2012, 05-15 Study Session Minutes MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
May 15,2012 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager
Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Brenda Grassel,Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director
Ben Wick, Councilmember Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and asked the City Clerk to call the roll.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll. All Councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEM:
1.Evergreen Road Construction Bid Award—Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the bid for the Evergreen Road
Preservation Project #0160 to Shamrock Paving, Inc., in the amount of$1,503,303.67 and to authorize
the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained
the background of the project as per his May 15, 2012 Request for Council Action form; he said the road
work is included in the bid under Schedule A; that the waterline work which is paid by Vera is included
under Schedule B, and that Schedule C is for the ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) plan. Mr.
Worley said the project was advertised for bid on April 20, 2012,the bids were opened May 4, 2012 with
nine bidders responding. Mr. Worley said Shamrock Paving is the apparent low bidder with a total bid of
$1,503,303.67. Mayor Towey invited public comments;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:
In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed•None. Motion carried
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Spokane Convention&Visitors Bureau Update---Cheryl Kilday
Cheryl Kilday, Visit Spokane President and CEO introduced several of her key staff including Mr. Keith
Backsen, Vice President and Director of Convention Sales. Ms. Kilday explained that their mission
statement is to "create economic growth to the Spokane Region by effectively marketing Spokane and
Spokane County as a preferred convention and visitor's destination;" and paraphrased, she said this
means their job is to direct visitors to cash registers as that brings economic benefit to the region. Mayor
Towey explained that when he first saw the mission statement, as well as that first slide, he noted it
obviously speaks of Spokane, but that it has nothing to do with Spokane Valley; and he said the omission
is glaring; and said he feels "Spokane Valley" could fit in there someplace. Mayor Towey said stating
"Spokane Region" tells a different story; and said council realizes they are not just concentrating on
Spokane, but it appears as if they are. Ms. Kilday said they are trying to connect to what visitors view as
the region; she said many people come to Spokane and expect Coeur d'Alene to be part of that visit; or
people may talk about going to Seattle but they intend to include Edmonds and Bellevue; she said the
goal is to create a sense of a footprint, they need to pick a place to start that conversation, and she said
that is why Spokane is the lead; she said what they are doing is announcing that Spokane is the regional
Council Study Session Minutes 05-I5-12 Page 1 of I I
Approved by Council:06-12-12
brand; she said they are working to recognize the distinctive qualities of the various communities within
the regional context, and direct visitors throughout that region without having a long list of distinctive
places; and added that they also work to make Spokane Valley a presence, and said they will discuss that
tonight as well. Mayor Towey said the word "region" has many implications, but in looking at the slide,
all he sees is Spokane; and said he doesn't see them promoting the region, but does see them promoting
Spokane; although he knows they do support the region; and he added that it would have been nice to
have seen "Spokane Valley" on some of the PowerPoint slides. Councilmember Grassel stated that Ms.
Kilday is explaining that when you create a marketing plan,that a brand identity must be first created, and
that the brand is the Spokane Region; and said that people in marketing don't want to confuse the public
with a lot of different names. Councilmember Grassel said when she looks at this slide, she sees a
beautiful picture of Spokane Valley; and that the mission includes creating economic growth for the
"Spokane Region." Councilmember Grassel gave the analogy of how people view the Tri-Cities, and that
marketing materials simply call attention to the Tri Cities, but not necessarily to the three individual
cities.
Mayor Towey asked for an explanation of the branding of the Spokane Region, and Ms. Kilday said to a
visitor, we want to be a destination, and that a destination has one name; she said very few places are a
single identify or a single place; and she explained that their name is still the Spokane Regional
Convention and Visitor's Bureau, but visitors don't understand what a Convention and Visitor's Bureau
is, and referring to them as a CVB has no meaning. However,Ms. Kilday explained,when people search
the Internet, they use words such as "visit" or "explore" or "destination" and therefore, they determined
that the word "visit" was the most common word used when people do these types of searches; so
organizations are now actually changing their names to align with the word "visit" as it more connects to
the public; she said they want to find every way possible to direct people to Spokane Valley under that
"Spokane" branding as that will get more people to come to and travel throughout the region, including
Spokane Valley. Councilmember Hafner said he feels this is a matter of perception; that many elected
officials work together collectively on various committees and boards and are aware of the regional
concept; he said he feels they should be able to alleviate the perception of just Spokane; and said that
Spokane Valley is the second largest city in the area and we are a destination, and said the literature
should include that we are not just Spokane. Councilmember Hafner said he disagrees with
Councilmember Grassel's analogy of the "Tri-Cities" as people realize that means three cities:
Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland; and said perhaps some time in the future, people will think of Spokane
and Spokane Valley as a common point, but that the only way that will occur, is if the literature shows
that the City of Spokane Valley is involved; and added that in looking at all the literature Ms. Kilday
provided, if he were a visitor to the area, he would not even know that the City of Spokane Valley exists.
