Loading...
2003, 11-12 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor DeVleming welcomed everyone to the 31s official council meeting, and called the City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Richard Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Staff Present: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Tom Scholtens, Building Official Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole, Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll. MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Wednesday, November 12, 2003 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: City Manager Mercier noted two changes to the agenda: removal of item #3 to be brought back at the next regular council meeting; and adding item #7A, motion consideration regarding potential action to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to approve the agenda as amended. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Deputy Mayor Wilhite: said she spoke to individuals who came to the City looking for some sites; and that she attended a tour of one of Avista's Power Plants. Councilmember Munson: reported that he attended the Central Valley School District's linkage committee meeting, and that the reason for this committee is to examine schools in the District in all three municipalities (County, City of Spokane Valley and City of Liberty Lake), to see if there are changes warranted regarding size, location, etc. Council Minutes 11 -12 -03 Page 1 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 11 -25 -03 Councilmember Taylor: explained that the "Pizza With the Mayor" was held at Valley Christian School, and then later at East Valley High School, to discuss the upcoming youth outreach program and teen council that we want to have in the City, and that we look forward to meeting with the remaining high schools. Councilmember Schimmels: said that the joint meeting with Council and the Planning Commission was well received, and that there was good sharing of information and ideas. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming reminded everyone of the upcoming tree lighting ceremony scheduled for December 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jon Eliassen, Frank Tambari and Lane Guin all of the Economic Development Council, expressed their appreciation to the City Council for its support by including the $55,000 allocation for the EDC. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor DeVleming opened the hearing at 6:15 p.m. Finance Director Thompson stated that tonight's hearing is one of several required on the budget, and went over what has transpired thus far regarding the budget and of the remaining steps necessary to adopt the 2004 budget. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Mayor DeVleming closed the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve the consent agenda as presented. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Franchise Ordinance NO. 03 085 for One EICHTY Networks, Inc. Second Reading Removed from the agenda; to be discussed at the next regular council meeting. 4. Proposed Property Tax Ordinance No. 03 -086 Fixing Amounts to be Raised — Second Reading. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to approve Ordinance 03 -086. City Manager Mercier explained that this ordinance stimulates the first levying of taxing for the community and is based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County's assessor's office; that it is provided for in the budget to adjust downward if necessary, once final figures are received from the assessor's office. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. It was also mentioned that the tax rate is lower than the current rate. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Ordinance No. 03 -087 Adopting Commute Trip Reduction Plan for Major Employers — Second Reading. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 03 -087. Deputy City Attorney Driskell briefly discussed the ordinance and stated that there have been no changes since the first reading. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with Spokane County for Implementation of Commute Trip Reduction Plan. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Spokane Valley and the County of Spokane Council Minutes 11 -12 -03 Page 2 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 11 -25 -03 regarding the Commute Trip Reduction Program. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this is the agreement coinciding with the just approved Ordinance, and if approved, the County will continue to run the program. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Set Final 2004 Budget Hearing for November 25, 2003. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to set November 25, 2003 as the date for the final public hearing on the 2004 budget. City Manager Mercier explained that a motion is necessary to formally set the final 2004 budget hearing as provided in RCW 35A.34. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. None was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7A. Consideration Regarding Potential Action to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan that staff be authorized to appeal Liberty Lake's Comprehensive Plan to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that the purpose for this "friendly appeal" is to have additional discussions with Liberty Lake on some urban reserve areas adjacent to the border of both cities, as those discussions have not taken place, and this action would grant that we can have those discussions regarding future planning for these areas; and that it also preserves some rights for the City of Spokane Valley. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. City Manager Mercier added that he is confident we can sort through the issues and move forward. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Comprehensive Plan Parks and Open Space Element Discussion. Community Development Director Sukup explained the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which included a summary of the city parks, and non -city parks and open space. 9. Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element Discussion. Community Development Director Sukup explained the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which included interim plan goals of coordinating with utility providers, promoting co- location within corridors, promoting joint use of corridors, minimizing impact on adjacent land uses, and adopting regional utility corridor plan by reference. 10. Proposed Flood Plain Resolution and Ordinance Discussion. Community Development Director Sukup explained the background of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as contained in her November 12, 2003 backup materials; she explained that a resolution will be brought to Council at the next regular council meeting, which resolution authorizes the City Manager to apply for participation in the Program; and that an ordinance will be brought before council after appropriate public hearings are held by the Planning Commission. It was council consensus for staff to develop the ordinance and resolution as mentioned. 11. Library Service Interlocal Agreement. Deputy City Manager Regor explained that although an analysis has begun, it is not complete, and once finalized, should help the City and the District better understand Spokane Valley usage as part of the overall system. Ms. Regor added that pending that analysis completion, costs as indicated in the accompany material are equivalent to the property taxes estimated to have been paid by Spokane Valley property owners in 2003, or $2,028,000. Ms. Regor also introduced David Sani of the Spokane County Library District Board of Trustees. Mr. Sani stated he feels the library should be based similar to that of a fire district: not on the number of fires but on the availability; that he feels there are two separate issues Council Minutes 11 -12 -03 Page 3 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 11 -25 -03 (1) what should the City pay for library services and is that amount fair; and (2) what services are provided in exchange for those fees. Mr. Sani spoke of the size of the Valley Branch and of their current services, adding that many library services do not require library cards; that the City should use the same rate as others in the district, and for the City to pay less would result in residents of the remainder of the district subsidizing the City. He added that services are difficult to measure. Mr. Mercier stated that he feels additional analysis is warranted, and that staff will continue to explore the options and service. It was also mentioned that the dollar amounts need to be corrected, and item 3B should be removed. Ms. Regor said the document will be forwarded to the District Board for further consideration. 12. Public Record Retention Policy Discussion. Deputy City Attorney Driskell provide a PowerPoint presentation on some public record disclosure and record retention basics, explaining the definition of a public record, and mentioned ways to efficiently manage e-mail documents so that they are readily available by search. There being no further business, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 7 —C—h 1r stine Bainbridge, City Clerk Michael DeVleming, ayor Council Minutes 11 -12 -03 Page 4 of Date Approved by Council: 11-25-03 NAME PRESENT /ABSENT COMMENTS Mayor Michael DcVleming- Position No. 3 Deputy Mayor Diana Wilhite- Position No. 1 / Councilmember Dick Denenny - Position No. 7 Councilmember Mike Flanigan- Position No. 6 Councilmember Rich Munson- Position No. 5 Councilmember Gary Schimmels- Position No. 4 Councilmember Steve Taylor- Position No. 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING DATE // h/) 3 COUNCIL ROLL CALL to the City Clerk. NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE r N E ! s A 1 tA) /���"� �.` �k t�FUA '�1X Igst F Tez�_ ► i,„,.,.. ?s,07 * co - 2- 4 Q iG., `cwitne -!, .( _ `d M go.,L /, Z S rri. /4. S Q 5 i'5 t 'IS (11 I Leifie- 6 4 ' ?iN' Sri - 4W3 ( Valley PUBLIC BEARING SIGN -IN SHEET 2004 Budtet Hearing SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 12, 2003 All persons wishing to speak at a PUBLIC HEARING must sign in with your name and address for the record. There may be a time limit for your comments. A copy of any written comments relating to the public hearing subject must be provided scene j Valley Community Development Department Proposed F load pla m Resolution' a,n;dl Ordinance National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • NFIP provides flood insurance for properties within flood hazard areas by FEMA o Spokane County participates in NFIP pursuant to RCW 86.12.200 and has developed a comprehensive flood control management plan o Department of Ecology has oversight of flood plain management activities within the State Floodplain Management is included in Critical Areas covered by the Comprehensive Plan 1 Resolution authorizing Application for Participation in NFIP o Floodplain areas (100 -year event) are located adjacent to the Spokane River and along Chester Creek o Approximately 80 residential structures and four non - residential structures are located within flood hazard areas o Existing flood insurance policies will be continued under the umbrella of Spokane County NFIP participation during the one -year period prior to the City's acceptance into the program Resolution authorizing Application for Participation in NFIP e Authorizes the City Manager to apply for participation • Designates the Community Development Director as the official responsible for providing information to FEMA and for maintaining records O Agrees to take official action to further program objectives 2 L Proposed Ordinance • Based on the Washington Model Ordinance • Drafted to be included in the Uniform Development Code • New construction and substantial improvement shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation (BFE) • Manufactured Housing shall be have the bottom of the crawl space one foot above BFE • Prohibits impervious cover without an engineering study to verify no adverse impact within Chester Creek and portions of Saltese Creek, Forker, Central Park and Glenrose Next Steps • Approval of the resolution will start the clock on City participation in NFIP • The draft ordinance will be reviewed by Planning Commission following a public hearing 4 t Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration 3 