommendations and these were tracked on a whiteboard. P:ICIerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-111Item 13 LTAC meeting minutes.docx Final LTAC Organization Jeff Brenda Doug Lee Peggy Recom- Hi / Low Fiman Grasse) Kelley Cameron Doering Average mendation HUB 40,000 35,000 50,000 45,000 43,000 42,600 42,600 50,000 / 43,000 SpoCon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,131 / 50,773 Sports Commission 175,000 175,000 200,000 175,000 200,000 185,000 185,000 200,000 / 200,000 Museum 3,000 3,000 3,500 5,000 5,000 3,900 3,900 5,000 / 3,500 Valleyfest 0 5,000 5,000 0 40,000 10,000 0 50,000 / 40,000 + Round 2 + Round 2 + Round 2 + Round 2 CenterPlace 0 0 0 0 30,000 6,000 0 30,000 / 30,000 + Round 2 + Round 2 + Round 2 Through this exchange the Committee asked Mr. Backsen from the CVB what their request would have been had they submitted an application, and he responded $250,000. The Committee also speculated the Fair and Expo's anticipated request would have been approximately $30,000 if they had submitted an application but noted the timing of the City's application process conflicted with the fair. The Committee again expressed their concern that the City's 2012 Budget has already included $30,000 of Lodging Tax to be applied to CenterPlace advertising and felt that this should not occur without CenterPlace Staff working though the application process expected of other organizations interested in receiving funding. It was again discussed that perhaps there should be a second round application process where CenterPlace Staff would have an opportunity to apply. It was also suggested that the Committee hold off on recommending any funding for Valleyfest until a second round while they gathered statistics related to attendance figures and hotel stays from the September 2011 festival. Brenda Grassel moved that the Committee accept the following funding levels and this was approved through a vote consisting of 4 members in favor and 1 opposed: HUB 42,600 Sports Commmission 185,000 Museum 3,900 231,500 The Committee further discussed holding a Round 2 in early January of 2012 and that this round would be open to all to apply and/or reapply. Brenda Grassel moved that the committee hold another round of the application process to distribute 2012 Lodging Tax money. This was approved through a vote consisting of 4 members in favor and 1 opposed. P:ICIerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-111Item 13 LTAC meeting minutes.docx Mark Calhoun noted that he would prepare an agenda report to present to the City Council on October 25, 2011, and that the Council was scheduled to take action on the Committee recommendation on November 15, 2011. There was some discussion from several committee members regarding the courtesy letter that is historically sent to potential applicants, and the intent to eliminate such letter. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Farr and Mark Calhoun P:ICIerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-25-111Item 13 LTAC meeting minutes.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Manufactured Home Zoning Ordinances GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.21.684; RCW 59.20 et seq.; RCW 59.21 et seq., SVMC 19.40.130 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Manufactured home parks are residential areas in which the park owner leases out multiple lots to individuals. These individuals (lessees) place their manufactured homes on the leased land. In these parks, the lessee owns the manufactured home, but only rents the land on which they have elected to place their manufactured home. Several members of the Association of Manufactured Home Owners and the Manufactured Home Owners Association of America have recently spoken in front of Council regarding their concerns regarding zoning issues surrounding manufactured home parks. The specific stated concern of these members is that, under the current zoning laws, there is no restriction on park owners from selling or converting the use of the land — resulting in the manufactured home owner having to relocate their dwelling. Members of the Association advocate for implementing a special zoning classification for manufactured homes similar to what was adopted by the cities of Lynnwood and Tumwater. Where applied, the effect of these ordinances would be to limit the allowed uses to manufactured homes, manufactured home parks, single family residences, and limited businesses such as childcare. To evaluate this new zoning concept, it is necessary to consider the existing protections under state law given to lessees of land in manufactured home parks, the rights of the manufactured home park owners that would be impacted, and the potential legal challenges to such an ordinance. Staff will discuss these issues with the Council at the meeting. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Tumwater Manufactured Home Park Zoning Ordinance City of Lynnwood Mobile Home Park Zoning Ordinance Tumwater Manufactured Home Park Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Page 1 of 6 Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Sections: 18.49.010 Intent. 18.49.020 Permitted uses. 18.49.030 Accessory uses. 18.49.040 Conditional uses. 18.49.050 Density regulations. 18.49.070 Use exception. 15.49.010 Intent. The manufactured home park (MHP) zone district is established to promote residential development that is high density, single-family in character and developed to offer a choice in land tenancy. The MHP zone is intended to provide sufficient land for manufactured homes in manufactured home parks. (Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) 18.49.020 Permitted uses. Permitted uses within the MHP zone district are as follows: A. Manufactured home parks in accordance with the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.48; B. Designated manufactured homes on existing single lots of record, in accordance with the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.48; C. Mobile home parks which were legally established prior to July 1, 2008; D. One single-family detached dwelling per existing single lot of record; E. Parks, trails, open space areas, and other related recreation facilities; F. Support facilities; G. Family child care home; child mini-day care center, subject to review by the community development director, the building official, and the fire chief. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011; Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) 18.49.030 Accessory uses. Accessory uses within the MHP zone district are as follows: A. Storage sheds, tool sheds, greenhouses; B. Private parking garages or carports; C. Home occupations, as approved by the director of community development; http://www.codepublishi n g.comlwaltumwater/html/Tumwater 18lTumwater 1849.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Page 2 of 6 D. Noncommercial recreational structures which could include but are not limited to swimming pools and recreational ball courts; E, Clubhouses and community centers associated with manufactured home parks. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011; Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) 18.49.040 Conditional uses. Conditional uses within the MHP zone district are as follows: A. Churches; B. Freestanding wireless communication facilities; C. Cemeteries; D. Child day care center; E. Public and/or private schools; F. Neighborhood community center; G. Neighborhood-oriented commercial center; H. The following essential public facilities: 1. Emergency communications towers and antennas; I. Group foster homes; J. Agriculture; K. Bed and breakfasts. (Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) 18.49.050 Density regulations. Density regulations in the MHP zone district are as follows: A. Site Area. All residential developments (except for the use listed in TMC 18.49.020 (D)) must meet the following density requirements: 1. Minimum: six dwelling units per acre; 2. Maximum: nine dwelling units per acre, except that any density greater than eight dwelling units per acre shall be obtained only by purchase of transfer of development rights in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.57. B. Density Calculation. The calculation of the density requirements in subsection A of this section is based on the portion of the site devoted to residential and associated uses (e.g., dwelling units; private community clubs, open space; stormwater detention, treatment and infiltration). The following land is excluded from density calculations: http:/1www.codepublishing.com/waltumwater/html/Tumwater 18/Tumwater 1849.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Page 3 of 6 1. Land that is required to be dedicated for public use as open space, right-of-way, or land on which development is prohibited by TMC Title 16, Environment, and land that is to be used for private roads. Provided, that portion of open space/park areas that consists of stormwater facilities and that is designed for active and/or passive recreational purposes in accordance with the drainage design and erosion control manual for Tumwater shall not be excluded from density calculations. 2. Land that is intended for future phases of development, 3. Land that consists of lots devoted to uses other than residential and associated uses, including but not limited to support facilities (except for stormwater detention, treatment and infiltration facilities). C. Land coverage, maximum for all buildings: seventy percent of total area of the parcel, D. Structure height: forty feet, maximum; provided, that no structure shall penetrate imaginary airspace surfaces as defined by 14 C.F.R. Part 77. A map that provides detailed information on ground and imaginary airspace surface elevations is available for inspection in the community development department. E. Yards.* 1. Front: ten feet minimum from frontage property line. a. Driveways in front yards on property lines abutting a public right-of-way must be a minimum of eighteen feet in length as measured along the shortest edge of the driveway starting from the front property line. 2. Side: five feet from property line, minimum. 3, Rear: five feet from property line, minimum. Where structures are constructed over one story, the setback from the adjacent property line or lines shall be increased by ten feet for every story above the ground level story of the proposed new building, and shall be completely screened from view in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.47. F. Open Space/Park Area. To the extent necessary to reasonably mitigate direct impacts, a minimum of ten percent of the gross site area shall be set aside as open space/park area meeting the following minimum standards: 1. For the purpose of calculation of the open space/park requirement, the open space/park area shall be separate and distinct from required yards, setbacks and landscaped areas, but may include areas of native vegetation that are allowed to fulfill the landscaping requirements of TMC Chapter 18.47. Open space/park areas may also include wetlands and their buffers, other critical areas, and stormwater facilities that are designed for active and/or passive recreation opportunities in accordance with the drainage design and erosion control manual for Tumwater. http://www.codepubl ishing.corlwa/tmwater/html/Turnwater 18TTumwater 1849.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Page 4 of 6 2, All open space/park areas must include any two or more facilities for active and/or passive recreation from the lists below. At least one of the required recreation facilities must be from the list of active recreation facilities (this area may include stormwater facilities that are designed for active and/or passive recreation opportunities in accordance with the drainage design and erosion control manual for Tumwater). a. Active Recreation Facilities. i. Children's play equipment, such as slides, swings, and play structures. ii. A paved hard court for activities such as basketball, tennis, pickfeball, etc. iii. A flat, open lawn area that may serve as a ball field for active play. iv. Other active recreation facility if approved by the community development director upon consultation with the Tumwater parks and recreation director. b. Passive Recreation Facilities. i. Facilities for walking, such as trails, benches, etc. ii. Picnicking facilities, such as picnic tables, shelters, etc. iii. Public plazas. iv. Year-round water features such as a fountain, pond, stream, etc. These water features may be incorporated as part of a stormwater facility designed in accordance with the drainage design and erosion control manual for Tumwater. v. Other passive recreation facility if approved by the community development director upon consultation with the Tumwater parks and recreation director. 3. The open space/park area shall have convenient access for residences of the development and shall be consolidated to provide maximum access, visibility, usability, minimization of impacts to residential uses, and ease of maintenance. The requirement that the open space/park area be consolidated may be waived by the director of community development upon a finding that the residents of the development would receive a greater benefit if the required open space/park area were provided in another configuration due to the unique topographic conditions or fish and wildlife habitat values of the site. 4. The open space/park area shall be designed and placed in consideration of existing and potential open space/park areas on adjacent parcels to consolidate or provide future opportunities for consolidation of neighborhood open space areas. http:llwww.codepubl ishing.com/wa/tumwater/htmI/Tumwater18/Tumwater1849.html 10/19/20] 1 Chapter 18.49 MHP MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ZONE DISTRICT Page 5 of 6 5. Except where removal is required to meet active recreation requirements in this chapter, existing trees and significant vegetation shall be retained in open space/park areas unless an alternate landscaping plan for such areas is required or approved by the community development director. 6. Cash, or like value of land area and improvements located within the appropriate neighborhood parks planning area, may be donated to the city to fulfill the requirements of this section. The amount of cash required will be determined using a formula based on the cost of meeting the adopted level of service for neighborhood parks in the Tumwater parks and recreation plan. 7. Open space/park areas shall be held in single ownership where such ownership assumes full responsibility for maintenance and operation, or held in common ownership by all of the owners in the development area through a homeowners' association or similar organization. The city as a condition of approval may choose to accept dedication, or the maintenance and operation responsibilities for the area, when the area to be dedicated is one or more of the following: a. Greater than five acres. b. Adjacent to an established or future city park or school grounds. c. Includes access to a body of water, wetland, important fish/wildlife habitat, or other environmentally sensitive area. d. If the city determines it is in the public interest to accept public dedication. "See TMC 18.04.670. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011; Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) 18.49.070 Use exception. A. A mobile/manufactured home park owner may request a use exception or modification from the application of the MHP zoning to their property as set forth below. B. The property owner shall submit an application on forms prepared by the community development department, with documentation demonstrating that application of the MHP zoning meets the criteria below. C. The city council may approve the property owner's request for a use exception if the property owner demonstrates: 1. They do not have reasonable use of their property under the MHP zoning; or 2. The uses authorized by the MHP zoning are not economically viable at the property's location. If the request is granted by the city council, the property shall revert to its previous zoning designation without further action by the council. D. In addition to the application, a relocation plan must be submitted detailing, at a minimum, the pertinent laws (city, county, or state), an explanation of tenants' rights http://www.codepublishing.corn/wa/tumwater/html/Tumwater 181Tumwater 1 849.htm l 10/19/2011 unapter 16.41-9 MHY MAN UFAU I UKLJ HUMS PARK LUNE MS l K1U 1 Page 6 of 6 according to state law, a list of sources of assistance (governmental, financial, etc.), available vacant spaces within the mobile/manufactured home park, a list of nearby parks with available spaces, and a list of companies that move manufactured or mobile homes. E. Except as otherwise provided herein, the application shall be reviewed consistent with TMC Title 14, and the council's decision may be appealed to Thurston County superior court. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011; Ord. 02008-009, Added, 02/17/2009) This page of the Tumwater Municipal Code is current City Website: http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/ through Ordinance 02011-007, passed July 19, 2011. (http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the City Telephone: (360) 754-5855 Tumwater Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Code Publishing Company Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited (http://www.codepublishing.com/) above. http://www.codepubtishing.comlwaltumwater/html/Tumwater 18/Tumwater 1849.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.48 DESIGNATED MANUFACTURED HOMES—MANUFACTURED HO... Page 1 of 5 Chapter 18.48 DESIGNATED MANUFACTURED HOMES — MANUFACTURED HOMES— NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES — MOBILE HOMES— MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS Sections: 18.48.010 Permit required — Fee. 18.48.020 Commercial structures standards. 18.48.030 Conformance with zoning regulations. 18.48.090 Structural support system and installation requirements. 18.48.100 Installation approval. 