2005, 04-05 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, and explained
that this is a study session and there would be no public comment
Introductions: Public Works Director Kersten introduced Capital Projects Engineer Louis Graf; Finance
Director Thompson introduced Accountant /Budget Analyst Jason Faulkner; Deputy City Manager Regor
introduced Legal Intern Chad McBride; and Fire District #1 Board Chair Joe Dawson introduced new Fire
District #1 Fire Chief Mike Thompson.
1. Sprague- Appleway Corridor Discussion Right -Of -Way Quit Claim Deed Discussion — Neil
Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten began the discussion by focusing on Steve Worley's March 29, 2005 letter
to SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) concerning the interim regional traffic model and
differences between modeled and counted traffic volumes. Mr. Kersten emphasized, as in bullet #6 of
page 3, that a major impact of not having a reasonable interim regional transportation model is it does not
allow us to move forward. Since the letter was just mailed March 29, 2005, there has been no response
yet. Director Kersten also distributed copies of a "Draft Level of Service Analysis Table of Intersections"
showing which intersections are close to failure (in yellow), and which are at failure (in red). He added
that any new development in those areas would not be approved because they fail concurrency because
they cause the intersection to go into failure. There ensued discussion on concurrency, and Mr. Kersten
stated that provided an existing site will not contribute more traffic, it would be grandfathered in; but new
projects which will have new traffic, will cause problems.
Director Kersten also discussed the "Scope of Work Valley Corridor Environmental Evaluation April
2005" and explained that originally the County had Jones & Stokes under contract to finish the
Environmental Assessment (EA); and that he is working with them to develop this scope of work; he
stated that their staff has changed several times last year and that we have had difficulty in working with
them. Director Kersten stated that an option is to hire a new consultant; that several issues need to be
clarified in the Scope of Work with SRTC; that this project is still not on the Met Transportation Plan;
and we need to go through an analysis to accomplish that; and that staff would like to publish another
RFP and hire a new consultant. Director Kersten explained that this project cannot move ahead until we
resolve what the model will be; and in the meantime, he would like to get a consultant hired and asked for
Council consensus to advertise the RFP. After Council and staff discussion concerning the project, and
brief discussion of ECONorthwest performing a separate report, it was Council consensus that staff
publish another RFP.
Council Meeting: 04 -05 -05 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council: 04 -12 -05
Regarding the Quit Claim Deed included in the packet, Director Kersten stated that the County sent the
deed; that he and Deputy Attorney Driskell reviewed it and comments are on the April 5 Request for
Council Action form. Mr. Kersten suggested staff re -draft the document and send it back to the County
for their consideration. Councilmember DeVleming suggested the removal of condition #4. Council also
discussed condition #1 where it states the property must be used solely for transportation or will revert to
the Grantor, and suggested that paragraph be re- written. The issue of leases on the property was brought
up and Mr. Kersten said he would research that information. Council discussed the timeframe involved,
and the possibility of taking interim measures to clean up the area. Mr. Mercier mentioned that the
negative repercussions of acquiring the property now are that if the model is correct and therefore there
would be no federal funding to support the improvement, this would mean we would have acquired the
property as an asset for no purpose but would that it would have liability issues associated with it. After
further consideration, it was Council consensus that staff make the changes and send it to the County for
their consideration; and that Council wants to take the property to get some use in the interim. Mr.
Kersten stated he will endeavor to get responses to the issues, will publish an RFP, that this is an interim
step, and that staff will report back again to Council to answer these questions and concerns.
2. Sign Code Policy — Marina Sukup
Community Development Director Sukup, along with Sign Code Chair David Crosby and Sign Code
Committee members Eldonna Gossett and David Quinn, explained the proposed changes as per the
PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Denenny stated that he continues to have concerns with
nonconforming signs which may acquire damage and need repairs or need to be replaced, and that he
feels such sign should also be replaced with a sign similar to the original, damaged sign. Ms. Sukup
mentioned that if a sign is damaged, that the sign owner has 60 days to fix it; that most signs are not
totally demolished and do not need structural alternation; and if only damaged, the sign can be repaired
and kept at the original, nonconforming size, but if totally destroyed, the sign must be replaced with a
conforming sign. She explained that replacement means building something new; and repair means
fixing something existing. Council discussed the policy issues contained in the PowerPoint, and agreed
with the proposed provisions relating to (1) existing non - conforming signs, and (2) approval authority
over sign plans; and determined that further research and /or clarification is needed for the policy issues of
(1) designation of aesthetic corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and maintenance of directional signs
installed by Spokane County; and (2) advertising and benches and shelters. Issues to be further
considered in that regard include political signs, liability issues, advertising, Sunset Advertising Company
payment for advertising, issuing an RFP for advertisers, trash barrels, Sea Tac's solution to the problem,
the County's agreement for maintenance of the directional signs, who covers the cost of changing or
replacing those directional signs, and exceptions and regulatory issues for signs in ascetic corridors. It
was determined that further discussion will be held at an upcoming meeting, and a meeting subsequent to
that will include the second reading of the ordinance.
