Loading...
2005, 09-20 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers: 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 STUDY SESSION Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Cal Walker, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance 1. Presentation by Avista Rep Doug Kelly — Mike Jackson Parks and Recreation Director Jackson introduced Doug Kelly, Regional Account Executive for Avista. Mr. Jackson explained that CenterPlace, through a number of energy saving measures during construction, qualified for a rebate through Avista, and that Doug Kelly helped staff move through that process. Mr. Kelly greeted Council and staff and explained that one of his duties is to work with customers to help them understand how to use their product efficiently and effectively; and to make sure the building is the most operationally efficient building as possible, as Avista assists in support of emergency savings; that based on measures implemented in the building, he presented to Mayor Wilhite, an energy savings rebate check to the City of Spokane Valley in the amount of $33,612. Mayor Wilhite thanked Mr. Kelly and Avista and handed the check to Finance Director Thompson. 2. Amended Dept. Emergency Management Contract — Cal Walker Police Chief Walker explained that although Council previously approved the agreement July 26, 2005, after other entities had an opportunity to review the document, further changes were suggested. Fire Department Williams suggested changes to sections 5 and 7 as shown in red -line format on the agreement. After brief discussion concerning possible future changes, it was council consensus to place this item on the next consent agenda for council approval. 3. Proposed Amended Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposed changes to the fee resolution; with the added change of deleting the $10.00 fee for a copy of our annual budget, as he feels those few times we are asked to provide copies, asking for the $10.00 hurts public relations. He also noted that some fees did not change but merely moved to a different section of the fee resolution. Mr. Thompson stated that the stormwater fee increase is part of the public works six -year plan and is on track with what the County charges. Additionally, Director Thompson mentioned that the fire districts are working on their fees and if they make changes, we might want to make corresponding changes as well. Mr. Thompson further explained that approximately one month ago, Council asked staff to make sure to talk to developers and builders before passing this resolution; that staff is working to put that meeting together and final approval consideration of the fee resolution will occur after that meeting. Study Session Minutes: 09 -20 -05 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 4. General Budget Discussion - Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier said this is a continuation of the budget discussion and of Council's policy choices; he mentioned that the yellow page is a substitution page (page 52) with correction in verbiage on the back page; and that the accompanying table identifies the social agencies and Council funding recommendations. Mr. Mercier said that during the preliminary budget presentation, Mr. Mercier pointed out the change in state law that posed for Council a policy determination, that prior to the last legislature, all of the receipts from the motor fuel tax (38.1 %) had to be used for capital improvement programs; and that requirement was later removed; that the figures result in approximately $500,000, which could be directed toward the street fund for ongoing maintenance of the 428 miles of roadway in the community. Mr. Mercier said that when he previously mentioned this, Council asked staff to show the affect of transferring funds from Capital to Street Maintenance. Mr. Mercier, in referring to the handout entitled "City of Spokane Valley — Capital Improvement Program Funding Problem Statement #3 (dated September 8, 2005) the top line shows the removal of the revenues, and the bottom two yellow lines shows the expenditures of those funds. Mr. Mercier explained that previously the priorities of addressing the deficit would be the general fund, followed by the street fund (road maintenance), and then the capital improvement fund. Mr. Mercier said he recommends Council re- direct the available funds towards street maintenance as our second priority of managing the sustainability of the community programs. Mr. Mercier said that staff will await Council feedback on whether in future budgets, including the 2006 budget, staff should anticipate which of the categorical revenues could be moved to maintenance. Mr. Mercier explained that if Council desires to change how the revenues are to be used in 2006, the earlier we know the quicker we can re -draft the affected budget pages. In summary, there would be no actual transfer of funds, but the collection of funds from the state would be allocated to the street fund in support of the street maintenance activities; and in doing so, that would lessen the need for two million dollars in transfers every year from the general fund; that the general fund can be immediately reduced, or added in as available revenues, the amount of funds that are going to the street fund, and thereby we may be able to push the deficit year in the general fund out another year. Mr. Mercier suggested this matter come before Council for a motion consideration at the October 11, 2005 council meeting. Council concurred. Regarding outside agencies, Council said it was their view that the $1,000 for the Big Brothers /Big Sisters and the $1,000 for Chase would be rolled into one category of Youth Funds; that Council would allocate the funds together and get a response from the Student Advisory Council (SAC) on how those funds are to be used; and that further discussion on that topic will be discussed at the next meeting after the SAC has an opportunity to discuss the issue. 