18.48.110 Designated manufactured home park standards. 18.48.120 Park/subdivision site plan review— Required_ 18.48.130 Park/subdivision site plan review--Application — Fee. 18.48.140 Park/subdivision site plan review—Approval — Effect on other provisions. 18.48.150 Residential structures — Standards for designated manufactured homes. 18.48.160 Replacement of existing mobile, manufactured, and designated manufactured homes within mobile or manufactured home parks. 18.48.170 Recreational vehicles. 18.48.010 Permit required— Fee. A. Prior to the location, relocation, establishment or occupancy of any designated manufactured home, the home owner or authorized representative shall obtain a permit from the community development department. Application for the permit will be made on forms prescribed and furnished by the department. B. The fee for the permit shall be as established by resolution of the city council. This fee is in addition to any other fees required for health or electrical permits. C. Each permit issued by the community development department for a designated manufactured home shall be valid until the designated manufactured home is moved to another location whether on the same or different property. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011; Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 0710512005; Ord. 02001-012, Amended, 03/19/2002; Ord, 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 1144, Amended, 01/05/1988; Ord. 883, Added, 05/06/1984) 18.48.020 Commercial structures standards. Mobile or manufactured or designated manufactured or new manufactured homes shall not be used for commercial purposes unless they meet the factory-built commercial structures standards as provided in RCW 43.22.450 through 43.22.490. (Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 883, Added, 0510611984) 18.48.030 Conformance with zoning regulations. The designated manufactured home shall conform to the minimum zoning regulations in effect for the district in which it is to be located. http:llwww.codepubl ishing.comlwaltumwaterlhtml/Tumwater 181Tumwater 1848.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.48 DESIGNATED MANUFACTURED HOMES—MANUFACTURED HO... Page 2 of 5 (Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 883, Added, 05/06/1984) 18.48.090 Structural support system and installation requirements. Designated manufactured homes installations shall: A. Be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer. B. Have the space from the bottom of the home to the ground enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product which can be either load bearing or decorative. (Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 02001-012, Amended, 03/19/2002; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 883, Added, 0510611984) 18.48.100 Installation approval. Installation of a designated manufactured home shall be approved by the building inspector prior to occupancy. (Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 883, Added, 05/06/1984) 18.48.110 Designated manufactured home park standards. In order to ensure the development of well-planned designated manufactured home facilities and to ensure the compatibility of such facilities with adjacent existing and planned uses, the following standards shall apply to all designated manufactured home park development: A. The minimum site area and density regulations shall be the same as established in each zone district where the designated manufactured home development would be located. B. Designated manufactured home parks shall be complete developments and are required to include facilities such as paved streets, pedestrian/bike ways, storm drainage, sanitary sewage disposal and perimeter and entrance landscaping, as approved by the community development department. C. if the land and designated manufactured home locations within a proposed designated manufactured home park are intended to be sold to more than one person, firm or corporation, or are to include the dedication of land as regulated by the land division ordinance as set forth in TMC Title 17, then the proposed designated manufactured home park shall be subject to the requirements of that title in addition to the requirements of this title. D. Information to be submitted to the community development department before the issuance of applicable permits shall include: 1. Overall site plan showing the location of all designated manufactured home pads, accessory buildings, internal pedestrian and vehicle circulation and ingress/egress points; http:l/www.codepublishing,com/wattumwater/html/Tumwater18/Tumwater1848.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.48 DESIGNATED MANUFACTURED HOMES—MANUFACTURED HO... Page 3 of 5 2. Storm drainage plan showing existing vegetation, slopes, and drainage conditions, as well as proposed alterations and drainage control devices; 3. Landscaping plans for the perimeter and entrance showing the existing and proposed vegetation and method of maintenance. E. If development is by phase, a graphic breakdown of each phase as it relates to the entire project and its timetable for completion must be provided. F. Individual designated manufactured homes located within the designated manufactured home park shall be installed per the standards established by this title. G. The developer/applicant shall either install the required improvements and repair any existing streets and other public facilities damaged in the development of the project, or furnish the city with a performance bond or other security, as approved by the city attorney, to ensure the installation of public improvements and landscaping. H. Each designated manufactured home park which proposes to provide overnight rental of parking space for travel trailers shall provide one or more buildings adequately equipped with flush-type toilet fixtures. Dependent travel trailers shall be parked not more than two hundred feet or less than fifteen feet from the service building, and walkways to such buildings shall be well lighted at night. Each service building shall further: 1. Be located fifteen feet or more from any designated manufactured home space, and be of permanent construction; 2. Have adequate heating. lighting, sanitation and ventilation facilities in accordance with other state and local codes and ordinances; 3. Provide sewage disposal facilities for park occupants only. (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 03/01/2011: Ord. 02008-009, Amended, 02/17/2009; Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 0710512005; Ord. 02001-012, Amended, 03/19/2002; Ord. 096- 027, Amended, 10/15/1996; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord, 883, Added, 0510611984) 18.48.120 Park/subdivision site plan review— Required. A site plan review is required to establish a designated manufactured home park within zoning districts of the city where such parks are permitted uses. (Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995 Ord. 1147, Added, 12/15/1987) 18.48.130 Park/subdivision site plan review—Application — Fee. A request for a designated manufactured home park/subdivision site plan review shall be submitted on an application form available at the community development department. Each application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the city council. http:llwww,c od epub l i s h i ng.co nilwaltum wate r/htm_l/Tu mwate r 18/Tumwater 18 4 8.htm l 10/19/2011 Chapter 1 8.48 D SIUNA'1'ED MANUFACTURED HOMES—MANUFACTURED HO... Page 4 of 5 (Ord. 02011-002, Amended, 0310112011; Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 0710512005; Ord. 02001-012, Amended, 03/19/2002; Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 1147, Added, 12/15/1987) 18.48.140 Park/subdivision site plan review—Approval — Effect on other provisions. The approval of a site plan shall not supersede the density regulations of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. All applicable installation and development standards shall apply. (Ord. 095-035, Amended, 12/19/1995; Ord. 1147, Added, 12/15/1987) 18.48.150 Residential structures— Standards for designated manufactured homes. Any designated manufactured home that is used for residential purposes must meet the following standards: A. Be comprised of at least two parallel sections each of not less than twelve feet wide by thirty-six feet long, except in the following instances 1. The home is being installed as an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.42. 2. The home will be replacing an existing mobile home inside an existing mobile home park and the lot or space is too small to accommodate a designated manufactured home as described in this subsection A. B. Be constructed with and now have a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of nominal three-to-twelve pitch; and C. Have exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site-built single-family residences; and D. Be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and have the space from the bottom of the home to the ground enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product which can be either load-bearing or decorative; and E. Comply with all local design standards applicable to all other homes within the neighborhood in which the home is to be located; and F. Be thermally equivalent to the energy code as adopted by TMC Title 15. (Ord. 02010-017. Amended, 1212112010; Ord. 02005-011, Amended, 07/05/2005; Ord. 02001-012, Amended, 0311912002; Ord. 097-025, Amended, 12/02/1997; Ord. 095-035, Added, 12/19/1995) 18.48.160 Replacement of existing mobile, manufactured, and designated manufactured homes within mobile or manufactured home parks. In accordance with RCW 35A.21.312, mobile homes, manufactured homes (including new manufactured homes), and designated manufactured homes shall be allowed to locate within mobile and manufactured home parks that existed prior to June 12, 2008. http://wvm.codepublishing,corn/wahumwater/html/Tumwater I 8/Tumwater 1848.html 10/19/2011 Chapter 18.48 1)ES1UNA1ED MANUFACTURED HOMES—MANUFACTURED HO... Page 5 of 5 Additionally, each such mobile home, manufactured home or designated manufactured home shall have smoke alarms installed. Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations: A. In each sleeping room. B. Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms. C. On each additional story of the dwelling, including basements but not including crawl spaces and uninhabitable attics. In dwellings or dwelling units with split levels and without an intervening door between the adjacent levels, a smoke alarm installed on the upper level shall suffice for the adjacent lower level; provided, that the lower level is less than one full story below the upper level. (Ord. 02010-001, Added, 02/16/2010) 18.48.170 Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles may be used as primary residences in manufactured/mobile home parks, provided they have at least: A. One internal toilet and one internal shower or the manufactured/mobile home park provides toilets and showers. B. Smoke Alarms. Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations: 1. In each sleeping room. 2. Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms. 3. On each additional story of the dwelling, including basements but not including crawl spaces and uninhabitable attics. In dwellings or dwelling units with split levels and without an intervening door between the adjacent levels, a smoke alarm installed on the upper level shall suffice for the adjacent lower level; provided, that the lower level is less than one full story below the upper level. (Ord. 02010-001, Added, 02/16/2010) This page of the Turnwater Municipal Code is current City Website: http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/ through Ordinance 02011-007, passed July 19, 2011. (http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the City Telephone: (360) 754-5855 Tumwater Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Code Publishing Company Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited (http://www.codepublishing.com/) above. http://www.codepublishing.comlwaltumwater/htmllTumwater 18/Tumwaterl 848.html 10/19/2011 1 City of Lynnwood Mobile Home Park Zoning Ordinance City of Lynnwood Mobile Home Park Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.71 MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE Sections: 21.71.050 Purpose. 21.71.100 Permitted uses. 21.71.150 Conditional uses. 21.71.170 Accessory uses. 2].71.200 Development standards. 21.71.300 Project design review. 21.71.050 Purpose. The intent and function of the mobile home park zone is to provide and preserve high density, affordable residential development consisting of mobile homes in existing mobile home parks as a source of affordable detached single-family and senior housing. (Ord. 2871 § 4 (Exh. A),2010) 21.7I.100 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this zone: A. Adult family homes. B. Boarding house. C. Clubhouse and fraternal, social, recreation and other not-for-profit associations, and similar. D. Dwelling, mobile home or manufactured home (one per lot). E. Dwelling, one-family (one per lot). F. Hospitals. G. Mobile home park (see Chapter 21.70 LMC). H. Wireless communications facilities, attached. (Ord. 287] § 4(Exh. A), 2010) 21.71.150 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted in this zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit(ref. Chapter 21.24 LMC): A. Bed and breakfast. B. Child day-care facility. C. Convalescent and nursing homes, housing for the elderly and physically disabled, and group housing for any other legal purpose, but not including hospitals or mental hospitals (see LMC 21.43.110). D. Public utility facilities necessary for the transmission, distribution or collection of electric, telephone, wireless communication, telegraph, cable TV, natural gas, water, and sewer utility services, excluding sewer treatment plants, offices,repair shops. warehouses, and storage yards(see LMC 21.43.110). E. Social, medical, counseling or other forms of treatment in a clinical setting or on an outpatient basis including commercial enterprises and charitable institutions. Shelters providing services to the homeless or other transients are included in this land use category; correctional facilities and community facilities for juveniles under RCW 72.05.020 are not included in this category. F. Wireless communications facility, except as permitted as an attached facility in LMC 21.71.100. (Ord. 2871 § 4 (Exh. A),2010) 21.71.170 Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses to a one-family dwelling, a mobile home,a manufactured home or a mobile home park: A. Garage. B. Carport. C. Home occupations (see LMC 21.42.300). D. Storage structure. E. Recreational clubhouse and/or facilities for use exclusively by residents of a development and their guests. (Ord. 2871 § 4 (Exh. A), 2010) 21.71.200 Development standards. Development and maintenance of mobile home parks in this zone shall be subject to all provisions of Chapter 21.70 LMC, except where the community development director determines (under LMC 21.04.300)that a particular provision is clearly not applicable in a particular situation. Development and maintenance of any structure not associated with or part of a mobile home park shall be subject to the development standards and other regulations in the community business(B-1)zone (ref. Chapter 21.46 LMC), except where such regulations conflict with the regulations of this chapter. (Ord. 2871 § 4(Exh. A), 2010) 21.71.300 Project design review. A. Design Guidelines for Multiple-Family Uses. Construction of any multiple-family structure or building including duplexes (two-family dwellings)permitted outright or by conditional use permit (except a mobile or manufactured home park) shall comply with Lynnwood Citywide Design Guidelines for All Districts and Multifamily Districts, as adopted by reference in LMC 21.25.145(B)(3), and receive approval pursuant to Chapter 21.25 LMC, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. B. Design Guidelines for Nonresidential Uses. Construction of any nonresidential structure or building with a gross floor area of more than 1,000 square feet permitted outright or by conditional use permit shall comply with Lynnwood Citywide Design Guidelines for All Districts and Multifamily Districts, as adopted by reference in LMC 21.25.145(B)(3),and receive approval pursuant to Chapter 21.25 LMC, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. C. Design Guidelines for Parking Lots and Parking Structures. Construction of any parking lot and/or parking structure with 20 or more stalls or paved parking area of 5,400 square feet or more permitted outright or by conditional use permit shall comply with Lynnwood Citywide Design Guidelines for All Districts and Commercial Districts,as adopted by reference in LMC 21.25.145(B)(3),and receive approval pursuant to Chapter 21.25 LMC,unless otherwise specified in this chapter. D. Supersede. Applicable Lynnwood Citywide Design Guidelines, as adopted by reference in LMC 21.25.145(B)(3), shall supersede any development standards and requirements of this chapter that may conflict, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. E. Gateways and Prominent Intersections. See city of Lynnwood zoning map to identify development project sites within a gateway or prominent intersection location. Such sites shall be subject to applicable gateway and/or prominent intersection design guidelines identified in the All Districts section of the Lynnwood Citywide Design Guidelines, as adopted by reference in LMC 21.25.145(B)(3). If any portion of a project site lies within a gateway or prominent intersection location, then the entire project shall comply with the applicable design guidelines. (Ord. 2871 § 4 (Exh. A), 2010) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 25, 2011 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Information ®Admin. Report❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows local jurisdictions to update comprehensive plans no more than once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notices at the end of August advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would be accepting applications for the 2012 cycle through November 1, 2011. Notice was also posted in the main reception area of City Hall, the Permit Center and at the Valley Library. Comprehensive Plan Amendments are divided into two categories - map amendments and text amendments (including charts, tables and graphics). Comprehensive Plan amendments may be privately initiated or proposed by City staff. Most privately initiated amendments deal with land use changes. Text amendments for 2012 will be limited to changes to Chapter 3: Transportation, Chapter 4: Capital Facilities and Chapter 7: Economic Development. It is critical to update the Transportation and Capital Facilities elements annually due to GMA requirements for concurrency and for certain funding sources, such as Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). REET money can only be used for capital projects that are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. To date, staff has conducted 5 pre-application meetings for privately initiated amendment requests. No applications have been received to date but staff anticipates several submittals prior to the November 1, 2011 deadline. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, P.E., Community Development Director Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager Attachment: 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-)0(-12 Land Use Map Pre-App, 16913 E Mission, LDR to MUC CPA-)0(-12 Land Use Map Pre-App, 819 N Greenacres, TBD CPA-)0(-12 Land Use Map Pre-App, 601 N. Conklin, MDR to HDR CPA-)0(-12 Land Use Map Pre-App, 15712 E. Broadway, TBD CPA-)0(-12 Land Use Map Pre-App, 805 N. Park, LDR to NC CITY INITIATED COMPRENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map Summary of Amendment N/A Land Use Map N/A CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-)0(-12 Text Chapter 2 — Land Use: update the Land Use map; Map 2.1 CPA-)0(-12 Map 3.1 Chapter 3 —Transportation: include transportation Map 3.2 improvements developed in the 2011 development cycle; CPA-)0(-12 Text Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services: update 6-year TIP; ensure capital projects such as city hall, parks, and public works storage facility are included for the use of REET funding; CPA-)0(-12 Map 7.1 Chapter 7 — Economic Development: update Map 7.1 to reflect the latest Development Activity; Updated 10/1 9/1 1 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of October 19,2011; 11:00 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 November 1,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 24] 1. Spokane Regional Sports Commission Update—Eric Sawyer (10 minutes) 2. Public Facilities District Presentation,Proposed Convention Center Completion—Kevin Twohig (20 minutes) 3. Economic Development Update—Mike Jackson,John Hohman (30 minutes) 4. Railroad Quiet Zones—Roger Crum (20 minutes) 5. Stormwater Grants—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 6. Chapter 1,Draft Governance Manual—Mayor Towey,Councilmember Gothmann,C.Bainbridge (30 min) 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] November 8,2011,No meeting (3 councilmembers attending a conference) November 15,2011, Special,Formal Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 7] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-017 Adopting 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Funding Allocation,Lodging Tax—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] November 22,2011; NO MEETING(Thanks2ivin2 week) November 29,2011, Study Session Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 21] 1. Street Maintenance Contract Renewal—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 2. Sweeping Contract Renewals—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 3. Gateway Signs—Mike Stone (20 minutes) 4. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] December 6,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 28] 1. Oath of Office for Council positions#3 and 5—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 2. Landscaping Code Amendments—John Hohman (30 minutes) 3. Police Department Accreditation—Rick VanLeuven (15 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] December 13,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Committee,Boards,Commission Mayoral Appointments—Mayor Towey (15 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract Renewal—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Sweeping Contract Renewals—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 10/20/2011 2:41:26 PM Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2011,No meeting(Christmas Week) December 27, 2011,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 19]] 1. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] January 3,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Tue,Dec 27] 1. Oath of Office for Council positions #2, 3 and 6—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 2.Mayor and Deputy Mayor Elections—Chris Bainbridge (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Centennial Trail Agreement Contracts,Annual Renewals,histories,etc. Franchise Ord.,Bonneville Power(2°d reading) Greenacres Trail/Northern Railroad Investment Accounts Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Pavement Management Program Update Prosecution Services Public Input Process for Capital Projects Retreat(tentative: Feb 7,2012) Revenue Policy,Cost Recovery Senior Housing Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Sidewalks Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,Public Educ. *time for public or council comments not included Draft Advance Agenda 10/20/2011 2:41:26 PM Page 2 of 2 lSpokane Community Development Valle Monthly Report y August 2011 PERMIT CENTER Revenue Permits Permit revenue for August 2011 was $64,850. This figure is behind August of last year. Permit Revenue $300,000 - - - $250,000 $200,000 - $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 —- —t Liol$0 — II I I 1-ii I . L, Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec _2011 Revenue 2010 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for August 2011 was $13,361. This figure is ahead of August of last year. Land Use Revenue $16,000 $14,000 1 $12,000 1 r i o • $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 I$4,000 $2,000 Si Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 02011 Revenue 02010 Revenue Page 1 of 8 Spvlane Community Development Valle Monthly Report y August 2011 Valuation The valuation' for August 2011 was $3,450,174. $35,000,000 Permit Valuation $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 • $15,000,000 A $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 m —.A.--.L. .■1� Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec _ailliai - 2011 Valuation mr.w.2010 Valuation Office ofy inam'IaiManagement Permit_Information (l'ermitslssuedJ Dwelling August 2011 Residential New Separate Demolition Units Structures Dwelling Units Permits Demolished Single Family Residence 1 Duplex 1 Triplex 4-PI ex Apartments August 2011 New Tenant Commercial Buildings Improvements Additions 4 19 1 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 Spokane Community Development Valle Monthly Report y August 2011 Permit.4ctivity Certificate of Occupancy There was 4 CO's issued in August. Shelly Lake Apartments Bldg A, Shelly Lake Apartments Bldg B, Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 334 permits in August 2011. Construction Permits Issued 600 500 / 400 / 300 / 200 lIlpuluuul 100 [ 1111111111 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec •2011 Permits 159 121 246 338 349 395 278 334 •2010 Permits 158 200 259 256 241 284 263 328 508 366 246 231 Land Use Applications The Planning Division processed the following applications in August: - Four Boundary Line Adjustments - One Final Short Plat - One Preliminary Subdivision (41 townhome lots) - Five temporary sign permits - One SEPA Checklist (not associated with building permit or land use action) - One Substantial Shoreline Development Permit Pre-application Meetings There were three land use pre-application meetings in August. 1) PRE-12-11 Change of Condition for West Corp located @ 9317 E Sinto Ave 2) PRE-13-11 2-lot short plat for Kuznetsov @ 4215 N McDonald Rd 3) PRE-14-11 2=lot short plat for Rhodes @ 9317 E Broadway Ave Hearing Examiner There were no hearings in August. Page 3 of 8 S�lokane Community Development Valle Monthly Report Valley August 2011 Business Licenses Staff approved 133 business licenses in August. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 36 home occupation permits in August. Entertainers Licenses 4 entertainment licenses were processed for August. Express Permits There were 5 Express permits processed in August. CustomerSewice The Permit Center staff assisted 486 customers at the counter and handled 618 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. Inspections Right of Way Inspector: The Right-of-Way inspector performed 635 inspections in August. Please note: Figures for the months of Feb—June the inspections were under reported. These numbers have now been corrected to the actual work that was performed. Right-of-Way Inspections 1400 1200 I Q 1000 � • d a 800 • r 600 • 400 200 0 Jan IFeb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sgt 0 2011,388 1846 1174 917 798 918 881 635 G 20111221 491 773 852 1007 941 957 704 859 1003 755 482 Page 4 of 8 Spokane Community Development Valle Monthly Report Valley August 2011 Building Inspectors: The City's Building Inspectors performed 489 residential inspections and 222 commercial inspections in the month of August. ■2011 Residential 2010 Residential D 2011 Commercial ♦2010 Commercial -) 1000 Building AII-A*-1 __1 --7 1-4 i Inspections100 • Performed 10 1 • •I I I, .Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Residential 296 275 395 490 459 456 405 489 0 0 0 0 2010 Residential 393 387 397 557 498 522 531 403 581 525 437 379 2011 Commercial 115 109 150 153 160 176 220 222 0 0 0 0 2010 Commercial 229 187 274 180 163 185 201 312 196 170 137 120 Development Engineering Inspector During the month of August the Development Engineering Inspector performed 30 site inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 45 J 40 35 { 30 A 25 20 15 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 •2010 Page 5 of 8 >17Community Development alle Monthly Report y August 2011 UPDATES Planning Planning Commission Planning staff conducted an overview of landscaping and signage regulations at the Planning Commission meeting on August 25, 2011. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Updates Staff sent notice to City Council and department heads on August 23, requesting possible updates for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Staff is developing a docket for the 2012 amendment cycle and would like to incorporate relevant changes to ensure the Comprehensive Plan is current. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO)— The Steering Committee did not meet in August. Shoreline Master Program Staff continues to work on the development of the Shoreline Environment Designations with URS Corporation and prepare for the Goals and Policies Open House set for September. The DOE Grant application was completed in July with informal grant authorization received July 11. Formal approval is still pending. Staff met with Centennial Properties and Central Pre-Mix property owners to discuss ongoing concerns regarding the SMP update. D partment-Vie Energy Grant Public Works continues to implement transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. Mary May presented changes to the City Council to grant as proposed by Avista. 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 provided an update to the legislature and the Governor December 1, 2010. The update was not intended to be a comprehensive revision. The full revision is expected to be delivered to the legislature and the Governor in December 2011. The meetings for the full revision began in January and are scheduled throughout 2011. The topic of the meetings continues to be transportation so no action other than monitoring the Department of Commerce web-site has been required so far this year. Bike/Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) Staff provided a working session to City Council on August 30th. The working session involved a detailed discussion of the BPMP identifying concerns the City Council would like to have addressed. Staff and City Council worked collaboratively to modify the document to be more of a guide rather than a mandate and to be more broad and general and not so detailed. City Council directed staff to make similar edits and schedule a future meeting to discuss the entire document in track-change format. This includes changing words such as "will"to "can" and "ensure"to "encourage". ADA Self-Survey A draft of the survey results report and transition plan are progressing, although very slowly. Staff resources have been temporarily diverted to several time sensitive projects. However, work will continue and a final schedule developed before the end of the year. Page 6 of 8 >%7Community Development alle Monthly Report y August 2011 SEPA SEPA determinations were issued for a subdivision at the corner of Dishman Mica and Wilbur, a drive-through wash bay at Enterprise Rent-A-Car and for a residential swimming pool. Wellhead Protection Staff attended a Wellhead Protection committee meeting in August. Regional Partnering The Regional Partnering Group is currently focused on the development and implementation of the SmartGov permit tracking and workflow system. While the Spokane County and the City will have separate systems, staff is evaluating forms and processes to determine if forms can have a uniform appearance and if some processes, at least at the customer interface can be more similar. Sign and Landscaping Regulations Staff continued to work on signage and landscaping regulations to present to the Planning Commission and City Council. Code Compliance Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance Officers responded to 86 Citizen Action Requests. They are by type, listed below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 100% _ ■ 80% I! ! 1 •IUU 60% 111111 JliIjl 20% ' I i' 0% - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ❑Clear View Triangle 0 2 1 0 0 0 14 8 O Complaint- No Violation 1 1 1 6 2 5 3 4 ■Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ❑Junk Auto 6 3 6 8 7 11 8 14 ✓Property 4 4 8 11 10 22 20 37 Li Signs 0 1 0 5 47 2 0 1 ©Solid Waste 9 9 14 15 14 23 9 21 2011 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category Page 7 of 8 Community Development pokane Valle Monthly Report August 2011 UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST INTEREST 9-11-11 Planning Commission regular meeting 9-20-11 City Council Study Session - Bike and Pedestrian Plan 9-29-11 Hearing Examiner—2 lot Subdivision 9-29-11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10-4-11 [ City Council Study Session, Shoreline Discussion 10-6-11 Hearing Examiner, Change of Conditions 10-11-11 City Council, Regular Meeting, BPMP 1st Reading 10-13-11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting —Study Session for CTA-04-11 10-18-11 City Council Study Session —continued discussion regarding signage 10 25 11 City Council Regular Meeting —BPMP 2nd Reading 10-27-11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting — Public Hearing CTA-04-11 Page 8 of 8 Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director '4C, Date: October 12, 2011 Re Finance Department Activity Report—September 2011 2011 Audit of 2010 Financial Records and Annual Financial Re port The 2011 annual financial report is complete and the State Auditors finished their field work near the end of September. We anticipate the final exit conference will be held sometime during the third full week of October. The City has received an "unqualified" or "clean" opinion on our financial statements from the State Auditor's (which is our goal) and they will have no management letters or findings to report. 2011 Budget Amendments A few amendments are being prepared for the 2011 budget as adjustments are needed for a number of capital projects. These include the purchase of the street/storm water maintenance facility and potentially some of the capital projects discussed at recent council meetings. Council will review the amendment at the following meetings: October 25 Public hearing November 8 First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2011 Budget December 13 Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2011 Budget 2012 Budget Preparation The 2012 Budget development process is nearing completion and at this point the Council has had an opportunity to hear about and discuss it on six separate occasions. Remaining on the budget development calendar is final Council action where the 2012 Budget Ordinance will be considered: October 25 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2012 Budget November 15 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2012 Budget 2012 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process is levying property taxes which in 2012 are expected to account for approximately 31% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic have (or will) occur at the following meetings: October 11 First reading of ordinances levying 2012 property taxes and confirming tax levy. October 25 Second reading of ordinances levying 2012 property taxes and confirming tax levy. 11SV-FS21Users1mcalhoun\Finance Activity Reports1201112011 09.docx Page 1 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and Awards of Funding Requests in the 2012 Budget The process to award 2012 funding of the City's 2% hotel/motel tax has begun and the Council will be asked to consider and act upon a recommendation from the Committee that is based upon their review of applicant materials and presentations. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: October 13 Applicant presentations to Committee October 25 Admin report to Council regarding Committee recommendations November 15 Council makes final determination of awards Financial Reports (pages 4 — 12) Reports reflecting a budget to actual comparison of revenues and expenditures at September 30, 2011 are included on pages 4 and 5 with related footnotes on page 6. Noteworthy here is: • Property taxes are paid to the Spokane County Treasurer's Office in two installments - on April 30 and October 31. At this point the County has remitted to the City the first-half taxes and we won't likely receive any further substantial remittances until October, • Sales taxes receipts are expected to be close to the projected budget as the 2011 estimate was reduced based on 2010 experience. Actual sales tax receipts for the first seven months of 2011 are running 4.48% ahead of 2010. • Gambling tax receipts are expected to be near budgeted amounts for 2011 with the majority of gambling tax coming from three casinos, each of which is open and operating at this time. • Investment earnings are likely to be less than projected in our 2011 budget as interest rates are down dramatically from prior years. The City will explore the option of investing in instruments backed by the federal and/or state government to increase our return. • As of September 30, 2011, the City had a total of $48.7 million in investments including $43.7 million held by the Local Government Investment Pool managed by the WA State Treasurer's Office and $5.0 million in Banner Bank CDs (page 7). • Total sales tax receipts (page 8) received by the City, including general sales taxes, criminal justice sales taxes and public safety sales taxes are $11.13 million or 4.48% greater than for the same 8-month period in 2010. You'll note that receipts for the months of May, June and July are up significantly over those of the previous year. The increase for this three-month period is likely due to a Department of Revenue tax amnesty program that was in place for the three-month period ending April 30, 2011, in which nearly 8,900 business (state-wide) paid $320.7 million in state and local back taxes. Of the total, $56.8 million is local tax that has been forwarded to counties and cities beginning with the May 2011 sales tax distribution and concluding with the July 2011 distribution. We currently have no way of knowing to what extent our May through July remittances have been influenced by the amnesty distribution as the State has provided no such information. Noteworthy here is that August and September receipts averaged over $80,000 or in excess of 5.0% greater than those for the same two months last year. Because these receipts fall outside the aforementioned amnesty program this suggests the August and September 2011 increase in activity reflects an improved business/sales climate. 11SV-FS2 Users\mcalhoun\Finance Activity Reports1201 11201 1 09.docx Page 2 Economic Indicators Pages 9 through 11 provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good indicator of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 9) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 10) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 11) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 9 provides a monthly history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) beginning with the first remittance received in May 2003. • Compared with the same 8-month period in 2010 our collections have increased by $442,770 or 4,73%, • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at $17.4 million and dropped off dramatically in the subsequent three years. • Receipts in 2011 are similar to those of 2005. Page 10 provides a monthly history of hotel/motel tax receipts beginning with the first remittance in May 2003. • Compared with the same 8-month period in 2010 our collections are nearly identical to those of last year with an increase thus far of$3,057 or 1.07%. • Collections peaked in 2007 and 2008 and dropped off in the subsequent three-years but not as significantly as sales taxes. Page 11 provides a monthly history of real estate excise tax receipts beginning with the first remittance in March 2003. • Compared with the same 9-month period in 2010 our collections have increased by $4,783 or 0.63%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and appear to have leveled off in 2009 through 2011. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding Page 12 provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value and the 2010 assessed value for 2011 property taxes was $7,140,947,644. The City currently has $8,155,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.61% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.52% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. • The $8,155,000 of bonds the City currently has outstanding is part of the 2003 nonvoted (LTGO) bond issue. Of this amount: o $6,380,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,775,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. 11SV-FS21Userslmcalhoun\Finance Activity Reports1201112011 09.docx Page 3 City of Spokane Valley General Fund Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended September 30, 2011 °(o of Budget as September s VTD , Budget Budget Adopted-- Actwlty. Agtwity,. ._.Re, aini ig ,Realizecl Revenues Property Tax 10,875,000 169,949 5,964,728 4,910,272 54.85% 4 Sales Tax 16,200,000 1,448,793 11,125,277 5,074,723 68.67% Gambling Tax 425,000 369 277,809 147,191 65.37% 10 Franchise Fees/Business Licenses 1,111,000 8,378 590,676 520,324 53.17% State Shared Revenues 1,865,625 275,155 1,409,612 256,013 84.63% Planning&Building Fees 1,600,000 169,551 1,071,517 528,483 66.97% Fines and Forfeitures 1,800,000 113,569 1,010,965 789,035 56,16% Recreation&Centerpiece Fees 555,500 24,860 416,998 138,502 75.07% Miscellaneous 200,000 16,092 105,196 94,804 52.60% Operating Transfers 2,040,000 0 0 2,040,000 0.00% Total Revenues 36,472,125 2,224,716 21,972,778 14,499,347 60.25% Expenditures Council 324,298 18,681 222,275 102,023 68.54% City Manager 1,055,906 75,298 710,461 345,445 67.28% Public Safety 22,179,880 1,827,532 15,377,820 6,802,060 69.33% Deputy City Manager 559,940 53,151 354,631 205,309 63.33% Finance 1,014,342 76,369 701,805 312,537 69.19% Human Resources 236,646 17,006 154,353 82,293 65.23% Public Works 892,617 76,188 497,542 395,075 55.74% Community Development-Administration 321,049 25,463 243,857 77,192 75.96% Community Development-Engineering 669,570 53,242 467,934 201,636 69.89% Community Development-Planning 1,023,373 80,648 616,474 406,900 60.24% Community Development-Building 1,215,303 117,901 832,049 383,254 68.46% Parks&Rec-Administration 244,270 17,744 170,604 73,866 69.84% Parks& Rec-Maintenance 704,700 66,479 452,487 252,213 64.21% Parks& Rec-Recreation 246,628 21,199 169,405 77,223 68,69% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 429,250 253,038 388,464 40,786 90.50% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 89,653 6,720 57,232 32,421 63.84% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 1,098,911 59,934 454,730 644,181 41.38% General Government 4,618,750 96,461 1,320,873 3,297,877 28.60% Total Expenditures 36,925,086 2,943,053 23,192,996 13,732,090 62.81% Revenues over(under)expenditures (452,961) (718,337) (1,220,218) Beginning fund balance 27,461,703 27,461,703 Ending fund balance 27,008,742 26,241,485 I I Page 4 City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended September 30,2011 % /f Bud6el2�s September YTQ Unrealized Bufdge( Adopted Revenues Revenues, .Revenue: Realized Other Funds Revenues: Street Fund $ 7,042,050 $ 420,597 3,347,061 3,694,989 47.53% 7 Trails and Paths 48,000 4 49 47,951 0.10% 3 Hotel/Motel Fund 500,000 57,478 290,143 209,857 58.03% Civic Facilities Replacement 1,629,000 115 1,548 1,627,452 0.10% 14 Debt Service-LTGO 03 685,000 - 193,311 491,689 28.22% Capital Projects Fund 1,013,598 64,800 347,484 666,114 34.28% 3 Special Capital Projects Fund 1,021,069 64,832 346,655 674,414 33.95% 3 Street Capital Projects 8,437,307 226,237 849,951 7,587,356 10.07% 3 Mirabeau Point Project - 3 35 (35) 13 Community Developmt Block Grnts - - - - 0.00% 12 Capital Grants Fund 55,000 7 18 54,982 0.03% 3 Barker Bridge Reconstruction - - 765 (765) 13 Parks Capital 1,959,036 103 1,340 1,957,697 0,07% 3 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 500,000 - - 500,000 0.00% 3 Stormwater Mgmt Fund 3,632,000 43,686 1,258,466 2,373,534 34.65% 7 Aquifer Protection Area Fund - - 202,858 (202,858) Equip.Rental&Replacement 909,000 84 1,133 907,867 0.12% 7 Risk Management 319,000 1 319,020 (20) 100.01% 13 Reserves: Centerpiece Operating 353,000 32 432 352,568 0.12% 6 Service Level Stabilization 5,464,000 497 6,718 5,457,282 0.12% 6 Winter Weather 505,000 48 651 504,349 0.13% 6 Civic Buildings 4,040,000 445 7,007 4,032,993 0.17% 6 Total Other Funds Revenues: $ 38,112,060 $ 878,969 7,174,644 $ 30,937,416 18.83% Budget September YTD Ujarea(EZ+sd Percejit✓ Adopted Expenditures Expenditures iCxpenditUies Reazed.= Other Funds Expenditures: Street Fund $ 7,042,050 780,787 3,291,671 $ 3,750,379 46.74% 16 Trails and Paths 48,000 - - 48,000 0.00% 3 Hotel/Motel Fund 500,000 18,357 301,654 198,346 60.33% Civic Facilities Replacement 1,629,000 - - 1,629,000 0,00% 14 Debt Service LTGO 03 685,000 - 142,343 542,657 20.78% 15 Capital Projects Fund 1,013,598 - 19,876 993,722 1.96% 3 Special Capital Projects Fund 1,021,069 - 19,876 1,001,193 1.95% 3 Street Capital Projects 8,437,307 910,071 2,433,744 6,003,563 28.85% 3 Community Developmt Block Grills - - - - 12 Capital Grants Fund 55,000 73,824 93,971 (38,971) 170.86% 3 Barker Bridge Reconstruction - - 134,353 (134,353) 13 Parks Capital 1,959,036 180,650 579,354 1,379,682 29.57% 3 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 500,000 - - 500,000 0.00% Stormwater Mgmt Fund 3,632,000 141,764 1,723,388 1,908,612 47.45% 13 Aquifer Protection Area Fund - - - - Equip.Rental&Replacemnt 909,000 - 909,000 0.00% 8 Risk Management 319,000 - 303,598 15,402 95.17% Reserves: Centerpiece Operating 353,000 - - 353,000 0.00% 9 Service Level Stabilization 5,464,000 - - 5,464,000 0.00% 11 Winter Weather 505,000 - - 505,000 0.00% 11 Civic Facilities Capital 4,040,000 - - 4,040,000 0.00% 3 Total Other Funds Expenditures: $ 38,112,66Q $ 2,105,454 9,043,828, $ 29,088,232 23.73% Page 5 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 Estimated 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 2011. 10 Quarterly Payment to City. 11 Emergency use only. 12 Fund being phased out. 13 Budget adjustment needed 14 In reserve for replacement of buildings. 15 Accounting adjustment pending 16 Budget includes projected fund balances at 12-31-10, which understates percent realized. 17 Interest rates are down significantly. 18 Shows revenue earned, some will not be collected. Page 6 City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of September,2011 'P Totat' 21 GIP;* 613 CD 2% Ba_CA 3 tnestments .E Beginning $ 44,703,376.31 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,703,376.31 Deposits 1,941,467,22 0.00 0.00 1,941,467.22 Withdrawls (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) Interest 4,679.97 7,903.24 0.00 12,583.21 Ending $ 43,649,523.50 $ 3,007,903.24 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,657,426.74 matures 6/2812012 matures 11/6/2011 rate=1.05% rate=0.45% ,Earnings Balance, Current,Penod. Year.to,date, , Budget .. 001 General Fund $ 27,515,688.30 $ 10,549.75 $ 58,332.14 $ 100,000.00 101 Street Fund 3,407,350.79 327.73 4,197.10 12,000.00 103 Trails&Paths 37,836.30 3.64 49.10 0.00 105 Hotel/Motel 274,838.89 26.43 339.09 1,000,00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 332,835.21 32.01 432.32 3,000,00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,171,725.36 497.43 6,717.60 54,000.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 501,649.56 48.25 650.92 5,000.00 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,192,489.80 114.70 1,547.86 12,000.00 301 Capital Projects 663,886.98 63.85 1,272.08 15,000.00 302 Special Capital Projects 1,000,793.10 96.26 1,361.48 15,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 391,789.55 37.68 89.45 0.00 304 Mirabeau Point Project 26,416.88 2.54 34.75 0.00 307 Capital Grants Fund 77,664.49 7.47 17.73 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 1,068,664.58 102.79 1,339.50 13,000.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 4,628,388.73 445.17 7,006.70 40,000.00 402 Stormwater Management 1,477,899.37 142.15 2,286.10 22,000.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 501 Equipment Rental& Replacement 872,430.78 83.91 1,132.96 9,000.00 502 Risk Management 15,078.07 1.45 19.59 0.00 $ 48,657,426.74 $ 12,583.21 $ 86,826.47 $ 301,000.00 *Local Government investment Pool Page 7 City of Spokane Valley Sales Tax Receipts Comparison of 2010 and 2011 Month 2010 2l)f.1,` Difference %. .. .'`. February 1,693,974.29 1,659,128.77 (34,845.52) (2.06%) March 1,097,126.08 1,131,012.49 33,886.41 3.09% April 1,160,934.77 1,149,483.10 (11,451.67) (0.99%) May 1,349,758.63 1,452,018.48 102,259.85 7.58% June 1,252,377.28 1,346,819.73 94,442.45 7.54% July 1,271,607.01 1,416,025.75 144,418.74 11,36% August 1,442,679.59 1,521,995.91 79,316.32 5.50% September 1,380,147.05 1,448,793.06 68,646.01 4.97% 10,648,604.70 11,125,277.29 476,672,59 4.48% October 1,354,001.39 0.00 November 1,452,269.26 0,00 December 1,301,846.34 0.00 January 2011 1,299,191.80 2012 0.00 16,055,913.49 11,125,277.29 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax,criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7%tax rate to the agencies is as follows: State of Washington 6.50% City of Spokane Valley 0.85% Spokane County 0.15% Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% Crminial Justice 0.10% Public Safety 0.10% . 2.20% local tax Juvenile Jail 0.10% Mental Health 0.10% Law Enforcement Communicatior 0.10% Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% . 8.70% Indicates voter approved sales faxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives,we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected,the State distributes 10%of the receipts to Spokane County,with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60%of the receipts to Spokane County,with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Sales Tax Collections- August For the years 2003 through 2011 11SV-FS21Users\mcalhoun\Tax Revenue\2011 sales tax collections 2003 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 January 0 1,145,888 1,367,929 1,572,609 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 February 0 962,431 917,747 1,068,743 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 March 0 909,472 1,015,573 1,072,330 1,196,575 1,219,611 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 April 0 1,080,745 1,322,070 1,371,030 1,479,603 1,423,459 1,134,552 1,184,137 1,284,180 May 519,943 1,263,176 1,159,647 1,392,111 1,353,013 1,243,259 1,098,054 1,102,523 1,187,737 June 747,486 1,123,171 1,212,663 1,362,737 1,428,868 1,386,908 1,151,772 1,123,907 1,248,218 July 821,741 1,301,359 1,377,753 1,555.124 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 August 1,306,427 1,162,356 1,395,952 1,405,983 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 Collected to date 3,395,597 8,948,598 9,769,334 10,800,667 11,469,447 11,030,471 9,558,046 9,356,166 9,798,936 442,770 4.73% September 1,390,452 1,160,787 1,372,081 1,487,155 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 0 October 1,172,591 1,274,680 1,520,176 1,526,910 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 0 November 963,163 1,091,721 1,095,566 1,369,940 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 0 December 973,505 1,085,827 1,286,191 1,366,281 1,376,434 1,129,050 1,070,245 1.141,012 0 Total Collections 7,895,308 13,561,613 15,043,348 16,550,953 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 9,798,936 Budget Estimate 9,100,000 11,000,000 12,280,000 16,002,000 17,466,800 17,115,800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 Actual over(under)budg (1,204,692) 2,561,613 2,763,348 548,953 (29,333) (954,772) (3,611,756) (312,701) (4,411,064) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 86.76% 123.29% 122.50% 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% n/a %change in annual total collected n/a 71.77% 10.93% 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) n/a %of budget collected through August 37.31% 81.35% 79.55% 67.50% 65.66% 64.45% 53.52% 64.93% 68.96% %of actual total collected through August 43.01% 65.98% 64.94% 65.26% 65.77% 68.25% 67.08% 66.37% n/a 10/3/20111 2011 to 2010 Difference (30,511) 26,408 (2,706) 100,043 85,214 124,311 71,961 68,050 (2.05%) 2.74% (0.27%) 8.45% 7.73% 11.06% 5.71% 5.62% Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 E August II July II June •May •April r.March •February ■lama ry Page 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts- August Actual for the years 2003 through 2011 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounVTax Revenue1105 hotel motel tax 2003 I 2004 1 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 1 2010 2011 January 0.00 16,993.58 20,691.03 20,653.49 25,137.92 February 0.00 18,161.04 19,976.81 20,946.09 25,310.66 March 0.00 18,182.01 22,828.15 24,308.48 29,190.35 April 0.00 26,897.82 29,748.41 34,371.82 37,950.53 May 11,527.32 16,440.37 29,017.66 32,522.06 31,371.01 June 32,512.11 53,284.01 35,330.35 34,256.71 36,267.07 July 38,580.48 42,120.26 43,841.82 49,744.62 56,281.99 August 54,974.74 43,649.84 46,852.10 45,916.16 51,120.70 28,946.96 24,623.06 27,509.99 40,406.02 36,828.53 46,659.88 50,421.37 50,818.35 23,280.21 23,283.95 25,272.02 36,253.63 32,588.80 40,414.59 43,950.26 50,146.56 22,706.96 23,416.94 24,232.35 39,463.49 34,683.32 39,935.36 47,385.18 54,922.99 22,212.21 22,792.14 24,611.28 38,230.49 33,790.69 41,403.41 49,311.97 57,451.68 9/22/2011 2011 to 2010 Difference (495) (2.18%) (625) (2.67%) 379 1.56% (1,233) (3.12%) (893) (2.57%) 1,468 3.68% 1,927 4.07% 2,529 4.60% Collected to date 137,594.65 235,728.93 248,286.33 262,719.43 292,630.23 306,214.16 275,190.02 286,746.59 289,803.87 3,057 1.07% September 30,718.23 39,390.66 46,746.18 50,126.53 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 0.00 October 36,960.11 33,004.62 34,966.85 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 0.00 November 23,044.56 32,176.61 26,089.36 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 0.00 December 28,825.30 23,142.70 31,740.18 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 0.00 Total Collections 257,142.85 363,443.52 387,828.90 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 289,803.87 Budget Estimate 419,000.00 380,000.00 436,827.