2011, 08-09 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meetings
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Atten�lance: Citv Staff:
Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef of Valley United Methodist church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the amended agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Woodard: reported that he attended a Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting at the
Valley Hospital where they discussed putting together a committee for advertising and promoting
Spokane Valley and the chamber, using the grant funds given to them by Spokane Valley; that he went to
the Valley Partners open house where public officials were thanked for helping secure the $]00,000 for
fire suppression; and said he attended the City Hall barbecue.
Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he attended a Health Board Meeting where they discussed and
adopted their fee schedule for the upcoming year and discussed their national accreditation; participated
in National Night out; went to the Spokane Valley Partner's celebration and employee appreciation;
attended the unveiling of the Berry Picker sculpture at CenterPlace; mentioned he received an e-mail from
Rick Scott, of SCOPE, and mentioned the "Promising Practice" award that SCOPE received, which was
one of only five nationally received awards.
Councilmember Grafos: said he attended the National Night Out; went to the Valley Partners
celebration; went to the city employee barbecue; participated in this City's finance committee meeting
where they discussed changing the format for the general fund and expenditures by not tying the funding
balances to the report.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he went to the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Committee meeting;
attended committee meetings with SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council); sponsored a
National Night Out; went to the Valley Partners open house; went to the city employee barbecue; went to
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 1 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-201 I
the City's Finance Committee meeting; went to the Chamber's transportation meeting where City
Engineer Worley gave a presentation concerning the Sullivan Bridge; went to the unveiling of the Berry
Picker sculpture; and attended the Scottish Highlander Games at the Fairgrounds.
Councilmember Grassel: said she attended several National Night Out gatherings; voiced her appreciation
of the SCOPE volunteers; went to the Berry Picking sculpture unveiling and expressed thanks to the Arts
Council.
Councilmember Hafner: reported he attended the Partner's Open House; the Sullivan Bridge presentation
at the Chamber; participated in National Night Out; and also attended the city employee barbecue.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Valley Chamber of Commerce
Government Affairs meeting at the hospital; went to several National Night Out locations; attended the
Valley Partner's open house; went to the city employee barbecue; attended the Chamber meeting where
Mr. Worley gave a presentation concerning the Sullivan Bridge; participated in the City's Finance
Committee meeting; and went to the unveiling of the sculpture at CenterPlace, and extended thanks to Dr.
Harken and members of the Arts Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Marie Raschko-Sokol, S 2110 Sunrise Road: she said as a concerned Valley voter, she wanted to express
her deep concern and anger toward Council regarding the vote to deny the rezoning of the parcel attached
to St. John Vianney senior housing; said they worked months with the city planning department to resolve
the neighbors' concerns; and that the neighborhood made a decision not to participate; she said that
Catholic Charities and St. John Vianney continued to work on an agreement which took into
consideration the needs and concerns of the neighbors, and said there was never a consensus on the size;
she said a 40-unit building was the size that made the project financially feasible; that the need for
affordable housing is about the common good and about the need to provide services to the most
vulnerable elderly; she said in their younger years these seniors were the backbones of our communities;
she said that medical conditions often resulted in their inability to maintain their homes; that the majority
are women living in poverty; and said there is a need for subsided, affordable senior housing in Spokane
Valley; that affordable housing will allow seniors to maintain independence and lead a productive life;
and said this housing should occur in a nice neighborhood and not on Sprague which is zoned for multi-
purposes. She said what she finds most deplorable are the comments made by the neighbors regarding the
project; she said these were published comments and comments taken from tapes of city council
meetings; and have included such statements as: "we fear crime will increase; we have drastic fears our
neighborhood will lose its charm; this will only hurt our neighborhood; you're going to have a lot of
elderly people wandering around; I just fear for our children's safety; I wouldn't them - low-income
children, playing with my children; and don't turn this neighborhood into felony flats." She further said
that there were many comments regarding their church, including "St. John Vianney being a good
neighbor by housing a pedophile priest." She said that data was not correct. She further stated that
former City Attorney Connelly indicated that RLUPA, Religions Land Use and Institutional Person's Act,
states that a city cannot use zoning to restrict a church's activities that fulfills the church's mission because
it would be a violation of the church's rights; and said that Mr. Connelly also stated that Council should
be aware of the consequences down the road. As an individual, Ms. Raschko-Sokol said that she hopes
those resources will be made available to legally fight Council's decision on the Constitutiona) grounds of
RLUPA. She further stated that Councilmember Woodard voted far this as part of the Planning
Commission, and said he was quoted as stating initially he believed he could be impartial; she said Mr.
Woodward further stated that "I want to be fair to the church and the neighborhood, this is where I should
recuse myself." Ms. Raschko-Sokol said that she is disappointed that Mr. Woodard did not have the
character to support this on the principal of the need in the community; she said Mr. Woodard's decision
was about re-election, that he wants votes and that she will work against him; she said she believes
Council's vote is also about re-election. She said she is disappointed that Council doesn't have the ability
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 2 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
to stand up for the rights of our most vulnerable population - the seniors and elderly; and she presented
Council a letter which was written by the director of Catholic Charities.
