Loading...
2013, 10-03 Special MINUTES Special Spokane Valley Council Meeting Thursday, October 3, 2013 1:00 n.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa. Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks&Rec Director Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., welcomed everyone, and mentioned that there will be no citizen comments today; and he asked citizens to please hold any applause and/or emotions in check so Council can go through the items to determine whether to go forward, or to digest the information and proceed from there. Roll Call: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. AGENDA TOPICS: 1. Solid Waste—Mike Jackson,Morgan Koudelka,Eric Guth City Manager Jackson explained that at the September 4, 2013 meeting we held jointly with the Board of County Commissioners, we stated our position and preference for moving forward concerning solid waste, which is to acquire the Colbert and Valley transfer stations outright from the City of Spokane, and to send out a bid for disposal, via rail most likely, and to provide the City of Spokane an opportunity to bid on the final disposal. Mr. Jackson said our position has not changed and the primary reason for today's meeting is to discuss any other thoughts and considerations concerning solid waste, and to determine if Council desires to send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners in time for their October 8 public hearing, which letter would re-state our position as mentioned above and at the September 4 joint meeting. Mr. Jackson went through the background information as noted on his October 3, 2013 Request for Council Action form; that regarding the study by HDR, said we saw that study as more of a data center to break down the costs, and their we would analyze the information and determine the best course forward; he said that the Board of County Commissioners said they prefer the option to acquire the transfer stations at no cost, from the City of Spokane, then Spokane County would own them within seven to ten years. Mr. Jackson said that when we look at the analysis and make assumptions, we feel going through a bid process may give us a better rail haul and disposal cost then projected by the consultant; and noted that the study states that a lower cost may be obtained if parties were to bid this out.Additionally,Mr.Jackson explained that the alternative shown on the attached spreadsheets would require finding an alternative to building a new West Plains transfer station, and he said it is the new West Plains transfer station that drives up the cost of option 3A; he said even if we made assumptions of having a more competitive bid, that could include the West Plains as well as some other type of dumpsters for self-haulers in the area, and said he thinks this is worthy of investigation. Mr. Jackson talked about the cost for a new transfer station, and said we feel there is an opportunity to save about $3 million a year by pursuing option 3A versus Special Council Meeting: 10-03-2013 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: 10-22-2013 sending waste to the Waste-to-Energy Plant for the next ten years; he said his figures as shown on the spreadsheet, and assumptions are based on ten-year comparisons which are consistent with the assumptions in the Study; he stressed that this would not be a savings to the City of Spokane Valley but an opportunity for savings to the ratepayers of about $30 million over the next ten years; he said we are not saying that the Waste-to-Energy Plant is not a viable option, but we are saying we need to look hard at rail haul in conjunction with that; and said he is looking for Council to determine if Council is confident that we sent that message to the Board of County Commissioners, or does Council want to send an additional letter or additional information re-stating our position so the Board has that prior to their October 8 hearing. Mayor Towey asked if Council feels there is a need to send an additional letter prior to the Commissioner's October 8 hearing, re-stating our City's position. There was brief discussion among Councilmembers about whether to send a letter to re-emphasize Spokane Valley's position and urge the County to reconsider the other cost options, and that this is our best opportunity to save money and for us and Spokane County to work collectively on a regional process to look for the lowest cost options for all citizens. Mayor Towey asked if there were any objections from Council to send the letter, and no objections were raised. 2. Potential Regulations Regarding Public/Semi-Nudity—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the history of how this issue was brought to Council's attention; the said existing laws do not give us adequate tools to handle issues such as these; that we adopted by reference RCW 9A.88.010(1) relating to indecent exposure, but after analyzing that statute and speaking with the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, it is apparent that statute would apply to a person showing their entire breast, but would not apply to wearing pasties or G-strings. Mr. Driskell also noted Spokane County does not currently have laws that specifically regulate this conduct. Mr. Driskell explained that the city of Yakima had a similar situation a few years ago where they prosecuted some baristas for essentially this same conduct, and said they were acquitted, although the owner of that