Loading...
2007, 05-15 Study Session MinutesPresent: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager [arrived 6:20 p.m.] Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Employee Introductions: Sue Passmore by Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor introduced Sue Passmore, newly hired Administrative Assistant for the Mayor and Council; and mentioned that Ms. Passmore previously worked with the Educational Service District 101, and also has municipal experience from the City of Yuma. Council welcomed and greeted Ms. Passmore 1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Sidewalk Requirements — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that he previously submitted a memorandum to Council in February which discussed specific rules about sidewalks; and his second memorandum now discusses sidewalks in relation to ADA requirements. Attorney Connelly mentioned that we need a transition plan, and have designated Finance Director Ken Thompson as the ADA "responsible employee." Concerning the required self - evaluation, Mr. Connelly explained the County should have completed a self - evaluation, but at this point, such document has not been located; and if it is determined that such a self evaluation plan from the County cannot be located, we will need to complete one; that if we determine structural changes are necessary for accessibility, then we must also develop a transition plan, which must be implemented as expeditiously as possible, such plan setting out what current obstacles limit accessibility to the existing facility; and how the facility will be made accessible. Mr. Connelly summarized his February 20, 2007 memorandum concerning current code provisions, legal guidelines, and enforcement considerations. A question was raised concerning who has the legal obligation to remove snow and ice, and Mr. Connelly stated that it is the property owner's responsibility to remove snow and ice within a reasonable time, that the regulation is difficult to enforce as many times by the time a notice is sent to a property owner, the ice and snow have melted. Mr. Connelly said that legally, natural accumulations of dirt or debris do not need to be removed from a public sidewalk. Councilmember Munson brought up the question of sidewalks around the back of properties, such as around 32n street, and whether we expect the homeowner to clear those sidewalks. Attorney Connelly responded that the options are to tell the homeowner they have to clear it regardless of the sidewalk's location, change the ordinance and not required sidewalks to be shoveled; or come up with an ordinance that distinguishes between those sidewalks and others, yet have the ordinance drafted to meet the tests of such action not being arbitrary and /or capricious. Public Works Meeting Minutes: 05 -15 -07 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 Director Kersten stated that the County is still doing snow removal at this time, but to have them do sidewalks, or specific sidewalks, would be very costly. Councilmember Munson asked what the cost would be, and Mr. Kersten said it would require some research to make that determination. Attorney Connelly added that there also exists the issue of those who park on sidewalks and thus hinder people's free use of sidewalks; and he'd like to include that in the ordinance; that we likely already prohibit obstruction of sidewalks, but that could be more specific and a violation could be added making it a nuisance to block the public right -of -way. Other discussion points included keeping the process the same, e.g. reactionary or compliant driven; sidewalks near schools; identifying other high risk areas; enforcement; high bus traffic; private contracting issues and paying prevailing wages; a sidewalk maintenance program for people to borrow from to fix their sidewalks; and other cities' sidewalk ordinances. Regarding ADA issues, Attorney Connelly summarized the issue by stating that we have to identify the problem, come up with a plan and funding to fix the problem; and that the plan needs to bring all public facilities into ADA compliance, adding that new construction addresses these issues automatically. Attorney Connelly also said research needs to be conducted to determine what the County did, so as not to repeat those efforts. It was Council consensus that staff will look at other cities ordinances, pursue the existence of any County plan, come up with a budget for doing our own plan, and to administratively target certain areas for snow removal by code enforcement; and to report the research results back to council. 2. Appleway Avenue Project Update — Steve Worley Public Works Director Kersten mentioned that this is a project update for council prior to soliciting bids; that this item will return to council for the bid award; that the total budget for this project is over six million dollars; and that the plans and specifications are 95% complete. Mr. Kersten then explained the area of the project as shown on the drawing; and mentioned the need to have all the rights -of -way certified before putting this out for bids, which he hopes to accomplish in a few weeks; and that the project will likely carry through the winter, but no sections will remain unpaved. 3. Wastewater Financial Planning Policy Issues — Neil Kersten Director Kersten explained that this is an opportunity to Council to discuss wastewater policy issues as reviewed during the joint Council /County May 1 meeting. Councilmember DeVleming mentioned that this would be advisory to the County as they have the ultimate decision; and Mr. Mercier added that Commission Chair Richard invited Council to provide input by way of suggesting reasonable options. Discussion ensued regarding the 2008 proposed rate options for consideration; the proposed discount rate for seniors and low- income citizens; and that it was Council consensus to use the 20% discount as opposed to the previously County recommendation of 30 %. Mr. Bruce Rawls was also in attendance, and said that using a 20% rate would almost exactly level the rates for seniors, and the rate increase to others would be a 37¢ rate increase instead of 56¢. Other discussion items included the STEP charges as shown on slide 14; and non -point source options as part of the TMDL (total maximum daily load). Mr. Rawls also mentioned that a new public hearing date (other than a Tuesday night) has not yet been set; and he asked if Council has other policy issue preferences, to please send such to him by the end of May. 4. Uniform Development Code (UDC) Title 24 — Mary Kate Martin Building Official Martin went through her PowerPoint presentation hitting the highlights of UDC Title 24, and mentioned that options are to re -adopt the International Codes every three years, or adopt perpetual language in our ordinance; adding that the ordinance can always be amended later if necessary. Ms. Martin mentioned that most of the items in this title are regulated by code; that electrical systems are regulated through Labor