2011, 03-01 Study Session Minutes
MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
March 1, 2011 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Absent: Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
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 Councilmember McCaslin. It was
moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember
McCaslin from tonight's council meeting.
1. Draft Amended 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) - Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that tonight is an opportunity to discuss with Council the proposed
amended TIP as we do annually; and he explained the difference from the original Adopted 2011 TIP to
the draft Amended 2011 TIP; and said that some of the reasons for those changes include that some
projects were completed and those that were not were carried over; some projects like the pavement
management plan for local access and arterials was not funded so that will be removed; some of the grants
applied for were not granted; and there were projects for which we will receive additional funds to
complete the project, such as the traffic signal LED projects. Mr. Worley mentioned that next week he
will give council a presentation/update on the Indiana Avenue Extension project as well as the Sullivan
Road Bridge Replacement Project.
2. Maintenance Shop - Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten discussed some of the options of acquiring a city maintenance shop, which
included staying on the site the city currently occupies, and he mentioned several sites and some of the
pros and cons of those locations. Regarding the property at 17002 E. Euclid, Mr. Kersten said that this
was not previously on the market; but that he feels the facility and land would fit our needs very well with
their small amount of off'ice space and nice size shop of 4500 square feet; and said three acres should be
enough to handle us well into the future; and mentioned the area is also on a railroad spur which means
materials such as de-icers could be brought in via train instead of the more expensive truck option. Mr.
Kersten said in today's market, it would be more economically feasible for us to buy a site rather than
build one; and he recommended council's consideration of this site, and said the area is currently zoned
industrial; that the property never went on the market but that he saw a"for lease" sign on the premises
Council Study Session Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: March 22, 2011
and had an opportunity to speak with the seller; and said we can have a committed offer for $750,000 if
council agrees. He also mentioned that there is the possibility in the future of housing a vactoring truck
on the site, and said if that were the case, it would likely only involve one truck. Mr. Kersten said it is
council's choice if they would like to go into an executive session, but we have a firm offer at $750,000,
and said it is a fair price, and if council concurs, staff will bring that back for council approval
consideration, and then move through the inspections and property closing; or go into executive session to
discuss the issue further. Councilmember Grassel said although she will be out of town next week, she
prefers holding an executive session. Councilmembers agreed and Mr. Jackson said he will schedule that
for next week, and Mr. Kersten said he will put the information into the packet for next week.
Councilmember Grafos said he is concerned with buying this for snow plowing and having it expand into
other products, like vactoring, and thereby pretty soon we would create a huge municipal department,
which he does not want to happen. Mr. Jackson said it would be council's decision in the future whether
to add any other functions; and that in light of full disclosure, Mr. Kersten has looked at some figures and
would at least present later, an option of doing our own vactoring, which decision would be entirely up to
council on whether or not to pursue.
3 Animal Control Update - Morgan Koudelka
Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said this was a topic of discussion at the Council of Governance
meeting last week, that there was also an article in the newspaper regarding regional animal control, and
that tonight is an opportunity to discuss this and help him to know what information can best help council
as we move forward, and said that he does not seek anything definitive tonight, but rather would like to
find out what information council needs so they can provide appropriate feedback to staff on this issue.
Mr. Koudelka went through his PowerPoint presentation which included background on the topic, facility
needs, various options including cost and non-ballot options; and that in conclusion, the partners do not
have the funds available to self-finance a new facility and a nine-year levy lid-lift was recommended as a
funding mechanism, which based on a home value of $200,000, would equate to approximately $8.00 per
year; and said if that is the preferred method, other considerations for council include whether to pursue a
long term agreement, or a new regional facility, to continue the same type of relationship with the county
as the contracting agent providing the service, or form a separate regional entity which would have
representatives on the board from all participating jurisdictions. Council discussion included comment
from Councilmember Gothmann that if the target is $7 million, and our city put up the difference, would
that alleviate the need for a ballot issue to lift the levy. Mr. Koudelka responded that that question was
not specifically put to us, but an additional question raised would be, would the remaining partners be
willing to assume that additional risk by covering additional funding, not just the $7 million for the retro-
fit but also the $2.7 million for the property; he said Spokane is looking at various options including the
option of leasing the facility; although Mr. Koudelka mentioned that the meeting included comment from
Mr. Shogan about leasing, which received a response from Commissioner Mielke that it would still be a
cost in the future as they are trying not to raise the ongoing annual cost of providing the services; and Mr.
Koudelka said the option was not brought up about Spokane Valley undertaking that entire risk.
