Loading...
2017, 01-17 Study Session MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington January 17,2017 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Caleb Collier, Councilmember John Holtman, Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Mike Munch,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Ed Pace, Councilmember Chelsle Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood,Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst 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.District Court Contract—Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka welcomed presiding Judge Walker, Judge Tripp, Judge Smith, Court Administrator Witter, and other District Court staff members in the audience, and he thanked them for attending tonight. Mr. Koudelka mentioned the Court's previous presentation to Council, as well as information from them addressing some previous concerns about the functions of the Court. Mr.Koudelka went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining about our City's contracted Court services; that the length of the contract and termination notice is governed by state statute, and because the District Court judges are elected positions and serve four-year terms, and the number of judges and judicial salaries are set by the state, the terms and notifications exceed our standard contract terms and are dictated by the state. Mr. Koudelka stated that as Council wants to be notified prior to a contract automatically renewing, and because of state requirements, if our City does not provide notice to terminate the contract by February 1, 2017, the City will be required to complete the final two years of the current judges' terms as well as the next four-year terms. Mr. Koudelka showed a chart of historical costs and cases, showing that our total cases have decreased dramatically since 2010, as well as our actual cost, which is due to several factors, some of which include recent improvements to the cost methodology, pre-file diversion, and specialized courts. Mr. Koudelka said our contract with the Court is for fall service which includes all staff as well as full-tine judges,courtrooms, and staff support; and in summary,recommended we remain with the current contract as costs are lower,the service is consistent,there is greater staff coverage and greater expertise and historical knowledge,and the court is co-located and has existing relationships with the Prosecutors,Public Defenders,and Jail; and he added,the Court is very receptive to making improvements. Deputy Mayor Woodard said if we were to handle the system ourselves, perhaps a better place to start would be with our own public defender or prosecutor,otherwise,we would need more staff and buildings. Mr.Koudelka agreed and said a more typical place to start would be with a prosecutor as that is where the process starts with the system. Councilmember Collier asked about the cost if we were to have our own prosecutor, and Mr.Koudelka said based on his previous studies, it would be about$400,000,and then add another $150,000 to that because of staffing and housing needs. Councilmember Pace said that this court Council Study Session:01-17-2017 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017 seems to continuously improve;they offer excellent customer service and are good for our city.There was consensus to continue the current contract. 2. Service Animals—Erik Lamb Via his PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that this topic came about due to citizen comments to Council about local businesses not enforcing service animals laws, including allowing non-service animals in buildings,which animals can disrupt service animals;and based on those comments, Council requested further information. Mr.Lamb explained that the laws governing service animals include the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),and the Washington Law Against Discrimination(WLAD);he defined "service animal" according to the ADA and the WLAD; mentioned the requirement for animal training; and that according to ADA, two questions may be asked: "is the dog or miniature horse required because of a disability";and"what work or task has the animal been trained to perform." He also mentioned that there is no requirement for certification, licensing, vests, documentation, patches, evidence or other proof and entities may not ask for such proof. Mr.Lamb explained the circumstances of excluding service animals,such as the animal not under the handler's control,or the animal not being housebroken.Mr.Lamb also noted that concerning enforcement, individuals who are discriminated against could bring lawsuits against the discriminating entity, and there is also the possibility of filing criminal charges for interference with service animals. Mr. Lamb said the City is required to allow access within City facilities, can require that the animals be vaccinated, but cannot require the animals to demonstrate training, nor make service animal registration mandatory. He also noted a City cannot ban certain breeds of dogs. Councilmember Pace said he understands that businesses might be reluctant to ask the two questions, as they don't want to make a scene or initiate a lawsuit; and he asked if there is anything the City could to do help those ladies get out the information to the public; perhaps an ad in our Hot Topics Newsletter about the two questions to ask. Mr. Lamb said there is generally a cost to enforcement, but that education is the key component as he feels many businesses are unaware of what they can do or ask; also some people believe they have a "comfort" animal so they too need to be educated about what constitutes a service animal; and he said there is nothing to preclude us from doing an educational promotion. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested we could get copies of the flyers and put with our other brochures in City Hall, or maybe we could even make copies with permission from the City Manager. Mr. Calhoun noted we could look to make space in the reception area; said many times space is a factor in the Hot Topics Newsletter, but there are times when we have limited extra space.Mr. Lamb mentioned that there are some businesses, like some pet stores where animals are welcome. Mr. Lamb said he will work with the City Manager and staff to get out some information, and Council concurred. Mr. Calhoun mentioned he would get contact information from those two ladies. 