Loading...
2007, 06-26 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 118 meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 26, 2007 City Staff: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Rec Director Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Deputy Mayor Taylor gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember DeVleming. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember DeVleming from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: After City Manager Mercier's suggestion to amend the agenda to consider a question of acquiring a tax parcel, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to amend the agenda to add item #5a, a motion consideration to acquire mineral rights to a particular tax title parcel. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended a Solid Waste meeting the first of the month; and that in the City Hall offices, there is an amended comprehensive plan "highlights" and he encouraged Councilmembers to look at the high points or hot spots; that he also attended an SRTC meeting a few weeks ago; and attended the "Relay for Life" cancer walk at the East Valley Field. Councilmember Denenny: said that he attended several Health District Budget meetings; and an STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting where they are reviewing RFP's (request for proposal) for a director. Deputy Mayor Taylor: explained that he attended Spokane City's Council meeting last night; and two weeks ago attended the monthly Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting, and that it appears tourism is doing well in the area. Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 06 -01 -07 11835 —11874 $276,647.22 06 -07 -07 11875 —11937 $201,188.43 06 -13 -07 11938 —12006 $1,579,023.29 GRAND TOTAL $1,876,858.94 Councilmember Gothmann: stated that he attended the recent joint Council /Board of County Commissioner's meeting; and attended a Weed and Seed subcommittee meeting where they discussed forming an Edgeclift Neighborhood Center at Pratt School, which facility could house various programs and training sessions. Councilmember Munson: reported that he also attended the joint meeting with the County Commissioners, where the Commissioners were asked to come up with a list of capital projects that the County and the City will be looking at for the next several years rather than have various bond issues and sales taxes here and there; that at the STA Board meeting he attended, the 3 /10 of a sales tax increase was discussed, and at that meeting he made a motion to place on their September docket, a motion that would recommend a one -tenth of one cent reduction in sales tax for STA for one year; that he also attended a GMA (Growth Management Association) Ad hoc and steering committee meeting last week, where they are working to come up with County -wide planning policy changes. Councilmember Munson also mentioned that he attended an AWC (Association of Washington Cities) annual meeting in Tacoma and was honored by the group to be elected president. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Joint Council /County meeting; attended a reception for retiring Pastor Ian Robertson; a Washington Roundtable Business Leaders meeting in Spokane; the GMA meeting; a Washington State University Advisory meeting; and the Greater Spokane, Inc. meeting, where they thanked us for participating in the site selector program. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Joe Schutz, 2706 South Early Dawn Lane, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning the issue of panhandling and aggressive begging, and in particular "illegal solicitation by pedestrians of automobile occupants," some of which, he explained is being done by volunteers for charitable purposes; and that he feels these actions are illegal, a nuisance, and a traffic and safety hazard. He mentioned the previous correspondence given to Council via the City Clerk, and said he was disappointed that he has not been provided any answers for the reasons for non - enforcement of the statutory requirements. Mr. Schutz also handed the Clerk a copy of his written comments given at tonight's meeting. Mayor Wilhite indicated staff will read the material and contact him regarding his concerns. No other public comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: b. Payroll for Period Ending June 15, 2007: $183,371.87 c. Minutes of May 29, 2007 Special Study Session Council Meeting d. Minutes of June 2, 2007 Special Council /Staff Retreat e. Minutes of June 5, 2007 Special Council Meeting f. Additions to Financial Management Policies Mayor Wilhite asked that item 1F be removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed separately. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent agenda as amended with the exclusion of Item F. Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Page 2 of 7 1F: Additional to Financial Management Policies Finance Director Thompson explained that he asked that this item be included on the agenda to address the issue of accounts payable and payroll approval, which is sought generally every two weeks. Mayor Wilhite added that she feels it helpful to have an additional review, rather than just the Mayor, which means having two signatures rather than one as sign off for these matters; and for those rare occasions when a check must be disbursed immediately, staff could call ahead for approval. There was discussion on the wording of a motion or to send this back to staff for further refinement. Councilmember Munson recommended this policy proceed as all councilmembers have the opportunity to review documents on claim vouchers, and have the opportunity to ask questions of staff. Councilmember Munson also stated that as Councilmember DeVleming is absent tonight, he (Mr. Munson) felt that Councilmember DeVleming wanted to streamline the process by having just the one signature; but that Councilmember Munson said he feels this is an important oversight function of council. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously approved to authorize the distribution of funds by the City with appropriate signatures, and for time sensitive invoices when council signatures are not available. To reiterate, Mr. Thompson said the process is that departments approve invoices, they go to finance and the Mayor for review, then to a second elected official for review; and if the check is time sensitive, it will be released. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously approved to adopt the attached financial management policies sections F -2 and F -3. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Finance Ordinance # 07 -011 Amending Credit Card Limits — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to advance Ordinance 07 -011 amending the Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 2.65.020 to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained the three proposed changes: one additional "whereas" clause; to change the limit from $3,000 to $5,000; and use the correct name of the form used to report credit card charges. Mayor Wilhite invited Public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution 07- 008 Adopting 2008 -2013 Transportation Improvement Plan — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to adopt the 2008 -2013 six -year transportation improvement plan as presented. Mr. Worley explained that this is the annual TIP for the next six years; and that there are a few minor changes from what was presented at the public hearing, which changes are noted on his June 26, 2007 Request for Council Action form. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 1066 E Empire: said he was disappointed with the delay of the Mansfield project; that there are too many lights on Pines and traffic is awful; that the project needs to be done, to which Mr. Worley responded that we are still working on obtaining the property right -of -way. Mr. Lazanis also mentioned that from Trent to Williams north, there is irrigation blocking the view and that it is a hazard. Mayor Wilhite suggested Mr. Lazanis complete the form and leave with staff so that staff will have the address of the area in question and can research that issue. No other public comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Pool Concepts — Mike Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to accept the design concepts for Park Road, Terrace View, and Valley Mission swimming pools as presented in the report. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson said the goal is to have the new features complete when the pools open next summer, and added that the existing pool shells will remain. There was some discussion on budget impacts, and what needed improvements. Mr. Jackson said that each of the pools will receive improvements to the bathhouses such as improving accessibility in order to bring them into compliance with current codes; and Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 that there will be options included in the bidding process, and when Council reviews the bids, Council can determine at that time whether to include those optional items. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Austin Appeal Findings of Fact and Decision — Mike Connelly Councilmember Munson brought up a point of order concerning this item; and City Attorney Connelly explained that Councilmembers Munson and Schimmels have recused themselves from this issue and will not participate in the discussion or the vote. City Attorney Connelly said that the document is drafted as per the Council discussions at last week's council meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, to approve Resolution 07 -010 adopting the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision. Councilmember Denenny mentioned the scrivener's errors in #2 and #4, and Attorney Connelly acknowledged that staff has already changed those on the final document for signature; which final document will note which councilmembers have recused themselves or are absent. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. [ Councilmembers Schimmels and Munson recused themselves.] Motion passed. ADDED ITEM 5a - Motion Consideration to Acquire Mineral Rights It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to acquire the mineral rights related to tax title parcel 45207.0726 for back taxes of $18.00; and associated transfer fees and to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the transaction documents. City Manager Mercier explained that the County has offered this transfer to jurisdictions prior to putting the area up for auction; and that we were just notified late this afternoon of this parcel between Willow and Farr; and that the Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to take up the matter at their July 10 meeting, therefore this is the last Council meeting prior to that County meeting. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Regional Transportation Concurrency — Glenn Miles Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) General Manager Glenn Miles went through his PowerPoint presentation addressing regional transportation concurrency. He explained that local jurisdictions have the responsibility to ensure transportation concurrency with development; and the SRTC has to ensure from a regional standpoint, that the regional transportation system meets concurrency; that the definition of transportation concurrency is "the statutory requirement to ensure the necessary transportation investments to maintain an acceptable level of service are constructed or implemented along with growth and development," given that there are a number of years in which to make that happen, and that it makes sure our transportation system maintains a certain level of service. He further explained that the SRTC Board, which is comprised of elected officials from this area, asked them to develop an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a regionally based transportation concurrency system in all or a portion of Spokane County; recognizing that some of the more rural areas would not necessarily need to be a part of that, but certainly it would include the metro area and that a consultant was hired to complete the study. Mr. Miles said that through a series of technical memos throughout the year, they explained what they are trying to accomplish. In looking at the mix of transportation choices people have, Mr. Miles said that multi -modal is defined as where you look at several different modes of transportation rather than a single mode of transportation; a multi - modal in the Puget Sound region could include single occupant vehicles, HOV (high occupancy vehicles) lanes, and public transportation such as buses and light rail. Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Mr. Miles also explained the legal assessment of what would be required as per the Washington State statues and regulations to provide sufficient bases for a regional concurrency system; and that since there is no joint regional authority provided in the statutes, an interlocal agreement among jurisdictions and agencies would be required; and that agreement would include the process of parties' participation and the process in determining the nexus and proportionality test to ensure a "fair share' in the implementation of a program of regionally significant projects crossing jurisdictional boundaries. In response to Mr. Mercier's question about cities charging the same rates for traffic impact fees were there to be an interlocal agreement, Mr. Miles said that currency is not a traffic impact fee; that a traffic impact fee deals with growth and development to help meet the needs to address a particular program or projects; and that concurrency is the benchmark to determine if the level of service requirement has been met; but how that is achieved brings into account the different ways of raising revenue to meet those concurrency requirements. Mr. Miles also said that there are current deficiencies in the Spokane Valley's transportation system now, which is the public's responsibility to fix; and that it is the growth and development's partial responsibility under concurrency to make sure that it doesn't fall back in the future once that problem is fixed. Mr. Mercier asked that if this then means that all of the current deficits in our transportation system represent a concurrency problem which would be the public's responsibility to address; to which Mr. Miles agreed; but Councilmember Munson expressed concern on how to accomplish that. Attorney Connelly suggested that one way to capture that would be an impact fee by way of building permits as opposed to subdivision development. Mr. Miles added in response to Councilmember Munson's concerns about previous mitigation fees required for certain projects; that that would be an acceptable means to address concurrency as it was done as part of a project approval; so when dealing with platting a subdivision, there are likely conditions put on that plat for approval, and that's when you're trying to make the capital improvements necessary in order to mitigate that future development; but dealing with in -fill is different from platting a new subdivision. Mr. Miles continued by explaining his slides on the different "tech memos." Mr. Mercier asked that if the new legislation provides for concurrency with state highways, does that mean it sets the stage for the prospect that individual city jurisdictions will have to meet their regional concurrency needs before their individual jurisdictional needs? Mr. Miles said that both would have to be met. Mr. Mercier continued by asking that if we have a concurrency system that has to balance the state system needs with our own need, would that mean it would likely change the projects on the six -year transportation improvement plan? Mr. Miles said it could change depending on how successful we are in partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation in being able to get funding at the state level for some of the state projects. Even if state funding were successful, Mr. Mercier stated that the City would still have to come up with its share of the project, and depending on when the state project was scheduled, it might require cities with limited resources, to direct funds towards those projects; to which Mr. Miles concurred. Mr. Mercier said that this could mean that this city's agenda for transportation improvements comes out of this Council's hand for