2005, 05-03 Study Session Minutes MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday,May 3,2005, 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Staff:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Dick Denenny, Councilmember Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Mike Jackson, Parks&Recreation Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Greg"Bing"Bingaman,IT Specialist
Absent: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember,previously excused
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed all in attendance.
The following new employees were introduced by their respective supervisors, and greeted by
Councilmembers:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant—by Community Development Director Marina Sukup
Audra Sims, Recreation Coordinator —by Parks &Recreation Director Mike Jackson
Gloria Mantz, Stormwater Engineer —by Public Works Director Neil Kersten
Mark Hillabrandt, Building Inspector II—by Building Official Tom Scholtens
Nik Bentley, Building Inspector II —by Building Official Tom Scholtens
1. Watershed Planning Presentation—Bruce Rawls
Director of Spokane County Utilities Bruce Rawls gave a presentation on the Watershed Management
Plan. Mr. Rawls re-introduced Rob Lindsay, Spokane County Water Resources Manager, and Stan Miller,
retired Spokane County Water Resource Manager (who continues to work part-time on several water
issues). Mr. Lindsay reported that he visited with Liberty Lake Planning Commission and the City of
Millwood Planning Commission on this issue; and that the Spokane City Council met April 18 where
they voted to grant approval to this plan and grant authority to their representative to approve the Plan,
adding that this is a significant milestone to have them included. Mr. Lindsay said that in reference to the
implementation schedule, they are behind schedule and therefore re-examined the schedule and identified
2005 and 2006 as the first stage of implementation; and he realizes that the schedule might be optimistic.
He also stated that they will be amending the Plan to show those schedules based on time zero as the time
when the Plan is actually approved; and then move forward from there. Mr. Lindsey explained that there
are three aspects to the Plan: (1) setting the instream flow of Barker Road, which is what DOE
(Department of Ecology) will use for the allocation of water rights, which is keeping in consideration the
Avista process and the ongoing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); (2) implementation of the water
conservation measures inherent in the municipal water bill, adding that many water measures will be
required to be enacted once that House Bill is passed; and(3) collaboration of communities to manage the
water resources. Mr. Lindsay mentioned that they have been getting positive feedback from those
involved and that he looks forward to our support.
Council Meeting: 05-03-05 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 05-24-05
Mr. Lindsay said that if Council approves the Plan within the implementation matrix, the City will be
obligated to participate in zeroscaping and other water conservation measures; and that there are no
specific financial obligations other than staff time, adding that financial obligations can only come
through direct participation. If Council elects not to participate, Mr. Lindsay continued, the plan will not
be approved as it can only move forward with unanimous government support.
In response to Council concerns of interrelating this Plan with the TMDL and the River Flow, Mr. Miller
explained that issue is one of the biggest problem with all the on-going issues, including interstate
funding, the UAA, the TMDL which is being carried out under state regulations with federal EPA
oversight, and also with Avista moving forward with their licensing, and the ongoing problems with all
the different regulations and timetables; and that the best thing to do is to put this plan in place with the
flexibility it takes to allow those other actions to occur without affecting this. There was further
discussion on the instream flow at Barker Road, the aquifer (which has been well-defined in terms of
physical boundary); linking the way the aquifer behaves in Idaho and Washington; the problems that
could be associated with interstate planning efforts of the EPA, USGS and Idaho State, and of the need to
start now to address our water resource issues. Mr. Rawls mentioned that although this report precedes
the outcome of Avista, the Interstate Study and the TMDL, it is the first step of being better stewards of
water resources, and if we adopt the Plan now, it would not be inconsistent with those studies. After
continued discussion on the topic and the various aspects of the Plan, it was mentioned that if all the
"a,b,c" on the matrix were changed to "d," the City would be giving its commitment to the Plan without
any financial obligation. It was Council consensus that it is important to participate to help impact the
decisions that will be made on our watershed and our water. Mayor Wilhite said staff will continue to
further examine this issue.
