2004, 06-29 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Excused Absences
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Study Session
June 29, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Dave Mercier City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone
that this is a study session and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of
the meeting. Mayor DeVleming also called everyone's attention to the "Amended Agenda." It was
moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to excuse Councilmembers
Denenny and Taylor from tonight 's meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
1. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 5, Section 15.010
— Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and
seconded by Councilmember Munson to suspend the rules and advance the ordinance to a second reading
for approval. Deputy City Attorney Driskell mentioned that this is more of a housekeeping issue to make
the Code consistent when referring to the City Manager, as sometimes the reference was "City Manager"
and other times if was "City Manager or Designee." Attorney Driskell explained that by adding the
definition of "City Manager" as shown on the ordinance, all sections will be consistent. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
2. Proposed Resolution Repealing and Replacing Resolution 03 -022, Leave Sections — Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the proposed resolution clarifies sections dealing with leave
without pay and changes those sections so they are consistent with the City's agreement with Association
of Washington Cities, the City's employee insurance plan; and that changes are also proposed to clarify
the job reinstatement provision. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Deputy
Mayor Wilhite to approve Resolution 04 -020. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no comments
were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
3. Motion Consideration: Approval to Proceed with Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment with
Consultant Jones & Stokes — Neil Kersten
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Schimmels to proceed with
the Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment with Consultant Jones & Stokes in the amount of
$143, 007 through the Spokane County Engineering Interlocal Contract. Public Works Director Kersten
Study Session Minutes 06 -29 -04 Page 1 of 5
Date Approved by Council: 07 -13 -04
explained the issue as noted on his June 29, 2004 Request for Council Action form; adding that the staff
at Jones & Stokes are all new since the original couplet; that we would be amending the contract with
them through the County as was done originally and that we would pay the county. Director Kersten
added that EcoNW is doing the economic study which will be part of the project requirement, and that the
entire process will be monitored, reviewed, and approved by several entities such as WSDOT, and SRTC;
and when the environmental assessment is complete, that document will come before council for final
approval consideration. Director Kersten said he seeks approval to move forward with the additional
work for $143,000 and for completion of the EA, and to approve use of $4,337 funds from the Street
Capital Projects to provide matching funds for the SRTC and TIB grants. Director Kersten stated that the
County went through the procurement process, that under state law the selection must be based on
qualifications and we are following the county's process in choosing Jones & Stokes; that the City's
interim team felt this was a good selection; adding that the background information is in place, and if we
change now, we would have to go back to SRTC and TIB to get their approval and to possibly seek
additional funds. Councilmember Munson stated that Exhibit A appears complete and detailed and he
sees no advantage in going elsewhere, especially in light of the cost of time and money. Director Kersten
stated he feels comfortable with the choice.
City Manager Mercier stated that just this afternoon he became aware of past legal action in this regard,
and asked Deputy City Attorney Driskell to contact the other attorneys involved; that Attorney Driskell
spoke to two of the County's attorneys and to Mr. Emacio to determine the background; from those three
individuals and Ross Kelly there were a number of options the county was examining six years ago in
regard to the couplet, and the option at that time which seemed most favorable was a high speed limited
access. However, Mr. Mercier continued, the Board of County Commissioners took that issue off the
table as it was not favorable to the businesses. Director Kersten added that there will be a workshop early
in the project and a public hearing will be held later. Deputy Mayor Wilhite added that there was no
problem with the quality of the previous work just the conclusions drawn at the end of the study that
caused issues with the business community. Director Kersten added that that issue resulted in a change
and revision of the EIS. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: said he won't reiterate when he recently sent in his e -mail, that he wished
he had known about the public comment period for tonight as he would have brought others, especially
U.S. Attorney McDevitt who filed the previously mentioned lawsuit, which was strictly based on
environmental impact; that he suggests Mr. Driskell contact Attorney McDevitt; that there was an
objection to Jones & Stokes because they did a poor job for the community, although they did what
Spokane County wanted them to; that he feels there is a conflict of interest in trying to justify the previous
EIS and he asks Council to go back and look at the previous EIS as he feels there are problems in the
future as people may challenge this.