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 Actual over(under)budg (161,857.15) (16,556.48) (48,998.10) 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (190,196.13) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 61.37% 95.64% 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% %change in annual total collected %of budget collected through July %of actual total collecte through July 118.04% n/a n/a 41.34% 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% n/a 32.84% 62.03% 56.84% 75.06% 73.16% 76.55% 53.75% 75.46% 60.38% d 53.51% 64.86% 64.02% 62.99% 63.40% 65.56% 64.91% 63.93% nla Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 350,000.00 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 i • • II 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201.1 August July aJune •May is April a March ■February ■January Page 10 10/10/2011 2011 to 2010 Difference 2009 L 2010 1 2011 I 55,281.25 45,180.53 73,306.86 81,155.83 77,463.58 105,020.98 122,530.36 115,829.68 93,862.17 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1st and 2nd 1/4%REET Collections through September January February March April May June July August September Collected to date 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlTax Revenue1301 and 302 REET 2003 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 112,721.05 136,982.04 159,923.98 156,636.66 198,506.47 190,932.75 119,387.05 83,795.78 195,121.93 144,167.21 155,089.15 177,702.06 197,046.43 171,521.07 176,002.43 147,819.56 128,082.35 198,013.09 192,012.44 240,765.59 284,268.67 209,350.53 258,631.50 214,738.94 232,894.16 172,154.72 182,065.71 173,796.61 306,871.66 226,526.64 2,104.30 451,700.06 188,066.23 228,896.76 129,919.79 263,834.60 211,787.08 222,677.17 257,477.05 323,945.47 208,039.87 153,037.21 145,963.47 159,503.34 132,429.60 128,366.69 158,506.43 164,771.48 217,942.98 132,909.28 131,240.36 59,887.08 64,121.61 86,204.41 99,507.19 109,190.51 105,680.28 80,790.14 72,630.27 75,812.10 63,704.64 36,443.36 95,385.38 79,681.38 124,691.60 81,579.34 79,629.06 129,472.44 68,019.83 3,818 6.37% (27,678) (43.17%) 9,181 10.65% (19,826) (19.92%) 1 5.501 14.20% (24.101) (22.81%) (1,161) (1.44%) 56,842 78.26% (7,792) (10.28%) 955,702.95 1,419,833.11 1,873,682.67 1,936,180.09 1,999,615.00 1.371,633.63 769,631.24 753,823.59 758,607.03 4,783 0.63% 0.00 0.00 0.00 October 155,243.97 November 115,054.43 December 111,788.66 199,685.81 151,219.02 173,502.55 244,590.31 190,964.73 159,381.40 211,091.20 139,979.09 161,285.23 206,442.92 191,805.53 179,567.77 355,655.60 147,875.00 96,086.00 113,960.52 132,881.49 71,365.60 82,733.97 72,021.24 60,871.34 Total distributed by Spokane County 1,337,790.01 1,944,240.49 2,468,619.11 2,448,535.61 2,577,431.22 1,971,250.23 1,087,838.85 969,450.14 758,607.03 Budget estimate 1,127,112.00 1,680,000.00 4,006,361.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 Actual over(under)budget 210,678.01 264,240.49 (1,537,741.89) 448.535.61 577,431.22 (28.749.77) (912,161.15) 209,450 14 (41,392.97) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 118.69% 115.73% 61.62% 122.43% 128.87% 98.56% 54.39% 127.56% n/a n/a 45.33% 26.97% (0.81%) 5.26% (23.52%) (44.81%) (10.88%) n/a %change in annual total collected %of budget collected through September %of actual total collected through September 84.79% 84.51% 46.77% 96.81% 99.98% 68.58% 38.48% 99.19% 94.83% 71.44% 73.03% 75.90% 79.08% 77.58% 69.58% 70.75% 77.76% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 800,000.00 600,000.00 400,000.00 200,000.00 0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 September =August -July EJune •May •April s March •February •January Page 11 \\SV-FS2\Users\mcalhoun\Bonds\debt capacity CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 8/29/2011 Debt Capacity 2010 Assessed Value for 2011 Property Taxes 7,140,947,644 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt % Capacity 12/31/2010 Capacity Utilized Voted (UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 71,409,476 0 71,409,476 0.00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 107,114,215 8,155,000 98,959,215 7.61% Voted park 2,50% of assessed value 178,523,691 0 178,523,691 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 178,523,691 0 178,523,691 0.00% 535,571,073 8,155,000 527,416,073 1.52% l 2003 LTGO Bonds y Road & Period Street Ending CenterPlace Improvemen s Total 12/1/2004 60,000 85,00 145,000 12/1/2005 75,000 90,000 165,000 12/1/2006 85,000 90,000 175,000 Bonds 12/1/2007 90,000 95,000 185,000 Repaid 12/1/2008 95,000 95,00 190,000 12/1/2009 105,000 100,001 205,000 12/1/2010 110,000 100,000 210,000 620,000 655,000 1,275,000 12/1/2011 120,000 105,000 225,000 12/1/2012 130,000 110,000 240,000 12/1/2013 140,000 115,000 255,000 12/1/2014 150,000 120,000 270,000 12/1/2015 160,000 125,000 285,000 12/1/2016 170,000 130,000 300,000 12/1/2017 180,000 135,000 315,000 12/1/2018 220,000 140,000 360,000 12/1/2019 250,000 145,000 395,000 12/1/2020 290,000 150,000 440,000 12/1/2021 325,000 160,000 485,000 Bonds 12/1/2022 360,000 165,000 525,000 Remaining 12/1/2023 405,000 175,000 580,000 12/1/2024 450,000 0 450,000 12/1/2025 490,000 0 490,000 12/1/2026 535,000 0 535,000 12/1/2027 430,000 0 430,000 12/1/2028 340,000 0 340,000 12/1/2029 295,000 0 295,000 12/1/2030 280,000 0 280,000 12/1/2031 240,000 0 240,000 12/1/2032 190,000 0 190,000 12/1/2033 230,000 0 230,000 6,380,000 1,775,000 8,155,000 7,000,000 2,430,000 9,430,000 Page 12 Spokane •■'■ Valley' Operations & Administrative Services 2011 — 3rd Quarter Report Administrative Projects: • 2012 Budget • Commute Trip Reduction Agreement adopted • Law Enforcement Contract Mediation • Review of Animal Shelter Ballot Measure • Review of 2010 Law Enforcement Settle and Adjust • Solid Waste • Shoreline Program • 2012 Business Plan update • Spokane Valley Citizen Survey Human Resources: Recruiting/Employment—Existing Unfilled Positions Recruitment Filled or Recruiting Recreation Assistant—Host Filled Permit Specialist Filled Office Assistant—Parks and Rec Filled Deputy City Attorney Recruiting Senior Engineer—Development Recruiting Engineering Technician II Filled Recreation Assistant—Host Recruiting Community Development Director Filled Special Projects: Transitioned certain duties pertaining to the City Website to Human Resources, and performed executive recruitments for Community Development Director and Deputy City Attorney. Public Information: Key reporting areas • Media relations • Media contacts: 64 (does not include those that were subsequently referred to another City resource) • Media releases: 38,plus 26 Traffic Alerts, 3 Calendar Requests for a total of 67 • Earned media stories: 32 (does not include all television/radio/web) • Total media stories: 109, plus 42 police activity stories (does not include ads, nor all television/radio/web) • Hot Topic Community ENewsletter Subscribers: 469 • Hot Topic Print Distribution: 20,000 semi-annually OTHER: • Citizen contacts: 84 plus those at ValleyFest • Website Updates: 10, (Does not include P10-initiated, and daily/regularly scheduled page/document updates or those by departments with their own posting authority) • Areas of significant focus: • Indiana/Sullivan Intersection project public info • Indiana Avenue Extension project public info Web Site Web Site Summary July Aug Sept 3rdQuarter 2011 Year to Date Unique User Sessions 12,207 11,429 8,433 68,032 Top Five Pages Viewed Employment 5,873 5,199 4,088 43,446 Pools 1,958 1,695 239 9,162 Parks & Rec 1,919 1,397 519 8,097 Police 708 1,111 802 6,454 Site Search 1,001 898 718 6,140 I Top Five "Referrer"Web Sites Spokane County 1,515 1,012 963 11,756 Municipal Research (MRSC) 253 337 244 2,118 County Ideas 144 181 143 1,378 Google 136 132 72 1,084 WMNorthwest 131 103 94 756 Central Reception: Business Registration New & Renewed Business Licenses 1600 1488 1400 1200 1257 1164 1000 �1stQtr 800 —•-2nd Qtr 600 464 F 3rd Qtr 400 471 417 200 F 0 IirNew Renew Call Volume 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 CD Council H R Legal Misc Ops/Ad P& R PW Total min •July 291 47 30 13 221 79 22 110 813 •Aug 379 52 33 6 306 91 18 126 1011 •Sept 278 50 14 5 227 59 18 105 756 Visitor Volume Sept,215 July,188 Aug,260 Citizen Service Requests—July- 52 August - 63 September —66 (Year to Date 774) 66 TOTALS 63 52 6 Misc 2 5 0 Code Compliance I 1 0 1 1 Stormwater/erosion 0 • 3 27 Traffic-various 15 11 Signs MI17.4 12 —September 2 •August Signals 1 2 ■July 5 Road hazard 2 4 5 Animal Removal 16 5 Potholes 3 9 10 0 Street Sweeping 0 • 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ti� PARKS AND RECREATION �� � Orle UARTER REPORT ; ; Walley SECOND Q APRIL-JUNE 2011 ADMINISTRATION AND PARKS: • Discovery Playground re-opened for the season on April 15. New larger-than-life features were added to the playground to replace the damaged/vandalized ones. The new elements include an eight-foot daffodil, and eight-foot daylily with hummingbird, and two five-foot inchworms. We also replaced two accessible, bucket seat swings with better designed harnesses. • The contract with Glover Mansion Events LLC dba Red Rock Catering was extended exercising the additional one-year renewal option. • Greenacres Park was a major staff focus this quarter. Considerable time has been spent on utility and frontage improvement coordination. The contract for construction of Greenacres Park Phase 1 was awarded to Bouten Construction Company in the amount of $926,016.00. This amount includes the base bid plus four alternates originally part of Phase 2. These added elements include more turf and irrigation sections, the sand and water play area, one additional small shelter, the nine-hole disc golf course, and substituting concrete for asphalt on the perimeter path. On-site weekly meetings are attended with the contractor and architect of Greenacres Park. • As a part of the Greenacres Park construction project, staff has begun the process of conducting a pedestrian study in the Greenacres neighborhood related to the intersection of Mission Avenue and Long Road, which is just north of the future park site. The study will assess whether safety treatments/improvements are warranted for that intersection as it relates to park usage. • Staff continued to be a part of the biweekly meetings regarding a Shoreline Master Plan. • Considerable time was spent working with staff and developing the 2012 Parks and Capital budgets. • The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) held their annual conference in Spokane. The conference theme and emphasis was "It`s All About Community." We had the opportunity to provide for the group a tour of Mirabeau Point Park and Discovery Playground with a discussion about their history. • Staff was part of the Technical Advisory Group and participated in the public meetings held for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Staff has met and will continue to coordinate with a very large LDS service group for major projects to be completed in a few of our parks on September 17, for which we are very appreciative. • Discussions were held with the owners of Splashdown and a lease amendment has been renewed. • Terrace View Park is receiving a new picnic shelter and light fixtures this summer. The project should be completed just after Labor Day and will be available to reserve starting in 2012. • Staff has been working with a consultant to develop an identity and signage template for the City of Spokane Valley. Signage would be for welcoming the public at entrances to our city and all public facilities. CENTERPLACE: • The Office Assistant 1 position was filled by Rachiah Boxley. Rachiah has been interning in our department since June of 2010. She has a Recreation Degree with an emphasis on Facilities Management from Eastern Washington University. • Three part-time hosts were interviewed and hired to cover after-hour events at CenterPlace. We had some employees leave for full-time employment or to return to school. • A customer service survey is being developed to track and measure customer satisfaction with our venue and the service they receive. • We are in the process of assessing our technology needs, which includes enhancing the audio and visual equipment in the Great Room. • Staff attended the annual statewide Washington Parks and Recreation Association Conference in Wenatchee and the quarterly Facilities Section meeting in Lynnwood. These meetings are beneficial, as they allow us to network with other public agencies that own and operate event centers. Good ideas were exchanged regarding marketing and creating new business opportunities. • We have been negotiating with Community Colleges and Central Valley School District for 2011-2012 leases. • Staff took 223 CenterPlace reservations this quarter which is a 24% increase over 2010 reservations for the 2nd quarter. • CenterPlace expenses are at $277,240 or 25% for the year. This compares to $357,907 for the same time period in 2010. • CenterPlace revenues are at 56% of estimated revenues.% itti it : . 174'1, 'r' ` �` 4� ti 4 r Oir,'AJi - - . '...5 2..t41?;if&:',„..",:-.4 4, — .--,.? ' 16.-., 1 . :,. , .,,,r?:/,. 1,./ 4,-- ' - o • *k1 ' .ay . r f , I" 1 _ fu } viii' i V,i, '; r , 0 2 RECREATION AND AQUATICS: • We held a "Discovering Spring" event in April in conjunction with Earth Day. The celebration was focused not only on the season opening of Discovery Playground but on environmental awareness. Festivities began with a Tree Planting Ceremony with the mayor and city officials participating. Interactive vendors were on hand providing information and resources to the public that attended. • Staff prepared the nomination of Discovery Playground , - -4 for the Washington Recreation and Parks Association's ""� (WRPA) annual Spotlight Facility and Park Awards. We 11 are very honored to have Discovery Playground chosen !f •4�i [/�5� 1f as the winner of the Special Use category. Staff 'st 14. ---�: ' + accepted the award at the annual statewide conference • - nr{ .rx64s� ;; ,,;. # if in Wenatchee. "6`°"erYPla rcmn-. �. : • We interviewed, hired and trained 11 Recreation � Assistants for our Summer Program staff. The weekly 4,, _ -- � programs run daily from June through August. • We coordinated with the YMCA to get our three swimming pools, Park Road, Terrace View, and Valley Mission opened by June 18. • In the Month of June (18-30t"), there were 4,859 open swim visits. We had 209 people register for swim lessons, and 116 people registered for swim team. • For our Spring/Summer programs, there have been 1,079 registrations for classes from preschool age to adult. Our new Registration Program Software is proving to be popular, with 209 online program registrations, totaling $18,295 through the month of June. \V 0 .cl'.' P4 V' • — , limilo \i ,vim Y ,J tk; 1 r 3 ,.~ 1 < -V t____1_ fr,':' :.14.1 - --- J sy ar__-----------T'VI to, i . _ ..... AL. .01 , I rip\ja ;r ' ?i " .. i y a!r d r 1.*(P ' l N —7- Iv,/ J *t-1 4- Vk w'----''' 4 3 SENIOR CENTER: • CHAS Clinic held a workshop for people with chronic conditions. Participants had the opportunity to meet confidentially to discuss their personal challenges with health issues from diabetes, heart disease, mental illness, arthritis, etc. • April was volunteer appreciation month. There were 56 of our volunteers who attended a luncheon at Orchard Crest Retirement Community. We thank our volunteers and appreciate everything they do! • The Resource Fair was held in our building with vendors from the Washington State Attorney General's Office, Avista, City of Spokane Valley, Spokane Valley Fire Department, and several senior citizen service groups. • Hospice Bereavement Support Group has increased to eight participants on a weekly basis. A few of the folks are now taking part in activities with the center, and one is volunteering in the library. • There were 170 people who attended The Mother's Day Style Show and Luncheon, which is held here with the help of the Discovery Shop. The delicious lunch was served by Red Rock Catering. • The annual Plant Sale was held again the week around Mother's Day. Vegetable plants that did not sell were donated to the community gardens in the area for the food banks. • SHIBA through Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington is available to answer questions for anyone regarding Medicare and to help find the best fit program for each individual. Appointments are held on an individual, confidential basis. • Five members took part in the community wide monthly Wii Tournament, and even brought home a trophy entitled "Bearly Last." The interest is growing, and now ten will participate in the next tournament. • Billiards continues to be the most popular activity with the most participation. That is followed by BINGO, and then pickleball/badminton. • Total attendance amounts for this quarter were: April-3135; May-3100; and June-2539. • New member counts were: April-12; May-24; and June-17. ity. " , at1�� -A•l _.yam • f +� • FF'' _ iMiTy.40q 1. • N S�ol6ane PARKS AND RECREATION ii THIRD QUARTER REPORT a, Valley' JULY—SEPTEMBER 2011 iirrik ) 7 .,. ADMINISTRATION AND PARKS: , ,'_ ','S_;� i' iii , , � , : • We were pleased and very appreciative to be a part of the dedication ,_4$ ` ' '� and unveiling of a new piece of public art donated to the people of ' �,i ' t Spokane Valley by the Spokane Valley Arts Council, The art is an eight- -`o �ti foot tall bronze figure of a Native American woman gathering berries. NI',1 ' . '.,',=! Entitled "Harvest Time on the Big Missouri," the sculpture by the late der. J .Y ;.