Loading...
2015, 07-21 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 21,2015 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 Cary Driskell, City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Ed Pace, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tern John Hohman, Community Dev. Director Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director Christine 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. 1. Comprehensive Plan Overview Progress Report—John Hohman Director Hohman introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius from Van Ness Feldman, who is assisting with our Comprehensive Plan Overview. Mr. Hohman explained that tonight is similar to taking an intermission in the Comp Plan development; that we have Mr. Kisielius available and Council should feel free to ask questions about any aspect of the update process, from the Growth Management Act(GMA),to Council's authority; he said tonight they will be discussing the City's authority to plan, the population allocation process the County is going through, and then the next steps. Mr. Kisielius went through the PowerPoint slides explaining the City's authority to plan, or its police power, and said our main concern is the GMA and its key area of emphasis is to limit sprawl; he explained that the update must include an analysis of the population allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the Office of Financial Management (OFM); that the County Commissioners initiate the UGA (Urban Growth Area) and population allocation review process, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) reviews the population allocation recommendations by the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC), and then forwards the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; and then the Board of County Commissioners adopts population allocations for the County and local jurisdictions. Councilmember Higgins asked how the recommendations are being made since the SCEO has failed to meet for some time. Mr. Kisielius said that he understand the process has stalled due to the bigger legal battle that has engaged the County. Mr. Hohman added that there was an effort started by one of the Commissioners to review the CWPP (County Wide Planning Policies), and that committee stalled and although we have not heard from them, the County is moving forward to determine the population allocation; he said the County met earlier this month to discuss it and to move forward with just that component; said that Senior Planner Lori Barlow volunteered to work on the subcommittee to just develop those numbers; that a meeting was held last week; that we are actively engaged in that process and the County staff is looking at maybe recommending the OFM medium number as it tracks well with the growth this area has experienced over the last ten years; said there is no guarantee whatever number they arrive at will be the final number. Mr. Hohman explained that another issue is, when the number was established, there were various other interest groups, like the one that initially appealed this, and that those groups are still tracking the process; he said we are hopeful the number will be the universally Council Study Session:07-21-2015 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council:08-11-2015 accepted number as we are getting to the point where many of the next steps depend on having that correct number, and we don't want Van Ness Feldman to analyze numbers and then have those numbers change. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that it is his understanding that once the number is established, the other groups will all file suit which will hold up the program as none of those groups want growth; and he asked how then do we move forward. Mr. Kisielius agreed it is a frustrating situation; said the safest place is to use the numbers based on what the County gives us, as there is a bigger risk in moving forward with something inconsistent with what the County adopts; that the best path forward now is to wait for the numbers to develop from the County process. Deputy Mayor Woodard stated that could end up in a few months, having the process stalled for a few years. Mr. Kisielius said he would be hesitant to speculate on the nature of what could happen, and that hopefully the County's process to arrive at a number won't take three years, as it would be bigger in terms of wasted effort. In response to a question from Council about the definition of sprawl, Mr. Kisielius said that it is neither urban nor rural densities, but somewhere in the middle; and that there is no clear-cut answer as to what is urban or rural. A question was also raised about the time limit for the County to produce a number, and Mr. Kisielius replied that the County is governed as we are,to finish by 2017, and that they need the population allocation number approximately three years before the deadline, so we are already late. Mr. Hohman added that the County is working on coming up with that number. There was further discussion about the definition of sprawl with Mr. Kisielius explaining that there is some discretion when it comes to that definition; that the state won't dictate what that is nor will they dictate what are urban and rural densities; he said we have some flexibility to define that as it is not a "one-size-fits-all" definition; he said although the population allocation numbers are dictated by OFM, the County has discretion to choose the medium, high or low number, make that allocation and divide it up among the cities, then we plan according to that number, which is premised on efficient delivery of urban infrastructure. Mr. Kisielius further explained that we have been in communication with the County regarding our most current land capacity analysis because we need to make sure we can accommodate the numbers they come up with; and Mr. Hohman added that is where the analyses come in, we have to examine different zones and traffic analysis to make sure the growth is occurring where it can be supported by the infrastructure, which he said is a huge process. Director Hohman said that we don't want to give the impression that the process has come to a halt or that nothing has been done until the County determines that number; he said staff is compiling a detailed plan on how to move forward; that we already commissioned and got the community visioning report, the comp plan audit goals and policies, and the CARs (citizen action request) initiated, and are now working on this review and finalizing the existing conditions report; said we have a draft and are reviewing it now; that staff will work with Mr. Jackson to bring that forward for discussion. Mr. Hohman also mentioned there is quite a bit of work to do on the CARs; that we look at what we can work on in the interim, we look at how the documents are written through the state and what is the newest and best way to provide the information,along with what other jurisdictions are doing; said staff is working on an outline template for how the chapters should look and that approximately 30% of the plan is together; said some chapters like natural environment haven't changed; and last year they deferred incorporating the Parks & Recreation Master Plan into the Arts Chapter; said the next possible consultant contract will