Councilmember Munson said he supports the motion because the scope of work appears to give an
objective look at the environmental issues. Deputy Mayor Wilhite said in review of the company's
qualifications, when they were hired by the County they did what Spokane County required of them; she
stated that we will present an outline of what we want them to do. Councilmember Flanigan said he has
further questions and without an effective bidding process, feels he cannot support the motion at this time.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, Councilmembers Munson and
Schimmels. Opposed: Councilmember Flanigan. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve use of
$4,337 from the Street Capital Projects Fund to provide additional matching funds for the SRTC and TIB
grant funds. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
Study Session Minutes 06 -29 -04 Page 2 of 5
Date Approved by Council: 07 -13 -04
3a. Motion Consideration: Authorize Mayor to Identify Items to be Included in the $500.00 Budget for
the Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to authorize the Mayor or
designee, to identify items to be included in the $500.00 budget for the Student Advisory Council. Mayor
DeVleming explained that the Student Advisory Council is in place and council previously approved the
budget, but a process is needed to approve expenditures like notebooks, paper and other supplies. City
Manager Mercier added that the intent of this motion is to seek overall council consultation and
confirmation that the Mayor or designee is the lead person in supporting the Student Advisory Council
and in order to fulfill that role, that he have the ability to identify items of support for council activities,
and the approval and billing would appear on claims later on; that this motion is not authorizing the
elective official to purchase supplies, but to simply identify someone to take the lead in getting those
supplies; and stated that this initiative was funded in a budget amended which was authorized a few
months ago where Council set a limit of $500.000. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Tony
Lazanis remarked that he feels public needs to be made aware of decisions of this nature and that Council
is out of line; if they want to give money to the youth the youth should be here to make a presentation.
Mayor DeVleming responded that Council always reserves the right to invite public comment. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3b. Gambling Tax Update — Ken Thompson
Finance Director Thompson explained that no changes are being proposed, but he wanted to bring some
information to Council's attention concerning the gambling tax. Director Thompson said that when the
City incorporated, it passed a gambling tax which was different from the County's; that our ordinance
changed the tax from 10% net proceeds to 5% of gross proceeds for card tables and pull tabs and punch
boards. However, Director Thompson said that the pull tabs and punch board establishments have all
underpaid their taxes as they paid 5% of the net instead of the gross; that staff was planning to send a
letter of explanation to these entities concerning the correct method to calculate tax owed. Director
Thompson said that once the entities realize the correct method, each entity will likely see a three -fold
increase in their tax from what they were paying the County, and that this will likely generate numerous
phone calls and letters. Councilmember Flanigan said that he could not recall the previous conversation
precisely, but thought the original intent was to reduce the gambling tax by 10 to 15% and asked if
something would be changed to reflect that. City Manager Mercier added that staff would need to
research the legal question of whether pursuing the tax owed is legally defensible. It was council
consensus not to send out letters until the matter is further discussed, and to bring this issue back for
further council review and discussion.
4. Bicycle Helmet Safety Support — Cary Driskell /Cal Walker
Deputy City Attorney Driskell went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the legal issues
relating to the proposed helmet law, ending by stating that his greatest concern is as explained in his last
slide of issuing citations to children. Police Chief Walker gave his presentation on the policing issues
related to the proposed helmet law, adding that no one is anti - helmet, but he is concerned with changing
from an educational to an enforcement format because in the latter case, laws must be clear, concise and
contain no gray areas. Chief Walker also discussed other concerns such as pre - textual issues and court
impact. After further Council discussion, it was decided staff will review the ordinance recently enacted
by the City of Spokane, will check with MRSC for possible other examples, and will bring that
information back at another council meeting.
5. Library Facilities Update — Nina Regor
Via her PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Regor gave the highlights of what was discussed
at the open house held at the Valley library branch May 27, with approximately 75 people in attendance.
