Loading...
2025, 02-18 Formal B Meeting PacketAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL B FORMAT Tuesday, February 18, 2025 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOMMeeting and In Person at Spokane Valley City Hall, Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: Members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in -person at the address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in -person or via Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as "public comment opportunity If making a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling -In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • Join the Zoom WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA SPECIAL GUESTS/PRESENTATIONS: PROCLAMATIONS: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. If a person engages in disruptive behavior or makes individual personal attacks regarding matters unrelated to City business, then the Council and/or Mayor may end that person's public comment time before the three -minute mark. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required. A sign -in sheet will be provided at the meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Street and Stormwater Maintenance & Repair Services Contract — Adam Jackson [public comment opportunity] 2. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Services Contract Award— Adam Jackson [public comment opportunity] Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Page 1 of 2 3. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity: WSDOT Active Transportation Plan — Adam Jackson [public comment opportunity] 4. Motion Consideration: Contract for Services for Periodic Update of Comp Plan — Steve Roberge [public comment opportunity] 5. Motion Consideration: Legal Defense Costs — Kelly Konkright [public comment opportunity] NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. Admin Report: Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County: Spokane Regional Stonnwater Manual Update (SRSM) — Adam Jackson 7. Admin Report: Proposed STV-2025-0001 — Lori Barlow 8. Admin Report: 2025 Capital Improvement Projects — Erica Amsden, Robert Lochmiller 9. Admin Report: ARPA Funding Camera Update — Chief Ellis, Erik Lamb 10. Admin Report: Budget & Finance Overview Part I — Chelsie Walls INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: General public comment rules apply. COUNCIL COMMENTS CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services Contract GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 39.04 RCW, SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of the street and stormwater maintenance and repair contracts in years 2007, 2015, 2020, and all applicable annual renewals. BACKGROUND: This contract consists of asphalt repair, roadway shoulder repair and grading, gravel road grading, crack sealing, sidewalk and path repair, guardrail repair, fencing repair, drainage structure repair and installation, curb, gutter and inlet repair and installation, and other related work. The most recent Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract was with Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. and expired at the end of 2024. The City advertised for bids on January 10 and January 17, 2025. Bids were due on January 31, 2025. The contract was bid based on labor, equipment and material rates. Historical average labor, equipment and material rates were used to establish estimated quantities for bidding. The City received 2 bids: one from Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. and one from Inland Asphalt Inc. Inland Asphalt is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The contract shall commence in early 2025 and continue until December 31, 2025. The City may extend the contract for up to three additional one-year terms, which will commence on January 1 of each year and end on December 31 of that year. The City will give the contractor written notice of its intent to extend the contract at least sixty days before the contract term expires. The total duration of the contract shall not exceed four years. OPTIONS: 1) Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) Not award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services contract to Inland Asphalt, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2025 budget for this work is $1,500,000 and will be financed from Fund #101 Street Fund and Fund #402 Storm Management Fund. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson — Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Ln N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 -zt Ln O O N O O 0 lO N qt lD qt N 0 0 0 0 Cl o 0 0 0 0 l-� o 06 r 06 �6 00 r-� LT �6 r-� �6 M rn I -I O M O O M V lO �T O 0 00 N M N 0 l0 M O M V �T ci ci X N O O 00 c-I I, Ill l0 N N c-I N -1 LX1 N I, 00 I, n N ate+ O qT t/} O KT t/} N N t/} c-I t/} W N -1 W l0 -1 I, } t/i m .- i/1• v" 00 tl} N tli 4 Ln .- t/} N t/l• Ln ci t/} O M t4 Ill -1 -L } l0 t o N t/4 i/ if)- Lb N t4 l0 l0 tl? O t/4 t/4 m ~ m s a Q N O N N N N O O Ln Ol O O O O Ln n O O � O Ln n O O � O � O � l0 � l0 � l0 V l0 � l0 � l0 � l0 � � c-I l0 m w ill• 0o i/} rn tl} ilk il} tl} t/} w oo ill• LD il} Ln tl} Ln il} l0 il} l0 tl)- Ln tl} rl il} Ln rl il} rl t/l• rl t/t• rl tl} Ln rl ilk Ln rl il} rl il} M rl tl} O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln O O O O O O O Ln O Ln O Ln O O O 0 'zT M O 0 lD N M N O O O O O O I, -i N M lD LD M Ln Ln 00 M O N M ci Il ci O V O M O M N 00 Il N V N W I� n O O n 00 I- 00 n O O O Ol Ol Ol n n n O O N M Ll0 Ll0 M N Ll0 6 I, (3l v)' O �e Ill M K (3l - l0 N v)- n .--I Ln Ln pr m s jp O � M t/} M t/4 N t/4 V)- N -1 Ln -1 i-1 V)- -1 tl} ci tl4 t/l• ci i/4 t/} ci t/4 N t/} -1 V)- tl4 t4 t4 t4 M t4 l0 to a Q c m c O O Ln Ln O 0 0 O Ln 0 O O O Ln Ln Ln Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln - Ln Ln 00 l0 O M M l0 Ln I: O N O n n n n n N ci l0 I- l0 m � Il Il i/1• n n t/l• n Ol to. KT 0 ci i/t• V l0 to M l0 to. M l0 -L } Ol w -C l n 00 tl} N 00 -L } O O ci i/t• M Il (n O O ci t/4 V n t14 V n t4 'zT n t4 V n i/). N Ol to n Il (n 00 n t/} V O ci t/4 N Ol t4 N n t14 N 3 m a+ O = 00 0 0 M O 0 M O � N o N O O ON O O N O L.L r, O ,' N o O M -1 o � O 0 N 0 M O 0 N O 0 � O 0 N 0 � 0 M 0 � 0 � o � O w M 0 0 Ol W 41 0 O a C 3 U v y Q 7 Ln E O Ll v J p o v u w Ll v .M p v o C a) C7 v (6 `-' Q c Ca E 3 v U v 41 u != O U _ '6 cts � (D v T to O- O_ 0 N L C Q Ln o v w i F Q O � o6 N `� tv 2 m L v . q 2 (6 ro 0_ C L0 E - _ O Of 0 Q O LL U Ln E m tv O O_ E cts a) 0 = v O Y (u m u iZ C In v l7 O m > O O d' t U 0_ O 00 v O 0_ 7y W > % l7 0 0 0 v O � m m Oi Q >> i F � N N N N N N N N N N N O O (B O (13 O ,1 O 113 O 113 O (13 O (13 O 113 O (13 O (13 O (B (li L1 ( O_ ( O_ ( Q (1) L1 (1) 0- (1) L1 (1) L1 (1) O_ (1) L1 (1) Q y O O O O O O O O O O O J „L NJ L Q W J i � O ro c E E� v u L O u L%I v (1) Ll L ai 2 LL v m J v m J v J v m J v J v ru J C 41 E !? =3 w v 3 O 0_ C 41 E !Z M w v 3 O 0_ C 41 E L1 =3 w v 3 O O_ C 41 E L1 =3 w v 3 O O_ C 4J E L1 =3 w 4J 3 O O_ C 41 E L1 =3 w v 3 O O_ C 41 E L1 =3 w v 3 O O_ C 41 E L1 =3 w v 3 O O_ C 41 E L1 M w v 3 O O_ C 41 E !? =3 w v 3 O 0_ C 41 E L1 w v 3 O 0_ L 0 Y L F o W c-I N M Ln l0 I� W Q1 l0 rl W Ol O N N N U a0+ — N 0 0^ m � Lri �o 00 ao l0 al Ol N O M V- t4 rnl rnl rn M 00 00 m ri n n a> a> O O O O O O O O Ol n Ln LA 000 000 N N V} M M V} l0 V} l0 00 O O i Lr) 0) Ln O L 7 bD N Q N 7 t Q O O N .ZTI LnI N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o o o o Ln Ln O O O O Ln O O O O N ci O O O O O O O O O rn 00 M M O O O O l0 O O O O N l0 O O O O O O O O 0 M l0 zt V (D O M M .-i N O O N -1 O O O O O O O O O O n M M M Lf) Ln N n N M Ln Ln n O O O O O O O O O M O M 00 Ln Ln N �' qzF l0 N N �' .--I ci N -I N qT N -I -I -I ci �' M V)- m jp V} tn. tn. V} tn. tn. tn. V} tn tn. tn. V} V} tn. V} Vi. tn. tn tn. tn o n n O O O O l0 O O O O ci ci O O O O O O O O O m N 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ln to to o0 O Ln O 00 l0 0 0 �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n n O O N O 00 m 00 T i O O 000 O O O O O O O O O O m m -1 c1 ci ci to V). Vi. ci ci ci V). ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci V} V} n n V} V} V} V} (} V)- (? (} V)- V)- (} (} V)- V)- V} V? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln Ln V m O O O O O O N 00 l0 O O O O O O N c-I O V LO n n 00 LD m n m O O O M V O V 00 V n O O n N .-i m n O O 'zt n M M n N lt O M O N M W M 'zT O M M l0 'zt N 00 V -zT O qt LO l0 00 M l0 Ln -zf n 00 l0 M l0 00 .-i O .-i n Ln 00 N M V} M Ln c-I N V} V)- c-I M c-I tf)' c-I .--� c-I t N V)- M V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V'� V} V'� 4111. O F Ln Ln N �0 l0 l0 �0 O O O O T � O O O O O O N N O � m ci ci V N ID -! ci O O O l0 N O n n n n O O n ql: n Ln ci 00 00 N Ln N Ln Ln l0 00 O N Ln N 'zT KT V V O M M N V N N 00 00 m m n n n .-i N O n 00 00 00 00 00 00 .-i O ci Ln 00 00 00 V. Vi. ci (} V). Vi. V} ci ci ci V} Vl. Vi. V} V} V} V). ci ci ci ci V} V} (} V� Vi- V} V} V} tri- m O O O O Ln Ln O Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 Ln Ln N LnO Ln n N N Ln.--I N N .--I N It N .--I ci ci ci � M .--I qT N O ui O a> � v Q r O u 3 t C 7y O N U Q � W 0) m O E a, Q (a CL 0_ QQ K p u E n a `o to O F O o O O � a1 O a1 O a! a1 O 06 �� � ca E 2 a1 � 06 J J JraU _ C cn L (c6 C !? O j Q a1 LJ c _ 7 7 C ca > W U a1 m cc F F E a 4 U '6 ca a1 c c aJ a1 O G L !? !? a U � a! v w C� a Y O ate-+ Y E E Q CL � � O- —_ 7 O p a1 p O � ro O U O ca raa O O ca 7 7 Ln Ll Ll U Q U (D d F m 2 d d' Ln d CO > d' d m c /Ny LW N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O La La ca ca ca ca ca La ca ca ca NJ 0- Q 0- I? I2 Q I? Iz Iz Iz I? y O O O O O O O O O O O c c OC ~ O E E E E E E E E E E E Wro N O !? Q !2 2 ? !? !? !? !? !? Q L L s s s s s s s 0- s W W W W W W W W W W W Q Q L a) 4! a) 4! 4! 4! 4! a) 4! a) 4! Y Y m E�� 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 13: 3 3 3 v v ca ca ca ca m O O O O O O O O O O O L i LV J U Ll Ll J J J J D o *t: W £ n 00 m O ci N M t m l0 n 00 m O ci N m V m l0 n 00 m O y N N N M M M M M M M M M M �T -zT �T It V -zT -zT It -zT �T M U +' N O Ln O O Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O I- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ci O v) r v) O Lr) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 M N N N O I- M M �T M M O O O 'ZT O O M O O O O O N LO I, ci -zT lD O LO N M N N N O O O 'ZT �D M N O LO O M N T V)- M M M O �e V)- Lr) Vl' ci Ln 00 V O N N O) V)' M Lr ci jp a.+ .-I V} V). N V} V). N V} V). to to N V} Vi. ci V} M V} N V} Vn V} M V} .-i V} V V} -1 tr? O r y a+ O O Ln N O O O v) Ln LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N M n N L!) N N M Lr) KT Lr) lD O 00 Il N O M n M N ci Ln 00 Ln O O LO Ln 00 O O .-i LO O M O ci Ln ci O LO Ln ci Ln LO N O 00 N T V} V)- V} V} V} ci V} V} Vl- V} V} V)- ci V} V). ci V). V). V). V} N V). V). ci V). L V} V} V} V} V} 3 O 2 O O O O O Ln O O Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r v) O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v) O O O O O v) 00 N O -1 O O O O O O 00 O V O) O N O O Il O O M N O I- N LO O M M O 00 O O O N LO N O M M N 00 M O O N M O M 00 00 M M 00 N M N M 00 ci Il 00 M I- n N O n O Ln ci a Lr) O) M M 00 V} <6 Lr) LO LO N jp ci n V} V� N V� V} V} V} n ci V� V). ci V} N V} ci V} V). M V� ci V} qT V} c-I V} O r y a+ O O O O O o0 O O O O M LO M N O O M l0 O O O O N rn O O O O O O LO O O O N O M O O 00 LO O Ln O lz� v) rl� O Ln m Ln N O v) 00 N O O M V)- 00 Il Il n O N M M M M O ci Il (0 V 00 M M n LO O 00 M LO ci 'ZT O .-i M V)- .-i .-i M V). M M N M Il N T V} V)- V)- ci V} V} V} ci V} V} V)- V} V} V} V} V} Vl� Vl� N Vn V} V} L tf' V} V} 3 O 2 T M 3 O O l0 Ln N O Ln .--I O Ln N Ln r,Lr) Ln N O Ln r,r, N O Ln O r,N O Lr) O O O M O O O O NZT O O N O M O Ln c-I O Ln .--I O ZT O O N O Ln O O cr Gl G � O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Q C CW G W L WF J y T r 3 LN Y i 0 c-I v 0 ci L ~ F ci U m O ci r ` X Q rn O 4 Ln O 30 Q 3 V) L Q Q 4 Y co o u OL I 00 O_ L I V O u V v LL o K ci �' v j 0 w v CrEEO M �' u r '6 LL Q '6 LL v -0 cL (7 U 0) O S U u 00 O- - U E U 7 Z 41 O_ Y B °� O_ Q Y=3cL v) Q 7 41 v) 41 41 O w r NJ £ M V v) LO r, 00 O) O ci N M V Ln LO r, 00 O) O ci N M Ln to Il = y Ln Ln M M M M M LO to LO to l0 to LO LO LO LO I, n n n n n n n U +' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O -4 00 n 00 O O N N 00 00 rv� in " o m m 0 -1 Ln Ln = N V)- in- i/} CN E Q 3 a W U N 7 O O O S rI N N u H 001rnlO n n 00 O 0 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 O o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 Ln 0 m m m O O O n O Lrl m N -1 00 O O to to Lrl V 00 Ol lzl Lrl to N -1 0 �t 01 N m N to jp n -1 i/4 ci i/4 i/} ci -L 4 i/} i/} -tn a+ o m to- i/4 i/} to- 0 O O Ln O O O O O O 0 Gl O O O N O O O O O O O V N 00 00 Ln m O Ln O m m m L n i/} i/4 -4 V-} Ln m Ol 00 O Ol a v� in m oo rl oo -1 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln It Ln O O O O O O O Ln c-I 00 O Ln Ln Ln O Ln O O M 17 Ln O r, Ln N m Ln O O 't -1 O �t 00 ci qt m N to �o -1 in• -i in• in• -1 in• in• in in• 0 O n n N n O O O O O 0 u O Ln Ln to O O O O O O •i O O1 O1 Ln N 0 O O O O O r, v)- in- in� Ln Ln Ln to Ln O a l0 W O W O c-I ci tr" rl t/l' N i/} i/} i/} in = T O O O O 0 00 00 O 0 00 n n Ln Ln M M 7 00 N n cr T N m m C. G1 " m G G C N ~ w w w w S O F O F O F O F w w 3 � c a E a a W C 10 L G J J J J F -0 LU W W J oo O Q >- � N m >� N T C. 0 K 0 0 J H V Z Z 0 W LU `i N N J W L GI d L.L LL L.L u U F- F F K Y Z Z Z Z F F 10 !n !n O O J J E cnn �W m J J Q Q Z Z J W W J J W O N N m m L U = Ln = Ln W m = _ �-i LU O Q 5- V w a w Lu F F a LU Q W c 2>>> cr O of O a a a U U cr J _ 2 V V U V 0 0 F F F F (7 N 0 U jX W a E c-I N M Lfl to n 00 m 0 -1 o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W m m U c - N � 0 O 00 Ln N m N <D i/} 10 Cm C G N 7 N S U H O o 0 o 0 o0 0o ri 0 Lri ZT Ln Ln -1 to N m ci ci 00 O 00 m qT n n Ln ci to in m to � in• a Ln v 0 0 W W W W Q G i H G 2 H G 2 H p 2 H W J W (7 H J iI O T O O C1 0 zT 00 00 O Ln m ci Ln to Ln C 00 N Ln m ri Ln rn O to Ln o) N 'ZT to V). N to to CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 02/18/2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Services Contract Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council has annually contracted for street sweeping services since 2007. All contracts have been with AAA Sweeping (pronounced as "Triple A Sweeping"). The most recent contract term expired December 2024. BACKGROUND: City staff advertised a Request for Proposals on January 10 and January 17, 2025, for the street sweeping services contract. Bids were opened on January 31, 2025. One bid was received, and AAA Sweeping was the lowest responsive, responsible, bidder with a bid of $748,744.00. This contract may be extended up to four additional one-year terms if mutually agreed by both parties. Upon request by the Contractor, the City and Contractor may negotiate a rate increase for each option year exercised but shall not be increased or decreased by more than the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Staff recommends the award of the 2025 Street Sweeping Services contract to AAA Sweeping. OPTIONS: 1) Award the Storm Sweeping Services contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the 2025 Street Sweeping Services contract to AAA Sweeping in an amount not to exceed $748,744.00 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The contract amount of $748,744.00 is budgeted within the Stormwater Utility Fund 402. There are sufficient funds budgeted to cover the cost of the contract. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, PE, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Z O Q� U L 00 41 00 tw In c-i N Q .Q Q) Z F - M_ Qi W N 0 N U Om OLO ON w O O O 0 OM Ct ♦+ LA C N M O c-I N M Ln O O n i-I 1\ m U i--I l0 I� (3 t Lr L(j r- rI (.0H O v)- m V)-U 41 �' .V in,y/�}ce O bA ~ vi C CL d X X X X X X X w O O d' O H 00 3 1\ n OY M O h N H 00 w N a-i O O 't 00 w t\ 4 Ln f m Q V -i H i-I 1-1 (/} H H a c j„ O ID 00 n O O O v > L O cr lD O ^ 00 N dt U m ca a � cLo ❑ j C Y E @ o o v n E n co n U v E o� Q L v E N u N L Ln L L L L L L L I-- N N O O i () C O 7 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O o o.. @ rTa a +-' Q C� N U jo 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y O Lu U) O U C-• v u L E L N E _y a- 00 -6_ O m y0 U mU m CL U U= j m N QJ ..0 Q L 1 :Z 0- � U Ili Ili L v O H U U CC i G U_ O Q1 U m t w F _ N L io O cc by bA bA U U i a Ln v v v }>' v E +� 0 V) U) V) > lL. JO L U (li �0 a 4- U O � c O U U .E 5 C t:xo O L N i17 0 (1) Ln i_ bA O O C N U w m N Q v W U aJ oo U N 'i Z w 4 O j0- (� Qz (/ ) U (o Q CU + WL L% U c.� J J OA C 'Q a) 3 a a a O N O 't CDO O V) 0 — O (6 l0 O 0 X N Q _0 Ln O v OI CL 4-0 CL O ON 1 aJ i M bJD O bA O Q V O C +' 4- cr O O > o O c 0) a +'' U w -0 a, E bA U N (o U 7 c N U 0 m M E 3 aJ (o OC w Q +' O (o JO Q O N z co 0 J aJ O- U O L. L a a O aJ U d fu a V aJ (D m CL L (a -a U += v m i N U = O 0 L 7 O C a c to m v 4- a i O O m ro ai Q N 41 W CJ LL O U O F- °' 0 t bA 0 L O a--� U L N aJ [o U y_ - , U QJ � 0 4� LIl @ N 73 O m N > w 4. +, ci U W m 00 0 N C U (6 m � � L a"' O v f° c v ,� aJ U p s L +� Q1 a- to L aJ t bA U-) > 'Q a t Co 3 aJ N Q O + E +' Laj 0 v U -0 a-+ C 0 N �0 0 U bA (o C M G a- U (o c 0 U C (o U .0 U v C aJ C C w CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration - Potential Grant Opportunity: WSDOT's Active Transportation Assistance Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: February 11, 2025 administrative report introducing the funding opportunity. BACKGROUND: WSDOT's Active Transportation Assistance Program has set aside state funds for cities, counties, and tribal governments to develop high quality active transportation plans that better position agencies to compete for funding programs like the Safe Routes to School Program and the Pedestrian -Bicycle Program. WSDOT identified the City of Spokane Valley as one of 10 agencies that have been invited to participate. Participation in this exercise is available through invitation -only from WSDOT. It is estimated that Spokane Valley is eligible to receive between $50,000 and $150,000 of state grant funds. There is no local match required. The City must notify WSDOT of its intent to participate by February 26, 2025. There are multiple factors to consider should the City choose to participate: 1. The City's Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element includes bicycle and pedestrian components that identify long-range plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The plans will need to be updated as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. This WSDOT funding opportunity will support the update of these Comprehensive Plan elements. 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element requires additional traffic volume data be obtained to complete the level of service analysis required by the necessary updates. These costs are not eligible for use by the previously secured grant funds for Comprehensive Plan development. a. In conversations with WSDOT staff, it is reasonable for the development of the City's Active Transportation Plan to include traffic volume collection. Staff intend to use the WSDOT funds to develop its Active Transportation Plan and supplement the Comprehensive Plan's traffic volume data needs, reducing overall city costs. 3. The overall schedule is anticipated to follow this general schedule: a. February -March 2025: Negotiate with WSDOT on a Local Agency Agreement that defines the cost and scope of work to be completed. b. April -June 2025: Consultant selection process (it is assumed a consultant will be hired to complete the scope of work). c. July -December 2025: Plan development, including public engagement. d. January -March 2026: City Adoption of Active Transportation Plan OPTIONS: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement with WSDOT for the development of an Active Transportation Plan or take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement with WSDOT for the development of an Active Transportation Plan. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no local match required. WSDOT and City staff will negotiate the agreed contract amount, which is anticipated to range from $50,000 to $150,000. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Consultant Contract for Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.130 and 36.70A.070 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council received Administrative Report on February 11, 2025. City Council authorized applying for WA State Department of Commerce grants to assist with the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update (8/27/24). BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley must complete the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update by June 30, 2026. The State of Washington through Department of Commerce has provided grant funding to assist in the update. A consultant team led by Community Attributes Inc (CAI) was selected through a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) process that included review of submitted material and interviews. A RFQ was issued, and all responses were reviewed for applicable experience and skills. Interviews were held and the CAI consultant team was selected. In addition to having compiled a consultant team familiar with the State processes and requirements, they brought an understanding of the Spokane Valley. In 2016 CAI facilitated the Periodic Comprehensive Plan Update for Spokane Valley. A Scope of Work was developed to address the required update, comply with State mandates, and incorporate local values and plan improvements. Grants are being used to fund consultant services to assist with the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan and implementing Development Regulations in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City is mandated by state law, RCW 36.70A.130, to review and revise the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations every 10 years. This mandated review is otherwise known as the Periodic Update. The purpose of the Periodic Update is to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations are compliant with state law, particularly as it relates to land use and planning. In 2022 and 2023 the Washington State Legislature made significant changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA). This update requires local governments to "plan for and accommodate" housing affordable to all income levels. This significantly strengthened the previous goal, which was to encourage affordable housing. The amended law directed the Department of Commerce to project future housing needs for jurisdictions by income bracket and made significant updates to how jurisdictions are to plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. These new changes to the housing element include: • Planning for sufficient land capacity for housing needs, including all economic segments of the population (moderate, low, very low and extremely low income, as well as emergency housing and permanent supportive housing). RCA Motion Consideration for Commerce Grants Page 1 of 2 Providing moderate density housing options within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), including but not limited to duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. Making adequate provisions for housing for existing and projected needs for all economic segments of the community, including documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability. Identifying racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing policies and regulations, and beginning to undo those impacts; and identifying areas at higher risk of displacement and establishing anti -displacement policies. The amended law also requires local jurisdictions to develop and adopt a new Climate Element. This new element includes two sub -elements to address climate resilience and greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted that the Washington State Legislature has essentially created a top -down approach to local comprehensive planning where the State is dictating policy and development regulations local governments shall adopt. Prior to the recent legislative changes, the state established broad goals allowing local governments the flexibility to mold their comprehensive plans and development regulations specific to the local community's needs with state guidance. Through this periodic update the intent will be to meet the requirements of GMA while tailoring the Comprehensive Plan as much as possible to protect the character of our community. Unfortunately, there are many requirements that must be adhered to for the City to have a compliant Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. A robust public participation process will be implemented throughout this update. OPTIONS: Move to authorize the City Manager to enter professional services contract with Community Attributes Inc or take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with Community Attributes Inc. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The full contract amount of $1,025,000 is covered through two existing and two allocated grants from the Department of Commerce. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Roberge — Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: None RCA Motion Consideration for Commerce Grants Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion to Deny City Funding for Councilmember Merkel's Defense Against the Court Action Filed to Compel His Compliance with the Washington Public Records Act and City Council Governance Manual. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 2.70 SVMC PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 2/4/2025: Council approved a motion directing the City Manager cause legal action to be filed compelling Councilmember Merkel to comply with the Washington Public Records Act and the Social Media Policy as required by the City Council Governance Manual. BACKGROUND: Brief Factual History. 1. Investigation and City Hearing Examiner Decision Finding Councilmember Merkel Violated City Policy. In accordance with Chapter 5 of the Council's adopted Governance Manual, the City retained an independent investigator (Seattle -area attorney Rebecca Dean) to investigate allegations filed by Councilmember Yeager that Councilmember Merkel violated the Governance Manual Council Conduct Standards by (1) repeatedly discussing City -business using his personal Nextdoor social media account rather than on an official councilmember Nextdoor account in violation of the Social Media Policy (Appendix H of the Governance Manual), and (2) violated the Washington Public Records Act by ("PRA") failing to preserve and disclose this Nextdoor content in response to valid public records. Note — compliance with the Social Media Policy helps protect the City from liability under the PRA because official social media accounts are required to be connected to the City's archiving software whereas personal accounts are not. The investigator issued her report on September 3, 2024. In her report, she concluded, among other things, that Councilmember Merkel used Nextdoor to: • Survey readers about the City's Sprague Avenue stormwater project and used the survey results during a Council meeting or meetings to advocate his fellow councilmembers to terminate the project. • Solicit comments about his proposal for the City budget, which proposal he submitted to City Council for consideration. • Solicit comments about his budget proposal and plan for addressing homelessness issues with the intent to inform his presentations to City Council. • Post summaries of, and commentary about City Council debates. • Discuss his allegations that other councilmembers are "silencing" him during City Council meetings. • Complain about and comment on City investigations of complaints regarding his behavior and his complaint regarding Councilmember Rod Higgins. Receive questions about specific City issues and make promises to address said inquires — ostensibly in his capacity as a City Councilmember. The investigator determined that Councilmember Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standards: The Council Conduct Standards prevent councilmembers from posting about City business on social media unless it is on a social media account that is directly connected to the City's social media archiving software and the councilmember's official City email address (referred to herein as an "official councilmember account"). See Governance Manual, Appendix H. The investigator determined that the above -described posts on Councilmember Merkel's Nextdoor account discuss City business, and that said account is not an official councilmember account. On that basis, the investigator concluded that Councilmember Merkel is in violation of the Council Conduct Standards. The investigator Found Councilmember Merkel Violated PRA under Burden of Proof for PRA Lawsuits: In accordance with her analysis of the PRA and case law interpreting the PRA, the investigator further concluded that: • Councilmember Merkel's posts identified above are public records on a "more likely than not" public records. Note — "more likely than not" is the standard typically used to determine issues of fact in most civil o.e. non -criminal) trials, including PRA lawsuits. Councilmember Merkel's refusal to segregate and provide said social media posts or provide the City with access to them in order to produce the public record posts "violates his obligation under the Public Records Act," and therefore violates the Governance Manual's Council Conduct Standards. Note — City staff had communicated in writing to Councilmember Merkel on multiple occasions prior to the investigation that it is highly likely that (a) his personal Nextdoor posts regarding City business are public records under the PRA, and (b) a court would conclude the same if a requestor were to file PRA action against the City. The investigator found that Councilmember Merkel did not comply with binding Washington Supreme Court case law' requiring him to "provide a reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavit stating facts sufficient to support his claim that his Nextdoor posts are not public records." Rather, he submitted a declaration — signed under the penalty of perjury — which he changed to state that he does not have any social media content "that are public records.112 The investigator found that this is insufficient because it is conclusory and only a legal conclusion, not a fact. The investigator found that Councilmember Merkel's actions in this regard are "inconsistent with his duty as a Councilmember." Note —City staff informed Councilmember Merkel in writing that his changes caused the declaration to be noncompliant with legal requirements and requested he submit a signed declaration without his handwritten changes in order to protect the City from PRA liability, but he refused to do so.3 On September 10, 2024, Councilmember Merkel appealed the Investigator's Findings to the City Hearing Examiner (City Case No. APP-2024-0001). The hearing was held on October 24, 'Nissen v. Pierce Countv, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015). 2 Councilmember Merkel struck out "regarding city and/or council business" and wrote in "that are public records" in its place See Declaration of Albert Merkel, attached as Exhibit 14 to the investigator's 9/3/2024 report. s On 2/4/2025 and 2/5/2025, Councilmember Merkel wrote, signed, and then provided 2 different versions of revised declarations, but only for 4 of 7 deficient declarations he originally provided. The legal sufficiency of the revised declarations will be addressed as the pending litigation proceeds. 2024. For the hearing, Councilmember Merkel was allowed to submit pre -hearing legal briefing, introduce exhibits, object to the investigator's exhibits, cross-examine the investigator, present his own testimony, and present testimony of his own witnesses. Andrew Kottkamp, a Wenatchee -area attorney serving as the City's independently contracted Hearing Examiner, determined by order issued December 13, 2024, that (1) Councilmember Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standards, including the Council's Social Media Policy, and (2) Councilmember Merkel's asserted defenses are meritless. 2. City Consistently and Repeatedly Tried to Convince Councilmember Merkel to Comply with the Social Media Policy and PRA Obligations to Protect the City from PRA Liability. Both before the investigation, between the investigation and the City Hearing Examiner proceedings, and after the City Hearing Examiner issued his order, City staff consistently tried to convince Councilmember Merkel to (1) comply with the Social Media Policy by establishing official councilmember accounts and restricting his discussions relating to City business or made in furtherance of his office as an elected councilmember to official councilmember accounts, and (2) provide the City with copies of and/or access to true and correct copies of his activity relating to City business or made in furtherance of his elected office functions using his personal social media. Despite the City's efforts, the investigator's report, and the City Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Merkel continues to use his personal social media to discuss City business and further the performance of his elected office functions, and thereby continues to expose the City to financial risk under the PRA. While Councilmember Merkel has allowed the City limited access to his personal Nextdoor social media account to retrieve some — but not all — of the public records the City claims he has created using said account, he continues to refuse to provide all public record content necessary for the City to ensure its compliance with the PRA. Please see the Complaint attached hereto for further detail regarding the City's claims. On February 4, 2025, the Council voted to direct the City Manager to cause a court action to be filed against Councilmember Merkel compelling him to comply with the Social Media Policy and produce all public records created using his personal social media accounts. The City initiated a court action against Councilmember Merkel by filing a Summons and Complaint with the Washington Superior Court for Spokane County under Case No. 25-00710-32 on February 11, 2025. On the same day, the Spokane County Sheriff Office served Councilmember Merkel with the Summons and Complaint as required and in accordance with State law. Discussion. Whether a councilmember is to be provided legal representation for claims against the councilmember is determined by City Council. The City Council's determination is a final legislative determination. See SVMC 2.70.040. If the City Council determines the City will fund or otherwise provide legal representation to Councilmember Merkel, then the City has discretion to select the attorney it will retain to represent Councilmember Merkel. Providing a City -funded attorney does not prevent Councilmember Merkel from retaining his own attorney to represent him in the appeal in conjunction with the City -funded attorney. Chapter 2.70 SVMC identifies when the City can and cannot provide legal representation to councilmembers. Per SVMC 2.70.030(A)(1), (4), and (5), the City is prohibited from providing or paying for such legal representation when the claim involves, among other things, any of the following: "Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, willful, intentional or malicious act or course of conduct of an official or an employee;" "Any lawsuit brought against an official or employee by or on behalf of the City;" or "Any action or omission contrary to or not in furtherance of any adopted City policy." SVMC 2.70.030(A)(1), (4), and (5) (emphasis added). Here, the City initiated the legal action against Councilmember Merkel. Also, the legal action is based on claims that Councilmember Merkel has violated City policy (i.e. the Council's Social Media Policy) and failed to produce public records in violation of the PRA. The purpose of the action is to compel Councilmember Merkel to comply with the Social Media Policy as well as preserve and produce public records as required by the PRA — all in order to enable the City to fully comply with its obligations under the PRA and avoid being held financially liable for PRA lawsuits that may be filed against the City due to Councilmember Merkel's actions. OPTIONS: (1) Determine Councilmember Merkel is not entitled to City -funded legal representation in Case No. 25-2-00710-32 pending before the Washington Superior Court for Spokane County; (2) Determine Councilmember Merkel is entitled to City -funded legal representation in Case No. 25-2-00710-32; or (3) take other action as Council deems appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to (1) find that the Complaint filed with the Washington Superior Court for Spokane County under Case No. 25-2-00710-32 was filed by the City against Councilmember Merkel and claims he is failing to comply with the Washington Public Records Act and the Council's Social Media Policy, and (2) deny Councilmember Merkel any City -funded legal representation in connection with Case No. 25-2-00710-32 pursuant to SVMC 2.70.030(A)(4) and (5). BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If Council approves City -funded legal representation, then the financial impact will depend on the selected attorney's hourly rates and time spent. There is no financial impact if Council denies City -funded legal representation. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly E. Konkright, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: (1) Complaint filed in Spokane County Superior Court, Case No. 25-2- 00710-32 (2) City Hearing Examiner Decision in APP-2024-0001 (3) Rebecca Dean's Report dated September 3, 2024 (4) SVMC 2.70.030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Coopy Original Filed FEB 112025 TIMOTHY W. FITZGERALD SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V. ALBERT W. MERKEL, an individual, Defendant. NO. COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff City of Spokane Valley, by and through its counsel of record, Lukins & Annis, P.S., and for cause of action against Defendant Albert W. Merkel, alleges as follows: I. PARTIES 1.1 Plaintiff City of Spokane Valley (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Washington located in Spokane County. 1.2 Defendant Albert W. Merkel ("Defendant") is and at all relevant times was an individual residing in Spokane County and is an elected member of the City of Spokane Valley City Council (the "City Council"). COMPLAINT: 1 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANMS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephooe:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.1 This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to RCW 2.08.010. 2.2 Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Spokane County, Washington pursuant to RCW 4.12.020 and RCW 4.12.025 because Defendant is a public officer for the City and Defendant resides in Spokane County. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The City Governance Manual 3.1 Per the authority granted by RCW 35A.13.230 and RCW 35A.11.020, the City, through the City Council, has long maintained a Governance Manual that contains rules governing, among other things, the conduct of City Councilmembers in performing the functions of their office. The Governance Manual is periodically reviewed and updates are made as the Council majority determines appropriate. The Governance Manual has been in place throughout Defendant's entire tenure as a City Councilmember. 3.2 The City Governance Manual provides: As Councilmembers of the City of Spokane Valley, we agree that the Governance Manual (Manual) outlines the rules by which we agree to adhere in order to successfully and efficiently conduct city business. (p. 3) 3.3 The City Governance Manual further provides: The City acknowledges the importance of complying with the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.30.010 and 42.56.030. (p. 4) 3.4 Chapter 3 of the City Governance Manual addresses citizen contacts and interactions outside of a council meeting, including contact on social media. Specifically, Chapter 3, Subsection A.4 provides: COMPLAINT: 2 LAW OFFICES OF LUHINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephmc (509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/ 11 /25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Councilmembers shall comply with the City Councilmember Social Media Policy which is attached hereto as Appendix H and wholly incorporated herein. (p. 44) 3.5 Chapter 5 of the City Governance Manual addresses the City Council Conduct Standard and Enforcement procedures, including with regard to social media conduct. Chapter 5, Subsection A of the City Governance Manual provides: In order to foster an environment of ethical and professional conduct by all Councilmembers, the Council has adopted the following process to be implemented in the event a Councilmember(s) is alleged to have violated a provision of: (3) the Social Media Policy attached as Appendix H to this Governance Manual; (9) other applicable laws and/or regulations governing the conduct of the Councilmembers in their capacity as elected public officials. (p. 55) 3.6 Chapter 5 of the City Governance Manual also provides: 3.6.1 All Councilmembers must abide by the above -identified Council Conduct Standards. Any Councilmember alleged to have violated the Council Conduct Standards is subject to the below enforcement provisions. (p. 55) 3.6.2 If a Councilmember does not cease conduct that has been deemed in violation of the Council Conduct Standards, then the Council may direct city administration to pursue legal action to prevent ongoing violations, provided such an action is not prohibited by applicable law. (p. 61) 3.7 Finally, the Councilmember Social Media Policy (Appendix H to the City Governance Manual), which has been in place throughout Defendant's entire tenure, requires Councilmembers to establish and use an official City Councilmember account in order to discuss City business or the performance of their office on social media. The Social Media Policy provides, in relevant part: COMPLAINT: 3 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Spmgue Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephane:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. Before setting up a social media account on any given platform, you must receive written verification from the city's IT manager that the social media platform is sufficiently compatible with the city's social media archiving platform to assure that all content, including posts and comments, is archived for public records retention .... 2. Create the account using your @SpokaneValleyWA.gov email alias. On Facebook, per Facebook policy, create a 'page' from your personal `profile'. 3. When creating Councilmember accounts, include: - Title including your official role of "Councilmember" in the name (Ex. Councilmember first last name) - Category of "Government Official" - Identifiable, official Councilmember photo (can be provided by city staff) - Disclaimer, "All content is mine and does not represent that the views of the Spokane Valley City Council or City of Spokane Valley. Councilmembers who maintain a personal or campaign social media account shall: 3. Not write posts on personal or campaign accounts that relate to the conduct of cily government or the performance of your office. Merely posting Council agendas or information regarding city events or providing general information regarding the City's activities is not conducting city business and will not convert your personal post or the posts of others into public records. Personal communications that are not related to the conduct of government or the performance of your office are not public records. However, if you use your personal account to transact city business, any posts or comments generated in doing so may be public records. (pp. 81- 83) (emphasis added) 3.8 Thus, the Social Media Policy allows Councilmembers to make social media posts and comments regarding City business while using official Councilmember accounts that comply with the policy by, among other things, being established with their official City email account. However, the Social Media Policy precludes Councilmembers from posting about City business on (1) their personal social media accounts, and (2) other persons' social media accounts using COMPLAINT: 4 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokme, WA 99201 Telephone. (509) 455-9555 Fm: (509)747-2323 0103769M 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Councilmember's personal social media account. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that public records created by a Councilmember's social media use are preserved and able to be produced as required by the Washington Public Records Act. B. Complaint Regarding Defendants' Social Media Activity 3.9 On or about January 2, 2024, Defendant took his oath of office to, among other things, uphold the laws and regulations of the State of Washington and City of Spokane Valley. 3.10 Before taking his oath of office, City administration informed Defendant of the Social Media Policy and the requirement that he establish official Councilmember social media accounts using his official City -issued email address for those social media platforms, if any, on which he intends to discuss City business or perform any function of his office. 3.11 Both before and after Defendant took his oath of office, City administration provided Defendant with training regarding the Washington Public Records Act and specifically informed him that, as a Councilmember, any social media content he creates regarding City business or the performance of his office would likely be public records subject to the Washington Public Records Act. City administration also advised Defendant on multiple occasions of (1) the importance of preserving such content so it can be produced in response to third party public records requests in compliance with the Washington Public Records Act, and (2) the high risk of steep monetary penalties being assessed against the City if he failed to preserve all public records and produce those that are responsive to public records requests. 3.12 Defendant told City administration that "I'll take that risk," refused to establish an official Councilmember account, and began using his personal Nextdoor and other social media accounts to regularly post about City business and the performance of the City's representatives, communicate with the public regarding issues and business coming in front of COMPLAINT: 5 LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 455-9555 F.: (509) 747-2323 01037697 1 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City Council for official action, solicit feedback to guide his decisions as a Councilmember, and otherwise perform his Councilmember functions. 3.13 In early 2024, the City began receiving multiple public records requests for content on Defendant's personal social media accounts, including but not limited to Nextdoor, regarding City business. 3.14 Defendant refused to provide the requested records in response to these public record requests. 3.15 In response to Defendant's refusal, City administration repeatedly requested Defendant produce the responsive records and reminded him of the legal risks to which he was I exposing the City. 3.16 Instead of producing the records, Defendant insisted on submitting legally deficient Nissen declarations stating he did not have "public records" in his possession. Defendant continued this pattern despite being informed several times by City administration that such declarations do not satisfy his or the City's obligations under the Washington Public Records Act and his actions expose the City to liability. 3.17 On or about June 11, 2024, Councilmember Jessica Yaeger of the City Council submitted a written complaint to City Manager John Hohman, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the City Governance Manual, alleging that Defendant had violated the City Council's Conduct Standards by failing to comply with the Councilmember Social Media Policy (Appendix H to the City Governance Manual) with regard to his personal account on the social media platform Nextdoor. 3.18 Specifically, the complaint alleged that Defendant was using his personal Nextdoor account to conduct and/or transact City business by, inter alia, conducting citizen polls about City actions and proposals, providing opinions on various City initiatives, surveying citizens on public issues related to the City Council's agenda, and engaging in discourse with citizens about City business, which he intended to (and did) present at City Council meetings. COMPLAINT: 6 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.19 The complaint also alleged that Defendant was editing and deleting social media posts and comments made on his personal Nextdoor account, including deleting posts and comments made by other members of the public. 3.20 On or about August 1, 2024, Councilmember Yaeger submitted a supplemental written complaint to City Manager Hohman clarifying that Defendant's conduct also violated RCW 42.56 (the Washington Public Record Acts) and RCW 40.14 (Preservation & Destruction of Public Records) with regard to his personal Nextdoor account. 3.21 The written complaint, dated June 11, 2024, and the supplemental complaint, dated August 1, 2024, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Yaeger Complaint." C. The City Investigation Regarding the Yeager Complaint 3.22 Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the City Governance Manual, the City retained an independent investigator to investigate the alleged violations of the Councilmember Social Media Policy and to issue a written report determining whether the alleged conduct occurred and whether Defendant had violated the City Governance Manual. 3.23 The City retained Ms. Rebecca Dean as its Independent Investigator. Ms. Dean is a licensed attorney engaged in investigation practice and has_ been retained by both private businesses and government agencies throughout the State of Washington to investigate workplace conduct, ethical standards, and regulations disputes. Ms. Dean is also a resident of King County, Washington and has no social relationships with any City official or employee. 3.24 Ms. Dean's investigation included, among other things, reviewing over 350 screenshots taken of Defendant's private Nextdoor account, conducting legal research related to RCW 42.56 (the Washington Public Record Acts) and RCW 40.14 (Preservation & Destruction of Public Records), reviewing the City Governance Manual, and analyzing relevant authorities covering the above -referenced statutes. COMPLAINT: 7 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephooe:(509) 455-9555 Fax: ('09)747-2323 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.25 Following her investigation, Ms. Dean prepared and submitted her investigative report, dated September 3, 2024, regarding the Yaeger Complaint's allegations against Defendant (the "Investigative Report"). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Investigative Report, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3.26 Among other things, the Investigative Report determined that: (1) Defendant's activity on his personal Nextdoor account violates the Councilmember Social Media Policy, (2) Defendant's social media posts and comments regarding City business on his personal Nextdoor account more likely than not constitute public records, (3) Defendant violated the Washington 11 Public Record Act by refusing to search, segregate, and produce social medial posts and comments to his personal Nextdoor account in response to multiple public records requests received by the City, and (4) Defendant violated the Washington Public Record Act by submitting deficient Nissen declarations in response to multiple public records requests received by the City. 3.27 In light of the Investigative Report, on September 25, 2024, City administration sent Defendant a letter yet again demanding he: (1) provide the City with all posts and communications from his personal Nextdoor account and any other social media accounts he used for City business so the City could ensure compliance with the Washington Public Records Act, and (2) comply with the Social Media Policy. 3.28 Defendant refused to comply with both demands. D. Hearing Examiner Confirms the Investigator's Findings 3.29 Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the City Governance Manual, Defendant challenged the Investigative Report and requested that the City conduct a hearing before a hearing examiner to determine whether any violation(s) occurred and provide recommended corrective action. COMPLAINT: 8 LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephane:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/ 11 /25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.30 On or about October 24, 2024, City Hearing Examiner Andrew L. Kottkamp conducted an open record public hearing concerning the Yaeger Complaint and Investigative Report. 3.31 Following testimony from multiple witnesses, Hearing Examiner Kottkamp entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision, and Recommended Corrective Action on or about December 13, 2024 (the "Hearing Examiner's Decision"). Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3.32 The Hearing Examiner's Decision concluded, among other things, that: (1) Defendant's use of his personal Nextdoor account to conduct business relating to the City violated the City Council's Conduct Standards and Councilmember Social Media Policy, (2) Defendant's failure and/or refusal to search, segregate, and produce social medial posts and comments to his personal Nextdoor account in response to multiple public records requests received by the City violated the City Council's Conduct Standards and Councilmember Social Media Policy, and (3) Defendant's failure and/or refusal to submit proper Nissen declarations in response to multiple public records requests received by the City violated the City Council's Conduct Standards. 3.33 The Hearing Examiner's Decision also found that Defendant should be subject to I corrective action. E. Post -Investigation Demands for Public Records 3.34 On or about December 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-015 formally censuring and removing Defendant from his committee assignment as a result of the violations upheld by Hearing Examiner Kottkamp. 3.35 In a letter dated December 23, 2024, City Manager Hohman demanded that Defendant produce all content posted to his Nextdoor accounts, including his personal Nextdoor COMPLAINT: 9 LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone. (509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/11/25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 account, to enable the City to complete its responses to multiple pending public records requests and remain in compliance with the Public Records Act. City Manager Hohman demanded complete production by no later than close of business on Friday, January 10, 2025. 3.36 In response, Defendant agreed "under protest" to sign up to Nextdoor using his city email account and back up the account with the City's Page Freezer program, which is meant to archive social media activity and allow the City to more easily compile public records. However, he did not produce complete records from his personal Nextdoor account because his account was suspended at the time and he lost access. 3.37 Because Defendant no longer had access to his account, the City was willing to accept a backup file from Nextdoor to at least partially comply with its obligations under the Public Records Act unless and until Defendant could obtain complete records. Throughout the City's communications with Defendant, its representatives repeatedly informed Mr. Merkel that this information was required to limit the City's exposure to Public Records Act liability. 3.38 On January 28, 2025, Defendant provided the backup file for his personal Nextdoor account to the City. However, on the same date, he informed the City that Nextdoor restored his personal account in full, allowing Defendant full access to all of his personal Nextdoor records. Further, the Nextdoor account that was linked to Defendant's City email address was deactivated by either Defendant or Nextdoor, leaving only his personal Nextdoor account active. 3.39 Upon review of Defendant's personal Nextdoor backup file, the City discovered it was insufficient for the City to comply with the Public Records Act because it was not in its original native format and therefore did not provide the entire record of Defendant's communications. For example, it provided the date and text of Defendant's posts, but not the context in which the posts/comments were made, nor did it include any photographs, polls, or interactive discussions related to the primary posts, which were known to exist. Importantly, for COMPLAINT: 10 LAW OFFICES OF LUKMS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Spmgue Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 F— (509) 747-2323 01037697.1 2/11/25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 posts Defendant made on third parties' Nextdoor pages, it does not identify on whose pages they were posted, whether any individual post was commenting on another's post or, if so, the post it was commenting on, or comments responding to Defendant's posts. Thus, it does not constitute a true copy of the public records and does not accurately depict the nature and scope of the j I communications contained therein. 3.40 Given that Defendant's full personal Nextdoor account had been restored, however, Defendant regained and now maintains full access to all such records. Accordingly, the City demanded that Defendant provide screen shots or other documents that fully and accurately depict all communications that discuss city business or were made in performance of his duties as an elected official from January 1, 2024, to the present. 3.41 The City also requested that Defendant complete amended Nissen declarations for the deficient declarations he previously issued to the City, as both the Investigator and the Hearing Examiner concluded that the declarations he previously provided were not compliant with the Public Records Act. These Nissen declarations pertained to his social media communications as well as non-social media records such as emails from his personal accounts, text messages from his personal cell phone, and other notes/memoranda. 3.42 The City also informed Defendant that he continues to be in violation of the Governance Manual, Appendix H, § 3, because he continues to make social media posts on his personal Nextdoor account related to the conduct of City business and the performance of his office. These posts showed that Defendant frequently conducted citizen polls about City actions and/or proposals, provided opinions of various City initiatives, surveyed citizens on public issues on the Council's agenda, reprimanded the official actions of city officials and staff, discussed his own performance of his official duties, among other city business all while an elected councilmember. The City demanded that Defendant immediately cease and desist from making COMPLAINT: 11 LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone (509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/11/25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 any such communications on any social media account/page, including Nextdoor, that is not set up as an official Councilmember social media account per the Governance Manual, Appendix H. 3.43 However, Defendant has failed to comply with the majority of the demands from the City, all of which were made to ensure the City complied with its legal obligations under the Public Records Act. 3.44 Defendant continues to deny that his social media posts and comments constitute public records, and he has failed to produce screen shots, sufficient account access, or other documents that fully and accurately depict all communications that discuss city business or performance of Defendant's office as an elected government official from January 1, 2024, to the present. Specifically, Defendant has failed to produce posts and comments that he makes on third parties' social media pages regarding City/Council business. 3.45 Defendant has failed to provide all necessary amended Nissen declarations that comply with the Public Records Act. 3.46 On information and belief, Defendant has failed to produce non-social media records regarding City or Council business, such as emails from his personal accounts, text messages from his personal cell phone, and other notes/memoranda. 3.47 Defendant continues to be in violation of the Governance Manual, Appendix H, § 3, because he continues to make social media posts on his personal Nextdoor account related to the conduct of City business and the performance of his office. 3.48 The City has taken all actions within its authority to obtain compliance from Defendant to ensure that the City complies with its obligations under the Public Records Act. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 4.1 Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT: 12 LAW OFFICES OF LUHINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spok—, WA 99201 Td%ho (509)455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NE 4.2 A dispute has arisen between the City on the one hand, and Defendant on the other hand, as to whether: (1) Defendant's social media profile page and communications regarding City business or the performance of his elected office on social media constitute public records; (2) Defendant's posts on third -parties' social media pages that discuss City business or the performance of his elected office constitute public records; (3) text messages on Defendant's personal cell phone regarding City business or the performance of his elected office are public records; (4) emails to and from Defendant's personal email address(es) regarding City business or the performance of his elected office are public records; (5) Defendant's personal memoranda regarding City business or the performance of his elected office are public records; and (6) Defendant is obligated to preserve these records and produce those responsive to public records requests in order for the City to comply with the Public Records Act. 4.3 The dispute herein is actual, concrete, and touches and affects the parties' rights I and relations. I Court. 4.4 Per RCW 7.24 et seq., the parties' rights should be declared and set forth by the 4.5 The City is entitled to a declaratory judgment stating, including but not limited to, the following: that Defendant's social media profile page and communications regarding City business or the performance of his office or are otherwise made to further performance of his office constitute public records, his posts on third -parties' social media pages regarding City business or performance of his office or are otherwise made to further performance of his office constitute public records, text messages on Defendant's personal cell phone regarding City business or the performance of his office or are otherwise made to further performance of his office constitute public records, emails to and from Defendant's personal email address(es) regarding City business or the performance of his office or are otherwise made to further 25 11 performance of his office constitute public records, Defendant's personal memoranda regarding COMPLAINT: 13 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/ 1 1 /25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I City business or the performance of his office or are otherwise made to further performance of his office constitute public records, and that the Public Records Act requires Defendant to preserve these records and provide the City with those records that are responsive to public 11 records requests. V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: WRIT OF MANDAMUS 5.1 Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 5.2 Defendant is an elected member of the City Council. As a Councilmember, Defendant has a clear duty to comply with the City's Governance Manual, including the Social Media Policy contained in Appendix H. 5.3 The City has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to enforce the requirements of the Governance Manual, as all efforts to obtain compliance have been exhausted. 5.4 The City is beneficially interested in the issuance of the writ to ensure compliance with the Governance Manual from all Councilmembers and to ensure its own compliance with I the Washington Public Records Act. 5.5 Accordingly, the City is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant to comply with the City's Governance Manual, namely, the Social Media Policy contained in Appendix H. 5.6 The City is entitled to such a writ requiring Defendant to do, including but not limited to, the following: 5.6.1 Restrict social media discussions regarding City business or the performance of his office, or which are otherwise made to further COMPLAINT: 14 performance of his office, to official councilmember social media accounts compliant with the Governance Manual. LAW OFFICES OF LUMNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone (509)455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697 1 2/ 11 /25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5.6.2 Not discuss City business or the performance of his office or otherwise make statements in furtherance of the performance of his office on his erp sonal social media profile pages. 5.6.3 Not use his personal social media to post regarding City business or the performance of his office on other persons' social media pages. VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6.1 Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully set forth herein. 6.2 Legal remedies do not provide adequate remedies protecting Plaintiff from liability under the Washington Public Records Act arising from Defendant's conduct described above in Plaintiff's Complaint. 6.3 Pursuant to RCW 7.40 et. seq., and CR 65, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief including, but not limited to, requiring that Defendant do the following: 6.3.1 Preserve, in native format, all posts, comments, and responses he has made, makes, received, or receives during his term in office on personal social media platforms, including but not limited to Nextdoor, on his personal page(s) and posts made on other persons' social media pages regarding City business or the performance of his office or are otherwise made to further performance of his office that are created during his term in office, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they have been or are requested via third party public records requests. 6.3.2 Retrieve and preserve, in native format, all posts, comments, and responses thereto that he has made or received during his term in office COMPLAINT: 15 LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite t600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 using personal social media platforms, including but not limited to Nextdoor, regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further performance of his office that have been deleted from his or others social media pages to the extent he is able and they were created during his term in office, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they are or have been requested via third party public records requests. 6.3.3 Preserve, in native format, all text messages, emails, and social media direct messages from his personal devices/accounts regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further performance of his office during his term as a Councilmember, and make the same available to the City for production to the extent they are responsive to public records requests received or that are received in the future. 6.3.4 Preserve personal memoranda Defendant created or creates during his term in office that are or are related to City business or the performance of his officer or were otherwise made to further the performance of his office, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they are responsive to third party public records requests and were in his possession at the time the City received the request. 6.3.5 To the extent the responsive records outlined above are not available, produce truthful and legally sufficient Nissen declarations that contain COMPLAINT: 16 reasonably detailed, nonconclusory facts that attest to the nature and extent of Defendant's search for all past and future public records requests. LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 F.: (509) 747-2323 01037697,1 2/ 11 /25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff City of Spokane Valley prays for relief as follows: 1. For entry of an Order declaring, including but not limited to, the following: (a) content and communications on Defendant's personal social media accounts relating to City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further the performance of his office as an elected government official constitute public records; (b) Defendant's posts and comments on third -parties' social media pages regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further the performance of his office as an elected government official constitute public records; (c) text messages on Defendant's personal cell phone regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further the performance of his office as an elected government official constitute public records; (d) emails to and from Defendant's personal email address(es) regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further the performance of his office as an elected government official constitute public records; (e) Defendant's personal memoranda regarding City business or the performance of his office or which were otherwise made to further the performance of his office as an elected government official constitute public records; and (f) that the Public Records Act requires Defendant to preserve all such records, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they are responsive to third party public records requests. 2. For entry of a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant to fully comply with the City Governance Manual, namely, Appendix H (Social Media Policy), with such a writ requiring Defendant to do, including but not limited to, the following: a. Restrict social media discussions regarding City business or the performance of his office, or which otherwise further the performance of his office, to COMPLAINT: 17 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephane:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 official councilmember social media accounts compliant with the Governance Manual; b. Not discuss City business or write posts/comments that relate to the conduct of City business or the performance of Defendant's office, or which otherwise further the performance of his office, on his personal social media accounts; and c. Not use personal social media accounts to communicate regarding City business or the performance of his office or which otherwise further the performance of his office on other persons' social media pages. 3. For an injunction requiring Defendant to do, including but not limited to, the following: a. Preserve, in native format, all posts/comments he has made, makes, received, or receives during his term in office via personal social media platforms, including but not limited to Nextdoor, on his own page(s) and posts/comments made on other persons' social media pages that relate to City business or the performance of his office or which otherwise further the performance of his office, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they have been or are requested via third party public records request. b. To the extent Defendant is able, (i) retrieve and preserve, in native format, all posts/comments that he has made or received during his term in office on COMPLAINT: 18 personal social media platforms, including but not limited to Nextdoor, that regard City business or the performance of his office or which otherwise further the performance of his office and have been deleted from his or others social media pages, and (ii) make them available to the City for production to LAW OFFICES OF LUIQNS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sptague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697.1 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the extent they are or have been requested via third party public records requests. c. Preserve, in native format, all text messages, emails, and social media direct messages from his personal devices/accounts regarding City business or the performance of his office, or were otherwise made to further the performance of his office, that were or are created during his term of office, and make them available to the City for production to the extent they are responsive to third parry public records requests. d. Produce all personal memoranda he created or creates during his term in office that are related to City business or the performance of his office or were otherwise made to further the performance of his office to the extent they are responsive to third party public records requests and in his possession at the time the City received or receives the request. e. To the extent the responsive records outlined above are not available, they produce truthful and legally valid Nissen declarations that contain reasonably detailed, nonconclusory facts that attest to the nature and extent of Defendant's search for all past and future public records requests. 4. For the right to amend this Complaint upon the discovery of additional allegations, causes of action, and/or damages; and 5. Award of such other relief, at law or in equity, as the Court deems just and equitable. COMPLAINT: 19 LAW OFFICES OF LUKINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Ave., Suile 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephane:(509) 455-9555 Fax: (509)747-2323 01037697A 2/I1/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED this 1 lth day of February, 2025. I COMPLAINT: 20 LUKINS & ANNIS, P.S. RERYU JOHN4k M19HAEL J. M ZA1NE M. YZA 3A #44338 BA #19929 WSBA #58265 Attorneys for the City of Spokane Valley LAW OFFICES OF LUHINS & ANNIS, PS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 W Sprague Am, Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 455-9555 F.: (509) 747-2721 01037697A 2/11/25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER IN RE: I File No.: APP-2024-0001 Appeal of Councilmember Albert Merkel, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION, AND RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 1.1. At the conclusion of the October 24, 2024 open record public hearing (hereinafter "Hearing") the investigator asked if the Hearing Examiner would allow the parties to submit proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Recommended Sanctions as part of their post filing submissions. Mr. Merkel did not state an objection. The Hearing Examiner indicated that the parties were free to submit proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision, and Sanction with their post -hearing filings. The Hearing Examiner indicated that the Hearing Examiner was not required to make any of the proposed findings or conclusions or decision or sanctions. 1.2. The Investigator did submit proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision, and "Corrective Action". Mr. Merkel did not submit any proposed Findings, Conclusions, Decision, or Corrective Action. 1.3. The Investigator submitted a Motion that the Hearing Examiner adopt all of the Findings and Conclusions set forth in the Investigator's post -hearing submission. Mr. Merkel objected to the Hearing Examiner adopting these proposed Findings of Fact, DECISION - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conclusions of Law, Decision, and Corrective Action. The Hearing Examiner indicated that he would address this Motion in his decision. 1.4. The Hearing Examiner denies the Investigator's Motion. However, as the parties will see from this decision, the Hearing Examiner has liberally adopted most of the proposed Findings' of Fact and Conclusions of Law that have been submitted by the Investigator. This was done after the Hearing Examiner's consideration of all of the evidence submitted by the parties in this matter, and the Hearing Examiner's decision to make a finding that a violation of the Spokane Valley Conduct Standards and Social Media Policy did occur. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 2.1. On or about June 11, 2024, Councilmember Jessica Yeager of the City of Spokane Valley City Council submitted a formal complaint ("complaint") to the City Manager of the City of Spokane Valley, alleging Councilmember Albert Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standards as identified in Chapter 5 of the Governance Manual adopted by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. (Ex. I-1) Specifically, Councilmember Yeager complained that Councilmember Merkel violated the Council Social Media Policy (Appendix H to the Governance Manual). (Ex. I-1) 2.2. On or about August 1, 2024, Councilmember Yaeger submitted a supplemental formal complaint to the City Manager clarifying and supplementing her allegations, contending that Councilmember Merkel had engaged in conduct constituting violations of RCW 42.56 (the Washington Public Records Act) and RCW 40.14 in violation of the Council Conduct Standards. (Ex. I-1) 2.3. Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Governance Manual, the City of Spokane Valley was required to retain an independent investigator and did retain Rebecca Dean, Independent Investigator, to investigate the alleged violations of the Council Conduct Standards and the Social Media Policy and to issue a report finding whether or not the conduct alleged occurred and whether such conduct violated Council Conduct Standards. DECISION - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.4. Rebecca Dean is an attorney licensed to practice in the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Investigator Dean achieved high academic honors in her undergraduate and law school training and has years of relevant experience in civil disputes in litigation and in providing advice and recommendations to clients. Ms. Dean has, since 2006, exclusively engaged in an investigation practice and has been retained by a variety of governmental agencies and private businesses to conduct investigations involving workplace conduct, ethical standards, policies, and rules and regulations disputes to include, where appropriate, witness interviews, document reviews, policy reviews and analysis, legal research, reviews of local and national standards or guidelines governing, inter alia, governmental agencies, and private businesses. Ms. Dean's experience includes making factual and legal determinations regarding the subject matter of the investigation to include whether policies, procedures, conduct guidelines, ethical prohibitions, laws or regulations have been violated and arriving at factual findings and legal conclusions as to the effects of determined conduct pursuant to the scope of the investigations that she has been charged to undertake. 2.5. Rebecca Dean is a resident of King County, Washington and has no social relationships with any City of Spokane Valley employee or any member of the City of Spokane Valley City Council. 2.6. In the conduct of her investigation, Rebecca Dean was provided and reviewed over 350 screenshots taken of Councilmember Merkel's Nextdoor social media account, the contents of which were the basis of Councilmember Yaeger's complaint. (Merkel Pre - Hearing Brief, Attachment 1, RCA to City of Spokane Valley 9/24/2024, p. 1) 2.7. As part of her investigation, Rebecca Dean reviewed the City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual, the Association of Washington Cities' "Guidelines for Elected and Appointed Officials Using Social Media," the Municipal Research and Services Center Guidance for Local Governments On Elected Official Social Media Accounts and Public Records Act Compliance, and the Washington State Archivist's Records Management Guidelines for Local Government Agencies. Ms. Dean conducted independent legal research into RCW 40.14, Preservation and Destruction of Public Records; RCW 42.56, the Public Records Act, and relevant case authorities construing DECISION - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the statutes. The legal research conducted by Ms. Dean included review and analysis of the following applicable statutes and judicial authorities: 2.7.1. Chapters RCW 40.14 et seq. and RCW 42.56, et seq.; 2.7.2. West v City of Pzryallup, 2 Wn.App.2nd 586,410 P.3d 1197 (2018); 2.7.3. Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 357 P.3rd 45 (2015); 2.7.4. Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, 172 Wn.2d 7021, 261 P.3d 119 (2011); and 2.7.5. West v. Clark County, No. 52843-6-II, Wa. Ct. App., January 20, 2021 (Unpublished). 2.8. Following the completion of her investigation, research, and analysis, Ms. Dean prepared an investigative report dated September 3, 2024, regarding the Yeager complaints. The report, including Exhibits I-2 through I-15, were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit I -A and Exhibits I-2 through 1-15. 2.9. An open record public hearing after due legal notice was held on October 24, 2024. 2.10. Appearing for the investigator were Rebecca Dean and Jim King. 2.11. Appearing for Councilman Albert Merkel was Albert Merkel. 2.12. The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 2.12.6. Investigator: 2.12.6.1. Exhibit I -A Investigation Report of Independent Investigator; 2.12.6.2. Exhibit I-1 Complaints of Jessica Yaeger of June 112024 and August 1, 2024; 2.12.6.3. Exhibit I-2 Merkel Nextdoor Post, dated February 29, 2024; 2.12.6.4. Exhibit I-3 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated April 16, 2024 and April 23, 2024; 2.12.6.5. Exhibit I-4 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated April, and May, 2024; 2.12.6.6. Exhibit I-5 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated March, April, and May, 2024; 2.12.6.7. Exhibit 1-6 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated May, June, and July, 2024; 2.12.6.8. Exhibit I-7 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated March, 2024; 2.12.6.9. Exhibit I-8 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated June, 2024; 2.12.6.10. Exhibit I-9 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated June 29, 2024; 2.12.6.11. Exhibit I-10 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated June 14, 2024; DECISION - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.12.6.12. Exhibit I -I I Merkel Nextoor Posts, dated March and June, 2024; 2.12.6.13. Exhibit 1-12 Merkel Nextdoor Posts, dated May 5, 2024; 2.12.6.14. Exhibit I-13 Merkel Nextoor Posts, dated April, 2024; 2.12.6.15. Exhibit 1-14 Merkel Nissen Declaration, dated April 2, 2024; 2.12.6.16. Exhibit I-15 Jessica Yaeger Nextdoor Posts, dated May 10, 2024; 2.12.6.17. Exhibit 1-16 City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual Chapter 5; 2.12.6.18. Exhibit I-17 City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual Appendix H; 2.12.6.19. Exhibit I-18 City of Spokane Valley Appendix B, Rules of Procedure for Proceedings Before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Spokane Valley Washington, Chapters I & IV; 2.12.6.20. Exhibit I-19 Curriculum Vitae of Independent Investigator; 2.12.6.21. Exhibit I-20 Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wash. 2d 863 (2015); 2.12.6.22. Exhibit I-21 West v. Vermillion, 196 Wn. App 627 (2016); 2.12.6.23. Exhibit 1-22 West v. City of Puyallup, 2 Wn. App 2d 586 (2018); 2.12.6.24. Exhibit I-23 West v. Clark County, Court of Appeals No. 52843- 6-11(unpublished); 2.12.6.25. Exhibit 1-24 Investigator Hearing Memorandum; 2.12.6.26. Exhibit 1-25 Investigator Exhibit Lists; 2.12.6.27. Exhibit 1-26 Investigator Witness List; 2.12.6.28. Exhibit 1-27 Errata to Hearing Memorandum (Exhibit I-24); 2.12.6.29. Exhibit 1-28 Investigator Motion in Limine; 2.12.6.30. Exhibit 1-29 Final Argument of Investigator; 2.12.6.31. Exhibit I-30 Investigator's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; 2.12.6.32. Exhibit 1-31 Investigator November 8, 2024 Letter to the Hearing Examiner; 2.12.6.33. Exhibit I-32 Investigator Motion for Acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; DECISION - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.12.6.34. Exhibit I-33 Declaration of James Keene in support of Independent Investigator's Motion for Acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; 2.12.6.35. Exhibit I-34 Independent Investigator's Rebuttal Argument. 2.12.7. Exhibits from Appellant: 2.12.7.1. Exhibit A-1-15 set forth in appellants exhibit list (Exhibit A 19) 2.12.7.2. Exhibit A- 16 Appellant Brief, 2.12.7.3. Exhibit A-17 Letter to John Hohman dated September 27, 2024; 2.12.7.4. Exhibit A- 18 September 24, 2024 City of Spokane Valley Requests for City Council Action (with Exhibits); 2.12.7.5. Exhibit A- 19 Appellant Exhibit and Witness Lists' 2.12.7.6. Exhibit A-20 MRSC "Election Season Tips and Reminders" dated August 16, 2024; 2.12.7.7. Exhibit A-21 Merkel Final Summation. 2.13. The Hearing Examiner also admitted into the record the Hearing Examiner's Order on Pre -Hearing Conference dated October 18, 2024. 2.14. Testifying for the Investigator was the investigator herself, Rebecca Dean. Ms. Dean's testimony is consistent with her report and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this decision. 2.15. Investigator attorney, Jim King, also provided legal argument on behalf of the investigator. 2.16. Testifying on behalf of the Appellant were Albert Merkel and Dan Allison. 2.17. The Hearing Examiner finds that the investigation conducted herein by Ms. Dean was performed thoroughly, competently, and in a fair and impartial manner by a highly qualified professional with significant investigative experience in discovering and analyzing facts, reviewing and interpreting documents, and researching and applying guidelines and recommendations, as well as in the interpretation and application of applicable rules, regulations, statutes, and judicial opinions. 2.18. The Hearing Examiner further finds that given the quality, depth, and breadth of the experience and professionalism of the Investigator, the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the Investigator's work and report in this matter, that the DECISION - 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Investigator's report and the Investigator's analysis, opinions, and testimony are entitled to great weight by the Hearing Examiner in the adjudication of this matter. 2.19. The impartiality, accuracy, and fairness of the Independent Investigator in her report have not been challenged by competent impeachment, a showing of bias or prejudice, or a showing by way of competent expert testimony that the Investigator's factual conclusions, analyses, and opinions are inadequate, inaccurate, or insufficiently supported. 2.20. The Hearing Examiner also heard testimony from Councilmember Merkel and from Dan Allison, a witness called by Mr. Merkel. The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Merkel provided no competent expert legal analysis to support his conclusion that none of his questioned social media posts on Nextdoor were "the conduct of City business," "in furtherance of the City Business," "public records," as that term is defined in RCW 42.56.010(3) and Washington case law, or a violation of the City of Spokane Valley Social Media Policy. However, the Hearing Examiner also finds that Mr. Merkel sincerely believes that his posts on Nextdoor were not a violation of the City of Spokane Valley Social Media Policy. 2.21. The Examiner was not convinced by Mr. Merkel's testimony, legal analysis or supporting rationale. Mr. Merkel claimed Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 144 S. Ct. 756, 218 L.Ed.2d 121 (2024) was dispositive of the charges that he had violated the Social Media Policy and/or the Governance Manual. But Lindke has nothing to do with Washington state law governing public records definitions, retention, or retrieval. Instead, Lindke concerned a City Manager's potential personal liability under 42 USC § 1983 for violating third parties' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The City Manager (Freed) had deleted, and then ultimately blocked, a follower (Lindke) from commenting on the City Manager's personal Facebook page, which was otherwise open to the public. The follower sued under § 1983, alleging that the City Manager violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that the public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official's social media page only engages in "state action" under the color of law for purposes of 42 USC § 1983 if they (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the public entity's behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the relevant social media posts. Merkel cited DECISION - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lindke for the proposition that the use of a disclaimer means that his posts could not constitute conducting City business because he employed a disclaimer. The dicta in Lindke to the effect that a social media user's disclaimer creates a rebuttable presumption that posts were personal for First Amendment purposes is not applicable to whether a councilmember's posts violate the City's Governance Manual or constitute a public record under the Washington Public Records Act. 2.22. Witness Dan Allison offered no testimony specifically related to the posts that were the subject of the Investigator's evaluation or as to the requirements of the City of Spokane Valley Social Media Policy, the Washington Public Records Act, or the Governance Manual. 2.23. The Hearing Examiner finds that some of Councilmember Merkel's personal Nextdoor posts (including some of those admitted into evidence and/or were the subject of review by the Investigator), which were the subject of the (a) investigation, (b) Investigator's report, and (c) the testimony at hearing, are posts that may relate to the conduct of city government and/or city business and/or the performance of Mr. Merkel's office, and/or in furtherance of the City's business. 2.24. The Hearing Examiner finds that Councilmember Merkel used his Nextdoor account to conduct business relating to the City --even if he was not speaking for the entire City Council (which he was not). For example, Councilmember Merkel offered to assist his Nextdoor followers with city business, including opposition to a proposed application for a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Merkel used his Nextdoor account to conduct polling of potential voters and constituents on City governance issues and proposals that Mr. Merkel planned to present for City Council consideration. Moreover, Mr. Merkel discussed the results from his Nextdoor account of his polling in public meetings to include a Nextdoor survey conducted by Councilmember Merkel on Nextdoor about support or opposition to a street improvement project on Sprague Avenue. 2.25. The Hearing Examiner further finds that the Nextdoor posts by Councilmember Merkel have been edited in accord with the Investigator's unrefuted testimony and as demonstrated in Exhibits I-2 through I-5. Similarly, posts of followers on DECISION - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Councilmember Merkel's Nextdoor account, including posts that relate to the conduct of City government or City business, have been edited. 2.26. Councilmember Merkel has regularly posted on his Nextdoor account about topics pertaining to the governance and policies of the City of Spokane Valley and has consistently communicated on his Nextdoor account with followers concerning a wide variety of City governance matters and/or City business. 2.27. Councilmember Merkel has posted on his Nextdoor account summaries of and commentary about City Council debates, including posts concerning council deliberations in executive session. (Exhibits 2, 3). 2.28. Councilmember Merkel has regularly posted on his Nextdoor accounts complaints and criticisms of other Councilmembers and as to the Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, as well as Councilmembers Higgins and Yaeger, claiming that they were engaged in efforts to silence Merkel, and that the same councilmembers had failed to engage, in their official capacities, with City residents. Mr. Merkel, at the same time, commented on his own level of engagement with the constituents and followers (Exhibit I-4). 2.29. Councilmember Merkel has commented and posted on Nextdoor about investigations into Merkel's behavior and Merkel's formal complaints against Councilmember Higgins regarding Higgins' alleged behavior during council debate. (Exhibit I-4, page 6 and Exhibit I-5). 2.30. Councilmember Merkel has posted on his Nextdoor account with statements of opinions replete with details, assertions, and allegations about his position as a City Councilmember and the positions of other City Councilmembers on the merits of policy issues considered by the City Council for approval or rejection. (Exhibit I-2; Exhibit I-3 at pp. 2 -5; Exhibit I-4 at pp. 2-9 & 13-16; Exhibit I-5 at pp. 7-14). 2.31. Councilmember Merkel used his personal social media platform on Nextdoor to make promises to followers to address questions about specific City issues to include requests to the follower on his social media account to send an email to Councilmember Merkel's City email address (Exhibit I-6). 2.32. Councilmember Merkel used his Nextdoor social media account to survey his followers about the Sprague Avenue development project and reported on the results DECISION - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of this survey at a Council meeting in his official capacity in an apparent effort to shape or steer policy to a position that Merkel approved (Exhibit I-7). 2.33. Councilmember Merkel has posted on social media soliciting comments about his budget proposal, and he solicited follower comments about his proposal for addressing issues associated with persons experiencing homelessness in the City of Spokane Valley. (Exhibit I-9). Councilmember Merkel solicited follower comments concerning his proposed budget with the intent that the comments would inform his presentations within his official capacity as a city Councilmember to the city council. 2.34. Councilmember Merkel has claimed that the Washington Public Records Act does not apply to his personal account as long as there is a disclaimer which states that he is not acting for or on behalf of the City of Spokane Valley or the City of Spokane Valley City Council. Merkel claims since he does not have legal power to speak for the Council as a whole, none of his postings can be deemed to be public records, or in furtherance of the City's business, or the conduct of the City's business. Mr. Merkel's assertion is incorrect and inconsistent with Washington law. 2.35. Councilmember Merkel does not claim that the Nextdoor posts were not made in his capacity as a member of the City Council. Instead, he argues that he is not bound by the requirements of the Governance Manual's Social Media Policy or the Public Records Act because he was not directed to make the posts and does not have authority to bind the City or Council by his posts. 2.36. The subject Nextdoor posts admitted into evidence and as reviewed by the Investigator and the Hearing Examiner appear to be posted by Mr. Merkel in his capacity as a member of the City Council and are Mr. Merkel's view of the proper manner to further City business and are posted in order to advance that viewpoint. 2.37. Merkel does not claim that the Nextdoor posts have nothing to do with City business, City policy, decisions of the City Council with which he disagrees, investigations by the City of his behavior which he decries, or because of political differences with other members of the City Council with whom he officially disagrees. 2.38. Mr. Merkel's Nextdoor social media posts appear to be (a) made in furtherance of Mr. Merkel's viewpoint of what City's business and governance should be and (b) DECISION - 10 I posted as a mechanism to cause his positions to be adopted in furtherance of the City's 2 business and its government, and (c) posted in his Councilmember capacity. 3 2.39. On April 2, 2024, the City provided a declaration (Investigator Exhibit I-14) to Councilmember Merkel. He was requested, through the language in the declaration, to 4 confirm that he had no responsive posts or messages on his Nextdoor account 5 regarding City and/or council business for the period of January 1, 2024 through 6 March 21, 2024, or provide any responsive records if he did. Councilmember, Merkel, 7 despite the Nissen requirements that an affidavit or declaration must be made in good faith and must contain reasonably detailed nonconclusory facts attesting to the nature 8 and extent of his search, redacted the proffered declaration, and rather than confirm 9 that he had no social media posts regarding City and/or Council business, simply 10 changed the language on the declaration to state that none of his posts were public 11 records and signed the declaration with that change. Councilmember Merkel's refusal 12 to state under penalty of perjury that none of his Nextdoor posts dealt with City and/or Council business is a strong indication that he understood he had posted regarding City 13 and/or Council business. 14 2.40. Following the completion of her investigation, the Investigator properly provided a 15 written report to the City Manager that meets the requirements of the Governance 16 Manual. The investigator likewise complied with the requirement to deliver without undue delay a copy of the Investigator's report to the Councilmember that was the 17 subject of the investigation. 18 2.41. It is not necessary for the Hearing Examiner to enter a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion 19 of Law that Mr. Merkel violated the Public Records Act. It is only necessary for the 20 Hearing Examiner to determine whether Mr. Merkel violated the Social Media Policy. 2.42. The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standard 21 having to do with social media utilization. The Hearing Examiner finds based upon 22 the above Findings of Fact as well as the Conclusions of Law that Mr. Merkel had in 23 fact violated the social media policy. 24 2.43. It is significant to the Hearing Examiner that it is not Mr. Merkel's public or private 25 conversations that are subject to the Public Records Act. It is only public records that are subject to the Public Records Act. Mr. Merkel remains free to talk to anybody DECISION - 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about anything at any time, including discussions of City business and affairs. The issue is whether Mr. Merkel is free to publish posts in furtherance of City businesses and affairs on social media that are not on a platform that allows for the documents created to be stored and retrievable in the event of a public records request. That is the critical requirement in order to comply with the Social Media Policy 2.44. No Constitutional protected right of free speech is implicated by the City of Spokane Valley Social Media Policy for council members. 2.45. In violation of the Social Media Policy, Council Member Merkel refused to utilize the policy mandated platform that allows capture, storage, and retrieval of his posts on City business and affairs. This requirement is for a real financial risk to the City if the City is unable to comply with a public request for records. 2.46. Mr. Merkel also refused to provide in good faith and in the detail required, a detailed factual description of his posts when requested by the city in dealing with the request for records under the Public Records Act. 2.47. The City of Spokane Valley has lawfully enacted a Conduct Standard, the Social Media Policy, that allows the City access to social media posts published by council members so that those records may be produced in connection with public record request made to the city. This policy enables the City to fulfill its legal obligations under the Act and to mitigate risk of liability under the Act. 2.48. The Hearing Examiner finds that, based in the Investigator's report and the Hearing Examiner's review of all file materials, that Mr. Merkel violated the City of Spokane Valley Council Conduct Standards and Social Media Policy. 2.49. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is hereby incorporated as such by this reference. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner makes the following Conclusions of Law: 3.1. Mr. Merkel has violated The Governance Manual's (a) Appendix H, Section 3, p. 83, and (s) Chapter 5, §A(3) by posting on his personal Nextdoor account posts "that relate DECISION - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the conduct of City business or the performance of ' Councilmember Merkel's office. 3.2. Pursuant to the Findings of Facts, Councilmember Merkel has violated Chapter 5, §A (3), (9) of the Governance Manual. Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 357 P.3d 45 (2015) imposes upon City -elected officials a duty to search, obtain, segregate, and produce posts made by such elected officials, which duty requires them to search allegedly personal social media accounts for documents that may constitute public records. If the official conducting the search contends that the documents contained on the personal device (or by extension, a social media account) are not public records, then the elected official has a legal duty to submit a declaration establishing a factual foundation to support the claim that the documents on the platform are not public records. 3.3. The conduct of Councilmember Merkel in failing to meet the good faith requirements of Nissen and in further failing to provide a factual foundation that there were no posts on his Nextdoor account that dealt with City or council business, violates both the letter and spirit of Nissen and constitutes a violation of the Governance Manual, Chapter 5(A)(9) in violation of Chapter 5, Section C (Governance Manual, p. 55). 3.4. Based on the Investigator's Report and testimony and the contents of the posts proffered and/or reviewed prior to April 2, 2024, Councilmember Merkel's signing of the declaration as drafted would have been an act of bad faith as well since he clearly posted on Nextdoor regarding City business prior to that time between January and March of 2024. 3.5. Councilmember Merkel has failed to establish that his defense of ultra vires is valid and that affirmative defense is dismissed. 3.6. Councilmember Merkel's defense attacking the processes by which the Investigator was selected and conducted her investigation is dismissed as meritless. 3.7. Councilmember Merkel's defense that the investigator was partial or biased is meritless and is dismissed. 3.8. Councilmember Merkel has failed to meet his burden of proof on his affirmative defense that his Nextdoor posts are available to the public and the City of Spokane DECISION - 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Valley and that defense is dismissed. Even if there were evidence that the posts were available to the City and all of the public, he still violated the Social Media Policy. 3.9. Councilmember Merkel's defense that he has not been provided due process fails. The essence of due process is notice of a hearing and the opportunity to be heard in connection with the subject matter of the hearing. Here, both notice and an opportunity to be heard have been provided to Councilmember Merkel who has willingly and fully participated in the due process, including instigating this appeal. 3.10. Councilmember Merkel's alleged defense that he made requests of the City for records, some of which were not provided, or that he did not have the right to subpoena witnesses for purposes of the hearing is beyond the scope of the authority provided to the Hearing Examiner under the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix B, Chapters I (Rules of General Applicability) and IV (Hearings on Council Conduct Standards Violation) under which the hearing must be conducted. 3.11. Councilmember Merkel failed to make any offer of proof at the hearing identifying what records he requested but supposedly did not receive or, most importantly, what said records would show in connection to the complaints of Councilmember Yeager and the Findings and Conclusions of the Investigator. Councilmember Merkel has further failed to show, through an offer of proof, what testimony would have been provided by witnesses compelled to testify under the power of subpoena that would have been probative of his defenses to the Investigator's findings, including Appendix H, the Councilmember Social Media Policy. 3.12. At the hearing in this matter, the only exhibits offered in support of the claims against Councilmember Merkel were the report and exhibits of Investigator Dean, which Councilmember Merkel has had since the report was prepared and submitted to him on September 4, 2024, and to which Councilmember Merkel had no evidentiary objection. The only witness called for the Investigator's case -in -chief was Investigator Dean who was made available for both direct and cross examination during the hearing held on October 24, 2024. 3.13. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 144 S. Ct. 756, 218 L.Ed.2d 121 (2024) is not controlling in this case. The Lindke case has nothing to do with state statutes regarding public records or with Social Media policies adopted by State or municipal DECISION - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 governments. Instead, the Lindke case involved a claim under 42 USC, Section 1983, asserting that a city manager was subject to personal liability because the city manager had violated the plaintiff s I" Amendment free speech rights by blocking the plaintiff from commenting on the city manager's personal social media account. 3.14. Justice Barrett in writing for the Lindke court, proclaimed that the "official's social media activity" would meet the state action requirement for pursuit of a Section 1983 claim only if the public official possessed actual authority to speak on the City's behalf and was engaged in exercising that authority when he spoke on social media. 3.15. Lindke does not address whether a City Council's authority to adopt and enforce a policy requiring its elected members to make sure any social media posts regarding City business are posted on social media accounts that are archivable for purposes of the Washington Public Records Act. Lindke is likewise irrelevant to the determination of whether a record constitutes a "public record" under the Washington Public Records Act. 3.16. Mr. Merkel also claimed that the City Council concluded that his posts were not "public records" or subject to the Social Media Policy when they allegedly denied his request for City -funded legal representation in connection with this hearing. The only evidence Mr. Merkel offered is the request for Council action of 7/24/24 attached to Mr. Merkel's Pre -Hearing Brief. The request, however, concerned application of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Ch. 2.70, which prohibits the City from paying for legal representation when the claim involves an action by an elected official contrary to adopted City policy without regard to whether the action was within or outside the scope of their office. Here, Mr. Merkel violated the City's Councilmember Social Media policy by conducting City business on his personal Nextdoor account. The Hearing The Hearing Examiner concludes that Mr. Merkel is therefore not entitled to City -funded legal representation. Contrary to his claim, the City Council concluded only that the allegations are that he violated City policy, and he was therefore not entitled to City -funded legal counsel. 3.17. The City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual ("Manual") provides as follows: DECISION - 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.17.1. "As councilmembers of the City of Spokane Valley, we agree that the Governance Manual (Manual) outlines the rules by which we agree to adhere in order to successfully and efficiently conduct city business." (Manual, p. 3) 3.18. The Manual further provides: 3.18.2. The City acknowledges the importance of complying with the ... Public Records Act: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." RCW42.30.010, 42.56.030 (Manual, p. 4) 3.19. Chapter 3 of the Manual (pp. 43-44A) addresses citizen contact and interactions outside of a council meeting. It provides as follows: 3.19.1. Social Media 3.19.1.1. "Councilmembers shall comply with the City Councilmember Social Media Policy which is attached hereto as Exhibit H and wholly incorporated herein." (Manual, p. 44A) 3.20. The duties of individual Councilmembers are set forth in the Manual (pp. 5-6). The duties, responsibilities and limitations of each Councilmember include: 3.20.1. "... Contact residents and businesses to gather feedback and ideas. The resulting information may be shared with staff or other Councilmembers individually, or with fewer than two simultaneously (but not serially), or with all Councilmembers at a Council meeting. 3.20.2. Studies internal and external written and documented information related to the government and administration of the city.... 3.20.3. When acting in the capacity of Councilmember outside of Council meetings, communicates that any personal opinion is the opinion of the individual Councilmember and not that of the collective Council. Councilmember's freedom of speech is protected by the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions. Councilmembers may ... discuss city business in non-public meetings. No DECISION - 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 permission is needed, nor is notice required to be given for such gathering." (Manual, pp. 5-6) 3.21. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides as follows: 3.21.4. "In order to foster an environment of ethical and professional conduct by all Councilmembers, the Council has adopted the following process to be implemented in the event a Councilmember is alleged to have violated a provision of.... 3.21.5. "(3) the Social Media Policy attached as Appendix H to this Governance Manual; ... 3.21.6. "(9) other applicable laws and/or regulations governing the conduct of the Councilmembers in their capacity as elected public officials. (Manual page 55A.) The previously provided provisions are part of the Council Conduct Standards. (Manual, p. 5513) 3.22. The Manual provides that: 3.22.7. "All Councilmembers must abide by the above -identified Council Conduct Standards. Any Councilmember alleged to have violated Council Conduct Standards is subject to the below enforcement provisions." 3.23. The Manual establishes in chapter 5 a procedure for enforcement of the Council Conduct Standards. (Manual, p. 55D) 3.24. The Council Conduct Standards are binding on Councilmember Albert Merkel. The Enforcement Procedure set forth in the Manual was appropriately followed after complaints that Councilmember Merkel had violated the Social Media Policy of the City of Spokane Valley were lodged by Councilmember Yaeger on or about June 11, 2024 and August 1, 2024. 3.25. The City Manager, in accordance with the Manual, upon receipt of the written complaints involving Councilmember Merkel promptly retained an independent third - party attorney, Rebecca Dean, to conduct an independent review and investigate the complaints of Councilmember Yaeger pursuant to the Governance Manual. 3.26. The retained attorney (referred to throughout this decision as Investigator) properly determined that Councilmember Yaeger's complaints alleged an actionable claim DECISION - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 against Councilmember Merkel pursuant to the Governance Manual, Chapter 5, Section (D)(2)(a). 3.27. The Investigator thereafter conducted a full and fair investigation of the allegations identified in the Yaeger complaints pursuant to the Governance Manual. The Investigator investigated the allegations in the complaints with a view toward determining whether, on a more probable than not basis, Councilmember Merkel violated Council Conduct Standards (Governance Manual, Chapter 5, § A & B (3), (9))• 3.28. The investigation conducted by Investigator Rebecca Dean complies with the requirements set forth in the Governance Manual. 3.29. Following the completion of her investigation, the Investigator properly provided a written report to the City Manager that meets the requirements of the Governance Manual. The investigator likewise complied with the requirement to deliver without undue delay a copy of the Investigator's report to the Councilmember that was the subject of the investigation. 3.30. The Investigator found, on a more probable than not basis, that Councilmember Merkel violated the Council Conduct Standards and the Social Media Policy. Councilmember Merkel timely delivered a request for hearing to the City Manager pursuant to the Governance Manual. 3.31. The actions of the City of Spokane Valley and the City Council in adopting the Governance Manual and the Conduct Standards, contained therein, and in formulating and adopting a policy and procedure providing due process to a Councilmember accused of violating the Council Conduct Standards, including the Social Media Policy, by providing for a hearing with notice pursuant to Appendix B of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code are valid exercises of the power and authority granted to Councilmembers of the City of Spokane Valley, and were adopted by the City Council in order to successfully and efficiently conduct City business. 3.32. The Governance Manual, including Appendix H and Chapter 5, is a valid, reasonable, and justified policy adopted by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, and is within the scope of authority possessed by the Council. Per RCW 35A.11.020, the Council has the authority to adopt policies it sees fit to regulate its own affairs. See DECISION - 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also Nissen, 183 Wn.2d at 887 ("Agencies are in the best position to implement policies that fulfill their obligations under the PRA yet also preserve the privacy rights of their employees. E-mails can be routed through agency servers, documents can be cached to agency -controlled cloud services, and instant messaging apps can store conversations.") 3.33. Appendix H to the Governance Manual contains the Councilmember Social Media Policy. 3.33.1. In material part, Appendix H states as follows: 3.33.2. "Councilmembers may choose to create and maintain a Councilmember- specific social media account ... to communicate with constituents as part of their Councilmember role. When doing so, Councilmembers agree to the following guidelines: The requirements include that any social media platform selected by a councilmember must be verified by the city's IT manager as compatible with the city's social media archiving platform to assure that all content including posts and comments is archived for public records retention." (Appendix H, Section 1) 3.34. Appendix H further requires any Councilmember creating or maintaining an official Councilmember-specific social media account to use the Councilmember's City of Spokane Valley email alias. (Appendix H, Section 2) 3.35. Appendix H further provides that the Councilmember-specific account must be verified as compatible with the City's social media archiving platform, Page Freezer, to ensure that all content (including posts and comments) is archived for public records retention. Councilmembers can make posts on their official councilmember-specific accounts that are related to the conduct of City government or the performance of their councilmember duties. 3.36. The adoption of the Councilmember Social Media Policy is within the scope and authority of the City Council per RCW 35A.11.020 -- it is not an ultra vires act. 3.37. Councilmember social media accounts that are not established with a Councilmember's City email address are "personal or campaign" accounts. 3.38. Appendix H prevents councilmembers from writing posts on their personal or campaign social media accounts that relate to the conduct of city government or the performance of the councilmember's office. Such posts are required to only be on DECISION - 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 official councilmember-specific accounts backed up with Page Freezer. This ensures each councilmember can discuss City business via social medial while ensuring compliance with the Washington Public Records Act. 3.39. Councilmember Merkel's use of the social media platform Nextdoor constitutes the maintenance of a personal or campaign social media account under Appendix H. To the extent that Councilmember Merkel has made posts on his personal/campaign Nextdoor social media account that relate to City government, they go beyond merely posting Council agendas or information regarding City events or provide general information regarding the City's activities. Instead, they discuss the conduct and affairs of City government and Councilmember Merkel's performance of his Councilmember duties. Moreover, by making such posts on his personal/campaign social media (which is not archived) rather than one on an official councilmember- specific account (which is archived), Councilmember Merkel has violated Appendix H, §3, p. 83, and Chapter 5, §A(3) of the Governance Manual. 3.40. Councilmember Merkel is permitted under the Social Media Policy to post on a City of Spokane Valley "official account" posts that may constitute the conduct or transaction of City business, governance, or in furtherance of City business because the "official account" has the ability to be stored, retrieved, and produced in the event those posts and comments constitute public records. 3.41. Exhibit I-14 is a declaration modified and then signed by Councilmember Merkel in response to a public records request. Councilmember Merkel, in submitting the declaration as modified, failed to comply with his obligations as delineated in Nissen v. Pierce County, supra. Councilmember Merkel modified the declaration to summarily conclude he did not possess public records, rather than providing facts establishing he did a thorough search and does not have the type of records that could be found to be public records. This constitutes a violation of Chapter 5, §A(9) of the Governance Manual. 3.42. Councilmember Merkel's refusal to segregate and provide social media posts which may constitute public records or the transaction or conduct of City business, or to provide access to the City so the City could retrieve the posts constituting public DECISION - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 records also violates the Governance Manual's Council Conduct Standards (Chapter 5, §§A(9), B and C). 3.43. Due to the apparent edits on Mr. Merkel's Nextdoor social media posts, which include edits of Councilmember Merkel's posts and his followers' posts and comments, including posts that relate to the conduct of City government or City Business, Councilmember Merkel could be placing the City at risk of claims under the PRA. 3.44. In violation of Appendix H and Chapter 5, §A(3) of the Governance Manual, Councilmember Merkel has refused to set up an official councilmember-specific social media account, which may include public records, and which limits access and lacks Page Freezer capability and would allow Councilmember Merkel to post on that social media account the same type of posts that he is now posting on Nextdoor that relate to, involve, and/or amount to the conduct of City business, the discussion of City business, the furtherance of the City's interest or business and which may be public records under Washington law. Due to his conduct, those posts cannot be maintained, segregated, and retrieved by the City of Spokane Valley in the event they are deemed to be public records responsive to PRA requests submitted to the City. 3.45. Mr. Merkel has also violated the Councilmember Social Media Policy (Appendix H to the Governance Manual) by posting on his personal/campaign Nextdoor social media account matters that amount to discussions or descriptions of city business or city governance. The Governance Manual Chapter 5, Council Conduct Standards and Enforcement Sections A-C, read together, require Councilmembers to abide by the Council Conduct Standards, including the City's Councilmember Social Media Policy attached as Appendix H and "other applicable laws and/or regulations governing the conduct of Councilmembers in their capacity as elected officials." 3.46. Councilmember Merkel has violated the City's Social Media Policy as set forth in the Findings of Fact and has violated "other applicable laws and/or regulations," specifically RCW 40.14 et seq. and his obligations under Nissen, as claimed by Councilmember Yeager in her complaint and supplemental complaint. DECISION - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.47. The Public Records Act requires the City of Spokane Valley to make all "public records" available for public inspection and copying unless the records fall within specific enumerated exemptions. RCW 42.56.070(l). 3.48. The Washington Supreme Court has held that a public official's posts on a personal social media platform constitute "public records" subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act if the posts "relate to the conduct of government" and are "prepared within a public official's... official capacity." West v. City of Puyallup, 2 Wn.App.2d 586, 410 P.3d 1197 (2018). 3.49. The posts that were the subject of the investigation as delineated by Investigator Dean in her report and testimony were, as they relate to the affairs, business, debates, and actions of the City of Spokane Valley, all made by Mr. Merkel, a member of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. The posts were made by Mr. Merkel as a dissenting voice to the policy and governance decisions being made by other Councilmembers and/or by the City and in that sense were made to further Mr. Merkel's vision of the furtherance of City business. They were also made in furtherance of Councilmember Merkel's attempts to further the City's business by affecting policy change. 3.50. The Independent Investigator has met the more probable than not burden of proof imposed upon her under the Hearing Rules (Exhibit I-3 Investigator's Brief), Councilmember Merkel has violated the Social Media Policy of the City of Spokane Valley and Chapter 5 and Appendix H (Councilmember Social Media Policy) of the Governance Manual. 3.51. Any Finding of Fact that is more correctly a Conclusion of Law is hereby incorporated as such by this reference. IV. DECISION 4.1. Based on the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Examiner finds and concludes that Councilmember Merkel violated the Spokane Valley Council Conduct Standards and Social Media Policy and is subject to corrective action. DECISION - 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION The Hearing Examiner pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Governance Manual makes the following recommendations to the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley for corrective action as I follows: 5.1. A verbal censure should be administered. 5.2. In the event Councilmember Merkel persists in continued violations of the Social Media Policy in the same and or similar way as he has done in the past as evidenced by this Hearing Examiner Decision, or violates the Social Media Policy by posting City business and/or transacting City business in his capacity as a member of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley on his Nextdoor account, the following additional corrective action should be imposed. 5.2.1. A public censure and/or removal of Councilmember Merkel from any committee assignments for a period of time to be determined by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley would be appropriate if Councilmember Merkel continues to insist that he is entitled to post regarding City business and/or the transaction of City business on his personal/campaign social media account in his capacity as a member of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley without any means by which the City can capture the same (i.e., Page Freezer). Dated this 13 day of December, 2024, ANDREW L. KOTTKAMP Hearings Examiner for Spokane Valley DECISION - 23 REBECCA DEAN PLLC 2212 QUEEN ANNE AVE. NORTH • # 158 • SEATTLE, WA • 98109 PHONE: (206) 465-3594 • EMAIL: rebeccadean@comcast.net DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 TO: KELLY KONKRIGHT FROM: REBECCA DEAN RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT/COUNCILMEMBER JESSICA YAEGER COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes my investigation into, and conclusions regarding, City of Spokane Valley ("the City") Councilmember Jessica Yaeger's June 11, 2024, complaint (as clarified on August 1, 2024) that Councilmember Albert Merkel has failed to comply with the City's Governance Manual Section H, the Councilmember Social Media Policy ("the Policy"). Yaeger also asserts that Merkel has failed to comply with Ch. 40.14 RCW and Ch. 42.56 RCW. (Exh. 1.) Specifically, Yaeger asserts that Merkel conducts City business on his personal Nextdoor account, which cannot be tracked on Page Freezer, the application the City uses to archive Councilmember social media posts and comments for public records retention. I conclude that some of Merkel's posts on his personal Nextdoor account are more likely than not public records; therefore, documents that are potentially public records are not correctly retained. I also conclude that (1) by refusing to search, segregate, and produce such posts at the City's request; and by (2) submitting an affidavit that does not comply with his obligations under the Public Records Act, Merkel probably violated the Public Records Act and acted inconsistently with his duty as a Councilmember. I also conclude that Merkel's personal Nextdoor posts that "relate to the conduct of city government" or "the performance of his office" violate the Policy. II. DOCUMENTS I reviewed screenshots from Merkel's Nextdoor account that Yaeger provided for review ("the screenshots"). The screenshot file name indicates that the documents were captured between March 1, 2024, and July 18, 2024.1 I also briefly reviewed a June 12, 2024, Spokane Spokesman Review article reporting on Yaeger's complaint. In addition to the Governance Manual and my legal research, I reviewed the Association of Washington Cities "Guidelines for elected and appointed officials using social media" (December 19, 2017); the online Municipal Research and Services Center ("MRSC") guidance for local governments on elected officials' social media accounts and Public Records Act compliance; and, to a limited 1 With some exceptions, the screenshots appear to have been captured within a few hours to a few days of the date field in the filename, although the precise date and time does not appear in the documents. I cannot, however, assesses whether the screenshots have captured all Merkel's postings, follower comments, or Merkel's responses to follower comments during this time span. Moreover, many of the posts have been edited. CONFIDENTIAL degree, the Washington State Archivist's Records Management Guidelines for Local Government Agencies of Washington State. A. BACKGROUND It appears based upon the screenshots that Merkel has regularly posted on Nextdoor about topics pertaining to the City and communicated with followers about City matters. The content of the screenshots is repetitive, and the topics fall into several categories: (1) Merkel's posted summaries of, and commentary about, City Council debates (including one public report about deliberations in executive session)' (eg., Exh. 2,' Exh. 3); (2) Merkel's complaints about other Councilmembers, most often Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Rod Higgins, or Yaeger, their alleged "silencing" of Merkel in Council meetings, and other Councilmembers' alleged failure to engage with City residents (as compared with Merkel's assertions about his own level of engagement) (eg., Exh. 4 passim); (3) Merkel's complaints about, and commentary on, City investigations into Merkel's behavior and Merkel's formal complaint about Higgins's calling a point of order during a Council debate (eg., Exh. 4 p.6, Exh. 5); (4) Merkel's opinions about, positions on, and the merit of issues before the Council¢ (eg., Exh. 2; Exh. 3 p.2-5; Exh. 4 p.2-9, 13-16; Exh. 5 p.7-14); (5) Merkel's promise to address some followers' questions about a specific City issue, sometimes accompanied by a request that the follower send an email to his City email address (eg., Exh. 6); and (6) Merkel's decision to run for Washington State Senate and serve simultaneously on the Council and in the Senate, and related campaign matters (eg., Exh. 3 p.5-7). Merkel additionally: (1) surveyed Nextdoor followers about the Sprague Avenue development project; It is apparent from his posts that Merkel reported on his Sprague Avenue survey at a Council meeting or meetings (Exh. 7); (2) according to his posts, solicited follower comments about Merkel's budget proposal (Exh. 8); and (3) solicited follower comments about Merkel's proposal for addressing issues associated with persons experiencing homelessness (Exh. 9). It also appears that Merkel solicited follower comments about his budget proposal and plan for addressing issues associated with the homeless with the intent that the comments would inform his presentations to the Council. Moreover, Merkel encourages his Nextdoor followers to attend Council meetings. He also encouraged, and, apparently, led, a public recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance five minutes before a Council Meeting as a protest of a Council decision not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before study sessions. (See, e.g., Exh. 4 p.3.) 2 I note, however, that in more recent screenshots, one of Merkel's followers has been posting Council meeting summaries, apparently in lieu of Merkel's summaries. 3 Exhibit 2 is apparently a screenshot of Merkel's February 29, 2024 Nextdoor posting captured by Haley. 4 Common subjects of Merkel's postings and Merkel's responses to comments include, but are not limited to, (1) the Sprague Avenue construction project; (2) City police staffing and funding (3) City policies and responses to persons experiencing homelessness; (4) the SCRAP program; (5) property development in the City and the Washington Growth Management Act; (6) the City's Governance Manual; and (7) City spending priorities, including Merkel's complaints about City staff salaries and assertions that the City intended to close its public pools. Confidential 2 B. ANALYSIS 1. Legal Context and Applicable Standards Yaeger contends that Merkel has violated the Governance Manual Chapter 5, Council Conduct Standard and Enforcement. Chapter 5, �� A, B, and C, read together, require Councilmembers to abide by the Council Conduct Standards, including the City's Councilmember Social Media Policy, which is attached as Appendix H to the Governance Manual, and "other applicable laws and/or regulations governing the conduct of Councilmembers in their capacity as elected officials." As noted in the introduction, Yaeger alleges that Merkel has violated the City's Social Media Policy, and, as included in "other applicable laws and/or regulations," Ch. 40.14 RCW and Ch. 42.56 RCW. As a preliminary matter, I note that Merkel has mistakenly asserted on Nextdoor that (1) the City has no authority to investigate alleged violations of the Public Records Act; and (2) Yaeger has no standing to make an email complaint under the Public Records Act (Exh. 10). My inference is that Merkel has confused (1) the City's power to enforce its Councilmember conduct standards (including violations of applicable statutes and regulations) and Yaeger's complaint, which is brought pursuant to the Governance Manual enforcement procedures; with (2) the statutory right of a person denied an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record to seek judicial review of the agency's action, RCW 42.56.550. By way of context, the Public Records Act requires the City to make all "public records" available for public inspection and copying, unless the records fall with within specific, enumerated exemptions. RCW 42.56.070(1). The Washington Supreme Court has held that a public official's posts on a personal social media platform can constitute "public records" subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act if the posts "relate to the conduct of government" and are "prepared within a public official's ... official capacity." rest v. Ci y of Puyallup, 410 P.3d 1197 (2018) (City Council member's personal Facebook account posts were "merely informational" and were not public records because the Council member did not prepare them within the scope of her official capacity.) City employees and elected officials have a duty to search their files, devices or accounts, and to obtain, segregate, and produce posts on personal devices and, by extension, social media accounts that constitute "public records." If the elected official claims that the information in personal accounts are not public records, then the official must submit a declaration or affidavit "stating facts sufficient to support that claim." Puyallup; Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863, 357 P.3d 45 (2015) (plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that County prosecutor's text messages on his personal phone were sent and received in the prosecutor's official capacity; therefore, prosecutor must obtain, segregate, and produce the records to the County). The affidavit or declaration must be made in good faith and contain reasonably detailed, nonconclusory facts that attest to the nature and extent of the official's search. Nissen, cztingNeighborhoodAlliance ofSpokane Couny v. Couny ofSpokane, 172 Wn.2d 7021, 261 P.3d 119 (2011). Confidential 3 Merkel has categorically, and incorrectly, claimed that the Public Records Act is not applicable to personal accounts, but only to official accounts for legislative bodies that are used to post items for the Council as a whole, or to documents that are customarily stored by government, such as emails. Merkel adds that, because he does not have legal power to speak for the Council as a whole, his postings cannot be public records. (Id. p. 6-9.) Merkel's assertions are inconsistent with the Court's decisions in Puyallup and Nissen. Violations of the Public Records Act may subject local municipalities to liability. To guide municipalities like the City in fulfilling their legal obligations, organizations such as the MRSC and the Association of Washington Cities have published recommendations for cities and public officials to help them navigate the ambiguities and complexities of the Public Records Act applicability to officials' personal social media accounts. See, e.g., "Social Media Policy Questions for Local Governments to Answer" (April 12, 2023); "Elected Officials Guide - rbat's Personal and Vbat's Public?" Qan. 9, 2020) (mrsc.org) According to such guidelines, adopting a policy governing officials' compliance is a critical step. Merkel claims that the City's sole purpose in adopting the Policy was to silence him (eg., Exh. 3 p.2; Exh. 11). In my assessment, however, the City's adoption of the Policy is a prudent step applicable to all Councilmembers designed to promote the City's adherence to Washington law. Moreover, the Policy closely adheres to recommendations by authoritative entities, such as MRSC. In that regard, for example, the Policy (1) attempts to provide clear guidance for the use of City accounts and for keeping clear distinctions between City and personal accounts; (2) addresses open public meeting implications, such as the risk of serial communications between Councilmembers presented by posting on or liking other Councilmember accounts; and (3) addresses Public Records Act implications of personal social media accounts by prohibiting Councilmembers from writing posts on personal or campaign accounts that "relate to the conduct of city government or the performance of [the Councilmember's] office"; and "discussing personal accounts in public meetings or documents." Additionally, the Policy directly addresses the risk to the City created by failure to retain posts that may be found to be public records. See RCW 40.14.060(1)(c) ("Official public records shall not be destroyed ... unless the originals ... have been copied or reproduced" using an approved, accurate, and durable process.) Because some social media platforms, such as Nextdoor, may edit comments and postings that do not meet platform guidelines, this is a substantial risk. In that regard, the Policy asks Councilmembers to create and maintain a Councilmember-specific social media account on an approved platform that can be associated with the City's archiving platform to ensure that all content is archived for public records retention. 2. Merkel's Social Media Posts & the Public Records Act I conclude that some of Merkel's posts on his personal Nextdoor account are more likely than not public records. I also conclude that (1) by refusing to search, segregate, and produce such posts at the City's request; and (2) by submitting an affidavit that does not Confidential 4 comply with his obligations under the Public Records Act, Merkel probably violated the Public Records Act and acted inconsistently with his duty as a Councilmember. a) Merkel's Posts As the Court explained in Puyallup, a public record is a (1) writing, regardless of physical form or characteristics; (2) containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function; and (3) that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by the governmental agency. Puyallup requires a close factual analysis to assess if the posts on personal social media accounts are "public records." Applying the first two factors to Merkel's posts: ■ Merkel's posts are "writings" within the meaning of the Public Records Act, which includes any means of recording any form of communication, including electronic means, and postings on social media accounts. ■ Merkel's posts contain information "relating to the conduct of government" or the "performance of any governmental function." Merkel's posts are rife with direct references to City actions, processes, and functions. These include, but are not limited to: proposals made to, and under consideration by the City Council; City Council deliberations and debates; the conduct of City Council meetings; the outcome of City Council meetings; the conduct and outcome of City investigations into Merkel's behavior; Merkel's formal complaint about Higgins's calls for points of order during Council meetings; the City budget; City staff salaries; the City's Governance Manual; and the process and conduct of City committee meetings. Puyallup dictates that the City can be deemed to have "prepared" Merkel's social media posts if Merkel was acting within his official capacity as a City Council member. This assessment turns on whether (1) Merkel's position required the posts; the answer is "no"; (2) the City directed the posts; the answer is also "no"; or (3) the posts "furthered" the City's interests; here, the answer is complicated. The case law does not provide a clear or easily applied answer. In Puyallup, the Court concluded that certain posts did not constitute conducting public business because the City Council member (1) posted about issues that did not require a City Council decision; and (2) consisted of general information about Council agendas, City activities, and City business, but did not contain specific details about the Councilperson's work as a City Councilmember, or regarding Council discussions, decisions, or other actions. Likewise, in Vest v. Clark County (No. 52843-6-II, Wa.Ct.App. Jan. 20, 2021) (unpublished), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a Councilmember's statements (that the court analogized to a "megaphone") on social media of personal opinions on various issues regarding Clark County's governance, and solicitations of discussion and commentary from followers, did not constitute conducting public business because the posts did not contain specific details of the Clark County Council's discussions, decisions, or other actions. Confidential 5 The inference that I draw from these cases, therefore, is that a Councilmember may be acting within the scope of their official capacity and their posts therefore deemed to be public records if their social media posts do contain specific details of the Councilmember's work, or provide information about Council discussions, decisions, and actions. This is a logical inference because communicating with constituents about City business and specific Council action is an essential Councilmember function, as is gathering feedback and ideas from residents and businesses, and sharing such information with staff, Councilmembers, or at Council meetings. See Governance Manual pp. 5-6. Merkel's social media posts are exponentially more expansive and inclusive than the Puyallup Councilmember's Facebook posts. In contrast, many of Merkel's posts, like those of the Clark County Councilmember, can be characterized as a "megaphone" broadcasting Merkel's opinions about City issues. I note, moreover, that many of Merkel's posts combine opinions with specific details of, and information about, City Council discussions, debates, decisions, and actions, and it is not possible to disentangle them. Nevertheless, applying the case law to the posts I reviewed, I conclude that the following categories of Merkel's posts are more likely than not public records: ■ Merkel's posted summaries of, and commentary about, City Council debates (including one public report about deliberations in executive session) (eg., Exhs. 2, 3, 4) . ■ Merkel's complaints about other Councilmembers, most often Haley, Higgins, or Yaeger; their alleged "silencing" of Merkel in Council meetings; and other Councilmembers' alleged failure to engage with City residents (as compared with Merkel's assertions about his own level of engagement) (eg., Exh. 4 passim). ■ Merkel's complaints about, and commentary on, City investigations into Merkel's behavior and Merkel's formal complaint about Higgins's calling a point of order during a Council debate (eg., Exh. 4 p.6, Exh. 5). ■ Merkel's posts about the City budget and proposals he has, or intends to, present to Council, such as his proposal to address homelessness and police funding (eg., Exhs. 8, 9). ■ Merkel's promises to address followers' questions about a specific City issue (eg., Exh. 6) . ■ Merkel's surveys of followers where Merkel either has, or apparently intends to, carry the survey results and associated comments into Council meetings and debates (eg., Exh. 7). The following categories are, more likely than not, not public records: Merkel's opinions about, and positions on, issues before the Council and the City, where not combined with specific details of, and information about, City Council discussions, debates, decisions, and actions (eg., Exh. 12). Confidential 6 ■ Merkel's decision to run for Washington State Senate and intent to serve simultaneously on the Council and in the Senate, and any other campaign matters (eg., Exh. 3 p.5-7). ■ Merkel's posts encouraging follower attendance at Council meetings or citizen participation in the political process, (eg., Exh. 13) including Merkel's opinions about recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in Council meetings. b) Merkel's Compliance with Nissen As I understand it, Merkel has refused City's request(s) for access to his Nextdoor account to search for and retrieve posts that may be responsive to public records requests. Additionally, Merkel has submitted (and posted) at least one affidavit that purports to satisfy his obligation under Nissen. The City's standard language on the posted affidavit states: "I have personally reviewed all content on all of my personal Nextdoor social media accounts to determine if I had any responsive posts and/or messages between me and others regarding city and/or council business' from January 1, 2024, through March 21, 2024." Merkel crossed out the words, "regarding city and/or council business" and interlineated the words "that are Public Records" and dated and initialed the interlineation. (Exh. 14.) Merkel's refusal to segregate and provide social media posts constituting public records (or providing access to the City so the City can retrieve the posts) violates his obligation under the Public Records Act, and therefore violates the Governance Manual's Council Conduct Standards. Additionally, Merkel's affidavit does not comply with Nissen's requirement that Merkel provide a reasonably detailed, nonconclusory affidavit stating facts sufficient to support his claim that his Nextdoor posts are not public records. Instead, he offers a conclusory legal opinion rather than the required facts, which is inconsistent with his duty as a Councilmember. 3. Merkel's Compliance with the City's Councilmember Social Media Policy I conclude that Merkel's personal Nextdoor posts violate the Policy. Specifically, many of Merkel's posts "relate to the conduct of city government" and "the performance of his office." Merkel has also used his personal Nextdoor account to conduct city business; for example, by offering to assist followers with City matters, such as contacting the prosecutor's office to follow up on a concern about a crime. Additionally, Merkel has discussed his personal accounts in public meetings; for example, Merkel's Nextdoor survey of followers about the Sprague Avenue project.' 5 The City's standard language adheres to the Court's analysis in Puyallup. 6 I note that it appears from Merkel's complaints to his followers (e.g., Exh. 10 p.9) that Haley and Yaeger posted on Merkel's personal Nextdoor account (e.g, Exh. 15) and engaged with discussion with him there. Merkel claims such posts violate the Policy. The Policy does ask Councilmembers not to discuss City business on ofcial accounts. The Policy does not, however, similarly prohibit Councilmembers from posting on another Councilmember's personal social media accounts. Nevertheless, in my assessment, some of Yaeger and Haley's posts apparently concern the conduct of City business. At minimum, engaging with Merkel on these subjects on social media was unwise. Confidential 7 Additionally, because Nextdoor has edited many of Merkel's and his followers' Nextdoor posts, including posts that related to the conduct of City government, Merkel has put the City at risk of claims that it violated RCW 40.14.060(1) (c) by failing to retain documents that may well be public records. Merkel has refused to take advantage of the Policy's provision for Official Councilmember-Specific Social Media Accounts. Nevertheless, contrary to Merkel's assertions, neither the Policy nor the City's general Social Media Policy, �4, Administrative Policy & Procedure 300.020 Communications Policy (which the Policy incorporates by reference) regulates the content of an Official Councilmember-Specific Social Media Account in any objectionable way. In my review of the screenshots of Merkel's personal account, the only (visible) content that potentially violates the City's general prohibitions of inappropriate content are (1) personal insults lobbed by Merkel and some of his followers, including both pro- and anti - Merkel comments; and (2) Merkel's posts about political campaigns. Because political campaigns properly belong on personal social media accounts, it is difficult to see how Merkel would be harmed by establishing an official account. Additionally, establishing an official account would resolve the difficulties presented by Merkel's posts that pertain to the conduct of City business or the performance of his office, and are arguably public records, and deletions of some posts or comments that the City may be required to retain. Im Confidential 8 Exhibits Exhibit 1 From: Jessica Yaeger <iyaeger _ spokanevalleywa.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 2:19 PM To: John Hohman<ihohmanCcOspokanevalleywa.gov>; Erik Lamb <elamb _ spokanevalleywa.gov>; Kelly Konkright <kKonkright g spokanevalleywa.gov> Subject: Re: Nextdoor. Hello again gentlemen, Just so that I am crystal clear as to my intentions and expectations regarding my formal complaint against Mr. Merkel, I am referencing RCW 40.14 and RCW 42.56 with relation to the public records. Thankyou. Get Outlook for iOS From: Jessica Yaeger Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 3:01:53 PM To: John Hohman<ihohman(a)spokanevalleywa.gov>; Erik Lamb <elamb _ spokanevalleywa.gov>; Kelly Konkright <kKonkright a spokanevalleywa.gov> Subject: Nextdoor. On December 19th, 2023 Council adopted the Governance Manual. This is the manual that Council Member Merkel and I took our oath under. The oath that states, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Washington, the applicable laws of the United States and of the State of Washington and all other duly enacted laws, rules and policies of the City of Spokane Valley". To date, Council Member Merkel has yet to comply with Appendix H of the Governance Manual regarding his Nextdoor account. He does not have a city council account for city business that can be tracked with Page Freezer, so he conducts city business on his personal account. He references the poles and comments here on the Dias, he brings to this bodywhat he learns from that account to continue to conduct city business here. One of the goals of this policy is to ensure compliance with the OMPA, and to ensure TRANSPARENCY in our government. Mr. Merkel even has a private group that you have to ask to join and who knows how much goes on behind the scenes or in any direct messaging. I have over 350 screenshots of Council member Merkel conducting business on his account, some posts were there at one time, and now gone. Some people have informed me that they have commented only to be deleted and blocked from doing so. Council member Merkel touts transparency, and yet when given the chance to BE transparent and Page 1 Exhibit 1 uphold his oath, he is neither transparent nor upholding his oath to this office and seeks to abscond from his responsibility. It is our duty to ensure that ALL citizens have access to his account where he conducts business so that the city remains compliant with the regulations put upon us and to ensure that notjust a special group of people have access to his shenanigans. It is my fear that Council member Merkel will also use his site should he ever actually get into compliance, to campaign for either of his already registered upcoming campaigns. fear this as his continued behavior indicate a lack of respect for adherence to rules, policies and procedures. It is my opinion in an effort to protect the city from litigation, that the city manager accept this as my formal complaint, so that he may move forward as our Governance Manual suggests, the citizens and the sanctity of the City of Spokane Valley depend on following policy and adherence to rules by all members. Thankyou. Em 9-06 0 j B . Pam Haley Maya... Thursday, February 29 C Albert Merkel ••• self -dedicated to such projects when they could be more effectively used in bolstering our police force. The discussion on the Storm Drain Cleaning Services Contract was concerning. i raised questions about the monitoring and evaluation measures within the contract, only to be met with vague responses and an unexpected accusation of grandstanding, which halted further discussion. This lack of clarity and transparency is precisely why I voted against this item. All city contracts should have clear, measurable monitoring and evaluation criteria, regardless of the duration of the relationship with the contractor. Furthermore, I urged the council to prioritize the Scraps contract review, the cancellation of the Sprague lane reduction project, and to include a regular comment section for Police Chief Ellis In council meetings. Unfortunately, these requests were not supported. In the executive session, the council moved to purchase property for low-income housing, funded by a Covid grant. However, the meeting took an unexpected turn with a last-minute resolution concerning border issues and opioid law enforcement, which was not on the agenda. This lack of procedural transparency is a step back for the council. As your City Councilman, I am committed to ensuring transparency, effective planning, and public safety In our city governance_ It Is disheartening to witness the council's regression on these fronts and the resistance to constructive discourse. Rest assured, I will continue to ask the hard questions and hold the council accountable, as our community deserves a government that operates with clarity and in the public's best interest. Best Regards, Al Merkel CJ93'15rar11E� Home bscow, 19 `O 1 + ° AD Llc post For Sake Nat" Ralm Exhibit 3 6:12 0 C 1€ i€ ;�!+ .ail 94% ■ Albert Merkel Albert Merkel { -k, Spokane Val... . • i Spokane Valley City Council Report, Al Merkel 4/16 and 4/23 Friends, I'm sorry this report is late, but honestly it can be hard to summarize these meetings when they are so toxic. JLast week's meeting 4/16: We covered a few topics that were non -controversial: - Moving an underground oil pipe owned by Yellowstone to accommodate the new Pines railroad crossing upgrade- - Some simple zoning changes - One change was rejected as the city had proposed creating a homeless shelter on Main and Flora in a neighborhood inappropriately (thanks to the planning commission for flagging this). The main topics that were issues at the 4/16 meeting: - We looked at "clean building" requirements that Page 1 Exhibit 3 94% ■ 6:13 ® 0 C • Albert Merkel The main topics that were issues at the 4/16 meeting: - We looked at "clean building" requirements that the state is imposing on all buildings in excess of 50k square feet. The city has known about these requirements since 2019 but up until this point has still not budgeted for fixing them. It's a strange lack of planning. I brought up that many businesses in our area would also be subject to this rule and asked for a presentation from commerce on how to comply so we can help educate local businesses. -Next, we discussed the Governance manual. As have mentioned here before when I addressed the first time these changes came up, the governance manual changes are mostly all directed directly at me. This was clear in what actually happened at the meeting. Upon review, I saw that one of the main changes that we directly received consensus on at the first governance manual meeting was reflected incorrectly in the updated manual. Under a section, we had agreed to place the specific language "per Roberts Rules" in the manual. In fact, staff had instead included the language that "there would be an appeal right". This is very different. I asked about this change and immediately everyone on council and the city manager told me I was wrong in my recollection, and in fact, staff had "watched the video". CM Rod Higgins then called a point of order saying " argumentative" and our role was simply to vote to either pass the whole manual or not, and my Page 2 Exhibit 3 ►filbert Merkel �a 41 guess I would like to ask your thoughts on this, should I be able to ask questions? -1 proposed increasing penalties on drug charges in Spokane Valley. It was clear that city staff was against doing this, but given the requests of our police ❑fficers to give them tools to fight this epidemic, I pushed forward. For once the council actually agreed with me, voting to pursue increasing the penalties within the city. Great news for public safety! -We covered that Spokane Valley Police is fully accredited with WASPC and is currently upgrading helicopters to meet current and future needs. -We also covered the great programs the city is conducting in the parks this summer. -The city covered its contracting process, which I found full of cost -wasting steps when compared to other government contracting processes, and the city presented on the park janitorial contract that actually has finally included a lot of the performance monitoring measures I have been asking for. -We also covered garbage services in the city, during which I mentioned the many complaints that I have received about WM missing pickups and nickel and diming people on open lids. -During the advance agenda, CM Yaeger proposed adding language to our federal lobbying Page 3 Exhibit 3 6:13 ® 0 C • Albert Merkel 0 14€ �. gill 94% ■ -During the advance agenda, CM Yaeger proposed adding language to our federal lobbying agenda to stop "foreign entities" from buying homes in Spokane Valley (I voted against this, as don't think using our tax money to lobby for this is an effective use of funds). Public comment was interesting, Mr. Mike Dolan brought up that we don't do the pledge of allegiance before every meeting. I hadn't even realized this, and of course, brought this up in the advance agenda. I was surprisingly voted down! See More Here: https://nextdoor.com/news—feed/?post= 332154575&comment=l 1138408582 -After this, we looked at a letter of support for the Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium. brought up the same point I have brought up from the beginning about these letters. We need a process to make sure they are in keeping with city values and objectives, never was that clearer than last night. I asked what SLIHC was going to do with the money and the staff member replied they hadnt seen the scope. Why are we supporting something we haven't even seen the scope for? What if they use the money for something that will bring ridicule to our city? I was the only council member to vote against this. I finally made a speech calling out how ridiculous these points of order have gotten and how they have undermined my ability to represent all of you in mnttprq of cprini i-q finanr.ial tr;;ngnarpnry Thic 11 < Page 4 Exhibit 3 94% ■ 6:14 ® 0 C • Albert Merkel I finally made a speech calling out how ridiculous these points of order have gotten and how they have undermined my ability to represent all of you in matters of serious financial transparency. This council has become a mockery of government almost as bad as the stories you hear about third -world countries. It's sad we have come to this. I also called out that despite what DM Hattenburg had reported, Casa De Oro Mexican restaurant had not been informed that STA plans to purchase the land their restaurant is on from under them, demolish their family -owned restaurant, and replace it with another empty bus stop parking lot. Who is representing Spokane Valley Businesses against Big Government? Clearly not our elected leaders who sit on the board of STA. I will stand up for Spokane Valley Businesses, as I did for residents who were against Sprague, and people who wanted more public safety. As we've journeyed together through the challenges and triumphs of Spokane Valley, your unwavering support has been my driving force. Today, I'm asking you to channel that same passion and commitment into helping me bring our shared values and determined spirit to the Senate. Our community deserves a voice that not only speaks but acts with conviction. Someone who will stand firm against bureaucracy, support sensible governance, and fiercely advocate for the prosperity and safety of our homes and 11 < Page 5 Exhibit 3 94% ■ 6:14 ® 0 C • Albert Merkel As we've journeyed together through the challenges and triumphs of Spokane Valley, your unwavering support has been my driving force. Today, I'm asking you to channel that same passion and commitment into helping me bring our shared values and determined spirit to the Senate. Our community deserves a voice that not only speaks but acts with conviction. Someone who will stand firm against bureaucracy, support sensible governance, and fiercely advocate for the prosperity and safety of our homes and businesses. https://nextdoor.com/p/y7JPPZDYrML6?view= detail This campaign is about more than one person; it's about all of us. It's about ensuring Spokane Valley is represented by someone who understands the issues on the ground, who listens to your concerns, and who will fight tirelessly to uphold our values. Together, we can protect what makes our community great and ensure a bright future for every resident of the 4th District. Please Donate at www.alforval.com Your donation today is not just a contribution; it's an investment in your community, in your values, and in a Senate that works for you. Let's stand united for Spokane Valley and make our voices heard loud and clear in Olympia. Join me, donate to our campaign, and together, let's lead the change we wish to see. Thankq ❑Ili Page 6 Exhibit 3 6:14 B 0 C • V '91 94% ■ Albert Merkel �a eiease vonaie ai www.airorvai.com Your donation today is not just a contribution; it's an investment in your community, in your values, and in a Senate that works for you. Let's stand united for Spokane Valley and make our voices heard loud and clear in Olympia. Join me, donate to our campaign, and together, let's lead the change we wish to see. Thanks All! Al Merkel Spokane Valley City Council and Candidate for Washington State Senate Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is meant to reflect the opinion of the city or the city council as a whole. Join Nextdoor, an app for neighborhoods where you can get local tips, buy and sell... Nextdoor is the neighborhood hub for tr... Dn *kt fLw�+ +� rYi Ck, rn III Page 7 Exhibit 4 7:47 6 Q Q • 0 40 .gall 24% _ Mike Dolan McDonald • 5d the matter was brought up and is being run by non ele,.. ;gee more. •oo 1 Like Reply Share 0 Linda Klesch ' Ridgemont Morning— - 3d ••- We are of course 1 Like Reply Share Tricia Madsen • Mission Park - 1Oh ••. Most groups use"Robert"s Rules of Order". It is parliamentary procedure . Also there are state laws that dictate open, closed meetings an... See more 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 7h • R • friciF, Tricia just as an FYI, Spokane Valey City council mayor doesn't care about ronerts rules. I have been Point of Ordered fo absolutely ridiculous things that don't exist in Roberts Rules such as "campaigning", "Grand Standing "being argumentative", and whatever other things CM Higgins comes up with all upheld by mayor. Like Reply Share 4 Add a comment... Page 1 Exhibit 4 66%■ <_ Albert Merkel ow Albert Merkel rrr Ponderosa -'I 7h • 0 I PONDEROSA!? ROD HIGGINS ACCUSED ME OF TAKING A BRIBE FROM "[YOU] PEOPLE" !? SPOKANE VALLEY City council report April 30, 2024 BOTTOM LINE: I asked that council look into pausing development in ponderosa until a 3rd exit is created, Councilman Higgins accused me of taking a bribe from "those people" because I advocated for this. So there you have it, if I try to introduce things that matter to Spokane Valley I must be taking bribes_., for the record I did not receive any money or even campaign donations from any organization in Ponderosa to advocate for this, it's just the right thing to do for community safety. Of course Rod Higgins and Pam Haley who are both board members of Project ID in fact did take donations while voting to fund Project ID with your tax dollars, so there's that... https:/Ilaserfiche.spokanevaIley.org/WebLink /DocView.aspx?id=469621 &dbid=O&repo= SpokaneValley https:/%projectidspokane. org/our-story/board-of -directors tonight's meeting was a bit ridiculous. it has III Page 2 3:53 Exhibit 4 .ell 66%■ Albert Merkel 9) tonight's meeting was a bit ridiculous. it has gotten to the point that the majority doesn't want to hear anything from Spokane Valley residents anymore, even insulting regular residents directly from the dais. CM Higgins literally said that commenters are wasting his time!! the point of orders have also gotten out of control. I can barely ask a question without getting point of ordered by CM Higgins. the point of orders usually are some accusations of "campaigning". The only "campaign" I am on during council meetings is the campaign to represent what this community wants!!! during the meeting, we did the pledge of allegiance as protest. the Council Members (except Padden) did not even stand or stop speaking in respect of the community who were doing the pledge. Thanks to those who came to support this! CM Padden then made a bizarre speech saying that maybe there are reasons why council members don't want to do the pledge. I say the public has a right to know what those reasons are, and we have a right to vote us out if they don't like those reasons... (honestly I can't think of any good reasons for electeds to not do the pledge). Public comments: Comments were made about Sprague Road Diet being a waste, not liking settina the standard for council member Page 3 3:53 Exhibit 4 .ell 66%■ Albert Merkel 9) Public comments: Comments were made about Sprague Road Diet being a waste, not liking setting the standard for council member violations to be criminal so that they could be easier to be found guilty, and the pledge of allegiance. as I said above, CM Higgins attacked a commenter from the dais. New Action Items: -Council approved moving forward with contract for cross country course. we will see this back when the contract is final. -Council approved moving forward with Balfour Park grants. I was point of ordered for asking staff how much it costs in staff time to apply. -Council approved bowdish contract. I asked that past performance be a criteria for selecting contractors -joined with opioid settlement agreement even though we are getting far to little funding for our population. I will be advocating about this at the state level. -we spoke about the public defender case load and new changes that the state is advocating for. I asked for information showing performance of PDs office now. -We spoke about another marketing contract for then 1n1 lrierm nrnmr►tinn hnnrrl tuhiln I e•l innnrt tha Page 4 Exhibit 4 .all 66% ■ 3.54 B <_ Albert Merkel % -We spoke about another marketing contract for the tourism promotion board. while 1 support the hoteliers deciding how to use this money, I asked the we have tighter control on performance measuring to make sure this money is actually useful. Advance Agenda. as I brought up above, 1 asked that we consider pausing development in ponderosa until a third exit could be made.. I tried to speak during my council comment about how out of hand this council has gotten but the mayor cut me off and ended the meeting, This is all very sad. there is no respect for our city anymore coming from this council. please let me know what you would like to be done about it. Al Merkel Spokane Valley City Council disclaimer: clearly nothing here represents the position of the city or the council, who in my opinion clearly doesn't have anyone's interests in mind in this city anymore. . ' Sign In - 01 Page 5 Exhibit 4 0 < =Y 97%@ Albert Merkela Albert Merkel - k, Spokane Val... Ponderosa . l Oh • 0 Press Conference Tomorrow on Investigation into Al Merkel **2 PM In Front of Spokane Valley City Halle LO Yesterday's Meeting Hi folks I know many of you are interested in the results of this "investigation" against me. Tomorrow I will be holding a press conference at 2PM and taking questions from press and public on the issue. If you are interested and want to ask about it or here the news first hand, feel free to come bye Last Night's Meeting: PASSE© THE SPRAGUE PROJECT;. Through my questions I disproved every aspect of the project: 1. will the project lower speeds? no, in fact it will lead to more speeding 2. will the crosswalk be safe? no it is more III Page 6 Exhibit 4 9.25 ® n Jk 9 N, 97%1 Albert Merkel Through my questions I disproved every aspect of the project: 1. will the project lower speeds? no, in fact it will lead to more speeding 2. will the crosswalk be safe? no it is more dangerous than not having a crosswalk at all and obviously much more expensive to try to mitigate this 3. will this help the aquifer? NO THE CITY HAS NO DATA AT ALL THAT IT WILL 4. are there regulations that mandate this? NO!!! in fact any such regulations won't be passed until July of this year, which means that we have been paying taxes for regulations that don't exist for 3 YEARS!! In other words, there are just no reasons to do this, and 70% of the valley is against it so at least 70,000 reasons not to do it. as usual CM Higgins interrupted me and raised a false point of order during my dissent speech against this project. he said I was "Campaigning" and as usual my opponent, the "about service" Mayor Haley ruled against me. This time I had a small surprise, I used the wnetnfi i[ nrnrprh ira thaw ni it in tho rinvornnnro Page 7 Exhibit 4 9.26 ® n Jk 0 k 4T .d 97%1 Albert Merkel This time I had a small surprise, I used the wasteful procedure they put in the governance manual against them and filed an official complaint for denying my right to speak dissent against a motion as described in the governance manual, so we will see how they like being investigated. Of course they actually did what I accused them of and it was recorded on camera during the meeting and witnessed by lots of Spokane Valley residents. This was also a'study session' which means no pledge, so as usual I led the chamber in the pledge of allegiance before the meeting. this time some members of the public shamed all the present council members into standing for the pledge. CM Padden brought up trimming the trees for the businesses on Sprague, which was a bit funny because she just voted against it 2 weeks ago when I motioned for it on the advance agenda. she did join me in voting against going for a grant that would cost us 500,000 when we still haven't funded police officers. You can tell that Servant Mayor Haley is thinking about her campaign because she also joined me on stopping this project. Raise a cup for surprises! the rest was some slamm planning actions and ennnrio fnr thnon irntnrnc-+ekA in hi mAr,ntL- t-nlin !% Exhibit 4 9.26 T n ii 0 < ?` 97%8 Albert Merkel she did join me in voting against going for a grant that would cost us 500,000 when we still haven't funded police officers. You can tell that Servant Mayor Haley is thinking about her campaign because she also joined me on stopping this project. Raise a cup for surprises! the rest was some slamm planning actions and reports. for those interested in budgets take a look at the budget amendment adding 9 million to this year's budget Thanks everyone, sorry I couldn't get Sprague stopped and more of your tax money went into a hole. I hope everyone remembers these 'Servants' who "Care about local input" during elections. thanks everyone, r'11TMTI-31 Disclaimer; nothing in this post represents the incomprehensible views of the city or the council as a whole. +l - 2 V Q 3 � Share Albert Merkel 010 aor Ponderosa - Edited 4d ago . 0 LAST CHANCE TO STOP SPRAGUE ROAD III 0 Page 9 Exhibit 4 0 < I .,1 97%6 0 1Albert Merkel i 4r Spok... �, Ponderosa 10h Albert Merkel Ai nhor Ponderosa - 10h ... Oh forgot to mention, CM Higgins and Haley made statements about project ID, and it was actually worse than 1 originally posted: They recognized the conflict of interest a the meeting in 2021, so they '"resigned" from the board to give them the money, then got back on theboard afterthe award was made.... hmmm so if there's evr a conflict we just say I resign today, but tomorrow is a diferent thing.... . if that sounds fishy to you itbsouns fishy to me. they did say that it's all ok because projectlD never used the money... well I don't know if that is the case but even so, that means that those funds could have been used by another NGO to do some good community work but instead were trapped because of strange political machinations of the 'servants'.... I don't think that's better. Keep in mind that I don't know anything f • • .1h .1 1 1 1 . Page 10 Exhibit 4 ! 77p/1?@ Albert Merkel i 17, 'Spok... • •. Ponderosa - 10h . 6 projectlD never used the money... well I don't know if that is the case but even so, that means that those funds could have been used by another NGQ to do some good community work but instead were trapped because of strange political machinations of the 'servants'.... I don't think that's better. Keep in mind that I don't know anything about projectlD they could do good work but they dont seem to be making good choices in who they are associating with in my opinion... (edited) *1 .-* 2 Like Share 0 Arena B. • Progress and Adams • 7h ... Albert Sounds like another productive evening down at city hail. I hope someone takes video of the press conference & posts it for those of us that can't attend, This "projectid" makes me a little nervous, going to have to look into that one. 1 Like Share Midge Stumm - Evt.rgreen - A... 1t •.• itb Televised? Like Share Page 11 Exhibit 4 7:27 I1 6 U i F ..d 26% - <- Albert Merkel 0 Albert Merkel tio • • {-�onderosa - 2d 0 Celebrating Our Heroes: First Responders and Casa de Oro potentially saved? Weekly Report Al Merkel, May 13-17 Spokane Valley Neighbors, I'd like to start by thanking all of our first responders. This week the Spokane Valley Chamber held an event to present Public Safety Awards to first responders from the Valley area. It was a great event, where we also discussed the scourge of Fentanyl in our community. While all first responders are amazing I would like to recognize the special acts of heroism from the awardees from the fourth: Spokane Valley Police: Pat Bloomer Spokane County Sheriff (and pictures here): Robert Satake Liberty Lake Police: John Bujosa Spokane Valley Fire: Shawn Pichette Spokane County Fire District 8: Blaine Holman Page 12 Exhibit 4 7:27 F1 16 Albert Merkel Spokane County Fire District 8: Blaine Holman 0 ,,ill26%_ As a community it is important to show appreciation for these service workers who risk their lives to keep us safe. For all of the parents in the community, I would like to ask that you take a few minutes to recognize the work of first responders with your kids this week. Council meeting:. First some potential good news, Casa de Oro may be saved! Since I brought the issue of STA ruthlessly planning to demolish a 30 year old family owned business, I have been working to ensure that we reverse that decision... it looks like that work MAY have paid off. At the meeting, Deputy Mayor Tim Hattenburg (and STA Board member) stated a commitment that he will instruct STA staff to redesign the rapid transit bus stop to accommodate Casa de Oro and let them stay in business. After speaking to the business owner, we decided to present a letter to the STA board thanking them for listening to public input and saving a local business (letter included above), which I did in public comments at the board meeting on Thursday. I would like to thank Deputy Mayor Hattenburg for listening to me and his other constituents about not destrovina a local icon to create an ematy Page 13 Exhibit 4 0 N '�F,,6,, ,atl 25%_ Albert Merkel I would like to thank Deputy Mayor Hattenburg for listening to me and his other constituents about not destroying a local icon to create an empty parking lot! All that being said, nothing is settled until the ink dries on a new plan, so we need to carefully watch this issue to make sure that Deputy Hattenburg lives up to his commitment. As for the rest of the meeting: 1. 1 voted to support the submission of a grant application that staff stated would not have a local match. I will not be supporting new local expenses until funding is secured for police. 2. we had an overview of the legislative session results. not much good happened. 3. we spoke about the annual Transportation Plan update. This is the process where we plan transport needs for the next 6 years. Please check out the process here: https:/Ispokanevalley.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=3&clip id=1391 &meta_id=89516 4. We had a budget overview presentation. 5. Advance Agenda: proposed that we invite a company that provides opiate transport for a discussion with council. which was approved. -Councilmember Yeager proposed looking at Page 14 Exhibit 4 i.28 Ff 6 U i# F ..ill 25%- <- Albert Merkel % -Councilmember Yeager proposed looking at sign ordinances. It was approved. I voted yes because it never hurts to hear presentations about things, and if she wants to hear one it's fine with me. - I proposed inviting an opiate transportation company to give us a presentation on what it would cost for Spokane Valley to run nonemergent transport for opiate cases. This is one of three proposals I believe would be effective uses for our opiate funds. the idea is that if someone calls 911 for an intoxication related issue (you see someone passed out intoxicated on the sidewalk for instance) currently either a police officer or an ambulance/ fire team would be sent. this is expensive and wasteful as legally the ambulances can only take you to an emergency department for treatment, police officer would just be tied up until the situation is resolved. this transport concept would fund a specialized team to take that person to treatment/detox skipping an expensive ER visit. This concept is already operating successfully within the city of Spokane and produces a lot of savings for the whole health system. Mayor Haley actually said shouldn't we decide what to do with the money before asking the companies to come and present on what to do with the money . NO we should hear the presentations then, decide, then have an open RFP. nnvwnv wo not rnnrpnci is #nr this rinnnrt Page 15 Exhibit 4 V N1 t..Jdl 25% Albert Merkel 0) anyway we got concensus for this report. -CM Wick asked to reconsider the proposal for a grant on extending the apple way trail that we voted down last week. I voted it down last week because of the local cost, as I said above I won't vote for funding anything with a local match until we have police funded. However, I voted yes to reconsideration because it is what CM Wick wanted, and CM Yaeger skipped that meeting so it doesn't hurt to reconsider. I will vote against it again when it comes up. during council comments, I reiterated my comments from the press conference last week. I voted against going to executive session as it was not on the agenda and I am trying to stick with only things on the agenda unless we do a motion to modify in the beginning because it's the most transparent way to do meetings, but the rest voted to do it so we did. this another week ended, Thanks again everyone, Al Merkel disclaimer, nothing in this post is designed to reflect the city's or council as a whole's position.. , N00.0 kkil Page 16 Exhibit 5 5:40 T 5D L^ e A K€ 41 % _ <— Albert Merkel 0) This situation emerged this Tuesday. I received an email from the City Manager requesting a meeting to discuss "complaints" received by the city and to inform me about an impending investigation by a neutral outside investigator. I agreed to this meeting, emphasizing my concern for a safe working environment and requesting detailed information about the complaints, as well as the relevant policies. However, just before the meeting, the City Manager emailed me, refusing to provide specifics and suggesting I limit my presence at City Hall to Tuesday evenings for Council meetings. This abrupt change in stance, coupled with his refusal to involve me in selecting the neutral investigator, raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of this process. I thought that there might be a confidentiality issue at this point so I didn't raise it to you all (the public), though I was puzzled that the city manager had already informed the other council members as confirmed by CM Ben Wick. The following day, the City Manager wrongly assumed that I had agreed to his terms of not visiting City Hall. I immediately clarified that there was no such agreement and requested details on the authority and rationale behind this directive, as well as alternative arrangements for me to continue serving our community effectively.. Yesterday, the City Manager threatened to escalate this matter to the City Council if I didn't comply with his demands. It was clear at this point that there was no confidentiality issue Page 1 Exhibit 5 5:40 T 5D L^ e A K€ 41 % <- Albert Merkel 0) Yesterday, the City Manager threatened to escalate this matter to the City Council if I didn't comply with his demands. It was clear at this point that there was no confidentiality issue involved here, as the Manager was ready to release the information to the public (as a threat!). It's clear to me that this is an attempt to silence me and, by extension, disenfranchise you, the citizens of our city. I refuse to be intimidated and have therefore decided to make this issue public. I want to highlight that, as of now, I have no information about these allegations (not names, or behaviors, or dates). Moreover, according to the City's harassment policy, I should have been informed directly by any staff member had there been any inappropriate behavior on my part. This has not happened. Additionally, attempts are being made to conflate this situation with a lawsuit against a company I was previously associated with, a matter entirely unrelated to my role in the city council. My commitment to challenging and improving our city's operations - addressing public safety, development planning, budgeting, and scrutinizing questionable projects - has not wavered. These attacks, I believe, are aimed at distracting from these critical issues. I urge you to attend the next City Council meeting this Tuesday. We must stand together in demanding transparency and accountability from our city officials. Let's find out the truth and ensure that the real issues facing our city are not Page 2 Exhibit 5 5:40 ® Q L , • 0 43 41 % Albert Merkel I urge you to attend the next City Council meeting this Tuesday, We must stand together in demanding transparency and accountability from our city officials. Let's find out the truth and ensure that the real issues facing our city are not sidelined by these unwarranted attacks. This is all devastating to my wife and family, and people who know me well. l entered into city politics with stated goals to represent you all and fix the issues that you hired me to fix. Instead of being met with polite discourse, I have been met with contempt, disrespect, and attacks on my person and life. Rather than simply debate my positions, my opponents have chosen instead to try to ruin me. My poor wife is worried that even when I am exonerated the mere existence of these (perhaps unfounded) allegations will hurt my reputation and future career endeavors. Nonetheless, I will keep fighting on because this is bigger than me, this is about the place that we all live in, the community that my daughter is growing up in, and our future. If we keep staying this course, Spokane Valley will cease to be our city, I need your help to take it back. I am happy to take your questions here. Best Regards Al Merkel Spokane Valley City Councilman Emails and policies: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders /1 pB2VUz5RH8pm-gi5ajq 1 _NckpvNKHBT4?usp =sharing !Id Page 3 Exhibit 5 5:41 a 5D L,- 0 41 :..oj1 41 % Albert Merkel 0 ensure that the real issues facing our city are not sidelined by these unwarranted attacks. This is all devastating to my wife and family, and people who know me well. I entered into city politics with stated goals to represent you all and fix the issues that you hired me to fix. Instead of being met with polite discourse, I have been met with contempt, disrespect, and attacks on my person and life. Rather than simply debate my positions, my opponents have chosen instead to try to ruin me. My poor wife is worried that even when I am exonerated the mere existence of these (perhaps unfounded) allegations will hurt my reputation and future career endeavors. Nonetheless, I will keep fighting on because this is bigger than me, this is about the place that we all live in, the community that my daughter is growing up in, and our future. If we keep staying this course, Spokane Valley will cease to be our city, I need your help to take it back. I am happy to take your questions here. Best Regards Al Merkel Spokane Valley City Councilman Emails and policies: https:#drive.google.com/drive/folders /1 pB2VUz5RHBpm-gi5Djg1 _NckpvNKH8T4?usp sharing Disclaimer: nothing in this post is intended to represent Spokane valley city or the city council as a whole. X Page 4 Exhibit 5 9,41 94%■ 7:37 T 0 Albert Merkel Albert Merkel i Pondcrosa • 10h Al Merkel's Spokane Valley Councilman Report for the meeting on March 5, 2024. Last night, in another brash demonstration of bias at the dais, the council directly attacked me for the information I provide to you all on Nextdoor. The meeting began with the City Manager reading a statement that largely conformed to what he described in the email I attached to my last post, which detailed the "allegations" against me. Nothing new so far on this, still waiting for more details from the city, but in the mean time this is still causing me difficulty in my ability to represent you all. After this statement, CM Yaeger claiming that a typo l made in my last report — which was already corrected before the meeting and did not reveal anything about the executive session — somehow violated policy, is the latest attack that has been sent my way. I'm really grateful for the community members who came to the council meeting and witnessed direct and blatant contempt from the other council members. The 5-member politburo had apparently already decided to make this move, unaware that I had already addressed the issue. Then, when confronted by that fact, they went through with the witch hunt anyway. Only Council Member Ben Wick stood up with me against this inappropriate action. In fact I would nrni i n that C'_NA Vaanor anti tntiv rnvPndari what Page 5 Exhibit 5 0 4€ 94% ■ 7:38 T 0 Albert Merkel After this statement, CM Yaeger claiming that a typo I made in my last report — which was already corrected before the meeting and did not reveal anything about the executive session — somehow violated policy, is the latest attack that has been sent my way. I'm really grateful for the community members who came to the council meeting and witnessed direct and blatant contempt from the other council members. The 5-member politburo had apparently already decided to make this move, unaware that I had already addressed the issue. Then, when confronted by that fact, they went through with the witch hunt anyway. Only Council Member Ben Wick stood up with me against this inappropriate action. In fact I would argue that CM Yaeger actually revealed what happened in exec. session on the dins through her statements and questions in a very direct way. To emphasize, here is a link to our governance manual: https://www. sp o ka n ev a l l eywa. g ov /DocumentCenter/View/9211 Nowhere in this manual does it give the council the right to "reprimand" any member. Not only that, but Councilman Yaeger and Mayor Haley (again with clear disdain) referred to nonexistent language within this manual. CM Yaeger stated that I cannot write about council meetings on Nextdoor (blatantly incorrect, and exactly what they said they were not trying to do in the first as they all stared in our second council meeting and I reported here), and Mayor Haley claimed that I cannot talk about council members outside of mnntinne Of rni tren nnithnr of thncn rini ienc III Page 6 Exhibit 5 0 4€ 94% ■ 7:38 T 0 Albert Merkel [https://www.spokanevaliMa.gov /QocumentCenter/View/9211 Nowhere in this manual does it give the council the right to "reprimand" any member. Not only that, but Councilman Yaeger and Mayor Haley (again with clear disdain) referred to nonexistent language within this manual. CM Yaeger stated that I cannot write about council meetings on Nextdoor (blatantly incorrect, and exactly what they said they were not trying to do in the first as they all stared in our second council meeting and I reported here), and Mayor Haley claimed that I cannot talk about council members outside of meetings. Of course, neither of these clauses exists. Mayor Haley further demonstrated her lack of mastery over Robert's Rules by making several mistakes that both CM Wick and I commented on, such as not ruling on my point of order about CM Yaeger using disparaging language (page 16 of the above manual). After this colossal waste of time, we moved into city business. City business was very short this week; we approved a disposition of surplus city property (a piece of property, some vehicles, and a backhoe; contact the city if interested in the auctions), reviewed an application for federal grants (that I continued to ask for financial transparency on the costs for production), and had an overview of the granting program, during which I again asked for a report of staff time to be included in grant requests (actually should be included in all items brought before council). We also looked at some potential projects for Balfour Park that will require qrants. III Page 7 Exhibit 5 0 4€ 94% ■ 7:39 T 0 Albert Merkel After this colossal waste of time, we moved into city business. City business was very short this week; we approved a disposition of surplus city property (a piece of property, some vehicles, and a backhoe; contact the city if interested in the auctions), reviewed an application for federal grants (that I continued to ask for financial transparency on the costs for production), and had an overview of the granting program, during which I again asked for a report of staff time to be included in grant requests (actually should be included in all items brought before council). We also looked at some potential projects for Balfour Park that will require grants. We are looking at building a playground and a splash pad at Balfour Park for approximately 4 million dollars, 1.5 million of which is coming from city funds. The city last reached out to citizens about this project in 2021, so given our policing priorities and lack of funds, I would like to know whether you all feel this is a priority or whether we should use the funds somewhere else right now. See the presentation bellow (also includes a picture of Sprague being reduced to 3 lanes): https:#spokanevalley..granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view id=3&clip id=1368&meta_id=87616 Please comment on this post with your thoughts on the Balfour Project, specifically whether you think now is the best time to use these funds. Irn I nnnInniTc if I hnwgn n t►►nn in these nntnc III Exhibit 5 a *41 �r .,t�� 96%r <_ Albert Merkel Oa Albert Merkel - ;:� Spokane Val... ,. ■ Ponderosa . I Oh • 0 Al Merkel's Spokane Valley City Council Report April 2, 2024. Hi folks sorry this one took a little while, it was a long one. 1. I am glad The Spokesman covered the latest chapter in the city`s "investigation" into "allegations" against me. As reported in the article, I tried to bring a Spokane Valley resident as a witness, which turns out was actually very necessary. What the article didn't mention is that even though the investigator told us she was recording and the recording would be available, when I asked for it, she said, "there is no recording" Well, witnesses are a lot harder to erase than videos. They also did not mention that while she professed it was a "private" interview, she actually had another person there. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/apr 1 03I investigation-into-spokane-vallep-eit� -councilman-I 2. SCRAPS, After receiving numerous emails about 2 dogs who were scheduled to be euthanized, I asked SCRAPS leadership for information as to why these animals were scheduled for termination. The director provided me the full chart notes for both, and what I found surprised me. Despite SCRAPS reporting that one animal killed a cat, it was clear in the report that this was not -,iihstantiatpd hv Pvirlenrp. Kist Page 9 Exhibit 5 6:34 a 0 C ., it 96% i Albert Merkel - - - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - -- https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/apr /03/investigation-into-saokane-vallev-citv -councilman-/ 2. SCRAPS: After receiving numerous emails about 2 dogs who were scheduled to be euthanized, I asked SCRAPS leadership for information as to why these animals were scheduled for termination. The director provided me the full chart notes for both, and what I found surprised me. Despite SCRAPS reporting that one animal killed a cat, it was clear in the report that this was not substantiated by evidence, just something reported by the person who found the dog as a suspicion. What I saw in the revirds were two animals who had some issues that seemed to be developed mostly from long incarcerations within a shelter. My understanding is that there were rescues ready to take these animals. What I don't understand is why it was more cost-effective to pay for euthanasia and cremation than to simply disclose the issues and allow the rescues to adopt the animals. That just seems like the cost-effective approach. Here is the link to review the emails I received from SCRAPS leadership: https l/drive.gvogle.com/drive/folders/1 E6igJ -JeV1 sspYdpmfpgC,yWEtxasktok 3. City Council Meeting - Mayor Pam Haley's Statement: Last night, the Mayor attempted to sell the idea that this project is the silver bullet solution for the aquifer, despite the fact that the other 10 miles of Sprague will remain as they are. Page 10 Exhibit 5 6:35 F1 ..111 96%8 Albert Merkel htttps:#drive.google.com/drive/folders/1 E6*QJ -JeV1 sspYdpmfDgQyWEtxasktok 3. City Council Meeting - Mayor Pam Haley's Statement: Last night, the Mayor attempted to sell the idea that this project is the silver bullet solution for the aquifer, despite the fact that the other 10 miles of Sprague will remain as they are. There is still no justification in terms of numbers for how this will have an impact. What the city officials keep telling me is that it is "a good start" I ask, a good start to what? They insisted there are no plans to reduce the rest of Sprague, but if that's the case, what is this a start to? I think we all see through this. This is ultimately just money spent to do something that isn't needed right now and wastes previous resources that we should be using for police. I used my point of privilege for dissenting opinions to counter the Mayor's speech and remind everyone again that not only did more than 100 residents directly write in about this waste of resources and time, 11 out of the 18 businesses in that area are also against this project, AND THE CITY'S OWN SURVEY SHOWED BOTH THAT AVERAGE SPEEDS INCREASE AND MORE THAN 65% OF VALLEY RESIDENTS ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT! 4. Contract for 16th Ave Repair with Bumpouts for Street Crossings: While my questions revealed that the bumpouts are not strictly necessary as per current standards, since the road is currently in grade C condition and needs to be resurfaced, the bumpouts are only a small marginal cost. This should be compared to Sprague, which currently is in nrnrla ❑ rnnrlitinn makinn the whnip nrniPrt Page 11 Exhibit 5 p C 96% 1 6:36 a Albert Merkel 9) 4. Contract for 16th Ave Repair with Bumpouts for Street Crossings: While my questions revealed that the bumpouts are not strictly necessary as per current standards, since the road is currently in grade C condition and needs to be resurfaced, the bumpouts are only a small marginal cost. This should be compared to Sprague, which currently is in grade A condition, making the whole project unnecessary. 5. CTR Contract: We currently have a contract with Spokane County for the state -mandated commute trip reduction program. This program aims to work with employers of more than 100 workers to help find ways to reduce total trips by forming carpools, or using bus services, or biking, and providing incentives for employers and workers to meet goals. Given the issues we have had with the SCRAPS contract and issues we have had with this contract in the past as revealed by the contract analyst, I advised we add some language to have input into who the director is and to have feedback from the companies that this program works with. As usual, the council voted against these common-sense changes. 6. Contract for Negotiator Services Land Purchases Required to Widen South Barker Street: The city proposed hiring a consultant for $650,000 to negotiate the city's purchase of portions of property needed from 52 properties to widen South Barker. The total estimated property cost is 4.5 million. That means we are paying about 15% to the negotiator, which seems very high considering most real estate companies 9 r10! . r 1. n^ %Afh^+ 1 #h^+ ;n Page 12 Exhibit 5 6:37 a Albert Merkel 9) 6. Contract for Negotiator Services Land Purchases Required to Widen South Barker Street: The city proposed hiring a consultant for $650,000 to negotiate the city's purchase of portions of property needed from 52 properties to widen South Barker. The total estimated property cost is 4.5 million. That means we are paying about 15% to the negotiator, which seems very high considering most real estate companies charge 10% or less. What I highlighted that is even more problematic is that we are PAYING BY THE HOUR! This means that even if this company doesn't succeed in negotiating these contracts, they will still be paid. This is a problem. As a basic principle of contracting, we should always pay upon delivery of the thing we need. I proposed that this contract should be done as pay for the negotiated deals rather than per hour. I was voted down. 7. Housing and Homeless Services Grants: Next, we had a presentation from DM Hattenburg and CM Wick on applications for grants from the Housing and Homeless Services Board, of which they are both members. The point of the presentation was to ask the council what projects we wanted to recommend for the grants. For my part, I asked that CM Wick and Hattenburg instead focus on asking for monitoring and evaluation criteria for whichever projects they pick, so we have data on the success or failure of the projects and can do better evaluations next time. 8. Police Funding: We had a presentation on Innlrinn at untar-nnnrnuarl nnlir•n fi inrlinn nntinnc Page 13 Exhibit 5 6:37 p <- Albert Merkel 0) Housing and Homeless Services Board, of which they are both members. The point of the presentation was to ask the council what projects we wanted to recommend for the grants. For my part, I asked that CM Wick and Hattenburg instead focus on asking for monitoring and evaluation criteria for whichever projects they pick, so we have data on the success or failure of the projects and can do better evaluations next time. 8. Police Funding: We had a presentation on looking at voter -approved police funding options. From the open house we had yesterday on the subject, and the open house I did in January, it is clear that looking at a voter -approved sales tax is the way to go. We will be further exploring this at the end of April. Investigation into Spokane Valley City Councilman AI Merkel hits snag The investigation into Spokane Valley cit... 2 2 Share Page 14 Exhibit 5 7:51 T & 0 . r� �Ml Mike Dolan McDonald . 5d rn� Marvel Travis • Pishman Hills • 5d City employee's complaints of harassment cannot be ignored. How can anyone complain about investigating harassment charges? If there was no harassment he will be cleared. If there was harassment the ... 690 situation can then be remedied. Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Ponderosa . 5d • * • Marvel thanks, but what if they don't share the complaints, the dates they happened, or the complaintants? I'm not advocating for ignoring anything, but considering that I had only been to city hall about 10 times and had little to no interactions wth staff (as was the direction by the city manger), and they won't share the specifics of the charges or even let me have a witness present for the questioning {which by the way, I showed up to every meeting set by the investigator, she hung up on me once and canceled at the last %# Add a comment... Page 15 Exhibit 5 7:51 8 & 0 - n 0 N# 24% ..� Mike Dolan McDonald . 5d • (A) --- -, -- -- --.. - - -- -- --- - -- every meeting set by the investigator, she hung up on me once and canceled at the last minute the second time), isn't it possible that thisis politically motivated? don't you want to know the specifics of what I did? s.0 I brought up the 6th amendment lat night exactly because of this, there is a reason the founding fathers introduced that amendment, because the British had a habit of arresting people without telling them why and declaring them guilty without even revealing witnesses against them. so far I have none of the specifics about this. and this week, as was reported last night, they will be closing the investigation without ay participation from me or telling me anything about it. they said last night that they will redact all the who,what,when from all reports or public information requests meaning that I and you the public might not ever know any of these details. Add a comment--- Page 16 Exhibit 5 a N ^& .all 24% 7:52 T & p - r4 4DMike Dolan McDonald - 5d • W L'.. -, WIlU,VVIIdL,WIlei I Irum di repUll5 Ur public information requests meaning that I and you the public might not ever know any of these details. None of that bothers you at all? 000 the constitution exists because our founding fathers didn't trust goverment. public trials exist because of this. as the attorney emphasized last night "this isn't a trial". I'm trying to understand why you have so much faith in this process when it has been so closed off to the public. what makes you think that I will be cleared if I didn't do anything considering there will be no access to the evidence or records? �.ediced) -1 P 4 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel - Ponderosa • 5d • • • Marvel by the way, don't take my word for it, ask the city or ask one of the other council members like CM Yeager. ask for the specifics of what I am charged with, this should all be public information. I am after all a public official Add a comment... VO-*' Page 17 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa Edited 1 d ag... logo 3 Like Reply Share Michelle Huskinson • • • Albert well that explains that. I applaud you for not taking and blocking these egregious comments. I'm glad that a 3rd party found you not guilty. I wish they could have changed the "childish behavior", that these so called adults are doing to you. 2 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel ji I ;_41 pili .. . • • Michelle Thanks, I dont block comments, I respond. free speech is the answer to bad speech. of course the city takes the approach of trying to silence dissenting opinions, which is ultimately what this is all about. 1 1 Like Reply Share Michelle Huskinson • M-1rahe IT ••• -`� Albert I am aware but sometimes its difficult seeing the attacks and blame. I get exhausted by it all. %$ Add a comment... III Page 18 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited ld ag.... ••• Michelle Huskinson . Mirabe.. 7 , • • • Albert I am aware but sometimes it's difficult seeing the attacks and blame. get exhausted by it all. 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Michelle that makes sense. I know this is all difficult now. this is a time of transition for our city. next year we will have a council election, and if I'm right we will see new council members in many of these roles, and good governance will resume along with responsiveness to the city residents. in other words things will calm down. of course things could calm down now if my fellow council members simply stopped trying to attack and silence me and just had open debate. they could still do whatever they wanted since they have the majority, just let me say my piece, ask my questions, and represent the constituents. I would still let the community knew when I felt they were wrong (as they can, but don't), IfAdd a comment... Page 19 Exhibit 5 41 ''° .FYI 100% Albert Merkel � Ponderosa . Edited 1 d ag... • •• community know when I felt they were wrong (as they can, but don't), but it could be honest debate instead of attacks. It's pipe dream, but I wish... the truth is they will likely keep attacking me and silencing me, because it's easier tha debate. they will silence everyone else too as demonstrated by CM Jessica Yeager, but that's all part of the majority's mantra: why debate when can silence or attempt to humiliate? Albert Merkel Like Reply Share PF., ' sr• n.. Jeff I see someone flagged my comment about you Mr. Beaulac where I calld out your past criminal history (stabbing the Paramore of your sgnificant other), involvement as a democratic operative, and how you havent liked me since highschool. while that is in appeal, I'll place this as a placeholder. don't delete comments or flag comments. ifAdd a comment._ W, Page 20 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel .. Ponderosa - Edited `] d ag... Matt Walton . Belle Terre • i d Al, I've got to say, the report is very disappointing. It's relieving that you weren't found to have harassed employees or other council members, but the behavior described is very disrespectful, unneeded and worrying. 0*6 The final paragraph of the report states: "The weight of the credible evidence as a whole overwhelmingly supports a finding that the subject Councilmember's communications and conduct, as described above in summary fashion, support a factual predicate for a violation of the COSY Governance Manual regarding expectations of respect, decorum and the City Council's Core Belief's, to include standards for civility.." I'd strongly encourage you to work on trying the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I personally know many of the city employees to be people of a strong iAonpL nf:ain ^wA n A^^;P� +n kn nrr�nr.nl.Ir. Add a comment --- Page 21 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • .Edited 7 d ag... I'd strongly encourage you to work on trying the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I personally know many of the city employees to be people of a strong work ethic and a desire to be agreeable. Please try to use this finding as an opportunity to mend fences and win hearts as you represent many important views and it's a shame that the way you comport yourself is taking up important oxygen. .* 12 Like Reply Share AlbertMerkel Author • pond.... - 1 d • • . sr Matt I appreciate the feedback. I have to say that I categorially deny all of thet hearsay in this, aswell as ""yelling at staff". I highlighted that I was cleared because the rest of this report was a lot of accusations without a lot of proof. I should note that many staff members, especially "seasonsed" staff did not feel that there was anything to report. as I said above, the staff decided to "fear" m before I even took office mote that 2 out of the 5 sections were about "interactions" 1W Add a comment --- Page 22 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 1 d ag... ••• that many staff members, especially "seasonsed" staff did not feel that there was anything to report. as I said above, the staff decided to "fear" m before I even took office (note that 2 out of the 5 sections were about "interactions" before I took office. this report says that 12 staff members thought I was an active shooter threat, I don't even know 12 staff members. I encourage you to ask the staff members you know if I ever even interacted with them. the " violation" they speak of is of decorum, pretty subjective and weak if you ask me. (edl ced,, ;* 2 Like Reply share Bryanna Franzen ° Pines and .. . • • m Matt I can not speak to the allegations and witness statements but l can tell you my experiences when I have been a... See more ,., 8 Like Reply Share Matt Walton Belle Terre • 1 d ••• Q�r anna I'm referring to the %0 Add a comment... Page 23 Exhibit 5 2_ aE M 100%2 Albert Merkel ... Ponderosa • Edited y d a+g.... Albert Merkel Author Pon... • 22h ... Marcia Confrontational? sure. Inappropriately so? No. I am not sure what you think we are talking about, but this is politics, there is supposed to be conflict of ideas and thoughts. Mayor Haley's job is supposed to be to balance the chamber which meas that by definition she should be ableto handle some appropriate confrontation. Appropriate confrontation is about bringing up actions, and spoken statements, voting record, and Making technical statements. If you dont think yourelected representative should beable to handle being called out for what they do in office, I am not sure what your expectation is from them. I think the majority of Valley Residents (and probably the majority of people in America) want their representatives to be able to confront issues and people who represent for those issues. Do you tell al the protesters who yell at elected officials that they need 10 Add a comment... 01 Page 24 Exhibit 5 a S is N, ,., 100%8 <— 0Albert Merkel 11 .�. Ponderosa • Edited 1 d ag... I think the majority of Valley Residents (and probably the majority of people in America) want their representatives to be able to confront issues and people who represent for those issues. Do you tell al the protesters who yell at elected officials that they need counseling? Politics is about conflict and confrontation. that's what I said above in my statement. I think you are demonstraing the problem: If confronting people for what they actually, say, do and vote on is "bullying" then what am I supposed to do? oh that's right... GET IN LINE. This is false morality. softening all interactions until they are esentially meaningless. I wasn't elected to protect the majority's feelings, I was elected to bring change. Again, it's what I ran on! This is exactly what they are trying to do at the city, say everything I'm dr-Ainn that is drivinn rhnnna ie 10 Add a comment... Page 25 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 1 d aa... SIP* I YYC101Il CIC%, LCU LV JJI VM%-t U IC majority's feelings, I was elected to bring change. Again, it's what I ran on! This is exactly what they are trying to do at the city, say everything I'm doing that is driving change is wrong.... Why? 5o I can't drive change * 1 1 Like Reply Share Marcia Sands • Ponderosa • 22h ••- v. Albert I voted for you but will not do so in the future and I suspect that there a a LOT of people who feel the same way. I am also beginning to understand why our city staff felt the need for active shooter training. It seems that if anyone does not agree with you then you will fight fight fight. This type of confrontation is not productive. +1 2 Like Reply share Albert Merkel . - • R • Marcia okay I'll bite, what did you expect me to do when you voted for me? in your mind what was my platform? %0 Add a comment.._ Page 26 Exhibit 5 Albert Merkel Ponderosa Edited 1 d aq... investigation as you were reminded several times by attorneys and other residents as you claimed 6th amendment rights. it's incredible that you think this investigation is a win. Spinning as we need a change in our government is disgraceful and just means you are trying to hide the fact you like to harass and bully people and say that is progress. ; 3 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel ,.. Scott I see the irony is lost on you huh. GOVERNMENT initiated an INVESTIGATION of me ACCUSING me of BREAKING THE LAW, but to get around the pesky need to give me the accussations and evidence against me they said "oh don't worry we arent labeling it 'criminal' at this point so the constitution doesn't apply".... Also, this process doesn't exist in writing anywhere so due -process also doesn't apply, or 1 4th ammendment equal protection. Huh, that seems lik a convenient loophole in the constitution. Finally, that same GOVERNMENT declared me 4 Add a comment--- 100 Page 27 Exhibit 5 9-03 L 4D i# y ..1 99%2 <_ @Albert Merkel 61, Ponderosa Edited 7 d ag... Sipe constitution. Finally, that same GOVERNMENT declared me innocent of breaking the law they were originally investigating, but to cover up this wasteful misadventure, they found me "guilty" of not complying with some extremely subjective ad vague language in the governance manual which at that point was only a guide for elected officials, and most importantly not even in the scope of investigation. I hope the word doest get out or we will have a lot of "non -criminal" investigations that throw people into jail. Your trust in government is a bit strange and misplaced. I wonder if you will sill fee this way when the government changes... you seem like one of those people who calls for an end to the supreme Court when they don't make a decision you like, but are super happy and praise them for being unbiased when they do something you like. Like a fair whether citizen. 2 Like Reply Share Daniel Moeller • Progress an— • 17r+ ... Add a comment... Page 28 Exhibit 5 6:34 AT .,d 42%.. <— Albert Merkel @16 Ponderosa • Edited `] d ag... Albert Merkel Author • Ponderosa • 4h •00 ONE anthony I agree! I think when I look at the charges against trump, I see Republicans, Democrats, government offcials, private individuals, it gives me pause. each has different motivations, different incentives, different jurisdictions. it does give me pause. I say at least he will have his day in court, had the charges presented to him, was able to confront the witnesses against him, and will be tried by a jury of his peers. When I look at the group who made this report, I see city staff and city council, each and everyone of the witnesses with the same incentive and motive, all working together to silence and discredit me. Why? because I am asking hard questions about what staff is doing, and why council is voting the way they are. you don't find it interesting that 3 of the things in the report were from before I took office? or that the mayor wasn't even the one who submitted a complaint but later when politically convenient all the sudden she is saying how terrible the situation was? if so terrible why not complain? that mischaracterized encounter happened months hefnrP the invP-stination- vnii Add a cornment--- Page 29 Exhibit 5 6:3 5 0 Albert Merkel . Ponderosa • Edited 1 d aq... VVO�II L CVC11 UIC UIIC VVIIU 5ULJIIMMU O complaint but later when politically convenient all the sudden she is saying how terrible the situation was? if so terrible why not complain? that mischaracterized encounter happened months before the investigation. you dont think anything is wrong with staff saying they think I am going to literally go postal and shoot up the place, when I can't even name 12 staff members? did you notice the comment in the report about how staff really don't like that more citizens are coming to meetings, even describing them as 'angry'? don't you have any issues with the fact that the same people who initiated this process were the judges of my supposed'guilt'. there is nothing independent about this investigator, she is just a hired staff member working at the pleasure of th chief orchestrator of this charade, Manager Hohman. finally, isn't it funny that I wont have the right to appeal to anyone? this is justice to you? (edited) ,# 2 Like reply Share Add a comment._. Page 30 Exhibit 6 8:1 S ®o 6 _ "il) 16% Karen Armstrong 000 illp Millwood Valley - 6w Like Reply Share Albert Merkel - Ponderosa - 6w • • • ok, after discussing with law enforcement, seems this is just what happened. very unusual and scary, especially as a father of a young daughter myself. at least in this case all the systems we have put into place as a society worked. the kids felt uncomfortable, and just as we have all taught our kids they went to a community establishment where they were protected and law enforcement was called, and law enforcement made the arrest and laid charges. I'll keep following with prosecutors office on updates. I personally thanked the police, and will call altitude to thank them. •� 5 Like Reply Share 0 Julie P- • Balfour - Dishmaii • bw *we Albert thank you al, -# 1 Like Reply Share Add a comment... L Page 1 Exhibit 6 8:19 B 0 116 16% _ <— wren Armstrong 009 067 Millwood Valley - 6w . G kidnapping in CDL. I guess there was another attempt but it was white men in their 20s Like Reply Share 0,r� Cynthia Hodge • East Valley • 6w see y� ti Chnstee you obviously didn't even look at the news report with their photos. My point in bringing it up is, that it all could have been avoided if they were illlegal and had NOT been allowed in the country. I don't know if they are or not. My only concern is for the safety of our children and our community. Like Reply Share Christee S. (I i Mead, WA • 6w ... thiathe news article I read (krem2) said nothing about them Add a comment... �� Page 2 Exhibit 6 8:19 B 0 jj 16% _ 0Karen Armstrong ,10. Millwood Valley • 6w , +) Yesterday two men tried to nab two young girls in the trampoline parking lot at Argonne and Mission. As the weather gets better, more kids are going to be out_ Please talk to your children about stranger danger, or better keep a close eye on what they are doing! Also please respond if you can read this post, because mine seem to get blocked. This is a really important post, I've already been to a child's funeral, and those family's, including my own, will never be the same. 240 114 Share --0' All comments Julie P. - Balfour Dishman • 6w ... I can read it. That is horrible. Thank you for the notification g Like Reply Share Maggie Bomengen t ,, • Ponderosa • 5w •.. That is horrifying +1 � 4 Like Reply Share ,'s Linda Dawidjan ... A Add a comment... III Page 3 Exhibit 6 0 11 SGUC ."iil 88%■ Wanda R. , Panderosa - 4y • gin`► T" Hello everyone! Sorry I was camping Y Y P 9 this weekend and did not have reception. I will be happy to help as always! I will review the application and applicable case history over the next few days. Wanda, can you give me a call? Im at 5093156416 Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention! 9 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel • Ponderosa • ay ... Ck so the actual number is CUP-2019-0001. This is a type 3 application for a conditional use permit. This is good news because these are the "easiest" to oppose! What they are asking for is an exception to the zoning use requiredment for the zone that property is located in. We obviously dont think that this use is appropriate within a single family zone. So here is the first step: LAIR Add a comment... UV Page 4 Exhibit 6 0 N# SSGUC .all 88%■ 6:41 T C 4%Wanda R. 0 Panderosa • 4y So here is the first step: rK EVERYONE: if you are reading this, you need to submit a written public comment to: lap nning( spokanevalley.org CC: CityCouncil raspokanevalley org Use subject: public comment CUP-2019-0001 •f* IMPORTANT: In order to make your comment most effective refference the approval criteria for CUPs here: 19.150.030 Decision criteria. A. A CUP may only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that: 1. The conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the character and appearance of the existing or proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property; 2. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and visual screening for the conditional use shall not hinder or discouraae the Add a comment... Page 5 Exhibit 6 7:10 aDC a€= +gill 96% 1 Maria Diaz logoPines - I Oh • (0) 010 Albert Merkel . Ponderosa • 8h •e* what was the police response? Like Reply Share Maria Diaz Author • Pines • Oh ••• Albert They said they were going to come in to ask questions and asked me to give them a description of him. The mom also said she was going to make a report. They never came so im not sure if they're going to do anything more vj 2 Like Reply Share filp Albert Merkel • Ponderosa • 8h see Maria hmmm ok. did you make report with crimecheck? if so can you send me report number to my email? amerkel@spokanevalleywa.gov 2 Like Reply Share Bobbi Collett • Central Valley • 35m ••• „P Albert Mr Miracle What a clusterfck Sprague Ave is down by the City Hall building. I am really surprised the... See more toAdd a comment... III Page 6 Exhibit 6 8:08 FM ✓_ < Albert Merkel 01; Ponderosa • I d • 9 0 l +gill 91°Ia■ Councilmember Merkel decries Spokane Valley Council 'taking a summer vacation' (The Center Square) - Spokane Valley C... ., 4P 14 see �2 Q 2 (.> Share Vickie Patterson • Millwood , see Off topic but could you please work to get all of the graffiti and gang tags out of Mirabeau park by the trail? Thanks. 1 Like Reply Share Owl Albert Merkel Author • Pond... ' 'l d ... Vickie thank vckie! can you send me an official email to amerkel[a spokanevalleywa.gov sonl cantae action on it? * 1 Like Reply Share Add a comment... l� Page 7 Exhibit 6 6:43 El 0 C) 0 'C SG u G .,{ II 91 % ■ Mike Dolan McDonald • 1 w Whats up with all of the 25mph signs in front of city hail? They are official speed signs not the orange construction zone type. I thought city council had to approve speed limit changes? Is this going to be the new permanent speed limit? a � 6 62 Share � All comments 0- AlbertMerkel •• • ill look into it .- 8 Like Reply Share Ed N. - i fee There is no such thing as "an orange construction zone type". Most active construction zones have reduced speed limits. The orange sig... See more .. 3 Like Reply Share 0 Kevin Anderson - Castle • 1 w ... No, the entire stupid project is a Big Deal. As for OSHA and NTSB having regulations to speed limits in construction zones I couldn'... See Add a comment._. m Exhibit 7 Q -C 41 % . 8,20 0 4 0 r.W LIU Albert Merkel Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 23h - e Should Spokane Valley Reduce Sprague to 3 Lanes? News Coverage: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar /11 /getting-there--Sprague-ave... See more Yes, this sounds like a good project No, please stop this project 289 votes 0 Getting There: Sprague Avenue to see biggest transformation in decades spokesman.com JP 6 C107 Q 87 �> Share Page 1 Exhibit 7 B-21 TOO - U 43 :..oll 414,E - Albert Merkela -W - v v- - - rr -I,-- Albert Merkel Ponderosa - 4h • •! Ok folks, I think this is pretty loud and clear. I'm not closing the poll, keep voting, but I need your help. If you are a Spokane valley resident and you are against this project I need you to email me at: amerkel0spo kaneva II eywa.gav with the following: Name, Neighborhood, City of Residence This is my last chance to get thiS changed, I will take these emails to the council meeting and say our citizens vote no on this project, and see what they do! Al Merkel Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 23h • 0 Should Spokane Valley Reduce Sprague to 3 Lanes? News Coverage:. htts://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024 /mar/11 /getting-there-sprague... See more 1 � Share Page 2 Exhibit 7 Albert Merkel Albert Merkel Ponderosa - 23h - Should Spokane Valley Reduce Sprague to 3 Lanes? News Coverage: httDS://WWW.SDokesman.com/stories/2024/mar 111 -bgest-tram Hi fellow SpoVal Residents, wanted to post about the project to reduce Sprague to 3 lanes, and get your opinion on what I should do about this issue. I have already tried to stop this project twice, but wanted to know how come resident felt about this before I try again. 1 thing to note is that despite what ❑M Hattenburg says here, a good portion of this project uses 311 funds which would be transferable to other projects such as Police. please weigh in and feel free to express your thoughts in posts below! Al Merkel Spokane Valley City Councilman 3 disclaimer: nothing in this post is meant to reflect the view of the city or the council as a whole. Yes, this sounds like a good project No, please stop this project III E Page 3 Exhibit 7 6-44 a Q Albert Merkel Albert Merkel -+ tir Spokane Val... Ponderosa - 6h - 6 Pilot Project Feedback 21 direct responses through phone, email, or media interviews 296 online survey responses 320I4 support the project, 630/n oppose the project, 5'1/b are unsure First week, 28"A supported and 7 1 % opposed May indicate a Learning curve and earned support 3.26.24 SAD UPDATE ON SPRAGUE ROAD DIET!! Hi Folks, 500+ VOTES!!! THE COMMUNITY IS DECISIVELY AGAINST SPRAGUE ROAD DIET!! BAD NEWS: THE SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL 0]:M011frel11:1= Tonight, I presented 100 emails I recieved on this issue, a survey of every business in the area with the majority against this project, and reminded the City Council that THERE OWN SURVEY SHOWED 63% OF SPOKANE VALLEY RESIDENTS ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT! after all that, the council still voted against us 6 to 1 •_• . I suppose their hatred of me surpasses all common sense and care for what the residents of this city want. Page 4 Exhibit 7 6.44 F1 0 +pr N1 -+ .,ill 9 6 % I <— Albert Merkel 0 after all that, the council still voted against us 6 to 1 '. I suppose their hatred of me surpasses all common sense and care for what the residents of this city want. Frankly, I am at a loss. I am just not sure how more clear we can get. Mayor Haley said that the reason you all were against this project was because I just didn't tell you the city's excuse about how doing this project on this 4/1 Oths of a mile of the 10 miles of Sprague (about 4% of Sprague) will somehow magically heal the aquifer from dirty road run off, despite the fact that the other 9.6 miles of Sprague are still at 5 lanes or more... Give me a break. I think you are all smart enough to make decisions about what impacts you in this city, despite the fact that the Mayor thinks you guys just can't figure this out (let alone the fact that if this is some sort of holy Grail exo project, the city and these politicians still did a bad job of conveying that). Well, I am truly sorry I couldn't get this stopped. As your representative I have failed, and for that I apologize. If someone has any tips for how to get through to a bunch of electeds who no longer care about what citizens want, I am all ears.... Page 5 Exhibit 7 6-44 T Q <- Albert Merkel Ow Well, I am truly sorry I couldn't get this stopped. As your representative I have failed, and for that I apologize. If someone has any tips for how to get through to a bunch of electeds who no longer care about what citizens want, I am all ears.... lots more happened at the meeting, stay tuned for my full report tomorrow! Al Merkel disclaimer: nothing here is meant to convey the position of the city or the city council as a whole. to Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 1 w • 0 Should Spokane Valley Reduce Sprague to 3 Lanes? News Coverage: https://vvww.spokesman.com/stories/­2 /mar/11 /getting-there-sprague... See more 02 1 QJ �' share Albert Merkel Ponderosa • -i w Should Spokane Valley Reduce Sprague to 3 Lanes? News Coverage: https:/Zwww.spokesman.com/stories/2024Zmar /11 /getting-there-sprague-ave... See more Page 6 Exhibit 8 Albert Merkel Ponderosa - 45m City wants to close pools and stop maintenance on streets, meanwhile average salary for city staff is $100k! Folks, I just got out of the budget proposal workshop for 2025. In what I would call a brazen ploy to raise your taxes, the city proposed budget cuts that would eliminate all city pools and local street maintenance as well as reduce plowing, while we pay $45,000 for copier maintenance and the average takehome for staff is $100,000. this is how government operates, they threaten the nice/low cost things to get you to pony up money for salaries and road diets. we are out there right now tearing up Sprague for 5 million dollars, and saying that we can't afford to open the Pools next year for $500,000. when I called them out on this bate and switch and pointed out the high salaries and other proposed cuts I made, they all essentially lambasted me, from Mayor Haley on down they spoke about how "special" this group of people was and how we couldn't do anything to effect +hn+ +knu rr^Ion -�hnld+ h1%ls7 el^^A -A+ nnr%+rnn+ Add a comment... Page 1 Exhibit 8 4-35 TO 0 • It .*- < 5GUC ,all 64%m Albert Merkel Ponderosa - 45m we are out there right now tearing up Sprague for 5 million dollars, and saying that we can't afford to open the Pools next year for $500,000. when I called them out on this hate and switch and pointed out the high salaries and other proposed cuts I made, they all essentially lambasted me, from Mayor Haley on down they spoke about how "special" this group of people was and how we couldn't do anything to effect that. they spoke about how good at contract management everyone was saying that even though we pay them lots somehow we are saving money. Well I haven't seen it in terms of contract management, look at SCRAPS, or the RFP for homeless services which was botched. hardly any of our contracts even have performance measures. Folks, take a look at my budget proposal. My proposal reduces the budget sufficiently to adequately fund pools and police officers. time to really consider what is going on! Best Al Merkel Add a cornment... Page 2 Exhibit 8 4:35 a © 0 • 9 * k 5G UC ..dl 64% ■ Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 45m Best Al Merkel As a quick PS, a second grade class wrote into to city council with letters about city issues. to my knowledge no one on council responded so I took the time to write personalized letters to each student. I sent the letters to city manager to print on letter head, and he refused . everything I do is blocked by this city staff and council. I will keep fighting the fight. if I don't hear back I will send them myself. disclaimer: nothing in this post represents the views of the council or the city as a whole, obviously. Add a comment... QV III C Page 3 Exhibit 8 -1: 5 e, Albert Merkel .., Ponderosa bd Not following your logic in making the cuts. All you have provided is a lower number next to a budget line item. You need to show your work. I expect more detail if you're offering an alternate budget. ,� 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Aurlinr Pond- ... W Rob very good. I have the detail. I'll post on website, just need to format it. the point of this was to provide to city saff because how they orgaize the money is up to them. will update momentarily. 2 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Author , pond... Rob ok posted in the same place. the center column are the budget line items I used for reductions. asked about most of these at the meeting. Again, the point is to push them to "find efficiencies" as the staff said during a meeting this year. Add a comment... Page 4 Exhibit 8 2:00 ✓ 8 3 4. s u 7 9 4 VO kl 12 93 14 15 16 11 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 311 31 as 34 35 �n V 311 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Sb 57 51 69 Gn 41 a �;€ ^;.Ilil b7%■ b o+ 9 C h R I C 14 Number Accrxint Category 2025 Over under 10% Recornme- 1 GF City Counril S 754,11t.00 $ 32,704-00 S 75,411.10 2 GF City Manager S 868,450.00 S (14,524-00) $ 86,845,00 c 3 GF Deputy City Manager S 637,361,00 $ 27.155.00 S 63.738.10 1. 4 GF City Attorney 5 983,089.00 S 31.707.00 S 98,308-90 1- 5 GF Public Safety S - 6 GF City Services Admin S 467.290.00 $ 28,4720 $ 46,729.00 1 7 GF Facilities Admin S 589,649-00 $ 4.956-00 S 58,964-90 8 GF City Hall 5 189,100,00 S 41,500,00 $ 18,910,00 9 GF Center Place S 328,O1U.00 S 49.380.00 S 32,801.00 i- 10 GF Police Campus S 168,450.00 S 24.850.00 S 16.845.00 11 GF Balfor S 83,375-00 $ (27,925-00) S 8.337-50 12 GF Other General Facllltie: $ 54,13013-00 ? $ 5,490-00 13 GF Frnancs S 1,506,6841 S 49,528.00 S 150.668,40 1- 14 GF General Gov S 2,977,3901 S (1,677,222-I S 297,739.00 6- 15 GF IT S 444,125.00 $ (13.409.00) S 44,412.50 1- 16 GF HR S 410,7$1.00 S 21,634-00 S 41,075.10 1 17 GF Pvtft Works S 405,023,00 5 (4,409.00) 5 40.502.30 .1 18 GF public works engmeanr S 2,118,034-C $ 61.363.00 S 211,803.40 2. 19 GF Building S 2,354,430S $ 68,768.00 $ 235,443.00 3 20 GF planning S 11113,019.0 S 131886-00 5 111,301.90 2 21 GF Economic Developmer 3 1.244,350.0 5 35,836.60 5 124,435,00 4 22 GF Parks and rec ad min S 456,981.00 $ 52,201.00 S 45,698.10 1- 23 GF harks and rec maim S 2.535,9081 $116,743.00 $ 253,590 80 1 24 GF Parks and rec recxeatic $ 376,949.00 $ 27,002.00 $ 37,694-90 25 GF parks and rec aqualics 5 550,000,00 $ 550.000,00 S 55,000.00 26 GF parks and rec senior o€ $ 45.678.00 S 10,896.00 S 4.567.80 27 GF Parks and rec centerpli $ 724.628.00 S 39.416.00 S 72,462.80 1• 28 GF public works deparimel S 7,449,582.[ $ (2,206,083-f $ 744,958-20 2, 29 GF public works slarmwatc $ 5,563,136A S 556,313.60 26- S - S - S 35.400,473-2,549,585 3.540,047 811 $heed ' Sheet2 Page 5 Exhibit 8 2.01 ® ✓ i a+ ! c U R S I Il V w % Y 2 replace copiers 2 1000 2000 1700 2200 20000 200 100 330 5000 1320 3500 a 4 5 ; 6 1 City under or at budget 7 2 City Minutes are on time and accurate 8 3 city coundi meetings are accurately recorded 9 4 City Council Assesemenl good 10 Software 11 1 Needs assesmenl for excess city staff $ 16,500.0C 12 2 what do these people do? S 14,966.0C 17 $ 2., 500.00 14 1 minimize city attorney needs $ 12,000.00 15 2 minimize need for outside council $1,000.00 M s 1,000.00 17 1 Work with agencies to establish $1,000.00 19 $ 9.000.00 19 1 Establish what these people do $ 611000.00 20 5 254,0001 21 1 what do I" do? $ 110,8110,c 22 $ 000.00 23 1 City Hall is cleaned and maintained $ 30,200.00 24 2 City Mianlanence checklist 5 100.00 2S $ 950.00 26 $ 32,642AX 27 $ 71,658.Oc 28 $ S,aOo.aa s 25,000.00 30 $ 14,575.0C at $ 16,500.0{ S 500,00 + $1.390.00 ad $ 500.00 �5 $ 6,600,00 se $ 18.225.0( s7 $1.650.00 $ 35,432.0C a9 $ 6,056.00 s 50,000A 41 $ 741,544.( 42 43 44 $ 7,415A4 45 46 47 49 49 so 51 52 33 54 55 56 57 50 59 60 61 Sheetl Sheet2 + Page 6 Exhibit 8 2:01 ® - 0 NO 7 ..i11 6i%■ X 0-0 alforval.com < 0 Ll- City Budget Proposal detail Page 7 Exhibit 8 2:00 r_' 0 NI ^...ill 67%m 2025 S poVa l Budget Proposal The attached budget proposal provides my suggestions for cuts in order to provide for and additional zo officers tax free satisfying our commitment to public safety as our number one priority, while still maintaining needed city services but eliminating unneeded fluff, some examples are our under the current budget our city pays more than $45,000 per year for copier maintenance and $740,000 for "software" for a city of approximately ioo employees. Exhibit 8 2.01 ® •! 0 N1 67%m ?C alforval.com < 4"" City Budget Proposal.pdf 2025 s poVa Budget Proposal The attached budget proposal provides my suggestions for cuts in order to provide for and additional 20 officers tax free satishT4- f7 our commitment to public safety as oT Exhibit 9 Recent Nearby Albert Merkel ... fili� Ponderosa , 20h • 0) ANNOUNCEMENT : WE CAN ENFORCE LAWS ON HOMELESSNESS AGAIN!!!!! Grants Pass V Johnson DECIDED! f'"� ftmuftu I NEED YOUR THOUGHTS NOW! Spokane Valley, the day has finally come, the tyranny of the 9th circuit's disastrous Boise decision on homelessness is finally over! The time is now to propose reasonable responses to homelessness that leverages the law to encourage homeless folks to rejoin society by getting the mental health, drug addiction, and/or social services they need. Let's discuss what we want the cities framework to be! background; Martin V Boise was a 2018 9th circuit (applies to WA, OR, ID, CA, MT, NV, AZ) decision with disastrous consequences. the decision essentially required municipalities within the 9th to have sufficient NO BARRIER (Meaning no rnhriatu/haha�rir-yr rnm oirnmante) ok altnr ennrrn fnr 1 1��;N> cp Name Search Post For Sale Notifications Page 1 Exhibit 9 Foryou Recent Nearby WA, OR, ID, CA, MT, NV, AZ) decision with disastrous consequences. the decision essentially required municipalities within the 9th to have sufficient NO BARRIER (Meaning no sobriety/behavior requirements) shelter space for all homeless people before being able to enforce any sit/lie, anti -camping, loitering, or pan handling laws. Since basically no city could meet that requirement, we have been stuck since 2018 in a nighmarescape of ever increasing street dangers (open drug use, confrontational people, mental health breakdowns) without having much recourse. Today, after almost 10 years of this the supreme Court finally reversed this decision, stating definitively that the power to make policy lies with the people not with the courts. read the full decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf 123-175_19m2.pdf OK! So it's time to make policy! I would like to know what you all think our homelessness policy should be. A couple of things to think about: 1. everything has cost: Note that ticketing, trying, and jailing people is not fray wa hnua rump mninr hmitntinnc harp A +� Name Search Post For Sale Notifications Page 2 Exhibit 9 $.1 o To a • a -XI Fs .,III 90% ■ Recant Nearby Note that ticketing, trying, and jailing people is not free. we have some major limitations here starting with the fact that we don't have enough police officers (we really need to fix this - - ). If we are too big with our policy choices, this may be all. our police end up doing. Also remember that courts have costs as well, and currently the courts are over stuffed as it is. Clogging the courts with homelesses cases may also be very detrimental to other important issues. also, Jailing is very expensive, ranging between $350-$700lday depending on how we calculate the cost, plus space is incredibly limited right now and filling the jail with homeless people means less space for violent criminals. 2. All people are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, and that is a decision of courts not police officers. This matters a lot because a police officer does not have the authority to determine guilt even if that guilt is obvious. in other words, if someone is camping at the park, even though it is obvious they are breaking the law, they cannot be found guilty by the cop. they must have a process involving the judicial.branch where they are given the right to respond to the charge (potentially with legal representation depending on if it a criminal or civil charge), and appeal the decision before final disposition. 1 Finpq rinn't rPaIIV wnrk Home Search Past For Sale Notifications Page 3 Exhibit 9 Recent Nearby 3. Fines don't really work shouldn't have to say this but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. 4. There are many different types of people experiencing homelessness. I know we tend to focus on the visible ones, (people on the street right in front of us), but the fact is there is a whole strata of people who are homeless. there are the obvious categories of mental health crisis, drug addicts, anti society people, but there are genuinely people who for many reasons can't get housed (whether bad credit, criminal convictions, health dept, homeless children, or other reasons). our solution cannot ignore these circumstances. I'll go first; 1. l think we should establish a mobile justice service consisting of police, some sort of magistrate, a defense lawyer, and a social worker that can quickly go to homeless encampments and adjudicate on the spot. this would ensure that all due process rights were upheld when determining that someone is breaking laws (anti -camping, loitering, panhandling, etc). that service could make an immediate determination whether the accused is breaking a law, and determine sentence. + r�., Name Search Post For Sale Notifications Page 4 Exhibit 9 Recent Nearby believe this cost would be approximately 150k-300k/year depending on usage (Spokane valley local cost). 11 think that we still should setup a facility in the county (away from city centers and residential areas) that can provide social services and shelter/camping space. shelter space should have behavior/sobriety requirements. social services should include sobriety assistance, mental health care, physical health care, Job source assistance, and housing transition assistance. Short term cost would probably be in the millions for acquiring/building the facility. long-term costs would likely not be cheap either, probably 3-5 million per year for staffing, materials, damages, etc. 3. those found in violation in point 1 above would be transported to the facility in 2, and would have 1 week (flexible depending on judgement by mobile justice service) mandatory meetings with a case manager to try and get on a program of assistance and societal reintegration. after the meetings, they would be free to leave the facility if they chose but no transport would be provided. Cost would be relatively negligible, food for the duration of mandatory stay, shelter space is already paid for, and if full camping space would be available for free by the facility. some police Home Search Post For Sale Notifications Page 5 Exhibit 9 8.11 p o o • a N€ 909/.■ Foryou Recent Nearby duration of mandatory stay, shelter space is already paid for, and if full camping space would be available for free by the facility. some police would be needed on site for legal violations but as a civil facility guarding requirements would not be the same as a jail. costs would be created if the person actually uses the social services afforded to them such as sobering and health care, but hopefully these costs would be offset by the person rejoining society. estimate that my plan would cost less than 20% of what our region is currently expending on this problem. I would like to hear your thoughts and criticisms below, as well as alternative plans. remember this is a draft plan and needs a lot of work. after we get some responses, I will put together some sort of poll to get more direction. Thanks! ►,1l KMM disclaimer: nothing here is intended to represent the view of the city or the council as a whole. Page 6 Exhibit 10 6:06 D T C a -Xi ,,di 95%0 Albert Merkel Flonderosa Edited 7h ag... Carol W. a University • 11 h • • • A (hart After reading Jessica's complaint it made me wonder if you are really in compliance with the city's social media policy regarding your nextdoor account. Since your nextdoor account(s) like this one are strictly and only "posts and/or messages between you and others regarding city and or council meetings" the IT manager needs to associate your account with the city's social media archiving platform to ensure that all content, including posts and comments, is archived for public record retentions. This is not only a requirement in the City's Governance Manual but also by RCW's for public records for the State of Washington and also the Federal Freedom of Information Act and Open Record Act. I am a huge advocate for the Freedom of Information Act so I hope I interpreted her complaint wrong and you are in compliance. 1 can't think of one reason why you 4 Add a comment --- Page 1 Exhibit 10 6.06 ® CQ C a -X€ ,,d€ 95%0 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h aq-- %11LQLV VI I V01'.11III19LUII 011u alav 0.1IV Federal Freedom of Information Act and Open Record Act. I am a huge advocate for the Freedom of Information Act so I hope I interpreted her complaint wrong and you are in compliance. can't think of one reason why you would not make your accounts available to the archive and all citizens of the Spokane Valley. The legal consequence for enforcing those requirements to make your accounts compliant with the city, state, and federal government could be very costly for both the city and you. Litigation, settlements and fines could easily be thousands of dollars . You campaigned on fiscal accountability and transparency in government so I hope if you are not in compliance you will become compliant and save the city possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in court cost, settlements and fines. It would also resolve this complaint easily. ,i 1 I lira Dninki Qkara %$ Add a comment... Page 2 Exhibit 10 6:07 B 0 C a 141 .,111 95%0 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h ag... compliant and save the city possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in court cost, settlements and fines. it would also resolve this complaint easily. +1 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel .. Carol your interpretation was correct the first time. her complaint is indeed wrong. did you see above' if my account is out of compliance so is hers. I think neither is. nothing has changed in the months I've been on council, so why complain now. 1 Like Reply Share Carol W. _ ... Albert No, my interpretation wasn't correct the first time. It has nothing to do with what or where you post or even what you say or don't say. Her complaint is about not complying with Washington's Open Record Act and making your nextdoor account(s) part of the city's archive so your comments on city and or council meetings if Add a comment... Page 3 Exhibit 10 6:08 B G C 0 -X€ "` ,rdl 95%m Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h au -- IIVL ►.villplyfliv vvILIF vva0IIIIfVcvsi� Open Record Act and making your nextdoor account(s) part of the city's archive so your comments on city and or council meetings business is archived and available to every citizen of Spokane Valley. You seem to be confusing the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) with the Open Public Records Act. Her complaint had nothing to do with OPMA and is clearly focused on Washington State Open Public Records Act. Like Reply Share Carol W. • University • 9h • • • Albert Yup, that is what she said and was repeated on other networks. I am trying to figure out what she said that is inaccurate. Seems pretty accurate to me. Like Reply Share Albert Merkel • • • Carol no her complaint is about the governance manual. she is just couching it pretty language. her account is the same as mine 4 Add a comment --- Page 4 Exhibit 10 6:08 B G C s 0 N€ ,dl 95%0 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h ag... i 7 Lice Kepiy Snare Carol W. • University • 8h 000 Albert Yes, it is about the governance manual Appendix H page 81 requiring you and all Councilmember's social media accounts to comply with the Washington Open Records Act and archive those records for public record retention. Like Reply Share Carol W. University • 71h ■■ Albert I did not reverse myself because when I replied I couldn't imagine you would not comply with Washington States Open Public Records Act. You are all about transparency. After reading her account it was apparent you were not archiving your account or she wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Presented with new facts I had another opinion. You and all council members must comply with the Open Records Act. It has nothing to do with yours or her's disclaimers or lack of disclaimers. You can disclaim all you want but everything you put on nextdoor nhni it city nnri/nr rity rrm inr.il NoAdd a comment... E Page 5 Exhibit 10 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h ag... anatner opinion. You ana an council members must comply with the Open Records Act. It has nothing to do with your's or her's disclaimers or lack of disclaimers. You can disclaim all you want but everything you put on nextdoor about city and/or city council business must be preserved and retained in public records. As I stated previously there are city, state and federal mandates to retain those records for public accessibility. Are you doing that? If you are there is no validity to her complaint. Quit trying to make this something it is not. It is about you, the governance manual and the Open Records Act. The only social media account I have ever seen on the main feed of nextd000r Is yours. Like Reply Share Albert Merkel ... Carol not for personal accounts, which is exactly what YOU pointed out the first time. that's for OFFICIAL accounts. per legal definition, official accounts for legislative bodies are those which 4 Add a comment... Page 6 Exhibit 10 6.09 Fi Q C ° a -X€ ;y ,rd! 95%0 Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h aq_.. OFFICIAL accounts. per legal definition, official accounts for legislative bodies are those which are used to post things ON BEHALF of the council as a whole. in other words, if the council required me to get an account and post on behalf of the council or the city, then I would HAVE to register it. As I told everyone, in the beginning of the year I actually offered to do that but Manager Hohman said nextdoor was not supported. after researching the matter I found that it was not needed anyway since I am not posting on behalf of the council or the city. the fact is, I have no legal power by myself which is why my personal accounts are not government records. my government authority exists only when I am in council (ie on the Bias during an official function). there is an exception if credibly claim to speak on behalf of the council as a whole (in other words if I were to lie or to make a mistake and claim that l am Add a comment._. III Page 7 Exhibit 10 6.09 ® Q C 0 41 95%■ Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h aq_,. function). there is an exception if I credibly claim to speak on behalf of the council as a whole (in other words if I were to lie or to make a mistake and claim that I am speaking for the council). so tell me Carol, have you ever felt that I was speaking on behalf of the whole councilor the city 7 would say it is pretty clear that nothing I say could be interpreted as being on behalf of the council since it is OBVIOUSLY clear that am in the minority by myself. in fact many have argued that even my council emails might not be considered government records IF It wasn't for the fact that the public records act ALSO includes documents that are CUSTOMARILY stored by government in addition to records that are government business.. my nextdoor items are clearly 4 Add a comment — Exhibit 10 6.09 a p C . 0 94°ia ■ Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 7h ag.,. records that are government business. my nextdoor items are clearly available for anyone with a nextdoor to read, they are not government records and storing them would only be a waste of your tax money. as for violating the open meetings act, that has nothing to do with my account. if anyone violated the act it would be the council members who went out of their way to post on my posts. Finally, the city has no authority to investigate the public records act, that's just not how that works. (edited) Like Reply Share fat Albert Merkel Carol well I will let your words stand for themselves let's see what other people think. 4 Add a comment... 9 Page 9 Exhibit 11 7.31 0 B 9 V 88% ■ <— Albert Merkel V1 Albert Merkel IW:' Ponderosa • 9h - 0 SpoVal Council Changing Rules To Stop Me From Asking Your Questions- Al Merkel Friends, Another week another issue. In a continuation of attacks on me the council majority (politburo) will be changing the rules of council to limit my ability to ask questions and represent all of you. Reported here: https://rangemedia.co/ spokane-city-council-overdose-crisis-scraps/ #:—:text=live%20streamed%20here. -.Spokane%2 OValleyia2OCity%2OCouncil.-The°/420rules%20are Emerging from their secret governance committee (not open to the public) the politburo is making big changes to the governance manual which will have the impact of limiting my questions, and probably placing me under continual investigation going forward. here are the proposed changes (highlighted in red: https://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view id=3&event_id=579&meta id=87787 most important are the following: 1. Page 20/85, section 6. Mayor will now be able to decide whether anv of us can ask auestions: Page 1 Exhibit 11 7:31 P9 0 Q 40 88% ■ <— Albert Merkel *V most important are the following: 1.Page 20/85, section 6. Mayor will now be able to decide whether any of us can ask questions: "Councilmembers shall, at all times, confine their remarks to those facts that are relevant, as determined by the Presiding Officer, to the question or matter under discussion" 2. Chapter 5: 57/85. This whole chapter is new. It prescribes an enforcement mechanism for council actions. a. Page 57/85, Section C. Why does this only apply going forward? It should apply from the beginning! "However, said enforcement provisions shall apply only to that conduct occurring after the date Council passed the resolution adopting this Chapter 5 of the Governance Manual' b.The procedure is costly and empty. Why does it need to go to an investigator first? Why not simply go to the hearing examiner and let the hearing examiner decide? Why does it come back to council after hearing examiner? This seems like 1. Extra cost 2. Convoluted excuse for this to go to city manager first and keep me under investigation. 3.65/85 Copies, out of state travel, dress code, and volunteers. All these sections are direct attacks on me. I am the only one who was looking fnr n cti i not vnh intnnr to raivn nnlitir nI Page 2 Exhibit 11 7:32 Pn 0 Q 40 88% ■ Albert Merkel go to city manager first and keep me under investigation. 3.65/85 Copies, out of state travel, dress code, and volunteers. All these sections are direct attacks on me. I am the only one who was looking, for a student volunteer to give political experience to. 4.Pg. 83/85 Social Media Policy, section 5. This is directed at me, but I am not sure what it means. "Costs for the social media archiving platform shall be deducted from each councilmembers individual annual budgets" 84/85 section 9. 1 believe this is directed at me, but is no problem. There is still nothing in here that says I cant post about the city. 5.Page 54/85 section 2, all these committees should have been open to the public including this governance committee. It was done in secret 6.Page 28/85 section 19. This should be 3 touch rule: "a. Except for unusual circumstances or emergencies, ordinances and resolutions shall customarily be prepared, introduced and proceed in normal fashion with an administrative report, then first and second reading in accordance with the "Three Touch Principle" Prior to final passage of all ordinances or resolutions, such documents shall be designated as drafts" Page 3 Exhibit 11 7:32 Pn 0 Q 40 88% ■ Albert Merkel Finally, they are moving to suspend the rules and pass this in one meeting. normally we are supposed to have a 3 touch rule, meaning that issues such come up in at least 3 meetings before being passed to give the public a sufficient chance to comment, but the politburo will be suspending the rules so that you all don't have a chance to comment on this change. folks, it is clear that this majority has no interest in representing the public, only caring about wielding power. if you are interested in making sure your elected representatives can actually represent you, please come tomorrow and comment or submit a comment in writing to the following email address: council meeting publiccomment@spokanevallex .org thanks all! disclaimer: nothing in this post is meant to reflect the position of the city or the council as a whole. Dote that the Spokesman has reported on Sprague: https:/Zwww.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar /11 /getting -there-s prag ue-avenue-to-see -biggest-transf/ Page 4 Exhibit 11 7:32 Pn 0 Q N88% ■ Albert Merkel thanks all! Al Merkel disclaimer: nothing in this post is meant to reflect the position of the city or the council as a whole. Note that the Spokesman has reported on Sprague: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar /11 /getting -there-s prag ue-avenue-to-see -biggest-transf/ we will also be addressing scraps tomorrow so of you have any interest in that topic, feel free to come! 0 Spokane City Council to discuss declaring an overdose crisis - RANGE M... rangemedia.co 2 Q Q 3 �> Share AM Albert Merkel Page 5 Exhibit 11 8:02 In ✓_ ^ 0 4no 5GUC .odl 88%■ Albert Merkel *� Albert Merkel -• -: Spokane Val... i If o Ponderosa • 9h CM Yaeger takes out complaint about my nextdoor account. folks, remember how at the beginning of the year I told you all they were trying to silence my nextdoor account? Remember how the other council members and their hired shills on here said that it wasn't true? HA! Well that didn't last long... CM Yaeger says that in her opinion my nextdoor account violated the same manual that she insisted wasn't being created to silence my nextdoor account =-: . I wonder if they think people won't remember? well as I have emphasized all along, this was always their plan, attack, attack, attack. silence me so I can't be available. It's all been part of the plan: attack nextdoor, create investigations, harass my family, all to shut me up! ask again, if you think this is wrong please write the city council members, let them know that we see them! also, keep. in mind the hypocrisy considering that both CM Yaeger and Mayor Haley have been nnstinn nn nPxt rinnr ahni it rite isci iPs Page 6 Exhibit 11 8:03 In 9 V no 5GUC ..,II 88%■ Albert Merkel Op ---- -- - ----- -------------- --- --- ------ plan: attack nextdoor, create investigations, harass my family, all to shut me up! ask again, if you think this is wrong please write the city council members, let them know that we see them! also, keep. in mind the hypocrisy considering that both CM Yaeger and Mayor Haley have been posting on next door about city issues... thanks! disclaimer: obviously nothing in this post represents the city or councils position as a whole. 2 Share Albert Merkel ili� Ponderosa - 22h • 0 O Page 7 Exhibit 12 6.20 SGUC .,ji 85%■ Albert Merkel Ponderosa • Edited 19h a... Malika ®ulce • Colbert, WA • 8h ••• Votes never matter! Votin 9 pj- is a symbolic gesture to pacify people. 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel ci ... Malika they matter to me! as your elcted representative I would not be here without your votes. I can tell you that none of the political elite wated me in this office. they still shun me and avoid me today. iifyou see what the city council has been doing it is as much to punish me as it is to punish all of those who got me elected. know there are many people these days who say similar things, but really the political people of all types hate me, because you all do matter. they hate that I sincerely ask your opinions. they hate that. I advocate for you all as I am doing on this project. they hate that I stand up for neighborhoods like Ponderosa. All of Chic ctanric to n i i n tha nntmor thaw 14 Add a comment.... Page 1 Exhibit 12 6:20 Fn SG UC ..ji 85%■ Albert Merkel Ponderosa - edited 19h a,.. IVIQIIRCI LI MY I I10LLCI LU I I IC: Cl,, Y U U I elcted representative I would not be here without your votes. I can tell you that none of the political elite wated me in this office. they still shun me and avoid me today. ifyou see what the city council has been doing it is as much to punish me as it is to punish all of those who got me elected. know there are many people these days who say similar things, but really the political people of all types hate me, because you all do matter. they hate that i sincerely ask your opinions. they hate that I advocate for you all as I am doing on this project. they hate that I stand up for neighborhoods like Ponderosa. All of this stands to ruin the power they have created by preying on your apathy and disconnectedness with decisions being made. trust me, I am living proof that your votes do matter! Like Reply Share Add a cornment... Page 2 Exhibit 13 7:20 B Gil a U XI 5GUC .idl 75%■ Mike Dolan McDonald 2d N) Mike Dolan Auttior McDo.., • 22 ... Phyllis I considered mentioning scraps as well. I have talked about it and the treatment of supporters before. I decided to pick Sprague in the end to demonstrate the total lack of respect the council has for our citizens since I was more familiar with it +1 40 3 Like Reply share Midge Stumm - Evergreen A... .•• Phyllis is there instructions somewhere as to how to attend the GC meetings by zoom? z 2 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel , Ponderosa, ... Midge here you go: use the instructions at this link at aound 5:45 you should be good to go. you can also follow the instructions on the link to comment. httt s: spqkanevalleywa.gov/196 Public -Comment Also, Scraps will be coming up again, just not sure when! thanks all! 4 Add a comment... Page 1 Exhibit 13 1:42 Fn 0 -X€ 5GUC ..iII 70%■ Mike Dolan McDonald . 3d issues people both on a... See more 1 Like Reply Share Lucille Williams • Sprague • I ••• Day and time of mtgs? -0 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 1 rl D o • k. r Lucille hello! meetings areon tuesdays at bPM at city hall. I would come early though at 530PM to get a seat and sign up if you want to comment. 1 Like Reply Share Lucille Williams - Sprague • 23h •-• Albert thank you. 1 1 Like Reply Share Albert Merkel Ponderosa • 23h logo sF Lucille anytime! Like Reply Share Nancy Gaffney • Rossvale • 21 h lololo I agree with you. It isn't said enough. Add a comment... Page 2 Exhibit 14 2 3 DECLARATION OF ALBERT MERKEL Pursuant to RCW § 5.05.050,1, Alben Merkel, state and declare as follows: 6 1 am currently a member of the City of Spokane Valley City Council, I make this Declaration I ased upon my own personal knowledge and/or belief. 8 1. 1 have reviewed a copy of the public records request froEn an unknown requestor at y the email address fordbradley82@gmail.cotn dated March 26, 2024, a copy of which is attached to 10, Exhibit 15 9:0700^ _ 9 94D/.1 r, == Jessica Yaeger ,.. Pine Valley •Edited 2m a.,, Our city staff are amazing and the entire city deserves better! Wait till you read the whole investigation; he will put his spin on it to make himself a victim once again. I, too, have personally experienced his behavior, which is why I quit meeting with him at the beginning of my term. Disclaimer: clearly my opinion and does not represent the views of the council, or the city. https.11www..aRokesman.com/stQ-ries/­2024/­ma y 109/investigation-into-valley-councilman-al -merkel-finl Investigation into Valley Councilman Al Merkel finds'pattern of disrespe... Spokane Valley City Councilman Al fvleik— +1 10 V Q 26 Share p Post insights view --o-All comments � Mike Dolan ... Have you read the whole investigation? Discussion closed just now. III 0 Page 1 Exhibit 15 9 - 0 2 M 0 0 Jessica Yaeger ... Pine Valley •Edited 2m a... All comments Mike Dolan - McDonald • 17h • • • Have you read the whole investigation? 1 Like Share Jessica Yaeger At,thor • Pi--. ... Mike Aabsolutely Like Share Carli Norman - Ridgemont Mornin 1 bh ... Can someone copy/ paste the text? I don't want to subscribe to the spokesman to read it... See more 5 Like Share Jessica Yaeger Author r Carli appears to be, he's a professional wordsmith. Like Share Mike Dolan ... So Jessica you are saying you refuse to work with all of your fellow councilmen to do the voter's business?, and you a Ciscussion closed just now. Page 2 Exhibit 15 9:08 F1 0 0 Q iT 940% x Jessica Yaeger ... Pine L+'alie]1 'Edited 2m a... Like mare Mike Dolan • McDonald • 15h • • • So Jessica you are saying you refuse to work with all of your fellow councilmen to do the voter's business?, and you have done this since the beginning of your term? Maybe it is time for a change? 7 Like Share ifJessica Yaeger Author - pi_ - t 5h ... Mike where does it say I won't work with him? That is what I have been doing on council for 5 months.... ,j 2 Like Share Mike Dolan - McDonald • 15h ... Jessica you stated above that you"quit meeting with him at the beginning of your term" By the way I didn't notice a disclaimer? Are these your personal opinions or do these represent the city council? 4 Like Share Jessica Yaeger autt,or Pi... • 141, ... 8 Discussion closed just now. III 0 Page 3 Exhibit 15 9:08 a 0 0 • 94% ■ Jessica Yaeger ... 40 Fine Valley •Edited 2m a... by the way f didn't notice a disclaimer? Are these your personal opinions or do these represent the city council? .,1 4 Like Share Jessica Yaeger Author - P1.. ... Mike we met before we were sworn in_ I quit meeting with him beccause he attempts to dominate each interaction to get what he wants ... a bully! . 1 Like Share - Barb Smith • Pine Valley • 15h ... Intimidation and belittling behavior is not acceptable anywhere. 4 Share Mike Dolan • McDonald - 15h • • • Jessica please let us know if you get 300 text messages a day again over this. f 1 Like Share Mike Dolan • McDonald • 15h • • • Sine councilman Merkel was cleared of 8 Discussion closed just now. Page 4 Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.70.030 Exclusions. Page 1 of 1 2.70.030 Exclusions. A. In no event shall protection as provided by this chapter be offered by the City to or involving: I. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, willful, intentional or malicious act or course of conduct of an official or an employee; 2. Any act or course of conduct of an official or employee which is not performed on behalf of the City; 3. Any act or course of conduct which is outside the scope of an official's or employee's service or employment with the City; 4. Any lawsuit brought against an official or employee by or on behalf of the City; and/or 5. Any action or omission contrary to or not in furtherance of any adopted City policy. B. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive or impair the right of the city council to institute suit or counterclaim against any official or employee nor limit its ability to discipline or terminate any official or employee. C. The provisions of this chapter shall have no force or effect with respect to any accident, occurrence or circumstance for which the City or the official or employee is insured, from whatever source, against loss or damage; provided, that the provisions of this chapter shall apply in the event the loss or damages fall within the deductible or exclusion(s) of the City's applicable insurance policy. The provisions of this chapter are intended to be secondary to any contract or policy of insurance whether owned by or otherwise applicable to any official or employee. The City shall have the right to require an employee to fully utilize any such policy protection prior to requesting the protection afforded by this chapter. (Ord. 7 § 3, 2002). The Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 24-010, passed June 4, 2024. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report: Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County: Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC Chapter 3.80: Storm and Surface Water Utility and SVMC Chapter 22.150: Stormwater Management Regulations, Washington State Code RCW 36.36 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: April 8, 2008, City Council adopted Ordinance 08-005 implementing the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), an Ecology -approved, technically equivalent document used in our region to functionally replace Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). BACKGROUND: In fall 2007, Ecology recognized the SRSM as an approved technical equivalent to its SWMMEW. Since its adoption by the City in 2008, the SRSM has been used in the region to help guide stormwater management principles. The City's Stormwater Utility has partnered with neighboring jurisdictions to deliver various stormwater efforts, including tasks that are required by its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. It's typical that the NPDES Permit, which is updated every five years, incorporates updates to approved technical documents, such as the SWMMEW. The current NPDES Permit became effective in July 2024 and included updates to the SWMMEW. As a result, the SRSM now requires updates to ensure that it continues to meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the updated SWMMEW. Draft updates must be submitted to Ecology for review by July 1, 2026 and the adopted technically equivalent document must be completed by June 30, 2027. Staff propose entering into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Spokane County to contract with a stormwater consultant to evaluate the existing SRSM against new permit requirements and complete the necessary update to the SRSM. The ILA has been drafted and agreed upon by City and County staff and is attached to this document. Spokane County has identified a consultant through its selection process. A scope of work document is also attached to this document. The ILA specifies that the City and County are partners in the ILA and agree to share costs 50/50. The proposed scope and contract amount is not to exceed a total of $160,382. Split equally, it results in a City share of $80,191. The Stormwater Utility budget (Fund 402) has sufficient funds to cover the cost of this effort. OPTIONS: Discussion; or take other action as deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking consensus to return to City Council at a later date and request permission for the City Manager to execute the drafted ILA. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. Budget/financial impacts are shared above. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft Interlocal Agreement including Consultant Scope & Fee Document INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING FOR STORMWATER CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." The COUNTY and CITY agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS (a) The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business. (b) The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley has the care of City property and the management of City funds and business. (c) Counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act). (d) Pursuant to RCW 39.34.030(5), an awarding agency's compliance with the procurement processes required of that agency relieves the cooperating non -awarding agency's duty to follow its procurement processes if the awarding agency posted the bid or solicitation notice on a website established and maintained by a public agency, purchasing cooperative, or similar service provider, for purposes of posting public notice of bid or proposal solicitations. (e) RCW 39.34.030(7) further authorizes Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley to enter into agreements for the financing of joint projects. (f) Pursuant to RCW 36.32.235 et seq., Spokane County duly advertised through its online solicitation notice portal its request for interested consultants to submit qualifications to assist in the advancement of stormwater research projects on an on -call basis for miscellaneous county project work with individual fee values estimated to be below a certain dollar amount. (g) Spokane County identified and solicited bids from fifty-seven firms and from two highly responsive proposals selected the consultant that it determined to be the most qualified firm, said on -call consultant which is tasked now with developing updates to the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) to submit to the Department of Ecology for determination of functional equivalency to Ecology's Stormwater Management for Eastern Washington manual. (h) Updates to the SRSM impact property within the territorial limits of the City of Spokane Valley, and the City of Spokane Valley therefore desires to provide information and feedback to Spokane County and the consultant selected by Spokane County regarding the same. (1) The Services solicited by Spokane County will require the selected firm to develop updates to the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual for all properties within Spokane County, which includes those properties within City of Spokane Valley, regardless of whether one or both agencies contract for the same. Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 1 of 10 (j) Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley find it mutually beneficial to (a) designate the development of SRSM updates to be a joint project of the Parties and (b) share the cost of developing said updates, which updates will be implemented by both the COUNTY and the CITY. SECTION NO.2: DEFINITIONS (a) Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY regarding cost sharing for consulting services related to developing an updated SRSM. (b) City: "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley. (c) County: "COUNTY" means Spokane County. (d) Services: "Services" means those services identified in Exhibit A for development of updates to the SRSM, which Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (e) Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of such Services. (f) Consultant: "Consultant" means the consultant with whom the COUNTY enters into a contract to perform the Services identified in Exhibit A. (g) SRSM: "SRSM" means the Spokane Regional Stonnwater Manual. SECTION NO.3: PURPOSE The COUNTY intends to contract with a consultant for Services to (a) prepare SRSM updates that are to be incorporated into the revised SRSM by COUNTY and CITY, and (b) coordinate those updates for approval with the Department of Ecology. The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the PARTIES' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which the CITY will participate in and share the costs of the Services to develop an updated SRSM for the PARTIES' joint use. SECTION NO.4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL This Agreement shall commence when fully executed and run until December 31, 2027, unless one of the PARTIES provides notice as set forth in Section 7. The partied may extend the term by mutual agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by COUNTY or CITY only for material breach of the terms herein, and only if the breaching Party fails to cure a material breach after having been given fifteen (15) days written notice of the material breach by the Party termination the Agreement. SECTION NO. 5: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS The COUNTY will pay to the Consultant 100% of the fees charged thereby for the Services identified in Exhibit A. The CITY will reimburse the COUNTY for 50% of the amounts so paid by the COUNTY for Tasks 1 through 4 identified in the "Fee Summary & Project Schedule" section of Exhibit A. The CITY will reimburse the COUNTY for 50% of those amounts paid by the COUNTY for "Task 5 Directed Services" that the CITY authorized in writing to be performed prior to said Directed Service being performed. Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 2 of 10 If Consultant's cumulative charges for any "Task" exceed the amounts identified in the "Fee Summary & Project Schedule" of Exhibit A, then the PARTIES shall negotiate the reimbursement rate for such excess amounts in good faith. If the PARTIES are not able to come to agreement thereon within thirty (30) days, then the reimbursement rate shall be subject to arbitration under Section No. 15 herein unless the PARTIES agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. The COUNTY shall invoice the CITY for the cost of Services quarterly, by the 15th of the month for the previous quarter. The COUNTY's quarterly invoices to the CITY shall be accompanied by the invoices and/or billing statements submitted by the Consultant and paid by the COUNTY during the quarter to which the COUNTY's quarterly invoice pertains. The CITY will make payments to the COUNTY by the 5th of the following month. The PARTIES may dispute any quarterly billing. Pending resolution of any dispute, the PARTIES agree that the payment shall be timely for that portion of the bill that is undisputed. In the event a PARTY disputes any quarterly billing, the dispute shall include, in conjunction with the quarterly payment for the undisputed portion of the bill, a letter stating with specificity the basis for the dispute. The PARTIES agree to meet within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of the documentation letter stating the basis for the disputed billing to resolve the matter. In the event the PARTIES cannot mutually resolve the matter within the thirty (30) calendar day time frame, unless otherwise agreed by the PARTIES, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section 15. The selection of arbitrators as provided for in Section 15 shall commence within thirty (30) calendar days of the expiration of the thirty (30) calendar day time frame for informal resolution. Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section 15 shall include, at the request of either Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount. Following resolution of a dispute (whether reached informally, by arbitration, or by an alternative agreed upon process), (a) any underpayment will be due with the first quarterly payment that comes due following resolution, and (b) any overpayment will be credited to the first quarterly payment that comes due following said resolution. SECTION NO.6: RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVIDING SERVICES The PARTIES agree that the Services provided by the Consultant are for development of an updated SRSM for both the COUNTY's and CITY's use, and that the COUNTY is the lead agency in regard thereto. The PARTIES further agree that (a) the Consultant shall work with each of the PARTIES during all stages of the Consultant's work, (b) each PARTY shall provide information to, and receive information from the Consultant which either the Consultant, COUNTY, or CITY deem pertinent to the Services, and (c) the PARTIES shall notify the other PARTY of meetings with the Consultant. The COUNTY agrees to attend staff meetings as requested by the CITY in connection with the Services provided by the Consultant. Likewise, the CITY agrees to attend staff meetings as requested by the COUNTY in connection with the Services provided by the Consultant. The PARTIES further agree to meet upon request to discuss any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO.7: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (2) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the COUNTY Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 3 of 10 or the CITY at the address set forth below for such Parry, or at such other address as either Party shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other Party: COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION NO.8: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. SECTION NO.9: ASSIGNMENT No PARTY may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other PARTY. SECTION NO. 10: LIABILITY (a) The COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the CITY, the COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the CITY and the COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the COUNTY shall satisfy the same. (b) The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the COUNTY, the CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the COUNTY and the CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the CITY shall satisfy the same. (c) If the comparative negligence of the PARTIES and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 4 of 10 (d) Where an officer or employee of a PARTY is acting under the direction and control of the other PARTY, the PARTY directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other PARTY' S officer or employee's negligence. (e) Each PARTY' S duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. (f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each PARTY' S immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other PARTY only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified PARTY with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (g) The COUNTY and the CITY agree to either self -insure or purchase policies of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $4,000,000 per occurrence. including professional liability and auto liability coverages. SECTION NO. 11: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The PARTIES intend that their relationship to each other in connection with this Agreement shall be that of independent contractors. Neither PARTY shall be an agent of the other PARTY, and each PARTY is interested only in the results to be achieved. SECTION NO. 12: MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing only by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 13: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with the Services shall remain with the original owner, unless specifically and mutually agreed by the PARTIES to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the COUNTY and CITY shall own equal title to the documents generated by the Consultant, including but not limited to the updated SRSM. SECTION NO. 14: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. SECTION NO.15: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04 RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 5 of 10 The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04 RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be split equally between the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 16: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 17: SEVERABILITY The PARTIES agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO. 18: RECORDS All public records shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. All public records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the COUNTY in conjunction with contracting Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to the CITY upon request by the CITY Manager subject to the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. Likewise, all public records prepared, owned, used, or retained by the CITY in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed COUNTY property and shall be made available to the COUNTY upon request by the COUNTY CEO subject to the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. Each PARTY will promptly notify the other PARTY of any public disclosure request for copies or viewing of such records as well as the PARTY'S proposed response thereto. SECTION NO. 19: HEADINGS The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit, or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. SECTION NO.20: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 6 of 10 accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the PARTIES which render legally impossible the performance by the PARTIES of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO.21: FILING This Agreement shall be filed by the PARTIES with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO.22: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the PARTY for purposes of confirming this Agreement. SECTION NO.23: INITIATIVES The PARTIES recognize that revenue -reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the CITY, COUNTY or both PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue -reducing initiative(s). If such an event occurs, the PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion. SECTION NO.24: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 25: DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under laws. SECTION NO.26: ASSURANCE The PARTIES shall pay the appropriate PARTY the true and full cost of Services provided under this Agreement as outlined in Section No. 5 herein. The intent of the PARTIES is that neither PARTY will subsidize the other. SECTION NO.27: ADMINISTRATION No separate and distinct legal entity or joint board shall be created to conduct this undertaking. Day-to-day administration of this Agreement shall be through managers appointed by the COUNTY and the CITY. SECTION NO.28: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES (a) Purposes: See Section No. 3 above. (b) Duration: See Section No. 4 above. (c) Separate Legal Entity: See Section No. 27 above. This Agreement does not create, nor seek to create, a separate legal entity pursuant RCW 39.34.030. (d) Responsibilities of the Parties: See Section Nos. 5 and 6 above. Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 7 of 10 (e) Agreement to be Filed: In accordance with RCW 39.34.040 and Section No. 21 above, the CITY and COUNTY shall be responsible for filing this Agreement. The CITY shall file this Agreement with its City Clerk. The COUNTY shall file this Agreement with its County Auditor or place it on its web site or other electronically retrievable public source. (f) Financing: Each Party shall be solely responsible for financing its obligations under this Agreement or as otherwise provided for herein. (g) Termination: Once executed, this Agreement may be terminated for material breach which is uncured after notice given per Section No. 4 above, or by mutual written agreement of the Parties. (h) Property upon Termination: See Section No. 13 above. [signatures follow] Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 8 of 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. SPOKANE COUNTY — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATED: ATTEST: GINNA VASQUEZ, Clerk of the Board MARY KUNEY, Chair JOSH KERNS, Vice -Chair AL FRENCH, Commissioner AMBER WALDREF, Commissioner CHRIS JORDAN, Commissioner Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 9 of 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY l7_rY�l1] ATTEST: JOHN HOHMAN, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marci Patterson, City Clerk City Attorney's Office Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FEE Interlocal Agreement for Regional Stormwater Manual Update. Page 11 of 10 Project: Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual Update Client: Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley Consultant: Evergreen StormH2O Contract No.: 24012 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Spokane County and the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley developed the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM) to establish standards for stormwater design and management to protect water quality, natural drainage systems, and down -gradient properties as urban development occurs. On October 8, 2007, the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) approved the 2008 SRSM as functionally equivalent to the minimum technical requirements in Appendix 1 of the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (MS4 Permit). Since then, the MS4 Permit has been updated and reissued three times (2014, 2019, and 2024) and the contents of MS4 Permit Appendix 1 are repeated in the 2024 Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW). Ecology now defines the process for approving functionally equivalent manuals in Section S5.B.5.c of the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit. Specifically, Permittees are required to update, adopt, and make effective functionally equivalent regional manuals and local ordinances by June 30, 2027. This includes summarizing significant manual changes using the MS4 Permit Appendix 10 format and submitting draft enforceable requirements, technical standards, and manuals that correspond to updates identified in Appendix 1 to Ecology no later than July 1, 2026. Ecology then requires a 180-day review period to develop a written response followed by a time to address Ecology comments and resubmit the required documents for review and approval. The goal of this project is to update the SRSM to be functionally equivalent to the 2024-2029 Permit Appendix. This goal will be achieved by completing the following. • Confirm the edits made to the SRSM by the three contributing jurisdictions for equivalency to the 2019-2024 MS4 Permit are complete and comply with the 2019-2024 MS4 Permit and 2019 SWMMEW (Task 2). • Identify updates needed to the SRSM and ordinances for equivalency to the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit and 2024 SWMMEW (Task 2 & 3). • Summarize edits and significant revisions to the SRSM since it was published in 2008 into the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit Appendix 10 format (Task 2). • Update the SRSM to include the updates identified from Task 2 (Task 3). • Prepare tables summarizing significant changes to the local programs in the format described in Appendix 10 (Tasks 3 & 4). • Coordination with Ecology throughout the project (Task 2 & 4) and address Ecology comments following their review (Task 4). • Accommodate unanticipated additional work that is outside the limits of the scope of work in the other tasks (Task 5). 0 Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update Task 1 Project Management and Administration This task covers the management, administration, and coordination of the work by the Consultant Team as defined in this Contract including project management, preparation of monthly invoices, project schedule maintenance, and overall coordination with the Client. Consultant Services • General project coordination o Set up and close out the consultant contract. o Coordinate and manage the project team in the successful completion of the scope of work tasks. o Prepare and manage the project schedule. o Develop and manage a project SharePoint site for sharing project documents with the Client. o Prepare amendments to this contract if needed. • Invoicing o Prepare and electronically submit monthly invoices with attached monthly status reports describing the following: ■ Services completed during the month ■ Services planned for next month ■ Need for additional information ■ Scope/Schedule/Budget issues, if applicable ■ Schedule update and financial status summary • Monthly Check -In Meetings: o Prepare for and attend twelve (12) monthly check -in meetings (one hour each) for the duration of the project. o The purpose of these meetings is to review the project status with the Client (work completed since previous meeting), review work planned, provide schedule updates, and collect the Client's feedback. o Materials to be developed for these meetings include an agenda, meeting notes, and an action item list. Client Responsibilities • Provide input on the scope, priority of Tasks, Schedule, and Budget. • Process payment of invoices within 30 calendar days of invoice. • Attend all meetings. • Review and process contract change requests and amendments, if needed. Assumptions • The project duration will be eighteen (18) months starting after the contract is executed. • The project schedule shown in Table 4 is a draft schedule and the project schedule will be finalized after the contract is executed. p�',wy Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update 2 • Invoices will be developed using the Consultant Team standard invoice format, submitted electronically. Budget assumes twelve (12) invoices and status reports over the project duration. Invoices will not be submitted during the Ecology review period. • All meeting notes will be in a bulleted format and limited to a summary of the meeting discussion, decisions made, and action items. • Monthly status reports will also be used as the check -in meeting agenda. • Project check -in meeting agendas and meeting notes will be emailed to the Client on a mutually agreed upon timeline after the contract is executed. • The budget assumes meetings will be held via webinar. • No travel time or mileage is included in the budget. • The Consultant will perform the services described up to the amounts included in the attached Fee Estimate. If additional effort is needed, that extra work will be mutually determined by the Client and Consultant and defined in an amendment. Deliverables • Monthly Progress Reports • Project Schedule and Updates • Project Check -in Meeting Agendas, Minutes, and Action Items Task 2 Identify Revisions The focus of this task is to confirm the existing edits made to the SRSM by the three contributing jurisdictions comply with the MS4 Permits through 2024. Then identify revisions required per the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit, including what revisions are needed and where they are needed. This is expected to include the work described in the following subtasks. Consultant Services Confirm Existing Edits Meet MS4 Permit Requirements Through 2024 o Review the MS4 Permits' Appendix 1 through 2024 to identify applicable requirements, including ordinance updates. These requirements will be summarized in a table format. o Review the draft SRSM previously prepared by the contributing jurisdictions to confirm the revisions are complete and comply with the MS4 Permit. Identify gaps or additional required revisions. o Identify relevant ordinances updates that have been made. o Summarize revisions made to the SRSM and ordinance updates into a table format. • Identify 2024-2029 MS4 Permit Revisions to SRSM & Ordinances o Review the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit to identify applicable SRSM and ordinance updates. These requirements will be summarized in a table format. o Review the draft SRSM to identify where revisions are needed and generally what needs to be revised to meet the MS4 Permit requirements. These required revisions will be summarized in a table format and in the draft SRSM using the comment option. o Meet with Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley to discuss and identify 0 Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update 3 what non -Permit revisions they would like to include in the manual update. Review the draft SRSM to identify where non -permit revisions are needed and generally what needs to be revised. These revisions will be summarized in a table format. We have budgeted up to 28 hours for this work. QA/QC Review o Complete QA/QC review of table summaries and Word comments before they are sent to the Client for review. Client Responsibilities • Prepare for and attend the meeting to discuss non -Permit required revisions to the SRSM. • Review and provide feedback on draft deliverables within the agreed -upon schedule. • Provide Evergreen StormH2O with a redline copy of the latest version of the SRSM in Word format. Assumptions • Through prior contracts, Evergreen StormH2O has conducted a review of ordinances for both the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for compliance with the 2019-2024 MS4 Permit. As such, it is assumed that both jurisdictions' ordinances were updated and in compliance through the 2019-2024 MS4 Permit and will not be reviewed for compliance for this contract. • Ordinance updates for the 2024-2029 MS4 Permit will be limited to identifying what needs to be updated. • The 2024-2029 MS4 Permit Appendix 10 format will be used for summarizing required significant changes which are expected to include changes that deal with Appendix 1 or BMP design criteria since the SRSM last received functionally equivalent approval. • The Consultant Team will use the comment option in Excel or Word to respond to Client comments on draft deliverables. Revisions to draft deliverables will be submitted via email back to the Client for official record of how the comments were addressed. • The budget assumes one round of comments from the Client on draft deliverables which the Consultant Team will incorporate into the final documents. Deliverables • Draft Summary Tables of MS4 Permit Requirements and Required Revisions. • Comments in the SRSM identifying where changes are needed and generally what changes are needed. Task 3 Draft Manual Update The focus of this task is to update the SRSM per the revisions identified in Task 2. Consultant Services • Update the SRSM to Include Identified Revisions Update the SRSM to include the revisions identified in Task 2. Address and incorporate comments from the Client on the draft SRSM content 0 Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update 4 and tables. • QA/QC Review o Prior to submitting the draft SRSM to Ecology, a technical and editorial QA/QC review will be conducted. The technical review will consist of confirming changes identified in the Task 2 tables were made. The editorial review will be conducted to confirm grammar is correct, formatting is consistent, and improve overall clarity of the writing. Client Responsibilities • Review and provide feedback on draft deliverables within the agreed -upon schedule. Assumptions • The Consultant Team will use the comment option in Excel or Word to respond to Client comments on draft deliverables. Revisions to draft deliverables will be submitted via email back to the Client for official record of how the comments were addressed. • The budget assumes one round of comments from the Client on draft deliverables which the Consultant Team will incorporate into the final documents. Deliverables • Compiled Draft SRSM Task 4 Ecology Coordination & Revisions The focus of this task is to assist the client with the Ecology submission and review process. Ecology will review the manual updates and will provide a written response to the Client within 180 days of submission. Consultant Services • Submit Documents to Ecology for Review o Finalize tables summarizing significant revisions. o Submit the SRSM and summary tables to Ecology for review. • Address Comments o Develop written responses to Ecology comments in a table format. o Meet with Ecology and the Client to discuss Ecology comments and develop a path for equivalency determination. o Revise the SRSM and the summary tables to address and incorporate Ecology comments. o Submit a copy of the responses to Ecology comments as well as the updated summary tables and SRSM to the Client for review and comment. Address the Clients' comments. o Submit responses to Ecology comments as well as the final SRSM and summary tables to Ecology. • QA/QC Review o Prior to submitting the final SRSM to Ecology, a technical and editorial QA/QC 0 Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update 5 review will be conducted on revisions made to address Ecology and County comments. The technical review will consist of confirming Ecology comments were addressed. The editorial review will be conducted to confirm grammar is correct, formatting is consistent, and improve overall clarity of the writing. Client Responsibilities • Prepare for and attend the meeting with Ecology to discuss Ecology comments on draft deliverables. • Review and provide feedback on draft deliverables within the agreed -upon schedule. Assumptions • The Consultant Team will use the comment option in Excel or Word to respond to Client comments on draft deliverables. Revisions to draft deliverables will be submitted via email back to the Client for official record of how the comments were addressed. • The budget assumes one round of comments from Ecology and one round of comments from the Client on draft deliverables which the Consultant Team will incorporate into the final documents. Deliverables • Final Compiled SRSM • Final summary tables • Responses to Ecology comments Task 5 Directed Services This task is intended to accommodate unanticipated additional work that is outside the limits of the scope of work in the other tasks. In the event this task is utilized and prior to starting work, the Client will direct the Consultant to provide an email that outlines the scope of work, budget, and schedule in writing. Once approved, the Client will provide the Consultant with an email giving written notice that they can begin work. Consultant Services • Provide services as directed by the Client for up to $15,000. Client Responsibilities Provide the Consultant with direction for additional work including reviewing and approving the scope of work, budget, and schedule as needed. Assumptions • Consultant services include hours for meeting with the Client and for developing the scope of work, budget, and schedule. Deliverables • As directed by the Client. p�',wy Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update 6 Fee Summary & Project Schedule The fees are based on the scope of services defined in this document and associated assumptions. The professional services are based on a time and materials basis not to exceed $160,382. All expenses will be billed at cost plus a 5% markup. Any modifications to the scope or requests for additional services will be agreed upon prior to proceeding. A summary of fees by task is provided in Table 2 followed by a detailed breakdown in Table 3. Table 4 provides a draft schedule which will be finalized once the contract is executed. Table 2. Fee Summary Phase 1 Task 1 Project Management & Administration $11,737 Task 2 Identify Revisions $58,645 Phase 1 Total $70,382 Phase 2 Task 1 Project Management & Administration $10,002 Task 3 Draft Manual Update $42,158 Task 4 Ecology Coordination & Revisions $22,840 Phase 2 Total $75,000 Task 5 Directed Services $15,000 Project Total $160,382 0 Spokane County & City of Spokane Valley I SRSM Update W M N a M M p� M M m W n a n a M M M n f0 W 10 m 10 a n m N n 1� a f0 M 1� m M n N n a N f0 M m 10 M n m 0 a O O O O O M 1� m f0 f0 N N N" �_ W m I f0 W O fG N W O M fV {'�1 M fV N �p I m (.j f9 f9 f9 f9 f9 f9 (0 (0 10 N (A (0 (0 a M M M M M M M N ^ a 0 O O OO NMMNNONNM CO CO O �MM co co N N 10 coW N a, m r W m r ~ N O m O O O O C N O U O W O N N N N O t U N F F W O N N N �2 �0 N N �q N (0 N d' � N N In N N d N O O IN NO3 N� CO CO GO N N N N N N C a` a i N N a d 03 CO ��� ���� N N co N N N �� N N N ^ N N i C a W a u SN O N N CO N N O U F � 2 O 42 O 42 O 42 O 42 O O ti O ti O ti O ti O ti ti O ti O ti O ti O ti O � N a U G C 1 cm C O cm � a o No N -0 c a c o C C a N o ° - O c c o L U O N G U O y > oO N L N U L, D (1) o (n cm O Y N 'N N cmU cm O cm Cr7 G C) N c U C N N C UU Q, U r E U '> G 0 U L E ` U 2 G ` G Q a O U E CU L 41 _ U U K E �- C) 9 C) U E L' .47 U rC E N 3 a ° 3,>, o a c O o o U N O E E G C E . G G U 7 U w N E O a cm 0 O G U 0 O C O lo g a ou O -0 Nc,U> :, L� N O cm r U cm >- L 7O 0 r OO c 0 ° .`a ° 3ya d1 a 9 w o= a o Q E E vq o Q E 3 n N 3 E 3 3 N 3 3> N a 0 N>°°> N z L c w o > o > K EE-E UE o N > E E ' c) U as a ace �U o asa U O O Q ID O O O O a 0 i U c U ID c 0 a m ■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■ NONE ® �MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEM ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME ® ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ 8 NONE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ® NONE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ " NONE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ® ■■■■" NONE ® ■■■■ " ■■■■ 8 ■■■■ 8 ■■■■a NONE 8 ■■■■ ® ■■■■ 8 ■■■■ ® ■■■■a NONE ® ■■■■ E f> Q''i) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Feb. 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. Report❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 25-002 setting public hearing for Street Vacation STV- 2025-0001. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code; RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79 RCW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 2-11-2025 — Information Only Item. BACKGROUND: Don and Edith Corson have requested the vacation of an approximate 20' X 195' segment of an unnamed alleyway extending from Appleway Avenue, located east of Long Road and west of Greenacres Road. The street segment proposed to be vacated abuts property owned by Don and Edith Corson and Robert Carroll. The alleyway extends from Appleway Avenue and connects with Greenacres Road. The alley was dedicated by the Corbin Addition to Greenacres Plat recorded July 31, 1923, along with a small sliver of land dedicated by deed (AFN#369325B). The right-of-way has not been improved to street standards. The portion requesting to be vacated has been paved and functions primarily as access serving the adjacent property owners. The area is indistinguishable from the surrounding commercial parking lot and it appears that buildings may have been constructed in the right-of-way. The remaining portion of the alleyway extending to Greenacres Road is gravel. The total area requested to be vacated is estimated to be 4,068 square feet. The alleyway right-of-way requested to be vacated is adjacent to parcels 55184.1510, 55184.1509, 55184.1521, and 55184.1522. Property owned by Don and Edith Corson abuts approximately 87% of the right-of-way requested to be vacated. Property owned by Robert Carroll abuts approximately 13% of the right-of-way requested to be vacated. Pursuant to SVMC 22.140.020.A the application must be signed by two-thirds of the abutting property owners. OPTIONS: Consensus to place proposed Resolution No. 25-002 on the February 25, 2025, Council consent agenda for setting the date for a public hearing on the street vacation; or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to schedule Resolution No. 25-002 on February 25, 2025, consent agenda, which will set the public hearing at the Planning Commission for March 27, 2025, on Street Vacation application STV-2025-0001. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Draft Resolution No. 25-002 Q 0 0 `441 L Greenacres Rd. c 0 cc U cc U) O CL O L. CL a O ■ cc U O J LO < °° 4 F L O LM 0 O w a CL w V <¢ `t 03 Ln cN LO r-o a7 o � � ¢ CD CN L rL <pcp A z- FQOy < � w � L°a Q �3 O Ln L � NuO� cv W Fn Ln • AL 7;t d L- O Z Cl) O Cl) a) a) � Of -o a) � cn a) L a) ` a) %1 I..L 4-0 0- O a) -6 U ww U a-cn U- Oof J N N Cfl U Z cN i L L � Q � CU N O ?� +� Q. �Q I I U W I 0 0) L cu .� � .� -0 H W — O �Q. - � cu Q O O� Z >1 -a U Cl) O O � Z Z CO I ZLu O N O O U J O w a U DC L '� ca L '� ca L ca a) 2cn a) 22 Q Q O 6 J � Z U =:) m C7 Z O t= w w L U CO _ ri7 c E Q co r L O U- of O-0 N = O Ocn 0- L a)a)8- U-OfQ r ' tivt►i Xstit ,t1 a .� w IMMM CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.25-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION APPLICATION STV-2025-0001 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010 AND SVMC 22.140.020; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation Application (File # STV- 2025-0001) from property owners Don and Edith Corson to vacate an approximately 20'X195' segment of an unnamed alleyway extending north from Appleway Avenue, located east of Long Road and west of Greenacres Road. The right-of-way is paved but not improved to street standards. The total area requested to be vacated is estimated to be 4,068 sq. ft. The alleyway right-of-way segment is adjacent to parcels 55184.1510, 55184.1509, 55184.1521, and 55184.1522. Property owned by Don and Edith Corson abuts approximately 87% of the right-of-way requested to be vacated. WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the time when a street vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof, and WHEREAS, chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) establishes regulations and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as a "street vacation"); and WHEREAS, SVMC 22.140.030 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested street vacation to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2025-0001 The required public hearing for Street Vacation Application STV-2025-0001 shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission on March 27, 2025, beginning at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as is feasible, in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 25t1i day of February 2025. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor Marci Patterson, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 25-002 Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2025-0001 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2025 Capital Improvement Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual Advanced Six -Year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • 6/20/2023-Council passed Resolution 23-007 adopting the 2024-2029 TIP, which included these projects. • 6/18/2024-Council passed Resolution 24-011 adopting the 2025-2030 TIP, which included these projects. BACKGROUND: Staff will provide an overview of the projects scheduled for construction in 2025. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds to cover the cost for these projects. These projects are funded with a mix of different funds, including City funds, state grants, and/or federal grants. STAFF CONTACT: Erica Amsden, PE, CIP Engineering Manager Robert Lochmiller, PE, CIP Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Ln r*4 C) ro ro r*4 ro LL uj uj lk I u u LU LU at N M _0 ,--1 -0 C: iA- C: U) cn j 11 `- . O U � 4-J J -0 Q \ i �` U 0 (a X ca :3 — 4, U .O N � (� U (a — Q >1 : N U �C (u N ca .v _U) ca O � a z� L a Q U cn �O Y 1 t 1 I I - L - -_ O a-J - a 0L O Q N .fu O fu ul 4-J 0) .m N O fo C: -0 .� 0)E � u? C: O U cfi �rn > : fu E fu O � = N f ca Q O OL ca f .. cfi -0 ca ca � I —I _0U (a Q En U pC -0 ca Q M 0 fu U cn N O N fu N o O O U Q� C 0 E �, 0O (u L-0 N � -04-J N -0 wp cn p J fo OU IWVHN3SI f_0 u LL fu Q)C: Ul) 1--4 0 4-J _0 fu 0 _0 C: fu C: fu• C) r1i >N C) fu E 61 0 cn 4-1 C: -61 u:3 ca Ln Ln Ln 0 4-J 0 L- U Ul C: U 0 0 u c: fu 4-J u -0 (n -0 4-J 4-J Ul 0 0- Q -0 Q) C: o 0 (D a- u a u , ��'�;., •�., lip. peon uenllh5 aW7JaJvM pa-doid o a J j 9 Y zs U V� J t0 `u E ui O __,-e i U N � C: fu O O O cn O U C: 4-j O C i U a lfu W N 0) C .� U U [2 a-J N -0 4-J M � O N � Z � m � O U i U N O N n fu Il Ln .Ul) OM U L.L (u � N cu U (n -0 a� � C: :3 U-) U m a) c 0 U ca O z c O U c �c a� c "se Q U O �fo fo 0 >_ U V CD_ ca � a) cn cn E O (/) .c " N U O c U +-+ U O)U j _0a U ca N ca O OU _ ' U �UE� U �� (u O M M Q 4-J � 0 ca _ Q _ Q U Ul 4—% W E W U L U .� (u ^ Jul fu U 5 �. a- J �' r (l) U � � ^L 0 C) W Ln O L L I G_y CD 3: iA- E {' V l r a- N E M W V) � E1'' . T •f fu . _ -0 i (/) C U ML 4-J 0 4"-J ,. W cn .fu U U*) ' N U L � � 0 r1 1 4 0 0 U W � U � U , AA N 4, :3 N ,�. cu cu L a-J 0 -a U i W 4-J u ^ i..L y V ru m N U O ro ra V) a-J ro U a-J V) O U V) L 4- ra L LL -W� la Ln T _Hn N ! NnOH O N f� I_ I I' Ln LT I : " S3NId I LZ NS � N � ■ ■ ��� � � �� II Lam_ > o ro U - Ej 3laoa oE o 4-; o nE^), 3NR�213d �� 3 V' zt ids >% Ul /0 �' / V , ^ v C: r , NOINn A L V r ^ ^, O� a-J U -0 m xot— E Ln Ln n i- •� � -61 p O p a HSIOMOS N -0 (u Lr) N -0 (0 4-, ate-J a) N (u O N O L n ca +�., N a -+ O 0 p-0 L N 4d�- -0ro O a-+ C: :3 -00)lp�_ C: OU O U M (�'!) N Ov cn U .O OU a-J O N E cu 4b -r- ca _ U� O OO .,-, LL U a--+ O N C: ow (u m a._ m m mN L.L XI CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: American Rescue Plan Act Related Funds Update — Law Enforcement Assistance GOVERNING LEGISLATION: 42 U.S.C. § 803; 31 C.F.R. Part 35. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous City Council meetings from 2021 through 2024. BACKGROUND: In 2021, the City received approximately $16 million from the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund ("CLFR") under the American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA"). Since 2021, City Council has had a number of discussions about use of the CLFR funds. Through the allocation, distribution and use of CLFR funds, City Council has set aside a total of $100,000 of CLFR eligible funds and a total of $1,976,976 of general funds made available due to the use of CLFR funds towards revenue replacement towards Law Enforcement Assistance, with an emphasis towards one-time technology -related purposes. Some of the funds have been spent on camera trailers and the Regional Safe Streets Emphasis (gang -related) patrols since that allocation. Further, $1,000,000 has been allocated to police vehicle and equipment purchase as part of the 2025 Budget. At this time, $818,291.65 remains available for Law Enforcement Assistance. Tonight, staff are providing updates on the use of funds to (1) acquire and operate cameras within City Parks for security purposes, and (2) the proposed use of funds by Spokane Valley Police Department to acquire and operate license plate reader cameras throughout the City for law enforcement related purposes. Park Cameras — Three -Year Pilot Proiect Staff have developed a three-year pilot project to acquire, install, manage, and operate cameras throughout the City's parks using $350,000 of the remaining funds. The primary goals of the project are to provide additional security and increase public safety within parks, to deter criminal acts within parks, to identify those responsible for criminal acts within parks, and to provide real-time viewing and analytics capability for law enforcement and staff as needed to manage ongoing activities within parks. Cameras assist in all these functions by providing a visible tool that allows those within the parks to know they are being videoed, thereby discouraging criminal activity and allowing park users to know that criminal acts will be able to be addressed if they occur. Further, with the creation of the Sheriffs Office Real Time Crime Center ("RTCC"), the City can connect parks cameras to allow officers and RTCC analysts to pull up parks cameras to view activities in real time to address crimes more quickly as they may be occurring, as well to use the RTCC video analytics software to help identify and trace suspects for quicker resolution by SVPD. There are several costs associated with the project. These include (1) camera and related equipment acquisition, (2) camera and power installation, (3) connectivity installation (both by direct connection to available City cable infrastructure and by cellular transmission), (4) video management software, (5) video recording and storage costs, (6) ongoing camera management (such as replacement of damaged cameras or cleaning and readjustment), and (7) ongoing operational costs (such as for cellular transmission, video storage, and licenses related to camera costs). As recommended by Chief Ellis, the project also includes recommended blue lights and signage within parks to highlight that the park is under video surveillance. One key is that video management software is critical to allow connection of the cameras to the Real Time Crime Center in a manner that allows use of the RTCC video analytics tools and real time video connection and viewing. Page 1 of 4 Staff have attached a worksheet of anticipated costs that allows acquisition of the necessary cameras and equipment and ongoing operational costs for three years. With the current budget, staff anticipate being able to acquire, install, and operate 30-40 cameras throughout the City's park system including contracted maintenance/repair for the duration of the pilot program. The range is dependent on the types of cameras installed (for example, point -to -zoom are significantly more expensive than static cameras), availability and type of power at camera mounting locations (e.g., is the power close to a structure or are controls needed to ensure constant and consistent power like at certain light poles) and the selected connection (cellular versus available and accessible City ITS) for each park and camera location. For network connection, some parks, like Browns Park, are near existing City ITS and so connection could occur wirelessly and more cheaply through the ITS rather than having ongoing cellular costs where ITS is not available. The City's current policy governing retention and use of video recording is to retain videos for 30 days, except in the event a video record is identified as needed for an ongoing investigation. Such video is used when there are security incidents as needed. Given the range of cameras, the project will install cameras in a manner that (1) focus cameras in parks with higher public safety call volume, while (2) still ensuring at least a camera in nearly all City parks. The parks with the top call volumes are Appleway Trail, Browns Park, Valley Mission Park, Mirabeau Point Park, and Sullivan Park. Staff estimate this would allow 4-6 cameras for the parks with the highest call volumes (including the Appleway Trail) and at least one camera for the other nine City parks. Staff will work in conjunction with SVPD to identify appropriate camera quantity and locations for the initial installation. Staff will monitor and provide ongoing review of whether camera locations need to be shifted within parks or between parks throughout the pilot project. Staff did review other operational models, including fully inclusive leased cameras such as the Flock model discussed below where all costs, including installation, operation, records, maintenance, and repair are included in an ongoing annual lease cost. However, outside of Flock, there were challenges in finding other vendors. Flock presented challenges because it does not integrate with the RTCC analytics software. Thus, while the Flock system could be used for real time viewing, it would not allow use of the real time software analytics desired by SVPD. Further, the leased option requires a recurring annual cost that is higher than a purchased solution. If the City Council desired to consider a leased model through Flock, the estimated number of cameras would be approximately 20-25, depending on connectivity costs. This is a pilot project as no additional ongoing funding has been identified once the available one-time CLFR-related funding is expended. The amount was identified to allow a distribution of cameras while still allowing CLFR-related funding for other necessary public safety cameras through the license plate reader project requested by the Spokane Valley Police Department. The period was identified to allow review of the effectiveness of the cameras (such as the number of incidents while cameras were installed versus last three years; success in resolving incidents through identification of those responsible) and to get a clear history of expenses and understanding of annual costs that would be necessary for ongoing continuation of the project if Council desired. Staff are seeking consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of $350,000 for the three-year pilot project. Spokane Vallev Police — Automated License Plate Reader Camera Five -Year Pilot Proiect The Spokane Valley Police Department has identified a need for automated license plate reader ("ALPR") cameras to aid in law enforcement efforts within Spokane Valley. Assuming that $350,000 of the available CLFR-related funding is used for the park camera project, there would be $468,291.65 available for the ALPR project. SVPD have identified a five-year ALPR pilot project with this available funding. ALPR cameras automatically capture still -shots of license plates from passing vehicles. The plate is then cross-referenced through software with various databases to check for stolen vehicles, outstanding warrants, or other law enforcement alerts such as Amber Alerts or Silver Alerts. ALPRs are used by almost all agencies within Spokane County except for the City. ALPRs can be mounted on patrol vehicles, at fixed Page 2 of 4 locations, or on mobile trailers. ALPRs do not gather information about individuals within vehicles, do not use facial recognition or other biometric information, do not track speed or parking violations, and are used solely for law enforcement purposes. Currently, the Sheriff's Office has 39 ALPRs throughout the County outside of the City. The Sheriffs Office manages ALPRs in conformance with all state laws regarding privacy and records retention through an adopted ALPR policy. The Sheriffs Office ALPR policy restricts use of ALPR records to law enforcement purposes, and only retains such images for 30 days, except as such records may be identified and used for an ongoing investigation. Further, the information is owned by Spokane County and is not sold to third parties. The ALPR images cannot be used for traffic enforcement, harassment or intimidation, usage based solely on protected class status, or for personal use. An audit trail of all users who have accessed ALPR data is retained to ensure compliance with the Sheriffs Office policy. The policy also requires that any "hotlist hit", such as a notice that a license plate is associated with a stolen vehicle or missing person, is required to be verified by a human prior to any law enforcement action. ALPRs generally view one lane of travel in one direction, and are focused on the rear of vehicles to obtain the best image of the license plate. Thus, multiple ALPRs would be necessary for multiple lane streets, such as Sprague, Appleway, Sullivan, or Pines. SVPD would locate ALPRs in targeted locations based upon analysis of hot spots and to view the most vehicles and key directions. Unlike other cameras, ALPR cameras are specialized and provided by relatively few manufacturers. Given the Sheriff s Office's prior relationship with Flock for its ALPRs, rather than the City owning the ALPR cameras, SVPD would acquire ALPRs through lease with Flock to ensure consistency amongst all ALPRs used within the Sheriffs Office. Flock provides maintenance, records storage, software, and ongoing management of the ALPR cameras in an inclusive annual lease cost and requires a one-time installation cost for each camera. SVPD are proposing a five-year pilot project, as there is no ongoing funding committed to the ALPRs once the CLFR-related funding is expended. The five-year project allows review of the effectiveness of the cameras and to allow Council an opportunity to identify ongoing funding if it desires to continue the ALPR project after the five-year period. Based on available funding and five years of costs, SVPD estimates that it would install approximately 25-26 cameras, depending on installation costs. Notably, other jurisdictions have used ALPR information to "count" vehicle trips through various points for various agency -related purposes. For example, Liberty Lake has used ALPR counts to identify how many vehicle trips occurred on weekends with special events at Liberty Lake facilities. SVPD has indicated that the City could request such generalized information desired with SVPD ALPRs. However, ALPRs would not provide material information for transportation -project related needs other than for general trip counts. SVPD and staff are seeking consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of $468,291.65 for the five- year pilot project. OPTIONS: Two discussions are required. First, with regard to the park camera project, discussion and consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of up to $350,000 for the three-year pilot project; or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate or necessary. 2. Secondly, with regard to the ALPR camera project, discussion and consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of up to $468,291.65 for the five-year pilot project; or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate or necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Two discussions are required. Page 3 of 4 First, with regard to the park camera project, discussion and consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of up to $350,000 for the three-year pilot project; or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate or necessary. 2. Secondly, with regard to the ALPR camera project, discussion and consensus to return for a motion to approve the use of up to $468,291.65 for the five-year pilot project; or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate or necessary. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City Council has allocated a portion of one-time general funds towards law enforcement purposes, with an emphasis towards technology that will supplement and enhance work by on -the -street law enforcement personnel without extensive ongoing costs. The funds that would be used were made available due to the $16 million in CUR funds that the City received under the American Rescue Plan Act. At this time, $818,291.65 remains available from the amount originally allocated by City Council for Law Enforcement Assistance. Such funding is only available one-time and once expended will not be available for any ongoing costs. Staff and SVPD are proposing use of the funding towards all costs associated with (1) a three-year park camera pilot project, and (2) a five-year automated license plate reader camera pilot project. No funding has been identified to continue such projects after the CLFR-related funding is expended and thine programs would be eliminated after the initial pilot projects if ongoing funding is not identified at that time. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Chief; Chad Knodel, IT Manager ATTACHMENTS: Park Camera Presentation Park Camera Projected Budget ALPR Presentation Sheriffs Office ALPR Policy Page 4 of 4 V LJJ MMWJ w a .4 • N O N 00 ca L a) U— H U W 0 � ~ U d Z W GC � � W 0 O o LU Ya U � LU m W a � J � Q a Z � Z GG W � Q U LL � N Z a�cn .> N � � =O O V C7)_ U M U v (6 cn Q = m N p Z 4-j T a) a) }' N `O .O O Z C� W c o m cn 0 Z a E N LL L ■O T Fo W O LL �' � J .J =_ o V LL V � CY) Q � Cfl CY) a Q 0CD V a m CD Z 0 Z .. LL I..L Vi L.L J V E Q i 0 W e71F N L O N cn m U _ LO O M C E ai (D O N T O L W� �_ � 4 � N E co CO ♦ ♦ ♦ U N O L n -4--+ ^O I..L L a) V 4 ' a, W H .� OL n a) 0 cu O P1 ry cu -4--1 W � ~ c .0 J p o m 0Z,O� � N 0 U � � o 00 LLi s 0 a i N ..4-0 U .� O ca a) Cl) cn L cu � cu +' m V O E � U cu }+ +_ 1 U +� co U m o � a) L L c: a) c: L ._ Q U :t:! cn O cn a-=+ O (a L U E U N .t � cn N p O � CU `~ Q p ca L O L i1 }_' N c U , i1 cn N co CD cn ca m O O N L 0� U o- c c) U J .� N U U C: O (a a) C: (a Cl) � O (a L a) 4-0 4-0 cu CO O Cl) VO i CU O M O cm G � cm cm a) W E U U > O O cn O � L a) a) U4-0 0) a) E a � O CU J U U' o cn Q O a) co a) Z F a) cu Q (a a)_ a) O cn cu a) J c i O o� cn a c �cu O CU _ U o �i L a) c a) w p O a) }, (a a) a) V O O U 0) Q O V� 0 Z 0 Z) O Cl)4-0 c U ca 4-0 _ U O Cl) (a O UCl) 0L U U - 4-0 0.� cu a) 4 0 ' cu a) C: ca O N L 0) Q a) c L O 0 0 C �� O Z _ `� (a ca a) O ca a ca ' � a) `~ c: — C -a }' >, ca cn cn O O O a) cu � j a) 0 N ccu 00 cam cn =� cu (U �cn 0 a) U E E ~ - c cn QOa)cacn ���Ccn O cn � O � � ca W � a) O W 0 Vcu - O) cn a)- Q c O a) L ._ cn SL. mLQ2Q a.0 cu W Cl) Z W 0 J w 0 Q w w 7m W H Q O H W H Q J a LU Z W U W 0 Q W Q J W C- N 70 Ca N ry N Ca U) N � •U U) 0- 70 U_ J 70 U) N O Ca O N 70 •U) Q O U) O Ca C) � U A U) -4-- •O > U o- c/) n 7m W H Q O H W H Q J a LU Z W U W 0 Q W Q J W a) L L � a) Cl) c a) Q O + U C: >1 UO +� O a) > a) X E N N O CO j c O > cn cn - ca � � 0) ca C cn i cn O ma O cn (a � Q U (n �����> Cl) a) a) EE — O O L'- Q O U L L�4-0 \Q� 0 � a) - : to O � O 0 +0 a a L 4-0 cu a) N 1 � a) p •U O O a)O cn a)Q cn N> E cn � cn cn � U O � O U O D-Ej � O in a) — U cn a U o i.L ca cn N > (u a O `� W a) °' Q Cl)o > QU N Cl) a) W QL ~ � a)Cl)a)Y� E 0)a)O O O C: W Z V) O U O � L + U +� Q U) O U p L (a J a)cu a) c �+ �� L- o U L o (a ca (a 4-0 O 4-04-0 O LOO 4-0 O (a Z Z .s Z '> in W Z `-0 W U cu L� J _j -a C N c U N N in Q > co W N cu 0) U > 0 _Q- 0 m a) a), Q of � U CU cn Cl) N U O N =Na4-0a)� (a > _ .:AL->CL0 EL iV O . N=c U O O = CC i a) p a)= J CD ca Q Q Cl) z 0 � � � LU 0 Cl) Cl) Z LU 0 � > mi (.)0 a � w z a < § § � O § 2 }rn - k $ \ ƒ 'r 2% ) z s o-) R@ 7\ { _ ] ) LM > )/ c - E ) \§ALI \ [/ \LM° \\ / ƒ\\ a� §\u /)9 g\\ _®x - 2\ 2/ %2/ |(}§ §�}ƒ A a ± « �2&§-o± !7 )§ ` \/\�,@\\ 2\ � � kg �/\ IA ) £ 99=< / k \ } \ 2 /)In u ± Cl) LU W S.. cu a 4� c ca U O J Q) U v Y © ca tlJ _ _� CL J cu C6 a) + (U r i.. qj a) t0 ca CU N N Q cu Z3 U O (D co 0 -0 Z5 a)N Co _ a -- Q (D a--+ _ u� {� co U Ql `e (v w'E [/) [O a I Q U l {) J ) Ri U f0 Tl -a CO U +-+ (D E 5 co fl l a cu Q? � O � 0 ;z n cu 0 [1 � ■ ■ Q § o o �# ®�e \/ E mo2R E\ ❑0+f#/Q1L -j lm-j.2L @ En ° a 0d 2 » P _ - 0m2022\\j\])<\ L�jEe\/tee%EEC--0C) %aEE ] $ - 4 \ % \ + 2 2 E o L - 2 0 = _ « \ ({ k § § \ � / \ \ \ \ § � k ) m \ k m 6oeJ/)¥LpzD0=0-ƒcs)z�� k LO e ¢ § j ) j I / IL } o E k o 0 e( m ) 9 n 9 e = E}�(\«e)�\ em 32Reef%�\ o«$ a Z \ 2 4§ E �) E e /\ » a§ E m u/ao2 a 02 m M -0 ;522k)){/km)\3(■2 «auao=0-0-ozFwU) 23»ww�4 4 _N O Q 0) cn cu X N E C: (a cu 0 O ry J a)Q (a cn N C: >1 O (a LO E {f} X L L- 0- 0 (a Q CU (a N N -a O U (a C: a)L a)C: U E (a >, O O N Q C L- L� O E II N (a U U a) O > O m O n c L (a E p O (a Q U cn N L C O N O Q 4-0 O �n L O 4-0 N O O U O N m cyi C: O 0 z > m U O (a cu O 0) Q a C Spokane County Sheriffs Office Spokane County SO Policy Manual Automated License Plate Readers 459.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Best Practice MODIFIED Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology provides detection of license plates from a digital image. ALPR cameras can be placed at a fixed location or afixed to vehicles. ALPR software converts the image into data. The ALPR data and images are used by the Spokane County Sheriffs Office for official law enforcement purposes. 459.2 ADMINISTRATION OF ALPR DATA Best Practice MODIFIED All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the RIG 9 Unit Commander. The RIG 9 Unit Commander will assign personnel under their command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment, systems and data. Data retention will comply with the current Law Enforcement Records Retention Schedule published by the Washington State Office of the Secretary of State (see policy attachment). 459.3 ALPR OPERATION Best Practice MODIFIED Use of an ALPR and associated data is restricted to official law enforcement purposes. This includes, but is not limited to: patrol operations; investigations; intelligence operations; exigent circumstances; and other official business. Examples of an ALPR application include: locating stolen, wanted or investigative vehicles; locating individuals subject to arrest; locating witnesses and victims of crimes; supporting other local, state, federal and tribal public safety departments; locating missing or endangered persons; protecting participants at public or special events; and protecting critical infrastructure. Office personnel shall not use, or allow others to use, the ALPR capabilities for unauthorized purposes. 459.4 ALPR DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION Best Practice MODIFIED All data and images gathered by ALPR equipment are for the official use of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, and because such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review. ALPR information gathered by this department may be shared with prosecutors or others only as permitted by law and determined by the RIG9 leadership. ALPR data is not resident on Spokane County Servers, will be purged from vendor databases after 30 days, and will not be uploaded to state archives. ALPR data that is included in an SCSO investigative case file may be released per standard PDR requests. 459.5 ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARDS Best Practice MODIFIED Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/12/31, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers - 1 Published with permission by Spokane County Sheriffs Office Spokane County Sheriffs Office Spokane County SO Policy Manual Automated License Plate Readers Users of ALPR data must recognize that the identification of a vehicle is generated by comparing multiple databases to software generated recognition of a digital image. The images must be meticulously reviewed by the approved user. SCSO will make reasonable efforts to ensure the quality of shared ALPR data. However, the SCSO will not make absolute guarantees to the accuracy of the information. ALPR will not be used for the sole purpose of monitoring individual activities protected by the First Ammendment of the United States Constitution or for crimes that only include immigration violations. Access to software and ALPR data will be safeguarded by issuing individual accounts that required specific username and password combinations to access the software and data. ALPR software must allow account managers the capability to run logs and reports of individual use. The RIG9 Commander will ensure yearly audit of authorized users are conducted. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/12/31, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers - 2 Published with permission by Spokane County Sheriffs Office o a 3 0 0 0 r- 0 o O Lri r- a� n o O 6 rn 6 O psi (D .4 cY) O N Q Q O co L LO I;T L CO L6 CIA CIA LO (M M N M U C 44 b9 v ia FA fA ffl {n O O O O N O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO i O O O O O O O O N CO O 00 O O N CO (M � O M M Q i N d Z3 f0 4 a) i H U Z5 o cz in a) co = a o o? i 2 O O d 1.. (3) M y (� (j a) O (� O m c m W� _ E co o n }, ... V V o U _ U 0 `� c _ Z g p U O S w E U (� by O y Cl)Y o M U O O m � M V = d U J >' a a) U a) a� U a� U `° N% C i O i s a) s E y o nn c O '_ c '- a� a ... c a> c Co; B � M z� a) V c � >� i o o 0� O a� nz U a o V Q U a i m Ucz CZ ... y _ U� co Q O 2 Y a :B > °' > o ocz C; d W Q 1.. O Q d Q 4- N c� 2 U U oc CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 18, 2025 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Budget and Finance Overview — Part One GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Budget, Accounting and Reporting Systems; RCW 35A.33 Budgets in Code Cities PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: In preparation for the March 41" Winter Workshop and the June 101" Budget Workshop, this is part one of two administrative reports that provide a high-level overview of city budgeting and finance. This report covers the basics of Governmental Accounting and Governmental Budgeting. Part two will be on February 251" and will discuss items such as revenues, reserve funds, and fund balances. OPTIONS: N/A — informational only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No impacts with this report, but it provides an overview of city budgeting and finance. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Walls, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation L oa O U Q) N U CF)� Lf7 LM N O N 13 Ca 00 > a L 0 U � 0 V i cc L.L Q co a. Q Q� 0 cc � Q i i � V V Q CD i CD OCD c� m • • CL V V I i O V V cc It O Q L i cc O L O U) U) L O L Q cc U) cc cc U) O E E O 0 M1 U O U Q 70 U) N N ii 04 CL I a, 4-- 0 U) U O Ir4w, I N M 70 LL C- C) LU 74 O m 75 E N O U) 70 U) 70 LL U LU 70 N N u V (V O LL i cc U) CD M 70 cc LL A L CU V H (p 3 N U � � Q > 3 u) LL N U C += LL (6 0 N U _ C (6 LL N N N T y N O Q 3 O L � U LL O ■ � 7 Q LL cu C 7 LL -O LL U C ■ 7 li N C N 00 (O V N O `o O O \ ) O O O }+ I O Coto CD p I N I N ) I LL CULL 70 LL CU LL -> U -(1) (o C/) -L ca Q L CU Ca O CO M U 0 LL N Ci L U m i il� : dj N E }' V► �> > ca i U) can - 0 � (� — U) L- a' O ui • 0 0 (n L a O o_ ■ L Q O N 0 ♦-+ O Q N '♦^+ O dj ca U ♦, O � m CW) N Q )4-0 �O (n N M � /� W �n i E ♦..� L ai c cc O -0 L cc a �U), o i .� V O Q i cn cc V LL A/ • 01.0 U (� m U cox (1) N U o I > t)# cn co Z cs) E: 1 N o0 �x � � LO M U `Lu " �N � 20o, O cn O1= _0 O (B O cn N _ W Q LL N > X a� x L _ 4-0 CDL L _ CL O N N � Co � � � O N ._ N � -- U LCL • • +� U � co z 4-0 N N >' 0 o �y L n O I }' M N U -0 00 010� N � Co U .L p O Z O p Cu 2 � O I 00 N 0 L N � � 0co O � N L n � � L.L I N 4� N � U }, N � NN m 0 (B ID _ Old E L cr a) cn cn E (u a a)— =3 VIP a) C: E �. Ncn U a) a) Z, 0)(a C > � a) ca N j L a) a) .� 0) L -0 cu cu •' + L N a) c a) C p o cn v 0)0 N UO O m a) a) Cl) Cl) U a) -=3 �QL a) a a) >, O > U a) a) L O _0 � U cu a) � a) -a�_ p (a — E a) 07 m cn C a)— a)co cn 4-0 cn C'7 cu O -0 N LO ca -aE O C O � 0 cn a) U ca E U Q Q a Q to o 0 0 () I- O 0 cl CO O O O O N CL ai0 (co 0 (D 0 O - - � a) co co O L p C p C p o NIA — _ v N IT 00 N O O CO (D (D N O ? — L° O V V (A N M 0 II 0 II 0 II � II II II CL �/ u � O O 0 0 0 0 ' 0 a-0 0� 0 7 7 N 7 ('') N N O U N cr N W X cr LLI X � LLI X (0 � (n `(D (D N _0 -p L o o O ' O -0 0 U O LU cn (C (C U co M IT M IT ^^♦♦ N N N N i N C � C � C (6 T C Q .Q U O LL LL LL O O (6 (6 Jul H a- a- O M (D U U M U N Of 0 }i O O O LO 4-- V 0 O � � V (6 w U � fa Li a) U C .� C O 0 0 U ■ 0 > (n O U �' -0 U N x 0 - +0+ N O O is N Q O N O N O U O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0— N LO I— W L 0 O X X D Lo O �( K O V I— V LO 00 0 O 00 N O) O V O N O O co IN O O� G O O O 000 LN ((, L LO IT 0 (D fn (N N C (o ` �• N 0 wO O (3(3O (3N U c II II II II c E ELL o U .0 _0 N 7 (n Q (� (6 CO (6 c (On = (n (n (D O � V V U((D T O 'W^ V i N N N O' N ��♦♦cn'a 'a +6 �' (n Fu (n W U N (a N N N p ~ 0 N ♦�•+ U U (n cn cn cn (n Q> w cr 0 w a N L Q x L L a� 0 O LO %4-.- V ii E E U � 0 0 CD 0 t a� Ew N o 0 0 0 Nco LO N O o LO L6 N II II II II O) N N N N N U� N N N N a) a)cl (6 (6 (6 x co co co co w �� �613� o� o co- oo -- �(U oco 00co U D (D � co L6 I� II II c II II 0 c (D U � C (6 E O N N x 2 6 (n Q� Q O2 O Q �2 U C c- O Q- (D (D M 0coo OU Q m O Q m L N N U U IT LO (� I I N N O V V (6 0 co 00 co L .=3 0- L U Ca Co =3 0 F U) a) CU 0 aD � L u; '.0 0 Ca Lf7 U � O _0 L�^1 /1 m U E 0 N U C� O V LL N U U) U U) N L70 Ca � Q U) O 7070 }' Ca 70 U) 70 70 O U_ N p 70 O � Q U_ 70 E — -O -> -L -- O O 70 0 U E }, -- Ca � Ca Q N U 0 � L I Lo N 70 > O O O U L 0 U O � � I i CL U) 0 0 E 0 a� N 0 70 LL U m 4-- 0 U E 6) 0 a� U) U) M C 4— L� I M CL U) N U N U) 70 Ca U) O O O U L a o U) 70 Ua� o U ca � O a U) U N C) O 0- O N � F O O N N 7 O � N O 70 N M> M 0- n U) O A Ca N 70 U) O c}a 0 70 Ca U) N U U) 70 O L- n ❑• i cc U) i U) L U) i L U) U) V U) O t Ncc LLL- lr� m