# Nancy Powell McLaughlin is more commonly known as the "Berry Picker." ' r k' `; • As a part of the Greenacres Park construction project, staff has been x `~'-?; working on the pedestrian study in the Greenacres neighborhood related to t_ a 1„ ,i the intersection of Mission Avenue and Long Road, which is just north of # \- the park site. • Greenacres Park continued to be a major staff focus this quarter. _ r ;- r Considerable time has been spent on managing the project with all \' _ ! parties involved. On-site weekly meetings are attended with the 'r contractor and architect of Greenacres Park. Park elements are really taking shape, including "Ferdinand's Farm" play area. V ' • In conjunction with the September 11 National Day of Service, staff ' , • coordinated with a very large service group from the Spokane East t go Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and also St. Mary's Catholic Parish and the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection for major projects to be completed in our parks on September 17. The A-frame horse arena building at Valley Mission received a new roof. At Browns and Edgecliff, the shelters and restrooms were painted, and all the playground pea grave! was swapped out for new Fibar engineered wood fiber accessible safety material. • The new shelter and surrounding landscape project at Terrace View Park is close to completion, except for some electrical lighting work yet. This is the first shelter ever built at Terrace View, and the neighborhood is excited to finally receive this addition from the city. • Staff has been working with a consultant to develop an identity and signage template for the City of Spokane Valley, Signage would be for welcoming the public at entrances to our city and all public facilities. It was decided to present the choices to the public, and they were able to vote online for their favorite style of sign. • Staff discussed and collaborated with one of the car show groups regarding authorized parking areas. As a result, a more professional, easy-to-read map was developed indicating the parking areas, allowing for even more parking than in the past, • We were kept quite busy this summer striving to provide for the needs of the public, monitoring our park maintenance activities, handling challenges, and managing daily reservations of park facilities and special events. We had a substantial jump in park I reservations this season and made 308 reservations, which is 56 more than last year. CENTERPLACE: • The Office Assistant 1 position was vacated in August because of a career opportunity for the current employee. After another round of interviews, we hired Brittani DeBoise, who has experience within the marketing and hospitality fields working for Magnuson Hotels. We are very happy to have her be a part of our team. • Staff completed an assessment to update our audio and visual technology in the Great Room, and we intend to make improvements this fall. • We are working on target marketing by putting together a list of meeting planners. These individuals are in charge of arranging meetings and conventions for their organizations in our area. We will be sending them information about CenterPlace and Spokane Valley. We have also been preparing and updating our marketing material for the area wide Bridal Fair. • Staff coordinated and participated with Valleyfest again, and we had another successful year at CenterPlace. There were many enjoyable events taking place on our grounds including a car show with over 115 collectable cars; a "Comedy Cup Open" (which was taped for national viewing); live bands; hot air balloons; pancake breakfast; beer garden; planetarium; and the 3rd Annual "Taste of the Valley" wine and food tasting event catered by Red Rock Catering and featuring area wineries. • Spokane Coeur d'Alene Living magazine polls citizens each year and presents "Best of Spokane" awards to area businesses. We are pleased that CenterPlace received the 2011 Reader's Survey Bronze Award for Best Place for a 25th Anniversary. • Staff took 216 CenterPlace reservations this quarter. We are at a total of 761 events booked for the year. • Staff has been meeting with groups to promote having their monthly meetings in our facility. These groups will also be utilizing our in-house catering services. We see this as an opportunity to expose CenterPlace to more potential customers. • CenterPlace expenses as of the 3rd quarter of 2011 are at $454,730, or 41% of the budget for the year. • CenterPlace revenues are at 76% of estimated revenues. P401".41- 1/"4nitliMIX .S lb '11 'S 4441111 ■ ♦� ' . bra l 4l�11, k-, R 2 RECREATION AND AQUATICS: 6 The two free Saturday Summer Outdoor Movies continued to be a success, with a total of 1150 people attending. Many people grabbed their families, blankets, chairs, and snacks and snagged their special spots on the grass. We provided the kids with activities in the park before the movie start times. ® The Fall/Winter Recreation Brochure was distributed to the public at the end of August. This is a great guide packed with all kinds of information and activities designed to appeal to all ages and guaranteed to chase away the winter blues. d Staff has been planning, coordinating, and recruiting high school volunteers for the 3rd Annual Valley Mission Haunted Pool. This year promises to be even "creepier," as our Recreation Coordinator's ghoulish imagination has been running wild. I i'giii11i11VII rit .. :I1-1.1 :', :e:lrl: .f:l.,.i:! "r. ..I-r 'I Summer Day Camp 457.00 $44,245.00 $34,174.17 129.47% Tennis Camps 35.00 $2,800.00 $2,240.00 125,00% Tune Tales Music 16,00 $686.00 $548.80 125.00% Cheer Camp 8.00 $520.00 $480.00 108.33% SoccerTots 8.00 $720.00 $576.00 125.00% Swing Dance 15.00 $365.00 $302.95 120.48% Beginner Partner Dance 13.00 $425.00 $352.75 120.48% Free Park Program 1775.00 $3,371.31 0.00% Summer Outdoor Movies 1150.00 $6,515.25 0.00% Liberty Lake Brochure Ad $83.93 Recreation Brochure Cost $2,386.15 0.00% Totals Without Brochure Cost 3477.00 $49,894.93 $48,561.23 _ 102.64% Totals With Brochure Costs 3479.00 $49,844.93 $50,947.38 97.84% , Terrace View Pool 2011 Totals Swim team $2,135.00 Swim Lessons $15,150.00 ~"~4 Open Swim $13,898.00 .~..to.q., '� a - ;` Swim Passes $1,167.00 I P s+'t.- *Total Visits 15,737.00 Total Revenue $32,350.00 '�, ', • ' .. r Park Road Pool 2011 Totals ' ; ,:_. Swim team $1,330.00 "•1::1.) Swim Lessons $6,600.00 'I ,X.,-:1-Pc Open Swim $7,347.00 Swim Passes $1,707.00 "Total Visits 9154 ,40:- r, Total Revenue $16,984.00 .rte ' 4 ;, ,am& , Valley Mission Pool 2011 Totals i j , f. .J ti.i Swim team $1,470.00 .� +t= _ , Swim Lessons $11,340.00 4 tics ' ' , Open Swim $9,553.00 �', : -; Swim Passes $2,196.00 c-y *Total Visits 11593 Total Revenue $24,559.00 3 Total Revenue $73,893.00 SENIOR CENTER: • Summers are typically the Senior Center's "slow" time of year, in part because Community Colleges is on a summer break. But summer is also the time of year when seniors are out and about enjoying other activities, which we wholeheartedly encourage. They are doing such things as enjoying the outdoors, traveling and visiting grandchildren, and welcoming family visitors into their homes. • One thing you will notice when you enter the Senior Center is the fun, laughter, and camaraderie that takes place along with the various activities. Here's an example: One man returned with his beard half shaven because his wife and friends were discussing whether or not they preferred facial hair. He and his wife were generously handing out full-sized candy bars as part of the voting fun. • The annual picnic hosted in July was attended by 95 guests for Longhorn BBQ and BINGO. • The Red Hat Ladies brought their granddaughters for tea and cookies for their monthly meeting. " ; • Member participation for Wii has doubled since taking part in the l ,� �, community wide monthly Wii Tournament. Our group is obviously —~ t exhibiting fun and enthusiasm, because we have brought home the g 9 -: Spirit Cup two months in a row. ; ,4\t s • WSU student nurses returned and will be in the Wellness Center on -1 7" Wednesdays until the first part of November. They offer a variety of } 1 health services to the seniors. • The Senior Center hosted a Medicare Informational Seminar with open enrollment. Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington continues to meet every Wednesday with individuals regarding Medicare choices. • The CHAS Clinic held the second series of their "Living with Chronic Conditions" workshop. The reviews are great, and it is free to participants. • The Senior Center also participated in Valleyfest, and hosted one of the booths. • Total attendance amounts for this quarter were: July-2132; August-3686; and Sept-2741. =;r, ., { • New member counts were: July-7; August-5; '; ,) ' and Sept-23. s ' i F k. V `% 4 4+ . raj S, 4 MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: October 17, 2011 RE: Monthly Report September 2011 September 2011: September 2010: CAD incidents: 4,732 CAD incidents: 4,983 Reports taken: 1,711 Reports taken: 1,647 Traffic stops: 1,260 Traffic stops: 1,351 Traffic reports: 278 Traffic reports: 226 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing September residential burglaries, stolen vehicles, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend-line graphs for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self-Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the September Crimes By Cities stats report. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief Van Leuven attended the Homes for Heroes event at the City of Spokane's City Hall in early September. Attended by Chief Van Leuven was a training and luncheon sponsored by the FBINAA Washington Chapter in early September in Vancouver,WA. Two sessions were provided to members focusing on Ethical Policing. The Fall 2011 Spokane County Drug Court Commencement Ceremony was held mid-September, which Chief VanLeuven attended. On 9/11/11, Chief VanLeuven participated on the team of fire fighters and law enforcement who raised a beam that had been at Ground Zero into place at the new Valley Fire Admin Building. In addition, in honor of the 10 year remembrance of the attack on America, APCO and the National Emergency Dispatchers Association got all dispatch centers to broadcast two moments of silence in remembrance of the Sept 11 attack on America. They sounded the following: Page 1 "Alert Tone & Announce @ 0959 hours: On September 11, 2001 at 0959 hours, the South Tower of the World Trade Center Collapsed. All Police Officers, Fire and EMS companies are asked to observe a moment of silence in memory of all who lost their lives that day. " "Alert Tone & Announce @ 1028 hours: On September 11, 2001 at 1028 hours, the North Tower of the World Trade Center Collapsed. All Police Officers, Fire and EMS Companies are asked to observe a moment of silence in memory of all who lost their lives that day. " Quarterly Leadership Training was held in September at the Sheriffs Office Training Center, which Chief VanLeuven attended with other members of the Sheriffs Office. Chief VanLeuven participated in the Tip-A-Cop Event for Special Olympics, which was held at Applebee's restaurants around the State. Chief VanLeuven and other law enforcement were at the Applebee's in the Spokane Valley. Chief VanLeuven was on-call for one week during the month of September. Chief VanLeuven rode in the Valleyfest Parade,with Officer Bob Bond and his K-9 "Jet" and Officer Scott Nelson and his K-9 "Gordy" walking along side the car. Parade attendees loved seeing the K- 9's participating in the event. Chief VanLeuven also attended the festivities at Mirabeau Park on Saturday as well as a couple of the motor officers had their motors on display. The month ended with the Spokane Valley Police Department's Accreditation On-Site. After months of preparation by many, the Accreditation reviewers examined all the policies, procedures, and best practices of the Spokane Valley Police Department, and with one minor edit of a policy, recommended the Washington Association of Sheriff and Police Chiefs accredit our department. Although more and more agencies are working at becoming accredited, the Spokane Valley Police Department is the first "contract police department" to achieve this recognition in the State of Washington. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of September: ➢ Valley Assembly Street Fair; ➢ Spokane County Interstate Fair; ➢ S.C.O.P.E. Edgecliff Spaghetti Feed; ➢ Edgecliff Weed and Seed meeting; ➢ Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition meeting; ➢ Operation Family ID; and, ➢ Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)meeting. Page 2 September 2011 Volunteers Hours per station: Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 12 421.5 118.5 540 Edgecliff 31 1051 338 1389 Trentwood 5 187 106 293 University 23 698 147.5 845.5 TOTALS 71 2357.5 710 3067.5 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $66,319.35 for September 2011 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 106 on-scene hours (including travel time) in September, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 21 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total September volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 665; year-to-date total is 4,511 hours. There were eight juveniles who ran away from their residence in Spokane Valley during the month of September 2011; four have returned home. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in August totaled 22 and in September 16 with 5 and 5 respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Thirteen were processed in August and 32 hulks processed in September. During the month of September, a total of 73 vehicles were processed. S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY -SEPTEMBER 2011 City of Spokane Valley #of #of firs #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 7 51 5 1 5 February 10 87 6 1 0 March 8 89 16 0 4 April 11 130 15 0 3 May 5 101 18 5 1 June 5 67 14 4 0 July 10 108 28 3 0 August 11 157 32 9 5 September 7 67 7 0 0 Total 74 857 141 23 18 Page 3 Spokane County #of #of firs #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 8 42 1 0 0 February 7 38.25 0 0 0 March 9 42.5 1 4 0 April 8 46 1 7 7 May 4 29 10 0 0 June 6 38.5 2 1 0 July 6 44.5 1 0 0 August 4 12 1 0 0 September 7 90 1 0 0 Total 59 382.75 18 12 7 OPERATIONS: 1st Degree Burglary (Assault) and 2°' Degree Attempted Escape — Alert homeowners assisted law enforcement in taking a 23-year-old male into custody after the male suspect stole an expensive bicycle from an open garage late in the day in early September. The homeowner caught the male suspect and attempted to hold him until officers arrived, but was hit in the face, at which time the suspect ran from the scene. Officers were able to locate the male suspect and the victims identified the suspect as the individual who had taken the bicycle from their garage. During the ride to jail, the suspect told officers he had used a large amount of illegal substances and feigned passing out. While at the hospital, medical staff requested the handcuffs be taken off to facilitate their examination of the suspect. After approximately 30 minutes and with officers outside the examination room, the male suspect took off running through the hospital, screaming he had a bomb. Officers gave chase, but the male couldn't outrun them and eventually was stopped with a taser application. The male was medically cleared from the hospital a short time later, and booked into the Spokane County Jail on the listed charges. Raid unveils suspicious guns - A theft investigation led to a SWAT team raid at a Spokane Valley home, where detectives seized several suspected stolen firearms. A 42-year-old male suspect was arrested as a search warrant was executed at a home in the 3300 block of East 35th Avenue, where police found five guns believed to have been stolen from a home in the 2800 block of North University Road. Police believe a 43-year-old male suspect brought the stolen guns to the home. He was arrested in the 12000 block of East Valleyway Avenue. The case began as a burglary, vehicle prowling and identity theft investigation. A man arrested after Spokane police found a suspected methamphetamine lab was said to be collecting his urine to use in the making of the drug. Washington Department of Corrections probation officer Scott Wright tipped police to the suspected lab at a home a 54-year-old male shares with his elderly mother in the 4500 block of North Hawthorne Street. This male suspect has seven previous felony convictions, including two for drugs. Page 4 Hungry Suspect Strikes Elementary School - Rice crispy treat wrappers scattered about the kitchen floor tipped off Broadway Elementary kitchen staff to the burglary of the school over the long Labor Day weekend. The school is located at 11016 E. Broadway. A kitchen employee told Officer Cole Speer that she found the wrappers on the kitchen floor and then discovered that two more boxes of the treats were also missing. Searching further, she determined that chips and applesauce had disappeared. Discussions with teachers revealed that some were missing tape and pens. There was no damage to doors or windows which would have revealed the suspect's method of entry. Numerous teachers said they were in the building at various times over the weekend prepping for the coming school week, but no one reported seeing anyone inside that didn't belong. School safety officers reviewed surveillance video, but were unable to develop any suspects. Total loss to the school was estimated at about $250. Anyone with information regarding this commercial burglary is encouraged to call Crime Check at 456-2233. Burglary Suspects Flee To River, Quickly Arrested - Two men were arrested in early September for a Residential Burglary in the early morning hours, after trying to escape from police by swimming across a river. The homeowner saw two men in his house and immediately called police. Officers were able to locate the suspects in the area of Trent and Cement by the river. One of those suspects jumped into the river and began to swim across in an effort to flee police. The suspect quickly realized that he wasn't going to make it across and turned back. Officers arrested the suspect when he reached the shore. The other suspect was found by a K-9 Unit a short time later hiding in some bushes. Property taken from the residence was found on the suspects and was returned to the victims. Both suspects were transported to the Spokane County Jail where they were booked on 