include looking for amendments to develop what goals and policies are missing, adding that Van Ness Feldman found several redundant goals and policies; said there will be an audit of existing development regulations so we understand where we stand now and where we go in the future; and another aspect not directly related is a traffic study that should be conducted in the Pinecroft Mirabeau area; said from an economic development standpoint we have a lot of acreage and need to come forward with a cooperative study; said they have talked with two of the three property owners and they are interested in working with us. Council said they appreciate the information and update. Council Study Session:07-21-2015 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council:08-11-2015 2. Admission Tax—Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that during the February 17, 2015 Council Workshop there was some discussion about a potential admissions tax, at which time Council requested more information; that an update was given to Council during the May 5, 2015 council meeting where Council requested more research, including what are the taxes of some of the surrounding cities, and what we might see in the form of revenues should such a tax be applied to the fairgrounds and Avista Stadium. Based on that Council direction, Mr. Lamb said he did additional research on a potential admissions tax. As noted in his July 21, 2015 Request for Council Action form, Mr. Lamb explained the City's authority to levy and impose a tax, what the tax could and could not be levied upon, and the types of admissions charges. Mr. Lamb explained that the City has broad authority to make distinctions and levy the tax to some places but exclude others, provided a reasonable basis for the distinction is provided. He also explained that the tax must be collected, administered and audited by the city imposing the tax, and that those revenues could be used for most general governmental purposes with noted exceptions. Mr. Lamb's information included in the Council packet showed the types of admission taxes for Spokane, Liberty Lake and Airway Heights, and noted that Spokane imposes the admission tax on the Spokane Arena, INB Performing Arts Center and Convention Center,but that all admissions tax collected on charges from those facilities is remitted to the Spokane Public Facilities District. Mr. Lamb also discussed possible revenues we could realize from the Fair Center and Avista Stadium. Council staff discussion included the amount of staff time required for such a tax, and a reminder that this topic was brought up as staff was tasked to look at economic development incentives including revenue generating sources for the City. There was Council consensus that this tax is not needed and therefore, the subject would not be pursued further. 3. Marijuana Legislative Update—Erik Lamb Now that the State Legislative session has ended,Mr. Lamb explained that there are many laws regulating marijuana, but there were two major bills which passed, one dealing with the reconciliation of medical and recreational marijuana, which included changing the name of the Liquor Control Board to the Liquor and Cannabis Board, and the second bill which is an omnibus bill modifying the taxing structure for marijuana, which directs some tax revenues to local jurisdictions. Attorney Lamb went over the details of some of those changes as contained in his July 21, 2015 Request for Council Action form. One of the major changes Mr. Lamb described was that after July 1, 2016, collective gardens will not be able to operate, although those businesses could seek a retail license or pursue the area of medical cooperatives, which means we might have to look at edits to our code. Mr. Lamb explained the local authority to regulate these changes, criminal/civil infraction modifications, tax reforms, and tax distributions to local governments. Mr. Lamb also noted that our retailers appear to be abiding by the law. 4. Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos Councilmember Gothmann suggested adding the subject of trains and all associated aspects, such as quiet zones, bridging the valley, etc., to alert residents about what we can or can't do, and several Councilmembers agreed. Councilmember Higgins reminded everyone that Clean Air Agency Executive Julie Oliver will be on next week's agenda. Mayor Grafos said he would like to add a discussion about the false alarm ordinance and the associated fees and fines. City Manager Jackson said he is looking into the issue and his goal is to advertise for RFPs (request for proposal)to determine how we could best contract for that service, but that it might be better to wait until the new CAD (computer-aided dispatch) system is in place. 5. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos Mayor Grafos said he visited River Park Square where a Visit Spokane booth was in the foyer with a big map of the area, but the map did not include Spokane Valley or the mall, but did include the City of Liberty Lake; said he listened to some discussion from the representatives of Visit Spokane about areas to visit, and said there was no discussion about the Valley or even going to the Valley Mall, or even about CenterPlace or Mirabeau; said this is something to consider as we look at future lodging tax allocations Council Study Session:07-21-2015 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council:08-11-2015 and our past allocations of$400,000 or $500,000, and that we might want to make some changes in the future. Concerning our code enforcement, Mayor Grafos mentioned some items which he would like examined: the property at Margaret and Broadway where a house has been torn down; what appears to be a perpetual garage sale at Broadway and University, which would be an illegal business; and 21S` and University where a burned down house has been sitting in disrepair for a long time. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that property has been sold and the new owner put up a fence and has started cleaning up the property. Mayor Grafos said that enough is enough and we should look at prioritizing code enforcement as nothing is being done, and that perhaps a report could be given to Council on these mentioned properties. 6. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said he would like to include on the August 18 Council agenda, some of the unfinished business from the budget retreat, including discussion about Council goals as well as funding 312, capital reserve funds and how to allocate those funds; said he proposes incorporating the adoption of fund 312 into the budget; said concerning the WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation) property previously discussed, the property adjacent to Sullivan Park, that we received an extension from WSDOT and have until September 1 to decide whether we would like to purchase the property; said there is some hazardous waste on that property; and that the goal is to work through the process and make options available for Council discussion,and to tie that in with available and capital reserve funds. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. ATTE: . Dean Grafos, May. /3 - Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:07-21-2015 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council:08-11-2015