Loading...
2010, 10-05 Study Session MinutesMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington October 5, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Absent: Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. At the request of the Mayor, 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 council meeting. 1. SARP (Sprague /Avvlewav Revitalization Plan) and Comprehensive Plan Update — Kathv McClun Community Development Director McClung explained that tonight's purpose is to cover the options of reviewing the SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) during the annual comprehensive plan update; and she said that former City Attorney Mike Connelly will cover the issue of adding car sales to the city center zoning district. Director McClung said that she attached a progress report of all those things done so far during the SARP re- visited process. She said tonight staff also wants to talk about the SARP and the comp plan update; she mentioned that the entire plan has been added to the docket, but said there are many different options to take in the way the review is done; and she said staff would like council direction on which approach to take. As a point of background, Director McClung said there were two primary reasons for the SARP plan being adopted in the first place: (1) there was a desire to make the corridor look better, and (2) there existed a philosophy of combining like uses such as adding residential, and refining the uses in certain areas so as to address the issue of too much commercial property in the area, which showed up in the market analysis. Community Development Director McClung then explained the following options: Option 1: revoke the plan and go back to the 2007 zoning; she said the good thing about this option is we already have an existing comp plan that contains goals and policies that support the 2007 zoning so we wouldn't have to re -do that; and since that 2007 adopted zoning went through an extensive public review, she said we could probably condense the amount of public review this time; that it would add a lot more uses to the corridor, but would not address the surplus of retail uses and might even add to it, and won't address the appearance. Option 2: look at the plan zone by zone and discuss what you want to accomplish in each zone; then write regulations crafted to meet those goals; she said this would be very time intensive but would be a holistic review to examine each zone individually, then the area as a whole to make sure regulations worked Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page I of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 together and were not in conflict; she said it would require a lot of public meetings and said she is not sure how much the public would be engaged as they might be a little worn out with the topic. Option 3: address just a list of items identified in the community meetings we had during the last year; she said this would be less work than option 2 and might result in regulations that might not work together and it may not represent the whole community; she said we got good participation in some meetings and not so good in others; some meetings had some property owners saying a lot; and others meetings property owners didn't say much. She said we would have to draft new comp plan goals and policies to reflect those new regulations and this process would require significant public participation. Option 4: create a Sprague /Appleway Overlay Zone; she said this is possible but many times overlay zones are confusing to property owners and to staff trying to administer those zones; she said maybe we would just identify what council likes about the plan and add it to the existing zone. Option 5: a hybrid of any of the other options. She said council might want to revoke part of the plan and say council is not interested in certain areas, but that council feels a particular part is workable and re -do that part. Option 6: to do nothing more than what has already been done. Vehicle Sales: Attorney Connelly explained that this is a narrow issue of whether to add the use of auto sales or vehicle sales, which would include autos and boats, into the City Center area. He said when this was first approached, he went back to his March memorandum about changing the entire SARP and what the rules would be, and said he feels that memo is still accurate; and he said you can't change this aspect without going through the process; but he said in looking at the city center, it seemed some changes were made over the last year that we may be able to rely upon with some type of emergency ordinance, relative to just that section. He further explained that required steps are that it must be consistent with the comp plan and said as the comp plan is currently written, there is no question that it would not be consistent for vehicle sales as city center was created as a special area with very unique characteristics; he said you can't simply just allow vehicle sales in the city center area; and said based on that then, what are the options to modify the comprehensive plan. First, he said, and probably the best option in terms of risk and process, is to make it a part of the annual amendments, which is it. Mr. Connelly said he looked at RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) to see if another option exists to the annual amendment process; and as noted in his former March memorandum, there is an emergency exception to that annual process if there is an identifiable bona -fide emergency. He said you can't use that process for SARP as a whole, but said there are some things that can be examined now that might be grounds for an emergency, and one such thing is the deterioration of the economy and the resulting decreasing sales tax and decreasing property taxes; and said having a large