particular coffee stand in Yakima was cited for facilitating indecent exposure and was found guilty,which finding was not appealed, and he said that Yakima has specific code provisions dealing with facilitating that type of conduct. Mr. Driskell said if Spokane Valley Council wants to regulate this conduct, Council would need to adopt new regulations and if that is the case, Council would need to let staff know which direction it wants to move. Councilmembers had the following comments: Mayor Towey said he realizes there is a need to work together to solve a perceived problem, but questioned whether it is Council's responsibility to dictate morale standards and if so, in what form; he said he read all the c-mails, letters, and noted the petitions signed by 710 individuals; adding that Council also received a few threats,which he said saddens him. Mayor Towey added that it be would impossible for him to believe that any Councilmember would make a decision based on votes the would get in November instead of making a decision on the merit of an issue. He asked where do we go from here and do we follow the City of Spokane's lead; said he enjoys welcoming people into our City and is proud of who we are as a community, and would like to keep that pride, and said the questions now is how to proceed from here. Councilmember Grafos read his prepared letter which in summary asks the City Attorney to bring Council an ordinance establishing a standard of dress that applies to all employees of all licensed legally operating businesses within our city limits, and that such ordinance not affect or modify regulations in place that apply to adult only establishments; that such an ordinance not create zones of particular business types, but an ordinance to clarify what is an allowable standard of dress. He also noted the ordinance enforcement should fall under the code enforcement responsibilities and be complaint driven, with remedies ranging from fines to revocation of the business license. Special Council Meeting: 10-03-2013 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: 10-22-2013 Councilmember Hafner said he realizes our attorneys have determined that the current coffee owner isn't breaking any laws; he spoke of values and what we value as Spokane Valley citizens; and said that our values are just maybe a little bit better than most communities; and said he wants to make sure that what we come up with is correct as there are over fifty espresso stands in Spokane Valley, and he rhetorically asked what kind of a city would we be if they all went triple X; said if there is any criminal activity, law enforcement would handle that, said he feels this is a matter of compromise and hopes this Council will consider moving forward to have staff develop an ordinance that reflects our City values while retaining individual business rights. Councilmember Woodard said he agrees with Councilmembers Hafner and Grafos; that he is happy to see the concerned people, he wants to reflect our values, and said there should be a compromise to allow people to have a business but keep people on a fair competitive edge; said he sees this business as a flaunting which is quite bothering; agreed with the need to be careful as we want businesses to come here but they need to be regulated. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he doesn't recall ever seeing anything in the past like what we have here and he doesn't like it and believes we need our legal staff to see what can be worked out; he said the City of Spokane made an effort, but perhaps we can solve this problem. Councilmember Wick agreed we need to examine options to see what else can be done; that prior to this, he would have thought such conduct was illegal; and said this is an opportunity to update or change our code to evolve with the times; adding that he would like the Yakima's facilitating aspect to be included in our ordinance. Councilmember Higgins said this conduct is "certainly pushing the envelope" and while he hesitates to impose his moral standards or others, he also does not want others' moral standards imposed on him; said our laws are inadequate and should therefore be revised. City Attorney Driskell said he feels Council's direction is clear, and staff will begin drafting some policy discussions for Council's consideration; adding that we strive to regulate not based on specific conduct, but more from a general standpoint. Mayor Towey asked if there were any objections from Council to moving forward to evaluate and adjust laws accordingly. There were no objections. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m. ATTEST: ' Thomas E wey Mayor ` Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting: 10-03-2013 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: 10-22-2013 AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION Thursday, October 3, 2013 1 :00 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 WELCOME: Mayor Towey Roll Call: AGENDA TOPICS: 1. Solid Waste --Mike Jackson, Morgan Koudelka, Eric Guth 2. Potential Regulations Regarding Public/Semi-Nudity— Cary Driskell Adjourn Note: There will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions or Workshops. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take"action"on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term"action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. 