2. Pavement Cut Policy -Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten went over his Request for Council Action form and the bullets thereon;
explaining that regarding bullet#2, he still has concerns about the complexity of the policy; that he has
attempted to gather more data from the County regarding the age of the roads, and that it will take a large
effort to get all of the data in and in a user-friendly form in order to further track the street age, adding
that there are many errors on the current data that must be corrected. In reference to bullet #3, Mr.
Kersten said that we have a five-year moratorium now for cutting or trenching unless it can be shown that
alternatives are not available; and that the intent is to exhaust all other options before we allow a cut on a
new street for at least three years. Mr. Kersten then summarized the remainder of his Request for Council
Action form. In response to a question concerning necessary staff, Mr. Kersten said that the County
indicated they can handle the workload with their current staff, while we must address how to implement
these policies with our existing staff. Further discussion included number of permits handled a year by
our staff versus the County, and the thought that the permit numbers are disproportionately low when
examining the number of permits compared to the population of the cities; permits fees that accurately
reflect the cost; staffing and implementation; computer applications necessary to track and monitor the
process; and partnering with the County to share their database. It was ultimately determined to bring this
issue back again at a future council meeting.
3.2006-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Update and 2006 Annual Construction Program
—Neil Kersten/Steve Worley
Public Works Director Kersten explained that this second touch is an opportunity to brief Council on the
proposed 2006-2011 TIP. Mr. Kersten then explained the changes from the previously adopted six-year
TIP (2005-2010), as shown on the Request for Council Action form. Mr. Worley stated that a public
hearing has been set for June 14, 2005, for consideration of the Resolution to adopt the 2006-2011 TIP.
Mr. Kersten then distributed copies of, and discussed the "Comprehensive Plan Intersection Analysis
Results" dated May 3, 2005. Discussion included traffic volume and capacity; intersection delays; peak
Council Meeting: 05-03-05 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 05-24-05
hours; cutting into the concrete medium separating east from west on Sullivan to allow more cars to cue-
up and thereby decrease delays; allocation of funds to pay for the City's Plan; and funding issues for
capital projects.
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
4. Traffic Studies—Neil Kersten/John Hohman/Inga Note
Engineer Hohman gave a brief background of the city's ordinance adopting by reference, the Spokane
County Standards Road and Sewer Construction; and then proceeded to discuss traffic studies for
development projects, including concurrency issues, levels of service, traffic study requirements, typical
costs for such studies, ways to improve the process, developments occurring outside the city limits which
impact our intersections, and of the need to examine all options.
5. 2005 Spokane County Service Agreements—Nina Regor/Morgan Koudelka
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the City and County staff have been working to create model
agreements to use as a baseline for the settle and adjust and for those "pay as you go" agreements; that
great strides have been made in lessening the gaps between the budget and proposed contract amounts.
Mr. Koudelka then went through his PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Mercier mentioned that Animal
Control is a concern, and stated that there was previous discussion about a regional effort to see if
appropriate alternatives could be developed, or other plans to improve licensing compliance, but that he
has not seen any positive financial consequences. Mayor Wilhite added that she has not heard of any
success from Animal Control in reaching their goal in number of pets licensed. Ms. Regor stated that
Council had requested quarterly updates and that staff will schedule another update session before
Council.
Mr. Mercier brought attention to page 10 of the PowerPoint and the law enforcement column, stating that
we were anticipating the contract cost to be higher this year and we allocated in the budget process, the
1/10th of 1% of the new sales tax revenue, to law enforcement to offset those costs; that our understanding
is that those funds must be for public safety purposes. Mr. Mercier said that one of the uncertain costs in
the contract deals with the Sheriff's Department waiting for the arbitrator decision which will
retroactively affect the wage base; and that in the current projection of the contract costs, Mr. Mercier
asked if that prospect is accommodated in the calculation as something planned for or something that will
not be quantified until the decision by the arbitrator is made? Mr. Koudelka replied that that was
accounted for when the budget for this year's contract was determined, but as far as the estimated cost by
the County, Mr. Koudelka said he does not know the expectation placed on the resolution of that issue.
