Loading...
2005, 07-12 Regular Meeting MinutesAttendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 12, 2005 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 70 meeting INVOCATION: Pastor Al Hulten of the Valley Assembly of God Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led everyone in the Pledge. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the amended agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he met with the Senior Citizens Ad Hoc Committee which is working to ensure a smooth transition for the Seniors moving to CenterPlace, and that a report in that regard will be heard at next Tuesday's Council meeting. Deputy Mayor Munson: explained that the Light Rail Committee met and announced that they have made a request for the Spokane Transit Association (STA) Board to make a decision on which choice for light rail, which choice will be delayed until after the first of the year as the federal transportation agency has decided to review the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Councilmember Denenny: stated that the STA task force met and were provided with an appraisal on the Plaza, and that the article in the newspaper on this topic contained several factual errors and he encouraged people to visit STA's website; and that he also attended the impressive Fairchild AFB Change of Command. Councilmember Flanigan: reported that he attended several ribbon cuttings; attended the re- naming of the Valley Library; and that supporters continue working on fundraising for this year's Valleyfest. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the re- naming of the Spokane Valley Branch library; and she also attended the change of command at Fairchild AFB; and she attended a Steering Committee meeting discussion with an airport consultant about the new airport manager hiring at Geiger Field. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no 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. Council Meeting: 07 -12 -05 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: 07 -26 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 06 -20 -2005 7006 -7051 $1,644,211.24 06 -27 -2005 7052 -7085 $269,181.04 07 -01 -2005 7086 -7136 $106,095.23 GRAND TOTAL $2,019,487.51 (Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.) a. Approval of the Following Vouchers: b. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2005 c. Approval of Council Executive Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2005 d. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2005 Retreat e. Payroll of June 30, 2005 of $183,608.26 f. Approval of Spokane Transit Authority Funding Interlocal Agreement g. Approval of Contract for Montgomery Avenue Rehabilitation Project Bid h. Authorization of Facilitation Service Contract It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously approved to waive the reading and approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -020 Knox Avenue Street Vacation — Marina Sukup After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember DeVleming to approve Ordinance 05 -020. Community Development Director Sukup said that no changes have been made since the first reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -022, Shannon Avenue Street Vacation — Marina Sukup After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve ordinance 05 -022 with approval of Findings and a recommendation for approval of the proposed vacation subject to dedication of sufficient public right -of- way to construct a cul -de -sac to serve proponent's development, filing a record of survey which includes reservation of all utility easements, execution by the City of a Quit Claim deed to entitled property owners, and placement of monuments in accordance with the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction. Community Development Director Sukup said that there have been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -023 Amending Special Events — Mike Jackson /Cal Walker After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 05 -023, amending Chapter 5.15.050 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, to a second reading. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson explained the proposed changes as noted in the red -line version of the draft ordinance, and stated that the recommended $5.00 fee will be incorporated into the next version of the fee resolution, adding that no permit would be required for a block party unless the party were to be held in the public right -of -way as use of that right -of -way is the what starts the permit process, and merely holding a party in someone's front or back yard would not necessitate a permit. Questions to staff included the possibility of shortening the process to less than five days and the logistical problems associated with that, such as not having enough time to notify emergency agencies or allowing the person ample time to acquire the required insurance; the violation for not having a permit (a class one civil infraction); and enforcement issues. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Additional Council discussion Council Meeting: 07 -12 -05 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: 07 -26 -05 included liability and insurance issues, promoting gatherings, enforcement, holding events on public versus private property, the importance of having the knowledge of public street obstructions; risk management issues, including not presenting citizens with undue exposure to the community as a whole if there were no insurance and a claim were submitted. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming to amend the ordinance to strike the requirement for insurance except for events of 50 or more participants or for parades. The motion was not seconded and was therefore not considered. It was also mentioned that any verbal notification of permit approval should be followed up in writing. Vote on motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny and Flanigan. Opposed: Councilmembers Taylor and DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Resolution 05 -013 Authorizing 1.0 FTE Right -of -way Construction Inspector — Nina Regor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution 05 -013 authorizing one FTE right -of -way construction inspector. Deputy City Manager Regor explained the proposed resolution and previous Council action concerning the pavement cut policy and the addition of this FTE (full -time equivalent); she also discussed the additional start-up necessities and that the right -of -way fee was amended to $70 per permit to recover permitting and inspection related costs, and that this proposed FTE was included in that calculation; that it is the intent to cross -train staff so all have knowledge of the duties and functions of the building inspector and the right -of -way inspector; and it is also staff's intent to evaluate the overall workload and reports those results to Council. Councilmember DeVleming asked how many of those approximate 1200 permits per year are digging into asphalt; or pavement cut versus obstruction; and Building Official Scholtens indicated the information is not available at this time. Councilmember DeVleming said that at 1200 permits estimated, giving 30 minutes per inspection would be roughly 600 hours of the current full -time dedicated person's time to the right -of -way inspection permits; assuming 100% asphalt cuts rather than obstructions. Mr. Scholtens explained that with the new pavement cut policy, this would mean staff would perform an initial inspection, an inspection once the trench is dug, an inspection to finish the project; and at least one or perhaps two inspections to verify the warranty work; that in the old policy, we were doing an inspection while the work was being done, and then another inspection as it was completed to ensure the project was cleaned up; and that he would expect for all of the approach permits and all the obstruction permits, that they would require at least two inspections each; that staff is not currently doing that with the limited staff on board. Mr. Scholtens also felt each inspection would take approximately 30 minutes, not including travel or office time in plan review, phone calls, etc. Councilmember DeVleming stated that at 1200 permits, two inspections would equal 1200 hours annually; and asked what we are using now, 2,088 hours for inspections, which is almost 50% of that person's time. Mr. Scholtens stated that he is unsure if two inspections are adequate to cover the pavement cut policy. Mr. Scholtens continued by explaining that staff is examining establishing a GIS layer and using mobile GPS to track where the cuts are occurring, and using our notebook computers to store the as -built drawings, and then using that system to predict follow -up inspections to verify warranty; and these two people would be kept plenty busy; and again mentioned the plan of cross - training the inspectors so they are both able to perform building and /or grading permit compliance inspections. Mr. Scholtens explained that he feels the number of permits will be considerably higher than estimated as we have only been serving those with permits and not those illegally doing those cuts. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember DeVleming stated that he realizes the City is understaffed and will need help with this; but the new inspector will be needed when it comes to warranty inspections which won't happen for another few years; and he doesn't see the need for putting that person on staff now with 1200 or less permits annually; and he is uncertain if the position can be justified at this time. Councilmember Flanigan voiced his agreement about not being in a hurry, adding that the majority of council voted to support the right -of -way fee of $70 which is cost recovery fee base which includes this position. Councilmember Taylor said that he feels the workload is not there yet and would prefer to see more information, adding that he would not object to putting the needed funding in the 2006 budget if the facts warrant the position. Council Meeting: 07 -12 -05 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 07 -26 -05 Further Council discussion included concern about adding the position now, cross - training and general workload. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers Schimmels, Flanigan, DeVleming, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried to approve the resolution. 6. Motion Consideration: Consultant Services Agreement CH2M Hill, Barker Rd Bridge —Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to authorize the City Manager to execute the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreements, Scope of Work and Fee for CH2M Hill for the Barker Road Type, Size and Location Study Project. Public Works Director Kersten explained the background of the proposal and mentioned the previous council action taken; that six firms responded to the RFQ (Request for Qualifications), and staff feels CH2M Hill is the most highly qualified for this project. Mr. Kersten also mentioned that there will be no cost to the city as this project is 100% funded by a reimbursable federal grant, and not even a local match is required. Mr. Kersten said the plan is to replace the bridge in phases, with the first phase to start immediately upon approval. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Mayoral Appointment: Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) Hotel Advisory Commission — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite explained that two applications have been received for the one Hotel Advisory Commission vacancy, which vacancy is as a result of Harry Sladich's resignation as he accepted the position of President and CEO for the Spokane Regional CVB; and that she recommends appointing Jody Sander, General Manager of the Holiday Inn Express. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to confirm the appointment of Jody Sander to the Hotel Advisory Commission to fill the vacancy of Harry Sladich, with a term expiration of 3- 31 -07. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 8. Motion Consideration: Deliberation of Previous Closed Record Hearing on Appeals APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 — Cary Driskell Mayor Wilhite read the following statement: Council has considered the written record provided by the Hearing Examiner in this matter, has taken into account the written and oral arguments provided by the parties of record. After this appeal was filed, the applicant Whipple Consultant Engineering filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of sufficient specificity in identifying areas by the Hearing Examiner. While not a model of specificity, is there a consensus among the Council that this motion should be denied? The applicant Tabbert submitted a newspaper article as part of their agreement, the Council is treating that as a request to supplement the record, is there a consensus among the Council that appellant Tabbert's motion to supplement the record should be denied? We turn to the merits of the appeal by appellants Hormel and Tabbert. Based on the record and the argument by the party, is there a consensus that Council deny the appeal for failure by the applicants Hormel and Tabbert to meet the burden of proof to overturn the hearing examiner's decision? Mayor Wilhite asked if there is a consensus to deny appeal 01 -05. Deputy Mayor Munson said he found no convincing evidence to sustain the appeal. Councilmember Denenny stated that given the facts, he does not find any errors in the finding of the Hearing Examiner; Councilmember DeVleming agreed. Mayor Wilhite stated that there is consensus from the Council and asked for an oral motion to deny the appeal and direct staff to draft a written decision consistent with that oral motion. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny that we deny the appeal and instruct staff to draft a written decision consistent with that oral motion. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Meeting: 07 -12 -05 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 07 -26 -05 Mayor Wilhite read the following statement: in regard to App 02 -05, the appellant is Whipple Consulting Engineers, represented by Attorney Meg Arpin; the respondents are Hormel and Tabbert representing themselves. Council has considered the written record provided by the Hearing Examiner in this matter. We have taken into account the written and oral arguments provided by the parties of record, based on the record and arguments by the party, is there a consensus by the Council to deny applicant Whipple's appeal for failure to meet the burden of proof to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision? Deputy Mayor Munson said he feels that information given was not adequate enough to overturn the Hearing Examiner, and would deny the appeal. Councilmember Denenny agreed, stating that he believes the Findings of Fact in that specific instance on this particular segment of this finds with the Hearing Examiner. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny that we deny the appeal and instruct staff to draft a written decision consistent with our motion for APP 02 -05 Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Denenny asked to return to the previous issue on the appeal, and in the instance of the second appeal, it brought to light some information to Council; and he would like to address some specific questions. Councilmember Denenny said the issue to which he refers is the requirement on PUDs, that they come onto arterials. Mayor Wilhite said that issue will be coming on the advance agenda soon. Mr. Mercier added that staff is aware that Council constantly evaluates all of the ordinances on record, and from time to time experience suggests that Council might want to consider adapting various ordinances to accomplish the legislative intent; and in keeping Councilmember Denenny's issue in mind, when staff meets for the agenda planning meeting next Monday, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will have an opportunity to schedule any legislative consideration matters for the most appropriate upcoming meeting. Councilmember Taylor asked if the issue to be considered is specifically the PUD ordinance; and Mayor Wilhite indicated it is. Deputy Mayor Munson asked if there are three Councilmembers who wish to bring that up for discussion; Councilmembers DeVleming, Denenny, Taylor and Mayor Wilhite agreed they want the issue brought up for discussion. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 9. Student Advisory Council Update — Councilmember DeVleming Councilmember DeVleming said the proposed changes to the resolution are an attempt to clean up language on the one -year terms to reflect the change to two year terms, but leave an exception for those occasional situations where the term would be one year — as in having a senior fill the vacancy; and that the overall goal is to have the resolution and by -laws agree. It was Council consensus to place this resolution on the next Consent Agenda. As all other items on the agenda were information only items, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. ATTEST_ Diana Wilhite, Mayor Kristine Bainbridge, City Clerk COA-wv\-ek. a.t . Council Meeting: 07 -12 -05 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 07 -26 -05 S Memorandum To: City Council — Meeting July 12, 2005 From: Louis Graf, Engineer (CIP)/ � Thru: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer (CIP Date: July 12, 2005 Re: Montgomery Avenue Rehabilitation Project, Bid No. 05 -004 — Additional Information The following is a summary of project budget and costs for the above project. Project Budeet CDBG Funds (Construction) $439,850 Local Match $46,800 Total Project Budget $486,650 Project Costs (to datel Staff time (preparing plans, specifications, estimate) Geotechnical Investigation Railroad Right-of-Way Permit ,4 Shamrock Construction Bid Construction Inspection (Estimate) Total Project Cost 4 7/12 /o5 (_'�„ T A-6eJflA 1i- ids rr ?5 7 : :r r 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org $4,738.37 $2,915.00 $545.00 $417,817.65 $50.000.00 • $476,01 Remaining Budget Available $10,633.98 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 7/12/05 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Authorization of Facilitation Service Contract GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annually, the departmental budget of the Legislative Branch provides funding for facilitation services to assist the City Council in meeting its personnel related responsibilities. BACKGROUND: Stan McNutt has previously provided public employee evaluation facilitation for the City of Spokane Valley and is available for further consultation as a contract agent. OPTIONS: 1. Give the matter further thought. 2. Choose not to move forward with a facilitation services contract. 3. Authorize a facilitations services contract. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: To authorize the City Manager to execute a facilitation services contract with Stan McNutt in an amount not to exceed $3,500. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No unanticipated impact on the city budget. STAFF CONTACT: Dave Mercier and Nina Regor ATTACHMENTS None