She concluded by stating that the next meeting is scheduled for July 21 at which time it is anticipated a
recommendation will be submitted to Council for consideration.
Study Session Minutes 06 -29 -04 Page 3 of 5
Date Approved by Council: 07 -13 -04
Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:32 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
6. Spalding Towing Contract — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that the towing contract is anticipated to have limited application and
would probably be used in towing 10 -20 vehicles per year, recognizing there are likely more vehicles in
the first year due to the current backlog of junk vehicles. It was Council consensus to place the proposed
contract on the next regular session for approval consideration.
7. Policy Issues Concerning Possible New City Hall — Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that one of the projects on the 2004 work plan is to develop and
evaluate options for a City Hall. Ms. Regor then went over her PowerPoint presentation, and ended with
several questions for council consideration. City Manager Mercier mentioned staff is not looking for
choices tonight but more of a sense of preference; and it was suggested that Councilmembers mark their
initial preferences and give that information to staff who will collate the data and return the information to
Council. After discussion concerning location, cost effectiveness of leasing versus owning, retrofitting
buildings, owning a building and leasing space to others, it was decided that Deputy City Manager Regor
will compile council written comments and bring those comments back in July or August. Deputy City
Manager Regor mentioned she will also e -mail today's PowerPoint presentation to Councilmembers
Taylor and Denenny.
8. Clear View Triangles — Marina Sukup/Neil Kersten
Community Development Director Sukup discussed the accompanying June 15 memo from Don Ramsey
regarding intersection sight triangles, went through the PowerPoint presentation, followed by discussion
from Public Works Director Kersten concerning the nuisance ordinance, and development of standards.
Council then discussed gathering additional information concerning the adoption of the setbacks, how
many intersections this would affect, violations, high traffic areas, permitting fences, staff workload
particularly for code enforcement, and overall safety issues. It was Council consensus that staff work on
this issue and bring back for further review and discussion and a proposal to address enforcement and
code compliance.
9. Wastewater Issues — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten went over the issues as addressed on his June 29, 2004 Request for
Council Action form. He mentioned that staff is meeting tomorrow with the UAA group to further
discuss this issue and said that there will be another DOE meeting mid -July. Director Kersten said they
are examining ways of including the UAA study as part of the process and of what the actual timeline is,
that at this point nothing is finalized but hopes to have more information within the next few months.
Director Kersten also said that the Regional Governance Committee has made no commitment and
nothing is decided yet and likely nothing will move ahead until a decision is made on the concept of a
regional wastewater system. Director Kersten also brought attention to Bruce Rawl's June 11 memo
explaining the changes in the proposed interlocal agreement, and mentioned that there were significant
changes in items 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9; and that at a future council meeting, staff will show the comparisons of
the two agreements (the issues we wanted included and what the County wanted included).
10. Public Input Procedure /Permitting Activities — Marina Sukup. Informational item only
11. Advance Agenda Additions
Mayor DeVleming mentioned he would like to see the issue of scooters added to the advance agenda.
12. Council Check in. — no issues to address
Study Session Minutes 06 -29 -04 Page 4 of 5
Date Approved by Council: 07 -13 -04
13. City Manager Comments
City Manager Mercier stated that at last Saturday's retreat, there was discussion on putting an issue on the
primary ballot, and due to the narrow timeline in which to do so, will add a potential motion for next
meeting, whether to include a ballot issue concerning financing connection with the STEP program.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
A E
1'
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Study Session Minutes 06 -29 -04 Page 5 of 5
Date Approved by Council. 07 -13 -04
Questions for Tonight's Discussion
Should we think of City Hall as a public
investment or as an office building?
Do you have a preference in building new vs.
retrofitting an existing building?
In what general vicinity should City Hall be
located?
Any other amenities we should try to include?