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. Agenda: Special Meeting October 3,2013 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 3, 2013 Department Director Approval: QC Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information E admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.01.020 Noncharter code city; RCW 70.95--Solid Waste Management—Reduction & Recycling; RCW 70.105—Hazardous Waste Management; Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley--RE: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, expires November 16, 2014. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has been briefed on a number of occasions: On February 6, 2013, Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives; on February 26, 2013, Council discussed solid waste in detail at the Council Workshop; on August 28, 2013, Council attended the presentation of an analysis of solid waste alternatives completed by HDR; at the September 3, 2013, study session, Council discussed the HDR analysis on solid waste; and, on September 4, 2013, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives. BACKGROUND: During the September 4 joint meeting, the Spokane County Commissioners indicated they would conduct a public meeting on October 8, 2013 on the County's decision for transfer stations, solid waste transport and disposal. Today's administrative report is to review issues that were discussed between the City and County at the September 4 joint meeting and to discuss providing additional commentary to the County for consideration at the October 8 public hearing. Attached are the handouts provided to Spokane County at the September 4, joint meeting. As we discussed with the County, the City of Spokane Valley City Council and City staff believes the County and City should cooperatively look to the most economical option for our citizens. As we discussed at the joint meeting, the City believes that the most economical option is for Spokane County to purchase the Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations outright and to competitively bid for rail haul disposal, This alternative is shown in the attached spreadsheet Solid Waste Disposal Options-Spokane Valley/Spokane County under the column labeled Option 3A Purchase Colbert and SV TS No West Plains TS w/Competitive Rail Disposal, This option would also require finding an alternative to building a new West Plains transfer station. The City believes that by competitively bidding for rail hauling, this option could potentially save the citizens of Spokane County and Spokane Valley roughly $2,983,000 per year or $29,830,000 over the next ten years, as compared against disposal at the City of Spokane Waste to Energy plant under the terms currently being offered by the City of Spokane. Please note this is almost the same as Option 3A on page 26 of the HDR study with the exception of the development of a new West Plains transfer station and our assumptions for competitively bid rail haul rates, We believe an alternative to the West Plains transfer station proposed in the study can be found. This could include the construction of a lower cost facility or sending compactor trucks directly to the existing transfer stations in Spokane Valley or Colbert. The cost of fuel, drivers, extra mileage, and other associated costs are only a fraction of the cost of building and operating a new West Plains transfer station of the magnitude proposed in the HDR study. Another obvious alternative would be use of the City of Spokane Waste to Energy transfer station, but we understand the City of Spokane is reluctant to allow this. Spokane Valley's desire is to work collaboratively with the County to reach a decision as to the most economical means of solid waste disposal for our region. Based on previous discussions with County Commissioners and County Staff, it appears the County is leaning toward Option 2, to acquire the Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations for nominal cost and to send all solid waste to the City of Spokane Waste to Energy plant for a period of 7 to 10 years. However, the City of Spokane Valley does not see Option 2 as the most economical for our citizens or as a permanent solution. Under Option 2 there would be no open competitive bidding process to ensure the lowest cost for transport and disposal. There also is no commitment from the City of Spokane that the County could continue to utilize the West Plains transfer station in perpetuity. The possibility exists that we will be back having the same conversations in 7 to 10 years. The City of Spokane Valley does not interpret the study developed by HDR and jointly funded by City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and the City of Spokane as providing a definitive recommendation on transfer and disposal options. Rather, the City sees the analysis as a set of data which needs to be studied and discussed and bid competitively to determine actual cost. In fact, the study was designed to provide cost centers for transfer station operation, transport, and disposal that can be mixed and matched and configured to determine multiple possible solutions. The options in the matrix on page 26 of the HDR study are not intended to represent the only solutions. Please see the Cost Centers in Section D and E of the HDR study. There have been no meetings between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley legislative bodies or staff to jointly study and analyze the cost center results. Accepting Option 2 based