Loading...
2010, 07-20 Study Session MinutesMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington July 20, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Absent: Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Morgan Koudelka., Sr. Administrative Analyst John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch., Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Schimmels. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels from tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEM: 1 First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan — CM Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to advance this ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 to a second reading on a future agenda. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that Aurora Crooks from Spokane County's CTR office is here to answer any questions. Mr. Driskell explained that we are mandated by state law to have a CTR program, we adopted our CTR Code in 2003 and the legislature occasionally amends various provisions, and amendments occurred in 2006 which caused Spokane County's Office to engage in some activity related to drafting proposed revisions for various constituents, and to draft CTR plans for its member cities; he said we have an interlocal with Spokane County that they operate the CTR program we are required to have, we get state funds for that and turn them over to Spokane County. He said this ordinance reflects changes made in state law that need to be carried forth to all agencies required to have this; and mentioned that for the second reading, there would be slight changes in one of the recitals. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 2 Motion Consideration: Greenacres Neighborhood Park Funding — Mike Stone It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to authorize the use of $200, 000 from the civic facilities fund to provide the necessary funding and complete the design and construction of Greenacres Neighborhood Park. Parks and Recreation Director Stone gave a brief re -cap of the history of this project, and said they are proposing the park to be constructed in two phases and mentioned our state funding may Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 be in jeopardy if we are not able to show substantial progress toward the completion of the project. Mayor Towey invited public comment, and City Clerk Bainbridge read the following into the record: "Dear Mayor and Council, please note that we as citizens of Spokane Valley support your decision to fund the proposed park in Greenacres. It is your responsibility to leave a legacy, for this and future generations, of public areas for the citizens to enjoy healthy forms of recreation. This park is much needed for this area and as time goes on with the current density of home building this need will accelerate. The proposed park and proposed school will be good symbiotic partners. Please show your support of a family friendly city with your vote to fund the Greenacres Park." - e -mail from Alden and Gail Sherrodd, 17315 E. Montgomery, Greenacres, Washington. "Honorable Mayor Towey and City Council, I apologize I cannot be here as we are out of town this week. Thank you for reading our public comment into the record. I've had the privilege of serving as North Greenacres Chairwoman for the past 5 years and we appreciate the time Council and staff has given in creation of the Greenacres Park. This has been an exciting project that's been accomplished over the last five years. Mike Jackson was Park Director when this started. He had just completed the City's Master Park plan, a huge task, when he chose to meet the intensive work it would take to meet the grant application deadline in 3 weeks. Neighborhood involvement played a big part in grant criteria and the city was awarded state matching funds to purchase the parkland. Our current park director, Mike Stone is equally committed and we have loved the collaborative spirit and success of the visioning and informational meetings. The neighborhood also thanks Mike Terrell who worked with us when we first began visioning a park in January of 2005. His creativity, talent for park design and ability to keep us focused has brought us to this final step. We cannot urge you enough to find a way to approve funding of Greenacres Park today. The neighborhood population has dramatically increased. I've seen families barbecuing under the cover of their garage, toddlers playing in driveways for lack of space, or straying into the street. The close proximity to the Centennial Trail is wonderful but also dangerous along the Spokane River. Our neighborhood is geographically caught between the river and the freeway. Families need a safe place for their children to play. There couldn't be a better time to finish this park. Please approve the funding to build Phase one of our park. Best Wishes, Mrs. Mary Pollard, North Greenacres Neighborhood Chairwoman, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa." There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Code Text Amendment CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Uses — Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to accept the Planning Commission findings and recommendation and disapprove the proposed text amendment CTA 04 -10. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is a different situation than what we have been faced with in his tenure here; he explained that this proposal was initiated by a private property owner who asked for a specific text amendment to the UDC (Uniform Development Code), and said that if granted not only would it apply to the applicant's property, it would also apply to any nonconforming use within Spokane Valley. Mr. Connelly said there are four choices for Council to consider: (1) vote in favor of the motion as made and the findings of the Planning Commission and that would be the end of it; (2) vote against the motion which would therefore reject the Planning Commission Findings, then instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to approve the amendment as proposed by the applicant; (3) vote against the motion accepting the Planning Commission findings and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance different from that which was provided by the applicant, to include alternate language which may or may not go back to the Planning Commission; or (4) ask staff for additional information specifically related to other options or alternatives and continue this matter for a week to give staff time to prepare the documents. Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 Mr. Connelly said under our current code, nonconforming uses can be expanded onto an adjacent property if you own the property at the time the nonconforming use was established; and this amendment proposed by the applicant would take away that restriction and would allow expansion of a nonconforming use to adjacent property whether you owned it prior to use and whether you owned it at all. Mr. Connelly said a city -wide consequence would be that any nonconforming use could expand onto adjacent properties subject to determination of the Community Development Director based on general criteria; that it would be an unfettered expansion of uses; additionally, he said there would be no limit as to how many times this could happen, and one could keep expanding onto the next adjacent property. Mr. Connelly said the planning commission rejected this as written so it has come to council based on that recommendation. Attorney Connelly said another alternative council could explore which would accomplish a similar goal, would be to consider a zone change for this particular circumstance to allow the use Mr. Hite is proposing; and said that a change in the uses allowed within the use category could be expanded to allow the use; and Council could set forth an ordinance which would require specific circumstances; and said Council could also require a conditional use permit, which would necessitate a public hearing so all neighbors could weigh -in on the proposal; and said with a conditional use permit, the Council could condition the approval on such things as having adequate buffers, etc. Mr. Connelly noted that staff has included exhaustive materials in tonight's council packet describing what other communities have done in similar situations, but he noted that no one has had an exact proposal. Attorney Connelly explained some of the purposes of nonconforming uses, which includes allowing an existing use but not encouraging the expansion of that use so that ultimately the use will be discontinued over time; in this way it preserves the investment while encouraging development of uses consistent within what is allowed in any zone. Via his PowerPoint, Mr. Connelly again explained that the proposed amendment is to allow nonconforming uses to expand to adjacent property without regard to ownership; he explained what a nonconforming use is and the purpose of such, the current nonconforming expansion rules contained in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 19.20.06013 (4), and the change approving this amendment would make to that Code Chapter. Mr. Connelly stated that this is not a site specific request as Council would not just solve Mr. Hite's problem if council approved the amendment, but that this would be a legislative change that would affect all properties within the city, and he asked Council to make its decision based on that, and that such would be a legislative change to the UDC. Mayor Towey invited public comments. Stan Schultz, said he is a semi - retired real estate lawyer, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake, explained that he represents Hite Crane & Rigging and urged council to reject the pending motion. Mr. Schultz said in examining the comprehensive plan for Spokane Valley, the front page includes the city's vision: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and where businesses can flourish and prosper." He said the business about nonconforming uses arises when a city like Spokane Valley enacts a new zoning code and by virtue of doing so, makes existing uses nonconforming, which he said can create such illegal issues as unconstitutional taking issues, claims for damages, etc. He said one of the safety valves is to enact nonconforming rights provisions into the code which would allow businesses to operate as nonconforming uses and in the case of this city, allow certain expansion of those nonconforming uses. To point out the problem in our city's code, he gave the following hypothetical examples: a business within the city limits is lawful prior to the adoption of the city's most present code, which present code made the business unlawful; the owners of that business not only own the parcel on which the business is located, but they own an adjacent 100' wide track; lie said business was good and they wanted to expand their business and asked the city if that were possible, and under the present code, the city would say yes, as long you don't adversely affect the transportation system and /or neighbors. He said to take that situation and compare it with the same exact business only they don't own the adjacent 100'; and where the business owner wants to buy the adjacent site to expand the business, and said there would be no adverse impacts on the traffic system or the neighbors; but under the present code, the answer would be no. He asked what the physical difference is, and suggested there is none, except in the Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 first situation, the owners already owned the adjacent strip and in the second, they did