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately.
a. Approval of the following claim vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT
07-18-2011 23359-23403 $209,202.47
07-20-2011 23404-23428; 7773894 $237,025.42
07-20-2011 23429-23431 $85.00
07-21-2011 5278-5299 $2,897.00
� 07-22-2011 23432-23457 (less voided #23432} $67.237.14�,-?
07-22-2011 23458-23480 $] 23,59131
07-28-2011 23481-23492 $93,055.03
GRAND TOTAL $733,383.37
b. Approval of Payroll for period ending July 31, 201 ]:$374,561.13
c. Approval of Minutes of July 19, 201 1 Study Session Format Council Meeting
d. Approval of Minutes of July 26, 2011 Formal Council Meeting
Councilmember Woodard mentioned that the July 26 minutes showed he voted against the St. John issue,
but that he had recused himself. City Clerk Bainbridge noted the correction. It was moved by Deputy
Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda, with the noted
correction to the July 26 minutes.
NEW BUSINESS
2 First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-011 Ballot Issue — Cary Driskell Mike Jackson Neil Kersten
City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that although the ballot title does not include an amount, that it was
determined to include the amount of $6,528,000 in the title; and after City Clerk Bainbridge read the
ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 11-011 to
a second reading at the August 15, 2011 council meeting. City Attorney Driskell explained that staff was
asked by Council to prepare ballot language on whether this should be converted to two-way traffic as
noted in the ordinance title, and to note that this bond amount would include anticipated landscaping
work; he said staff feels comfortable with the stated $6,528,000, but depending on the actual interest rate,
the amount could vary; and said the amount per household could also vary depending on the interest rate
and actual final bonded amount. Council/staff discussion included council wanting more defined data for
what landscaping would entail; mention by Mr. Jackson that we are restricted in the number of words of
the ballot issue; and that staff can gather additional information for the second reading. Public Works
Director Kersten said the diagrams of the landscaping and figures were taken from the original
Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan as estimates to include landscaping and bike lanes; and
Councilmember Grassel asked if for the second reading, that staff could bring as much detail as possible
to indicate how much the cost would be for landscaping, stripping, etc. Mayor Towey invited public
comment.
Howard Herman, 117 N McDonald: said he is opposed to taking this to the citizens; said very few
citizens know what the $6 million will include and said if you tell them $3 million is for landscaping it'll
probably be a killer; said he received several comments from his comments that were posted in the
newspaper; said he explained to people that the re-striping and signals and other things needed to turn the
traffic around is about $1.6 million, and said the object is to eliminate the one minute and twenty seconds
from the emergency response time; he said he feels few citizens know about the hampering of the fire
emergency truck and that we're giving away a minute and 20 seconds and said something is wrong here;
that the public is uninformed about the cost and public safety issues; said there was no information
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 3 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
campaign on this; when you tell people you want them to vote for a$6 million traffic issue; people roll
their eyes; said there needs to be more information before asking the public to vote; that up to now he
would describe council's actions as unintentional misrepresentation; but that now these issues have been
brought up and there is a lack of information; and said if council moves forward now, it would seem to be
an almost intentional misrepresentation, and that some people would say that amounts to dishonesty; he
said he knows people are not dishonest; but that something is driving council to get this matter to a ballot;
which gives the impression council wants the issue to fail and Sprague to stay one-way.
Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague: owns Behm's Center; said he is a proponent of turning this back to two-way
but is not a proponent of this measure and said he would campaign against it; said he has done a lot of
research and checked his facts carefully; he referenced an e-mail he sent earlier to council and said he is
confident his figures are correct; said he spent forty years serving on transportation committees for the
Chamber and SVBA; has a background on Sprague further back than anyone in the room can remember;
said Spokane County was appropriated a TIP grant for $4.2 million for the Appleway/Sprague extension;
and when the City of Spokane Valley incorporated they inherited that grant; that the County spent
$300,000 for an environmental assessment and the city inherited that; the TIP grant went back to the state
because it wasn't used in the timeframe allowed, which was because of the disagreements between the
County and the City over the ownership of the Milwaukee right-of-way which he said was caused by the
animosity between the former Mayor Munson and former County Commissioner Harris; said STA in their
budget has a line item for right-of-way acquisition of which they are raising $4 million; in talking with
the people at one of the STA meetings, they said a good share of that is anticipated to be used to buy the
right of way of the bottlenecks on the Milwaukee right-of-way, which was the holdup on the County in
obtaining the right-of-way, and said the County gave the right-of-way to Liberty lake. He said we have
new commissioners now and new councilmembers, and said they can probably work those things out as
eventually the City will own that, if not now, later. Further, Mr. Behm said the SRTC committee, when
the TIP grant went back to the state, voted to supply the $4.2 million for SARP as funds became
available; he said the City terminated SARP so that money is gone unless the City comes up with a new
revitalization plan, and to do that, the City has to show purpose and need; he said we have a need but no
one can figure out what our purpose is; he said if the City comes up with a new plan, the SRTC told him
that they would consider reinstating that $4.2 million. Mr. Behm said there is another item that the
