Loading...
2016, 08-30 Study Session MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall.Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington August 30, 2016 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,City Attorney Caleb Collier, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Pam Haley, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Mike Munch,Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Recreation Director Ed Pace, Councilmember John Holtman, Community&Eco. Dev. Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Christina Janssen, Planner Mark Werner, Police Chief 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. 1. Hearing Examiner Report—Cary Driskell,Mike Dempsey City Attorney Driskell introduced Hearing Examiner Mike Dempsey; said he has been the Hearing Examiner since our City's 2003 incorporation, and operates under an interlocal agreement with Spokane County, which agreement automatically renews annually unless one of the parties involved invokes the termination provision; and said this agreement and Mr.Dempsey have served our City well. Mr. Dempsey introduced himself, gave some background of his education and work history including involvement with land use matters;said the standard reimbursement for his services is based on an hourly fee;that he prepares an annual report for Council and the City Manager, which includes a report on how the system is working and any recommendations for changes; said he is a resident of Spokane Valley, the hearings he conducts are conducted here in our Council Chambers,and most of his decisions are appealable to the Superior Court. Mr. Dempsey noted the materials in tonight's Council packet, including adopted Rules of Procedure,which are contained in our Municipal Code; said for his hearings, he usually doesn't set time limits as the main focus is to make sure the hearing is conducted properly, fairly, and that a clear record is made; and Ile thanked Council for the opportunity to meet and discuss the system. Councilmember Collier stated that it appears to be a lot of power in the hands of one person and asked if there are any checks and balances. Mr.Dempsey said he works under the administration supervision of the City and County in his job, and his job is to follow the law and regulations adopted by the City or County, and implement those laws and regulations; said his decision can be appealed so there are very good checks and balances;said he conducts a general hearing with public testimony and sometimes there are legal issues he might want to discuss with the City's legal counsel. City Attorney Driskell added that the Hearing Examiner's role is to make sure the application procedure is done pursuant to law, that all rules are being followed; that he is a trained professional and attorney operating under an adopted set of guidelines and rules for conducting hearings; that the system is intended to be very structured and done according to Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016 adopted laws by the City and state legislature; it also affords the opportunity to take a sometimes political process and make it nonpolitical and in the hands of professionals thereby reducing liability for our City. Mr. Dempsey said that he also gets expert reports prepared by City Staff, and he often follows those recommendations, but can make recommended changes as well. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if Mr. Dempsey has a copy of the City's Code, and he replied that he does, and that the City Clerk supplies him with Code updates. Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned that he has known Mr. Dempsey for quite some time and when it comes to findings,Mr.Dempsey follows logic and the law and is pleased he is the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Dempsey said that he enjoys serving the City.Council thanked Mr. Dempsey for his report and his time. 2. Library District Request for City's Reacquisition of Balfour Park Property — Cary Driskell, Nancy Ledeboer After City Attorney Driskell introduced Nancy Ledeboer,and Ms.Ledeboer introduced Board Chair Mark Johnson, and Board Vice Chair John Craig. Mr. Driskell explained some of the history leading up to the City's purchase,then selling of the property on Sprague across from the new City Hall site; said according to the approved interlocal agreement, if the Library District is unable to pass a bond by October 23, 2017, the City would re-purchase the property on the same terms as when the property was sold to the District; said the District put the issue on the ballot twice,but each time did not achieve the needed 60%approval. Ms. Ledeboer thanked Council for tonight's opportunity; via her PowerPoint presentation she explained some of the background and history of the Spokane Valley Library, as well as the number of visitors, program attendance, and circulation; she went over the two failed ballot issues and said that she has heard from many people that they wish the library would pursue another bond issue,and that some people thought the issue has passed; said they are doing the best they can with available resources, and said the Library Board members would like to hear Council's desires. Mayor Higgins said that he understands the thinking about having lost two elections, but that he doesn't think the issue is dead and he would like the library to reconsider; said Council can help get this done; that we are talking about an integral part of a plan for a community center,and that a library is much more than a place to get books; and that he would like further discussion to see if something can be worked out. Brief discussion ensued about private funding or endowments to help with the cost, with mention that those types of fund options generally don't bring in enough for capital needs, and that it is difficult to raise capital funds in a private fundraising effort. Councilmember Pace agreed that he too would like the Board to go back and re-think the strategies,and to work with us as well as schools and others to work on a strategy; said he didn't support this idea the last time because he didn't see a value proposition; that he supports the library and is a heavy user; and said that the library is important for our City. In response to a question about trying only for the new facility, Ms. Ledeboer said they felt they would lose voters on the east side of the city if there was no branch close to them, and if the main library was further west; and said the larger the voting circle, the smaller per cost for citizens. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about having two separate elections:one for the district,and another election for the funding; said he realizes the district would be dissolved after losing a ballot measure twice, and he asked how long the district could be in place. Deputy Mayor Woodard also said he would be in favor of extending the interlocal,and feels the library is integral to the economic revitalization of that area. Neither Ms.Ledeboer nor Mr. Driskell had an answer for how long a district could be held open,with Mr. Driskell mentioning that the state statute doesn't mention a time frame, only that it would be dissolved if the first two ballot attempts were not approved. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he hopes the Board would consider asking for an extension of the interlocal instead of asking for the return of the money;that he feels it would pass if all worked together on this,as it was very close the last time; said the library staff does an excellent job, and even with increasing parking, the current building won't last long into the future; said he is all for selling the value proposition to the public and maybe some aspects of the private community could help. Councilmember Haley said with the last ballot, City Hall was still just a vision, but now that ground has Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016 been broken and the building is being built,the community would have a better vision of what a park might look like with a library, so the timing might be better now. The previous ballots' verbiage was also discussed, as well as the cost of putting a measure on a ballot. Ms. Ledeboer said the Board tried to be thoughtful and fiscally conservative; said she encourages any suggestions or ideas; said they did not spend money on polling or surveys to find out people's priorities and what they would support, and said if the City has data and would be willing to share it, it would be very helpful. Mayor Higgins said the City is happy to cooperate where we can.Councilmember Pace suggested forming a task force to include members from our Economic Development Staff, maybe a couneilmember or two, and representatives from the school district and the Chamber,and said he believes that collectively we can figure this out.City Attorney Driskell suggested staff identify those areas where we can help, and he will try to give Council an update on what we can and can't do, and work on ways to move this ahead. Ms. Ledeboer thanked Council for their time and said she hopes Council will invite staff to conic back and give an updated report about the library services. 3.National Endowment for the Arts, Our Town Grant Opportunity--Christina Janssen PIanner Janssen explained about the opportunity to apply for an "Our Town" grant through the National Endowment for the Arts; said the idea is to use the grant to create the City's first Public Arts Master Plan; said grants range from $25,000 to $200,000; and the estimated cost of the Arts Master Plan is $100,000; which would break down to$50,000 in grant funds and$50,000 in required matching funds; and she asked for direction from Council. Councilmember Pace said he favors moving forward with this idea and thinks we could easily find $50,000 to take from something else to use for matching funds; said a master plan is forward looking and we could work together for ideas with the library, Arts Council and others, and he encouraged moving this forward. Councilmember Collier asked about using Lodging Tax Funds as a match for this, and Mr. Calhoun explained the process of using those funds, including that we would need to submit an application to that committee for funding consideration; said that process starts early in September so it is conceivable, but if those funds are not available, a match could come from the general government portion of general funds which has been used to fund a variety of studies, and said we have $150,000 budgeted in the 2017 budget for these sorts of things. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he feels this would help increase tourism,and that as likely we don't know all the art collections that are available to the public,this would help and be a great plan to give guidance to those who want to help enrich the City; and that lie too would like to move ahead with the grant application.There was apparent Council agreement to proceed.Mr. Calhoun said staff will return next week with a formal motion for Council's consideration. 4. Solid Waste Collection Update—Eric Guth, Erik Lamb,Morgan Koudelka Public Works Director Guth explained some of the background of the City's solid waste collection services and of the beginning of the process to procure long-term services through a competitive process which would allow the City to seek lower rates and additional services while maintaining conformity with the City's adopted Solid Waste Management Plan; said public input is an integral part of this process and the solid waste collection survey, composed of twelve primary questions and distributed in the City's Hot Topics mailer as well as being available online, was very successful with us receiving 669 completed responses, which is a very good response from the community. Mr. Guth said the resounding message through the survey responses was to keep the rates low. After Mr. Koudelka went over the questions and responses, he extended thanks to Public Information Officer Carolbelle Branch and Intern Angelik Sorenson for their help in putting the survey form together, and extended thanks to the public for responding.Deputy City Attorney Lamb also extended thanks to Mr.Koudelka for putting the survey report together as well as comments,and said he did an excellent job and the product is very comprehensive;that moving forward staff put together a draft RFP (request for proposal)to submit to various haulers for their review and comments,that staff is in the process of reviewing those comments and the plan is to bring those comments forward mid-September. Mr. Lamb explained the next steps as shown on the PowerPoint slide, including further Council review early next year, with the execution of a final contract anticipated March 2017. The idea of special rates for special haulers was mentioned with Mr. Koudelka explaining that Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016 comparisons will be shared with Council; that staff will have more discussion with the consultant to see how to address the idea of optionaVdifferent schedules, sporadic pickup during winter months, other flexibility, and efficiency and price. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:40 p.in.;he reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 5. Water District#3 Pump House Lease--Caty Driskell As noted on his August 30,2016 Request for Council Action form,City Attorney Driskell explained some of the history surrounding Browns Park and a lease of a portion of that park to Water District#3 for well facilities; said the issue of the lease recently came up when the City enquired about getting water for a new splash pad feature,which is part of the Browns Park master planned renovation;said the City and the Water District discussed how to address the expired lease,which allowed for the Water District's use of the park property in exchange for water for irrigation and domestic purposes, with no money exchanged by either side; and was viewed as a successful example of a mutually beneficial relationship. Mr. Driskell said that the District informs us it needs a permanent easement for long-term security in the location of its well facilities; and they advise that it would cost between $400,000 and $500,000 to move its well facilities to another location, so they want to avoid that if possible. Mr. Driskell said that he and Water District's attorney Joe Carroll have discussed this issue; that there have been many questions but no unanimity of opinion on the lease or easement: the District wants an easement and we prefer a lease; and he mentioned that Mr. Carroll is here tonight and would like an opportunity to address Council. Mr. Driskell explained that we do not have an actual formal proposal from the district on an easement,and the purpose of tonight's agenda item is for Council to hear an update and discuss some of the issues. Parks and Recreation Director Stone brought attention to the map in the Council packet showing the masterplan and the impact of what is proposed; said the masterplan was adopted in 2014 after an extensive public process; said the volleyball aspect was brought forward for the community and for tourism,and that there is no other sand volleyball complex within 300 miles; said the focus was to make sure the residents could still use the neighborhood aspect of the park with planned play equipment, restroom, and security light as there is no lighting there now; and a basketball court and improved parking; said we started implementing the masterplan in 2015 and are making steady progress; said concerning the completion of the splash pad,the issue of the Water District's lease came to light. Mr. Stone said it has been the intention to open the splash pad this year but we have not been able to reach resolution on the connection or the charge of the water usage so we can't complete the construction and are not yet able to open the splash pad; adding that the project took a little longer than anticipated as it came in over budget, which he said was explained previously. Mr. Driskell reiterated that in the former agreement, we weren't charging them ground lease and they weren't charging us for the water; and since we don't know if we would have more water usage with the splash pad, we proposed the lease; said we did not want any undue impact on the District; that we believe putting in sixteen volleyball courts would result in less green space and therefore less water usage, and with the proposed lease we would pay for anything over what we have historically used. Discussion ensued concerning cost for hookup and installation; existing lines and additional water meters; whether it would be more appropriate to have it hook up elsewhere, perhaps on Pines, along with an estimated$12,000 cost of hookup and construction. Council invited Mr. Carroll to the table. Water District#3 Attorney Joseph Carroll said that the District had initially provided a proposed easement, but the recommendation from Council is a lease and not an easement; said this is a unique situation and no other water district is actively involved in a lease for water levels; said we all serve the public and he would like to work through this to serve all the customers as best we can; said in looking at the drawing of the site included in the Council packet, it shows a 150' radius on the sanitary control zone; he questioned if that is what the lease provides as the State Department of Health requires a 100' zone; said there is no restriction from building in that area,just certain items are restricted in order to protect the well; said about 11,920 people are within this#2 area for Water District#3 and the well provides water to a portion of that service Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016 area#2. Mr. Carroll said Mr. Driskell recommends a lease so that thirty-five years from now if there is a different use of the property, the well could be removed; said the District doesn't agree; that they want permanency and if there is a well, they want an easement; said the District spoke with engineers and in reviewing the concept, the opinion is to put in a new well and abandon the present site; again stating that they want to work for the benefit of all concerned. Regarding the water meter, Mr. Carroll said that early on when the water feature was mentioned,the District told the City a water feature would require a separate meter because of the size of the water feature, which requirement he said is standard for water districts. Concerning the value of an easement,Mr.Carroll said that issue would have to be addressed by both parties, as well as how it would be paid for; said the removal of the infrastructure at the end of an easement period also came up, and as a compromise,the District proposed it would not be required to remove its facilities if the easement ended due to non-use, except the District would remove the infrastructure underground if there was an immediate need by the City, for example if the City had an imminent project. Mr. Carroll said this non-abandonment issue has been going on for several years; that lie understands about purveyors abandoning structures and that the City would like any such abandoned structure removed; said that would need to be resolved for the benefit of all; asked why the District would agree to such language and that the District would like to discuss the easement; he also mentioned the District is looking at the option of constructing a new well on other property, and said the City then would not have to worry about the future if the City wanted to change the use of the park; and said other considerations to discuss relate to the payment of water, and that he hopes to work through these issues. Councilmember Munch said he was not initially interested in an easement as that would be giving up a big chunk of the park, but lie would be agreeable with an easement provided it is mutually beneficial; said the District doesn't give water for free and with an easement, we would be giving the land use for free; said whether a lease or easement, the park is the City's and the people's park and we can't just give it away; said he doesn't see that land being used for anything other than a park and that paying$500,000 for another well seems foolhardy, but thinks we can figure out something that would work; also stated he feels we are being held "over the fire" with a new meter and that he would like to work through as much as possible. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the City isn't selling park land, but rather is buying park land;that we should pay for any water usage and should move the meter to Pines if necessary; said this situation is very frustrating; that the City has been working to get water rights transferred to municipal rights; said if thirty- five years isn't considered permanent, what time period would be; said it feels as if we are missing something as we have been good stewards with the water district. Mr.Carroll replied that the District looks at permanency as longer than thirty-five years as over time there could be a totally different council, we could have a great depression and the City could decide to sell; said the District looks at this in long-term time spans; they appreciate the support of the efforts of water rights for everyone, and said the District is not trying to make it difficult, but the standard procedure for a water feature would be an installed separate meter. Discussion continued regarding costs, permanency, first right of refusal, and lifespan of wells. Mayor Higgins stated that something broke here over something that should have been achievable;in terms of doing a splash pad, said we will pay for the water, but it seems there is an assertion that we would do something different; said the more we plan the less likely anything would happen, and if it did, a simple insertion of first right of refusal could be included.Mr.Carroll said that he doesn't understand the first right of refusal;that if there is a thirty-five year lease, all it would take would be giving a ninety-day notice;said where communication broke down is in what the District looks at; said the District needs an easement because they don't have any other well that works under a lease,and they want permanence.In response to Mayor Higgins question of what happened since things were working before, Mr. Carroll said he never heard a proposal to continue the existing lease and he can't imagine the District agreeing to a lease continuance since they are looking at it long term and need permanence.Mr.Carroll noted the lease expired three years ago, and reiterated that he knows of no district that has a lease for a well, it just isn't done.After Rather discussion it was determined that Mr. Driskell and Mr. Carroll will keep working on the issue, and Mr. Driskell asked if Council wants to look at an easement;and if not,the matter would have to come back Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016 • , f to Council for further direction. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he feels an easement enslaves the property and we would lose control for all practical purposes from a real estate standpoint. It was at this point that Councilmember Wood said lie would abstain from any comments, vote or direction on this issue as the Carnhope Water District Chair,he has a certain belief about what Mr.Carroll is talking about and is slanted in that direction. City Attorney Driskell suggested to Councilmember Wood if that is the case, it would be appropriate for him to excuse himself from the dais. Since it was apparent that the discussion was almost concluded, Councilmember Wood remained at the dais. Mr. Driskell said he will get together with Mr. Carroll. In response to Councilmember Munch's question about the splash pad,Mr.Carroll said the District is willing to put the meter in the right-of-way on Pines, but since there is no right under the lease, they'd want to put the meter in the public right-of-way instead of on park property, hence the $7,100 additional charge. Mr. Calhoun said staff will come back to Council after reviewing the 2016 budget to see if we can make it happen without a budget amendment; and if not, Council could pursue a budget amendment. Council concurred. At 8:46 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9..30 pan. 6.Painted Hills Update—Gabe Gallinger Development Services Manager Gallinger explained that at the previous request of Council,and since there are four new Councilmembers who were not present at previous updates, staff was asked to give a status report on the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development Project. Mr. Gallinger went through his PowerPoint presentation briefly explaining the history of the area, current zoning, planned development of the lots,and the process involved; and brought attention to the section of the City's webpage with extensive information on the Painted Hills Planned Development. 7. Advance Agenda--Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins There were no additional comments. 9.Acting City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun had no comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. 1 1 r..,i tri,:....- ,777.j._ A aria* A / L.R.r Higgins," .1' _Aie IP 7(\_ , C; Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk) Council Study Session:08-30-2016 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council:09-13-2016