[1:38] So the Spokane Valley City Council regular meeting formal B format of Tuesday, July 7, 2026 is now called to order. We will start with an invocation from Mike Drew from Valley Assembly Church. If you please stand.

[1:57] Heavenly Father, we thank you that you have given us unalienable rights that don't come from men and they don't come from government, but they come from you. And Lord, you also give us responsibilities. And Lord, as those that lead our city

[2:12] today, we pray that you would give them wisdom, that you would give them insight, Lord, as

[2:17] they deal with difficult challenges and interesting problems, that you'd give them the very

[2:23] mind that they need and the insight, Lord, to see beyond their natural wisdom. We ask for

[2:30] your blessing and we need it. So today we unite together in this chamber, Lord, to ask for the very

[2:36] Every blessing of God who gives us those unalienable rights and Lord then helps us in the responsibilities

[2:43] that you've entrusted to us in Jesus' name.

[2:47] Amen.

[2:48] Thank you.

[2:49] And please join in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[2:51] I pledge allegiance to the flag

[2:55] and to the public

[3:00] and to the people.

[3:13] Will the clerk call the roll, please?

[3:15] Mayor Patton, here.

[3:17] Deputy Mayor Hattenberg.

[3:18] Here.

[3:19] Council Member Yeager.

[3:20] Here.

[3:20] Council Member Haley.

[3:22] Here.

[3:22] Council member Kelly, present. Council member Wic. Here. Council member Merkel. Here.

[3:28] Thank you. We now have the approval of agenda. Move to approve the agenda.

[3:33] All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The agenda is approved. We have a number of special guests and

[3:40] presentations here today. And the first is Fire Chief Soto Jr. Talking about ambulance transport costs.

[3:48] Good

[3:59] evening, Councilmembers, Madam Mayor,

[4:02] of the dignitaries and our citizens of Spokane Valley.

[4:06] Thank you for having me this evening.

[4:08] To talk about the ambulance or the cost of an ambulance ride.

[4:15] Recently I had a great conversation with Council Member Yeager

[4:20] and was trying to kind of bring her up to speed about the cost.

[4:24] I realize right now the cost currently is $5,400 for a ride with our contract and ambulance company, which is AMR American medical response.

[4:38] However, I want to really explain and help you understand what all this means because there's a lot of moving parts.

[4:50] and generally speaking, most people only see the price tag and its instant panic.

[4:57] And I want to say, don't go there yet.

[5:00] So first, a little bit of background.

[5:03] As you know, the last two years, we've seen the cost of an Ambo ride here in Spokane County go up by just over 400%.

[5:12] And another, I believe, 100% ish on the rides.

[5:19] But again, what I really want to explain is, currently right now, most people that we transport are not paying $5,400.

[5:32] So here's the whole misinformation.

[5:38] I know that people are running around going or paying $5,400 or paying $5,400, but we're not.

[5:44] In fact, in the last two years since we've had our own contract with AMR, we've received zero complaints about the cost of an ambulance ride.

[5:56] Now, why is this?

[5:57] That's a great question.

[5:59] Back in 2020, the state of Washington introduced the original balance billing act.

[6:06] And that came into effect at the same time as the No Surprises Act for the Federal Government also in 2020.

[6:13] The problem with both these acts is neither one of them covered out-of-network ambulance

[6:19] transports, ground ambulance transport. And that's what we're talking about. So in 2024,

[6:25] at the legislative session, it was introduced out-of-network ground ambulances were brought into,

[6:34] as an addendum, to the original RCW. And it passed in 2024 during the legislative session.

[6:43] went into effect January 1st, 2025, and the reason that this is hugely important is because

[6:51] what that does is it takes away the $5,400 if you will to a point.

[6:58] So anybody who is not self-insured but has fully insured, if you are fully insured,

[7:06] you have Medicaid, you have Medicare, you are only paying your portion,

[7:11] your copay, your deductible, your co-insurance, your only paying that amount.

[7:19] The rest of that bill, the ambulance service has to eat, we're not paying that.

[7:25] That's what the Balance Billing Act is for, and that's why it's covering the ambulance trip.

[7:31] Now, there is a small percentage, so to give you a specific number,

[7:35] over the last two years, the Spokane Valley Fire Department has transported just over 27,000 patients.

[7:43] Of the 27,000 patients, 9% only 9% would fall into the category of potentially paying the $5,400.

[7:54] So that's roughly 2,400 customers that went to the hospital and may receive the whole bill.

[8:01] and why? Because most of those people, 1800 of them have no insurance. They're just not

[8:08] insured, so they could potentially receive the whole bill. The other remaining number

[8:14] are non-contracted insurance, so meaning their company may have an insurance.

[8:22] This is an example, a large company like your Amazon that would be paying 80 to $100 million

[8:29] dollars a year for insurance decides to be a self-funded insurance. In that case, they have to

[8:41] sign on with the state or sign a contract in order to reduce that amount that you may or may not

[8:48] pay if you are contracted with them. That number, though, of our transports is 2.7%. So we're talking

[8:57] about a very, very small number. Most of our transports are covered under the balanced billing

[9:06] act, so I just want to assure you that even if they continue to go up, they're not going

[9:13] to get any more out of the insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, those numbers are set,

[9:19] and that's it, period. They pay what they pay, and you are not going to get a surprise bill with

[9:25] what's left.

[9:31] Questions?

[9:33] Well, you know, actually, before I go into that, as an example, that's why I put this here

[9:38] so you can kind of see what I'm talking about versus a transport charge.

[9:43] I put 5,000 just to keep it simple.

[9:45] Insurance paste 2,500, you could pay 100.

[9:48] There's $2,400 left on this, but you cannot be billed for it.

[9:53] And the reason that this is important is because if that was the case,

[9:56] then I'd probably have about 27,000 complaints, and we have not received any of them.

[10:03] And many of the people that I've talked to, I've openly asked them to send me your complaints,

[10:09] and we will get to the bottom of that.

[10:11] We will fight for our patients, and not one.

[10:14] I have not received one from anyone.

[10:18] Now, I'll open it up to questions.

[10:21] Questions from council, council member Kelly?

[10:24] So I'm just curious if this 5400 doesn't really reflect what they're receiving and what's

[10:31] the purpose is?

[10:31] Do you feel that that actually represents what it truly costs them and it still outcomes

[10:37] escalates so much in just two years?

[10:40] So I don't want to get into a, I can't speak for DMR.

[10:45] I'm going to take you back, though, back in 2010, the cost was $941 in 2024.

[10:52] for it was still only about 1,000, just over 1,000.

[10:56] Now, obviously it's 5,400.

[10:57] I can tell you that the cost of paramedics and EMTs

[11:01] have gone up.

[11:03] I know that they negotiated several contracts.

[11:06] I also know that they lost arbitration

[11:09] and had to pay a large number there.

[11:12] But AMR was up front with all the fire departments

[11:15] in this county and told us all back in 2024,

[11:19] we cannot operate at $1,000.

[11:21] So we're going to have to significantly raise it, at least they started off with, I believe it's $3,200, it's going to have to go to that amount period.

[11:32] Now, understand from the fire department perspective, there's only, at the time, there's only three actual teeth at the back.

[11:39] There's only two agencies transporting in this county.

[11:43] In comparison to other large counties out there that have, you know, double digit

[11:51] transport agencies, we had to Deer Park and AMR.

[11:56] Since then we've added Fire District 4 and obviously Fire District 9 that just started

[12:01] on July 1st.

[12:03] And we couldn't get anybody, we reached out all across the country asking for other agencies

[12:10] to want to come in for an RFP process and nobody was interested and so it was pretty much either

[12:18] try and start your own ambulance company or you're going to have to raise the prices. The prices

[12:24] are going to come up and essentially that's what they have and every agency in the county is paying

[12:30] the $54 with the exception of D4 and D9.

[12:35] Council Member Merkel. Yeah, thanks so much. Kind of answered

[12:40] some of my questions about the procurement process and who negotiated this contract?

[12:46] That being said, you know, were we able to show any price comparisons? What would have happened

[12:52] if we would have just said, okay, we're not going to contract with you?

[12:59] Pandora's Box, Sir. Pandora's Box. So let's say we did, let's play the what if game. I'm

[13:07] not a fan of it because you can pretty much go down whatever rabbit hole you want, but if we did,

[13:12] you would not have any firefighters. You would have ambulance transport providers.

[13:18] So in this county, I'm going to pick on the hospitals for a second.

[13:24] And I don't mean to, but it is what it is. There is a large weight at our hospitals for our patients.

[13:33] The ambulance is going to go there and it's waiting an hour, it's not uncommon waiting much more than an hour, it is the norm.

[13:43] So, if we don't contract with EMR, we have to provide that service, the fire department is counting.

[13:51] and I don't have any money to hire a hundred new ambulance transport providers.

[13:58] I'm going to have to put my firefighters on those units when they go on those calls,

[14:04] which means if they're sitting at the hospital for hours on end,

[14:07] there's nobody covering for fires or other emergencies.

[14:12] So it's one of those situations where you have to dance with the one that brought you,

[14:19] Yeah, because there's nobody else.

[14:23] That's my re-eager.

[14:25] Thank you.

[14:25] So, if I'm understanding correctly, I go to the hospital and I need an aspirin.

[14:31] The aspirin costs $10.

[14:34] If Blue Cross contracts to pay for that aspirin $100, an Etna contracts to pay $90, but the

[14:41] hospital's only charging $10.

[14:43] Those two insurance companies, well, I think I'm reversing this, but they're basically the

[14:49] The hospital's losing out if they're not building it, those appropriate rates.

[14:52] Is that's what we're kind of talking about for the ambulance rise?

[15:00] If we're comparing that to an aspirin, so the hospital could charge Blue Cross $100 for that $10 aspirin. So if they don't bill that, they're actually effectively losing money based on their contract, which I think is kind of where this is at. If Blue Cross is going to pay $3,000 for an ambulance ride, but they're only charging $1,000, they're losing out on $2,000.

[15:22] Absolutely, but if you're going to compare it, I think it's weird, but I compare it to

[15:31] your car insurance.

[15:33] If you own the car a lot of times, actually, let me take that out.

[15:40] Let's do home insurance.

[15:41] You don't own your home, so you pay insurance.

[15:44] And if there's a fire that happens at your house, who pays for it, your insurance company

[15:49] at whatever rate you have set.

[15:52] If you own the house, like many do, and they choose not to pay home insurance anymore

[15:57] because they're saying, you know, I own it, I don't want to pay anything, and there's

[16:01] a fire than the homeowners on the hook for the entire rebuild, if they want to rebuild.

[16:07] And that's kind of, that's where we're at with self-funded versus fully insured.

[16:17] And that's the 8% we talked about, the 9% sorry, that we talked about, that's the

[16:22] self-funded.

[16:23] But there's a portion of that, there's 5% or sorry, 2.7% of that, that they could still

[16:32] negotiate it, or they come in and they say this is what you pay and that's it.

[16:38] But as for the cost that I couldn't tell you, because the bill, there's two different

[16:45] bills when you go to a hospital, right?

[16:47] There's the ambulance bill, and then there's the hospital bill, so there's two different

[16:53] animals there.

[16:54] So I couldn't tell you from the hospital side.

[16:59] Could you tell us the difference between what's going on in Fire District 9 that they can

[17:04] provide some kind of these, some of these services and what we have here?

[17:10] I'm

[17:15] trying to figure out how to answer that and not step on any toes at big feet and I've been around a long time so I know I know the dances but I'm not good at dancing.

[17:30] Fire District 9 is now providing all transports within their area, the response area.

[17:36] What we're talking about is 3,300 transports a year, that's roughly where they're at.

[17:48] And they've only been in service for a week, not even a full week, but they're certainly,

[17:53] based on what I can see, they're feeling it, they're going on calls, and they're waiting

[17:59] in hospitals, but as for the cost of those transports, I couldn't tell you, I mean,

[18:07] I know how much they're charging, I have it right here in front of me, is it less than

[18:11] the 5400? Yes. But again, as long as they're, what they're charging is a buff Medicaid, Medicare

[18:22] and what your fully insured insurance will pay, then they're taking home the same amount as AMR would

[18:31] be charging 5,400. It's smoking mirrors. That the people that will fill it, the difference are the

[18:38] non-insured or people who have a non-contracted insurance. Then potentially, yeah, they could be paying a lot

[18:48] But understand, if you are non-contracted, self-funded with an employer, it's the employer that's paying the amount, not you, but you could be on the hook for some of it, if the insurance has some sort of deal with you as their employee.

[19:11] I appreciate what you're saying that, you know, a lot of this cost gets passed through to insurance, but I'm understanding correctly that actual insurance cost has gone up quite a bit.

[19:21] And so that would be reflected in people's insurance rates on private insurance.

[19:27] I'm not debating that one bit, there's no way the cost of insurance right now is the

[19:34] same five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, certainly.

[19:38] So is there anything we can do to, you know, now that we're here, is there anything we

[19:43] can do to head this off of the pass going forward?

[19:50] could AMR continue to bring their cost up? Yes. Does that change anything? No. Because everything is

[20:00] capped because of balance billing. So it's only as you're insured. If you're not, I know that they do

[20:07] have a forgiveness, but that's between them and the citizens. So I don't know what those

[20:17] percentages or numbers are. But what I can ask is, I've met recently with the Washington

[20:24] State Office of Insurance Commissioner and I've met with the Washington Department

[20:31] of Health and both are in agreement that they have some problems that they just didn't

[20:44] anticipate, and with the price of AMR raising the prices has brought all that to light.

[20:53] For instance, there's no cap in the state of Washington, so they can raise it to $40,000

[21:00] to transport.

[21:01] There's no cap, there's nobody policing that, which is unheard of coming from other states

[21:08] that I've operated in. It's beyond me that there's nobody directly over that. Does that

[21:15] mean that all these insurance companies have to pay that amount? No, but those who want

[21:20] to contract it for those amounts would have to. So that of that 8%, that would potentially

[21:27] those people would be paying that amount. So again, I've asked that they do an internal

[21:34] review and start looking at that and coming up with a better way to police all of this,

[21:43] to include why does it take an act of Congress to get a fire department to transport patients

[21:54] in this state. There's a lot of things that we are very progressive in the state and

[22:01] And there are some things that we are very, the system is very antiquated.

[22:05] And this is one of those areas, they are going to look at it and see what they can do.

[22:12] Councilmember Kelly.

[22:14] What have you directed?

[22:15] My assumption that Fire District 9 now has to implement billing insurance billing.

[22:22] You are correct, sir.

[22:23] Is that something that they outsource third party then?

[22:26] I couldn't tell you, sir.

[22:27] But yes, they have to do all the billing collections, the whole nine yards, but I mean, we call it today more like soft billing because of the balanced bill actor.

[22:38] You can only get what you can get, so you just be chasing your tail, trying to get more.

[22:45] Council member Merkel.

[22:47] Yeah, since we're contracted with AMR, is there anything that prevents like, say, one of the private insurance companies from starting their own ambulance service for their covered individuals?

[22:57] Yes, sir. There's tons of problems. So let's

[23:07] say the city of Spokane Valley said, hey,

[23:09] we want to start a third-party ambulance company. It would require, it would require you

[23:17] first to go to the Spokane County EMS Council and get approval there. They'd take that to

[23:24] the state gets state approval, and then you would still have to do a needs assessment

[23:29] and proven need. That's part of the problem with Valley Fire. We've looked at all this,

[23:36] I can't prove a need, and the state of Washington has already told me the cost of a transport

[23:42] is not a need. So our hands are tied because AMR is meeting all of our needs. In any case,

[23:52] if you can still somehow prove a need, then at that point, it goes out to bid worldwide.

[24:00] Whoever wants to apply for it. Well, with 14,000 transports a year, we're talking about

[24:08] multi-million dollars, right? So we're talking about generating 17 million dollars.

[24:16] roughly plus GMT money or not, because that's a whole other dance to talk about.

[24:22] But you could potentially have a different ambulance company come in and they take it

[24:30] from you because they have lobbyists that have a whole lot of money that you don't have.

[24:35] And now you have competition which is good but you could also make things worse.

[24:40] So yeah, and part of that is now you have to stand up, you know, you have to get your own medical

[24:50] doctor. There's a whole bunch of different, you got to get your billing, all that stuff. So

[24:55] there's a lot to it. It will take a while. You can see District 9 took a long time and we're talking

[25:03] about something that is a small area. There are big area, but a small amount of transports and it's

[25:09] still took a while for them to get it.

[25:15] Any other questions, comments?

[25:17] There's a comment.

[25:18] Yeah, Council Member Wick.

[25:20] Just really appreciate you taking the time.

[25:22] It was pretty confusing the way the newspaper

[25:24] are left it, so I appreciate you taking the time

[25:25] to come and explain it to us and share that it's not

[25:28] quite as scary as what it sounded like.

[25:31] No problem, and I get it.

[25:33] I, you know, there's so many different moving parts

[25:36] when I talked to Council Member Yager, I explained it.

[25:39] the man, there's just, I've been in this business for 30 years and it's still state to state

[25:46] it's different and then it's just, there's so many different parts and pieces to it

[25:54] that it's just, it's very frustrating. To me, the most frustrating part is we just, we don't

[26:02] have the different companies here, and I don't know how to get them here, so that they can

[26:10] compete. Now, if they compete and bring the prices down, is that change any of the

[26:17] revenue that they're receiving? Not really, because again, we're talking about 8 to 9 percent

[26:23] of the population, and of those how many, if you don't have, if you're not insured at all,

[26:29] How many of those people are even paid?

[26:34] Council Member Kelly.

[26:36] I appreciate that explanation.

[26:37] I think that you have implied and I certainly feel like I can recognize that this lack of

[26:44] competition is probably one of the reasons why we have such high prices.

