2011, 08-15 Special Meeting Minutes MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, August 15, 2011 6:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers
� 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Attendance:
Councilmembers 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 Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey opened the meeting at appro�mately 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all
councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Proposed Ordinance 11-011 for Ballot Bond Issue — Carv Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Grafos and
seconded to adopt Ordinance 11-011 placing on the November 8, 2011 ballot, the issue of converting
Sprague/Appleway from one-way to two-way traffic between Dishman/Argonne and University Roads,
including bonds to fund the same. City Attorney Driskell explained that council requested staff prepare
ballot language to submit to the voters of the city, concerning whether Sprague and Appleway should be
converted to two-way traffic between Dishman/Argonne eastward to University Road, which he said is
approximately one mile. Mr. Driskell said the anticipated work would include road, stormwater and
landscaping improvements, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access for economic development and
community enhancement; that the anticipated cost of the bonds would be $6.4 million which he
explained, does not include the cost of processing the bonds, which is normally calculated at 2%, malcing
the total cost $6,528,000; he also mentioned that figure is subject to change depending on council's desire
tonight. Mayor Towey invited public comment.
Don Mever, 3910 S. Ea le Lane: said he is here to recap the whole concept of why it was changed in the
first place; said the original Sprague concept for the bypass was the relief of unacceptable traffic
congestion; and the results of that actually exceeded almost everyone's expectations as the traffic problem
is nonexistent; he said they did an extremely effective job with what he termed was likely one of the first
landscaping projects in the Valley and said that corridor was something to be very proud of; now he said
it appears that a very few people don't want that couplet changed since it took care of the problem it was
set up to do; and said there are a few who want to change it back to two-way traffic, for either business or
property interests; he said some businesses benefitted by the bypass and some have not, and said there is
no way to satisfy 100% of the people's needs; and he said those who did not benefit don't know for a
fact, that the couplet caused their problems. He said some businesses that left did so when it was two-
way, such as Payless, University East, University West, and numerous smaller shops. He mentioned that
the area of Pines and Sprague is very busy, and he brought up the vacated Albertson's store, which was
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
located on a two-way area; and asked if we are expecting a miracle because we are going to change it
back to a two-way street; he said the Valley started moving north and east about twenty-five years ago; he
said he doesn't think that $6 million for one mile will guarantee any improvement in business in that area.
Mayor Towey reminded Mr. Meyer that the issue before Council tonight is whether to place this matter
on the November ballot, and not the one-way or two-way issue. Mr. Meyer asked Council not to put it on
the ballot; he said there were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent analyzing this and many of his
neighbors feel putting this on the ballot is a waste of time and money, and he recommended not wasting
any more.
Tonv Lazanis, 10626 E Empire: said he and Frank Tombari chaired the Transportation Committee for
fifteen years, and two or less lanes going east has been brought up quite a few times in the name of safety;
and said if council finds that feasible, he hopes council does that; and put out a special light in front of the
fire department, and have the back lane on the other side; maybe put one or two lanes going east, they
could go around back and turn around and make it a business route.
Debbie Ellis, 6303 S Chestercreek Lane: she asked council to consider changing the entire couplet to two-
way and not put it on the ballot; and asked that it not stop the one-way at Dishman Mica; said she
commutes daily at Dishman Mica, and coming down Dishman Mica is two-lanes, 35-45 miles per hour;
and when traffic gets to Sprague it branches off with some going to Sprague and some going to Argonne;
she said there is no reason to have that amount of traff'ic to go on to five lanes of traffic and spread out
and still go the same speeds; she said that creates a funnel out of the Spokane Valley and said they call it
the "I-90 on-ramp." She said that anyone traveling west on Sprague can see the consequences of the one-
way on the local businesses with numerous empty buildings on both sides; but as soon as you cross under
the overpass, which goes back to two-way, you see new businesses springing up everywhere; and she said
that section of Sprague is a stark contrast to the "ghost-town" on the other side; she said the landscaping
of big bushy trees hide a good portion of the business signs blocking the names of the businesses; and a
trip around the block with all left-turns with no left-tum signals, can last five to ten minutes; she said she
owns Empire Cycle and Power Sports and said they do a count of people coming in and they ask how
people fmd out about their business; she said a large percentage say it's a drive-by but it took them
several times past the business to get into a lane to be able to get to the business; she said the main reason
she is here tonight it because of Ross Kelly's report on the traffic counts about traffic decreasing from
34,683 cars daily to 15,100 cars daily; she said if going from two-way to one-way did that to the traffic
and what it did to the businesses, why would we want to keep it. She asked council to please consider
bringing back the two-way streets the whole length of Sprague, and not penalize the businesses just
because a few think saving thirty seconds is worth having Sprague a large on-ramp to the freeway; she
said the one-way couplet was done without a vote, and she asked Council not to spend the money to put it
to a vote, but to just do it for the good of the city, and don't leave any part of it, one-way.