control because we may have a commitment to direct funding for projects that are calendared based on state funding and allocation of costs to the City; rather than what might be the operational goals of the community. Mr. Miles added that sometimes between jurisdictions where one jurisdiction adopts a land use and plans to put in a transportation system that aims toward the city, that growth and development occurs and the City of Spokane Valley says that we don't have the transportation system to accept all of your traffic, and therefore the City would be in a position of saying that until we address these projects across jurisdictional lines, there is a question of whether they could demonstrate concurrency at the regional level because that impact crosses jurisdictional boundaries. At the end of the PowerPoint presentation, after going over the recommendations, Mr. Miles said that a significant finding is that to make a regional transportation concurrency management system work, it requires each agency to share some of their control and authority in order to achieve something that has a greater good for the community; and that presentations are being made to local jurisdictions to determine if the will is there to create such a system. If the will is not there, he explained, the feasibility study is Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 complete and the status quo will be maintained until the legislature addresses this problem; but if there is a collective will, the SRTC Board has agreed to move toward working on the short -term priorities with the local jurisdictions. Mr. Miles asked Council: "is there an interest to support a regional transportation concurrency system ?" and he said he does not expect or need an answer tonight. Discussion included the regional concurrency committee defining concurrency within the entire metro area for regionally significant roadways, and that some would be within the City of Spokane Valley; that regional state concurrency requirements are defined by state statute; only those agencies signing the interlocal agreement would be party to that effort; that Spokane Valley's 20 -year transportation plan must identify transportation concurrency needs at a regional level, and the implementation of that plan is at the City's discretion. Mr. Miles said that the consultant feels that the current system has several concerns; that there have been some incidents where some agencies' needs are not being addressed, and they take the problem to the growth management hearing board and challenge the adjacent jurisdictions for not meeting concurrency. This proposal is an attempt to collaborate to identify and address those issues early so that everyone works together to solve the problems rather than take those matters to the hearing board or court. Mr. Mercier said that it appears there is a sequence problem in that the short term priorities are significant topics to be addressed; and he feels it would be difficult to answer the question of "is there an interest to support a regional transportation concurrency system" until the short term priorities have been sorted through; so if the question were "is there an interest to support further assessment of a regional transportation concurrency system which would allow committee formation to deal with the short term priorities," that might be easier to consider. Mr. Miles said what they are trying to address is that they don't want to spend limited public resources to go through developing the committee and various options, if a jurisdiction says they are not interested. Mr. Miles said they are not asking local jurisdictions and officials to make a definitive statement if they are "in," but are they "in" enough to go to the next step to see if we can make system work. In response to Mr. Mercier's question about how many communities are needed to move forward, Mr. Miles said such decision would be made by the SRTC Board; but if the major jurisdictions are not interested, he said he would not recommend moving forward; but his Board would like the opportunity to try to fix concurrency at the regional level before the State moves forward with any mandates. Mr. Miles also stated that they would need agencies' answer to the question of interest, by August or September. Councilmember Denenny said he is interested in starting a level of interest. Councilmember Munson said there has been some progress made in joint planning, that he would like to have at least an idea of how long it will take to complete the study; and that he doesn't want to jeopardize the current progress made while this system works its way through to completion; and based on reluctance by municipalities to move forward on joint planning, he'd hate to see current negotiations stopped while we wait to see what happens with this system; and that the SRTC study should be done concurrently with current negotiations. Mr. Miles said he would not support stopping everything until the study is completed; but if people look at this study as a good -faith effort to try to get to the next step and work forward ratification of those joint planning area agreements, then it is a concurrent process and something that he would support. INFORMATION ONLY: Item 7, Comcast Cable Franchise Continuation, and Item 8, Departments Reports were for information only and not reported on or discussed. EXECUTIVE SESSION: n/a Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ATTEST: ainbridge, City Clerk U.