Councilmember Grafos said council appreciates what their organization does as a regional voice, but that
from a marketing standpoint, it might be more effective to say "Spokane Regional Visitor's Guide,
Encompassing the Cities of Spokane Valley, Spokane, Liberty Lake, etc. and the greater Spokane area
with a market area of 500,000+people;" and agreed that somewhere in the literature, Spokane Valley and
the other partners should be identified. Ms. Kilday said that they do identify Spokane Valley in the
literature, and she continued explaining what they do via her PowerPoint presentation, including
explaining that they work with other organizations to help target visitors and distinguish themselves as a
destination. Ms. Kilday said the tour groups really like Spokane Valley as the Valley Mall with its close
proximity to hotels and golf courses, is a positive draw; and added that the goal is to find out what the
customer wants, and then to guide them to those services; and said they support Valleyfest and the
Museum. Councilmember Grassel stated that as part of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, many
hoteliers have told her how much they appreciate Visit Spokane, and that they hope Spokane Valley will
continue to use those lodging tax funds to help support Visit Spokane. Mayor Towey thanked them for
their presentation and information, and for the work they do for the community.
At 7:20 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 2 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
3. Spokane Arts Council Review Mike Stone,Dr.Harken
Parks and Recreation Director Stone introduced Dr. Harken of the Spokane Valley Arts Council, who is
here tonight to discuss a project of their Council. Dr. Harken introduced Brian Daniels, member of the
Valley Arts Council, and Dr. Jerry McKellar, former dentist and the author of the "Working the Line"
sculpture now at CenterPlace Regional Event Center. Dr. Harken said after they finished their last project,
which was the Berry Picker by the late Nancy McLaughlin, and which project is also located at
CenterPlace,they started looking for their next project, and while contemplating that project,they became
aware of the City's Gateway project on Thierman and Appleway, to welcome people coming in from the
freeway. Dr. Harken said he and others from the Arts Council looked at the area and eventually became
aware of Dr. McKellar's piece"Dance of the Sun and Moon;" and said once that piece was presented to
the Arts Council, the Council gave unanimous approval for the use of that piece. Dr. Harken said prior to
presenting the piece to the Arts Council, he also discussed it with Director Stone. Dr. Harken said the
project they envision would be part of the ten-year anniversary, but would not be ready for the Gateway
project's completion. Dr. Harken said their idea was to bring this before Council for this Council's
consideration, and if approved, to discuss the project with the engineers to make sure they get a footprint
on the site at the right place; and said it is his understanding that the welcome sign would be placed so it
could be seen from two streets at the tip o f the triangle area, and to put the arts council project right
behind the sign, thereby not obscuring the sign yet showing off the sign and the sculpture. Dr. Harken
said the piece "Dance of the Sun and Moon" currently exists in the Chicago area, and a life-sized version
would be 16.5 feet high from the base up; that it would be placed on and affixed to a concrete pad with
steel crib work underneath,thereby making it almost impossible to move.
After Dr. McKellar explained more about the sculpture, and in response to council comments, said these
sculptures generally do not attract vandalism; that the art usually brings a sense of civic pride to the
community, that the piece doesn't have anything breakable and if someone were to use spray paint on the
sculpture, they would have to use something to remove it and then possibly re-do the damaged part,
Director Stone said this sight would also be highly visible with a lot of traffic and lights and the area
would be an improved space with trees, landscaping and lighting, and Dr. Harken added that the piece
should be well-lit, and that the lights are generally shown from the base up. Mr. Stone said staff can work
with the Arts Council to make sure we have the proper base. Mayor Towey said he feels this piece will be
something unique and would be recognizable for the Spokane Valley, and he extended his appreciation to
the artist for his work. City Manager Jackson asked Dr. Harken if he is looking for a definite response
from council tonight, or if this is something to consider; that we realize these pieces take in wide
community support; that he doesn't know how Council feels about this and they might be ready now, but
that he wanted to clarify with Dr. Harken if this is something the Arts Council wants this council to
consider, or are they saying that this is the one the Arts Council has selected; and said he assumes based
on tonight's discussion, that they might move forward with plans. Dr. Harken said in past discussions
with various members of City Council and Parks and Recreation, was that the intent was that the Valley
Arts Council are the experts on the arts; and that they bring this forward as a suggestion of what they
would like to do; he said City Council can certainly turn down anything they wish. Dr. Harken said the
Arts Council is not coming before council with options, as this is what they want to do and he wanted to
present this to council to see how they respond; and added they are not asking for any funds. Dr.
