The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 05-11 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole, Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Miss Spokane Valley Hannah Robb Ms. Peggy Doering, Recipient of Washington Recreation and Park Association, Citation of Merit, Citizen Award COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamations: (1) Motorcycle Awareness Month; (2) AmeriCorps Week; (3) Helmet Safety Month; and (4) Older Americans Month PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your naive and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 04/23/2010 420062 -20072 $76,703.14 04/30/2010 #20073- 20109, 4430100002 $1,366,950.24 0510312010 420110-20135 $157,454.58 05/04/2010 45011 -5022 $1,663.50 GRAND TOTAL $1,602.771.46 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending April 30, 2010: $362,691.66 c. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 20 2010 d. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comcast Franchise Update — Cary Driskell [public comment] 3. Proposed Resolution for Greenacres Park Grant — Mike Stone [public comment] 4. Proposed Resolution Accepting Shoreline Master Program Report — Scott Kuhta [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Zoning Changes — Kathy McClung [public comment] Council Agenda 05 -11 -10 Regular Meeting Pagel of2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. Interlocal for Jointly Offered Recreation Programs 7. Broadway Re- striping — Neil Kersten 8. Subarea Plan (SARP /Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan): Nonconforming Uses — Kathy McClung 9. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 10. Community Development Monthly Report EXECUTIVE SESSION n/a ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 mm. The Formal meeting formats are eg nerally held the 2" and 4"' Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1 st 3rd and sometimes 5"' Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments, but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 05 -11 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 05-11-2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 04/23/2010 #20062 -20072 $76,703.14 04/30/2010 #20073 - 20109, #430100002 $1,366,950.24 05/03/2010 #20110-20135 $157,454.58 05/04/2010 #5011 -5022 $1,663.50 GRAND TOTAL $1,602.771.46 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/23/2010 2:13:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20062 4/23/2010 001473 APWA 41228 2010 APWA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIF 151.00 Total : 151.00 20063 4/23/2010 002270 ARGUS PACIFIC, INC 0022067 42569 ARUGS PACIFIC SAFETY PLAN UPI 3,354.55 Total : 3,354.55 20064 4/23/2010 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC M08218 -15 42110 GEOTECH & MATERIALS TESTING 827.65 M10035 -1 42500 GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT #0 992.67 Total : 1,820.32 20065 4/23/2010 002078 CAPITAL TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 2009079 SCHOOL ZONE FLASHERS 4,300.00 Total : 4,300.00 20066 4/23/2010 001888 COMCAST MAY 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET 64.90 Total : 64.90 20067 4/23/2010 001232 FASTENAL CO PURCHASING IDLEW67521 42527 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 70.74 IDLEW67548 42527 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 57.31 Total ; 128.05 20068 4/23/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9228476108 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 80.29 9229527768 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 43.98 Total : 124.27 20069 4/23/2010 002201 HARBOR FREIGHTTOOLS 02- 376265 42529 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 22.79 Total : 22.79 20070 4/23/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 010020000600334 2009 VOTER REGISTRATION COST 61,687.13 Total : 61,687.13 20071 4/23/2010 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE 2009 -03 42538 2010 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT #1 4,850.13 Total: 4,850.13 20072 4/23/2010 000152 WSDOT APRIL 2010 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT CLASS 200.00 Total : 200.00 11 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 76,703.14 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 04/23/2010 2:13:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor I nvoice PO # Description /Account Amount 11 Vouchers in this report t, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Total vouchers: 76,703.14 Page: 2 vchlist 4/30/2010 Voucher List Page: 1 0413012010 4:19:69PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20073 4/30/2010 001715 AMERICAN RED CROSS APRIL 2010 BABYSITTERS TRAINING 420.00 Total : 420.00 20074 4/30/2010 001409 BEST LINE 900409967 AN.CZWFRrNr: gvrr• rT=NTT=RpLACE 32 00 Total : 20075 4/30/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9110924 LINEN SERVICE: CENTERPLACE 9112834 LINEN SERVICE: CENTERPLACE Total ; 20076 4/30/2010 000835 CERIUM NETWORKS LLC 016836 42583 CISCO SMARTNET RENEWALS Total 20077 4/30/2010 001780 CLC ASSOCIATES, INC 30794 42488 SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT Total: 20078 4/30/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:051047 COFFEE SERVICE: CP Total: 20079 4/30/2010 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOC INC 28538 42565 M[RRA CHAIR FOR DAN DUFFEY Total 20080 4/30/2010 001188 DANIELSON, TOM EXPENSES TRAVEL FOR TRAINING: DANIELSC Total: 20081 4/30/2010 001926 DAVENPORT, SARAH EXPENSES MILEAGE: DAVENPORT Total 20082 4/30/2010 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE- 313- ATB00413067 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT. RE- 313- ATB00413070 SIGNAL & ILLUMINATION MAIN RE- 313- ATB00413082 INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS Total : 20083 4/30/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST March 2010 ADVERTISING: CP Total 20084 4/30/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 35967 LEGAL SERVICES 32.00 173.03 63.46 236.49 9,822.02 9,822.02 55.00 55.00 98.88 98.88 689.60 689.60 158.32 158.32 47.50 47.50 5,854.09 5,529.12 104.36 11,487.57 242.10 242.10 100.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List. Page: 2 04/30/2010 4:19:59PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 20084 4/30/2010 000999 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC (Continued) Total : 100.00 20085 4/30/2010 .002138 ELECTROTECHNICS 0054721 -1N SOFTWARE: REPAIRS 378.99 Total : 378.99 20086 4/30/2010 000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 217156-002 1 ST QTR 2010 4,036.28 Total : 4,036.28 20087 4/30/2010 000106 FEDEX 7- 051 -32848 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 25.91 Total: 25.91 20088 4/30/2010 000825 GEOLINE POSITIONING SYSTEM INC, GI 305421 GEOLINE GPS 1,168.53 Total : 1,168.53 20089 4/30/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9234587534 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 12.31 Total : 12.31 20090 4/30/2010 002043 HDR ENGINEERING, INC 00178081 -H PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: WINTE 1,614.06 Total : 1,614.06 20091 4/30/2010 000220 ICMA APRIL 2010 MEMBERSHIP DUES. JACKSON 1,152.00 Total : 1,152.00 20092 4/30/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 22759 EVENT SVCS: CP 128.06 Total : 128.06 20093 4/30/2010 001002 M & L SUPPLY CO., INC. S100001102.001 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 90.66 Total : 90.66 20094 4/30/2010 001640 MAINTENANCE SOLUTIONS, INC 41614707 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 416.21 Total : 416.21 20095 4/30/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW #CP 4116110 Postage MAILING/POSTAGE— CENTERPLAC 3,660.35 #CP 4/21/2010 Media MARKETING FOR CP 8,245.00 Total : 11,905.35 20096 4/30/2010 002295 MCKINLEY, J. BRENT & CONNIE K C1P NO 0088 BROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION 33,400,00 Total : 33,400.00 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 04/30/2010 4 :19 :59PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20097 4/30/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 514934253001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: KITCHEN & ADE 449.18 515374652001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMIN 20.31 515512880001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 88.59 515776795001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 15.37 516092831001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 18,02 516338652001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMIN 45.12 Total : 636.59 20098 4/30/2010 001860 PLATT 7613490 SUPPILES FOR CENTERPLACE 40.37 Total : 40.37 20099 4/30/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 25572 REPLACED GRAPHICS: POLICE CF 114.14 25573 TRUCK DETAILS: PW 53.26 Total : 167.40 20100 4/30/2010 000322 QWEST APRIL 2010 APRIL PHONE SERVICE 249.21 Total : 249.21 20101 4/30/2010 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 6537 42230 REAL ESTATE SERVICES CIP 0088 6,835.91 Total : 6,835.91 20102 4/30/2010 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST 1st QTR 2010 1ST QTR 2010: WATER TESTING 261.00 Total : 261.00 20103 4/30/2010 000311 SPRINT 326088106 -029 WAPS FOR LAPTOPS 439.89 959698810 -029 SPRINT CELL PHONES 1,547.98 Total : 1,987.87 20104 4/30/2010 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 27777 MASRCH 2010 MONTHLY MAINT PF 521.83 Total : 521.83 20105 4/30/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC 4 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER\ 7,720.00 Total : 7,720.00 20106 4/30/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM EXPENSES AWC 2010 MILEAGE :TOWEY 285.00 Total : 285.00 20107 4/30/2010 001464 TW TELECOM 03515396 INTERNET/DATA LILNES/PHIQNE L 1,711.61 Page: 3 vchlist 0413012010 4 :19:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20107 4/30/2010 001464 001464 TW TELECOM (Continued) Total : 1,711.61 20108 4/30/2010 000140 WALTS MAILING SERVICE 23980 SULLIVAN CORRIDOR SWLF -MAILS 1,236.61 24067 BARKER BRIDGE FLYER 345.24 Total: 1,581.85 20109 4/30/2010 000361 WSDOT APRIL 2010 OVERPAYMENT OF GRANT FUNDS 422.59 Total : 422.59 430100002 4/30/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER APRIL 2010 APRIL 2010 SHERIFF SERVICES 1,266,811.17 Total : 1,266,811.17 38 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 1,366,950.24 38 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,366,950.24 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 05/03/2010 1:36:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20110 513 O10 000921 A TO Z RENTALS 11020 RENTAL FOR CENTERPLACE 19.48 Total : 19.48 20111 5/3/2010 000030 AVISTA April 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTP 7,448.65 Total: 7,448.65 20112 5/3/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 0618 APRIL 10: 0618 1,860.83 0620 APRIL 10: 0620 60.00 0638 APRIL 10: 0638 55.00 4375 APRIL 10: 4375 1,870.80 4458 APRIL 10: 4458 1,1 86.44 4474 APRIL 10: 4474 444,88 4720 APRIL 10: 4720 2,883.14 6527 APRIL 10: 6527 1,525,73 8861 APRIL 10: 8861 1,660.91 8879 APRIL 10. 8879 272.37 Total : 11,820.10 20113 5/3/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC S0034490 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE CP 24.88 Total : 24.88 20114 5/3/2010 000572 CARTER, CAROL Expense EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 774.91 Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 59.00 Total : 833.91 20115 5/3/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY APRIL 2010 PETTY CASH: 7846, 48, 49 42.50 Total : 42.50 20116 5/3/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 April 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 362.34 Total : 362.34 20117 5/3/2010 002161 DELLWO, ROBERTS & SCANLON 4005 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: 09 -18E 42.00 Total : 42.00 20118 5/3/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST March 2010 ADVERTISING: SENIOR CENTER 37.82 Total : 37.82 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 05103/2010 1 :36 :30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20119 5/3/2010 000278 DRISKELL, CARY Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 197.15 Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 95.00 Total : 292.15 20120 5/3/2010 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 April 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 372.66 Total : 372.66 20121 5/3/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 7863 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 13.86 Total: 13.86 20122 5/3/2010 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1..103894 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 191.80 Total : 191.80 20123 5/3/2010 001635 ISS FACILITYIEVENT SERVICES 22723 EVENT SVCS: CP 244.99 Total : 244.99 20124 5/3/2010 001439 K &L GATES LOCKHART 2166142 PROFESSIONAL SVCS: GAMBLING 1,469.00 2166952 PROFESSIONAL SVCS: ZONING 180.00 Total : 1,649.00 20125 5/3/2010 000252 LOWITS BUSINESS ACCOUNT April 2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP 454.99 Total : 454.99 20126 5/3/2010 001581 MCCLUNG, KATHY Expense EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 797.24 Total : 797.24 20127 5/3/2010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC MAY 2010 CITY HALL RENT 37,300.83 Total : 37,300.83 20128 5/3/2010 001084 PAPICH, JENNIFER Expense EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 181.81 Total : 181.81 20129 5/3/2010 001860 PLATT 7553912 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 79.88 Total : 79.88 20130 5/3/2010 000322 QWEST 509 - 926- 1840194B APRIL 2010 PHONE SERVICE: PARI 109.74 Total : 109.74 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 05/03/2090 1:36:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 20131 5/3/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY 20132 20133 20134 20135 5/3/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 228.00 Total : Total : 228.00 3372945 CONTRACT MAINENANCE: PARKS 44,562.40 3512579 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PARK; 44,562.40 3824945 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROLS 169.57 5/3/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 APRIL 2010 5/3/2010 000954 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH, DiSTRIC' 2010 5/3/2010 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE MAY 2010 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 26 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Total : 89,294.37 WATER CHARGES: PW 6,58 Total: 6.58 PERMIT FEES FOR WATER REC FA 1,410.00 Total : 1,410.00 42546 2010 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA 4,195.00 Total : 4,195.00 Bank total : 157,454.58 Total vouchers: 157,454.58 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 05/04/2010 3 :35 :28PM Spokane Valley Bank code: Pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5011 5/4/2010 001026 BIG BROTHERS -BIG SISTERS REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR ROOM 110 52.00 Total : 52.00 5012 5/4/2010 002303 BURGHARD, RENEE REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR FIRESIDE 1 135.00 Total : 135.00 5013 5/4/2010 001681 FRIENDS OF THE NEZ REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5014 5/4/2010 002302 HALL, JENNIFER REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RO .185.00 Total : 185.00 5015 5/4/2010 002304 INBD, INC. REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR LOUNGE 1 0 210.00 Total : 210.00 5016 5/4/2010 002300 KRAUSS, KATHRYN REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR ROOM 109 9.50 Total : 9.50 5017 5/4/2010 002299 LEHN, JENNIFER REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RO 210.00 Total: 210.00 5018 5/4/2010 002265 NIHOUL & ASSOCIATES REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: MEETING R001 27.00 Total : 27.00 5019 5/4/2010 002298 SMITH, JOE REFUND REFUND FOR CANCELLATION: MI 419.00 Total : 419.00 5020 5/4/2010 001715 SPOKANE RED CROSS REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR MIRABEAU 52.00 Total: 52.00 5021 5/4/2010 002301 SPOKANE RIVER FORUM REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RO 210.00 Total : 210.00 5022 5/4/2010 002297 WILLIAMS, ROBERT REFUND CANCELLATION FEFUND: BROWN; 102.00 Total : 102.00 12 Vouchers for bank code: pk- ref Bank total : 1,663.50 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 05104/2010 3:35:28PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 12 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim_ Finance Director Date PO # Description/Account Amount Total vouchers : 1,663.50 Page: 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 5 -11 -10 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending April 30, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget /Financial impacts: Gross: $ 240,540.84 Benefits: $ 122,150.82 Total payroll $ 362,691.66 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington April 20, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Dean Grafos, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Chris Berg, Code Enforcement Officer Bill Schultz, Code Enforcement Officer Mary Kate McGee, Building Official Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. Solid Waste Advisory Committee — Deputy Mayor Schimmels Deputy Mayor Schimmels introduced Regional Solid Waste Coordinator Bill Wedlake, and Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Chair KC Traver, who then discussed the concept of regional governance. Mr. Traver encouraged municipalities to adopt the Plan via an interlocal agreement, and he spoke of the six options considered by the Solid Waste Advisory committee: to retain the existing system, have a restructured Liaison Board, use Spokane County Board of County Commissioners, have a disposal district under Spokane County Board of County Commissioners, form an independent regional board, or use a non - profit corporation. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Traver discussed the pros and cons of each of those six options, and explained that the option to use a non-profit corporation is one of the better options, although it is the least familiar model and requires additional research, but said successful models exist and this could be structured much the same as a water or sewer district. Mr. Traver said these options and recommendations were made about a year ago, and the next step is legal review. He explained that the SWAC works in parallel with the Liaison Board, and they want to stay focused on the recommended action toward establishing regional governance, and to work closely with the Liaison Board to make that happen, with the goal of implementing this no later than 2011, which timeframe is based on the time the region pays off the bonds that funded the waste -to- energy plant. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question about who sets the rates, Mr. Wedlake said similar to the regional entity in the Olympia area which formed their own governance and planned for their own future, that the responsibility of the Board of Governance would be based on whatever is included in the interlocal, and could be determined by majority vote, or weighed majority, or unanimous vote, or by some other means; and Mr. Traver said that the expectation of SWAC is that whatever gets in place, that should be the governance body and act with authority to set rates and make capital investments. Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 1 of Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Traver said the next step for the SWAC is to work cooperatively with the Liaison Board; that last November SWAC and the Liaison Board began met together as a means to increase efficiency; he said that state law mandates that every county have a plan to manage waste, and the law designates the Board of County Commissioners as the responsible entity; he said although the plan should be updated every five years, the plan was last updated 1998, and the update of the plan has been going on for the last six years; adding that in the Plan is the strong recommendation to set up a regional governance; he said the Board of County Commissioners and City of Spokane have adopted that plan, and every jurisdiction within the County must do likewise, or in the alternative have their own plan; and said there are punitive measures for noncompliance, such as losing the ability to apply for certain capital funds. Mr. Traver and Wedlake also discussed the structure of the SWAC, and said there are two council vacancies; they discussed the purpose of the Liaison Board, established by Interlocal to oversee the construction and implementation of the waste -to- energy plant and that over the years has evolved into a body that is compromised entirely of elected officials; and it was again mentioned about the proposal of combining the two committees. Mr. Traver said through his research he found nothing that prevents them from merging other than perceptions from some about what those responsibilities are; he said state law states that the Liaison Board doesn't even have to meet; he said SWAC is open to such a merger and to work toward regional governance; adding that since state law mandates a SWAC, if the two entities merged, it would remain the SWAG. There was further discussion on the merging of the two entities, with mention by Deputy Mayor Schimmels that if the two boards can't agree on this, there will certainly be problems with the governance issue. Mr. Traver said if a municipality doesn't sign up individually, they are still under the Countywide plan and would technically be a part of that plan. Mr. Wedlake said that the 20 -year bonds issued in 1991 will be retired the end of next year; that currently the annual debt service is $17 million; but if constituents are not happy with tipping fees or capital expenditures, that perhaps a regional structure would be more efficient. Councilmember Grassel asked if a cost analysis has been conducted and Mr. Wedlake responded that they have looked into some models with the state, including non - profit models. Mr. Traver said the need for regional governance was not borne out of the idea of trying to find a cheaper way to run the system, but he said we do have some of the highest tipping fees in the state, which he said begs the question if the City of Spokane is operating in the best interest of the region and are Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and others fairly represented, and concerning major decisions like capital investments and rates, this council is currently excluded from that process as it is currently made jointly with the City of Spokane and Spokane County Board of Commissioners, and if one of those two bodies disagrees with the other, there is no agreement concerning dispute resolution. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he received a letter from Spokane City Mayor Verner expressing her appreciation for the work that has been accomplished to date toward a new governance structure for the Regional Solid Waste System, and suggesting the issue be further pursued to give each partner an opportunity to express key points they feel should be addressed, and said she is willing to make available a neutral facilitator to assist in that regard; and stressing that time is of the essence and that this should be a primary topic agenda at the May 3, 2010 Liaison Board meeting. There was further discussion on the bonding capacity of Spokane and the County; that the entire community paid for the waste -to- energy plant; of the enormous amount of tonnage in waste that is generated annually and of capacity limits; of plan ownership and responsibility; and of aggressively pursuing recycling. 