3. Sidewalk Snow Committee Update—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell went over the background of the issue of snow and ice on sidewalks which lead to the formation of this committee; he noted the committee members,that they met twice, and that a copy of the meeting notes is provided in tonight's packet materials. Mr. Driskell noted that there are regulations concerning the removal of snow and ice from public sidewalks, as stated in our Nuisance provision of our Municipal Code;which means if we get a complaint,we would contact that person to remedy the problem, and if not remedied,we would give thirty days' notice to remedy;but that the thirty day notice really doesn't provide an adequate remedy for not removing snow and ice from sidewalks. Mr. Driskell stated that last August staff brought Council some suggested solutions, which included having an infraction policy if the snow or ice wasn't cleared within forty-eight hours;that Council then asked for additional language,and at a subsequent meeting, Council said they wanted to broaden their scope of options, hence asked for the formation of this committee. M.E. Driskell stated that the committee does not contemplate meeting again unless Council wants the issue considered further. Council Study Session:01-17--2017 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017 Councilmember Wood said that committee member Laura Padden called him and said that there was no formal recommendations form the committee; that nothing was voted on,just a lot of discussion. Mr. Driskell said that at the end of the committee's meeting, he summarized the various discussion points, as noted in his January 17, 2017 Request for Council Action Form, and said that the first thing was for the City to look at taking over responsibility for the sidewalks like we pay for plowing of the streets; and after summarizing everything from that meeting, he asked the committee if they agreed on the set of recommendations to Council. Councihnember Pace agreed with Mr. Driskell's statement, and said the committee wanted to think of the recommendations as options to talk about. Mr. Driskell stated that also during those meetings, staff did not recommend one way or another, but tried to provide information to consider the options, it was a type of brainstorming session; and said he was Ieft with the impression that the committee did recommend the City take on the responsibility for getting those sidewalks cleared as they likely won't get done any other way. Councilmember Pace said lie also remembered that the idea was for the City to take on the sidewalks on the business streets, arterials, Safe Routes to Schools; and he remembered saying that was the least objectionable of all the rest. Mr. Driskell noted the difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2, with Tier I having the highest priority with busier streets, higher traffic, and more people trying to use those sidewalks, in addition to the kids walking to and from school; lie said just the Tier 1 includes 154 miles of sidewalks and that didn't even include the Safe Routes to Schools. Mr. Driskell also noted the committee discussed some of the problem areas such as fences or walls built right up to the sidewalk. In addition to Tier I being the highest priority, Mr. Driskell said there was also discussion that the City has no funding mechanism nor has the City budgeted for such an expense,nor is there staff to handle that;said the charge from Council was that they don't intend to take on additional staff, and to see what can be done within the existing budget; he said he wanted to make sure the committee understood those limitations and they looked at potential funding options, with conservative estimates just to clear Tier 1, from $30,000 to $50,000 per event;with an estimated five events,that amounts to a significant amount of money so there is a need to identify some sources of revenue. Mr. Driskell explained the various funding options as noted on his January 17, 2017 Request for Council Action form. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the funding options,and the various options and costs associated with clearing sidewalks in general.Councilmember Collier noted since we promote our city as business friendly, a BID(business improvement district)doesn't promote that idea; that he doesn't want to tax citizens via a TBD (Transportation Benefit District), nor does he want a utility tax. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that some citizens criticize us for even having sidewalks; said he likes the idea of trying to encourage voluntary work; that not every area has sidewalks, but clearing sidewalks is difficult, especially when the ice and snow gets too compressed and the plows have made the berms into ice blocks; said the idea of taxing citizens for not clearing sidewalks is too hard of a sell; said he isn't against taxes to do things that must be done, but not sure he wants to tax the entire population for 20% of the roads that have sidewalks; said that perhaps for future developments of roads, we could end up with some snow storage/swale green space between the curb and sidewalks if we continue to put in sidewalks; said that there is an immediate way to help and that would be to have the plows slow down when they get next to the curb,which slows down the amount of snow put on the sidewalks; he also said he encourages people to help others. Mr.Driskell said the primary focus area for the committee was the critical need for the City to have a robust information/educational program to let citizens know what the expectations are;that there are some in our City who are unable to shovel and we need to identify realistic options for people in such a situation; he said there was a recommendation from one committee member that we identify every business that contracts for snow removal in parking lots,and we advise them that they have an obligation to clear the sidewalks as well and include that price in the bids; he said if the City takes on this obligation, we'd do it all and very few people would shovel their walk; so the idea was to have the contractors put that in future bids. Other ideas,Mr. Driskell said would be to change the development standards for roads when we have a new road Council Study Session:01-17--2017 Page 3(4'6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017 