Loading...
2006, 06-07 Special Joint Council/BOCC Meeting MinutesAttendance: City of Spokane Valley Mayor Diana Wilhite Councilmember Dick Denenny Councilmember Mike DeVleming Councilmember Bill Gothmann Councilmember Gary Schimmels City Manager Dave Mercier Deputy City Manager Nina Regor City Attorney Mike Connelly Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell Public Works Director Neil Kersten City Clerk Chris Bainbridge Absent: Deputy Mayor Steve Taylor Councilmember Rich Munson DISCUSSION ITEM: > Old Milwaukee Right -of -way MINUTES Joint City Council/ Spokane County Commission Meeting Wednesday, June 7, 2006 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. County Commissioners' Hearing Room, Lower Level Spokane County Public Works Building 1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA . Spokane County Commissioner Phil Harris (arrived 11:30 a.m.) Commissioner Todd Mielke Commissioner Mark Richard Chief Executive Officer Marshall Farnell Director Engineering & Roads Ross Kelley Director Utilities Bruce Rawls Deputy Prosecutor Jim Emacio Nancy Voermans, Chair Mielke's Staff Assistant The meeting was called to order at 10:12 by Chair Mielke, who then mentioned that Commissioner Harris would be coming from a meeting in Cheney, and would be here later. Mr. Mielke also mentioned that this meeting is in keeping with the intent of getting together for quarterly meetings, and that today's agenda is short. Chair Mielkc welcomed Councilmcmbers and everyone to the meeting. Mayor Wilhite expressed her appreciation for the meeting and apologies for the absence of two councilmembers. I. Old Milwaukee Right -Of -Way Chairman Mielke explained that This topic is somewhat of a moving target; and suggested starting by recapping all parties' objectives. (See end of these meeting notes for objectives listed during the meeting on the white board.) Mayor Wilhite stated that Public Works Director Kersten has a presentation on the right -of -way that he would like to show. Spokane Valley Public Works Director Kersten distributed handouts, and explained that today's presentation is the same presentation given to Council at their meeting last night. As Mr. Kersten went through his presentation, he explained the slides and drawings concerning the right -of -way, and mentioned the concerns of the light rail designs and it consuming the entire right-of-way in areas, and that dependent upon where it meanders, (from University going east) it could preclude the ability to put a road down the right -of -way. Other drawings/slides showed a typical cross - section, two -lane configuration, as Mr. Kersten explained the need for about 28' from edge to edge for both rails, adding that the right-of- way typically is 100' and there are places where the space narrows to 60'. Director Kersten showed the Notes, Special Joint Council/County Meeting June 7, 2006 Page 1 of 5 Approved by City Council: 6 -27 -06 Pines Road drawing with the proposed station, with the station right against the northern border of the right -of -way with the parking lot out in the right -of -way, adding that this was brought to the Tight rail committee's attention, and the exact location of the station has not been resolved. Councilmember Denenny stated that thc STA (Spokane Transit Authority) approved the recommendation from the Light Rail Steering Committee for one lane, one track, and that the estimated cost of that project using a single lane is three hundred million dollars. Commissioner Richard said that a vote was taken for a single track as the preferred alternative, but he is not sure if that suggests maintaining a potential for two lanes in the future, and agreed the vote was to move forward with the recommendation of the one lane, one track. Brief discussion followed concerning future light rail and road needs; staying on the south side of the road for light rail or other alternatives; timing the projects of the Tight rail and the corridor as it will likely take one to two more years to have a final Environmental Impact Statement on light rail and the corridor; and the subarea plan and landscaping, trails and sidewalks. Mr. Kersten said that the County still owns two parcels at the corner of University and Appleway, which was confirmed by Engineer Kelley. Further discussion ensued regarding the model of the light rail on the north side of the roads; the existing sewer and confirmation of its exact location; re -doing Appleway from Tshirley to the eastern border and whether the sewer line would be under the tracks; and sewer line alignment and maintenance. Mr. Rawls explained that it is believed the sewer is generally in the middle of the railroad alignment, but as staff has only just begun that research, it will take several days of re-search to confirm that; that sewer cleaning occurs once every five to ten years; that the sewers last 50 to 100 years, but will break and will have to be dug up, and that a minimum of 15' is needed on each side for that excavation; and he prefers a 30' casement in order to access the sewer. Mr. Rawls further stated roadways and sidewalks are not a problem to dig up, but there could be problems if the railroad tracks are too close to the manhole, or if they are within 30', adding that it would take a few weeks to dig up that up. Mr. Kersten stated that the Sprague easement is about 90 to 110' wide, and extension of the couplet at this point is very conceptual, and that specifics should be resolved in January with the completion of the subarea plan. Commissioner Richard said the goals need to be reiterated, but that his primary goal is to preserve the right -of -way for multimodal transportation; and then pass a functional piece of land to the City so the City can continue with its goals and not be hindered. Councilmember Denenny said regarding the mention of where to put the light rail; that would be asking the Light Rail Steering Committee to completely