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPEAL LIBERTY LAKE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I MOVE TEAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAL LIBERTY LAKE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE EASTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD. EXPLANATION Staff for Spokane Valley has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan adopted by Liberty Lake on September 16, 2003. Given the proximity of the two cities, it will be necessary for coordinated long -range planning between Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley. Following your staff's review of Liberty Lake's Comprehensive Plan, there are concerns about the process used by Liberty Lake in adopting their plan. and the implications that will have on the effectiveness of coordinated regional planning. Several of the most important issues include: 1. Lack of conformity with public participation requirements in the Liberty Lake public participation handbook. RCW 36.70A.. and the County Wide Planning Policies for Spokane County. • There is no evidence Liberty Lake utilized early and continuous public participation by not notifying Spokane Valley elements of the plan, nor of providing meaningful opportunities to comment. This contradicted specific requirements in their own public participation handbook, GMA and the County Wide Planning Policies. 2. Lack of conformity with other provisions of the County Wide Planning Policies. - Liberty Lake did not get a population allocation from the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) as every other jurisdiction was required to do. - Liberty Lake has not performed a land quantity analysis to determine what its future growth needs would be over the next 20 years, as every other jurisdiction was required to do. 3. Lack of conformity with other provisions of RCW 36.70A, GMA. - There is no evidence to indicate Liberty Lake engaged in mcaningtiul regional coordination on planning issues of concern between Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley, such as transportation, wastewater, critical areas, and open spaces. - Has not adopted a capital facilities plan. This is one of the most, if not THE most critical element of a comp plan. Invocation Spokane Valley City Council Meeting Nov. 12. 2003 Pastor Darrell Cole Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church Heavenly Father. We thank you for life, both physical and spiritual. We thank You that because we are spiritual beings, this short physical life is not all there is. Thank you that when we face death. as my father presently is, our hope does not lie in this temporary existence. Thank You that Your Son, passed through this valley of death before us and rose to life again. and as we place our trust in Him we will someday also rise to eternal life. We also thank You God that you have given us clear instructions about how we are to live our lives here in preparation for the one to come. Thank you for a nation which was founded on Your principles and for state and city governments that are intended for the good of the people. 1 pray especially for wisdom for these representing us in the City of Spokane Valley, that their decisions will be guided by these same principles, resulting in Your blessings on them and our City. I pray in Jesus name. Amen. tt- '2 -O3: 2:44oM :soorane county ut4s STATE Of WASHINGTON ,`� 1 �� 4 \�' EPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY a .: P.O. Bor 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 (360) 407.6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 40:.6006 ►t p ■ \Isi6 7, 2003 Mr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Utilities Division Spokane County Public Works Dept. 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260-0430 RE: Spokane County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities and State Revolving Fund Loan (SRI) Agreement Offer Dear Mr. Rawls: :BOO 4` 4715 e 2 Thank you for your October 10 Letter with inquiries regarding how Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, and Ecology can partner to provide better wastewater service and water quality to the region. In the first part of your first question you asked about changing the scope of the project. Ecology is willing to write the project description in the loan agreement to be consistent with the content and intent of the funding application, the wastewater facilities plan, and the supplemental environmental impact statement. The scope of the loan agreement must reflect the content and recommendations of the approved documents. In the second part of your first question you asked about Ecology's concern with delays in signing the SRF loan offer as long as it is prior to the offer deadline. Our concern regards meeting certain time requirements in implementing the project as described in the funding application and approved engineering documents. The first concern is that the agreement must be signed within twelve months of the publication of the SRF Final Intended Use Plan. Our August 15, 2003, loan offer letter states that you have until August 16, 2004, to negotiate and sign a loan agreement with Ecology. The second concern is the need to demonstrate both project initiation within sixteen (16) months of the Ioan offer plus ongoing and routine progress thereafter, no more than one time extension, of no more than twelve months, may be made when there are valid reasons for the extension and when the extension is included in the signed funding agreement with Ecology. Valid reasons for a time extension allowing a start date more than sixteen months after the publication date of the Final Intended Use Plan are limited to schedules included in water quality permits, consent decrees, enforcement orders, or the recipient and Ecology agree there is a need to do work during an environmental window in a specific season of the year. If the funding recipient has one of these valid reasons to wait longer than sixteen months to start the project, the reasons why it will take longer and the schedule the recipient will 0 It- t2 -03; 2 :4 0o►!ne CQu't, Ut Mr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Paget November 7, 2003 :!ZO a - 4 !.5 • 3/ 4 follow must both be stated clearly in a signed