Loading...
2015, 01-20 Study Session Meeting MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington January 20, 2015 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Chuck Hafner,Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Rod Higgins, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Ed Pace, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks &Recreation Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ABSENT: Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Bill Bates, Councilmember Micki Harnois, Planner Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEM: 1. Executive Session: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(1)] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately ten minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 6:03 p.m. At 6:10 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the settlement of the lawsuit entitled "Gibson, et al., v. City of Spokane Valley," Spokane County cause numbers 14-2-04849-6 and 10-2-03678-9, in the total amount of$40,000, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute any documents necessary to accomplish the same. City Attorney Driskell explained that two lawsuits arose from the 2007 construction of the round-about at Montgomery and Wilbur and Mansfield; that staff went through mediation with the plaintiffs, and that this now represents a full and final resolution of any possible claim with the Montgomery Court Apartments. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Review of Various City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide—Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that tonight's agenda item is an opportunity to review what other cities are doing regarding Initiative 502 and recreational marijuana. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Lamb explained the types of regulations of cities throughout the state, with forty-seven cities imposing a ban, twenty imposing interim regulations, sixty-two using various levels of new direct regulations, forty- four using existing regulations, and sixty cities passing a moratorium. Mr. Lamb said that this process is very much in flux as the first retail sales were in July, and people are trying to address issues as they arise, Council Study Session 01-20-2015 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council:01-27-2015 both on a state and a local level; he said out of the three retail stores allocated within our City, two have received licenses and are operating, eleven have a producer license and thirteen have a processor license, adding that some of those licensees are actually the same individual, making it closer to fifteen businesses instead of twenty-four. 3. Proposed Text Amendment,Plat Time Extension, CTA 2014-0006—Micki Harnois Planner Harnois explained that the amendment proposes changing the timeframe for preliminary plat extensions from a single one-year time extension, to an initial three-year extension with additional one- year extensions allowed administratively. As noted in her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Harnois briefly explained the plat review and approval process, noted that under current regulations, should the five-year approval expire the plat couldn't be recorded and the project would die; she gave some examples of why the five-year deadline might not be met, mentioned the time extensions allowed by state law, and showed comparable allowed time extensions for various jurisdictions. Ms. Harnois also stated that the PIanning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the change to an initial three-year time extension, allowing one year extensions at the discretion of the Department, and of the deletion of the current criteria for approval of an extension. Councilmember Pace asked what would happen if a federal code changes, and would that change the developer's plan. Planner Harnois responded that it might require an altered condition. Councilmember Pace then stated that he would like to have any such change always come out for the good of the developer; that if a building code changes to impose stricter requirements,that the previous, less-stringent regulations would apply so as to always benefit the developer. Director Hohman explained that such a situation would be problematic as it would be difficult to judge the criteria; but if there were some need to update the regulations for the health, safety or general welfare, that would be the best approach,which he said might or might not increase a burden on the developer, said that any scenario would be judged at the time the project came forward; that the main point of the proposed change is the developer wouldn't have to start again from the beginning as that could represent a large financial burden on the developer. City Attorney Driskell added that Councilmember Pace's suggestion would present significant problems in deciding when to allow more or less restrictive regulations, and keeping the regulations as the proposed amendment suggests would also provide certainty for the development community and the neighborhoods; and said that having regulations that would benefit one group and not the other would present some challenges. Councilmember Pace also asked about sending notices to builders when their expiration time is near; said that he gets a notice from the library when a book is overdue and asked why we couldn't send out notices to developers. Mr. Driskell explained that failing to bring back a book to the library is a lot lower risk, and he cautioned taking on any such burden of notifying developers; he said it is their project and they have a strong interest in following the timeframe, and if we failed to notify anyone, they would look to the City for recourse. Mayor Grafos said he feels the proposed amendment is a good change as it would have our regulations the same as Spokane County, and Council concurred to move the proposed amendment forward. 