Council was told, that we would have to pay back the $300,000 to the feds for the environmental
assessment because SARP no longer exists. Mr. Behm said now council proposes to put this issue on the
ballot at a cost of over $6 million and are therefore asking the taxpayers to pay for an extravagant plan
when Council gave away the $4.2 million that was approved when they killed SARP. He said Spokane
Valley City held public meetings last year for every section of Sprague, inviting business and property
owners to attend to voice their concerns with SARP; he said almost every concern was addressed and
SARP was changed to meet almost everyone's approvaL He said the amount of staff time and the time
devoted by the business and property owners was extraordinary, and said the cost to the city had to be
very high for staff time expended, and there is no way to figure the cost for the time devoted by the
business community. He said that when this came before the City Council, Councilmember Grafos made
a motion to kill SARP altogether and the motion passed with no workshops or public input, and he said it
appears this was predetermined before the council meeting. He said without Council doing their
homework and making quick and uninformed snap decisions, there are always unintended consequences;
he said Council gave away the $4.2 million and will have to pay back the $300,000. Mr. Behm said the
grant dollars are transportation funds and are the taxes citizens paid at the gas pump; he said now the City
wants the citizens to pay again with their property taxes; and he said the projects should be financed with
transportation funds and not property taxes. Mr. Behm suggested if Council were to develop a
revitalization plan for Sprague Avenue, and make the revision a priority to be done as transportation
funds become available, no bond issue would be necessary and the city could go back to SRTC and ask to
have the $4.2 million reinstated. He said tonight's issue is an expensive bond issue, designed to fail; and
the results of the election won't prove anything except Council was foolish enough to spend the money to
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 4 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-201 l
put the matter on the ballot; he said $1.6 million for the two-way conversion; $1.8 million for repaving
and stormwater systems which will be done anyway even if the bond issue fails; and said why ask the
citizens to increase their property taxes if it will be done with transportation dollars if the bond issue fails?
He said regarding the $3 million for landscaping, where is the landscape plan and what does it include; he
said council designed the bond issue to fail by making it unnecessarily too expensive; he asked council
not to rush this in trying to get it on the November ballot; and asked council to go back and look at
options and come up with a plan the whole city could endorse. There were no other public comments.
Councilmember Hafner expressed concern about the $4.2 million and how it was being used and what
happened to it; that he understood the $4.2 was to be used for the extension of Appleway between here
and Sullivan, or between Liberty Lake and said it had nothing to do with SARP; he said the $300,000 for
the study was also to be used for the Appleway corridor and not SARP; and said until this City owns the
right-of-way, we cannot use that $4.2 or that $300,000; and said there needs to be clarification for that
portion of the issue. Concerning the safety issue addressed by Mr. Herman a few weeks ago,
Councilmember Woodard mentioned the Fire Chief wasn't available so he (Councilmember Woodard)
spoke with the Battalion Chief, and said the public safety issue is an issue, and in Councilmember
Woodard's conversation with Battalion Chief Stan Cook, the Fire Department has shaved a considerable
amount of time off the previously mentioned one minute, twenty seconds, by various different ways they
leave or enter the station; and said there is another solution for the safety issue which doesn't include
converting all of Sprague back to a two-way, but said that is not the discussion, but that he wanted to note
that the safety issue is a serious issue, but part of that has been addressed and it is no longer one minute,
20 seconds, but rather is about 50 seconds at worst. Fire Chief Thompson said that Chief Cook has not
been involved in that process and said Chief Cook does not speak for the Fire Department as far as
response times.
Councilmember Gothmann read from a memo dated July 27, 2010, from staff to counciL• "It may be
possible to use these funds, i.e. the $4.2 million for other projects in the corridor provided (a) a plan exists
showing how all improvements within the Sprague Appleway corridor fit together for the operation of the
overall transportation network, (b) the federal environmental process, NEPA, on the extension of
Appleway is complete, this would include the development and approval of the environmental assessment
or documented categorical exclusion, (c) federal highway FHWA approves these projects using these
funds; he said actually they supply the funds which is why they need the approval; and (d) SRTC Board
approves the project using these funds, and (e) the project is included in the regional metropolitan
transportation plan and transportation improvement plan." He further said that there was a memo from
staff that indicated the $4.2 million could possibly be used in the future if other decisions were made.
Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned that on page one of the draft ordinance, it states that "the city
of Spokane Valley proposes to undertake the construction of improvements;" and on page two, it states
"the City Council hereby determines that the best interests of the residents and property owners of the
City require the City to carry out the plans hereinafter provided at the time or times and in the order
deemed most necessary and advisable by the Council." Councilmember Gothmann said if any member of
council does not believe that this is in the best interest of the residents, then that councilmember must
vote no; and said he favors keeping the 1.75 miles of one-way streets; and favors conversion of one mile
of that 2.75 one-way stretch to two-way; but does not favor this ballot issue as it is misleading as only
25% is for the conversion back to two-way and not a ballot measure dealing with one or two-ways.
