2017, 04-18 Study Session MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING
STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
April 18, 2017
Attendance:
Councilmembem•s Staff
Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor John Hohman, Deputy City Manager
Caleb Collier, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Pam Haley, Councihnember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Ed Pace, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks &Recreation Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Gloria Mantz, CIP Manager
ABSENT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Munch, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; ail Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Munch. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilmember Munch from tonight's meeting.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Motion Consideration: City Hall Audio-Visual Systems Bid Award—Chelsie Taylor, Greg Bingaman
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the contract for the new City Hall Council Chambers audio/visual system with Evco Sound and
Electronics, Inc., in the amount of$238,051.61, including tax. Finance Director Taylor briefly went over
the information contained in the Request for Council Action form, including the PEG(public, educational,
and governmental) restricted revenue source. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.'None. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Temporary and Permanent Supportive Housing—Lori Barlow
As noted in her April 18, 2017 Request for Council Action, Senior Planner Barlow explained that this issue
was sent to the Planning Commission for their review; that the initial discussion showed that there are no
obstacles in our Code to allow small residential structures on a person's land, although previously there
were some dimensional requirements such as having to have certain widths,which requirements have been
removed. She further explained that the small residential dwellings and several associated components
were examined closely, and that the Planning Commission concluded by majority, that the current
regulations are adequate and therefore, the Commission did not recommend addressing temporary
supportive housing regulations for our Code at this time. Councilmember Collier referenced the February
9,2017 Planning Commission minutes wherein Commissioner Rasmussen asked about any possible impact
of Senate Bill 5656, which if passed, would require "a local government that duly enacts laws and
ordinance[sj that provide for homeless encampments must authorize as many spaces as necessary to house
all of that local government's homeless population." City Attorney Driskell said he doesn't know the status
of that bill, but it would have had to pass by last Wednesday in order to keep it moving, and regardless, it
turned out not to be an issue for the Planning Commission discussion. Ms. Barlow explained that there is
Council Study Session:04-18-2017 Page of 5
Approved by Council:05-09-2017
nothing in the law Ms. Rasmussen was referencing that would have compelled the City to have these types
of regulations. There was no further discussion.
3. City Acceptance of Gifts—Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell went through his PowerPoint and explained about establishing a procedure and
means for the City to accept, receipt, and account for donations. Mr. Driskell discussed the legal authority
of cities accepting money or property, whether donated or bequeathed; of the options of either Council
retaining all authority to accept donations, or delegating most authority to the City Manager; that the City
Manager would be responsible for the administration of the donations, including carrying out any terms or
conditions of such donations; he went over considerations for monetary donations,as well as nonmonetary
donations; and discussed conflicts of interest that could arise.
Council discussion followed with Councilmember Collier stating his preference that Council retain all
authority in order to remain open and transparent; while Deputy Mayor Woodard said he likes the idea of
the City Manager accepting monetary donations up to $200,000 as he would not want every $500.00
donation to have to come to Council; and to remain transparent, the donation could be published in some
manner. Mr.Driskell stated that there is no desire to hide anything but rather to identify what functions are
administrative and what are legislative, how many of these donations Council would like to see, and that
we could also have reporting from the City Manager of any donations over any certain amount Council
decided upon, and that any report could also be included as an informational item in Council packets.
Counciltnember Haley said she likes the $200,000 cap, and the reporting it so the public knows when
donations are received. Except for Councilmember Collier, there was apparent consensus to give the City
Manager the $200,000 cap authority, and to have reports in Council packets as mentioned, unless the City
Manager wanted to bring greater attention to any donation.
Concerning nonmonetary donations,Mr. Driskell said staff recommends the City Manager handle those as
well because the City Manager would need to determine if the donation would necessitate costs for
maintenance and upkeep; said those donations would need careful consideration, and if delegated to the
City Manager, a provision could be included that the City Manager involve Council in discussions
concerning potential costs,potential conflicts, or other possible public concerns. Councilmembers nodded
in agreement.Mr. Driskell added that we also would not want to have to have an appraisal done to determine
the value of a nonmonetary gift, so setting a limit on monetary donations could have tax consequences for
the donor, and/or insurance consequences for the City. Councilmember Collier recommended striking
"allowing"(as in `allowing the City Manager to consult with the Council on whether to accept a donation
where doing so would cost the City money in some way')and make it mandatory that the issue be brought
to Council for anything that could potentially cost the City some money. Councilmember Haley suggested
some kind of a threshold, and Mr. Driskell proposed an appropriate threshold could be included in the
ordinance first reading, and Council agreed. Mr.Driskell also mentioned including a provision that once a
gift is accepted,that the City has ultimate authority of what to do with that gift, so the donor would sign an
acceptance and acknowledge form. As noted on slide 6, "In the event a donor has indicated a desire for a
particular use by the City for a donation,the City shall make reasonable efforts to utilize the donation in a
manner consistent with the donor's desired use;" and Council agreed with that statement. Mr. Calhoun
stated that he would be comfortable with any regulation the Council desired, and that he would be more
likely to inform Council and not keep them in the dark;adding that generally,gifts to a city are rare. Gifting
of property was also discussed, including that gifted property could not be gifted on condition of using the
property for a certain use, as we must follow the City 's Code concerning zoning, or change it, and Mr.
Driskell said any donation of land also requires maintenance.Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned that some
gifts, such as a time share, would not be an appropriate gift.
Council Study Session:04-15-2017 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council:05-09-2017
4. Sidewalk Snow Removal—Cary Driskell
As noted in his April 18, 2017 Request for Council Action, Mr. Driskell mentioned the long history of
addressing the City Code's nuisance provision concerning the removal of snow and ice from sidewalks;
said accumulated snow and ice can impede pedestrian use, create hazardous conditions thereby increasing
the likelihood of pedestrians sustaining injury, and it restricts the public access to local businesses. Mr.
Driskell recapped those provisions previously agreed to by Council consensus during past discussions, and
he moved onto discuss the unresolved issues,specifically enforcement,and how to address situations where
there are long areas of sidewalks abutted by a fence not at the front of a property, as that some
Councilmembers were concerned that it would be unfair to expect property owners to remove sidewalk
snow under some circumstances.
Concerning enforcement, Mr. Driskell said we would not rely solely on our one code enforcement officer,
but we would also not hire additional staff; which means this would require some internal analysis; said he
does not have specifics yet, and enforcement could be broken into areas of Tier 1 and Tier 2, with 2
including residential areas, and 1 including commercial areas and Safe Routes to School,and Tier I being
the higher priority. Mr. Driskell noted a snow event would need to be significant before we got to Tier 2,
and that we want to ensure people can access businesses and use main thoroughfares. Council seemed to
agree with that idea.Mr. Driskell added that Safe Routes to School are usually on both sides of a street,and
the fetus is to try to reduce the kids' interaction with traffic; and that there is no budget for the City to
handle this workload.
Discussion ensured regarding the question of those long sections of fence by the sidewalk, not at the front
of a property and if removal were required,where would the property owners put the snow,versus the idea
of the City doing the work with no budget for such expenses; property owned by a Home Owner's
Association and whether they should be treated differently from other property owners; and that Council
agreed that since apartment complexes generally have a maintenance crew,they should be responsible for
their complexes. Concerning the fencing issue, Councilmember Pace said that property not on a corner is
different, but Councilmember Haley disagreed and said she thinks everyone should be treated the same,
regardless of whether there is a sidewalk adjacent to the owner's property. Deputy Mayor Woodard
suggested that if the property is a half block from the school property, perhaps the School Superintendent
could help on that;and he asked what percentage of sidewalks in the City fall into that long fence category;
said lie is not in favor of the City removing snow for anyone, and suggested people have to work together,
on the Safe Routes in particular. Mr, Driskell noted that we have a map showing the Safe Routes, but the
difficulty is,there is no one answer for all circumstances. Councilmember Collier suggested staff showing
a breakdown of the Safe Routes excluding the commercial areas, and that perhaps we can use the Geiger
Crews on those Safe Routes; or another alternative, similar to the option for handling a speeding ticket,to
work it off instead of paying the fine. Mr. Driskell said we could examine that, but those options would
require some oversight and could also have implications for insurance in case someone were injured doing
the work,adding that the County uses the Geiger crews for similar work,so there would be a limited number
of inmates available, and that he would have to talk to those in charge of the Geiger crews.
Councilmember Pace said he feels there is no problem if there is a sidewalk right in front of someone's
property as the owner would be responsible to clean it; that for a corner lot, the one side should be treated
the same as the front; if the area is owned by a Home Owners' Association or Apartment Complex, they
should hire someone to be responsible for that; but in areas like Dishman Mica, 8th to 16th where all those
houses back up to fence on the east side of Dishman Mica,said he can't support requiring each homeowner
to clear those areas, and likewise, doesn't think the City should pay for it either, Mayor Higgins said it
appears there are several parts that Council agrees with, so perhaps the next discussion would just include
those parts where there isn't Council concurrence. Mr.Driskell said he is also trying to get an idea of what
the City Code would look Iike, so he will start with the areas were Council agrees, and come back as soon
as he can for further discussion. Councilmember Wood asked if there is a way to estimate how much
Council Study Session:04-i 8-2017 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council:05-09-2017
enforcement of this would cost, and Mr. Driskell said he will speak with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Hohman;
that they will make some assumptions such as there will be no additional staff, and what staff we might
task with some of these issues;which he said,could result in having to change some job descriptions and/or
discussions with Union representatives.
At 7:33 p.m., Mayor Higgins called for a recess; he reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
5. Sullivan Bridge Update—John Hohman, Gloria Martz
Deputy City Manager Holtman explained that this update is in response to questions from Councilmember
Pace and others, about a grand opening of the bridge. Mr. Hohman said that the time came and went and
there was no grand opening.He said that staff has been working on this and an earlier version was scheduled
to come to Council January 17 but at that time, there were still some unclear issues so the report was
postponed;he said that Ms.Martz has spent numerous hours going through the figures and the information
in order to be as thorough as possible.
in going through the PowerPoint presentation,Ms.Martz explained the purpose of the project,the schedule
and status, bid issues, change order summary, budget status, and project successes. In discussing the bid
issues, she explained about the Garco and the Apollo bid proposals and the apparent true intent of the
price/unit values; that staff felt that Garco's error was a minor irregularity, but Apollo submitted a protest
letter and after hearing WSDOT's(Washington State Department of Transportation)and FHWA's(Federal
Highway Administration) opinion,which was in contrast with our legal consultant's opinion in support of
the City's position,because FHWA was not"willing to negotiate with the City's legal person"and that they
told us we would have to "reject all bids and readvertise;"the City rejected both bids and did re-advertise
so that we would remain eligible for federal funds, as there was $8 million at risk. Ms. Mantz explained
that not only did this delay the project six weeks, it resulted in bids approximately$560,000 higher than the
initial bids received. Ms. Mantz explained about the necessity of realigning the Centennial Trail, the
pending change orders, and the water system revision, and ended by stating that the new bridge has a
• seventy-five year life, has more lanes for future industrial growth,the bridge has reduced congestion, and
we have an ADA ramp between Sullivan Road and Sullivan Park.
Councilmember Pace said he is uncomfortable with two major things: (1) that it seems like Garco should
have got the contract, which would have saved us money and time; that government is supposed to serve
the people and when the State and Federal government made a decision not to accept our decision, that
something is wrong and they weren't serving the needs of Spokane Valley; said he would like to know who
the people were who made that decision and that they need to be held accountable; and he wants to get the
state legislators involved with this and wants to push this;and(2)lie doesn't understand how the contractor
can make a$400,000 design error and charge us for it. Mr. Hohman said they are charging for the work to
fix the trail alignment,which is what the change orders were about;that the design error was CH2M Hill's,
but the discussions we had over the summer were for a fixed amount of about $65,000, and that based on
what we have discovered,we probably should have conveyed this as a range of costs as it all depended on
the availability of funds in the grant allocation we got, as we discovered the federal highway grant funds
had been expended so we weren't eligible;he said we won't know the exact dollar amount until the project
settles up and we go through this item by item;that in looking at a range, it could go up to $510,000 minus
what we got from CH2M Hill; said that if we were told a range at that time, he can't speculate on whether
that would have changed the ideas on settling with CH2M Hill.
6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace said that he would like an accounting of why the Washington State Department of
Transportation did not support our staff's decision concerning Garco's bid on the Sullivan Bridge. Mr.
Calhoun said that staff will do some research and report back to Council.
Council Study Session:04-18-2017 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council:05-09-2017
7. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins
Council had no further comments.
8. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun
City Manager Calhoun said that lie mentioned last week that through our legislative process, our
representatives were successful in getting the Appleway Trail amenities in the respective capital budgets in
both the House and the Senate, although that has not yet been officially approved in either the House or
Senate budget; he also mentioned that in the Senate and the House, we received $1.5 million toward the
Barker Grade Separation project.
9. Executive Session: Land Acquisition [RCW 42.30.I 10f 1)(b)j
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive
session for approximately forty-f ve minutes to discuss land acquisition, and that no action will be taken
upon return to opera session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:21 p.m. At 9:05 p.m., Mayor
Higgins declared Council out of executive session,at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard,
seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
7i
,r .ri
ATT. S L.R. Higgins,Mayo
iSztjh
pristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session:04-18-2017 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council:05-09-2017