not. He suggests Council consider what public purpose it is trying to further by requiring ownership; and said he feels Council would be hard - pressed to find a valid public purpose. Further, Mr. Schultz said citizens have a right to expect they will be treated equally in similar circumstances, and that privileges would not be inferred on some and not on others; and he said that is want happened here; that there is a class of people who will benefit by this — those who owned the two parcels — as opposed to those who do not; and he suggested an improper public purpose; and said this amendment is meant to solve that problem and put all people on equal footing regarding expansion of uses. Mr. Schultz said there is no issue about nonconforming issues being permitted as the code allows that, and there is no issue about nonconforming issues being expanded; but the question is what citizens will be allowed to do that. He further stated that there are many problems associated with nonconforming uses; and said that Mr. Connelly raises several good points, one of which Mr. Schultz disagrees with: the code as it states today and after this amendment, a nonconforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or track in any adjacent lot or track. Mr. Schultz said Mr. Connelly indicated that there was a reasonable interpretation of this that a person could not only expand onto the 100' strip, but buy another 100' strip next to that and expand onto that and so on, and Mr. Schultz said he respectfully disagrees. He explained that the term "original lot" means that lot and whatever is next to it, and does not mean you can keep moving down the street ad infinitum expanding the nonconforming use uncontrolled; and he said that is not what is intended. Mr. Schultz said he feels this is a delicate circumstance, and said that once it is decided to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses, it will allow our businesses to flourish and prosper; he asked if we should create a certain class of people who are only able to do that, or should we make that available to all citizens in the same circumstances, keeping in mind that there are safeguards so that such would not impact the transportation system or adversely impact the neighbors. Dwight Hume, proponent of the amendment; 9101 N Mountain View Lane, Spokane, 99218 said that the staff report contains a suggestion that they were inconsistent; that there is criteria in the code for reviewing and approving and accepting text amendments; and among other things, it should show compliance with the comprehensive plan; and said as he explained to the Planning Commission, this is a nonconformity and nonconformities cannot be consistent with the comprehensive plan; and said if you look carefully at the staff report, "that first criteria that Scott addresses, he openly says in writing, there isn't really anything in the comprehensive plan that says anything about nonconformity, so he fabricates a whole story upon which this thing was eventually denied; fabricates the extreme of industrial use being next to residential; and that is not compatible and the comp plan is about all creating compatibility; nonconforming uses aren't necessarily compatible, but pay attention to the fact that the criteria for expanding nonconforming use creates the requirement for a discernment by the administrator, usually the planning director, that your request is going to be compatible, or they can say no to you. It doesn't just give a free license to everybody to have an expansion. You have to prove that he's not going to cause a traffic impact and you have to prove that he's not adversely going to affect the surrounding neighborhood. That's adopted into the code, and what I'm pulling out of it is language that says what Stan just addressed: the history of who owns the property. Who owns the property has nothing to do with land use impact and that's the theme of what we're here with tonight. The second aspect of this that was erroneously construed by the planning commission was that this use was going to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and yet you have under your economic chapter, a requirement, and I'll point that out to you, that it says under Goal EDG -7.2: `Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability.' As Mr. Schultz just explained to you, you don't have a regulation that we're addressing tonight that creates consistency and clarity, and fosters economic development. There was a suggestion even made tonight by your legal council, and was asked by the planning commission, well, isn't there any other solution to this individual, Mr. Hite, that would solve his problem and not open Pandora's box, as they were presuming would happen. And that was, oh yes, I believe that was the staff dialogue after public testimony when I couldn't speak; and it was, the question was asked of staff can we do a re -zone. You heard that again tonight. Members of the council. This is a nonconforming use; it's Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 nonconforming with the comprehensive plan. It can't be a spot zone to industrial, your first zone that allows this use. It can't be. I would never in my 40 years of doing this stuff, take on the task of trying to convince any legislative body that they should approve, by zoning, a nonconforming use. Amendments. You're not going to do an amendment either. You're not only to allow a use that by your own matrix, is otherwise first permitted in light industrial in corridor mixed use. Staff has given us the letter that says yes, you have a valid right to be there as a nonconforming use; the gap of time has not occurred; Consolidated Pipe left, you got there within a couple of months, you didn't have a 12 -month lapse; you didn't lose your nonconforming rights; you can be there; it's all about