[26:48] But I think it's important to remember that even though the reimbursements are capped contractually,

[26:57] I mean, those agreed contract prices are probably, you know, they started from this 5400 number.

[27:05] So that's whatever that is, is probably going to be higher than it would need to be if

[27:09] we had additional competition.

[27:13] And those costs are going to be reflected in the insurance premium, so people continue

[27:18] to pay.

[27:19] It's just pretty much spread out amongst everyone who has health insurance, which is part

[27:23] of the purpose of health insurance is spread those costs out.

[27:25] But we could kind of contain these prices if we had greater competition.

[27:30] And so that would be my comment, it would be nice.

[27:35] All right, great, thank you so very much.

[27:37] We appreciate your expertise and the input you have on a very current topic of concern.

[27:44] Yes, ma'am, thank you, thank you Council members.

[27:55] We now have another presentation on transportation improvement program with John Holman.

[28:01] Good

[28:05] evening, Mayor and Councilmember John Homan, City Manager, here to celebrate big news,

[28:14] 20.8 million reasons to celebrate.

[28:18] So we were notified officially today, unofficially at the end of last week, that the US DOT has selected

[28:27] the Sullivan Trent project for a 28.8 million dollar build award. So we wanted to reflect

[28:39] on that a little bit, make the announcement celebrate, but also congratulate this team

[28:45] that we have built.

[28:49] If you think about what this has meant just to these three large projects,

[28:54] So if I go back in time to 2017 and Barker was a grade at grade crossing, it was about

[29:06] a big of a nightmare as pines.

[29:09] We were successful in the Tiger program at that time.

[29:13] So that was a $9 million award in 2022, then we received a $21.7 million award during

[29:22] the RAIS program or through the RAIS program for the Pines project, which is currently under construction

[29:28] and then to have this announcement is just phenomenal. It's hard to describe how difficult it is

[29:36] to receive even one of these awards and to have our projects selected year over year or within

[29:44] in the 10-frame 10-year program is really something to celebrate and how did we get here?

[29:52] A lot of hard work, about a decade ago, the council really wanted us to elevate our transportation

[29:58] implementation improvement program and

[30:00] And so we spent quite a bit of time working collectively together to do that. And from the council's advocacy on these projects, from the different trips that we take to Olympia and Washington, D.C., to our contracted lobbyist, which we have our state lobbyist in the house tonight, which we appreciate. These all contribute to making these projects aware at the state and federal level.

[30:28] to our legislators, and makes it attractive for them to consider our projects moving forward.

[30:36] But we don't get there without having the implementation team as well.

[30:41] And so we have bar none, the finest staff that we can assemble just from the planning part

[30:49] through the engineering part, through the inspection piece,

[30:54] these, everybody working together to make sure that these projects move forward as best

[30:59] as they can and meet all the state and federal requirements so that we can pass any audit

[31:04] and make sure that we stay in the great favors or the good favors of these granting programs.

[31:11] I also want to focus on our planning grants individuals, so you all recognized Adam Jackson.

[31:18] Recently, Kristen Armstrong is now coming on board with that.

[31:24] These are two individuals that really help navigate us, the council and staff, and what

[31:33] programs to look at how to position our projects.

[31:36] And all of that works together to create the results that we have here.

[31:43] $51.5 million for just these three projects,

[31:49] just looking at it real closely, all of our projects are heavily grant funded.

[31:55] We leverage some initial city investment to bring back a significant amount of money, mostly on the federal side, some on the state side to get these projects done.

[32:07] And so, Barker Road, this was the cost breakdown there.

[32:12] Pines, raise, was the majority, or almost the majority, almost about half of that funding,

[32:20] the Fed, other Fed's make up the rest of that majority funding.

[32:27] And you see the city had a significant amount of money in it, but still a minority share

[32:33] of that project as it moves forward.

[32:36] We're still working on the Sullivan Trent funding, but the most difficult piece I think we've hit, which is this build award and we are still seeking about 9.8 million to complete it.

[32:51] The reason it's at that is we need to have matching funds. So we've pretty much maxed out all of the federal funds that we can put on this project and we need some additional matching funds.

[33:04] And so that could be their city or state.

[33:06] My understanding staff had a great call with the Transportation Improvement Board today,

[33:11] so that could be an option that we'll talk to you about in a couple of weeks.

[33:15] And also we've had conversations with the Council Member Wick.

[33:19] He's on the board of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board.

[33:24] And there is a placeholder there that we will try to work through and make that happen

[33:29] as well.

[33:29] So a lot of the granting agencies like to be last one end, so this is really a good

[33:35] story to have and to go forward with.

[33:38] And really, what are these grant programs?

[33:43] So it's all of the gas taxes and other taxes that our residents pay go to the state and

[33:50] feds, and this is how they distribute it back to the communities.

[33:53] and we need to be competitive at this and we are and but we also want to be

[34:01] thankful to all of our friends in high places as well and we'll get to that in

[34:08] just a minute but this is an incredible record if you think about over the last

[34:14] ten years and I really like how we change this slide. This is a slide that we're

[34:21] preparing for the state of the city and it's already out of date so now we're

[34:26] correct it and make sure you have the right information mayor. Almost the

[34:32] $180 million that we've brought in over the last 10 years. Over 90 different

[34:37] projects is incredible and I really wanted to thank the City Council. I wanted

[34:43] to thank our staff and all the hard work that they've done but we also want to

[34:48] I think our state and federal delegations will concentrate on the feds right now.

[34:56] And hopefully if we get some state money, we can have them in and thank them as well.

[35:01] We did reach out to each of the two senators offices as well as the congressman's office.

[35:09] Unfortunately, the senators' individuals were not able to come tonight, but

[35:14] that I am very grateful that Congressman Baumgartner has sent former Senator Mike Padden

[35:22] to say a few words.

[35:23] So I would ask Mike to come up and address the council.

[35:33] Well, thank you very much, John, and I know Congressman did issue a press release, excuse

[35:40] me today, indicating congratulations to the City of Spokane Valley and its transportation

[35:46] team whose responsible planning and hard work put this project in a strong position to

[35:53] compete for federal funding. Earlier this year, I supported Spokane Valley, suffered

[35:59] with a letter to the appropriate agencies. And it's just very exciting. And you think

[36:12] of the location and you know we all know our area but what's going on along that Sullivan

[36:19] corridor north of the river north of I-90 we've got the ice rink being built we've got the

[36:29] course that is actually an operation and it's got a whole bunch of meats plan we've got

[36:38] I just love seeing all that steel in the sky when you're going to solve it and see the

[36:43] solstice expansion, $200 million, the largest expansion construction project in Spokane

[36:51] County right now.

[36:53] We got Kaiser that is continuing to have 1,000 or so employees, I believe that's right Dan

[37:04] Wilson's here. And we got the industrial park busting at the seams of the congressman

[37:11] and I visited a company called DAV, which makes mining equipment. They're in the industrial

[37:17] park. They are expanding, got a new building. They went, they started with three employees.

[37:23] If 55 now, they're going to be adding additional ones. And through the efforts, also the city

[37:31] that North Park or a corridor has got all these warehouses that are being filled.

[37:37] So, I mean, there's a reason that, you know, this federal money, our tax dollars coming

[37:43] back to us are here, and that's because of the growth and dynamism of the valley.

[37:50] They're not going elsewhere.

[37:52] We're seeing the growth, the economic development, everything else, so certainly a great day,

[37:58] and I commend the city along with the congressman and look forward to seeing these things being

[38:07] completed over the next few years and certainly congratulate all of you, the entire council,

[38:13] for supporting these efforts. So on behalf of congressman Bungarner,

[38:17] he congratulates you. Thank you very much.

[38:28] Thank you, senator. We appreciate your comments.

[38:31] Just really want to congratulate Council for your steadfast interest in this, your commitments

[38:39] to go to Olympia and to Washington, D.C. to advocate for these projects.

[38:44] And again, thank you for all the hard work to make it happen and to keep us moving forward on these projects.

[38:53] I also want to thank the community for their patience as we work through these construction projects

[38:59] because that's the other big piece of this, is there's some temporary pain that seems to go on for quite some time, but once that's through and the construction opens up, this community's way better off.

[39:14] So what we did tonight, I want to thank Julie and the other staff for putting a few cupcakes out there.

[39:20] So the audience members, please feel free, council, please feel free to grab a snack and then we'll take a little

[39:30] intermission potentially and then move on.

[39:33] Well, are there any comments from council?

[39:36] Council member Yeager?

[39:38] Well, John, I just want to say that really is you and your staff that are, you know,

[39:43] supporting and doing the hard lifting. We're here to support those initiatives and you have an incredible

[39:47] team, so I just on behalf of all the rest of us just want to thank you for everything

[39:52] you guys do for our community.

[39:55] Councilmember Haley?

[39:56] Thank you.

[39:57] Yeah, I want to say thank you too.

[39:59] I mean, yes, we can wish that bridging the valley happened, but the staff is who makes

[40:04] it happen.

[40:05] And I know Adam said very humbly that it would have nothing to do with him, but the only thing

[40:11] that is always the same, and the reason we are always first one with SRTC and first with

[40:16] the federal government is because he's amazing.

[40:20] Deputy Mayor.

[40:21] I'd like to echo the part on Adam, the last two or three years that I've gone back to

[40:25] DC with him and part of the team.

[40:28] They know who he is.

[40:29] We've had the Federal Transportation Department actually say you might want to hang on to the

[40:32] sky because everybody knows the kind of job he does, and that's right from them.

[40:36] And not only that, or to you as Senator or Congressman and our Congressman before, that they've

[40:43] supported it.

[40:44] I realize the importance of these projects, and I understand that this project was number one on the appropriations committee's list, and that was with Senator Murray, if not mistaken, so they recognize they talk about they represent the whole state of Washington and it's happening here, so thank you so much.

[41:01] Council Member Kelly.

[41:04] I have been on the council a short period of time, but I have recognized in that time that

[41:09] the staff does work hard and is very sincere in their efforts to bring progress and growth

[41:14] to the city and do so in a way that makes sense, and so I acknowledge that and appreciate

[41:19] that.

[41:21] Council Member Wood.

[41:22] And just a hearty congratulations, I mean that project is long overdue, I feel like it

[41:28] should have been a big, low-gold phase 16 or whatever it was or a big, low-gold from

[41:32] the county.

[41:33] But I just really appreciate all the hard work and the effort into that and also just

[41:39] a good cadence that we have.

[41:41] I remember when we had Barker under construction, I kind of challenged us to see if we can't

[41:45] figure out how to fund pines before Barker got done and we accomplished that and now here

[41:50] we are funding, I mean 90% of Sullivan before we even get pines done.

[41:56] So just looking forward to continuing that cadence and keeping these great projects moving forward and then also the

[42:03] We actually had a project before that which was the Sullivan West Bridge or the river which was a $20 million project as well

[42:09] So we've had a great number of success in our program

[42:14] Council member Merkel, would you like to say something or not?

[42:17] I think I'm okay. Everything's been said

[42:23] Possibly take over the north-south freeway

[42:27] We actually took their construction manager away from them.

[42:35] Well, in my comment is, it's really a tribute to the long-term relationships that we've

[42:40] had particularly with Senator Murray's and Catwell and are shorter, but just as productive

[42:47] relationship with Congressman Baumgartner.

[42:50] But it says volumes about your leadership on the city and on the projects and the ability

[42:56] to get things done and also volumes about the capability and talents of the rest of the staff

[43:03] to do the job and to create the reputation that this city has in terms of transportation projects

[43:09] and, you know, when we say we're going to do something, we get it done and get it done on time

[43:14] and within budget. And I think we need to say it's also a tribute to the vision of those who came

[43:21] before us and saw these possibilities and the needs and the growth and then to the persistence

[43:27] of everyone who came after them to keep moving and moving forward and keep in the ball rolling.

[43:32] So congratulations all around.

[43:36] So we can take a 10 minute break and enjoy some cupcakes and then we'll get back to business.

[43:43] Thank you.

[45:46] And Valley, Washington, parks, and recreation month. Whereas parks and recreation activities provide opportunities for citizens of all ages to grow and develop into contributing members of their communities, and whereas parks and recreation programs strengthen the community foster individual growth and increase cultural diversity. And whereas parks and recreation programs provide outlets for physical activities

[46:16] socialization and stress-reducing experience, and whereas parks playgrounds, natural trails,

[46:25] open spaces, aquatic facilities, senior and event centers make our community an attractive

[46:31] and desirable place to work, play, and visit which contributes to our economic vitality,

[46:39] And whereas Parks, Greenways, and Open Spaces provide a welcome respite from our fast-paced

[46:47] high-tech lifestyles while protecting and preserving our natural environment.

[46:52] And whereas thousands of Spokane Valley children, adults, and seniors benefit from the wide range

[46:59] of services, facilities, and programs provided by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation

[47:05] Department. Now, therefore, I, Laura Padden, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley. On behalf

[47:12] of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do

[47:17] hereby proclaim the month of July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month. And I encourage all citizens

[47:26] to participate in and support the many recreational programs and facilities provided by public and

[47:33] private agencies dated this seventh day of July 2026.

[47:47] Good evening, Mayor and members of council.

[47:49] I'm Kendall May Recreation Coordinator and I am here to introduce Devon Weissman. She's one of our

[47:53] two recreation interns that we hire on for the summer to help run all the programs and events

[47:59] that we have going on. So she is a student at Eastern Washington University getting a degree in

[48:04] recreation management and completing this internship will complete her degree. So she's going to come up

[48:09] and accept the proclamation and tell you how we're going to celebrate.

[48:17] Hello, council. I'm Devon Weisman, and I'm honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of the

[48:23] Parks and Rec Department. One of my goals for my internship this summer is to plan and host

[48:30] an event to celebrate Parks and Recreation Month. And so I'm proud to invite you to our Parks

[48:36] and Recreation Month's trivia showdown, which will be on July 24th from 4 to 7 p.m. It's going to be

[48:42] hosted at the scale house market through our Spokane Valley Farmers market and it's going to be

[48:48] an event where community members can test their knowledge about parks and recreation,

[48:52] our department, general parks knowledge, all of that good stuff, challenge their friends and family

[48:59] to attribute a showdown and earn prizes all while enjoying the ability to shop locally with all of

[49:05] our amazing vendors. And then after the market at Mirabu Meadows we're going to be having an outdoor

[49:10] movie with lots of activities and programming for kids and families before the movie starts and

[49:15] then we're going to be showing up the movie and so I invite you all to join us on July 24th for

[49:22] those special events for Parks and Recreation Month as well as just wanted to point out that July

[49:27] 17th is also National Parks and Recreation Professionals Day so a great day to show our love and appreciation

[49:34] for all of the parks and recreation staff out there serving their community and providing awesome parks and recreation experiences for us all.

[49:43] So, thank you again and we hope to see you there.

[49:48] Very good. Thank you.

[49:57] Yeah, question. What time?

[49:59] Would that be on the 24th?

[50:05] So, it's going to be an ongoing event during the farmers market.

[50:08] So, any time between 4 and 7 you can show in and we're going to have a quick short round.

[50:14] So opportunities for everyone to play any time from 4 to 7.

[50:18] Great, thank you.

[50:24] And tonight we do have a mayor's statement.

[50:28] So from time to time, the presiding officer takes a few minutes to offer explanations

[50:34] or correctness information and factual discrepancies.

[50:38] Today, I will speak about the rules around interrupting another council member during meetings

[50:44] which is allowed under certain circumstances.

[50:46] I

[50:50] have actually gone over this before in another mayor's statement, but it appears that for

[50:56] everyone's benefit, I will say some more about it.

[50:59] First, the bias is not a soapbox on a street corner where one can expound for hours on end.

[51:07] Here we are engaged in a formal meeting run by rules and protocols, mostly determined by

[51:15] Roads Rules, but also by our governance manual and certain RCWs in the state.

[51:22] These rules are in place to guarantee an orderly and respectful discussion of agenda items and the timely progression of the meetings.

[51:32] According to Roads Rules, the presiding officer, tonight it's me, is obligated to interrupt any council member

[51:41] or when the presiding officer proceeds that there is a violation of the rules.

[51:48] Council members can interrupt another council member when they perceive a violation

[51:54] of the rules and feel the presiding officer has failed to see and address that violation.

[52:00] For council members the procedure is to call out point of order and can interrupt the potential

[52:08] defender. The providing officer replies, speak to the point. The council member who called

[52:15] the point explains what they feel the alleged violation might be. And the deciding officer

[52:23] renders his or her decision. These are non-debatable. There's no arguing, no comments.

[52:32] The offending

[52:34] meeting council member, if they feel the ruling is an error, can appeal the decision to

[52:41] the entire council. It must be seconded. So if the entire council votes, they can either

[52:49] uphold the presiding officer's ruling, or they can overturn it. And this prevents any

[52:57] kind of tyranny from the presiding officer and goes along with the idea that majority

[53:03] rules. For the presiding officer, he or she does not call out the point of order or carry

[53:11] on a dialogue with themselves. For example, I would not say point of order and then speak

[53:17] to the point. And then I'll say my point is blah, blah, blah. And then I would say, this

[53:22] is my decision. You will not see that anywhere. It's an unrealistic expectation. The presiding

[53:30] officer simply politely, hopefully, but with authority, interrupts the council member

[53:35] and begins to explain the reason.

[53:39] Last week, I interrupted a council member, but before I could explain my rationale,

[53:45] the council member immediately violated Robert's rules around points of order and decorum

[53:50] by complaining hurling accusations and declaring that the presiding officer did not have the

[53:59] authority to interrupt.