re- assess all they've done over the past years; that he feels there should be some way to come to consensus to guarantee easement for some right -of -way for multimodal transportation; and that he would hate to go back to step one and change the alignment or re- decide where to put this. Commissioner Richard said the goal is not to change any of that today, but at the City's discretion during their negotiations with the STA, could opt to transfer that right -of -way to Sprague or some other viable alternative; that Tots of things are up in the air as the City plans for the future. Further discussion included the mention of STA's desire of at least two rails going east; the County's desire to have access to the sewer line; the city's desire for the right -of -way; easement dedication to Tight rail or multi -modal transportation; transfer of the property to the City to preserve thc City's need; light rail on the north side; needed easement to extend the couplet on the south side through the corridor; and the sufficiency of the right -of -way. Mayor Wilhite said she is not sure if Council is opposed to mass transit, and she has no problem in working on the verbiage to have a corridor run along the Sprague/Appleway Corridor, and suggests leaving the designation of the north or south side to those with the expertise on laying out that project. Mayor Wilhite stated that the question is, they have a portion of the road and they would like to have access to continue the extension of the Appleway Corridor to at least Evergreen; and there is a need to get it on the rolls to access any federal funding, as well as a need for that Notes, Special Joint Council /County `fleeting June 7, 2006 Pagc 2 of 5 Approved by City Council: 6 -27 -06 roadway to be undcr the City's Control in order to move forward, again reiterating she has no objection to crafting language to allow access for mass transit. Commissioner Mielke stated that he is not sure he knows the City's objectives, and asks what does "under control" mean as if it means under control or owned by the jurisdiction in order to receive federal funding; he is uncertain if ownership is a prerequisite to receiving federal funding, and he asked what are the city's objectives beyond extending Appleway to Evergreen. Councilmember DeVlcming mentioned he would like to see the completion of the subarea plan as he feels it would include what would happen to Appleway to get a good end product; and that he wants to move toward mass transit as it will be needed in the future, and he would like to do what is possible now, to secure that future need. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the City incorporated so citizens could make their own decisions, and he wants to see them do that in this regard; and that he feels it is the City's responsibility to the area to reserve the option for mass transit. Councilmember Denenny stated he would bulk at the idea of two rails; that he wants the ability to be the negotiator throughout the City's community when it comes to traffic movement or light rail or mass transit, and to be the determinant entity as those negotiations proceed as the Council moves to best serve the city's citizens; and that if the City has ownership of the land, it gives the City alternatives; that Appleway was deeded over to us so why separate those; that Council wants some mechanism to allow that use of the property for mass transit of some form. Councilmember Schimmels added that ownership is paramount if the City is going to construct that roadway. City Manager Mercier mentioned the importance of the Appleway acquisition to the City's ability to keep current day multimodal corridor concurrent; and to have the opportunity to handle traffic there and elsewhere. Commissioner Richard questioned how to accomplish the easement for the mass transit, and what would happen if the property for the couplet is not wide enough? Commissioner Richard said his objective is to complete the couplet; that he is comfortable with an easement with STA or another body to handle the control issue, which would allow full flexibility to negotiate all of that casement with STA or whomever. He stated regarding the transfer of the ownership to the City, that he does not want to tie the City's hands, and questions how to draft language that contemplates what happens with the easement, whether the easement is on the north or south side; and where it is inefficient, how to handle that. He stated that if the City is willing to contemplate the language on the pre - existing right -of -way the City now owns, he is acceptable with saying whatever is deficient is up to STA to acquire; and he feels this will still preserve the long -term future of the projects. Councilmember Denenny suggested looking at the three lane area to determine what kind of properties need to be purchased; and that he doesn't see the point in going beyond guarantying an casement for one rail except where the station crosses; and that if we need to extend it, can we say we'll be looking at three lanes; and asked what latitude is needed so the City can build what it needs based on what comes out of the sub -area plan. Director Kersten stated that this plan would be limited to three lanes, so if more is needed in the future, the burden would be on the City. Councilmember Gothmann added the need to address failing intersections and the temporary situation at University City; and that we can't do that unless Appleway is one of the alternatives to address both of those questions. Prior to addressing any objectives, Commissioner Mielke suggested that an inventory is required of where the sewer lines are; and regarding the STA plan, he doesn't put a lot of faith that the draft proposal voted on will be what will be ultimately approved as it was only a preliminary draft. On long term, he continued, STA will have to have public buy -in if they are going to look at alternative