2nd Degree Theft and Residential Burglary. Burglar Arrested - A Spokane Valley resident was awakened on an early Sunday morning by the sound of a burglar first prowling around his back deck and then kicking in the walk-through door that leads into his garage. Officers were called to the 400 block of South McKee about 3 a.m. by the resident reporting the burglary in progress. He told them that he had gone to the door leading from the garage into the home to ensure it was locked, and then used bodily force to keep it closed while the suspect began kicking it in from the opposite side. Officers Mark Brownell and Seth Berrow arrived and discovered a 31-year-old male suspect inside the victim's garage. The suspect appeared intoxicated and refused the officers' commands to exit the garage. When he continued refusing to follow their orders, Brownell used his taser to gain compliance. The male suspect continued to resist and was forcibly taken to the ground and handcuffed. The suspect later told Officer Lamont Petersen that he thought he was at his ex-wife's home and hadn't kicked any doors. The homeowner told the officers that he didn't know the male and that he had feared for his life and the life of his sleeping five-year-old daughter. Petersen drove the male suspect to the Spokane County Jail and booked him on charges of Residential Burglary and Resisting Arrest. Vandal Strikes Valley Businesses - A pair of Spokane Valley businesses suffered damaged offices over a weekend when a suspect with a pocketful of rocks and too much time on his hands broke numerous windows. Employees of Schindler Elevator and Tuff Sheds, both located in the 400 block of North Thierman, found windows damaged on a Sunday morning. The elevator firm suffered a shattered front window and shattered glass in the entry door. Tuff Shed suffered shattered glass in the office door, as well as numerous broken windows in sheds on display at the location. In neither instance did the suspect make entry into the buildings. Anyone with information regarding these acts of vandalism is encouraged to call Crime Check at 456-2233. Page 5 Battery Theft Nets Trio Charges - A 37-year-old Spokane Valley man and two female accomplices were arrested in early September for the theft of an automobile battery that was later traded for drugs. On August 6th, a male suspect accompanied by two 24-year-old females entered the AutoZone parts store at 5005 E. Sprague. Following a pre-arranged plan, the male and one of the females distracted store employees while the other female carried out a $184 battery that had been pointed out to her by the male. One female signaled the other when it was safe to exit with the battery. The female placed it in the back of the male's vehicle and then walked down the street. The male and female pair later picked the other female up at a nearby Costco. Officer Ryan Smith investigated the case and tracked the suspects by The male's recently-purchased Isuzu Trooper, used in the theft. He contacted both female suspects and following interviews, arrested both females for Third-Degree Theft. Afterward, he drove to the male suspect's residence in the 2800 block of North Cherry and arrested him for First- Degree Trafficking Stolen Property. Prowler Active at Sprague and Fancher - Several drivers reported vehicle break-ins in the area of Sprague and Fancher starting in early September. Victims included a Cheney resident who told Crime Check that her Ford F-250 pickup was entered about 4:30 p.m. and an old purse containing credit cards stolen. The truck was parked in the Aslin-Finch parking lot and the victim said she was inside the store less than five minutes. Another victim, a Valleyford man, reported his Ford F-350 pickup was entered about 2:45 p.m. the same day while it was parked in the Lowe's lot. His GPS navigation unit, a Verizon cellular phone and other items were stolen. About 4:50 p.m. the same day, another Cheney resident reported her Ford F-250 broken into while it was parked in the Lowe's lot. Cash and a cell phone charger were stolen. The reports continued coming in and eventually totaled approximately 27. Detective Renz was assigned the case and began pursuing the suspects who reportedly were driving a green Chevy Suburban. It appeared the suspects were targeting Ford trucks, SUV's, and Ford vans. In most of the cases, they were punching the door locks out to gain entry. Stolen items included credit cards, tools, and computers. Information was developed through the investigation of a male suspect who had recently purchased a green Chevy Suburban and had pawned numerous items that could be tracked back to multiple victims. In late September, a search warrant was executed on the male suspect's residence and numerous items were recovered belonging to multiple victims. The male suspect was also arrested at the residence and charged with five counts of Trafficking Stolen Property 1st degree. A second suspect was also developed. The case is still on- going at this time and both male suspects are facing approximately 50 to 100 charges. Thief Makes a Meth of Things - Officers arrested a 47-year-old Spokane Valley man in mid- September on a felony drug charge after a citizen witness saw him attempting to take metal from a group of businesses in the 500 block of North Ella Road. Deputy Michael Wall was first to arrive after the witness reported the suspect poking around metal left outside the businesses shortly after midnight. Just before Wall arrived, the witness reported the suspect riding away on a bike while dragging something metal along behind him. Wall arrived and found a male suspect picking up metal from the property. He announced his presence and ordered the suspect to show his hands, but the thief did not and failed to comply with other orders. Wall requested assistance and Officer Juan Rodriguez arrived to assist. The two got the male suspect to lie on his belly, but as Rodriguez approached, he saw the suspect place something under the tire of his bicycle. After handcuffing him, the officer checked the item and determined it was a small plastic baggie of methamphetamine. The male suspect has a 26-year local criminal history. Rodriguez drove him to the Spokane County Jail and booked him on a felony count of Possession of Methamphetamine. Page 6 Train Burglar Leaves no Tracks - Copper tubing valued at$700 was stolen in mid-September from a railroad engine parked in the 11000 block of East Sprague, the owner reported to Crime Check. The victim said he is modifying the engine to be a railroad education center and that the tubing supplied water to restrooms located inside the railroad engine. He said he knew of no potential suspects. Anyone with information should call Crime Check at 456-2233. Detectives Recover Stolen Tools - Spokane Valley Property Crimes detectives executed a search warrant and recovered between $10,000 and $15,000 worth of stolen tools. Detective Mark Renz said the stolen property was taken in an August 1st break-in at Acme Machine Works, 60121 E. Sharp. The thief made off with roll-away tool cabinets as well as individual tools. Nearly all the stolen property was found in a storage unit at Spokane Mini-Warehouse in the 4500 block of East Trent, Renz said. The detective now has probable cause to charge a 45-year-old Spokane resident with Second-Degree Burglary,who already has a six-year local criminal history. House Fire Leads to Medical Marijuana - Spokane Valley Police found a 27-plant medical marijuana grow in late September when the Greenacres home it was in caught fire. Suspicions were aroused when one of the tenants told Spokane Valley Fire Inspector Rick Freier that he "had smoked a bowl" and then left to get something to eat. Officer Darin Schaum was called to the scene in the 2500 block of S. Timberlane and counted 27 plants inside the home. He in turn called for investigative assistance and Detective Travis Hansen arrived and interviewed the occupants. A 53- year-old tenant said he had allowed his 19-year-old son and his 22-year-old male roommate to grow marijuana "as long as it was legal." Both of the younger men had medical marijuana cards which appeared to be current and legal. The 19-year-old said he had been prescribed marijuana because of severe arthritis in his hand caused by "too much homework." The 22-year-old said he had severe pain in one of his feet. No arrests were made. Spokane Regional Air Support Unit(SRASU) September Statistics (countywide): Total flights: 18 Total patrol flights: 9 Total call out requests: 6 Total surveillance/photo flights: 0 Total maintenance flights: 0 Total calls for service: 75 Number of calls where AIR1 was first at scene: 42 Prowl checks conducted: 5 Total arrests: 6 Notable incidents: • Conducted OH-58 transition training for new SRASU pilot Tim Bischoff • Air crew responded to a person with a weapon call. Air crew was first on scene, and located the subject. The air crew was able to zoom in with the camera, see a handgun on the suspect's hip, and warn responding units. Page 7 • Located a foot pursuit suspect and directed ground units to his location. • Responded to a crash in a remote area, and was able to locate, in less than two minutes, all four suspects that had fled into the woods. • Responded to a large party call where suspects had attacked ground units, resulting in a call for emergency assistance. The air crew responded and was able to assist in breaking up the crowd by a combination of its presence and search light. • Responded to a commercial burglary, and located the burglary suspect hiding in the woods by using FLIR. The air crew was able to direct a K-9 unit to the suspect's location, where he was taken into custody. Detectives Offer Sex Offender Information - Recent angst regarding a suspected sex offender watching children at a Spokane Valley school has prompted the sheriff's Sex Crimes unit to offer information that might clarify how sex offenders are monitored in Spokane County and eliminate some common misconceptions. There are about 1,400 registered sex offenders (RSO's) in Spokane County, a number that changes slightly day-to-day. Tracking these offenders is a joint effort by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, the Spokane Police Department and the U.S. Marshal's Office. Each agency has personnel assigned to register, track and monitor each of these 1,400 RSO's. The Sheriff's office has three detectives, one deputy and a secretary dedicated full-time to this effort. SPD has two full-time detectives and the Marshal's office has one full-time agent and several who work it part-time in addition to other duties. When a suspect is convicted of a sex or kidnapping offense that mandates registration, and then is released from custody,he/she is required to go to the Sheriff's office and register. The Department of Corrections (DOC) will have designated a "Level," I, II or III— one being considered the least likely to re-offend and three being the most likely. This "leveling" is based on a statewide standard. If an offender comes from another state or was not confined, sheriff's detectives assign him a level based on the same DOC standards. All RSO's receive regular visits at their homes by a detective or deputy to verify they are living at the address they registered. Level I offenders are visited at least once a year, Level II at least twice and Level III at least four times. They are visited each and every time they change their address as well. If an offender has no home, he is registered as a transient and must report in-person weekly to the sheriff's office. When an offender is sentenced,he can be released to be supervised by DOC until his sentence time as expired. While on DOC supervision, there may be restrictions set by the Community Corrections Officer restricting his or her freedom to live or work in certain places — schools or daycares, for instance. If an offender has completed his sentence and is no longer on supervision, he is free to live and work anywhere he wants—there are no legal restrictions. In some rare instances, the court may note that an offender is a "Sexually Violent Predator" and will restrict where he can live — not within 880 feet of a school, for instance. Without this court designation, offenders are free to live anywhere they choose. Page 8 If an offender fails to comply with his registration requirements, a detective will write a warrant request for him. Regardless of where the offender is found in the United States, he will be brought back to Spokane County for prosecution. Members of the sex offender units go online daily to search for predators and users/makers of child pornography. These cases are aggressively investigated, and when possible, search warrants are written and executed for the perpetrators. The sheriff's office will notify schools when offenders tell us they will be attending or working there. Schools have the responsibility to notify certain members of their staff. However, this only applies when the offender attends or works in the school. Schools are not required to notify students,parents or neighbors if the offender merely lives nearby. When a sex offender registers, his or her name is entered into a statewide law enforcement database with the Washington State Patrol. The name is also entered into a sex offender database called Offender Watch which is accessible to anyone with a computer. A person can look up his own address and the database will show all Level II and III offenders in the neighborhood. By state law, level one offenders are exempted. The following limited public information about an RSO may be released by law enforcement— For Level II and III offenders, a flyer is printed and distributed to SCOPE and COPS offices where volunteers distribute them in a two block radius of the neighborhood where the offender is living. Level III information is released to media as well. For Level I offenders, information may only be released to the offender's victims, witnesses and individual community members who live near the offender and who request it. When people see known RSO's in schools, daycares, libraries, parks and other places children might frequent, we ask that they remember that offenders have the same rights to be there as everyone else, and to be free from harassment. However, we also welcome calls if the RSO is in any way acting suspiciously. Page 9 2011 SEPTEMBER CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Sep-11 Sep-10 2011 2010 2,010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 BURGLARY 83 92 790 726 936 725 753 584 714 744 FORGERY 56 21 361 260 341 297 354 365 334 464 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 157 93 1142 942 1183 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 NON-CRIMINAL 6 102 138 683 917 892 944 839 811 749 PROPERTY OTHER 107 92 847 615 837 933 828 890 982 1,154 RECOVERED VEHICLES 30 27 274 297 365 187 319 343 403 333 STOLEN VEHICLES 44 44 408 380 496 298 496 478 711 603 THEFT 223 233 1905 1735 2365 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 2,256 UIOBC 0 0 0 2 3 4 4 8 11 8 VEHICLE OTHER 38 0 105 1 3 5 7 3 3 5 VEHICLE PROWLING 136 122 1121 1070 1395 920 1069 682 937 958 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 880 826 7,054 6,722 8,852 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 8,178 ASSAULT 84 81 731 697 895 927 869 853 846 894 DOA/SUICIDE 5 16 156 150 188 210 269 221 167 159 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 35 133 565 959 1297 1226 1063 874 736 762 HOMICIDE 0 0 3 1 1 3 3 1 5 1 KIDNAP 2 0 11 13 16 21 16 23 22 35 MENTAL 13 21 190 227 289 310 360 350 425 425 MP 11 13 95 104 128 115 95 83 88 97 PERSONS OTHER 239 147 1767 1309 1692 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 ROBBERY 6 3 79 42 68 75 71 60 58 56 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 16 17 121 109 153 159 95 73 83 92 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 411 431 3685 3611 4727 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 ADULT RAPE 10 5 52 33 44 35 44 43 29 39 CHILD ABUSE 0 7 84 86 115 159 148 104 78 101 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 15 16 156 147 206 157 86 92 105 88 SEX REGISTRATION 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 3 6 INDECENT LIBERTIES 1 0 12 6 8 10 11 18 15 9 CHILD MOLESTATION 0 4 19 33 47 35 66 46 69 67 CHILD RAPE 2 0 20 18 28 35 39 31 62 35 RUNAWAY 44 34 376 349 490 440 369 295 309 311 SEX OTHER 4 26 43 166 215 211 179 194 203 181 STALKING 2 5 13 13 18 15 21 17 17 27 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 36 17 256 160 215 175 142 152 177 244 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 115 114 999 1012 1387 1271 1,108 996 1,067 1,108 DRUG 27 49 388 428 541 670 838 807 665 891 ITF OTHER 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 TOTAL ITF 27 50 390 428 542 671 838 808 665 891 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 278 226 2568 2343 3081 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 2,403 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVEC 1,711 1,647 14,696 14,116 18,589 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,582 16,357 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -X-2010 -0-2011 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -NC-2010 -0-2011 450 - 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 SPOKANE VALLEY TRAFFIC COLLISIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 •-2010 -0-2011 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Spokane Valley Person Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -NC-2010 -0-2011 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Spokane Valley Property Crimes , JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 2010 -0-2011 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents • JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -NC-2010 -0-2011 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Spokane Valley Sex Crimes A • JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -NC-2010 -0-2011 Fi LI•l� .M:M.. ■.0 :"y /wt-- MILOYZULIMOI rr =ill 0 M I Ir:. ; h.. Mar 11,M1�- p7 wool rid wii:�U V� _ � �..� IEI rT ]tom .�"� `�'r f UI�� gym.