[54:01] In the end, by the behavior, what was effectively denied all council members their chance to

[54:10] comment on the admin report while he demonstrated his ability to speak loud enough to cover the entire room.

[54:19] So, that is my comment.

[54:22] We will now go on to general public comments.

[54:24] General

[54:29] public comment opportunity is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items as public comments will be taken on those items were indicated.

[54:41] Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of city government.

[54:45] This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.

[54:49] The first points of view are welcome, but please keep remarks, remarks, civil.

[54:57] Remarks will be limited to three minutes, I'm sorry, will be limited, yeah, no, just

[55:02] three minutes per person.

[55:04] If a person engages in disruptive behavior or makes individual personal attacks regarding matters

[55:11] unrelated to city business, then the council and or mayor may end the person's public comment

[55:17] time before the three-minute mark. Is there anyone on Zoom?

[55:23] No, there is not.

[55:44] I believe the first one is Ben Lund.

[56:02] Well, we live in one of the greatest cities in all of Washington.

[56:06] Thank you. Good evening, Mary Pan, Debbie, and Mary Hanbert, City Council, City Leadership,

[56:13] Ben Lund, Spokane Valley resident.

[56:16] Councilman Merkel, in one respect, you have made history.

[56:20] because of this case, the Washington Legislator enacted House Bill No. 1934,

[56:27] strengthening the privacy protection for citizens responding to public records act

[56:34] request. Your case will also be studied by elected officials across Washington,

[56:40] not as an example to follow, but on a lesson in government accountability.

[56:45] Thank you. Unfortunately, Spokane Valley taxpayers have paid the

[56:49] significant price for that.

[56:52] The city has publicly reported $100,000 in legal costs related to workplace harassment

[56:59] matters and approximately $500,000 related to the Public Records Act.

[57:05] That's about $600,000 spent already.

[57:08] Eurasian recently wrote on Facebook, thank you all, just going to keep fighting for freedom,

[57:15] lower taxes, and to keep Spokane Valley a nice place to live, unquote.

[57:20] Councilman Nortel, this issue is no longer whether you have the right to appeal.

[57:25] The issue is how much more Spokane Valley taxpayers should pay, expected to pay for that decision.

[57:33] This is for illustration only.

[57:35] If an appeal adds another year of litigation, approximately $200,000.

[57:39] And if the court decides decisions were resolved in additional public record penalties,

[57:49] the taxpayers could be exposed to over $1 million.

[57:54] These are estimates, not predictions.

[57:58] But they raise one simple question.

[58:01] How does spending potentially another several hundred thousand dollars

[58:07] on litigation lower taxes. Leadership is measured not by conviction, but by the

[58:14] stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In my opinion, the best solution for everyone

[58:20] involved, the city, the taxpayers, fellow council members, and even you is to

[58:25] resign and allow Spokane Valley to move forward. Councilman Merkel, we're begging you.

[58:33] I'm going to restate that.

[58:34] In my opinion, the best solution for everyone involved, the city taxpayers and fellow council

[58:40] members, and even you, is to resign and allow Spokane Valley to move forward.

[58:46] Your case has already changed, watching to state law.

[58:50] Now let it become a lesson, not another year of litigation.

[58:54] The people deserve accountability, and they deserve closure.

[58:58] Thank you.

[59:00] The next one is Kyle Mattson.

[59:13] Council members, I wanted to bring up a situation that has appeared in our community.

[59:20] On Friday, our neighbors informed us that a House 607 University has had a new tenant

[59:27] moved in and it seems to be that that house is being used as what we heard from our neighbors,

[59:32] a drug rehab home, or maybe a long-term care home.

[59:38] The flyers were passed out on Friday that a convicted state and federal pedophile rapist

[59:46] was moved into this home into our community.

[59:49] He is currently within sight of six girls under the age of ten.

[59:58] How this came to be?

[1:00:00] I don't understand. I don't know. I'm asking for clarification as to how something like this could happen that without any notice, any word, someone with this history was placed into our community within a mile of an elementary school. I'm just flabbergasted that this situation could even exist. I'm coming here asking for some help to protect the youth of this community.

[1:00:28] from this person that was just plopped in without any notification, right next door.

[1:00:37] Thank you.

[1:00:40] City Manager.

[1:00:42] Yes, we appreciate the comment and are appalled at the situation.

[1:00:48] I'm speaking to the larger issue of the kind of group homes that we've been talking about

[1:00:55] for a bit and will double our efforts in moving forward.

[1:00:58] But I think if the mayor is okay, we can bring Deputy City Attorney BD forward with

[1:01:05] police chief Dave Ellis to give a further explanation on this issue.

[1:01:10] Yes, please.

[1:01:21] Thank you.

[1:01:22] Tony BD, Senior Deputy City Attorney with Chief Ellis here.

[1:01:26] And there's really nothing that I'm going to say that's going to assure members of the

[1:01:33] community, we obviously empathize and are appalled at the situation as city manager,

[1:01:37] home and stated, the reality of the situation, the state of Washington is that local governments

[1:01:43] are restricted in what they can do with regards to limitations on offenders and specifically

[1:01:51] sex offenders.

[1:01:52] There was a statute passed in 2006 by the state legislature limiting local governments

[1:01:58] from passing any laws regarding the residents or locations of sex offenders convicted at any time.

[1:02:08] So there would be no law on the books in the city of Spokane Valley, nothing in Spokane County.

[1:02:16] If there is someone who's on Department of Corrections custody, they would have restrictions or

[1:02:22] or their judgment incentives would have restrictions,

[1:02:25] but from our standpoint and from what we can do here,

[1:02:29] it's very limited.

[1:02:31] That's another mandate from the state preemption issue.

[1:02:37] I would add, certainly we feel the concern of the community

[1:02:41] as well, and the Deputy City Attorney is correct

[1:02:44] in that this is at a state issue

[1:02:46] as far as regulating where convicted sex

[1:02:50] of interest going to live, post, DOC supervision from a law enforcement perspective, that is

[1:02:58] where we came in to send out a press release to the community to notify them that this

[1:03:04] person is living there. So at least the community can be advised and be aware of the situation.

[1:03:10] And Mayor, if I may, because this would tend to be a state level discussion.

[1:03:22] Later on near agenda, we have our state lobbyist, Brianna Murray, that will speak to us.

[1:03:29] And we should bring this up during that point and see if there's any opportunity to include this on our state.

[1:03:37] Agenda legislative agenda to see if there are some changes that can be made to this, because it is just terrible.

[1:03:50] Yeah, Councilmember Kelly.

[1:03:52] So I'm just curious. It's not clear to me from your comments. Are these individuals still under DLC supervision or custody?

[1:03:59] Are they post-present in maybe community corrections now or are they completely off supervision?

[1:04:04] Minor signs are off supervision.

[1:04:08] And then do these homes have to operate with a business license?

[1:04:15] These homes would have, well, yes, they would be required to follow all regulations in the city and in a business license.

[1:04:26] I don't know exactly what specific business license this would fall under, what the category would be.

[1:04:34] But we can certainly look at that.

[1:04:37] Yeah, I'm just wondering if we can require some level of supervision as a condition of maintaining that business license.

[1:04:42] And those are some of the options that we would be looking at as we move forward with potential

[1:04:48] code changes for those business licenses.

[1:04:52] We looked at this last year from the standpoint of if there was a chronic problem that some

[1:04:58] of these homes can, and you heard Mr. Horner talk about that a couple of weeks ago, seems

[1:05:05] to be Mr. Dan Allison talked to the mayor yesterday about this issue as well, another

[1:05:13] youth home in his neighborhood. So it is proliferating throughout our community. And we do need

[1:05:19] to look at every option for trying to restrict those, but it will be a fight with the state.

[1:05:24] But I know you're up to that fight.

[1:05:26] Yes, and we have already started some of that last year with the group homes. So it's just

[1:05:34] It's going to be completing the fight or finishing the fight, I guess, Council Member Merkel.

[1:05:39] You know if this location needed a conditional use permit.

[1:05:43] I do not know about the specific location.

[1:05:51] Thank you.

[1:05:53] Thank you.

[1:05:58] And next we have Joseph Godsee.

[1:06:10] Thank you, Mrs. Mayor and honorable members of the Council.

[1:06:15] My name is Joseph Godsee, a resident here in Spokane Valley.

[1:06:17] Again, I was not playing non-speaking tonight, but I heard something that I am quickly becoming an expert in natural monopolies

[1:06:27] Monopolis naturally occurring a water district one that I'm a commissioner of is considered a natural monopoly

[1:06:33] I can't have two water lines going to every house to compete on prices. That's what is known as a hard regional monopoly

[1:06:42] I am currently writing a

[1:06:44] paper to submit for peer review at Gonzaga University. Under in it I outlined five different types

[1:06:52] of natural monopolies, one of which include first responders. There were to know as at least

[1:06:58] I classified them as competition abhorrent natural monopolies. For those of us who are familiar

[1:07:08] with the history of firefighting here in America, fire departments used to be privatized. Fire

[1:07:15] departments would fight over jurisdiction and fight over who would get paid to put out a fire.

[1:07:21] They would pull up in front of a burning building and sometimes get into fist fights with each

[1:07:26] other to determine who could put out the fire and get paid for it. That's and we also had privatized

[1:07:34] police departments. They would show up outside of a crime scene and slash each other's tires

[1:07:40] and sabotage their equipment and fight over jurisdiction because they wanted to get paid for it.

[1:07:45] These were solved by making them a public good. It decreased the cost, it increased the public good,

[1:07:53] it increased the amount of value that the government and the city brings to the citizens here in

[1:07:59] America. It is standard operating procedure here in America to make first responders a

[1:08:07] public good minus for some reason ambulances, ambulatory services in almost every nation

[1:08:15] on earth ambulatory services are considered a public good because they do qualify as a

[1:08:21] natural monopoly, as a competition abhorrent natural monopoly.

[1:08:26] If we are struggling to bring in competition for ambulatory services, perhaps the best

[1:08:33] thing we can do is create our own. Have the city run it. Have it be part of our emergency

[1:08:40] first responder systems? It has worked overseas and it very well will work here. I know he's

[1:08:49] saying it's not that big of a deal because it's not that expensive. While that 10% of people

[1:08:53] People who are paying the full price are the people who are just wealthy enough to

[1:08:58] not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, but not wealthy enough to be able to afford

[1:09:03] health insurance.

[1:09:05] That money is a hesitation for most of the people I know to call an ambulance.

[1:09:11] You break a leg.

[1:09:12] The first thing you think is great how am I going to get to the hospital.

[1:09:15] That's what most of my friends think.

[1:09:18] Thank you.

[1:09:19] Thank you.

[1:09:20] All right, there's no one else on the list, but anyone else like to make public comment?

[1:09:29] All right, we will close public comment and move on to our action items.

[1:09:37] The first is a RCO grant application with John Botelli.

[1:09:42] Move to authorize staff to apply for an RCO, PRA grant to develop a renovation master plan

[1:09:48] for Edgecliff Park with a letter of support from council.

[1:09:52] Second.

[1:09:53] Will the clerk read the title?

[1:09:56] Motion consideration, RCO planning grant for Edgecliff Park.

[1:10:02] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:10:03] Members of Council, John Batelli, Parks and Recreation Director.

[1:10:07] I was here on June 23rd and gave administrative report about this RCO grant opportunity,

[1:10:14] which I don't plan to go back through in detail, but highlights to point out, this is a no

[1:10:21] No match requirement program, so this is not a financial ask at this time.

[1:10:26] This would be an application to receive funding to develop a renovation master plan for Edgecliff Park.

[1:10:35] No matching funds would be required from the city to apply for or receive the grant.

[1:10:40] If we were successful in getting the grant, it would help set us up for a future development grant application to give a facelift to the park.

[1:10:48] And if awarded, the value of the grant could actually be a component of whatever match might be required for that future development.

[1:10:58] So it's a good opportunity for the city on the heels of updating our Parks and Rec master plan.

[1:11:04] You know that they were several life cycle replacement needs and Edge Cliff Park was in particular called out as in need of some renovation.

[1:11:12] And so as a reminder for other folks in the room,

[1:11:16] Edgecliff is in the southwestern portion of our city.

[1:11:19] Kind of west of Ditchman Hills and south of Appleway Boulevard.

[1:11:22] It's a rather diverse neighborhood.

[1:11:24] There's over 5,000 people living right near the park with about 23% of households living below the poverty line.

[1:11:33] It's a population they need and I think sets us up well to potentially compete for grant funding.

[1:11:38] So I'm just here tonight for the formal step of a motion to authorize us submitting the application.

[1:11:44] We have it to answer any questions.

[1:11:46] Questions from Council?

[1:11:48] Council member Kelly?

[1:11:50] Yeah, I'm just curious.

[1:11:52] It's not really practical for the council to be familiar with the details of all of these potential grants.

[1:11:58] But I guess I'm curious, are you aware in the past, do these types of grants come with any conditions that would be?

[1:12:05] I don't know, counter to maybe our principles or our traditional practices here in the valley.

[1:12:09] And as an example, I mean, would the money come with the condition that we paint all the park benches and rainbow colors or something extreme like that?

[1:12:18] No, they would, there are certain conditions like keeping other recreational resource available in perpetuity or having to maybe do a conversion if you wanted to, for example, change the park to something else you, having received grant funds might need to replace it somewhere else.

[1:12:34] nothing of the nature that you've mentioned.

[1:12:37] And I'll also point out which I did a couple weeks ago

[1:12:39] that we've received several grants from this funding source.

[1:12:43] It's a very well vetted program

[1:12:44] and familiar to staff and legal here.

[1:12:47] Thank you.

[1:12:48] Council Member Merkel.

[1:12:51] Yeah, just so I understand a point you just made

[1:12:53] about grant funds and keeping the park use and perpetuity.

[1:12:59] How does that fit in, you know, in this RCA,

[1:13:01] we talk about how this park is at the end of its life cycle or past the end of its life cycle.

[1:13:07] So what happens at the end of the next life cycle? Are we not able to change it to something

[1:13:12] else if we receive these grants? Well, again, for this planning grant, I don't think that there'd

[1:13:17] be any obligation because there's no work on the ground. So we could certainly, oh, there we go.

[1:13:23] We could look at those details if we were awarded development funding or chose to use development

[1:13:27] when funding for the grant but I wouldn't think that we would have any expectation of removing

[1:13:33] a park that's been here for so long and serves a critical role in our community.

[1:13:37] This is a location where our park program is there throughout the summer, free meals given

[1:13:42] out, youth baseball on top all is played on the field in the park, numerous shelter park

[1:13:49] reservations for family events and gatherings, it's a critical component of the cultural

[1:13:55] fabric in that part of town.

[1:13:58] Other questions?

[1:13:59] From council?

[1:14:01] Okay, there's an opportunity for public questions and comments, actually, public comments.

[1:14:08] So on this particular topic, so is there anyone in the public who would like to comment

[1:14:13] on Edgecliff Park?

[1:14:20] Thank you.

[1:14:20] Joseph Godsee, Spokane Valley.

[1:14:22] I live right next door to Edgecliff Park.

[1:14:25] I love it dearly.

[1:14:27] I am a PCO for the Democratic Party for a zone 4401, but there's not a lot of other

[1:14:34] PCOs in the area.

[1:14:36] As such, I'm trying to, before the 15th deadline, create a canvassing team to go throughout

[1:14:44] the area.

[1:14:45] And so I'd like to reach out to any established like the Republican Party.

[1:14:48] If you guys have anyone there, go ahead and speak to the point.

[1:14:51] I hate interrupt, but this does feel a little bit like campaigning.

[1:14:57] But I am trying to work with anyone in the

[1:15:00] Public and party or any other group to get canvassing for the signature list so that we can improve the park for this grant. So you're saying it's a nonpartisan effort. I'm trying to just work with any established groups in the area to gather signatures and a nonpartisan way. Right now it's limited. I wouldn't draw. Go ahead. Signatures for what?

[1:15:30] I've been reaching out to him and talking with him regularly and he requested that something

[1:15:37] that would help the grant is before the 15th of this month.

[1:15:40] We go out Canvas the area and gather signatures in order to make sure that the community is behind

[1:15:47] it.

[1:15:48] I have started building a team but I wasn't planning on hitting the streets until August.

[1:15:53] Since I have a week to establish this, I'd like a lot more help.

[1:15:58] So, if anyone here is willing to help out, it's completely non-political, I'm not in charge of it.

[1:16:05] I just want every door knocked and every signature gathered as possible.

[1:16:10] I love the park dearly, and whether I'm involved in the project or not, it is not an ego thing for me.

[1:16:16] I just wanted improved.

[1:16:18] My daughter plays there daily, and the children of the neighborhood do as well.

[1:16:22] Thank you.

[1:16:23] If you're interested, please talk to me.

[1:16:25] I'll be out in the hallway.

[1:16:26] Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Anybody on Zoom? No. Okay. So we can close the public comment on this council comments.

[1:16:42] Deputy Mayor Hanover. You know, it took the opportunity on the 4th of July, probably around noon.

[1:16:47] You say decide is going to go around check out all the parks, which I love to do on a regular basis.

[1:16:54] And Edgecliff was teeming with people, so I don't know if I would say it's at the end of his life cycle.

[1:17:01] There is a church group from all places, dorsal can, and off a market.

[1:17:05] They said they'd heard about this really quaint park that had been around.

[1:17:09] So they said they low income community, they wanted to come and

[1:17:14] shoulder support.

[1:17:15] I thought that was pretty neat.

[1:17:16] So not a lot of the parks were doing great also.

[1:17:19] And as the improvements are needed, the park is used quite often.

[1:17:24] other comments? Council Member Wake?

