Loading...
2016, 08-03 Special Formal MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Wednesday, August 3, 2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Sta Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun,Acting City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Caleb Collier, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Pam Haley, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Mike Munch, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Ed Pace, Councilmember John Holman, Comm&Eco. Dev. Director Sam Wood,Councilmember Chelsic Taylor,Finance Director Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Carrie Koudelka,Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Living Hope Community Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council,staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Couricilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard,seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:N/A COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Wood said he attended the steering committee meeting for the Growth Management Act where they discussed land analysis methodology to be used to determine the amount of land available for development. Councilmember Collier said he attended the National Night Out event at the Edgecliff SCOPE office. Councilmember Haley said she attended the National Night Out event at the Edgecliff SCOPE office. Councilmember Pace said lie attended the National Night Out event,riding to several locations with a police officer. Together, they visited two SCOPE stations, the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church and a potluck. He said he tried to dispel rumors that the Council is trying to get rid of the Sheriffs contract and SCOPE, saying that is not the intent of the Council. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he went to the Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) Port of Seattle district meeting at Spokane Community College. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins reported that he attended the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce grand opening of Viking Builders housed in the former Nut Factory building where he welcomed the new business to Spokane Valley. He said he also attended a Visit Spokane board meeting, the National Night Out event, and a Washington State Department of Transportation joint advisory committee meeting regarding the North-South Freeway. PROCLAMATION:N/A Minutes Regular Council Meeting:08-03-2016 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:08-09-2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Robert Blum, Spokane Valley said he would like to express his thoughts on the recent conversation regarding a City identity.He said identity has to do with the character traits of people in power and citizens want good people representing them in the police force and the administration. He said our City's law enforcement and permitting processes are good;that people want transparency and fiscal restraint from the City Council, a true sense of community and respect for the citizens. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent A 'euda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on August 2, 2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $912,462.64 b. Approval of July 26, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special 5:00 p.m. Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Ordinance 16-011 Findings, Mining Moratorium—Erik Lamb After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 16-011, adoptingfindings of factjustifying a second six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 and renewed and modified pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-003. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the background of this item as he had in the past,and said state law requires that we adopt findings justifying the adoption of the ordinance for the moratorium.In response to Deputy Mayor Woodard's question about receiving any requests for permits, Mr. Lamb said there have been no new applications to his knowledge other than the SM6 form from Central Pre-mix previously discussed. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried 3. Second Reading Ordinance 16-012 Mining Moratorium, Second Extension—Erik Lamb After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 16-012, adopting a second six-month renewal on morning and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 and renewed and modified pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-003. Mr. Lamb said this is the companion ordinance to Ordinance 16-011. He said state law requires that we hold a public hearing and adopt findings of fact,which Council has done. He said the ordinance will adopt a second six-month renewal with the same terms that were adopted in February of 2016 and will expire in February of 2017. Councilmember Wood asked if the moratorium would expire when the Comprehensive Plan is updated, should that happen before the February 2017 date. Mr. Lamb confirmed that it would. Mayor 1-Liggins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Ordinance 16-013 Inland Power&Light Electrical Franchise—Cary Driskell After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 16-013 granting an electricalfranchise to Inland Power&Light to afrrture agenda for a second reading. City Attorney Driskell said this is the first reading of a proposed franchise ordinance granting Inland Power & Light a twenty-five year franchise to continue their operations in the City's rights-of-way. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked him to explain what happens when facilities are abandoned in the rights-of-way. Mr. Driskell explained that when the franchises were granted by Spokane County, they were less concerned when a franchise abandoned their facilities in the rights-of-way and that it is not uncommon to find abandoned gas or telecommunication facilities when we begin road projects, causing cost and delay to the project.He said a few years ago,the City took the view that because facilities Minutes Regular Council Meeting:08-03-2016 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:08-09-2016 are installed by the utility for their customers it is inappropriate for the City to pay the cost to remove abandoned facilities and distribute that cost to the citizens. He said that is a new change that will be discussed with the remaining utility companies, some of which may be tougher discussions, but he said Inland Power and Light and Avista have both agreed this is an appropriate approach. Mr. Driskell said the options for removal of the abandoned facilities are either at the time of expiration of the franchise,the utility can pull the facilities or the City will agree to keep them in the City rights-of-way but at such time a project requires it to be removed, the utility would need to pay to have them removed. Mayor Higgins invited public continent; no continents were offered. Vote by Acclamation In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. FASTLANE Grant Application—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said this is a new grant program that came out in 2016 for$4.5 billion that will be spread out over the next five years, primarily for freight transportation. He said the grant is broken into two categories: small projects ranging from$5 million to $25 million and large projects that range from $25 million to a maximum of$100 million.He said the grant funds can be used toward as much as sixty percent of the project total and the program allows matching funds to come from other federal,state or local funds. Mr. Guth said the City applied for the grant using the Barker Overpass and Pines Underpass projects combined and fell into the large project category but it was not selected for funds this year. He said the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)selects the projects that will go to Congress who then have sixty days to review for grant award.He said we plan to apply again in the spring of 2017, likely around April,and he said staff will debrief with Washington DOT to see how we might make our application stronger.He said there were eighteen total projects,eleven large and seven small. Of the large projects,seven were granted to DOT projects and of the seven small projects,four went to DOT projects. Councilmember Collier asked if the City is using innovative technology to include as part of our application for the grant. Mr.Guth said we are weak in that category because our projects are not at grade level,with either an overpass or an underpass so we do not have the need for that technology. Mayor Higgins said we received a letter saying we did not get TIGER grant funds either and Mr. Guth confirmed that is correct and he will be giving a report to Council discussing the TIGER grant in the next couple weeks. 6. Browns Park Lease to Water District#3—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said the City has been making major renovations at Browns Park including a new splash pad in which we need to work with Water District#3 (the District)to get water to the splash pad.In discussions with Water District#3, we found a 35-year lease with the District for the pump house located just east of the parking lot. He said the lease expired three years ago and unfortunately, we had not been tracking the lease.In researching the lease,he said in 1971 the Yamamoto family transferred the land to the Brown family and in 1975,the Brown's transferred the land now known as the park to Spokane County. In 1978, the County worked with Washington Water Power, now Avista, to arrange for a 35-year lease for location of a wellhead and pump house. We cannot find the transfer of the 1969 easement from the Yamamoto family and that has been part of the discussion with the District. He said the District does not want a lease agreement and instead seek an easement because of the investment they have with the wellhead, which he said has been a significant point of their conversation. With ownership of the property,he said, it makes sense to be able to revisit with Council any changes in the park that may come up in the future and he said facilities above ground limit uses for improvements.He said the District is concerned the City could sell the park and he is looking for direction from Council as to this draft proposal. Previously,the City did not charge the District for its land use in the park and the District did not charge the City for the water used in the park. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:08-03-2016 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council:08-09-2016 Councilmember Pace asked what we thought the pump house was if we did not know about a lease with the District. Mr.Driskell said we knew the pump house belonged to Water District#3 but we did not know we had a 35-year lease that had expired. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said we were aware there was a lease but we did not spend the time to find out when the lease was set to expire. He said we just worked alongside the District consistent with the way the County had done previously. Mr. Pace asked what the City needs from the District in terms of granting a lease or an easement. Mr. Driskell said staff tried to address that in the proposal. He said the addition of a splash pad will take more water but the volleyball courts removed turf so, overall,the City should be using less water. He said the proposal includes taking a water use average from 2011 and paying fair market rates for any use above that average. Councilmember Pace said he leans toward granting an easement unless others convince him otherwise. Councilmember Munch said with the lease the City got free water and the District did not have to pay rent.He said that with an easement the District would not have to answer to the City at all. Mr. Driskell said that terms would be negotiated with regard to that. Councilmember Wood said he is for granting the District an easement and asked about first right of refusal. Mr. Driskell said the District wants permanence to try to provide long- term security of their investment. Because of this, the City is offering an additional fifteen years to a new thirty-five year lease as a first right of refusal, amounting to a total of eighty-eight years. Councilmember Collier asked if we can require using non-toxic or organic products under Use of Premises on page 3 of 7. Mr.Driskell said lie does not expect that would be an issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the sanitary zone is a 150-foot radius from the wellhead and