Loading...
2008, 09-02 Study Session MinutesMINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, September 2, 2008 Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting Present: Councilmembers: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Tavis Schmidt, Assistant Planner Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others Present: Stan McNutt, Triangle "F" Municipal Consulting Services 1. ACTION ITEM: Motion Consideration: Approval of Barker Road Fish &Wildlife Agreement — Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to finalize and execute the Barker Road Bridge Mitigation Agreement. Engineer Worley explained the background and reasons to bring this forth, as mentioned in his September 2, 2008 Request for Council Action form; he added that the assessment of the contractor's work was just sent to Fish &Wildlife for their review; and that by entering into this agreement, we would pay a fee to Spokane County Conservation District to do a project somewhere else on the River, that it will be for a project that will benefit the fish life within the River; that we are following the same procedure Spokane County used when they re -built the Argonne Bridge over the Spokane River; that Fish &Wildlife realizes there is no way to avoid impacts to the River and realize the need to build bridges; Fish &Wildlife cannot do a project but they have someone like us to give a mitigation fee to the Conservation District, and we have agreed to give the impact fee to the District to be used to benefit the river. Mr. Worley further explained that we had to wait until we had a contractor on board and said the fee is not settled yet but Fish & Wildlife today suggested a fee of $20,000; that Fish &Wildlife admit there is difficulty in determining a fee but they want to make sure the fee is significant enough to allow the Conservation District to do a project, like a bank stabilization project; that staff examined what Spokane County paid for the Argonne River project, and our proposed fee is in line with that amount; adding that this fee has been considered in the entire project budget fee. Mr. Worley said that the accompanying table shows all the extra work the contractor included in his bid to protect the River from impacts due to the work the contractor will be doing. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council did comment on now understanding about the high cost to build a bridge. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor.• Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 1 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 2. Watershed Planning Memorandum of Authority — Tavis Schmidt /Grey McCormick Mr. Schmidt gave some background on the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA), and accompanying Memorandum of Agreement for implementing the detailed plan for WRIAS 55 and 57, the Little and Middle Spokane Watersheds. Mr. Schmidt explained that we have been participating in the watershed group since last fall; that they have a detailed implementation plan that accounts for resources in the aquifer, and streams and mid - Spokane River; that this Agreement, which many other entities have already signed, is anon- binding agreement that passes along the recommended action; he stressed that since we are not a water purveyor, we have no control over rates and usage, but by participating in this group, staff can keep informed in plans for water conservation; that we maybe asked to make a space available in our permitting area for xerioscape brochures for commercial and residential projects; and he mentioned that in our UDC landscape plan, that also recommends commercial projects to implement the xerioscape, which when implemented results in reduction in points; and he requested Council consideration to placing this Agreement on the next Council's consent agenda. There was discussion concerning some of the recommendations and whether the mitigation efforts could become politically uncomfortable, re- affirmation that since we are not a water purveyor that will likely not be an issue; and mention of a water strategy for our parks, which could entail simply changing the irrigation system's timer. In Response to Council questions, Mr. Stone mentioned that Spokane will be incurring some costs as they upgrade their manual irrigation system. Mr. Schmidt also stressed that since this is anon- binding agreement, we can withdraw at any time. Mr. Schmidt said he is not aware of any oversight committee. Councilmember Gothmann asked if the Spokane Home Builders Association and our water purveyors are aware of this agreement and are participants, and Mr. Schmidt responded that the water purveyors are, but he cannot answer concerning the Home Builders Association. There was Council consensus to place this agreement on the next Council's consent agenda. 3. Appeal Deliberation, APP 02 -08 and 03 -08 —Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that we have now entered into the deliberation stage of the quasi - judicial closed record hearing; that the record consists of the notebooks previously distributed as well as the testimony heard last week and any written arguments submitted at the time of the hearing through last Friday, all of which is before council. Councilmember Dempsey announced that although she was not present at the hearing, she listened to the tape recording of that meeting, and has reviewed the documents and will therefore participate in the appeal deliberation. Attorney Connelly stated that Council's options are to affirm or reverse the Hearing Examiner decision, or send the matter back for further proceedings; that the Hearing Examiner's decision is presumed to be correct, but Council can reverse that if they find that the Hearing Examiner engaged in unlawful procedure, the decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law or not supported by evidence, the decision is clearly an erroneous application of the law to the facts, or the decision is outside the Hearing Examiner's authority. In reference to pertinent case law, Mr. Connelly summarized findings and conclusions as noted on his September 2, 2008 Memorandum. Attorney Connelly said that the first threshold question is did Council intend that the conditions set forth in section (g) were intended to be additional and separate, or was it simply a re- statement of the general changed conditions requirement imposed by state law. Mr. Connelly says that staff reports that this is simply a reiteration of what state law requires as part of the changed condition for a rezone. Mr. Connelly said he found no court cases where this was found separate and distinct, and also found no court cases discussing code provisions identical to ours; so there is no clear direction from the court and Council has discretion to rule either way. Attorney Connelly explained that if Council concludes that it intended subsection (g) to be in addition to and separate from the state requirement, then Council must next decide the period of time over which they can identify "changed circumstances," or is there