section paid for by private development; that we could separate out the sidewalk and put in stormwater treatment; or we could dedicate one lot for that purpose; for areas where fences have been allowed to go right up to the back of the sidewalk,he said there is no place to put the snow,so maybe future development standards would be no fence within two to three feet of the sidewalk; also there was the idea about lane configuration, and seine lanes are wider than they need to be; that maybe we could on future re-builds on Sprague, put in some swale areas for stormwater and snow storage pockets; said he realizes we can't do that everyplace, but it could help in some areas; and fences behind the sidewalk two to three feet from the sidewalk could be a solution to help some of the areas over time. Mr. Driskell said that the City bought most of the plows from the Department of Transportation, and they are older machines designed for use on highways; said four of those have a bat-wing blade designed to channel snow further; perhaps we could replace the blades so it would throw the snow less far and control it better, as well as have the drivers drive a little slower to more carefully direct where that snow might end up. Councilmember Collier asked who we are to tell private property owners what they can do with their land, and Mr. Driskell explained that that is what we do tell them; for example, a property owner can't have a six-foot fence right in front of their property as it would present clearview issues, which means traffic safety issues. Councilmember Munch suggested maybe just taking care of the sidewalks on the arterials; adding that he wouldn't want to do that with taxes; lie agreed with the idea of needing three feet separation between sidewalk and streets, but that there are areas like on 32"d with fences right up to the sidewalk; said he would like to see more education; likes the idea of changing the blades,and slowing the plows. Councilmember Pace said that if we changed the development regulations to make the fences three feet back, it would make that three feet worthless and it would be like stealing as the property owner couldn't use it.City Attorney Driskell disagreed that it would be scaling. Councilmember Pace said he would encourage people to pay vendors to remove the snow, but there will be some people who can't afford it; said he also does not like the idea of a TBD, and asked what is more important: clearing the sidewalks or not doing $300,000 worth of other services; that we would have to make choices; that something would have to go if it's that important; or people just need to realize we live in the Pacific Northwest and to deal with the snow and ice,and leave it alone. Mr.Driskell said he wasn't sure what to go back to the committee with;that lie doesn't think they answered the bigger question, and it appears we are not ready for the City to take it on, even with just Tier 1; said there is apparently no support for adopting an infraction policy to penalize people for not doing this, and if we rely on voluntary compliance as we do now, we do so with mixed results; so it appears we don't do anything at this time except share information. Councilmember Collier asked having this paid through community service imposed by the courts,and Mr. Driskell replied that would only handle a small portion, and there would be some liability issues if someone got injured; said the program we use for picking up trash is through Geiger, and those crews are supervised;said we wouldn't be able to supervise such service, but that he would give it more thought and check around to see if that or something similar could be a viable option.Councilmember Munch said lie is all for voluntary compliance, but there comes a time when people don't volunteer; said he recognizes the need to protect everyone, but also there is a responsibility not to throw more on the sidewalks. Mayor Higgins said he would like to explore the option of adding to the contractors who plow parking areas; and Councilmember Haley said she would rather fine the ones who aren't keeping the sidewalks clear, instead of taxing the ones who are; she mentioned the larger companies through the commercial area; and asked how to make sure people who can do,versus those who can't. Mr. Driskell replied that it would require staff to communicate and look at a penalty system; said his initial draft ordinance excluded citizens 65 and older or those who suffer from a disability; said we are trying to get the sidewalks cleared; and maybe the best way would be a combination of an infraction program along with the City plows doing our best not to throw up more snow and ice on the sidewalks; said property owners have some responsibility; and mentioned the idea of including Tier 2 as well. Councilmember Pace said citizens also have the burden of clearing the snow berms away from mailboxes. Deputy Mayor Woodard said it is not normally a huge issue unless you have large amounts of snow; and thinks it comes to a point when you can't find a place to put the snow; said at some point you won't get as much sidewalk cleared as we'd like,but citizens also have to by to keep on top of it; said having contractors doing some commercial Council Study Session:01-17--2017 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017 areas is great, but some people wouldn't know who to call. Mr. Driskell said we have a contractor list for different things, and we would maintain a list of providers who would do this for a fee, and make that list available on the City's webpage snow information section. Mayor Higgins suggested Mr. Driskell draw up a list of things that might pass the test, and come back to talk about some firm action to take. Mr. Driskell agreed and noted that if we get extraordinary conditions, we could also suspend any infractions. Mayor Higgins called for a short recess at 7:43 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m. 4. Grant Reimbursement Authority—Cary Driskell The origin for this proposed resolution, Mr. Driskell explained, was a recent change in federal law which became effective December 1, 2016, that requires that municipalities may only submit requests for reimbursements on federal grants that are signed by a person authorized to legally bind the non-federal entity. Mr. Driskell further explained that in the process of drafting the resolution, staff discussed other situations relating to grants the Council may want to consider adopting in the interest of saving time; that the first would be to authorize the City Manager to apply for any grant under $25,000 without additional authorization by Council; the second issue would be to specifically authorize the City Manager to make minor changes to the grant level, with the authority of the granting agency, consistent with the level of authority previously granted by Council on other contracts pursuant to SVMC 3.35.010(A),which is up to $200,000 or 15%whichever is less. Mr. Driskell mentioned that staff has an internal policy that we don't apply for grants less than $3,000 as the cost to administer the grant would be more than the grant itself. There was Council consensus to move this forward at an upcoming Council meeting. 