Loading...
2007, 06-19 Study Session MinutesMINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Present: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember (arrived 6:45 p.m.) Absent: Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor 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 Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Mike Thompson, Fire Chief Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Roll Call: Deputy City Clerk Acosta called roll: all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Schimmels, who would be arriving later. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Taylor from the meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Devleming, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. Employee Introductions: Parks and Recreation Director Jackson introduced Greg Smith as the new Maintenance Worker for CenterPlace; Finance Director Thompson introduced Lisa Combs as the new Accounting Technician in the Finance Department; Building Official Martin introduced Patricia Prince as the new Office Assistant II in the Permit Center; and City Attorney Connelly introduced Amy Pagano as the new Legal Intern. Council welcomed the new employees to Spokane Valley. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointments: Student Advisory Council 2007 -2008 School Year — Councilmember DeVleming Councilmember Devleming explained that the procedure to appoint new students to the Student Advisory Council is to make the selections of the incoming group at the end of each school year. It was moved by Councilmember Devleming, seconded and unanimously agreed to confirm the Mayoral appointments to the Student Advisory Council as listed: Garrett Evensen, University High School; Chaylee Cline, Central Valley High School; Alexandra Hagen, East Valley High School; Allison Isaac, West Valley High School; Chase Baxter, West Valley High School. 2. Motion Consideration: Austin Hearing Deliberation and Decision — Mike Connelly Since Councilmember Munson was absent from the hearing, he recused himself from discussion. City Attorney Connelly explained the options of Council to deliberate as they make their decision are to affirm or to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner in whole or in part. The key issue is whether or not the Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 roadway in question is public or private. He then outlined the rules Council needs to follow when making their decision. To reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner, Council must find that the Hearing Examiner engaged in an unlawful procedure or failed to follow the prescribed process, his decision was an erroneous interpretation of the law, it was not supported by evidence that is substantive, it was a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts, or it was outside the authority of the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Connelly explained this is not a time to take any public testimony and that if they come to a decision, he asked that the decision be explained in detail; and that a majority of the Councilmembers must be present to make a decision. Councilmember Gothmann explained that as he reviewed the materials, he wanted to find out when signs for the project were posted and what kind of notice was given regarding the extension of Maxwell west of Bell. He said it appears the first time notice was given on changing Bell was January 22nd when a revised map that included Maxwell Avenue was received. January 10th was the date the sign was posted in the neighborhood, therefore it was 12 days after the sign was posted when the city received a revised map. A hearing was held around February 8th. He said it would seem to him inadequate notice was given to the neighborhood and to those who would be concerned. He noted that evidence showed Ms. Pollard knew of the Maxwell problem at the time of the hearing; however, he feels we owe it to our citizens to provide adequate notice and he does not feel that happened. He feels the Hearing Examiner failed in his decision. He further stated he has a motion prepared but he would like to wait until hearing from the other councilmembers. Councilmember Denenny stated if information given to the Hearing Examiner is of fact at the time of the hearing, his understanding is that they can only look at the information that was presented to the Hearing Examiner and unless there was falsification of information, then they cannot take into account whether or not another procedure should have taken place. Mr. Connelly noted it gets complicated because they are talking about two different things. Flora Road is not before this council. It is a public road and purported to be a public road and that issue is not before the council. If Council is convinced there was an unlawful procedure or failure to follow a prescribed process or if they feel the finding that this road should be a public road is not supported by substantial evidence, then they are allowed to reverse the decision. He notified Council he could not give any other guidance. Councilmember Gothmann again reviewed the timeframe for notice given that included Maxwell Avenue as part of the plat. He stated it was not until January 31st when a staff report mentioned for the first time that Maxwell Avenue was included. Sign posting and mailings were on January 10th. Therefore, the notice given did not include Maxwell Avenue, and he said he does not believe adequate notice was given; that the Hearing Examiner thinks this is a minor detail, but he believes it is a major enough detail to reverse that portion of the decision. His opinion is to affirm everything the Hearing Examiner did with the exception of that portion of the plat that includes Maxwell. Councilmember Denenny commented that his struggle is that the Hearing Examiner had to base his decision on the information he was given. If this information wasn't given to him at that time, then he did not act erroneously. However, if more information can be presented to the Hearing Examiner, then they could approve the decision with the exception of Maxwell or send it back to the Hearing Examiner and have him look at it again. Mr. Connelly asked Council if there are specifics to the criteria they are looking at and referenced the criteria on the RCA to establish their decision. He instructed Councilmember Gothmann to determine which criteria he is looking at to base his decision. Councilmember Gothmann indicated No. 1 on the RCA: The Examiner failed to follow a prescribed process unless the error was harmless, due to the fact insufficient notice was given. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to rates the decision of the Hearing Examiner with the following exception: delete the extension of Maxwell west of Bell from the approved plat. Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Councilmember Devleming stated it seems like a reasonable solution if it works. Mayor Wilhite stated the fact that the notice given, according to the timeline provided, was not adequate and was not the prescribed length of notice for everyone to know. Councilmember Gothmann stated the notice given did not have Maxwell on the plat, so the residents who looked at it did not know it would include anything west of Bell. In the hearing, the Hearing Examiner was given the revised map that included Maxwell. Councilmember Devleming agreed with the Hearing Examiner as to the level of significance of this particular issue, but he believes Councilmember Gothmann has sound reasoning. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mr. Connelly said he will draft the Council's findings of fact and have them ready for the next Council meeting. 3. Motion Consideration: Pending Litigation — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly told Council they have signed the Findings and Order confirming the judge's decision which denied the City's motion for Summary Judgment. The lawsuit concerns Appleway unimproved right -of -way. Spokane Valley filed an action with the court asking that its ownership interest be ratified by the court and the County filed counter - motions asking that their ownership be ratified by the court. The court ruled the County's motion should be granted and the City's denied. The decision now for Council is whether or not to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals, and he informed Council it is a decision to be made fairly quickly in order to comply with time constraints. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded that the City of Spokane Valley file an appeal of the Superior Court Decision in the matter of the City of Spokane Valley v. Spokane County regarding the Appleway right of way. Councilmember Munson said he thinks they are making the right move and that it is an important move toward the development of the City Center. Councilmember DeVleming said he thinks this has been a tough situation and he encouraged staff to continue to work toward coming to a solution to get to what the City wants and also what the County wants. Councilmember Gothmann said this has been an issue for five years and it is continuing. He thinks this is the best way to handle it. Mayor Wilhite stated that when the County purchased the piece of land she thinks they thought it would be a roadway, but now she does not know what they are planning to do with it. She agreed with Councilmembers this is the best thing to do. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: ClearPath Report — Greg McCormick Planning Manager McCormick gave information regarding the focus of the ClearPath report being the City Center portion of the plan and staff is seeking direction from council with regard to moving forward with City Center portion of project. Mr. McCormick said that Mike Ragsdale and Rob Larson are here to discuss the plan and answer any questions Council might have. The Gibbs report provides an overview of the review he did on the ClearPath plan and project. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the ClearPath LLC. scope of services regarding City Center real estate. Mike Ragsdale and Rob Larsen of ClearPath briefly reviewed their report, indicated they did an assessment and found the council and key staff and stakeholders have alignment on the overall purpose of the project — to create a sense of identity and community for Spokane Valley. There was some hesitancy in the depth of the community support due to the fact some people are not aware of the project. The library must be a part of the project. The City needs to provide the leadership, not the Library or the property owners. There is a broadly held sense that there is extensive community outreach to keep them informed of the progress. (Councilmember Schimmels arrived at 6:45 pm) Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Everyone seems to support the location of University and Sprague as the City Center. It is historical and physically a good location for the City Center. He indicated there has been some question about the immediacy of retail and residential in the marketplace today. Their recommendation is to further evaluate what type of product should go there. The purpose is to create a sense of community, but the vision is not clear regarding how much residential, how much retail, what it will look like. He said they are not concerned with that yet, indicating it will come with planning. However, it needs to be developed rapidly due to the library being on a tight schedule. They continued by explaining they believe the