McKellar said people often times discuss controversial pieces,and to him,this is a noncontroversial piece
and is a love story. Councilmember Grassel said she likes the theme of the passing and the coming and
going and feels that would be a good relationship with that concept and the area in which to place the
piece. In response to Mr. Jackson's statement about the goal for tonight,Dr.Harken said he would like to
see a show of support for this, or let him know there is no support, or any other remarks; and said if this
Council supports the project, their Arts Council will be moving on this and putting out a poster within
three weeks. Dr. Harken mentioned he anticipates getting the piece done in 2013. Councilmember
Woodard said he likes the sculpture. Mayor Towey thanked Drs. McKellar and Harken for their
information tonight; and said he feels all the council has been impressed with tonight's presentation; he
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 3 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
also extended thanks to the Arts Council for their efforts as well; and said if there are no objections, then
Council is very supportive of this piece. There were no objections from council.
4. 2012 Street Preservation Projects--Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that tonight's discussion will cover the status of the street preservation
program which Council approved about a month ago. Mr. Worley said he wanted to make a few
corrections to his Request for Council Action form wherein he said there was $2.8 million dollars that
Council approved from the general fund; but said rather there was $2.045 in general fund money and
there were other funds already in the fund 311 reserves, that were combined together to give the $2.8
million. Mr. Worley said council approved $2.8 million for street preservation projects this year; he
explained that staff went to Council and Council adopted the Pavement Management Plan, and part of
that included a table that showed all the preservation projects recommended for 2012; he said staff
examined that table and with the approved $2.8 million for preservation projects this year, there was also
about $1.1 million in the Poe Contract for street maintenance that was slated for pavement preservation
projects; he said the city maintenance crews have been out with the Poe Contract starting on the projects
that were on the 2012 list;he mentioned that the Appleway Project has now been completed, and that was
part of the list for 2012. Mr. Worley said they took all the projects and broke them into different groups:
projects identified to be done through the Poe Contract, which include some grind and overlay, or
chip/seal or patching; and the remainder of the projects were split into two different bid packets. He said
the Phase 1 bid on the second table is ready to go out to bid this Friday; that staff wanted to see how the
bids come in; and said the engineer's estimate for those projects is just about $1.3 million; and said they
want to see how the bids actually come in to see how close the estimates are, and said the hope is the
estimate is high and that the bids come in low.Mr. Worley said they thought it would be good to split this
up because it would allow them to monitor the current prices for this type of work and how many more
projects could be completed with the approved funding; and said splitting this up also allows for more
than one contractor to bid on some of the work for street preservation.
Councilmember Hafner asked why all those projects are listed under the Poe Contract while the other
projects have to go out to bid. Mr. Jackson explained what we have done through the budget process is
appropriate a certain amount of money for projects such as grind and overlay, which also is preservation
work; and as discussed earlier, as we construct the 2013 budget, if we want to pull those preservation
funds out and put them at bid, that is something we can do; but within the scope of the Poe Contract,
preservation work such as grind and overlay is an acceptable project and within the budget that council
has adopted and is available for use with that contract. Mr. Jackson said as Mr. Worley mentioned,
Appleway is completed and University is well on the way; and by having those funds available, we can
act quicker to accomplish those projects. Councilmember Hafner asked if when the Poe Contract was
approved, were the listed projects approved. Mr. Jackson explained that we did not itemize the projects;
but the projects came within the budget amount. Councilmember Hafner said in looking at the Street
Master Plan, there were twenty-seven residential street projects; and that the information in the plan
indicates that if "steps are not taken to maintain existing pavements immediately, this number will
steadily grow over time" and he asked why we are not looking at those twenty-seven residential projects
which cost$10 million; and said if we allow those streets to deteriorate, it will cost more money.