investment company stepping up would be significantly less likely. Mr. Connelly said that more importantly, Council has emphatically determined that there will be no negotiation for the purchase of land in the city center area, at least along the lines originally planned and what the comprehensive plan anticipated; and said council made reductions in the proposed budget by about 50% for next year of a contribution for any construction of a city hall; and said that all that leaves us with a zone that anticipated significant public investment by way of a city center, city hall and infrastructure, none of which will happen. Mr. Connelly said the City Center was premised around that investment, and said if we don't have the investment, the restrictions that currently exist may create an economic hardship and said an emergency could be argued. He said if council wants, he could fashion an ordinance, which would go before the Planning Commission, and then come back before Council, after staff making the appropriate public notices, and said changes could be made to the comprehensive plan under that emergency exception. However, he said, when you do that, Council needs to be aware that it could be subject to challenge. Mr. Connelly said even though we could make a good faith argument that an emergency exists, the safest way is to wait and go through the annual amendment process. Another possibility is that council could excise the city center and substitute it with a mixed use corridor Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 designation, which now allows vehicle sales; or excise the City Center from SARP completely and return to the 2007 zoning, which he said could be more problematic and said that is not a guarantee but it gives a possibility of asserting arguments if Council were to choose that route. Councilmember McCaslin brought up RCW 35A.63.220 concerning a moratorium and after he read the statute, Mr. Connelly said that ordinance is mimicked in the several places in the statutes for cities and counties under the GMA (Growth Management Act); and the problem in using that is it contemplates a development code change; and said the other part of 36.70A.130 says all development regulations must be consistent with the comp plan, and said what we are proposing is not consistent with the comp plan so therefore, it can't be used here even if the moratorium statute applied; and said that our situation doesn't mesh with all case law and writings as to the application of a moratorium; and he explained that the purpose of a moratorium is to preclude uses in order to give a government time to develop regulations or comp plans, so that by the time that gets done, it's not a fait accompli or already been developed inconsistent with what was planned. Here, he said we would be using it to allow uses and literally change the zone, which he said is not consistent with the intent of the statute, and said a moratorium in this circumstance not work since it would be inconsistent with the comp plan. Mr. Connelly said that he prefers to try to work through the laws and apply the will of the council through the laws of the State; and said he feels a moratorium in this circumstance would be unsuccessful; but said he feels the emergency solution is a defensible argument, even though there is still some risk associated with that option. There was council discussion about the options and the use of an emergency ordinance, with some councilmenibers stating they feel option 1 is their preferred option; and Mr. Connelly agreed that option 1 would be the cleanest option and that it can be accomplished through the annual process which begins in November; and reiterated that the amendment of SARP through the annual process is iron clad and the city would not be subject to challenges, whereas an emergency ordinance may open the city to some challenges; and again stated that a moratorium should not be used in this situation; adding that option 1 would include the revocation of the SARP as part of the comp plan, and the process could also include an emergency ordinance to change city center as outlined above. Community Development Director McClung added that we would still need to go through the process of sending this to the planning commission and of holding public hearings, and said the only thing the emergency ordinance does is to allow the amendment of the comprehensive plan more than once a year; and since the last time we amended a comprehensive plan was last spring, we cannot do it again until next spring; and Mr. Connelly said this would allow us to take that city center segment and accelerate it; and the rest would be the normal process. Councilmembers decided that option 1 is their preferred option. City Manager Jackson said as we are not prepared to make a motion tonight, based on council instruction, staff would frame a motion for a future meeting. Director McClung asked in addition to option 1, does Council want staff to continue with the code amendments they are working on that have not yet gone to the Planning Commission. Mr. Connelly further explained that there would be three things going on: (1) the ongoing amendments to the development code that are not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and said Council has already passed some of those and others are in line to go to the Planning Commission and come back to council, which were as a result of the community meetings where Council identified specific things Council wanted to change, i.e. the code text amendments; that (2) there is also the annual comprehensive plan amendment process which begins in November and comes to fruition sometime in March of next year, which is the option 1 council designated to pursue regarding the SARP; and (3) an emergency ordinance dealing only with the city center and setting forth the grounds already discussed, and said that would go to the Planning Commission and return to council; and he said the question is, there are some specific development code changes to the city center that are on the way to the Planning Commission and will be coming back to council, and said those wouldn't be necessary if the emergency ordinance was going to be used; and he said staff would look for inconsistencies and if there are facets which overlap, to just go with the emergency ordinance which would only be for the city center; but said any of the specific amendments sent to the Planning commission would be resolved by the emergency ordinance, he said they could be merged into one. Director McClung said when staff Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 returns with a motion, staff can also provide an estimate of the time frame for looking at the emergency ordinance and the comprehensive plan for 2011. Director McClung said both planning commission meetings in November fall on holidays, so special meetings would have to be scheduled, which she said is possible based on the Commission's availability. In conclusion, Mr. Connelly said staff will look at schedules and particulars and come back with a detailed motion for council consideration. Councilmember McCaslin said when the five councilmembers ran as a positive change committee, there were only two commitments being made to the public, one was to get a new city manager and said that was committed by all five councilmembers; and the four new councilmembers committed to getting rid of SARP, right or wrong, he said it didn't matter as that was the commitment made to the public when those councilmembers ran for office; and said he feels Deputy Mayor Schimmels would also confirm that he committed to getting rid of SARP because of the expense involved with a new city hall, buying Appleway, etc., whether you like it or not, he said that is the commitment they made to the public. Councilmember McCaslin said he "has been elected eight times to the senate so obviously I haven't lied too much in my public office, in fact I can't remember one lie, nor would I lie to the public; but I committed to get rid of SARP, whether it's a long process or a short process; that's my commitment to the City" and he said he thinks that is the commitment of the other three councilmembers here; and said the first option is his preference as well. Councilmember Grafos said regarding the text amendments, suggested following through with those and asked if Director McClung felt there was a value to that process. Ms. McClung said the ones that will get there at the end will probably only get adopted just as we're getting to the comp plan, but said that is also something she will layout on a calendar for council. 2. Collaborative Planning— Susan Winchell Susan Winchell thanked Council for the support of the collaborative planning process and of the support of the development of fiscal strategies for the region; and said if Council has other ideas on how to streamline services and /or generate more revenue, or to do anything differently, to please let them know. She explained that Brett Sheckler has been the consultant for the last two and one -half years, and he started out trying to figure out annexation, and when annexations occur, cities have certain responsibilities and the county usually takes a big hit financially, so the first concern was how to keep the county whole during the annexation process, which evolved into a larger issue as cities have financial issues as well, and said they are trying to resolve those issues interjurisdictionally with a regional plan for fiscal strategies. Mr. Sheckler said the goal tonight is to engage Council in brainstorming and to share information to get council's feedback; he said that the collaborative planning goal is to resolve conflict especially concerning urban growth areas and during pursuit of that goal, they realized an opportunity to pursue common areas of interest; and he went over the "Collaborative Fiscal Strategy City Brainstorming Component" including the Potential Overarching Principles. There was some discussion concerning exploring possible regional strategies for such things as 911 dispatch, and animal control; but making sure any partnerships discussion would include such things as cost and levels of service; as it was mentioned that consolidating services but lowering levels of service would not be beneficial to the citizens in the long run. Mr. Sheckler said the process is moving forward and they anticipate another meeting with the city managers and then to meet again with each council to engage and solicit comments; and he encouraged councilmembers to let him know if there are other comments for Mr. Sheckler and Ms. Winchell to consider for this process. 3. Legislative Agenda L Update — Mike Jackson/Mayor Towey City Manager Jackson said Council has reviewed this agenda several times, but prior to finalizing the agenda, he wanted to discuss some of the items; and he mentioned that this past spring, the legislature increased the 911 funding from 50¢ to 70¢ and that our lobbyist said if council desired, we could continue to include that as an item to simply let the state know we appreciate the funding; and Councilmember Gothmann added that the legislature also provided an option to counties to include the voice over internet protocol, and that the Board of County Commissioners exercised that option. Mr. Jackson also mentioned Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 that there was an increase in state tax from 20 to 25¢ and the lobbyist suggested combining that with the cell phone registration issue. Regarding the 911 funding, Mr. Jackson said he did not notice that in the AWC Legislative Agenda and said the lobbyist did not expand on that issue. Mr. Jackson asked Council to review the agenda and that staff will bring this back in a few weeks for further council consideration. Mr. Ken Briggs was asked to address item #7 concerning the fire sprinkler system and he did so by explaining that the sought funds would also cover substantial remodeling to their demonstration kitchen, upgrade of the lobby as the entry doors are falling apart, the main floor restroom needs serious help, and a boiler needs replacing at an approximate cost of $100,000, and said that is the building's source of heat; he mentioned that previous grants were supplemented by generous assistance from other community entities. Mr. Jackson said he asked department directors to look at the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) agenda to see if there are items we should pursue, and Director McClung suggested on page 3 under Land Use and Environmental, that the SEPA process could be streamlined to save time and resources; and he said staff will take a closer look and if there are no objections, we could include that on our agenda as well, and said he will also solicit comments from our lobbyist. Council concurred. Mayor Towey also mentioned the AWC agenda process lists TBDs (transportation benefit district) with the assignment of subcommittee discussing rate cities impose on a TBD and if that includes inflation; and Mr. Jackson said he will research that further as well as gather more information on the "Dig Law" (call before you dig law) concerning buried utilities. 4. CenterPlace Leases — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that staff has been working on two leases for space at CenterPlace: one lease with the Community Colleges, and the other with the Central Valley School District; that each entity would like to rent space during the day, thereby leaving evenings and weekends open for other uses in those areas if the need occurs. Mr. Stone said that the Central Valley School District is also offering use of school space such as play fields or gyms as part of the compensation package. Mr. Stone mentioned that due to the current economy, rental rates are down from the previous $16.00 per square foot rate, and said after negotiating, the Community College proposes $8.00 per square foot, with the School District proposing $9.50; and he mentioned that they are one -year leases at this point. City Manager Jackson added that we value the partnerships with these entities; it is a one -year lease so it provide flexibility, and the space can be rented after hours or when not in use. Council concurred to proceed. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:30 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m. 5. Senior Center Table Tennis Update — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone said since council previously heard from some citizens regarding an inability to have table tennis at the Senior Center at CenterPlace, that those citizens met with City Manager Jackson, and said the Senior Center Board extended an invitation to the players to come to a meeting to discuss the concerns, which meeting took place last Monday with about thirty-five people in attendance; Mr. Stone said he spoke with some of the board members after that meeting, that he is pleased as the meeting was very positive and several issues and miscommunication were clarified; and he said the Board explained their role and the importance of representing all activities; that the board said they wanted to accommodate the players but the board also needed the players' cooperation. Mr. Stone said the senior center specialist is working to see what times and dates might be available for the group to use the upstairs dance floor and meanwhile, the Board is set to discuss the issue this Thursday; and Mr. Stone said he feels a decision will be made then and that this issue is headed in a positive direction for all concerned. Mr. Stone also mentioned that the Board will re- examine their bylaws, rules and code of conduct and will be addressing the issue of new programs. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned he is not anxious to have Council intervene but rather that the Board take care of these types of issues; and as a matter of disclosure, Mr. Gothmann mentioned he is also a member of the Senior Citizens Association. Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 6. Transportation Benefit District — Cary Driskell Acting City Attorney Driskell gave a brief overview of the TBD options as noted on his October 5, 2010 Request for Council Action form, and said the essential questions are: (1) does council want to form a TBD that includes the city boundary; (2) if so, does Council want to be part of a multi jurisdictional TBD or form one that is city-only; and (3) if a TBD is formed, is Council prepared to take a funding measure to the voters. Councilmember Gothmann said he recently attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting where Commissioner Mielke asked in essence, those very questions, with the additional question of should the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) or an independent board be formed for handling this issue; and that during that meeting, a representative from WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation ) mentioned that local jurisdictions have to make a decision and not give the legislature excuses for sending money to the west side. Council discussion included pros and cons of a regional district; the matter of sending this issue to the voters even at a $20.00 tab level; and that it appears there is no longer an urgency on these decisions since the matter has been moved to perhaps April 2012 for a ballot issue; and that the outcome of the liquor initiatives on the November ballot will also have an impact on this TBD issue. Councilmember Grassel said regarding the budget for the following year, that she wants specifics; said they are given line items of the budget but not the subcategories to those line items, and said there could possibly be some of those line items that the finance committee determines could be moved from the budget into a road preservation fund; and in looking at the 2012 budget, she wants a more detailed report and whether things in that budget today are things council wants to continue. Mayor Towey said it appears council consensus is to wait on the TBD for now; and Mr. Driskell said staff will wait for further council direction before bringing this issue up again; and Council concurred. 