Loading...
2005, 08-23 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 73 meeting Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 23, 2005 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Cal Walker, Police Chief Steve Worley, Senior Engineer "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor David Johnson, Valley United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the agenda as submitted. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember DeVleming: other than the usual meetings, he had no report. Councilmember Flanigan: reported that he toured the impressive new CenterPlace building; and he participated and assisted in the Spokane Valley Museum's grand opening. Councilmember Denenny: mentioned that he attended the Spokane Regional Health Board meeting; and mentioned as a reminder, that the meeting continues with the groups involved with the TMDL (total maximum daily load) such as the DOE (Department of Ecology) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to discuss negotiations on the TMDL sewer issue, that the meeting begins at 9 a.m. tomorrow at the Fire Training Station east of the Community College. Councilmember Schimmels: stated that he attended some Planning Commission meetings, and the Museum grand opening. Councilmember Taylor: explained that he attended the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce meeting and that they adopted their budget for next year, and the new 2005 Spokane Valley maps are available for purchase; and he too attended the Museum's grand opening. Deputy Mayor Munson: explained that he chaired the Ad Hoc Steering Committee of the GMA where they discussed numerous items, and are attempting to establish relationships with the County and other cities to determine the best way to do joint planning for the urban growth areas; that he also visited with new the Corporate Executive Officer of STA (Spokane Transit Authority) to discuss issues that might help identify non - riders' reasons for not using the transit system. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite announced she attended a luncheon to honor those women past and present who were designated "Miss Spokane Valley;" and that the first Miss Spokane Valley was in attendance; that she attended a skateboard competition at the YMCA, and that she was proud to have been Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 08 -08 -2005 7319 -7374 254,652.71 08 -12 -2005 7375 -7420 205,346.19 GRAND TOTAL $459,998.90 asked to, and did read a letter of congratulations to a young man who earned his Eagle Scout award. Mayor Wilhite then read a proclamation in celebration of the anniversary of the 19 Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, proclaiming August 26 as "Women's Equality Day." PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Ann Murphy, 420 W 20 Spokane: as President of the League of Women Voters in the Spokane area, expressed her appreciation for the Mayor reading the proclamation; and invited men and women living in the area to consider joining their organization. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 Revenues — Ken Thompson Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. and then invited Finance Director Thompson to give an overview of the 2006 revenues. Mr. Thompson explained that tonight is the first of three budget hearings, but tonight's hearing will focus on the projected 2006 revenues; and subsequent hearings will address the remainder of the budget. Mr. Thompson mentioned that some of the expenditures under tab #1 are already out -dated and new data will be forthcoming Mr. Thompson estimated a 9% decrease in the amount of property tax levy from the current year; and estimated an increase in sales tax of $1.4 million; and $150,000 increase in fine receipts. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. 2. 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. (Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.) a. Approval of the Following Vouchers: b. Approval of Payroll of August 15, 2005 of $141,116.82 c. Approval of Resolution 05 -017, Speed Zone, Ness Elementary School d. Authorization of City Manager's Signature on and Approval of Senior Citizen Association Memorandum of Understanding e. Approval of Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2005 f. Approval of Special Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2005 g. Approval of Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2005 It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed upon to waive the reading and approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Proposed Resolution 05 -018, November Ballot Measure — Chris Bainbridge City Clerk Bainbridge explained the reason for the resolution is to place a measure on the ballot as a result of the Independent Salary Commission's salary schedule for the Mayor and Council, and that the schedule was subject to referendum petition, that a petition was timely filed, but City staff was informed that the elections office was not able to verify the sufficiency of the petition and the number of valid signatures within the time necessary to place such measure on the November, 2004 ballot, and that the matter would be placed on the November 2005 ballot; and that subsequently, the City was informed that the petition did met the sufficiency provisions, including the number of valid signatures. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution 05 -018. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Council Sets Preliminary Budget Hearings — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that another requirement in the State budget law is for Council to formally set the dates for the budget hearings; and that staff recommends dates of September 27 and October 11, 2005. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to set the public hearings for consideration of the 2006 budget, for September 27, 2005 and October 11, 2005. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Appeal APP 04 -05 — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained the background leading to this appeal, as per his August 23, 2005 Request for Council Action Form; that Progress Properties filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Viljanen's appeal stating the appeal did not meet the requirements adopted by ordinance. Mr. Driskell explained that each party shall have five minutes to present their arguments, with the moving party Progress Properties going first. After considering the arguments, if Council determined the motion should be granted, Mr. Driskell said that would end the appeal for Ms. Viljanen, her remaining remedy would be to appeal the matter to the Superior Court, and Mr. Driskell said he would draft the appropriate order to bring back to Council within a week or two. By contrast, Mr. Driskell explained that if Council determined the appeal requirements were met, Council would need to set a hearing date to allow argument of the merits of the underlying appeal. It was determined Mr. Driskell would be the timekeeper for the five minute orations. Mark Roecks, 103 N Locust Road, Spokane, Washington, 99206: Mr. Roecks said he speaks tonight as legal counsel for Progress Properties, LP; that on May 12, 2005 public testimony was taken on the rezone application; a determination was made, which was appealed July 5, 2005 by the appellant. Mr. Roecks said that on July 19, 2005, Progress Properties filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal; that Spokane Valley Municipal Code 10.35.150 provides certain things that must be contained in an appeal, and "that such written appeal shall allege specific errors of law or fact, specific procedural errors or errors in the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or developer regulation; upon written appeal being filed within the time allotted and upon payment of fees as required, a hearing will be held in accord with the appeal procedures adopted by the City Council." Mr. Roecks stated he quoted from Municipal Code 10.35.150 that was in place at the time this appeal was filed July 5, 2005. Mr. Roecks stated that thereafter, a more comprehensive statute was adopted by the City of Spokane Valley, essentially saying the same thing, "a separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed" (again he stated, this was referring to what an appeal must contain); and "a separate and concise statement of fact upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error." Mr. Roecks stated that he believes a review of the appeal will show it only contains a disagreement and there are no specific allegations of any error of law or error in interpretation of any code or statute. Councilmember Denenny asked when the building is anticipated to begin; and Mr. Roecks stated that prior to this appeal being filed, the builder was in a position to start operation for the development; and this appeal has put the building on hold. Councilmember Denenny asked confirmation that if the appeal went through, it would mean another delay of approximately 45 days. Mr. Roecks stated that any more delays would be prejudicial to his client; that a review of the appeal document will show that it does not confirm with the laws of the City of Spokane Valley as to what a valid appeal should have, and is merely a statement that the appellant is unhappy with the results. Hilleri A. Viljanen, 15212 E. Valleyway: she stated that the property as recited already abuts the property of the developer party on the south side; and she stated that she wanted to clarify that she does not believe that Mr. Roecks has merit to dismiss her case at this point, and she asks Council to review that and does not necessarily need an answer tonight; she states that she is not willing to settle for minimum standards in that area, or high density zoning up to 22 units, although she realizes the developer is looking at 16 Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 units. Ms. Viljanen said that she may have to take this to the legislature and perhaps change some laws; that she desires the developer make a community center or mini -park or some other type of development, of which she stated she and other neighbors would approve as was cited in their May 12, 2005 public meeting. She said that if the letters contained in the record are read, they all oppose that particular development in that area; that most neighbors are willing to look at green space, or a park or community center and wants anything but high density; and she stated that if any type of development goes in the housing area, she prefers it to be less density. She stated she understands people need to make money but not at the expense of the neighborhood or future generations; that she has no objections to improving the look of older areas, but not simply "for the bottom line." Ms. Viljanen stated that she understands the new city has many issues to consider, but those living in the area are opposed to housing high density development in the area. She further stated that in citing a particular article that appeared