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:30 p.m.; she reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
3. Pavement Management and Associated Policy Issues. Includes: Pavement cut policy initial
mention; Impact fees; Pave back; 2006 -2011 Transportation Improvement Plan — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that this agenda item includes a general discussion on pavement
management and associated issues, as per his Request for Council Action form. Engineer Worley then
discussed the six -year transportation improvement plan, and explained that the draft containing the
"orange" projects are projects which did not rank high enough to get funding, but that they are still
important projects and will be dropped into another list year. Mr. Worley said that this information is
also on the City's website, and that this 2006 -2011 plan is to be adopted in June. Mr. Mercier added that
these projects listed as funded are intended projects and conditions can change, but that this is the best
estimate to date. Mr. Worley explained that the "Draft Level of Service Analysis" distributed to council
Council Meeting: 04 -05 -05 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council: 04 -12 -05
tonight, was just received this afternoon, and shows the existing intersections; that staff is trying to
identify which intersections will fail in 2015 and 2025 and continues to gather information to help revise
this as we move toward adoption. Discussion then ensued regarding projects such as the completion of
Evergreen from 16 to 32n the high traffic volume of Sullivan, of not having too many projects under
construction at the same time, detour routes, community awareness, and upcoming council agendas
covering these issues.
Concerning the six -year residential preservation street plan, Mr. Kersten explained that this plan is
necessary in order to keep the streets in good condition; and that it costs an average of $1 million dollars
to do so; that concerning the sewer paveback projects, since the bond issues failed last year, we are not
currently doing paveback but those streets do need to be maintained; that street maintenance includes
minor pavement repair, crack sealing; and shoulder repair, and that we currently have an interlocal
contract with the County to handle this, but that Mr. Kersten would like to hire a full time pavement
engineer to run this program. Director Kersten explained the position duties would include developing
projects and coordinating all aspects of street maintenance and upgrading needs, including mapping and
tracking. Councilmember DeVleming stated that he feels we are more reactionary and that it would be
beneficial to have a street masterplan to address all street maintenance scheduled within the city. Mr.
Kersten stated that it would cost an estimated $86,000 to fund a permanent person, including benefits, and
that there are sufficient funds within the budget as those funds would be transferred from what we are
currently paying through the interlocal contract. Council discussion ensued concerning equipment needs,
and exact figures of what we pay the County compared with what this position would entail. Mr. Kersten
will gather that information and report back later to Council.
Discussion turned to concurrency as Director Kersten explained the process as noted in his request for
council action form. Mr. Kersten added that if we were to bring in someone to further examine the
prospects for a traffic impact fee system or other system, we would need about $35,000, which is not
currently in the budget but could be added if council desires. Discussion included hiring someone with
experience in state laws and rules, in handling public meetings, and in focusing on all associated issues
with developers; the range of possible impact fees; and of commissioning someone to do a growth
analysis study. Councilmember Taylor stated he was not in favor of commissioning a study; and Deputy
Mayor Munson stated his preference to examine the legal aspects first; and it was felt that legal options
can be examined without spending the $35 or $40,000. City Manager Mercier proposed to handle the
legal issues first then if Council desires, staff can identify some consultative presentation on traffic impact
fees.
Director Kersten then discussed sewer paveback and the Sherwood Forest Sewer Basin project; adding
that the project is scheduled for a bid opening April 5. Discussion followed concerning this and similar
projects, of the varying expense involved in paveback based on street width; of the not formally adopted
pavement cut policy of City of Spokane and Spokane County; and of the question of moving forward with
the policy. It was determined that staff will bring Council an analysis of the County's policy once it is
adopted.
4. Commercial Development Permit Process Flowchart — Nina Regor /Marina Sukup/Neil Kersten
In the interest of time, this item was removed from the agenda to be brought back at a later date.
5. Draft Resolution Public Information Officer Position — Nina Regor
After Deputy City Manager Regor explained the position and proposed grade classification as per her
PowerPoint presentation, Council agreed to move forward with this item on the next council meeting for
formal adoption consideration.
Council Meeting: 04 -05 -05 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: 04 -12 -05
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to extend the meeting
another 15 minutes. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and
Councilmembers Schimrrtels, Taylor, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember DeVleming.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite
Mayor Wilhite mentioned that the Scope presence will be addressed at the May 3 meeting with the Law
Enforcement 2005 Agreement issue, and that the June 7 meeting will include the issue of outside
agencies' presence at CenterPlace. There were no further suggestions for changes to the Advance
Agenda.