[1:17:28] I just want to appreciate the fact that I feel like our parks master plan is still warm

[1:17:33] hasn't even really been, I mean months since its implementation or adoption and already

[1:17:38] we're putting it to action and adopting some of the recommendations so I appreciate that

[1:17:43] quick turnaround. Council Member Merkel?

[1:17:48] I agree with Deputy Mayor Hattenberg and I guess I highlighted the fact that it said

[1:17:56] that this park has passed at the end of its life cycle because it kind of stood out

[1:18:02] to me that do parks have life cycles? Is this like a thing? Do we, you know, at some point

[1:18:07] after 20 years, do we just close the park, put a ribbon around it and say that's it? End

[1:18:12] of the life cycle shut down the bathroom. That, to me, didn't really make sense.

[1:18:16] So I just wonder, you know, I guess I feel that by including something like it's the end of the life cycle, it makes me think like, well, we should stop funding it because it's done, but, you know, maybe we should rethink how we determine life cycles for parks.

[1:18:35] All right.

[1:18:39] All those in favor?

[1:18:40] No. The other comment I would add is that the RCA referenced a letter of support.

[1:18:46] With the application different from other grant applications for development, where there's a formal resolution required to submit the application.

[1:18:56] There is no requirement for that for council, but there's the option for a letter of support.

[1:19:01] So, if you guys would like to consider that as a part of the motion, we can take that with us as well.

[1:19:08] So,

[1:19:11] I think we need to amend the motion to include the letter or by, it's part of motion.

[1:19:19] Oh, there it is.

[1:19:20] Awesome.

[1:19:21] All those in favor of the motion?

[1:19:23] Say aye.

[1:19:24] Aye.

[1:19:25] Opposed?

[1:19:26] It is unanimous.

[1:19:27] Thanks very much.

[1:19:28] This

[1:19:35] brings us to our non-action items, and we're going to change the order slightly, so we will start with the admin report on the EWU economic trends with Terry Stripes and guests.

[1:20:01] Council, mayor, I have an extra guest today.

[1:20:05] I have Kyle Knutzen with me.

[1:20:08] Kyle is going to be your new, well, he is your new economic development specialist taking on the role that I once held.

[1:20:16] So, I wanted to make certain that I introduced him and get him some experience with counsel

[1:20:22] before he starts bringing his own items forward.

[1:20:25] So, Kyle will attend with me tonight, as well as next week, when we're talking about

[1:20:31] auto-row and the tourism promotion area opportunity fund.

[1:20:36] So, tonight, I want to make certain that I introduce Dr. Jones and Dr. Kelly Cullen, who

[1:20:44] are becoming quite regular here at City Council, they again have included in your packet a very

[1:20:50] detailed long report on the economic trends for Spokane Valley, the region as well as the state.

[1:20:59] Now, one of the things that we're not going to do is we're not going to go through each and every

[1:21:03] slide. Today we're going to focus on some of those newer trends that you've asked us to include.

[1:21:09] So we're going to dive deeper on the permit data for commercial properties as well as residential properties.

[1:21:19] We're going to talk a little bit about some more missing data that the state hasn't provided regular updates for.

[1:21:27] And what else are we going to talk about?

[1:21:30] A little bit about population.

[1:21:32] Yes, thank you.

[1:21:34] So we'll go ahead and we'll dive in.

[1:21:36] You've got the clicker to move us on through.

[1:21:39] Thank you.

[1:21:40] Mayor Patten and members of the council, it's a pleasure to be back in front of you and

[1:21:44] bring our quarterly update about the way we see life in the City of Spokane Valley.

[1:21:51] And see if it tells some stories to you.

[1:21:54] As you heard from Cherry, this is a bit of a different presentation than we've done in the past,

[1:22:00] because we depend on, especially my part of this depends on the state to deliver the information and they've been a bit slow this spring and getting the information out.

[1:22:12] So, you're going to see some slides that we're going to cursor through real quickly because we're going to have to bring these messages to you another time.

[1:22:23] I think you've seen this enough about why we're doing this and what we cover and this is

[1:22:32] where Dr. Colin usually steps in after I've given a bit of an introduction to a demographic

[1:22:39] trend or not.

[1:22:40] But what I thought I'd do today is talk about population.

[1:22:43] Usually we present this in a picture and a graph and you should know that Cherry is a good

[1:22:53] of your deadlines. And she said, if you don't have this to me by Tuesday, I can't put it in the packet.

[1:23:00] Well, I didn't get the information from the states to marketers until Wednesday.

[1:23:03] But I'm going to wave my hands and tell you a little bit about population instead of showing you some slides.

[1:23:11] Population is estimated as of April 1 every year by OFM.

[1:23:16] So it gives a nice look at the very contemporaneous, very current data point for our communities.

[1:23:26] It was just three months ago.

[1:23:28] And the bottom line for the City of Spokane Valley is you didn't grow by very much between 2025 and 2026.

[1:23:37] In fact, the count went up by 600 souls, from 110,200 to 110,800.

[1:23:46] This is the slowest growth that we have seen from the City of Spokane Valley, almost

[1:23:51] since your inception, and you are not alone.

[1:23:55] The state actually is growing much more slowly than it did up to recent times.

[1:24:03] But on a percentage basis, that's only a half a percent per year growth rate, which

[1:24:10] is very different than what you've experienced over the last six years where it's been

[1:24:14] tripled that, almost tripled that.

[1:24:17] So a big slowdown there and this may have some revenue implications to the road because

[1:24:23] what drives spending, of course, is income and the number of people who have that income.

[1:24:32] The interesting thing to me, though, was that your market share, if you want to look at in

[1:24:37] that way in terms of the population of the county that you claim, remains the same, about

[1:24:42] one-fifth, a little less than one-fifth, 19%. So the rest of the county grew slow as well.

[1:24:50] In particular, your big brother, just to the west here, grew more slowly than the city's book and

[1:24:56] value. But I do want to comment that the growth seems to be taking place on the periphery of

[1:25:04] our county. So the highest percentage growing community in our county was deer park. Over

[1:25:13] the last six years it's grown by nearly 25%. The second highest growing fastest growing community

[1:25:22] is liberty late. And the third fastest is airway heights. So just a bit of population

[1:25:33] breakdown, I'll talk a bit about where that's coming from next time we have the data and

[1:25:39] we'll be able to submit it in a timely manner, the Terry, so you'll have it in a timely

[1:25:43] manner in your packet. Let me end my brief foray into population to say that you are still

[1:25:52] Still, the number eight largest city in the state, despite that slowdown, you are still

[1:26:00] number eight in the state of Washington's ranking.

[1:26:04] So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Cullen and she's going to talk about your

[1:26:08] own labor market.

[1:26:10] Awesome.

[1:26:11] Well, thank you.

[1:26:12] Thank you all for having us here again.

[1:26:14] I'm just going to quickly go through the employment-related measures, what we did get

[1:26:19] Q1 of 2026 data in, and so that is the farthest blue bar on the right.

[1:26:26] This first slide here shows the civilian labor force, so this is the labor force, and

[1:26:32] I've highlighted the same Q1 from the previous three years as well.

[1:26:37] So this goes back to 23.

[1:26:39] And you can see, although we had a dip that orange line shows the rate of change, and you can

[1:26:43] You can see the dip that we had, the last quarter of 25 and then through 25, the labor

[1:26:50] force fell slightly, but you can see a nice rebounding, and so it has continued to rebound

[1:26:55] the last four quarters.

[1:26:56] We're back up to about over 53, almost 54,000.

[1:27:00] Overall if you look across, I put the bars and the numbers there for you, the data labels,

[1:27:05] to show you it's pretty flat, it's pretty level, right?

[1:27:08] So, 53, 765, not that much difference from 53, 250, which was three years ago, right?

[1:27:15] So, good news, it's not down too much, it's in fact pretty flat over the last three years.

[1:27:22] So then, that's the civilian labor force, that is everybody who wants to work, right?

[1:27:28] And it's able to work.

[1:27:29] And then, this is jobs, this is the level of employment.

[1:27:33] And so you look at this, and this is who is working.

[1:27:39] And so again, the most recent data is Q1 of 26, and on the far right, we're over 53,

[1:27:46] 765.

[1:27:47] We are almost at our relative peak, nearing 54,000, or let's see, I'm on the CLF still

[1:27:54] hold on, hold on, I got the right numbers, there we go, let me look at it here.

[1:27:58] So yeah, 51, we just went over 51, sorry.

[1:28:00] Again, you can see the similar trend in orange.

[1:28:03] We did have that dip in 25, but we've rebounded,

[1:28:06] growing at about 2.7% in the first quarter of 26.

[1:28:12] And at 51 over 51, it's higher than the last three,

[1:28:17] in the same quarter of the last three years.

[1:28:19] So looking pretty good in terms of jobs.

[1:28:23] And so what that means then, if you look at the next slide,

[1:28:27] let me go to my next slide.

[1:28:28] Nope, so I'm trying to do it on my screen, there we go.

[1:28:32] And this is the unemployment rate.

[1:28:34] So this is out of that civilian labor force, the first slide.

[1:28:37] This is the people who do not have a job or who would like a job, right?

[1:28:42] So this is the unemployment rate.

[1:28:43] And when you look at this trend, obviously you can see that again, we rose a little bit

[1:28:49] in 25, but since January, this is monthly, by the way.

[1:28:54] So this does go through May of 26 as opposed to just the first quarter we've got the first five months right you can see a steady falling from January at 5.2.

[1:29:07] We're now down to 4.2 and that 4.2% unemployment rate in May is pretty similar to the county the county is in purple there and

[1:29:18] What do they want to say on that?

[1:29:20] So you can see that compared to the state, we are below the state, the state is about

[1:29:26] 4.8 as of May of 26th, and we're right about the national average.

[1:29:31] So 4.2 is about where the nation as a whole is.

[1:29:35] So doing better than the state about the same as the county.

[1:29:38] County, I'll just say 4.2% is pretty close to full employment.

[1:29:44] So, you're running on all cylinders at 4.2% unemployment rate.

[1:29:49] Yep, definitely. That's a most economist would agree.

[1:29:53] So, yep, I'll try to back over to Dr. Jones for a little bit more.

[1:29:56] So, there's a summary, and I'm just going to cursor through these and say...

[1:30:00] I didn't have the, this is one of those data points that came out after Terry had given me the deadline and it had passed. So I wasn't able to include that, you'll see it next time. So, not much to say here.

[1:30:15] Endows in again, Dr. Colton. Hi again. All right. So back to the permitting data. So I get a lot of the permitting data from the city Spokane, city Spokane Valley. Terry is very good at securing and sending over. So this is

[1:30:30] is Single Family Residence, and this is including, again, this is first quarter, so through March

[1:30:36] of 2026, I did include that dotted trend lines.

[1:30:41] You can see a slight cooling off in terms of these are just the permits that have been submitted

[1:30:47] and approved.

[1:30:48] So this is the permitting activity, Single Family Residence.

[1:30:51] I've highlighted the darker, I've shaded in darker blue, the first quarter of the previous

[1:30:56] years as well.

[1:30:57] So, you can see it's down a little bit 35 from where it was two years ago, but it's still

[1:31:05] on par with what we've seen in the other years as well.

[1:31:09] Overall, since Q1 of 22, the farthest left on the graph, right, a slight cooling off in

[1:31:16] terms of our single-family units.

[1:31:19] And then this is multi-family, sorry, thank you, multi-family permane.

[1:31:23] And you said the huge peak that we had in a second quarter of 25, right?

[1:31:29] So not surprising, the following quarter, right after that, there were absolutely no,

[1:31:33] literally zero that space there, no multi-family permits in Q3 of that year.

[1:31:40] And then Q4 and Q1, because this does include Q1, we're down a little bit in terms of where

[1:31:48] they were, you know, the year previous and a couple years previous to that as well. So,

[1:31:55] oh yeah, the Q1 actually, not a lot of permitting activity is going on in the Q1s typically.

[1:32:02] So Q1 is up a little bit in terms of that. So in terms of looking forward, we might be seeing a

[1:32:09] little more permitting activity coming up in 26, if there's anything to look forward to.

[1:32:15] Then looking into it a little bit more in terms of what are the values of those permitted units going back to single family, we are seeing a slight dropping in the permitted values.

[1:32:27] And this is when the permit was filed. This is the beginning of the process. This is the permanent value as the permit was filed.

[1:32:37] And you are seeing a slightly down from the previous year, right?

[1:32:43] So looking at from 404 down to 385, right, in terms of that.

[1:32:48] So a little relief in terms of the single family home values.

[1:32:53] And then, oops, I went the wrong way, oops.

[1:32:57] Multi-family, sorry.

[1:32:58] Yeah, multi-family is next, right?

[1:33:00] And so give me a second here, oops, permanent values, okay.

[1:33:04] So then the same thing with the multi-families.

[1:33:07] And this is, again, the average valuation of the permits

[1:33:12] for the multi-family units, keeping in mind

[1:33:14] that the multi-family, you can file a permit for a duplex,

[1:33:18] a triplex, a quadplex, or an apartment complex,

[1:33:21] basically five or more units, right?

[1:33:24] So this is a Hodgepodge, this one, saying, okay,

[1:33:27] well, all the permits that were filed,

[1:33:29] this is the average value of what they are.

[1:33:33] So this could be that we're seeing more apartments and less duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes which are typically higher values, right?

[1:33:44] Now you guys had asked me, the council had asked me to say, to show if I could, what are the number of units as they're hitting the market, right?

[1:33:55] So not the, as the permit was filed, perhaps, but as the houses are completed, as the building permit is marked as completed.

[1:34:04] And so this is a new slide that I've brought to you.

[1:34:07] And we're still working out some of the kinks of the data.

[1:34:09] There was some missing data that I'm going to have to go back and track down from Terry's office, I believe, the miscommunication for perhaps, in that case.

[1:34:19] That's great. We do have a question.

[1:34:20] Oh, sure.

[1:34:21] Council Member Merkel.

[1:34:30] I'm curious if you guys could tell us, you know, with this, so this is the permitted value

[1:34:36] of a unit, right?

[1:34:37] I think a family, yeah.

[1:34:38] Yeah.

[1:34:38] If you guys could tell us, like, how is it possible that they've gone down?

[1:34:44] Like, is it that the market has found a way to make units cheaper?

[1:34:48] Is it that prices of inputs are cheaper?

[1:34:51] or size.

[1:34:54] Okay.

[1:34:55] So this is because the sizes of the units themselves has decreased which then decreases the cost of the unit.

[1:35:03] Don't know for sure, but that would be the most logical conclusion to what we're seeing.

[1:35:10] Because the price of input certainly hasn't gone down.

[1:35:13] Right.

[1:35:14] Nor is the price of land.

[1:35:15] Right.

[1:35:16] Interesting.

[1:35:17] Other questions?

[1:35:18] I would add that at the real estate market forum that we had back in February, the builders were reporting similar data that the cost of development is going down and it is based upon the scale of the number of units in the size of the units being built.

[1:35:42] Why were they being built larger before and now smaller?

[1:35:49] I'm not a housing economist and expert, but if you just look at single family housing

[1:35:56] today versus 10 years ago, smaller lots, smaller footprints in general, I just think that's

[1:36:03] the new norm for physical family housing and undoubtedly that has some impact on the multi-family market.

[1:36:12] So, would you say that this is responsive to cost demand as in people want less cost or

[1:36:18] is this responsive to people just don't want that much space? I would say a mixture of both.

[1:36:24] One of the things that we've been talking about across the state and here in our own community

[1:36:30] is what we call missing middle housing. It's a housing type that is smaller unit. It is also

[1:36:38] fewer in location. So for example, single-family entry-level housing, the median price is too high

[1:36:49] for the typical entry-level household. So they want a smaller lot, a smaller piece of property,

[1:36:55] something that's going to cost less for them to enter into, and we're seeing that same demand play out in multi-family, too.

[1:37:03] Smaller spaces.

[1:37:08] Council member Kelly.

[1:37:10] I was wondering if we could back up to the presentation, portion of the presentation on employment.

[1:37:18] So we have what you provided us was the labor market force or the labor force.

[1:37:28] But I'm curious about the labor, what you call what the labor participation rate, which is the number of people, the percentage of actual people who could work that are, but you're excluding those who made it for whatever reason are not looking for work, so what is that percentage, do we know that percentage in Spokane County, we don't have it for the city of Spokane Valley is below 60% now.

[1:37:49] It's close to 55% in the county.

[1:37:54] A few years ago, it was 61-62% before you think that people are just putting their feet

[1:38:01] up on the table and saying, I don't want to work anymore.

[1:38:05] You got to remember, most of this is caused by demographics.

[1:38:10] Boomers are retiring and they're counted in the denominator in the calculation of the participation rate.

[1:38:18] So, and what is that age range? I mean, obviously, you're not counting people maybe prior to 16 and what after 65 and the only way you can do it at the local level, this count, the entire population, the adult population, so that's 16 plus to wherever, to centenarians.

[1:38:37] So at the federal level, you're able to slice and dice this to see 25 to 44 year olds or 25 to 25 to 54 year olds and get a better grasp of that prime working age population.

[1:38:54] But this just refers to the entire population.

[1:38:56] So, the gentrification of the adults is just causing that number to get lower because

[1:39:02] there's more people that are old and retired.

[1:39:04] Right.

[1:39:05] We're an aging community.

[1:39:06] I think I've showed that graph, the median age keeps on creeping up.

[1:39:13] Well, I'm the old part.

[1:39:14] I'm not yet the retired part, but thank you.

[1:39:17] Council Member Merkel.

[1:39:19] Just as a quick follow on to that, what would you say an optimal rate would be like what

[1:39:26] are there communities out there that are at 70% or?

[1:39:30] There are the, it's interesting, the central Washington communities have had participation

[1:39:35] rates of over 70%.

