The URL can be used to link to this page

2022, 04-26 Formal Meeting MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Formal Meeting Tuesday,April 26, 2022 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held virtually via Zoom, and also in City Hall Council Chambers with Council and staff attending in person. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Pam Haley, Mayor John Hohman, City Manager Rod Higgins, Deputy Mayor Erik Lamb,Deputy City Manager Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Bill Helbig, Community&Public Works Dir. Laura Padden, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember John Bottelli, Parks, Rec&Facilities Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mike Basinger,Economic Development Director Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Chris Spedick of Sun City Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all CounciImembers were present APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: nla COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hattenburg: mentioned the STA(Spokane Transit Authority)meeting and of their on-time performance for various routes,and that there will be an all-day$2.00 pass for Bloom sday; said he attended the new STA station ribbon cutting at the Eagle Station; went to the groundbreaking at the new SaItese Flats environmental education center; attended a Volunteers of American event, and met with Family Promise. Councilmember Woodard: reported that he attended the GMA (Growth Management Act) Council of Governance; the HCDAC (Housing Community Development Advisory Committee)meeting; and toured with Senator Murray's delegation showing some of our current projects and areas for future projects. Councilmember Wick: said he attended the Chamber Business Awards where they announced that Susan and Dave Thompson, former owners of Dave's Bar & Grill, were named as the 2021 Hany E. Nelson Citizens of the year;that he also attended a FMSIB (Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board)meeting and that they are getting ready for their June retreat,where they will discuss the issue of truck parking; and mentioned that the AWC(Association of Washington Cities)board welcomed their new CEO, Ms. Deanna Dawson, first woman CEO of AWC. Councilmember Padden: regarding the SRLJC (Spokane Regional law& Justice Council) said they have an at-large community representative position open;mentioned the jail release program is based on the New York Model and it will be administered by the office of Law and Justice, but they will have a third party operate the program; said she attended the Oak School event and representative McMorris-Rodgers was there, and that they are planning to build a new school; and that she also met with Family Promise. Councilmember Peetz: said she went to the small arms range groundbreaking; mentioned Visit Spokane and Paul McCartney coming to Spokane; said Visit Spokane is on the final stages of their visitors guide; Council Meeting Minutes,Formal: 04-26-2022 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: 05-10-2022 said she went to the 9-1-1 meeting and mentioned people in 31 of 39 Washington counties can now text to 91 1; and that she also went to the learning center groundbreaking. Deputy Mayor Higgins: said that the April 14 meeting of the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) received 50 applications for $30 million for the 2024-26 call for projects; went to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials meeting where he was selected vice-chair and where they had a discussion on keeping the identities of well-established neighborhoods. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Haley reported that she attended several STA Meetings, one of which discussed our area's cost per passenger compared with other like-sized cities; mentioned the potential $2+ million award of a transit grant which would stipulate we have would have to guarantee free fares for people up to age 18; said she also went to the Oaks School event; and said she was invited to be on the planning committee for Launch Northwest. PROCLAMATION:Arbor Day Mayor Haley read the Arbor Day proclamation, which was accepted with thanks from Parks,Recreation& Facilities Director Bottelli. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 11.1: Mayor Haley explained the process for giving public comments, and then invited people to speak. Ms. Pam. Marlow, Spokane Valley: via Zoom, voiced her concern with citizens sleeping in vehicles in her neighborhood; said it seems they can't get those people to move along; that there are children in the neighborhood and she feels it is a safety issue and she would like to be contacted about this problem. Ms. Karen Gallion, Spokane Valley: said she lives in the Turtle Creek north area and is concerned about truck brakes and would like to have a no-compression sign put up; and she played truck stounds she recorded with her phone, as examples of how loud they can be. Ms.Marilyn Miller, Spokane Valley: said she lives in the Chester Hills Addition; she spoke of developers, property line adjustments, and of filing an appeal to the Superior Court; said she asked the Planning Commission to enforce the rules but if seems to her that the City's planning personnel are willing to support an out-of-town developer more than being interested in the community; said the City is allowing building projects that don't fit the buildings in the community. Mr. John Miller, Spokane Valley: addressed the same issue as his wife; spoke of Chester Hills being protected by covenants but building proposals are not in keeping with those covenants or the nature of the neighborhood; said over 60 members of his community sent Spokane Valley a letter and petition; said he wants Council to review the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: asked about the status of the federal money we got for COVID, how much has been spent; spoke of the state's emergency status; mentioned road preservation and asked when will the public be able to speak to that issue; and again suggested having a public comment opportunity at every meeting as the way it is now,the public has to wait 14 days to speak to a topic. Mr. Renault Patrick Evans, Spokane Valley: said it appears Council cares about the community; said he knows the city has to grow; he spoke of a balance between construction and growth; said the Greenacres Park is well used and he suggested having that park finished. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Claim Vouchers on April 26, 2022, Request for Council Action Form: $790,685.10 b. ApprovaI of Payroll for Pay Period ending April 15, 2022: $448,537.03. c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 12,2022,Formal Format d.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2022, Study Session e. Approval of Resolution 22-004 Setting Street Vacation Public Hearing for June 9,2022 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Council Meeting Minutes,Formal: 04-26-2022 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: 05-10-2022 2. Proposed Resolution 22-005 Thanking Legislators—John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Resolution 22-005 Thanking Legislators. The Resolution was then read in its entirety by Mayor Haley,followed by comments of thanks from Mayor Haley; and from Senator Padden and Representatives McCaslin and Chase thanking Council for the expression of appreciation. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed:none. Motion carried. 3. Administrative Report: Legislative Session Update—John Hohman,Briahna Murray Lobbyist Briahna Murray, of Gordon Thomas Honeywell, gave an update on the recently completed 2022 legislative session, including how well the City did on items on the City's adopted State legislative Agenda. Ms. Murray noted that she has already started preparing for the 2023 session which will begin January 9, 2023. At 7:17 p.m., Mayor Haley called for a ten minute recess. Mayor Haley reconvened the meeting at 7:26 p.m. 4. Proposed Resolution 22-007 RCO Grant for Greenacres Park Phase 2—John Bottelli It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Resolution 22-007. Director Bottelli explained about the opportunity for applying for two grants for the Greenacres Park Phase 2 development; noted these grant programs operate on a two-year cycle and that the application deadline is in one week;he noted that by submitting both applications,the City could leverage up to 75%of a total project cost through grant funding for Greenacres Park; adding that if we proceed with the park elements, he would engage the public to make sure we have the elements that have good public support; he noted this resolution is only to authorize the City to apply for the two grants,and that staff will come back with more detail in the summer. Mayor Haley invited public comments. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: spoke of parks in general, including purchase,maintenance,and other expenses. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Resolution 22-006 Third-Party Publications in City Building Public Areas Due to a conflict of interest, Councilmember Wick recused himself and left the room. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve the resolution as drafted. After explanation by City Attorney Driskell, it was clarified that the resolution in question is the revised resolution which addresses the lobbies and foyers of City Hall and the Police Precinct only, as Mayor Haley said the decision was made during the Advance Agenda meeting not to include CenterPlace. Mayor Haley invited public comment and City Clerk Bainbridge noted written comments from Ms. Peggy Doering asking for clarification. There were no other public comments.There was Council discussion about constitutionality and Mr.Driskell assured Council there is no reason to believe this resolution is unconstitutional. Vote by acclamation: in favor:Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Padden and Woodard. Opposed.' Councilmembers Peetz and Hattenburg. Motion carried. Councilmember Wick returned to Council Chambers. 5a Motion Consideration: One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities-Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the same. City attorney Driskell explained that this is the first time this issue has been brought to Council; that a settlement has not been reached yet but the parties are actively negotiating; he noted the last day to opt-in to this Memorandum of Understanding,which is a mandatory perquisite to receiving any funds under the settlement, is April 30,2022. Mr.Driskell also noted that once this MOU has been signed,there will be a second agreement to create the region's Opioid Abatement Council. Mayor Haley invited public comment. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: said he hopes this will also support veterans or anyone who used these drugs;said this is a little suspect getting this information at the last minute. There were no other public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 04-26-2022 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: 05-10-2022 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY [21: Mayor Haley invited public comment. No comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Stormwater Comprehensive Plan & Rate Study Consultant Services Agreement—Bill Helbig Mr. Helbig gave some background information on the Stormwater Utility and how is it funded and that the utility fee of $21 per year is assessed uniformly on single family residences, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes; and other developed property is charged $21 for every 3,160 square feet of measured impervious surface area.Mr.Helbig said the utility fee was established when the City incorporated and the rate has not increased since 2003. He also explained that the fee is imposed on each water meter and funds are collected by Spokane County; he said funds must be expended entirely on stormwater related projects that are designed to protect the aquifer. Mr. Helbig noted that the City needs to develop a stormwater comprehensive plan which will guide a stormwater utility rate study; that the City issued a Request for Qualifications to develop this plan and study and that Osborn Consulting was selected to provide these services. He noted that tonight is for discussion only and a proposed final scope and fee will return to Council May 3 for a motion to consider execution and approval of the contract to Osborn Consulting, and Council concurred. 