Councilmember Gothmann said if the greatest benefit to our citizens would be Spokane Valley providing
the funding, that perhaps that option should be considered. Mr. Koudelka said if Council wants to
consider funding this through our city funds, we would want to identify potential other uses for available
funds; and Mayor Towey added that we are paying over $300,000 annually now for the service, and that
our cost as a city would be the same regardless of which option was chosen. Mr. Koudelka agreed and
said our cost would not increase, but the figures actually show us with a cost reduction.
In response to Mayor Towey's question about the matter going on the ballot, and if approved, who would
own the facility, Mr. Koudelka said all those issues would need to be determined and it would depend on
the nature of the arrangement. Councilmember Grafos said he feels there is not enough information at
this point as the costs appear to be based on increased license fees and donations, and he questioned how
realistic such projection would be. There was further discussion concerning a levy lid lift and of our need
Council Study Session Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: March 22, 2011
to gather more information from the City of Spokane; and Councilmember Grassel said she would want
to see an updated interlocal agreement, and Mr. Koudelka explained that the only change to our existing
agreement is that Spokane mentioned their desire to potentially apply license revenues to each individual
jurisdiction so they could benefit from those revenues instead of throwing everything in a"pot" for
distribution; and said that if Council wants to do something different from what we have now, that would
be addressed when staff brings this issue back for further discussion; and said it appears the main question
is, as stated by Councilmember Gothmann, will Spokane participate, and that any potential levy hinges on
their participation and that the issue continues to be discussed by the Spokane City Council.
4 Shoreline Master ProQram (SMP) Update - Lori Barlow Kathy McClung. Mike Connellv
Community Development Director McClung explained that this process will culminate with a final
review by Council; she encouraged Council to advise staff of any Council concerns along the way; said
that Associate Planner Barlow will present an update on the process by recapping what has been
accomplished to date, and that Attorney Mike Connelly is here to offer any information or advice about
limits. Associate Planner Barlow recapped the history of the process of the plan thus far, mentioning the
public participation process, public meetings, open houses, public hearings, reviews by the Citizen
Advisory Committee and Advisory Group, and reports generated and accepted by Council. Ms. Barlow
then explained some of the next and on-going steps, such as review of goals and policies, gathering input
from the Shoreline Advisory Group; development of environmental designations; staff and members of
URS Consultants working with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to refine those designations; more
public reviews, open houses, planning commission public hearings, and ultimately back to council for
review. She said one of the tasks remaining is the development of the draft regulations, adding that there
are rules that affect the use of properties; development of the cumulative impact analysis and restoration
plan, and that once all those steps are completed and the public review process over, all the pieces will
also be brought to council for a formal local adoption process; after which it will be turned over to DOE.
In terms of workload, she explained that about 60% of the workload is complete and said the Inventory
and Analysis was a huge task; and in terms of completing all tasks, that we are about halfway there; and
said she hopes to have the local adoption process begin in spring, and mentioned the timeline to adopt is
December 2013.
Mayor Towey voiced his concern with the communications between the County and the DOE and if we
can be involved in the process instead of waiting for the initial draft. Ms. Barlow said that before the
updated was started, staff met with County and City of Spokane staff with the understanding that they had
just been through the process and in an effort to capitalize on what they learned; she said there are
numerous nuances in the development of the SMP, and based on their experiences, we developed our
work program and that we built into that some points where we get review from the DOE, but she added
we cannot dictate how long their (DOE) review takes and that historically, they have taken a long time to
respond back to jurisdictions. She further explained that we have built-in opportunities for their review
and meetings where everyone can discuss the issues; and said that representatives of DOE are on the
technical group and are required to provide input. Councilmember Grassel said she would like council to
have opportunities to review the chapters as staff goes through them as she is concerned that Council as
the policymaker won't have opportunity to review until the end of the process; that she feels council
should have opportunity to interject council's points of view and concerns through the process, including
before it goes to the public hearing instead of after. Mr. Connelly explained that there are two directions
of input essential to make this process work; one is the involvement of the DOE and the State so we don't
present something they will reject; and the other input is from council, and said it is and should be built
into the process as we move through each step; and said that is already occurring as the first involvement
was Council's approval of the Public Participation Plan, which came to council and was passed by
resolution; he said then the second step was the retention of the specialist to do the inventory and
Council's acceptance of the inventory, which was brought to council and council gave input and ultimate
approval; and third he said will be when the policies being drafted complete the staff process, that that
Council Study Session Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: March 22, 2011
will come to council; then the designations come to council for input; and a number of other steps and
other regulations prior to actual submittal; and he said he thinks staff can keep council in the loop before
the document is finalized. Director McClung said if council prefers, staff can bring the goals and policies
to council prior to taking them for review to the Planning Commission, and Councilmember Grassel said