Further he said that this council a while back, selected for this section of Sprague, a no-plan option; that it
has not gone through the TIP, and questioned going through such a huge expense without considering
such things as how it relates to other parts of our city; and said he feels the condition of the street in auto
row is much worse than this section. He further said the public has not received an explanation of how
the $6.4 million will be used. Councilmember Gothmann said our city paved various streets in the city
without going to the voters for a bond issue.
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-201 1 Page 5 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
Councilmember Grafos said this issue has been ongoing for over ten years; that the previous council
passed the resolution to turn the traffic back with no funding and about February 2010, he said Mr.
Gothmann voted for putting that on the ballot; and said regarding the funding, there is no funding
available as the funding was an extension of Appleway; that there are a lot of needs in this city, this is less
than one-mile, and feels it is time for the citizens to decide about that stretch of road; he said we have a
plan, it is the Comprehensive Plan which was approved by Council; and when the subarea plan was
deleted, we went back to the former Comprehensive Plan, and said he favors moving this forward. Deputy
Mayor Schimmels said he supports this motion tonight just to move it forward; that he feels this is a
council responsibility instead of a voter responsibility. Mayor Towey said if we had grant money to
change that road it would be a council decision; but if we ask residents for the money to change the road,
then it is a people's decision; and this issue has divided our city and has been discussed for over ten years.
Councilmember Hafner said he favors moving this forward, but feels additional questions need to be
answered; that there hasn't been anything about the 1.2 minute emergency situation until just recently;
and that there were ten years to discuss a safety factor and said he is amazed that after ten years, we can't
press a button to stop tra�c and allow a fire station to come out of a station and go east. Vote by
Acclamation on the motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading.• In Favor: Mayor Towey,
Depury Mayor Schiinmels, and Councilmembers Hafner, Grassel, Grafos and Woodard. Opposed.•
Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a ten minute recess at 7:20 p.m.,
and reconvened the meeting at approximately 7:35 p.m.
3 Motion Consideration• A�proval of Proposed Trans�ortation Im�provement Board Project List —
Steve Worley
It was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to approve the list of recomrnended projects for
TIB grant applications as presented. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Senior Engineer Worley gave an
overview of the 2011 call for projects, mentioned that applications are due August 31; went over the
selection criteria details and some typical project cost estimates and typical project funding, discussed the
new funding program, last year's project selections, local matches, and recommended projects. Mr.
Worley also pointed out that concerning the Sprague Avenue Reconstruction project, that the condition of
Sprague from Evergreen to Sullivan has dropped in two years from a rating of 42, to 24, and said we are
now beyond the level of just grinding and overlay as that would not give that road enough life to be worth
the money; and said staff recommends completely rebuilding that road from the ground up, adding that it
wouldn't take much to get this project "construction ready" by the March deadline. Mr. Worley asked for
council comments on the projects. Lengthy discussion took place among members of Council and staff
on priorities of projects, and of the need to keep Sullivan Bridge as a top priority; funding and matching
funds was also discussed including possible revenue sources such as REET and our new street
preservation fund; mention from Councilmember Grassel that she is concerned with the matching funds
as she feels if we apply, we have to follow through, and she suggested not putting forward so many
projects, and suggested just putting forward the Sprague Avenue Reconstruction, which is project #6.
Councilmember Gothmann said that funds from these projects would be coming from three different
"pockets" — such as sidewalks, Urban Corridor, or Urban Arterial, and suggested applying for several
projects as last year we submitted two roads projects and both were disapproved. Some of the specific
projects were discussed and Public Works Director Kersten mentioned if we were to get everything asked
for, which would not occur, other funding options would include stormwater and APA funds, and said the
stormwater fund has about $2 million, and there is about $1 million in the APA fund.
It was then moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded, to amend the motion to just include
projects # 1, 3, 6 and 7, as noted on the reverse side of the August 9, Request for Council Action Form.
Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote was unanimous to amend the
motion as stated. It was then moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to amend the motion to
include projects #8 and 9 as noted on the reverse side of the August 9, Request for Council Action Form.
Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote was unanimous to amend the
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 6 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
motion as stated. Council then voted unanimously to approve the list of recommended projects for TIB
grant applications as noted.• numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. [For the record, those projects are as follows: #1
Mission Avenue Improvements Flora Road to Barker Road; #3 Pines Road and 16`�' Avenue Intersection
Safety Improvements; #6 Sprague Avenue Reconstruction, Evergreen to Sullivan; #7 Sprague Avenue
Sidewalk, Appleway to Long Road; #8 Fourth Avenue Sidewalk, Sullivan to Conklin Road; and #9
Progress Road Sidewalk, Wellesley to Trent Avenue.]