2. Code Enforcement Update — Kathy McClung Code Compliance Officers Chris Berg and Bill Schultz gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the code compliance process which is mostly complaint driven based on health and safety violations. They gave some statistics concerning the several thousand violations they have dealt with since incorporation, discussed some of the seasonal trends and chronic residence problems, and explained how efficiently the two of them are able to handle these tasks through the assistance of technology such as inter - divisional communication through the PLUS System; and they ended by showing some dramatic "before" and Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 2 of Approved by Council: DRAFT "after" photos. Mr. Berg noted that the top complaint concerns solid waste, followed by junk autos; and Mr. Schultz explained that they work closely with the complainant and the alleged violator to rectify situations and he explained the process from citizen complaint, to citizen contact, to notice and order, to final resolution. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Schultz to explain the "51 sign violations" in three months, and what kind of signs were in violation. Mr. Schultz responded that those were all non- pennitted banners, temporary signs, or A- frames, and explained that staff would first send out a notice about the sign violation. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Schultz if he thinks it was business - friendly to just take those banners down in this environment, and if that was something he should be doing? City Manager Jackson said that it is code enforcement's job to enforce the city code, and if Council would like staff to bring the code back for council consideration later, that is something we can do; but that our officers enforce the code. Mr. Grafos asked if those were banners at businesses. and Mr. Schultz said some were businesses, and some were actually banners on residences, but most were businesses. Councilmember Grafos asked about the "property use" category and if that referred to code violations like zone changes. Mr. Schultz said it would be where someone would be operating a mechanical garage out of a residential neighborhood, or an automotive repair shop from a residential garage, and said staff generally acts on those after receiving a complaint from a neighbor. Councilmember Grafos asked if these would be actual businesses where the city code had been changed and then a complaint was addressed to staff; and Mr. Berg said typically no; that typically a property use is a violation of a residential property; such as running a business from their residence without the proper permits or running a business outside the allowed criteria. Mayor Towey thanked Mr. Berg and Schultz for their service to the community; and Councilmember Gothmann said he has received past positive comments from citizens concerning our efforts to solve these problems. Councilmember Grassel asked staff if they see any cracks or failure in our system to suggest to Council for change review, including our forms or the way complaints are handled. Mr. Berg said Community Development Director McClung is aware of staffs challenges, and those issues will be addressed in the future. 3. Subarea Plan (SARP) Schedule — Kathy McClung Community Development Director McClung said she hopes that she has gathered what it is that Council wants; that they wanted to go through each individual zone of the Sprague /Appleway Plan, to invite the property owners to meet and go over the regulations and nonconformances and get their comments; then have staff bring those comments to staff and make recommendations about which changes would need a code amendment or which would need a comprehensive plan amendment; and that project would then move forward to the Planning Commission, and to do that with each zone. She said this is a fairly complicated and aggressive schedule, and explained that with the public notice requirements and the need to have staff put together a report for the council's agenda packet, it only gives them about five days between meeting with the public and the date it must go into the packet; she said it will take several planning staff to work on this; that there will likely be a core group of people working at the public meetings and then bringing the issues to Council, and perhaps a different group of people taking the code amendments to the Planning Commission. Director McClung said that one of the issues which carne up a few weeks ago was Councilmember Gothmann's suggestion to have an update of the Economic Analysis that was done prior to the SARP being generated; and she said staff checked with the consultant who did the plan originally, and to get an update would cost about $1,000. Director McClung explained that staff was going to ask the consultant to take the information that had been previously prepared, and update it concerning his opinion of the economic climate we have now, which is different from when the plan was first prepared four or five years ago; and ask the consultant what difference the economic climates makes in this analysis. Councilmember Gothmann said he heard several complaints that we are using outdated information, and in order to make a decision, updated information is necessary. There were no objections from Council for staff to proceed with the economic analysis update. To clarify, City Manager Jackson said that we are not asking for a specific amount of money, but rather to inform council of this additional Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 3 of Approved by Council: DRAFT expense, adding that the plan was completed October 2004, so a letter of opinion concerning the economic climate would be money well spent. Mayor Towey commended Director McClung on the schedule, but stated his concern that other issues will be placed on hold while staff addresses the SARP issue, in particular he stated his concern about the bike plan and the master shoreline plan, although he said he realizes we are a little ahead of schedule with the shoreline plan; and he asked if there are other things that might be delayed as a result of the SARP work. Director McClung said the three primary projects that will be delayed for a few months while staff addresses the SARP issue, are the shoreline master program, the bike- pedestrian plan, and the commitments staff has made to the development committee to work on particular items that surfaced as a result of the developer forum last year; and said it is a matter of trying to keep up with all the daily things we are required to do, and those projects and this as well. Councilmember Dempsey asked if there is a cost projection for this topic. City Manager Jackson said there is no intent to add staff, and if council is interested in knowing the amount of staff time involved, that can be accomplished, and Councilmember Dempsey said that is her interest. Director McClung said it would be easier to do at the end of the project; and that said there will be mailing and copying costs, and except for the economic opinion, there will not be outside consultant costs, and said that she does not anticipate this will interfere with customer service; and with the exception of the developer's forum issues, this will not delay development projects, which is another equal priority. Councilmember Grafos asked about the type of notice sent to the property owners, and if it would include sending a registered letter. Director McClung said it would not be by registered letter, but regular first -class mail, along with the normal public notice tools. Councilmember Gothmann said because that has been a problem, he asked that staff review the letter with Council and several councilmembers concurred. Director McClung said the idea is to have the notice go out prior to meeting with council on that particular zone, and explain that following the council meeting, there will be a public meeting where the citizens will be invited to come discuss the issues, at which time the process will also be explained. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 4. City Manager Recruitment — John Whitehead Human Resource Manager Whitehead said that as part of the April 6 agenda packet, staff provided Council a report which included options or steps in the recruitment process for appointing a city manager; he said that council has flexibility concerning the appointment process. Mr. Whitehead brought Council's attention to Exhibit 1: Recruitment Process City Manager, which defines stages of the recruitment, and said that the critical first stage of that process is to define the needs for that position, and to consider such things as the current duties as stated in the current city manager position description dated May 2003; that council may want to consider what are our future challenges and what skills and abilities would council look for in a city manager to handle such challenges. Mr. Whitehead said after defining those needs, the next step to consider is the compensation of the position and what would it include, such as salary, health related benefits, car allowance, retirement contributions, personal leave, etc; and said the compensation is important at the beginning stage as salary or salary range is typically included in any advertising of the position, and said that connects to a later stage of developing a final contract between council and the successful candidate. The next stage, Mr. Whitehead explained, is to establish what documents should be submitted with the application, such as cover letters, resume, work products such as a budget document or other documents which would indicate some of the candidate's skills. The advertising or marketing phase, he explained, is where the recruitment announcements are developed, which could include brochures, and said the recruitment methods should be determined at this stage and suggested the use of websites and professional organizations. Mr. Whitehead said this process could generate a large volume of applicants, and council may want to include some pre- screening mechanism to narrow the number of candidates to those which most meet the qualifications, and from pre - screening we move to a more in- depth screening which would then lead to interviews. Mr. Whitehead also mentioned that questionnaires Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 4 of Approved by Council: DRAFT could be circulated to candidates. The designing the interview step is important, and Mr. Whitehead said this is where a lot of thought is put into the method to use, or questions to ask, or if there are some exercises for the candidates to accomplish to reveal skills or abilities, and once completed and an assessment of the final candidates are chosen, then reference checks are typically done. Mr. Whitehead said the reference check is important as a means to check with prior supervisors and to gain further information about skills and abilities. The conditional job offer, Mr. Whitehead said, is often times used as a step whereby we could ask for information that we could not appropriately consider prior to a job offer, such as medical, or psychological, and is a bona fide offer of employment which would eliminate a candidate only if something were revealed during that process which could indicate the candidate could not perform the duties of the position; and he said it is a legal requirement if we are going to require the submission of that type of information; and from there, the next step is the contract development. Mr. Whitehead said the elements of the contract are important to consider prior to recruitment, and said that whoever is offered the position, could also want to include specific things in their contract which have not been considered previously. Mr. Whitehead said once the job offer is made, perhaps by someone designed by Council to make the offer, that that part of that process could include a range of compensation or elements of hiring. Mr. Whitehead said council could consider forming a small work team with a designated leader to begin work on this process; and to provide direction to staff, and he mentioned page 4 of exhibit 1 which lists some tasks council could look at to complete and how staff might provide some resources. As an example, Mr. Whitehead said it is council's prerogative to set the compensation, but Council might want staff to conduct some salary surveys. Mr. Whitehead said Exhibit 2 is the existing job description, Exhibit 3 is ICMA's great resource document "Recruitment Guidelines for Selecting a Local government Administrator," Exhibit 4 is the 2009 AWC (Association of Washington Cities) salary survey concerning the monthly pay rates of some Washington City Managers; that some have a formal range whereas some simply show a flat rate; and Exhibit 5 is that section of our City Code which defines the City Manager's duties, powers and responsibilities. Mayor Towey said that the information estimates 120 days to complete the process beginning from the date of advertisement, and he asked Mr. Whitehead if he is comfortable with that timeframe. Mr. Whitehead said if we followed a typical recruitment process, 120 days is reasonable, but if Council adds or subtracts aspects of the process, the time could be extended or shortened, and other decisions which could affect the timeframe include whether the recruitment would be local, regional, or national; or to include for travel time and arrangements, and moving considerations; and said that four months is typical in order to allow for a greater number of people to apply for the position. Councilmember McCaslin asked if this process has been started yet; Mayor Towey said one of the considerations tonight is ether to have a work force to start the process and what that would entail, or to have councilmembers on the work force to work with Human Resources, or other options. Councilmember McCaslin asked why we are waiting, and why not start advertising locally within Spokane County. Mr. Whitehead said he feels identifying what you are looking for in a city manager should be detennined prior to advertising as that would be included in the advertisement. Councilmember Grafos suggested council use the 2003 job position description as a guideline, and send any suggested changes to Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Whitehead agreed that would be a good place to start, and for Council to also consider what is already stated in this City's municipal code as shown in Exhibit 5. Councilmember Grafos said he wants a local search for a local candidate in Spokane County and not a national search. Councilmember Dempsey said it is her hope that decision will be a full council decision on where to recruit, and Mayor Towey said that such decision will be made by the full council. Councilmember Dempsey said it is her preference to look within the state of Washington as such candidate would be familiar with Washington State laws; and Councilmember McCaslin said he preferred to stay within Spokane County. Councilmember Gothmann said perhaps they could look at possible places and methods of advertising, and consider the associated expenses, as there are likely organizations which list Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 5 of Approved by Council: DRAFT such positions at no charge, whether locally or nationally; and he said perhaps Council could ask Mr. Whitehead to make a list of such organizations. Mr. Whitehead said staff would follow Council's direction on where to recruit, how and the methods of recruitments. After discussion on the process, including whether to include the private sector in any survey; of the differences in public versus private industry; for example bonuses versus no bonuses, benefit packages of public versus private; that some statistics show public employees' salaries 15% greater than those comparable private positions; Council concurred that Council will give Mr. Whitehead any suggested revisions to the current job position description; that such discussion will be scheduled for a specific upcoming council meeting work session; it was mentioned that AWC normally publishes the salary survey by June first so the updated infonnation will be forthcoming; and that Mr. Whitehead will need any comments by next Tuesday in order to have this information for the May 4 council meeting. 5. Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this subject originated with some questions about the previous council's authorized meals prior to council meetings for the council and for staff required to attend council meetings, and the question was asked if those meals violate Washington's Open Public Meeting Act. Mr. Driskell then explained that he examined the question in terms of what is a meeting, which is defined by RCW 4230.020(4); and further of what is defined by "action" as defined by RCW 42.30.020(3); and Mr. Driskell gave those definitions as found in the state statutes, and said one of the reasons this law was enacted is to give the public the confidence that their government is operating in the open, that there are no backroom deals, no special unannounced meetings, and no meetings other than those publicly noticed, so that citizens can attend and participate if appropriate, and said that this boils down to that it is not where a meeting occurs, but what happens at the meeting, and that any discussion of public business constitutes a meeting; and said as an example, if there is a serial e -mail where it comes from one council member to each subsequent councihnember until it is transferred to a majority of councilmembers, that also constitutes a public meeting and has been held by our court to be a violation of the Open Public Meeting Act. Councilmember Grassel said there are times when councilmembers are copied on citizen e- mails; and she asked if council responds to the citizens and copies all other councilmembers is that deemed a meeting, and Mr. Driskell said it could be construed as a meeting; that four councilmembers participating in anything of that nature has legal consequences under the Open Public Meeting Act; and perhaps a good way to avoid that is to submit those inquiries to Mr. Jackson for him to handle and that he could keep council informed of the status of such inquiry. Councilmember McCaslin said he understands there must be a quorum in order to violate the Open Public Meetings Act; so if three people meet such is not a violation. Mr. Driskell agreed but added there could be a potential problem if three people met, then three others, and ultimately a quorum. Councilmember McCaslin said that Article 8 Section 7 of the State Constitution states that "no county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property or loan as money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation" and said his question is, are we taking tax dollars to buy meals for the city council, and is that a violation of the Constitution and he asked Mr. Driskell if he has done research on case law on specifically buying meals. In a point of order, Councilmember Dempsey said that topic is next on the agenda; and Mr. Driskell said his discussion is about the Open Public Meeting Act, and if Mr. McCaslin is asking from a financial standpoint if that is a gift of public funds, which is a separate analysis, he does not recall if his office has specifically examined that legal issue, they did check with the State Auditor's Office which office was aware of the policy and the State Auditor's Office had no objection. Mayor Towey said the point of order has been made and meals will be discussed on the next agenda topic. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that regardless of where the meeting is, if no city business is discussed, then it is not a meeting under the Open Public Meetings Act, and if five people attend a party Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT which is a purely social event and there is no discussion of city business, that is not a violation of the OPMA, and if four councilmembers go to a Spokane County meeting and all four sit next to each other, that could arguably be a public meeting, which is why we ask each Councilmember to notify Administrative Assistant Passmore when councilmembers attend meetings; so staff can properly notice those meetings; and he added that merely having seven councilmembers in one room is not necessarily a violation of the OPMA, but there is also the public's perception of violations of the OPMA. Concerning e -mails from citizens directed to all councilmembers, Mr. Jackson said he feels it best to send those to the City Manager to make sure we have the correct answer and follow the right process; but certainly council can communicate with members of the public, and copy other councilmembers on e -mails and responses, but advised caution in having several councilmembers reach an opinion as to any one e -mail question; and Mr. Driskell agreed and said if there are responses from several councilmembers it might begin to appear as if there were on -line discussion among councilmembers. Councilmember Gothmann said that Administrative Assistant Passmore tracks e -mail requests from citizens to ensure the citizen receives a response; and he said he endeavors to copy Ms. Passmore on any e -mails he sends, which is a way to keep to the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act while ensuring citizen inquiries are answered. Mayor Towey said he feels that is a good policy and should be continued. 6. Council Procedures: Meeting Times, Meals, etc. — Mayor Towey Per the Request for Council Action contained in the council packet, Mayor Towey explained that at the beginning of this city's history, councilmembers and staff were on a tight meeting schedule, and deemed it reasonable to share a meal prior to the council meeting, and enacted the "Refreshment Policy" per Resolution No. 04 -004; he said he feels there was good reason at the time to serve those meals, but that it was not meant to be a habitual matter, that the resolution said the policy would allow payment of the necessary expenses for providing refreshments when approved by the City Manager; that he feels the resolution should remain, as it is sometimes appropriate to serve light meals and /or refreshments during a meeting, such as during the council's retreat, but that the intent of the resolution is not for a regular meeting; and feels the regular meals should not continue. Councilmember Gothmann gave some examples of city councils which supply meals during meetings, such as Shoreline, Washington or Bend, Oregon; and said they are also often used as a means of team building and employee motivation; that he prefers not to continue the practice for council but suggests management see what can be done for employees for that one hour. Councilmember Dempsey said she has no objection to discontinue the meals, but rather objected to the topic not originally coming before council for discussion; and added that sometimes supplying meals is beneficial and there is benefit to sharing a meal. There was council consensus to leave the resolution intact, but to discontinue the weekly Tuesday night meals. The issue of changing meeting times was discussed, and Councilmember Grassel suggested changing the meeting to 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.; while others suggested keeping the meeting time at the currently set 6:00 p.m. time arguing that a later starting time means an equally later ending time. Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that for the regular formal meeting schedule, it generally takes about thirty minutes to get through the beginning of the agenda for such things as roll call, council reports, and consent agenda, and the action items usually don't begin until about 6:30 p.m. while Councilmember Grafos suggested moving the meeting to 6:30 p.m. would better serve the citizens and thereby allow them ample time to leave work, get home and eat, and come to council's meetings. It was moved by Councilmember McCaslin and seconded to keep the meeting time as it currently is. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCashn, Gothmann and Dempsey. Opposed: Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council times will remain at 6:00 p.m. At 8:50 p.m. Councilmember McCaslin announced he was leaving the meeting, and he left the room. Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towev Councilmember Grassel said she has received some letters regarding the Broadway Street project, and Mr. Jackson said that Public Works Director Kersten is preparing some information concerning that topic, and he will discuss this with Mr. Kersten in the morning to determine how soon that matter can be scheduled on a council agenda. 8. 2010 Budget: This item was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 9. Council Check -in — Mayor Towev n/a 10. City Manager Comments —Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said that during last week staff's discussion of proposed comp plan text amendments, it was decided that councilmembers would forward any concerns to staff; and Mr. Jackson said those concerns will aid in staff s research. Mr. Jackson also encouraged Council to review this agenda's information item on the 2010 budget so that Council can communicate their intentions for the 2011 budget preparation. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was determined there would be no Executive Session. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towev, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 4 -20 -2010 Page 8 of Approved by Council: r ;, MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, April 27, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor John Vandenvalker of Community of Christ Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Members of Boy Scout Troop 426 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all councihnembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann said he attended the SVBA (Spokane Valley Business Association) meeting where Spokane County Commissioner Mark Richard spoke about jail issues and the history of the right - of -way; said he attended the Chamber of Commerce monthly meeting; and attended the 2060 meeting, and he explained that every document filed with the County Auditor is taxed and that tax goes into two pools of money, one for 2060 and the other 2163, and said the 2060 funds are used for the homeless and for affordable housing, and said he was on that subcommittee which chooses distribution of those funds, adding that there were no applications from residents of Spokane Valley, and explained that the 20[1]63 funds are to be used for the homeless, following a similar application method, with the final choice made by the Board of County Commissioners; said he attended the Franklin Health Department's meeting last Wednesday in Kennewick where Dr. Larry Jecha of the Franklin Health Department was honored for his service, and said that Dr. Jecha provided interim services for this area for the last two years; said he visited City Manager Taylor in Connell, Washington; he attended a Board of Health Department meeting where several protestors were in attendance regarding a particular case, and said the Complete Street Initiative was passed which is an initiative for including amenities when building a street; said he attended the 911 - Board, and said Motorola was selected as the contractor to provide radios; and said he and Mayor Towey attended the Miss Spokane Valley contest at West Valley High School. Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 1 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, Councilmember Dempsey reported that she attended the SVBA Meeting; attended the Board of Health Meeting where they showed a film on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, which is now "Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Syndrome" which film they hope to have shown on the hospital channels country -wide; attended a lunch at Redeemer Lutheran Church and explained there are people who are trying to get community members together for informal discussions; and today attended the Spokane Law Enforcement Museum opening in downtown Spokane, which she said was well attended. Councilmember Grafos said he attended the Worker's Day ceremony last Saturday at Mission Park in Spokane, which is a ceremony to honor those who die each year in work - related injuries and illnesses, and on behalf of the City of Spokane Valley read a proclamation proclaiming April 28 as Worker's Memorial Day; attended the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board Meeting where they discussed a pending board vote to detennine bus route adjustments and in some cases, the elimination of bus routes, including the paratransit service. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he attended the STA meeting; last Thursday Spokane Valley participated in "Bring Your Kids to Work" day and said we had about three dozen children in council chambers for a staff presentation explaining the various jobs done by our staff, he went to a residence on the South Hill with representatives from the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of the Valley, and said they have a fairly large energy grant put out through the stimulus money, and Mr. Jackson confinned that it was through the "Energy Efficiency Community Development Block Grant ", and Mr. Schimmels explained about the process for an individual energy audit, he discussed an article from the NLC (National League of Cities) concerning this energy audit; and said he received a letter from the Governor regarding this as well; and said he attended a STA workshop on the comprehensive plan which must be submitted every five years; and said he attended the law enforcement group today. Councilmember Grassel: explained that she participated in the "Take Our Kids to Work" day and complimented Human Resources Department staff John Whitehead and Lindsey Skinfill for a well - organized and educational presentation. Councilmember McCaslin said it is interesting that citizens have talked to him about items facing this council, i.e. applicants for the City Manager position, and the Broadway three lane versus four lane project, and said there appears to be quite a bit of interest from citizens on what council will do concerning those items. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he and thirty-three other Washington Mayors attended a Mayor's conference in Bellevue, and the schedule included Local, State and Federal Partnerships, and Getting Your Community On- board, and in- between those sessions, said he spoke to various mayors about such subjects as round- abouts, or getting citizens involved in government, revitalization, using reserves to balance a budget, and said he came away with a new perspective on what different Washington cities are faced with and what our city challenges are and what our solutions should be; said he attended the Lutheran Church community meeting and said the Sheriff gave a presentation about intelligent policing; he attended SCRAPS auction; said he gave a presentation to the University High School leadership class; went to the Rockwood Retirement Community today where they are building 38 subsidized units for senior citizens at the corner of Appleway and Farr Road, and said those units are planned for completion in about a year; and also attended the Miss Spokane Valley coronation, and he congratulated new Miss Spokane Valley Hannah Robb, along with her ambassadors, and said we have invited them to attend the May 11 council meeting in order to recognize them for their achievements; and said that Peggy Doering just received an award from the Washington Recreation and Park Association for merit citizen award of 2010, that Peggy Doering is the Valleyfest organizer, and that she too is scheduled to attend the May 11 council meeting. Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 2 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Allan Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague Avenue said he wanted to speak concerning Broadway Avenue, which he said is called a "Safety Project" and he distributed copies of his comments to council; he said this next phase of Broadway Avenue improvement from Pines Road to Park Road, that they have given it this "safety project" moniker, and said this would stifle any complaint by the public about what's being done at the whim of the Public Works Department, and said that is a clever ploy, as after all, who could be against safety. He said turning a four lane road into a two lane road is a regressive gridlock idea, and said he is against this as he is sure the majority of the driving public is; he said that bicycles and cars do not mix well regardless of a "safety project" moniker, and said this will not change the reality that bicyclists need to ride, if they want to be safe, on the sidewalks or the Centennial Trail, and said a number of them do as bike lanes peter out and said he has seen them all the way from five feet wide to less than a foot wide; he said Broadway Avenue is a main east/west arterial that needs to be four lanes, two in each direction, that the valley population and thus the number of drivers are increasing not decreasing so the road department needs to stop decreasing the vehicular capacity of our roads; he said it would be great if Broadway Avenue could run four lanes from Liberty Lake to the east and to Government Way on the west; he said he was told by Mr. Ken Knudsen, the Road Project Manager of this next phase of Pines to Park Road, and said when Mr. Hinkle called Mr. Knudsen to inquire about who approved the change, Mr. Hinkle said Mr. Knudsen was "kind of vague and a little bit defensive," and told Mr. Hinkle that it was the "council advisers ", and Mr. Hinkle asked if he meant the Spokane Valley City Council, and Mr. Knudsen had replied that he thought that was who it was and said he had only been around since 2007; Mr. Hinkle said he asked him about statistics to prove that the two lane road was safer. Mr. Hinkle said Mr. Knudsen has no statistics. Mr. Hinkle then referred to the second page of his handout, a Spokesman Review article about complete streets; he said that is a fad in vogue now and these fads come and go; and wanted to address something that the road department got right and some things that they got really wrong in our valley; and Mr. Hinkle talked about former roads and their configurations, and of how Sprague Avenue was formerly configured with four lanes, and one could park on the outside lanes; how some things didn't work well on Sprague Avenue, but that now we have a street that works and moves traffic as the then county engineer worked with business owners and conducted a survey concerning the street; and said that Sprague is now probably as safe as it has ever been. Dan Allison, 1203 N Warren Rd: spoke concerning the Broadway change of lanes; said it is four lanes now and out further in the Valley between Pines and Sullivan they brought that down to two lanes; he said the traffic department will tell you that they changed it for safety reasons, and that they will show you studies on accidents and the severity of those accidents and how changing it will be safer, and said they will show you a study of accidents before the changes, and said that study takes in the full length of Broadway from Freya to Sullivan, but said the fact is, the only section they changed from Sullivan to Pines was a very short section, but said they used the full length of Broadway as their study of why that should be safer and why they should bring it down to two lanes. He said Broadway, Pines to Sullivan was the first change, and said the study used was the same one that they are using again to change from Pines to Freya, actually he said " I guess they're going to Park" but the study goes clear to Freya, which takes in the ballpark, all the traffic that would be going to Home Depot, Costco and anything that's down there. He said if the traffic department was truly concerned about safety on Broadway, " I think they would put in more of the blinking crossing lights at the crosswalks at the schools rather than changing the lanes; they changed the lights at two schools maybe three because they had grants for it. We could still spend the money on the ADA improvements on the intersections along Broadway in the new section that they want to do on that portion of the work. As for the grants that we used for these traffic changes, the traffic department seems to be grant driven. This project would not even be on the agenda if it was not for a grant. It still means that it's tax dollars being spent for the project; it's not free money; it's still tax Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 3 of 17 Approved bN� Council: 1 :: dollars no matter what pile it comes out of If we have staff that are collectively looking for grant money that can be plugged into projects that are not truly needed at this time, I would have to say that we have too many staff employees. I for one and many others think that instead of a safety concern for Broadway, that it goes much deeper than that. We think that it is in a round -about way, a part of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan. By slowing the traffic down it would push traffic to Sprague and show an increased traffic car count on Sprague through the proposed city center area. The prior city council thought every trick they could think of to spend money on the city center. We think this is just another one of their methods. This council and the city manager needs to let the staff know that the spending needs to stop because of the pending shortfall that we have next year, and get in line with them on reeling in SARP. The council was voted out. If the staff can't seem to fall in line, they need to leave. I would urge this council to vote no on changing the lanes from four to two. Thank you." Ed Conley, 12622 Sprague Avenue Mr. Conley said he is the Owner of Elephant Boys and Conley's Place Restaurant on Sprague Avenue; he said he is here to talk about the zoning and the down zoning of Sprague Avenue and how it affects their business. He said he moved to the business in 1976, and said that was when they purchased the property; and it was that year he sold his first boats; he said in 1992 he and his wife purchased what is now Conley's Place Restaurant, and in 2006 Elephant Boys was started and in 2007 Elephant Boys moved into the small building located behind Conley's Place Restaurant. He further explained: "quickly growing out of this space, I grew into the building right next door at East 12606 Sprague, across our parking lot in 2009. We share the property line with this building; the two building are approximately fifty feet apart. I have sold boats from this location in the valley continuously since 1976 into the present. I lived on the property for over thirty-four years and I've managed the business from this office and address for over eighteen years, and credit our success partly because of the on -site and day -to -day efforts. Last year in 2009, January to December, Jeannette, Inc. paid in sales tax $220,400 and $5,678 in property taxes. The 2009 payroll for this time was $517,240; and that does not count Jennifer and I as the owners, that's just the employees. Jeannette, Inc., employs thirty-two people, and Jeanette, Inc. is Conley's Place and Elephant Boys; and Elephant Boys employs seven people." He said if Elephant Boys is forced to move out of their location, they won't be able to survive; and said they feel much will be lost and said he would like to remain in business at the present location; said they created it as a community center for their customers, and said they are asking council to help in every way that they can stay there. Councilmember Dempsey said she is confused about the dates, and thought Elephant Boys had been there a long time before 2006. Mr. Conley replied yes, that he started the Valley - wide Elephant store in 1976, and the different departments have been delegated to different family members and re- named, and said the boating part of it is Elephant Boys. Mr. Conley and Councilmember McCaslin then exchanged dialogue: Councilmember McCaslin: you opened in 1976, which would be under the county, what was the zoning then'? Mr. Conley: commercial. Councilmember McCaslin: so up until the time, you were commercial up until the time the previous council changed your zoning, is that correct? Mr. Conley: yes. Councilmember McCaslin: and they changed it to what? Mr. Conley: I believe it's called restricted corridor use; I'm not sure; it's not something I'm used to hearing. Councilmember McCaslin: did anyone from the city contact you prior to the zone change, or did they just change it? Mr. Conley: well, there was that, it was not, if there was a contact it was not me personally, no, you know, whether there was something in the paper that I missed and so on like that, I don't know, but not me personally. Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 4 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, Councilmember McCaslin: have you talked to the city about a zone change so that you could sell your boats? Mr. Conley: yea, they said that would cost up to $2,000, but it's not a zone change it would be a hearing, and it would mean they would listen but it wouldn't necessarily mean they would change it. Councilmember McCaslin: there was no guarantee you'd get the zone change'? Mr. Conley: or the money back or anything like that. Councilmember McCaslin: I understand. Mr. Conley: and seemed reluctant to; now during that time in talking with them, they issued me first a $500 citation for selling boats in that location; I talked to them about making arrangements, we were issued another $500 citation; came down here to this building and met with them and talked to them about what needed to be done; and just prior to election time and the old city council leaving, I got a third $500 citation for selling boats on the property. That's a little hard to understand, isn't it? Councilmember McCaslin: I think you're up to $1,500; sorry about that, anyway, we appreciate your testimony. Councilmember Grafos said the problem with the zone change is that when Ed originally moved in there in 1976, that property was zoned B3 through Spokane County; then in October 2007 it was changed to community commercial under the first downzone, and what he's fighting now is an additional downzone which is a direct result of the SARP reallocation program. He said it is kind of interesting if Ed wanted to continue to sell boats, he could go down to the Gateway Commercial area down here west of Dishman in the AutoRow next to Skipper Bills and he could sell his boats, so when we make those changes, when we put little lines on those maps, it has a consequence, and it has a consequence for real people. Mr. Conley said by suggesting that he could ust move, is silly; he said when he moved to the valley and bought the property, it was zoned commercial and that it took lots of hard hours, and living on the property and working seven days a week to develop the location; he said to say now, why don't you just move; and said that question has been asked to him by different people of why not just move down into the AutoRow district; Mr. Conley said the investment he has made and the location that he has created, cannot be moved, that's the location; and he said that's what they mean when they say in business "location, location, location is everything ;" he said you just don't move; if you move six blocks down the street it will affect your gross sales by the end of the year. He said by expanding his business, which is what he did, he said he grew into the neighbor's property that he is leasing and that's not moving from his location; that his customer drives to his point; and said his neighbors in their advertising in TV and radio, will state "we're located across from the White Elephant" or "we're located next to the White Elephant." And he said that's what he's built for thirty -six years is that location; and to say now if you want to continue in the business of what you've always sold, you're not allowed to grow, expand any bigger, you're not allowed to move down the street; and said he would have to move way down the street if he wants to stay in that business, and said it just doesn't work and is not what we want in our city; and said that's what most people in this city would agree with him on; and said that's what we're up against with the zoning department. Ratree Shadduck, said they bought two properties located at 16 and 18 N Bowdish Road in the fall of 2008; and said their intention was to fix up 418 and then live in it while they converted 416 into a coffee shop; she said just prior to the purchase they contacted the city planner to confirm that those houses could be used as a coffee shop and said they were told that the zoning would indeed allow for a coffee shop. She said they had put the coffee shop on hold to work on their new home, 418 N Bowdish, which was rental property and in need of many repair and upgrades. She said they are on a limited budget and are trying to do what they can to save money; that a death in the family further delayed the work as she had to go to Thailand to care for her father and attend his funeral last October; she said family obligations kept her in Thailand for four months, during which time only a limited amount of work could be done because her husband worked full time. She said they are reaching the last of the necessary renovations on their Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 5 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, home and have been looking forward to the new chapter in their lives; she said it has always been her dream to have a small coffee shop that serves as an oasis of creativity and fine living, and said she has long looked forward to being her own boss. She said they hired a builder to start the renovation on the coffee shop only to find out that the zoning had been changed, and that they can no longer go ahead with their original plans; she said they have invested their retirement fund into a goal that seems unreachable now and said if they are not able to continue as planned, their future will be in great jeopardy. She said their properties are currently surrounded by businesses, including A Quilt Cottage, # 17 N Bowdish Road; Tom's Barber Shop, 101 N Bowdish Road; Opportunity Body Shop 106 N Bowdish Road, En Vogue Hair and Nail Design, 112 N Bowdish Road; Z -Coil Pain ReliefFootware, 122 N Bowdish Road; Sam's Stop N' Shop No. 4, 11505 E Sprague Avenue; and Harmon Glass, 11421 E Sprague Avenue." She said she understands that the revitalization plan for the Sprague and Bowdish area is meant to improve the overall appeal of the city, and said they believe their unique business will contribute positively toward that end; and their goal is to have a place that celebrates culture and beauty, which will be an asset to the City, and she asked Council to consider amending the zoning so she can have a chance to follow her own dreams. Councilmember Grafos said Mrs. Shadduck could go down to the University City area and have a coffee shop, and that this is another result of the revitalization or the allocation plan that was put into effect by the City. Councilmember McCaslin asked City Attorney Connelly if there is anything in federal or state law that protects people against government when they are told one thing and the zoning is changed; as Ms. Shadduck said they started out with information from the city that they could do something, and then zoning is changed which damages them in their pursuit. City Attorney Connelly said under state law in Washington, you can vest to the existing zoning laws by applying for a permit; if the laws change after a permit application has been made, you could continue to pursue under the laws that existed at the time, and said if you don't apply for a building pen or a development pen of some kind, then the property is subject to what the zoning laws are at the time an application is made; he said the zoning can change pursuant to the legislative body's direction if you follow a prescribed process, and said that process requires notice and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council; and in looking at the ordinance which approved the SARP Plan, that incorporates compliance with the state laws; so there is a legislative process to change zoning and council can do it if the process is followed; and then it becomes legal; and said if you leave a reasonable economic use for the property, it's not going to be considered a taking under federal constitutional law, and said if somebody makes an application for a permit, they vest to the right to develop under the laws that exist at the time the permit is applied for. Councilmember McCaslin said he thinks it is important that Council realize that we are doing economic damages, not this council but the previous council, and that people and businesses are being hurt economically, and said he feels it is imperative that this council move a little more rapidly on helping these people. Councilmember Grassel said she agrees with Councilmember McCaslin, that these people have an urgent need and don't have months to sit and wait while council goes through the ordinance process; and said she is angry that these people are being treated this way and it needs to be changed; and that we are inhibiting business progress while struggling with sales tax revenues coming into the city, that we need to cut to the chase and determine what is needed to be done to accommodate these people, instead of having another public hearing in a month from now, and said these people don't have time for that, as they may be under pressure from a builder or from getting a loan, they are under a timeline and don't get to sit and wait while their dollars are being wasted; and she turned to City Attorney Connelly for his remarks. City Attorney Connelly said the first thing we need to do is determine what zone classifications you wish to change; once that is done, staff can let Council know if it can be done without a comp plan change, in which case Council would send it to the Planning Commission for consideration and it would come back to Council; but the plan that the Community Development Director laid out for Council, is to pick each zone within the SARP and she was going to bring that before Council with the neighborhood participation Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 6 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, so that Council could then identify what they want changed; and said he can't think of a way to do it any quicker; as this legislative body needs to identify what they want changed Councilmember Grassel said she doesn't know how we were able to do this a few weeks ago when the gentleman came before Council with the 15,000 square feet along Trent as that didn't go through any hearings, but went to the Planning Commission and then to Council for approval. City Attorney Connelly explained that is the process; it went to the Planning Commission and then it came to Council, and said it was a specific proposal; and now part of the quandary is, we don't know what specific zone changes Council wants to make as a council, and that needs to be discussed and is set up to be discussed by zone, taking one zone at a time to tell council what are the permitted and nonpennitted uses in each zone, and to ask what Council wants changed; and once Council makes that determination, staff can advise council for each change if it needs to go through Planning Commission or which change would need a comp plan change. Councilmember Grassel asked at what point are these people not grandfathered in, and said she thought Council was told for several years now concerning SARP, if people are nonconforming they would be grandfathered in and it would be "no big deal." City Attorney Connelly explained that existing uses are grandfathered in; the boat sales are grandfathered in at the White Elephant site but are not grandfathered in at an adjacent property owned by someone else, and that is the problem; the use for the coffee shop is one which has not been applied for, so there is no grandfathering in for that. Councilmember Gothmann said that two things need to be defined: the comp plan amendments can only go through once a year; but if the proper procedure is followed at any time of the year, you can change what is allowed in what zone, and said that is the process this Council has embarked upon now, to see what is permitted within each zone. Councilmember Gothmann said that he sits on the Transportation Improvement Board, and regarding Broadway Avenue and the TIB, he read the following which he gathered from the TIB website: "Project Information: Spokane Valley Broadway Avenue. Project description: this project reconfigures the four lane roadway to two travel lanes and a continuous left -turn lane. The remaining width becomes a five -foot bicycle lanes on both sides of the road, ADA ramps will be constructed. The total project is $932,850 and $746,000 of that is provided by TIB funds." Councilmember Gothmann said this is a project, and was done under the Urban Funding Program, and the criteria for urban funding program is safety 45 points, mobility 20 points, 15 points for sustainability; and said the reason the project was approved by the TIB was for safety reasons. He continued reading: "The funding for programs under the urban customers, the urban arterial program originally was administered by TIB predecessor. The main characteristics of the urban arterial program is improving mobility and safety" and said that individual applications are scored by the board on that criteria. He said regarding mobility that would ask if it pertains to provide for mobility of bicycles and autos; and said that up to 20,000 vehicles, a three -lane road and a four lane road will handle the same and said there are several reasons but the major reason is that is it a safety program, and if you take that safety program, namely going back to three lanes, you would get approximately 30% reduction in accidents by going to a three lane or a four lane; and if you take that safety program, he said he could not predict what a board would say, but said he would say no, that it doesn't safety the criteria. Councilmember Dempsey asked Mr. Jackson it if would be possible to get the information to find out about Mrs. Shadduck's property to see if there could be some way to expedite, much as the situation a few weeks ago for the business in the industrial area; or if this is something that has to go through the step -by -step process. City Attorney Connelly said the industrial area was a specific application made by a property owner; they paid their fee, they asked for a zone change and it went through Planning Commission and then to Council; and he said any property owner has the right to ask for a zone change; and if the zone change is not consistent with the comp plan, then we have a slower process; but those projects all have to be analyzed individually; and as noted last week, we have set up a schedule where Council can look at each zone within SARP, identify the uses to keep or not keep, and make a determination immediately if they can go through the Planning Commission for a relatively quick turn- around, or ones to put in line for a comp plan change, and he said he cannot think of another way to do Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 7 of 17 Approved by Council: 1 :: that that has any cohesiveness at all other than to take each segment of the SARP, examine it and make a decision, and he said council could make a decision relative to the properties discussed tonight, or they could go through an individual process on their own. City Manager Jackson said generally, staff always listens to the public comments and reports back to the public as well as a full report to the city council; so it is automatic that we will look into each of these situations and provide the range of legal options available to council and to the citizens. Grant Rodkey, 424 S Sullivan Road: said he opposes the Broadway revision; he recommended that council make a motion to suspend that project until it can be put to a public vote since the public pays for it; he said he has stopped using Broadway from Pines to Sullivan as many others have because of the congestion, and said it never fails, that you get behind someone going 25 m.p.h. and a lot of times he has been behind people turning who don't use the left -hand lane to turn in; he said regarding the bikes lanes, he hardly ever sees anyone in the bike lanes and said he drives on 16' between Bowdish and Sullivan every day, and hardly ever sees that; but said he does see pedestrians walking in those even though they should be on the sidewalks, which creates a safety issue; he said he was here for the hearings on those and the public was not listened to; there were two entities that were listened to: the Fire Department and the Schools; and he said those were the only ones he heard in favor of that change; and said if Council reads those testimonies against that, said there was no preponderance from those people, the ones who pay the taxes to fund these projects, to give that an impetus. He said as far as these numbers of percentages of reductions of accidents, " 3 10%, come on — show me the numbers, I don't want to hear percentages; and how many are those?" He said he asked Mr. DeVleming back at that time at a separate occasion where they had opportunity to talk, to give numbers and not just percentages, and said Mr. DeVleming could not come up with anything. Mr. Rodkey said the issue was supposedly that people get rear -ended when they are trying to turn; and said can you honestly tell me that the new configuration is any safer or will prevent rear - ending; where you can't see in front of the cars that are in front of you and someone decides to put on their brakes and someone is following too close because someone is driving too slow. He said there was a survey paid for by Don Hess, former owner of Town and Country Auto at the corner of Broadway and Pines, who surveyed the people who lived on that stretch between Pines and Sullivan, and said very few even knew that revision was going to take place; and said he can probably bet that most of the people along that stretch west of Pines have no idea of what is going to befall them. He said with people trying to get out of their driveways; how does one get out of their driveway when you have twenty -five cars stacked up between the lights. He said this is a very good arterial that moves traffic; and said there was 20 points given for mobility, and we talked about bikes being mobile; but what about the cars? He said he rarely goes down Sprague, but went down Sprague the other day and couldn't believe how packed it was, and said now you are talking about taking off two lanes of traffic, one lane off each way; and said that does not make any sense at all and stated " I guess that's government intelligence." He said that he remembers that Diana Wilhite said this could be reversed if it backed up traffic or found out it doesn't achieve reduction of accidents; and said he doesn't know if that was the plan when they put in cement islands and said that doesn't look very reversible. He said the issue of safety, of course, will be the one to sell this as that is given 45 points, and said he has a hard time buying that part; and said that's all about getting people out of their cars and trying to get everybody to ride bikes. He said it would help traffic flow if we talked to the traffic engineer, Inga Note, about the traffic light time, and said it is absolutely horrible at some intersections, such as turning off Sullivan at 4 to go down 4 and said you can wait up to five minutes with no traffic coming north or south, and said there are other places that have that kind of problem, and said in this day when people are talking about global warming and carbon dioxide and production, he said why are we having people sit at traffic lights burning up the fossil fuels to cause that problem. He said he heard some tragic stories tonight about people putting their life savings on the line to try to have a dream of a business, and said an improvement that could be made on this revitalization plan, SARP, would be if it were to be re- named, and suggested by Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 8 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, calling it "City Revitalization Action Plan" you could have an easy to remember acronv_ m. He said you can figure that one out. Paul Nienhuis, 11009E 3r Avenue, Apt 412: said he rides a bicycle and it is his only mode of transportation, and that he has a medical condition. He said the "fewer lanes on a road the less safe I feel irregardless of any bike lane present or available." He said if Broadway is reduced to two lanes, people who use Broadway when they drive will just find another road to get where they need to be, causing more congestion somewhere else. He said this would be an extremely unneeded change which would cause drivers an inconvenience. He said the citizens earn their money with hard work; and asked if they should be taxed more to pay for something such as this. Allan Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague Avenue he said this is about bicycle safety in the State of Washington, Spokane County. He said over forty years ago, the powers that be decided that bicycle safety was no big concern for the state or cities to codify or regulate, and said we have a benign neglect and a given number of injuries and deaths happen each year. He said other states take a much more proactive approach; they teach children the rules of the road, they require bicycle licenses annually, they require an annual bicycle safety inspection, if a kid does not park his bike in a rack he can receive a bike ticket, and if a kid is riding at night without proper lights, he can be given a ticket, and said the city that he lives in, more than likely the police would take the bike and the kid in and call the parents. He said the latest fad is "compete streets and go bonkers for bikes," he said if you look in the Spokesman Review, you'll see this all the time; he said with bike lanes evei this does not enhance the safety for bicycle riders. He said he measured the width of a bike lane near his home in the valley and it was three feet wide; and tapers down, and said this is on Evergreen Road from 32n to 24 and the lane is not put in the middle of the street but is put way over to the west side and there is no bicycle lane at all on the east side where the street is double wide. He said a 4,000 pound car going down the road, and four feet away is a forty pound bike with a rider; and said this is not real safe; and he said cyclists do not know the rules of the road and even if they know the rules, they frequently don't obey them, and he suggested watching a cyclist at an intersection; he said they most often do not stop at stop signs but ride right through, and seldom if ever use arm turn signals; he said if a car driver is distracted or on his cell phone, and the cyclist is four feet away, the cyclist will be injured or killed. He said he is a sometimes cyclist and if he wants to ride he'll ride on the Centennial Trail. He said the second page of his handout is from the Washington State Department of Transportation; he said getting information from them is difficult and requires about a two -week wait, and said he had to sign a waiver that he would not use these statistics in any way for litigation against the State of Washington Department of Transportation; and said this data shows that in the years from 2005 to 2009, there were 518 injuries and four deaths; and said the more bike lanes that are created, the closer the bicycle riders are to the vehicular traffic, the greater the risk for injuries and fatalities; and said he believes that sidewalls and the Centennial Trail are the safest place for pedalcyclists. He said if you look in the April 17 Spokesman Review, there is an article about a man who was struck by a car resulting in severe injuries; he said putting all these bicycle lanes, and the Spokesman Review today they talk about how they want people downtown to ride their bikes, he said they can do this in the summer; and said they are trying to get people to ride bikes to work and said they had 1400 signed up to do this; and said we all know we won't do this in the winter; and in the previous plan with the SARP, it was "we're going to ride our bicycles down to the city center and everything" and he asked everyone, "you're going to go down there and you're going to go shopping for the week on your bicycle right? And you're going to go to Costco or maybe Rosauers or Winco or Wal -Mart and take all your groceries home for a week on your bicycle. It ain't going to happen folks." Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that he sees on some of this correspondence, that we are quoting the complete street name; and said that has been approached to the City of Spokane by the Spokane Regional Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 9 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, Transportation; that the City of Spokane is possibly going to adopt this; and said we have not talked about it out here to his knowledge; and said we are in a lot different area; we don't have the density and said he would like to calm citizen's fears and said he thinks that is not on our agenda at this point. Mayor Towey said he really appreciates all the comments tonight, and said this is what this council needs and this is why we put the public comment on the agenda; and said we need more citizens to tell Council about citizen concerns. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 04 -08 -2010 3124, 3126, 3127, 3136, 19900, 19928- 19932 $246,752.51 04 -08 -2010 19933- 19968; 401100016, 405100013 $1,592,536.87 04 -09 -2010 19969 -19973 $768.26 04 -09 -2010 19974 -19998 $99,875.00 04 -16 -2010 19999 -20013 $31,195.95 04 -19 -2010 3138 -3140 $57,679.09 GRAND TOTAL $2,028,807.68 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending April 15, 2010: $253,275.21 c. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2010 Councilmember Gothmann asked that item I be removed to discuss separately; and it was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve items la through I c. d. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2010 Councilmember Gothmann said that page one of the April 13, 2010 council minutes contains a definition for SNAP which is incorrect, and said that SNAP doesn't mean anything, and is merely the name of the corporation, and he moved to strike that parenthesis which follows SNAP; the motion was seconded and the motion passed unanimously. It was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve item Id as amended. NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -007 Amendina Combrehensive Plan - Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 10 -007. Planner Basinger provided an overview of the first reading of the 2010 comprehensive plan amendments which was held April 13, 2010; that council deliberated on CPA 01 -10 through CPA 08 -10 and advanced the ordinance to a second reading; he briefly went over the three proposed site - specific map amendments and the planning commission recommendations for each; and said at that April 13 meeting, there were no concerns expressed by Council with these amendments. Mr. Basinger said there were two specific council questions regarding the Planning Commission's recommended text amendments, and Mr. Basinger referenced the supplemental policy analysis prepared by staff; he said the first question was, would accepting the Planning Commission's recommendations and approving the proposal text amendments, create a conflict when later evaluating the SARP, and he said it is his professional opinion it would not; and said these proposed policies are not SARP related. Mr. Basinger said staff s purpose in developing these polices was to align our comp plan with regional, state, and federal initiatives to leverage for future funding opportunities, and said the other policies set the frame work for building an attractive community that draws people to live here; and other policies Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 10 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, promote protecting natural resources like the aquifer. The second question previously asked by Council, explained Mr. Basinger, was are these policies required. Mr. Basinger said these policies are not specifically required, but are consistent with RCW 36.70A. the Growth Management Act, and are consistent with the existing goals in the City's adopted comprehensive plan; and said in the policy analysis, he included the goal, then the policy and why the policy was included. Mayor Towey said he really appreciates the policy analysis as it gives a clear picture of why we spend so much time putting this together; and not so much staff time but it has to go through the Planning Commission and they have to have hearings, and there is a lot of time involved in just one sentence, and he said it gives Council a better picture of why this is being done and why that time is being spent; and said he thinks that in the future, these policy analysis would be helpful in any other future proposal, and said it can be narrowed down to whether it is mandatory or continuing for a future grant or public safety; and said if we did this, we would save a lot of time. Councilmember Grafos said his concern is the amount of time and effort and dollars, taxpayer dollars that we are spending on these text amendments; and he picked one out as an example; he said he appreciates knowing if these are mandatory or tied to a grant; and said under Capital Facilities and Public Services, goal 45, page 9, the existing goal that was in the Comprehensive Plan is "Promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of solid waste." Councilmember Grafos said that's the goal as it was existing, and said staff came back with "CFP 5.3: work towards reducing waste at city- sponsored events through the provision of recycling canisters and other means" and said the staff comes back with an analysis of "promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of solid waste. This policy gives specific direction and a means to achieve the overall goal." Councilmember Grafos said he thinks it is all redundant, boilerplate, and a lot of this is a waste of time and tax dollars, and staff time. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Grassel said she concurs with Mr. Grafos. Vote by Acclamation on the motion to approve the ordinance: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, Dempsey, and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmember Grafos. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -008 Amending Zoning Map— Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 10 -008. Planner Basinger said this ordinance takes the site - specific map amendments and changes the zoning map to be consistent. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7: 44 p.m. 4. Proposed Resolution 10 -010 Adopting Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan — Mike Connelly It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Resolution 10 -010 adopting the 2009 update of the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. City Attorney Connelly explained that state law requires counties and /or cities to develop a comprehensive solid waste plan that guides the specific agreements they enter into, and the regulations they pass, he said that Spokane County has been organized regionally and adopted its solid waste plan on a regional basis and has been the lead in the development of that plan; he said state law also requires that the plan be periodically updated, and Spokane County has updated the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan and is now asking cities to affirm that plan on their behalf, and said the only option the City of Spokane Valley would have is to develop its own comprehensive solid waste plan, which would be a significant undertaking. Attorney Connelly said this particular plan is notable that it is not an interlocal agreement dealing with structural changes that may exist in the solid waste system, or an interlocal agreement which would change the method of waste disposal, nor it is an interlocal agreement which would adopt the financing proposal that the City of Spokane has been discussing; he said this Plan is a basic planning guideline that we will use as we move ahead to develop new interlocals with Spokane County and possibly the City of Spokane. Attorney Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 11 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, Connelly said the document is approximately 300 pages, and is in the Clerk's office for those who wish to review it; and said he has attached in tonight's packet the summary of the changes; and he said the changes are not alarming or overly significant, and he went over some of the changes listed in the summary. Mayor Towey invited public comment, no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Schimmels commented that at 9 a.m. on May 10 at Spokane City Hall Briefing area, a meeting will be held where the Liaison Board and a facilitator will accept comments concerning the governance structure. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Grant Rodkey, 424 S Sullivan Road: said he has gone to a few of these meetings and said he appreciates Council's decision on the meals; he said he wanted to comment about having fellowship over dinners making it easier to facilitate things; he said things he has done in the past is like have a "potluck dinner, where people are wanting to be involved in the dinner, you know, you find something you like and you get a recipe from somebody, and that makes it sort of a fun event; it's a team building thing. The challenge for me is, the issue of generosity was brought up before, and you know, I've heard it said it's easy to be generous with other people's money, especially when they are compelled by taxation to give it to you; and you know, the, I found that, you know, talking about the joy of giving that Jesus and others knew that, I found, when I give something out of my own heart, and out of my own resources, to help somebody else, I get a great feeling of j oy from that. It sort of reminded me of my nephew. We were at a restaurant the other night and they have a little box for giving to kids in Haiti or something like that, and he said `Uncle Grant, can I have a dollar' you know, and so he came over and wanted a dollar from me, and I think somebody else gave it to him to put in the box but I wasn't quite so generous; but he needed to pull it out of his own pocket; but he pulled it out of my friend's pocket; and put it in; but my nephew didn't have the joy of giving of himself to the resources to help somebody else out; he relied on the resources of somebody else; and he needed to be asked the question `where's your money to give to put into the potT and so, another thing that was brought up, the issue of benefitting businesses. I don't have any problem with benefitting business but I think the employees, they earn money, they are able to go across the street, get a hamburger or bring a sack lunch whatever; I don't mind helping other businesses but I don't think that we need to be doing, using the private citizens' hard earned money to benefit the businesses. I don't think that should be at the expense of the taxpayers. Most of these taxpayers just would love to have that feeling of being so compassionate, but they don't even know how compassionate they are being by the direction of somebody else. So I think, you know, it's the kind of thinking that really we need to change the paradigm of being generous with somebody else's money. We need to be generous with our own money. It's real easy to be generous with somebody else's, and so, you know, again, I think that, you know, the issue of satisfaction that comes from helping somebody else comes from when we give of ourselves; and anyway, I'd like to put a plug in for a book that is written probably about sixty years ago by a guy named Friedrich Havak, called The Road to Serfdom and as I come to these meetings, the things that he wrote about are very evident, and if you read the book you will see exactly what he is talking about; but he is talking about some historical things that happened around the 40's that were real tragic; and we all get sort-of trapped into that as we get into more and more efficient government. And again, I'd like to put a plug in again for a motion to suspend that Broadway project. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. Council Broadcasting — Greg Bins4aman, Morgan Koudelka IT Specialist Bingaman discussed broadcasting options in follow -up to previous council request for additional details. Mr. Bingaman described three options for council consideration: option 1 is a recorded, posted edited, product DVD with delayed playback; option 2 is to produce final product while recording with delayed playback, and option 3 is live broadcast with recording and delayed playback; and he explained some of the costs associated with each option, and explained the current use and cost of working with Community Minded TV for broadcast of Tuesday's council meetings on the following Monday at 7:30 p.m. on Channel 14; including adding Internet with such things as a hosted, on- demand Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 12 of 17 Approved bN� Council: r ;, service such as is provided by the company Granicus, which he explained is a popular system with many county and city govermnents. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked what the City of Spokane has, and Mr. Bingaman said their system would be closest to his proposed option 3 with the full live broadcast, and added that Spokane has a larger budget including a full broadcast studio, with at least 1.5 staff. Councilmember Gothmann said it appears option 1 would be able to be uploaded to the web and citizens could replay that at their leisure. Mr. Bingaman confirmed that is the case and that the hosted Internet is an option within option 1; and said the advantage of Internet over cable broadcasting, is once it is on the Internet, it can remain until such time as we use up the storage space offered to us; and said that same option is included in his option 2 and 3. Mayor Towey asked if this were on the Internet, could a person select the portion of the meeting they wanted to view instead of viewing the entire meeting, and Mr. Bingaman said the Granicus system is capable of handling such viewing, and their system ties into the agenda and is a convenient way. Mayor Towey asked how much it would cost if we only used Internet, and Mr. Bingaman responded that it would depend if it were hosted or live; and the $36,000 upfront cost of producing the signal would still be needed; and he said the difference between option 2 and 3 is that option 3 adds in the capability of a live broadcast in the 6 -9 p.m. Tuesday timeslot. Councilmember Grassel asked if channel 14 were the only option for television. Mr. Bingaman said the public sector, PEG includes public, education, and governmental; and our provider Comcast has set aside one channel, channel 5 in their viewing market; and that is currently being used by the City of Spokane; he said we would do an arrangement with Channel 14 for broadcasting which serves the public side of broadcasting (the "P" part of PEG), and said we could broadcast with them contractually; and said the other broadcasting options are limited without investment of hardware; and said if we want our own channel, we would need a commitment of a certain number of programming hours; which means more than just broadcasting a three -hour Tuesday night council meeting, but that it would require additional hardware, and we could include such things as a city bulletin board for announcements; and /or get additional content from the County and /or the City of Spokane to re- broadcast. Councilmember Dempsey asked if additional personnel would be needed for any of these options. Mr. Bingaman said that direct cost is not included, and option 1's $36,000 is all labor; and option 2 and 3 has dramatically less labor costs as those options are less time - involving; and said if we started to move forward with this, it would require some of his time and perhaps we could have a temporary person to help get the project started; but said he does not anticipate the need for another full -time person. Councilmember Grafos asked if the option 2, $24,000 annual cost is the service the SVBA is paying for through June; and Mr. Bingaman indicated that is our cost, but that SVBA has an arrangement with Community - Minded TV which is substantially less then what we are looking for as they contract for one - hour a week, but the options include a three -hour time slot. Councilmember Grafos said SVBA is making a DVD at the same time they are making the broadcast, and he asked since Mr. Bingaman is the "Tech Guy" for Mr. Bingaman to tell him why we could not do likewise with Mr. Bingaman putting it on the city's website. Mr. Bingaman responded that he is not the professional when it comes to TV broadcasting, and the uploading is not the issue; that what Council does not see is what happens after the broadcast: that Community Minded TV has one cameraman who is recording a three -hour program with two cameras; and said that gives them six hours of footage to go through and edit; that the person from Community Minded TV takes the two cameras and the three -hour film per camera, and ingests that into the system, edits it, includes the graphics, do some titling, then they have to take that product and encode it to make it playable for television; he said it is not the same system as what is produced when they record and what they use for broadcasting; so that output gets sent to a DVD, and once the DVD is made, the uploading is no problem and there is no cost to upload. Councilmember Grafos asked if the $2,000 a month includes the editing since it includes the editing for SVBA; and said at $2,000 a month, there would be an edited program and the six hours they spend would be included in that $2,000 a month; and Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 13 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, then have the DVD and from there we would put it on the website. Mr. Bingaman said that is mostly correct; that it would be $36,000 divided by twelve or $3,000 monthly, and said the $2,000 per month is when we include the hardware up front; and he explained that option 2 has the real time production; and said council doesn't see a list of hardware that includes, but that provides multiple cameras within the council chambers, and a video switcher /mixer; and said someone would run that board and produce that production of the meeting live, inject the graphics and titles during the meeting, so at the end of the meeting, the DVD is already made. Councilmember Grafos said he is not suggesting to do it live, he suggests do the same system we have now; and Mr. Bingaman said that is the $36,000 option, option 1. Councilmember Gothmann said the reason the meeting is shown the following Monday night is the time involved to get it ready for broadcasting; and that now we are investing money in the post- editing, and that option 2 removes that and inserts instead, the hardware for someone to operate on -site; thereby more efficient from a manpower perspective. Mr. Bingaman said there are two options of option 2: one is the labor savings and the second is the time to air. Mr. Bingaman said there is another option for broadcasting on cable, that Channel 5 City of Spokane said they world offer us a 12:30 slot on Saturdays; but added there isn't currently a way to get them the DVD to meet the time requirements, as they would need the DVD by 4 p.m. Wednesday in order to ingest into their system for Saturday; and with the option 1 that is not possible due to the time it takes for the post- editing. Councilmember Grassel asked why the current arrangement with SVBA is $1400 a month; and Councilmember Gothmann said the current arrangement is $1320 a month; that there is no contract just an oral agreement; that Community - Minded TV gave an estimate and SVBA committed to doing this through the end of June, and in the original discussion, it was to tape for one -hour, and said when he spoke to Community Minded TV about editing the meeting from its original length to one hour, Community Minded TV agreed to do the taping for three hours, and emphasized this is an informal, temporary arrangement, and said Community - Minded TV is a non - profit institution. Councilmember Grassel said then that fee was based on an hour and now it's approximately $36,000 annually because it would include the full three hours. Councilmember Gothmann concurred, and added that the Lynnwood Mayor stated that "to the best of our knowledge, 25-30% of our citizens watch the delayed video. Our current budget for TV broadcasts is about $15,000 a year. It is worth every penny in my opinion." Mr. Bingaman said the costs also are based on staffing levels, and presently we are outsourcing almost all labor to keep the headcounts down. Deputy Mayor Schiimnels asked what is the City's direct cost and the direct cost to Comcast subscribers; that Comcast has offered an aggregate amount and "so -much a month to offset this" and he asked Mr. Bingaman if he could differentiate that. Mr. Bingaman said Comcast PEG agreement is that we use the funds generated through the PEG fee strictly for capital purposes; we could use the PEG funding for the $3,050 for the hardware in option 1 and also use it for the $35,000 in option 2 and 3; and could also use it for the $15,000 fiber head end build if we ever wanted to go with live broadcasting; and said the reoccurring costs shown in his far column, would be items not covered by any of the franchise agreement fees, the PEG funding. Councilmember Dempsey said she favors broadcasting the meetings, that channel 14 serves one group and by putting it on the Internet would serve another group thereby having a wider range of people; and said several people have remarked about the meetings on television. Councilmember Grassel said she does not have a problem with broadcasting, but feels we are not solidified in our budget and said she has a problem in advancing anything until after the financial retreat this summer; and said we just cut dinners and said she doesn't know if this is appropriate to put in $36,000 or $45,000 proposal without having a handle on the budget, and she cautioned that this be postponed until council knows where the budget stands. Councilmember Dempsey said she would like to pursue this to see what we can come up with instead of postponing it; and see if there is a way to pay for it. Councilmember McCaslin said the information he has is we have declining revenues; and if that is the case, he said "I don't know why we are sitting here talking about spending more money; we went through the meals project and got rid of the $833 a month if the figures were accurate, so we are saving money there, and now we are discussing Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 14 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, adding to our expenditures which doesn't make sense to me when we don't know what the demand is for broadcasting" and said he would be opposed to any expenditure whatsoever. Mayor Towey asked if there is any way to find out how citizens are viewing this. The gentleman filming the meeting said Comcast indicated there is not a way to detennine how many people view the meeting broadcast. Councilmember Gothmann said he favors moving forward and sees this as the cost of doing business, to tell the public what we are doing, and to use 21S Century tools to communicate with constituents; and he said we are the largest city in the state that does not broadcast, and according to this handout of "excerpts from a TV survey" which includes data from about two years ago, of which cities broadcast; and in reading comments from mayors of other cities, it appears they agree that this is the cost of doing business. Councilmember Grafos said he doesn't mind pursuing just looking at the options, but until council looks at the budget during the summer retreat, since we are in declining revenues, he would not be in favor of signing up for this; and said it is wonderful that the SVBA has graciously agreed to fund this through June at their expense. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked how many people have and don't have Comcast; and Councilmember Gothmann said there are 22,000 subscribers in the Spokane Valley; and said he does not know how that compares with Direct TV or Dish subscribers. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he has called around and cannot ascertain those figures; and Councilmember Dempsey said that is why the Internet should be used so that those who do not have Comcast or Direct TV or Dish, could access the programming. According to an informal survey he conducted, Councilmember Gothmann said it is his opinion that the citizens in general want this service. City Manager Jackson said next week's agenda item concerns Comcast and the collecting of PEG fees; that Council can still deliberate on the broadcast issue, but this means that the hardware cost, if Council elects not to have Comcast collect the PEG fees, will come from city funds instead of Comcast; and said at this time we have asked Comcast not to collect those fees for us, and said in addition to the government component of PEG, there is the public and education components; so Council will want to consider whether to collect those fees to distribute for public and education uses as well; and said the issue of PEG fees should probably be determined within the next thirty days or so. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that currently Comcast has several channels set aside for all the PEG uses, there are multiple channels for educational programming for K -12 and for the colleges; that Community Minded Television operates channel 14 which is for any member of the public to provide programming that is of benefit to the community, and channel 5 is what the City of Spokane currently uses; and as part of our franchise agreement with Comcast, there is the ability to take advantage of a multi jurisdictional governmental channel or replace Spokane Channel 5 with our own government channel; that both Community Minded Television and the organization CABLE which is the operator for the educational channels, have both made requests of our City to share in any PEG funding provided by Comcast; and said these fees are separate from the franchise fee. Councilmember Grafos asked if the PEG fees are the $150,000 that they would give us for capital equipment only; and Mr. Koudelka said the current arrangement with Comcast is that the equivalent of 35c per subscriber per month would be provided, which equates to about $92,000 annually; however, Comcast would provide $150,000 of that amount upfront and divert some of the subsequent revenue flow to paying off that initial payment; but it still would equate over the five -year period to $92,000 annually. Mr. Koudelka said that is has taken a little more time to get the approved franchise agreement back from Comcast, and we hope to have that soon; and said should Council decide to go a different direction with the PEG fees; that would open at least the one section of the franchise agreement to re- negotiation with Comcast, and they may change the terms; even if we don't decide to permanently delete that but to reserve it for potential future use, Comcast may decide to change the terns. City Attorney Connelly said we have a signed agreement, and if Council wants to change the agreement we always run the risk of them coming back with things they want to change. Councilmember Dempsey asked how long it took to get that initial agreement; and Mr. Koudelka said it took many years. Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 15 of 17 Approved by Council: UIFT.-TM Mayor Towey said the question is, if there are three or more councilmembers who want to move forward with this on an upcoming agenda, and if asked if there was consensus; and Councilmember Grassel said the answer depends on when council wants to discuss this, whether before or after the summer retreat. Mr. Jackson said the discussion on whether to broadcast the council meeting can happen at any time council wishes, and the issue that has a time frame is whether to accept the PEG fees from Comcast, or to permanently defer those fees; and even though we would have about sixty days, he recommended that decision be made within the next month or so in order to avoid coming right up to the deadline; so in terms of bringing this back, he asked for Council to give staff direction, that what he hears is that Council would like to know how we might pay for it; or council can delay this until after July; and adding that any new money spent will have a budget impact. Mayor Towey again asked if there were three or more councilmembers to have this move forward on a future agenda; and at least three councilmembers said they would like to discuss it on a future agenda. 6. Advance A eg nda Councilmember Grassel said the public comment tonight about the zoning changes brings her back to a question that came up at the February council retreat; and said what she hears from these citizens is that there is a time constraint, and a financial constraint; she said it was presented they could make a request for zoning changes at a cost of $2,000 and said that is not a guarantee a zoning change would happen; and said she would like to consider RCW 35A.63.220 which addresses interim zoning controls; and she explained that RCW states that "A legislative body that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty days of its adoption" and she asked if the City Attorney could address that issue of putting in an interim zoning change; for example, to go back to commercial zoning, and have those hearings, and in the meantime to give these constituents the zoning they need to move forward on their projects. City Attorney Connelly said the problem is that simply going back to commercial zoning, assuming in the entire SARP zone, would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which adopted the zones which are set forth in the SARP map; and by law we cannot, not even on a interim basis, do something which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and explained that he had identified that in his last memo and said he would be glad to revisit that and take a look again at some more precipitous way to resolve a macro problem; but said he thinks his conclusion was that the only way to move forward and be consistent with state law was to take a look at each zone and examine what changes can be made that are not inconsistent with the comp plan, and then make those, and those could be done either by interim zoning or by going through the planning commission and back to council provided they are not inconsistent with the comp plan, and then defer those that will require a comp plan change; and said he would be glad to revisit that issue and procedures. Councilmember Grassel said she reviewed some of that memo, but said it seemed it was not in conflict with the Growth Management Act in the comp plan as long as a hearing is held within sixty days, so we could go back and do the interim zoning ordinances without. City Attorney Connelly said the sixty days is, if you are going to pass an interim zoning ordinance, or pass an ordinance on an interim emergency basis, you must hold a hearing within sixty days; it allows the ordinance to be passed without a hearing, but then states that a hearing must be held within sixty days; and he said the purpose for that is, if generally there was a problem if you had a properly noticed, publicized hearing it would result in a flood of applications that might be detrimental or inconsistent with the overall planning process, you pass the ordinance then have the hearing so you don't have that problem. City Attorney Connelly said for example, if he were going to pass a moratorium and he spent a month telling everybody that he was going to impose a moratorium, that might result in a flood of applications prior to the moratorium date; so that ordinance allows you to pass the law first, then have the hearing and then go through the whole process; and said he feels his analysis last time was that a radical change like that would be inconsistent with the comp plan and would be contrary to state law; a specific change within each zone as to what use would be allowed may be consistent with the Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 16 of 17 Approved by Council: r ;, comprehensive plan and could be done either on an emergency basis or go through the planning commission; and said he could expand on that aspect for Council; and Councilmember Grassel agreed that Council needs something brought forward in an urgent manner. Councilmember Grassel said there were two citizens here tonight, and she wondered how many people went before the planning board and didn't think to come before Council, and were just told they could apply for a zoning change, that by the way it will cost $2,000 and probably when you are done closer to $10,000, so there might be a lot more of these individuals that Council can be helping. City Attorney Connelly agreed it is difficult to know without looking at the zone as a whole and giving all of the property owners a chance to comment; and said we also don't know if people have purchased their property in reliance of the SARP and the development code and of things allowed within that SARP; and said if we don't have a hearing and give notice, we really won't know what the property owners feel about that particular zoning area. Councilmember Grassel said then Mr. Connelly is suggesting staff could bring to council, making a zoning change that would not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan; and Mr. Connelly said uses allowed within the zones can be adjusted that may not be in conflict with the comprehensive plan, but a radical zoning change to commercial for the whole SARP would clearly be in conflict with the comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Grassel asked if Council could get a list from the planning department of perhaps the last ninety days, all of those permits which were denied because of zoning conflicts, and Mr. Jackson said he would look into that; and added that staff will also provide in addition to the legal aspects, all the procedural aspects and history on these cases so council has all the information, and said staff will try to do that as quickly as they can. Councilmember McCaslin said therefore, he understands that Council cannot adopt this RCW; and Mr. Connelly said he does not feel Council can use that RCW to change the whole SARP back to commercial; no. Councilmember McCaslin asked even though that grants that right in the RCW; and Mr. Connelly said he does not believe it grants that right, it allows you to do certain things but does not allow you to do that. In other matters for the advance agenda, Mayor Towey said he had a request to for our Council and Liberty Lake's council to hold a joint meeting since the challenges of both cities are mutual; and Mr. Jackson said staff will ask council for some suitable dates and contact Liberty Lake for dates as well. Councilmember Dempsey commented that one of the citizen comments tonight was about the traffic lights, and Councilmember Dempsey suggested if someone has a problem with traffic lights, they make Traffic Engineer Inga Note aware of the issue. INFORMATION ONLY: The library quarterly report, fire department quarterly report, department reports and Broadway Avenue Safety Project were for information only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Regular Meeting 4 -27 -2010 Page 17 of 17 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading — Ordinance extending time for acceptance of franchise by Comcast. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 09 -034. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comcast franchise December 1, 2009; discussion regarding PEG fees February 16, 2010; discussion on PEG fees March 9, 2010; discussion on broadcasting options April 27, 2010; administrative report May 4, 2010. BACKGROUND: The Council adopted Ordinance 09 -034, which approved the franchise between Spokane Valley and Comcast so that Comcast may place and maintain its cable facilities in the City's right -of -way so it can operate its' business. One of the requirements of the franchise (a contract granted by ordinance), Section 43, is for Comcast to return the signed franchise within 60 days of it being in effect. It was in effect February 10, 2010, so it would have to have been returned by April 11, 2010. Before April 11, 2010, the City Council decided it wanted to look closely at whether it wanted to broadcast Council and other public meetings, which could impact whether some of the PEG fees would need to be collected and spent. This resulted in discussions with Comcast that apparently led to an understanding by Comcast that it should not return the signed franchise by April 11, 2010. City staff has had subsequent discussions with Comcast, and that issue has been cleared up. The proposal is to extend the time to return the signed franchise from April 11, 2010 to June 11, 2010. OPTIONS: (1) request additional changes (2) motion to advance to second reading on May 25, 2010; (3) suspend rules and adopt as drafted tonight. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we suspend the rules and adopt the Ordinance extending time for acceptance of franchise by Comcast. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance extending time for Comcast to return signed franchise DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR ACCEPTANCE BY GRANTEE, OF ORDINANCE 09 -034, SECTION 43, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Spokane Valley City Council passed Ordinance 09 -034 granting Comcast of Pennsylvania/Washington/West Virginia, LP a non- exclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate certain facilities within the public right -of -way and public properties within the City of Spokane Valley, Washington; and WHEREAS, Section 43 of Ordinance 09 -034 states that not later than 60 days after passage and publication of the Ordinance, Grantee must accept the franchise by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof; and WHEREAS, the City published Ordinance 09 -034 on February 5, 2010, and the effective date was February 10, 2010, beginning the 60 day acceptance period; and WHEREAS, due to communication from the City of Spokane Valley regarding Public, Education and Government (PEG) fees under Section 13.8 of the franchise, Comcast was unclear as to whether the City intended to receive the PEG fees. As such, Comcast did not return the fully executed franchise within 60 days as set forth in Section 43; and WHEREAS, Section 43 of Ordinance 09 -034 provides that the time period for acceptance may be extended by an ordinance passed for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City has cleared up the communication issue with Comcast, and wishes to extend the time period for acceptance for 60 additional days from April 11, 2010 to June 11, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to extend the time period for acceptance by Grantee of Ordinance 09 -034 an additional 60 days, from April 11, 2010, to June 11, 2010. Section 2. Extending Time For Acceptance of Ordinance 09 -034 Additional 60 Days The time period for Grantee to accept Ordinance 09 -034 is extended 60 additional days from the effective date of February 10, 2010. Grantee must accept the franchise by June 11, 2010. Failure of Grantee to accept this franchise within said period will result in the consequences set forth in Ordinance 09 -034, Section 43. Section 3 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance 10- Extending Time, Re 09 -034 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 4 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of 1 2010. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Extending Time, Re 09 -034 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution: Recreation /Conservation Resolution for Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development — Phase 1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Greenacres Park Development grant proposal to Washington Legislature 2008 and 2009. Approved grant request in 2008 for development of Greenacres Park. BACKGROUND: The City is applying for a development grant for Greenacres Park Development — Phase 1. Pursuant to that, a resolution is required by the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office. The 2006 grant for acquisition funding was approved. Regarding the development of the park project - The City received $300,000 from the 2008 Legislative Session and an additional $200,000 from the Legislature in 2009. In accordance with Council's direction to proceed with the development of the Greenacres Neighborhood Park staff is preparing the submittal of a $500,000 development grant request in 2010. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve the resolution authorizing application for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program project for the Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development phase 1. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City commitment for this project is dependent upon the success of this grant application. To date $200,000 has been budgeted in Parks Capital Projects Fund through the annual budget process. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Authorization Resolution Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program Authorizing Resolution Organization Name: City of Spokane Valley Resolution No. 10- Project Name(s) Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development — Phase 1 A resolution authorizing application(s) for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) project to the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW, Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands. WHEREAS, our organization has approved a comprehensive plan that includes this project area; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of WWRP, state funding assistance is requested to aid in financing the cost of land acquisition and /or facility development; and WHEREAS, our organization considers it in the best public interest to complete the land acquisition and /or facility development project described in the application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: 1. The Parks & Recreation Director be authorized to make formal application to the Recreation and Conservation Office for funding assistance; 2. Any fund assistance received be used for implementation of the project referenced above; 3. Our organization hereby certifies that its share of project funding is committed and will be derived from City of Spokane Valley Funds; 4. We acknowledge that we are responsible for supporting all non -cash commitments to this project should they not materialize; [ if applicable ] 5. We are aware that the grant, if approved, will be paid on a reimbursement basis. This means we may only request payment after eligible and allowable costs have already been paid and remitted to our vendors. 6. We acknowledge that any property acquired or facility developed with financial aid from the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) must be placed in use for the funded purpose and be retained in such use in perpetuity unless otherwise provided and agreed to by our organization and RCFB. 7. This resolution becomes part of a formal application to the Recreation and Conservation Office; and 8. We provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. This resolution was adopted by our organization during the meeting held: May 11, 2010. Location: Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague, Ste 106, Spokane Valley 99206 Date: May 11, 2010 Signed and approved by the following authorized representative: Signed Thomas E. Towey Title Mayor Date May 11, 2010 Attest: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form Office of the Citv Attornev CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution Accepting Shoreline Master Program "Inventory and Shoreline Characterization Report." GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173 -26 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update process commenced in late summer, 2009. Shoreline Management Programs include the following major components: - Inventory and Shoreline Characterization - Environmental Designations - Goal, Policies and Regulations - Cumulative Impacts - Shoreline Restoration Due to the complexity of Shoreline Management Programs, the Planning Commission and City Council will review the individual SMP components at public hearings over the next year. Once formally "accepted" by City Council resolution, the components will be compiled into a final Public Hearing Draft. This Public Hearing Draft SMP document will be the subject of final public hearings with the entire process for local adoption anticipated to reach completion in 2011. The first component of the SMP update is the Inventory and Shoreline Characterization report. URS Corporation was contracted to assist the City with the update. URS and City Staff worked collaboratively to acquire relevant baseline data used for the shoreline inventory. This data included GIS maps, reports, input from local experts and direct field observations from an ecologist and an engineer working to document the natural resources and the condition of the build environment along the shorelines. Further information was gathered during two public Open Houses in November, 2009 and February, 2010. On March 2, 2010, a Joint Planning Commission /City Council Study Session was conducted where the SMP Update Team presented the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Comments received from Technical Review Group, which largely consists of government agencies, tribes and technical experts, is incorporated into the Public Review Draft, which is attached separately. On April 22, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft Shoreline Inventory Report. The Commission did not receive any comments at the hearing. Representatives from the Department of Ecology were present and answered a few questions about the Shoreline Management Act. The Commission recommends that the Council formally accept the report by resolution. On May 4, 2010, the City Council received the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to accept the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report by resolution. Council requested that the City's shoreline consultants be present at the next meeting to respond to questions concerning the inventory work, sources cited in the report and conclusions. Council also directed staff to prepare a draft resolution. OPTIONS: Accept the resolution; do not accept the resolution; direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the resolution accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report as presented. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $150,000 Budgeted STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP — Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution accepting Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley initiated a Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update process in 2009; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council reviewed a public participation plan for the Shoreline Update on October 27, 2009, and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Update process specifies that individual components of Shoreline Management Program update will be reviewed separately and accepted by Council resolution, recognizing that as each component is completed, it will be used as a base upon which to develop the remainder of the Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the first component of the Shoreline Master Program Update is the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report; and WHEREAS, an initial Shoreline Open House was conducted on November 5, 2009, where the SMP Update process was explained to interested parties; and WHEREAS, a second Open House was conducted on February 4, 2010, where findings from the Inventory and Analysis were presented to interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for review on February 19, 2010; and WHEREAS, a Joint City Council /Planning Commission study session was conducted on March 2, 2010, where the findings from the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report were presented and discussed, and WHEREAS, a Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for public review on Apri16, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report on April 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report be formally accepted; and WHEREAS, this Resolution informally accepts the document, with minor revisions anticipated to occur prior to formal adoption; and WHEREAS, the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report will be formally adopted as a part of the entire Shoreline Master Program document by Ordinance at a later date. Resolution 10- _Accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 1 of 2 DRAFT NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Spokane Valley City Council hereby accepts the attached "Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report" public review draft dated April 5, 2010, as a portion of the Shoreline Master Program, which Report may be subject to change when later considered as part of the ordinance adopting the Shoreline Master Program in its entirety. Approved this ATTEST: day of May, 2010. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Resolution 10- _Accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Motion Consideration: to send amendments to the Sprague Appleway Plan and Spokane Valley Municipal Code to the Planning Commission for consideration. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: At the council meeting on May 4 t ", 2010, Mike Connelly presented some options to the council to potentially remedy some of the citizen concerns that have been raised about the implementation to the Sprague Appleway Plan. The council agreed to have the staff prepare a motion for consideration. OPTIONS: The council may direct the planning commission to consider code amendments to the Sprague Appleway Plan that will add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone and eliminate the requirement for restaurants and cafes to have access to Sprague in the Mixed Use Avenue. Also, the Planning Commission shall consider an amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to add administrative exceptions by the director for minor design changes in the Sprague Appleway Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move to direct the Planning Commission to consider code amendments to the Sprague Appleway Plan that will add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone and eliminate the requirement for restaurants and cafes to have access to Sprague in the Mixed Use Avenue Zone; and direct that the Planning Commission shall consider an amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to add administrative exceptions by the director for minor design changes in the Sprague Appleway Plan." BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This project will be completed by existing staff. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Recreation Programming Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with Parks and Recreation Staff from both the City of Spokane and Spokane County for several months to develop a working partnership to provide joint offerings of recreation programs. The outcome of this effort has been an interlocal agreement that summarizes the terms and conditions upon which all parties will manage the recreational opportunities they decide to jointly offer to the Community. The term of the interlocal begins on May 21, 2010 and terminates on December 31, 2012. The performance section provides specific details that the three agencies will follow as it pertains to registrations, scheduling, advertising, pricing, equipment purchased and the handling of all expenses and revenues. The first jointly offered program will be an Adult Co -Ed Dodgeball league and a Dodgeball Middle School, High School and Family Co -ed Tournament. This program was sparked in part by the increasing concern of childhood obesity and finding recreational fitness activities that reach out to adults and youth that do not normally participate in leagues and tournaments to encourage and promote physical fitness. OPTIONS: 1) advance to May 18 for consideration or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to bring back agreement on May 18, 2010 agenda for City Council consideration. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Programs offered under this recreation interlocal will be revenue generating. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Interlocal Agreement INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, CITY OF SPOKANE, CITY OF SPOKANE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND SPOKANE COUNTY REGARDING JOINT OFFERING OF CERTAIN RECREATIONAL PROGRAM CLASSES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered this day of 2010, by and between Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ( "County "), City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ( "Spokane Valley "), the Spokane Parks and Recreation Department ( "Spokane Parks "), and the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ( "Spokane "), and jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property and management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.68.020, the County, acting through its Board of County Commissioners, may conduct programs of public recreation, and in any such program property or facilities owned by any individual, group or organization, whether public or private, may be utilized by consent of the owner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions within Title 35 RCW, Spokane and Spokane Valley have the statutory authority to conduct recreational programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly contract between each other to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to jointly offer certain recreational opportunities to residents of the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, and the unincorporated areas of Spokane County; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to clearly identify what role each of them is to play in registration, supervision, payment, and administration of any jointly offered programs. NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter, the Parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to summarize the terms and conditions upon which the Parties will manage the recreational opportunities they decide to jointly offer to the community. This includes the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 1 of 7 SECTION 2: TERM Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this Agreement shall commence on May 21, 2010, and be completed by December 31, 2012 unless terminated sooner as provided herein. SECTION 3: TERMINATION Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any Party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notification. If this Agreement is so terminated, the terminating Party shall be liable only for performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for performance rendered prior to the effective date of termination. SECTION 4 : CONTRACT MANAGEMENT The Parties hereby appoint the following individuals, or their designees, as their representatives for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of the Agreement are satisfied: SPOKANE COUNTY: Parks, Recreation and Golf Director 404 North Havana Spokane, WA 99202 CITY OF SPOKANE: Mayor City of Spokane Seventh Floor, City Hall 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard Spokane, WA 99201 SPOKANE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Director Spokane Parks and Recreation Department Fifth Floor, City Hall 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard Spokane, WA 99201 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Director Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department 2426 North Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216 SECTION 5 : PERFORMANCE Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 2 of 7 A. The above- designated representatives will meet regularly as needed to decide matters pertaining to the administration of all jointly offered activities. B. Each Party shall advertise for the programs through their own agencies, as well as jointly collaborating on flyer publications. C. Each Party shall take registrations for the programs. Parties will communicate throughout the registration process for program coordination and logistical purposes. D. All consumable expenses, items or services that will be utilized during the specific activity shall be treated as joint expenses and divided equally amongst the three agencies. E. All expenses for items that will stay with the host agency after the duration of the activity for future use are not considered joint expenses, and shall remain the property of the Parry which provided or paid for them. F. All consumable expenses shall be approved in writing by all Parties prior to purchase. G. A budget shall be created for each jointly offered program with the written approval of the three agencies. H. All Parties shall agree on a common price for each activity. The intent of the pricing structure will be to, at the minimum, recoup all of the direct costs and will work to support agency administrative costs. L If an activity does not cover all of the direct costs, the agency representatives are authorized to cancel the activity. J. Any agency may decline to committing resources to a specific activity, and may choose not to participate at any time. K. All revenues and consumable expenses shall be shared equally between the participating agencies. Upon the completion of the activity, the agency hosting the activity shall provide an itemized invoice to each Party for payment within 45 days. Delinquent payments shall bear interest at the rate of one percent (1 %) per month. L. Equipment that is purchased for co- offered programs shall not be used for events by an individual agency without prior written consent of the other parties. M. Facility space for the programs may be provided or facilitated through the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane Parks and Recreation Department, and Spokane County. Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 3 of 7 N. The agency representatives responsible for scheduling facilities for programs for each agency shall have responsibility for administering the reservations and coordination with each site. O. All programs jointly offered shall be open to the general public. P. In the event that the Parties no longer wish to co -offer a program, supplies purchased jointly shall be divided jointly amongst the agencies, or one agency has the option to purchase another agency's share for the original cost if both parties are in agreement, minus any depreciation. Depreciation shall be calculated at ten percent (10 %) per year from the date of purchase, with a maximum depreciation of fifty percent (50 %) of the original cost. SECTION 6 : INDEMNITY & HOLD HARMLESS Each of the Parties shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other participating agencies, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, which arises out of the use of facilities of programs from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by the Party using the facilities of the other, its officers, agents, employees, guests, invitees or visitors in or about the facilities except only such injury or damage as shall behave been occasioned by the sole negligence of the host jurisdiction. SECTION 7 : INSURANCE Each party agrees to procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement, General Liability Insurance with minimum coverage limits in the amount of $5,000,000 per occurrence and statutory Workers Compensation coverage for their employees and volunteers. Proof of Insurance shall be submitted to each party upon request, with a current Certificate of Insurance that names the other parties as Additional Insured. SECTION 8 : COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Agreement. SECTION 9 : ENTITIES/ PROPERTY A. No new entities are created by this Agreement. B. No real or personal property will be transferred as part of this Agreement. C. No joint board will be created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 4 of 7 SECTION 10: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by the Agreement. No agent, employee, servant or otherwise of a Party shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant, or otherwise of any other Party for any purpose, and the employees of a Party are not entitled to any of the benefits that any other Party provides for its employees. Each Party shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, servants, subcontractors, or otherwise during the performance of this Agreement. SECTION 11 : RECORDS MAINTENANCE The Parties shall each maintain books, records, documents and other evidence which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended by all Parties in the performance of the services described herein. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by personnel of the Parties, other personnel duly authorized by any Party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. The Parties will retain all books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this agreement for five years after expiration and the Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons duly authorized by the parties shall have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. SECTION 12 : AGREEMENT TO BE FILED. The City of Spokane and the Spokane Parks and Recreation Department shall file this Agreement with their City Clerk and post it on their internet website. The County of Spokane may either file this agreement with the Spokane County Auditor or post it on its internet website. The City of Spokane Valley shall either file this Agreement with its City Clerk and post it on the City's internet website, or file this Agreement with the Spokane County Auditor. SECTION 13: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Non - Waiver. No waiver by any Party of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the same or other rights of that Party in the future. B. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the Parties. No representations, promises, or agreements not expressed herein have been made to induce any Party to sign this Agreement. C. Modification. No modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be valid until put in writing and signed with the same formalities as this Agreement. D. Assignment. No Party may assign its interest in this Agreement without the express written consent of the other Parties. E. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 5 of 7 F. Compliance With Laws. The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. G. Nondiscrimination. No individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with this contract because of age, sex, race, color, religion, creed, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or use of a service animal by a person with disabilities. H. Venue Stipulation. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 14 : RCW 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 1 above. B. DURATION See Section No. 2 above. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS See Section No. 9 above. . D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES: See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED: See Section No. 12 above.. F. FINANCING: Each party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under its normal budgetary process. G. TERMINATION: See Section No. 3 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION: See Section No. 5 above. L CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION See Section No. 4 above. Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 6 of 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year set forth herein above. ATTEST: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board City of Spokane Valley City Manager Date: Attest: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Department Spokane County: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mark Richard, Chair Bonnie Mager, Vice -Chair Todd Mielke, Commissioner City of Spokane City Administrator Date: Attest: Terri Pfister City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney City of Spokane Parks and Recreation Director Interlocal Agreement Recreational Opportunities Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Broadway Avenue Safety Project #0063 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the 3 -lane conversion of Broadway Avenue — Pines Rd to Sullivan Rd as part of the Broadway Avenue Overlay Project; Discussion of preliminary collision data on Broadway Ave between Pines Road and Sullivan Road on April 29, 2008 and June 16, 2009; Approval of the 2010 -2015 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan on June 16, 2009, which included the Broadway Avenue Safety Project - Park to Pines. BACKGROUND: In 2006, the City of Spokane Valley applied for a FY2008 grant from the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) in the amount of $746,280 for improvements to Broadway Avenue between Park Road and Pines Road. The project will restripe Broadway to a three -lane section with bike lanes. Additionally, sidewalk will be moved or obstructions removed and ramps will be upgraded for ADA compliance. Staff met with representatives of Central Valley and West Valley School Districts in mid -March 2010 to discuss the project's impacts on students attending Broadway Elementary and North Pines Junior High (CVSD) and Centennial Middle School and Ness Elementary (WVSD). Design for the project is approximately 30% complete, and options for acquiring right of way (where necessary) are being developed. Construction is expected in summer 2010. Attached is a summary of the projects funded by Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) in 2008. This project was one of 11 projects that were funded under the Urban Arterial Program (UAP) out of a total of 99 projects that were submitted. Also attached is the scoring and criteria used by TIB and the project application which includes a partial list of accidents and an accident analysis within the project area. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Total project estimate is $932,850; 80% ($746,280) to be paid with a state TIB grant, 20% ($186,570) to be paid with local matching funds. Total design estimate is $113,000, with approximately $45,000 spent to date in consultant work and staff time. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS 1) Project Application 2) Project Summary Sheet, 3) Presentation made to Council on June 16, 2009, 4) Minutes from previous council meetings. Broadway Ave Safety Project Information Scope of protect Project will restripe Broadway to a three -lane roadway with a continuous two -way left turn lane (TWLTL) and two 5 -ft bicycle lanes. Sidewalk ramps will be upgraded to ADA compliance. Utilities, traffic signs and mailboxes will be relocated or additional sidewalks will be constructed to meet ADA minimum clear zone requirements. Timing: Design in spring 2010, construction in summer 2010. Length: 3 miles, Park Road to Pines Road Estimated cost: $932,850 Funding sources: • Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB): $746,280 (2008 grant) • City of Spokane Valley: $186,570 (20% match) Traffic counts: • Average volume: 9,900 veh /day (range from 8,250 veh /day at Park to 11,500 veh /day at Bowdish) • AM Peak hour volume: 350 -400 veh (Eastbound, 11:00 AM — noon) • PM peak hour volume: 550 -600 veh (Eastbound, 5:00 — 6:00 PM) Collision Analysis: Collision data collected between 2003 and 2008 show 216 total collisions, including 1 fatality collision and 83 injury collisions (1 fatality and 115 injured people). Also: • In 83 collisions, one driver was making a left turn (29 involved injuries). • In 24 other collisions, one driver was stopped for traffic (12 involved injuries). • Thirteen collisions were related to turning into or out of a driveway. • Excessive speed was cited as a contributing factor in 21 collisions. • Bicycles were involved in five collisions; pedestrians in three. All of these collisions can be classified as "preventable" and are the result of poor judgment or inattention. Placing the left- turning driver in a center turn lane while waiting for a gap and should reduce the likelihood of both angle and rear -end collisions related to left- turns. Project is consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan: • Land Use Goal #7, "Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and integrated parking." • Land Use Goal #16, "Provide a street system that connects neighborhoods." • Section 3.2.7.1, "Safety and accessibility are primary concerns in providing access to schools and in providing for the elderly and the disabled." • Forty -four percent of nearly 400 citizens surveyed by Clearwater Research in 2004 on behalf of the City consider making the streets friendlier to pedestrians and bicyclists to be a high priority. Another 34% consider it a medium priority (Section 3.9). • Transportation Goal #9, "Enhance community livability and transportation by encouraging a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network." Broadway Avenue Safety Project Information Issue /Concern Advantages of 3 -11ane section Disadvantages of 3 -11ane section Safety: Left turn Improved driver field of vision ... safer left turns Allows space for aggressive, high collisions speed drivers to pass Safety: Rear end TWLTL provides a place to wait out of moving Left turns must stop in active lane of collisions traffic lane to turn left traffic, impeding other vehicles Safety: Driveway Drivers can use TWLTL to enter /leave traffic rather Mail delivery vehicles stop in active collisions than traffic lane lane of traffic Safety: Driveway Bike lane improves field of vision to enter traffic collisions Safety: Right Fewer lanes to cross, consequently fewer conflicts angle collisions Safety: Pedestrian Where crosswalks with islands are provided, crossings pedestrians can cross in two movements ... only need to wait for gap in one direction of traffic to start crossing Safety: Pedestrian Reduces number of traffic lanes for pedestrians to crossings cross Safety: Sidewalk Bike lanes provide buffer space between use , especially by pedestrians and traffic (especially. useful for children school children walking around utility poles) Safety: Bicycles Bike lane use separates recreational bike traffic from sidewalk, reducing bike /ped conflicts Safety: Bicycles Bike lane use separates experienced riders from vehicular lanes Vehicle Speed Single through lane allows prudent drivers to No opportunity to pass a slow driver regulate speed through a predominantly impeding traffic residential area Mail delivery Bike lane provides partial shoulder for mail delivery Emergency Can use TWLTL to pass vehicles Emergency No waiting for vehicles to merge to get out of the vehicles way Traffic congestion Left turning vehicles can pull out of traffic to wait Left turns wait for longer platoons of for gap without impeding other vehicles vehicles; slight increase in delay possible for left turning vehicles Issue Advantages of 4 -11ane section Disadvantages of 4 -11ane section Vehicle Speed Allows ability to pass unacceptably slow drivers Allows space for aggressive, high speed drivers to pass Traffic congestion Possibility of shorter platoons of vehicles and an Left turns must stop in active lane of earlier acceptable gap for left turning vehicles traffic, impeding other vehicles Mail delivery Mail delivery vehicles stop in active lane of traffic c� L �--� �--� .� U fB a--+ N a--+ L t1A . 0 a-+ U N L �--� N L i� �--� .� U f� a--+ N a--+ t1A . 0 a-+ U N N L �--� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 11, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Subarea Plan: (SARP: Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) Applicability and Nonconforming Issues in the Sprague Appleway Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Information includes how the Sprague Appleway Plan is applied for new construction, and how the nonconforming regulations are applied. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: "Applicability and Nonconforming Issues of the SARP" Applicability and Nonconforming Issues PowerPoint Applicability and Nonconforming Issues of the Sprague Appleway Plan (SARP) This report is to provide a foundation of information to assist the Council, the public, and property owners to understand how nonconforming sites and uses impact the future use of properties under the SARP and the current Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The report will cover the applicability of SARP, what nonconformances are, common questions about them, what the existing regulations are and some examples of how the regulations are applied. This report will not cover non - conforming buildings as they relate to the International Building Code (IBC) because any requirements would not be related to zoning. There are many older buildings along the corridor that do not meet current building standards. For instance they do not meet accessibility under the American Disabilities Act or current International Fire Code (IFC) standards. With or without SARP, those buildings may have to meet current standards if they have a change of occupancy under the IBC or IFC . When do the SARP regulations for construction apply to property? If property is located within the SARP plan area, then the new regulations apply under the following circumstances: 1. If there is new construction. New construction is defined as an entirely new structure or remodel or reconstruction that costs more than 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the land and structure. 2. If the property is in the city center and an addition is greater than 20% of the building floor area. 3. If exterior improvements (like facelift) costs more than 25% or the assessed or appraised value of the building, then the new improvements must meet the architectural regulations. What are "nonconformances "? There are different kinds of nonconformances. Generally, a nonconformance is created when the regulations change and what may have been a legal use, lot, building, etc. now does not meet the current regulations. Nonconforming types- Use: A use of land or structure that was legally established at one time but does not currently meet zoning and /or building regulations. Site: Landscaping, parking, paving, storm drainage or other site requirements that do not meet current requirements. Page l of 4 Building: Buildings that were legal at the time they were constructed, but do not meet the current code requirements. Lots: Lots were legal at the time they were subdivided but do not meet the current requirements for size, width, depth access or other requirements. Signs: A sign that was legal at the time of construction but does not meet the height, size, setback, landscaping or other current requirements. Legal nonconforming: Legally established and approved by the appropriate jurisdiction prior to the laws changing. Illegal nonconforming: Not legally established prior to the laws changing. Examples include buildings constructed without permit and /or change of use without approval. An illegal nonconformance does not qualify for "grandfathered" rights. The term " grandfathered' is used to describe a legal nonconformance which can continue as long as it is not changed or meets certain criteria established in a local code. A Little History Zoning regulations were first established in the United States around 1920. Nonconforming provisions were added to zoning regulations when a jurisdiction (1) wanted to make changes in zoning without a legal challenge, and (2) as a way to transition property into meeting new regulations over time. The goal was to let existing uses and properties continue to operate "as is" until there was a change in the property in some way. The change could be a disruption of use through a vacancy or abandonment, a change in use, a disaster, proposed improvements or expansion. Jurisdictions wanted to limit the investment in the property or use so that eventually it made conforming to the new rules economically viable. Different thresholds are adopted by local jurisdictions to influence the timing of bringing the property into compliance. Spokane Valley's General Regulations (See Section 19.20.060 SVMC) The SVMC provides the requirements for treatment of nonconformances for all properties within the city limits. Properties within the Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) are also subject to these regulations with a few exceptions which are highlighted below. The regulations permit nonconforming uses to continue to operate unless they are discontinued for 12 months or more. Nonconforming uses within the SARP can be discontinued up to 24 months before the new regulations are applied If the use is abandoned or discontinued, it shall not be replaced with another nonconforming use. If the use has not been abandoned or discontinued, it can be replaced with a conforming use or another nonconforming use if it is no less nonconforming than the previous use, the new use Page 2 of 4 does not propose a greater demand on the transportation system and the new use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property. A nonconforming use may expand as long as it is within the boundaries of the original lot or if adjacent property was under the same ownership at the time the original lot became nonconforming under certain circumstances. The number of parking stalls is not considered a non - conformance. Any nonconforming use damaged by fire, flood or act of nature may be replaced if the use is initiated within 12 months, and the damage is less than 80% of market value. Expansion of a non - conforming structure is allowed if the expansion does not change the occupancy classification and it does not create any more nonconformity of setbacks or lot coverage. The alteration or expansion must meet current loading, parking, storm water, and landscaping requirements. Spokane Valley Sign Regulations (See Section 22.110.120 SVMC) Signs made nonconforming can be repaired but not structurally altered or made more nonconforming in any way. Questions about how these regulations are applied within the SARP area. If my existing building is setback from the street can I add on to it? Yes. The budding can be expanded and does not have to meet the new standards unless the cost of construction is more than 50% of the appraised or assessed value of both the building and the land. The expansion has to be within the confines of the original lot or an adjacent lot as long as it has remained in common ownership since the nonconformance was created. If my building has a fire, can it be replaced "as is" even if it doesn't meet the existing SARP regulations? Yes. As long as the damage of the fire is less than 80% of the market value of the building. The construction must commence within 12 months of the fire. Can I add another sign to my existing pole sign? No. Any structural alteration to a non - conforming sign requires that the sign meet the new regulations. You can replace existing sign faces though and make maintenance and repairs. Page 3 of 4 Can I add a tenant that is not permitted in the SARP regulations for that zone? It depends. If it is the same kind of tenant i.e. office to office; restaurant to restaurant, then you can as long as the space has not been vacant for 24 months. Even if the space has been vacant for 24 months, you can apply for a director's determination that the new use is no less conforming than the previous use. The director will look at any potential traffic concerns as well whether the new use is similar in impacts to the former use to make a determination. How does Spokane Valley's non - conforming thresholds compare with other jurisdictions? Spokane Valley's nonconformance provisions are generally higher than Spokane, Spokane County or Liberty Lake. Staff also looked at the City of Kent and Federal Way thresholds (similar sized cities) and found the same. Spokane County does provide for a one year extension for replacing a structure in the event of a disaster, however Spokane Valley has the highest value threshold for replacing (80% of land and building value vs 50 -75% of building value only). Spokane Valley's vacancy of 24 months before any non- conforming use thresholds is more than any other jurisdiction that staff looked at. Page 4 of 4 Applicability &Nonconforming Issues Applicability of Sub -area Plan 41 New construction- 50% of the assessed or appraised value of land and structure Improvements If in City Center and greater than 20% building floor area If exterior improvements > 25% of the assessed or appraised value of building, then new improvements must meet the architectural regulations. Types of Nonconformances • Building "Mom Lot Lot Lin LoT - LOT • i I Flag Lot Other Common Terms • "Grandfathered" • Illegal Non - conforming Legal Non - conforming Zoning History First zoning was established in this country in the early 1920's. As zoning was changed, non - conforming provisions were added to prevent a legal challenge and as a way to transition property into meeting new regulations over time. Spokane Valley's Regulations • Properties within the subarea plan are subject to the same nonconforming regulations that the rest of the city is through the Spokane Valley Municipal Code with very few exceptions. The exceptions are more lenient in the sub -area plan. • NC uses can continue until the use is discontinued for 12 months. The sub -area plan allows discontinuance for 24 months. • After the 12 / 24 months it cannot be replaced with another nonconforming use. Regulations continued If it is within the 12 / 24 months, then it can be replaced with a conforming use or non - conforming use if the new use is no less non - conforming than the previous use, new use does not propose a greater demand on the transportation system and the new use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property. Expansion of Non - conforming Use NC Use may expand as long as it is within the same lot or adjacent property if it was under common ownership at the time the nonconformance was created. 13 it , 11 x IN- J '�i• _ .._ _ __t use: wnen ivu can be repiacea IT Tire or otner disaster If the use is initiated within 12 months of fire, flood, or act of nature and the damage is less than 80% of the market value. a � .L Nonconforming Signs 0 Can be repaired and maintained but not structurally altered or made more nonconforming in any way. If my building is setback from the street can I add on to it? If my building has a fire can it be replaced "as is" even if it doesn't meet the SARP regulations? Can I add another sign to my existing pole sign? What if I want to add a tenant that is not permitted in the SARP regulations for that zone? DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of May 5,2010; 1:45 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of Acting City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings May 18, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 101 1 . ACTION ITEM: Interlocal for Jointly Offered Recreation Programs — Mike Stone (5 minutes) 2. PEG Channels — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 3. Collaborative Planning Agreement Discussion — Mike Basinger (15 minutes) 4. Street Maintenance Site — Neil Kersten (15 minute) 5. Sullivan and Sprague Construction Project —Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: Gateway Comm & Gateway Ave - Lori Barlow (30 minutes) 7. Budget 2011 —Mike Jackson /Ken Thompson (30 minutes) 8. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 125 minutes] May 25, 2010, Formal MeetinLy Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 171 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Six -Year 2011 -2016 Transp. Improvement Plan (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution: Spokane Valley Partners — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution accepting Collaborative Planning Agreement — Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Street Vacation STV 01 -10 — Karen Kendall (15 minutes) 6. Admin Report: CTA 02 -10 Code Text Amendments — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 7. Admin report: panhandling — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 90 minutes] June 1, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 24] 1. Council Computer Training/Paperless Agenda Packets - Chris & Bing (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] June 8, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 31] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Vacating Street (STV 01 -10)- Karen Kendall (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 02 -10 Code Text Amendments — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Adopting Six -Year 2011 -2016 TIP — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Greenacres Park Design Presentation — Mike Stone (20 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 65 minutes] June 15, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, June 7] 1. Action Item: 2 ° reading Ordinance CTA 02 -10 Code Text Amendments — Lori Barlow (5 minutes) 2. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: Mixed Use — Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2010 1:45:56 PM Page 1 of 4 June 22, 2010: No Meeting Council Attends AWC Conference in Vancouver (June 22 -25) June 29, 2010, Special Regular meeting format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, June 211 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Vacating Street (STV 01 -10)- Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Report [ *estimated meeting: minutes] July 6, 2010, Study Session Format, 6 :00 p.m. [due date Mon, June 28] 1. Budget Process Update — Mike Jackson/Ken Thompson (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] July 13, 2010, Special Meeting: Budget Retreat CenterPlace Classroom 9:00 a.m. to approx 4:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 51 July 13, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 51 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Subarea Plan (SARP) Check -in — Kathy McClung (15 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: minutes] July 20, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 121 1. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: Neighborhood Ctrs — Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Reports July 27, 2010, Formal Meeting Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 19] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Estimates of 2010 & 2011 Revenue/Expenditures — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: minutes] August 3, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, July 261 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] August 10, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6 :00 p.m. jdue date Mon, Aug 2]] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues — Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Setting 2011 budget Hearings for September 14 & Sept 28 — K.Thompson (5 min) 4. Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council re Public Mtg — S. Kuhta — (20 min) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] August 17, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 9] 1. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: City Center — Scott Kuhta (30 min) 2. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2010 1:45:56 PM Page 2 of 4 August 24, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin Report: Outside Agency Presentations — Ken Thompson 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Reports August 31, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due date Mon, Aug 16] (60 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due date Mon, Aug 231 [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 301 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 14, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Fri Sept 3] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget — Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax— Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies — Ken Thompson (25 minutes) 4. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan) — Update to Council — Mike Basinger (30 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 13] 1. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: minutes] September 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget — Ken Thompson 2. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 property tax — Ken Thompson 3. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — ken Thompson 4. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd — Lori Barlow 5. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS ADA Plan Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) Broadcasting Budget 2011 (ordinance to adopt Oct 12) Capital Projects Funding Clean Air Agency Code Amendments (Kathy McClung) Community Development Block Grant (Fall 2010) Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan — Morgan Koudelka Concurrency Contract Ordinance Amendment East Gateway Monument Structure # Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 (Nov 2010) [due date Mon, Sept 20] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (30 minutes) minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2010 1:45:56 PM Page 3 of 4 Jail Update Law Enforcement Interlocal Milwaukee Right -of -way ■ Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance Planned Action Ordinance SARP: Oct 19, report to council Signage Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Street Maintenance Facility Transportation Benefit District Interlocal Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education ■ = request for Council's early consideration # = Awaiting action by others * = doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2010 1:45:56 PM Page 4 of 4 S �vkane . V alley Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 PERMIT CENTER _Revenue Permits Permit revenue for the month of March was $95,942. This is an improvement over 2009 by approx 20 %. Permit Revenue $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept _ 2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for the month of March is $9,213. Land Use revenue for 2010 is ahead of last year by 6 %. Land Use Revenue $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec ©2010 Revenue 92009 Revenue Page 1 of 9 S �vkane Va yafmation The valuation' for March 2010 was $6,821,452. Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 afg 0 tPe"nitlnl tion fPermitsls ued� March 2010 Residential New Structures Separate Dwelling Units Demolition Permits Dwelling Units Demolished Single Family Residence 17 0 0 0 Duplex 1 0 0 0 Triplex 0 0 0 0 4 -Plex 0 0 0 0 Apartments 0 0 0 0 March 2010 Commercial New Buildings Tenant Improvements Additions 1 12 2 ' Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 9 "" `A iaak ane Community Development Valley Monthly Report March 2010 ye"nit.�ctivit� Certificate of Occupancy The Community Development staff issued 2 Certificates of Occupancy in March. They were Parker Paint and Sunshine Disposal. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 259 permits in March, including one for a new fire station at 17217 E Sprague Ave and Model Irrigation at 1424 S Pierce. This is ahead of March of last year Construction Permits Issued 350 300 250 200 1 150 100 50 0 ■ 2010 Permits 1 158 1 200 1 259 ■ 2009 Permits 159 192 221 1 250 1 260 1 302 1 305 1 275 1 255 1 331 1 200 1 243 Page 3 of 9 S� ®� Community Development Valle Monthly Report March 2010 Land Use Applications In the month of March there were 1 appeal, 5 pre - application meeting requests, 1 final short plat, 3 temporary sign permits, 1 street vacation, and 1 temporary use permit. Commercial Pre - application Meetings During the month of March, Community Development staff held 9 commercial pre - application meetings which included an apartment building of 192 units, 2 conditional use permits and four short plats. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner had two hearings in March. SUB- 03 -09, a subdivision at Coyote Rock to divide 10.98 acres into 52 single family lots and an appeal of and administrative APP -01 -09 for Elephant Boys Boat Sales. Business Licenses Staff Approved 279 business licenses in March. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 5 home occupation permits in March. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 2 adult entertainment licenses for the month of March. Express Permits Staff processed 9 Express Permits in March. The Permit Center staff assisted 535 customers at the counter and handled 454 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during March The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 5 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un- platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. Page 4 of 9 S C " `A Community Development pone Monthly Report Valle , Mon March 2010 IN ct ns Right of Way The Right -of -Way inspector performed 773 inspections in March. Right -of -Way Inspections 1200 1000 800 600 O 400 200 4 0 Jan Feb Mar Q May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec O 2010 221 491 773 0 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174 A56 4A Building Plans Examiners reviewed 70 projects in March and have 28 pending projects were awaiting review at the end of month. There were 274 commercial inspections and 397 residential inspections in March. Commercial is steady to last year and residential is up. Page 5 of 9 S �vkane . Talley Development Engineering Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 During the month of March the Development Engineering Inspector performed 22 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 35 30 25 20 15� 10 0 r Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec —2010 ■ 2009 UPDATES Planning Commission The Planning Commission did not meet during the month of March. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials On March 17, the PTAC met to discuss the ongoing 10 year Urban Growth Area Review effort. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments /Updates The Community Development Department received one (1) request for a site - specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2010. The City initiated two site - specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 8 — Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. On March 30, 2010, staff provided an administrative report to City Council outlining the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Shoreline Master Program Work continued on the SMP update. A joint Planning Commission /City Council study session was conducted on March 2, where the SMP Update team presented the draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Staff also attended the Spokane River Forum Conference. Page 6 of 9 S �vkane Valley Energy Grant Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project began with a soft - launch of home energy audits. Full advertisement and official kickoff is scheduled for the week of April 12 Field surveys to identify existing conditions, opportunities and constraints have been completed for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. ADA Study Parks and Recreation and Human Resources have returned their surveys. The project coordinators are working on a data tracking tool (Excel spreadsheet) and are beginning to input data. The curb ramp survey has slowed down somewhat as building and Right of Way inspection activity has increased with the Spring construction season. An information report is being prepared to present to Council at a future meeting. Bike /Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) On March 30, as part of a larger report on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG), staff provided an update on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) to City Council. Staff has completed an inventory of existing bike facilities throughout the City and identified opportunities for new facilities. In addition, staff inventoried sidewalks on all the major corridors throughout the City. Staff has compiled the inventory work into a GIS database for further analysis. Staff is continuing to develop a BPMP participant database, which currently has 849 contacts. Training On March 9, 2010 Greg McCormick, Scott Kuhta, Mary May and Mike Basinger attended a webinar sponsored by American Planning Association (AICP continuing education) ethics in planning. On March 17, 2010, Mary May participated in an additional AICP webinar: Redevelopment and Reorganization. Wellhead Protection Scott attended a wellhead protection committee meeting, a regional committee that recently became active after an extended time off. The focus of the group is to collaboratively develop regulations that will protect drinking water. Page 7 of 9 Spo lane ,,; Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 Code Cam `fie Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 76 Citizen Action Requests for the month of March. 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category 100% - 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I Clear View Triangle 2 0 7 • Complaint - No Violation 3 2 3 • Environmental 0 0 1 Junk Auto 10 19 14 ■ Property 16 19 20 ■ Signs 15 31 5 ■ Solid Waste 16 26 26 Code Violation Totals LOO Y 1 �1 ��00000000� Page 8 of 9 ' pvine ,;,o Valley Community Development Monthly Report March 2010 UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST DATE_" INTERES j April 8 1 Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 13 Council Meeting — Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 s ' reading April 22 Planning Commission Regular Meeting- Shoreline Master Program, Inventory Public Hearing April 27 1 Council Meeting — Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2 reading May 4 Council Meeting — Updated Economic Analysis of the Sprague Corridor May 11 Council Meeting — Non - conforming uses on the Sprague Corridor May 13 Planning Commission — Regular Meeting, 2 public hearings, STV -01 -10 and CTA- 02 -10 May 18 Council Meeting — Subarea Plan Review, Gateway areas May 20 F Community Meeting — Subarea Plan Review, Gateway areas Page 9 of 9