2006, 02-11 Special Retreat Meeting MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers
February 11, 2006
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Others:
Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald
Peter Barnes, Spokesman Review
Tony Lazanis, Citizen
MINUTES
SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
CenterPlace 2 " Floor Conference Room
2426 N Discovery Place
Spokane Valley, Washington
9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m.
Staff
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Marina Sukup, Community Development Dir.
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Rob LaFontaine, Administrative Intern
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Wilhite opened the meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. and thanked everyone for coming.
1. Review 2006 Goals — Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that this agenda item is to
provide an overview of the goals and to give council the opportunity to make sure these are the goals they
want staff to focus on. Mayor Wilhite asked Council if they have proposed changes to the goals. It was
Council consensus to review the goals at the June retreat, that all goals will remain the same now except
as noted below for goal #2:
2. Changed to read: "Continue to monitor the alternatives for added capacity for the Sprague
Corridor by contracting with a consultant to design a strategy that would strengthen the economic
viability of the corridor."
There was brief discussion concerning some of the other goals, and Mayor Wilhite stated she hopes to
soon have another update to Council concerning goal #5 (telecommunications infrastructure). Deputy
City Manager Regor explained that Public Information Officer Branch and various staff members from all
departments have been working to make improvements to the website, and that we are testing the capacity
of the website for upgrades. Deputy Mayor Taylor stated his preference to add Lodging Tax Committee
process on the website, and Council concurred. City Clerk Bainbridge indicated she would work to draft
and include that information on the website. Deputy Mayor Taylor stated he would like to see news and a
timeline of our accomplishments added if possible, to the website. Councilmember DeVleming added he
would like to eventually enable citizens to have the ability to use the website to track projects much the
same way Fed -Ex can track a package. Building Official Scholtens explained that there is presently a
contractual problem with the PLUS system in dealing with firewalls, and they are working through all the
problems in an attempt to get to a point where one could set up a virtual system to track each project.
Director Sukup added that any such tracking system would more likely be periodic updates rather than
"real- time" tracking. Further discussion of other web issues included payment by credit card, signatures
on forms, cost recovery, and that some forms (planning) have been re- designed so all applications can be
done on one page, rather than the previous four -sided application.
Council /Staff Retreat Minutes 2 -11 -06 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 3 -21 -06
The question of school impact fees was raised by Councilmember Gothmann, and City Manager Mercier
explained that staff has submitted follow -up questions but have not yet received a response; and regarding
any impact fees for parks, the Parks & Recreation MasterPlan has not yet been adopted. Mr. Mercier
added that the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) awarded a contract yesterday for a six -
month study of a regional transportation impact fee system; and if we were to do that alone, the cost is
typically about $250,000 for a year's time. Mr. Mercier said that many communities are waiting to see the
product of SRTC's effort to have open and informed discussion about traffic impact fees, and it will likely
take another six months before we get that data. Councilmember DeVleming added that any impact fee in
one area potentially takes away impact fees from other area, and Councilmember Munson added that the
school district should not be considered without considering all other possible impact fees. Public Works
Director Kersten added that SRTC is looking at impact fees from one jurisdiction to another and is not
looking at the city to examine our upgrades; but rather where we're sending traffic into the city of
Spokane, and they upgrade a road, the question is, should we pay fees to help pay for those roads. Mr.
Kersten stated that there is a study being conducted to gather all the data on upgrades, which is not
associated with impact fees; and added that our street plan won't be complete until December.
Discussion ensued regarding the impact fee process, realtors, developers, investment tax, various types of
impact fees; the cost involved and who pays for what.
2. Updated Financial Forecast — Ken Thompson
Finance Director Thompson explained the three problem statements; annual projected shortfalls,
multiyear financial plan, and summary of assumptions; and discussed the trend for each problem
statement; and stated that while these are estimates, we should not see any substantial changes in the near
future. Discussion followed concerning revenues, streamlined sales tax, where the sales tax is assessed
(point of sale or according to buyer's location), Huntwood's sales tax, carryovers, and reserve balances.