Mr. Worley said there are more street preservation needs then there are funds available; and said it is his
understanding from Council's decision back in April that the focus is to be on the high-needed arterial
projects only; he said there was not funding available to address any residential streets; and said those
twenty-seven projects mentioned, are those identified for full re-construction; he said there has been no
money allocated to addressing those projects. Regarding the Poe Contract, Mr. Worley said it is his
understanding that as the public works budget was put together over the last seven years, Council and
staff knew there was a need for road preservation, but there wasn't a funding mechanism for them; he said
there were revenues coining into the street fund to allow us to put a very small amount of money into
street preservation projects; and said it was decided to put that into the Poe Contract as we could address
those quickly and easily on an annual basis; and said over the years, we have been slowing building that
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 4 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
amount of money into the street fund to do at least a little street preservation work that we could manage;
then this year council decided to put the $2.8 million toward preservation. Therefore, Mr. Worley
explained, this is the first year we are facing the$2.8 million approved funds and the money that had been
building up in the street fund for street preservation; and combining those together to go after what we
heard was Council's highest priority: to address the arterial street preservation projects as approved in the
adopted plan; and said therefore,this is the list for 2012. Mr. Worley further explained that when council
approved the Pavement Management Program and staff started this season with the Poe Contract, the
question was, what work should Poe do with the funds in their contract; and our maintenance
superintendent immediately went to the adopted plan and said this is the list of priority projects, so let's
start working on these first; and so Appleway was done and University is in the works; and said staff
started dividing up the projects in an attempt to get as many projects completed as possible within the
given budget. Mr. Worley said we don't know what will happen next year as there is no funding
associated with street preservation for next year; so what we do with the Poe Contract and with street
preservation next year has not been determined; and what we are looking at now, is what Council
approved for arterial projects for 2012 along with the funds in the Poe Contract.
Mr. Worley said staff looks at each project individually. He said when the streets were scored, it was
done in the summer of 2010 so there have been two winters since then, and said those scores are based on
the evaluation done in 2010; he said two winters make a lot of difference in the condition of any road.
Mr. Worley said staff looks at the road and compares them to each other and to roads on future lists, and
determines which road is in the worst condition. As an example, Mr. Worley said the Phase 2 list
includes 32nd Avenue; he said there was a large crack on that construction joint on that road and that was
one of the things that brought the score of that road down back in 2010; but he said they filled that crack
with a different type of material which has held up well; and over the last two winters since that road was
scored, it has held up well; and in comparing 32nd to Sprague Avenue, said we think Sprague is in worse
condition. Mr. Worley said staff looks at each project individually to determine if it is the best use of
preservation dollars; but if there is a better road to use those funds, then they would like to have the
ability to make those changes. Mr. Worley also noted that the Plan needs to be updated as it has been two
years since the streets were scored; and said they have money in the street fund budget to hire a consultant
to re-evaluate the roads and see which have changed in priority; and said that re-evaluation will result in a
priority change of the roads, and said they would like to have that done again, and keep doing that as
often as they can in order to put the funds toward the best projects possible in order to maintain the
streets.
Councilmember Grafos said he disagrees with Mr. Worley's approach; and explained that when council
discussed this two to three weeks ago, when the pavement management program was approved, one
question was that if the program is approved, are we stuck with those projects; and said the discussion
then included the critical part of Sprague Avenue being resurfaced,that it is the gateway to our city and if
we had funds we would use those funds to dress up the areas for the business owners; and at that time the
swale project was also discussed. Councilmember Grafos said in looking at the OCI on those projects,
Sprague Avenue is in worse shape than the projects staff has put up for Phase 1; and said as he recalled,
council asked for the public works department to bring those projects back to discuss and discuss the
projects on Sprague Avenue; and he said not one of those projects are on this list now. City Manager
Jackson said that Councilmember Grafos is correct, and that project is included in the RCA (Request for
Council Action form), and if council wants to guarantee that is the project to do,that is possible; and said
if council prefers to see these projects again and work through them, staff can do that as well. Mr.
Jackson said the issue is that Sprague is a much wider and larger section of roadway, and the question
becomes how many of the other projects can we accomplish if we focus on Sprague. Mr. Jackson
explained that the hope is that Phase 2 will provide enough money after Phase 1 gives us an idea of the
cost; that the 32nd Avenue stretches monies can be used for Sprague; and said the only reason that is not in
there now is we just don't know what the total cost will be. Mr. Jackson said if council directs to focus
first on Sprague we can do that; and stated that this is simply the engineer's best estimate; and added that
there are so few dollars trying to be stretched over so many projects; he said if we want to slow down and
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 5 of I
Approved by Council:06-12-12
bring these back and work through them with Council, staff can do that if that is Council's direction. Mr.
Jackson said the objective is to try to move forward on these projects this year; and said that is the process
staff has been proceeding along, and added that the Sprague project is listed and included in the RCA,
but we just don't know the total project costs at this point; which he said is what led to the idea of
bidding the Phase 1. Councilmember Grafos said that Mr. Jackson was referring to the stormwater project
from Park to Thierman, but that he, Mr. Grafos is referring to Sprague Avenue; he said we are trying to
ensure as we approach our tenth anniversary, that we have shown our business owners our intent to
beautify the area; he said the car owners represent about one-quarter of our business revenues and we
have done nothing in ten years; he said that road looks a lot worse than 32°d, and if we are going to
discuss economic development and ideas to bring in businesses into our city, we would want to
concentrate on that area first; he said that was what he thought we were going to do when this was
brought up a couple of weeks ago; and said he would have assumed that staff would have brought back
information showing the projects on Sprague Avenue, from University or Argonne down to Thierman,
and back the other way, in that car dealer area, that we would have some information on that in order to
make a decision. Mr. Jackson said staff can come back with that approach if that is council's desire; and
he asked Council for confirmation. Councilmember Rather said he believes that was what Mr. Worley
had explained; that staff discovered that Sprague is in worse condition than 32nd, so he wants the
flexibility now to make that change. Mr. Worley confirmed that is the case; and asked if what Mr. Grafos
is stating, is that he would like to see all of Sprague done rather than any of those other projects, and Mr.