merely on the cost shown in the HDR study matrix does not represent the due diligence this complex topic requires and could result in rate payers paying almost $30 million more than may be necessary over the next ten years. Regional System Reference has been made that sending waste to the Waste to Energy plant represents a "regional system."The City of Spokane Valley believes this is a misapplication of the regional concept. A true regional system would make all current solid waste system assets available to all jurisdictions for the life of those assets without restriction, allowing for a competitive process to provide the greatest benefit to all citizens of Spokane County. The existing assets have already been paid for by all users of the system, including citizens from every jurisdiction, and those citizens should not be made to pay for those assets again, whether through the purchase of transfer stations or through additional years of contribution to the City of Spokane's Waste to Energy plant. Indeed, a truly regional system, with acquisition of the Spokane Valley and Colbert transfer stations from the City of Spokane at no charge and competitively bid rail haul, would result in the absolute lowest cost to Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley rate payers, saving the County and Spokane Valley about $4 million per year or$40 million over the next ten years. The next best option is 3A as outlined by the City of Spokane Valley saving almost $30 million over the next 10 years. Conclusion The City of Spokane Valley believes that one of its primary obligations in reviewing solid waste transfer and disposal options is to provide low cost services to its citizens. We feel that the benefits from competitively bidding for rail haul disposal (potentially saving citizens $30 million over the next 10 years versus continuing to haul to Spokane's Waste to Energy plant) makes a compelling argument to explore Option 3A. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Decide whether or not to provide additional commentary to Spokane County Commissioners prior to their public hearing and decision on October 8, 2013. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Impacts are to ratepayers. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Morgan Koudelka, Erik Lamb ATTACHMENTS: Option 3A; Spreadsheet 1. Showing potential cost savings as provided to County Commissioners; Spreadsheet 2. Added "New Option" for illustrative purposes showing savings if the City and County did not have to purchase the existing transfer stations and rail haul for disposal. a 1: • CM 1A 1.. City aid County to Purchase the-aausfer s aa�ons outright_ 2. SV would purchase SV transfer stalio .— Spokane Comfy would purchase Colbert. Pad bac<-arough gate fees. 3.. Ski would be war-L of Spokane County Solid Waste Plan by Interlocal Agee .:en 4_ SV and Coy;arty would i n mediately issue RFP for transport and disposal city of Spokane VT== o d submit a bid—this meets their objective to be a vendor The Diivate sector could subTnit a bid i.e. s=similar to �e �ba�co%�i :ed bid for County connate or tcansport and disposa 5. The contract for transport and disposal would be awarded to lowest bidder. 6. Spokane County and Spokane Valley operate Coroert and Valley transer stations as a Partnership. Spokane County could issue one contract.Valley transfer station n would serve the region. 7. Work together on op-dons for West Plains 8. Provide other required services ti-z1 ° bb. Interlocal Agreement. Spreadsheet 1 Solid Waste Disposal Options -Spokane Valley/Spokane•County • Cost:Per Ton AnnualSyst-Savings,@1.57,000.terrs Option Use IDeistizwr Us�WTDposI 107 0E3tion 2 Corrected for WeSt Mains Timnsiver Station'Costs 111- Optice SA Newlistest PloincIS --.PurchesetoEbert:and SylS in/Comp. :Disposal". 1;413;000 S Optioti3A Purchase C011iertered-Sy7S, NollIrest:PIains •S• .vvi.comp.:RaDisposal2 2;933..000.. Tmnsport:and..;DiSposal'Cast reditced ftors1$60/=:to.$4S/ton:($50 folwhitrnartaxtuty.withleduction•for.fewer thon tint:Trifles-end-greater atrtor 2_Transport and'Disposal Costs reduced 20;000"West:P.lains:tonssoing to-other trzesfer.stadons. Spreadsheet 2 Option 2 Use Existing Transfer Stations (No Purchase Cost) Use WTE Diposal Option 2 Corrected for West Plains (20,000 tons to Wi'E TS) Transfer Station Costs Option 3A New West Plains TS Purchase Colbert and SV TS w/Comp.Rail Disposals Option 3A Purchase Colbert and SVTS No West Plains TS wJ Comp.Rail Disposal New Option Utilize Existing Trasnsfer Stations at No Additional Cost w%Comp.Rail Disposal Cost Per Ton Annual Syst.Savings @157,000 tons $ 107 111 $ 102 $ 92 $ 86 $ 1,473,000 2,983,000 $ 3,976,249 1. Transport and Disposal Cost reduced from$60/ton to$45/ton($50 for Whitman County with reduction for fewer short haul miles and greater container tons). 2. Transport and Disposal Costs reduced to$45/ton,20,000 West Plains tons going to other transfer stations. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 3, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Discussion regarding public nudity and semi-nudity. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: In July, City staff became aware of a coffee shop near City Hall with a name of Triple XXX Espresso that advertised lingerie baristas. Staff considered the issues of whether that name was in violation of the law since the term "Triple X" commonly denotes pornographic activity, and whether women selling coffee while wearing lingerie is prohibited. It was determined at that time that neither of these activities were illegal. Several weeks after that, staff was made aware of advertising at Triple XXX Espresso regarding "topless Tuesdays". Staff then researched whether existing City or state law prohibited such activity, and determined that it likely does not prohibit it. The Office of the City Attorney, the Police Department, and City Code Enforcement have been in communication a number of times with one of the owners of the coffee shop, but there is little for staff to enforce with current regulations. Staff researched other jurisdictions in Washington that have dealt with this issue, how those jurisdictions responded, and what the outcomes were. As the Council is aware, the City of Spokane on September 30, 2013 considered an ordinance specifically regulating this type of conduct, then voted 4-2 against adoption. Spokane County does not currently specifically regulate this conduct. The City of Yakima prosecuted various baristas for essentially this same conduct as being indecent exposure, but they were all acquitted because that law does not regulate this conduct. However, the owner of that particular coffee stand in Yakima was cited for facilitating indecent exposure, and found guilty (which was not appealed). Yakima has a specific code provision on facilitating that the court found applied. The City has adopted by reference RCW 9A.88.010(1) relating to indecent exposure. After analyzing that statute and talking with the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, it is apparent that RCW 9A.88.010(1) would apply to a person showing their entire breast, pubic region or anus in public. As such, this appears to be the standard set by state law. Staff asserts that in order to effectively regulate the conduct of wearing pasties over a woman's nipples and areolas in public, or wearing a "G-string" in public, the Council would need to adopt new regulations. If that is the Council's policy direction, staff could come back at the next study session to begin outlining what that type of regulation would look like. OPTIONS: (1) determine whether Council would like staff to begin drafting an ordinance regarding semi-nudity in public; or (2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS:n/a 10/3/2013 Mr. Mayor, I would like to have the city attorney bring to the council an ordinance establishing a standard of dress or undress that applies to all employees or contracted workers of any and all licensed legally operating businesses in the city of Spokane valley . This ordinance does not affect or modify regulations already in place that apply to adult only establishments. This ordinance would not restrict any particular type business or create clusters or zones of particular types of businesses, but only clarifies what is an allowable standard of dress or undress for businesses not classified as adult entertainment establishments. This ordinance would provide a reasonable minimum allowable community standard to which the public and in particular young children and young adults under the age of 18 years would encounter as they go about their daily activities in our city. I believe that action or inaction by the City of Spokane Valley in addressing this matter opens the door to other businesses which see this type of marketing as a way to expand their business activities. Because this ordinance would address only the limits of allowable dress or undress allowed in public view outside of a adult entertainment establishment, it would also restrict similar business activities like topless car washes or even topless food trucks from locating their businesses in the City of Spokane Valley. Responsibility for enforcement of this ordinance would fall under the code enforcement responsibilities of the Community Development Director and the city attorney. The ordinance would be complaint driven and remedies could range from fines to a revocation of a company business license if the situation is not voluntarily modified by the business owners. Lastly, I just want to make it clear that this ordinance is not my attempt to re- invent the wheel or impose my personal values on the public, but this ordinance if adopted and approved by the council merely follows the adult entertainment regulations now in place in the City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully, Dean Grafos EXISTING ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE Chapter 5.10 regulates Adult Entertainment Establishments. 5.10.080 Standards of conduct, personnel, and operation of adult entertainment establishments. A. All employees of an adult entertainment establishment must adhere to the following standards of conduct in any area in which a member of the public is allowed to be present. See subsection #1 under A. See subsection #2 under A. NEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1. All employees, or sub-contractors of any licensed business establishment operating within the City of Spokane Valley within view of the public may not be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genital. 2. An employee mingling with or within view of the public may not be unclothed or in less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (A) (1). Nor may a male employee appear with his genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered, or wear or use any device or covering that simulates the same.