evidence in the record of substantial change in circumstances to justify the rezone; the Hearing Examiner's decision states that we cannot go back before October 2007 in looking for changes in circumstances; staff Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 2 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 feels the changes are in the record and can go back as long as the area was zoned in a similar fashion, which is a designation of 3.5. Mayor Munson asked about his request to receive an objective review of the supreme court cases mentioned during the hearing; and Attorney Connelly explained that he reviewed the cases which had a bearing on this issue, but did not summarize every case cited by the parties; that he can continue that effort if Council desires, but he tried to cite those cases directly in point and not inconsistent. It was determined that Mr. Connelly will give a summary of all cases cited. Discussion then centered on legislative intent concerning change of conditions, and Attorney Connelly cautioned that such must be consistent with the words actually used, and not an inferred intent; and mentioned that when Council passed the UDC, it listed eight conditions, all of which had to be complied with, the last of those conditions being changed circumstances in the zoning district; so the remaining question is, was this simply reiterating state law or intending to have this as an additional condition. Council asked the City Clerk to research past Council and Planning Commission minutes to see if this topic was mentioned; and to bring that information to the next meeting. Mayor Munson indicated due to the request for additional research, he suggested moving the Resolution to adopt findings to the September 16 meeting, which will still be within the time requirements. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 6:50 p.m.; and reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 4. Law Enforcement Assessment —Stan McNutt Mayor Munson explained that this agenda item will be led by Mr. McNutt, who will be explaining as part of his presentation, a "laundry list" of possible areas of inquiry or interest to include in a law enforcement assessment; and that questions can be asked of Mr. McNutt and Chief VanLeuven as needed. After Mr. McNutt gave a summary of his background, including mention that he was a co -team leader for this city's incorporation; and he helped coordinate and negotiate all the law and justice contracts, including the police and law enforcement contract; and that he was present in all negotiation sessions with the County; and mentioned that it takes a great deal of information, time and experience before the legislative branch can make different policies based on that experience, information and data, but that would be undertaken later, and said that he personally mentioned that several times during the negotiated sessions. Mr. McNutt also mentioned and gave some background information on Initiative 900 and performance audits, including that Yakima is in the process of their first, "full- blown" performance audit. In speaking with the Yakima City Manager, Mr. McNutt stated he was advised to do studies thoroughly as the auditor has full authority to do it again and charge accordingly. Mr. McNutt also referenced the State Auditor's website for those seeking further information on Initiative 900, and said that initiative leads him to conclude a thorough law enforcement assessment is due. Mayor Munson said he had not considered this process in connection with Initiative 900, and he asked who would set the achievement standards for law enforcement. Mr. McNutt replied that the auditors are just now undertaking their first performance audit of this type, and mentioned the more the entities do, the less the auditor will have to do or re -do; and said there is an Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) overview which states that "Performance audits are to be conducted by the state auditor in accordance with the United States General Accounting Office Auditing Standards; and the Initiative includes nine specific elements to be included in each performance audit, e.g. (1) identification of cost savings, (2) identification of services that can be reduced or eliminated, (3) identification of programs or services that can be transferred to the private sector, (4) analysis of gaps or overlaps in programs or services and recommendations to correct them, (5) feasibility of pooling the entity's information technology systems, (6)analysis of the roles and functions of the entity and recommendations to change or eliminate roles or functions, (7) recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes that may be necessary for the entity to properly carry out its functions, (8) analysis of the entity's performance data, performance measures and self - assessment systems, and (9) identification of best practices. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 3 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Mr. McNutt said his role tonight is discussion facilitator; he mentioned that he spoke with the Sheriff who has a PowerPoint presentation, and apologized for not having time tonight to review that, and suggested Council make time to review that later. So that everyone would be able to view his notes, by using a laptop "tablet" computer, Mr. McNutt made notes on the tablet which were projected onto the two screens in the room. Mr. McNutt said that the ultimate desired outcome is still an unknown as it depends on the council's desires, but stated that a suggested desired outcome is to gather and review operating data as a precursor to further decision making; and that the goals for a study [see Addendum A "Law Enforcement Assessment" handout, and attached handwritten notes] are based on whether a study is undertaken and are to be determined by Council so that a scope of services might be identified. Mr. McNutt said in order to facilitate that discussion, he offered the four suggested tasks to undertake as shown on the attached, and said that tonight's goal is to work toward consensus of acceptance of some items of areas of inquiry or interest. Mayor Munson asked if Council would also have, or be able to get, information concerning cost efficiencies for each of these areas of inquiry; and Mr. McNutt said he would refer Council to Initiative 900 which answers the question, that we either identify costs or they [the auditors] will identify those for us. Mr. McNutt began discussion on whether to retain those "Tasks to Undertake" if such a study or analysis were conducted, as follows: i. Perform an analysis of crime trends, identify strengths and weaknesses, opportunities or threats Mr. Mercier said that the object is to identify activities that could be undertaken as part of the study to generate as broad a category of information as possible for council's later consideration; so there would be a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis performed as part of the assessment, which would not preclude Council from doing an additional SWOT