5. Parks and Recreation MasterPlan Discussion — Mike Jackson Parks and Recreation Director Jackson said that staff has been working on the Master Plan since spring of 2004; that this is the first look at the Plan and tonight's main purpose is to make sure Council has the Plan in hand as it is released for public review; and that late fall is the anticipated adoption date. Mr. Jackson went through the Plan, gave ideas of the layout along with a few examples; and mentioned that he is not trying to promote one thing above another, that this is a Pan overview and the Plan is approximately 75% complete. Mr. Jackson also stated he recommends updating the Plan in four years to ensure it still meets community needs. One of the key issues for Council consideration tonight, Mr. Jackson explained, is how Council would like staff to facilitate further discussion; to wait and see which issues are important to the public, or by individual chapter reviews, or by another method preferred by Council. Council discussion then ensued regarding various facets of the Plan, including acquiring the old U -High School; formation of a park district; future recreation programs; an aquatic center in partnership with others; use of an indoor or outdoor pool; cost review of programs; acquisition and prioritization of park lands; use of private parks, schools, and churches; business opportunities, and private sector programs in Study Session Minutes: 09 -20 -05 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 relation to our possible future programs. Mr. Jackson also reminded Council that the Plan is flexible, and there will be future opportunities for further public input. 6. Appleway Right -of -way Transfer Discussion — Neil Kersten /Cary Driskell Public Works Director Kersten stated that he relayed to Spokane County, the City's concerns about some of the issues involved with taking over the Appleway right -of -way, which issues were contained in the draft quit claim deed. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that he has contacted the County's legal department on this issue, and while no response has been received yet, the County indicated they hope to have such by the joint September 29 meeting, Mr. Kersten mentioned that he and Ross Kelly have discussed the property and the possibility of grants, and that they continue to work out the details so this can be discussed further at the upcoming joint County /City meeting. 7. Appleway Signage — Cary Driskell/Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten gave a brief overview of what was presented previously concerning signs on Appleway, on what we can and cannot do regarding the blue signs, and what might we do in terms of other forms of commercial advertising in the right -of -way if that is Council's pleasure. Mr. Driskell mentioned his background information, and corrected a mis- statement in the packet that the sign code adopted by the City did not contain the definition of what an official sign is, but that is not the case as the definition is included. Attorney Driskell then went through his PowerPoint presentation. Council /staff discussion included that Council could make the policy choice to allow commercial advertising in the right -of -way; the sign committee could be asked to explore other options; the option of hiring a design consultant; gifting of public funds; use of signs for directional purpose; making the signs more readable without necessarily advertising the businesses; how to determine who gets a sign and who does not; and the process of charging the cost of the sign. It was determined that the Sign Committee will be involved in bringing back a recommendation to Council, and members of that committee will be asked to determine a timeline of when this issue can be re- addressed by Council. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:33 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m. 8. Airport Overlay Zone — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup explained that the purpose of this discussion is to explain the present airport overlay zoning and to seek Council direction concerning possible changes. She explained that this issue came up based on a protest from a property owner who wanted to build a building and did not want to give a navigation easement. Ms. Sukup, in going through her PowerPoint presentation, explained that different rules apply for Felts Field and Fairchild Air Force Base; and she added that at this point she has not been able to discuss this issue with the airport manager, and needs to confirm the federal regulations unless there are specific irregularities with Felts Field. City Attorney Connelly added that while he has not compared the two different types of airports, he will research to discover the minimum standards. It was also mentioned that the Airport Board, along with the airport manager should be consulted. Ms. Sukup stated that if there is a requirement for navigation for development, then there may also be such for all development and not just commercial development. It was determined that staff will conduct further research by checking with the airport, the airport board, and federal regulations. 9. Communication Infrastructure Ad Hoc Committee — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite explained that at the August 30 council study session, she suggested forming a citizen Ad Hoc Committee to address one of Council's goals, that of communication infrastructure; and that it was suggested Council might want to consider writing a mission statement for such committee. Mayor Wilhite explained that she did not receive any suggestions from councilmembers, and therefore proposed the following mission and vision statements: Mission: to map the current telecommunications infrastructure in Spokane Valley and develop a plan on how to provide both wire and wireless communications within our city limits; Vision: position Spokane Valley as the community of choice for Study Session Minutes: 09 -20 -05 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 businesses and citizens who need telecommunication infrastructure to provide for economic viability and quality of life. Council raised no objections to those proposed statements and to the formation of an ad hoc committee. Mayor Wilhite explained that she is still looking for a few people and is open to council suggestions /recommendations. Mayor Wilhite indicated she would send councilmembers a list within the next two to three weeks of potential ad hoc committee members. 10. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite announced that a new version of the advance agenda was distributed this evening to Council; and she alerted Councilmembers to the September 29 joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners; and of the upcoming October 12 community meeting which will be held at CenterPlace. Councilmember DeVleming suggested adding a discussion on bus benches, and brief discussion ensued regarding the enforcement of bus bench maintenance, and that Deputy City Attorney Driskell will draft a contract for city manager review, for entities wanting to have a bus bench. City Manager Mercier mentioned there is also a list of topics for the upcoming joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners, and it was suggested that "urban growth areas" be included on the list. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that the Planning Commission Chair will deliver the draft Comprehensive Plan to Council at Council's October 4 meeting; adding that their work product is an accumulation of an incredibly large amount of meetings; and staff will leave to Council how best to aggressively schedule upcoming agendas to discuss policy decisions. 11. Council Check in — Mayor Wilhite Councilmember Schimmels brought up the topic of bus service at CenterPlace. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that while not on the current provider list, that is an area on the "watch list" to measure traffic to the YMCA; and that the issue of having bus service at that location has not been determined. 12. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier Mr. Mercier asked Council to hold a thirty - minute Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, and that he does not anticipate any council action afterwards. Council concurred to have the executive session, and adjourned into executive session at 8:20 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session at 8:58 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Schimmels, seconded by Councilrnernber Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. ATTEST: tit. ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk 1 )-cA),,Ak 11J tz-Qt.t. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Study Session Minutes: 09 -20 -05 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -11 -05 GEN. FUND TOTAL RESOURCES EXPENDITURES: DEBT SERV. BNDS RESERVES /CONTINGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES "Aquifer Protection $ available in 2011 City of Spokane Valley - Capital Improvement Program Funding Problem Statement #3 September 8, 2005 Year) 2005 1 2006 2007 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 RESOURCES: ARTERIAL ST FND $ 1,250,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ CAP. PROJECTS $ 2,350,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000.000 $ 900,000 $ 850,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 SPEC. CAP PROJ $ 2,025,000 $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 900,000 $ 850,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 ST BOND $ 1,350,000 $ 902,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ STORM WATER ** $ - $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 611.000 STORM WATER STREET PROJECTS $ 246,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 8,371,000 $ 4,552,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 2,361,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 PARKS $ - $ 1,300,000 $ 900,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400.000 TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) $ 1,209,238 $ 1,135,000 $ 1,064,000 $ 892.000 $ 1,679,000 $ 2,408,000 $ 3,039,000 RESIDENTIAL PRESERVATION PROJECT $ 411.843 $ 1,033,843 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ PAVEBACK $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ STORM WATER ** $ - $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 611,000 STORM WATER STREET PROJECTS $ 336,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250.000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 2,893,081 $ 4,904,843 $ 3,950,000 $ 3,278,000 $ 4,065,000 $ 4,794,000 $ 4,636,000 CARRYOVER TO NEXT YEAR $ 5,477,919 $ 5,125,076 $ 3,725,076 $ 2,797,076 $ 982,076 $ (1,661,924) $ (3,936,924) &Wp7„t,„./A-. 4) ,5-