Dan Allison, N 12303 Warren Road: he said he doesn't care if the road is one or two-way; he said he
thinks it should go on the ballot but not with a dollar amount included; and if it passes, then put it on
again; he said he realizes that would cost a little more, but it would squelch all the people regarding which
way; he said it's already started with the $4.2 million that popped up here in the last couple of days or so,
and the $300,000 fine if the grant money doesn't get taken; and said he looks at the staff and said he
really wonders if they are trying to torpedo the elections that are coming up; he said Mr. Dick Behm has
already taken the shot, it was in the Valley Voice about the $4.2 million or the $300,000 we would be
throwing away; he said that City Engineer Worley told him just before this meeting, that Council all knew
about the $4.2 million, except maybe the two newer councilmembers; and said for that to come out now
just before the election, just before this will go on the ballot, and said for the staff to say that they did not
know anything about it; he said our city attorney, city manager, public works department, planning
deparhnent all should have known about it, and said he thinks they all did know about it. He said it really
irritates him to see this stuff pop up like this in this little city, to try to torpedo something that was voted
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
in by the people with the positive change group in here; he said we should put it on the ballot, no dollar
amount, and let's get this thing killed and done with so we can move on and make a plan.
Ci , Manager Jackson said that although it is not his practice to respond to public comments, he wanted
to reinforce that this is council's idea to place this on the ballot and that he is sure council will confirm
that; and secondly, that all of the information regarding the $4.2 million has been before council as early
as over a year ago when this discussion came up; and said he would be happy to meet off-line with any
citizen; and said again that this is not a staff directed issue, and that the information absolutely has been
available as part of the presentation from the beginning.
Steven Neill, 10820 E. 18�' Avenue: said he was very surprised that those who supported SARP are
crying foul as the city council considers putting this issue on the ballots; he said instead of crying foul that
this current council is placing the two-way option on the ballot, with what the SARP supporters say is an
inflated price, why aren't they using this as a way to educate the voters on the benefits of their plan; if
returning Sprague back to a two-way street will act to revitalize Sprague, they should have the figures to
prove it; he said that this and a list of stores clamoring to open once this event happens will go a long
ways to ease the voters' minds; he said they have had years to create a list of businesses so why don't
they use the time between now and November to tell us about it; he said he would love to know a Wal-
Mart super store is being planned for Sprague, or how other stores are seeking sites at the Old U-City; he
said they should be able to give numerous reasons why this set of one ways needs taxpayer assistance
while other sets in the valley and Spokane seem to do fine; he said that perhaps they could tell us why
their vision of a revitalized Sprague/Appleway caused them to invest over $1 million in a plan that would
ultimately cost over $30 million, while the bridge over the Spokane River on Sullivan was falling apart;
he said it should be easy to explain to the businesses that are affected by the weight restrictions on that
bridge that the extra cost is just of doing business in Spokane Valley for their vision; he said they could
even mention the $4.2 million grant from the Transportation Improvement Board as a geat down-
payment for the tens of millions of dollars that SARP would have cost us; and he asked Council to place
this question on the ballot in order to settle the matter.
