2016, 12-06 study session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING
STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
December 6, 2016
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Caleb Collier, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director
Pam Haley, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Munch,Councilmember Steve Worley, Capital Improv. Program Mgr
Ed Pace, Councilmember John Hohman, Comm& Eco.Dev. Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director
Mark Werner,Police Chief
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 approve the amended
agenda[adding the executive session].
1.District Court Presentation—Cary Driskell; Judge Walker, Court Administrator John Witter
Mr. Driskell introduced presiding Judge Patti Walker,District Court Administrator John Witter, and other
judges in attendance.Mr.Driskell explained that the City receives court services from the Spokane County
District Court as set forth in the interlocal agreement, which has been in effect since 2003; said the court
services are for hearing cases such as gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors, and traffic infractions; and
earlier this year Spokane Valley Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka provided Council air update on
some of the financial aspects of the interlocal, such as cost per case and included some comparative data
on what similar jurisdictions pay.Judge Walker thanked Council for the opportunity to be here tonight,and
via her PowerPoint, briefly explained what it is the Court does for Spokane Valley and other jurisdictions;
she included their vision statement, types of cases and types of hearings; number of court filings for the
past three years; how many cases involved interpreters; revenues and payment options; specialty courts
such as Veteran's Court, DUI Intensive Supervision Court, and Domestic Violence Court; she explained
about alternatives to incarceration pretrial and post-conviction, and went over some of the features of the
District Court website.Judge Walker also mentioned innovative projects such as robo-texting,which sends
message reminders about appearing in court; Smart Court Forms which can be done on-line; innovative
fingerprint program, and the ability for on-line name and case searches. Other projects briefly discussed
included traffic ticket options, deferral programs,the Alive @25 Program,and the relicensing program
Councilmember Wood asked about restitution, giving his own stolen vehicle as an example, and Judge
Walker explained that was likely a felony so would be handled in Superior Court which has different rules;
but she explained that restitution could be made a part of probation, or entered as a separate judgment.
Councilmember Munch asked if we pay for 20% of judges' salary; and Judge Walker explained that the
City of Spokane Valley pays by the case, and does not pay for any judge or staff salary, and she noted the
Council Study Session: 12-06-2016 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 12-20-2016
information included in the packet, on the bottom of page 3 of 8. Council thanked Judge Walker and Mr.
Witter for their informative presentation.
2.Myrtle Point Cleanup—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell gave an update on the Myrtle Point clean up, as noted in his Request for Council
Action and PowerPoint presentation, including the history of how our City acquired the park, and of the
various factors involved in the park's contamination and clean up. Councilmember Pace asked if this cost
the City anything, and Mr. Driskell replied mostly in staff time, along with a few thousand dollars over
many years in consulting with outside counsel.Councilmember Munch asked if the cap were to leak,would
Holcim come clean it up, and Mr.Driskell replied that they would as it would still be their issue.
3, Street Maintenance Contract Renewal—Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth explained the background of the contract renewal for street and stormwater
maintenance as noted in his December 6, 2016 Request for Council Action form; he said that this request
is for the 2017 renewal,and is the second of four renewal options; said this is a public works contract so by
Labor & Industries' standards, prevailing wage is required. Mr. Guth also explained that although the
prevailing wage increased this year, we are not requesting an increase in the total contract amount as we
plan to adjust the work plan accordingly. Council asked and Mr. Guth agreed that a copy of the contract
will be included in next week's Council packet as this comes before Council for a motion approval
consideration. Councilmember Pace had some questions about the 2017 street budget, and Mr. Calhoun
stated that fund's 2017 budget is$4 million;and Mr.Guth added that the difference between that$4 million
and this$1.36 million is landscape,and a small portion of street sweeping.Mr.Calhoun remarked that those
figures will be provided in next week's packet material when this comes before Council for a motion.
Councilmember Haley asked about the scope of work and Mr. Guth replied that since this is a maintenance
contract, there isn't a scope of work;the work contracted for includes such things as shouldering; said it is
not like a five-year plan, but rather staff puts together an annual work plan for the contractor. There was
Council consensus to bring this forward at next week's meeting for a motion consideration.
4. Street Sweeping Contract Renewal—Eric Guth
As noted in his Request for Council Action form, Mr. Guth explained the background of this 2017 option
year contract renewal for street sweeping with contractor AAA; and said that this would be the second of
four, one-year renewals; and as with the previous item, this also would be a service contract so we are
required to pay prevailing wage; said within the contract, it is noted the contractor can ask for an increase,
which is then negotiable,and tied to the CPI-U(Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers)of 1.5%,
or 3%, whichever is smaller. Also as in the previous contract, although the contract is asking for a 1.5%
rate increase, Mr. Guth explained that staff is not requesting an increase in the total contract amount and
will adjust the work plan accordingly. Mr. Guth said that AAA Sweeping has provided a good level of
service through the 2016 contract year and staff recommends exercising the 2017 renewal option with the
1.5% rate increase. There was brief discussion about how many times they sweep and when, and of the
overall sweeping process. There was also some discussion about sweeping debris off the storm drains and
Mr. Guth said staff also checks these things when made aware. Other discussion included mention of our
C.A.R.E.S. (citizen action request system) program for reporting problems; that the rate increase is
negotiable and there was no increase last year, and City Attorney Driskell added that staff can Iook into
some of the details of health care costs,but when we contract for outside services,many factors are included
in those contract negotiations, including labor costs,and health, and we are not in a position to drill down
to all the individual costs associated with running a business.