and Industries; that the model codes as adopted by the State have some limited options, and we can make the ordinance more restrictive if desired. In response to Council questions concerning section 105 Permits, Ms. Martin said that the permit sections are generalized as the international code no longer includes specifics; that if a permit expires it doesn't mean the project is dead, Meeting Minutes: 05 -15 -07 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 but that staff will need to perform a review to make sure there are no changes. Concerning 80% fee refunds as explained in the Request for Council Action (RCA), Ms. Martin said that most jurisdictions use the 80% and it is intended to cover administrative costs, that the percentage is usual and customary, and Spokane County and the City of Spokane have the same policy. Councilmember DeVleming asked about maintaining a minimum temperature of 65° (as shown on page 8 of the RCA), and asked if that conflicts with nonresidential energy code as many warehouses keep the heat to a maximum of 50 °. Ms. Martin said she believes that regulation likely applies to tenant buildings where the heat is centrally controlled by the building owner, but that she will research that in more detail. It was Council consensus to place this on the next council meeting agenda for ordinance adoption consideration. 5. Uniform Development Code (UDC) Titles 19 and 22 — Marina Sukup Planning Manager McCormick gave an update on the progress of UDC Titles 19 and 22. In response to Councilmember DeVleming's question concerning these titles and Council's inability to discuss them at this point, Deputy Mayor Taylor said he requested Council get information on some changes made following public comments as he feels it is important to understand how staff is administering policies of the comprehensive plan within these development regulations, to make sure the goals of the Plan will be accomplished; and to be informed prior to the time when Council will debate this title. Councilmember DeVleming voiced his disagreement and said that hearing this tonight without Council discussion is awkward. Mr. Mercier added that tonight's proposal is for Mr. McCormick to present information to Council for their thoughts away from the dais, and is an attempt to satisfy a range of council desires. Mr. McCormick then gave his PowerPoint presentation giving the background as noted in the May 15, 2007 Request for Council Action form. Mr. McCormick added that the regular Planning Commission is scheduled for next Thursday, and that the Commission has worked through all the main categories in Title 19, and will go back over definitions. Councilmember DeVleming asked about applying for a second extension to complete this work, and Mr. Mercier responded that he didn't think it was possible; and Mr. McCormick added that CTED only allows one extension, and that extension ends the end of September. Mr. McCormick explained that once the Planning Commission completes Title 19, the goal is to get that to Council for review while staff and the Planning Commission work on title 22, with a target date to complete Titles 22 and 19 by the end of June. Mr. McCormick also mentioned the Commission has scheduled several special meetings in order to meet that schedule. Mr. Mercier said that if the process is not timely completed, the City would be in noncompliance, which might provide an impediment to other plans the City wants to adopt. In response to Councilmember Munson's comments that he would like to know what discretion was used in interpreting the law and where we differ from the adopted Code of the County, Mr. McCormick said they are in effect, throwing out the Spokane County Code and starting from scratch; and that Titles 19 and 22 are two major titles where Council has a large deal of discretion to implement the comprehensive plan through these regulations. After discussion concerning the timeliness of this process, Mr. Mercier said staff can relay to the Commission, Council's desire to have the material furnished at the earliest possible date, but that he is confident the Commission is aware of and sensitive to those needs. 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite mentioned that there will be no meeting the day after Memorial Day; she reminded everyone of the June 2 retreat at Councilmember Denenny's cabin, and said that if the schedule and the Planning Commission review allows, perhaps the UDC (Uniform Development Code) July 17 discussion could be moved up a week earlier. Councilmember DeVleming said that the Student Advisory Committee will be ready to make recommendations for filling vacancies, and he would like to do so at the June 19 meeting; and that he is also working on a memo regarding crime reporting trends that he hopes to have as an information only item in the June 5 packet. It was also mentioned that regional transportation concurrency report by Glenn Miles is scheduled for the June 26 council meeting. Meeting Minutes: 05 -15 -07 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07 7. Information Only: Appleway Extension, Metropolitan Transit Plan (MTP) — Steve Worley This was an "information only" item and was not reported or discussed. 8. Council Check -in — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite asked that councilmembers remember to give their vacation schedule to Sue Passmore. 9. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier announced that a CTED (Community, Trade & Economic Development) meeting is set for Wednesday, May 30, from noon to 1:30; and that CTED is coming to this area to gather municipal officials to continue the discussion on joint planning and other relevant matters; and that the meeting will be held in the Champions Room at the Arena. Councilmember Munson said that he will be chairing that meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation; Land Acquisition It was moved by Councilmember Munson, .seconded and unanimously agreed, to adjourn into executive session for pending litigation only, for approximately forty -five minutes, to take a five- minute recess prior to the executive session, and that it is not certain if any action will be taken upon the Council 's return to regular session. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:40 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of executive session at 8:25 p.m. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to authorize the City Attorney to make a counteroffer to the County regarding the proposed Appleway right -of -way; which will be subject to approval by both the County Commissioners and the City Council. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny, Gothmann, and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmember Munson. Motion carried. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. ATTES Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk (ke,,,,,, 1,1 akt„ Diana Wilhite, Mayor Meeting Minutes: 05 -15 -07 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 06 -05 -07