Mr. Thompson stated that he projects a 6% increase annually, except for public safety where the figure is
8 %, and that a future goal is to stop transferring funds from the general fund to the street fund.
City Manager Mercier mentioned that the "service stabilization fund" is our rainy day fund, and his target
is $5 million. He explained that although property taxes arrive twice a year, we need some funds set aside
to offset for anticipated needed items or for any nonanticipated crisis; and the $2 million is from last year;
that we use those funds to build the reserve, and all that is separate from the carryover. Mr. Mercier
mentioned page 22 of the budget document lists all gross appropriations and all reserve funds. Continued
discussion followed concerning civic investments such as City Hall, library, police precinct; needed space
staff and record storage. Mr. Mercier added that the current services "snapshot" extended over six years
does not assume any new employees, programs, or new category of expense; and that staff will present
Council with a business plan in June to enumerate the new cost ingredients to consider.
Mr. Thompson then explained problem statement #2 - the street fund, and mentioned that when the street
masterplan is complete, a better picture will be formed regarding all aspects of this fund. Concerning
problem statement #3, Mr. Thompson said that the Arterial street fund is the $1 million street bond, and
once spent, it won't come back unless we sell more bonds. Concerning the residential preservation
project listed under expenditures, Public Works Director Kersten said that staff is working on that list in
conjunction with the street masterplan; that those are generally streets other than arterials so we are not
eligible for state or other fund assistance; that the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) covers the
arterials, while preservation covers the other streets. Mr. Thompson said the City is in good financial
condition with projects up to the year 2011, but that the balance does decrease each year and does not
show new capital projects.
Finance Director Thompson reviewed the summary of assumptions and annual projected shortfalls;
mentioned some options to assist in those shortfalls such as a future utility tax for the street fund, an
impact fee for parks, or keeping staff to a minimum. Discussion continued concerning impact fees, utility
taxes, equitable distribution of taxes, solid waste, garbage collection, and the need for legal opinions
regarding all utilities and what can and cannot be taxed.
Council /Staff Retreat Minutes 2 -11 -06 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 3 -21 -06
Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:46 a.m.
3. Sewer Area Paveback - Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained his February 6, 2006 memo regarding 2006 Sewer Paveback
Program, and gave updated figures for the 2006 estimated road and drainage improvement costs table.
Thereafter discussion included stormwater drainages, funding to do paveback, the previous public vote
not to pay for full -width paving; other projects to fund; capital phasing; the street masterplan; contingency
funds and project overruns; coordinating projects with utility companies; the $1 million set aside for
projects; and that no projects are currently in financial jeopardy. Mr. Kersten said that this is a "first
touch" and this issue will be brought back again before Council for further consideration.
4. Recreation Programs: Filling the Gap — Mike Jackson
Parks and Recreation Director Jackson said that although Council has previously seen and discussed the
accompanying PowerPoint handout, he would like to focus on summer programs today; and asked if
Council would like to expand their current philosophy of having only summer programs. Discussion
followed including partnering with other groups, agencies and municipalities, and the need to have a
policy if that were to occur; resources to determine what is needed and how to fill that need; the use of
CenterPlace for various activities but keeping in mind the building is not a recreation center; and uses
such as a Battle of the Bands and /or All -City Dances. After brief discussion concerning the duties of the
recreation coordinator position, there was Council consensus to move forward to explore year -round
programming.
5. TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Matters — Dick Denenny, Neil Kersten
Below is the summary of Councilmember Denenny's update on TMDL matters:
As a reminder, the issue is in a constant state of flux. DOE (Department of Ecology) has the draft TMDL
which would have restricted dischargers too greatly and ultimately affected the plant. The dischargers
came together and drafted a UAA (Use Attainability Analysis) and a rule making to force DOE to look at
what is the use of the River to see what is attainable. Federal law allows a process of determination is see
if the standards are correct and can be met; or if there is some cause for noncompliance or a reason the
standards are unattainable. The process is a complex process and takes approximately two years. The
Governor told DOE to contact the dischargers, and to enter into negotiations to find a compromise or
some way of meeting quality standards, and to get the additional capacity for future growth. We agreed
and in good faith, set aside the UAA with the agreement and understanding we could stop negotiations
and come back to the UAA at any time. During the last several months, negotiations have progressed
well, and DOE seemed to be on a path of managed implementation. A meeting was held approximately
two weeks ago and upon review, the actual wording of the document was very different from what DOE
thought was orally agreed upon, so apparently there was some type of miscommunication among the
implementers of DOE, the Attorney General's Office, dischargers, and staff.
We are trying to get away from the required discharge dealing with micrograms per liter; and under the
draft TMDL document, 10 micrograms indicates nothing was contributed to the river, and anything above
that was considered polluting the river. Mr. Kersten indicated the current ground water level is higher
than that 10 micrograms per liter. Ten micrograms per liter is equal to five pounds of phosphorus per
day; and now the total is 346 pounds daily. It is estimated that we can remove about 214 pounds or 80%
through technology changes. We are attempting to remove total pounds through re -use and conservation;
and anything that would account for levels above the 10 micrograms, and that is where we are still trying
to go. The goal now is to identify what must be done, and not just what must be done specifically tied to
the 10 micrograms, and to have this all occur over a twenty-year period, with the idea of having another
thorough review of the entire process at the ten year point. Each discharger will meet with DOE and
redline the original document of what they can and cannot accept.
By performing certain actions, compliance can occur, with the help of agreeing to conservation, non -point
source control and re -use; that we feel the language can be written where DOE would stipulate what will
be done and what commitments can be made concerning performance and funding; and if not, the
Council /Staff Retreat Minutes 2 -11 -06 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 3 -21 -06
discharge is stopped. DOE will be part of a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on what was agreed
to, and it is hoped that MOU will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has to sign off on the approvals; DOE came up with what they feel are background levels ,
which are not the same as natural levels. Interesting to note, EPA just signed an agreement with Idaho to
allow 50 micrograms. We will have a better sense of the issues depending on what the attorneys come up
with (Attorney General's Office, DOE's Attorneys, etc.).
6. Zoning Code Analysis — Mike Connelly /Marina Sukup
City Attorney Connelly explained that there are four things to keep in mind concerning the zoning code
analysis, and which the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department are working on together:
1 — this is the last year of living with a code adopted from other jurisdictions
2 — sometime in 2007, we will have a new, user friendly, short, concise development code
3 — lots of work involved by Community Development Director Sukup and her staff and the City
Attorney's office to get from 1 to 2 in its final state
4 — there will be a transition period
The plan is that as of 3/31/06, we will be operating under a new comp plan and the old municipal code;
and that will continue for about six to eight months until the new Development Code is finalized and
made consistent with the comp plan. Attorney Connelly then reviewed his handouts describing the
planned changes for the development code and municipal code. City Manager Mercier added that this
new document will be a vital part of the customer service, as we will have a separate development code
that we can hand to developers which will explain the planning process concisely and efficiently.
7. Annexations — Land Capacity — Mike Connelly and Marina Sukup
City Attorney Connelly explained that the annexation process is easy to start if there are willing property
owners; and he proceeded to explain the annexation process; that we must have an Urban Growth Area
(UGA) designation and then we can file an annexation petition for that designation; there must be a
population projection that exceeds capacity; that in the county projections there must be a projection that
exceeds the existing land use capacity, which drives the need for an annexation; and that there should be,
but does not have to be, a particular UGA identified as our UGA; which streamlines the process before
the Boundary Review Board (BRB).