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
4 Mission Ave Drainage Easement Extin�uishment — Scott Kuhta
Community Development Director Hohman explained that in 1998, three drainage easements were
granted to Spokane County as part of the East Mission Plaza plat; the plat was never finalized yet the
drainage easements were recorded; and in 2009 we approved a binding site plan for the Mission Medical
Center on the same property, which superseded the previously recorded easements. Mr. Hohman said our
Public Works Department reviewed the recorded drainage easement documents had determined they are
no longer required; and therefore, this is an opportunity to help a property owner along Mission. Mr.
Hohman asked for council consensus to place the resolution extinguishing the drainage easements, on the
August 23` consent agenda, and council concurred.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously
agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
5 Revenues and Expenditures for Preliminarv 2012 Budget — Mark Calhoun
Finance Director Calhoun went over some of the dates scheduled to address the upcoming 2012 budget;
said that the revenues and expenditures are estimates and this will be presented again to council August
23 at the first public hearing for the 2012 budget, and he went over some of the figures as contained in his
PowerPoint presentation and budget summaries.
6. Finance Director Title — Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell introduced Legal Intern Jeana Poloni. Ms. Poloni explained that this is more of a
housekeeping matter; that although we don't have a staff position of "treasurer" our city finance director
takes on this duties and responsibilities, and this draft ordinance is simply to make those necessary
changes in our city code. There was no objection to move forward for a first reading at a future meeting.
7 Pro�osed Amended 2011 TIP — Steve Worlev
Senior Engineer Worley explained that this also is more of a housekeeping item; that since our last TIP
(Transportation Improvement Program) amendment, we were awarded funding for the Sidewalk and
Transit Accessibility Project, and based on that award, it is recommended that the 2011 TIP again be
amended. Mr. Worley said that the 2011 budget has sufficient funds to accommodate this proposed
addition. Council agreed to move this forward at an upcoming council meeting.
8 City Safety Grant Program — In a�e
Senior Traffic Engineer Note stated that WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation)
Highways and Local Programs issued a call for projects under the City Safety Grant Program, that this is
a sub-category of the federally funded Highway Safety Improvement Program, which purpose is to
address fatal and serious collisions on city streets, with a focus on intersection safety; and she said that no
match is reyuired. Ms. Note went through her PowerPoint presentation and said that the recommended
projects are (1) State Route 27/Grace, to widen to five lanes; (2) Argonne from I-90 to Empire (joint with
Millwood) for signals and timing, and (3) Argonne from Broadway to Montgomery, bike route signage
and timing, and (4) Citywide for $400,000 for crosswalk improvements and regulatory sign replacements;
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 7 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
and said she seeks council feedback on these issues; and again mentioned that we can only apply for three
Spokane Valley projects, but can apply for additional projects if they are joint. There were no objections
from Council to Ms. Note's recommendations.
At approximately 9:30 p.m., it was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels, and seconded to extend the
meeting for another thirry minutes. In Favor.• Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and
Councilmembers Hafner, Grassel, Grafos and Gothmann. Opposed.• Councilmember Woodard. Motion
carried.
9 Railroad Quiet Zone — Neil Kersten
Senior Traffic Engineer Note explained that a few weeks ago, some questions surfaced regarding this
issue and whether the noise was still a concern; that she contacted a Mr. Chris Wetherell, who was the
person who spoke at previous council meetings, who initiated the petition for the quiet zone, and the one
making the initial request, and she said his intent was they still need the quiet zone, but that there was a
slight change in how much the trains were blocking the crossing at Park; she said Union Pacific indicated
they had no changes operationally, but they might not be traveling as much as in the past. It was also
mentioned that Millwood indicated they are not interested in closing their crossing at Marguerite; and Ms.
Note said if the trains used their horns at Marguerite and Argonne, it would affect Park and Vista; and if
we spend the money at Park and Vista, it would not solve the horn blowing for those two crossings. Ms.
Note discussed several ways to address a quiet zone, such as using gates for each side which prevents
people from going through the gates, or two gates coming down on each side and no median; which she
said would have less impact and cost twice as much; she said we could petition the railroads to shorten
the median a little, which they might do under some circumstances; or we could look at wayside horns,
but if we used them we would still need gates, and the city would have to be responsible for the
maintenance of the horn; and she explained that a wayside horn is mounted on a pole aimed at traffic,
which horn is triggered by a train; she said the gates were about $250,000, or $500,000 for the four-
quadrant. Ms. Note again explained that the purpose of the $82,000 study is to determine the best
solution at the lowest cost.; and Ms. Note said she will see what she can find on the financial question.
There was no objection to proceeding with this topic to remove the item from the table during the August
23 council meeting.
10 Solid Waste U�date — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten said the purpose of tonight's discussion is to touch on some of the major
topics of solid waste; he mentioned that Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Gothmann have
been involved in the development of the Alliance Agreement, which is included in tonight's council
packet; and said one issue is solid waste disposal whereby we could join the alliance as outlined in the
draft proposal; he said costs and methods of operations have not yet been developed and no alliance exists
yet; he said the City of Spokane commented that they cannot meet the October 2 deadline to make a
decision, and they are thinking it will likely be early to mid-2012 before they can make a decision on
whether to join the alliance. It was reported that a meeting will be held August 24 at 3:00 p.m. where Mr.
