2007, 02-20 Study Session MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Present:
Councilmembers:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Absent:
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Staff:
Dave Mercier City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Marina Sukup, Community Development Dir
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Mike Connelly, City Attorney [arrived 7:16 ]
Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Schimmels.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember
Schimmels from tonight's meeting.
1. Economic Development Council's Fourth Quarter Report — Jim Huttenmaier
Mr. Huttenmaier thanked Council for the opportunity to discuss the 2006 Economic Development
Council's Year End Report. After Mr. Huttenmaier went through the highlights of the report, he
mentioned he has copies for Council of the Greater Spokane Incorporated's brochure entitled "Spokane
Vitals," which is a new measurement tool used to help them examine various ways to measure this region
against others economically. He said that Robin Toth will be contacting Council to set up a time for them
to further discuss the Site Selector idea. Mayor Wilhite added that she and Mr. Huttenmaier have
discussed the EDC reports, and with Council concurrence, the EDC will submit their quarterly reports as
they have done in the past, but only report orally to council twice a year, unless there are unusual
circumstances or items council would like discussed. Council concurred. Councilmember Munson said
in future reports, he would like to have the funds broken out to show what is attributed to Spokane Valley.
2. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Project — Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that as in the past, Spokane Regional Transportation Council has
issued another call for projects for the expenditure of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307
funds for transit - related projects. Mr. Worley said that they quickly put a list of projects together for the
project, and just yesterday received more information, hence he distributed a new "Project Application
Summary" showing six proposed projects. Mr. Worley said that they examined bus routes and pavement
conditions and the new list shows which projects would help correct some of the road deficiencies, and
also address some ADA (American with Disabilities Act) issues along Sprague. Mr. Worley continued
by explaining that the highest passenger bus route is Bus Route #90; and the second highest bus passenger
route is 8 Avenue. Mr. Worley also brought Council attention to the attached map showing the area of
the proposed projects; and that staff hopes to bring this matter back again next week for Council approval.
If approved, Mr. Worley said that the funds would be available for 2008 -2011. After brief council
discussion, Council concurred that staff should proceed with this list and come back next week with
refined figures.
Meeting Minutes: 02 -20 -2007 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council: 02 -27 -07
3. Street Sweeping Requests for Proposals — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that the County has provided street services for the City since
incorporation; and that street sweeping was one of the activities proposed to be fully contracted out in
2007 in the transition plan of the interlocal agreement; and that as part of that plan, the City hired AAA
Sweeping to perform the 2006 fall cleanup. Mr. Kersten further explained that staff submitted a request
for proposals but only received one proposal, from AAA Sweeping; and that he would like to get Council
concurrence to negotiate and develop a contract, and to bring the contract back for council's approval in a
few weeks. Mr. Kersten also stated that after we work with this company for a year, we would be in a
better position to determine if that company is the most cost effective, or to perhaps explore other options
such as having the service in- house; but that in -house also means equipment purchase, maintenance, and
storage. Mr. Kersten said this service is funded approximately 96% from the stormwater fund. Mr.
Mercier added that in the negotiated roadway maintenance contract with the County, that contract
provides for a three -year transition plan, but that the County would prefer not to provide these services;
and once we terminate those County services, we can't go back to the County. After brief Council
discussion, Council concurred that staff should negotiate the contract and bring this item back for council
approval.
4. Beverly Hills Drainage Improvements — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten stated that this steep hillside area had sewers installed by the County in
2002, but at that time, the comprehensive drainage system was not addressed thereby causing heavy rains
to result in water and mud running into people homes. Mr. Kersten said that Spokane County spent
approximately $20,000 cleaning and re- grading the ditches after the sewer project, and has offered
another $25,000 to be used toward the cost of a comprehensive drainage plan for that area. Director
Kersten said that the plans and specifications for phase I were finalized in October, and although the
project was scheduled for bids in December, staff recommended delaying that bid until after the holiday
season; that bids are scheduled to be opened February 22; and after staff has had opportunity to review the
bids, this matter will be brought back to Council for further action.
5. 2007 Sewer Paveback Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten said that this MOU is identical to what was approved in the past; and he
then briefed Council on the three projects within our City limits: Grandview Acres, Trentwood, and
Spaldings. Mr. Kersten said that not all detailed plans and cost estimates are in yet; but that they have
budgeted $900,000 for road improvements, and $200,000 for drainage improvement. Mr. Kersten said
costs have increased; and that until we get all the plans, these figures are estimates; adding that final
approval of the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds is not expected until the beginning
of March; and that the matter is scheduled for final council approval at the February 27 council meeting.