11
Page 1of2
Dave Mercier
From: Dick Behm Idick@divasales.comj
Sent: Tuesday, June 29. 2004 1111 AM
To: Mike Devleming; Diana Wilhite; Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny Richard Munson, Gary
Schimmels, Mike Flanigan; Cary Dnskell
Cc: Neil Kersten, Robert McDonald. Dave Mercier. Cary Dnskell, Marina Sukup; Nina Regor, Sue
Golman. CLARK HAGER; Larry Rudy, Tom Hamilton; Terry Lynch, Martin Burnette; Ray Perry
Subject: OBJECT TO E I S BY JONES & STOKES
Importance: High
Dear Mayor DeVleming,
Spokane Valley City Council,
Council Study Session June 29, 2004
REF: Item 3. Motion consideration: Approval to proceed with Valley Corridor
Environmental Assessment with consultant Jones & Stokes.
I wish to voice my objections to the City hiring Jones and Stokes to do the
E.I.S. for the Valley Corridor.
(1) Jones & Stokes have a obvious conflict of interest as they did the E.I.S. for
Spokane County on the Valley Couplet and they would be inclined to justify
their previous work. They also have or are working with Spokane County and
D.O.T. on other projects in this area and that would influence their
conclusions.
(2) Does this contract not require competitive bids? We should insist other
firms be considered.
(3) The Jones & Stokes E.I.S. on the South Valley Arterial was the primary
reason for the lawsuit against Spokane County. They did not sufficiently
address the enviromental concerns relating to the Dishman Hills resulting in
14 enviromental groups joining in the law suit. Their admitted lack of
understanding and ability to address the economic impacts led to the law
suit.
(4) One of the most important reasons the business community supported
incorporation was the Spokane County Engineers not listening to the
concerns of the business community.
(5) Why is Staff proceeding on the Couplet planning without imput from the
citizens. At least Spokane County Engineers visited The C. of C. and other
6/29/2004
Page 2of2.
groups to get imput on their plans. They didn't alway listen but at least we felt
we could make a difference.
Please look at all your options before you decide.
Thank You,
Richard C. Behm Jr.
9405 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA. 99206
6129/2004
Dave Mercier
June 29, 2004
Dear Spokane Valley City Council and Staff,
Sincerely,
R. Terry Lynch
6129/2004
R. Terry & Roberta L. Lynch, CHAs, Owners
Park Lane Motel, Suites & RV Park
4412 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-0803
509 -535 -1626
The closest motel & RV park to the Fairgrounds!
rterry@par ganemotel,cm
From: Terry Lynch (rterry@parklanemotel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2 16 PM
To: Steve Taylor, Diana Wilhite, Dick Denenny; Richard Munson. Gary Schimmels; Mike Devlemmg,
Mike Flanigan
Cc: Sue Pearson. Daniel Cenis, Dave Mercier, Debi Alley; Dick Thiel, 'Margie Fulkerson', Marina Sukup;
Mary E. Baslington; Mike Jackson, Neil Kersten, Scott Kuhta
Subject: Concern on the consideration of Jones & Stokes
1 second the concerns raised by Mr. Dick Bchm on Jones & Stokes being the group you are
looking to for providing information on our new city. They have history that should raise
concern of valley citizens as to their arms length approach to study the issues as they should. 1
personally don't think the new city should do business as usuul as does Spokane.
I hope you will open a competitive process to allow othcrs that do the similar work hid on this
project for you.
12) Traffic Floe and intersections)
,4N :7 -V7 MON IC:44
SPOKANE VALLEY
Sc 34.vtr Couay Vey Criaitint
2s: t S+gpte'^suat EIS
SV51NSZI, ASSOCIATION
03/17/67
VALLEY COUPLET
SOUTH VALLEY ARTERIAL
The Spokane Valley business Association commends The Spokane
County Coamisaton•rs and the Spokane County Engineers for working
vary hard to address the problems assDCist..d with the South
Valley Arterial. Th4 many months of frustration and hard work
will result in a pro3eot that Is in the best Interest of the
whole oomeunity.