Discussion moved back to the process of doing the sweeping and Mr. Guth noted that staff watches the
weather and the trees, and many times it is a judgment call when to go out and start sweeping and to get it
done in a reasonable amount of time before winter; said he doesn't feel doing a sweep just to have the wind
pick up the next day is futile or a waste of money; and that staff tries to do their best to get as much done
Council Study Session: 12-06-2016 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 12-20-2016
as can be done appropriately. Mr. Guth said staff could re-examine the idea of not doing a full sweep, but
the Department of Ecology would probably not be happy nor would the stormwater crews; but staff could
research that issue. Councilmember Pace asked if we are doing this service to satisfy the Department of
Ecology;said that that this is a contract,and this is a symptom of only having one bidder;that when Council
holds the workshop this winter, he will push for a process and policy to aggressively go after developing
more than one qualified bidder for every contract. Mr. Guth noted that the contract has strong language on
how much they can ask for and as mentioned, is tied to the CPI; lie also noted the expensive machinery
used for this service and that there are not a lot of people who do this privately; but we can discuss these
issues further,including the idea of separating out the winter and fall sweep,or trying to split it up so maybe
someone could get in the business, maybe a smaller operator. Deputy Mayor Woodard noted that AAA
dumps leaves and debris on the south Mission Park property, and Mr. Guth stated that staff monitors that
and acknowledges that and also gets calls from neighbors; and he noted that is a parcel the City owns and
has over the years used as a staging site for sweeper debris as opposed to the sweeper running back and
forth to the shop, and said it saves time and money. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the debris is tested
for contaminants, and Mr. Guth said lie would have to research that. Deputy Mayor Woodard noted that
this is a very specialized operation so we may only have a single bidder; he also noted that AAA worked
intensively to get last November's wind storm cleaned up and said they did a remarkable job. There was
Council consensus to bring this item back next week for a motion consideration.
Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:34 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
5. Consultant Agreement, Design Barker Road/BNSF Separation Project—Eric Guth, Steve Worley
Mr.Worley explained that a few weeks ago,he shared a lot of information with Council about the contract
for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project,and tonight we have the actual scope of work showing
what staff has identified for the consultant to do with the available funding.Mr.Worley said that staff issued
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), that two proposals were received, and after holding interviews, the
selection committee unanimously selected DEA/HDR as the most highly qualified firm for this project.
Councilmember Munch asked about the cost associated with staff time, and Mr. Worley said likely in the
$47,000 to$50,000 range, or about sixteen hours a week to help manage the project and lead the consultant
through the design process. Councilmember Pace asked what percentage design will this get us and Mr.
Worley said about 40-50%; Councilmember Pace said that originally about that much money would get us
90%. Mr. Worley agreed and said that was the discussion about three week ago; but upon further
researching, there was a lot of information outdated, that the environmental process previously approved
the entire Bridging the Valley project, but we needed a project specific NEPA (National Environmental
Policy Act)document,and over the last twelve years the approval process changed for BNSF as well as the
design changes for WSDOT, which all resulted in additional cost to the project. There was talk about the
advantage of having shovel ready jobs when applying for grants, and Councilmember Munch asked if we
have a number of what it will take to get this 90%ready. Mr. Worley explained that the consultant looked
at the whole thing and lie cautioned against coining up with a number without having a lot of details; said
this scope will give us an idea of how much will be needed, and as we go through this scope of work, he
will update the cost estimates which will help in trying to get additional money, and said this puts is in a
better position for getting grants; said the goal now is to put in for the next grant application which is due
in about a week; and said we would like to say we are under contract and moving forward with the design;
lie said we were already at the best place we could be, and the best thing now is to get more political help
from the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Concerning the timing on the final design, Mr.
Guth said if this were fully funded and shovel ready,we were planning to finish 90%through December of
2017 and maybe in the middle of 2018 finish the design. A question arose about how much of this process
is engineering and how much is bureaucratic hoops; and Mr. Worley said he is not sure how to define
bureaucratic hoops,but that we have to go through the environmental process and must meet certain design
standards with WSDOT, as well as keep to the BNSF regulations.