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
6. Uniform Development Code (UDC) Title 21 — Marina Sukup
Community Development Director Sukup went through her PowerPoint presentation of some of the major
components of Title 21 Environmental Controls, including provisions for compliance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as well as critical areas including floodplain hazards, wetlands
protection, and fish and wildlife conservation. Council discussion turned to lot coverage maximum and
setbacks, most of which Ms. Sukup explained are contained in Title 22 rather than Title 21. Also
discussed was the rationale behind the figures shown on slide #4, SEPA Flexible Thresholds, after which
Council concurred to have each threshold at the maximum rather than the automatic or recommended.
[City Attorney Connelly arrived at 7:16 p.m.] Councilmember Munson asked if anything has changed in
this title since they last discussed it and Ms. Sukup replied it has not; that the Planning Commission held
a public hearing February 8 and recommended this title move forward. Ms. Sukup said that the policy
question remains concerning the fish and wildlife conversation provisions, if the Director's authority to
allow reductions in the riparian buffer should be reduced from 25% to 10 %, with 25% meaning the
director would have more discretion. Council concurred to keep that discretion at 25 %. Discussion then
Meeting Minutes: 02 -20 -2007 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council: 02 -27 -07
briefly turned to Title 17, and Ms. Sukup explained that the County typically sent shoreline substantial
development permits through as a conditional use permit through the Hearing Examiner, so the Hearing
Examiner and not the staff was actually issuing the permit; and that although the work has been
suspended on our shoreline master program, that is within the context administratively of how substantial
development permits are issued in the shoreline areas, and that those can be done administratively; and
that if done administratively, the appeal would be through the Shoreline Hearings Board; as requiring the
conditional use permit with the Hearing Examiner, we would be making them go through an unnecessary
hearing, which is an expensive ($15,000) and lengthy (four to six months) process. Ms. Sukup mentioned
that these processes would all have to go through SEPA, which would give the public opportunity for
comment; and that any administrative determination appeal could be appealed through the Shorelines
Hearings Board; and that this would change it from a type three permit to a type two permit which is
issued administratively. It was council consensus to change that shoreline permit from a three to a type
two permit.
Councilmember Gothmann asked the intent of tomorrow night's meeting as several councilmembers have
concerns discussing titles which have not yet gone through the Planning Commission process. After brief
discussion, Council decided to cancel tomorrow night's meeting and discuss those titles after the Planning
Commission submits its recommendations to Council.
7. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite
Councilmember DeVleming mentioned that the Student Advisory Council is working on a project which
will create a situation for them to raise money for the project; and he asked how best to handle that,
including possible procedures on setting up a bank account and /or appointing /creating a treasurer, adding
that this might also mean further bylaw modification; and said he would like to discuss those issues with
Mr. Mercier and Finance Director Thompson. Councilmember Munson suggested putting an item on a
future agenda to discuss options for establishing our own CDBG Entitlement zone. Concerning setting up
another Wednesday meeting to further discuss UDC titles, Mr. Munson mentioned he would be out of
town the first week in March. Mayor Wilhite also reminded Councilmembers of the March 1 meeting at
CenterPlace.
8. Information only items. UDC Titles 19, 22 and 24; Cable Franchise Extension; and Department
Reports were not discussed but were included for information only.
9. Council Check -in — Mayor Wilhite
Councilmembers mentioned the benefits of having a lobbyist in Olympia, and of the positive aspects of
their legislative session last week; and that they felt they were better informed on what legislation is
moving through Olympia.
10. City Manger Comments — Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier reported that this afternoon he and Mike Jackson met with Gary Livingston and Scott
Morgan from Spokane Community Colleges and talked about the Administrative Executive Summary,
and the administrative determination regarding the sublease for the Sheriff's Department; that they
acknowledged that the decision has been made and that the occupation at CenterPlace by the Sheriff's
Department will terminate by March 31 with the clear understanding that all of the regional type
programs that have been advertised can continue through September, and also other seminars can
continue as they fit within the allowed uses of the two control documents that have been used to govern
what would be the activity in that building; so that may continue but not the occupation of an office area
or in- service training; that there has been communication between City Hall and the Sheriff's Department
about moving forward and eliminating any external use, such as use of the parking lot for part of their
program. Mr. Mercier said they discussed about how to move forward with the Community College, and
whether we would be sharing business plans, and what is the highest and best use they could think of for
that building, what kind of programs do they think are marketable and feasible for the building; and that
we understand that enrollment is down across the board for community colleges. Mr. Mercier also stated
Meeting Minutes: 02 -20 -2007 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: 02 -27 -07
that we offered to incorporate productive language in our marketing program to further buffer what the
community colleges hope to accomplish; and as everyone gets a better sense of what the vision for the use
of the building is over time, it will be helpful for them all to work more synergistically together; and that
they also discussed a range of other options to explore. Again, Mr. Mercier said the conversation was
about the City's desire to find a way to make their occupation of the building as economically viable as
possible; and that they will be continuing conversations; that a different individual was named as the
contact person, i.e. Scott Morgan, and that he is more acclimated to the program side of what goes on for
the colleges as opposed to the facility management side; and that we hope we are improving our
communication with the college and see smoother sailing as time goes by. Mr. Mercier explained that the
executive summary has been composed and that administrative determination is expressed there; and that
tends to the administrative side; and that he asked City Attorney Connelly to continue his discussions
with bond counsel to sort through the policy dimensions that would be available for council
consideration.