The Spokane Valley business Association does rupport the plan for
a Valley Couplet and would I1ks to work with the county engineers
in resolving the problems associated with :-:s design. The plan
for the Valley Couplet goes a long way .7 resolving many of the
problems In the other alternatives.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAF EIS -
ill Sprague Ave redest`n to ILO vprio and r.ct specific. Creates
more questions than answers.
a. On the e' to 20' green cpeoe along Sprague Ave.
i. Who *Dull be responsible for aaintonance7
2. Wes.Id funds be available for water and up -keep"
3. Would business signs be allowed?
4. Would off premises billboards be showed?
5. Would adjoining business owners hs a:towea to determine
hoe access to their businesses is designed?
6. lnatead of a curb cut there would be a driveway 0' to 20'
in length to each business. Whr: would be responsible for
the cost?
b. Storm Water'
There 1a now an inoperable atere water system that was
installed by the county engineers when the sower was constructed
in Sprague Ave. to 1087. It has never been finished. Would this
be abandoned or rsleca:od?
a. It appears that tho same traffic floe pro3eotiona ware used
as In previous alternatives. No conalderwtion sae given to powwi-
bla intersootion volume attempts due to nee full 'creme plan, now
intersections and the LOS VALUE of those new intersections.
Eradly. Colman Pd.. Girard, Sargent. Willow, Diahman Rd., , and
Dar teouth Rd.
b. Additional conneoting ntreetn Latween the Valley Couplet and
Sprague Ave should be resolved at this time. Speolfloally the
areas between Park Rd. and Sargent Rm. and between Ltehnan -Mloa
P -12
•.•z
Corr-mew end hope• -1
May 1, 19r . i
5
r
MAR -17 —'7 MCP. 1i'd
and University Ad. The redevelopment of the business districts in
these areas may preclude deaignir.c new streets in the future.
Connecting streets at least every two blooms are vital to goad
traffic circulation and • healthy buair.ess ciicate. The lack of
connecting streets off of Spregue Ave. has 'leaky. been a problem.
There has not teen the t.5tllty to ego around the block*. Sprague
Ave was first - ordered by rail lines on both aides and when the
railroads were abandoned the hops was that streets could be
connected to the south. but that has not :sppen.d and traffic has
been forced to go to the rajor intersi: :tors. This may be our
last opportunity t: do proper communit•• planning and solve these
problems.
c. Using the traffic flow profeotlons In the draft CIS for the
intersection of Sprague Ave. and 2nd Ave etth University There Is
a potential effect on travel safety and pedestrian safety that
has not been addreocsd in .hu EIS and appsara to bo a LOS F rith
no mitigation
I. At peak hour there is 4 lanes of traffic eastbound arriv-
ing at University containing 2.026 oars. 1,842 oars with to go
north to Spragr.I Ave. This puts t lanes of traffic into 2 lanes.
The overflow will surely try to out ecro -s parking !its etc. tc
avoid the traffic light at Sprague Ave. MIN design nseda to be
corrected and in such away as tc not ftit'sely affect the busi-
nesses et thee• intersections.
2. Farr Re. shore a peak hour traffic count of 284 south
bound through a ro.tdertial area. -:.is would most likely require
a stop Tight :t 8th Ave. and Improvements to Farr Rd. and ath
Ave.
3. Free right turn lanss should be included for the inter-
'sections of — hlerrr.an, Park Rd. Dtshsean -tits• and University on 2nd
Ave.
Conolueloni The Spokane Valley Business Aasoclatior► on Us half of
our any members wish to thank the Spokane County Commissioners
ado the Spokane County Et/tinware for addrersing the many coneerni
expressed by Spokane Valley Fire District Si, The Mittman Hiller
supporters, The Valley Business Community and Valley Citizens.
SPOKANE VALLEY HU ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BY DICK erui JR
2
Spoksnr Camq v ray Csvr"^ Columtsa an i :7=70m :
Fv.s' Supp mtscrJ EJ 11-13 Xay 1, : a4' ( e/
8
9
I 10