7.ARPA Discussion--Erik Lamb, Chelsie Taylor Deputy City Manager Lamb explained that the CLFR(Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds) sub-committee, consisting of himself, Ms. Taylor, Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Higgins, and Councilmember Hattenburg, have been meeting weekly, including having numerous meetings with stakeholders;he said nothing has been decided on how to distribute the remaining$8 million and everything is open for discussion; he talked about the CLFR funds; of the primary eligible use categories per ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act), and showed the split of the first category into two: one responding to the COVID public health emergency, and the other addressing the negative economic impacts caused by the pandemic. Mr. Lamb noted the CLFR subcommittee draft allocation is solely intended as a discussion starting point,and he went over some of the aspects of those points,as shown within the Request for Council Action form. Finance Director Taylor noted that Council already authorized the allocation of$250,000 for internal costs, and $750,000 for the Buckeye Sewer Project. Mr. Lamb asked that Council aske if they would like more information for any area, said during the subcommittee meetings, that the goal was to present this and get input from other Councilmembers not on that committee; and he noted that there will be a report from Law Enforcement at the May 10 Council meeting. Points of discussion from Council included affordable housing, land acquisition, whether to merge those two topics;youth and people who work with youth;that there is a need for supervisors in the field of mental health; the idea of the City sending out Requests for Proposals and once those RFPs are received, to see what the needs are;mentioned the idea of helping Spokane Valley Partners to acquire land; of the idea of doing something that will have an immediate impact on the community, as well as something long-term; mention again of purchasing land and see who might build on that and for what purposes; and although Councilmember Wick stated that he feels the performing arts would be a good investment, not all Councilmembers agreed.Mr.Lamb mentioned that Council would be the one to set criteria for any use of land; including whether the organization/person could later sell it; and there was Council mention that tonight's presentation includes a large amount of information which will take some time to digest. At approximately 8:57 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:1 S p.m. Mr.Lamb said he will work to get more information on affordable housing and mental health with estimates on particular costs and that this topic will come back before Council again in a few weeks. Mr. Lamb said that at some point in the process, we could include public input, although required for the County's allocation, it would not be required for us, but could prove beneficial. Council Meeting Minutes,Formal: 04-26-2022 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: 05-10-2022 8. Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 9. Department Monthly Reports The department monthly reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Mr.Holunan announced that we received an update from Moody's on our insurance bond rating,and thanks to various factors including our great fiscal policies, low debt and rapid growth in our City's tax base, we have been upgraded from the great rating of AA2 to an ever higher rating of AA 1. Mr. Holunan noted that some members of Council will be travelling to D.C.May 16-19 for their lobbying trip,and he recommended and Council concurred, to cancel the May 21 Council meeting, as well as the June 21 Council meeting as some members of Council will be attending the AWC Conference in Vancouver June 21-24. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. ATT ST: % Pam Haley,Mayor ristine Bainbridge, tty Clerk Council Meeting Minutes,Formal: 04-26-2022 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: 05-10-2022 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2022 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration — One Washington Memorandum of Understanding between Washington Municipalities(MOU). GOVERNING LEGISLATION:Not applicable. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:None. BACKGROUND: Numerous cities and counties throughout the nation and the state of Washington have sued various companies and individuals associated with the prescription opioid supply chain, which includes the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of opioid prescriptions, based on well-documented harm to individuals and communities resulting from their use. Those communities who did not actively participate in these legal actions are still able to participate in the settlement of the claims and receive a damage award to at least partially off-set public expenses from trying to deal with these issues. This is the first time this issue has been brought to Council and represents one of several centralized lawsuits. Suit was filed by many Washington cities and counties against various members of the prescription opioid supply chain. Nearly all of the Washington local governments(29 of 33)are represented by the law firm of Keller Rohrback. A settlement has not been reached to date, but the parties are actively negotiating and it is believed a settlement is near. Keller Rohrback circulated the One Washington MOU to determine all possible jurisdictions that would be included in settlement negotiations for the litigating and non-litigating Washington cities and counties. The last day to opt-in to this MOU,which is a mandatory prerequisite to receiving any funds under the settlement, is April 30,2022. The City received the proposed MOU April 6, 2022. The prescription opioid supply chain defendants are asking that this MOU be executed before continuing settlement negotiations with the litigating cities and counties. This MOU would allow all Washington cities, towns, and counties to "speak with one voice" at the table. It establishes how money would be distributed across all jurisdictions in Washington (including non-litigating jurisdictions) in the event there is a settlement. In exchange,non-litigating cities agree to extinguish any prescription opioid-related claims they may have against the defendants. The MOU sets forth allocation regions mirroring the Washington State Accountable Community of Health. The City is in the Spokane Region, which includes Adams, Ferry, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens Counties. Financial allocations to the counties within these regions are made using the following formula: (1)the amount of opioids shipped to the county; (2)the number of opioid deaths that occurred in that county; and(3)the number of people who suffer from opioid use disorder in that county. This formula has been used nationally in other settlements related to prescription opioid supply chain litigations. Further distributions within the county(i.e.,distributions to cities)are calculated by either another formula utilizing historical spending data or through agreement between the county and its cities. Exhibit B of the MOU lists the amounts a jurisdiction will receive under the default formula. Under this Exhibit, Spokane County will receive roughly 8.88% of the total settlement thuds for the entire state, and Spokane Valley would receive about 0.07%. Each allocation region must create an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC). The OAC serves as an oversight body to ensure the allocated funds are spent on opioid abatement. Exhibit A of the MOU outlines eligible uses for funds. Once the City has executed this MOU, there will be a second agreement, this time between "Spokane Region" counties identified above, Liberty Lake, Cheney, Spokane Valley, and Spokane to create the region's OAC. The default allocation to Spokane Valley in Exhibit B appears to be significantly smaller than it should be, and there is a process for challenging that allocation once we are parties to this MOU as well as the subsequent Spokane Region Opioid Abatement Council agreement. However, we must enter both agreements before we can request a reallocation of the amounts. There are several other on-going cases of interest resulting from the opioid epidemic. The Washington State Attorney General is pursuing separate actions against the prescription opioid supply chain participants on behalf of the state to recover public dollars incurred by the state in dealing with the opioid epidemic. It is unclear how this matter will ultimately resolve,but is currently in trial. If successful,the state is expected to allocate additional funds to those areas impacted by the defendants. In that case,there may be a similar process for allocating funds to impacted areas. Lastly, the actual manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, and the family that owned Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers, have also been sued by the State Attorney General, other Washington cities and counties, and several other jurisdictions across the country. These actions resulted in the company declaring bankruptcy. A bankruptcy settlement is pending in bankruptcy court now. It is unclear when these cases will be resolved. Although we don't have a Iot of certainty at this time with regard to the potential financial benefit to the City on this, we are required to approve the MOU tonight in order to participate with the other local jurisdictions. Staff will keep Council apprised as necessary on these various related matters and will bring back the Spokane Region interlocal in the near future. OPTIONS: (1)Approve the MOU to receive opioid epidemic settlement funds; or(2) do nothing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the same. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities,with Exhibits A and B. ONE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WASHINGTON MUNICIPALITIES Whereas, the people of the State of Washington and its communities have been harmed by entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain who manufacture, distribute, and dispense prescription opioids; Whereas, certain Local Governments, through their elected representatives and counsel, are engaged in litigation seeking to hold these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain of prescription opioids accountable for the damage they have caused to the Local Governments; Whereas,Local Governments and elected officials share a common desire to abate and alleviate the impacts of harms caused by these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain throughout the State of Washington, and strive to ensure that principals of equity and equitable service delivery are factors considered in the allocation and use of Opioid Funds; and Whereas, certain Local Governments engaged in litigation and the other cities and counties in Washington desire to agree on a form of allocation for Opioid Funds they receive from entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Now therefore, the Local Governments enter into this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") relating to the allocation and use of the proceeds of Settlements described. A. Definitions As used in this MOU: 1. "Allocation Regions" are the same geographic areas as the existing nine (9) Washington State Accountable Community of Health(ACH) Regions and have the purpose described in Section C below. 