Saturday, July 9 in the local paper by Andrian Borjeous, several issues were brought up on this issue, and she read the following from that article: "the urban area denuded and developed at local communities' expense; rules of the game aren't in the community's best interest." Mr. Viljanen said that legal notices in the newspaper are too small to read, and zoning changes do occur but most don't ever see them. She further stated that the community would have responded in the ten -day period if they would have known to appeal — and that was her case; she stated that the ten -day period probably went and she did not know to appeal; all that in response to Mr. Roecks' statement that she did not adhere to some timelines. Mr. Viljanen said she is not interested in timelines but is interested in what will happen to the neighborhood in the long- range. She also stated that citizen's testimonies are less credible than the professionals; and that she speaks for the community. In apparent further comment about the newspaper article, she stated that residents in that area (Ponderosa) for long periods of time became irrelevant in their decisions about what they wanted or needed; it is time that governmental officials recognize the will of all citizens; although she stated she realizes Council cannot address everyone's need. She further stated that residents in local communities pay the price; local government looks for more tax revenues and government and development win and the people of the neighborhood lose. Deputy City Attorney Driskell reminded Council that there has been no motion to supplement the record, and suggested the reference to the July 9 newspaper is an attempt to supplement the record, and therefore recommends Council disregard that portion. Mr. Driskell reminded Council that tonight's issue is whether the appeal document filed by Ms. Viljanen meets the requirements of the ordinance. Brief discussion took place regarding the issue Council is to decide upon, and the content of the Memorandum of Authorities. It was then moved by Councilmember Schimmels, and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to dismiss the appeal on two counts: testimony does not show specific errors and also does not show a procedural problem. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, and DeVleming. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Flanigan and Denenny. Motion passed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Motion Consideration: Community College Lease for CenterPlace - Mike Jackson Parks and Recreation Direction Jackson explained the terms of the lease, apologized for the last- minute changes but noted he just received the revised document this afternoon. Mr. Jackson brought Council attention to the minor changes as indicated by the yellow highlighted areas, adding that the parking issue can be adjusted later if necessary. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded, to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the lease between the City of Spokane Valley and the State of Washington Community Colleges of Spokane, District 17 for CenterPlace classrooms. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Evelyn Santesson, 12915 E Broadway: spoke of her concern for CenterPlace parking for the seniors, and wanted to ensure the college students don't take the places close to the senior's entrance as many seniors will be in wheel chairs and /or have difficulty walking. Mr. Jackson said this topic will be discussed with the members of the Community College so they can pass the information to their students. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7:05 p.m.; she reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Janice Cooperstein: 9716 E 45 Avenue: stated she is here as a member of the Ponderosa Community and to appeal to council to consider the recommendation and request that they appeal to the Superior Court regarding fire access and fire evacuation problems in the Ponderosa,; she said that the Hearing Examiner gave a narrow decision concerning who decided there is enough road access points despite only having the two main roads; that the ordinance says three accesses are needed based on the layout and being a high fire risk; that the Fire Department said they were not involved in the study but merely examined it; and that she wants to notify staff that many of the findings of fact do not report much of the evidence that was presented; and that she feels an environmental study should be required. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: he expanded on what Cooperstein said; stated his concern with the fire history; and that the Hearing Examiner relied on an expert but wasn't there; that there is no evidence of issues concerning watershed; and asked Council to file an appeal on this issue. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 7. Preliminary Budget — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier presented for council consideration, the City's third balanced budget; and stated that tonight he will introduce several of the major concepts reflected in the budget, several exhibits of interest, and the budget schedule. Mr. Mercier explained the budget preparation procedure including regular meetings with the Finance Committee; that this year's budget as in past years, will continue to preserve the core services since incorporation; and that the Council has defined goals for staff's attention; and Mr. Mercier mentioned and gave the highlights of those five goals: (1) draft a well- defined street masterplan with funding options; (2) initiate the first phase of the Sprague /Corridor revitalization planning effort; (3) continue monitoring the significant wastewater issues that face not only this City but the entire region; (4) spend greater attention on communicating externally and internally as we continue to refine our customer service program; and (5) make certain Council and staff are aware of new technology as it presents itself in the community, and to have the opportunity to access such technology. Mr. Mercier said the budget is comprised of a series of conservative fiscal policies; he mentioned the "paid in full" start -up loan which occurred in part because of the maintenance of such a conservative fiscal policy; that this budget proposes no new programs, that each fund maintains a positive fund balance, and he also mentioned the "green" sheets showing the most recently updated six -year financial forecast. Mr. Mercier added the budget proposes no new personnel (see chart page 75 entitled "2005 Work Force Comparison "), no new debt, and that staff constantly seeks valuable grants, such as those construction projects to be initiated in 2006 with a value of over $10 million, with $1,135,000 as the City's portion. Mr. Mercier stated that staff worked hard to present this budget in an easy to read, easy to digest format. November 15, 2005, Mr. Mercier stated, is the date anticipated to formally adopt the budget, with a series of public input opportunities prior to and including that date. 8. Spokane County Request: Barker Road Project, 8 Avenue to 32 °n Avenue — Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that we have received a request from Spokane County for participation in a project they are submitting as a TIB grant application for reconstructing Barker Road from 8 Avenue south to 32 Avenue, that this grant application is being submitted under the Transportation Partnership Program which is administered by the Transportation Improvement Board. Mr. Worley added that Spokane Valley is also preparing a TIB grant application for Barker Road from 8 Avenue to Broadway just south of I -90. Mr. Worley explained that participation for this joint project was not included in our 2006 -2011 Six Year TIP (Transportation Improvement Program), but if a city chooses to fund an unbudgeted project, it can do so by shifting resources from other funded projects, or by using contingency funds or new revenue sources. Mr. Worley stated that the County's proposal would primarily serve areas in the unincorporated county area but that development would have an impact on the capacity of Spokane Valley's roads. Initially we were informed the cost to participate as per the County's Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 request, would be $200,000, but Mr. Worley explained that the request was revised at a certain percentage of that cost. Engineer Worley said that Spokane County feels if they have multiple partners, they will likely receive funding. Council discussion included the need for joint planning; coordination between developers and the County in this particular area; the lateness of the County's request; the possibility of using contingency funds should council wish to participate; the percentage of the County's request that we contribute; the percentage amount of the County's portion; the level of service impacted on Barker Road; the potential for transportation impacts; and that we anticipate future interlocal agreements with the County to partner with us on planning for other future projects. It was Council consensus that staff approach the County to determine if they would welcome our participation at 20 %, and to bring this proposal back next week. As there was no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. ATTEST: =Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Q \A) ktiAA Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 08 -23 -05 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 09 -13 -05 It is our understanding that the t-irne to challenge this recent action expires on or, about the 16th day of September: The City of Spokane Valley has repeatedly expressed its commitment to work with the County on this and a myriad of other issues. We do not wish to enter into a protracted- litigation if it can be avoided. Accordingly, we extend to Spokane County an to immediately begin. negotiating a joint planning agreement, limited to this specific area, as an alternative to litigation. We realize that time is short but feel a good faith effort could resulfin a preliminary agreement discussing the areas of transportation impacts and development standards prior to the 16th of September. We have instructed our City Manager, Dave Mercier to engage City staff in an effort to complete such an'areenierit. Hopefully it will set the format for a more.comprehensive joint planning agreement addressing all development issues facing the City of Spokane 'Valley and Spokane County, as well as other affected jurisdictions. We await your response. ■ Mayor Diana Wilhite • • at the direction 'of the City Conn cil' Ciiy`of Spbkan Valley ' • • Sin o # Va11cy PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN—IN HI ET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY Cm Not MEETING DATE: August 23, 2005 CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ITEMS IV T INCLUDED ONTOAVG IT'SAGENDA. Please include your name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3) minutes. NAME PLEASE PRINT a TOPIC OF CONCERN ADDRESS TELEPI-IONE