the rest of the property. As you will hear from Mr. Hite tonight, one of the other regulatory reviews suggests that this additional piece of property, and I don't want to dwell upon this property, but this additional piece of property is necessary for emergency and fire access; not to mention what he wants to do; so you have the criteria there. Is there an impact on the surrounding land use; is there a change and adverse impact on traffic; does it change the level of service by expanding it? It can only expand on the contiguous adjoining piece. Ownership is what this is all about; and that shouldn't be in there and we're suggesting that it be taken out." Gary Hite, owner of Hite Crane & Rigging, 4323 East Broadway Mr. Hite said he has been at the present location for 40 years; and said when they originally built there it was within the County; it was bordering Havana which is the line for the City of Spokane. He said if you recall, "there was a movement afoot that there was concern about what the City of Spokane might impose on people in the valley region so the City of the Valley was formed to create their own destiny and preclude that. In my case, the City of Spokane has decided to do a project that they want my property; and so they came to the prior council here in the valley to ask you to give them jurisdiction over me, which was done; and the City of Spokane sued me for eminent domain and has taken my property. I need to relocate and I have made great endeavors to find an appropriate place to do that; and facing this immense task I had to find some plusses or I would have given up; and I felt that if I made a better place to be, then I can operate more efficient, fit into the community better, and provide good employment for my people on an ongoing basis. I looked at several vacant sites and talked with Planning and Permitting, and I could see that my lifeline plan probably wasn't going to fit their timeline that I could get that accomplished; so I found an existing facility that hopefully would be quicker to move in because I am under an extreme timeline. My decision from the City of Spokane requires me to totally vacate the property by the end of October. An added problem with that is that the construction of Havana Street Bridge is already ongoing, and is tearing up our access to get in and out of the property to operate and to eventually move. The facility that I found and bought and have applied for and gotten permission to occupy the main facility, was actually built as a Tidyman's warehouse and office in '82; and the adjacent property that is contiguous is an additional 85' which I felt was necessary for me to safely move and stage my equipment and be able to access around the existing building to pull back onto the side street to not interrupt traffic; there is a street light off of Corbin onto Appleway which makes a good safety entrance for me similar to what I've had on Havana; but I need to be able to get around the building to stage my equipment. In our original conversations with permitting here, the representative from the fire department told us that they actually would require additional space on the east side of the building for emergency access for us to occupy the building. This building's been there since 1982, as I previously said it was Tidyman's originally and then Consolidated Pipe the last approximate twelve years. The abandoned car wash that was on the east side really in my opinion was a detrimental thing that was there and really needed to be cleaned up; so I feel that I'm bettering the area is what I'm endeavoring to do. As I'm understanding it, and I'm obviously not an attorney, or in the habit of doing development work, and I'll tell you at this point, it would not be a thing that I would go into because it is so difficult to try to build and improve... and I think that's a sign of our times and in some of the past meetings that I've been to here, there seems to be concern about being able to develop additional revenue in order to pay maintenance costs for streets and other facilities, but if businesses can't continue to operate and employ people, then there's no revenue base. As I'm understanding nonconforming, which we seem to be hearing here a lot, I kind of equate nonconforming with change; and it seems like Mr. Connelly's description of nonconforming earlier and the purpose Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page S of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 behind it was two -fold; that either where an existing operation wanted to take advantage of changes in the market place or that sort of thing where they need to change their operation in order to survive they become nonconforming; but also if the surroundings around them change, then they become nonconforming. Now, I'm not one that thinks change is not good; I think in our world we need a certain amount of change; so it's my feeling that's the reason that nonconforming was originally addressed, is to allow some flexibility to encourage expansion of a business and employment of people. Also to me, it seems like the whole concept of eminent domain, I was in my location for 4.0 years, and I had no desire to move, but to me, the nonconforming thing is that I'm forced to move; so I'm doing my best to get in a good location and I guess maybe in some respects I might have been smarter to just quit and sell off my stuff; but I have employees that have been very loyal to me; 20, 25 years, there's quite a few that have retired actually; and I think that's great. I also have people that have maybe only been with me five to ten years and have a young family, and they're dependent on working. It seems kind of silly to me when we're concerned nationally about extending unemployment, and we don't want to allow business to employ people. I'm just trying to continue