2. "Approved Purpose(s)" shall mean the strategies specified and set forth in the Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A. 3. "Effective Date" shall mean the date on which a court of competent jurisdiction enters the first Settlement by order or consent decree. The Parties anticipate that more than one Settlement will be administered according to the terms of this MOU, but that the first entered Settlement will trigger allocation of Opioid Funds in accordance with Section B herein, and the formation of the Opioid Abatement Councils in Section C. 4. "Litigating Local Government(s)" shall mean Local Governments that filed suit against any Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant pertaining to the Opioid epidemic prior to September 1, 2020. 1 5. "Local Government(s)" shall mean all counties, cities, and towns within the geographic boundaries of the State of Washington. 6, "National Settlement Agreements"means the national opioid settlement agreements dated July 21, 2021 involving Johnson & Johnson, and distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors named in the National Settlement Agreements, including all amendments thereto. 7. "Opioid Funds" shall mean monetary amounts obtained through a Settlement as defined in this MOU. 8. "Opioid Abatement Council" shall have the meaning described in Section C below. 9. "Participating Local Government(s)" shall mean all counties, cities, and towns within the geographic boundaries of the State that have chosen to sign on to this MOU. The Participating Local Governments may be referred to separately in this MOU as "Participating Counties" and"Participating Cities and Towns" (or"Participating Cities or Towns," as appropriate) or "Parties." 10. "Pharmaceutical Supply Chain" shall mean the process and channels through which controlled substances are manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or dispensed, including prescription opioids. 11. "Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant" shall mean any entity that engages in or has engaged in the manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution, and/or dispensing of a prescription opioid, including any entity that has assisted in any of the above. 12. "Qualified Settlement Fund Account," or "QSF Account," shall mean an account set up as a qualified settlement fund, 468b fund, as authorized by Treasury Regulations 1.468B-1(c) (26 CFR §1.468B-1). 13. "Regional Agreements" shall mean the understanding reached by the Participating Local Counties and Cities within an Allocation Region governing the allocation, management, distribution of Opioid Funds within that Allocation Region. 14. "Settlement" shall mean the future negotiated resolution of legal or equitable claims against a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant when that resolution has been jointly entered into by the Participating Local Governments. "Settlement" expressly does not include a plan of reorganization confirmed under Title 1 lof the United States Code, irrespective of the extent to which Participating Local Governments vote in favor of or otherwise support such plan of reorganization. 2 15. "Trustee" shall mean an independent trustee who shall be responsible for the ministerial task of releasing Opioid Funds from a QSF account to Participating Local Governments as authorized herein and accounting for all payments into or out of the trust. 16. The "Washington State Accountable Communities of Health" or "ACH" shall mean the nine (9) regions described in Section C below. B. Allocation of Settlement Proceeds for Approved Purposes 1. All Opioid Funds shall be held in a QSF and distributed by the Trustee, for the benefit of the Participating Local Governments, only in a manner consistent with this MOU. Distribution of Opioid Funds will be subject to the mechanisms for auditing and reporting set forth below to provide public accountability and transparency. 2. All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be utilized pursuant to Approved Purposes as defined herein and set forth in Exhibit A. Compliance with this requirement shall be verified through reporting, as set out in this MOU. 3. The division of Opioid Funds shall first be allocated to Participating Counties based on the methodology utilized for the Negotiation Class in In Re:National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP. The allocation model uses three equally weighted factors: (1)the amount of opioids shipped to the county; (2)the number of opioid deaths that occurred in that county; and (3) the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that county. The allocation percentages that result from application of this methodology are set forth in the "County Total" line item in Exhibit B. In the event any county does not participate in this MOU, that county's percentage share shall be reallocated proportionally amongst the Participating Counties by applying this same methodology to only the Participating Counties. 4. Allocation and distribution of Opioid Funds within each Participating County will be based on regional agreements as described in Section C. C. Regional Agreements 1. For the purpose of this MOU, the regional structure for decision- making related to opioid fund allocation will be based upon the nine (9) pre- defined Washington State Accountable Community of Health Regions (Allocation Regions). Reference to these pre-defined regions is solely for the purpose of 3 drawing geographic boundaries to facilitate regional agreements for use of Opioid Funds. The Allocation Regions are as follows: • King County (Single County Region) • Pierce County (Single County Region) • Olympic Community of Health Region (Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap Counties) • Cascade Pacific Action Alliance Region (Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Thurston,Lewis, and Wahkiakum Counties) • North Sound Region (Island, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties) • SouthWest Region (Clark, Kl.ickitat, and Skamania Counties) • Greater Columbia Region (Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield, Kittitas, Walla Walla, Whitman, and Yakima Counties) • Spokane Region (Adams, Ferry, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens Counties) • North Central Region (Chelan, Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan Counties) 2. Opioid Funds will be allocated, distributed and managed within each Allocation Region, as determined by its Regional Agreement as set forth below. If an Allocation Region does not have a Regional Agreement enumerated in this MOU, and does not subsequently adopt a Regional Agreement per Section C.5, the default mechanism for allocation, distribution and management of Opioid Funds described in Section C.4.a will apply. Each Allocation Region must have an OAC whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by Regional Agreement or as set forth in Section C.4. 3. King County's Regional Agreement is reflected in Exhibit C to this MOU. 4. All other Allocation Regions that have not specified a Regional Agreement for allocating, distributing and managing Opioid Funds, will apply the following default methodology: a. Opioid Funds shall be allocated within each Allocation Region by taking the allocation for a Participating County from Exhibit B and apportioning those funds between that Participating County and its Participating Cities and Towns. Exhibit B also sets forth the allocation to the Participating Counties and the Participating Cities or Towns within the Counties based on a default allocation formula. As set forth above in Section B.3, to determine the allocation to a county, this formula utilizes: (I)the amount of opioids shipped to the county; (2) the number of opioid deaths that occurred in that county; and (3)the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that county. To determine the allocation within a county,the formula utilizes historical federal data showing how the specific Counties and the Cities and Towns within the Counties have 4 made opioids epidemic-related expenditures in the past. This is the same methodology used in the National Settlement Agreements for county and intra-county allocations. A Participating County, and the Cities and Towns within it may enter into a separate intra-county allocation agreement to modify how the Opioid Funds are allocated amongst themselves,provided the modification is in writing and agreed to by all Participating Local Governments in the County. Such an agreement shall not modify any of the other terms or requirements of this MOU. b. 10% of the Opioid Funds received by the Region will be reserved, on an annual basis, for administrative costs related to the OAC. The OAC will provide an annual accounting for actual costs and any reserved funds that exceed actual costs will be reallocated to Participating Local Governments within the Region. c. Cities and towns with a population of less than 10,000 shall be excluded from the allocation, with the exception of cities and towns that are Litigating Participating Local Governments. The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a city or town with a population of less than 10,000 that is not a Litigating Participating Local Government shall be redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed in C.4.a above. d. Each Participating County, City, or Town may elect to have its share re-allocated to the OAC in which it is located. The OAC will then utilize this share for the benefit of Participating Local Governments within that Allocation Region, consistent with the Approved Purposes set forth in Exhibit A. A Participating Local Government's election to forego its allocation of Opioid Funds shall apply to all future allocations unless the Participating Local Government notifies its respective OAC otherwise. If a Participating Local Government elects to forego its allocation of the Opioid Funds,the Participating Local Government shall be excused from the reporting requirements set forth in this Agreement. e. Participating Local Governments that receive a direct payment maintain full discretion over the use and distribution of their allocation of Opioid Funds,provided the Opioid Funds are used solely for Approved Purposes. Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating Local Government to administer its allocation of Opioid Funds shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government's allocation of Opioid Funds, whichever is less. f. A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government will not receive a direct allocation of Opioid Funds. The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a Local Government that is not a Participating Local Government shall be 5 redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed in C.4.a above. g. As a condition of receiving a direct payment, each Participating Local Government that receives a direct payment agrees to undertake the following actions: i. Developing a methodology for obtaining proposals for use of Opioid Funds. ii. Ensuring there is opportunity for community-based input on priorities for Opioid Fund programs and services. iii. Receiving and reviewing proposals for use of Opioid Funds for Approved Purposes. iv. Approving or denying proposals for use of Opioid Funds for Approved Purposes. v. Receiving funds from the Trustee for approved proposals and distributing the Opioid Funds to the recipient. vi. Reporting to the OAC and making publicly available all decisions on Opioid Fund allocation applications, distributions and expenditures. h. Prior to any distribution of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region, The Participating Local Governments must establish an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee Opioid Fund allocation, distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution. The OAC may be a preexisting regional body or may be a new body created for purposes of executing the obligations of this MOU. i. The OAC for each Allocation Region shall be composed of representation from both Participating Counties and Participating Towns or Cities within the Region. The method of selecting members, and the terms for which they will serve will be determined by the Allocation Region's Participating Local Governments. All persons who serve on the OAC must have work or educational experience pertaining to one or more Approved Uses. j. The Regional OAC will be responsible for the following actions: i. Overseeing distribution of Opioid Funds from Participating Local Governments to programs and services within the Allocation Region for Approved Purposes. 