Council Study Session: 12-06-2016 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 12-20-2016
Councilmember Pace said there is still much he doesn't understand and would like to wait until all members
of Council can say they understand this process. Mayor Higgins agreed this issue is uncertain as we move
from 30%design to maybe 50%,and would like more solidarity in the numbers; and said it is unclear if we
are at 10% now or not, and whether this money will get us to 50%, and if not, what will get us there; said
he is not comfortable with the numbers he is seeing. Mr. Worley said he will try to gather those numbers
for next week;that the idea was to try to see if we can get some other grant money to help pay for the final
design and the right-of-way and the phases.
Councilmember Pace said he is not comfortable having a motion next week on this, and suggested moving
that to after the first of the year in order for staff to get another administrative report ready to give Council
more clarity.Councilmember Haley said if we were already in the best place we could be for grant funding,
then why do this; said she too is uncomfortable as we went to 90%then only 40-50%; said this is a large
amount of money and she would like to see figures of just what is needed, Mr.Guth said that the$720,000
was slated for the project in 2009, but we got notice last year about our money as well as others, if not
moving forward they would take the money back;so we brought this to Council;said the twelve years lapse
in the project has a lot to do with the 90%versus the 50% design ready;said the 50%is what the consultants
tell us based on how long it will take to go through the environmental process; or through the WSDOT or
BNSF process and regulations; that once it's through that, it's engineering from then on; said a normal
project of this size is about$36 million; that until we get through some of this initial project permitting and
design,we won't know exactly how long or how much; said our application will be stronger now that the
City and the federal earmarked money is put into this,which gets it closer to being shovel ready; but if we
don't apply, there is of course, no chance for funding. Councilmember Collier suggested going with the
$720,000 and see where it goes; and Mr. Worley said it would not get us through the scope of work. The
additional $300,000 allocated for this project was also mentioned and Mr. Calhoun said that yes, Council
did allocate that as the thought was,the total $1 million would take us to 90%design;but now$1.2 million
wouldn't get us close to that 90% and apparently we would need $1.3 million to get to the 50%; plus we
have committed REET(real estate excise tax)funds as a portion of the needed match;plus another$700,000
from the capital reserve fund, so we set aside $2.9 million.
Mayor Higgins said with the engineer costs now over$1 million,he sees too many moving parts and would
like things a little more solid and thinks we can do more than an educated guess. Councilmember Pace said
we have about$3 million plus the $720,000 and have ten years to do that; said it feels like a lot of money
to spend to wade through the swamp that was already waded through, and feels we should wait.
Couneilmember Wood said it has been twelve years now and we have a new set of rules; that if we wait
another ten years the rules could change again and there is no guarantee we'd get this grant. Mr. Calhoun
said staff is looking to Council on how to proceed.Mayor Higgins said we can afford to wait a couple of
weeks to get a better estimate. Mr. Guth said he can get more details and report back to Council. Deputy
Mayor Woodard noted we won't get the grant without more design, and said it would help if staff could
bring as much information as possible next week, and perhaps compare this to the Sullivan Bridge project
process, showing a comparison of what another$1.3 million will get us; said we did Sullivan for about half
the value of that overpass. Mr. Calhoun said staff will work to have this for the December 20 meeting.
6. City Hall Update—Eric Guth
Mr. Worley and Mr. Guth went through the PowerPoint showing the update on the City Hall project.
7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace mentioned the information item on tonight's agenda of the Sullivan Bridge,and said
he would like a future administrative report on that to cover the difference between the planned opening
and the final close out, the length of time and final completion, actual cost to plan, the contractor's
Council Study Session: 12-06-2016 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 12-20-2016
administrative error and resulting affect,and how to prevent anything like that from happening in the future.
Mr. Calhoun said staff will work to bring that forward.
8. Information Only Items:
The (a) Sullivan Bridge Update; and (b) Bid Information, Appleway Trail, Pines to Evergreen, were for
information only and were not reported or discussed.
9. Council Check in—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace said Councilmembers won't know how the vote will be on something until the
question is called, and that there could be something in the discussion to change one's mind; and that the
only way to have a real discussion is to put something on the agenda, like the utility tax.
10. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun
City Manager Calhoun mentioned that lie periodically hears from Council about the number of bids we
receive on projects, and that Public Works is working on gathering that information for a three year time
period, including how many projects were bid, how many bids were picked up, and the time of year the
projects were bid. Mr. Calhoun noted that last Wednesday,November 30, Council and several staff were
at CenterPlace for a meeting about the results of the study on the potential sports complex; and at that
meeting it was mentioned that our City would be in a better position to voice an opinion after our December
13 meeting where we would hear our consultant's analysis of six projects;and said that item has now been
moved to the December 20 meeting.
Executive Session:It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard,seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn
into executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss potential acquisition of real estate and
potential/pending litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session.Council adjourned
into executive session at 8:34 p.m. At 9:07 p.m.,Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session,
at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
(di*
A 201, L.R.Higgins; 1e To-
Lt Aeg
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 12-06-2016 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 12-20-2016