loan agreement. It would he beneficial for County staff and Ecology staff to review the project schedule beginning with the procurement process so that both parties are clear on what can be done in the necessary time frame and also clear on what is eligible for reimbursement. Additionally, a pmject must be completed within five (5) years of the loan offer. An exception to the five -year rule is that a time extension of up to 12 months may be granted by Ecology for valid reasons. Valid reasons for a time extension are limited to schedules included in water quality permits, consent decrees, enforcement orders, or the recipient and Ecology agree there is a need to do work during an environmental window in a specific season of the year. In addition, the extension must be requested no less than three months before the Ioan agreement is due to expire. In the second question you asked if the facilities plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) are amended to accommodate an increase to 10 MGD whether Ecology would be willing to make the same revision to the project description in the SRF loan agreement. The answer to this question is yes although the project description in the loan agreement generally does not need to be specific on hydraulic capacity. In the first part of your third question you asked if the County proposed to change the delivery approach to a traditional Design, Bid, Build method and is Ecology willing to make the same revision to the project description in the SRF loan agreement. Ecology can develop an agreement with an appropriate amount of funds to reflect the design portion of the project with a conventional procurement process. However, the County or other designated public entity would need to submit a separate funding application for the construction phase of the project. Further, the regulations include a cap on the SRF award amount during a funding cycle of 50 percent of the funds available in the facilities category. In fiscal year fiscal year (FY) 2004 that cap was S33.7 million. Further, completing the design of a large wastewater treatment project by the start of FY 2006 funding cycle that begins in September 2004 will be a significant challenge for the County and its consultants. In the second part of your third question you asked if Ecology is willing to execute a loan agreement on the basis of Design Build with either a contracted operation or municipal operation if it is proposed to modify the project to that approach. Our response is yes; doing such is consistent with the pilot rule and other applicable state and federal procurement statutes and rules. However, costs for routine operations and maintenance are not eligible costs for either the state or federal funding programs. In your fourth question you asked if Ecology is willing to extend the SRF loan resulting from funding application FPO4094 to the City of Spokane Valley, in lieu of Spokane County, if the City of Spokane Valley becomes the party to implement the new plant. Our response is yes, provided that a properly executed memorandum of agreement (MOA) is provided to Ecology and that the agreement adequately addresses responsibilities for managing the project, meeting the financial obligations, protecting water quality, and ensuring a quality project meeting permit requirements and public expectations. Ecology is also assuming that the MOA is t t- t2 -C3; 2 :46c'4;Sooa.n• County Ut . , Mr. N. Bruce Rawls, P.E. Page 3 November 7, 2003 ;&O i • 4' +5 • executed soon enough so that the appropriate language and conditions can be incorporated into the loan agreement. In the first part of the fifth question you asked if the County is correct in understanding that Ecology will issue an initial discharge permit for the plant on the basis of, and consistent with, the projected effluent quality in the approved wastewater facilities plan. Our response is yes; the initial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be developed, written, and consistent with the projected effluent quality in the approved wastewater facilities plan. In the second part of the fifth question you asked if Ecology is willing to execute an Agreed Order that would assure that the first phase of the plant will be permitted for its design capacity life (projected to be 10- years) before a major change in effluent discharge standards is required. State and federal law prohibits Ecology from issuing a discharge permit for a term Ionger than five years. Consequently, Ecology is unable to assure that the effluent limits in the initial discharge permit will remain unchanged for a ten -year period. However, the Department is willing to exercise its enforcement discretion by issuing an Agreed Order with a compliance schedule tied to the 10 -year design capacity for the new facility to come into compliance with any new requirements that may be included in the forthcoming Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Ecology is willing to exercise our discretion in this manner so long as: a) at the time of construction completion the subject facility will produce the best possible quality effluent consistent with AKART requirements, and b) the design of the subject treatment works incorporates flexibility for adding whatever additional treatment the forthcoming TMDL may require as part of the second phase of the facility. Tnank you for sharing your questions and concerns regarding such an important issue. It is encouraging indeed to see such an interest in combining efforts to facilitate long -term wastewater treatment strategies for the greater Spokane area. I can assure you that the Department of Ecology will do whatever it can to assist in this effort while being protective of the environment around us. Please feel free to contact me at (360) 407 -6405 or the Eastern Regional Office Ecology staff in Spokane as we continue to work together on this project. Sincerely, /71 Richard K. Wallace, Manager Water Quality Program cc Neil Kersten, City of Spokane Valley Public Works Director Dale Arnold, City of Spokane Wastewater Manager Steve Carley, Financial Assistance Manager, Washington Department of Ecology Jim Bellatty, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology Len Bramble, ERO, Washington Department of Ecology