6 ii. Annual review of expenditure reports from Participating Local Jurisdictions within the Allocation Region for compliance with Approved Purposes and the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. iii. In the case where Participating Local Governments chose to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds: (i) Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region. (ii) Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use by Participating Local Governments or community groups whose proposals are approved by the OAC. (iii) Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds. iv. Reporting and making publicly available all decisions on Opioid Fund allocation applications, distributions and expenditures by the OAC or directly by Participating Local Governments. v. Developing and maintaining a centralized public dashboard or other repository for the publication of expenditure data from any Participating Local Government that receives Opioid Funds, and for expenditures by the OAC in that Allocation Region, which it shall update at least annually. vi. If necessary, requiring and collecting additional outcome- related data from Participating Local Governments to evaluate the use of Opioid Funds, and all Participating Local Governments shall comply with such requirements. vii. Hearing complaints by Participating Local Governments within the Allocation Region regarding alleged failure to (1) use Opioid Funds for Approved Purposes or (2) comply with reporting requirements. 5. Participating Local Governments may agree and elect to share, pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of Opioid Funds in any manner they choose by adopting a Regional Agreement, so long as such sharing, pooling, or collaboration is used for Approved Purposes and complies with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. 7 6. Nothing in this MOU should alter or change any Participating Local Government's rights to pursue its own claim. Rather, the intent of this MOU is to join all parties who wish to be Participating Local Governments to agree upon an allocation formula for any Opioid Funds from any future binding Settlement with one or more Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants for all Local Governments in the State of Washington. 7. If any Participating Local Government disputes the amount it receives from its allocation of Opioid Funds, the Participating Local Government shall alert its respective OAC within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert its OAC within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the Participating Local Government's right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its allocation of Opioid Funds. 8. If any OAC concludes that a Participating Local Government's expenditure of its allocation of Opioid Funds did not comply with the Approved Purposes listed in Exhibit A, or the terms of this MOU, or that the Participating Local Government otherwise misused its allocation of Opioid Funds,the OAC may take remedial action against the alleged offending Participating Local Government. Such remedial action is left to the discretion of the OAC and may include withholding future Opioid Funds owed to the offending Participating Local Government or requiring the offending Participating Local Government to reimburse improperly expended Opioid Funds back to the OAC to be re-allocated to the remaining Participating Local Governments within that Region. 9. All Participating Local Governments and OAC shall maintain all records related to the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Funds for no less than five (5) years and shall make such records available for review by any other Participating Local Government or OAC, or the public. Records requested by the public shall be produced in accordance with Washington's Public Records Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq. Records requested by another Participating Local Government or an OAC shall be produced within twenty-one (21) days of the date the record request was received. This requirement does not supplant any Participating Local Government or OAC's obligations under Washington's Public Records Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq. D. Payment of Counsel and Litigation Expenses 1. The Litigating Local Governments have incurred attorneys' fees and litigation expenses relating to their prosecution of claims against the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants, and this prosecution has inured to the benefit of all Participating Local Governments. Accordingly, a Washington 8 Government Fee Fund ("OFF") shall be established that ensures that all Parties that receive Opioid Funds contribute to the payment of fees and expenses incurred. to prosecute the claims against the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants, regardless of whether they are litigating or non-litigating entities. 2. The amount of the OFF shall be based as follows: the funds to be deposited in the GFF shall be equal to 15% of the total cash value of the Opioid Funds. • 3. The maximum percentage of any contingency fee agreement permitted for compensation shall be 15% of the portion of the Opioid Funds allocated to the Litigating Local Government that is a party to the contingency fee agreement,plus expenses attributable to that Litigating Local Government. Under no circumstances may counsel collect more for its work on behalf of a Litigating Local Government than it would under its contingency agreement with that Litigating Local Government. 4. Payments from the GFF shall be overseen by a committee (the "Opioid Fee and Expense Committee") consisting of one representative of the following law firms: (a) Keller Rohrback L.LP.; (b) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; (c) Goldfarb &Huck Roth Riojas, PLLC; and (d)Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. The role of the Opioid Fee and Expense Committee shall be limited to ensuring that the GFF is administered in accordance with this Section, 5. In the event that settling Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants do not pay the fees and expenses of the Participating Local Governments directly at the time settlement is achieved, payments to counsel for Participating Local Governments shall be made from the-GFF over not more than three years, with 50%paid within 12 months of the date of Settlement and 25%paid in each subsequent year, or at the time the total Settlement amount is paid to the Trustee by the Defendants, whichever is sooner. 6. Any funds remaining in the OFF in excess of: (i)the amounts needed to cover Litigating Local Governments' private counsel's representation agreements, and (ii) the amounts needed to cover the common benefit tax discussed in Section C.8 below (if not paid directly by the Defendants in connection with future settlement(s), shall revert to the Participating Local Governments pro rata according to the percentages set forth in Exhibits B,to be used for Approved Purposes as set forth herein and in Exhibit A. 7. In the event that funds in the GFF are not sufficient to pay all fees and expenses owed under this Section, payments to counsel for all Litigating Local Governments shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. The Litigating Local Governments will not be responsible for any of these reduced amounts. 9 S. The Parties anticipate that any Opioid Funds they receive will be subject to a common benefit"tax" imposed by the court in In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP ("Common Benefit Tax"). If this occurs, the Participating Local Governments shall first seek to have the settling defendants pay the Common Benefit Tax. If the settling defendants do not agree to pay the Common Benefit Tax,then the Common Benefit Tax shall be paid from the Opioid Funds and by both litigating and non-litigating Local Governments. This payment shall occur prior to allocation and distribution of funds to the Participating Local Governments. In the event that GFF is not fully exhausted to pay the Litigating Local Governments' private counsel's representation agreements, excess funds in the GFF shall be applied to pay the Common Benefit Tax(if any). E. General Terms 1. If any Participating Local Government believes another Participating Local Government, not including the Regional Abatement Advisory Councils, violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Participating Local Government may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU in the court in which any applicable Settlement(s) was entered,provided the alleging Participating Local Government first provides the alleged offending Participating Local Government notice of the alleged violation(s) and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation(s). In such an enforcement action, any alleging Participating Local Government or alleged offending Participating Local Government may be represented by their respective public entity in accordance with Washington law. 2. Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to waive the right of any Participating Local Government to seek judicial relief for conduct occurring outside the scope of this MOU that violates any Washington law. In such an action, the alleged. offending Participating Local Government, including the Regional Abatement Advisory Councils, may be represented by their respective public entities in accordance with Washington law. In the event of a conflict, any Participating Local Government, including the Regional Abatement Advisory Councils and its Members, may seek outside representation to defend itself against such an action. 3. Venue for any legal action related to this MOU shall be in the court in which the Participating Local Government is located or in accordance with the court rules on venue in that jurisdiction. This provision is not intended to expand the court rules on venue. 4. This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Participating Local Governments approve the use of electronic signatures for execution of this MOU. All use of electronic signatures 10 shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-71.3- 101, et seq. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the MOU solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Participating Local Government agree not to object to the admissibility of the MOU in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the grounds that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original. 5. Each Participating Local Government represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Participating Local Government's execution of this MOU have been performed and that the person signing for such Party has been authorized to execute the MOU. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank--Signature Pages Follow] • 11 This One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities is signed this day of , 2022 by: Name & Title On behalf of 12 E HIB T A OPIOID ABATEMENT STRATEGIES PART ONE: TREATMENT A. TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD) Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use Disorder or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including all forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2. Support and reimburse services that include the full American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) continuum of care for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including but not limited to: a. Medication-Assisted Treatment(MAT); b. Abstinence-based treatment; c. Treatment, recovery, or other services provided by states, subdivisions, community health centers; non-for-profit providers; or for-profit providers; d. Treatment by providers that focus on OUD treatment as well as treatment by providers that offer OLD treatment along with treatment for other SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction; or e. Evidence-informed residential services programs, as noted below. 3. Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including MAT, as well as counseling,psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support services. 4. Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to assure evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising practices such as adequate methadone dosing. 5. Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by qualified professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for persons with OLD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction and for persons who have experienced an opioid overdose. 6. Support treatment of mental health trauma resulting from the traumatic experiences of the opioid user(e.g., violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood experiences) and family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose 1 or overdose fatality), and training of health care personnel to identify and address such trauma, 7. Support detoxification (detox) and withdrawal management services for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including medical detox, referral to treatment, or connections to other services or supports. 8. Support training on MAT for health care providers, students, or other supporting professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery outreach specialists, including telementoring to assist community-based providers in rural or underserved areas. 9. Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 10. Provide fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care, instructors, and clinical research for treatments. 11. Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) to prescribe MAT for OUD, and provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who have obtained a DATA 2000 waiver. 12. Support the dissemination of web-based training curricula, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry's Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids web- based training curriculum and motivational interviewing. 13. Support the development and dissemination of new curricula, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry's Provider Clinical Support Service for Medication-Assisted Treatment. B. SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY Support people in treatment for and recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/NEZ conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Provide the full continuum of care of recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing, residential treatment, medical detox services, peer support services and counseling, community navigators, case management, and connections to community-based services. 2. Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 2 3. Provide access to housing for people with ODD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing, recovery housing, housing assistance programs, or training for housing providers. 4. Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist in deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co- usage, and/or co-addiction. 5. Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups, social events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. b. Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for or recovery from ODD and any co-occurring SLID/M[i conditions, co-usage, and/or co- addiction. 7. Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college recovery programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery. 8. Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to support people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their efforts to manage the opioid user in the family. 9. Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to appropriately interact and provide social and other services to current and recovering opioid users, including reducing stigma. 10. Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment. C. CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED (CONNECTIONS TO CARE) Provide connections to care for people who have — or are at risk of developing — OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence- based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: I. Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for OUD treatment. 2. Support Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)programs to reduce the transition from use to disorders. 3. Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health, schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and young adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common. 3 . 4. Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the technology. 5. Support training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients on post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery case management or support services. 6. Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or persons who have experienced an opioid overdose, into community treatment or recovery services through a bridge clinic or similar approach. 7. Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital emergency departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co- usage, and/or co-addiction or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose. 8. Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support specialists, to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services following an opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event. 9. Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar settings; offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have experienced an opioid overdose. 10. Provide funding for peer navigators, recovery coaches, care coordinators, or care managers that offer assistance to persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have experienced on opioid overdose. 11. Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people. 12. Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace. 13. Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD. 14. Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for treatment. 15. Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 16. Create or support intake and call centers to facilitate education and access to treatment, prevention, and recovery services for persons with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 4 17. Develop or support a National Treatment Availability Clearinghouse — a multistate/nationally accessible database whereby health care providers can list locations for currently available in-patient and out-patient OUD treatment services that are accessible on a real-time basis by persons who seek treatment. D. ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/_MH conditions, co- usage, and/or co-addiction who are involved — or are at risk of becoming involved — in the criminal justice system through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Support pre-arrest or post-arrest diversion and deflection strategies for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MII conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including established strategies such as: a. Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted Addiction Recovery Initiative(PAARI); • b. Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team (DART) model; c. "Naloxone Plus" strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who have received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then linked to treatment programs or other appropriate services; d. Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) model; e. Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult Civil Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to Treatment Initiative; f. Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related 911 calls with greater SUD expertise and to reduce perceived barriers associated with law enforcement 911 responses; or g. County prosecution diversion programs, including diversion officer salary, only for counties with a population of 50,000 or less. Any diversion services in matters involving opioids must include drug testing, monitoring, or treatment. 2. Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, and related services. 3. Support treatment and recovery courts for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, but only if these courts provide referrals to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT. 5 4. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are incarcerated in jail or prison. 5. Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are leaving jail or prison have recently left jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities. 6. Support critical time interventions (CTI), particularly for individuals Iiving with dual- diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional settings. 7. Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal-justice- involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction to law enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to providers of treatment, recovery, case management, or other services offered in connection with any of the strategies described in this section. E. .ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT OR PARENTING WOMEN AM) THEIR FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL ABSTINENCE SYNDROME Address the needs of pregnant or parenting women with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and the needs of their families, including babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome, through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1, Support evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising treatment, including MAT, recovery services and supports, and prevention services for pregnant women — or women who could become pregnant--who have OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and other measures to educate and provide support to families affected by Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. 2. Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel that work with pregnant women and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 3. Provide training to health care providers who work with pregnant or parenting women on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that children born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan of safe care. 4. Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health treatment for adverse childhood events. 6 5. Offer enhanced family supports and home-based wrap-around services to persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including but not limited to parent skills training. 6. Support for Children's Services — Fund additional positions and services, including supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children being removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid use. PART TWO: PREVENTION F. PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing of opioids through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to,the following: 1. Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids. 2. Academic counter-detailing to educate prescribers on appropriate opioid prescribing. 3. Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids. 4. Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training providers to offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain. 5. Support enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), including but not limited to improvements that: a. Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs; b. Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality, or format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs or by improving the interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or c. Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention strategies, including MAT referrals and follow-up for individuals identified within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD. 6. Development and implementation of a national PDMP — Fund development of a multistate/national PDMP that permits information sharing while providing appropriate safeguards on sharing of private health information, including but not limited to: a. Integration of PDMP data with electronic health records, overdose episodes, and decision support tools for health care providers relating to OUD. 7 b. Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data, including the United States Department of Transportation's Emergency Medical Technician overdose database. 7. Increase electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery. 8. Educate Dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing. G. PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based, evidence- informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on evidence. 2. Public education relating to drug disposal. 3. Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs. 4. Fund community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts. 5. Support community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention, such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction — including staffing, educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or training of coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the Strategic Prevention Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 6. Engage non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support prevention. 7. Support evidence-informed school and community education programs and campaigns for students, families, school employees, school athletic programs, parent- teacher and student associations, and others. 8. School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in preventing the uptake and use of opioids. 9. Support community-based education or intervention services for families, youth, and adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 10. Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs of young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including emotional modulation and resilience skills. 11. Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people, including services and supports provided by school nurses or other school staff, to 8 address mental health needs in young people that (when not properly addressed) increase the risk of opioid or other drug misuse. H. PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Increase availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, opioid users, families and friends of opioid users, schools, community navigators and outreach workers, drug offenders upon release from jail/prison, or other members of the general public. 2. Provision by public health entities of free naloxone to anyone in the community, including but not limited to provision of intra-nasal naloxone in settings where other options are not available or allowed. 3. Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking, opioids, families, schools, and other members of the general public. 4. Enable school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and provide them with naloxone, training, and support. 5. Expand, improve, or develop data tracking software and applications for overdoses/naloxone revivals. 6. Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses. 7. Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws. 8. Educate first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and Good Samaritan laws. 9. Expand access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use. 10. Support mobile units that offer or provide referrals to treatment, recovery supports, health care, or other appropriate services to persons that use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 11. Provide training in treatment and recovery strategies to health care providers, students, peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals that provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction. 12. Support screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing. 9 PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES I. FIRST RESPONDERS In addition to items C8, D1 through D7, Hi, H3, and H8, support the following: I. Current and future law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic. 2. Educate law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs. J. LEADERSHIP,PLANNING AND COORDINATION Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, and coordination to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Community regional planning to identify goals for reducing harms related to the opioid epidemic, to identify areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment intervention services, or to support other strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list. 2. A government dashboard to track key opioid-related indicators and supports as identified through collaborative community processes. 3. Invest in infrastructure or staffmg at government or not-for-profit agencies to support collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, supporting them in treatment or recovery, connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list. 4. Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid abatement programs. K. TRAINING In addition to the training referred to in various items above, support training to abate the opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve the capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the opioid crisis. 2. Invest in infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross system coordination to prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co- occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or implement other 10 ..strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list (e.g., health care,primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.). L. RESEARCH Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Monitoring, surveillance, and evaluation of programs and strategies described in this opioid abatement strategy list. 2. Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain. 3. Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to opioid use disorders. 4. Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids. 5. Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid misuse within criminal justice populations that build upon promising approaches used to address other substances (e.g. Hawaii HOPE and Dakota 24/7). 6. Research on expanded modalities such as prescription methadone that can expand access to MAT. 11 EXHIBIT B Local County Government %Allocation • Adams County Adams County 0,1638732475% Hatton Lind �--r......... ___._�__�...... .__ Othello Ritzville Washtucna County Total: 0.1638732475% Asotin County Asotin County 0.4694498386% Asotin Clarkston County Total: 0.4694498386% Benton County Benton County 1.4848831892% Benton City Kennewick 0.5415650564% Prosser Richland 0.4756779517% West Richland 0.0459360490% County Total: 2.5480622463% Chelan County Chelan County 0.7434914485% Cashmere Chelan Entiat ntia. m_m. Leavenworth Wenatchee 0.2968333494% County Total: 1.0403247979% Clallam County Clallam County 1.3076983401% Forks Port Angeles 0.4598370527% Sequim County Total: 1.7675353928% ** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-1 EXHIBIT B Local County k Government % Allocation Clark County Clark County 4.5149775326% Battle Ground 0.1384729857% Camas 0.2691592724% La Center Ridgefield Vancouver 1.7306605325% Washougal 0.1279328220% Woodland*** _._. Yacolt County Total: 6.7812031452% Columbia County Columbia County 0.0561699537% Dayton Starbuck County Total: 0.0561699537% Cowlitz County Cowlitz County 1.7226945990% Castle Rock �� .• u . Kalama Kelso 0.1331145270% Longview 0.6162736905% Woodland*** w.,_.._._,_...�.._,.�.�.. County Total: 2.4720828165% Douglas County Douglas County 0.3932175175% wW.... Bridgeport Coulee Dam*** East Wenatchee 0.0799810865% Mansfield Rock Island �.�...,-.��...��... ��• County Total: 0.4731986040% Ferry County Ferry County 0.1153487994% Republic County Total: 0.1153487994% *'* - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-2 ' EXHIBIT B Locai � � 'Government ' FrankUnCountv Franklin County 0.3361237144% _--_-_�_______�_-�� Conne||__ Kah|otuu Mesa Pasco 0.427805606696 - County Total: 0.763829321096 _-_ Garfield County Garfield County O.U321982%U896 -- -------------- --'-----' Ponneroy County Total: O.O3210822O9�� -_ GrmntCoonty GrantCounty 0.9932572167Y6 ----'------ '- -------- CpuleeCity [ou|emDam*** '--' ------- --- ---' BeutricCity Ephrata Geurge____-.. ----'-~---'----- Grand Cuu|ee Hart|ine Krupp__ K8attevva Moses Lake 0.207839390896 '----- CUin«y ---------------'-...... -------- Royal City .Soap e _--_-_______~_-�~_' - Warden ' -- VVi|non [reek -- CountyTota|- 1.2OlO8GGO76% - *** ' Local Government appears |n multiple counties &'3 . EXHIBIT B Local County Government %Allocation Grays Harbor County Grays Harbor County 0.9992429138% Aberdeen 0.2491525333% Cosmopolis Elma Hoquiam �—.�.._._.....�_ . McCleary Montesano _ y Oakville Ocean Shores Westport�—., ....__.e.._.__..._._r. County Total: 1.2483954471% Island County Island County 0.6820422610% Coupewille Langley Oak Harbor 0.2511550431% County Total: 0.9331973041% Jefferson County Jefferson County 0.4417137380% Port Townsend County Total: 0.4417137380% *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-4 EXHIBIT B Local County Government_ %.A{location King County King County 13.9743722662% Algona Auburn*** 0.2622774917% Beaux Arts Village Bellevue 1.1300592573% Black Diamond Bothell*** 0.1821602716% Burien 0.0270962921% Carnation Clyde Hill Covington 0.0118134406% Des Moines 0.1179764526% Duvall _....�..�,..��_,.., Enumclaw***. . - 0.0537768326% Federal Way 0.3061452240% Hunts Point Issaquah 0.1876240107% Kenmore 0.0204441024% Kent 0.5377397676% Kirkland 0.5453525246% Lake Forest Park 0.0525439124% Maple Valley 0.0093761587% Medina Mercer Island 0.1751797481% Milton*** Newcastle 0.0033117880% Normandy Park North Bend Pacific*** Redmond ,�W..,._...._..._ -- --.... Redmond 0.4839486007% Renton 0.7652626920% Sammamish 0.0224369090% SeaTac 0.1481551278% Seattle 6.6032403816% Shoreline 0.0435834501% Skykomish� _ Snoqualmie _ 0.0649164481% Tukwila 0.3032205739% Woodinville 0.0185516364% Yarrow Pointe.... County Total: 26.0505653608% *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-5 EXHIBIT B Local County Government %Allocation Kitsap County Kits apCounty 2.6294133668% Bainbridge Island 0.1364686014% Bremerton 0.6193374389% Port Orchard 0.1009497162% Poulsbo 0.0773748246% County Total: 3,5635439479% Kittitas County Kittitas County 0.3855704683% CleElum ._...._...._...._...,�._.�_�__._�.._...,..,�... Ellensburg 0.0955824915% Kittitas Roslyn South Cle County Total: 0.4811529598% Klickitat County Klickitat County 0.2211673457% Bingen ..............�_. �.�....w.�..,�..�. Goldendale White Salmon County Total: 0.2211673457% Lewis County Lewis County 1.0777377479% Centralia 0.1909990353% Chehalis Morton M ossyrock ,Napavine Pe Eli Toledo Vader . Winlocl< County Total: 1.2687367832% • *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-6 ' EXHIBIT �. ��'�� . . g��| ' on - ~ . ^^. ' . - ' - UncmnCountV Lincoln County O.171266964S9& ' --------- --A[ Creston Creston Doxon V rt / r HarhnAton Odessa Reardon Sprague Wilbur County Total: 0.171280964S% K8aamn Cmuntv Mason County 0J8089918012% __ 8he|ton 0.12391798889& Cmunt�Tote|: � O.9329OB7900� �� Okanogan Countv Okanogan C O.G145O4384S�� -----' ' ----- - Brewmter________ ConcvnuU . . *** ' Coulee Dann Elmer City No | m .mx�]�yo - ------ --' O1�ano n nn�an_-_- Ome� __-. �roviUe Pateros R1�er ida _ Tonaskot Twis Winthrop County Total: O 8l4 O4334596 Pacific CountV Pacific County 0.489S41646GY6 � _ � _||vvaco____________ Long B h r��a�n�o __- Ra nd South Bend County Total: O.489S41G466Y6 ' - _- *** Local Government appears in multiple counties U-7 EXHIBIT B Local County Government % Allocation Pend Oreille County Pend Oreille County 0.2566374940% Cusick _ . lone Metaline Metaline Falls Newport �� ...... County Total: 0.2566374940% Pierce County Pierce County 7.2310164020% Auburn*** 0.0628522112% Bonney Lake 0.1190773864% Buckley Carbonado DuPont Eatonville ._....a..... ..�.,.�..._..__�....._ Edgewood 0.0048016791% Enumclaw*** 0.0000000000% Fife 0.1955185481% Fircrest__ r�.. Gig Harbor _® 0.0859963345% Lakewood 0.5253640894% Milton*** _w Orting .. �...me.... Pacific*** Puyallup 0.3 845 7048 14% Roy Ruston _ _.. ...