[1:39:39] They have strong immigrant communities, and I think that plays a big role, and just

[1:39:45] the agricultural emphasis there, they employ people from their teens to their 70s or 80s.

[1:39:56] So we're not unhealthy, we're not healthy, which I think long term, 67% would be two thirds.

[1:40:04] Does that make sense?

[1:40:05] So I would think historically, that would be if you're looking at a benchmark.

[1:40:10] So being too far below 67, you know, a little different, it's different.

[1:40:17] Thank you.

[1:40:21] Okay.

[1:40:22] Kelly.

[1:40:23] You were back to my permitting data.

[1:40:26] Yep, so there we go.

[1:40:28] So now, again, so this is now not looking at when the process was started with a permitting,

[1:40:35] but looking at when the permit closes.

[1:40:38] So these are permits as they are closed and then become available to rent, right?

[1:40:43] If these are multifamily residents, right?

[1:40:46] And so here you can see there is a lot in that middle section.

[1:40:49] We're missing the most recent data.

[1:40:51] We'll go back and fill that in for next time, next quarter.

[1:40:53] have a more complete, more recent picture.

[1:40:55] But you can definitely see a good, healthy amount

[1:40:59] of multi-family apartments coming online.

[1:41:03] The stats bar does show the differences

[1:41:05] between the duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes,

[1:41:08] and the apartments.

[1:41:09] So a lot of apartments did come available in those quarters.

[1:41:16] And then the values of those on the next one.

[1:41:19] And so this is, that's the housing values, right?

[1:41:24] Right.

[1:41:24] And so, I'm trying to find out.

[1:41:26] That's your single family.

[1:41:27] Yeah, there we go.

[1:41:27] Okay.

[1:41:28] I zoom in on my screen here so I can see it a little bit better for you guys.

[1:41:32] Oh, that's apartments.

[1:41:34] Dang you.

[1:41:35] Come back.

[1:41:36] There we go.

[1:41:37] All right.

[1:41:38] So, yeah, this is back to single families and this is the closing value of the permit.

[1:41:42] So this is when it hit market.

[1:41:44] Not necessarily what it's sold for.

[1:41:46] Does that make sense?

[1:41:47] So this is just what they're saying, what it costs, perhaps, in terms of recording that

[1:41:52] at the office.

[1:41:54] And so you can see a wide variety, which is good, right?

[1:41:57] You see these ups in these downs, it's not just one type of single-family housing that's

[1:42:03] dominant, which is I think it's healthy, you want a housing stock that's got a variety

[1:42:07] of housing options, right?

[1:42:09] So some lower, more affordable housing, perhaps some more upper end housing, perhaps.

[1:42:14] So this is showing I think pretty good and robust availability of single families to have been hitting the market and also that

[1:42:24] That has been hitting the market steadily. It's not they're all not getting completed in the same month, right?

[1:42:29] So we've got this constant, you know, these houses are coming in a few this quarter a few the next quarter a few the next quarter

[1:42:35] Kind of idea. So I think that's good for your housing market

[1:42:38] Then the apartments in terms of this again a little bit of missing data, but

[1:42:42] But in terms of this most recently, you can see that decline we were talking about, right?

[1:42:48] See that decline in the apartment offerings hitting the market.

[1:42:52] And again, to get to the point about why could that fall on the supply side, if a builder is faced with rising costs,

[1:43:00] one of the things they could do is make the units smaller, add in a few more apartments, does that make sense?

[1:43:05] So this is because, you know, it's divided by the number of units in the denominator,

[1:43:09] you increase that number of units, same cost, right?

[1:43:13] And you're going to see that decline going on there as well.

[1:43:16] So it's not necessarily incongruent to have rising or stable costs

[1:43:21] and a falling value of those apartments.

[1:43:24] Because what we don't know, perhaps one of the missing pieces,

[1:43:26] is in those apartments, we don't know how many are, you know,

[1:43:31] one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom.

[1:43:33] And that we don't know the distribution or studio apartments.

[1:43:35] There could be a bunch of studio apartments that are smaller, right?

[1:43:38] So, so that's what's going on there.

[1:43:41] So, and then this is just what was I showing?

[1:43:45] Oh, this is the average permit looking at the multi-family,

[1:43:49] a little bit disaggregated instead of just saying

[1:43:52] all multi-family notice.

[1:43:54] You can see the apartments or the values are smaller

[1:43:56] and then the duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes, obviously.

[1:43:59] So I think that one I might have shared with you before.

[1:44:03] Oh, here's the commercial stuff.

[1:44:05] This is new.

[1:44:06] So I went and I got the commercial permits and it was fun.

[1:44:10] It was fun seeing the descriptions of all the commercial products.

[1:44:14] You have to know it's a wide, right?

[1:44:16] It is not homogeneous.

[1:44:17] The heterogeneity in these projects, right?

[1:44:20] You know, everything from coffee stands to converting warehouses to uses for the hockey team, you know,

[1:44:27] for the junior chiefs to practice on dry land kind of thing.

[1:44:30] All these unique neat projects.

[1:44:32] So I would say that was a lot of fun seeing all the activity, the economic activity that's going on the new building, as well as I have this separated by the blue, which is the remodel or the renovate or the change of use.

[1:44:46] There was a lot more of that activity perhaps than brand new construction. The red is the legitimate brand new construction.

[1:44:53] But even the brand new construction is up. You can see this red bars trending upward, right?

[1:45:00] I think things are looking great. I think, as you can see, on the right side of the graph, a lot more activity than the left side, right? So I think there's in terms of at least the permitting activity going on on the commercial side. There's a lot of economic development in the city of Spokane Valley right now. So it was kind of cool. Question? Yeah, got some overwork. This is completed projects, not permits. So all the major construction projects that we see up here right now. Oh, sorry. Oh, you're right.

[1:45:29] This one I'm looking at a little bit more now. Yes, you're right. This is they have been completed. So that permit. It was closed. These are closed. Yes. Yeah. So those are ones close and on the market. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:45:42] Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. I forgot. Not closed because they didn't finish. Right. Because they finished completed.

[1:45:49] But I'm just saying it's it's even rosier because we see so many active construction projects in the commercial right now. Exactly.

[1:45:55] You can see the trend, right?

[1:45:57] If I have to put the trend line in there,

[1:45:59] you'd see the clear upward trend, yeah.

[1:46:01] For sure, I agree.

[1:46:02] Okay.

[1:46:03] Yep.

[1:46:06] Got one more slide here.

[1:46:09] Oh, this one, of the valuations, yeah.

[1:46:13] Yeah, and as well, the valuations are strong on this one.

[1:46:17] Again, these are ones that are recently completed.

[1:46:20] So let's go back, because you guys had asked for,

[1:46:22] you know, not necessarily when it was filed,

[1:46:23] but when it was completed.

[1:46:24] So these projects have been completed.

[1:46:27] and then you can see the valuation of these. Again, it's hard because the project's very,

[1:46:33] you know, if you looked at the range, min-max, it's a much wider than just the average here, perhaps.

[1:46:40] But still, a lot of solid construction coming to market, especially in the last four quarters.

[1:46:47] It is what we're seeing on that one right there.

[1:46:50] Good news on affordability. I just want to fly through these pretty quickly. Just give you the update.

[1:46:54] we did get the 26 Q1 data in, affordability is improving in terms of median home buyers

[1:47:01] and then next as well as first time home buyers see the little red arrows way on the right those

[1:47:06] are good. In this case trending back to that black line which would be perfectly normal. The average

[1:47:12] would be great we want to get to that 100 index mark and then next renting as well, renting

[1:47:18] have been becoming more affordable. This is the average renter continuing to go up, right?

[1:47:25] So affordability continuing for all renters. And then the next slide, this is good news for our

[1:47:31] lower income renters. These households have now hit the black line. So this means that they are

[1:47:38] spending on average, on average, the lower income renters are spending right about what they should

[1:47:46] be spending on housing, 30% of their income is going towards housing on average.

[1:47:52] Okay.

[1:47:52] Here all interrupt just a little bit.

[1:47:54] So earlier when Dr. Cullen was talking about the permit valuation coming down and the

[1:48:00] valuation when the project comes to market coming down, that's directly correlating to affordability.

[1:48:11] And so then this is a vacancy rate.

[1:48:19] is the city of Spokane and so you can see you guys have a big jump in your vacancy

[1:48:25] rate and that was during the COVID period and but you have stabilized around

[1:48:30] that red line there and that's between about 5 and 6% and with about 5.7% in

[1:48:37] the most recent quarter so that's a vacancy rate for your apartments is about

[1:48:42] on average 5.7% are not being currently rented, so.

[1:48:48] Now, I'll just say that a vacancy rate between 5% and 6% is considered to be in balance supply and demand.

[1:48:56] If you look at this chart during part of the pandemic where it slipped,

[1:49:02] dip down to 2%, that is not in balance.

[1:49:05] That's a market that definitely has a lot more demand than supply.

[1:49:10] At any point in time you definitely want to have a small amount of apartments that are available in case you have new workers coming into the area.

[1:49:17] They only need to find a place to live to start a new job, something like that.

[1:49:20] So it's always good to have a pool reserve units and so around five percent is a good rate to be at. So five to six is great.

[1:49:28] And then what's next? Oh, she had home resale, so not looking at the new houses, but in fact the resale prices and it's flattening.

[1:49:37] And so you can see that red line there at the end. And in fact in the last quarter, this does have 26Q1 on it.

[1:49:45] And in that last quarter was around 400,000. So little falling off, it's been between 4 and 450, right?

[1:49:52] But starting to see a little leveling off there.

[1:49:54] So, little relief in the resale market there.

[1:49:59] In terms of then going back to our ventures, you know how we said that you should be spending

[1:50:05] 30% or less of your income on housing that comes from a standard from the federal government in fact.

[1:50:12] In terms of defining what does it mean to be extremely housing burden or just housing burdened.

[1:50:17] People are extremely housing burdened when they find themselves in a situation where

[1:50:23] they're spending 50% or more of their income on housing.

[1:50:27] We do have people in the valley, unfortunately, that would qualify for this, that are extremely

[1:50:34] housing burdened.

[1:50:35] That number is what, just over 30% now, I believe?

[1:50:39] Yeah, 30.

[1:50:40] 30.

[1:50:40] 34.

[1:50:41] Yeah.

[1:50:41] Oh, yeah.

[1:50:41] But this is from the census data, so the most recent data we have is the 2024 update.

[1:50:47] We'll get the 2025 in September.

[1:50:49] But yeah, you can see the uptick in the most recent quarters or years, sorry, in the last

[1:50:56] four years.

[1:50:57] This is annual data because it's the census, has been rising and so 30% three out of every

[1:51:03] 10 of our renters are in the situation where they are in fact paying 50% or more of their

[1:51:11] income towards that rent still? That could be an indication that it does not seem to be the rents

[1:51:17] or that it could be the choice of their income, so just not keeping up with the rents.

[1:51:21] But I will say that we will see what the 2025 data looks like. If the recent trends that you see

[1:51:26] here from local information persist, then this will look a little bit better. We hope in September

[1:51:34] when we get the 2025 estimates from census.

[1:51:39] Then this, unfortunately, there was not much new data.

[1:51:41] This is older data, and we're still waiting for the update on these ones.

[1:51:47] Also, also in the fall.

[1:51:48] Exactly.

[1:51:49] So, yes, unfortunately, I don't have anything new to say in terms of those regional

[1:51:54] priorities for you, but we'll bring that as soon as that data drops.

[1:51:58] Before I just make a quick comment about this, I just want to compliment the city of

[1:52:02] Spokane Valley for your data, transparency and data expertise.

[1:52:07] I've been doing these dashboards now for 20 years at the Institute and I've always gotten

[1:52:13] the willies or shy away if I have to use local data because it's somewhat unreliable.

[1:52:20] People move, people change and they don't remember what file that was in as opposed to

[1:52:25] a state or census data and this has been incredibly easy to do with the quality of data we're

[1:52:33] getting from Terry and her team.

[1:52:35] So I just want to thank you all for that level of transparency

[1:52:40] because it makes our reports a lot easier.

[1:52:44] And with that, we'll wrap up.

[1:52:46] I'd hope to be able to show you a lot on retail sales,

[1:52:49] sales, tax activity, but as of this morning still,

[1:52:54] they had not released the data, we're a month late.

[1:52:58] And in fact, one of our interns, I don't know

[1:53:03] We just had the gumption to write Olympian say,

[1:53:06] where are those numbers?

[1:53:08] So you will see this when we're up here

[1:53:11] before you and September.

[1:53:13] And with that, I think we're done.

[1:53:15] We're done.

[1:53:16] Great, thank you so very much.

[1:53:18] It's always an interesting presentation

[1:53:19] and we enjoy having you here and taking your brains.

[1:53:23] Our pleasure to be here.

[1:53:25] Thank you.

[1:53:37] So next is another admin report on Hazard Mitigation Plan.

[1:53:42] That's the update with Virginia Clove.

[1:53:48] You're in Council Virginia Clove, I'd like to say to policy coordinator and project manager and Mark Conrad from Spokane County Emergency Management.

[1:53:56] I hope to join us tonight, but he had a family emergency, so he sends his regards.

[1:54:00] And as mentioned, this is an admin report on the 2026 Spokane County hazard mitigation plan.

[1:54:06] We also call that the HMP and that includes the community wildfire protection plan.

[1:54:12] This plan guides our city's and partner agencies efforts to reduce or mitigate the potential for loss of life and property damage from natural or human caused hazards.

[1:54:27] The last plan was adopted in 2020 and this effort kicked off a year ago May and the city's team included myself, Robert Blagan, Jenny Nicherson, and Steve Robert.

[1:54:41] We've spoken about the plan many times during emergency management discussions,

[1:54:46] including during the continuity of operations plan conversation.

[1:54:50] And then last fall, we provided an information only memo that kind of detailed the process,

[1:54:57] including tonight's steps.

[1:54:59] You may also recall that the September community conversations event focused on this plan,

[1:55:07] including the sharing out the hazard rankings.

[1:55:11] And we participated in a county's event as well.

[1:55:14] Your RCA lists the five phases of the HMP effort including the city's outreach efforts and

[1:55:20] notifications.

[1:55:22] And the city is one of 16 agencies with a chapter in the larger county plan.

[1:55:28] And each agency's plans were submitted to the county.

[1:55:31] And they worked with their consultant to pile those into one very large document.

[1:55:37] The document was submitted to the State Department of Emergency Management in FEMA Region 10 for a pre-approval.

[1:55:44] And the next step and final step is for each agency to formally adopt the plan by resolution.

[1:55:52] And it's important to know that having a FEMA-approved mitigation plan is also a prerequisite for accessing funding through several state and federal programs.

[1:56:02] So we sent out the draft plan to you last week via email to give you some time to look

[1:56:08] at it.

[1:56:09] And we're looking for consensus tonight to come back next week with that resolution

[1:56:14] that would formally adopt the plan.

[1:56:17] And do you have any questions?

[1:56:19] Questions from Councilor Caldwell-Memberi-Ager?

[1:56:21] Thank you for this, Virginia.

[1:56:23] Yeah, so on, gosh, what page 137, 6.4, it talks about hazard event history, and it talks

[1:56:33] about the county, but then it has in there like Hurricane Katrina, and I'm not sure why

[1:56:41] we're referencing Hurricane Katrina when it's talking about the county hazards.

[1:56:46] I'm just curious about what that is.

[1:56:47] Yeah, I do recall some discussion about past events and how they impacted us during this process and I'm trying to recall Robert. Do you recall that conversation? I don't came in up in one of our team meetings.

[1:57:02] And I'm trying to I'm really drawn a blank, but I remember we asked the same question and there was a logical reason I can actually ask it and bring it back next week.

[1:57:11] not a big deal, maybe people in the area because there's no hurricanes, I don't know, thank you.

[1:57:18] Council Member Merkel.

[1:57:20] Yeah, thanks for that. This is actually probably more for the city manager.

[1:57:24] Is this another one of these things that the county is not building us for, that they should be

[1:57:29] building us for?

[1:57:35] So the hazard mitigation plan is adopted by the emergency management department

[1:57:41] of emergency management, we do contract with them

[1:57:45] for emergency management services.

[1:57:48] They have not billed us at least for 25 and 426 as well.

[1:57:53] So it is another of the public safety services

[1:57:55] that we continue to work on getting more

[1:57:58] updated financial information.

[1:58:01] Do we have any kind of information as to what this plan

[1:58:05] activity has cost or will cost?

[1:58:08] I mean, I know they haven't provided anything

[1:58:12] We would be included in the cost of the manpower contract that we have with them.

[1:58:19] So I don't think there's an additional charge.

[1:58:21] Yeah, we can provide next week that I don't have it off the top of my head.

[1:58:26] What the 26 budget is and what the 25 budget amount was, but we do try to build that in.

[1:58:31] It is based on their total budget for the year on a pro-radar share.

[1:58:36] where emergency management is one where we are expecting cost increases because Spokane

[1:58:41] did pull out in the last couple of years, but we'll have those numbers next week as well.

[1:58:47] And see if we can get any clarity on this.

[1:58:49] Our costs for emergency management have been under or around $100,000 with Spokane pulling

[1:58:56] out, we're projecting and estimating a higher jump into the close to $200,000 and even higher

[1:59:04] for 2027.

[1:59:05] other

[1:59:09] questions comments so we have consensus to bring it back it is unanimous thank you thank you

[1:59:18] okay

[1:59:28] now we will move on to our 2027 state legislative agenda discussion with Virginia staying and

[1:59:36] Brianna joining thank

[1:59:42] you again Mayor Virginia cloth still here and with me tonight is our state lobbyists

[1:59:47] Ms. Brianna Murray from Gordon Thomas Honeywell, government relations, and we're providing an admin report on the

[1:59:53] with a preview of the upcoming state legislative session as well as the first glimpse at the draft.