what I've been doing, but do it in a better manner if possible. So I would really encourage the council to look at this as we seem to be caught up on a technicality; I think what I'm trying to do, everybody would be in favor of, but the language seems to make it kind of a glitch to getting it done; so I would encourage you to defeat the current motion and to take an option that would make a motion that would allow me to move into my facility and go to work before I have to be out of the one that I'm in. Thank you." Councilmember Dempsey asked how long it would take him to move, and Mr. Hite said it would probably depend on when he can start; he said there is current construction that is starting on Havana; and said if he could go right away, he said he feels he could be moved, that the majority of his big equipment is what he'd try to move first as he needs to get that out before he can't: get it out; he said they have renovations and additions they want to do on the existing building before they can occupy with offices; but feels he could move the majority of his heavy equipment within the next month; and the rest hopefully shortly thereafter. Councilmember Dempsey asked if Mr. Hite has to be out of his current location by the end of October and he confirmed that is the case. Councilmember Grafos asked how many people he employs, and he responded that typically 30 to 35; and said in better times he has employed up to 70. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to reject the proposal from the planning commission and instead have an ordinance prepared which would allow the expansion to the adjacent parcel. Mr. Connelly said if that is Council's motion; then that is what staff will do; but there is a motion on the floor now to accept the Planning Commission recommendation, which should be dealt with prior to making another motion; and Mayor Towey reminded council that the current motion is to accept the findings of the planning commission, which disapproves the proposed amendment. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels Mr. Hume's proposal is not a solution that is good public policy; and said he previously fought for neighborhood policies, to include the wording "maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning" and said if we adopted what has been suggested by Mr. Hume, that could present future problems such as having an apartment house next to single family residential homes, and said if this were adopted, the apartment use could be expanded to the adjacent properties; and he said he does not like that and those lines of separation should be kept as such, unless there is a good reason; and said the question is are we going to keep neighborhoods the way they are; and he said it has been suggested we are creating a class of those who would benefit, but he explained that such exists now; that he benefits in that his home is zoned single family, and he does not have the benefit of multi - family housing on his land; and said he is not anxious to have an adjacent property owner say if he has multi - family, he can have my property multi - family also; and stressed that there is a neighborhood chapter in the comprehensive plan that preserves neighborhoods, and this particular proposal will not preserve the neighborhood; and said he would be glad to consider other options; but at this time he Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 encouraged Council to adopt the motion as presented; and after that, said we could ask staff for other choices that would solve this particular problem while not affecting the residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Dempsey said regarding the suggestion that the Community Development Director could make all these decisions, that she feel the director doesn't need that kind of target on her back; and she said the laws and ordinances need to be maintained to keep a functioning community; and said she realizes the prior council was concerned with Mr. Hite's dilemma as is the present council, and we want him to be able to have his business; and she asked about Mr. Connelly's other suggestions, such as a conditional use permit so we could give Mr. Hite what he needs to maintain his business while maintaining the integrity of our ordinances; and suggested council ask staff to come up with another solution, realizing such needs to be done quickly. Councilmember Grafos stated that the city of Spokane allows nonconforming uses expansions within the commercial and industrial zone but not in the residential, and agreed he would not approve nonconforming uses in residential zones; but said this could be restricted to commercial or industrial zones and to the contiguous parcel; and gave as an example a use that was changed as a result of a zone change, the INB Bank which is now in a mixed use zone which doesn't allow banks with a drive - through; and said if that INB Bank which is a legitimate use of that property, decided they wanted to put in a center for additional employees in the vacant lot next to it, that would be an expansion of a nonconforming use, and said he feels such example would not be detrimental to the community; and said he would be in favor of allowing the expansion of a nonconforming use to adjacent property if it is in the same zone. Attorney Connelly reminded council of the pending motion to accept the recommendations of the planning commission, which would reject the proposal; and after the council makes that determination, council can instruct staff further; and that this motion is to instruct staff, and its outcome could result in a future ordinance amendment of the development code. Councilmember McCaslin asked for a roll call vote, which was conducted by City Clerk Bainbridge with the following outcome: Councilmember Gothmann: yes; Councilmember Dempsey: Yes; Councilmember Grafos: No. Mayor Towey: No. Councilmember Grassel: No; and Councilmember McCaslin: No. The motion was therefore defeated and the proposed amendment was not disapproved and the planning commission findings and recommendation were not accepted. After council discussion about various options including whether to require a conditional use permit, and that staff will bring that information concerning the cost of a conditional use permit; that staff will bring back an ordinance which will contain some options including that for such provision it would have to be in a commercial or industrial zone, and /or the same zone, meaning if you were in commercial zone you could not move to residential; and could only move to the adjacent property; and to ask staff to do so as quickly as possible. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:31 p.m. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 4. Bike Helmets — Marion Lee, Spokane County Health Department Ms. Marion Lee, Public Health Educator of the Spokane Regional Health District, thanked Council for the invitation to speak and for the previous acknowledgement of "May as Helmet Safety Month;" she explained that part of what she does is monitor injury data that affects the safety of the community, and one aspect of that deals with wheel -sport injuries; she said there were 1,299 wheel sport emergency room visits last year which equates to over $15 million just in hospital costs; she said she is here today to provide additional information on helmets. Ms Lee explained that 90% of youth reported in a survey, either indicated they "rarely" or "never" wear a helmet, which tells her there is a gap in the education efforts to get helmets on kids. Ms. Lee said she has never met anyone who said helmets don't save lives. She discussed the different strategies, like using SCOPE volunteers to educate the public about helmets and distribute free helmets, and she acknowledged and expressed her appreciation for this city's efforts in Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 supplying helmets. Ms. Lee said we all realize there is no impact we can measure on the loss of a life, and no dollar amount that can equate to that loss, but said that $15 million in one year is exorbitant; and all that leads to premium rate increases; and if the injured are uninsured, the expenses fall to the taxpayers; and said that a lot of that $15 million would be prevented by helmet use. Ms. Lee said there were 921 emergency room visits for head injuries due to wheel sport accidents; and all these figures don't even include those patients who are admitted, or who need physical therapy or after care treatment; and said the bigger issue is thinking about the impacted families; adding one must also take into consideration how the driver would feel who struck someone who perhaps darted in traffic. Ms. Lee asked the rhetorical question of what can we do to make sure more kids wear helmets; she said she is not an advocate of ticketing kids without helmets; but it appears "knowing" one must wear a helmet and "wearing" a helmet are not the same. Ms. Lee said that she feels one way to increase the number of people wearing a helmet is to have an ordinance; she said the City of Spokane has an ordinance, that they don't enforce it but use it as an educational tool, and she asked Council to consider moving forward with an ordinance as a means to solve the issue of how to get more helmets on kids; said she appreciates this City setting aside funds for helmets for those who don't have access to helmets; and said she is willing to help as this city moves toward further protection of the citizens by means of policies to increase voluntary compliance. Councilmembers thanked Ms. Lee for her information, and Mr. Jackson said there have been previous discussions concerning this issue, and staff will pull that together and include it as an upcoming informational agenda item. 5. Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects — Steve Worley Standing in for Mr. Worley, Public Works Director Kersten explained that recently a 2010 Call for Projects was issued by the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for allocation of Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) funding; and he went through his PowerPoint explaining the projects and descriptions, including how the projects are evaluated, and he added that the applications are due August 31. There were no questions from Council and no council objections to bringing this back next week for a motion consideration. 6. Smart Routes — Steve Worley Traffic Engineer Inga Note and Public Works Director Kersten, standing in for Mr. Worley, went over some of the background of the Smart Routes program and the June 4 SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) call for projects associated with the Smart Routes program, which program promotes regionally significant non - motorized construction and planning projects that affect walking, bicycling and access to transit; adding that applications are due July 22, 2010. Via their PowerPoint presentation, project examples were given and partners and supporters mentioned, including STA (Spokane Transit Authority), and GSI (Greater Spokane Incorporated), and mentioned some of the Spokane Valley projects including the Spokane Valley /Millwood Trail, the North Greenacres Trail, and the new projects of Dishman -Mica Road Shared Use Pathway and the Centennial Trail Bike/Ped Connectivity Study. Ms. Note and Mr. Kersten explained some aspects of the Spokane Valley Millwood Trail as well as the other trail proposed projects; and summarized by explaining that these projects will connect neighborhoods to commercial areas, and are safer than having bikes on major arterials. Director Kersten added that with Transportation Enhancement Grants (2010) typically no local match is required; and said staff will move ahead and in their monthly reports and at other times, will bring council updates on what they are doing with the grants. 