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