Mr. Mercier also stated his concern dealing with the presentation City Council heard last week heard
concerning the Mobile Data Computers in the mobile units, with projected costs of approximately
$200,000; and that he recalls there was Council consensus that the change was meritorious, and we
expected to participate; and if that is the case, Mr. Mercier stated that when staff returns at the next
council meeting with the amendment to the budget process, it might be a good idea to include a provision
for that using some of the freed-up 1/10 of 1% funds, which would be a perfect match for the statutory
intent. In response to Council questions, Mr. Koudelka indicated this amount does reflect the savings
($121,000 estimated savings to Spokane Valley) as a result of the modified crime/check system.
Councilmember Taylor asked if we have not replaced that one detective position that was being funded
through a federal grant which was no longer available; and Deputy Manager Regor responded that that
issue is slated for further discussion at the May 24 council meeting, but that she feels there was Council
consensus to continue the status with that officer. City Manager Mercier stated that it was his recollection
as we were discussing the potential savings coming from the reduced services, that Chief Walker said that
we have this extinguishing grant that is going on and the County is absorbing a few of them, and if we
were going to use crime check savings for this major property crimes detective position, it would fit and
Council Meeting: 05-03-05 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 05-24-05
still produce some other savings; and that Council did not come to conclusion on that proposal, but Mr.
Mercier had asked if it was the Council's legislative intent that we would retain the position until such
time as the Council ruled on what it wanted to do with the savings, whether to sweep all the savings or
use the position; that the position has not been extinguished, we are simply using part of the overall
human resource allocation in the department for that purpose; and Council still has full prerogative when
we address this issue again, to determine if it wants to fund the position. Mr. Mercier stated that his
overall recommendation would be if the overall costs, including potential acquisition of the mobile data
units, is less than $610,000, that we would set aside the balance of those funds to be used to defray public
safety cost in the coming fiscal period. Ms. Regor added that the $610,000 is an initial estimate. Ms.
Regor added that the balance of the settle and adjustment statements should be coming for staff review
within the next few weeks.
It was council suggestion that in the interest of time, we postpone agenda items #7 and 8 for tonight and
bring those topics back to a future meeting. Mr. Mercier stated that as the retreat is planned for June 11tH
perhaps we would spend a just a few minutes to briefly discuss that issue.
6. Quit Claim Deed for Appleway Corridor—Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier stated that the material included in the packet is the same as before; and that there was some
confusion on next steps to take, so this would be a good opportunity for clarification. He mentioned that
at the Board of County Commissioner's session last Tuesday, they instructed their attorney to send us the
recent draft of the proposed deed, and to see if other items should be discussed; and we asked them to
please let us know of preferences before the final conclusion, adding that perhaps this would be a topic to
add to the next joint meeting with the County Commissioners.
7. Fiscal Year 2006 Council Budget Goals—Dave Mercier
This issue will be addressed at a future meeting.
8. Mid-Year Retreat Planning—Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier mentioned that the June 11 retreat date as shown on the advance agenda, contains a list of
topics, and he asked Councilmembers to let the Mayor know of topic preferences. Mr. Mercier also
mentioned there are options for the location of the retreat, including Councilmember Denenny's cabin,
and that an e-mail will be forthcoming seeking Council input.
9. Advance Agenda Additions—Mayor Wilhite
Mayor Wilhite stated she will be sending a list to Council of potential items to discuss at the upcoming
joint meeting with the County. Councilmember DeVleming urged a joint meeting with the School Board;
Mayor Wilhite stated that Chair Ann Long prefers to meet after graduation. Councilmember DeVleming
also mentioned that it might be a good time to begin review of the Governance Manual. The Watershed
Management Plan was mentioned and it was stated Council would like to proceed to bring the issue back
to Council with the plan matrix marked with "d" instead of"b;" and the upcoming joint meeting with the
Planning Commission was discussed concerning the best time to hold such meeting.
10. Council Check in—Mayor Wilhite
There were no concerns addressed.
11. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier brought attention to a copy of letter from the Central Valley School District for request for
consideration of the imposition of a school impact fee on future development; that he is attempting to
discuss this issue with the School Superintendent to see what timeline they are looking for, and to explore
how such a proposal would first come to the Council. Mr. Mercier also circulated the latest plan for
reducing overcrowding in the jail; that he heard a briefing at the County Commission meeting for the
Council Meeting: 05-03-05 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 05-24-05
"Geiger Plan"which summarized, is that for an investment of approximately $195,000, they could uptake
capacity by 150 beds; and that $115,000 of that expense would be a one-time cost; and that the County
expects to have this on their agenda next week for adoption. A draft copy of a position profile was also
distributed to Council, Mr. Mercier explained, for the city attorney recruitment, that staff is trying to
move the process along and initiate advertising this weekend, and asked for any feedback to be provided
by the end of Thursday. Mr. Mercier stated that in Representative Schlindler's report to the Chamber
Public Policy Committee, she mentioned that part of the gas tax included two bridging of the valley
projects, $4 million for Havana, and in the next year, $5 million allocated for the Parks Street portion of
that project.
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
\xi) 11,
Diana Wilhite,Mayor
ATTES
(Chkristi ne Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Meeting:05-03-05 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council:05-24-05
Comprehensive Plan Intersection Analysis Results 5/3/2005
TABLE OF INTERSECTIONS
Intersection X018 2011 2%FIXED GROWTH Projects In T1P Proposed Improvement Projects
Count Control LOS`Delay 1018 Approach LOS Delay v/c lApproech
5 8th 1 Bowdish 2000 2-way stop D 27 00 0.50 EB E 43.8 089 ES Bowdiah Road Protect 2009-2011.
11 8th/Pines 2001 2-way stop F 102.20 079 ES F 348.6 1 43 E8 `Valley Corridor 2 Project 2006-2008.
18 18th I Bowdlah 2000 4-way stop ,C 20.50 overall E 30 6 overall Bowdtsh Road Project 2009-2011.
37 Appleway/Thierman ' 2005,Signal D 47 30 0.71,overall E 73.5 0.97 overall Need to analyze Intersection options
49 Broadway/Pines 2002 Signal D 42.50 0.93 overall F 106,8 1 19 overall Nand to analyze Intersection options
75 Mission/Argonne 2005 Signal D 40.80 059 overall F 88.2 0.68 overall Nerd t to T.
Need o analyze Intersection options
Need to analyze ntsrsoctlon options
82 Mission/Pines 2002 Signal D 45.20 0 91 overall E 64.1 1.04 overall w/WSDOT.
Widen east log to provide separate through
89 Satfese/Sullivan 2004 2-way stop 0 78.40 0 12 ES F 378.2 1 70 W8 loft and right turn lanes. Install traffic
signal.Developer funded.
104 Sprague/Pines 2005 Signal E 55.70 0.82 overall E 1 83.5 0.92 overall Valley Corridor 2 Project 2006-2008.
108 Sprague/Sullivan 2005 Signal 0 51.80 3.78 overall E 80.1 0.900ovsrall Valley Corridor 3 Project 2009-2011.
110 Trent/Argonne 2004 Sionel D 82.70 0.95 overall E 67 6 1.05 overall Bridging the Valley Project
111 Trent 1 Barker 2004,2-way slop F 266.70 1 88 NB F 4852 8 3 69 NBL Bridging the Valley Project
114 Trent/Flora 2003,2-way stop,F 188.70 1.021118 ,F 521.7 1.83 NBL Bridging the Valley-Xing closed
-Part Road/BNSF Grade Separation Protect
115 Trent/Part 2003 Signal 8 13 30 052 overall 2006-2008.
118 Trent I Pines 2003 Signal E 4 59 40 1 15 overall F 6 107.1 1.31 *VOW Bridging the Valley Protect
117 Trent r Progress 2002 2-way stop F I 50 40 0.50 58 Need to analyze intersection options.
118 Trent/University 2005,2-way atop F , 279.40 1.141118 Bridging the Valley Xing closed
I
it
P\S'SPKV00000002i0600INF01TT12005 Comprehensive Ptant2005 Analysis:Tabte of Intersections 1