Loading...
2007, 10-16 Study Session MinutesPresent: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Absent: Rich Munson, Councilmember MINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Steve Worley, Senior Engineer John Hohman, Development Engineer Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk 1. Collins Road Parking — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that he has received a request from the neighbors of University High School to expand the existing no parking zone on Collins Road; and Mr. Kersten said that any changes to on- street parking exceeding 100 feet in length must be made through a council resolution. He explained that the existing zone includes Collins Road from 32 to 31 it is signed with "No Parking, 7 -3 School Days "; and enforcement is done by the school's resource deputy. Mr. Kersten said that neighbors want the expansion to include the block from 31s to 30 After discussion on problems of trash along with problems of parking, of pushing the no parking area back further; of traffic signal adjustments, exit designs of the school, and whether the resource officer could patrol more heavily during peak hours, it was determined that staff will bring back a resolution for council consideration on the requested expansion of the no parking zone. 2. Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that Council examines the fee resolution at least annually as staff proposes changes; and that the proposed changes include switching the short plat and final plat fee as the greater work is involved in the preliminary work; adding a final binding site plan fee; adding a new fee for zoning letters; and adding an over - the - counter, quick turn- around permit fee of $58.00; which idea has been well received. Mr. Thompson also recommended deleting some existing fees associated with installations, thereby allowing private industry to perform the inspections. Mr. Thompson added that if we were to perform those inspections, we could also incur some liability. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the concern of some citizens with the current appeal fee as many feel the fee is unaffordable. Mr. Thompson explained that our attorneys are examining that issue now and that those fees are embedded in the City Code and would take an ordinance to change; and that our legal department is working on some ideas on how to handle that fee. The question came up whether we charge more for a right -of -way permit fee during the winter than during the summer, and whether we charge for hot water tank installations to install earthquake straps. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -16 -07 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07 Building Official Martin explained that to her knowledge, we do not differential charges depending on the season; and that not only do we not charge for installing straps, we would likely not even be made aware of that installation occurring; Ms. Martin said that straps are required by code, but not as a separate item; and that she will check those obstruction permit and right -of -way permits for asphalt cuts regarding seasonal differential fees, adding that she will also check to see if we are located in an earthquake zone. It was Council consensus to proceed with the fee resolution as proposed. 3. Street Design Standards — John Hohman Mr. Hohman explained that the purpose of this presentation is to gain feedback and hold discussion on various topics in preparation for the draft street design standards document being prepared; and he introduced Dave Kliewer and Spencer Montgomery of JUB Engineers, who will give Council their Powerpoint presentation on street design standards. The presentation included mention of recommended changes, the purpose and definition of what streets do, that the document is the document which implements the Comprehensive Plan Transportation goals and polices, is referred to in the Uniform Development Code, but was always meant to be a separate document. JUB representatives discussed residential streets and the difference between public and private street designations, the current county standards, no parking in swales and difficulty of enforcement, street connectivity, traffic calming, establishing a street acceptance process, access management and recommended changes. Discussion ensued among Councilmembers, staff and JUB Representatives regarding sidewalks and those that are level versus those having a dip in the driveway section; swales which tunnel under driveways, developments in the street design standards process, managing concurrency requirements and street connectivity; pavement design and construction; inspection methods and quality of construction materials and requiring a geo- technical engineer to perform soil sampling; and mention that the County is giving some consideration to modifying their standards to eliminate their standard matrix. Recommendations for next steps included holding public meetings and workshops and having discussions with police and fire, follow -up with additional public meetings, and finally adoption through the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Hohman mentioned they would like to schedule the first public meeting as soon as possible, preferably within the next two to three weeks, and by late spring or sooner, to have the draft document finalized to start the adoption process, with the hope that the document will be effective sometime mid -2008. Mayor Wilhite called for a brief recess at 7:32 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Munson from tonight's meeting. 