[2:00:02] It should look pretty familiar with the capital budget request and some transportation requests to discuss. And then a review of the policy section. And after the presentation, we invite council to provide feedback. And we will be back tentatively. I believe August 18 is our plan. And with that, I'll toss it over to Brianna. Good evening, mayor and council. Thank you so much for having me here this evening.

[2:00:29] I do want to note that I am here earlier than usual and that is because I think it's important I'm giving this advice to all my clients to establish your legislative priorities earlier rather than later, especially because we're not anticipating large shifts in our overarching political environment.

[2:00:50] I'll explain a little bit more about that, but given how the governor's office is developing the budget,

[2:00:56] legislators are developing their priorities. I'm finding that the earlier that you all as my client

[2:01:02] can give me direction the more effective I can be on your behalf. So it's nice to see you when

[2:01:08] it's worn out.

[2:01:11] This evening we're going to just very quickly review some prior successes that

[2:01:14] look fairly piddly after all of your celebration earlier this evening and provide you with an overview

[2:01:21] of the 2027 session so you can have some context as you start thinking about your legislative agenda

[2:01:27] review some guidance that I have for you all to consider and then review a draft legislative agenda.

[2:01:34] Again, these are our measly, piddly successes that we've had in this deal.

[2:01:41] But I do want to note that one of the things that we've been successful at doing from biennium to biennium

[2:01:47] is maintaining success year after year and finding a good cadence for bringing dollars in on a pretty consistent basis.

[2:01:55] So this last legislative session, we saw a second installment in funds for the Spokane

[2:02:01] Valley Sports Courts, $1 million for the Regional Traffic Management Center, and then

[2:02:07] as we think about it holistically across the whole biennium, we were successful in getting

[2:02:11] legislation passed related to document recording fees, which was no small task, no small fee

[2:02:17] at all.

[2:02:18] So, let's continue that success, and as we aim to do so, let's do so with the political

[2:02:26] context in mind.

[2:02:27] I think a key part of being successful in advancing our priorities is putting forward

[2:02:32] requests that are consistent with or feasible within the political environment that we're

[2:02:39] working in.

[2:02:40] So the 2027 session will mark the beginning of a new legislative biennium, so the beginning

[2:02:48] of a new two-year cycle.

[2:02:50] The first year of the legislative cycle is always a long session that's 105 days with the

[2:02:55] second year of the biennium being a short year that's 60 days.

[2:02:59] So we just finished the short session, we're going back into a long session.

[2:03:03] In the last 105 consecutive days starting the second Monday in January, it's almost

[2:03:11] like I know that.

[2:03:13] We are expecting Democrats to continue to have the majority in both the House of Representatives

[2:03:18] and the State Senate.

[2:03:20] However, as much as that will be the same, there will be changes.

[2:03:23] It will be different.

[2:03:25] Let me explain that a bit more.

[2:03:27] We had over a dozen legislators announced that they are not seeking reelection.

[2:03:31] and they will no longer be in office as of December 31, which means regardless of whether

[2:03:39] a member of the same party or a member of the different party follows in their footsteps,

[2:03:43] we will have over two dozen new legislators wandering the halls of Olympia trying to figure out

[2:03:49] how the legislature functions.

[2:03:54] Within those that are seeking re-election on both the Republican

[2:03:59] and on Democrat side, we are seeing challengers from inside the party.

[2:04:03] So a lot of established incumbent Democrats or

[2:04:06] established incumbent Republicans seeing challengers that are formidable who have raised

[2:04:12] funds and have backing from other members of the party run against them.

[2:04:17] This is making the August primary that's just around the corner a bit more exciting.

[2:04:22] It also means that the results of these primaries and

[2:04:25] other races are more likely to impact the dynamics within each of the respective caucuses.

[2:04:31] By caucuses, I mean the House Democrats, Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans.

[2:04:40] Within each of those groups, there's sort of a dynamic of which does the group as a whole

[2:04:45] lean more liberal, does it lean more moderate within that party?

[2:04:50] Some of these primary races and intraparty races will impact that over-argene dynamic within

[2:04:58] the caucuses and will certainly shape how policy is likely to advance through the process.

[2:05:04] After the November general election, the legislature will embark on a reorganization process

[2:05:10] that it conducts every two years where legislators get assigned to committees, committee chairs,

[2:05:17] and ranking members are selected, and leadership for the four caucuses are identified.

[2:05:22] The every two years there are committee changes, which means that if one of our local legislators

[2:05:29] served on a committee this past biennium, it's not necessarily guaranteed, or maybe even

[2:05:35] likely that they'll continue to serve on that same committee, moving forward.

[2:05:41] The reorganization process is also not limited to just what legislator, what committees, what legislators are serving on.

[2:05:50] The legislature can choose to just make up whole new committees or combine committees or change the names of committees.

[2:05:57] We saw that happen just prior to 2019 where the legislature separated out local government from housing,

[2:06:03] which is why we saw a large number of land use mandates passed through the housing committee to get around a lot of the

[2:06:11] legislators who had chosen to serve on the local government committee because they had city background.

[2:06:17] We'll be watching those committee changes very closely.

[2:06:21] The other component is that we are beginning to hear rumors of leadership changes and

[2:06:26] And most publicly, the Speaker of the House, Lori Jenkins, has had a member of the caucus,

[2:06:35] Representative April Berg, who chairs the House Finance Committee very publicly announced

[2:06:39] that she's planning to challenge the Speaker for that position. On the Senate side,

[2:06:45] the Senate Democrat majority leader is Jamie Peterson from Seattle. He has a formidable primary

[2:06:51] opponent and there's some question as to whether or not he'll be able to retain his seat and if he

[2:06:58] doesn't retain his seat, he can't continue to be a majority leader. So, Democrats are likely to

[2:07:05] be in control of both chambers, but it's very possible that Olympia and the dynamics of how all

[2:07:10] of the caucuses are interacting with one another could be very different.

[2:07:17] We are beginning to see some

[2:07:18] Some of the major themes emerge for this upcoming session.

[2:07:22] The budget is likely to be the most significant discussion this session.

[2:07:26] The legislature is tasked in a long session with developing the biennial operating capital

[2:07:32] and transportation budgets.

[2:07:34] The fiscal years for those budgets run July 1 of 2027 through June 30 of 2029.

[2:07:40] They pretty much spend the first part of 2027 developing those two-year budgets.

[2:07:46] The operating budget is the one that's facing the most significant challenges, the budget development process kicked off last month with the governor's budget office, the office of financial management sending a memo to state agencies asking them to submit their changes to their budget proposals.

[2:08:07] The memo that was sent said it's the most challenging budget and recent memory that's facing an over $4 billion shortfall.

[2:08:15] Let's driven by 39% inflation, 14.2% population growth, increasing cost due to court, settlements, and a series of federal funding cuts.

[2:08:29] I think there's a lot of debate over the genesis of the deficit that the legislature is facing.

[2:08:38] and there are a lot of stakeholders who are publicly stating that it's a spending problem,

[2:08:44] not a revenue problem. The governor has been very public in the last three weeks saying he is

[2:08:50] not interested in increasing taxes. He is interested in looking at making cuts to programs with a

[2:08:57] honing in on programs that have been newly enacted since 2019 and programs that are not

[2:09:05] existing in other states. In other words, what is Washington doing that other states are not?

[2:09:10] State agencies will submit their budget proposals to the Office of Financial Management and

[2:09:15] the governor will develop his proposed budgets and release those in mid-December. The legislature will

[2:09:21] use the governor's budget proposal as the first draft for beginning their work in developing their

[2:09:28] respective budget proposals. The second budget that is very constrained is the transportation

[2:09:36] budget, which is a budget that you all have made requests of in prior years and is a budget

[2:09:43] that funds a lot of programs that you all rely on, like the freight mobility strategic investment

[2:09:48] board or the transportation improvement board. The revenue forecast for that budget came

[2:09:54] now at the end of June, and it was indicated a decline in revenues that was steeper decline

[2:10:01] than what was forecasted.

[2:10:03] Primarily because fuel tax revenues are coming in lower than expected, even though the

[2:10:09] fuel tax has gone up.

[2:10:11] The reason for that is because vehicles are becoming more fuel-efficient, and the adoption

[2:10:17] of electric vehicles is more widespread and more significant than what's been anticipated.

[2:10:23] transportation budget writers are contemplating how to address that. There's been a lot of proposals thrown out in recent years, whether that's a road usage charge or vehicle miles traveled or a highway use fee, which is a fee that is paid when you register a vehicle and it's based on the miles per gallon that the vehicle gets.

[2:10:46] All that to say, those two very constrained budgets will receive a lot of attention this

[2:10:51] next session, while the capital budget, which is the most stable budget, will continue

[2:10:56] to plot along being developed in a bipartisan fashion, making investments in community

[2:11:01] projects.

[2:11:04] The legislature is likely to continue to be talking about tax policy.

[2:11:08] The millionaire's tax will be on the ballot this November.

[2:11:12] It is also facing a court challenge.

[2:11:14] The legislature has a lot of unfinished business related to the millionaires tax, particularly as it relates to the sales and use tax exemptions that were included in that bill that actually have an impact on your all's budget.

[2:11:28] Those sales and use tax exemptions have a net negative on local collections.

[2:11:35] The legislature has committed, promised, indicated, and I'm not sure what the right verb is to allocate 200 million dollars to cities and counties to offset those impacts.

[2:11:47] This next legislative session would be when they make that tax policy and decide whether they're going to allocate that 200 million, will it grow with time, how it will be distributed?

[2:11:57] And so that will be a robust tax policy discussion.

[2:12:00] The other tax policy discussion we're anticipating is that the state is likely to consider

[2:12:07] or proposals to move away from a BNO tax system on gross profits, for an emergency tax or

[2:12:14] a corporate income tax, where the tax being imposed is on just the profit and oversimplifying,

[2:12:22] but not gross profits, just profits. We're hearing legislators start to talk about a jobs package

[2:12:29] that would not cost the state any money, so different policy changes that could be made

[2:12:36] to help support jobs. And there's a pretty consistent theme that legislators are concerned

[2:12:41] about over-arching affordability, whether it's housing, utility rates, fuel tax. We're hearing

[2:12:49] it pretty consistently on both sides of the aisle. Those are some of the major themes that

[2:12:54] that we see emerging and the status of each of the three budgets at a very high fast level

[2:13:00] about as fast as I could do.

[2:13:04] So to lead into my guidance for you all as you think about your legislative agenda,

[2:13:10] you will, for those of you who have been on councils for some time, this is very similar

[2:13:16] to what you hear from me every year, especially the top one, which is I encourage you to be

[2:13:21] as focused as possible, identify your top three to five priorities. Your legislators only have

[2:13:27] so much bandwidth to move issues forward on your behalf, and so the more we can focus their attention

[2:13:33] on three to five top priorities, the more success we are likely to have.

[2:13:41] I recommend that among those three to five top priorities that you include a capital budget

[2:13:46] request because that is the budget that is most stable and presents the biggest funding opportunity.

[2:13:52] I think this goes again to making sure your requests are aligned with the political realities

[2:13:57] and budget realities that we're facing. There's limited transportation and operating budget

[2:14:04] funds. I encourage you to acknowledge the political feasibility of policy requests in

[2:14:10] light of Democrats having a majority in both chambers. It's probably not the year to ask for

[2:14:15] items that are just going to be completely non-starters in this partisan environment.

[2:14:21] And finally, I encourage you to keep the legislative agenda as city-centric as possible.

[2:14:26] I recognize that you all are representing your community and the community as a whole

[2:14:32] is interested in a whole variety of policy topics.

[2:14:36] But our advocacy in Olympia is most effective when it is focused on things that are within

[2:14:40] our lane where the city plays a role in regulating or has some expertise in or providing service in

[2:14:49] the items that we're weighing in on. This is my way of saying please don't put K through 12

[2:14:54] education policy on your legislative agenda. I'm not the expert in that. I'm the expert in city

[2:14:59] government.

[2:15:00] And all of the school district lobbyists will look at me pretty funny if I show up saying city of so-and-so would like you to do X, Y, or Z.

[2:15:11] So with that guideline guidance in mind, we have a very draft legislative agenda for 2027 for you all to review. I know there are already some modifications to make before this draft comes back to you in August, for example.

[2:15:29] where it says Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center, we actually mean Spokane Regional

[2:15:35] Traffic Management Center. So there are some modifications that need to be made to this draft.

[2:15:42] But we wanted to get it in front of you to get your feedback.

[2:15:47] To maintain the focus that I've talked about in recent years, what we've done is we've separated

[2:15:53] our funding requests out on the front page. And we've had policy issues on the remaining

[2:15:58] pages with the idea that where we really want our legislators to focus on is on our funding

[2:16:04] requests and bringing dollars back to the community. Over the years, the list of policy issues

[2:16:11] that you all have had on the second page has gotten quite long. Essentially, what we've done

[2:16:17] is anything from the prior year has just carried over and then we've added to it and then carried

[2:16:23] over and added to it. So the draft that you have before you is streamlined. It's been slightly

[2:16:31] restructured so that there's a broad policy statement at the top of each section that should

[2:16:36] cover many of the different policy statements that were in previous drafts. And then there's a list

[2:16:42] of bullets that are carried over from the previous drafts that speak to active policy proposals

[2:16:49] that are being considered, or likely to be considered, by the legislature, or being advanced by stakeholders.

[2:16:55] The draft before you is our effort to make the legislative agenda more succinct,

[2:17:02] but still capture a lot of council's intent and policy guidance that's been communicated over multiple years.

[2:17:11] I do think that while this is not just three to five items in a single page,

[2:17:17] I think what we're doing is a really good job of balancing the need for prioritization

[2:17:23] by putting funding requests first, with the fact that the legislature is doing a lot

[2:17:29] of policymaking that touches on city business and balancing those two needs out.

[2:17:38] So we have the draft legislative agenda up on the screen.

[2:17:42] The goal of this evening is for you all to provide your feedback.

[2:17:46] I'll go over the funding requests but I'm not planning to otherwise read through all the policy issues.

[2:17:58] So the capital funding requests that we have included on the draft legislative agenda

[2:18:04] is a $600,000 request for the Flora Park Riverview Trail and Wildfire Risk Reduction.

[2:18:11] This project is ready to go, which is one of the criteria we look at is can it be delivered within the fiscal biennium?

[2:18:20] It builds on a lot of the work that we've done with legislators in prior years around funding the course,

[2:18:26] and is the right dollar amount to have success in the environment that we're working within with constrained budgets.

[2:18:33] I think I'll pause there to see if there are any questions about the project.

[2:18:41] Questions? Councilmember Kelly?

[2:18:45] So I'm curious, so you indicate here that this is state land that we're looking to do this modifications to.

[2:18:53] Is that correct?

[2:18:57] Yes, City Manager, a moment.

[2:19:00] Yes, it's state property and what I'll do is I'll get the current layout.

[2:19:05] out of the trail and email it out to Council so you guys can see it graphically how it connects

[2:19:12] to the park and where it lies proximity to the cross-country course.

[2:19:17] So we are working through the shoreline permitting process.

[2:19:21] That's where some of this wildfire mitigation comes through that.

[2:19:27] We are also working on an agreement with state parks to utilize the property for this point.

[2:19:35] Part of the original reason for purchasing this property is to try to get access and visibility on the river, and that's very difficult right now.

[2:19:45] There's not an easy way, you know, there's kind of trails through there, but there's not a graveled pathway going to that.

[2:19:55] So that's what this would be, it wouldn't be another loop of the cross-country course separate from that more of a park amenity that would be narrower compacted gravel and ADA compliant with some benches and park tables that kind of thing out there.

[2:20:15] So did I hear you suggest that we're looking to purchase this land?

[2:20:18] No. No. No. We would get an agreement to utilize this land for this purpose.

[2:20:25] Okay, and I see a mention here of wildfire mitigation.

[2:20:30] And this can't be the only place in the city where we have that concern or need.

[2:20:37] So would this be the best place to focus? That or should we be considering other places to also

[2:20:42] So ask for wildfire risk mitigation or reduction work to be done or funded.

[2:20:48] So some of that work is already being done.

[2:20:51] If you're familiar with Department of National Resources has been working up in the Dishman

[2:20:56] Hills.

[2:20:57] They did some thinning of the trees, pruning of the trees out at our property at Bates

[2:21:05] in 44th.

[2:21:06] So there's other aspects or other properties around, but this was pretty unique.

[2:21:12] it's pretty dense. As part of the development of this, we will be removing some vegetation,

[2:21:19] but there does need to be some fire risk mitigation done out here. We wouldn't want a fire

[2:21:24] to start and spread into the industrial area. So I think this is a high priority to tackle this.

[2:21:30] And as I said, it's part of the requirements for utilizing the property.

[2:21:35] Council Member Kelly, part of putting together a successful legislative agenda is also making

[2:21:41] that as we're developing these requests that we're packaging them with compelling messaging that's going to make them more competitive within the legislative environment.

[2:21:50] So the framing of this as a trail and wild risk reduction is really trying to hit on some of the priorities that we're hearing the legislature articulate.

[2:22:00] Like, oh, you want to make investments in that?

[2:22:03] Oh, we've got a project that fits right in that bucket.

[2:22:06] And so some of the messaging is less about what the big picture while fire risk reduction

[2:22:15] looks like citywide and more about, okay, how do we make this request as compelling to

[2:22:22] capital budget writers as possible?

[2:22:25] Yeah, and I certainly appreciate that.

[2:22:27] You would definitely be the expert on how to market this, so to speak, right, or how to

[2:22:32] package it.