City Attorney Driskell said to clarify, the $6,528,000 was placed in the ordinance, but said that we have
now received some updated information from HDR Consulting Agency that the cost could go as high as
$7 million, plus a 2% bonding cost; and said Council has the option to change the landscaping to a range
from zero to $3 million, and reiterated that the $6,528,000 is a flexible number.
Crai�ggelston, 11810 E 18�' Avenue; said he is a former Planning Commissioner and is a precinct
committee officer and a block watch captain; he said speaking as a resident, leaving Sprague as a one-way
would be turning it into a"small freeway" but said if that is council's goal, then keep it one-way; he said
the speed limits will only get faster, and businesses will leave Sprague as the evidence supports; he said
in driving here tonight and on his daily travels on Sprague, more businesses are leaving Sprague between
University and going down to the big box stores; he said no one wants to do business there because of the
high speed traffic; he said he has seen studies and heard testimony from his neighbors and as a planning
commissioner, about how people want a vital, business community on Sprague; and if the street is one-
way, that won't happen; he said people talk about the cost to change it back to two-way, but he
questioned the cost of not doing it; he said there have been no conversations about ta�c incentives to
businesses to help accommodate these businesses or in partnering with businesses; and said he hasn't
heard council discuss any of those concerns; he said in regard to advocates of SARP crying foul, he said
he is an advocate of having a thriving business community on Sprague, he said he wants to be able to
walk there; and said he's never heard anyone advocate for faster traffic there; he said he is disappointed in
the City Council about the direction and the decisions council has made; and said if council is going to
put this on the ballot, then do so, but again said it is disappointing that Council has wasted so much time
and energy and effort that we are going back exactly where we started and that Council is not leading.
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
Phillip Rudy, 5627 N Fruithill, with a business at 720 N. Argonne: said he feels putting this on the ballot
is a waste of time; but that if Council does put it on the ballot, Council should strip it down to $1.6
million which is what it would take to turn it to two-ways; he said is he proud of Councilmembers Grafos
and Grassel for wanting to make a beautiful landscaped area; and said if council does spend the $3
million, it could probably be a beautiful area, and said Council needs to contact the business and land
owners to see what they would like to see that area become; in speaking to Councilmembers Grafos and
Grassel, he said he thinks down in their hearts that they want to include the best parts of SARP, and one
of those is to make a beautiful City Center.
Randy Alvarez. 3010 S. Pines: said he doesn't feel strongly one way or the other as he does very little
driving and does not own property; but said Winco is in that area and they seem to be doing well, adding
he realizes they are a large business, which is different from a small business; he said he goes to Sports
City Toyota to get parts and doesn't have problems getting there or back; and said he would be in favor of
putting in bicycle improvements.
Rav PerrY, 2020 N E1X: said he has been attending meetings on this subject, if everyone could see all the
figures of how many people left Sprague Avenue because it went to a one-way, that people would
understand some of the ideas of why people want it changed back to two-way; and said it might slow
down some of the traffic if there are enough doors opening on it; and said people should fmd out the
figures before voting; and said he would like to see just a vote but without the money figures; and said
those figures should be put up on the backboards prior to the vote. There were no other public comments.
Councilmember Gothmann asked to hear information from HDR Consultants, and Mr. Ross Kelly, of
HDR Consulting Engineers, 1401 E. Trent, went through a PowerPoint presentation discussing Phase 1
and Phase 2 of his report; and he asked Council to look at the actual numbers using a travel demand
model; he noted the biggest change was not continuing the couplet beyond University. Public Works
Director Kersten said the cost increases are a result of the unit cost increasing from a couple years ago, as
well as additional signal work, and that Council had recommended going to the higher $3 million for
landscaping, shrubs, drywalls, and multi-use pathway, adding that those figures were from the original
designs from the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan), and that the cost under SARP was about
$4.3 million, some of which included detailed landscaping at the City Center; he said the $3 million
would get high quality landscaping, examples of which are in the packet, and includes a full, multi-use
bike path on the north side of Appleway. Mr. Kersten also stated that Council can move this figure as they
deem appropriate. Discussion ensued about the idea of not including the landscaping, of the need to bring
the stormwater up to the new standards so they would function well, which is not currently budgeted; and
of reducing the amount down to $4 or even $2.1 million and that this has been an ongoing controversy for
over ten years and thus the need to put it on the ballot. After further discussion, Council decided to
change the $6,528,000 figure to $2.1 million, and to make other necessary adjustments to the ordinance.