4. Street Master plan — Neil Kersten and J -U -B Representatives Engineer Worley explained that tonight's presentation is the completion of a presentation which began several months ago, and he gave a brief breakdown of previous council action taken, as noted in his October 16 Request for Council Acton form, adding that the intent of this phase is that as they examine the data, the need exists to develop tools which will manage the data and use it to help focus on what kinds of projects to look at, including those listed on the six -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). JUB Engineer Spencer Montgomery went through his Powerpoint presentation, which included a project overview, purpose, process to review and analyze methodologies, explanation of development of data analysis tools, the TIP report, and staffing requirements and options. The various maps included in the presentation were also discussed, and Mr. Kliewer said they might be able to create a table that discusses context to be better able to discuss numbers on accident slides, and give something with which to compare, not just counting data but also comparing that data to other data. Mr. Montgomery also mentioned that nearly sixty non - pavement street master plan projects have been identified; and thirty -four of those are included in the TIP adopted last summer, but there are always fiscal constraints as the City Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -16 -07 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07 determines how many projects we can afford or afford to match; adding that approximately forty -seven of those projects are a carryover from previous TIPs. A question came up about the staffing requirement and whether the maintained in -house cost of $73,000 includes benefits, and Mr. Montgomery said he would have to research that. The pros and cons of having additional staff were discussed, as were the maps and accident data, traffic counts, levels of service and finding the personnel to maintain that data. The JUB Engineers said that while some of the information is technical, some is not; that most people have a two -year degree or a four -year science - related degree, and having a four -year degree in civil engineering is not always required; adding that using biologists would be appropriate as they understand data collection. Mr. Worley said that they are finalizing the street master plan scope of work with this presentation, and from this point, the scope of work with JUB will be to evaluate pavements for this year to add to that pavement management program, and to keep that ongoing street maintenance in order not to lose any ground already obtained; he said we do not have staff at this point to do this, and have not entered into a contract yet but would like to do so soon, and that staff will come back to council later to discuss where we go from here. Mr. Mercier mentioned that this reduces the conversation down to the difficult chore of deciding how much funding should be allocated to these tasks, and from what source. There was further brief discussion including the jobs and hours needed; that hiring in -house could likely not be accomplished for less than $50,000; that at this point it would be better to continue the contract arrangement; and that the big issue is the $4.5 million annual projected costs for the street pavement management portion. Mr. Mercier said the finance committee and others need more time to consider these options and the subject will be discussed at the January retreat. Mr. Kliewer mentioned that he envisions that the staffing requirements won't be just one person, but will be a team, and Mr. Worley added that there is also the possibility of using a combination of a few permanent staff along with some temporary help during the summer Mr. Mercier mentioned that we have to first determine what is the size and scope of the effort, then fund it appropriately. Councilmember DeVleming said he feels this issue should be addressed prior to the January retreat, and Mayor Wilhite added that the finance committee can examine that and that Mr. DeVleming is on that committee. Mr. Mercier said that the finance committee can try some threshold options, then deliver that for full council consideration after Councilmember Munson returns. 5. Concurrency Issues — Mike Connelly and Neil Kersten City Attorney Connelly explained that in addressing concurrency issues and proper planning and development of transportation systems, there is also included the legal framework or structure that we have to operate within, and that tonight he will give a brief overview of the current difficulties with existing law, talk about our comprehensive plan and state law, and then discuss ways to meet concurrency, which will include a discussion of impact fees. As a general overview, Mr. Connelly explained, we have come to a crisis point in enforcing our concurrency ordinance; there are numerous places where even small additional development is causing intersections to fail; and once that happens, the choices are limited: to pay for the improvement like lights or a wider road or left -turn lanes; to ask the developer to pay, which is a limited solution as there must be nexus between the development and the impact, that traffic from the development has to cause the impact; and that it must be proportional under state law, which means we can't have something like a two -lot short plat pay for a traffic light. Mr. Connelly said we could impose impact fees, that they are expensive to create and take at least a year to develop, and they don't solve any existing deficiencies. Another option he explained is that no one pays and we keep the level of service (LOS) exactly where it is and say no to any further development; and a final option is that no one pays and we lower the LOS so we can meet it easier, which pushes the problem off into the future. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -16 -07 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07 Mr. Connelly explained that State law under the Growth Management Act (GMA) dictates that cities have to prohibit or deny development it if causes an intersection or segment to fall below the standard set forth in the comprehensive plan; and further states that concurrent with development, improvements have to be in place at the time of the project proposal or strategies must be in place to fix the problem within six years. Mr. Connelly said that the Comprehensive Plan defines LOS and lists intersections and required LOS, but that we have a segment LOS which is dependent on Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) numbers, but he is uncertain if those numbers have been accepted or adopted. Attorney Connelly said there are two ways to meet concurrency: by design or by reducing the impact to the LOS by a good design. The question of connectivity was brought up, and Mr. Connelly said that the general prevailing opinion is that fewer alternate routes provide the greater connectivity results on remaining routes. Impact fees were discussed, and Mr. Connelly mentioned that many impact fees are imposed under the general common law, if you create the problem you pay for the resulting problems. Mr. Connelly said that the City of Spokane spent the last year developing their ordinance on impact fees, and they expect to adopt that within a month or more; and that they have divided the city into zones; but to do that, it is best to have the baseline data to determine where to start; and determine a reasonable amount of time to project future impacts, then identify the specific projects that will fix those impacts; identify the cost and figure out a way to divide them, such as by vehicular trips, and he mentioned his backup materials which include his recommended seven steps to establish and impose impact fees. Mr. Kersten added that this all ties back to the street master plan and the intersection level of service. Mr. Mercier said that regarding funding, our TIP tries to maximize the leveraging of funds received from state and federal sources, but there is no separate pot of funding we have that is ready to deploy when faced with a concurrency problem, and in looking at the analysis from JUB, we need to determine where is the biggest bang for the buck on the transportation system, and what is most in need of attention. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that improvements have to be concurrent with development, and concurrent means a financial commitment or a strategy in place that will result in the problem being solved within six years; that strategy is interpreted differently, and alternative transportation data would work but would require an aggressive strategy which must be concrete; and if that strategy fails, Mr. Connelly said that has not yet been reasonably answered, but that if it were reasonably calculated when put in place, it would likely pass muster before the GMA, but if it were something simply put in to look good; it likely would not pass muster before the GMA Board. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. Discussion continued on the issue with mention of high density, high volume levels of service, where one intersection would fail and the traffic moves to the next intersection; that we will need to examine this issue along the Sprague /Appleway corridor where there will be significantly different kinds of development; Spokane County's study of regional impact fees along with the SRTC's Technical Transportation Sub - Committee's study on the topic; and that there are no easy solutions to concurrency and this agenda item tonight is to bring Council an awareness of the complexity of the issue, and this will be discussed again later. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to have information on development of an impact fee. Councilmember Denenny mentioned that he sees limited concurrency achievements through impact fees; that if the area is 80% close to failure and a development takes that 20 %, the most we can get on a impact fee would be about 10 %. Attorney Connelly said that we are allowed to spread out impact fees and apportion a fair amount to each individual vehicle trip that the new development generates; that for example, we could create a region that creates ten projects; but we can't fix existing problems; that once in place the impact fee deals with future impacts development creates, and the failure to have any something in place for the last twenty years has resulted in today's deficiencies, so we must come up with some funding to correct these transportation problems. Mayor Wilhite said she would like more information on just what impact fees will do, and on the broader issue Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -16 -07 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07 of how to fund current problems; and that she would like to see examples of what it would take to fix specific intersections. 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite said she would like to add the street master plan to a future agenda. Mr. Mercier mentioned the upcoming Governor's Town Hall meeting and asked how many Councilmembers might be attending. It was determined that all councilmembers plan to attend with the exception of Councilmember Schimmels. The special meeting for November 20 was mentioned; and there was also mention that the Shelley Lake agreement will be placed on next week's agenda for council approval consideration. It was moved by Deputy Taylor and seconded to extend the meeting to 9:25 p. m. The vote passed by majority vote, with all those in favor except Councilmember Devleming. 7. Information Only: Shelley Lake Development Agreement. The agreement was not discussed and was for information only. S. Council Check —in; no further comments were offered. 9. City Manager Comments Mr. Mercier said that recently Council adopted the CEP model where we were authorized to hire additional staff and that they have found a candidate who would be interested in working for us, and that staff would like to begin recruitment now and if such staff could be added in late 2007, the likely financial impact would continue to remain neutral. Council concurred to move forward as Mr. Mercier suggested. Mr. Mercier also mentioned the need to perform the annual evaluation of the governance manual, and it was agreed to keep the same Councilmembers as last year, i.e., Councilmembers Denenny, DeVleming, and Gothmann. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Psupvvito &I/1,A Diana Wilhite, Mayor Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -16 -07 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 10 -23 -07