Grafos confirmed that is his preference. Mr. Worley said another element that staff tries to keep in mind
is that there will be a call for projects from SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) in July,
which is federal funding that will become available to our region; and he said federal funds are the only
ones that help pay for preservation projects; he said staff has examined the projects in this six-year plan
and tried to identify projects we think will score well for receiving federal grant funds; and said obviously
the largest,highest volume arterials are the ones that will score the greatest.
Councilmember Grafos asked how many years will we chase those grants; and Mr. Worley responded
every chance we get. Mr. Grafos said those grants funds could be five years from now, and that those
projects on Sprague, based on the OCI scoring, are lower than the projects identified on the screen; and
said therefore, in two to three years, we will need a complete construction project on that arterial as it is at
31 or 32% now. Mr. Worley said staff looks at all the streets and tries to spread the preservation dollars
around the city as much as possible; and said they did not anticipate focusing all the funds on one street.
Mr. Jackson said that is the reason for tonight's discussion; to get council's input. Councilmember
Grassel said it is a little tricky in that some of these roads will never qualify for grant money, but some
will, but what we could potentially have is our priority list for grant money, and if those funds aren't
allotted, that would move to the top and become first in line; and in the meantime, she said she's not sure
it would be wise to put off other roads that will never grant money since we would lose the OCI ratings;
and said she agrees with Councilmember Grafos that we would not want to postpone this for the next five
years; but it's not that staff won't pursue Sprague, but rather that staff is waiting to see what the grants
might cover. Mr. Jackson said there are two separate projects; the one connected with the stormwater
project which is the one included in tonight's RCA, and then there's the rest of Sprague. Councilmember
Grassel said by waiting we actually did get funds from the DOE (Department of Ecology) for the
stormwater project; which she said is a good example of leveraging funds for projects. Councilmember
Grafos said his concern is if you don't look at those major arterials that they will go from a grind and
overlay to a complete reconstruct project; which would thereby prolong the construction period for that
project as well; and said if we are going to discuss economic development; within eight years we will
hopefully have a connector to the freeway coming down Freya, which is 1.4 miles from Sprague; but if
we continue to postpone this,he said he doesn't feel that is in the best interests of the City,
Councilmember Wick said at some point we need to afford staff the ability to make some of these
judgment calls since they are in the field; he said he doesn't think staff would have a preference for one
project over another or to delay one project so far into the grant process to risk a project going into a
complete reconstruction; and said he is inclined to continue down the path where council allows staff to
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 6 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
focus on which streets are at the most risk and get those done; and said that the Sprague construction has
the ability to continue on for a little while to offer the ability to go for a grant cycle; and said his
preference is to let it run its course; and if we don't get the grant this year; we can do that as a grind and
overlay in the future if needed. Couneilmember Hafner asked if at this point, is the OCI on Sprague worse
than that of 32nd; and Mr. Worley said that is correct. Mr. Worley said the idea is to exchange three 32n1
Avenue projects in the Phase 2, for the portion of Sprague from Park to the Interchange; an area of about
one mile. Couneilmember Grafos said the area he was referring to is the section of Sprague from
Argonne west to the city limits; and said part of that is the stormwater project from Park to Thierinan; and
said it was his understanding that Park was a grind and overlay; and he asked if anything was going to be
done with the road or was the plan to just do the stormwater. Mr. Jackson said that is the project we are
hoping to accomplish is from Park to the interchange; and then to do the balance from the interchange to
the City limits as a separate project. Councilmember Grafos again said that the OCI rating from Sprague
Avenue from Argonne to Park Road is lower than the other projects listed; either the project given to Poe
or the Phase 1 bids; and said we did the same thing on Evergreen and now we're in a full reconstruct; that
it was going to cost $1,400,000 and now it will cost $2.5 million to re-build. Mr. Worley said to clarify,
one of the things to keep in mind on the pavement preservation plan, is that in looking at the OCI's for
future years, that is the OCI in that year; it is not the current OCI but the projected OCI for that future
year. Mr. Worley said the program they use in pavement management uses deterioration curves, and it
examines the stresses in the current pavement, and said it's based on certain conditions, if the road is not
treated, it will cause the pavement to deteriorate over the next three, four or five years, so in a future year
like 2015, that will be the score of that road based on the condition of the road taken in 2010 and spread
out over the next five years; the OCIs are future OCIs and not 2012 OCIs. Mr. Worley said the point
exists, that Sprague Avenue didn't appear to fare as well in the last two winters as 32nd because of some
of the work that was done on 32nd; he said Sprague Avenue has been crack-sealed and they have tried to
maintain it as best as possible given the available funds; and said it is probably worse than what this plan
currently shows; and said that is why an update to the plan would be good; and concluded by stating that
you can't compare OCIs from year to year as they are different. Couneilmember Grafos said he agrees
with that, but in looking at the OCI for 2013 on part of Sprague, is about 35,which is about what some of
the projects are; so Sprague and those listed projects are probably close to the same. Couneilmember
Hafner suggested that if we are considering substituting the 32n1 project for the Sprague project, and then
the difference in what Mr. Grafos stated, perhaps we could come up with a cost factor; and asked if the
OCT isn't accurate,what is the point of having them.
Mr. Worley explained that they were accurate at the time the roads were scored in 2010; and every year
we have a different winter, and the impact on the roads from each winter has an impact on the score of the
road, and whether we can do any preservation work to protect those roads; he said the street preservation
plan is a living document and it needs to be upgraded every few years to make sure we account for all
these different changes. Couneilmember Hafner said he understands that, but if he looks at what we have,
for example Appleway, Argonne to University, and it's 37.3, is that accurate today? Mr. Worley said
based on the deterioration curves from when this plan was done in 2010, which is the estimated OCI, that
yes, that is accurate. Mr. Worley said if we were to have scored that before it just got overlaid, the score
might have been better or worse; but that staff would have had to examine the road and see how well it
fared, and whether it deteriorated like the curse in the program indicated it would. Mr. Worley reminded
Council that the program we use is merely a planning tool; he said it is the best tool we have to evaluate
our streets in order to develop the program, but it is not the answer to everything as staff must go out and
physically view each road; and use engineering judgment to determine what the best fix is for each road
and how the road conditions have changed over time. Councilmember Hafner said if we look at the Poe
Contract, and look at the OCI, how can we select those if we're not sure those are accurate. Mr. Worley
responded that we can select those because this is the best information we have available based on the
scores we have now; and again recommended that this plan be updated to see how some of these have
changed in priority. Councilmember Hafner asked what it would cost to update the plan and Mr. Worley
said there is currently$100,000 in the street fund to pay for and update this plan. Mr.Jackson said there is
always some judgment when the streets are assessed; and said the finance committee discussed the plan
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 7 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
and at that time Mr. Jackson asked if the committee would like to go look at some streets; and said it
comes down to the engineers making as assessment of the street after examining the street,discussing the
condition and the aspects of each project, and said there are numerous influences on each project and not
just the OCI, such as if a grant is available, or a partner might be available, or if the project is in
conjunction with another project; and said what we need to do is come back and look at the cost of
Sprague; talk about what influences all the projects and about the condition, if that is what council would
like to do; and again said this is a balancing act; he said he feels engineering and Public Works have done
a good job of assembling the list, but we want to make sure Council is satisfied, and it appears such a
conclusion won't be reached tonight; and he again asked Council how they would like to proceed.
Councilmember Hafner said the whole idea of what we will have Poe do and what we will do in Phase 1
and Phase 2 bids, could all change once we have what the study determines is the OCI, Mr. Jackson said
that could be the case,but it comes down to when you look at the road and make a determination of which
road to repair; that one would never reach a point to take these roads in rank order as it involves an
incredible amount of study on each road and decisions by the contractor to tell us which roads to repair;
and it doesn't take all the variables into consideration; and said similar to Evergreen, we had a partner in
the Water Department with Vera Water, so we decided to move forward; and if we had a grant we would
move forward; if we were to do Sprague from Park to the overpass it would be because it's in conjunction
with the stormwater program; and again stressed there are numerous variables to consider; that ideally
what we want to do is have a matrix where we can determine these; but to do that in advance of getting
these projects done this year would take some time. Mr. Jackson said he feels we should come back, re-
examine the Sprague Projects,and discuss what goes into the decision.
Councilmember Grassel mentioned that in the past, after going through those meetings with the business
owners, that several on the one-way going west, the Auto Row section, requested on-street parking; she
said we were going to talk about those issues, about pedestrian crossings on some of those areas as well;
and said if this is going to be a focus those discussions should take place; and added that she was aware of
one business owner who had to rent parking spaces from the next door business, Councilmember
Woodard added that if we are going to do some traffic calming or pedestrian crossings or other things that
could be done to slow down the traffic on that section of road, that should also be taken into
consideration; and he asked Mr. Worley why we didn't break up the projects more to get more contractors
into the bidding process. Mr. Worley said based on staff's experience, the size of these projects are a
good size for the contractors we have in our area; each time projects are broken up any further, it costs
more to prepare the plans and the specs, bid it and then manage the contract as well; so by doing just two,
we are limiting to only two contracts that we have to work with this summer, and we are also trying to get
as many of these done as possible this year; and by combining these into two phases, we believe we can
get them all done if we have the budget funds. Regarding Sprague, Councilmember Woodard said he
would like to have more information on that project. Councilmember Hafner asked if anyone else agrees
we need another study of the roads before the selection is made and City Manager Jackson said that
would take at least another year to accomplish. Councilmember Grassel stated that we do the JUB
Engineer report every two years, and then we take that report and have software to give us further
information on the project potentials. Mr. Worley explained that we would hire SUB Engineers to update
the report, but we contract separately with a company that has the laser scanning truck; and in 2010 we
used the laser scanning truck for the first time; he said it was efficient and quick and allowed for detailed
information on the roadway condition; that we would hire them to do the other half of the arterials and the
other third of the local/residential streets; and then that information would go to JUB Engineers who
would input it into the pavement management program; and that program calculates the data from the
scanner truck, runs all the different scenarios, and it calculates the OCIs for each project; and then
different scenarios can be run concerning how much money to put in each year, and it will tell you how
much more money will be needed, and it has the ability to run various financial scenarios based on the
current scores of each road, and comes up with the recommendations you see in the pavement
management plan based on the 2010 scores.
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 8 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
Councilmember Hafner said again going back to the Street Master Plan on the bottom it states January 23,
2012;when the last study was made; he asked why aren't we using that information as that was just done
in January of this year. Mr. Jackson said it was adopted then but was based on 2010 data; and explained
that is the amount of time it took after TUB Engineers made the assessment and for Public Works to work
with TUB Engineers to develop the plan; and again said this is a planning level document and is no
substitute for when we look at the roads, but helps us put all the city's roads into context; but for the
amount of projects we have, we can look at and inspect the roads and don't need to wait for another
study;just like Mr. Worley was stating earlier that they are not so sure now that Sprague wouldn't be a
higher priority than 32n1; but it takes physically examining each road. Mr. Jackson said he sees no reason
to wait for another report; that he would like to move ahead with this and stay current. Mr. Jackson asked
if we came back in a few weeks if that would delay any projects, and Mr. Worley said we have advertised
for the Phase 1 bid this Friday; but the bids could be pulled if Council desired. Councilmember Woodard
said he is hearing that staff feels the 32nd projects are the same value as Sprague from Park to the
interchange; or drop off some other little project to get the funds to do what they would like to do; and
said he doesn't see why Phase 1 doesn't just move forward; but prior to doing anything with Phase 2, he
would like to see what staff comes up with for Sprague. Mr. Jackson said if you award Phase 1,we could
find ourselves short of funds to accomplish what we want on Sprague; and said part of the project with
the stormwater project on Sprague is that we don't have a design unless that was accomplished today.
Mr. Worley said they were working on that today; and looked at the estimated cost of grinding and
overlaying Sprague between Park and 1-90 and to compare it to the numbers in this budget for Dishman-
Mica, and said it is very comparable, and we are looking at a total cost for Sprague Avenue from Park to
Thierman, and also Sprague Avenue westbound from Thierman to the 1-90 interchange right up to where
the concrete is under the overpass, and includes eastbound Sprague from I-90 to Appleway; so there's one
part before it splits into the Y that we would consider, so the total estimated cost for that is$869,000; and
if you add the total amount of 32n1 Avenue on this phase 2 bid, that is $982,000, so we are within that
rough same budget amount to switch out that portion of Sprague for 32n1 Avenue. Mr. Worley cautioned
that we don't know how far the curbs are moving in in order to get in the swales on Sprague; that this is
the worst case scenario of moving the curbs in about eight feet, but they might move in further to meet
some of our street standards for swale widths; so if that area is actually smaller, this cost could go down;
and said provided the funds are available,they believe it could be easily switched.
Councilmember Grafos said in using those estimated figures, they could take Sprague Avenue, since that
condition at 31 or 32 is comparable to some of the other projects; and probably take that section from
Argonne to Park Road where you don't have to do any swales; a grind and overlay would probably be in
the ballpark of $600,000 or $700,000. Mr. Worley said the width of Sprague Avenue in that area is
wider; that we won't bring the curbs in on that area but on the portion of Park to Thierman, we are
thinking of bringing in the curbs far enough to drop one of the lanes and go to a four-lane road instead of
a five lane, which helps bring this cost in closer to the budget we have; he said that other portion is still
five wide lanes wide, so the cost will be greater but he would have to examine that cost based on square
footage.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to extend the meeting for one hour.