that is her preference as she does not want staff to write the entire policy without hearing anything from
the policymakers until the end. Mr. Connelly agreed that he does not see a problem with each step
presented to council in study session to receive council's reaction, adding that he "wouldn't want to start
taking votes now" but council would be part of the process so staff would know about concerns. Further,
Mr. Connelly said it is important that council understands that this is different, it is not a comp plan or
zoning ordinance where policy power is given to council to create your own city; but rather that this is a
state regulation to implement a constitutionally granted authority over all state waterways over shorelines
of state-wide significance; that the regulations of the use and development of shorelines under the SMA
(Shoreline Management Act) is derived under the state; that this is a state regulation where they built in
local involvement in drafting the regulations; he said the state says it must be jointly planned and
coordinated with all affected jurisdictions; i.e. the County, our city, Liberty, Lake, and the various state
agencies including the DOE; he said the courts have held that GMA is triumphed by the shoreline
regulations in a number of circumstances; and the local authority is trumped by improvement of the
shoreline master program; so this is different from what Council usually deals with; and said the
complexity of this coordination that the state has mandated, involves many laws that govern the waters
and shorelines of our river, and said that all affects how this river will be developed; and said that there
are a myriad of laws that have to work together and our management plan must be consistent with all
those, including the Clean Water Act, SEPA, rules of the Department of Natural Resources, the
Endangered Species Act, and more and said it is important and appropriate for council to be appraised
where everybody is in each section; and said that the Public Participation Plan is supposed to be all
inclusive. Mr. Connelly said that staff continues to make sure all different parties will have a chance to
speak; and added that it is not a fair analysis to say our river should be like someone else's river; as our
baseline will be different; that we cannot increase the adverse impact; that we can make it better but not
worse; and that within each area, council will have options. Mr. Connelly said he and staff will try to
educate council about those, and that when they are developing the policies, they are developed within
given guidelines; adding that we can discuss what flexibility council has for each section, and what the
range of options would be for each section, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos agreed that they
prefer to review it section by section rather than all at the end. Mr. Connelly said they will try to identify
the room council has to move so council knows where they have discretion. Mr. Jackson suggested Ms.
McClung and Mr. Connelly put together a work program or summary to discuss what was talked about
tonight; and to bring that back and make adjustments if needed so we all understand process and council
involvement.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
5 Comprehensive Plan Review Process - Kathy McClun~
Community Development Director McClung explained that tonight's presentation is merely a type of
snapshot of what will come to council later regarding the Comprehensive Plan update; that the Planning
Commission held an initial public hearing and workshop which has been continued to their next meeting;
she mentioned that we have received two citizen-initiated requests for changes to the comprehensive plan
map and subsequent zoning change: (1) for a piece of property bounded by Progress where the owner
wants a change from Mixed Use Avenue to Neighborhood Commercial. Ms. McClung said that if the
SARP is eliminated, that rezone won't be necessary and the applicant has indicated the zoning that would
be put in place would take care of their concerns; and (2) property on Walnut north of Sprague and owned
by the Catholic Church, for a change to allow medium density residential to accommodate plans to build
some low income senior housing; and Ms. McClung said it appears this will be somewhat controversial
for the neighborhood. Director McClung said there are no changes to the land use map; and text changes
Council Study Session Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: March 22, 2011
are minimal and include changed necessary to that our information remains current. Director McClung
explained the amendment docket and the city-initiated amendments for those sections listed on that
document, as noted in the council packet material; and said these changes will likely be brought to
Council in March, depending upon how long the Planning Commission conducts their review.
6. Advance Agenda - Mavor Towev
Mayor Towey mentioned the upcoming March 28 joint meeting with the City of Spokane, and asked
Councilmembers for suggested agenda topics, and to forward those to him or City Manager Jackson.
7 Transfer Portion of Havana Street and Communitv Survev were for information only and were not
reported or discussed.
8 Council Check-in - Mayor Towev
Councilmember Gothmann said he met with John Peterson from Spokane County's Community
Development Department and mentioned the idea of having their Planning Commission and ours meet in
a joint session; said he realized such meeting would be at the discretion of the Community Development
Department, but thought it might be helpful to have the two commissions talk and share ideas.
Councilmember Grafos said he went to the Planning Commission meeting, and also attended a Boy Scout
appreciation breakfast at the Spokane Convention Center, and attended the Council of Governance
meeting. Councilmember Grassel said she also attended the Governance Meeting and suggested perhaps
some of those topics could be included on the upcoming joint meeting.
9. City ManaQer Comments - Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said that during the last retreat, council discussed the idea of perhaps using the
state of the city address in conjunction with town hall meetings or conversations with the community; that
he has visited with the Mayor and in the past, we have had department directors attend these meetings as
well; he said there are four different meetings scheduled, and he asked if this was what council had in
mind, and/or would council like to talk about what we need to prepare for these meetings.
Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to have some staff represented for possible community
questions. Mayor Towey explained that his presentation would be about thirty minutes in length, followed
by a question and answer session; that he plans for this to be an informal meeting, and would appreciate
having as many staff as can attend. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested having some highlighted items
and use that as a sounding board to get the conversation started, such as street maintenance or some other
project. Councilmember Grafos suggested having 3 x 5 cards available for members of the public to use
to submit questions.
There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously
agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
AT ES ` Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
~ r
ristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
Council Study Session Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: March 22, 2011
x
W A T S O N & H E R R E S
Architecture Piann(ng Interiors
Gcorgo F. Watson, Partncr Larry K. flcrrcs, AIA
14925 East 24V'Avcnue
Spokane Yalley. WA 49037
Phone 509-863-3331 E-Mai1 gp.watson a comcast.net
FebTUary 18, 2011
Brian Longwell
Ginno Corisbruction '
3891 North Schreiber Way
'
~
Coeur d' Alene, Tdaho 83915
~
RE: Maintenance Facility for the City of Spokane Valley '
~
Brian, ~
'I'hanks for meeting af the site and the opportunity to provide Ginno Construction with A/E budget cost for the ~
new building located on Park Road and Valleyway in the Spokane Valley. The A/E fees below are based on the ~
reconstruction of the reference building located 17002 East Euclid Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA and the information
e-mailed to Watson & Herres. j
The building consists of approximately. 4300 s.f. maintenance facility with approximatel 1200 s. of offce
area. The maintenance facility will be a pre-engineered b.uilding with 21' ease height, metal sidin overhead
doors at each end providing a drive thru facility. The office portion of the buiiding contains restrooms, offices and g
break room. The office construction wiil consist of wood framed walls/roof with metal siding.
~
A/E fees ~
• Architectural $50,000 ( tt
• Civil Engineering $ 4,300 ~
• Boundry/Topo $ 3,400 Y
• Structural Engineering $ 3,700
• Mech. Eng"ineering $ 4,500
• NREC $ 500
• Geotech $ 4,500 ~
Total A/E Fees $70,500 8
~
The A/E fees aboVe include Construction Documents, Specifications and Gonstruction Administration in '
~
preparing for Pubic Bidding pmcess. ~
Buildin¢ Permit and Connection Fees
• BuildingPermit $7,200
• SewerFee $ 4,440 i~
9 Watec Service $ 7,900 ~
• 2 Fire Hydrant Taps $11,600 ~
Total Fees $31,100
4
Reviewing the project and the existing building there are ways to reduce construction cosL ~
~
~
Please contact our office if you have any question.
~
~
Sincerely
~
~
~
George P. Watson 1 a
~
#
~
.
~
~
3 r
' ~
~
Spokane Valley Maintenance Shop ~
..,.r,v. r..~..., ~ ,mt... _W.~.~..~..._...~~_.....
~....W,~..,Y . . . . .
February 24, 2011
(
_
~ esc p Q,. ~ : ~
. . . . _ . .
,
. ~
: MasoorK
_ _ ,
Me~als 1. . ' $:110,689
. .
. . . . .
Woods & Plas~tics 1 , LS ~ . $10,900 $10,900~ . . _ . ~
: .
L5. $9,280 $9.2
.
~ Doors & Windows . : . _ . . . .
. . s,. ,
, Finishes. 1 LS $30t150
,
Furnishings - 1. ~ _ . . _$8~700:: . _ , _ . . $8,700 . . . ~
, 1 LS $50,064 $5Q064 ~
Mechanical-
. _ .
~ . _ .
Electrical . . > 1. . _ . LS•-- , _ 3~,5~ $ ~
$42,~00
: . : . . . ~ ~ ~ - . _ _ _ _ _ .
.
SUBTOTA[, $441,055 ~
`
General Conditians
lnsurance $7,719 ;
Bond 2% - $8.$21
B&OTaxes. ::5% $2,205
~ !ob Support Items $55,284 ~
Contcactor Overhead 8c Profit. 161ya ~ $44,105 ~
TQTAL (Minimum),' ;I $5591189 ~
~
~
Contin&ency ~
5q6 Capftal Cost Contingenty; ' 59b $22,053 ~
, F
TOTAL (Maximum) $581,242.
~
; Cost Per Sq/Ft ~
~
87 sq/fk
6,Q00 s, ft Shop and Office.:
. . -
. .
~
~
~
~
E
~
~
~
kyy
r?
~
2
3I ~
~
1»S
?i
~