It was then moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded, to amend the motion to change the
ordinance title to "not to exceed $2,142, 000 to finance conversion of Sprague and Appleway to two-way
streets between Argonne/Dishman and University Road, including stripping, signals and ADA upgrades,
and to levy excess property taxes annually to repay the bonds within a maximum term of twenty years;
and providing for other matters relating thereto. Staff left the room to make the necessary adjustments to
the ordinance in order to bring it back to this meeting for a vote on the amended motion. In the
meantime, Mayor Towey invited public comment on the proposed amended motion. Randy Alvarez. 2010
S. Pines Road, asked if Council contacted the businesses that relocated to see how they're doing; and
Lewis Higgins, 13707 E. 23 Court, said that Public Works Director Kersten had stated previously there
would be a need for re-grinding and re-paving and the $2.1 million doesn't get you there and said that he
(Mr. Higgins) feels that is deceptive. There were no further comments and at 7:20 p.m., Mayor Towey
called for a recess. When staff returned to the meeting with the amended verbiage on the ordinance,
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
Mayor Towey reconvened the meeting at 7:53 p.m.; at which time he asked for a vote on amending the
motion, and Council voted unanimously to amend the motion. Prior to council voting on the fully
amended motion, there were no public comments, but council discussion included comments from
Councilmember Gothmann that he feels there is a safety issue relative to the fire department with the
present configuration, that safety is the responsibility of council and it should not be delegated to a ballot
issue; comment from Councilmember Grafos that this discussion has been going on for years and that if
the Fire Department feels this is such a strong safety factor, they could relocate that station if necessary.
Vote on the fully amended ordinance: In Favor: Mayor Towey, and Councilmembers Hafner, Grassel,
Grafos, and N'oodard. Opposed.• Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Gothmann. Motion
passed. Additional public comment included remarks from Howard Herman, 11707 McDonald who
applauded Council for their job tonight; and from Philip RudX who also stated his appreciation to council
tonight, and mentioned that if the voters pass this proposal, council could come back and add more for
repaving and stormwater to be paid for from the normal funds.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Spokane Valley Si�na�gulations — Lori Barlow, Scott Kuhta
Community Development Director Hohman and Senior Planner Barlow gave an overview of the City's
sign regulations, including a comparison with the regulations of Liberty Lake and City of Spokane.
Councilmember Grafos said he had previously asked staff to bring comparison figures for all jurisdictions
including Spokane County; and Planner Barlow said at the time of incorporation, we used Spokane
County's sign codes and they have not gone under any major re-writes since 2001; she said staff looked at
cities because sign requirements are designed for cities differently from counties due to the makeup of the
commercial areas; she said they did a cursory review of the County's regulations and might be able to
answer any particular questions council has. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to see those
differences included next time. Planner Barlow also mentioned she did not look at signs in residential
districts nor for apartment complexes since they have not experienced any issues in that regard.
Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that when we started our sign regulations, a committee was formed
which included professional sign people, and suggested getting them involved if we start to examine this
issue extensively. Director Hohman said they can expand the discussion to include Spokane County and
council agreed they would like to see that additional information next time. Director Hohman said staff
can also bring examples of range of cost for particular signs to determine if we are consistent with our
neighboring jurisdictions.
