Loading...
2007, 03-20 Study Session MinutesMINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, March 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 Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Staff: Dave Mercier City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Marina Sukup, Community Development Dir Mike Connelly, City Attorney Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Chris Berg, Code Compliance Officer Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wilhite acknowledged the presence of and welcomed Spokane Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick; and then asked for a few minutes of silence in remembrance of Valley News Herald reporter Charlie Plumb. Employee Introductions: Public Works Director Kersten introduced new employees Rod Pegram, Construction Inspector for Development, and Hal West, Assistant Engineer Stormwater. Planning Manager McCormick then introduced Assistant Planner Tavis Schmidt; followed by an introduction of new CenterPlace Administrative Assistant Angie Harley by Parks and Recreation Director Jackson. Council then welcomed and greeted the new employees. 1. Paperless Agendas/Notebook Computers — Chris Berg /Chris Bainbridge City Clerk Bainbridge explained that almost since the City's beginning, staff has made approximately 27 full council packets available for Councilmembers, staff, the press, and a packet for members of the public to view at the reception area; and she said that with the March 6 council packet, the full packet will appear on the City's website. Ms. Bainbridge mentioned that also during the first year years of this City's history, Council voiced the idea of eventually having paperless agendas; and she explained some of the positive reasons to switch to paperless agendas, including less staff time, saving on copier paper, toner, and machine wear and tear; and less materials for councilmembers to carry back and forth to meetings. She also stated that Council previously voiced a concern that paperless agendas would mean giving up the ability to make notes on their paper copies. Ms. Bainbridge said with the use of a computer tablet, that problem is solved as it has the capability of allowing the user to highlight areas and make notes right on the documents on the computer. She then turned the presentation over to Code Compliance Officer Chris Berg, and IT Specialist Greg Bingaman, to give Council a demonstration of the capabilities of the computer tablet. Code Compliance Officer Berg explained the computer tablet and of its ease to use, and he demonstrated several options connected with the Microsoft Software which allows the user to write on the actual document, make annotations, highlights, etc., and that it also has the ability to erase those notes Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 and change the notation. Mr. Bingaman mentioned that this does not take a lot of extra preparation to have these documents in this format; and he showed that users have the option of folding down the computer and using it as a tablet, or having the screen up and using it as a normal laptop, and using either the standard keyboard, mouse, or stylus. In response to council questions, Mr. Berg said this computer has ample memory to handle numerous council packets, is faster than some laptops, and that depending on the configuration, Mr. Bingaman said storage capacity is not an issue with these tablets; that it would function as a standard laptop, with the added function of becoming a PC for handwriting annotation and caption. Ms. Bainbridge said that this would enable council to download the full council packet from the City's website onto each Councilmember's computer tablet, and as the councilmember reads through the material, they would be able to make notes and highlights, etc right on each document; and councilmembers would have the option of keeping their notes or deleting some, or all; and that the City Clerk's office would continue to retain a full file hard copy of every council packet. Ms. Bainbridge said not all details have been worked out; but she could either e -mail councilmembers that the council packet is now on the website, or mail the council packet to councilmembers, or both; and that there are some techniques to reduce or compress photos, maps, and other large documents to have them included in the website packet. At present on the website, Ms. Bainbridge said the Council packet is one document, thereby eliminating the need for council to download multiple documents. Mr. Bingaman also mentioned that tonight's 47 page council packet was less than 400 k; so PDF has extreme capabilities of making documents portable and small; and the use of hyperlinks is also possible; and that tonight's presentation is the beginning of the exploration of what is available. Mr. Bingaman also mentioned that Sprint and Verizon offer a wireless cellular connection, which at times surpass the DSL speeds; that our Sprint averages about 1.1 megabytes, which is equivalent to DSL service in the field; and anywhere that there is Sprint phone service which has the upgraded service, high speed connectivity would be available, and he mentioned that is available throughout most of the country; and he added that he would be available to train Councilmembers on this computer tablet; and would be available to answer Councilmembers individual questions as they arise. In response to question, City Clerk Bainbridge said that although she makes approximately 28 council packets, that would not mean having to purchase 28 computer tablets; that she envisions purchasing a computer tablet for each councilmember, one for the IT specialist and City Clerk, one for Legal and the City Manager, and that each staff member could simply download and print their individual council agenda item and bring that to the meeting, rather than the entire council packet. Mr. Bingaman mentioned that the current model used in tonight's demonstration cost approximately $1700 each. Ms. Bainbridge reminded Council that there would also be savings of wear and tear on the copier machines, paper, toner, notebooks, tabs, and staff time to prepare each packet; and that an average packet takes about four hours from start to finish; whereas placing the documents on the website as shown tonight, takes about 10 minutes. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he feels this would be a practical and positive move and he supports the idea; and Councilmember Munson said this makes good sense also from an environmental viewpoint. Councilmember DeVleming said he has a harder time justifying this purchase for Council's needs of a few hours a day, versus what the Code Compliance officers do all day long, every day; but he would like more information on cost comparisons. Mr. Mercier said that we should also focus on the incremental cost difference; and as the current laptops come to the end of their life cycle, there would be a replacement cost of those; so we need to look at the margin between that base replacement cost and the step up to the current technology. There was further discussion on some of the finer points of this process, like changing what was already on the website, or replacing budget pages, and staff said those refinements can be considered and worked out. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that tonight's presentation is the first to get Council's response on the issues, and that staff will accumulate other comparative information and cost analysis for later council meetings. Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 2. County's Hazard Mitigation Plan — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup introduced Darrell Ruby of the Division of Emergency Management, expert on the Multi- Jurisdiction All- Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Ruby said he is aware that Ms. Sukup went through the presentation previously and that she highlighted action statements specific to Spokane Valley, and he said he was open to questions; and at last August's briefing to Council, it was the Committee's goal at that time to have all the cities and towns of Spokane County adopt the Plan, but due to some involvement they did not have with some smaller cities and towns, they decided to go with just Spokane County, City of Spokane Valley, and the City of Spokane; and that they have an adoption from the County, and he is currently working with the City of Spokane and our city to get the resolutions adopted. Ms. Sukup clarified that the check marks on her March 20, 2007 Request for Council Action (RCA) form were indications that this is something we are already doing and which our regulations already promote. Councilmember Gothmann asked about WF6 on page 3 of the RCA [Require that new development in wildland urban interface areas to provide at least two means of ingress /egress.] and whether that would depend upon the size of the development; and Mr. Ruby said yes but that they also tried to stay away from mandating; but that the goal of this Plan is to work with planning departments and code enforcement and urban development to meet the recommended mitigation efforts throughout this plan; adding that these are recommendations to help mitigate hazards the County faces. Mr. Ruby said this Plan is modeled after a FEMA checklist, and adopting the Plan via resolution will make the City eligible for pre- disaster mitigation grants. Ms. Sukup added that the resolution is scheduled for next week's council agenda. Mayor Wilhite said the figures on page 18 need to be updated; and Ms. Sukup said they have requested those changes. 3. Sign Code Update — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup went through her PowerPoint presentation on the sign regulations, including the background of forming the Ad Hoc Committee, the Committee's charge; and the Committee recommendations. Ms. Sukup also mentioned that the Public Hearing on this issue before the Planning Commission has been continued, so tonight's presentation is strictly information of what the committee recommends; and that discussion of the issue will be delayed until Council obtains the Planning Commission recommended version of this document. Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 4. Vacation of Streets, Payment of Value — Mike Connelly /Marina Sukup City Attorney Connelly explained that questions have arisen concerning the options the City has when properties are to be vacated, and of options for charging or not; and that the City currently has no guidelines or written criteria for determining whether to charge. After explaining the highlights of his March 15, 2007 "Street Vacations" memorandum, Mr. Connelly said Council could explore the options concerning charging for vacated property. Suggestions for criteria to use included appraised value, land value of adjacent lots, assessor's value; size, type of zone, the $1300 administrative fee in addition to other criteria, the $1300 administrative fee only, the land by itself versus the land and its surroundings, only have a fee if the land is over a certain appraised value, such as anything over $10,000; the value of the land per square foot; whether the land is improved; some trigger over the administrative fee for cost recovery; or a percentage over the administrative fee. There was some council consensus to look at the square footage of assessed value, and when that is $1300 or less, then the administrative fee is a wash; and anything over that would be 50% of cost. Attorney Connelly said he will draft a suggested policy and bring that back for further council consideration, and Council can then decide on the exact percentage. Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 5. Public Records Ordinance — Mike Connelly After City Attorney Connelly explained the issues to be included in an ordinance; and said that the State legislature adopted the Model Public Records Ordinance and that our ordinance will be drafted to be consistent with that model ordinance; and that the attached draft policy is for information purposes and would be adopted administratively. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that he would schedule training for everyone concerning records management, including what types of records to keep and what can be archived or discarded. Council concurred to bring this ordinance back for a first reading. 