[2:22:32] I'm just thinking I mean we're just being presented with one option and and you know

[2:22:38] I don't know what other options there are and what we might decide as a city would be more important I suppose but

[2:22:45] So I guess I'm just trying to maybe open that conversation or you know

[2:22:51] Get some clues to like what else is out there if council likes

[2:22:57] We could

[2:22:59] talk about other potential

[2:23:00] So, the difficulty with lining these capital asks out, it's not like you can ask for multiple

[2:23:07] millions of dollars, we've done that in the past at limited success, so we always try

[2:23:12] to come in to a reasonable ask, and so that really limits the options out there for a variety

[2:23:21] of different park improvements or other improvements that you might want to do throughout the community.

[2:23:28] But again, if the council would like a discussion on that, we can put something on an agenda

[2:23:33] and do that.

[2:23:34] Yeah.

[2:23:35] I'll just expand.

[2:23:36] Like, the criteria that Capital Budget Writers look at is, you know, it's under a million

[2:23:42] dollars in the past and some of your fellow council members could probably speak to this.

[2:23:48] Council's not adhered to that guidance, asked for far more.

[2:23:51] Anytime you ask for, like, if you were to ask for $3.5 or $4 million, what the legislature

[2:23:56] isn't inclined to do is choose a smaller dollar amount that fits their budget realities and

[2:24:03] you don't get to pick that dollar amount, and yet you still are expected to deliver

[2:24:06] the project.

[2:24:07] So you could ask for $4 million and they'll say, here's $500,000, and you're like, ah, what

[2:24:13] do I do with that?

[2:24:13] When the project name was really $4 million.

[2:24:16] So by asking for a dollar amount that fits within their budget realities, you're more

[2:24:21] likely to get the dollar amount you ask for.

[2:24:25] they are always going to be the last dollar in and they want to see the project delivered

[2:24:34] by within the fiscal biennium. So in this case that means June 30th of 2029.

[2:24:39] Can you start applying those criteria in that financial limitation to the various projects across

[2:24:45] the city? It kind of narrows down pretty quickly. Well that's helpful, I appreciate it and I think

[2:24:50] maybe it's a conversation that we can have separately before we bring anything forth so that's not

[2:24:55] necessary at this time but thank you.

[2:24:59] That's my re-eager. I was just going to say thank you that with

[2:25:04] this park and the cross-country facility it's been a real focus of what we've been having

[2:25:12] talks about lately and so I'm supportive of keeping it here because they see that obviously we have

[2:25:20] We have delivered on this project and it is a huge economic driver and I believe it was

[2:25:25] our number one in our list of things we should complete in order to bring economic development.

[2:25:33] So I'm okay leaving it there and especially if what we saw with AWC, you know, people are

[2:25:40] starting to hear about our course and I think adding a little bit of something to it would

[2:25:44] would be great as another amenity to our community.

[2:25:48] Council member Merkel.

[2:25:51] Yeah, I definitely agree with Council member Kelly

[2:25:54] in terms of having options.

[2:25:56] I like to look at at least a few things.

[2:25:58] This might be the best option,

[2:25:59] but I think that there could be other projects

[2:26:02] that could still meet those criteria that you listed out.

[2:26:06] I do think that wildfire risk reduction

[2:26:08] is really, really important.

[2:26:10] I understand that the state has done a few things,

[2:26:12] But I would love to have that as a big policy item, like a number one policy item,

[2:26:19] especially given the fire we recently had just above Millwood,

[2:26:24] and along with the fires that we've had a few other times.

[2:26:27] And the fact is that most of the forest had land that surrounds the city is state owned.

[2:26:33] So they need to be maintaining that.

[2:26:35] They need to be emphasizing, focusing on maintaining that.

[2:26:38] Maybe even working with local companies who might be able to take those trees and

[2:26:44] utilize them for a better purpose because this idea of never cutting any trees down has led to,

[2:26:50] well, we don't cut them down.

[2:26:51] They just all burn at the same time and then nothing happens from that except House's burn.

[2:26:56] So I would really like to see us put that forward in some sort of policy focus.

[2:27:01] Yes.

[2:27:02] Council Member Wake.

[2:27:04] Yeah, kind of coming back to the cap of request.

[2:27:07] I really like this project.

[2:27:08] I think it's getting a lot of synergy right now with our,

[2:27:11] and we can show a lot of success.

[2:27:13] Thinking of other possibilities in my own mind,

[2:27:16] it's like, well, we just heard earlier

[2:27:17] we were applying for Edgecliff Park Master Plan.

[2:27:20] So it's like, okay, that would have been a great one,

[2:27:22] but we're not ready yet.

[2:27:23] The pools in my mind are another one,

[2:27:25] but we're not ready yet.

[2:27:27] The park across the street, the next elements,

[2:27:30] not ready yet and so just to me it seems like it it makes perfect sense to be

[2:27:35] our capital request and I also appreciate that we're pushing Brianna a little

[2:27:39] bit harder and if she likes to target us like 300 or 400 tons and so it's nice

[2:27:45] that we're pushing her a little bit harder on that one so city manager yeah just

[2:27:52] want to clarify councilmember Merkel's comment about wildfire mitigation

[2:27:57] councilmember Kelly's. A question as well. I was clarified by Deputy Manager Lamb who

[2:28:04] said that the wildfire mitigation is actually part of the short-line development permit process

[2:28:12] and that was negotiated with the Department of Ecology. Typically whenever we remove vegetation,

[2:28:19] were required to replant it somewhere else, so they are allowing us to not replant that those trees removed or the vegetation removed in lieu we can then do this fire mitigation, which is a much better deal for us and I think allows us to not get into over planting, creating the problems that you are all concerned about.

[2:28:46] So, it's a bit separate from a large overall fire mitigation throughout the city.

[2:28:53] I think that's still on as one of our policy pieces that Mariana and I spoke about earlier

[2:28:59] today.

[2:28:59] But we'll keep that in mind, but I did want to clarify that distinction that this was a

[2:29:05] good thing as part of our permitting process on the trail project.

[2:29:12] Okay.

[2:29:14] Moving on to transportation requests and I want to set appropriate expectations.

[2:29:18] I noted that the transportation budget is one of the two budgets that's facing significant

[2:29:24] revenue challenges.

[2:29:26] Despite that, I would recommend that you continue to bring forward requests, particularly

[2:29:32] given the conversations around how to replace the fuel tax.

[2:29:37] As this document evolves before you see it in August, I may be recommending sort of a reframing

[2:29:46] on which are most urgent from a timeliness standpoint, just because we do have multiple

[2:29:54] transportation requests on the list, and we don't want to be competing with ourselves.

[2:30:00] So the first request is continuing some work that we started last legislative session in securing $1 million for the Spokane Regional Traffic Management Center, or TMC. Historically, the TMC has been partially funded with local funds through your regional RTPO. The $1 million from the state would ensure that those RTPO funds can remain local. The $1 million that was allocated in last year's

[2:30:30] budget was not identified as being ongoing, which means we have a little bit more advocacy

[2:30:35] to do in order to make sure that it really gets embedded into the budget for future years

[2:30:41] moving forward. We kind of got the first look in and now we need to really make sure that it's

[2:30:48] going to be there in perpetuity. So that's the first request. The second request is $2.9 million

[2:30:57] A $1 request to complete the design phase for Barker Road I-90 interchange from Mission to Appaloi.

[2:31:05] And then the third request is a $7.5 million request for the Sullivan Trent interchange,

[2:31:12] which could look like asking for the FIM-SIB funding to be appropriated to the project,

[2:31:19] either on its current timeline or a different timeline, or could be asking for that $7.5 million

[2:31:26] and through another bucket or mechanism.

[2:31:29] And I think the good news that you all celebrated earlier,

[2:31:32] this evening helps provide some momentum to this request.

[2:31:36] And one of the things I hope to dig into

[2:31:37] a little bit more with Adam is when do we need

[2:31:41] to have state dollars matching those federal dollars

[2:31:44] to ensure that you are able to deliver the project

[2:31:47] on the timelines required by the federal grant.

[2:31:51] And hopefully using that timeline

[2:31:53] as some momentum or urgency to get a state investment.

[2:31:58] The last item related to funding is that there are a series of grant programs where the city applies for the grant program.

[2:32:08] The granting agency evaluates the various applications and ranks them on a like this is our first, second, third, fourth, fifth project list

[2:32:19] And then the legislature chooses how far down the project list to fund and how much funding to appropriate to the grant program.

[2:32:28] Your excellent staff have been active in applying to several of those programs.

[2:32:34] So we have them noted here so that when the legislature goes to decide how far down the list to fund, we can advocate to make sure the grants that we competed for can be funded.

[2:32:46] So that's the, that's the tunnelist that's, yes.

[2:32:50] So going back to the, to the transportation on the TMC request.

[2:32:57] So last year, I remember the discussion and they felt they, I don't remember who they are.

[2:33:03] But anyway, that the continuation of the funding was while not a slam dunk was really a reasonable

[2:33:09] request and pretty, you know, our expectation could be that it would be granted, maybe.

[2:33:18] Do you still feel that way or with the budget problems? Is this a heavier lift now?

[2:33:25] I think you can never take anything for granted in Olympia.

[2:33:29] I mean, there's been commitments made that there's going to be $200 million in mitigation

[2:33:35] to offset the sales and use tax exemptions and the millionaires tax.

[2:33:39] I mean, that budget has a multi-billion dollar deficit,

[2:33:44] though I wouldn't take that for granted either,

[2:33:47] and I'd encourage you not to take it for granted as you develop your 27-budget.

[2:33:53] So, yeah, I mean, I think it is, I think we've got really good momentum.

[2:33:59] We've got really positive indications that you can't take it for granted.

[2:34:02] Okay. Thank you. Council Member Kelly.

[2:34:07] Yeah, and on this TMC are we coordinating with other local governments then in our request?

[2:34:11] We are, yeah. I would say we're leading the way and they are the chorus behind us.

[2:34:18] Yes.

[2:34:20] All right, thank you. Any other feedback you all have?

[2:34:28] Council Member Wood.

[2:34:30] Yeah, so I know what's leader in your in the agenda, but just wanted to raise the TPA sunset.

[2:34:39] I know it's under fiscal management, but I'm finding that in my discussions across the

[2:34:43] state there's only about three entities that are using that. And so it's not really raising to other

[2:34:48] people's priorities. And so if we really want to be concerned about utilizing that, it might have to

[2:34:55] be a higher party for us.

[2:34:57] I

[2:35:09] will have to do some research on how many jurisdictions are using it.

[2:35:13] Amongst my clients, it is on several drafts, legislative agendas.

[2:35:19] Okay.

[2:35:19] I had just heard from Mars.

[2:35:21] The visit to a can.

[2:35:22] There's only three of us across the state that have utilized that new provision.

[2:35:31] Are there other thoughts from council on that particular item and prioritization?

[2:35:44] Council member Kelly.

[2:35:46] Yeah, well, I wasn't quite sure where we are in your presentation, so I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but I was noticing that the housing affordability, some of the policies, we seem to be basically just advocating for additional funding to offset the costs and I'm wondering if it is feasible to just be asking for something more organic like loosening building requirements to actually lower the cost, not just subsidize them. What are your thoughts on that?

[2:36:15] Yeah, I think the goal is to draft the broad statement at the beginning to cover that, but we can do some words methane to make sure that's more clear.

[2:36:24] Yeah, I mean, I would think every city might be an advocate for that. So hopefully that might, you know, might be something that would catch on and

[2:36:33] gain a little momentum. Yeah, so it says the city promotes policies to reduce the cost of constructing new housing.

[2:36:41] Yeah, such as offering incentives. So in other words, you know, more money. So reducing regulations and offering incentives, maybe perhaps. Yes. Okay.

[2:36:56] Council Member Merkel.

[2:36:57] Yeah, I can I ask a question about councilmember Wicks proposal.

[2:37:03] So my so your understanding is is that this sunset provision makes it so that we cannot

[2:37:11] reenact that $3 fee after it sunsets ever again.

[2:37:18] Right, it was I'm sure we're only can talk about it but we we have the current law had two

[2:37:24] and then they gave the ability for hoteliers to go up to $5, but had a sunset window in it.

[2:37:30] And so once the sunset passes, then it goes back to the original $2 amount.

[2:37:35] Oh, I see. So it's not that it goes to zero, it goes back to two.

[2:37:40] And would it be possible for us to push for that to not necessarily be a sunset as much as it is,

[2:37:47] like a reauthorization where we have to vote on it again? I don't like to have permanent taxes.

[2:37:51] Well, I think this is an item where there's a large group of stakeholders who are working

[2:38:00] on developing and advancing the proposal and we're in a position of supporting that larger

[2:38:04] group rather than, so like, we don't hold the pen.

[2:38:11] Fair enough, I would still, I would be supportive if it was, instead of a total sunset, if it

[2:38:17] was like a reenactment, give the Council an option, I wouldn't be supportive if it was

[2:38:23] Just to make it permanent because again, I don't like permanent taxes.

[2:38:30] Council member Wick.

[2:38:32] I would just share that the TPA dollar amount is actually established by the petition from the hoteliers.

[2:38:38] Not from the city council, so this is our hoteliers coming together.

[2:38:42] And more than 50% of them had to sign a petition establishing the dollar amount threshold.

[2:38:47] Fair enough.

[2:38:48] And so I just wanted to highlight that.

[2:38:50] That sounds great.

[2:38:51] I would just have them do that again.

[2:38:55] Councilmember Haley. Thank you. Yeah, I would support Councilmember Wick's statement. I think that we've been able to utilize that money to bring a lot of economic development to our area and that's good for everybody. So I think that that should be important.

[2:39:13] Move to extend the meeting to 920.

[2:39:15] Second.

[2:39:16] All in favor.

[2:39:18] Aye.

[2:39:18] Opposed?

[2:39:20] I get to vote.

[2:39:22] I get to vote.

[2:39:24] No.

[2:39:26] Council Member Wood.

[2:39:28] So another one that I keep bringing up and different arenas, but it would love to hear

[2:39:33] your input into, is the public safety sales taxes.

[2:39:37] There was three different regulations and not a lot of harmony across those regulations.

[2:39:42] And in my mind, it's the harmony of not only what gets charged the sales tax or thinking of how we enacted it with the vote of the people.

[2:39:53] It doesn't apply to auto sales.

[2:39:56] If you do it councilmatically under the niece 2015, it does include auto sales.

[2:40:02] Auto sales are a pretty large portion for us, but then also the way we enacted it, we share 30% of the county 2015.

[2:40:10] 2015, the county doesn't have to share with us if they implement.

[2:40:14] So, as just trying to raise it or consider some sort of legislation to harmonize the three

[2:40:20] different laws a little bit more.

[2:40:25] We can certainly explore that. I think when we have raised the

[2:40:36] conversation with the sponsors of House Bill 2015 about making potential revisions, adjustments,

[2:40:45] because there's been a variety of different concerns or inconsistencies that have come up since it was passed into law.

[2:40:51] There's been a pretty strong resistance with a desire to just give it more time to work.

[2:41:03] I think the question in my mind then is like, okay, is it been enough time now?

[2:41:12] And I think AWC is also having that same, like, could we maybe?

[2:41:20] So I think that's helpful to know whether that's a priority for you all,

[2:41:25] whether it would rise to level of a higher priority.

[2:41:28] I'd want to do some more due diligence on.

[2:41:31] And then have that reflected in what we bring back in August.

[2:41:34] Yes.

[2:41:35] And if it's 2015 is too recent to change, the maybe the one before that which we utilized

[2:41:41] is more like 2015 because 2015's, they include auto sales and ours does not.

[2:41:49] So if 2015 is the golden child, the auto sales or the distribution, like I think the auto

[2:41:55] sales might be more feasible than changing the distribution formula.

[2:42:00] And then your voters approved, yeah, let me do some thinking and come back with a recommendation.

[2:42:16] Are there others that share that interest in that topic?

[2:42:20] Yeah, I would share that addressing that and trying to make them like the word was harmonizing,

[2:42:26] but it certainly consists in across those different pieces of legislation.

[2:42:40] There's a feedback.

[2:42:48] Otherwise looks perfect.

[2:42:52] So, next steps are that we will continue to make revisions to the draft that we reviewed

[2:43:01] this evening and bring it back to you all on August 18th and then the goal is to adopt

[2:43:09] a legislative agenda in September so that we have all of the ball to be advancing it forward.

[2:43:16] If issues do come up as things get more solidified as we get into session, you all can do a legislative agenda amendment.

[2:43:28] If something comes up at the last minute, just in case you were worried about doing things too early.

[2:43:33] But I think getting this framework and establishing what your funding requests are in particular is very helpful, particularly with governor's office and committee chairs.

[2:43:43] So, thank you for indulging me and having me in the lie.

[2:43:50] Well, thank you for coming.

[2:43:51] We appreciate that and look forward to seeing you again soon.

[2:43:56] Any other questions?

[2:44:09] That brings us to our second general public comment opportunity.

[2:44:14] The rules are the same.

[2:44:16] Is there anyone on Zoom?

[2:44:22] There's no one on Zoom and no one has signed up.

[2:44:24] All right, anybody in the room wish to comment?

[2:44:28] Seeing none, we will close the second general public comment.

[2:44:33] And that brings us to council comments.

[2:44:39] So council comments, the purpose of this item is to allow council members an opportunity

[2:44:44] to report on recent activities, issues that require immediate action or to report on topics connected

[2:44:50] with their role as a council member, which have recently transpired.

[2:44:54] It is also an opportunity to bring up topics for clarification or to

[2:45:00] We address other upcoming concerns. Council member comments shall not exceed three minutes, and we shall start with councilmember Merkel.