Councilmember Grassel said she would like the permit process streamlined, and questioned why a symbol
on a sign would require two separate permits. Councilmember Grassel also inquired about signs for just
I-90 and freeways, including elevated signs coming off freeways, and Mr. Hohman said they will also
include that in their research. Councilmember Grassel said that concerning the monument sign heights, if
a sign is over 6 ft. that sign must be certified by an engineer, and said there is sometimes a problem in
what we say we allow and the actual process, and that she would like to look at those details. Regulations
for banners, flags, pennants and streamers were discussed with Councilmember Grafos mentioning that
the thirty days versus sixty days regulations were confusing. In response to a question concerning the
definition of copy, Ms. Barlow said for a future presentation, she could provide more details of that
definition as well as the definition of advertising.
It was moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Hafner,
Gothmann, Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember Woodard. Motion passed.
Special event sign regulations were discussed, including the time limits and number of times per year for
such a permit; with councilmembers stating they would like to discuss that issue further as well, and
Director Hohman said he would propose to try to simplify the process as much as possible and ageed it is
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
very confusing. Planner Barlow added that standards are put in place by the community; that some cities
place strong emphasis on aesthesis, while others emphasize overall appearance; that some temporary
signs and banners don't last well or remain in good condition over time, and we want to consider how
those temporary signs appear as when they become ragged, it deflects from the character of the
community. Sign enforcement was also mentioned and staff explained then when a temporary sign
permit is issued, a notice is sent to our code enforcement officers so they know when a temporary sign
was issued and would expire; and if the sign remains after the permit has expired, a friendly reminder is
sent to the business. Ms. Barlow said she will check to see what Spokane County charges for temporary
signs; and said an objective concerning temporary signs is to keep the pathway/walkway clear. Director
Hohman said staff will provide some ideas on how to minimize the process yet provide protection, and to
have the regulations easy to understand and enforce. Complaints were also discussed including
suggestion from Councilmember Grafos about not allowing anonymous complaints. City Manager
Jackson said they will look at those regulations and policies, but there are times when citizens feel there
would be repercussions if a complaint is made, but that the subject of complaints can be brought back for
a future discussion.
At approximately 9:20 p.m., it was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to extend the meeting another fifteen minutes.
Councilmember Woodard said he feels temporary signs should be allowed with little or no permitting.
Planner Barlow mentioned staff strives to make the regulations simple and user friendly to avoid
complications; she said we are a compliant-driven city and those who abide are compromised because
they are trying to do just that; and by not being regulated, it compromises citizens who are trying to do the
right thing. Councilmember Grassel suggested some of the temporary sign fees seem out of order; and in
response to a question form Councilmember Hafner of where the regulations come from, Planner Barlow
explained that the regulations are contained in our municipal code. There was also mention of the cap
and replace policy concerning billboards, and Planner Barlow said she would bring more information on
that next time, to include areas where billboards are allowed. At approximately 9:30 p.m., it was moved by
Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another thirty
minutes. Councilmember Grafos said he would also like a discussion next time to include off-premise
signs.
3. Ballot Guidelines for Elected Officials — Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell said he wanted to take some time tonight to briefly discuss the materials
concerning ballot guidelines for elected officials and staff relating to a pending ballot measure; said this is
intended to identify a range of options under state law and is not intended to be a statement of what
elected officials or staff may or may not do for any specific ballot measure.
Prior to the "Advance Agenda" item, City Manager Jackson took a few minutes to introduce and
announce Roger Crum as our newly appointed Interim Deputy City Manager, who Mr. Jackson appointed
through working with Prothman Consulting Company. Mr. Jackson said that Mr. Crum's background
includes about twenty years with the City of Spokane as Assistant City Manager then City Manager, and
said we are pleased to have Mr. Crum with us; and Councilmembers extended a welcome to Mr. Crum.
4. Advance Agenda — Mavor ToweX
After brief discussion on some upcoming items, it was clarified that staff will bring the bike program back
to council with some substantial revisions to the plan and edits that hopefully match previous council
comments, and that council will have another opportunity for commenting on the plan. It was also noted
that the topic of bicycle helmets is scheduled for the September 20 meeting.
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
S. Information OnIX: The Contract authority was for information only and was not reported or discussed.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
F.
ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
j - �
istine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Special Council Meeting 08-15-2011 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011