Mr. Connelly stated there must be a capital facilities plan that demonstrates the ability to facilitate the
area, and if Council wants to explore and preserve the potential to annex in the future, he recommended
certain steps to take. He explained that we need to participate in the Steering Committee and encourage
them to adopt population projections which realistically estimates the population over the next 20 years;
we need to make sure the Steering Committee recommends that some of the UGAs outside the city
boundaries are identified as the City of Spokane Valley's UGAs, which is the process the County is
working on now. He said that we should continue to promote the joint planning agreements between the
County and all the municipalities. Further, the ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan should also
identify certain things like UGAs, the population allocation, recent annexation petitions submitted by
other jurisdictions, anticipated changes in County UGAs and actual changes in County UGAs which were
not contemplated when the comp plan process first started. Attorney Connelly stated that there are a
whole host of five -year UGAs scheduled to be considered by the County within the next several months;
that we need to keep in mind the development that has occurred; and over the next twelve months, we
should prepare Comp Plan changes that will adopt the City's UGAs outside the boundaries, adopt the
population projection of the County's, adopt the capital facilities plan that will state we can service the
new to -adopt UGAs, that we can service and pay for them; and then a twenty-year plan to identify public
works projects. If want the opportunity to annex, Mr. Connelly recommended those steps be followed.
Mr. Connelly will send a memorandum to Council later, describing the steps mentioned above.
Community Development Director Sukup explained the issue of population projections and UGAs. She
stated that there are estimates that the population will grow between 1.5 and 2.5% annually over the next
20 years; that granted to us was an increased population of 20,666; that we will need additional space
over the year for between 8,000 and 35,000 residents in excess of the projected 20,666 figure. Ms. Sukup
Council /Staff Retreat Minutes 2 -11 -06 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 3 -21 -06
also reviewed her accompanying map and chart showing City of Spokane Valley's Land Capacity
analysis, and she mentioned that the southeast UGA contains some of the area that Liberty Lake wants.
Ms. Sukup explained that the population allocation we asked for was based on the capacity we identified.
The comp plan states that we if grow at these other rates, we will exceed that amount by 8,000 to 35,000
that we will need space for, which means we could need more area. Discussion followed on the
population projection number /percentage /range, the various UGAs shown on the map and the pros and
cons of each section including serving the areas. Councilmembers stated their preference for the mid-
range number, and Ms. Sukup added that the population adjustments can be made every five years.
Deputy Mayor Taylor stated that he feels more study and research is needed on each UGA so council can
determine which UGAs they want to consider.
Mayor Wilhite called for a break at 2:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:15 p.m.
8. Customer Service Program — Nina Regor
Deputy City Manger Regor explained that Customer Service has been an area of emphasis since, or even
prior to incorporation; and that emphasis on customer service is reiterated as we hire additional staff; but
a challenge was how to define "customer service" in order to articulate the customer program to staff.
Ms. Regor explained that the accompanying Customer Service Program shows the proposed changes,
including the definition of customer service; and that this continues to be a work in progress. She
explained about the change in organizational structure, and that the additional positions of the Human
Resource Analyst and the Public Information Officer will help solidify the internal structure, along with
the added capacity of new traffic engineers; that we work to keep the employees well - trained, and the
focus in the coming year will be implementing regulations from the comp plan and work on the
development code, all of which will aid in the customer service. Mr. Mercier added that employees are
• genuinely trying to make things easier for our customers; they know from working with their customers
what does and does not work; and that staff has the best of motivations in their suggestions for change.
Discussion followed concerning employee recognition opportunities such as the recent employee dinner;
police assessment opportunities and number of complaints, the demeanor of those complaints and what
occurs in the reality of the assessment of those complaints; that it is valuable at times to do surveys; that
perhaps another formal review should be considered; the benefits of cross - training; highlighting those
individuals who take the extra steps or make the extra effort; awards banquets with SCOPE; and honoring
those who volunteer their time.
9. Informational Memo: 2006 Workplan.
This item was for information only and was not discussed.
Other Business: Mr. Mercier asked everyone to consider possible dates for the June retreat. There being
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
ATTES
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council /Staff Retreat Minutes 2 -11 -06
Approved by Council: 3 -21 -06
Dt-au-k. Lk) .„94
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Page 5 of 5