7. Subarea Plan (SARK Neighborhood Centers — Mike Basinger and Greg McCormick Senior Planner Basinger explained that as requested and as part of the ongoing zone -by -zone review connected with the Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan, tonight's report focuses on the Neighborhood Center District Zone, and said the community meeting to discuss that district is scheduled for July 22, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in Council Chambers. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Basinger showed the neighborhood center areas, explained what uses are permitted, showed a zone comparison Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 with the interim zoning and the pre -SARP zoning (2007), and explained what uses are no longer permitted. Mr. Basinger also showed examples of some businesses which are non - conforming uses, and mentioned that the "Hancock Fabrics" store was included in error and is not a nonconforming use. Site development standards such as smaller setbacks and wider sidewalks were mentioned, and sign standards were briefly addressed. As with other zoning districts, staff will report back to council after the community meeting. 8. Law Enforcement Interlocal — Mike Jackson and Morgan Koudelka City Manager Jackson explained that since early February, staff has been working to negotiate a new interlocal for law enforcement services as a member of the negotiating team, which included Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka, City Attorney Connelly, Sheriff Knezovich, County CEO Farnell, as well as an attorney on County's staff, and said that Chief VanLeuven attended several meetings as well. Mr. Jackson said he wanted to give Council an overview of the contract so council has a good understanding of the contents, that he would cover the high points, and that we can come back for additional reports if needed; and Mr. Jackson referenced the worksheet of Exhibit 1 and the dedicated FTEs (full time equivalents). A PowerPoint presentation included dedicated services that the City has control over, shared services charged based upon usage, and direct support as determined by the Sheriff, then the non - chargeable services that are the Sheriffs responsibility, or do not provide service to the City, such as marine patrol, sex offender registration, or the child sex predator grant. Mr. Jackson said the primary increased services changed under category 2, shared services which are services essentially controlled by the Sheriff Office. Regarding the contract, Mr. Jackson brought attention to page 2, section 4.1 Initial term and Renewal and that this four -year contract is retroactive to the beginning of the year; and Mr. Jackson, Mr. Connelly, and Mr. Koudelka went over other sections including section 5 services, section 6 cost of services, section 9 police chief and commander selection, section 12 and he mentioned the idea of our patrol vehicles being marked was well received; and finally section 16 concerning liability. Shortly before 9 p.m., Councilmember McCaslin left the meeting. At 9:00 p.m. it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting 30 minutes. Further discussion included Mr. Koudelka explaining the rationale and method of calculating percentage increases, monitoring costs, and statistics, and councilmembers extended their appreciation to staff for their dedicated work. Attorney Connelly said rather than bring this back for a motion next week, he would like to confirm where the County is in this process, then bring in the final document for council approval consideration at the August 10 meeting. Council concurred. At 9:30 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another fifteen minutes. 9. Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson said tonight represents a first touch as Council begins consideration of establishing the next legislative agenda; that this council amended the current legislative last February, and this is an opportunity to start to review this agenda even though AWC (Association of Washington Cities) generally doesn't ask for our input until fall. Possible items mentioned by council included requesting a sprinkler system in the food bank as something to consider endorsement of; anti- harassment provision concerning 911 operators and keeping phone names and other information confidential when registering cell phones; the initiative of privatizing liquor sales and potential impact on Spokane Valley; and the acquisition of park property; and he said these issues can be included in an upcoming agenda packet as we move toward possible adoption in August. Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towev Councilmember Grafos asked about the one - way /two -way ballot measure, and City Manager Jackson said a full report is scheduled for next week to address costs, potential funding, history of previous council discussion, and a sample ballot measure. 11. Information Only: The Avista Home Energy Grant was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 12. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey No comments were offered. 13. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson No comments were offered. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment [RCW 42.3 0.110(1)(g)] It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately 30 minutes to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:35 p.m. Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive session at 10:03 p.m., and it was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. ATTEST- omas E. Towey, Mayor hfistine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: 08 -10 -2010