6. Purchasing Policy Revisions — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that staff has undertaken a comprehensive review of the purchasing policies and current code provisions. He explained that staff will first recommend some code changes, followed by a drafting and presentation of a comprehensive purchasing manual, which Council will later be asked to adopt by resolution; but tonight's issue is code revision. Mr. Driskell said that he previously received Council guidance to remove the City Manager's contract dollar amount authority from resolution to the Municipal Code and that is included in these draft provisions; but still to be decided is if Council desires to change any of the levels of authority for the City Manager; that currently the City Manager has authority up to a total of $200,000 for some contracts, and $50,000 for others, including change orders; and the proposed change would be to bring the authority on all types of contracts, except for real estate and interlocal agreements, to $200,000. Mr. Driskell said that amount is included in code section 3.35. Council discussed this part of the proposal, with Councilmember Munson stating he has no problem with the change; Councilmember Denenny mentioned the public's perception of difference on projects, in that capital projects seem to be already covered in the budget, but concerning goods and services such as purchase of vehicles, it seems different although he realizes provisions for the purchases or contracts have been covered, or would be covered in the budget, that the Finance Committee reviews the items, and he would be agreeable with the $200,000 for all types of contracts. Councilmember Gothmann agreed as did Mayor Wilhite as the expenditure would be on budgeted items, which is also included in the monthly expenditures and which have previously been reviewed by the Finance Committee. Councilmember Schimmels said that he would be agreeable to keeping the amounts as they are now and rather than having the items come before council three times, to have just one touch before council, as he would rather see the item out in the open rather than hid in the Consent Agenda. Mr. Mercier reminded Council that all expenditures made are enumerated plainly and easy to read in the monthly submittal of the claims voucher, and when items appear in the Consent agenda they are no less informative then when brought forward in another manner. It was Council consensus for Mr. Driskell to proceed with changing the draft ordinance to bring the authority of the City Manager to $200,000 on all types of contracts as mentioned above. Attorney Driskell explained that the second part of the code /ordinance deals with contracts larger than $200,000; and the issue is, what should be identified as the appropriate change order level in those circumstances; with the cap again at $200,000 for most contracts; and he showed some examples as outlined in his Request for Council Action form; and mentioned that even with a $10,000,000 contract, the cap would still be $200,000 regardless of the percentage. Councilmember Denenny suggested going up to a $1.5 million dollar original contract with 15% change authority. To further clarify, Public Works Director Kersten explained that it is a cumulative amount; as an example, when CenterPlace was constructed, if there were ten change orders that cumulatively went to $50,000, then we came back; but the issue he deals with is with construction projects of four to five million, which he explained, could easily have a several hundred thousand dollar change order in the field where a decision needs to be made on the spot; where the contractor has to stop work and wait for a council decision; and that we need a level that would typically take care of those issues; and that perhaps we would need some minimum level cap; that the $200,000 works well for him and he feels they would rarely have an individual item which Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 would exceed several hundred thousand on those projects. Councilmember Denenny agreed and said that he feels since 15% is large, 20% would be too large; and 10% would be too small; hence his suggestion of 15 %. Mr. Kersten said an example of a situation which would need an immediate decision to keep a project moving, would be Appleway project where we know there are some bad soils, but as we move into the project if we hit a spot that needs several feet more taken out in one spot and the work needs to proceed; the contractors would stop working until a decision is made on the change order; adding that those issues surface occasionally; and that the one touch change order would work well versus going through the three touch process. Mr. Mercier said staff also might ask Council to tolerate occasional special exceptions; as there are times when a decision needs to be made to either proceed or cease construction; with such exceptions being allowed to exceed whatever is the typical percentage and cap, and have the requirement that we report the use of that exception within 48 hours to the City Council; with the goal of not costing the city additional money in delays due to unforeseen circumstances. Councilmember Munson suggested having the finance committee as the entity to consider such exceptional circumstances. Councilmember DeVleming voiced his concern in creating a situation for a future council and a future staff to have to get back control if the trust level is not as high as it is now; and he would be agreeable with a "one touch" for council review. Councilmember Denenny added that another factor to consider is that $200,000 becomes less every year. Mayor Wilhite remarked that if any council felt it was at any time uncomfortable with the policy, council has the option to change policy. To recap, Mr. Mercier said that there are three to four phases of consideration: what is the base authority for delegated purchasing, which council concurs is $200,000; and moving into the change orders, that 15% or $200,000, whichever is less, is acceptable to the majority of council; we know that this is a policy matter which would require Council vote on an ordinance; and if Council ever wants to change policy, they have that option; and that there may be very unusual circumstances which require a ready response from the City, and in those cases, we would invoke the services of the finance committee to hear that and then give some direction to operating departments from there; and then report the matter to the entire Council. In addition, if change orders were required to come before the Council in excess of that 15% or $200,000, we would operate on the one -touch rule for expediency purposes. Council concurred. Mr. Driskell explained the other policy choice would be a revision to section 3.40.050, which would remove the dollar amounts in the code and put them in the manual (for non - public works purchasing) to be adopted by resolution. Council concurred. On the third item, Mr. Driskell explained that in architectural and engineering contracts, the policy to consider is whether to change the requirement from having to use the consultant roster and advertise for each architectural and engineering contract, to the bifurcated system that would allow flexibility for those contracts of $100,000 and below; that the current requirement is any time we need to use the consultant roster for architectural and engineering services, we advertise to inform companies they may apply to be included on the roster and when we have a specific project, we advertise it and take the results from the advertising and from the roster to make a determination on who is most qualified; and then attempt price negotiations. Rather then having to do the roster and the advertising each time, we are proposing we choose either or, which is according to state law, but we would bifurcate that; so for a contract that is anticipated to be $100,000 or less, we would have the option of using the roster or the roster and advertising; and for projects over the $100,000, we would use both the roster and advertising. Council concurred. Mr. Driskell said that the last change to consider is for the small works roster; to change the notification process to allow notification by e -mail, and that instead of pulling three names off on a rotating basis for consideration; we would notify every business on the roster every time there is a project. Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 There was some discussion about adding a second e -mail address; or having a process to verify that the e- mail was received; and Mr. Kersten said staff is doing a testing process to confirm everyone's e -mail; and that the law allows that we do this without requiring receipt of e -mail; and that it could be a complex process to track the receipt of 40 to 60 e- mails. Mr. Connelly added that there is no guaranteed process for e -mail receipt as the recipient could always turn off that function without the knowledge of staff. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. Council concurred with the fourth change; and staff said an ordinance showing the changes will be brought back for council approval consideration. 7. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite Deputy Mayor Taylor mentioned the proposed closure of Pratt Elementary School, and that although Council is not involved in that closure decision, he would like to ask Dr. Benzel or another representative to come to the next meeting so Council can ask questions about issue. Mayor Wilhite said Councilmember Gothmann will be attending their public hearing, and she has asked him to speak with the Superintendent or the School Board members to voice our concerns, and see if there is any information which could be sent to Council in that regard. Councilmember Gothmann said that Mayor Wilhite asked him to ask the School Board if someone could come before Council next week to discuss this issue and share information. Mayor Wilhite also mentioned that Bruce Rawls would like to give a report on wastewater treatment and we are looking at May l as a potential date; and Mr. Mercier mentioned that the Commissioners intend to attend that meeting as well. Councilmember Denenny said that a memorandum of understanding has been signed, and he would like to get a resolution from this Council in support of that; and that Councilmember Denenny could give a presentation at the April 3 meeting, then bring the resolution up for adoption consideration at the April 10 meeting. Mayor Wilhite also mentioned that the County Commissioners would like to have a joint meeting to discuss contracts and other issues, and staff is working on possible dates; and Mayor Wilhite will discuss this with Commissioner Richard to get more details on the topics of the meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to extend the meeting to 9:30. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, Munson and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. Councilmember DeVleming asked about the sidewalk issue, especially concerning ADA issues; and the Ponderosa pathway /sidewalk and who maintains it, as it is not on the upcoming agenda. Mr. Connelly said a council information memorandum was previously issued on the maintenance duties; and the ADA issues will be addressed within the next few weeks. Councilmember Denenny mentioned animal control, as there are several issues occurring in the region and perhaps Council should re- address that issue. Mr. Mercier said that staff is collecting information about definitions for in- service training and work force development; and will bring that to council to determine specific definitions; and he added that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) review is listed under "pending issues" on the advance agenda, with the idea of completing the Uniform Development Code (UDC) matters first. Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07 8. Council Check -in — Mayor Wilhite. No comments were offered. 9. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier Mr. Mercier mentioned the release of the House capital budget and the funding of the Mirabeau Point Children's Universal Park in the amount of $800,000; and the Greenacres Neighborhood Park in the amount of $306,175; adding that the budgeting is not yet final as it must go through the Senate's capital budget, then have the Governor's office approval. Mr. Mercier added that he also received a letter from Debra Howard, Assistant Superintendent for Operations at the East Valley School District, in which she indicated the interest of the School District in becoming the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for purposes of going through the process with the decommissioning of the Walker Army Reserve Center; that he spoke with Debra several weeks ago; and he has a call in to Amanda Leiker Fagon, and that he has asked for written clarification of what discretion the City has in allocating that responsibility to an interest in the community that is not city- sponsored; and what obligations it any would attach to the City for the work of such LRA; and once the answers are received, staff will make a presentation to Council. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST: hristine Bainbridge, " ity Clerk Diana Wilhite, Mayor vJ a&,,ct, Meeting Minutes: 03 -20 -07 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 04 -10 -07