City Attorney Connelly stated that he put together a memorandum which outlines the legal constraints the
City has when establishing policy; that the legal constraints are a result of using the approximate seven
million dollars in bonds to build a portion of the building; that the City guaranteed those funds but they
are really being paid back by revenue derived from sales and hotel tax sources that were allowed under
statute that allows us to build regional facilities; and to preserve the flow of sales tax and hotel tax to pay
back the bonds, we have to follow certain rules for a portion of the CenterPlace; which rules are set forth
in statutes as mentioned in his memorandum; and that we must be sure that either 70 or 80% of the
building is used for that (regional) purpose. Mr. Connelly said that in the beginning, we identified some
additional funding that was used to build the senior center and there was some additional funding used to
complete the building, which is why it is not a total regional center and why a portion of it can be used for
nonregional purposes. Mr. Connelly said that the senior center was considered not a regional purpose and
the community college partially was considered not a regional purpose; but to make all the numbers fit
and to be consistent with our funding, we had to identify 20% of the leased space that the Community
College has, as space that had to be available for regional purposes as set forth in the statutes; and that to
keep in mind for that use, we look to the special event center definition, which is use such as community
events, sporting events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical, or exhibitions, presentations or
performances; and that what they determined when putting this all together, is that the community
colleges because of its nature as an educational institution, would likely have about 20% of their activities
that would fall within this definition, and therefore the 20% threshold would be met. Mr. Connelly said
as Council looks to develop other policy decisions about what they want to use the facility for, Council
must keep in mind that no matter what we do, 20% of that space needs to be dedicated for regional use
pursuant to the statute.
Mr. Mercier said they do not anticipate further reporting to council on this particular item (sub -lease
matter) and when Council is ready to address policy issues, Mr. Mercier asks Council to inform staff and
staff will make space on an advance agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Tristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Meeting Minutes: 02 -20 -2007 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council: 02 -27 -07
Street Name Project Name
Federal Transit Administration - Section 5307 Funds
SRTC Call For Projects
Project Application Summary
Proiect Extents Estimated Cost
1. Sprague Avenue Grind & Inlay /ADA Improvements Project University to Sullivan, (3.0 mi.) S5,283,000
Grind & 3 -inch Asphalt Inlay of Roadway. Upgrade/Construct Sidewalks/Ramps to ADA Standards
2. Evergreen/32" Reconstruction Project 16 to 32 Evergreen to SR -27, (1.25 mi.) S4,29H),000
Reconstruct Roadway to a 3 -Lane Section with Sidewalks. Curbs. Bike Lanes. & Stormwater Facilities
3. Sprague Avenue Concrete Intersections Project University, Bowdish, Pines, & Evergreen $3,317,000
Reconstruct Intersections in concrete at University. Bowdish & Evergreen; Approach lanes at Pines
15 to 32", (1.0 mi) $ 708,000
4. University Road Grind & Inlay Project
Grind and 2 -inch Asphalt Inlay of Roadway
5. 8 Avenue Reconstruction Projects Phase 1, Park to Dickey, (0.88 mi.) S3,303,000
Phase 2, Dickey to Carnahan, (0.62 mi.) $2,327,000
Phase 3, Carnahan to Havana, (030 mi.) S1,876,000
Reconstruct Roadway to a 3 -Lane Section with Sidewalks. Curbs. Bike Lanes. & Stormwater Facilities
6. Misc. Concrete Intersections McDonald/Sprague, Broadway/Sullivan & Indiana/Sullivan $2,809,000
Reconstruct Intersections in concrete at McDonald/Sprague. Broadway /Sullivan & Indiana/Sullivan
Total Estimated Project Costs: $23,823,000
•
4,
" ..... 11