French will give a presentation to the SWAC Board (Solid Waste Advisory Council) about his concepts
of what the alliance would be, and said the public is welcome to attend that meeting, which will likely be
held at the Waste-to-Energy Plant; and said that topic will also be discussed at this Council joint meeting
with the Board of County Commissions August 31. Mr. Kersten said the City of Spokane is fairly
committed to using the Waste-to-Energy Plant, they don't know the long-term costs and they are working
on a short term contract with Wheelabrator. Mr. Kersten said another option for us would be to develop
our own plan; and a possible option would be if the County offered to take on this and we could work
with them, but said the County has not offered that at this time.
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 8 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
Mr. Kersten said the other issue is the solid waste collection, which is now controlled by WUTC
(Washington Utilities Transportation Commission); he said Waste Management and Sunshine are haulers
in this area and we have no involvement in that process as it is controlled by the state. Mr. Kersten
mentioned that a few years ago this city passed ordinance 07-023 which stated that if we give notice, in
seven years we can take over those operations, which would be March of 2015. He further explained that
we can negotiate with the existing haulers, but might determine it would be better to bid that openly as
there are many haulers around the country; and said we'd have to have additional staff to develop a
package to bid that out and it would likely take three years to put out such a bid package. The short term
issue, Mr. Kersten explained, is that our contract runs out this year and we need to deal with that, and said
the likely only option now is to extend that agreement. There was council discussion concerning cost of
operations, cost of changing, how the citizens might react if the transfer station was no longer available;
and that landfilling includes many issues such as hazardous waste and clean green.
City Manager Jackson asked if Council is comfortable with staff proceeding to extend the contract, and
there was no objection from CounciL Mr. Jackson said our short term option and intent was to use the
next three years to determine the long-range plan, that it gets complicated as we examine other options,
and that the most straight-forward option is to continue with the City of Spokane. Mr. Kersten said we
have been asked to make a decision by October 2 and Councilmember Grassel said she would like more
information on the pros and cons before making a decision, and everyone acknowledged that the October
2 deadline is a very short timeline; and apparently the only viable option now is to extend the contract,
then gather further information.
At approximately 10:05 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the
meeting another twenty minutes. In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and
Councilmembers Woodard, Grafos, Gothmann and Grassel. Opposed: Councilmember Hafner. Motion
carried.
1 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey
Councilmember Woodard said he would like to have the topic of senior housing for a future council
agenda.
12. INFORMATION ONLY. The Shoreline Master Program Update was for information only and was
not discussed or reported.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Performance Review of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)]
At approximately 10:20 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss the performance
review of a public employee, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council
adjourned into Executive Session. At approximately 10:43 p.m. Mayor Towey declared council out of
executive session, and it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:44 p.m.
l� .
q �' homas E. owey, Mayor
� / 1
u-+� � t/�n vl l '
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk --
Council Regular Meeting 08-09-2011 Page 9 of 9
Approved by Council: 08-23-2011
GENERAL PUB :� C COMMENT
SIGN-IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: August 9, 2011
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE
Please si n in if ou wish to make ublic comments.
NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE
PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS
ABOUT
�t�' A�i � �g� �,� ��' (� , . � , � -- Z zv 5�' � v
.�� k.; �� � �,�t � � � �)��
Please note t/iat once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
REVISED
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: Augusf 9, 2011 Departrr�ent Direct�r App��val: �
Check all that apply: � consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislafion ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEI�II TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT
07-18-2011 23359-23403 $209,202.47
07-20-2011 23404-23428; 7773894 $237,025.42
07-20-2011 23429-23431 $85.00
07-21-2011 5278-5299 $2,897.00
07-22-2011 23432-23457_(less voided #234321 67 237.1^Q�',-��
07-22-2011 23458-23480 $123,591.31
07-28-2011 23481 23492 $93,055.03
GRAND TOTAL $733,3�3.37
RECOMMENDED ACT'ION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as lisfied above.
BUDGET/FIPdANCIAG INIPACTS:
STAFF C�NTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director
ATTACHI4PIENTS Voucher Lists
,k
� , �� � �. �.� .� � 1 �
� � �i' O V' CO CO M M O� o� ln � N CO O) 'CY O O � c0 c1' N O� t!") �
� cy �.n t` r� r` cy �v c*� cn o� c�? rr v; o r? �n a� �s; co o� rn� o
p � N r O O tC) !d9 t` Id f� f� �(V � O f` (O d' � � 00 t`7 O� C+')
� � N c1' � CO c� �� 00 00 O d' r� Idj N t'7 c7 I` � �� (O
a � e° �� t- �- r- � N c- 'd' e- fV t� e-
N N � P
� �
d
� �
.. W .. .. w .. � .. .. U U CJ CJ .. .. " .. �.. .