City needs to embark on a parallel path, and needs to authorize entering into a discussion on both sides of University to attempt to clarify the ability to gain ownership control of east side; recommend some kind of option procedure, parallel to that, and should pursue interest of property owners on the west to be the developer; encourage the City move aggressively to put a deal together with the Fire District and with the Library, and said that the library deadline is September. They said if we cannot meet the library's need, we will need to back up and reevaluate the plan because the library is essential, and that we need to identify the needs of the City to get a footprint. He encouraged the City move expeditiously to meet the deadlines as well as with the Appleway projects. Councilmember Munson inquired as to the timeline. Mr. Ragsdale indicated the timeline is driven by the library to meet their ballot measure by September. They need to know the site where they will be located. Councilmember Munson asked if ClearPath will be asking the developers of their ability to do the project. Mr. Larsen said he spoke with Hartland and the property owner and both indicated they do not see themselves as the developer, but the property owner. They are interested in offering their site to the City and jointly seeking a developer. ClearPath would parallel that conversation with the owners on the east side. Mr. Ragsdale clarified their recommendation is to move forward on both sides of University and wants to encourage the City to keep an open mind regarding working with the property owners on both sides. Councilmember Denenny asked for clarification regarding whether the recommendation is for direct City acquisition or partnering with someone. Mr. Larson indicated the intention was that property owners on east side wish to sell the property and the property owners on the west side want to partner with the City in the development. Councilmember Munson stated that in the initial report Gibbs hadn't completed his work yet, but indicated that retail and residential was possible and probable; however the indication from the report is that "possible" was used more than "probable." Mr. Ragsdale stated there are several types of retail opportunities available. One is a Town Center with more shop space and local merchants that creates a dynamic where there is quite a bit of square footage. Mr. Gibbs is saying that traditional retail will work on this type of project but he had the caveat that the emerging idea of the Town Center could work, because it would be the first in the area. He would like to pursue thoroughly and thoughtfully, so that at end of the day they could say this is the preferred plan for the area. City Manager Mercier directed Mr. Ragsdale to page 11, second bullet point, and asked him to explain "key" decisions that would be made by appointed City staff. Mr. Ragsdale said he would like a "go -to" person for quick answers. They also found the need for additional employees for this project, and would like the City to provide a person with clout to be able to make these decisions. Mr. Mercier asked that ClearPath provide a list of the types of decisions this person will need to make. He then asked for explanation on last bullet. Mr. Ragsdale explained that as the City begins the preliminary negotiations, there is a chance some property owners may want to go in another direction. If this occurs, ClearPath may turn to Council and ask that they put some kind of moratorium in place to maintain the vision of the MasterPlan and the project. Councilmember DeVleming asked what kind of decisions the staff person would be charged with making. Mr. Ragsdale said policy decision would go to council, but envisions process questions may be answered by staff; for example the library proximity to City Hall or decisions on performance. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment: none given. Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 Councilmember Munson said he believes Spokane Valley should go on to Phase 2 but he is concerned with the disconnect between the Gibbs report and the Echo Northwest report about what will go in there. Mayor Wilhite stated she is concerned with the month of September, and stated she hopes the second phase report comes before September and that she would like a timeline. Mr. Larsen indicated their intention is to have the Phase 2 report done by August. Councilmember Munson stated August 14 is the last day to put anything on the ballot. Mr. Larsen indicated the library defined September as the date to select a site for the library. Mayor Wilhite stated Council has worked hard against doing moratoriums and encouraging development without those measures. Councilmember DeVleming agreed that getting agreement and creating partnerships are better than moratoriums. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. — Greg McCormick Mayor Wilhite stated that staff pointed out the need to have the Gibbs Planning Group further look at the type of businesses and development to go in to the City Center. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement with the Gibbs Planning Group in an amount not to exceed $25, 000 plus direct reimbursables for services regarding City Center development, and to include the agreement in the second 2007 budget adjustment. Councilmember Gothmann said we need to recognize the work o the Gibbs group and thinks we are very fortunate to have him working on this project. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; none given. Mayor Wilhite said she feels we need to delve further into the Gibbs report and its disconnect with Eco Northwest. Councilmember DeVleming stated he is concerned with some of the assumptions in the Gibbs report and that no other major retail will be developed within 15 miles of the subject site, suggesting that is a substantial statement because that area includes Spokane and Post Falls. Councilmember Munson said he felt they were talking about a City Center retail, but it is not defined. Mayor Wilhite asked if we commission the Gibbs group to do this study if he will come in person to give a report to Council so they can ask questions? Mr. McCormick said it is anticipated that as the initial project starts up, Gibbs and ClearPath will meet in mid -July to get questions answered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:22 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS: 6. ORB Presentation, Outdoor Pools — Mike Jackson Park and Recreation Director Jackson explained he has been working with ORB Architects to design the renovation on outdoor pools; and that Jeff Anderson of ORB is here to present the plan. ORB has come up with a plan that came in under the $1.6 million budget. If council is ready, the next step is to take the ideas and put them into a formal motion for next week's agenda. Mr. Anderson explained it was the decision of council to use funds to add amenities to existing pools. They had four community meetings where they presented current trends in aquatics facilities and tried to spark imagination. The meetings were causal and encouraged questions and input from kids. Consensus was not surprising as to the most popular features. By adding different features to the pools there would be added benefit to each and increased usership. The pool facilities themselves would not add increased usership on their own and there would not be a need to add additional parking or bathrooms; however, we do need additional lifeguards. He recommended upgrades to current bathhouses to bring them up to code, such as accessibility /access. Security was an issue that came up during meetings, related to vandalism, Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 loitering after hours, and trespassing. They also came across water pressure issues and the filtration systems would need to be addressed. The highest demand is to have a 50 meter competition pool for the community; however, he reiterated this is not part of the scope for this particular project. Another issue was to extend the season for pools and he recommended that be considered in long range pool planning. Councilmember Gothmann commended ORB and Spokane Valley staff in their efforts to listen to public input. ORB recommended building a separate mechanical room and running additions separately due to current capacity of current pools filtration and flow rates. Councilmember Munson stated there is always a challenge with one group getting one amenity versus another and asks if it is possible to have other options at other pools and possibly more than one feature. Budgetary issues limit what and how much we can do. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the usership at three pools. Terrace View has about double of Valley Mission and Park Road. A spray park was not incorporated in the plan, but was a fourth idea presented at the meetings. It has no depth of water, but rather a pad with color and toys and it does not need to be within pool enclosure although that is recommended. Features that are included in a spray park can be incorporated into other pool features. Mr. Jackson said he believes having something at each park will help to get people out to the different parks; and research suggested people will drive to different locations for the different features. The goal is to get as many users as possible, multigenerational, with multi - accessibility. Mayor Wilhite commended ORB on distribution of ideas and working with the community and businesses to compliment what is already there rather than competing. She thinks this is a good investment and would like to see an increase in family use. Providing shade and tables is a good way to do that. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to see prioritizing of different options so when it goes out to bid it could help in making a determination. Councilmember Schimmels questioned seeking additional parking. Mr. Jackson said he will take a look at adding additional parking. He also indicated there is an increase in people walking to the parks. They have a new Park Ambassador and part of that job is to tally cars in the parking lots to help gauge the parking situation. Councilmember Munson asked if we find one feature to be very popular, what is the capability in future years to add another feature to a park — physical challenges as opposed to financial. Mr. Jackson indicated there are property constraints. Valley Mission has the best opportunity for expansion and Terrace View would need to sacrifice park space, and park space is highly used, as well as comments they've received about not cutting down any trees. Parking is also an issue. Councilmember DeVleming indicated for future decisions he would like to see discussion on adding a pool in Greenacres. 