7. Aquifer Protection Area Interlocal — Mayor Towey/Councilmember Dempsey Public Works Director Kersten said this issue centers around the history of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) which in turns, centers around the wastewater advisory board; that the original RCA (Request for Council Action ) form back in July 2004 explains this issue, and he said the previously approved interlocal is also included for council's review. Mr. Kersten said there was an APA vote in November 2005, that the interlocal was approved prior to that in 1985, and he showed the area on the map indicating the APA. Mr. Kersten then went over some of the highlights of the interlocal agreement, and discussion ensued concerning those points, including that the City of Spokane opted out of this interlocal; and that the County is allowed to take administrative fees for handling this endeavor, and that cost was approximately $150,000; that it was agreed the County would form a water resource program to include testing and aquifer monitoring and studies for about $271,000. Mr. Kersten said section 2.5 allowed the County to use the remaining revenues from 2006 to 2010 to reduce the capital facilities rate for the STEP (Septic Tank Elimination Program); and the County's share of that was approximately $440,000, and this City's share was about $540,000; so for the years 2006 through 2010, the County received about $1 million to use for the STEP. He further explained that section 2.6, our share of those funds, or about $570,000 would come to the City and we would use them in the stormwater program for projects related to aquifer protection; and he said use of those funds is restricted to projects that will protect the aquifer, which includes the planning of those capital projects to improve stormwater protection of the aquifer. Mr. Kersten said per regulations, over the next few years we must categorize our drywells, that we have about 8,000 drywells and many of those contain no treatment, or no swale or catch basin so dirt, oils, etc., go from the roads into those drywells without protection; that we must have a program formulated by 2013; and he mentioned that one of the topics on the AWC priorities, was to slow down that NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) program as it is expensive. Mr. Kersten mentioned the attached spreadsheets and an accompanying e-mail from Bruce Rawls; and said in looking at those spreadsheet figures from 2010 -2011, Spokane County was originally getting $980,000 for the STEP, and beginning in 2011 the County would get their share from their areas or $460,000, and we would start getting $560,000 for stormwater, which would continue until 2025. Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 Regarding the six -year plan for stormwater, Mr. Kersten said he has been planning on receiving those fees mentioned above, and therefore have been intentionally keeping that annual $21.00 stormwater utility fee the same rate; and said we are one of the lowest cities in the state; and those APA fees would allow us to keep those funds at that lower rate. He said if we did not receive those APA fees, we would need to raise that rate an additional $5.00 annually; that our current fund balance is approximately $1.5 million which could be used for contingencies, or if we were to experience a 50 or 100 -year flood, which would prove very costly and would quickly deplete that fund. Mr. Jackson mentioned the next meeting of the Wastewater Advisory Committee is October 18; and that perhaps Council should discuss the direction this Council prefers to take so that Mayor Towey and Councilmember Dempsey, who are on that committee, can voice the preference of this Council. There was discussion about whether this Council should keep to the written interlocal and collect the fees and use those funds for stormwater, or reject the fees and have them not raise the sewer fees; which is a difference of about $1.12 Mayor Towey said he understands that the County's proposal would be to raise the rate to a single family, by $4.70 initially, but the $1.12 would be in addition to that but just to those in Spokane Valley. Mr. Jackson said he feels since the City of Spokane opted out, re- calculations would need to be done and that figure would likely be open for discussion. Mr. Kersten added that if we let the County keep the fees, we would need to consider raising our stormwater fees $4.00 or $5.00 a year; but clarified that the $21.00 is an annual rate, but the $1.12 is a monthly rate. Councilmember Dempsey said she favors keeping the funds to go to the stormwater, and Mayor Towey concurred. 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey The October 26 agenda was discussed and it was felt that would be a good time to discuss the SARP process; it was mentioned the entire subarea plan is already on the docket, and we would be merely refining the process for pursuing option 1 as stated earlier. Staff will pursue the October 26 date for further SARP discussion. 9. Council Check In — Mayor Towey N/A 10. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson N/A It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. E. T ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes, October 5, 2010 Approved by Council: October 12, 2010 Page 7 of 7