�._�.. South Prairie Steilacoom Sumner 0.1083157569% Tacoma 3.2816374617% University Place 0.0353733363% Wilkeson County Total: 12.0345236870% San Juan County San Juan County 0.2101495171% Friday Harbor County Total: 0.2101495171% _** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-8 • EXHIBIT B County Government %Allocation Skagit County Skagit County 1.0526023961% Anacortes 0.1774962906% Burlington 0.1146861661% Concrete Hamilton La Conner � Lyman Mount Vernon 0.2801063665% Sedro-Woolley 0.0661146351% County Total: 1.6910058544% Skamania County Skamania County 0.1631931925% North Bonneville Stevenson �...�-..._ .__-._�..... County Total: 0.1631931925% Snohomish County Snohomish County 6.9054415622% Arlington 0.2620524080% Bothell*** 0.2654558588% Brier ---, �-^- darrington Edmonds 0.3058936009% Everett - 1.9258363241% Gold Bar Granite Falis�. - ...,,..._...�..._LIndex ake Stevens Stevens 0.1385202891% Lynnwood 0.7704629214% Marysville 0.3945067827% Mill Creek 0.1227939546% Monroe 0.1771621898% Mountlake Terrace 0.2108935805% Mukilteo 0.2561790702% Snohomish 0.0861097964% Stanwood Sultan - -._...�....�...._...---Woodway -.�_..�.,...w,_.�...� ,�..�.,..� County Total: 11.8213083387% *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-9 EXHIBIT B r ' � Local CbUhty' Government z��A|iomotio` ' Spokane County Spokane County 55623859292% AiIrvvoyHeights __ Chaney 0.1238454349y6 DeerParh -_ Fairfield _ Letah Liberty Lake U.U3D963651y�� K4ediva| Loke -- ' - --------------` -----` ��U|vvood Rockford Spangle __. � S ko SOO72O7Q% 96�oxs u�e- ' 87 ___' Spokane Valley 0.U6A421750O% VVmmdy CmuntyTotm|� 8.88U824S847�� -------'-- -- - -------`------ StemynsCounty Stevens U7479240179�� y_ �--_'__- Chevve|oh ___'__ Cn|v]Ue Kettle Falls '-----'' ------------'------ — xxuruuy Northport Springdale County Tot | 0./47924017896 Thurston County Tnu/��o�h t County 2.��--32S8492O8496 -- / x��y 8ucoda LaceY 02348627221Y6. / Olympia ' | 0�6U3942338S96_ Rainier �� Ten|no Tumvxetor 0.2065982350Y6 ----'----- ' --------'---------- Ye|m County Totm|: 3.37125I505096 -------------~-- ---' VVahkiuhunmCounty Wahkiakum County 0.OS9G5O2197Y6 '-------------------'--------- - Cath|amet Count Tut |' U. --US96S8219796 nol�u»r� __-_-__.__ *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties 8-10 EXHIBIT B Local County Government i %Allocation Walla Walla County Walla Walla County 0.5543870294% College Place Prescott Waitsburg .�.d�.....,.._...._.._........ Walla Walla 0.3140768654% County Total: 0.8684638948% Whatcom County Whatcom County 1.3452637306% Bellingham 0.8978614577% Blaine Everson. �_..,.. ..._._.�._ ..�... .�, Ferndale .vr 0.0646101891% Lynden - 0.0827115612% Noolcsacl< Sumas County Total: 2.3904469386% Whitman County Whitman County 0.2626805837% Albion Colfax Colton..�.�.,.__�. .� .. Endicott Farmington Garfield LaCrosse Lamont Malden ...._.__...._.,.,_�w_.......... Oakesdale Palouse Pullman 0.2214837491% Rosa(ia _...._..�..�.e..�,..r�.�,._. St.John �.._...._.._....,�.r...,..._._....,W.__�_._.�....,...�..... Tekoa lJniontown��.. County Total: 0.4841643328% *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-11 EXHIBIT B Loc-al .. County Government %Allocation Yakima County Yakima County 1.9388392959% Grandview -- s � 0.0530606109% Granger Harrah Mabton Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside mm 0.1213478384% Tieton Toppenish �.—....—.------ Union Gap Wapato Yakima 0.6060410539% ZillahT.._.......Y...- _.____.�.._.�.____. County Total: 2.7192887991% *** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-12 DRAFT Revised Item#5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, COUNTY OF SPOKANE,STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.22-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PROHIBITING THE DISPLAY OF THIRD-PARTY PUBLICATIONS IN THE LOBBIES AND FOYERS OF CITY HALL AND THE POLICE PRECINCT; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, the City Council has the authority to regulate the use of City-owned property,which includes City Hall, CenterPlace, and the Police Precinct; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley may regulate certain First Amendment activities on nonpublic forums so long as the regulation is reasonable given the identified use of the facility, is viewpoint neutral, and is uniformly applied; and WHEREAS, over time, third-party publications have appeared without invitation by the City in the lobbies of several City buildings, such as City Hall, CenterPlace, and the Police Precinct;and WHEREAS, the primary purpose for the lobbies of these City-owned properties is to provide an area where City staff can assist the public in the course of conducting City business; and WHEREAS, these third-party publication materials do not comport with the intended purpose of the lobbies and foyers of the public buildings,create clutter,are inconsistent with the Council's long-standing stance on use of public facilities for campaign purposes, and may constitute a violation of RCW 42.17A.555; and WHEREAS,the Council seeks to restore the lobbies of City Hall and the Police Precinct to their original purpose; and WHEREAS, CenterPlace is a multi-use facility that is not conducive to these prohibitions, and has traditionally been used by various user groups in a way that would benefit from the continued access to third- party publications. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,as follows: Section 1. Prohibition Regarding Display/Distribution of Third-Party Publication Materials in the Lobbies and Foyers of City Hall and the Police Precinct. The City of Spokane Valley prohibits the display and or distribution of third-party publications in the lobbies and foyers of City Hall and the Police Precinct,including but not limited to,circulars,pamphlets,newspapers,and brochures. Staff shall immediately dispose of any third- party materials found in the lobbies and foyers of City Hall and the Police Precinct. This prohibition does not apply to publications created by the City, or from entities having a contractual relationship with the City or the distribution of their publications. Any determination of whether a particular item or items were placed by a third-party, by City staff, or were placed pursuant to a contractual relationship with the City shall be made by the City Manager. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective upon adoption. Adopted this 26th day of April,2022. A l-I EST: City of Spokane Valley Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Pam Haley,Mayor Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 22-006—Prohibition of Third-Party Publications in Lobbies of City-owned Buildings r - L)/)M . ;- RANDALL DANSKIN ATTORNEYS Douglas J. Siddoway djs@randalldanskin.corn April 22, 2022 VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL Cary Driskell City Attorney Spokane Valley City Hall 10201 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Inland Publications, Inc./General Business Our File No. 40190 Dear Mr. Driskell: We write on behalf of our client, Inland Publications, Inc., the owner and publisher of the Pacific Northwest Inlander. It concerns the City of Spokane Valley's proposed ban of third-party publications (defined as free, as opposed to subscribed newspapers) from city properties. Our client distributes the Pacific Northwest Inlander to many locations throughout the region, including the CenterPlace Regional Event Center. It will be adversely affected if the proposed ban becomes law. We do not write solely to apprise you of these potential economic harms, however. Our primary purpose is more fundamental—to remind you that the proposed ban is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution. With narrow exception, both prohibit government from imposing any system of prior restraint in any area of expression within the boundaries of the First Amendment. This is clear from even a cursory reading of the cases interpreting these fundamental constitutional provisions. See, for example, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 52 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S. Ct. 631, 9 L. Ed. 584 (1963); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419-20, 92 S. Ct. 1575, 29 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1971); and their progeny. See also Voters Ethic. Comm. v. Public Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wn.2d 470, 493-94, 166 P.3d 1174 (2007) (quoting (O'Day v. King County, 109 Wn.2d 796, 804, 749 P.2d 142 (1988)), which holds that Article I, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution "categorically rules out prior restraints on constitutionally protected speech under any circumstances." A Professional Service Corporation 1500 BANK OF AMERICA FINANCIAL CENTER 1601 WEST RIVERSIDE AVENUE I SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99201 P:509 747-2052 I F:509 624-2528 I randalldanskin.com Cary Driskell April 22,2022 Page 2 The justifications for the ban that have been attributed to you and members of the Spokane Valley city council in the press are not permitted exceptions to these protections. Spokane Valley City Hall and the CenterPlace Regional Event Center are obviously traditional public venues, both by definition and by function. Declaring them off limits to free newspapers like the Pacific Northwest Inlander not only unconstitutionally restrains our client's freedom of expression, it deprives those who patronize these venues from information that is vital to an informed democracy. Equally suspect is the contention that such a ban is needed to shield the city from violating local election laws like RCW 42.17A.555, which is cited in the city's proposed enabling resolution. Election laws generally prohibit active campaigning in or near polling places, not the dissemination of candidate and election information through newspapers and other recognized media outlets. This is evident from a clear reading of RCW 42.17A.555; it prohibits elected officials and their employees from directly or indirectly using the facilities of a public office or agency for campaign purposes, not the press. Not to put too fine a point on it, but all newspapers contain political ads of one form or another in the run-up to local elections. Selectively banning free newspapers like the Pacific Northwest Inlander from city property without also banning paid newspapers (or, for that matter, people who carry a newspaper or access campaign information on their computers and smartphones while on city property) further insults the First Amendment. Our client works very hard to gather facts and report accurate and complete information, often political, to its readers, many of whom pick up their copies of the Pacific Northwest Inlander at the CenterPlace Regional Event Center. Depriving these readers of access to the newspaper would be a mistake. We understand the city council will consider and vote on the ban proposal as early as this week. We ask that this letter be distributed to the mayor and members of the city council in advance of the meeting, and that it be inserted into the official record of the meeting. Please feel free to call the undersigned directly if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RANDALL I DANSKIN, P.S. I?)451-s51-(2"1--121-1- Douglas Siddoway cc: Ted McGregor(via electronic mail) 40190/Inland Publications.lnc./Driskell Letter(04.22.22) April 25, 2022 Resolution 22-006,third-party publications in public areas of City buildings. Dear Mayor Haley, and City Council members, Valleyfest Board of Directors have read the proposed resolution that is on the Agenda for April 26, 2022 that would prohibit the placement of publications or pamphlets at City owned properties. In the resolution, it was stated that "This prohibition does not apply to publications created by the City, or from entities having a contractual relationship with the City such as the Spokane Valley Senior Association and the Spokane Valley Arts Council,which have contracted for long-term use of portions of CenterPlace. Any determination of whether a particular item or items were placed by a third-party or by City staff shall be made by the City Manager." Valleyfest seeks clarification on this section since we do have an