7. Jail Issues — Rick VanLeuven Deputy City Attorney Driskell introduced Chief Rick VanLeuven, Lt. Mike Sparber and Jail Commander Jerry Brady. He provided background information as to what has gone on over the past four years and led to this point regarding the need for a new jail. Currently we contract with Spokane County for jail services. A pressing issue for Spokane County is an increase in inmate population. The jail was not designed to hold the number of people it currently has. They have added some facilities and moved some things around and changed some of the ways they jail people. Over the next 10 years they could anticipate an additional 65 inmates per year, causing large problems. The catch and release program was designed for third degree or minor offenses during times when the jail population is over 650, there is an emergency status for how people would be booked, taken to the station, and released for minor offenses. The rationale is the belief that they would be more likely to show up to court. It allowed police to gather information on perpetrators and fill in their database. The court is collecting information as to whether it has been effective in getting folks to show up to court. The Airport Board notified Geiger that they are discontinuing their lease in 2012. Geiger is managed by the Board of Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 County Commissioners and the jail is managed by Spokane County Sheriff, they are looking at how to consolidate that leadership. Chief VanLeuven said he recognizes this is a long -term process and a short -term fix is not sufficient. He is looking at programs to divert people out of jail and keep that population down. It is a collaborative effort that involves many people. Councilmember DeVleming has been to the jail and has seen how overcrowded it is. He asked if this is a council decision or will it come down to the voters. Mr. Driskell stated the County Commissioners are likely to make a decision and recognize they need the community support. If Council agrees with the need for a facility, whatever the proposal, they will need broad community support. Councilmember Munson said Spokane Valley needs to define what the role of Spokane Valley Council will be, other than support, such as paying the bills. He inquired as to what direction they are leaning toward, whether it be temporary buildings, a campus or another option and what does staff see as the final outcome. Chief VanLeuven said they sent out a Request for Qualifications to look at the proposals and access the needs. Mayor Wilhite said she would like them to report on the results of the RFQ's at a future council meeting. City Manager Mercier discussed the timeline as far as going to a ballot measure before voters in November 2008, and asked if there is a sense of scale as to cost. Chief VanLeuven indicated in the neighborhood of $200 million dollars. Councilmember Munson stated we need to start listing and prioritizing these capital projects and get moving on them. 8. Crime Reporting Options — Councilmember DeVleming Councilmember DeVleming gave a history of Crimecheck use in the area. In 2004 Spokane and Spokane County revamped and then did away with Crimecheck. Crimecheck was replaced with a crime reporting center webpage and modified hours. He would like to bring back Crimecheck, but not necessarily staffed 24 hours. Crime reporting has been going down because folks aren't willing to go through the online process. He is trying to do something that will be acceptable to Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Spokane County, as well as outlying areas. His estimation is it would take $120,000 to put a system like Crimecheck back into place. Mayor Wilhite inquired as to how other counties handle these types of calls? Councilmember DeVleming said he is not sure. Mayor Wilhite explained that the 2 -1 -1 was budgeted by the Governor as an information line, a number the community would like to put into place. Councilmember DeVleming explained that is a number primarily for mental health. He explained whatever happens, a major component will be the educational element which is not included in the $120,000. That money is the portion to get the system started. City Manager Mercier asked if Councilmember DeVleming is looking for a financial commitment or simply gathering data to move ahead with the process. Councilmember DeVleming wants to know if Council is ready to make a financial commitment. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we look at other options for funding such as 1 /10 of 1% taxes and that we look into planning with the County. City Manager Mercier asked for the incremental increase in cost and also asked Councilmember DeVleming to look into what the other 38 counties are doing in the state to handle crime reporting. He thinks this would be helpful information to gauge Council's feelings on these proposals. Councilmember Munson said he is concerned with the educational process and is not encouraged it can be done. He would like to know what the cost is to educate the public. Chief VanLeuven stated that Partners in Crime Prevention is looking for the opportunity to move forward and start educating the public. 9. Police Department Update — Rick VanLeuven Chief VanLeuven reported on crime trends and outlined the goals and objectives of the department The current objectives and goals include enhancing the identity of Spokane Valley Police Department, emphasizing department -wide strategies and goals, and development of informal recognition program for employees. Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07 It was moved by Councilmember Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. 10. Miscellaneous Financial Policies — Ken Thompson In the interest of time, it was decided to move this item to the next council meeting. 11. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite There were no suggestions for changes. 12. Information Only: City Hall Request for Proposal Memo —Neil Kersten This item was information only and was not presented or discussed. 13. Council Check in — Mayor Wilhite: There were no Comments. 14. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier: There were no Comments EXECUTIVE SESSION: none. It was moved by Councilmember Munson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m. ATTEST: 0(4.4-4.f.-/c>4 Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Diana Wilhite, Mayor Meeting Minutes: 06 -19 -07 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 07 -10 -07