5.Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.15.050 City Manager—Cary Driskell City Attorney DriskeIl noted that our current Code states that the means for removal of a city manager would be pursuant to RCW 35A.13.130 and 140, and that those provisions represent a statutory default in the event a municipality cannot arrive at an agreeable way to complete such a task;but that it is not intended to be the exclusive means for removing a city manager. Mr. Driskell explained that City Council recently approved an employment agreement with City Manager Mark Calhoun which provides for an additional option for removal of the city manager; said that it is therefore appropriate to update the City's Code to reflect that the Council may approve additional options pursuant to an employment agreement adopted by a majority of Council in an open meeting. Mr. Driskell noted that this change may help avoid confusion in the future. There was Council consensus to move this forward for a first reading at a future meeting. 6. Taxicabs,Commercial Ridesharing—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell stated that a citizen had previously requested several times for council to consider adopting new municipal code provisions to regulate commercial ridesharing programs like Lyft and Uber, similar to the regulations that taxicab operations must follow; said the issue also came up in 2015 and at that time,staff sent Council a memorandum on the topic, including some pertinent legal issues.Mr.Driskell said if Council wants to regulate this, it would be a new program but there are no funds or staff for such program. Mr. Driskell noted that although the State regulates taxicabs, they do not regulate ridesharing programs and our City regulates neither. Councilmember Pace said businesses are competitive and he feels government should not interfere, and that he does not want to regulate ridesharing or taxicabs. Mayor Higgins as well as Councihnember Munch agreed that if the taxicabs want a level playing field,they have it in Spokane Valley since we do not regulate commercial ridesharing or taxicabs; and that they prefer to stay out of that business. Other Councilmembers agreed. 7. Oath of Office—Gamy Driskell City Attorney Driskell stated that previously a citizen (Mr. Terry Gaston) had inquired about changing our oath of office for elected officials as well as for some staff such as our police chief. Mr. Driskell explained about the current oath of office for four specific employees,which oath is codified in the City's Municipal Code; and the existing language generally used for newly elected councilmembers. Mr. Driskell said there Council Study Session:01-17--2017 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017 is no law in the City or State of Washington that dictates exactly what language must be included in an oath of office, but that the oath is required for newly elected officials. After going over the current language in the City's Code,and the language used for newly elected officials,City Attorney Driskell suggested Council might want to use one oath for all, that being his draft oath which includes mention of the United States Constitution, as well as the Washington State.Councilmember Collier said he feels this is a good start,but would like more in-depth and suggested perhaps incorporating some of Mr.Gaston's ideas. Deputy Mayor Woodard said care must be used in expanding or diminishing authorities;that we are a city that follows the law,and beyond that,trying to authorize our chief of police to do certain things,or going back to an original constitution would be wrong, and we'd end up with a real problem as the original constitution didn't have amendments; also, he said that we can't swear to do something that is not within the law, and therefore, prefers to keep it simple. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he feels the combined oath gets to the heart of the issue as it mentions both constitutions.Mayor Higgins agreed having a single oath makes sense.Except for Councilmembers Collier and Wood, there was Council consensus to move forward with an ordinance amendment using the third option oath of office, as noted in Mr. Driskell's Request for Council Action Form, that which mentioned the Constitution of the United States and Washington State. 8. Advance Agenda—Mayor I-Iiggins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 9. Innovative Safety Grant This item was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 10. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Other than a comment from Councilmember Munch about this agenda item being the opportunity for Council to bring up things for future discussion,there were no Council comments. 11. City Manager Comments--Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun noted that Council had previously authorized staff to pursue the acquisition of 707 S Carnahan, and said that transaction closed last week; he mentioned the accomplishment of the full-city plow, and said our weather will be turning to freezing rain; said all streets have been cleared but some flooding is anticipated, and he encouraged citizens to call City Hall at 921-1000, or file a notice on line through the City's C.A.R.E. system, if they see flooding taking place,adding that some of the storm drains could be presented with such problems. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. 4 ATT . T. L.R. Higgins, u ie• k_. K icA,A: i ' 5, Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:01-17--2017 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council:02-07-2017