transportation; but that he doesn't want to wait until the current system has failed. He stated the County has an interest in maintaining access for maintenance purposes as the current underground utilities are county- owned; that the County has to take the consideration of others such as Liberty Lake, as the County determines how to connect the communities within the region. [Commissioner Harris arrived at 11:30.] Notes, Special Joint Council /County Meeting June 7, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Approved by City Council: 6 -27 -06 Councilmember Denenny said that if giving an easement compromise could achieve consistent language of the entire stretch as opposed to a minimum width easement going to STA, which the County might not be interested in, would not the County want that consistency as opposed to getting two different agreements for one stretch of land. Commissioner Richard stated he thinks this achieves a good compromise as it addresses the majority of STA goals, and nearly all the City's goals, keeping in mind multi -modal transportation in the corridor. Councilmember Gothmann stated that an easement on the entire segment meets everyone's objectives. Continued discussion included the idea of alternative transportation as opposed to light rail; making the easement available at no cost; whether the easement would be something the City might later sell; and that the City would likely not contemplate a charge for the right of occupancy or use of the right-of-way, although there could be some direct costs associated with any such use. In summary, Commissioner Richard stated that the County could transfer the ownership of the easement to the City, draft language so it would be an easement for multi -model transportation where the width makes it feasible; in the narrower areas the City would be responsible to acquire any easement it would need to serve it own needs for extension of the Couplet; and STA would be required to get an easement to serve its needs; in exchange the City would grant an casement on the property between University and the freeway off -ramp (Dishman -Mica) to STA so all together the corridor could be connected from the west to the east side of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Harris stated he feels this issue is between the County and thc City and that STA is not involved; that if STA wants to buy into it, they can negotiate that with the City; that he is willing to transfer ownership of the Milwaukee right-of-way to the City conditionally on preserving the County's infrastructure/utilities, and should the City decide at any time to release themselves of the property, that the property would return to the County, ensuring it won't be sold off to generate income. Commissioner Harris stated he would not agree to put in verbiage for "alternative transportation or Tight rail, or future mass transit;" that he does agree that it should be used for "transportation purposes;" and that he worked diligently on the bridging the valley, that the people of Spokane Valley don't want light rail through the city; rail on the ground is rail on the ground; and he is only concerned with property owned by the county, adding that he does not want to legislate what Spokane Valley has to do or where to put the corridor or how far. Mayor Wilhite asked if it would be acceptable to add the phrase "mass- transportation," to which Commissioner Harris responded that he does not agree that mass transportation would be as determined by STA, but he would have to see the vote of Council before he decides; and likely would agree to that term but not without reading documentation first. Et was determined that City Attorney Connelly will draft the document to share and confer with County's legal staff. DISCUSSION ITEM: Long Term Criminal Justice Commissioner Mielke said he would like to propose this topic be addressed in the future, that there are a number of issues, including the interpretation of the law enforcement contract between the City and thc County. Councilmember Gothmann stated that the Council deals with policy, and in dealing with contracts, he recommends Commissioner Mielke discuss that topic with the city manager and his staff. Commissioner Mielke replied that the City Code 2.15.020 states one of the duties of the City Manager is Notes, Special Joint Council /County Meeting June 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 .Approved by City Council: 6 -27 -06 to execute contracts upon council approval, and that law enforcement is important and it is important to have some agreement on where that goes. SUMMARY: In summary, it was determined the location of the sewer line must be determined, that Mr. Rawls feels thirty days should be ample to determine the location of the sewer line; that the County and City should strive toward another joint meeting the end of July and Mayor Wilhite will send suggested dates to Councilmembers and Commissioners; that once the action is decided upon for transfer, a public hearing should be held for citizen comment; and that the time of such public hearing can be determined later. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:16 p.m. ATTEST;, Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, `ity Clerk Objectives: City of Spokane Valley 1. Subarea plan completion, i.e. Appleway 2. First steps — mass transit 3. City makes decisions/planning re Appleway 4. Sewer easement S. Mass transit consistent with STA proposal 6. Looking for permanent easement/owncrship 7. Appleway contribution to manage concurrency auam.o. tbag, Spokane County 1. Maintain access /casement to all current and future underground County-owned utilities 2. Provide an extended, intact, right of way for future alternative transportation 3. Provide the ability to extend Appleway Notes, Special Joint Council/County Meeting June 7, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Approved by City Council: 6 -27 -06