Ile asked what we could do on top of the sanitary zone if we sold or repurposed the park.Mr.Driskell said the sanitary zone is essentially a 300' x 300' swath of land in which park uses are not a problem and it has not been a contamination concern. He said from the District's point of view, if the lease expires, we can sell the land to a developer. He said the District would then need to remove their facilities and they are looking to secure permanence.Deputy Mayor Woodard asked how many households that well and pump house can serve and asked Mr. Driskell to explain how he calculated the eighty-eight years. Mr.Driskell said he does not know how many households that well can serve but he can find out.He said the eighty-eight years is based on the 35-year lease that expired plus the three years since it expired,a new lease of thirty-five years and the offer of the additional fifteen years as first right of refusal. Mr. Woodard said as far as the abandonment clause, he said we should consider whether all citizens of the city should pay for the service provided to a few citizens.Councilmember Haley asked for clarification as to what the proposal for the easement entails. Mr. Driskell said the City provides an easement to the District and the District provides the City with free water for five years. Councilmember Munch said it seems like we had a mutually beneficial agreement before and now we will not have that and with an easement the District would be getting a much better deal. He said lie thinks we should stick with the lease because we do not know what could happen in thirty-five or fifty years because things can change. Councilmember Wood asked if we could negotiate terms with regard to the District providing the City with water. Mr. Driskell said he can talk to their attorney but right now they have proposed an easement in exchange for five years of water and after five years, the City is to pay full market price for the water. Mr. Woodard said easements enslave property and they only go away by mutual consent of both parties,or when the owner of the easement gains ownership of the property.He said lie thinks the City should pay for the water used in the park the way we do in other parks. Mr. Driskell said he will continue the discussion of options with the District's attorney and bring back possible options to Council to make a decision. He said lie will look into non-toxic treatments and how many households are served by that specific facility. He said he will also provide Council with a map of the park design plan showing the volleyball courts, splash pad, pump house and easement relationships. 7. Council Training: Open Public Meetings Act and Public Record Act—Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb City Attorney Driskell said the training will be broken into two segments,Open Public Meetings and Public Records Requests. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:25 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:08-03-2016 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council:08-09-2016 Deputy City Attorney Lamb said state law requires training be provided to new Councilmembers within ninety days of taking office and he said additionally, the City offers annual training to Council and employees. He conducted training on the Public Records Act using the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Driskell then conducted training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. 8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins: There were no additions or comments regarding the Advance Agenda. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Acting City Manager Calhoun said installation of the playground equipment at Terrace View Park is scheduled to begin Monday, August 8th. He said we have had the equipment for a while but we have been waiting for a certified installer. He added that Council has the opportunity to visit Metals Fab, the metal fabricator for the new City Hall building, at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 10th. 1-Ie said if more than three Councilmembers plan to attend, we will need to notice the tour as a meeting. At the August 9th Council meeting, he said we will be looking at the budget and anticipate adopting the budget on November 8th.Also at the August 9th meeting we will have an update on the legislative agenda and begin development of the 2017 legislative agenda for our City. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. r Av A V5 AL iristine Bainbridge,City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:08-03-2016 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council:08-09-2016 GENERAL NES AL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET \\\\ SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, August 3, 2016 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE: Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT X114. -Z477-,e/ Li pcd _ . il,P---.4) --- Please note that once information is entered on this forma, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. LAW OFFICES JOSEPH G.CARROLL, P.S. 12929 E.Sprague Ave.,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99216 (509)928-2345 FAX(509)928-2348 JOSEPH G.CARROLL August 3, 2016 Via email Cary P. Driskell City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Brown's Park Water Well Dear Cary: Thank you for taking the time to make sure I receive a copy of the Request for Council Action on the Brown's Park water well. As you are aware, I represent Spokane County Water District No. 3 ('District"). There are a few items that the District feels are missing from the Request for Council Action to provide a complete story of at least what Is known at this point. The well logs, copies of which l have provided to you, indicate that there were three diggings or drillings of wells, but there are really only two well locations and there has been a well in the present location from either 1896 or 1932. The first well was dug in 1896 to an Indicated depth of 120 feet. That was dug for J.E. and Hazel V. Melton. A second well was dug for the same couple in 1932 to the same Indicated depth of 120 feet. The latest drilling was by Washington Water Power in 1978 and the well log clearly Indicates that they started at 118 feet and that the 118 feet was "drilled by