[2:45:10] So tonight I'd like to share a little bit of a timeline of my own. November of 2023 after I was elected. I chose to try and meet with all the current council members, including then Mayor Haley, supposed to be a friendly meeting talking about what the agendas were for the upcoming year turned into a bunch of threats, including

[2:45:32] we're going to use lawyers to stop you from being on next door.

[2:45:36] December of 2023, the Council included a newly minted social media policy,

[2:45:44] which was interesting considering that the Governance Manual Committee had not met that entire year due to a harassment issue that occurred on the committee.

[2:45:54] So where was that social media policy generated from?

[2:45:57] Those are excellent questions.

[2:46:00] November of 2023 also, this staff chose to contract for the work here on City Hall that later somehow was said to be because of me.

[2:46:09] Again, I had not taken my seat yet.

[2:46:12] December of 2023, City staff had a safety meeting where several staff members feared that I presented a danger and would be a shooting risk to the city.

[2:46:25] I'd been to over 3,000, 10,000 homes here in Spokane Valley, knocked on all those doors, but somehow I was a safety risk.

[2:46:36] February of 2024, just about four or five weeks after I took office, staff initiated this witch hunt against me,

[2:46:44] accusing me of all kinds of things, though eventually I was found to not have committed any wrongdoing, but somehow that's not the story that gets told.

[2:46:55] May of 2024, Councilman Higgins and some of his other accolades hire a private investigator to harass my family, June of 2024.

[2:47:05] for. Councilmember Yeager accuses me of violating the PRA. Ironic because over the next

[2:47:11] 16 months she goes on to commit the same actions that I did and to be found in violation.

[2:47:20] So December, January and February, in protest, I still try to comply. I provide all of my next

[2:47:28] I agree to connect all of my social media to page freezer and still that's not enough and the city decides to sue me.

[2:47:39] Finally, we have come to a place where, you know, a draft order has appeared.

[2:47:45] And what's very interesting about this draft order is throughout this process, the city has maintained we're not trying to silence Al.

[2:47:51] Well, this draft order specifically says that I'm not allowed to speak about the city except through official channels.

[2:47:58] How do I campaign, one must wonder, when I can't talk about the city in any way, except using city resources.

[2:48:06] But I can't campaign using city resources.

[2:48:08] What an interesting catch, 22.

[2:48:11] I think that the truth is now on the table.

[2:48:14] Thank you, Council Member Wick.

[2:48:21] Okay, so I'll just pull up my notes from last week.

[2:48:24] So on the Municipal Research and Services Center board, we had a long discussion about

[2:48:28] fees for next year.

[2:48:29] I just wanted to kind of highlight because I know we're a user of the Small Works Roaster

[2:48:33] and they're using a CPI, actually based at a Seattle, so that's where their office is.

[2:48:38] So it will be a 4.9% increase in the Small Works Roaster fees for municipalities.

[2:48:44] on the ADBC legislative committee, we heard a survey and so we met last week at the conference or was it the week before, but anyway, the 2027 budget survey amongst city councils across the state 75% were concerned with a budget shortfall.

[2:49:01] 38% project revenue losses in 2027 and more than half of those expect between a five and 15% budget reductions.

[2:49:11] and almost a majority were the most anticipated revenue declines across the state was actually sales tax.

[2:49:20] So I'm kind of glad we're at, but it just kind of paints a little bit of a scary picture for cities.

[2:49:26] At the conference, some highlights, congratulations to Mayor John Nearing from the City of Mary'sville,

[2:49:32] who is elected our new AWC president and came up with a theme of the conference,

[2:49:37] which was Washington, United, kind of playing on the soccer theme.

[2:49:42] The land use, there was actually a land use policy discussion, and it was very interesting

[2:49:46] up for the slides out in the email to counsel, but only about 2% of the state's land is

[2:49:53] actually designated within the urban growth boundaries.

[2:49:56] And so as we talk about supply versus demand for driving costs, it was very interesting to

[2:50:01] have that highlight across the state, only about 2% of the buildable land is within the

[2:50:07] safety sessions. I just wanted to highlight that grant for part of HP 2015. Only the grant window,

[2:50:15] which I know the county has applied for their status to be able to be accommodated to the grant,

[2:50:21] which we can kind of piggyback on, that grant window is only open for 45 days and that started your life first.

[2:50:28] So if we are going to apply, we do have to act very quickly on that to get in line.

[2:50:35] They did make it very clear that there will be no third round opening for that.

[2:50:40] If there's any money, and of course it's kind of a first come, first serve, and those

[2:50:43] that applied in the first round will be served before anybody in the second round.

[2:50:48] The session also keynote speaker, great session on 13 ways to kill your community.

[2:50:54] I don't know if anybody's got the book or not, but I have an extra copy in case we need one.

[2:50:58] The 2027 session will be in Tacoma, everybody's invited.

[2:51:01] I was actually elected the President of the Municipal Research and Services Center

[2:51:06] Board, so I served as their current President for the year.

[2:51:09] And on the AWAC State Board, we established a committee for recruiting city council members

[2:51:14] for state boards.

[2:51:15] And so I served on that committee for AWAC.

[2:51:17] And then was selected as a part of the Washington State Collaborative Leaders' Elected Leaders

[2:51:24] Institute.

[2:51:25] So I'll be doing a leadership program.

[2:51:27] Thank you.

[2:51:28] Council Member Haley.

[2:51:30] Thank you.

[2:51:30] Yes, that keynote speaker was amazing. I didn't make it to get the book in time so I ordered it on Amazon. I recommend it to everybody. It's great.

[2:51:40] So anybody who knows, I wasn't going to say anything because it's late and we should pay by the minute, right?

[2:51:45] And it's mostly staff and I hate to keep you guys here, but those of you who know me know two things about me.

[2:51:52] I'm not a social media fan, I'm not on social media hardly at all and I had never even heard of next door until the issue came up

[2:52:01] to the council member Merkel after he was on council. So that clearly did not happen.

[2:52:09] I'm not sure where he got that or what happened. We did have a meeting. We went for coffee and he became belligerent and started telling me all the things I was doing wrong.

[2:52:19] so I ended the meeting. It had nothing to do with Nextor. Again, I had never heard of it before.

[2:52:26] I have very minimal knowledge of Facebook, but nothing else. So I have none of those other things.

[2:52:33] I thought it was interesting that he almost said that Jessica violated the PRA just like he did.

[2:52:41] But he stopped himself and said, oh there was no founding on him.

[2:52:46] The PRA is not a complicated law, it's pretty obvious, even at AWC, they were just like,

[2:52:53] you know, you just shouldn't have social media when you're on the council.

[2:52:57] So what can you do when you're campaigning?

[2:53:00] You can campaign, but you can't talk about city business, and more importantly, you can't

[2:53:06] sign your name, Pam Haley, city council position 5, which is something that council member Merkel

[2:53:12] did.

[2:53:12] So I just want to make sure that the untruths and strange misleading statements that come

[2:53:19] out of him, everybody understands is not something I would have done, could have done,

[2:53:25] or like I said, had even heard of at that point in time.

[2:53:28] Thank you.

[2:53:30] Council Member Kelly.

[2:53:33] I'd like to attended the Association of Washington City's conference here in Spokane.

[2:53:38] I found it very educational.

[2:53:39] I want to thank Council Member Wick for introducing me to a number of individuals, and kind of given me a little bit of orientation, but learned a lot and looking forward to next year in Tacoma.

[2:53:53] Yeah, just a lot of hard work and folks that are there trying to improve policy and improve the process and so it was good to be a part of it.

[2:54:01] Thank you, Council Member Yager.

[2:54:04] So, I will agree on Council Member Elie's position as to the belligerent behaviour and why I stopped having coffee with my counterpart here.

[2:54:16] What I would have said is somewhat of what I would have been able to say last week, I guess.

[2:54:22] So, one of the most important responsibilities of an elected official is knowing when to rely on the experts around you.

[2:54:27] None of us are experts in every field, and that's why City's higher attorney's professional staff independent investigators and hearing examiners to provide objective guidance on complicated legal matters.

[2:54:39] Council member Merkel is not an attorney, yet through this process he chose to reject the advice of City's legal counsel, the findings of an independent investigator in the conclusions of a hearing examiner and ultimately the ruling of the Spokane County Superior Court.

[2:54:53] The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, finding that there was no genuine

[2:54:58] issue of material fact and ordered him to comply with his legal obligations.

[2:55:03] The case wasn't the result of one disagreement.

[2:55:06] According to the Court's findings, there were repeated opportunities to comply, training

[2:55:10] before taking office requests for compliance, and independent investigation, and such.

[2:55:16] Instead, the valley taxpayers have spent nearly $600,000, which turns my stomach.

[2:55:22] The money belongs to our residents, could have prepared roads, supported public safety,

[2:55:27] improved parks, or remained in the pockets of hardworking families, instead it was spent

[2:55:32] defending the city in a dispute that the court unultimately resolved in the city's favor.

[2:55:37] Leadership requires humility.

[2:55:40] It requires recognizing when the evidence is no longer on your side, and when continuing

[2:55:45] to fight comes at too great a cost to the public of which we serve.

[2:55:49] In my opinion, it was not responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars when an elected official repeatedly rejects expert advice, loses in court, and leaves taxpayers with an enormous bill.

[2:56:01] Accountability is appropriate.

[2:56:04] And as of about three or four days ago on Facebook, he's still not compliant unless he's finally connected to page freezer.

[2:56:10] So I'm not sure what he's learned if anything at all, but I would continue to ask him to consider the tax payers and what's coming out of their pockets and resign.

[2:56:22] Deputy Mayor Handenberg.

[2:56:24] I don't have anything further to add, thank you.

[2:56:26] All right, thank you.

[2:56:29] So the Superior Court judge has reviewed all the documents, files, depositions, and oral arguments, and handed down her decision.

[2:56:39] She granted the city's request for a summary judgment.

[2:56:44] The following is not my thoughts or opinions, but what the court has found and ordered.

[2:56:51] The court has found that the facts are not in dispute and that the law is abundantly clear

[2:56:57] and that the court can reach the conclusions of law that were listed later without going to trial.

[2:57:03] And they listed also 35 points of fact and the timeline of events, which somehow did not correspond to Council Member Merkel's.

[2:57:14] The list of 14 conclusions of laws are referenced by the court has found and I will only go through a couple of them.

[2:57:24] The court has found that council members have the council member has a mandatory duty to act in compliance with the governance manual, in particularly the social media policy.

[2:57:39] He also took an oath to do just that.

[2:57:44] And yet he continues, the court says, to violate this duty.

[2:57:47] The Court has found that the City's interest to ensure compliance with the Public Records

[2:57:54] Act is to avoid liability under the PRA and this also ensures that the government has

[2:58:02] transparency, accountability and access to public records and this is one of the arguments

[2:58:09] that we have been using all along in our progress up the ladder to the Superior Court.

[2:58:16] The court has found that the city has exhausted all other avenues to compel compliance.

[2:58:24] And I will add that's at considerable expense.

[2:58:28] The court has found that the city is entitled to a court order.

[2:58:34] So this commands the government official, our council member, to perform the duty required

[2:58:42] by law when they have failed to act. In this case, it is to comply with his mandatory duties under the social media policy.

[2:58:53] The Court has found that the city has well-grounded fear that the continued use of next-door and violation of the Public Records Act is resulting in or will result in actual or substantial injury to the city.

[2:59:10] Again, this was one of the reasons why we continued with our litigation.

[2:59:16] The court is ordering the council member to comply with his mandatory duties under the

[2:59:23] city as well as the government's manual and the court has ordered that the city is entitled

[2:59:30] to a permanent injunction which is a court order to have the council member comply with

[2:59:37] the duties under the Public Records Act to search, segregate, preserve, and produce

[2:59:42] such records to the city. And in depositions, he admitted he spent a total of two seconds

[2:59:48] doing just that. This decision appears to be a total and complete win for the city.

[2:59:56] The Superior Court Judge came to the Senate.

[3:00:00] The same conclusion put in stronger language and with more authority than the ability, I'm sorry, authority and more ability to impose penalties than the hearing examiner before her. And then the independent investigator already also ensure me before the hearing examiner. And then the city attorney Kelly concrete before the investigator.

[3:00:27] actually in baseball terms the council member is now batting zero for four and it seems to be more

[3:00:34] than time for a change in behavior. City manager comments. Thank you, Mary Padden, council members.

[3:00:44] Before we get to the thank you letters and the letter of support on the water line, I did want to

[3:00:51] address a follow-up comment to some of the council members responses to council member

[3:00:58] Merkel's statement.

[3:01:02] It's difficult to sit here and listen to his form of reality and all the misinformation

[3:01:08] that he puts out there.

[3:01:10] I can tackle each and every one of those.

[3:01:12] We don't have time for that tonight and we've addressed those over the last two and a half

[3:01:17] years.

[3:01:17] It's unbelievable.

[3:01:18] It's been that long.

[3:01:19] I do want to address, and I'll go back to my statements of last week on the personnel

[3:01:25] investigation, the finding was that he didn't violate the existing policy that discriminates

[3:01:33] against gender, race, sexual orientation, or any protected status.

[3:01:40] He basically treated everyone poorly in a hostile manner, and you've all seen it.

[3:01:48] the public has seen it. Last week was the display of that hostility. That's the type of behavior that the staff

[3:01:57] experienced on multiple occasions over multiple multiple weeks.

[3:02:02] There were steps that were necessary to protect the staff that I took to resolve the situation

[3:02:10] and they greatly did resolve the situation but I had a responsibility to step in and make sure

[3:02:17] that we retained the quality of staff that we have and that they feel protected and that

[3:02:24] they feel that this is a safe environment. That was not the case prior to the actions

[3:02:30] that we took to separate him from that space. There was lots of misinformation put out

[3:02:37] there about his workstation being in the basement. It is not in the basement. It is just behind

[3:02:42] the store. And these are continual misstatements, miscommunication, all trying to create, and I guess,

[3:02:51] an alternate reality than what really exists. So I just wanted to take a moment to correct that

[3:02:58] record and appreciate the rest of the council members allowing me to do that. So let's jump in to

[3:03:05] back to business. And we have a variety of thank you letters, three going to the delegation,

[3:03:15] our two senators and our congressman, and then also one to the Secretary of Transportation,

[3:03:23] Sean Duffy. I did receive at the break some corrections and some additions, which I appreciate,

[3:03:33] Leading to the thank you letters to the delegation, Council Member Wick, and I appreciate your longevity on the council that you remembered that this is actually the fourth USDA OTA award.

[3:03:46] We did receive the Chrissy award on, and I think around 2019 for the Pines Great Separation Project, it was over, I think a million or a little over that.

[3:03:57] So we will include that, and thank you very much for that piece.

[3:04:02] And then also on the letter to the Transportation Secretary adding some language.

[3:04:10] So if I was to read the second paragraph for you with Ben's addition or council member Wix additions in there.

[3:04:19] So, the second paragraph starts, the project replaces one of the city's oldest and lowest rated bridge over a state highway expands capacity of an underutilized class one rail bridge to support long term growth of BNS, BNS, F railways, Northern, Transcon route, and the great Northern corridor, which is important because that's a whole different initiative that has been created.

[3:04:49] was created by the Rails and a bunch of groups,

[3:04:52] and there was multiple meetings on that.

[3:04:54] So I think that's an important distinction.

[3:04:57] Dramatically improved travel time reliability

[3:05:00] on a high volume freight connecting Chicago to the coast.

[3:05:05] And so I think that's an important thing

[3:05:07] to include freight arterial by rebuilding

[3:05:10] and antiquated diamond signalized interchange

[3:05:15] with more efficient to round about configuration.

[3:05:17] And so we didn't have any changes after that, but I'd wanted to at least get that out there for you City manager also kind of a grammatical thing, but

[3:05:27] It says the project replaces one of the city's bridge

[3:05:31] Lowest rated bridges bridge. Yeah bridges, but it just says bridge. Yeah, okay. We'll make that change to

[3:05:39] So if you would take an additional moment and make sure that we didn't miss anything else or if you're okay with this

[3:05:47] we'd like consensus from the council to have the mayor signness and send these on.

[3:05:52] But a very important process that we don't want to lose track of is once we have received

[3:05:57] these large federal awards, we absolutely have to provide the thank you letters back to those

[3:06:04] individuals.

[3:06:07] Do we have consensus to?

[3:06:10] Great.

[3:06:11] Okay. And then lastly, we have a letter of support to the Public Works Board, Washington State Department of Commerce, about the Hutchison Irrigation District number 16 Vista Road Waterline Replacement.

[3:06:28] So these are letters of support that we have routinely done for different projects.

[3:06:35] There's a lot of information in here.

[3:06:37] I'll try to stumble through it, but if need be, we can pull up Director Blagan to explain

[3:06:45] this a lot more.

[3:06:46] But this would be a water line replacement to replace aging, leaking water lines between

[3:06:52] 111 North Vista Road and Broadway Avenue.

[3:06:57] Significantly improving water system reliability beneath our city streets.

[3:07:02] Vista is also on our six-year tip for replacement.

[3:07:05] So whenever we are able to work with a water district, they will compensate the city for whatever the requirement is of the trench width for whatever they're working on, or sometimes we will add some additional funds to their project, depending if it's our project or their project and do a curb to curb pavement replacement, which is really the only way to go on these types of projects.

[3:07:34] So, if you take a moment to read the letter and see if there's consensus to have the

[3:07:40] mayor sign it, I'd appreciate it.

[3:07:48] And that's all I have for you tonight.

[3:07:49] Thank you.

[3:07:50] Move to adjourn.

[3:07:51] Second.

[3:07:52] All those in favor?

[3:07:53] Aye.

[3:07:54] Opposed?

[3:07:55] We are adjourned.

Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript