REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2008
Officials in attendance were Mayor Clancy Bauman; Councilmembers Carra Nupp, David Haskell, Barbara Mowrey, Sharon Ludwig, Roberta McMillin and Greg Rolstad; City Administrator Curt Kelling; City Attorney Pat Monasmith; Clerk/Treasurer Pamela McCart.
Absent: Councilman Bruce Nupp
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Agenda Additions, Deletions, Changes: None.
Audience Comments:
· Janet Tetro with the Chewelah Rebekah Lodge # 162, verbalized a formal complaint against the job performance of City contracted Activities Coordinator/Janitor George Eberth.
· Bethany Leight, Facilitator for the Chewelah Neighborhood Watch Association, requested use of the City facilities at no charge (civic center, copy machine, etc.) and an increase in the budgeted line item. The C/A stated that as the Council begins to look at the 2009 budget, it would be wise to look into an inter-local agreement with this non-profit organization as to what they may or may not do on the City’s behalf in terms of crime prevention.
Mail Received and Announcements:
· Motion by Councilwoman Nupp to excuse absence of Councilman Nupp, seconded by Councilwoman Mowrey. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
Consent Agenda:
· Motion by Councilwoman Ludwig to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of the July 2nd Regular Minutes; payment of claim vouchers # 56793 and 66938 - 57077 totaling $139,461.35; payment of pre-authorized debits to BPA totaling $47,230.00; and payment of payroll warrants #18946 – 19029 totaling $170,521.81, seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
Public Hearing Regarding Petition to Annex by Robert Martin Harrison and Robert Michael Harrison:
The Mayor opened the public hearing and set forth the format that would be followed. There were no objections to the Mayor participating as chairman. There were no objections to any Councilperson’s participating in the proceedings. No Councilperson acknowledged any communications outside of this hearing and no Councilperson acknowledged any gain or interest with regard to this matter.
Staff Report, C/A: You have information provided by the applicant in your packet. This is both a very easy decision and one that may be kind of technical. This piece of property is comprised of two parcels located adjacent to and between the western boundary of the City limits and the WWTP which is also in the City limits. So at this point you basically have that piece of property surrounded by City limits. It has been in the UGA since its inception in 1997 which would be indicative that since 1997 there was a thought that sometime in the next twenty years it would end up coming into the City. We’re certainly there and we appreciate Bob’s patience through this process though we haven’t been completely in control. You originally looked at this in spring of last year and then ultimately the Hearings Board did away with all the UGA’s in the County and we waited for all of that to clear up. We’re now in a position to move this forward. We have spoken about it before and as odd as this may sound, I think the recommendation from the staff would be that long-term it would be facilitating this annexation. The question that we’ve always dealt with is that of water service capacity in the City. In your original 1997 Comprehensive Plan and the Water Plan that came after that – a great deal of concurrency does not exist between the plans. In the draft of your Comprehensive Plan we’ve actually removed about 1200 people from the population estimate that’s in there and backed out quite a bit of things that we didn’t think were going to be able to be met in the capacity of the City. We’re working on that process now with the new drafts of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Water Plan. And this is where it’s gets a little odd in the post GMA era. The Hearings Board of Eastern Washington and other hearings boards have basically made their own standard for urban density. When they’re reviewing things at their level they’re using four units per acre. Historically, your City is not developed to four units per acre and I doubt if it ever will be because people here are used to having more space than that. But that’s the standard that the State Hearings Board has used. What we did when working on the Water System Plan was take every single piece of available land that has not been developed within the City limits -- and if you apply four units per acre to every single bit of that land you will wind up in a spot where we don’t have quite enough water rights to serve that entire capacity, including the UGA’s. I say that kind of tongue in cheek because that was a standard made up by the Hearings Board – it’s not part of the RCW’s which makes it very unique when we have to wrestle with it. Right now, we’re starting to work on the process of providing that concurrency between the draft of the Water Plan, the draft of the City Comprehensive Plan and then ultimately the Capital Facilities element that’s going to have to come with that which deals with the improvements that would have to take place. So all those things are moving a little bit right now which is going to make it basically impossible to do it. I’ve had quite a bit of conversation and sought out a legal opinion from the firm we use in Spokane for land use issues and very clearly in its research it has determined that once we make a move toward annexation and final it, there is an expectation that we have the water available to serve anything that would come along in that development. My recommendation at this point is probably going to be that this proceed forward in such a way – annexation hearings are a little different than most of the ones that you’ve had – there’s no requirement when we finish getting information from the public that you have to make a determination on the annexation immediately. The Martin annexation that we’re finishing today was started before this one – the only difference is that it already has City water. The applicants of both of the projects we’re working on tonight, this one specifically, want to do something that has not traditionally been done inside the City of Chewelah – they are both looking at some mixed use zoning. They’ve already come up with a set of proposed zoning for this particular project but it’s not how they want to have it now – we’ve moved some things. There are some physical things we need to address with regard to the creek, we need to talk about buffering anything from the WWTP. So essentially at this point I think we come out of this and the recommendation from staff is going to be to move it forward to the Planning Commission to review it for zoning. Ultimately it will come back to Council at the time that we’ve done our due diligence and provided a good background of where those numbers are coming from for our water service and can be reviewed by the attorneys before it’s finally adopted and moved forward. Regardless of what happens from either side here, we have to protect the decision that you make, ensuring that we’ve done all of our homework and working through the issues dealing with your water capacity. Some of your system capacity is going to come back to you really fast because we’re going to start talking about our water use efficiency program that is required to be implemented. One of the other mandatory requirements of the State now is working on a conservation program. As we start that program, it will back capacity into the existing system. Likewise, as we start analyzing all the land in town as we’re fine tuning the Comprehensive Plan – we haven’t gone through and made any adjustments for any land sitting in the floodplain/critical areas—stuff that just historically hasn’t developed because of some physical problems on the property. So at this point I think it makes total sense for this thing to come into the City to be annexed other than us basically hitting all of our marks to make sure that we make a legal decision and can back it up.
Mr. Monasmith: In the end, after hearing from staff and any public comment, what is it the Council would be deciding tonight?
C/A: I’m probably looking for a recommendation that will move positive toward the annexation -- which you’ve already made that decision once before when we started on the front end - with the recommendation that it go back to the Planning Commission to work on the zoning because the applicants want to do mixed use zoning and for us to come up with a plan that will be legally passable as far as our water capacity goes before it comes back in the form of an ordinance.
Councilwoman Mowrey: Are we annexing this as a package with everything in place before it’s annexed or are we proceeding a step at a time – annexing the property and then looking at the water and then ….
C/A: We have to look at our water capacity, sewer capacity, and electric system first. As far as individually where they would go and how they would layout – that would come back later when there was an actual application of some kind on the table.
Councilwoman Mowrey: So we have to have the water capacity available before we can annex?
C/A: What we really need to have is concurrency between your Plans which you haven’t had. In this case we’re basically going to have to show our homework. That probably sounds worse than it is but I can show you the chart where we actually came down to individual units all the way across the thing and we haven’t sat down and done that. I’ve talked to Pat, we’ve talked to Stan in Spokane, we’ve also talked to Peter Scott who is our water rights attorney about the four of us getting together and ultimately coming up with that strategy of being able to serve all of the places in the UGA because ultimately as we move forward with the Comprehensive Plan if we find that we don’t have the capacity to serve them, I’ll need to remove some of those things that are currently sitting out in the UGA and bring us back to the City limits until such time as we have the capacity in the system to go back out and expand it.
Councilwoman Mowrey: So at what time do you want us to approve the annexation?
C/A: At the point that we would bring it back in the form of an ordinance.
Councilman Rolstad: Any motion would include a recommendation that we look toward the prospect of annexation but back to the Planning Commission who will determine capacity?
C/A: The zoning first because the zoning will set the density. Then once we know what the zoning will be we can calculate out the capacity.
Mr. Monasmith: It’s contingent then on what all that turns out to be?
C/A: Correct. It could take months. It’s going to go pretty fast right now because the drafts of the Comprehensive Plan and the Water Plan are on the table. So before when you’ve had these conversations you were looking into your crystal ball saying “If we ever have a Comprehensive Plan Update we could get it changed.” The Planning Commission has the draft of that Comprehensive Plan update right now. We’re in the process of starting the public review process of that – so it’s open, it’s on the table and changes can be made as it moves forward in that process. I’m thinking by the end of this year we’ll have it all tied down. I have to. I have to have the Water Plan in. I’ve committed to the Hearings Board that we will be working on the Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in the October/November timeframe. As far as I know the plan at the moment is to have those things adopted by the end of the year.
Applicant/Representative Bob Harrison had no comment.
Mr. Monasmith: Bob, are you adopting the statements of staff as your own? Is what you heard from Mr. Kelling in his staff report something you support as your statement as well here tonight for the public record?
Applicant/Representative Bob Harrision: Yes.
Councilwoman Nupp: Are you planning on individual dwellings or multi-units?
Bob Harrision: Back in 2000 they pre-zoned it multi-family and some industrial and some single family. It’s all signed and sealed from the Growth Management Hearings Board. Should be good to go.
C/A: Maybe I can answer that. I’ve also met with Mike. We have a slightly different ratio of acres and a different layout than what was original done in 2000. It’s close but it’s moved a little bit. You’ll get them back in the maps and we’ll bring you back the whole section of land and how we’re going to look at zoning. I think it will be a fun process with the Planning Commission because they have never dealt with mixed use zoning projects before. Historically, the City has been laid out with very clear dividing lines. Every now and then you’ll end up with a spot of something but we have never taken an actual bigger piece of land and looked at it and done some multi-use zoning of it. Mike and I had actually gotten far enough in conversation – I may see if I can get the folks from EWU to come out and use this as one of their planning projects in looking at the layout of it, the mixed use zoning part, the connections to the existing road structure in the City, what we can do along the creek as an enhancement project—whether it’s some kind of a pedestrian path or combination of something, some kind of dog park. It will be a good project. We also have to deal with the critical areas issues down there – the land down there on the old, old critical areas maps are declared critical areas although the creeks been rerouted enough times and it’s been farmed that there’s nothing down there as far as vegetation goes anymore. We’ve got some more work to do down there. I think the Planning Commission will have a good job in looking through that. It will be a unique project you haven’t seen before. I want them to take a comprehensive look at the whole thing and how it’s going to fit and be connected to the rest of the town.
The Mayor opened the hearing to Public Testimony:
There was no written or oral testimony.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion by Councilman Rolstad to proceed with annexation request of Robert Martin and Robert Michael Harrison by forwarding matter to Planning Commission for review, seconded by Councilwoman Nupp. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
Public Hearing Regarding Petition to Annex by Earl Nash:
The Mayor opened the public hearing and set forth the format that would be followed. There were no objections to the Mayor participating as chairman. There were no objections to any Councilperson’s participating in the proceedings. No Councilperson acknowledged any communications outside of this hearing and no Councilperson acknowledged any gain or interest with regard to this matter.
C/A, Staff Report: This piece of property is located on the north side of town adjacent to the applicant’s property in the current City limits. This is a similar project to the one on the western end of the town, just much smaller -- 60 acres versus 6 acres, about 1/10th the size. It would be under the same water constraints as far as our planning goes and Mr. Nash does wish to do some mixed use zoning. For all practical purposes without trying to explain to you all over again – this one is sitting in the same “spot” but on a different side of town. It’s also been in your UGA the entire time it has existed so certainly there would have been some logical progression that it was going to come in. Ultimately, I think it’s a good project -- it’s going to be a good annexation for us. We need to do the same homework in setting the zoning and then making sure that we can justify the water capacity before we actually pull the trigger and pass the ordinance bringing it into the City limits.
Councilwoman Mowrey: What kind of time are we looking at on this one?
C/A: Same thing. I think one of the nice things about doing them at the same time is that the Planning Commission will be looking at two things that are different in size and scope but not necessarily in substance of what they’re trying to do with the mixed use zoning. So I think they’ll go through pretty easily at the same time. It may even make it easier because it has something else to relate to. It ‘s certainly a very common zoning thing now – form based zoning – you’ll see a lot of jurisdictions are going to a whole other type of zoning where they literally look at a bigger tract of land and give them percentages and goals that they try to meet with the zoning instead of hard lining it. I’m not sure we’re there yet. Certainly, good mixed use zoning that makes sense, that’s compatible with its surrounding neighbors is something we need to consider and we need to look at more multi-family housing options here to try to really work on our goals within the Comprehensive Plan and putting in lower income/middle income housing – you’re not going to do that without having some kind of multi-family structure in that. It’s not going to be done with large R-1 lots.
Mr. Monasmith: Our last annexation, Curt, I think was in 1997 and again those weren’t issues back then – maybe they should have been but they weren’t. I think the impression of Council and myself, certainly, was that when Council approved a petition for annexation it was done – all that was left to do was execute an ordinance. So am I hearing you correctly when you say not really – it goes to the Planning Commission whose members will look at density, water capacity, etc. as well as all other utility . . .
C/A: They could come either way and maybe that’s where it gets a little confusing. If for example the one from Carla Martin across from the High School – basically if you do nothing at all and it comes into the City as annexation it defaults in at R-1, your least density zoning. So if that’s what they wanted it to be and that’s all it was going to be then I could already calculate what the density would be, what the units would be. If we’re going to do anything else besides that then it needs to take that sidetrack back through the Planning Commission. In this case, it also needs to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan because the Comp Plan needs to match the zoning and we’re in the unique position at the moment where I also have the Water Plan open. So it’s actually a good time to work on them. You’re kind of correct in that some of the difference between the two is that in ’97 they had no GMA at that point so you did not have concurrency issues to answer to. You certainly didn’t have the Hearings Board ready, willing and able to take on anyone’s complaint over what you do like they do now. And then the State Supreme Court, after forty-five years, threw out that process and basically left all of us hanging out there for about a year and a half over the validity of the whole petition method of annexation. So as they brought it back it has a couple of other steps in it which is similar to the first step that they take where they actually come to the Council as a preceding step before they start working on the annexation and that had never existed before. So it probably should be a little confusing. Anytime that the court stepped in and fiddled with the process and brought it back “mostly”. I think we do land in spots where it’s not what we’ve done before.
Mr. Monasmith: But it would essentially still be the old process were we not looking at any type of mixed use zoning because they’d just default to R-1.
C/A: Yes, although I’d probably still say that we need to delay that decision at this point until we have the water and concurrency ironed out. We’re going to need to have good documented homework particularly after I’ve ramped it up clear to here with all the density. If I start rationing it back down I’m going to have to justify those numbers. I pushed it really hard toward the other side to make sure that I don’t run into a worse case scenario -- so that I could come back the other way as opposed to fluffing it low and then coming back and saying “Whoops”.
Councilwoman Mowrey: So it’s not an actual requirement, it’s just something that we’re doing to cover the process.
C/A: We need to do it to make sure that our process is valid.
Earl Nash, Applicant: Am I hearing right then that if we simply request that it not be multiple zoning and just go back to an R-1 that it will still have to go through an extended process?
C/A: Define extended process . . . Planning Commission, no, but I would definitely still have to go back and justify the numbers for your size of lots with the density that you’d have and seeing where our water capacity is before we actually adopted the ordinance . . . so half of the extended process.
Earl Nash: Because the majority would still be under R-1 and there’s only a couple of lots that I would ask to be considered multi-family. I was just curious if that would make a difference in the process as far as the length of time.
C/A: It could. Certainly we would still have to look at the water part of it.
Earl Nash: I believe that R-1 includes duplexes.
C/A: It does. R-1 in the City of Chewelah is either a single family house, a duplex or two houses on a minimum 7200 square foot lot.
Earl Nash: Because we would consider just pulling the request for multi-zone and go back to R-1 if it would simplify the process and then if any other zoning was required later on we could approach that then.
C/A: Yes, although it would be harder. It’s not a bad idea but I don’t want to play liar poker with the water capacity. If ultimately I’m going to add it on, I really want to know what the maximum amount would be. Because it wouldn’t behoove us to throw it out there R-1, go thru the process, and then come back and try to add in that zoning and we go “Whoops, we didn’t really deal with that”. Your project isn’t that big. It’s only six acres – I don’t want it to sound like it’s that complicated – it probably isn’t. I’m just at the spot in the Water Plan that were I to adopt it today with what they put in the draft of the Plan and it got challenged and sent to the Hearings Board, they would say that we would not meet concurrency between our Plans. So I still need to get those Plans finished and ironed out and through the adoption process. Like I said, it’s a really good time to work on it because both those plans are on the table and you’re not having to pay any additional fees to have it changed. For example, if we put it in at R-1 and then you decided a year from now that you’d like to see some multi-family density in there, then you’re talking about a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a change to the zoning map which probably would take longer to go back and do. Certainly where I’m at today with them both open in draft form on the table where I can talk to you as the property owner and the Planning Commission . . .
Earl Nash: What is the desire of the City Council for new lands in the City – are you looking for multi-family?
Mr. Monasmith: This is YOUR time to present YOUR case. It’s not a question and answer.
Earl Nash: I thought it would be a good area for a small amount of multi-family, not real high density because there are folks there that have lots of acreage and don’t want high density. I just figured a couple of units in the whole of the six acres.
C/A: Either way I’m thinking we’ll have this thing wrapped up by the end of the year. I know that sounds a little “pie in the sky” for me because the things been hanging around here for five years or something. It is a little different now that they have drafts of both Plans, they are completed and actually exist and the Planning Commission has it where none of that was there before.
Earl Nash: My interest would be to serve the community the best.
C/A: I know we’re short on any kind of affordable multi-family. There just isn’t any rental property here. In fact in talking to John Eminger, he offered a job to a new marketing director who could not find a suitable rental and had to turn down the job – I see that it’s re-advertised now. There isn’t a lot of available housing, certainly at a rental level and I think as the expansion continues, more workers will be brought in and we going to have to have more residential units available.
Earl Nash: And most of those lots are proposed for 7000-10,000 square foot so they’d be reasonably sized lots for medium income people and then, of course, the higher density for those who would have the need to rent.
Councilwoman Mowrey: Would it be property to purchase as well as rent?
Earl Nash: It would include both. I have hopes of doing some building and some selling of lots to fund the building.
The Mayor opened the hearing to Public Testimony:
There was no written or oral testimony.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion by Councilwoman Mowrey to proceed with annexation request of Nash by forwarding matter to Planning Commission for review, seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried
Committee Reports: None.
City Administrator Report:
· The C/A explained that a legal requirement of the update of the Water Plan is to establish a conservation program. It entails a two-step process: a workshop to discuss strategies to increase water capacity/conservation methods and then a public meeting on the proposed plan. A Special Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 19th at 6PM to conduct a workshop regarding water use efficiency.
· The Council will be invited to attend a planning short course on September 11th from 6:30 – 9:30PM.
· A Special Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 3rd at 6PM to conduct a 2009 budget workshop.
Old Business:
· Motion by Councilman Haskell to read Ordinance # 804 by title, seconded by Councilwoman Nupp. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Monasmith read Ordinance # 804 by title. Motion by Councilwoman Nupp to adopt Ordinance # 804 Authorizing the Acquisition of Personal Property and the Execution of a Financing Contract and Related Documentation, seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
· Motion by Councilwoman Ludwig to approve Preliminary Plat for Vista Ridge Subdivision with conditions per report/recommendation of Planning Commission dated 6/19/08 (attached hereto and made a part of these minutes), seconded by Councilman Rolstad. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
New Business:
· The C/A stated that in 2004 the City entered agreement with Stevens County to use their public works roster which allowed the City to extend invitations to bid to pre-qualified contractors on the list for projects under $200,000 as opposed to advertising for bids. Within the last year, MRSC implemented an electronic database roster for use by jurisdictions which entered into contract for an annual fee. The C/A stated that he was particularly interested in the MRSC consultant roster although the City would still maintain its current agreement with the County. Motion by Councilwoman Mowrey to approve Public Works Rosters Agency Contract with Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, seconded by Councilwoman Nupp. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
· Motion by Councilman Rolstad to adopt Resolution 08-05 Repealing 06-04 and Establishing a Vendor List Process, a Small Public Works Roster Process and a Consulting Services Roster, seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried. The C/A stated that this draft resolution addressed use of both the County roster/list and MRSC’s rosters.
· Motion by Councilwoman Mowrey to approve Addendum 1-2008 to Interlocal Agreement Forming Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 59), seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried. The C/A explained that this addendum added the jurisdictions of the City of Colville, the City of Kettle Falls and the Stevens County Conservation District to the agreement.
· Motion by Councilman Rolstad to approve Supplemental Grant Agreement # 1 with WSDOT Aviation Increasing Grant Funding for Airport Paving by $5,171.65, seconded by Councilwoman McMillin. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
· Mr. Monasmith read introduction of Ordinance # 805 Establishing the Chewelah Public Library and Creating a Library Board. The C/A stated that this was a housekeeping item as an ordinance had never been passed creating them.
· Mr. Monasmith read introduction of Ordinance # 806 Annexing Certain Property (Martin) to the Boundaries of the City of Chewelah.
· The C/A stated that the City was chosen as a test site for a BPA pilot program on HVAC efficiency. At no charge, BPA would hire a contractor to look at all the municipal roof top units and then talk to the vendor who sold them to us to see what could be done to make them more energy efficient – BPA may help pay for that. Motion by Councilwoman Nupp to approve Consent Agreement with Department of Energy/Bonneville Power Administration regarding Air-Care Plus, a Rooftop Heating, Ventilation and A/C Unit Efficiency Program, seconded by Councilman Haskell. Roll call vote taken with all in favor. Motion carried.
Audience Comments: None.
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:38 PM.
Mayor ___________________________ Clerk/Treasurer ___________________________