.� z a�+ e� a e.�+ fp a�+ .�w I f- I- I- � •Y� Q Q.w� d�
L O w O L O O O 1 � O \ Q � \ Q � Q Q L O . L � �� 1 � O �/ L O
f / ♦ � r T � � � t� /� /� � � r r � � r LL r
v ° � a o a a r . �n Q� O
_- W � ` w n. aaa
. ` y � � z � � � c= c�n c u o � I— z � �
C ,' ��-.�_:, p. �O U � � p 0❑ �❑ �r cri ¢ U � I-
� r,:�--T=� W z � (n (A Q Q Q Q Q M a Z z W
� ''_:-�;\ Z� n' � �' �- U U U U rn rn U� � Q
W cn C7 � W
p _��� � Q Q � W ���� Q Q W Z W C�
�"' -- � p W � � W W (n (n (n C4 U U (n J J W
� �� O � �- W z Z Z Z Z Z U j
` ..,� 4` � �
J � W W W W
� ,.,, �� W j p Z � p Z z Z z O O Z �
a Y C1 � � � = J J J J a a a a o c
O U7 O O O O tn �.t) � ln Cfl CO N N � LC')
� O O O O O O O O O O �S'7 t!') O O O O
� O Cr1 O O C� O M M('') C'7 O O M M M M
� CO (O CO Cfl CO O CO (O CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO
� h ti r � ti � �� h� �� ti ti r �
'� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
� r- r- c- c- r- � r r c- c- c- r � � �- r
's O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
� �
J R
L � .
d �
_
� � � � N
O
� Q Q� � O � � � N ti O O O
� p � m N O � O O N r r N N f � N N C` �" )
U C � C �- '�Y d" O O >, >, lf� (O >+ Ch
_ > > Z 7 CO N N � � �� O O 7 �
�' -� -� N � � (n (n -� -� � r- -� N
U
z
�; —
t ,� J
� a.� � �" W
d
E� A`,',y� f � J � J
_ �
., a�� � J Z �
� .i� ¢ cn z w
cn o w � � �
w ~ � o � v '
:es. � z � m a' O w
�a 3� � � � m � a, � c�
�� �' o o �n ¢ a � o � z
W U = � cj w W � :
c� � � � z u.
Q Q ¢ Q Q m U � u.. C~.7
� � m c�Yi ° rn ° r ° c�o o o �
0
� .- O M O C9 � � M c+� i�
� O c- O O O O r N N N
� O O O O O O O O O O
� °� O O O O O O O O O O
Q„ � c- r �� r r r c� � r c-
o � e- � r e � � c- � c- �
�y � O O O O O O O O O O
(6 � N N N N N N N N N N
M -fl �
M Q
� N N N N N N N N N N
r- � r� � ti r` r� r� � r �
� �
P -�
, p � s
� N � ,� c� d� �n co r o� rn o � �
• N X �1 M M M M M M M �i'
� t'V C 7 � '�i' �' �' d �' d ' �
v�° � > N N N N N N N N N N
� 9
FOR 1MMEDIATE RELEASE
C`cztlaodic C'ha� � .�,��karae
August 3, 2011
Catholic Charities disappointed and deeply concerned
over Spokane Valley City Council Decision on Senior Housing
On July 26, 2011 the City Council for the City of Spokane Valley voted to reject Catholic Charities' request for permission tp develop
40 units of much needed afforda6le senior housing on the St. John Vianney Parish campus. Specifically, the City Council voted to
deny an application to re-zone a parcel of parish property, and the City Council voted to reject a proposed development agreement
that Catholic Charities and the City Attorney's OfFice spent weeks discussing and negotiating.
After months of working collaboratively with the City and reaching agreement on a development agreement that aimed to resolve
the adjacent property owners' concerns, , Catholic Charities Executive Director, Dr. Robert 1. McCann was disappointed and
saddened at the Council's decision. McCann commented, "Unfortunatety, the people who will suffer most are the widows, veterans,
and other seniors — many of whom were born, were raised, and raised families of their own in the Spokane Valley — who will no
longer be able to call the Valley'home.' But this decision is all the more troubling because the detractors' use of fear, mis-
information and stereotyping seems to have resonated with the City Council."
McCann added, "This decision is a troub�ing example of everything that is wrong with local politics. This project wou{d have
benefited the Valley as a whole, and far more Valley residents were in favor of the project than were opposed to it. However, a very
voca! minority prevented this project from becoming a reality. We believe that most Valley residents would be horrified and
embarrassed to learn how the City Council allowed that small group of people to manipulate the land use process in a way that
prevented Catholic Charities and St. John Vianney from fulfilling their common spiritual mission to minister to the Valley's elderly. "
Monique Kolonko, Catholic Charities' Associate Director, commented, "Property should not come before people. The project's
opponents and city council members argued that a project like this one belongs only on loud, busy arterials or adjacent to strip
malls. As disturbing as the argument was, the City Cvuncil's endorsement of that position is simpfy horrifying. The Valley's seniors —
just like any of us should be allowed to live in quiet, beautiful neighborhoods like the ones that they grew up in and where they
raised their children. Quite frankly, we are shocked that the opponents' callousness was rewarded:'
Fr. !oe Bell, pastor of St. Joh� Vianney Cathotic Church commented, ""The vote by the city council of Spokane Valiey against
rezoning part of our property was a disappointment both for me as a pastor and to the St. John Vianney Community. We
still need to find ways to support the seniors in need of affordable housing."
McCann closed by saying, "Years from now when the project's opponents need a safe, peaceful, and affordable place to (ive, we
hope that they are treated better than they chose to treat the seniors who wanted to move into their neighborhood. What each ofi
those opponents can be sure of is that Catholic Charities and St. John Vianney parish will be there for each of them, will welcome
each of them with open arms, and will work tirelessly to ensure that their final years are filled with stability and grace."
Cathalic Charities has a 99 year history in Spokane, and it has provided Eastern Washington with more than 900 units of affordable
housing. The agency consistently receives the highest marks possible for developing qua�ity, safe, and healthy communities for
Eastern Washington's most vulnerable citizens. Despite the City's decision, Catholic Charities will continue to minister to and care
for Eastern Washington's elderly, disabled, and under-privileged.
###
To check what I have stated contact Jeff Selley at the SRTC O�ce, Frank Tombari at
Banner Bank Chair of GSV CofC Transportation Committee. I have spent over -�0 vears
serving on the Transportation Committee and Road. Fire and Safety Committees of both
the GSV C of C and the SVBA. Dick Behm
Mayor Towey
Spokane Valley City Council 08/09/11
Spokane County was appropriated a TIP Grant for $4.2 million for the Appleway/
Sprague extention.
The City of Spokane Valley incorporated and inherited the grant.
The County had spent $300,00.00 for an Environmental Assessment and the City
also inherited that.
The TIP grant went back to the State because it wasn't used in the time frame
allowed. ( this was because of the disagreements between the County and the City
over the ownership of the Milwaukee RR right-a-way.)
The SRTC Committee then voted to supply the $4.2 milGon for SARP as funds
become available.
The City has terminated SARP so for all intents and purposes that money is gone
also, UNLESS the City comes up with a new Revitalization Plan. To do that the City
has to show purpose and need? They have a need, but no one can figure out their
purpose. However if the City does come up with a new plan, the SRTC would
consider reinstating the $4.2 million
There is also another item that the council was told but I am sure they didn't listen.
They will have to PAY BACK the $300,000.00 to the FEDS for the Environmental
Assessment because SARP no longer exists
Now the Spokane Valley City Council is proposing to put the question of one-way vs
two-way on the ballet at a cost of over $6 million. They are asking the tax payers to
foot the bill for an extravagant plan when they gave away the $4.2 million that was
approved when they killed SARP.
Last year The City of Spokane Valley held public meetings for every section of
Sprague Ave. inviting business and property owners to attend to voice their
concerns with SARP. Almost every concern was addressed and SARP was changed
to meet almost everyone's approval. The amount of Staff time and the time devoted
to this by the Business and Property owners was extraordinary. The cost to the City
had to be very high for the Staff time expended and there is no way to figure the cost
of the time devoted by the business community.
When this came before the City Council, Councilman Gravos made a motion to kill
SARP altogether. It Passed. No workshops or Public input, SARP was dead. There
was no discussion on all the work done by Staff or the Business Community to revise
SARP. It did appear that this was predetermined before the Council Meeting.
Without the Council doing their homework and making quick uninformed snap
decisions, there are unintended consequences. They gave away the $4.2 million that
was approved by SRTC and will have to pay back the $300,000. 00
Once again, these grant dollars are transportation funds that are the taxes the
citizens paid for at the gas pump. Now the City wants the citizens to pay again on
their property taxes. Road projects should be financed with transportation funds
not property taxes.
If the Council would develop a revitalization plan for Sprague Ave. and make the
revision of Sprague / Appleway a priority to 6e done as transportation funds
become available, no Bond Issue would be necessary. The City could then go back to
the SRTC and ask to have the $4.2 million reinstated.
The issue before you tonight is NOT a vote on the one-way vs two-way question, but
is a bond issue that is so expensive that it has been designed to fail. The results of the
election will prove nothing ezcept that the Council was foolish enough to spend the
money to put it on the ballot.
$1.6 million for the 2-way conversion
$1.8 million for repaving and stormwater systems which will be done anyway even if
the Bond Issue fails. Why is this even included? Why ask the citizens to increase
their property tazes if it will be done with transportation dollars if the bond Issue
fails?
$3.0 million for Landscaping? Where is the landscape plan? What does it include?
Where will it be?
You are asking the Citizens for a blank check! You have designed this Bond Issue to
fail by making it unnecessarily too expensive.
I would ask you not to rush this in trying to get it on the November Ballot. Go back
and look at your options and come up with a plan that the whole City could endorse.
Dick Behm
Behm's Center
9405 E. Sprague Ave
Spokane Valley WA. 99206