analysis once all the data is gathered. There was no objection from Council to have this task as part of the study. ii. Identify strategic objectives for Spokane Valley law enforcement Mr. McNutt said this is addressed in the contracted section 14 where the City is to develop policies from which the County Sheriff would address concerning how to meet those, and said this is the one he mentioned that they did not presume to do when the City first incorporated, but was deferred to a later time. Mayor Munson asked if these objectives would be open for discussion once they are suggested, and Mr. McNutt concurred. There was no objection from Council to have this task as part of the study. iii. Perform a tactical analysis of crime statistics, trends and recommended best deployment of resources in response. Mr. Mercier said this begins to address workload -based deployment, which includes what is occurring in the community, when, and where, and are resources oriented to take best advantage of those resources when the workload is the most significant in the areas in which they occur. There was no objection from Council to have this task as part of the study. iv. Identify current baseline performance (benchmarking) so service levels can be determined and performance measures can be established. Mr. McNutt said the basis for this task is also section 14 of the existing contract; and said that one of the reasons the policies were not adopted initially, was that they had no reason upon the City's incorporation to adopt any policies that might be different from the existing sheriff's policies, but that there was never an assumption that would be the case in perpetuity; as Cities also have some direction to their law enforcement department, and it is not always the same as a Sheriff's Department; and that it is normal to adopt policies within city law enforcement. Mayor Munson asked Chief VanLeuven how much information he collects now in order to achieve this goal; and Chief VanLeuven said they collect quite a Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 4 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 bit of information, and are primarily examining call notes for service, that he has not seen the data yet but they are being developed, with the data aimed at the City specifically, and there should not be a problem in working closely with the gathered data. There was no objection from Council to have this task as part of the study. v. Others? Councilmember Taylor said the other task discussed in the prior study is to look at the alternative assessment to see what the differences would be if we formed our own police department or continued with the status quo; and that much of the information sought in the tasks just discussed would help establish what that alternative might look like and give a better handle on contract negotiations and how to maintain a contract over the long term; and having the alternatives is in the best interest of the City. In other words, Councilmember Taylor suggested conducting an analysis of policing alternatives for the City, including forming our own police department. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned there is a difference between analyzing our own contract police department and gathering information to develop our own police department; and that the latter would require analysis of a civil service commission and of grade steps, and a detailed analysis beyond our present contract; that we have a right to perform any analysis of our own police department, but that we do not have a right to go into something that is noncontractual, and to quote Mr. Mercier's contracts as examples, "records with respect to all matters covered in this agreement" and said it mentions several agreements where we have the right to those records, but not anything beyond that. Mr. Mercier said that memorandum was included in the Council packet because during the last discussion of this subject, there was considerable question raised as to whether the City was taking liberties at looking intra- contract, and this information is to provide a survey of the kind of reservations of rights the city maintains when it is contracting for any service; and that it would be a mis -read of that document to suggest that in any way the Administration was hinting that the City Council is not able to authorize looking at any other dimension of any other department. Mayor Munson said in looking at the question of what it would entail to start our own police force, would it be advantageous to determine what items we would need to investigate and at what cost, rather than do the investigation and determine cost later, as wages and labor negotiations change; as there are many unknowns, such as whether we form our own civil service commission or could use the County's, or would that need to be negotiated, and what are the costs associated. Councilmember Taylor agreed that we cannot answer those questions without doing an analysis; and such analysis would not just look at Spokane County but at a host of various law enforcement agencies to gather a good survey of best practices; and added that most every document in every public agency is open to public scrutiny; and he sees the assessment of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office as an area to analyze and provide an analysis and an alternative to assist in future negotiations. Councilmember Dempsey said that an assessment of our police department would be separate from an assessment to see if contracting with the Sheriff's Department would compare with our own police department as those are two separate questions. Mayor Munson agreed that they are two questions, and tonight's question is do we want to know that now as part of the overall picture services, and do we want to know what it would cost to start our own force. Councilmember Taylor said he feels our citizens have a right to know, that Councilmembers have an obligation to find out and make sure that half of our general fund budget is being used properly and based upon performance indicators and benchmarks. Councilmember Dempsey asked how much money we are planning to spend on such an endeavor, as if we checked with various police departments across the country, the cost would mount quickly. Councilmember Taylor countered that we have already spent approximately $75 million on law enforcement services with no assessment over those five and a half years; and that $125,000 is very small compared with the funds going out; that the reasons to do this are accountability, and if we have alternatives, we move into contract negotiations from a stronger position, and that we are currently operating under a contract that was hastily yet aptly put together by a great team that came in on the Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 5 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 interim so we could have law enforcement services prior to incorporation; but the contract has not been updated, and it is important to do that; that we know there are some issues over the administration of the contact such as command and control, and that some of those issues came up when we were going through the last election cycle; and he said to mitigate from having those problems again, Council must take a close look at the contract and to do so from a position of strength, we need proper analysis including an alternative. Mayor Munson said he would be surprised if we took that option; but the point of having the information may make that option even less attractive; and that we can't assess an unknown cost; but this would be an opportunity to confirm our belief that we are getting great service; and that it is important to have a negotiated position as this contract will be re- negotiated within the next twelve months; and both sides have asked for re- negotiation; so in order to gage the County's request as to some changes in services, including a change in cost to what it would cost to have our own force, it would be beneficial to understand what we can and can't do to provide the community with law enforcement; that it is not necessarily leverage but is knowledge; and without researching the alternatives, we would be left with a "take it or leave it" scenario; and it is best to enter negotiations with all alternatives. Mr. Mercier said in response to Deputy Mayor Denenny's question of a tactical analysis, that such tactical analysis would also try to capture the costs associated, but that it appears Councilmember Taylor is looking for an additional task to identify the alternative costs of what it would be if there were an independent police department. Deputy Mayor Denenny said then if we have a tactical analysis we would use that as a baseline for doing the financial analysis; to which Mr. Mercier replied that is correct in part, but that a tactical analysis does not apply to a variety of other items that Council might choose to include on the list. Mr. McNutt said earlier discussion had some goals suggested for a study, one of which was to determine the scope of services for assisting the city in renegotiating a law enforcement contract with the Spokane County Sheriff, and said that there was never an interest in prioritizing an alternative study over the contracting and carrying out of the law enforcement services; he added that he is not sure what the auditor will eventually do with this; but the identification of cost savings is the number one item on Initiative 900, and added that we do not know what studies or performance measures in cost might affect us or the County; and that the first two items in citizen Initiative 900 are the principle identification of cost savings is comparison and identification of services that can be reduced or eliminated. Mayor Munson said that the auditor's office has identified that the ten largest cities will be those entities who will first fall under this performance evaluation; and that Yakima is receiving the all- encompassing performance audit, and such will happen here as well Mr. McNutt said the second item in early consideration as a possible goal for a study, was the draft scope of services for performing an alternative analysis whereby the City had an option to establish an independent police department; and would be the second priority; and he asked if there are other tasks Council would want if such study were conducted. Deputy Mayor Denenny said in reviewing the ICMA study, one of the tasks that needs to be done is review of the positive and negative ramifications of renewing our contract, and by doing this analysis, we are also looking at alternatives. Mayor Munson added that the intent of having an alternatives analysis is not the intent to start our own police department; and Councilmember Taylor stated that while there is not the intent, we need to be clear in terms of benchmarking and performing a tactical analysis and looking at the data, and in order to establish a contract that will stand over time, he said he feels it is important to spell out that we have the best available alternative; and the decision on whether to form our own police department is a different topic discussion and different policy choice; and that he feels Council would be doing a disservice to the citizens by not having that information available. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 6 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Councilmember Taylor said the goal of the study is not to perform a study, and he suggested council come up with the right justification to continue the status quo, but also to have that information available to see what changes might be warranted. Mr. McNutt said that the number one task or goal could be to determine a scope of services for assisting the City in renegotiating a law enforcement contract with Spokane County Sheriff; and that goal two could be drafting a scope of services for performing an alternatives; and that these two options could be addressed later; but said the items that would be discussed would be down in the list of inquiry; and he asked if Council should proceed with the "areas of inquiry or interest" on the basis of the understanding that Council will have a scope of services study, or for re- negotiating a contract, or for all options; and said that decision could also be made at a later date. For added tasks to undertake, Deputy Mayor Denenny reiterated his desire to include a "review of the positive and negative ramifications of renewing our contract with the Sheriff's Department" which is gathering data including pros and cons upon which to make a decision. Councilmember Taylor said he would support that, but would also like to include specific language to include an alternatives analysis. Councilmember Taylor stated that Council will not obtain the value from the study and asked how it will help in contract negotiations if there is no alternative analysis; and asked if these "pros and cons" would present alternatives upon entering negotiations; and if so, he would like to hear how that would be expanded. Councilmember Taylor added that there was in the past, a significant contract crisis concerning control of the hiring and firing of our police chief; which issue was never resolved; and that in going through this assessment, if there is no clarification on what alternatives there are, we will not fix that problem. Councilmember Gothmann pointed out the King County contract, which shows five detailed pages of all parties' responsibilities; and he asked if it is possible for this Council to use King County's thirteen years experience as a prototype for Spokane Valley's; and he suggested that would be a better method then spending $130,000; that the King County contract addresses cost reduction; and he mentioned that he sent copies of King County's contract to Mr. Mercier, Councilmembers, Sheriff Knezovich, and Police Chief VanLeuven. Councilmember Taylor countered that if one is in a weak negotiating position, all great things in any contract would not bring the other parry to agreement. Except for Councilmember Schimmels, there was general Council consensus to include the task of "reviewing of positive and negative ramifications of renewing our contract with the Sheriff's Department. Councilmember Taylor suggested also adding "conduct an analysis of policing alternatives for Spokane Valley "; but there was no consensus to add that task. Councilmember Dempsey said she recalled there was a vote on this matter several weeks ago; but Mayor Munson said, and Councilmember Wilhite confirmed, that referenced vote resulted in Councilmember Wilhite asking that this issue be re- visited and discussed further, and such suggestion was agreed upon by four Councilmembers. Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that once those pros and cons are presented, if there is an abundance of negative ramifications, that would pose the question to Council of how to handle that, and how to negotiate that, and if such did not come to a satisfactory conclusion, Council would have to look elsewhere, and at that point, if Council felt they were not getting the services needed for the citizens, Council could choose to have our own police department or look for another partner to provide law enforcement services; she added she realizes it will be expensive to start our own police department as it was when the City started, as there are start -up costs associated with such endeavors; and she said those positives and negatives would be helpful in negotiations; and that there would be financial ramifications for both entities if either the Sheriff's Office or the City were to ever look at having another partner. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 7 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Councilmember Schimmels said although we have struggled with this for several months, we are still not to the basics of what do we have today and what do we want; and if this is not solved, there can be no moving forward in a correct manner; and said he feels these five tasks address what he wants in order to keep it simple, solve the problems with what we have today, and move from there. Mr. McNutt then moved to the "areas of injury or interest" and asked if there are additions or deletions, and brief discussion followed on the elements listed, including explanation of CCLEA (Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies) and WSPA, comments from Police Chief VanLeuven and Sheriff Knezovich concerning the Sheriff's certification process and the high cost of the accreditation process with CCLEA, and the Lexipol Accreditation process which the Sheriff's Office is moving toward. Mayor Munson read the listed 27 areas of inquiry or interest; stated that those are the items just agreed to, and he asked if once involved with #5, performance measures, and it becomes apparent to who ever is hired to do this, that we need to do an alternative study, should that be included in the amount of funds to be approved in the initial tasking, knowing that it might not be spent; and that the current budget is scheduled for amendment consideration in October, which will authorize this study. It was also Council's consensus to change #12 to omit the words "startup costs versus. " Sheriff Knezovich added that "Community Oriented Policing" involves SCOPE and how law enforcement works with volunteers, and is an overarching philosophy; and he suggested adding "training" to the list. Sheriff Knezovich also commented that if there had been open dialogue on this issue, Council would learn that the Sheriff's Office is going through a SWOT analysis now; and that Sheriff's Office is currently engaged in many things on the list; he mentioned that "Spokane Valley" is the customer, and asked if this is designed as an aid in negotiations, and asked are those negotiations designed to a point where there is no common ground during the negotiations, as he mentioned that it sounds as if this will be from a position of strength, and said if the Sheriff's Office doesn't share, would there be acounter- action; or he asked, if this will be working together to find that common ground; as a "do this or else" mentality is analogous to dealing with a hostile entity and not a partner; but rather if Council comes into negotiation in the spirit of what we want for the community, then common ground will be found; he mentioned that there was common ground previously given; and said that Council should proceed with a study if that is the avenue they determine, and said that the Sheriff's Office will cooperate, but said before such study is conducted, it might be advantageous for the Mayor and some Councilmembers and the City Manager to meet with the Sheriff's Office to see what they are currently doing and how they are performing; and added that he feels Spokane Valley would be surprised at the current level of service and professionalism; and he reminded everyone that in 2004 the citizens voiced their support of the police services; and he asked if Councilmember Gothmann's work was examined, as Sheriff Knezovich felt such work was an "eye - opener" for them, and said that he has included some of Councilmember Gothmann's work on a PowerPoint to show just how efficient the operations are; and he looks forward to meeting with Spokane Valley to discuss the need for doing a study, and he mentioned he supports whatever Council decides to do; and he asked that his office would have time to implement any recommendations before moving to the next phase after the study. Councilmember Gothmann stated that Council does not negotiate contracts; that Council sets policy and the City Manager negotiates; that he examined King County's contracts, that they contract with thirteen different cities, and that they have solved many of the problems we have now with communications between our City and the Sheriff; and he encouraged the Sheriff and the City Manager to examine King County's contract as a possible starting place for negotiations. Sheriff Knezovich mentioned that they have been aware of King County's contract since October 2006. Mr. McNutt said the model contract used in 2003 was Pierce County; and he suggested including that contract as they are a little smaller then King County, which is roughly the size of the state of Idaho organizational -wide, and that Pierce County is a closer demographical model Mr. McNutt asked if there is full consensus to refer this matter to the City Manager for his suggested follow -up strategy. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 8 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Mayor Munson mentioned that he has known Mr. Mercier since he was first employed, and said that Mr. Mercier has always demonstrated good faith negotiation in all matters; that the necessity to have good faith information to form good policies will be the basis of the negotiations and that is essential; that we need to give management staff the tools they need to do that assessment so Council can discuss next steps; and to make good decisions, Council must have good information, and said that he will support the City Manager to come forward with a proposal and a cost to be discussed in October. Councilmember Taylor stated that he feels this is unfortunate the way the original scope of services was rejected and the controversy that was started with the idea that there was a priority of forming a new department versus looking at an alternative; and said that Council along with a vocal few, have made a big issue out of something which is not an issue; as the issue is and was to gather information, and the policy decision of whether to continue the contract or move into an alternative arrangement is something that Council has not discussed as the information is not available to discuss that, and moving with this scope of services will only give half of the data needed; and again stressed how unfortunate it is that the topic has been politicized and positions taken based on issues not discussed or information not gained; and said while he supports moving forward, he believes a piece will still be missing by not including an alternative analysis. Councilmember Wilhite stated that we are aware of the Sheriff's work toward certification, and said doing a study from Spokane Valley's viewpoint will help the Sheriff in doing his benchmarking as he determines what he needs to do in contracting with us, and as such, this should be an aid to the Sheriff, and anything to be further incorporated into a contract, would not be given to the Sheriff as an ultimatum, and Council realizes it takes time to bring about changes, and said that we would want to work with the Sheriff in bringing about any changes, which helps with the Certification process, and with the Spokane Valley's risk analysis as well. Mr. McNutt mentioned that the new cities which have formed in King County over the last fifteen to twenty years have mostly been incorporated under the Council /Manager form of government; and said that King County had to learn how to relate to that different form of government; and that King and Pierce County had experienced dealing with some of the difficult issues we are going through now, such as command and control, appointments, policies and procedures, all of which is not unusual; and he mentioned that Sheriff Knezovich asked and Mr. McNutt agreed to meet last June and Mr. McNutt shared the history and intents of the original contract from the City's perspective; adding that we are aware this is a two -way street; and said that he is aware of his bias, i.e. that when negotiations first began for this contract, he often told the County's negotiating team, when an issue was not moving forward, that while an issue might seem to be moving in a correct way for the County, it did not quite meet the City's needs from the change in government; and said many times that a contract needs to be negotiated for a permanent relationship; and said that Spokane County also has the option of not continuing with a contract; that a County contract is a good move when a City first incorporates, provided there is absolute openness between the agencies and those agencies executive directors, there is equity, fairness, compatibility with the entities' systems, harmonious relations, and some method to measure performance, which performance and auditing is now mandated as a result of Initiative 900; and that the City always maintains the option of an alternative way of doing the service, while the first choice is always to make the current choice work. Mr. Mercier added that Sue Passmore did some additional research in that she contacted every entity with which King and Pierce county contracts, and none of those entities have any current performance measures for their law enforcement agencies, and said that this particular study will likely give us an opportunity to be statewide leaders in this matter. Mayor Munson asked for Council consensus to price this out, and come back in October with new contract recommendations. Councilmember Gothmann stated his belief that there are alternatives to doing this which would cost less; Councilmember Taylor said he would support the language as he supports moving forward, and voiced his hope that we will not have to come back for something new; Councilmember Schimmels said he will support what we have tonight, and feels this is very much overdue. Mayor Munson said there appears to be consensus to move forward on a contract proposal and Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 9 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 cost; with five Councilmembers in agreement. Mayor Munson extended thanks to Mr. McNutt and Chief VanLeuven. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m. It was then moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded, to extend the meeting to 9:30 p. m. In Favor.• Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, Dempsey, and Wilhite. Opposed.• Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan — Book I —Scott Kuhta After brief discussion on the best procedure to begin deliberations of Book I, and further mention that the Planning Commission had no recommended changes to this Book, it was determined to review each section individually. 1.2 Intent # 1 Transform the visual character of Sprague Avenue Council acknowledged they realize this is not just the buildings, but the visual character of the street itself. Council agreed with Intention #1. #2 Re- position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. Council agreed with Intention #2. #3 Instigate the construction of the first City Center for the new City of Spokane Valley. It was mentioned that this is not the sole intent of this plan as some have suggested, but is a main piece of the plan. Council agreed with Intention #3. #4 Increase the vehicular capacity of the Sprague- Appleway transportation corridor. Mr. Kuhta explained that we have received many comments and questions concerning how we are increasing capacity with the recommended systems; and he explained the differences between the current configurations on both streets and the proposed configurations and mentioned that the number of travel lanes is not as important as capacity and intersections; which led to brief mention of funding sources. Mr. Kuhta stated that the plan for funding these changes is not to come from raising taxes, but that staff is looking at federal and state funding sources, and said that extending Appleway would be a big part of that; and that overall, increased capacity and extending Appleway will create a better network for moving traffic, and if things are left as they are, intersections such as Sullivan and Pines in particular will fail It was noted that traffic will be discussed in more detail when Book II is discussed. Council agreed with Intention #4. #5 Substantially enhance the development potential and value of the properties currently lining the underdeveloped Appleway right -of -way. Mr. Kuhta said that the intent is to increase the value of the properties along Appleway. Councilmember Dempsey voiced her concern about the intent of the development potential of the Appleway right -of -way and said she is uncertain the intent is beneficial to the people who live and own properties along the corridor, as they will be damaged financially by the downzoning of property; and that the intent should not be "glossed over" at this point. Mr. Connelly spoke and said that there is a difference between the comp plan and the development regulations, and what Council should be looking at here is whether you agree with the words, specifically "enhance development potential and value of properties;" and once Council deliberates on the development regulations, Council can determine if the development regulations actually meet this goal and then act accordingly. Councilmember Dempsey voiced her continued concern that if she agrees with this now, later when Council gets to the other part, she will be reminded she already agreed to iL Mayor Munson said what she would be agreeing to is, do we want to Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 10 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 enhance the development potential and value of the properties; and the question once we get into the other books, is does the plan achieve those goals. Councilmember Taylor added that now we are only looking at the intent of this. Mayor Munson asked if Councilmember Dempsey has a problem with taking action that would enhance the development potential and value of the properties, and Councilmember Dempsey stated she does not. Councilmember Taylor stated, and Mayor Munson agreed, that there will be ample opportunities to discuss how the development regulations in Book II would work to implement this statement. Council agreed with Intention #5. #6 Support the continued growth and success of Auto Row as the region's premier destination for Auto Sales. Council agreed with Intention #6. #7 Balance mobility and access, vehicular and pedestrian functionality along the Corridor. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that this is called out in the comprehensive plan to balance the transportation system and not placing cars as the most important thing over all else; but places the importance on places for people to walk, take the bus, bike, multi - modal, and have a complete system of transportation. Councilmember Taylor mentioned state law regarding concurrency, which is extremely dependent upon the automobile and levels of services at intersections, and said that this bring into mind some significant changes that might have to occur to levels of concurrency along the Sprague corridor, in that pedestrian mobility could be placed at an equal or higher level then the automobile, and there could be a conflict as State law states if you don't have the vehicular capacity, you need to deny development unless you drop levels of services. Mr. Kuhta continued that discussion by stating if we had shown in our analysis that the proposed street transportation network were dropping levels of service below our standards, we would need to have a different system, but they are more than meeting the proposed plan for streets and our adopted levels of service, and in fact, it would be the envy of most west -side communities to have these levels of services which are projected in the Plan; and that the Growth Management plan calls for multi - modal policies in comp plans; and that our levels of service are measured in intersections; and we could look at measure of service such as travel corridor time rather than just how long it takes to get through one intersection; which will be further discussed when Book III is discussed. Councilmember Taylor acknowledged that this discussion will be forthcoming when Book III is discussed, but he mentioned that Council is making some different value statements regarding what the priority along the Corridor will be; and said that we have to be willing to have a development that is more pedestrian friendly, it will conflict with the standard automobile use; and if you don't want to deny the future corridor development, we may be forced to reduce levels of services, much like what occurred in Bellevue, Seattle and other cities. Mr. Kuhta said he is not aware we are necessarily creating better environments for bikes and pedestrians, unless taking away travel lanes and capacity at intersections has affected levels of service for cars, which can be examined, but the first sentence under the intent is to "coordinate public and private investments to insure that sufficient vehicular capacity is provided along with [emphasis added] sufficient accessibility for corridor - fronting development ,and that the needs of the automobile are met within a context of pedestrian comfort." Mayor Munson asked for an explanation of the last sentence under #7, i.e.: "Define a framework for the implementation of street improvements geared to the requirements of fronting development for each segment of the Corridor." Mr. Kuhta said the regulations call for frontage improvements for development for properties fronting these streets; so this is saying that we will define what the requirements are for those frontage improvements later on in the development regulations; and each segment has its own rules. Councilmember Wilhite asked concerning the "fronting development and the corridor fronting development," whether that means in particular that in corridor segments everything has to be front facing. Mr. Kuhta said the plan does call for buildings to orient towards streets, so it would be fronting the street. Council agreed with Intention #7. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 11 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 #8 Incorporate transit planning into the vision for the Corridor. Councilmember Taylor voiced his agreement with this statement, and added that this is important in understanding that this is not a "zero -sum" game where as different uses and zones come into play along the corridor, and in looking at today's market one might assume they are being downzoned, but in reality, and in looking at the idea of establishing better transit capacity, that then makes uses that might not be as marketable now, more valuable as residential, multi -use, various neighborhood commercial uses can be placed in these areas and therefore the land values rise; so this is avalue- enhanced tactic that can help increase the corridor's value. Council agreed with Intention #8. #9 Create a framework for sustainable development. Mr. Kuhta mentioned there are many components included in "sustainable development" and can range from providing more of a complete transportation system to allow for multi -modal such as walking and biking, to individual buildings and "green" buildings, adding that there is nothing contained herein to require that a building must be "green." Mayor Munson brought up the previous discussion concerning providing incentives to those who develop along the corridor, and asked where that might be addressed in Book IL Mr. Kuhta said the plan does not call for specific requirements for green buildings, and said Council can discuss how incentives can be incorporated into the plan; that the idea to create incentives to build specific buildings types is not a part of this