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.