2016, 03-29 Study Session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL
MEETING STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
March 29,2016
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Comm. &Economic Dev. Dir.
Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Rec Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tern Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to amend the agenda to add
a motion item regarding the suspension of City Manager Mike Jackson, and that this will be added as item
5.1 on the agenda tonight.
1. Comprehensive Plan—Water Rights, Water Districts—Adam Jackson, Henry Allen
As they explained the issue via their PowerPoint presentation, Development Engineer Allen and Assistant
Engineer Jackson noted that the information is a summary of their findings, and Mr. Jackson mentioned
that in an effort to ensure accuracy,he worked with each district concerning those supplemental breakdown
sheets; and that overall,tonight's informational review is to provide a cursory review of findings regarding
the City's inventory of water supply services.Mr.Jackson mentioned that Spokane Valley has sixteen water
districts within its boundary; and he went over the residential service population data taken from the
Department of Health website,and said that the data showing the area within the city limits,which excludes
the City of Spokane,shows the largest of those water districts as Consolidated,Vera and Water District#3.
Discussion ensued regarding data showing Vera Water and Power with 100% water rights used; and Mr.
Jackson said that does raise concern on how to manage, or how the Department of Ecology manages
irritation rights. Mr. Allen noted that agricultural irrigation rights can't be used for municipal water rights,
and that a lot of water rights are titled"irrigation"—so we are not sure how Ecology will review those and
one of the next steps is to determine the need; he said they will be talking more to the districts and
conducting further research.
2. Solid Waste Collection—Eric Guth, Erik Lamb, Morgan Koudelka
After Mr.Koudelka went over the history to-date of the solid waste collections services,Mr. Guth said that
staff will go out for bids prior to the termination of the contracts; that an RFP (request for proposal) was
issued for a consultant to assist in putting the RFP together for the contractors, and we received two
proposals, and while both were well qualified, Epicenter was chosen; he said they were slightly less
expensive,we have them under contract now; he and Mr. Koudelka went over the planning topics, as well
as the next steps, all which were included in the March 29, 2016 Request for Council Action form. Mr.
Guth said staff plans to bring items back on this topic throughout the summer. The public involvement
segment of this issue was also discussed, and it was noted that this topic would be addressed in the City's
Hot Topics Newsletters which gets mailed out in mid-June to all City residents.
Council Study Session:03-29-2016 Page 1 of 3
Approved by Council:04-12-2016
3. Washington State Department of Transportation Call for Projects; Bicycles, Safe Routes to Schools —
Eric Guth
Mr. Guth and Mr. Worley went over the information in their March 29, 2016 Request for Council Action
form,explaining the two programs issuing a call for projects; i.e. Safe Routes to School,and the Pedestrian
and Bicycle programs.Based on the grant criteria,they explained their recommendations for each program.
Mr. Worley said staff is open to suggestions as well; and he went over the basics of those projects.
Discussion turned to the suggested, or typical levels of matching funds, which are not required for these
projects,but could result in a higher score.Mr. Calhoun reminded everyone that matching funds come from
the REET (real estate excise tax) funds, and that we are constrained by financial reality; as usually there
are an infinite number of desired projects,yet a finite amount of funds.Mr.Worley added that such decision
does not have to occur tonight about what percentage of funding. Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned the
idea of crossing lights at the Trail and Evergreen as that is a high density area and as such, it is difficult to
cross the street to get to Safeway, and asked if that light is funded by money from the trail. Mr. Worley
confirmed it is. Mr. Worley also explained that in addition to stated grant criteria, they look at what it is
they are trying to address with the project, such as reducing accidents, or helping kids get safely to school;
they also look at the recommendations in the Comp Plan as well as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Program, and whether a project is on an arterial; and because going through a federal right-of-way
acquisition process can be very cumbersome, staff also tries to find projects that don't need a right-of-way
purchase.
4. FASTLANE (Fostering Advancements in Shipping & Transportation for the Long-term Achievement
of National Efficiencies),and TIGER(Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery)Grants
—Eric Guth
Director Guth explained that the United States Department of Transportation issued a call for projects for
two grant programs,the FASTLANE,and the TIGER VIII; said the TIGER has a$21 million minimal out-
of-pocket, and although it has a reputation of underfunding projects, said we are still hopeful; the
FASTLANE is a new, multi-year grant where funding is possible each year, with a total of$4.5 billion
allotted nationwide for 2016; said only 60% of a project can be funded, but you could add 20% of other
federal funds to this project;that local matches can be a variety; small projects have a$5 million minimum
and $25 million maximum; while large projects range from$25 million up to$100 million.Mr. Guth noted
that recommendations are both Bridging the Valley projects, and it would be a great improvement to the
road network and getting around the railroad tracks; but said there are pros and cons of bundling the
projects, and he explained some of the financing components as noted on his March 29, 2016 Request for
Council Action form.Due to the complexities of these applications and of the tight timeline, Mr.Guth said
they hired a consultant to help put the applications together, and that they concur with staff's
recommendations;he mentioned he is also working with our Lobbyist,Briahna Murray to get some support
letters for these projects,which will be gathered over the next few weeks. Mr. Guth said we would find out
this fall if we were successful with these grants, and we would have to obligate the construction funds by
September 2019. Council concurred for staff to move forward bundling these in whichever method would
prove best.
5. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies—John Hohman, Lori Barlow
Director Hohman said tonight will be a very brief overview of coming events on the comprehensive plan;
that they will focus on the audit as part of Contract #2 with Van Ness Feldman, and mentioned the
memorandum from that firm included in tonight's council packet material. Mr.Hohman explained that the
consultant came in and reviewed the existing goals and policies and determined how many were redundant
or had overlapping areas, as well as what was missing and required by state law, as we want to ensure we
keep up with any state-level changes; said tonight is a first touch and two more are planned, and he
encouraged Council to take as much time as they feel is necessary; said in a few weeks council will have a
better document and more detail; and mentioned the plan to have a combined Council and Planning
Commission meeting in May,which could be a focused session on goals and policies with Tadas Kisielius.
Mr. Hohman said that tonight Ms. Barlow will walk through the draft document; he encouraged Council
Council Study Session:03-29-2016 Page 2 of 3
Approved by Council:04-12-2016
not to worry about specific language, as tonight is an opportunity to introduce the format of how this will
work moving forward, and that there will be more detailed discussions in the coming weeks.
Ms.Barlow said tonight's purpose is to get feedback and make sure we are going in the right direction; said
this should be viewed as a tool to get feedback and to highlight the focus areas that are evolving from the
process; she walked Council through one of the eight identified elements in order to give Council a sense
of how this will be used. Ms.Barlow also mentioned that some of the elements are required by the Growth
Management Act. There was brief Council discussion including mention of the younger generation using
cars less and buying apartments instead of homes;and of Council's desire to examine all the elements. Mr.
Hohman said staff will move forward and being this back again in a few weeks. Council concurred.
5.1 Motion Consideration: City Manager Mike Jackson's Suspension
Deputy Mayor Woodard said that in light of the City's Council's prior motion on February 23, 2016, to
request the resignation of City Manager Mike, Jackson,I move that City Manager Mike Jackson continue
to be in suspended status will full pay and benefits until such time as the specific terms of his separation
agreement shall be finalized, but not to exceed 4:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016. Councilmember Pace seconded
the motion. There was no Council discussion. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Grafos mentioned that Councilmembers are all on various committees, and sometimes
during those committee meetings, an issue comes forward that involves the financial status of our City,
whether that's a grant on a sidewalk, or otherwise; and said he thinks that if it is an issue of the City's
money, a discussion should be held in front of the full Council whether that decision is made to move
forward on a City project, or it's moved elsewhere; said he thinks that would take the "gray area" out of
some of these committees; and as an example, if you have a$300,000 or$400,000 city project that's been
approved, that he thinks it is beyond the purview of one Councilmember on that committee to act alone,
and that he would like that topic included as an agenda item. Mr. Calhoun suggested addressing that in the
Governance Manual as well; and Councilmembers Grafos and Gothmann agreed.
7. Council Comments—Mayor Higgins
Councilmembers Hafner, Gothmann and Pace mentioned today's Vietnam War Vets flag ceremony, and
extended thanks to the DAR(Daughters of the American Revolution). Councilmember Wood said he did
a Meals on Wheels ride-along and mentioned the fabulous job all their volunteers do in serving meals to so
many people.
8. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun
Concerning the oil train deliberations and the Tesoro facility of a few months ago,Mr. Calhoun mentioned
that City staff had been contacted by the Spokane Lands Council who advised us that the Vancouver Port
District will be considering whether to renew the lease with Tesoro Savage as they go through the siting
process with the State, and that apparently it has taken longer than anticipated and if the Vancouver Port
District doesn't renew the lease by August 1,2016,then the project ends;the Spokane Lands Council asked
that we forward our prior letter of objection that we provided to both the State and Port District,and request
that the Port not renew the lease. Council concurred for staff to re-send the letter.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed, to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
' tfitO, .AT�r(ES' : L.R. Higgin ,A /31.; Ji
�Kistine Bainbridge,City Clerk -"
Council Study Session:03-29-2016 Page 3 of 3
Approved by Council:04-12-2016
#<</
Q\'P��o�
5
OQCL%
v
VP40\4
Gp�p\5 y5\ co
^
p �GO rye .
CI\
p
DRAFT LAND USE GOALS
1. Ensure the vitality and character of
residential neighborhoods. Focus AREAS
2. Transform commercial, industrial, and
mixed-use areas into vital, attractive, Residential
accessible districts that enhance
community character and economic Commercial, Industrial
vitality.
and Mixed-Use
3. Promote orderly growth by identifying
Potential Annexation Areas that are Annexation Areas
consistent with the Spokane County
regional urban growth area (UGA) Development
boundary.
4. Preserve and protect the character and
Opportunities
quality of life of Spokane Valley's Historic Preservation
residential neighborhoods.
5. Locate higher density development with
major transportation corridors and near
transit centers to enhance development
and redevelopment opportunities.
6. Encourage protection of archaeological
and historic sites and structures.
DRAFT LAND USE GOALS
Potential Additional Focus Areas
FOCUS AREAS
I. Neighborhood/area-specific (i.e.
area near proposed new city hall) Residential
2. Specific sub-types (e.g. corridors, Commercial, Industrial
neighborhood commercial) and Mixed-Use
3. Growth centers (i.e. areas targeted
Annexation Areas
for higher-density development)
4. Economic development, including Development
employment centers and expanded Opportunities
uses (e.g. local production)
Historic Preservation '
5. Connectivity (related to improved
access to amenities from
neighborhoods)
6. Sustainable development (e.g.
green building, EV infrastructure,
infill)