4. NEPA/SEPA Process—Steve Worley Via his PowerPoint presentation, Senior Engineer Worley gave an explanation of the processes of and differences between SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act), and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), and said that the processes are specific to how they apply to individual public works projects. Mr. Worley discussed the checklists, some of basics of what each law requires and how these processes are administered, the permits and approval requirements as well as the environmental considerations; and as an example showed the difference between what is needed for the SEPA and NEPA for the Sullivan Road West Bridge replacement project,and finally gave a cost comparison. Council Study Session 01-20-2015 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council:01-27-2015 5. Street Sweeping Bike Lanes—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained that over the past year, the City has received an occasional citizen comment or concern about debris in bicycle lanes. Mr. Guth explained that our current street sweeping program includes work plans to periodically sweep arterial streets that may have bicycle lanes and/or bicycle facilities in the roadway section, and that staff continually works to improve the process keeping in mind the resources and available funding; said that the budget has held relatively steady over the past years, but two years ago a change order was processed in order to have some additional sweeping done, which was partly a result of good weather giving the opportunity for additional sweeping. Mr. Guth said a slight budget increase might be needed for the 2016 budget based on past needs. Director Guth also noted that complaints have decreased over the years, with seventeen complaints received in 2012, fourteen in 2013, and eleven in 2014. Director Guth went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the sweeping plan, including sweeping frequency and criteria, and that we currently sweep all bike lanes and shared roadways at least once a year, with changes evaluated through staff and citizen input. Concerning one of the maps showing a"favorite bike route," Mayor Grafos asked how often that is swept. Mr. Guth replied that it is swept based on need and inspection by staff; that it is not done on a frequent basis as the area is not a problem for us and we don't get a lot of complaints, nor does it have the traffic issue commonly associated with streets that need sweeping. Mayor Grafos said that some of those areas generate a lot of leaves and that perhaps staff should examine that issue. Mr. Guth said staff will research that issue. 6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 7. Highway Safety Improvement(HSIP) Grant Update This item was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 8. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos. There were no additional Council comments. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson reported that last week that he and Mr. Driskell met in Olympia and had a lively discussion with Lobbyist Briahna Taylor, several senators, and the president and CEO of the Community Banks of Washington and their lobbyist in an effort to gain support for a House Bill to approve cities having additional lien authority to have a first priority lien for code enforcement cleanups; adding that he also proposed working with the County Assessor to include a noticein the property tax bills. Mr. Jackson said the banks were opposed to the idea, that when a mortgage is calculated, there is no inclusion for some amount for such a lien. Mr. Jackson said we had previously heard from Ms. Taylor that the banks oppose the plan and that she doesn't think that position would change and that such a bill would gain little traction in the legislature. After the initial meeting with those mentioned above, Mr. Jackson said he and Mr. Driskell met with Ms. Taylor to discuss the possible alternatives of such a bill, or to stay with our initial concept. Mr. Jackson said that the options are (1) to continue with our original concept knowing that the banks will oppose it and it likely won't pass, but we could continue pressing this over the years; or (2) set a cap; he said the community banks proposed a cap of$2,000, which he said staff feels is low, but we could continue that discussion with the hope of having such a cap at $5,000, which would recover the majority of the code enforcement actions we have; or(3) exclude the community banks from this legislation; and if we did that the national banks might oppose it as unfair; and he said he is not sure that is even feasible, adding that the larger banks are not opposed to this idea. To further clarify the proposed legislation,Mr. Jackson said this would only apply to those who don't pay, and only then would a lien be placed on their property; he said Council had previously discussed not wanting to put a lien on property as that option is not popular with legislators as no one wants to put someone out of their home, so we are proposing to include such an amount with the property tax, which must be paid. Another alternative, Mr. Jackson said, would be to Council Study Session 01-20-2015 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council:01-27-2015 place the burden on the seller only it the property would come into foreclosure, and then perhaps have it similar to a utility; but in summary, Mr. Jackson said we don't see the banks supporting this option any more than any other option, and that they are strictly opposed to a lien. The idea of a cap might gain traction, Mr. Jackson said, but if we dilute it too much, it won't meet the objective to get the property owner in violation to pay the bill and not spread the cost among all property owners. Mr. Jackson mentioned that during the group's discussion, most of the participants discussed the idea of simply taking a little more tax from all the other property owners, but Mr. Jackson said he told them we do not want all citizens to pay for individual property cleanups. Councilmember Wick said he likes the cap progression and to see where we can go from there; Councilmember Pace suggested we stick with the original concept; Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested having the cap and excluding the community bank, with Mr. Jackson stating that excluding the banks would be more of a long-term project. Councilmember Higgins suggested the cap of about $5,000 or if we can't do that, to stay with the original verbiage. Mayor Grafos said he favors the $5,000 cap, don't exclude the community banks, and try for something we could get passed. Councilmember Hafner agreed and stated if we exclude the community banks, it would make the situation more difficult, and he too agreed with the $5,000 cap. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. an Grafos,Mayor A/f : Christine Bainbridge, City 4 ler' Council Study Session 01-20-2015 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council:01-27-2015