-r�M 7E 1 10 El PPM= filis�.11 _. .11,1i.1�II■l - 'rrin8t'on i Paean --L:ZEm "NER41111 liplimungi. IG ■Ills n NIMAaMirrrn: a ,: Visit Vehicle Prowling C O 2 O 3 C 4 MF Low _ Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I i I 2011 September Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Map Produced: 12 Oct 2011 pion' Palle— /1111C== MILOYZULIMOI 27 min . Psumiq A • arnet ■I! 1 1��9t'-rick ====lmamazQ357∎ � -..r' IHMTral HIM= ,_„../ •-� 1��. '— warNIJAJ '' `���J!Ira■■Ills 1i■1In1 �■1 - iv ■ _tee— w ras remairm saluziffq 2011 August & September Stolen Vehicle Hotspots Clements San 7 Sun flo'n" t1 r E r%01 esC' onsotersim.a,of it ar3smALC Lacross= Q Indu tn.l�;'1 kA Granite mum lei Prim •- HEM ■ate 2 1=■ ,=P Eir rr. E g17- E AS ■_CI.r iN.M■ 10,4==. =fi�r =- 1 1. :r, fI■■z e. witimpoieum ■m ■— 1 SEIiE∎ 'mama= ==■ .rr•TOHM■ W-li..-- =.r=■Y� righ a � Wk Ec Will *..:. I ' I � 0 A eeeeee������:��S 54Iy��j �R�1'S7tS :iliii 3� ` ra usa� al► rrrir ■:.'sib ��■_ " s Mansfel. Jpo an alley ,d „ wee a solo I�r�7i , ate 1� Mss;�r $I - �1� 111111Ei Il!' •Ns . !iiill E�1.11 pig.Wawa latialoTHIEmallit6ENE "mr‘11.91"41 16."'"wwk:M1.11.0...M.EITIMINKEIMIKIIER MINIIMIIMPTI114 wgpogroramilmiLtm (Lake �y bu 1. ��EL .L.Almil memmiumw•-•21nralril ,alr====kirramnspluarm". .' %rig:EMILIA Ar111. 1 71011651!PIJ1aIIUJM '■ ‘11115tArereiatalS 1111122=A107( ApItairgiltilr Bit on , , =miumml•L&VAlhhiat .1 jai \gnu ll 15: iiA 110** 25th F Corke ke Ler ingirmrl ' �5t U y cZN51 San Is 0 d w Residential Burglaries C O 2 Low n w 0 0.5 Miles 2011 September Residential Burglary Hotspots I l I Map Produced: II Oct 2011 Wm L8 311111VI naVaaLIC=ICj ■-.i-■ ■MCA 4114=0.111- tang er 5anson opr I him 0 I a �' =Irvin 'IMF IMMO re anitallft -Y lr� �� e Ilesl��� ]�i,�Ei IBM jimEmailaw- 0 lne t au Ililliale:131i prilIELEMI MICIMII IE • Man sfiel Lacrosse Inwwdu tri.11i kA IMIY al ParkE o°a Crest Granite ri Spokan alley Flo� Pit Old Missi 5-5 alton EDP , %��IFi&. 1,1111110010 1 J 1:•■w _ h 71Sili\IPPerare • one Catald Cataldo Broad erside �e=�=!� � ,ice'•-::na:�^ ��- +"' � D�°re� ALISDalitar MMEMEM =■EM - IM MO■. I—...i�c;a�r 9th rin8to == ■�T.-- =moI-_------ PAIR- 25th th Kw KM ••012 irups■ her 10 18th r berty Lake ..-_. te— - –fiL'Ji_ . '.'� J •���< �'1 .. ■■.I..�®� ---� . N:di.hiF 1 111 .E7l7 ■....1.■■- 1 1 cfn-TIMNI.we v! 1) th h P ar r,1 rlgk1 ran GI--Fi ---' . m, a■ ' ZaJ1ll�oal' ads �'•���, F'1�—rila�— � �i���l■ . i■■■1 }pppBo er I'"-." ow jiliiip, ape Terre 1st nd °WeeW Traffic Collisions C 1 O 2 0 3 Low 1 Medium Low Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2011 September Traffic Collision Hotspots Map Produced: 12 Oct 2011 2011 AUGUST INCIDENTS BY CITIES 10/11/2011 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD INCIDENTS 17 233 273 12 6 0 25 223 84 41 3,793 7 700 4,732 0 10,146 SELF INITIATED INCIDENTS 16 99 158 7 0 0 14 155 42 24 1,501 3 632 1,962 0 4,613 DRUG SELF INT (PATROL) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 4 6 0 16 TRAFFIC STOPS 3 83 45 0 0 0 9 41 23 19 834 1 443 1,260 0 2,761 TRAFFIC STOPS (ARST/CIT/IN) 1 74 11 0 0 0 5 14 7 12 432 1 261 617 0 1,435 TS (WARRANTS) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 8 21 0 36 CALLS FOR SERVICE 1 134 115 5 6 0 11 68 42 17 2,292 4 68 2,770 0 5,533 ALARMS 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 99 0 0 106 0 216 ACCIDENTS 1 9 4 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 152 0 11 129 0 317 ACCIDENTS (ARREST/CIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 15 DRUG CALLS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 18 0 3 23 0 49 DV 12 0 6 1 0 0 5 12 1 0 118 1 3 180 0 339 DUI 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 134 0 5 84 0 235 DUI (ARREST) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 PURSUITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 0 8 26 0 0 0 0 20 9 1 286 0 23 441 0 814 VEHICLE RECOVERED 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 19 0 5 33 0 60 911 ABANDON LINE 0 50 8 2 0 0 2 3 5 0 204 0 12 208 0 494 SHOPLIFTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 37 0 39 ALL ARRESTS (ARREST/CIT/IN) 2 77 16 4 0 0 5 19 11 12 536 2 279 835 0 1,798 CRIME CHECK REPORTS 1 0 14 0 2 0 3 10 15 2 645 1 5 690 0 1,388 10/11/2011 Spokane Valley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMVMLiN`I' MONTHLY REPORT September 2011 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION • Emergency After Hours Call-out — Senske • Engineering Services Support —Agreements with private engineering firms • Landscaping Contract — Spokane ProCare (Rebidding for 2012) • Litter and Weed Control — Spokane County Geiger Work Crew • Solid Waste - Regional Solid Waste Interlocal • Street Maintenance — 2011 Signal, Sign & Striping County Interlocal • Street Sweeping —AAA sweeping • Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair contract —Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. • Street Maintenance (Pines & Trent) —WSDOT Interlocal • Vactoring Contract --AAA Sweeping (Rebidding for 2012) WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/ http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/spokaneriver/dissolved oxygen/status.htmi http://www.spokanecounty.oral utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Solid Waste Governance Task Force has completed a draft Interlocal Agreement for a Regional Solid Waste Management Alliance Agreement. The County has requested that we respond by October 3r`' regarding our intent to join the Alliance. STREET MASTER PLAN JUB Engineers is working on finalizing the draft report and presentation. A report to council on the updated pavement management program will be scheduled in the near future. CAPITAL PROJECTS (See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet) STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for September 2011: Fall Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: • AAA continues cleaning underground stormwater structures under the Vactoring Services Agreement. • AAA is sweeping arterials. • Geiger crew continues to mow dryland grass areas throughout the city, • Poe Asphalt completed several drywell and asphalt repairs and placed a 2" overlay on the Sprague Avenue westbound lanes from Havana Road to Fancher Road and Bowdish Road from 22" Avenue to 16th Avenue. "Information in bold indicates updates 1 STORMWATER Small Improvement Projects These projects are individually estimated to be less than $30,000, to address street flooding problems and involve excavation work. Project bids received, Eller Corporation under contract to construct in Sept/Oct the following projects: 1. Stn and Park — replace failing drainfield, provide improved treatment including swales if possible. 2. 11th and Herald — improve catchbasins and rehabilitate existing failing UIC. 3. 32"a and Bowdish intersection, north leg — mitigate ongoing stormwater ponding — work includes increasing capacity of existing drywell on south leg of intersection and installing new inlets on north leg and pipe to drywell on south leg of intersection. 4. Evergreen and 17th — replace existing failing drainfield, provide additional treatment through catchbasins. 5. Archery & Farr — improve capture of runoff through installation of improved inlet structures, mitigate for pine needle debris, and protect/improve existing drainfields. Possible award this year w/Contractor (Eller Corporation): 6. Woodward & 35th - replace existing failing drainfield, provide additional treatment through catchbasins. Projects Currently in Design andfor Property Acquisition: 7. Pines & Alki — Preliminary design started. Working with WSDOT MICE on responsibility to replace drain rock and improve failing drywell. 8. Bettman/Dickey Culvert/Ditch re-establishment — Project to improve conveyance of stormwater from 14th to 11th. Site survey and geotechnical work completed, staff researched property issues and is working on securing storm drainage easements. 9. Thorpe Road Culvert Re-establishment— Staff met with the County's floodplain manager and has asked for the County's support for a potential project south of City limits. Staff has concluded that 3 culverts and a ditch were blocked by the addition of parking for the 9-hole par 3 course. Another meeting has been set up with the golf course owners in early October to go over maintenance actions. Staff is working on a flood plain permit application for the proposed work. 10. Park and Valleyway — replace failing drainfield, provide improved treatment including swales if possible. Survey completed, looking at possibility of working with adjacent property owners on installing a swale. Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects These projects are estimated to be over $30,000, to address larger flooding and water quality problems, and/or make major improvements to bring systems closer to current standards. 1. 14th Avenue, Custer to Chronicle — mitigates erosion undermining existing City roadway, capture runoff, and eliminate outfall to waters of the state, Researching current system and ownership outside of the publicly owned right-of-way. Title report received and entering legal descriptions onto a map. Possible construction in 2012. 2. Broadway SW Upgrade (see CIP #153) 3. Dickey & 11th Stormwater Facility Improvements — Project to improve existing City property for regional stormwater infiltration. Site survey and geotechnical work completed, design in progress. 4. Sullivan Road Bridge Drain Retrofit Protect - See CIP Project #150. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 5. Stormwater Decant Facility— Proposed to be located at the new maintenance facility. Decanting catchbasin debris would decrease costs in handling debris by up to 80% by allowing water to be drained and disposed separately. The County Sanitary Sewer Utility has informed City staff that it will not accept liquids from catchbasin cleaning at this time. It appears that the County Sewer Utility is concerned about PCB pollutants and the inability to treat to a level acceptable by the State before discharge to the Spokane River. Staff is working to understand issues regarding PCB's and liquid disposal alternatives for the future decant facility. o Pines/Mansfield - swales (near Montgomery and behind fire station) - Work includes drilling new 3-foot diameter holes for better draining material in bottoms of swales and installing sod in damaged areas, Work was completed and swales re- seeded in work areas. Staff will monitor swales closely into next year to monitor improvements. o Vactor Services 2012 Contract - Current contract ends December 2011 with no renewal options remaining. Staff is drafting a new bid package for a new 2012 contract. Public meeting with interested parties to discuss options staff is considering in the next bid is scheduled for October 19 at 9:00 in Council Chambers. o Stormwater Structure Inspections - Student Interns have been hired to conduct structure inspections throughout the summer/fall, The inspections are identifying and prioritizing aging structures that are in need of repair or rehabilitation. The inspections will also collect data on the debris loads in individual structures, which will help determine efficient cleaning intervals. o Underground Iniection Control (UIC) Assessment - Staff continues work on compliance requirements for the City's 7,350 drywells (UICs) and performing required assessments by February 2013. o 2012 Stormwater Fee Assessor Rolls Update - Staff is starting the process of updating stormwater fees to existing or new commercial properties for the 2012 Stormwater Fee Assessor Roll. o Ecology Grant Status - 2011/2012 -- ($308k/State, no local match): The City has received $154k in reimbursement to date for sweeping operation costs throughout this year. Staff will continue to submit for reimbursements and the grant should be expended prior to June 2012. Stormwater Retrofit Grant #G1100278 s ($237k Statel$79 City SW fund) Sullivan Road Bridge Drain Project (see also CIP #150). This project is on schedule and in design phase. Easements have been acquired. Construction should proceed next summer with completion before October 2012. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE Specifications and bid packet covering Bridge Repair and Maintenance currently under review. Sullivan Road over Trent (4501) repair and Sullivan SB over UPRR tracks (4507) expansion joint repairs: Project complete Sullivan Road W Bridge (#4508) over Spokane River: Sargent Engineers has been contracted to work on the design of temporary repairs to the bridge that will allow the removal of the weight restrictions. 'information in bold indicates updates 3 SEWER PROJECTS • 2010 County Sewer Projects — Carry over West Farms, South Greenacres Phase 3, Cronk and Corbin are substantially complete; only minor punch list items remain. South Greenacres Phase 4 — Paving is complete. Contractor is working on some punch list items; swale installation change order on Mission still to be completed. • 2011 STEP sewer projects Green Haven B' (SW Area) — Piping is complete, road grading has begun. Paving is currently scheduled for 8/5 and 8/15. Micaview '1' — Paving of City streets is complete. Some minor items remain; Barker road striping, possible ditch modifications. Green Haven 'C' (NE Area) — Piping installation is in progress. Barker work expected to begin 8/8, paving scheduled for 916 and 9/27. Scheduled to be complete by 10/4/11. TRAFFIC • WTSC School Zone Beacon Grant The City was awarded two $7,500 grants to install new school zone beacons for Orchard Center Elementary and Chester Elementary. The beacons have been received and are being installed. • 2011 Fall WTSC School Zone Beacon Grant The City is preparing an application to install new school zone beacons for up to three Elementary and/or Middle Schools. The grant is for up to $7,500, per school, for the purchase of the school zone beacons. The application is due November 1 and award notification is November 18. • HSIP Grant The Highway Safety Improvement Program grants are due October 28. Staff is preparing applications to widen SR 27 at Grace Avenue, to make operational improvements to Argonne Road, and for citywide safety improvements such as upgrading regulatory signs and installing countdown pedestrian signal heads. GRANT APPLICATIONS New Call for Projects • New Freedom Funds The STA Board approved our Sidewalk and Transit Stop Accessibility project in the amount of $252,009. However, we recently received word that the amount of New Freedom Funds available to the city has been reduced to $178,790 because of a previous commitment to the Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington (ALTCEW). The grant has been approved. STA is drafting the agreement to award funds. • Ecology Statewide Stormwater Grant The Washington State Department of Ecology announced $30M in grants to build stormwater projects Q jurisdictions covered by a Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit may apply for the funding through a competitive grant application process. Applications are due by November 18, 2011. Staff is working on a list of possible projects. information in bold indicates updates 4 • FY 2011 TIGER Discretionary Grant Program USDOT announced the TIGER Ill program, a competitive grant program for transportation projects. $527 million is available for this program nationwide. Eligible projects include roads and bridges, rail, transit buses and streetcars, ports, and bicycle and pedestrian paths. Winning projects typically are multi-modal, multi jurisdictional or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. Staff prepared a Preliminary Application, which was due October 3, 2011. Council approved moving ahead with a consultant to prepare the final grant application which is due October 31. TIB Call for Projects Grant applications were submitted August 31. Notification of project funding is scheduled for November 18. *Information in bold indicates updates 5 Spol��ne �a11ey. Sep-11 D005 Pines/Man field,Wilbur Rd to Pines 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2 Brdwy&Ind.SRTC06-12 0112 Indiana Ave Extension 0113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0129 0130 0131 0151 0152 Sewer Projects South Greenacres(STEP) Corbin (STEP) Crank(STEP) Green Haven STEP Micaview STEP Street Preservation Projects 0153 Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines(SR27) ITS Improvements (SRTC 06-2 0133 Sprague Ave ITS TIB TIB - UAP FHWA-STP(U) UCP STA STP(U) STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) TIB -SP JARC FHWA- BR City City City City City CDBG Knutson Knutson Knutson Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Amsden Knutson Knutson Amsden Knutson Iris Iris Iris Iris Iris 05/23/08 05/15/11 tbd 02/18/11 05/27/11 tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd 03/03/10 05/05/10 04/14/10 03/23/11 03/09/11 100 100 90 100 100 5 1 5 0 5 0 100 100 100 100 100 95 65 0 95 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 95 95 10 95 09/30/11 11/15/11 tbd 07/29/11 12/31/11 tbd tbd tbd 07/31/12 tbd tbd 10/1/2011 10/1/2011 10/1/2011 10/15/11 10/15/11 6,626,700 932,850 352,002 2,082,000 $ 1,252,000 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 292,000 $ 315,011 $ 19,743,334 $ 640,500 $ 705,000 $ 315,000 $ 620,000 $ 280,000 Knutson 05/15/11 100 95 11/15/11 $ 248,528 FHWA-CMAQ Knutson FHWA-CMAQ Knutson DOE -EECBG Knutson 03/15/12 04/15/12 03/04/11 90 0 100 0 0 85 10/15/12 10/15/12 11/15/11 $ 1,290,636 $ 2,083,121 $ 420,000 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # Road Projects Funding Manager Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost D005 Pines/Man field,Wilbur Rd to Pines 0063 Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2 Brdwy&Ind.SRTC06-12 0112 Indiana Ave Extension 0113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0129 0130 0131 0151 0152 Sewer Projects South Greenacres(STEP) Corbin (STEP) Crank(STEP) Green Haven STEP Micaview STEP Street Preservation Projects 0153 Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines(SR27) ITS Improvements (SRTC 06-2 0133 Sprague Ave ITS TIB TIB - UAP FHWA-STP(U) UCP STA STP(U) STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) TIB -SP JARC FHWA- BR City City City City City CDBG Knutson Knutson Knutson Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Amsden Knutson Knuts