others". Therefore, Washington Water Power used one of the existing wells and drilled down to an Increased depth of 173 feet. It is significant that a well was located in the same spot as Its present day location from either 1896 or 1932. In 1969, the Yamamotos granted an easement right for the well. The easement indicated the water was to serve, in addition to what is now the Brown's Park area, the surrounding developing properties located to the east and north being developed by Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie and West Valley Builders, Inc. The District now serves that area. That easement references the two wells but Is only applicable to the larger well. The easement references that there was a well house building which would obviously indicate in an open, continuous and notorious fashion the existence of the well on the property. The easement had no expiration date. August 3, 2016 Page 2 The water right documentation Indicates that the 1896 well was for 400 acre feet of water; the 1932 water right was for 655 acre feet of water; and the Washington Water Power well from 1978 had associated with it 2,530 acre feet of water. Clearly, the purpose was to serve areas other than the nine acres of what Is now the Brown's Park property. You are correct that in 1978 Washington Water Power entered into a lease agreement with the County. The lease with Washington Water Power references a nonproducing well and well site, and that what is now called Brown's Park will be used as a park. You make the comment in the Request for Council Action that "by most accounts, the lease was a successful example of a mutually beneficial relationship." We are not sure where that thought came from; however, Washington Water Power and the District are different entities. Washington Water Power, now Avista, is a for-profit corporation that could write off the lease payments as a business expense and in its community public relations endeavors could state that it was providing free water for the park. The District Is a public entity and the State Auditor even mentioned at one point a concern with the lease and its provisions. You are correct that the District is not aware of any other leased well sites in the Spokane area. The norm Is that any well site either has an easement or is owned in fee simple by the water purveyor. The District feels strongly that a written easement should be negotiated between the parties so that the same problem we are confronting at this point is not just "kicked down the road" for 35 years. The second main paragraph on page 2 of your memo provides: In the course of the negotiations, staff conveyed to the District their understanding of the District's desire to have permanence for long-term security. City staff believes it Is in the City's best interest to maintain ownership of its assets to the greatest extent possible so that future Councils may have at least some opportunity to consider changes to the park property as this Council recently did in re-purposing Brown's Park Into primarily a sand volleyball venue. You are correct that the District does have a desire to have permanence. Although City staff acknowledges the District's desire for permanence, the outcome the City wants does not acknowledge the District's need for permanence; i.e., the lease would allow the City to demand the District "remove" the well at the end of the lease term. The District has stated that an easement should be used and, if there Is concern about modification of the easement in the future for a changed use of the park, a form of arbitration clause might be used. While no one can predict with absolute certainty what will be needed In the future, the likely change would be for the City to sell the property to a developer. Having an easement for a water well would normally present no problem for a developer. Water wells are relatively quiet and unobtrusive in a neighborhood setting. There are many examples of that in the Spokane Valley area. August 3, 2016 Page 3 In your Request for Council Action you recommend that the Council approve the essential terms of the draft lease and at a future meeting authorize staff to finalize and execute the lease to forward to the District for consideration and adoption. The District has indicated that it does not want a lease but wants a written easement to clarify the situation. From an equitable standpoint, the water well has existed there since either 1896 or 1932 to serve the community. The District Is a public entity unlike Washington Water Power, now Avista, which is a for-profit entity. We would suggest the Council be queried as to whether they have any grave objections to the use of an easement over a lease so that the whole problem Is not passed on to a future City Council and District Commissioners. As we have discussed, there are some additional issues besides the easement versus lease concept. One of the main items Is the provision proposed by the City that the facilities may not be abandoned in place without express written approval of the City. It is the normal procedure for abandoned underground water lines to be left in place. A compromise on that might be something to the effect that the District would be allowed to abandon underground water mains In place should it ever abandon the facilities in a termination of the easement; however, if the abandoned lines would interfere with the intended development of the property In the near future, the District would remove the main lines using the least expensive alternative, such as when the new development was being constructed and the big construction equipment Is there to remove the water mains and other appurtenances during the construction phase of the new development. I would ask that you share these thoughts with the City Council and provide them with a copy of this letter. As we discussed, it might be beneficial if the District Commissioners and three or less members of the City Council met in an open meeting at the District office to see if the issue could be discussed person to person. Since the City and the District both serve the public, it is hoped this matter can be quickly resolved without leaving future problems for our children and grandchildren. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH G. CARROLL JGC:mrb cc: Spokane County Water District No. 3 (via email)