operating contract with the City of Spokane Valley. As the signature community event that is free and open to the public in the Spokane Valley, our messaging and schedule for nineteen years has been available at City Hall and CenterPlace Regional Event Center and throughout the SCOPE stations. In our print messages,Valleyfest has used the following methods to promote the Cycle Celebration, Fund Raising events, Miss Spokane Valley Pageant, Valleyfest, MultiSport Sunday, Car Show, and other specialized events at Valleyfest. Those print messages are in the Current and Liberty Lake Splash, Inlander, Fig Tree, Journal of Business, Spokesman Review, Exchange, and other publications such as the Inland Northwest Car Club Council, Race Rag, Out There Outdoors and more.At CenterPlace these programs, pamphlets, rack cards are placed in wall mounted rack card holders or in containers provided by Valleyfest or our contracted vendors. As we begin to restart and revive our Valleyfest events in the City of Spokane Valley to promote the amenities which are public trusts like CenterPlace, Mirabeau Point Park, Centennial Trail, Plantes Ferry Park, and City Hall our messaging will need to be displayed throughout our community. CenterPlace Regional Event acts as out community center with the events that are scheduled throughout the year and the cross promotions with events. For instance,Valleyfest has a booth at the Farmers Market with brochures and printed materials as does our print partners the Fig Tree and the Current. Our marketing/messaging plan relies on several methods to inform our attendees and citizens of the activities and locations.Valleyfest works with many community businesses and publications to provide the information as to schedule, registration, inclusivity and the branding messages that fulfill the contracts that Valleyfest has with the City of Spokane Valley.Those contracts are for economic development and encouraging visitors to our city. In order to deliver our information within our budgeted amount Valleyfest offers media sponsorship packages which places the print publications on the City of Spokane Valley property. For instance, the Inlander, a weekly print publication promoting the arts and culture for the region, assists with branding both in print and digital.The Inlander sponsor agreement includes banners on Mirabeau Point park property, their red distribution boxes near the Falls and in the Mirabeau Point Park, and one entry in the Valleyfest Parade.This proposed ordinance will affect the media sponsorships and goodwill of the business community. Many of our Valleyfest sponsors advertise with the Current, Inlander, Exchange because of cause related marketing. Cause related marketing is when the business aligns with our brand to support their business and our community members/citizens. In the language of the proposed ordinance, it is our understanding that our booth sales to the Fig Tree, Inlander, Current, Spokesman Review and others would not be in alignment with this proposal. There are arrangements for those businesses to have booths at our event and distribute publications and information as with any other business such as a credit union. Again, Valleyfest has business transactions and media sponsorships that could be affected by this proposal. In the many years prior to the two-year shut down, it was rare to have publication explosion or unkept areas.Those delivery drivers are instructed to pick up outdated materials, and return them for counts, place the 50 in the rack and leave.The racks are provided by those print businesses or agencies like ourselves. However, in reading this resolution, another concern was to the content of the publications. As an advertiser, placing an ad in a publication,you look at the audience reach and demographics, however, an advertiser does not approve the other ads being placed. I respectfully request that this is clarified before you vote on this proposal. Valleyfest Board reading this proposed agenda resolution is concerned about the impact it will have on our budget, and attendees and our community.Again, with respect please review the impact it will have on your community that you represent. Sincerely, Peggy Doering Executive Director Valleyfest Chris Bainbridge From: Peggy Doering <peggy@valleyfest.org> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:46 PM To: Pamela Haley; Laura Padden; Arne Woodard; Tim Hattenburg; Ben Wick; Rod Higgins; Chris Bainbridge;John Hohman; Cary Driskell; Brandi Peetz Subject: Valleyfest comments for April 26 City Council meeting Attachments: City Council Resolution 22.docx [EXTERNAL) This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley.Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Good afternoon, City Council members and City staff, I have read through the proposed ordinance, Resolution 22-006, third-party publications in public areas of City buildings, that you are voting on tomorrow night. In my comments, I am asking for clarification and explaining to you how this ordinance will affect our organization. After you read this note, I hope you understand how much marketing Valleyfest does for the City of Spokane Valley through these publications. I am urging you to reconsider passing this ordinance. Thank you, Peggy Peggy Doering Executive Director Office Phone: 509-922-3299 Cell Phone: 509 230-6829 41.06, 1111 ! H A ‘i_le fester a /99-A1364 —L7 7 Erik Lamb From: wordoffaith13@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 1:32 PM To: Erik Lamb Subject: ARPA Funding Proposal Attachments: Adobe Scan Apr 25, 2022.pdf [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley.Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. April 25,2022 To: Eric Lamb Deputy City Manager City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave Spokane Valley,WA 99206 From: Word of Faith Christian Center Executive Board of Directors Re: ARPA Proposal for$2,000,000 Eric, Our Executive Board of Directors has formed a Real Estate Advisory Board to assist us with this Proposal. Our Real Estate Advisory Board consist of Thomas Parrish President of The Parrish Real Estate Group. He is a Broker Specializing in Representation as a Buyers Agent,Listing Agent,Relocations,Foreclosures and Landlord/Tenant Issues. JC Moore is a Designated Broker of Moore Exclusive Realty with over 20 years of Local and Professional Experience. JC also holds a CPA License. Jennifer Swisher of Kelly Right Real Estate who is also a Property Manager. Her Specialties are Representation as a Buyers Agent,Listing Agent,Consulting,Property Management and Landlord/Tenant Issues. Latrice Williams of the Realty One Group is a Broker who was born and raised in Spokane. Her Specialties are Representation for: First Time Home Buyers,Serving the BIPOC and LGBTQ Communities and above all her Top Specialty is Real Estate Negotiating. Finally, I Pastor Otis Manning have experience from owning,operating,buying and selling 23 Properties which includes Real Estate in Southern California and Spokane. SPOKANE VALLEY's EXTRAORDINARY HOUSING CRISIS Spokane Valley is experiencing a Extraordinary Housing Crisis which has developed because of: 1)The 2008 Financial Recession which caused all building of new homes to come to a halt. 2)This created a Shortage of New Homes. 3)COVID influenced many Corporations to allow their employees to work from home and relocate anywhere in the United States and still maintain their employment. Which created more Real Estate Buying Competition in Spokane Valley from Out Of Town Buyers. 4)With very limited Housing Inventory and a surplus of Buyers the Supply and Demand Metrics have created High Real Estate Prices. 5)This has created BIDDING WARS where it is common for buyers to bid on homes with 20 other offers bidding 10% over the asking price! SOLUTION Our Proposal is to request$2,000,000 in ARPA funds to offer low income and middle income people DOWN PAYMENT RELIEF in the Hardest Hit Communities by COVID. t THE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE would be targeted to those that qualify for FHA Mortgages and only require a Down Payment of 3.5% of the Purchase Price. With the Average Home Prices in Spokane Valley at$400,000 this would come to a Down Payment of$14,000 per buyer. Targeting FHA buyers will help us to spread out the ARPA Funds to help as many Families as possible. With $2,000,000 in ARPA Funding this will enable us to help over 100 Families go from Rental Housing to Home Ownership! With the Bidding Wars Buyers will need another$40,000 to bid 10% above the asking price in some cases. Attached is a email from Jennifer Swisher one of our Real Estate Advisory Board Members. In this email it will give you insight to what a typical buyer is challenged with to buy a house. This is another indication why we see this has risen from a Housing Crisis to a Extraordinary Housing Crisis! Your consideration for funding this Proposal is greatly appreciated! Sincerely, Pastor Otis Manning Word of Faith Christian Center 509-499-6730 2 Real Estate Advisor' Board https://mail.aol.cony/webmail-std/en-us/f'rintMessage From:wordoffaithl3@aol.com, To: wordoffaithl3@aoicoin, Subject: Real Estate Advisory Board Date: Mon,Apr 25,2022 1:19 pm Hi Otis, sorry for delay, I was working out of the area and got behind!!! For one example currently, l have a client that i have been trying to help buy a home for months. She does work full time and a couple years ago would have easily qualified to buy a nice starter home on her own. Due to our escalated prices her Dad has now stepped up to assist her so that she has a chance to make an offer that might be accepted. This weekend we found a home she really liked that was listed at$275,000.00 3bedroorn I bath._..It has a few improvements, a newer furnace and water heater, it seems to be in good condition, but has not been updated in some time. We put in an offer up to $350,000.00 And that probably won't be enough. There were a total of 16 offers on this home. We will not know until this evening what the outcome will be, but I am not optimistic. This is the scenario everywhere and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. With one of my clients last year, she kept count...I showed her over 100 homes, and wrote at least 20 offers that weren't accepted. The home that she did eventually win and currently lives in, she offered $50,000 over asking price and waived her inspection. Most of these bidding wars end with an accepted cash offer/and or/no inspection. The possibility of builders/developers building homes priced for starter buyers is non-existent. So in my opinion the only thing to slow this down is a consistent rise in interest rates, and a large percentage of the population moving out of the area to free up some occupied homes. There are simply not enough homes to support the amount of buyers, so the prices are still rising. This is not good for our area, we are basically sentencing young people or people on a fixed/or moderate income to be renters for life, or move to another area in order to have their own home. In my opinion this will eventually weaken our economy and public safety. People without hope often make bad choices. I appreciate your time, God Bless you Jennifer Swisher SIGN--IN SHEET n SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 26, 2022 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY Citizens may only speak at one or the other, but not both General Public Comment Opportunities. THIS IS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY I - THIS OCCURS EARLY IN THE AGENDA. SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK AT EITHER GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 1 OR 2 - BUT NOT BOTH. YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES You may sign in to speak but it is not necessary, as the Mayor will afford the public the opportunity to speak. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU YOUR. CITY OF RESIDENCE LEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT CArtil GcLikL jolt) byv$4,?1,060044ste polgirk-W .00( \SI/ Viti4 Rif/1e,, e‘e5,44/5 5,0,3,6/~ Pzage„ xa.pri /lam NieWr- �� , pollNopie /i1/ Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.