7. Council Check In — Mayor Wilhite
There were no issues to discuss.
8. City Manager Comments.
City Manger Mercier mentioned that he received notification that Opportunity Township Hall was
approved for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; and Mayor Wilhite extended thanks to
Clark Bainbridge for his work in getting that accomplished.
There being no further business, it was moved, secoed, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
l istine Bainbridge, City Clerk
D{) Q P\ & s) )
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Council Meeting: 04 -05 -05 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council: 04 -12 -05
New Employee Classification:
Public Information Officer
City of Spokane Valley
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
April 5, 2005
History of the Position
o January 11 Background Memo
o January 18 Study Session
o February 12 Council Retreat
o March 22 Admin Report
-IrtmrOnn (?T * t• "5�5
General Responsibilities
o Promote citizen interaction and understanding of City
services through the effective use of verbal, written,
video and graphic communication tools
o Coordinate the promotion of events, such as public
hearings, open houses and other City activities
o Serve as a resource to the media on breaking stories,
news features and City projects
o Provide professional communications support and
guidance to City departments and to City Council
o Develop and maintain a public awareness and
feedback system
4ew PmtIr. Putrr,
u umtate. 0 ♦954
•
Recommended Range
o Recommended Range: Grade 14
($40,296 - $51,660)
o Average comparable 2005 range was
$53,652 - $71,040
o Comparable ranges differed by as
much as 150% ($32,698 - $100,221)
New F.-stun - Fargo:
�IannteMm Oltk.t.
'7
•
Next Steps
o April 5: City Council feedback on draft
Resolution, including Position
Description and recommended Grade
o April 12: Motion Consideration of
Resolution
-1011.• PP UiriP51
Draft Level of Service Analysis
SGB
Page 1
4/5/2005
( •
C
.
• •
25.60
2005 ...
vlc
0.53
.... -. ---
- - 2015
LOS
2025
Intersection Control
1 4th ! Sullivan Signal
;, • roach
overall
LOS
•
vlc
, • • .
• •
vlc
As h
2 4th / Thiamin 4 slop
A
7 40
overall
3 4th 1 University Signal
C
20 50
034
overall
4 8th 1 Adams (NC) 4 stop
5 8th / Bowdish 2 slop
D
27.00
050
EB
6 8th / Carnahan 4 stop
8
14.61
overall
7 8th / Distvnan -Mica nal
8 :2 !` _
9 8th / McDonald 2-way sib
1.1.10
15.00
0 81
overall
7.80
0 34
overal
25.30
0 44
EB
10 8th 1 Park 2
12 8th / Sullivan
13 E=1711
LI I01mt< O m
25.90
10.50
0.70
056
EB
overall
21.50
15.20
0.07
029
NB
overall
14 y S • nal
15 16th / Adams =MI
16 16th / Bowdrsh =I
17 16th / Dishman- Mica Signal
9.17
overall
25 68
overall
14 30
0.71
overall
18 18th / Evergreen Signal
B
1250
0.32
overall
19 16th l McDonald 4 s • •
B
11 74
overall
20 16th l SR27 Signal
C
28 40
057
overall
21 16th / Sullivan Sir&
B
12.90
0.42
overall
22 16th / UniMifalhl Signal
B
1250
0 32
overall
23 24th / E • •
A
9.65
overall
24 24th / Suntan E
m <
14 80
14.80
050
0.01
overall
25 32nd / Adams E
26 32nd / BOMldish Signal
NB
9.80
039
overall
2732nd/• 2 st•
B
1010
0.18WB
28 32nd / E 2 sto •
29 32nd / Pines SI nal
30 32nd / SR 27 5 nal
mm_1) m0000000m
13 10
0 29
SB
16.70
20.84
0 42
0.42
overall
overall
31 l . •U.1T .v"_ ' nTri
32 32nd / Univers ry
34 L. "yl�
11.80
0.34
WB
20.80
0.31
overall
33 30
90
0 71
0.90
overan
overall
33 •
. E
35 :• -
36 s • ^ !Park
37 l•
G�,;a
26 20
0 45
overall
28_60
0 81
overall
30
50
0 71
0.48
oveoverall
overall
38 • . F
39 'y>r
50
0.55
overall
40 Broadway / Adams 2 stop
20.70
028
NB
41 Broadway / Argonne Signal
C
22.50
0.72
overall
42 Broadway / Bowdish 5
7 10
0.51
overall
43 B • • / E •teen
441= E
45 - . . I Flora E
48 Broadw / McDonald [ •
47 :+ • • . /Mullion E •
1-(3 0 - 0 010 <1 <10
/0
40
30
10.10
23.