-uwk W%t( Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 06 -26 -07 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 RECEIVED U�v J 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLIBV PRESENTATION BY JOE SCHUTZ TO THE SPORktigVALLEY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 26, 2007, REGARDING THE "ILLEGAL SOLICITATION BY PEDESTRIANS OF AUTOMOBILE OCCUPANTS" My name is Joe Schutz. My address is 2706 South Early Dawn Lane, Spokane Valley, Washington. Madam Mayor, Distinguished Council Member's and fellow citizens: I am aware the City of Spokane Valley and their Attorney are presently discussing the issues of panhandling, aggressive begging, etc., in general. 1 am here, however, to address a very specific area within panhandling, namely, ILLEGAL SOLICITATION BY PEDESTRIAN'S OF AUTOMOBILE OCCUPANTS. Some of this solication is being done by volunteers for charitable purposes. -While the volunteers are representing worthy causes and should be commended for their efforts, it is the method being utilized which 1 allege is not only patently illegal, but in addition to being a nuisance, is an overall traffic and safety hazard for anyone in proximity. I am not an attorney and have never taken a class at law school; therefore, legally everything I say here is my lay opinion. No legal advise is implied or intended. There are currently adequate Washington State laws that are very clear and well defined that if enforced, would alleviate if not eliminate, the majority of our panhandling problems. The problem is that despite legal requirements, the laws are not being enforced by either our City Police Department or the County Sheriffs Office. I believe an unbiased review of the material submitted to the City of Spokane Valley Clerk on May 29, 2007, would support this view. Said material also contains (3) three letters to the Spokane County Commissioner's Office, (2) two letters to the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, and (2) letters to the Spokane Sheriff's Office. Letters of response, or lack thereof, from the contacted agencies are also included. I feel I have exhausted my local remedies for compliance and am very disappointed that I have not been provided authoritative answers for the reason or reasons for non- enforcement of mandated statutory requirements. Despite argument to the contrary, an effective ordinance that prohibits illegal solicitation from occupants of automobiles CAN be achieved and at the same time protect First Amendment Rights. This is evidenced by review of the (39) thirty -nine ordinances in effect throughout the United States. Please note that all the citations in RCW Title 46 Chapter 46.61 regarding vehicle and pedestrian traffic regulations are Infractions. Notwithstanding the fact they are all "SHALL" statutes, and should be mandatory and not discretionary, it is nevertheless left to the discretion of the observing officer as to whether or not to enforce the statutory mandate. There are (2) two additional statutes in RCW Chapter 9.66, Public Nuisance, that are distinguishable from the above in that they are MISDEMEANORS. It is my understanding 4. that if violation or Nse statutes are observed, it is no longer discretionary. ' • legally mandatory, that t,.,, officer take corrective action. Do to time restraints I an. ..,t able to discuss these statutes in detail, but they are contained in the material previously submitted to the City Clerk. The state of Washington currently has (6) six cities with Panhandling Ordinances. Five (5) of these cities have classified violations of these ordinances as MISDEMEANORS, thereby requiring their enforcement. I would encourage you to review the material submitted for an appreciation that necessary action must be taken to protect the City of Spokane Valley from possible future monetary damages. On April 29, 2007, I had an invited telephone conversation with (1) one of the (2) two Under - sheriffs for the Spokane County Sheriffs Department. The conversation regarded a fundraising effort, using the aforementioned method of collection, which had taken place the previous Saturday at the intersection of Sullivan and Broadway in the City of Spokane Valley. This type of collection, that I allege to be illegal, was initiated approximately (52) fifty - two years ago by firefighter's in their "Fill the Boot' campaign. I feel this type of collection will continue to proliferate, by other than firefighter's, if corrective action is not taken. The conversation was pleasant, but the Under - sheriff made it very clear that his Department had no intention of enforcing present Washington State laws regarding this issue. This, I allege, is gross nonfeasance of Public Office and disregard of Govemmental responsibility. He stated that the only way the Sheriffs Office would comply to the existing law would be if the City of Spokane Valley were to pass an ordinance that would compel them to do so. He opined that it was his experience and belief' that the guilty parties were the Contributors in the automobiles and NOT the Solicitors in the streets. In "No Way" was he going to instruct his deputies to cite everyone making donations. With the mindset of this Under - sheriff clear, I stated that I was in total disagreement and thanked him for his time. The conversation lasted approximately (15) fifteen minutes. I would also like to thank YOU for your TIME, for listening to what I had to say, and having this public forum in which I could express my lay opinions regarding this issue. Thank -You very much.