plan, this encourages green buildings but does not mandate having green buildings nor state how that might or should be accomplished; and cities across the nation are examining ways to incorporate sustainable practices and how to incorporate that into the daily lives of city government and into regulations; but this is merely a very small first step to suggest examining sustainable framework for future development. Mayor Munson responded therefore, that we don't want to remove the possibility of being able to develop those regulations later; and Mr. Kuhta concurred. Council agreed with Intention #9. #10 Establish a planning framework that builds on and reflects the unique character of the City and Region. Mr. Kuhta said we received comments about how we are just trying to make this into a Bellevue or San Francisco; but that is not the intent of this document and has never been the intent of this plan; the type of development envisioned is different, but we want it to reflect what Spokane Valley is, and that is definitely the intent of this plan and this goal. Mayor Munson remarked that we are a city of almost 89,000 residents; we have approximately 44,000 households, over 5,000 registered businesses, that we are not a bedroom community and have not been such for a long time; and this is one of the reasons we incorporated; and he said we should start acting like a city and not a bedroom community. Councilmember Wilhite said there are several architectural styles within the city, and she is not sure there is any style unique to the Spokane Metropolitan region. Mr. Kuhta said the urban design experts asked him if he could articulate what the architectural style of Spokane Valley is, and he had difficulty in coming up with a definitive answer; although he mentioned some of the more prevalent materials of the area; and said this will be discussed more under the architectural guidelines section. Council agreed with Intention #10. Mayor Munson suggested Council continue discussion/deliberation of Book I to next session, and combine that with the beginning of Book IL It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded, and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting an additional five minutes. Mr. Kuhta asked if Council would like staff to start looking at some alternatives for the implementation of this plan; that we have received numerous questions concerning applicability, and whether the plan should be phased. There was Council consensus to look at alternatives. Councilmember Taylor added that he would not like to put alternatives before discussions, that initial discussions and staff presentations concerning public comments would be prudent; and that in discussing this plan, if Council does not feel comfortable with the plan's adoption, and would like to put in or enact a significant alternative or amendment, it should be done then rather than Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 12 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 at the beginning. Mr. Kuhta said they will work on that on the side and will continue with the schedule, and when Council feels comfortable in discussing options, those options will be brought forward. Mayor Munson said Council has considered the need for extra meetings, that having alternatives is important, and that timing in getting this completed is not as important as making sure it is done correctly. Council concurred. 6. Advance Agenda Additions —Mayor Munson. In the interest of time, this agenda item was not discussed. 7. Information Only: (a) Preliminary Legislative Agenda and Use of Lobbyist, (b) Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Request for Release of Funds, and (c) Records Management/Document Imaging were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 8. Council Check — in —Mayor Munson In the interest of time, this agenda item was not discussed. 9. City Manager Comments —Dave Mercier In the interest of time, this agenda item was not discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acquisition; Labor Relations It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately forty minutes to discuss land acquisition and labor relations; and that no action would be taken afterwards. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:34 p.m. Mayor Munson declared council out of executive session at 10:12 p.m. It was moved by Mayor Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk i_�` Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 13 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Addendum A With Council agreed changes (shown in track change format) City of Spokane Valley -Study Session Agenda September 2 nd 2008 -Law Enforcement Assessment ♦ Introduction — Facilitator's role, background, procedures for reaching consensus ♦ Desired outcome: Gather and review operating data as a precursor to further decision making 1. Goals for a study: 1) Determine a scope of services for assisting the City in renegotiating a Law Enforcement Contract with Spokane County Sheriff 2) Draft a scope of services for performing an alternatives analysis whereby the City has option to establish an independent Police Department. Tasks to undertake: i. Perform an analysis of crime trends, identify strengths and weaknesses, opportunities or threats ii. Identify strategic objectives for Spokane Valley law enforcement iii. Perform a tactical analysis of crime statistics, trends and recommended best deployment of resources in response. iv. Identify current baseline performance (benchmarking) so service levels cam be determined and performance measures can be established. v. Others? Review of the positive and negative ramifications of renewing our contract with the Sheriff's Department Areas of inquiry or interest (random order). Any corporate additions or deletions? 1) Calls for service based deployment. (workloadZ 2) Command and control authority. 3) Risk management. 4) Liability. 5) Performance measures. 6) Staffing levels -right sizing. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 14 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 7) Work schedules. 8) Facilities needs and capacity. 9) Fleet needs and capacity. 10) Communications equipment service. 11) Sustainable funding. 12) Financial impacts- budgetary considerations - contract escalation. 13) Grant opportunities. 14) Cost efficiencies. 15) Specialty squads 16) SCOPE or similar volunteer program. 17) Property crimes - allocation of resources. 18) Dispatch services and priorities. 19) Multiple vehicle response to scenes. 20) Release of extra on -scene units. 21) Community oriented policing. 22) Internal affairs. 23) Handling citizens complaints. 24) Ethics. 25) Hiring Practices. 26) Regional services (specialties) 27) Standards /certifications (WSPA, CCLEA etc.) 28) Training Study Session Meeting Minutes: 09 -02 -08 Page 15 of 17 Approved by Council: 09 -23 -08 Sr ubr S .5S,oij - LAw) S4wPoecsm,r Assrasivarivrar + CYM •Trends (pie � atosectve& Tac+ts OA.'L,SS 0)1( * B�se1w •(6.wchs*uiciw,) c * �fken? • Rweiu + - m R did • dixftwt POD ACAS ALL olc?