35201
42.50
G D 0l 0l0tolciol0l0H0
overall
overran
EB
overall
Overall
overall
overall
48 : / Park
49 / Piles 1
50 : • / Sullivan S • : I
39 40
overall
overall
overall
overall
overall
51 / Thierman S r - I
52 :.•= .• ., • nal
53 Broaden 1 Vista • sal
16.101
8 10'
6.00
20.80
54 Broadvva / Walmarl S • nal
55 Central Pre -Mix / Sully S' • nal
56 Dishman•Mica / Bowd- S •nal
1.0 1.3101 , 0
11 10
063
1 i,
16 70
0.49
57 Dishman -Mica / U • S nal
58 Euclid north / Barker 2-.va fit..
29.10
041
1060
0 23
59 Euclid (south) / Barker 2-way stop
B
14 30
0.16
WB
Draft Level of Service Analysis
SGB
Page 1
4/5/2005
60
Euclid / flora )2-way stop
B
11 90
0 15
W8
61
Euclid ! Palk 2-way stop
A
990
0.02
WB
62
Eucid / Sullivan
Signal
Signal
Signal
C
B
B
24 80
19 80
17 90
0 57
0 42
0.40
overall
overall
overall
63
Indiana / Evergreen
64
Indiana / Mall -East
65
Indiana / Mall- West Signal
B
17. 60
0 63
Overall
66
Indiana / Mirabaau Pky Signal
8
16 30
0.23
overall
67
Indiana / Pines Signal
D
35.80
0 84
68
Indiana / Sullivan Signal
C
24.90
0 99
overall
69
Kiernan -8 / Sultrvan Signal
19
[AL g
70
72
74
Knoll l onne-14C S
Marie I SulYvan Sri na
Mission / Adams 2-way slop
39%
15�
11.60
OM
0.08
75
Mltrsba /Argonne Signal
40.80
0.59
,
76
Mission /Batter 2-vray Mop
38 80
0 34
77
Mission / BamBsli 2-way stop
D
27.10
0 491
NB
78
Mission / Evergreen Signal
B
16.90
069
overall
79
Mission / McDonald Signal
A
590
0 39
overall
80
Mission / Milian Signal
8
17.00
0 61
overall
81
Mission / Park Signal
B
15.30
0 45
overall
82
Mission / Pines
Signal
Signal
0
B
45.20
17 70
0 91
0 61
overall
overall
83
Mission / Sullivan
841Mission
/ University 2 -way stop
Monigom Argonne_Signal
C
D
23 30
38 00
0.39
0.69
N8
overall
1
85
86
_
Montgomery / Shopping Center
8
1850
0.42
overall
87
Montgome�vr / Universd2
-way stop
2-way slop
D
B
27 90
10.60
0.01
0.15
NB
EB
88
Rultet / Park
89
Saltine / Sullivan
2-way stop
D
26.40
0.12
EB
90
Sprague / Adams
Signal
B
1820
0.54
overall
91
Sprague / Appbway Al,
Signal
B
16 90
0 59
overall
92
Sprague / Argonne
Signal
B
1990
048
overall
93
Sprague / Barker
4 -way stop
B
12 07
overall
94
Sprague 1 Bowdish
Signal
C
29 80
0 71
overall
95
Sprague / Costoo (east
Signal
S
8
D
18 10
45 60
0.44
0.75
overall
overall
98
Sprague / EverWsen
97
Sprague/Fondue
Signal
D
37.20
0.72
overall
98
Sprague / Farr
Signal
C
77 90
0.28
overall
99
Sprague / Flora
Signal
Signal
B
C
1880
26 10
0.41
0.45
overall
overall
100
Sprague / Gillis-
101
Sprague / McDonald
Signal
C
36 60
0.74
overall
102
Sprague / Milian
Signal
C
20 60
0.45 "
- overall
I
1035
105
ra ue / Park
Sprague / Progress
S
Signal
C
1U 1o1U
21
21 70,
0.78
overall
y-
106
107
Sprague / Sullivan
Signal
51 80
0.78
overall
Sprague / Thiamin
Signal
Signal
1520
21 40
0 50
0 82
Overall
Overall
108
Sprague / University
109
Sprague / Vista
Signal
la MI a em
24 20
0_36
M ti
110
112
Trent !
Trent / Evergreen
Signal
52.70
18.40
0 95
0.57
113
115
119
Trent / Fancier
Trent /Park
Trent /Sullivan (North 'Signal
27.10
13.30
600
063
0.52
0.78
120
Trent / Sullivan (South
Signal
10 40
1.00
121
Trent / Vista
Signal
8
1590
050
overall
122
Wellesley / Evergreen
4-way stop
8
12 30
overall
123
Wellesley / Progress
4-way stop
C
17.31
overall
124
Wellesley / Sullivan _4-way
stop
C
22 05
overall
SGB
Page 2 4/512005