Councilmember Hafner suggested going with Phase 1 bid and look at Sprague to see what the cost will
be. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that this is just the start of the paving season; that the pavers didn't
have any work at this point,and if they have a road construction job,that's something else,but they're not
competing; there's four major paving companies in this area and they don't have much work as the
County and the City hasn't let much work; and the longer work is put off, the higher will be the price.
Mayor Towey said he feels we should move forward with this and Phase I should occur as soon as
possible; and that for Phase 2, we need more information about Sprague and the switching of 32nd with
Sprague; and said he feels it is a good idea. Councilmember Grafos said if we move forward with all the
Phase 1 bids there won't be any funds to do anything else. Mr. Jackson said you'd probably have the
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 9 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
funds to go from Park Road to the overpass, but we're not sure about the section from Argonne or the
overpass to the end of the city; as we'd mostly exchange the 32❑d Avenue project for the project in
conjunction with the storm swales. Councilmember Grafos asked if that would be the case even with the
•
$640,000 we're saving on the other project because we got the grant? Mr.Jackson reminded Council that
those funds must be used for stormwater improvement only, as they were from the APA funds from the
County; and they cannot be used for grind and overlay; but could potentially be used for the stormwater
on Appleway. Councilmember Wick added that these are all estimates so we might have more funds left
than anticipated. Mr. Worley said he would recommend if we are able,to move forward with the Phase 1
bid, and that by the time the bids come in,we'll have time to evaluate the Sprague projects and get more
information on the Poe projects that have been done to-date; and bring that all back to Council with
another update and move forward then for the Phase 2 bid based on those factors. Mayor Towey asked if
there were any objections and none were voiced.
5. Splash Down—Mike Stone,Mark Calhoun, Cary Driskell
As noted in his Request for Council Action form, Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained the
background of the contract with Splashdown, and said he seeks consensus from council for staff to
consider a methodology for reduced future lease payments and payment of past due 2011 payments; and
then to return to Council next week with recommendations; adding that Splashdown intends to open for
the season over Memorial Day weekend. There was brief discussion about the positive aspect of keeping
Splashdown here and of us trying to assist them during this economy. Councilmember Grasse]
questioned why they would want to move away from paying a percentage of their gross revenues and Mr.
Jackson said it puts the City in a position of requiring the reports since we have to answer to the State
Auditor; and said this methodology of payments was mutually agreed to by both entities. Mayor Towey
said he feels we should work with them as they are beneficial to our city, and there were no objections
from Council to pursue as noted.
6.Refinancing(Refunding)2003 Limited Tax General Obligation(LTGO)Bonds Mark Calhoun
Finance Director Calhoun explained how the City issued Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO)Bonds
in 2003 for the purpose of constructing CenterPlace and that since then, market rates have fluctuated
dramatically and rates are very favorable now for an advance refunding where the City can issue new
2012 LTGO Bonds at a lower interest rate; and he likened the procedure to taking advantage of lower
interest rates for someone refinancing their home to reduce monthly payments. Mr. Calhoun discussed
several of the figures in the data provided by our bond underwriter D.A. Davidson. There were no
objections from Council to moving forward as explained.
7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Woodard noted the May 29th upcoming council meeting includes a report on a franchise
with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and Mr. Driskell explained that this is to allow them to run fiber through a
small portion of our city. Councilmember Grafos asked about the decant facility and the grant and Mr.
Jackson said public works will be discussing that issue with WSDOT (Washington State Department of
Transportation)and determine the status of that project.
S. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey
There were no comments from Council.
9. City Manager Comments--Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson explained that we applied to the Department of Ecology for additional funding to
do shoreline program work; that we have a contract for that work and before he signs the contract, he
wanted to let council know that we will have to come back for a future budget appropriation; that
although the funds are grant funds,we would still need to appropriate those funds in a budget amendment;
and he asked if Council had any objections to him signing the contract and there were no objections to
Mr. Jackson moving forward.
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page 10 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12
10.EXECUTIVE SESSION; Pending/Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)l
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive
Session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no action would
be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:34 p.m. At 10:00
p.m., Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session, and immediately thereafter, it was moved
by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
•
ATTEST: _ _
- Tl omas E.Towey,Mayor
Pristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk
•
Council Study Session Minutes 05-15-12 Page I 1 of 11
Approved by Council:06-12-12